Best WW2 fighter(s)

[Kyle Holgate]

I know we've chewed on this before, but we have more forum readers now and it's an interesting subject worth more time (in my view anyway).
If allowed - I'd like to look at the fighters as single units first - so we can discuss the requirements (or what is desirable) in a fighter without widening focus too far.

So what is the "ideal" fighter? What are the things we look for...
Flat out speed. Dive speed. Climb rate.
Manuverability: Roll rate and turn rate. Anything else here? Is a fighter that rolls faster but turns wider better than one that rolls slower but has a tighter turn?
Cockpit visibility: Gotta be able to see out of the thing!
Ease of flight: Debatable I'm sure. "touchier" planes are more responsive and can be more deadlier than planes that are more forgiving.
Firepower - how much for how long.
Durability - how survivable is the aircraft - can it take some damage?
Range - Hmm. In interceptor fighter can have short range and be a superbe fighter - but if it can't get to the contested skies how badly do you "ding" it. On the flip side how many "points" do you give a fighter with long range just because it can get to the tussle and contest air space further away from home?
Comm's - can't leave this out. A good, reliable radio is important even if for now we are not delving into team tactics.
Reliability - can the fighter be reasonably maintained? This is subjective too though. I think few would say a BMW isn't a very good car, but if you can't change the oil and due maintenance on it will it be working very long compared to say - a Subaru? I'm not sure how you can really assign a value here.
So I think we have 2 areas: Direct performance stuff are easy to compare and there are lots of books out we can look at. Manuverability is harder to judge than speed, climb rate and such though but I think we can find enough data to discuss it.

Harder to deal with: Ease of flight (important, but hard to compare one aircraft to another), Ease of maintenance. Durability - easier than the other two and very important, but not easy to quantify well enough for side by side comparisons in many cases. We can reliably say a Hayabusa is less durable than a P-40 I think, but what about a Spitfire compared to a Mustang? Liquid or air cooled engine may help a bit here, I believe air cooled are generally more durable but this won't be "The" deciding factor. A Hayabusa with an air cooled engine is probably less durable than a ME-109E for example which has a liquid cooled engine.

We could separate by theater (though personally I think comparing a Corsair to a FW-190 or LA-7 to an Hayate, etc is fun). Time frame is obviously important. Not really fair comparing a Spitfire I vs a Spitfire XIV.

[old_pop2000]

I know we've chewed on this before, but we have more forum readers now and it's an interesting subject worth more time (in my view anyway).
If allowed - I'd like to look at the fighters as single units first - so we can discuss the requirements (or what is desirable) in a fighter without widening focus too far.

So what is the "ideal" fighter? What are the things we look for...
Flat out speed. Dive speed. Climb rate.
Manuverability: Roll rate and turn rate. Anything else here? Is a fighter that rolls faster but turns wider better than one that rolls slower but has a tighter turn?
Cockpit visibility: Gotta be able to see out of the thing!
Ease of flight: Debatable I'm sure. "touchier" planes are more responsive and can be more deadlier than planes that are more forgiving.
Firepower - how much for how long.
Durability - how survivable is the aircraft - can it take some damage?
Range - Hmm. In interceptor fighter can have short range and be a superbe fighter - but if it can't get to the contested skies how badly do you "ding" it. On the flip side how many "points" do you give a fighter with long range just because it can get to the tussle and contest air space further away from home?
Comm's - can't leave this out. A good, reliable radio is important even if for now we are not delving into team tactics.
Reliability - can the fighter be reasonably maintained? This is subjective too though. I think few would say a BMW isn't a very good car, but if you can't change the oil and due maintenance on it will it be working very long compared to say - a Subaru? I'm not sure how you can really assign a value here.
So I think we have 2 areas: Direct performance stuff are easy to compare and there are lots of books out we can look at. Manuverability is harder to judge than speed, climb rate and such though but I think we can find enough data to discuss it.

Harder to deal with: Ease of flight (important, but hard to compare one aircraft to another), Ease of maintenance. Durability - easier than the other two and very important, but not easy to quantify well enough for side by side comparisons in many cases. We can reliably say a Hayabusa is less durable than a P-40 I think, but what about a Spitfire compared to a Mustang? Liquid or air cooled engine may help a bit here, I believe air cooled are generally more durable but this won't be "The" deciding factor. A Hayabusa with an air cooled engine is probably less durable than a ME-109E for example which has a liquid cooled engine.

We could separate by theater (though personally I think comparing a Corsair to a FW-190 or LA-7 to an Hayate, etc is fun). Time frame is obviously important. Not really fair comparing a Spitfire I vs a Spitfire XIV.
I am going to refrain from providing my comments and selections. However, I will provide technical resources at my disposal and answer any technical questions to facilitate the discussion, if that is satisfactory to all forum members and the director.

Have a good time with this!

[Warship NWS]

I am going to refrain from providing my comments and selections. However, I will provide technical resources at my disposal and answer any technical questions to facilitate the discussion, if that is satisfactory to all forum members and the director.

Have a good time with this!

Probably because your list would be 2-3x longer..;) LOL!

Kyle.. don't forget accelleration, high altitude performance (what can it do above medium altitude) including superchargers, horizontal control effectiveness (rudder), responsiveness, combat endurance, make sure your durability includes fuel protection/extinquisher systems (if available), cockpit layout (ergonomics and efficiency), propeller design (yes it mattered), stability as a gun platform, gun reliability, gun ROF and per second harmonization projectile pattern effectiveness plus effectiveness of the gun sight (having guns is fine, having them be able to hit targets is better), landing gear durability and design, etc..

[old_pop2000]

Probably because your list would be 2-3x longer..;) LOL!

Kyle.. don't forget accelleration, high altitude performance (what can it do above medium altitude) including superchargers, horizontal control effectiveness (rudder), responsiveness, combat endurance, make sure your durability includes fuel protection/extinquisher systems (if available), cockpit layout (ergonomics and efficiency), propeller design (yes it mattered), stability as a gun platform, gun reliability, gun ROF and per second harmonization projectile pattern effectiveness plus effectiveness of the gun sight (having guns is fine, having them be able to hit targets is better), landing gear durability and design, etc..
Don't forget forward visibility. That is very important for carrier landings.

[Warship NWS]

Don't forget forward visibility. That is very important for carrier landings.

I was kind of hitting that point with landing gear design.. but yes, cockpit position in proportion to the wing mounting and cowling would also make a difference.

[old_pop2000]

I was kind of hitting that point with landing gear design.. but yes, cockpit position in proportion to the wing mounting and cowling would also make a difference.
I was referring to a short nose to allow for visibility forward and down for landing. In-line engines tend to have long noses and poor forward visibility. That isn't as important on a land based runway, it is extremely important for a carrier pilot.

[Kyle Holgate]

Probably because your list would be 2-3x longer..;) LOL!

Kyle.. don't forget accelleration, high altitude performance (what can it do above medium altitude) including superchargers, horizontal control effectiveness (rudder), responsiveness, combat endurance, make sure your durability includes fuel protection/extinquisher systems (if available), cockpit layout (ergonomics and efficiency), propeller design (yes it mattered), stability as a gun platform, gun reliability, gun ROF and per second harmonization projectile pattern effectiveness plus effectiveness of the gun sight (having guns is fine, having them be able to hit targets is better), landing gear durability and design, etc..

No, not forgetting at all - just trying to set some estabished limits lest the list continue to grow and grow and we never get anywhere. If we keep our list reasonably short AND keep it to facts and figures that more people have access to (not everyone has thousands of dollars worth of books!) we can have more people in the discussion. If we can establish a few fighters as top condenders or run into ties - then by all means let's open up the range of comparisons more. 'till then let's keep it as simple as we can and use the most readily available data: Usually.. Speed (at various altitudes), Climb rate, perhaps wing loading ( as a means to compare manuverability?).

[Warship NWS]

I was referring to a short nose to allow for visibility forward and down for landing. In-line engines tend to have long noses and poor forward visibility. That isn't as important on a land based runway, it is extremely important for a carrier pilot.

I was fairly certain that was what I said with "proportional in position to the cowling and wing mounting"..;) I might be slightly off on the terminology but to me the cowling is up there by the nose of the plane. ;)

[Warship NWS]

No, not forgetting at all - just trying to set some estabished limits lest the list continue to grow and grow and we never get anywhere. If we keep our list reasonably short AND keep it to facts and figures that more people have access to (not everyone has thousands of dollars worth of books!) we can have more people in the discussion. If we can establish a few fighters as top condenders or run into ties - then by all means let's open up the range of comparisons more. 'till then let's keep it as simple as we can and use the most readily available data: Usually.. Speed (at various altitudes), Climb rate, perhaps wing loading ( as a means to compare manuverability?).

Oh also these 2 factors.. a) did the plane accomplish is intended reason for being built up against its primary opponents and b) how produceable was it? No point in building the best plane if you can't build enough of them for logistical or manufacturing reasons.

Just some further thoughts. ;)

[Kyle Holgate]

I'm gonna toss out a few...

P-47D. Anyone want to chime in on this one? Did it have any faults beyond being a big target we can be critical of? My opinion - this is one of, if not the best fighters in WW2. Best American fighter? Best all around fighter? Comments?

[Citadelvette]

There were alot of great fighter produced during WWII and narrowing the list down to one in paerticular even per country is I would say, impossible but worth a try since it makes great dicussion. I would agree that the whole P-47 series was excellent and that while the M & N where physically superior to the D I think its impact and number (12 ,602 the most produced fighter in history of a total of 15,660 of all types). Other for the US would have to be the P-51s, F6Fs, and F4Us all great Aircraft!:D

[Kyle Holgate]

There were alot of great fighter produced during WWII and narrowing the list down to one in paerticular even per country is I would say, impossible but worth a try since it makes great dicussion. I would agree that the whole P-47 series was excellent and that while the M & N where physically superior to the D I think its impact and number (12 ,602 the most produced fighter in history of a total of 15,660 of all types). Other for the US would have to be the P-51s, F6Fs, and F4Us all great Aircraft!:D

The D was the more common one and had the most impact - that's why I chose it.

F6F - I don't count this one as all that great. Sure, it managed to take control of the air from the Japanese with poor pilots and poor tactics. I think it was potentially in danger if it met equivelantly trained pilots in say - a FW-190A, ME-109F. They had some problems when meeting well trained Japanese pilots in Hien (Tony) fighters or Shiden (George) or Hayate (Frank) fighters too. Personally I put the Hellcat as a good fighter, but IMO I don't put it on the top of the list.

[Kyle Holgate]

The D was the more common one and had the most impact - that's why I chose it.

F6F - I don't count this one as all that great. Sure, it managed to take control of the air from the Japanese with poor pilots and poor tactics. I think it was potentially in danger if it met equivelantly trained pilots in say - a FW-190A, ME-109F. They had some problems when meeting well trained Japanese pilots in Hien (Tony) fighters or Shiden (George) or Hayate (Frank) fighters too. Personally I put the Hellcat as a good fighter, but IMO I don't put it on the top of the list.

Hmm. Not much interest left in this subject apparently!
What if I say the ME-262 was the best fighter of WW2 then? ;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

I was referring to a short nose to allow for visibility forward and down for landing. In-line engines tend to have long noses and poor forward visibility. That isn't as important on a land based runway, it is extremely important for a carrier pilot.


Dennis:

Indeed, that was a problem with the Corsair, even though it had a radial engine. I believe that delayed its service on carriers until late in the war.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm gonna toss out a few...

P-47D. Anyone want to chime in on this one? Did it have any faults beyond being a big target we can be critical of? My opinion - this is one of, if not the best fighters in WW2. Best American fighter? Best all around fighter? Comments?

Kyle:

I would certainly say it belongs up there. It was versatile, rugged, fast, well armed and a very deadly plane in the hands of a skilled pilot. The Mustang tends to get more glory, probably because of its sleeker look, but I think that's due to the swarms of them that were flying in late 1944. About the only drawback I can think of is range, but the Thunderbolt was not primarily expected to perform long range escort. Its range was certainly better than most of its opponents save the Zero.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Indeed, that was a problem with the Corsair, even though it had a radial engine. I believe that delayed its service on carriers until late in the war.
The 14 ft. nose was not the primary issue, although it was something that had to be contended with. The real issue is that when landing on a carrier deck, you have to be just at the stall speed when you hit the edge. The stall characteristics of the F4U made that a little dangerous. The Corsair, tended to drop the left wing dramatically, upon reaching stall speed, which put all the weight on that landing gear, collapsing it. Even it he did get it down on both landing gears, the oleo struts caused the plane to bounce high in the air, and fail to trap an arresting cable. There were only three cables, and if you missed one, you were into the parked aircraft up forward. So, it was either trap or catastrophe. Not a good situation for a carrier plane. It also leaked oil through the cowling flaps which are open on landing and takeoff. The oil hit the windscreen and now you are blind.

Eventually mods to the wings, cowling flaps and other areas, finally allowed the plane to try landing tests again in 1944, which it passed. I watch corsairs at Gillespie Field, during the airshow and talked to the pilots. They say landing on even a runway is always an adventure in a corsair, but it is a very powerful aircraft. The F2G's were even more powerful. They might have been one of the most powerful aircraft ever built in the prop age, next to the F8F Bearcat and the British Seafury.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

I would certainly say it belongs up there. It was versatile, rugged, fast, well armed and a very deadly plane in the hands of a skilled pilot. The Mustang tends to get more glory, probably because of its sleeker look, but I think that's due to the swarms of them that were flying in late 1944. About the only drawback I can think of is range, but the Thunderbolt was not primarily expected to perform long range escort. Its range was certainly better than most of its opponents save the Zero.

The Jugg had reasonably good range, but clearly wasn't what you'd call a long range escort fighter like one may tag the Mustang with. In many areas it was superior to the Mustang at most altitdues, except I think for in its turning ability. I believe it could out climb, out dive, out roll and had better firpower than the Mustang though, and was more durable. The Mustang was an excellent fighter, but IMO the P-47 was better.

[old_pop2000]

The Jugg had reasonably good range, but clearly wasn't what you'd call a long range escort fighter like one may tag the Mustang with. In many areas it was superior to the Mustang at most altitdues, except I think for in its turning ability. I believe it could out climb, out dive, out roll and had better firpower than the Mustang though, and was more durable. The Mustang was an excellent fighter, but IMO the P-47 was better.
I would check figures on climb rate @ altitude between the P-47D and the P-51D. Also, check the roll rates, between the two.;)

Just a suggestion, good discussion though.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The 14 ft. nose was not the primary issue, although it was something that had to be contended with. The real issue is that when landing on a carrier deck, you have to be just at the stall speed when you hit the edge. The stall characteristics of the F4U made that a little dangerous. The Corsair, tended to drop the left wing dramatically, upon reaching stall speed, which put all the weight on that landing gear, collapsing it. Even it he did get it down on both landing gears, the oleo struts caused the plane to bounce high in the air, and fail to trap an arresting cable. There were only three cables, and if you missed one, you were into the parked aircraft up forward. So, it was either trap or catastrophe. Not a good situation for a carrier plane. It also leaked oil through the cowling flaps which are open on landing and takeoff. The oil hit the windscreen and now you are blind.

Eventually mods to the wings, cowling flaps and other areas, finally allowed the plane to try landing tests again in 1944, which it passed. I watch corsairs at Gillespie Field, during the airshow and talked to the pilots. They say landing on even a runway is always an adventure in a corsair, but it is a very powerful aircraft. The F2G's were even more powerful. They might have been one of the most powerful aircraft ever built in the prop age, next to the F8F Bearcat and the British Seafury.

Dennis:

I've seen pictures on botched Corsair landings with the plane bouncing a bit. They didn't call it the "Bent Winged Ensign Eliminator" as a joke.

[Kyle Holgate]

I would check figures on climb rate @ altitude between the P-47D and the P-51D. Also, check the roll rates, between the two.;)

Just a suggestion, good discussion though.

Climb rate - this somewhat depends on the props (or whatever you call them) on the P-47. In Thunderbolt! (at least I think it was in that book) a pilot talks about having the new paddle props on and enjoying out climbing a P-51D and Spitfire IX.

As for roll rate - again this is what I've managed to glean over time - it's supposed to be perhaps only second the the FW-190 in that catagory. A lot of this data is really hard to find - let alone compare. I welcome hard numbers if you have them!!!

[old_pop2000]

Climb rate - this somewhat depends on the props (or whatever you call them) on the P-47. In Thunderbolt! (at least I think it was in that book) a pilot talks about having the new paddle props on and enjoying out climbing a P-51D and Spitfire IX.

As for roll rate - again this is what I've managed to glean over time - it's supposed to be perhaps only second the the FW-190 in that catagory. A lot of this data is really hard to find - let alone compare. I welcome hard numbers if you have them!!!


P 47D -From a report dtd 6 October 1944 from Wright Field, Dayton Ohio

Rate/Climb

S/L - 3180 Feet Per Minute
10000 ft. - 2920
20000 ft. - 2470
32000 ft. - 1100

P-51D - Military Power
S/L - 3030 Ft/min
9700 ft. Low Blower - 3170 Ft/min
21200 ft High Blower - 2680 Ft/min

P-51D - War Emergency Power
S/L 3410 Ft/min
7500 ft-LB- 3510 Ft/Min
21200 -HB- 2680 Ft/min

Service Ceiling on P-51D was 36,900 ft at 3000 RPM

Based on the only certified performance data on roll rate provided by an NACA report #868

P-47B -84 degrees per second @ 250 mph
P-51B - 94 degrees per second @ 315 mph

Aerodynamically, except for the conversion to bubble canopies, both aircraft were the same between the B models and D models. Data is still very good for the D models of both aircraft.

[George LeSauvage]

Not my field, & since I'm battling flu, I hope I'm not too incoherent, but I have 1 recollection from an old P47 pilot. It was another friend of dad's, who knew many pilots. I'd asked dad about different planes, & he'd said "Bob is the guy who flew P47's". Later that day, mom asked him to take us out to dinner. At the next table, there he was. He was high on them (I've noticed that most pilots do love their old planes, the only exception being the despised SB2C). He said the one problem was that it "squished" pulling out of a dive, that is, that it took an unusually long time to actually begin moving the way the nose was pointing, rather than continuing in the original direction; even after the fusilage was levelled out, it was still moving down. They said all planes did this, but apparently the p47 was more prone to it than most. Other than that, he stuck up for it completely, especially against the "overrated press the Mustang gets".

Edit:

My own gut choices, which I doubt I could defend against much opposition, are the Spit as an interceptor, & the F4U as an escort.

I've heard of old WWII vets who didn't like to reminisce, but I've met only one. For most, Dryden's rule still holds (Alexander's Feast):

"Flushed by the sound, the king grew vain,
and fought his battles o'er again.
And thrice he routed all his foes,
and thrice he slew the slain."

Of course, their almost all gone now, so I can only go by memory.

[Kyle Holgate]

Not my field, & since I'm battling flu, I hope I'm not too incoherent, but I have 1 recollection from an old P47 pilot. It was another friend of dad's, who knew many pilots. I'd asked dad about different planes, & he'd said "Bob is the guy who flew P47's". Later that day, mom asked him to take us out to dinner. At the next table, there he was. He was high on them (I've noticed that most pilots do love their old planes, the only exception being the despised SB2C). He said the one problem was that it "squished" pulling out of a dive, that is, that it took an unusually long time to actually begin moving the way the nose was pointing, rather than continuing in the original direction; even after the fusilage was levelled out, it was still moving down. They said all planes did this, but apparently the p47 was more prone to it than most. Other than that, he stuck up for it completely, especially against the "overrated press the Mustang gets".

Edit:

My own gut choices, which I doubt I could defend against much opposition, are the Spit as an interceptor, & the F4U as an escort.

I've heard of old WWII vets who didn't like to reminisce, but I've met only one. For most, Dryden's rule still holds (Alexander's Feast):

"Flushed by the sound, the king grew vain,
and fought his battles o'er again.
And thrice he routed all his foes,
and thrice he slew the slain."

Of course, their almost all gone now, so I can only go by memory.

I too have heard it said that the Mustang was over-rated and the only thing it really did was manage to fly to where the enemy was (not saying it doesn't deserve the credit for that). As far as I can tell though it out performed the 109G in most areas and was very much equivelant to the FW-190A in all but roll rate - and made up for that by being faster. I'm not sure though - I don't want to "dis" the Mustang, but it would be informative to find out if it WAS the best US fighter is often said, or if it is over-rated as many pilots seem(ed) to think.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Not my field, & since I'm battling flu, I hope I'm not too incoherent, but I have 1 recollection from an old P47 pilot. It was another friend of dad's, who knew many pilots. I'd asked dad about different planes, & he'd said "Bob is the guy who flew P47's". Later that day, mom asked him to take us out to dinner. At the next table, there he was. He was high on them (I've noticed that most pilots do love their old planes, the only exception being the despised SB2C). He said the one problem was that it "squished" pulling out of a dive, that is, that it took an unusually long time to actually begin moving the way the nose was pointing, rather than continuing in the original direction; even after the fusilage was levelled out, it was still moving down. They said all planes did this, but apparently the p47 was more prone to it than most. Other than that, he stuck up for it completely, especially against the "overrated press the Mustang gets".

Edit:

My own gut choices, which I doubt I could defend against much opposition, are the Spit as an interceptor, & the F4U as an escort.

I've heard of old WWII vets who didn't like to reminisce, but I've met only one. For most, Dryden's rule still holds (Alexander's Feast):

"Flushed by the sound, the king grew vain,
and fought his battles o'er again.
And thrice he routed all his foes,
and thrice he slew the slain."

Of course, their almost all gone now, so I can only go by memory.

George:

A most witty quote sir!

[George LeSauvage]

George:

A most witty quote sir!

If you like Baroque, I urge you to go out & get Handel's version. Perhaps the best combo of words & musick I've ever seen. (Although I do have a German version, translated into their foul orcish tongue.)

[old_pop2000]

If you like Baroque, I urge you to go out & get Handel's version. Perhaps the best combo of words & musick I've ever seen. (Although I do have a German version, translated into their foul orcish tongue.)
Ah yes, Alexander's Feast or The Power of Music. Handel created a choral work using the libretto by Newburgh Hamilton. He had adapted it from Dryden's Alexander's Feast. I believe that this was the piece that some scholar's say convinced Handel to convert from writing Italian opera's to writing English Choral Pieces. A boon to the Baroque Choral work.

I enjoy Albinoni, Corelli and Vivaldi. I especially like the Four Seasons by Vivaldi. I've played music by Henry Purcell. Can't remember what it was, though.

[Ed Rotondaro]

If you like Baroque, I urge you to go out & get Handel's version. Perhaps the best combo of words & musick I've ever seen. (Although I do have a German version, translated into their foul orcish tongue.)

George:

That was worth reading alone! Careful now, Chris doesn't want any political discussions. Didn't know that Handel had produced a musical/opera/whatever based on this.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ah yes, Alexander's Feast or The Power of Music. Handel created a choral work using the libretto by Newburgh Hamilton. He had adapted it from Dryden's Alexander's Feast. I believe that this was the piece that some scholar's say convinced Handel to convert from writing Italian opera's to writing English Choral Pieces. A boon to the Baroque Choral work.

I enjoy Albinoni, Corelli and Vivaldi. I especially like the Four Seasons by Vivaldi. I've played music by Henry Purcell. Can't remember what it was, though.


Dennis:

Vivaldi rules! And Purcell ain't no slouch either. Gotta stop or we will have to start another thread!

[old_pop2000]

Great idea!:D:D

[George LeSauvage]

Dennis:

Vivaldi rules! And Purcell ain't no slouch either. Gotta stop or we will have to start another thread!

OT, it may be, but...Another of Dryden's to read is the lines on the death of Henry Purcell (don't recall the exact title, it's something like that.) The thing I love about JD is the way he varies meters; sometimes almost to a XX C extent (Eliot, not the newer clods).

And my coment on German was Aesthetic, not Politickal...I believe their musical supremacy came about because it was the only way they could stand to hear one another :)

[Ed Rotondaro]

OT, it may be, but...Another of Dryden's to read is the lines on the death of Henry Purcell (don't recall the exact title, it's something like that.) The thing I love about JD is the way he varies meters; sometimes almost to a XX C extent (Eliot, not the newer clods).

And my coment on German was Aesthetic, not Politickal...I believe their musical supremacy came about because it was the only way they could stand to hear one another :)

George:

My wife's German relatives visited a few years back. They will break into song at the drop of a hat and they all can sing! Go figure?

[George LeSauvage]

Back to "something lovely with guns", as my wife calls it:

Isn't anyone going to tell me I'm full of it in choosing the Spit & Corsair?

[Citadelvette]

Back to "something lovely with guns", as my wife calls it:

Isn't anyone going to tell me I'm full of it in choosing the Spit & Corsair?

Why should they? Two great planes!

[quantum mechanic]

i don't want to start a fight(well maybe a little one) but i think the P-51 is overrated the the greatest fighter ever .
My choice for best ww2 fighter is the F4-U with the p-47 a close 2nd . they both are more resistant to battle damage the P-51 particularly that big radial . An aircooled powerplant is better choice because it is more resistant to battle damage, particularly AAA, than a liquid cooled engine which can be mortally wounded with a single rifle caliber round in the radiator or cooling jacket .
even though the corsair was all over the mustang at medium and low altitude the P-51 was superior at high altitude so it was no doubt a better escort but the corsair could have done the escort mission very well while the mustang would have filled the corsair's role very poorly.

dale

[Warship NWS]

The best fighters of the war could be debated till the end of time.. but IMHO, my favorites are the P-47D, P-40E, Tempest, Spitfire XIV, and FW-190A8.

[old_pop2000]

i don't want to start a fight(well maybe a little one) but i think the P-51 is overrated the the greatest fighter ever .
My choice for best ww2 fighter is the F4-U with the p-47 a close 2nd . they both are more resistant to battle damage the P-51 particularly that big radial . An aircooled powerplant is better choice because it is more resistant to battle damage, particularly AAA, than a liquid cooled engine which can be mortally wounded with a single rifle caliber round in the radiator or cooling jacket .
even though the corsair was all over the mustang at medium and low altitude the P-51 was superior at high altitude so it was no doubt a better escort but the corsair could have done the escort mission very well while the mustang would have filled the corsair's role very poorly.

dale
If one looked at performance data gathered by flight tests at NAS Anacostia and Wright Field, the P-51 could out perform the F4U from S/l to 35,000 feet.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Why should they? Two great planes!

Hi:

I agree completely! The Corsair was definitely the best carrier fighter of the war and could probably take on anything short of the ME-262.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The best fighters of the war could be debated till the end of time.. but IMHO, my favorites are the P-47D, P-40E, Tempest, Spitfire XIV, and FW-190A8.

Chris:

I would have added the F8F Bearcat had it seen service in WWII. I wonder if the Dora version of the FW-190 would be a better choice than the A8? Maybe not as maneuverable, but better speed and performance at altitude.

[Ed Rotondaro]

If one looked at performance data gathered by flight tests at NAS Anacostia and Wright Field, the P-51 could out perform the F4U from S/l to 35,000 feet.


Dennis:

I know that the P-51 was faster and climbed better and the two planes had identical armament. Did the Mustang dive and roll as well as the Corsair? Just curious and I like to keep retired guys like you busy LOL!

[Kyle Holgate]

Chris:

I would have added the F8F Bearcat had it seen service in WWII. I wonder if the Dora version of the FW-190 would be a better choice than the A8? Maybe not as maneuverable, but better speed and performance at altitude.

The US bombing mission over the Reich sort-of created a new theater in which to fight. The FW-190D was better than the A8 up at the altitudes the bombers ranged at, and pulled the fight by necessity up to them where one wouldn't have been otherwise.
I believe the Dora was as manuverable as the A versions were.

The P-40E? Not so sure about that one. To me the FW-190, in all models was one of the great aircraft of the war - up to the TA-152. It's reported that Kurt Tank, the designer was test flying one when bounced by P-51D mustangs. He apparently just opened the throttle and left much to the amazement of the Mustang pilots who could generally catch anything short of a jet once they got on its tail.

[Warship NWS]

The US bombing mission over the Reich sort-of created a new theater in which to fight. The FW-190D was better than the A8 up at the altitudes the bombers ranged at, and pulled the fight by necessity up to them where one wouldn't have been otherwise.
I believe the Dora was as manuverable as the A versions were.

The P-40E? Not so sure about that one. To me the FW-190, in all models was one of the great aircraft of the war - up to the TA-152. It's reported that Kurt Tank, the designer was test flying one when bounced by P-51D mustangs. He apparently just opened the throttle and left much to the amazement of the Mustang pilots who could generally catch anything short of a jet once they got on its tail.

Note, I was not trying to compare "the best of the best".. I just indicated my personal favorites. ;)

[quantum mechanic]

If one looked at performance data gathered by flight tests at NAS Anacostia and Wright Field, the P-51 could out perform the F4U from S/l to 35,000 feet.

apparrently i missinterpreted the conclusions of the pax river tests between the F4U-1 and the p-51B.




conclusions


1. It is concluded that, in general:

(a)There is little to choose between the P-51B and the F4U-1 airplanes in speed between sea level and 25,000 feet. and above 25,000 feet, the P-51B is superior.

(b)That the F4U-1 is everywhere considerably superior in climb , at any comparable loading, and superior in all other performance elements except diving speed.

(c)The F4U-1 is everywhere superior in maneuverability and responce.

(d)With equal endurance, the F4U carries about 86% greater armament, and that it is a better gun platform.

2. In summary, the F4U-1 airplane appears to be the superior fighter for Naval or Marine employment , either land or ship-based, except in the single case where substantially all fighting occurs above 25,000 feet.


www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf)


dale

[Kyle Holgate]

Note, I was not trying to compare "the best of the best".. I just indicated my personal favorites. ;)

Understood, perhaps I was misunderstood too - to be clear: What is it about the P-40E that puts it on your "like" list?

I have a few that I like for no reason in particular: Me-109F, FW-190(all), He-219, Spitfire(s), Typhoon & Tempest, and yes - even the Hurricane. I like the Zero, think the Hayabusa was lovely if not very useful (there is one at the local air museaum), the Hayate and Shiden (never liked the Hellcat, nice to have something to put them it in its place!). For the US - the Jugg & Corsair all the way. I have always thought the P-51 may be over-rated and never liked the Hellcat or P-38 simply becuse they seem to get lots of "what wonderful aircraft" press. It's like high schoolers beating up on kinder garten kids - going up against mostly very poor Japanese pilots in out-dated planes.
I'd give them more credit if they managed to hang on in Europe before the Luftwaffe fell apart.
I shouldn't leave the French and Italians out - but it's time to go home (I'm at work)!!!

[old_pop2000]

My favorite has always been the F8F Bearcat. No, it was not a WWII fighter, but it was close. It was the first and only propellor driven, carrier based interceptor. Bet you did not know that. I've been in one. Lot's of room, engine makes a great sound. It was the fastest aircraft at the Reno Air Races for years, with Steve Hinton.

For your enjoyment:
Steve Hinton in a PR Spitfire XIX startup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbgpH2nrn-A

F8F Bearcat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw6UWPaTUt0&feature=related

[old_pop2000]

We could debate flight performance reports forever. I would compare the P-51D tests completed in the 1944 timeframe and the F4U-1 tests completed in the same timeframe. But look at the simple facts. The F4U was a 11,194 lbs aircraft as tested. The P-51D, as tested, was 9611 lbs. The F4U-1, as tested, had a hp rating with its R2800-8 engine of 1550. The P-51 had a Packard V1650 or Merlin 69 of 1670 hp. Does it seem possible that an aircraft weighing almost 1434 pound heavier, yet rated with an engine that is almost 120 less in horsepower, could outclimb, out run or out turn the other. Sometimes, you don't need complicated flight performance data, just simple measurements of weight, size and engine horsepower rating.

The max speed of the tested F4U-1 was 395 mph @ 23,800 ft. The Max speed of the P-51D was 440 mph @ 24000.

Wing loading on the Corsair was 44.59 lbs per square ft, the P-51D's wing loading was 41.2 lbs/sq. ft.

In gun power, both carried six .50 caliber machine guns, ammunition supply is similiar.

Endurance, I am afraid the P-51 has a far greater endurance, even without the belly tank.

The Corsair, IMHO, was best WWII carrier based aircraft, after the landing problems were corrected. But I have a problem in comparing a naval fighter with a land based fighter. I have stated that there should be separate categories for each.

[Warship NWS]

Understood, perhaps I was misunderstood too - to be clear: What is it about the P-40E that puts it on your "like" list?

Too me, the plane was the ultimate WW2 "shark tooth" type aircraft, and hell it was just a cool no-frills no-fancy stuff tough fighter that even made you feel it was a "WW2" era plane. It was also one of the few fighters that fought in every theater of war and even by the end of the war was still dangerous. They may not have recieved all the glory but they went out and fought with the best of them all the way through the war. Simple, rugged, and great to fly and most of all.. timeless. IMHO, the start of WW2 was where the air battles felt more 1940ish then the later part of the war. Maybe this is why the early months of the Pacific War and the Battle of Britain still captures the imagination of many that are interested in WW2.

Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The US bombing mission over the Reich sort-of created a new theater in which to fight. The FW-190D was better than the A8 up at the altitudes the bombers ranged at, and pulled the fight by necessity up to them where one wouldn't have been otherwise.
I believe the Dora was as manuverable as the A versions were.

The P-40E? Not so sure about that one. To me the FW-190, in all models was one of the great aircraft of the war - up to the TA-152. It's reported that Kurt Tank, the designer was test flying one when bounced by P-51D mustangs. He apparently just opened the throttle and left much to the amazement of the Mustang pilots who could generally catch anything short of a jet once they got on its tail.

Kyle:

I would say that the FW-190 was to Germany what the P-47 was the US. A superbly versatile aircraft capable of many missions. I would still love to fly one. The P-40 may have looked cool, but I would not chose it over newer planes. Maybe if Merlin engine and supercharger? Wait then it would be a P-51.

[quantum mechanic]

1550 HP for F4U-1?:confused: i thought the F4U-1 R2800-8 was rated at 2000 HP. that is what i have always seen . and the R2800-8W with 2250HP . F4U-4 R2800-18W at 2450 HP.If the corsair did in fact only have 1550 hp it is seriously outclassed by the p-51.


dale

[Ed Rotondaro]

My favorite has always been the F8F Bearcat. No, it was not a WWII fighter, but it was close. It was the first and only propellor driven, carrier based interceptor. Bet you did not know that. I've been in one. Lot's of room, engine makes a great sound. It was the fastest aircraft at the Reno Air Races for years, with Steve Hinton.

For your enjoyment:
Steve Hinton in a PR Spitfire XIX startup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbgpH2nrn-A

F8F Bearcat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw6UWPaTUt0&feature=related


Dennis;

You lucky ba***d!:D

[Ed Rotondaro]

Too me, the plane was the ultimate WW2 "shark tooth" type aircraft, and hell it was just a cool no-frills no-fancy stuff tough fighter that even made you feel it was a "WW2" era plane. It was also one of the few fighters that fought in every theater of war and even by the end of the war was still dangerous. They may not have recieved all the glory but they went out and fought with the best of them all the way through the war. Simple, rugged, and great to fly and most of all.. timeless. IMHO, the start of WW2 was where the air battles felt more 1940ish then the later part of the war. Maybe this is why the early months of the Pacific War and the Battle of Britain still captures the imagination of many that are interested in WW2.

Thanks.

Chris:

Ahh, you're showing your sentimental side! I do agree, it was a cool plane if not the one I would chose for a dogfight in 1944.:)

[old_pop2000]

1550 HP for F4U-1?:confused: i thought the F4U-1 R2800-8 was rated at 2000 HP. that is what i have always seen . and the R2800-8W with 2250HP . F4U-4 R2800-18W at 2450 HP.If the corsair did in fact only have 1550 hp it is seriously outclassed by the p-51.


dale
Are you aware of the two horsepower ratings? One is horsepower and one is brake horsepower. The latter is the more accurate of the two and is the figure that should be quoted in the performance data. Understand that the engine has to be bench tested in a test facility to determine brake horsepower.

The brake horsepower of an F4U-1, as tested at Pax River in 1944, on high blower(max power) was 1550 BHP at normal power, 1650 BHP at military. These are power settings on the throttle.

The Brake horsepower for the Merlin 69 was 1670 Brake Horsepower.

Remember another point. The P-51D carried 185 gallons of fuel in two wing tanks and 85 gallons in the fuselage tanks. It was, a flying gas tank. With all that gas, it could still out run, out climb almost any aircraft in the sky.

Hope that clarifies. Always look for BHP @ RPM @ altitude and compare like items.

[Kyle Holgate]

Too me, the plane was the ultimate WW2 "shark tooth" type aircraft, and hell it was just a cool no-frills no-fancy stuff tough fighter that even made you feel it was a "WW2" era plane. It was also one of the few fighters that fought in every theater of war and even by the end of the war was still dangerous. They may not have recieved all the glory but they went out and fought with the best of them all the way through the war. Simple, rugged, and great to fly and most of all.. timeless. IMHO, the start of WW2 was where the air battles felt more 1940ish then the later part of the war. Maybe this is why the early months of the Pacific War and the Battle of Britain still captures the imagination of many that are interested in WW2.

Thanks.

I understand. It's a good workhorse. I think you like it for the same reason I've always liked the ol' Hurricane.

[old_pop2000]

This would be my favorite:

http://www.rolls-royce.com/history/overview/spitfire_wmv_bb.htm


The Griffon engine Spitfire XIX.:eek:

[Kyle Holgate]

This would be my favorite:

http://www.rolls-royce.com/history/overview/spitfire_wmv_bb.htm


The Griffon engine Spitfire XIX.:eek:

A lovely aircraft. If fighters won by beauty contests the Spitfire would be a winner - and it's almost a winner or tied with the winners in the actual finest fighters contest.

Check this out - wait for the 2nd part, watching the bird fly around Mt. Rainier... lovely!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXd60D_kgQ

[old_pop2000]

A lovely aircraft. If fighters won by beauty contests the Spitfire would be a winner - and it's almost a winner or tied with the winners in the actual finest fighters contest.

Check this out - wait for the 2nd part, watching the bird fly around Mt. Rainier... lovely!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXd60D_kgQ
Yea! That is a cool movie. Love the films around Rainier. Those were built for a museum in Germany. They use Garrett helicopter jet engines. Here's the link to their website:

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html

PS: A Marine V-22 Osprey just flew over the house, while I was typing this. Noisy little b.....d. Almost as noisy as an E2C at the test line during engine warmups.
Also, an AD-1 Skyraider from Gillespie Field just flew by, outbound towards San Bernardino. Great aircraft. I need to buy another webcam for my computer and put the pictures up here.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Are you aware of the two horsepower ratings? One is horsepower and one is brake horsepower. The latter is the more accurate of the two and is the figure that should be quoted in the performance data. Understand that the engine has to be bench tested in a test facility to determine brake horsepower.

The brake horsepower of an F4U-1, as tested at Pax River in 1944, on high blower(max power) was 1550 BHP at normal power, 1650 BHP at military. These are power settings on the throttle.

The Brake horsepower for the Merlin 69 was 1670 Brake Horsepower.

Remember another point. The P-51D carried 185 gallons of fuel in two wing tanks and 85 gallons in the fuselage tanks. It was, a flying gas tank. With all that gas, it could still out run, out climb almost any aircraft in the sky.

Hope that clarifies. Always look for BHP @ RPM @ altitude and compare like items.

Dennis:

Interesting stuff as always. I am wondering how weight the fuel adds? IIRC, a gallon of water weighs 11 pounds? Gasoline is lighter, but not that much. From what I am reading in these posts, it appears that the P-51 had one of the best horsepower to weight ratios of the fighters being discussed. How did it compare to a ME-109 Gustav? Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

A lovely aircraft. If fighters won by beauty contests the Spitfire would be a winner - and it's almost a winner or tied with the winners in the actual finest fighters contest.

Check this out - wait for the 2nd part, watching the bird fly around Mt. Rainier... lovely!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXd60D_kgQ

Kyle:

Awesome man, thanks! Looks like those modern jet engines give it far better performance at least take off wise than the real bird had. Wonder if they put four 30mm cannons on it? I liked the second plane that flew around Ranier better.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yea! That is a cool movie. Love the films around Rainier. Those were built for a museum in Germany. They use Garrett helicopter jet engines. Here's the link to their website:

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html

PS: A Marine V-22 Osprey just flew over the house, while I was typing this. Noisy little b.....d. Almost as noisy as an E2C at the test line during engine warmups.
Also, an AD-1 Skyraider from Gillespie Field just flew by, outbound towards San Bernardino. Great aircraft. I need to buy another webcam for my computer and put the pictures up here.

Dennis:

You have far too much fun than the rest of us!

[old_pop2000]

Yup!! Went out to the pistol range with my son today. Fired a Colt .357 Magnum. Sounded like a cannon. Accurate weapon. Also fired my wife's .22 revolver. I maybe getting my S&W .40 cal. pretty soon.

I hope I can go out to rifle range next week and shoot the SKS again and the M1 Carbine.

Life is fun.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Interesting stuff as always. I am wondering how weight the fuel adds? IIRC, a gallon of water weighs 11 pounds? Gasoline is lighter, but not that much. From what I am reading in these posts, it appears that the P-51 had one of the best horsepower to weight ratios of the fighters being discussed. How did it compare to a ME-109 Gustav? Thanks.
One gallon of gasoline weighs 5.8 to 6.5 gallons. The P-51D carried 185 gallons in two wing tanks and 85 gallons in a fuselage tank. At 5.8 lbs per gallon, that is about 1566 lbs of weight, carried internally.

[George LeSauvage]

My favorite has always been the F8F Bearcat. No, it was not a WWII fighter, but it was close. It was the first and only propellor driven, carrier based interceptor. Bet you did not know that. I've been in one...

I don't understand, why aren't others qualified as "interceptors"? At least planes like the seafire & 109t? (Not a debating question, I'd like to know the criteria?)

[old_pop2000]

I don't understand, why aren't others qualified as "interceptors"? At least planes like the seafire & 109t? (Not a debating question, I'd like to know the criteria?)
The Navy recognized during the initial stages of the Pacific War that CAP was important to the protection of the fleet carriers. The two replacement aircraft for the F4F were both heavy escort fighters with better climb rates but the Navy recognized that they needed a dedicated high speed, high climb rate, heavily armed fighter that could be launched quickly, climb to engagement altitudes quickly and engage enemy bombers at long range and destroy them.

The interceptor concept, which the P-38 was primarily, is a high level speed, high climb rate , heavy firepower aircraft. It isn't designed to dogfight, but get to superior altitude quickly, dive on the bombers and attack with heavy firepower and then return to altitude. This was the concept of the F8F bearcat, the original BnZ aircraft. The all around vision of the bubble canopy and surprising nimbleness of the fighter made her a welcomed replacement for the Hellcat. She had a range of 1100 miles and a ceiling of 38000. IMO, she was probably one of the ultimate carrier based fighters. But, her intent was to develop a high climbing, heavily armed interceptor to facilitate Combat air patrols and fleet protection.

As to the appellation of interceptor, escort fighter, defensive fighter, the definitions were not as cut and dry as in the surface fleet world. For interceptors, the prioritization of requirements is on high climb rate and heavy firepower, with maneuverability relegated to a third priority. On an escort fighter, level speed, range might be a higher priority. On a short ranged point to point defensive fighter, it might be maneuverability, high climb rate with range taking a backseat. Now, if you can get all of those qualities in one aircraft, so much the better. In the case of the F8F, it was the change in priorities of the qualities that made her different from other naval carrier based aircraft.

[Kyle Holgate]

The Navy recognized during the initial stages of the Pacific War that CAP was important to the protection of the fleet carriers. The two replacement aircraft for the F4F were both heavy escort fighters with better climb rates but the Navy recognized that they needed a dedicated high speed, high climb rate, heavily armed fighter that could be launched quickly, climb to engagement altitudes quickly and engage enemy bombers at long range and destroy them.

The interceptor concept, which the P-38 was primarily, is a high level speed, high climb rate , heavy firepower aircraft. It isn't designed to dogfight, but get to superior altitude quickly, dive on the bombers and attack with heavy firepower and then return to altitude. This was the concept of the F8F bearcat, the original BnZ aircraft. The all around vision of the bubble canopy and surprising nimbleness of the fighter made her a welcomed replacement for the Hellcat. She had a range of 1100 miles and a ceiling of 38000. IMO, she was probably one of the ultimate carrier based fighters. But, her intent was to develop a high climbing, heavily armed interceptor to facilitate Combat air patrols and fleet protection.

As to the appellation of interceptor, escort fighter, defensive fighter, the definitions were not as cut and dry as in the surface fleet world. For interceptors, the prioritization of requirements is on high climb rate and heavy firepower, with maneuverability relegated to a third priority. On an escort fighter, level speed, range might be a higher priority. On a short ranged point to point defensive fighter, it might be maneuverability, high climb rate with range taking a backseat. Now, if you can get all of those qualities in one aircraft, so much the better. In the case of the F8F, it was the change in priorities of the qualities that made her different from other naval carrier based aircraft.


The ME-163 was a good example of a pure interceptor. In my view the idea of an interceptor is a defensive fighter - one designed to protect an area or ship as opposed to one meant to go to the enemy and wrest air control from them. They don't need long range (7-8 minutes powered flight for the rocket) but do need to be able to get up to the attacking aircraft's altitude (better yet above it) in time to do some good.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yup!! Went out to the pistol range with my son today. Fired a Colt .357 Magnum. Sounded like a cannon. Accurate weapon. Also fired my wife's .22 revolver. I maybe getting my S&W .40 cal. pretty soon.

I hope I can go out to rifle range next week and shoot the SKS again and the M1 Carbine.

Life is fun.

Dennis:

Was it a Colt Python? Excellent revolver.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Was it a Colt Python? Excellent revolver.
No, it is a Colt Trooper. It actually belongs to a friend, my son was testing and sighting it in for him.

[Ed Rotondaro]

One gallon of gasoline weighs 5.8 to 6.5 gallons. The P-51D carried 185 gallons in two wing tanks and 85 gallons in a fuselage tank. At 5.8 lbs per gallon, that is about 1566 lbs of weight, carried internally.


Dennis:

I can't remember which aircraft I was reading about, but they had to allow for the change in weight distribution as fuel was used from drop tanks and internal tanks. It may have been the P-51.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Navy recognized during the initial stages of the Pacific War that CAP was important to the protection of the fleet carriers. The two replacement aircraft for the F4F were both heavy escort fighters with better climb rates but the Navy recognized that they needed a dedicated high speed, high climb rate, heavily armed fighter that could be launched quickly, climb to engagement altitudes quickly and engage enemy bombers at long range and destroy them.

The interceptor concept, which the P-38 was primarily, is a high level speed, high climb rate , heavy firepower aircraft. It isn't designed to dogfight, but get to superior altitude quickly, dive on the bombers and attack with heavy firepower and then return to altitude. This was the concept of the F8F bearcat, the original BnZ aircraft. The all around vision of the bubble canopy and surprising nimbleness of the fighter made her a welcomed replacement for the Hellcat. She had a range of 1100 miles and a ceiling of 38000. IMO, she was probably one of the ultimate carrier based fighters. But, her intent was to develop a high climbing, heavily armed interceptor to facilitate Combat air patrols and fleet protection.

As to the appellation of interceptor, escort fighter, defensive fighter, the definitions were not as cut and dry as in the surface fleet world. For interceptors, the prioritization of requirements is on high climb rate and heavy firepower, with maneuverability relegated to a third priority. On an escort fighter, level speed, range might be a higher priority. On a short ranged point to point defensive fighter, it might be maneuverability, high climb rate with range taking a backseat. Now, if you can get all of those qualities in one aircraft, so much the better. In the case of the F8F, it was the change in priorities of the qualities that made her different from other naval carrier based aircraft.

Dennis:

Wasn't the kamikaze threat a driving force in the development of the Bearcat, or was it just the logical evolution of the Grumman fighter family?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I can't remember which aircraft I was reading about, but they had to allow for the change in weight distribution as fuel was used from drop tanks and internal tanks. It may have been the P-51.
Usually in a fighter, you have selector switch for tank selection. If you have a CG problem, you can use the stabilizer trim tabs, if you have them. The P-51 did.

Enclosed picture of fuel system for P-51

[old_pop2000]

It was an evolutionary step after the F6F. Keep in mind, there was an F7F Tigercat, twin engined fighter.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Usually in a fighter, you have selector switch for tank selection. If you have a CG problem, you can use the stabilizer trim tabs, if you have them. The P-51 did.

Enclosed picture of fuel system for P-51

Dennis:

Thanks! Wish I could blow the picture up for more detail LOL.

[Ed Rotondaro]

It was an evolutionary step after the F6F. Keep in mind, there was an F7F Tigercat, twin engined fighter.

Dennis:

Wasn't the F7 intended more for the attack role? I believe it could carry two torpedoes?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Wasn't the F7 intended more for the attack role? I believe it could carry two torpedoes?
Yes, it was supposed to be a ground attack aircraft, but when the war ended, it was cancelled.

[bridav58]

The D was the more common one and had the most impact - that's why I chose it.

F6F - I don't count this one as all that great. Sure, it managed to take control of the air from the Japanese with poor pilots and poor tactics. I think it was potentially in danger if it met equivelantly trained pilots in say - a FW-190A, ME-109F. They had some problems when meeting well trained Japanese pilots in Hien (Tony) fighters or Shiden (George) or Hayate (Frank) fighters too. Personally I put the Hellcat as a good fighter, but IMO I don't put it on the top of the list.


Eric Brown in "Duels in the Sky" states that according to tests carried out that the F6F was superior to the 109G and every bit equal to the 190A. The F4F matched the A6M Zero 1 for 1 in 1942 when the IJN still had great pilots while even the Spitfire V lost badly ,very badly actually to the Zero. The F4F even managed to shoot down 29 Ki-61's during the war without a loss and while never shooting down a Ki-84 they did engage n equal number of a mixed wing(a very well trained and expierenced one at that) of Ki-61's & Ki-84's in 1/45 shooting down 8 a/c without a loss. F4F's also shot down 2 109G's in 3/1945 with out a loss.
Now look at the performance figures for a F4F then look at the F6F.

[bridav58]

We could debate flight performance reports forever. I would compare the P-51D tests completed in the 1944 timeframe and the F4U-1 tests completed in the same timeframe. But look at the simple facts. The F4U was a 11,194 lbs aircraft as tested. The P-51D, as tested, was 9611 lbs. The F4U-1, as tested, had a hp rating with its R2800-8 engine of 1550. The P-51 had a Packard V1650 or Merlin 69 of 1670 hp. Does it seem possible that an aircraft weighing almost 1434 pound heavier, yet rated with an engine that is almost 120 less in horsepower, could outclimb, out run or out turn the other. Sometimes, you don't need complicated flight performance data, just simple measurements of weight, size and engine horsepower rating.

The max speed of the tested F4U-1 was 395 mph @ 23,800 ft. The Max speed of the P-51D was 440 mph @ 24000.

Wing loading on the Corsair was 44.59 lbs per square ft, the P-51D's wing loading was 41.2 lbs/sq. ft.

In gun power, both carried six .50 caliber machine guns, ammunition supply is similiar.

Endurance, I am afraid the P-51 has a far greater endurance, even without the belly tank.

The Corsair, IMHO, was best WWII carrier based aircraft, after the landing problems were corrected. But I have a problem in comparing a naval fighter with a land based fighter. I have stated that there should be separate categories for each.

The P-51D entered service in or around March of 1944 by then F4U's were upgraded to water injection therefore also had WEP these Corsairs had a top speed of around 417 MPH. The F4U-4 enetered production/service(????) around late '44 almost 6 months ahead of the P-51H .Compare the F4U-4 to the P-51D.

[bridav58]

Francis Dean's "America's 1000,000" tommorrow and re-check the Hp ratings of the F4U because I'm thinking the F4U rates at around 2000 HP without injection & 2135 with water injection. The P-51 rates about 1600 HP at Combat Power.
On this whole subject I'll throw another at you...performance envelope..P-39's & P-40's on the Eastern Front held thier own against 109's & 190's simply because combat there was at low altitudes where the P-40 & P-39 had thier best envelope. Further look at the 109 verse P-51 argument normally the latter would out-roll/out manuver the Luftwaffwe fighter however let the fight occur at say speeds under 300 MPH at low altitude & see who outmanuvers who .
To sum it up who is superior to who should start with at what speed & altitude?

[bridav58]

Are you aware of the two horsepower ratings? One is horsepower and one is brake horsepower. The latter is the more accurate of the two and is the figure that should be quoted in the performance data. Understand that the engine has to be bench tested in a test facility to determine brake horsepower.

The brake horsepower of an F4U-1, as tested at Pax River in 1944, on high blower(max power) was 1550 BHP at normal power, 1650 BHP at military. These are power settings on the throttle.

The Brake horsepower for the Merlin 69 was 1670 Brake Horsepower.

Remember another point. The P-51D carried 185 gallons of fuel in two wing tanks and 85 gallons in the fuselage tanks. It was, a flying gas tank. With all that gas, it could still out run, out climb almost any aircraft in the sky.

Hope that clarifies. Always look for BHP @ RPM @ altitude and compare like items.
you are listing the Military power of the F4U at 1650 HP compared to the Combat Power(in other words War Emergency Power) of the P-51 at 1670 HP a very big difference.
The sttings I have for the R-2800-8 is takeoff 2000', Military 2000 HP @ 1700' & 1650 HP @ 21000', Normal Power 1675 HP @ 5500' & 1550 HP @ 22000'.
For the R-2800-8W you have 2000 HP, COMBAT POWER 2135 HP @ 12400' & 1975 HP @ 16900'. MILITARY POWER 2000 HP @ 1700' & 1650 HP @ 21000. Normal Power 1675 HP @ 5500' & 1550 HP @ 22000'.

[Warship NWS]

Eric Brown in "Duels in the Sky" states that according to tests carried out that the F6F was superior to the 109G and every bit equal to the 190A. The F4F matched the A6M Zero 1 for 1 in 1942 when the IJN still had great pilots while even the Spitfire V lost badly ,very badly actually to the Zero. The F4F even managed to shoot down 29 Ki-61's during the war without a loss and while never shooting down a Ki-84 they did engage n equal number of a mixed wing(a very well trained and expierenced one at that) of Ki-61's & Ki-84's in 1/45 shooting down 8 a/c without a loss. F4F's also shot down 2 109G's in 3/1945 with out a loss.
Now look at the performance figures for a F4F then look at the F6F.

Eric Brown however does not involve the evolution of aerial tactics or team tactics doctrines. The reason the F4F held its own against the Zero was due to team tactics and attributes that balanced out the odds vs the defects of the Zero. The Spitfire was not used properly against the Zero as they were trying to fight like they did against the Me-109 which was, for all intensive purposes, the equal of the Spitfire as their attributes vs defects directly counteracted each other. Considering the fact that the Spitfire was a better all around aircraft, with the exception of firepower and possibly protection, compared to the F4F with proper tactics the Spitfire could have very well handled itself against the Zero. The only attributes the Zero had that were markedly better to the Me-109E4 was range and turn radius in comparison. Counteract the turn radius with the higher speed of the Spitfire and use slashing attacks and the tables could be turned drasticaly. Above 250mph the Spitfire could outmaneuver the Zero and at any speed it could definitely outroll the Zero. The .303s on the Spitfire would also have no problem tearing apart the very fragile Zero.

Thanks.

[bridav58]

Eric Brown however does not involve the evolution of aerial tactics or team tactics doctrines. The reason the F4F held its own against the Zero was due to team tactics and attributes that balanced out the odds vs the defects of the Zero. The Spitfire was not used properly against the Zero as they were trying to fight like they did against the Me-109 which was, for all intensive purposes, the equal of the Spitfire as their attributes vs defects directly counteracted each other. Considering the fact that the Spitfire was a better all around aircraft, with the exception of firepower and possibly protection, compared to the F4F with proper tactics the Spitfire could have very well handled itself against the Zero. The only attributes the Zero had that were markedly better to the Me-109E4 was range and turn radius in comparison. Counteract the turn radius with the higher speed of the Spitfire and use slashing attacks and the tables could be turned drasticaly. Above 250mph the Spitfire could outmaneuver the Zero and at any speed it could definitely outroll the Zero. The .303s on the Spitfire would also have no problem tearing apart the very fragile Zero.

Thanks.
1. The F4F held it's own regardless of wether special tatics were used furthermore the so-called "Thach Weave" wasn't used in the early part of the Pacific War,not at all at Coral Sea ,by only one squadron at Midway and wasn't taught system wide till early to mid-1943 . Refer to john Lundstrom's "First Team" in this regeard. Mr. Lundstrom is a first class researcher who uses only Primary Documents in his writings. This debunks one myth in that the F4F could only equal the Zero using special tatics ,that just wasn't the case.
2.The Spitfire lost out to the Zero EVEN WHEN they changed thier tatics in other words even when they chaned from "turn & burn" to using energy tatics they lost out. Further look at the fact that Zero's and thier pilots were making 500 mile one way trips from Timor to Darwin getting thier ,besting the Spitfires and then having to make the long trip back home while the Spitfire was doing it's designed job as a pure interceptor and always was equal in numbers if not having a numbers advantage . Also remember the Spitfire V didn't really make an appearance in the Pacific till early 1943 when Japan had lost alot of good pilots while the F4F was achieving parity from the getgo & against Japan's very best. Good sources on this are Alfred Price's " Spitfire V and it's Aces" & Chris Shores "Bloody Shambles" . Both those authors are very well respected and use almost exclusively primary sources.
3.Eric Brown's work ,at least alot of it, is evolved from US & British tests using each aircrafts strengths /weaknesses for/against it in straight forward combat 1 on 1. Now is that work carved in rock? No Is that work a decent reference point? Yes.
4. There are things I feel that don't show up in pure performance figures but can be just as important. Take for example the short nose of the Grumman fighters(or for that matter the Zero) it's great for making carrier deck landings BUT it also comes in very handy when making high angle deflection shots which come in very handy in any turning type battle. Now the USN trained extensively in high angle deflection shooting something no other airforce did so you have something that's not quite pilot,not quite aircraft influencing an air battle. Too much emphasis is sometimes put on "pure stats" ,in this I mean it's fine and dandy to have an "energy advantage" but One may still have to "twist & turn" sort of speak to get a shot in. Speaking of energy look at the diving cpabilities of the F4U,P-51, & P-47 both USAAF planes will outdive the USN aircraft however the F4U is much better behaved,easier controlling in a dive.
My whole point is pure performance figures aren't the "to be all" in guaging which fighter is the best. Further maybe some planes like the P-40,P-39,F4F and probably others are underrated while maybe some like the Spitfire V , P-51 and I'm sure others maybe get overrated/overhyped.

[bridav58]

The settings I have are...
for the plane's V-1650-3 are takeoff(sea level) 1380 HP, COMBAT 1600 HP @ 15600' & 1330 HP @ 29000', MILITARY POWER 1490 HP @ 13750' & 1210 HP @ 25800' NORMAL POWER 1110 HP @ 25800' & 950 HP @ 29500'.
for the V-1650-7 takeoff(sea level) 1490 HP ,COMBAT POWER 1720 HP @ 6250' & 1505 HP @ 19250', MILITARY POWER 1590 HP @ 8500' & 1370 HP @ 21400' NORMAL POWER 1180 HP @ 113000' & 1065 HP @ 23400'
for the V-1650-9 of the P-51H..... takeoff (sea level) 1380 HP...COMBAT POWER 1930 HP @ 10100' & 1630 HP @ 23500'....MILITARY POWER 1490 HP @ 13750' & 1210 HP @ 25800'...NORMAL POWER 110 HP @ 17400'

It's also important to know if a plane's figures are the result of using higher octane fuels/over boost. the P-51 I know had a few squadrons in Europe setup to use 120 or 150 grade fuel .I've seen figures for that plane showing speeds of better then 450+ MPH tops at altitude ,an increae of sea level speed from around 370-380 MPH up to 410+ MPH and initial climb rates in excess of 4200-4300 FPM. I don't think the USN used overboost for the F4U or F6F though I'm sure they could have been setup that away. The F4U-4 was setup to use 150 grade fuel though.
In this whole issue of comparing aircraft stats I think it is also important to setup parameters on a plane's loadouts . The P-51 for example has loadouts from 9611 lbs. for a "figher loadout" to another "fighter loadout" of 12418 lbs. depending of the amount of fuel carried. Another thing is that US aircraft tended to carry far more ammo then thier contemporaries whench having much longer firing times. The F4F-3 for another example has loadouts of " pure Fighter" loadout of around 7150 lbs.,an "overloaded fighter" one of 7543 lbs.(with basically about 40 more gallons of fuel & 160 lbs more ammo) and another even heavier one of around 8000+ lbs.. At 7150 lbs. the F4F-3 had a top speed of 335 MPH and initial climb of 3300 FPM ,speed equal to the Hurricane with climb being superior while being about 25-30 MPH slower then Spitfire I/III though climb being about equal. So loadout matters alot especially for long range type fighters since by the time they engage the enemy alot of thier fuel may have been burned off.

[Ed Rotondaro]

1. The F4F held it's own regardless of wether special tatics were used furthermore the so-called "Thach Weave" wasn't used in the early part of the Pacific War,not at all at Coral Sea ,by only one squadron at Midway and wasn't taught system wide till early to mid-1943 . Refer to john Lundstrom's "First Team" in this regeard. Mr. Lundstrom is a first class researcher who uses only Primary Documents in his writings. This debunks one myth in that the F4F could only equal the Zero using special tatics ,that just wasn't the case.
2.The Spitfire lost out to the Zero EVEN WHEN they changed thier tatics in other words even when they chaned from "turn & burn" to using energy tatics they lost out. Further look at the fact that Zero's and thier pilots were making 500 mile one way trips from Timor to Darwin getting thier ,besting the Spitfires and then having to make the long trip back home while the Spitfire was doing it's designed job as a pure interceptor and always was equal in numbers if not having a numbers advantage . Also remember the Spitfire V didn't really make an appearance in the Pacific till early 1943 when Japan had lost alot of good pilots while the F4F was achieving parity from the getgo & against Japan's very best. Good sources on this are Alfred Price's " Spitfire V and it's Aces" & Chris Shores "Bloody Shambles" . Both those authors are very well respected and use almost exclusively primary sources.
3.Eric Brown's work ,at least alot of it, is evolved from US & British tests using each aircrafts strengths /weaknesses for/against it in straight forward combat 1 on 1. Now is that work carved in rock? No Is that work a decent reference point? Yes.
4. There are things I feel that don't show up in pure performance figures but can be just as important. Take for example the short nose of the Grumman fighters(or for that matter the Zero) it's great for making carrier deck landings BUT it also comes in very handy when making high angle deflection shots which come in very handy in any turning type battle. Now the USN trained extensively in high angle deflection shooting something no other airforce did so you have something that's not quite pilot,not quite aircraft influencing an air battle. Too much emphasis is sometimes put on "pure stats" ,in this I mean it's fine and dandy to have an "energy advantage" but One may still have to "twist & turn" sort of speak to get a shot in. Speaking of energy look at the diving cpabilities of the F4U,P-51, & P-47 both USAAF planes will outdive the USN aircraft however the F4U is much better behaved,easier controlling in a dive.
My whole point is pure performance figures aren't the "to be all" in guaging which fighter is the best. Further maybe some planes like the P-40,P-39,F4F and probably others are underrated while maybe some like the Spitfire V , P-51 and I'm sure others maybe get overrated/overhyped.

Hi:

I have Brown's book and would like to interject a slight word of caution regarding his conclusions. First off he values speed, speed and more speed above all else. Secondly he will always rate a cannon armed fighter over one armed with machine guns only when for all intents and purposes, the US fighters with 6 .50 cals had no trouble shooting down any plane they faced. Also this is the same man who feels that an SBD would have no chance against a fighter, despite their actual combat performances. And in closing this same author rates the Fairey Swordfish bi-plane as the best torpedo bomber of WWII. That made me lose a lot of respect for his expertise. Respectfully and welcome aboard,

[old_pop2000]

you are listing the Military power of the F4U at 1650 HP compared to the Combat Power(in other words War Emergency Power) of the P-51 at 1670 HP a very big difference.
The sttings I have for the R-2800-8 is takeoff 2000', Military 2000 HP @ 1700' & 1650 HP @ 21000', Normal Power 1675 HP @ 5500' & 1550 HP @ 22000'.
For the R-2800-8W you have 2000 HP, COMBAT POWER 2135 HP @ 12400' & 1975 HP @ 16900'. MILITARY POWER 2000 HP @ 1700' & 1650 HP @ 21000. Normal Power 1675 HP @ 5500' & 1550 HP @ 22000'.
I can quote five or ten books on aviation, get ten different answers to performance specifications. Why should I believe yours? The only way to calculate engine performance is to use a static test stand. If I use a test stand, I can't specify altitude but I can use the resultant air pressure change with altitude to calculate a rough figure. I can only calculate engine power output at altitude, by flight test, by reading the altitude, manifold pressure, RPM, and fuel mixture, and then calculate a ball park figure of what the engine output is, based on those raw figures. After creating a set of data points, I can then create a graph of altitude vs power output, with manifold and rpm ratings. I then have to include load rating of the aircraft, aircraft model and serial number. This is the 1940's. They did not have digital readouts on the instrument panel for the test pilots. They had to use the gauges in the cockpit. Each pilot is different as are the flight test parameters for each service.

I use actual flight test data, when possible, attempting to keep dates on tests as close together as possible. However, do I test an F4U-1 against a P-51B or a P-51D. The D model entered European service in late 1943. While the F4U-1 was in service, but not carrier qualified in late 1942 early 1943. Which version of the F6F do I compare? What Spitfire version? How about the P-47 or the Me-109 or the FW 190, or the Mig-3, Lagg or the Yak? When did the P-47 get the new props with the wider blades, when did it get the water injection and how long can it be use? When does a pilot use full military power or normal power? Full military power eats fuel.

I hope you have the answers, because there are so many more that need to be answered, to a do a credible job of comparing aircraft. How do I rate the planes? Do I use one flight test, combat performance and results?

I don't have the answer even after 40 years of working around, and on aircraft. If you have those answers, knock yourself out.

[bridav58]

I do know Francis Dean's book has alot of primary documents posted in it. Dean also shows documents showing the P-51D going into production in early part of 1944 at the NAA Englewood production facility and managed to get into action with the 8th airforce later in March while the "D" prototype first flew in 11/17/43 . The first production P-51B was first flown in May,1943 & went to the UK in 9/43 while the 1st. production P-51C first flew in 8/43 and arrived in the UK in 1/44. I would say the "Spitfire Performance" website is great(which it is) and has a load of flight tests/primary documents-sources (which it does) however the Grosser-Kurfurst website has criticised Mike's site for choosing the figures for the least performing of a group of 190D's in posting it's performance figures and in comparing the Spitfire XIV to 109G he picks a much earlier model of the 109G then later models availiable in the April-March of 1944 timeline he picks while the RAF fighter in question was only flying in a couple of squadrons at that time. At least that's how the accusation went. The same may very well be true of Dean's work in that there may be "cherry picking" going on however Dean's book isn't about comparisons but about data on US fighter planes in the war.
You are right about alot of what your saying and the data I just provided throws another bug a boo in the search since US planes had to be flown /transported overseas they are at a disadvantage as far as thier contemporaries are concerned . I mean do you consider when they went into production? squadron service? IMHO about all one can say is you can probably pick 8-10 aircraft during the war and they were all just about equal to one another,i.e. a early 1944 model of an Luftwaffe fighter was equal to the equalvilent RAF/USAAF fighter or an early 1942 model fighter was equal to it's contemporaries.

[bridav58]

Hi:

I have Brown's book and would like to interject a slight word of caution regarding his conclusions. First off he values speed, speed and more speed above all else. Secondly he will always rate a cannon armed fighter over one armed with machine guns only when for all intents and purposes, the US fighters with 6 .50 cals had no trouble shooting down any plane they faced. Also this is the same man who feels that an SBD would have no chance against a fighter, despite their actual combat performances. And in closing this same author rates the Fairey Swordfish bi-plane as the best torpedo bomber of WWII. That made me lose a lot of respect for his expertise. Respectfully and welcome aboard,

Well I can agree with you and let's face it it's one mans judgement here. Actually I can see a point in the Swordfish being number one IF you look at it's achievements along with the fact it served throughout the war. I mean it was instrumental in the sinking of the Bismarck(in those rough seas Ark Royal was in could TBD's,Avengers or Kates even be launched???) & in the attack on Taranto. IMHO the attack on Taranto with Swordfish had a far more detrimental effect on the Italians then the IJN attacking Pearl Harbor with Kates had on the US. However I agree performance wise it was inferior even to the USN's TBD.

[Warship NWS]

1. The F4F held it's own regardless of wether special tatics were used furthermore the so-called "Thach Weave" wasn't used in the early part of the Pacific War,not at all at Coral Sea ,by only one squadron at Midway and wasn't taught system wide till early to mid-1943 . Refer to john Lundstrom's "First Team" in this regeard. Mr. Lundstrom is a first class researcher who uses only Primary Documents in his writings. This debunks one myth in that the F4F could only equal the Zero using special tatics ,that just wasn't the case.

You pulled my reply out of context.. please read it in full again.

Eric Brown however does not involve the evolution of aerial tactics or team tactics doctrines. The reason the F4F held its own against the Zero was due to team tactics and attributes that balanced out the odds vs the defects of the Zero.

Note I did not state one reason but several. There is also something to be said for communications in the air which greatly aided in air combat coordination.. Brown doesn't touch that topic at all even though you SHOULD include all aspects of a weapon system, not just the parts that get all the glory.


2.The Spitfire lost out to the Zero EVEN WHEN they changed thier tatics in other words even when they chaned from "turn & burn" to using energy tatics they lost out. Further look at the fact that Zero's and thier pilots were making 500 mile one way trips from Timor to Darwin getting thier ,besting the Spitfires and then having to make the long trip back home while the Spitfire was doing it's designed job as a pure interceptor and always was equal in numbers if not having a numbers advantage . Also remember the Spitfire V didn't really make an appearance in the Pacific till early 1943 when Japan had lost alot of good pilots while the F4F was achieving parity from the getgo & against Japan's very best. Good sources on this are Alfred Price's " Spitfire V and it's Aces" & Chris Shores "Bloody Shambles" . Both those authors are very well respected and use almost exclusively primary sources.

Ok.. then please explain to me how the F4F held parity yet the Spitfire which was faster, better climber, and better maneuverability could not? You state "turn and burn".. I said "slashing attacks", as the F4F used,.. not the same thing. The last thing you wanted to do was to try and "turn" with a Zero in ANY fighter especially at or below 250mph airspeed. The Spitfire pilots were used to engaging Me-109s and different aerial tactics.. the tactics are the key here, not the planes.


3.Eric Brown's work ,at least alot of it, is evolved from US & British tests using each aircrafts strengths /weaknesses for/against it in straight forward combat 1 on 1. Now is that work carved in rock? No Is that work a decent reference point? Yes.

Please give me even a rough set of comparisons of how often pilots fought 1 vs 1 vs groups of pilots fighting each other? Example, Brown compared the SBD vs the Zeke.. how often did SBDs fly all on their own except possibly when on scouting missions? Brown touches nothing on combat endurance either - like the Zeke having only 7 seconds of effective ammunition, even Parshall hit that one dead on. Brown also stated the Zeke could dive with the F4F.. completely wrong. Start getting to fast in a Zeke in a dive and the wings started to wrinkle and going too much faster could come apart, the F4F could EASILY outpace the Zeke in a dive and for that matter the first Zeke downed in combat was due to an F4F going into a dive and the Zeke tried to follow it.. and crashed. Brown also does not mention that the Zeke above 250mph lost major portions of its maneuverability. Should I go on?


My whole point is pure performance figures aren't the "to be all" in guaging which fighter is the best. Further maybe some planes like the P-40,P-39,F4F and probably others are underrated while maybe some like the Spitfire V , P-51 and I'm sure others maybe get overrated/overhyped.

I don't believe anyone here ever claimed they were the "to be all" in gauging fighters. As I like to say.. tactics are the ultimate force multiplier and divider of combat. Brown basically, and no disrespect for his experience as a pilot, gave a quick brush over and inconclusive set of examples of air combat in his book. I am sorry but NO airplane EVER built for combat operated on its own OUTSIDE of a combat system. The only cases where planes fought alone almost exclusively was when they were flying recon missions of which case many were unarmed.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

To Bridav58,

First and foremost thank you for joining our forums and our often spirited discussions. You are a welcome addition to the forums so please do not take my next comment as anything except some constructive friend to friend observations.

I would ask that you please not persist on trying to convince everyone about the "credentials" of an author and what or which sources they pulled their information from. Everyone here is more then intelligent enough to read their bibliographies and can determine which parts of the authors information is reasonably verifiable or not. It is up to you, the poster, to determine what you think is verifiable or not and to offer sources as part of your side of the argument at hand as reference points. The credentials part is not necessary and makes it sound like the author is a god that can do no wrong or comes across as "this is my source so your wrong" type of response.

Authors are human like anyone else regardless of their backgrounds and can make mistakes and considering the fact that warfare is mostly theory to start with, the only absolutes is that people and machines die, no one person can possibly have all the accurate details at hand - especially as you go back further in history. Human perceptions, circumstantial evidence, biased human opinion, classified vs declassified materials, conflicting eye-witnesses, etc.. all have a part to play with historical research. This is why educated individuals looking to advance their knowledge cross reference a wide range of materials, extrapolate information, do our own individual analysis and research, etc.. so in this direction we are not just going on one authors interpretation of the facts or available data. One can respect an author while at the same time constructively discuss their conclusions.

I hope this makes sense to you and again please take this as constructive thoughts.

Thanks.

[bridav58]

On points...
1. sorry for the mis-intrepratation. And yes the USN's entire system of fighter interception/direction was far better
2. What I'm saying is that even after the Spitfire V's changed thier tatics they still were loosing to the Zero's. They found out real quick they couldn't dogfight the Zero however even when they started using energy tatics they still lost out. I really don't understand it either the pilots of those squadrons based in Darwin were good & expierenced . It also happened to Spitfire V units based in India verse the IJAAF & it's Ki-43's. As far as the Spitfire V goes the Australians conducted several tests between it & the P-40 & found the latter to be quite equal to it under 20K which is where most of the fighting in the Pacific occured.
I will re-read my post but I sure didn't mean to turn & burn with a Zero especially at low speeds/low altitudes . In fact the part of my post you quoted says "even when they changed from thier tatics in other words even when changed from "turn & burn" to using energy tatics they lost out" . By all accounts the Spitfire V should have handled the Zero easily especially using slashing/energy tatics but they didn't and I really don't know what else to say because it's part of historical record . It happened and it went on for several months . The same RAF/RAAF trained personnal flying P-40's(or even P-39's) around the same time didn't have near as much trouble with the Zero even though they still came up on the loosing end to something like 2-1 ratio in favor of the Zero whereas the Darwin bombing campaign by the Japanese showed 3 Zero's & 1 Ki-43 being lost to 28 Spitfire V's in actual air to air combat.
In reference to your following post I wasn't trying to be a smart*** with one of my remearks above however why the Spitfire V had such problems while the F4F didn't is just one of those intriguing oddities of the war . The Spitfire V was 40-60 MPH faster climbed 400-600 FPM faster ,outdived & outrolled the Zero and yet still came a very bad second best which makes it one intersting subject.
3. Well I stated "Is his work carbved in rock? No... Is it a decent reference point? Yes " .Your points are very well taken and I agree with them. Nevertheless IMHO Brown's work is a good overview (and I for one disagree with him on various facts in his book) BUT one needs to do further research after reading him.
4. I agree wholeheartedly.

[bridav58]

To Bridav58,

First and foremost thank you for joining our forums and our often spirited discussions. You are a welcome addition to the forums so please do not take my next comment as anything except some constructive friend to friend observations.

I would ask that you please not persist on trying to convince everyone about the "credentials" of an author and what or which sources they pulled their information from. Everyone here is more then intelligent enough to read their bibliographies and can determine which parts of the authors information is reasonably verifiable or not. It is up to you, the poster, to determine what you think is verifiable or not and to offer sources as part of your side of the argument at hand as reference points. The credentials part is not necessary and makes it sound like the author is a god that can do no wrong or comes across as "this is my source so your wrong" type of response.

Authors are human like anyone else regardless of their backgrounds and can make mistakes and considering the fact that warfare is mostly theory to start with, the only absolutes is that people and machines die, no one person can possibly have all the accurate details at hand - especially as you go back further in history. Human perceptions, circumstantial evidence, biased human opinion, classified vs declassified materials, conflicting eye-witnesses, etc.. all have a part to play with historical research. This is why educated individuals looking to advance their knowledge cross reference a wide range of materials, extrapolate information, do our own individual analysis and research, etc.. so in this direction we are not just going on one authors interpretation of the facts or available data. One can respect an author while at the same time constructively discuss their conclusions.

I hope this makes sense to you and again please take this as constructive thoughts.

Thanks.

trying to put anybody down .I've just always believed in posting my sources ,in fact alot of other sites(in fact most others) it seems it's almost demanded of the poster.
Once again if I offended anybody my sincerst apologies.

Oh by the way do any of you remember "Dolphinstriker"? i don't know what name he used here. I know his first name was Bruce and he used to post here . He told me to tell everybody here hello.

[old_pop2000]

trying to put anybody down .I've just always believed in posting my sources ,in fact alot of other sites(in fact most others) it seems it's almost demanded of the poster.
Once again if I offended anybody my sincerst apologies.

Oh by the way do any of you remember "Dolphinstriker"? i don't know what name he used here. I know his first name was Bruce and he used to post here . He told me to tell everybody here hello.
I applaud you for providing sources, I attempt to do that when ever possible. Your posts were not wrong, IMO. I would just say that you need to take a broader view of air combat. While aircraft performance was important, it is not the primary factor that decides the winner. Teamwork, tactics and luck play far more into the mix, than the performance of the plane. The F4F-4 was a perfect example. It was the divisional tactics developed by Lt. Commander James Thach, along with Jim Flatley, Indian Joe Bauer, Butch O'Hare for the Navy, John Smith for the Marines that really tells the tail.

Keep posting your ideas and sources, keep reading and remember that we are all here to exchange ideas and information but more important, to learn and enjoy.

Keepim' flying!

[Warship NWS]

trying to put anybody down .I've just always believed in posting my sources ,in fact alot of other sites(in fact most others) it seems it's almost demanded of the poster.
Once again if I offended anybody my sincerst apologies.

Oh by the way do any of you remember "Dolphinstriker"? i don't know what name he used here. I know his first name was Bruce and he used to post here . He told me to tell everybody here hello.

No offense taken and thank you for your understanding. :)

[Warship NWS]

1. sorry for the mis-intrepratation. And yes the USN's entire system of fighter interception/direction was far better

Fighter coordination via pilot communication with each other in air combat in the air was also important and fell on deaf ears for the Japanese. The USN started training with team work before the "Thach weave" BTW, that was just another tactic to use against the more nimble Zekes.




2. What I'm saying is that even after the Spitfire V's changed thier tatics they still were loosing to the Zero's. They found out real quick they couldn't dogfight the Zero however even when they started using energy tatics they still lost out. I really don't understand it either the pilots of those squadrons based in Darwin were good & expierenced . It also happened to Spitfire V units based in India verse the IJAAF & it's Ki-43's. As far as the Spitfire V goes the Australians conducted several tests between it & the P-40 & found the latter to be quite equal to it under 20K which is where most of the fighting in the Pacific occured.
I will re-read my post but I sure didn't mean to turn & burn with a Zero especially at low speeds/low altitudes . In fact the part of my post you quoted says "even when they changed from thier tatics in other words even when changed from "turn & burn" to using energy tatics they lost out" . By all accounts the Spitfire V should have handled the Zero easily especially using slashing/energy tatics but they didn't and I really don't know what else to say because it's part of historical record . It happened and it went on for several months . The same RAF/RAAF trained personnal flying P-40's(or even P-39's) around the same time didn't have near as much trouble with the Zero even though they still came up on the loosing end to something like 2-1 ratio in favor of the Zero whereas the Darwin bombing campaign by the Japanese showed 3 Zero's & 1 Ki-43 being lost to 28 Spitfire V's in actual air to air combat.
In reference to your following post I wasn't trying to be a smart*** with one of my remearks above however why the Spitfire V had such problems while the F4F didn't is just one of those intriguing oddities of the war . The Spitfire V was 40-60 MPH faster climbed 400-600 FPM faster ,outdived & outrolled the Zero and yet still came a very bad second best which makes it one intersting subject.


Should make for an interesting research project then? ;) Tactics were part of it but we also need to know the situations they fought in.. combat environment is another huge factor to consider. I personaly do not have the time right now to dig further into this one .. Dennis do you care to take a crack at it? Here is a counter example.. figure out how the Finns had the highest kill ratio of the war (70:1 according to their sources) using the old clunker F2A Buffalos against one of the best air forces in the world at the time.. the Luftwaffe.


3. Well I stated "Is his work carbved in rock? No... Is it a decent reference point? Yes " .Your points are very well taken and I agree with them. Nevertheless IMHO Brown's work is a good overview (and I for one disagree with him on various facts in his book) BUT one needs to do further research after reading him.

I was just talking to Dennis over the phone and he made an interesting comment.. Brown was never a combat pilot.. only a test pilot. Entirely different perceptions IMHO.

Thanks.

[Kyle Holgate]

They achieved a great victory ratio vs the Soviets - not the Germans. Intersting article...
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/FAFhist.htm

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well I can agree with you and let's face it it's one mans judgement here. Actually I can see a point in the Swordfish being number one IF you look at it's achievements along with the fact it served throughout the war. I mean it was instrumental in the sinking of the Bismarck(in those rough seas Ark Royal was in could TBD's,Avengers or Kates even be launched???) & in the attack on Taranto. IMHO the attack on Taranto with Swordfish had a far more detrimental effect on the Italians then the IJN attacking Pearl Harbor with Kates had on the US. However I agree performance wise it was inferior even to the USN's TBD.

Brian:

My only problem with Brown's proclamation of the Swordfish is that its career faded fast. It's successes are more attributable to poor Axis AA or lack of fighter opposition than for any real performance advantages. You will note that it never served in the Pacific where it would have been dead meat. Also one of the last times it tried to launch an attack against German surface ships during the Channel Dash, it faced ME-109s and all six of the biplanes were lost.

In comparing Taranto to Pearl Harbor, I will allow that for the small numbers of Swordfish did proportionally more damage than the larger amount of IJN planes did at Pearl. But only one Italian battleship, Conte di Cavour was permanently out of action and that due to the Italians surrendering while she was still under repair. Caio Dulio was out of action until May of 1941 and Littorio was out until March 1941. In comparison, the US lost two battleships at Pearl Harbor and had the others out for as long as several years. In the sense that the Italian battleline was smaller than the USNs, losing the services of three battleships for varying periods of time certainly had a detrimental effect. But was it worse than what Pearl Harbor did to the USN? Possibly because the Italian navy had no carriers and could not strike back in the fashion that the USN was able to do within six months of Pearl Harbor.

[bridav58]

Fighter coordination via pilot communication with each other in air combat in the air was also important and fell on deaf ears for the Japanese. The USN started training with team work before the "Thach weave" BTW, that was just another tactic to use against the more nimble Zekes. ]quote]

Yes but the RAF/RAAF over Darwin had communication between aircraft and Im sure practiced teamwork.



[quote}Should make for an interesting research project then? ;) Tactics were part of it but we also need to know the situations they fought in.. combat environment is another huge factor to consider. I personaly do not have the time right now to dig further into this one .. Dennis do you care to take a crack at it? Here is a counter example.. figure out how the Finns had the highest kill ratio of the war (70:1 according to their sources) using the old clunker F2A Buffalos against one of the best air forces in the world at the time.. the Luftwaffe. [quote]
Don't you mean against the VVS? I don't think the Finnish airforce fought the Luftwaffe during WW2.
On combat envoirment USMC squadrons at Guadalcanal had abysmal conditions verse what Spitfire V's had at Darwin. that brings up something else Spitfires at Darwin not only gotten beaten badly but didn't inflict hardly any damage at all on the Japanese bombers the Zero's escorted meanwhile on Guadalcanal the USMC F4F's there managed better then a 1-1 kill ratio with the Zero's while inflicting substantial losses on the bombers the Zero's were escorting. The distance from Rabaul to Guadalcanal is about the same as from Timor to Darwin.




I was just talking to Dennis over the phone and he made an interesting comment.. Brown was never a combat pilot.. only a test pilot. Entirely different perceptions IMHO.

Thanks.

Well that would be an entirely different perspective.

[Ed Rotondaro]

trying to put anybody down .I've just always believed in posting my sources ,in fact alot of other sites(in fact most others) it seems it's almost demanded of the poster.
Once again if I offended anybody my sincerst apologies.

Oh by the way do any of you remember "Dolphinstriker"? i don't know what name he used here. I know his first name was Bruce and he used to post here . He told me to tell everybody here hello.

Brian:

I stay in close contact with him via email. I used to post on the Navweaps forum as Yankee Eddy, but the changed format left me frustrated. Tell him thanks for saying hi to us.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I was just talking to Dennis over the phone and he made an interesting comment.. Brown was never a combat pilot.. only a test pilot. Entirely different perceptions IMHO.

Thanks.

Chris:

Yes, that's a very good point. I'll bet if he was a combat pilot, he would have a better appreciation of what a plane's strong points and weaknesses are. I remember reading in one of Martin Caidin's books that a pilot who knows his plane's charcteristics can compensate for its weaknesses by use of superior tactics. His depiction of a mock dogfight between a P-47 and a new Spitfire is eye opening.

[old_pop2000]

[quote=Warship NWS;1780]Fighter coordination via pilot communication with each other in air combat in the air was also important and fell on deaf ears for the Japanese. The USN started training with team work before the "Thach weave" BTW, that was just another tactic to use against the more nimble Zekes. ]quote]

Yes but the RAF/RAAF over Darwin had communication between aircraft and Im sure practiced teamwork.



[quote}Should make for an interesting research project then? ;) Tactics were part of it but we also need to know the situations they fought in.. combat environment is another huge factor to consider. I personaly do not have the time right now to dig further into this one .. Dennis do you care to take a crack at it? Here is a counter example.. figure out how the Finns had the highest kill ratio of the war (70:1 according to their sources) using the old clunker F2A Buffalos against one of the best air forces in the world at the time.. the Luftwaffe.

Well that would be an entirely different perspective.
His name was Eric Winkles Brown, born in 1919. During WWII, he was leader of a group of pilots named the Enemy Aircraft Flight. Their task was to fly captured enemy aircraft. He flew 53 captured enemy aircraft.

However, while he was highly decorated Naval Officer, he was never a combat pilot.

[bridav58]

One thing about it is that the batteline put out of action at Pearl Harbor even if it was intact at the start of the war really couldn't influence events too much where it really counted in 12/41 simply because the USN didn't have an adequate base or logistical structure in the Western Pacific. The Italian Navy or rather it's batteline could have been a real decisive element if used more decisively while geography allowed fighter planes to cover it over a large part of the Medeterranian Sea.
So to sum it up IMHO Pearl Harbor was a strategic mistake and politically disasterous while Taranto was a strategic coup especially when balanced out by the disasters suffered in early '41 by the RN in the MED . It also affected the Italian high command immensely afterwards.
However we're getting well off subject here.

[old_pop2000]

We've all concentrated on the Thach Weave, which was a great combat maneuver, however, few have heard of "The Mowing Machine" developed by Eugene Valencia. Valencia developed this four plane tactic. Two aircraft would dive on the enemy crossing, while the other two stay above. Once the first two had completed the dives, the next two would dive in accomplishing the same thing. Valencia and his three pilots, shot down fifty enemy aircraft, a Navy record, without any damage to their aircraft.

[bridav58]

Grumman fighters along with the Vought F4U & Republic P-47 were immensely tough. Something else I noticed you have...
Curtiss P-40
Bell P-39
Lockheed P-38
Republic P-47
North American P-51
Vought F4U
Brewster F2A
Grumman F4F
Grumman F6F
No wonder the US had so many different fighter aircraft 8 manufactorers producing 9 different aircraft. I know I'm missing a couple. I mean they had to keep all those companies in buisness. LOL !!!!!!

[john964]

Grumman fighters along with the Vought F4U & Republic P-47 were immensely tough. Something else I noticed you have...
Curtiss P-40
Bell P-39
Lockheed P-38
Republic P-47
North American P-51
Vought F4U
Brewster F2A
Grumman F4F
Grumman F6F
No wonder the US had so many different fighter aircraft 8 manufactorers producing 9 different aircraft. I know I'm missing a couple. I mean they had to keep all those companies in buisness. LOL !!!!!!
Several aircraft manufactuers were building aircraft for other companies IIRC the B-17 was built by Bell and Vega in addition to Boeing. Also IIRC General Motors was building TBF F4U F4F

[Ed Rotondaro]

They achieved a great victory ratio vs the Soviets - not the Germans. Intersting article...
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/FAFhist.htm

Kyle:

That's what I thought too and was too lazy and hungry to do any research.

[Ed Rotondaro]

One thing about it is that the batteline put out of action at Pearl Harbor even if it was intact at the start of the war really couldn't influence events too much where it really counted in 12/41 simply because the USN didn't have an adequate base or logistical structure in the Western Pacific. The Italian Navy or rather it's batteline could have been a real decisive element if used more decisively while geography allowed fighter planes to cover it over a large part of the Medeterranian Sea.
So to sum it up IMHO Pearl Harbor was a strategic mistake and politically disasterous while Taranto was a strategic coup especially when balanced out by the disasters suffered in early '41 by the RN in the MED . It also affected the Italian high command immensely afterwards.
However we're getting well off subject here.

Brian:

That does lead to a discussion of War Plan Orange more than anything else. But would an intact battleline with carrier support have prevented the conquest of so many other US possessions?

[Ed Rotondaro]

We've all concentrated on the Thach Weave, which was a great combat maneuver, however, few have heard of "The Mowing Machine" developed by Eugene Valencia. Valencia developed this four plane tactic. Two aircraft would dive on the enemy crossing, while the other two stay above. Once the first two had completed the dives, the next two would dive in accomplishing the same thing. Valencia and his three pilots, shot down fifty enemy aircraft, a Navy record, without any damage to their aircraft.

Dennis:

Did Valencia end up in Hellcats by the end of the war? I seem to recall that.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Grumman fighters along with the Vought F4U & Republic P-47 were immensely tough. Something else I noticed you have...
Curtiss P-40
Bell P-39
Lockheed P-38
Republic P-47
North American P-51
Vought F4U
Brewster F2A
Grumman F4F
Grumman F6F
No wonder the US had so many different fighter aircraft 8 manufactorers producing 9 different aircraft. I know I'm missing a couple. I mean they had to keep all those companies in buisness. LOL !!!!!!

Brian:

Don't forget the Northrup P-61 Black Widow, the world's first dedicated night fighter. And don't get me started on attack craft, and bombers LOL!

[john964]

Grumman fighters along with the Vought F4U & Republic P-47 were immensely tough. Something else I noticed you have...
Curtiss P-40
Bell P-39
Lockheed P-38
Republic P-47
North American P-51
Vought F4U
Brewster F2A
Grumman F4F
Grumman F6F
No wonder the US had so many different fighter aircraft 8 manufactorers producing 9 different aircraft. I know I'm missing a couple. I mean they had to keep all those companies in buisness. LOL !!!!!!
You seem to forget that several of these planes were not in production by the end of the war.
IIRC
Curtiss P-40 late 43
Brewster F2A early 42
Grumman F4F late 44
Bell P-39 mid 44

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Did Valencia end up in Hellcats by the end of the war? I seem to recall that.
Yes, the tactic was developed in F6F's.

[Warship NWS]

They achieved a great victory ratio vs the Soviets - not the Germans. Intersting article...
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/FAFhist.htm

Actually both.. the Finns fought the Russians in the Great Continuation War of 1941-1944 but after the pact was made with the Russians they fought their final aerial battles against the Germans after mid-1944. However, your correct on the part that they achieved their high ratios vs the Russians. Still not too bad considering the age of the F2A by around 1943+ vs better Russian aircraft.

[bridav58]

Brian:

That does lead to a discussion of War Plan Orange more than anything else. But would an intact battleline with carrier support have prevented the conquest of so many other US possessions?

Well an intact battleline may have been able to stop the fall of Wake Island however historically Wake Island probably was more of a hindrance to the Japanese then an asset. It's existence may have been able to help the UK/Australia hold onto say New Britain and the Solomons . It's existence may keep nagumo from conducting his Indian Ocean raids in early '42 which then may enable the RN keep a much more imposing presence there. As far as Guam or the Phillipines just where is the fleet going to refuel? How many tankers did the USN have in late'41,early '42? At one point several of the old BB's were based in San Francisco to relieve congestion in Pearl Harbor while during the Guadalcanal Campaign an old BB or two may have been nice despite thier slow speed but Espiritu Santo was too congested while there being insufficent tanker capacity to supply fuel for them.You then have an intact fleet of around 9 BB's(with maybe the 3 New Mexico's? North Carolina? Washington? sometime after the New Year), 3 CV's with cruisers & DD's needing an extremely large logistical train. You would have to start siezing bases in the mandates to start a road back to the Phillipines which probably fall anyways . You will have to engage the Japanese Combined Fleet along with Kido Butai in thier own backyard in the decisive battle they have been envisioning/training for for 20+ years. The IJN will have a huge advantage of having land based air to cover them along with aircover from 6 CV's to the USN's 3 CV's unless the USN gets the Wasp ,Ranger,Hornet & Yorktown to the Pacific real quick. That is still not very good odds or situation.

[Warship NWS]

Some prior British historians apparently blamed the F2A for the loss of Singapore and Malaya.. this article states otherwise,

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f2a_7.html

[Warship NWS]

The F2A.. a failure?

Interesting note in this article.. at Midway 20 F2A and 4 F4F were outnumbered by 36 Zeros (out of 109 attacking aircraft).. and still scored 9 kills.

Flip side.. the Finns at the start of the Continuation War racked up an impressive kill rate for interesting reasons;

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_F2A_buffalo.html

[bridav58]

The F2A.. a failure?

Interesting note in this article.. at Midway 20 F2A and 4 F4F were outnumbered by 36 Zeros (out of 109 attacking aircraft).. and still scored 9 kills.

Flip side.. the Finns at the start of the Continuation War racked up an impressive kill rate for interesting reasons;

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_F2A_buffalo.html


Are you(or rather they) saying they shot down 9 Zero's or 9 planes all together? Just the Buffalo's shot down 9 planes? Or the whole squadron shot down 9 planes?

[bridav58]

Some prior British historians apparently blamed the F2A for the loss of Singapore and Malaya.. this article states otherwise,

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f2a_7.html
the article listed "claims" not "verified kills" . Some units (per Chris Shore's in "Bloody Shambles") didn't do too badly with Buffalo's ,certainly not as bad as has been made out to be. Now units equipped with the Hurricane suffered high single digit to one loss to kill ratios. Looking at the Buffalo compared to the Hurricane you sure wouldn't think it.

[Warship NWS]

The planes or the situations?

I have seen people post that the RAF did poorly vs the Japanese over Malaya and Singapore.. however, few seem to know what the RAF was dealing with,

a) Airbases that were often difficult to defend.
b) Little to no warning of incoming raids - this lead to many RAF aircraft being destroyed on the ground.
c) Problems with recieving spare parts which accellerated the attrition rate due to the inability to maintain or repair aircraft.
d) The RAF fighters, when they did get off the ground in time, were often severely outnumbered. One raid was interecepted by squadrons at Kallang Airfield with 20 Hurricanes that shot down 6 enemy planes for only one lost. They were intercepting a raid of over 80 Japanese aircraft.

Point being is this.. to properly understand air warfare ALL angles need to be looked at.. not just the planes, not just the pilots but also the combat environment, the situations, mitigating factors, tactics, etc..

By all accounts the Zero was for the most part inferior to the Spitfire and slightly superior to the Hurricane. The Zero was superior to the F2A Buffalo but not by enough margin where the F2A could not be a danger to it.

I will also remind everyone that at the start of the war the Zero pilots were some of the best individual (non-team work) pilots of the war but their combat experience was derived from fighting mostly against antiquated Chinese and Russian aircraft and tactics.

Nothing is cut and dry in warfare.. nothing is ever absolute. An air battle could be decided by the slightest alteration of circumstances, one side having a split second advantage, or a few pilots that just so happen to look in the right direction at the exact moment in time and space to make that critical battle alterating snap decision when to attack. End result.. there are a million variables that can alter the course of any air battle.. much less an aerial campaign. We all need to keep our minds open and not believe the quick snap shot conclusions given to us by historians offering only the most general of details.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

Are you(or rather they) saying they shot down 9 Zero's or 9 planes all together? Just the Buffalo's shot down 9 planes? Or the whole squadron shot down 9 planes?

Total of 9 aircraft were shot down.. including 2 Zeros.. but look at the odds and the situation again. The Japanese were very experienced at the time and our pilots were novice to average at best. They were outnumbered 36 to 24.. that means at least 12 Zeros were unmolested to gang up on individual targets. To top that off they are trying to break up a raid with a total of 4 to 1 in ratio of incoming aircraft, 108 Japanese Zeros, Kates, and Vals. Here they were trying in vain to keep Midway from being bombed to hell while trying to keep Zeros from shooting them down at the same time. Hell any of us would have been crapping our pants against those odds.

Why is it when aircraft are outnumbered and slaughtered they are a failure yet ships, tanks, or troops that are outnumbered did their best but failed to defend against overwhelming odds? This is my problem with historians often slamming the hammer down on aircraft that do not do as well as they would have wanted in aerial battles. This to me is being biased by not portraying all of the circumstances in an attempt to keep their personal point of view. This is why I prefer to read material written by professional researchers that give the reader the facts in detail and then let the reader decide for themselves why things happened the way they did.. and leave their own personal opinions out of it.

Thanks.

[bridav58]

I. Now I can agree with alot of what your saying about no warning & such and certainly there was a long logistical train for RAF /Allied planes in S.E. Asia however the Japanese didn't exactly have a short logistical train themselves say when based at Rabaul or Timor. The Japanese didn't have the best maintenance facilities/logistical setups either.
Look at another way too we've talked about the Spitfire V alot and it's problems coping with the Zero's and they did have early warning in that setting. However my question is performance wise how did the Spitfire V matchup with say the Corsiar or Hellcat? I would venture to say the Spitfire V wasn't too inferior,if at all, to those 2 USN fighters but look at the difference in results verse the Zero.
Maybe the answer is,and I'm ready to duck after saying it , is maybe down through the years we've sold the IJAAF & IJNAF short. They may have been much,much better then given credit for.

[Warship NWS]

I. Now I can agree with alot of what your saying about no warning & such and certainly there was a long logistical train for RAF /Allied planes in S.E. Asia however the Japanese didn't exactly have a short logistical train themselves say when based at Rabaul or Timor. The Japanese didn't have the best maintenance facilities/logistical setups either.
Look at another way too we've talked about the Spitfire V alot and it's problems coping with the Zero's and they did have early warning in that setting. However my question is performance wise how did the Spitfire V matchup with say the Corsiar or Hellcat? I would venture to say the Spitfire V wasn't too inferior,if at all, to those 2 USN fighters but look at the difference in results verse the Zero.
Maybe the answer is,and I'm ready to duck after saying it , is maybe down through the years we've sold the IJAAF & IJNAF short. They may have been much,much better then given credit for.

Actually this is where I will bow out of this conversation as again my time is limited. I have a lot of coding ahead of me for our upcoming WCDB v2.0 and I have other NWS admin duties to attend to.

The reason I instigated the debate, conversations, and thought process with many of my responses was not to prove one plane or tactic vs another but to get everyone to open their minds to the whole picture of aerial warfare. It is for all of you to figure out why the engagements played out the way they did.. that is part of the enjoyment of researching military history.. the investigative process of answering the greatest question of all -- the "WHY" factor. Researching military history is, and always has been, a never ending process of asking hard questions, that is the only way we will continue to expand our knowledge.

Thanks for listening,.. and enjoy the rest of this conversation. Take care everyone.

[bridav58]

Total of 9 aircraft were shot down.. including 2 Zeros.. but look at the odds and the situation again. The Japanese were very experienced at the time and our pilots were novice to average at best. They were outnumbered 36 to 24.. that means at least 12 Zeros were unmolested to gang up on individual targets. To top that off they are trying to break up a raid with a total of 4 to 1 in ratio of incoming aircraft, 108 Japanese Zeros, Kates, and Vals. Here they were trying in vain to keep Midway from being bombed to hell while trying to keep Zeros from shooting them down at the same time. Hell any of us would have been crapping our pants against those odds.

Why is it when aircraft are outnumbered and slaughtered they are a failure yet ships, tanks, or troops that are outnumbered did their best but failed to defend against overwhelming odds? This is my problem with historians often slamming the hammer down on aircraft that do not do as well as they would have wanted in aerial battles. This to me is being biased by not portraying all of the circumstances in an attempt to keep their personal point of view. This is why I prefer to read material written by professional researchers that give the reader the facts in detail and then let the reader decide for themselves why things happened the way they did.. and leave their own personal opinions out of it.

Thanks.

I agree with relying on professional researchers . However what I've been trying to drive home on the Spitfire V's over Darwin verse Zero's flying in from 500 miles away in Timor is that certainly the Spitfire usually had the advantage in numbers there, they were defending, had a good early warning system, well trained aircrew and weren't anymore handicapped logistically then the Japanese were in Timor. Still they ended up on the bad end.

[Warship NWS]

I agree with relying on professional researchers . However what I've been trying to drive home on the Spitfire V's over Darwin verse Zero's flying in from 500 miles away in Timor is that certainly the Spitfire usually had the advantage in numbers there, they were defending, had a good early warning system, well trained aircrew and weren't anymore handicapped logistically then the Japanese were in Timor. Still they ended up on the bad end.

This is an article about the series of raids on Darwin;
http://www.vrb.gov.au/dvapublications/CLIK-darwin-42-45.pdf

Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The planes or the situations?

I have seen people post that the RAF did poorly vs the Japanese over Malaya and Singapore.. however, few seem to know what the RAF was dealing with,

a) Airbases that were often difficult to defend.
b) Little to no warning of incoming raids - this lead to many RAF aircraft being destroyed on the ground.
c) Problems with recieving spare parts which accellerated the attrition rate due to the inability to maintain or repair aircraft.
d) The RAF fighters, when they did get off the ground in time, were often severely outnumbered. One raid was interecepted by squadrons at Kallang Airfield with 20 Hurricanes that shot down 6 enemy planes for only one lost. They were intercepting a raid of over 80 Japanese aircraft.

Point being is this.. to properly understand air warfare ALL angles need to be looked at.. not just the planes, not just the pilots but also the combat environment, the situations, mitigating factors, tactics, etc..

By all accounts the Zero was for the most part inferior to the Spitfire and slightly superior to the Hurricane. The Zero was superior to the F2A Buffalo but not by enough margin where the F2A could not be a danger to it.

I will also remind everyone that at the start of the war the Zero pilots were some of the best individual (non-team work) pilots of the war but their combat experience was derived from fighting mostly against antiquated Chinese and Russian aircraft and tactics.

Nothing is cut and dry in warfare.. nothing is ever absolute. An air battle could be decided by the slightest alteration of circumstances, one side having a split second advantage, or a few pilots that just so happen to look in the right direction at the exact moment in time and space to make that critical battle alterating snap decision when to attack. End result.. there are a million variables that can alter the course of any air battle.. much less an aerial campaign. We all need to keep our minds open and not believe the quick snap shot conclusions given to us by historians offering only the most general of details.

Thanks.

Chris:

Another factor to add to the above list was the general lack of training and experience of the entire British military in Asia, especially their pilots. Britain had a somewhat cavalier attitude towards the Japanes threat, especially the officers posted to Malaya and Singapore. The forces sent to defend the Asian colonies were not the best Britain had to offer. Many had been hastily raised at the start of the war. Indeed the best Australian divisions were fighting in North Africa at the time. They didn't take their enemy seriously. Novices are not going to survive against experienced pilots.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I. Now I can agree with alot of what your saying about no warning & such and certainly there was a long logistical train for RAF /Allied planes in S.E. Asia however the Japanese didn't exactly have a short logistical train themselves say when based at Rabaul or Timor. The Japanese didn't have the best maintenance facilities/logistical setups either.
Look at another way too we've talked about the Spitfire V alot and it's problems coping with the Zero's and they did have early warning in that setting. However my question is performance wise how did the Spitfire V matchup with say the Corsiar or Hellcat? I would venture to say the Spitfire V wasn't too inferior,if at all, to those 2 USN fighters but look at the difference in results verse the Zero.
Maybe the answer is,and I'm ready to duck after saying it , is maybe down through the years we've sold the IJAAF & IJNAF short. They may have been much,much better then given credit for.

Brian:

I don't think that any good historian of airpower would sell the Japanese short. They certainly were as good as anybody in 1941 and stayed competitive thru 1943. I would say their biggest failure was the inability to train replacement pilots quick enough. Having read Saburo Sakai's account of flying the Zero and the rigors of his pilot training, one can understand why. Maybe 50 pilots a class were being produced pre-war. They were the best of the best to be sure. But they started dying once the war began and Japan never figured out how to replace them. Hence the kamikaze.

[Kyle Holgate]

The F2A.. a failure?

Interesting note in this article.. at Midway 20 F2A and 4 F4F were outnumbered by 36 Zeros (out of 109 attacking aircraft).. and still scored 9 kills.

Flip side.. the Finns at the start of the Continuation War racked up an impressive kill rate for interesting reasons;

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_F2A_buffalo.html

a fighter could still generally be considered a failure and still have kills to its credit. As you have said, tactics are a force multiplier and it appears the Finns virtually invented many tactics and used their own strengths and the enemies weaknesses to good effect - even with inferior aircraft. Hurricanes shot down plenty of 109E's - sometimes they are considered a failure - mostly due to how they look compared to the Spitfire though. I'm not sure I agree but success/failure are opinions not facts - doesn't necessarily matter what others think, you can decide on your own criteria for success.

[bridav58]

Chris:

Another factor to add to the above list was the general lack of training and experience of the entire British military in Asia, especially their pilots. Britain had a somewhat cavalier attitude towards the Japanes threat, especially the officers posted to Malaya and Singapore. The forces sent to defend the Asian colonies were not the best Britain had to offer. Many had been hastily raised at the start of the war. Indeed the best Australian divisions were fighting in North Africa at the time. They didn't take their enemy seriously. Novices are not going to survive against experienced pilots.

I;m thinking that the squadrons around Darwin had expierenced pilots. It had the 1st. RAAF fight wing with Clive Caldwell commanding. It had served in the Western Dessert so was expierenced and familiar with the Spitfire V . A breakdown of the raids follows...
ON March 2,1943 9 Betty's & 21 Zero's attacked 14 Spitfires rose up and CLAIMED 2 Zero's & 1 Kate shot down with 1 Kate damaged. The IJN claimed a P-39 & @ Buffalo's. However aside from mis-indentification niether side lost anything.
On March 7,1943 19 G4M's & 26 Zero's attacked ,27 Spitfires rose up in the ensuing battle 1 Zero was lost to 4 Spitfires.
On May 2,1943 18 Betty's & 26 Zero's attacked ,33 Spitfires rose up .Now 5 had to re-land because of problems. in the ensuing battle 5 Spitfires were lost to none of the Japanese. Since they pursued thier enemy out over the sea at high throttle settings 4 Spitfirers suffered CSU failures whilst 5 more ran out of fuel.
On May 9 ,9 Zero's made an attempted strafing run on an airbase at Millingimbi 5 Spitfires there rose up .1 Spitfire was lost to 1 Zero
On May 28 9 Betty's & 7 Zero's attacked ,6 Spitfires rose up . 2 Spitfires went down to 2 Betty's.
On June 20 the IJAAAF had a hand sending 18 Hellens & 22 Ki-43's with 46 Spitfires rising up . 3 Spitfires were lost to 1 Hellen & 1 Ki-43.
On June 28 The IJN returned with 9 Betty's & 27 Zero's . 42 Spitfires rose up but only damaged 3 Zero's & 1 Betty while loosing 2 Spitfires. All the raiders made it home.
On June 30 23 Betty's & 27 Zero's attacked a USAF base destroying 3 B-24's. 38 Spitfires rose up and shot down 1 Betty while loosing 5 Spitfires with 2 more having engine failures/run out of fuel??????
On July 6 21 Betty's & 25 Zero's attacked with 36 Spitfires rising up loosing 6 to combat & 2 more to engine failures/running out of fuel . The Japanese lost 2 Betty's plus 2 more which crash landed along with 2 Zero's lost.
On September 13 3 Dinah's escorted by 36 Zero's arrived 48 Spitfires rose up loosing 3 of thier number to 1 Zero.
On September 26 21 Lilly's & 21 Zero's attacked but the 2 forces didn't make contact.
I got this info from "Spitfire V Aces 1941-1945" by Alfred Price and highly recommend it. Now he does talk about problems in the 1st. battle with the cannons jamming but that was solved before the next battle. It seemed the Spitfire V hadn't encountered temperatures at altitude like they did over Darwin that caused the cannon problem .
Now the author makes a point that this was a remote corner of Australia with airfields ill equipped for sustained opertations with a tedious & long logistical trail. However it seems the Japanese had the same problem at Lautem,Timor. The Spitfire's engines also weren't "inhibited" before being shipped and when they arrived in Australia some of the piping had to be replaced. The author then goes onto say the wing was declared operational on Feburary 1,1943. Now a few Spitfire V's had CSU problems over the next few months but it seems it was restricted to just a few aircraft.
Now to be fair to the Spitfire V it seems the aircraft had to shoulder a huge load in 1941 till early '43 (and even long time thereafter) alot of times against superior aircraft .It seems that it is alot like the P-40 it just didn't get no respect though it performed workhorse duty. It's service in the defence of Malta is rivetting.

Now the total score is 31 Spitfire V's lost in air to air combat verses 5 A6M's and 1 Ki-43's.

[bridav58]

Brian:

I don't think that any good historian of airpower would sell the Japanese short. They certainly were as good as anybody in 1941 and stayed competitive thru 1943. I would say their biggest failure was the inability to train replacement pilots quick enough. Having read Saburo Sakai's account of flying the Zero and the rigors of his pilot training, one can understand why. Maybe 50 pilots a class were being produced pre-war. They were the best of the best to be sure. But they started dying once the war began and Japan never figured out how to replace them. Hence the kamikaze.


When I talk about the Zero verse the Spitfire V I'm not trying to say the Zero is necessarily superior to the Spitfire but that it was COMPETITIVE with the Spitfire when it came to actual combat. IMHO if the IJNAF/IJAAF came to Europe to fight they would still be competitive in thier A6M's/Ki-43's,at least in the 1941,early '42 period BUT they wouldn't last long not because they weren't any good but because they didn't have the pilot training program to keep up with demands on the scale of the ETO.

[bridav58]

This is from "Japanese Naval Aces & Fighter Units in World War Two" by Ikuhiko Hata & Yasuho Izawa. I know,I know I'm giving sources again but it's an extremely good read and I highly recommend it.
It seems the Zero's fighting over Darwin were from the 202nd. AirGroup an extremely expierenced outfit with extremely high proportion of veterans . It also seems that the Australians/RAF aircrews were also extremely expierenced and had a high number of veterans . The Japanese pilots in thier briefings stated the Australians would use energy tatics to be sure and that most swould stick with said tatics but a few's discipline would breakdown after the first pass & try to settle down into dogfighting.
So it would seem the IJN unit involved was a case of the best of the best of the best but Just MHO. Now that being said a person should admire the 202nd AG's performance for escorting bombers 450-500 miles meeting a more numerous expierenced outfit in it's own right which just happened to be flying an aircraft which was 40-60 MPH faster,climbed 400-600 FPM faster ,otdived it,& outrolled it while still being able to protect the bombers and rack a very good score whilst doing it.

[Kyle Holgate]

This is from "Japanese Naval Aces & Fighter Units in World War Two" by Ikuhiko Hata & Yasuho Izawa. I know,I know I'm giving sources again but it's an extremely good read and I highly recommend it.
It seems the Zero's fighting over Darwin were from the 202nd. AirGroup an extremely expierenced outfit with extremely high proportion of veterans . It also seems that the Australians/RAF aircrews were also extremely expierenced and had a high number of veterans . The Japanese pilots in thier briefings stated the Australians would use energy tatics to be sure and that most swould stick with said tatics but a few's discipline would breakdown after the first pass & try to settle down into dogfighting.
So it would seem the IJN unit involved was a case of the best of the best of the best but Just MHO. Now that being said a person should admire the 202nd AG's performance for escorting bombers 450-500 miles meeting a more numerous expierenced outfit in it's own right which just happened to be flying an aircraft which was 40-60 MPH faster,climbed 400-600 FPM faster ,otdived it,& outrolled it while still being able to protect the bombers and rack a very good score whilst doing it.

"Better" is sometimes very difficult to decide on. In theory the Spitfire V if flown smartly - meaning that the pilots knew the strengths and weaknesses of their aircraft and those of their opponents - should generally come out ahead. That's the real trick though, from what I've been able to glean, fighter pilots in virtually countries were trained in dogfighting. This is something we now know, you don't typically want to do against the Zero fighter. This wasn't known for a long time, and new tactics and teamwork both combined managed to allow IMO inferior aircraft to break even in combat or even prevail overal. I have little doubt that if Spitfire V pilots were both well traind AND knew more about the Zero -that they could do much better against the aircraft then they appear to have done historically.

Imagine for a moment the FW-190A model fighting the Zero in 1941. If the FW slowed down and actually tried to dogfight they'd probably have some problems. Clearly on most peoples best fighter list - in 1941 the FW-190 is near the top (or at it). This of course means that you have to fly it smartly too!

[old_pop2000]

This is from "Japanese Naval Aces & Fighter Units in World War Two" by Ikuhiko Hata & Yasuho Izawa. I know,I know I'm giving sources again but it's an extremely good read and I highly recommend it.
It seems the Zero's fighting over Darwin were from the 202nd. AirGroup an extremely expierenced outfit with extremely high proportion of veterans . It also seems that the Australians/RAF aircrews were also extremely expierenced and had a high number of veterans . The Japanese pilots in thier briefings stated the Australians would use energy tatics to be sure and that most swould stick with said tatics but a few's discipline would breakdown after the first pass & try to settle down into dogfighting.
So it would seem the IJN unit involved was a case of the best of the best of the best but Just MHO. Now that being said a person should admire the 202nd AG's performance for escorting bombers 450-500 miles meeting a more numerous expierenced outfit in it's own right which just happened to be flying an aircraft which was 40-60 MPH faster,climbed 400-600 FPM faster ,otdived it,& outrolled it while still being able to protect the bombers and rack a very good score whilst doing it.

Let me caution everyone about quoting figures on the action around Darwin between Spitfires and Zeros. Even the official Japanese history-Senshi Sosho- does not present adequate figures on the losses obtained in that fighting. The Australian figures were not "massaged" like the Japanese figures. There are two debates about Japanese aircraft and pilots losses- one says they were pretty accurate- the other says they were massaged. It is interesting how quickly the air groups were depleted in Rabaul and New Guinea. They claim few losses in their accounts, yet show a steady decline in operational numbers. Where did those aircraft and pilots disappear to? We know the maintenance issues, many planes were simply left due to lack of parts. but what about the pilots, did they lose that many to sickness?

So, why the disparity between the Spitfire V and the A6M2? Tactics tells the story. The Zero was more maneuverable and could climb at a steeper angle than the Spitfire. However, the spitfire, at a more shallow angle, could outclimb a Zero and out roll it. It appears to me, that the RAAF pilots had failed to learn the lessons from Guadalcanal and the US Navy when fighting the Zero. Hit and run, hit and climb and keep your speed above 250 Knots. Someone just did not listen.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Let me caution everyone about quoting figures on the action around Darwin between Spitfires and Zeros. Even the official Japanese history-Senshi Sosho- does not present adequate figures on the losses obtained in that fighting. The Australian figures were not "massaged" like the Japanese figures. There are two debates about Japanese aircraft and pilots losses- one says they were pretty accurate- the other says they were massaged. It is interesting how quickly the air groups were depleted in Rabaul and New Guinea. They claim few losses in their accounts, yet show a steady decline in operational numbers. Where did those aircraft and pilots disappear to? We know the maintenance issues, many planes were simply left due to lack of parts. but what about the pilots, did they lose that many to sickness?

So, why the disparity between the Spitfire V and the A6M2? Tactics tells the story. The Zero was more maneuverable and could climb at a steeper angle than the Spitfire. However, the spitfire, at a more shallow angle, could outclimb a Zero and out roll it. It appears to me, that the RAAF pilots had failed to learn the lessons from Guadalcanal and the US Navy when fighting the Zero. Hit and run, hit and climb and keep your speed above 250 Knots. Someone just did not listen.

Dennis:

I wonder in the case of the Spitfire if the pilots were just so enamored of its excellent performance, that they just couldn't conceive of being outmaneuvered by the Zero until it was too late. They were used to being the most agile bird in the sky until they bumped heads with the Zero. Intelligence reports should have made them aware of the Zero's capabilities, but until you come face to face with your enemy, it's just not the same. What it takes is some scared survivors to come back and spread the word. In the book "Thunderbolt", Robert Johnson mentions his earliest combat flights and the flat out failures of American pilots against the veteran Luftwaffe pilots. This despite constant warnings, briefings, lectures by the RAF on what they were up against. Once they had some experience, the US pilots started using their strengths and exploiting their enemies weaknesses. But at least in the Army Air Force, there was a steep learning curve since they didn't have the cadre of experienced pilots that Lundstrom writes about in his First Team books. Just something to think about.

[old_pop2000]

Interesting comparison of performance conducted on Spit V and Hap. Also, combat between Spit and Zero by RAAF Wing Commander at Darwin


http://www.acepilots.com/discussions/spitfire_zero.html

[bridav58]

Let me caution everyone about quoting figures on the action around Darwin between Spitfires and Zeros. Even the official Japanese history-Senshi Sosho- does not present adequate figures on the losses obtained in that fighting. The Australian figures were not "massaged" like the Japanese figures. There are two debates about Japanese aircraft and pilots losses- one says they were pretty accurate- the other says they were massaged. It is interesting how quickly the air groups were depleted in Rabaul and New Guinea. They claim few losses in their accounts, yet show a steady decline in operational numbers. Where did those aircraft and pilots disappear to? We know the maintenance issues, many planes were simply left due to lack of parts. but what about the pilots, did they lose that many to sickness?

So, why the disparity between the Spitfire V and the A6M2? Tactics tells the story. The Zero was more maneuverable and could climb at a steeper angle than the Spitfire. However, the spitfire, at a more shallow angle, could outclimb a Zero and out roll it. It appears to me, that the RAAF pilots had failed to learn the lessons from Guadalcanal and the US Navy when fighting the Zero. Hit and run, hit and climb and keep your speed above 250 Knots. Someone just did not listen.

Dennis,
In Answer to your one question of what happened in regards to the steady loss of operational aircraft in the aforementioned campaign it seems that the Solomon's/Rabaul/New Guinea was the main show and as losses mounted thier the IJAAF & IJNAF units in Timor were steadily stripped of thier aircraft. Now in looking at the size of the raids you have ...
3/2/43 30 a/c
3/7/43 45 a/c
5/2/43 44 a/c
5/9/43 9 a/c
5/28/43 16 a/c
6/28/43 36 a/c
6/30/43 50 a/c
7/6/43 46 a/c
913/43 39 a/c
9/26/43 42 a/c
The raid on 9/26/43 is the last major raid . Now it's intersting that the Spitfires certainly ended the Dinah recon a/c from doing thier job over Darwin which before they seemed to have immunity from interception and in the 9/13 raid you had 36 Zero's escorting 3 Dinah recon a/c .LOL!!!!!!
Also in looking at these figures you have large gaps in the dates of said raids. The 1st between 3/7 & 5/2 . The 2nd. between 5/28 & 6/28 and finally between 7/6 & 9/13 .

Alfred Price mentions first the claims made by each side at the time and over-claiming was real bad on both sides in that campaign . He then mentions what is considered to be confirmed kills. However the question could or does arise who confirmed these "confirmed kills"?The book by the 2 Japanese authors tends to lend credence to the fact that most Australians learned thier lesson real,real quick but some would loose thier discipline when using "energy tatics" ,they used those tatics but after the first pass thier discipline broke down and they got burnt. Let's face it even well into the war pilots of F6F's would try & dogfight Zero's at low speeds/low altitudes sometimes they ran into green Japanese pilots and won them,sometimes it was an old master and they got burnt. So evidently for whatever reason there seemed to be alot of slow learners on the Australian side.
Another question I'd like to answer what are the maintenance rates of Spitfire V's? Zero's? F4F's? P-40's? I'm wondering if maybe the Spitfire V maybe was more maintenance intensive then some of the other aircraft in the Pacific. Is there any info out there on this issue?

[Kyle Holgate]

Interesting comparison of performance conducted on Spit V and Hap. Also, combat between Spit and Zero by RAAF Wing Commander at Darwin


http://www.acepilots.com/discussions/spitfire_zero.html

Interesting discussion there about the Hien (Tony) too. It was a bit different than a Zero with a different engine though as they seem to suggest.

[Kyle Holgate]

Dennis,
In Answer to your one question of what happened in regards to the steady loss of operational aircraft in the aforementioned campaign it seems that the Solomon's/Rabaul/New Guinea was the main show and as losses mounted thier the IJAAF & IJNAF units in Timor were steadily stripped of thier aircraft. Now in looking at the size of the raids you have ...
3/2/43 30 a/c
3/7/43 45 a/c
5/2/43 44 a/c
5/9/43 9 a/c
5/28/43 16 a/c
6/28/43 36 a/c
6/30/43 50 a/c
7/6/43 46 a/c
913/43 39 a/c
9/26/43 42 a/c
The raid on 9/26/43 is the last major raid . Now it's intersting that the Spitfires certainly ended the Dinah recon a/c from doing thier job over Darwin which before they seemed to have immunity from interception and in the 9/13 raid you had 36 Zero's escorting 3 Dinah recon a/c .LOL!!!!!!
Also in looking at these figures you have large gaps in the dates of said raids. The 1st between 3/7 & 5/2 . The 2nd. between 5/28 & 6/28 and finally between 7/6 & 9/13 .

Alfred Price mentions first the claims made by each side at the time and over-claiming was real bad on both sides in that campaign . He then mentions what is considered to be confirmed kills. However the question could or does arise who confirmed these "confirmed kills"?The book by the 2 Japanese authors tends to lend credence to the fact that most Australians learned thier lesson real,real quick but some would loose thier discipline when using "energy tatics" ,they used those tatics but after the first pass thier discipline broke down and they got burnt. Let's face it even well into the war pilots of F6F's would try & dogfight Zero's at low speeds/low altitudes sometimes they ran into green Japanese pilots and won them,sometimes it was an old master and they got burnt.

Figure you're a fairly good F6F pilot and are used to nothing but green enemy pilots that are pretty easy to shoot down. You can imagine what it would be like to encounter an expert - even in an old Zero. In the hands of a expert pilot a Zero is never going to be an easy aircraft to down and could always be dangerous.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis,
In Answer to your one question of what happened in regards to the steady loss of operational aircraft in the aforementioned campaign it seems that the Solomon's/Rabaul/New Guinea was the main show and as losses mounted thier the IJAAF & IJNAF units in Timor were steadily stripped of thier aircraft. Now in looking at the size of the raids you have ...
3/2/43 30 a/c
3/7/43 45 a/c
5/2/43 44 a/c
5/9/43 9 a/c
5/28/43 16 a/c
6/28/43 36 a/c
6/30/43 50 a/c
7/6/43 46 a/c
913/43 39 a/c
9/26/43 42 a/c
The raid on 9/26/43 is the last major raid . Now it's intersting that the Spitfires certainly ended the Dinah recon a/c from doing thier job over Darwin which before they seemed to have immunity from interception and in the 9/13 raid you had 36 Zero's escorting 3 Dinah recon a/c .LOL!!!!!!
Also in looking at these figures you have large gaps in the dates of said raids. The 1st between 3/7 & 5/2 . The 2nd. between 5/28 & 6/28 and finally between 7/6 & 9/13 .

Alfred Price mentions first the claims made by each side at the time and over-claiming was real bad on both sides in that campaign . He then mentions what is considered to be confirmed kills. However the question could or does arise who confirmed these "confirmed kills"?The book by the 2 Japanese authors tends to lend credence to the fact that most Australians learned thier lesson real,real quick but some would loose thier discipline when using "energy tatics" ,they used those tatics but after the first pass thier discipline broke down and they got burnt. Let's face it even well into the war pilots of F6F's would try & dogfight Zero's at low speeds/low altitudes sometimes they ran into green Japanese pilots and won them,sometimes it was an old master and they got burnt. So evidently for whatever reason there seemed to be alot of slow learners on the Australian side.
Another question I'd like to answer what are the maintenance rates of Spitfire V's? Zero's? F4F's? P-40's? I'm wondering if maybe the Spitfire V maybe was more maintenance intensive then some of the other aircraft in the Pacific. Is there any info out there on this issue?

Your data doesn't really tell us much about the conduct of operations. We know that a Staff officer of the 23rd Air Flotilla on Timor, noted that his best units were being sent to Rabaul and battle-fatigued pilots were returning. We also know the Japanese had no system of rotation and Tokyo averaged fifty replacement aircraft per month. Eighty percent of those were fighters, from the time period of Spring 1942 until early 1944. If we accept that figure, then the Japanese put 50 X 12 or 600 replacement aircraft in the year 1943. Based on the eighty percent accepted figure of replacement fighters, the Japanese placed 480 fighter(presumably Zero's) at Rabaul. We would assume that many went to Lae and the other field on New Guinea.

The SBS stated that the Japanese air forces, in the early months of the war, claimed losses in aircraft of 500 per month. This figure jumped to 2400 per month by 1944. During the first 9 months of the Pacific War, the Japanese increased their numbers of aircraft from 2625 tactical aircraft at the beginning to 5000 tactical aircraft, not including Kamikaze, by the end of the war. The ratio of aircraft losses due to operational and non-operational causes was 40% to 60%.

What does this tell us? We know that the Japanese were sending about 40 Zero's per month for the entire year of 1943. Your figures tell us that the ten raids conducted between March,1943 and September,1943 averaged 35.7 aircraft of all types. Where were most of the aircraft being used, where were the losses, because by January 1943, Guadalcanal fighting was over.

Lots of stats, and I have the complete tables for the entire AAF in WWII including the number of .30 cal and .50 cal rounds expended in each theatre, by month and aircraft.

But what do these losses tell us about the theatre. It says that the Japanese losses were mostly due to ferry losses, poor airfields and inadequate maintenance and supplies. If I am receiving 50 aircraft per month and I can average only 35 in 10 raids on Darwin, but show operational losses as being low, then where are all the aircraft being expended. Most are being used to defend Rabaul and surrounding area. Fifteenth AF records show the increased air raids by newly arrived B-25/B-24's etc. that are consistently intercepted by Japanese fighters. By mid-1943, the JAAF has added the defense and are being encountered by the bombers. The bombers are now being escorted by P-38's.

Now, after the defeat at Guadalcanal, the Japanese air forces on Rabaul increased. Throughout most of 1943, they averaged 150-200 aircraft, joined between January and July 1943 by 75-100 IJAAF aircraft. The IJN maintained a total of 50-100 aircraft at Lae and Gasmata. Total, in the area including Rabaul and New Guinea was, at the most, close to 400 aircraft including bombers, reconnaissance aircraft and fighters. It wasn't until 1944, that the Fifth AF began to receive considerable reinforcements in the form of newer and better aircraft and now began to outnumber the Japanese. It is in the early months of that time period that the bottom falls out of the Japanese defenses at Rabaul.

But, overall, the key is maintenance of operational aircraft. This was a war of attrition and having a base like Australia with a safe supply line from the US was the key to the attrition of Japanese air strength in the Southwest Pacific. Whether the Spits could handle the Zero wasn't really the key, it was the air offensive against Rabaul by the Fifth AF to grind up the Japanese air strength while the land forces were moving on the bases at Lae. Couple this with submarine offensive that was starting to make its presence felt, and 1943 was the make or break year for the IJN and the IJNAF.

[Warship NWS]

Figure you're a fairly good F6F pilot and are used to nothing but green enemy pilots that are pretty easy to shoot down. You can imagine what it would be like to encounter an expert - even in an old Zero. In the hands of a expert pilot a Zero is never going to be an easy aircraft to down and could always be dangerous.

Just a quick comment here, what makes the Zero so special? Put an expert pilot in almost any contemporary fighter and it can be dangerous. The tougher question to be asked is if the majority of your pilots are novice to average pilots which aircraft will offer the most chances of survival? Once those "experts" are gone and the bulk of your pilots are average pilots then what? Historicaly, either due to pilot rotation or attrition.. that is what happened. Concentrating opinions on only the expert pilots, which on average held only 1-5% of the typical pilot ranks during war, to me gives a very false impression of aerial warfare. To become an expert pilot first you need a plane that will help you live that long or only take on enemies that have a hard time killing you.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

Actually, here is another thought.. what does it say of an aircraft if you do have expert pilots and your only breaking even against novice to average pilots flying a contemporary aircraft? F4Fs with novice to average pilots broke even against the best the Japanese had to offer in their Zeros.. how do we read between the lines in these encounters? Just one example.. there are others though.

[Kyle Holgate]

Just a quick comment here, what makes the Zero so special? Put an expert pilot in almost any contemporary fighter and it can be dangerous. The tougher question to be asked is if the majority of your pilots are novice to average pilots which aircraft will offer the most chances of survival? Once those "experts" are gone and the bulk of your pilots are average pilots then what? Historicaly, either due to pilot rotation or attrition.. that is what happened. Concentrating opinions on only the expert pilots, which on average held only 1-5% of the typical pilot ranks during war, to me gives a very false impression of aerial warfare. To become an expert pilot first you need a plane that will help you live that long or only take on enemies that have a hard time killing you.

Thanks.

Who said the Zero was "so special"? Not I, I thought we'd settled that debate. I did not say that other planes with experts would not be dangerous and in fact I did not say more than what I said. I am referring to one instance that I am aware of where several hellcats bounced a lone zero and promptly got a few of their numbers shot down and the rest chased off. It could as easily have been a lone F4F bounced by FW-190D's I suppose with similar results, but it was not. It was a Zero. Nothing is "so special" about the Zero, everything was about the pilot in this particular instance. That's the sum total of what I am saying and implying.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just a quick comment here, what makes the Zero so special? Put an expert pilot in almost any contemporary fighter and it can be dangerous. The tougher question to be asked is if the majority of your pilots are novice to average pilots which aircraft will offer the most chances of survival? Once those "experts" are gone and the bulk of your pilots are average pilots then what? Historicaly, either due to pilot rotation or attrition.. that is what happened. Concentrating opinions on only the expert pilots, which on average held only 1-5% of the typical pilot ranks during war, to me gives a very false impression of aerial warfare. To become an expert pilot first you need a plane that will help you live that long or only take on enemies that have a hard time killing you.

Thanks.

Chris:

I think Kyle's point is made in Saburo Sakai's memoir and Martin Caidin's book on the Zero. A pilot with only sight in one eye gets jumped over Iwo Jima by 14 Hellcats. He and another veteran pilot manage to splash at least six of the planes and survive. And they are flying Zeros. Mainly because they are facing fairly new USN pilots. Sakai said had the US pilots had any discipline, he would have been dead. He knew the Hellcat was the better plane compared to his fighter. The flip side is the IJN had the altitude bounce and barely scored and in the end lost over half their fighters.

[old_pop2000]

Chris:

I think Kyle's point is made in Saburo Sakai's memoir and Martin Caidin's book on the Zero. A pilot with only sight in one eye gets jumped over Iwo Jima by 14 Hellcats. He and another veteran pilot manage to splash at least six of the planes and survive. And they are flying Zeros. Mainly because they are facing fairly new USN pilots. Sakai said had the US pilots had any discipline, he would have been dead. He knew the Hellcat was the better plane compared to his fighter. The flip side is the IJN had the altitude bounce and barely scored and in the end lost over half their fighters.

Sakai was flying an A6M5 Model 52 during that engagement. This was the version that was built in the greatest quantity. It had a larger and more powerful engine, 13mm MG's instead of the 7.7mm, self-sealing tanks, pilot and aircraft armor, could dive at a speed of up to 400 mph, had an armored windscreen, better radios, was almost the equal of the Hellcat. Sakai had over 9 years of combat experience before this combat, and was not using the belly tank.

But let's not forget, that even this great ace made a mistake, when he attacked, what he thought was a Grumman F4F and the plane turned out to be A Grumman TBF Avenger. The twin .50 cal shattered his unarmored windscreen in front of him and he lost the sight in one eye. Think he might have survived in an A6M5.

If Sakai had met a group of Hellcats led by Thach, Valencia, Bauer, McCampbell, John Smith, Marion Carl etc, do you think he would have survived that encounter? I have some serious doubts.

Yes, the Hellcats outnumbered Sakai. They probably got into each others way. Sounds like poor leadership from the division leader. However, they were still good enough to shoot down half of the defending aircraft.

[bridav58]

Actually, here is another thought.. what does it say of an aircraft if you do have expert pilots and your only breaking even against novice to average pilots flying a contemporary aircraft? F4Fs with novice to average pilots broke even against the best the Japanese had to offer in their Zeros.. how do we read between the lines in these encounters? Just one example.. there are others though.

those novice to average pilots flying F4F-4's probably had what??? 400 hours training before being committed to combat.

[Warship NWS]

Hi guys, my reply to Kyle was just a simple reminder that we have to look at the big picture -- the bulk of what pilots were available for all countries during wartime. Even during the BoB the British had mostly inexperienced pilots and many who spoke entirely different languages - yet they held the line against far more experienced German pilots that just fought against several different countries starting in 1939. If we microscope the "best" pilots we miss out on why the novice to average pilots could hold their own based on what aircraft they were flying. This is a CRITICAL consideration in aerial warfare. Some of the greatest aircraft of WW1, as an example, were the planes that almost ANY pilot could fly and be able to kill the enemy with with as much of a chance to survive long enough to become as great a pilot as possible.

So lets change gears here and stop thinking at all about the "great pilots" and start thinking about the planes that allowed pilots the best chance for novice to average pilots to gain that critical combat experience during war against competant opponents flying reasonably good aircraft. Is anyone up for this new challenge?

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

To Ed,



Ed:

Confidence is the best weapon a pilot has. You have to believe you're the best. As Adolph Galland said "Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart will bring success to a fighter pilot, no matter how sophisticated his plane".


I saw that reply on another thread.. and it is a very good point, now lets take it a bit further.. what aircraft gave the novice to average pilots the greatest chances to build up their confidence during war against dangerous opponents? This is a question for everyone to consider.

[old_pop2000]

To Ed,


I saw that reply on another thread.. and it is a very good point, now lets take it a bit further.. what aircraft gave the novice to average pilots the greatest chances to build up their confidence during war against dangerous opponents? This is a question for everyone to consider.

The only method of instilling confidence in a new pilot was training. Our advanced squadron training groups were designed take the novice pilot, put him in the fighter, and do mock air battles, carrier landings day after day; presenting him with new tactical problems to solve. This would extend to air to ground, the expediture of ordnance. after that, he moved to a reserve air wing. In this group, he awaited deployment as a replacement. During this episode, he flew with other new pilots as a group and gained more experience in air to air combat. Ground schools were conducted on the details of the new aircraft and how best to fly it. Lessons learned were covered about new enemy planes and their tactics. Every nasty habit that the aircraft has, must be explored and explained. How to correct for those habits is emphasised. All of these elements must be automatic. He must know immediately the signs of the onset of a problem in flight. If the left wing drops, is a spin coming. How do I recover from that spin.

A pilot needs to get to know the mechanical workings of his plane. Blower settings, trim settings, manifold pressures at altitude, fuel mixture settings for best cruise. Does it swing on the ground and how much? Are the controls mushy at low flight speeds. Does it drop a wing just before a stall? What are the best engine settings for a steady economical climb, range? What is the best way to land in the water? How long do I have to get out? where is the life raft?

The pilot needs to read and understand in great detail, the Natops manual for the aircraft. He needs to get into the habit of keeping notes on problems in flight, maneuvers that did not work well.

As to the aircraft, any aircraft-save the F4U- that landed on a carrier deck, was usually docile at low or near stall speeds. They did not have any bad habits like dropping wings, and they trimmed easily for hands off flight. Control heaviness in the early aircraft was later overcome by hydraulic assist and spring tabs. Aircraft handling on the ground was always an issue and was charted in flight tests. Any tendancies were identified. In climb conditions, stability tests will be charted and identified for the pilots and that information placed in the Natops manual.

Examples:

P-47 -"The aircraft is pleasant and easy to fly. New pilots should have no trouble being checked out in it. "

"It is dangerous to attempt to take-off with mixture control in full rich position"

"The view over the nose is not great enough to allow desired deflection shooting"

P-51B

"There was no noticeable change in handling characteristics of any of the airplanes tested when operating at the higher powers which were obtainable with the 44-1 fuel. Only a slight increase in vibration was noted at the higher powers. "

These are just some of the items that are identified and will be of value to the new pilot.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Sakai was flying an A6M5 Model 52 during that engagement. This was the version that was built in the greatest quantity. It had a larger and more powerful engine, 13mm MG's instead of the 7.7mm, self-sealing tanks, pilot and aircraft armor, could dive at a speed of up to 400 mph, had an armored windscreen, better radios, was almost the equal of the Hellcat. Sakai had over 9 years of combat experience before this combat, and was not using the belly tank.

But let's not forget, that even this great ace made a mistake, when he attacked, what he thought was a Grumman F4F and the plane turned out to be A Grumman TBF Avenger. The twin .50 cal shattered his unarmored windscreen in front of him and he lost the sight in one eye. Think he might have survived in an A6M5.

If Sakai had met a group of Hellcats led by Thach, Valencia, Bauer, McCampbell, John Smith, Marion Carl etc, do you think he would have survived that encounter? I have some serious doubts.

Yes, the Hellcats outnumbered Sakai. They probably got into each others way. Sounds like poor leadership from the division leader. However, they were still good enough to shoot down half of the defending aircraft.

Dennis:

I agree, that's pretty much the way Sakai relates the battle, especially the clumsy attacks by the Hellcats.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The only method of instilling confidence in a new pilot was training. Our advanced squadron training groups were designed take the novice pilot, put him in the fighter, and do mock air battles, carrier landings day after day; presenting him with new tactical problems to solve. This would extend to air to ground, the expediture of ordnance. after that, he moved to a reserve air wing. In this group, he awaited deployment as a replacement. During this episode, he flew with other new pilots as a group and gained more experience in air to air combat. Ground schools were conducted on the details of the new aircraft and how best to fly it. Lessons learned were covered about new enemy planes and their tactics. Every nasty habit that the aircraft has, must be explored and explained. How to correct for those habits is emphasised. All of these elements must be automatic. He must know immediately the signs of the onset of a problem in flight. If the left wing drops, is a spin coming. How do I recover from that spin.

A pilot needs to get to know the mechanical workings of his plane. Blower settings, trim settings, manifold pressures at altitude, fuel mixture settings for best cruise. Does it swing on the ground and how much? Are the controls mushy at low flight speeds. Does it drop a wing just before a stall? What are the best engine settings for a steady economical climb, range? What is the best way to land in the water? How long do I have to get out? where is the life raft?

The pilot needs to read and understand in great detail, the Natops manual for the aircraft. He needs to get into the habit of keeping notes on problems in flight, maneuvers that did not work well.

As to the aircraft, any aircraft-save the F4U- that landed on a carrier deck, was usually docile at low or near stall speeds. They did not have any bad habits like dropping wings, and they trimmed easily for hands off flight. Control heaviness in the early aircraft was later overcome by hydraulic assist and spring tabs. Aircraft handling on the ground was always an issue and was charted in flight tests. Any tendancies were identified. In climb conditions, stability tests will be charted and identified for the pilots and that information placed in the Natops manual.

Examples:

P-47 -"The aircraft is pleasant and easy to fly. New pilots should have no trouble being checked out in it. "

"It is dangerous to attempt to take-off with mixture control in full rich position"

"The view over the nose is not great enough to allow desired deflection shooting"

P-51B

"There was no noticeable change in handling characteristics of any of the airplanes tested when operating at the higher powers which were obtainable with the 44-1 fuel. Only a slight increase in vibration was noted at the higher powers. "

These are just some of the items that are identified and will be of value to the new pilot.

Dennis:

When you think of the body of knowledge that a military pilot versus a civilian pilot has to know and master, you realize why most of the great pilots were very intelligent persons. Regarding fuel mixtures, I remember an account of a Mustang pilot who took a radiator hit near the Frnech coast and was thinking it was time to hit the silk as the engine began to overheat. Then he remembered that he could manual inject fuel to keep the heat down. He did this all the way back to England and later remarked that he thought his hand was going to fall off! Can't recall who the pilot was.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

When you think of the body of knowledge that a military pilot versus a civilian pilot has to know and master, you realize why most of the great pilots were very intelligent persons. Regarding fuel mixtures, I remember an account of a Mustang pilot who took a radiator hit near the Frnech coast and was thinking it was time to hit the silk as the engine began to overheat. Then he remembered that he could manual inject fuel to keep the heat down. He did this all the way back to England and later remarked that he thought his hand was going to fall off! Can't recall who the pilot was.

The P-51 pilot was using the priming pump. Startup procedure called for the fuel shutoff on and the fuel booster pump to normal with 8-12 lbs of pressure. For a cold engine, 3 to 4 shots to start, 1 to 2 when warm. This was on early versions, later versions had a switch for a selenoid priming system. The manual pump was on the instrument panel, lower right, next to the oxygen pressure gauge and above the right leg. It was a T handle that had to be locked in place after priming.

[old_pop2000]

Seems impossible, well it isn't. Pilot John Tilley reportedly out turned a Zero at 90 mph and 1000ft by deploying the L model's maneuvering flaps. Couple this with the aileron boost system, and the deployable compressibility slats which would pop the nose up 20 degrees, instantaneously and the P-38L might have been one of most dangerous aircraft in the air.

However, one thing to remember is the P-51 actually got more maneuverable, the higher the speeds. That would be caused by the laminar flow wing.

[Kyle Holgate]

One point made about fighting the zero made in - I forget which if dozens of books I read and go over weekly (if not daily sometimes!) - its turning circle was very tight, but some aircraft could follow it for the first - say 100 degrees or so. That may be all ya need if you can get a few 50 caliber rounds into it before it turns away.
Hmm. Bet it was duels in the sky... too many books (well Ok, no such thing - too faulty a memory is more accurate).
Anyone that hasn't seen the book - the author dicusses his impressions of various planes he's flown (and other's views of planes he hasn't flown) - then covers a "VS" - 109G vs F4F for example or FW-190A-4 vs F6F-3, etc. To be sure, his versus are 1:1 battles which for the most part went away in WW1, but taken for what it's worth it's a good primer on air to air combat from a real test pilot and he talks about things us non-pilots may not think about. Of course planes flew mostly in units and as such there are cases where the individual aircraft may be superior but the other guy's tactics and unit cohesion and other factors give them the edge.

[old_pop2000]

One point made about fighting the zero made in - I forget which if dozens of books I read and go over weekly (if not daily sometimes!) - its turning circle was very tight, but some aircraft could follow it for the first - say 100 degrees or so. That may be all ya need if you can get a few 50 caliber rounds into it before it turns away.
Hmm. Bet it was duels in the sky... too many books (well Ok, no such thing - too faulty a memory is more accurate).
Anyone that hasn't seen the book - the author dicusses his impressions of various planes he's flown (and other's views of planes he hasn't flown) - then covers a "VS" - 109G vs F4F for example or FW-190A-4 vs F6F-3, etc. To be sure, his versus are 1:1 battles which for the most part went away in WW1, but taken for what it's worth it's a good primer on air to air combat from a real test pilot and he talks about things us non-pilots may not think about. Of course planes flew mostly in units and as such there are cases where the individual aircraft may be superior but the other guy's tactics and unit cohesion and other factors give them the edge.
Kyle:
There are two turning rates: Instantaneous and sustained. The Zero had a very good sustained turning rate due to its low wing loading(takeoff weight divided by wing area). However, heavy aircraft, due to their momentum, usually have excellent instantaneous turn rates but, due to the weight, bleed speed off quickly. One good point for many US aircraft was that they had that good instantaneous turn rate and could stay on the tail of a Zero long enough to put the six .50 calibers on it. One good maneuver if an aircraft is out turning you is to barrel roll to the out side, bleed speed and cut across the circle. Favorite tactic of F4 pilots against the lighter Migs. Heavier aircraft fight in the vertical, light aircraft fight in the horizontal.

Superior tactics and team work will always win in almost any situation. This is why Sakai always preached team tactics and was remorseful, that the Japanese pilots did not fight as a team.

[old_pop2000]

Some engineering definitions:

"Instantaneous refers to the aircraft's maximum turn capabilities at any given moment under the existing flight conditions of speed and altitude." Robert Shaw in Fighter Combat

However, keep in mind that almost immediately, when the turn is initiated, the given flight conditions change.

"Sustained turns are those which the aircraft is able to maintain for an extended length of time under a given set of flight conditions" Robert Shaw in Fighter Combat.

"Tight turns were more a defensive than an offensive tactic and did not win air battles" - Allied Ace of Aces - J. E. Johnson,

Some factors affecting turn rate -

Lift generation - lift of a wing at a given altitude is proportional to the square of its speed

Altitude - air density decreases with altitude, consequently, lift decreases also.

Load capacity of the structure - As the speed increases, so does load due to centrifugal force, this increases the external loads on the wings. The Zero had thin wing panels of .02 inches. Too much load due to high speeds can distort wing structures, if distortion is greater than the maximum that the structure can deform, it will break.

Hope that really confuses you, because there is a whole lot more to turning than one can believe. Sure wish I had paid attention in math class.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The P-51 pilot was using the priming pump. Startup procedure called for the fuel shutoff on and the fuel booster pump to normal with 8-12 lbs of pressure. For a cold engine, 3 to 4 shots to start, 1 to 2 when warm. This was on early versions, later versions had a switch for a selenoid priming system. The manual pump was on the instrument panel, lower right, next to the oxygen pressure gauge and above the right leg. It was a T handle that had to be locked in place after priming.

Dennis:

Figured you would know that LOL! Now let's see who can ID the pilot in question? We take Easter off and start fresh on Monday. You live for this stuff. Happy Easter my friend.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Some engineering definitions:

"Instantaneous refers to the aircraft's maximum turn capabilities at any given moment under the existing flight conditions of speed and altitude." Robert Shaw in Fighter Combat

However, keep in mind that almost immediately, when the turn is initiated, the given flight conditions change.

"Sustained turns are those which the aircraft is able to maintain for an extended length of time under a given set of flight conditions" Robert Shaw in Fighter Combat.

"Tight turns were more a defensive than an offensive tactic and did not win air battles" - Allied Ace of Aces - J. E. Johnson,

Some factors affecting turn rate -

Lift generation - lift of a wing at a given altitude is proportional to the square of its speed

Altitude - air density decreases with altitude, consequently, lift decreases also.

Load capacity of the structure - As the speed increases, so does load due to centrifugal force, this increases the external loads on the wings. The Zero had thin wing panels of .02 inches. Too much load due to high speeds can distort wing structures, if distortion is greater than the maximum that the structure can deform, it will break.

Hope that really confuses you, because there is a whole lot more to turning than one can believe. Sure wish I had paid attention in math class.


Dennis:

Well I've learned a lot more in the last two posts than I have in 30+ years of reading LOL! Thanks. Go eat some spring lamb with a good Chianti.

[bridav58]

There's also a line of thought,about which is more important..
Turning? insatntaneous turning? or roll rate?
sustained climb rate? or zoom climb rate?
I've read about accounts where P-47's were at the same altitude as say a 109 when the 109 started climging the P-47 would dive down ,then zoom climb back up & beat the 109 to the same altitude however It looks a little far fetched.
I've also read accounts where :P-51's got onto turns with more manuverable aircraft and were able to stay into a turn with them by keeping thier speed up by just putting thier noses down a hair ,any thoughts?

[bridav58]

Seems impossible, well it isn't. Pilot John Tilley reportedly out turned a Zero at 90 mph and 1000ft by deploying the L model's maneuvering flaps. Couple this with the aileron boost system, and the deployable compressibility slats which would pop the nose up 20 degrees, instantaneously and the P-38L might have been one of most dangerous aircraft in the air.

However, one thing to remember is the P-51 actually got more maneuverable, the higher the speeds. That would be caused by the laminar flow wing.

350 MPH the P-38L could outroll anything and when using it's flaps could outturn anything at low speeds . The problem ,as I understand it is the P-38L's roll rate was only average at which it's turn rate was great while it's turning ability was only average at best where it's roll rate was great.
Any opinions? Any other info?

[old_pop2000]

I thought I would relate another example of how the lack of radios, disrupted a Japanese air attack plan.

On the 27 September, after receiving reinforcments in the form of twin engined bombers and at least 40 A6M2's, the Japanese initiated a new escort plan with their first raid in two weeks. Twelve Zeke's would fly fifteen minutes ahead of the main force, to tackle the rising defending fighters. This was similiar to the German Me-109 missions over Britain in the latter half of the BOB. The escorting fighter would be in two positions. Twelve in close escort behind and a little above the bombers, with twelve sitting up high around 20,000 to 22,000 ft.

Radar Two, the SCR-270-B now installed south of Fighter One, was now the fighter direction center. Henderson, now termed the bomber field's radar was considered Radar One, used for AAA with four 90mm AA guns for the three fields; Fighter One, Fighter Two and Henderson.

The incoming force was detected about 1330 hours. 34 F4F's were scrambled from two Marine fighter squadrons and VF-5 from the sunken Wasp.

The high squadron of Zekes did not see the climbing Grummans and stayed for fifteen minutes before leaving to return to base. The bombers detected the climbing Grummans, however, due to lack of radios in the Zeke's could not notify the close escort squadron sitting above them, about the threat looming below. Again, lack of radios, prevents good battle management. One flight of twelve fighters leaves without engaging. One flight of twelve is flying along, not realizing the threat looming below. A threat that they had altitude and speed advantage on, and could have performed a perfect ambush on.

The end result was that the strongest escort group yet fielded, of the 26 fighters in close escort to the bombers, only 17 actually fought. Four land based bombers were lost, although all recorded damage. One Zero was lost, one damaged. The Japanese claimed five Grumman's shot down, but no claims were recorded or registered by the Japanese pilots. Whole Chutai's of fighters never saw their opponent or received any indication the attack was in progress. The mission was a failure, and Guadalcanal's air fields and associated facilities were unscathed. All this due to the lack of communications with the fighters. Again, battle management was the failure.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Figured you would know that LOL! Now let's see who can ID the pilot in question? We take Easter off and start fresh on Monday. You live for this stuff. Happy Easter my friend.
Happy Easter, my friend. We will resume here tomorrow. Same Bat time, same Bat channel.

[old_pop2000]

Just some additional thoughts concerning turning ability and air combat maneuvering.

In a situation where you, as a Grumman F4F pilot, dive and get on the tail of Zeke, he is most likely, if he has any smarts, going to turn, and attempt to force you to turn with him.

If he turns to the left, for example, your initial entry speed into the turn is generating good lift and allows you to maintain a track on the target. However, very quickly, you will start bleeding the speed and with that, most of the lift. The lift vector is now pointing toward the inside of your turn and is now weakening. Within a few seconds, you will now start to move out to the right as your turning circle increases and he turns harder. In a few more seconds, he sees you almost even or a little ahead and to the right. This now gives him the chance to scissor you by turning back to the right, harder and voila!, he now has reversed the situation. He has you moving from right to left , in hard turn to the left loosing speed, and he is now turning right with you moving into his sights.

Now, in that sequence, the Grumman pilot has to have discipline. He should have realized that after a few seconds, he will not be able to continue the turn and must make a decision; Do I rollout of the turn, split S and dive away, gain speed and then pull up and find another target or do I try to roll level, pull up and during pull up, roll to the right in a high Yo-yo and then pull hard left . If that works, the Grumman should be pointing at the area, where the Zeke is located and is still on his tail. However, this is a Grumman F4F. It doesn't climb well at low speeds. You have lost speed in the turn and have little momentum for such a maneuver.

Remember, this decision process takes place in a split second. You cannot perform this thought process during the action, you must have that knowledge immediately and make the decision immediately. You have to think ahead, "If I dive on him, miss him with my first shots, what is he going to do, if I drop in behind him; dive or turn. What do I do? Should I not slip in behind him and just keep diving or do I simply climb up and gain altitude, looking for a new target". Air to air combat practice is the key and discipline. The discipline to keep going, gain altitude and look for a new target. Experience is the key. New pilots will not have the discipline, they will focus on the aircraft in front and loose the situational awareness and become too focused on the Zeke in front of them. That usually gets them killed, unless they are lucky.

Now this sequence and resulting decisions were based on combat between an F4F-4 and A6M2. What about the same situation between an F6F-3 and A6M5 Model 52? How about an F4U? P-51D, P-47D in the Pacific.

Well, the A6M5 had pilot armor, bigger engines and was heavier. The F6F had a far better climb rate than the F4F and better instantaneous turning capability. If the A6M5 decided to turn, the Hellcat might use the high yo-you to the left and cut inside. He has a better climb rate and more power, he can probably perform that maneuver and it will keep in lead pursuit of the Zeke. A P-51 can perform that maneuver easily, so in that case, maybe the Model 52 pilot has made a bad choice. Read Sakai's action and his maneuvers, the Japanese continued to use turning ability to stay in the fight, yet, unless you were an ace pilot with years of combat experience, your flight skills in handling the plane might not be adequate to perform these maneuvers in a timely and well coordinated manner. Also, your situational awareness is no sharp enough or trained well enough to anticipate your opponents maneuvers. You have not seen every maneuver an F6F Hellcat pilot might make, and surprise could kill you. The Japanese were notorious for using aerobatic, well coordinated and equally predicable maneuvers. They did not use skids, or any other jink maneuvers. Sakai did and did them quickly.


Note: I've researched the Sakai battle over Iwo Jima against the Hellcats. He was flying an A6M2. I was mistaken about that. His standard maneuver was the left roll, which the Zero could do very quickly. He also used the skid. In fact, his sequence was a right skid, followed by a left roll to shake the Hellcats. He also realized, quickly, the Hellcat could stay with him for most of the left turn. But, his survival was due to his experience in making the decision to skid, left roll or any maneuver, quickly. He even comments that had he made those decisions just a split second slower, he would have been killed. Again, his experience and training had taught how to fight without having to think about it. The Hellcats were flying poorly but were not flying as a team, allowing the Japanese to split them up and defeat them individually. The Zero's also had the advantage of altitude and speed as they had detected the incoming Hellcats. This is a similiar situation as was recorded at Guadalcanal, except now the situation is reversed.

[old_pop2000]

Just a note, on 28 September, 1942, the Japanese launched another all out attack by air from Base air Rabaul on Guadalcanal. This time the 27 Zero's that were supposed to move ahead of the bombers, were late and not leading the formation. The close escort leader, had engine problems and had to return to Rabaul. However, lack of radios, again proved the undoing of the Japanese plan because he could not radio the bomber leader to inform him. According to Lundestrom, this escort leader was sorely missed. 20 plus bombers, ended up being escorted by six A6M2 fighters. They were intercepted by 30 Grumman's.


Again, two days in a row, poor coordination and lack of radios caused problems in a Japanese plan.

One of the leaders of the Japanese air groups want to circulate a paper emphasizing teamwork and cooperation, but the Admiral in charge of the air complement, refused to allow it. Again, the Japanese flight leaders want to develop teamwork, the high echelons refused to sanction it. They believe in personal initiative.

[Kyle Holgate]

Just a note, on 28 September, 1942, the Japanese launched another all out attack by air from Base air Rabaul on Guadalcanal. This time the 27 Zero's that were supposed to move ahead of the bombers, were late and not leading the formation. The close escort leader, had engine problems and had to return to Rabaul. However, lack of radios, again proved the undoing of the Japanese plan because he could not radio the bomber leader to inform him. According to Lundestrom, this escort leader was sorely missed. 20 plus bombers, ended up being escorted by six A6M2 fighters. They were intercepted by 30 Grumman's.


Again, two days in a row, poor coordination and lack of radios caused problems in a Japanese plan.

One of the leaders of the Japanese air groups want to circulate a paper emphasizing teamwork and cooperation, but the Admiral in charge of the air complement, refused to allow it. Again, the Japanese flight leaders want to develop teamwork, the high echelons refused to sanction it. They believe in personal initiative.

I can quite understand why the US had problems understanding the Japanese. I still don't. They were not stupid by any means, and yet even when answers to problems were obvious they stuck rigidly within doctrine. Reminds me of something a congressman who's name I forget once said: The facts, though interesting - are irrelivant.
Even without good radios tactical changes could be made to gain ground against the Americans. Even with radio problems perhaps they could have one radio working - bomber to flight leader for example, and allow for some limited comm's. They should have known that the US wasn't going to spend the entire war fighting wtih wildcats, P-40's and P-39's - and as such had something better than the Zero to migrate to in 1942. Why couldn't they see the flaw in their flight training methods, and react? It sure SEEMS like they were really, really dumb sometimes - and not in the way Hiter was (stark raving mad).

[old_pop2000]

I can quite understand why the US had problems understanding the Japanese. I still don't. They were not stupid by any means, and yet even when answers to problems were obvious they stuck rigidly within doctrine. Reminds me of something a congressman who's name I forget once said: The facts, though interesting - are irrelivant.
Even without good radios tactical changes could be made to gain ground against the Americans. Even with radio problems perhaps they could have one radio working - bomber to flight leader for example, and allow for some limited comm's. They should have known that the US wasn't going to spend the entire war fighting wtih wildcats, P-40's and P-39's - and as such had something better than the Zero to migrate to in 1942. Why couldn't they see the flaw in their flight training methods, and react? It sure SEEMS like they were really, really dumb sometimes - and not in the way Hiter was (stark raving mad).
It is interesting to note, that the Base air group at Rabaul had received new A6M2's with the extended range. There would have been no reason not to leave the radio's in the planes or at least, for the formation leaders.

As to their problem with teamwork and training, some low level leaders apparently saw the deficiencies, but getting the remedies past the upper level field commanders was almost impossible. It would appear that the senior commanders, were probably the problem.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Happy Easter, my friend. We will resume here tomorrow. Same Bat time, same Bat channel.

Dennis:

Boy did we feast like pigs this weekend! I love it when my wife's family visits, she pulls out all the stops and the food keeps rolling.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just some additional thoughts concerning turning ability and air combat maneuvering.

In a situation where you, as a Grumman F4F pilot, dive and get on the tail of Zeke, he is most likely, if he has any smarts, going to turn, and attempt to force you to turn with him.

If he turns to the left, for example, your initial entry speed into the turn is generating good lift and allows you to maintain a track on the target. However, very quickly, you will start bleeding the speed and with that, most of the lift. The lift vector is now pointing toward the inside of your turn and is now weakening. Within a few seconds, you will now start to move out to the right as your turning circle increases and he turns harder. In a few more seconds, he sees you almost even or a little ahead and to the right. This now gives him the chance to scissor you by turning back to the right, harder and voila!, he now has reversed the situation. He has you moving from right to left , in hard turn to the left loosing speed, and he is now turning right with you moving into his sights.

Now, in that sequence, the Grumman pilot has to have discipline. He should have realized that after a few seconds, he will not be able to continue the turn and must make a decision; Do I rollout of the turn, split S and dive away, gain speed and then pull up and find another target or do I try to roll level, pull up and during pull up, roll to the right in a high Yo-yo and then pull hard left . If that works, the Grumman should be pointing at the area, where the Zeke is located and is still on his tail. However, this is a Grumman F4F. It doesn't climb well at low speeds. You have lost speed in the turn and have little momentum for such a maneuver.

Remember, this decision process takes place in a split second. You cannot perform this thought process during the action, you must have that knowledge immediately and make the decision immediately. You have to think ahead, "If I dive on him, miss him with my first shots, what is he going to do, if I drop in behind him; dive or turn. What do I do? Should I not slip in behind him and just keep diving or do I simply climb up and gain altitude, looking for a new target". Air to air combat practice is the key and discipline. The discipline to keep going, gain altitude and look for a new target. Experience is the key. New pilots will not have the discipline, they will focus on the aircraft in front and loose the situational awareness and become too focused on the Zeke in front of them. That usually gets them killed, unless they are lucky.

Now this sequence and resulting decisions were based on combat between an F4F-4 and A6M2. What about the same situation between an F6F-3 and A6M5 Model 52? How about an F4U? P-51D, P-47D in the Pacific.

Well, the A6M5 had pilot armor, bigger engines and was heavier. The F6F had a far better climb rate than the F4F and better instantaneous turning capability. If the A6M5 decided to turn, the Hellcat might use the high yo-you to the left and cut inside. He has a better climb rate and more power, he can probably perform that maneuver and it will keep in lead pursuit of the Zeke. A P-51 can perform that maneuver easily, so in that case, maybe the Model 52 pilot has made a bad choice. Read Sakai's action and his maneuvers, the Japanese continued to use turning ability to stay in the fight, yet, unless you were an ace pilot with years of combat experience, your flight skills in handling the plane might not be adequate to perform these maneuvers in a timely and well coordinated manner. Also, your situational awareness is no sharp enough or trained well enough to anticipate your opponents maneuvers. You have not seen every maneuver an F6F Hellcat pilot might make, and surprise could kill you. The Japanese were notorious for using aerobatic, well coordinated and equally predicable maneuvers. They did not use skids, or any other jink maneuvers. Sakai did and did them quickly.


Note: I've researched the Sakai battle over Iwo Jima against the Hellcats. He was flying an A6M2. I was mistaken about that. His standard maneuver was the left roll, which the Zero could do very quickly. He also used the skid. In fact, his sequence was a right skid, followed by a left roll to shake the Hellcats. He also realized, quickly, the Hellcat could stay with him for most of the left turn. But, his survival was due to his experience in making the decision to skid, left roll or any maneuver, quickly. He even comments that had he made those decisions just a split second slower, he would have been killed. Again, his experience and training had taught how to fight without having to think about it. The Hellcats were flying poorly but were not flying as a team, allowing the Japanese to split them up and defeat them individually. The Zero's also had the advantage of altitude and speed as they had detected the incoming Hellcats. This is a similiar situation as was recorded at Guadalcanal, except now the situation is reversed.

Dennis:

Excellent stuff as always. I was going to question you on Sakai's plane, but you corrected yourself. I was too lazy to pull the book off the shelf LOL! We had guests this weekend and I was helping with dinner etc. The point being that like martial arts or fencing, the moves have to be instinctual. You don't think, you do. My son takes karate and his sensei is an 8th degree black belt. He stresses the moves must be like breathing. And I have watched him spar and he is deadly fast.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Boy did we feast like pigs this weekend! I love it when my wife's family visits, she pulls out all the stops and the food keeps rolling.

We feasted yesterday, since my son had to work today. But I had lunch with my mom, her friend and his son. Great meals all around. Love my wife's baked ham. We buy it from a German deli. Sooo Good.

[old_pop2000]

There's also a line of thought,about which is more important..
Turning? insatntaneous turning? or roll rate?
sustained climb rate? or zoom climb rate?
I've read about accounts where P-47's were at the same altitude as say a 109 when the 109 started climging the P-47 would dive down ,then zoom climb back up & beat the 109 to the same altitude however It looks a little far fetched.
I've also read accounts where :P-51's got onto turns with more manuverable aircraft and were able to stay into a turn with them by keeping thier speed up by just putting thier noses down a hair ,any thoughts?

Taking them one at a time:

1. I believe that sustained climb rate and roll rate are more important. There are many instances where a zoom climb is not possible due to altitude and the enemy. However, an excellent sustained climb rate can be turned into an advantage against a better turning aircraft like the Zero. If a Zero pulls a left turn, the better climbing aircraft with a superior roll rate can either perform a high yo-yo or lead pursuit roll maintaining his angle off the tail.

2. As for the idea that a P-47 could outclimb a 109, at altitude. Its possible with the wider blades, I believe, to dive, zoom climb, use his full military power and catch the 109. I wouldn't want to stake my life on it, each time. I would want to have a better battle plan, in place.

3. Putting the nose down, simply increases the speed of the p-51 and lift is proportional to the square of the speed. When you turn, you roll the lift vector to the inside of the turn. The more speed you can attain and maintain, the more lift that can be maintained and that keeps the turn tighter. Its all about the lift vector.

Hope that answer your question.

[Kyle Holgate]

Taking them one at a time:

1. I believe that sustained climb rate and roll rate are more important. There are many instances where a zoom climb is not possible due to altitude and the enemy. However, an excellent sustained climb rate can be turned into an advantage against a better turning aircraft like the Zero. If a Zero pulls a left turn, the better climbing aircraft with a superior roll rate can either perform a high yo-yo or lead pursuit roll maintaining his angle off the tail.

2. As for the idea that a P-47 could outclimb a 109, at altitude. Its possible with the wider blades, I believe, to dive, zoom climb, use his full military power and catch the 109. I wouldn't want to stake my life on it, each time. I would want to have a better battle plan, in place.

3. Putting the nose down, simply increases the speed of the p-51 and lift is proportional to the square of the speed. When you turn, you roll the lift vector to the inside of the turn. The more speed you can attain and maintain, the more lift that can be maintained and that keeps the turn tighter. Its all about the lift vector.

Hope that answer your question.

Wonder if you could stick a Merlin in a Zero - and what you'd get...
Wasn't the 109K the piston engine fighter with the best climb rate of any (production) fighters in the war?
One thing receintly I have been seeing is not so much the climb rate of the Zero so much as the angle of climb - apparently it could put its nose up and climb where other aircraft would stall. So many factors to keep in mind! You have to really respect the fighter pilots that can almost instinctively keep all this in mind AND keep awareness of the situation too. So much to keep in mind all at once...:eek:

[old_pop2000]

Wonder if you could stick a Merlin in a Zero - and what you'd get...
Wasn't the 109K the piston engine fighter with the best climb rate of any (production) fighters in the war?
One thing receintly I have been seeing is not so much the climb rate of the Zero so much as the angle of climb - apparently it could put its nose up and climb where other aircraft would stall. So many factors to keep in mind! You have to really respect the fighter pilots that can almost instinctively keep all this in mind AND keep awareness of the situation too. So much to keep in mind all at once...:eek:

Unknown, much rework of the nose area would be required. But, like the FW190, I suppose it was possible.

Stall for the aircraft was 72 mph with power off, due to its light weight and large wing surfaces. Test's show that with landing gears and flaps down, speed rose to 76 mph. Those same tests showed that with power on and cowl flaps partially open, it was impossible to stall the aircraft.

Caveat: Probably not good idea to attempt such a maneuver in aerial combat.

[Kyle Holgate]

Very late in the war, so perhaps that should be considered when thinking of best of WW2 - but I found the article interesting. If we want to start choosing fighters that flew just a short while toward the end of the war then we'd have to include the Me-262 and others as well as the F4U-4. They deserve their bookmarks in history too of course, but for a "best" I tend to think more of the work-horses like the 109, 190, Spitfire, Mustang and Thunderbolt.

Hmm. What was the most adaptable fighter? FW-190 perhaps? Let's see: Fighter, attack aircraft (rockets) tank buster (guns and rockets), fighter bomber, torpedo bomber, High altitude interceptor, recon aircraft, night fighter (Wilde Sau), Mistle control plane (Look momy, those planes are mating!). Probably others I can't think of.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Very late in the war, so perhaps that should be considered when thinking of best of WW2 - but I found the article interesting. If we want to start choosing fighters that flew just a short while toward the end of the war then we'd have to include the Me-262 and others as well as the F4U-4. They deserve their bookmarks in history too of course, but for a "best" I tend to think more of the work-horses like the 109, 190, Spitfire, Mustang and Thunderbolt.

Hmm. What was the most adaptable fighter? FW-190 perhaps? Let's see: Fighter, attack aircraft (rockets) tank buster (guns and rockets), fighter bomber, torpedo bomber, High altitude interceptor, recon aircraft, night fighter (Wilde Sau), Mistle control plane (Look momy, those planes are mating!). Probably others I can't think of.

Kyle:

Based on those criteria I would say add in the Mosquito and the P-38.

[bridav58]

Kyle:

Based on those criteria I would say add in the Mosquito and the P-38.

well maybe not as much as the 2 you mentioned but also add the Ju-88 ,it performed many duties also.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

Based on those criteria I would say add in the Mosquito and the P-38.

Ok, maybe - list them out - let's see how they stack up.

[Ed Rotondaro]

well maybe not as much as the 2 you mentioned but also add the Ju-88 ,it performed many duties also.

Ain't no fighter except maybe tricked out as a night fighter!

[Kyle Holgate]

Ain't no fighter except maybe tricked out as a night fighter!

I must agree with Ed, calling a JU-88 a fighter is pushing it. Great aircraft, but...

Here's an interesting little article I found while surfing around...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

[old_pop2000]

I must agree with Ed, calling a JU-88 a fighter is pushing it. Great aircraft, but...

Here's an interesting little article I found while surfing around...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf
Beware the suggestion about having one of these on your tail. Simply roll and dive away. Well, that might work effectively for a Model 21, but the Model 52 had thicker wing panels giving it a stronger structure and hence, it was capable of diving speeds over 400 knots. It had 12.7 mm guns in place of the 7.7's and with the shorter wings, it could snap roll faster. It also had a more powerful engine with pilot armor. All in all, the pilot had better make certain, he can escape in roll and dive away with this model, before attempting it.

[Kyle Holgate]

Beware the suggestion about having one of these on your tail. Simply roll and dive away. Well, that might work effectively for a Model 21, but the Model 52 had thicker wing panels giving it a stronger structure and hence, it was capable of diving speeds over 400 knots. It had 12.7 mm guns in place of the 7.7's and with the shorter wings, it could snap roll faster. It also had a more powerful engine with pilot armor. All in all, the pilot had better make certain, he can escape in roll and dive away with this model, before attempting it.

Got me, I would think that whoever wrote the report knew what they were talking about. The tested Zero was a 52 and that's what they recommended anyway. Maybe it's still the best bet but then again sometimes no way out is good, you just have to take the least dangerous one?
This flying stuff is for the birds...literally.

[old_pop2000]

Got me, I would think that whoever wrote the report knew what they were talking about. The tested Zero was a 52 and that's what they recommended anyway. Maybe it's still the best bet but then again sometimes no way out is good, you just have to take the least dangerous one?
This flying stuff is for the birds...literally.
The actual statement is to roll and dive away into a high speed turn. But, prior to that, he states to maintain any altitude advantage you have. Now what do I do. If I dive away, I've lost altitude, if I stay, I might get shot down. The suggestions are just the standard test pilot suggestions that they write on these reports. They are required. Once in combat, you have to judge your altitude, speed, his distance from you etc. Which way is the best way to turn and dive, left or right. Better tactic might be to skid the plane, add full military power, then determine his reaction. Possible you can scissor him after the first two maneuvers, if not, then split S and dive away or just push over in a steep dive. A Model 52 could not catch an F4U is straight push over, the Corsair is 3000 lbs heavier and will accelerate much faster. He will be gone in a flash.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I must agree with Ed, calling a JU-88 a fighter is pushing it. Great aircraft, but...

Here's an interesting little article I found while surfing around...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

Thanks Kyle, fun stuff to read.

[Kyle Holgate]

The actual statement is to roll and dive away into a high speed turn. But, prior to that, he states to maintain any altitude advantage you have. Now what do I do. If I dive away, I've lost altitude, if I stay, I might get shot down. The suggestions are just the standard test pilot suggestions that they write on these reports. They are required. Once in combat, you have to judge your altitude, speed, his distance from you etc. Which way is the best way to turn and dive, left or right. Better tactic might be to skid the plane, add full military power, then determine his reaction. Possible you can scissor him after the first two maneuvers, if not, then split S and dive away or just push over in a steep dive. A Model 52 could not catch an F4U is straight push over, the Corsair is 3000 lbs heavier and will accelerate much faster. He will be gone in a flash.

I'd assume they know that those reading thier advice aren't stupid, and would know that conditions vary and attack profiles such as speed, angle of attack and many other things can be involved in any decision as to what to do. Apparently they were asked or ordered to write a quick blurb as to what to do if bounced - and did the best they could given a "generic" situation with no particulars. The other factor seems to be breaking combat not fighting the Zero. Best way to do that is speed, whether diving or not as the Zero and even the newer and more dangerous Japanese aircraft such as the Hayate and Shiden or even the older Shoki were all slower than the Corsair at least. A Hellcat's just gonna be in trouble against the first too baring other circumstances.

[bridav58]

I'd assume they know that those reading thier advice aren't stupid, and would know that conditions vary and attack profiles such as speed, angle of attack and many other things can be involved in any decision as to what to do. Apparently they were asked or ordered to write a quick blurb as to what to do if bounced - and did the best they could given a "generic" situation with no particulars. The other factor seems to be breaking combat not fighting the Zero. Best way to do that is speed, whether diving or not as the Zero and even the newer and more dangerous Japanese aircraft such as the Hayate and Shiden or even the older Shoki were all slower than the Corsair at least. A Hellcat's just gonna be in trouble against the first too baring other circumstances.

Just what is the top speed of a F6F-5? a Hayate? a Shiden?

[old_pop2000]

Just what is the top speed of a F6F-5? a Hayate? a Shiden?
F6F-3 with 175 gal. fuel, 2400 rnds of ammo, 16 gal. oil, with 42 gal of water in reserve fuel tank.

381 mph on high blower
372.5 mph on low blower

Depending on the jet size, and many other factors.

Hayate - Reported to be 388 mph but no weights, fuel load, ammo supply or engine settings are provided, or altitude.

Shiden Kai - approx. 362 mph, again no stipulation as to flight paramets

[bridav58]

F6F-3 with 175 gal. fuel, 2400 rnds of ammo, 16 gal. oil, with 42 gal of water in reserve fuel tank.

381 mph on high blower
372.5 mph on low blower

Depending on the jet size, and many other factors.

Hayate - Reported to be 388 mph but no weights, fuel load, ammo supply or engine settings are provided, or altitude.

Shiden Kai - approx. 362 mph, again no stipulation as to flight paramets

On the F6F-3 ... My man Francis Dean shows some of the documents showing the F6F-3 hitting around 390-395 MPH & the later/water injection fitted F6F-5 hitting 409 MPH with around the same loadouts you list. He goes on to state there seems to be big differences in speed ratings even using same loadouts . I've seen some sources that the speed indicators were calibrated wrong and the hellcat was actually going faster then indicated. Any truth to this?

[Kyle Holgate]

Just what is the top speed of a F6F-5? a Hayate? a Shiden?

F6F is the designator for the Hellcat. The other two - I try to use the Japanese names instead of the US ones, we all usually know what a Mustang and Thunderbolt are and so I figgure in time we'll know what the Hayate (Frank) is and the Shiden (George) is too.
The Shoki is the Ki.41 "Tojo" by the way.
:o Sorry, get on my high horsie sometimes - should probably use both names for clarity. I kinda like the Japanese names, they... well... sound so Japanese!

Shiden = Violet Lightning
Hayate = Hurricane
Shoki = Demon stopper

The Shiden and follow on Shiden Kai and the Hayate were about the best the Japanese produced along with one called the Ki-100 which did not get a name in either Japanese or allied code name that I'm aware of. The Shiden Kai and Hayate with reasonable pilots were a fair match for Corsairs and Hellcats. Personally I think that many US pilots got complacent fighting inferior aircraft with inferior pilots and got bit when they met better opponets (either pilots or aircraft) than they were used to. The Japanese had a lot of problems with engines too - while Hellcats were sturdy and reliable. There is something to be said for that!

[Kyle Holgate]

F6F-3 with 175 gal. fuel, 2400 rnds of ammo, 16 gal. oil, with 42 gal of water in reserve fuel tank.

381 mph on high blower
372.5 mph on low blower

Depending on the jet size, and many other factors.

Hayate - Reported to be 388 mph but no weights, fuel load, ammo supply or engine settings are provided, or altitude.

Shiden Kai - approx. 362 mph, again no stipulation as to flight paramets

Shiden Kai- one 1,990 HP Nakajima NK9H eighteen cylinder radial air cooled engine. 4 20mm cannon, type 99.
Performance: Max speed 369 MPH at 19,370 ft, 359 MPH at 9,840 ft. Time to 19,370 ft 7min, 22 sec.
Hayate - one 1900 HP Nakajima Ha.45/11 eighteen cylinder radial, 2 x 12.7mm MG with 350rpg and 2 x 20mm with 150 rpg.
Speed: 388 at 19,680. got weights and range data + cruising speed on them too if anyone cares. Not bad aircraft at all.

[old_pop2000]

.... He goes on to state there seems to be big differences in speed ratings even using same loadouts . I've seen some sources that the speed indicators were calibrated wrong and the hellcat was actually going faster then indicated. Any truth to this?

The airspeed indicators in the early aircraft of this era were analog devices connected to the pitot tube on the wing. Basically, air entered the tube, pushed on a diaphram, which converted that pressure into an electrical signal which moved the dial. Simply, that is the way it worked.

After construction in the factory, each gauge was installed in a test bench connected to a calibrated air pressure source which ran a series of tests moving the dials from zero MPH to the max. The test mechanic would note the difference read on the gauge with the calibrated representative speed source. Sometimes, if it was way out of specs, it was rejected, others were passed. The information on calibration errors noted was annotated on a form and that form went into the box with the device.

So, yes, there was calibration done on the devices. The pitot tube was checked before and after flights to ensure no foreign object was inside to impede operation. That was part of the walk around checks, or final crew chief checks.

Now, as to testing of aircraft. If the flight test was done at a flight test facility like NAS Paxtuxent River, MD, that is a test facility. The aircraft would have extra instrumentation to monitor engine parameters like head temperature, water flow, fuel flow etc. The pilots would be trained test pilots. The documentation for these tests would have the instrumentation information included on the report and the report would be a more detailed engineering report style.

Testing at a regular field like Kunming, China, NAS Kanoehe, NAS North Island was usually never done with that amount of detail. They were very simple performance tests using the normal instrumentation. The aircraft probably might be operational not a test aircraft. This does not mean the data is any less useful. In point of fact, it might be more useful for comparisons as most aircraft on the front lines are not test bed aircraft which get far more detailed maintenance.

So, could the latter tests have used an uncalibrated gauge, no, but it could have aged due to use and if bench tested, would now have a larger calibration error, possibly it might be rejected. But the exigencies of operations precludes replacing gauges due to that reason.

I may have rambled, but I was attempting to be a clear as I could. I hope that was an adequate answer.

[Kyle Holgate]

Check out the stuff over at Shockwaveproductions. I'd provide a link but they produce software for flight simluator - and may be a competitive website/forum and linking to such is a no-no I think.

Anyhow these guys apperntly do very, very detailed research and produce add-on software for Microsoft's flight simulator 2004 or combat flight simlulator.
I wish I had the patience to really learn to fly - even a simulator - so I could get a better idea of how various fighters handled (at least in a game/sim).
I note they have the He-229 available... hmm. For whatever reason that is probably my favorite WW2 aircraft. I wonder if there are any night fighter simulations where you can be directed and use the radar to hunt down mosquitoes and Lancasters?

[Warship NWS]

I second the recommendation for their flight sim addons and games;

Here is our section covering their titles;
Air Combat Section (http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/aircombatgames.html)
Flight Sim addons and expansions (http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/miflsiandcof.html)

[Ed Rotondaro]

F6F is the designator for the Hellcat. The other two - I try to use the Japanese names instead of the US ones, we all usually know what a Mustang and Thunderbolt are and so I figgure in time we'll know what the Hayate (Frank) is and the Shiden (George) is too.
The Shoki is the Ki.41 "Tojo" by the way.
:o Sorry, get on my high horsie sometimes - should probably use both names for clarity. I kinda like the Japanese names, they... well... sound so Japanese!

Shiden = Violet Lightning
Hayate = Hurricane
Shoki = Demon stopper

The Shiden and follow on Shiden Kai and the Hayate were about the best the Japanese produced along with one called the Ki-100 which did not get a name in either Japanese or allied code name that I'm aware of. The Shiden Kai and Hayate with reasonable pilots were a fair match for Corsairs and Hellcats. Personally I think that many US pilots got complacent fighting inferior aircraft with inferior pilots and got bit when they met better opponets (either pilots or aircraft) than they were used to. The Japanese had a lot of problems with engines too - while Hellcats were sturdy and reliable. There is something to be said for that!


Kyle:

Engine reliability curtailed the effectiveness of the Hayate and the Shinden. Had the Japanese ever solved that problem and got these birds into service before 1944, things would have gotten more dangerous for Hellcat pilots. It would have probably spurred on the Bearcat's development.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The airspeed indicators in the early aircraft of this era were analog devices connected to the pitot tube on the wing. Basically, air entered the tube, pushed on a diaphram, which converted that pressure into an electrical signal which moved the dial. Simply, that is the way it worked.

After construction in the factory, each gauge was installed in a test bench connected to a calibrated air pressure source which ran a series of tests moving the dials from zero MPH to the max. The test mechanic would note the difference read on the gauge with the calibrated representative speed source. Sometimes, if it was way out of specs, it was rejected, others were passed. The information on calibration errors noted was annotated on a form and that form went into the box with the device.

So, yes, there was calibration done on the devices. The pitot tube was checked before and after flights to ensure no foreign object was inside to impede operation. That was part of the walk around checks, or final crew chief checks.

Now, as to testing of aircraft. If the flight test was done at a flight test facility like NAS Paxtuxent River, MD, that is a test facility. The aircraft would have extra instrumentation to monitor engine parameters like head temperature, water flow, fuel flow etc. The pilots would be trained test pilots. The documentation for these tests would have the instrumentation information included on the report and the report would be a more detailed engineering report style.

Testing at a regular field like Kunming, China, NAS Kanoehe, NAS North Island was usually never done with that amount of detail. They were very simple performance tests using the normal instrumentation. The aircraft probably might be operational not a test aircraft. This does not mean the data is any less useful. In point of fact, it might be more useful for comparisons as most aircraft on the front lines are not test bed aircraft which get far more detailed maintenance.

So, could the latter tests have used an uncalibrated gauge, no, but it could have aged due to use and if bench tested, would now have a larger calibration error, possibly it might be rejected. But the exigencies of operations precludes replacing gauges due to that reason.

I may have rambled, but I was attempting to be a clear as I could. I hope that was an adequate answer.

Dennis:

Thanks for the info on how pitot tubes worked. I've always wondered about that. You mentioned water being carried on the Hellcat. Was that for the water injection I assume?

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

Engine reliability curtailed the effectiveness of the Hayate and the Shinden. Had the Japanese ever solved that problem and got these birds into service before 1944, things would have gotten more dangerous for Hellcat pilots. It would have probably spurred on the Bearcat's development.

Read the second to the last post on pg 18. I mention the engines! Nyah nyah, beat ya to it.:p

Yes in any case, the Japanese built some pretty good engines early on, but had lots of troubles later. I recall one text where the Japanese are evaluating a captured P-51D (I think) and were amazed that it didn't leak oil or do many of the odd things they'd come to regard as normal for their own engines.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Thanks for the info on how pitot tubes worked. I've always wondered about that. You mentioned water being carried on the Hellcat. Was that for the water injection I assume?
Yes, the R-2800 engine model it used had water injection system.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Read the second to the last post on pg 18. I mention the engines! Nyah nyah, beat ya to it.:p

Yes in any case, the Japanese built some pretty good engines early on, but had lots of troubles later. I recall one text where the Japanese are evaluating a captured P-51D (I think) and were amazed that it didn't leak oil or do many of the odd things they'd come to regard as normal for their own engines.

Kyle:

Yes you did, I was pretty busy today at work with a major data mining assignment and polishing up a report that I'm forced to do for another agency.

[old_pop2000]

Just some summary notes from Lundestrom's book:

Lundestrom comments that by the time of the Koga's Zero tests at North Island, the VF squadrons had pretty well developed the best tactics for the Zero. Interestingly, intelligence estimates on the Zero were accurate even before the initial tests on that aircraft. Deflection shooting and scissor's tactics proved to be the foundation for success. It was stated that the safest place for a Zero was on your tail because of the armor behind the pilot. The Zero could shoot at you all day, as Lt. Commander Roy Simpler of VF-5 stated in his detailed AAR after the Wasp's fighter unit left Guadalcanal.

It was also commented that the test pilots did not really know the standard Japanese tactics when they did their tests, something I believe I have pointed out. The Japanese flying out of Rabaul from Base Air Force did not dogfight, they used diving tactics from steep diving passes and climbed away. The best tactic was just what I explained, cut the throttle, slip, skid and kick around until the Zero overruns, then throttle up and "Let 'em have it".

The US pilots best evasion tactic was the corkscrew in a steep dive. The Zero was almost impossible to turn or roll above 270 knots, therefore would rarely follow a twisting F4F in a steep dive. But again, that takes you out of the fight.

Statistically, From 7 August through 15 November, 1942, thirty one F4F's were lost around Guadalcanal compared to twenty five Zero's for Base Air Force. However, consider that on 7 August, the squadrons lost 9 F4F's to 2 Zero's due to the inability of the planes to gain altitude. If that figure is removed, they break even. This is due entirely to the coast watchers, RADAR and improved tactics by Major John Smith, Flatley, Simpler and Marion Carl.

Land based and carrier based operations, Japanese fighter squadrons lost 119 fighter pilots. These were killed or captured. They claimed 392 US aircraft at the cost of 87 Zero with 66 pilots lost. These losses should be viewed within the context of declining Japanese pilot performance. The pilots that fought the US in August - November 1942 were nothing like the pilots faced in the first six months at Coral Sea or Midway. By the end of the Guadalcanal operation, the IJN pilots, whether land based or carrier based, were depleted in experienced section and squadron leaders. This included dive bombers, torpedo bombers and a land based twin engined bombers. The reconnaissance squadrons flying out of the Shortlands and Buin were also depleted as most of the pre-war experience flying boat pilots had been killed since the beginning of the war.

We can draw some real similarities between the BOB and the Guadalcanal operation. US pilots were flying over home territory. If hit they could scramble to low altitude and either ditch and be picked up or coast back to fighter 1 and land there. The Zero's and other aircraft for the Japanese still had to fly home or ditch near Buin and hope they would get picked up. US defenders had an excellent warning system, which despite being crude, was a force multiplier especially during times when the fighter squadrons on the island were depleted. The Japanese attempted different tactics to try to catch the US fighters on the ground or still climbing, but most of the time, they failed and were intercepted.

The story can be characterized by this statement made during the movie "The Hunt For Red October"

"Combat tactics, Mr. Ryan"

[old_pop2000]

Just a personal observation. Much of the information we have about Japanese operations and specifically their air combat and tactics has come from the book "Samurai" by Saburo Sakai. We have all used his book and what he experienced. However, if we stop to think about it, he only participated in one day's combat, 7 August 1942. He was badly injured in those air battles and sent back to Japan. He did not fly again for almost 1 and 1/2 years.

The actual air battles lasted for another 3 months and 8 days until 15 November 1942. Actually, they continued sporatically afterward.

The point here is that Sakai did most of his fighting against Port Moresby and the Australian and US pilots flying P-40's, P-39's, P-400's and some Brewster Buffaloes. Port Moresby did not have radar warning, or coast watchers to give them advanced warning and their aircraft were low altitude aircraft. I wonder sometimes how much real information we can glean from Sakai's words.

[Smiffy]

Just a footnote to this thread. The Royal Air Force is 90 years old today 1st April.

[old_pop2000]

Just a footnote to this thread. The Royal Air Force is 90 years old today 1st April.
I'll raise a pint to all the men in the RAF. Maybe two pints, body willing.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just a personal observation. Much of the information we have about Japanese operations and specifically their air combat and tactics has come from the book "Samurai" by Saburo Sakai. We have all used his book and what he experienced. However, if we stop to think about it, he only participated in one day's combat, 7 August 1942. He was badly injured in those air battles and sent back to Japan. He did not fly again for almost 1 and 1/2 years.

The actual air battles lasted for another 3 months and 8 days until 15 November 1942. Actually, they continued sporatically afterward.

The point here is that Sakai did most of his fighting against Port Moresby and the Australian and US pilots flying P-40's, P-39's, P-400's and some Brewster Buffaloes. Port Moresby did not have radar warning, or coast watchers to give them advanced warning and their aircraft were low altitude aircraft. I wonder sometimes how much real information we can glean from Sakai's words.

Dennis:

Sakai did appreciate the fact that the Airacobras were poor performing aircraft compared to the Zero. He also mentions that his squadron commander was aware that the USN and USMC pilots flying from carriers and Guadalcanal were much tougher opponents. There is also the question of the conditions under which Sakai wrote his memoirs. Japan was subject to censorship during the Allied occupation, hence there were very few first hand accounts from Japanese veterans. And those we read including say Japanese Destroyer Captain always make it seem as though all intelligent Japanese officers knew that war with the US was foolish and that their odds of surviving were slim. Maybe they were just telling us what they thought we wanted to hear?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Sakai did appreciate the fact that the Airacobras were poor performing aircraft compared to the Zero. He also mentions that his squadron commander was aware that the USN and USMC pilots flying from carriers and Guadalcanal were much tougher opponents. There is also the question of the conditions under which Sakai wrote his memoirs. Japan was subject to censorship during the Allied occupation, hence there were very few first hand accounts from Japanese veterans. And those we read including say Japanese Destroyer Captain always make it seem as though all intelligent Japanese officers knew that war with the US was foolish and that their odds of surviving were slim. Maybe they were just telling us what they thought we wanted to hear?
I am sure censorship had its place, but my point is that his experiences are limited about the air battles over Guadalcanal except for what might filter back to the home islands. We cannot take as gospel, all of his comments as they were based on almost zero experience against US pilots until later 1943 and early 1944.

[bridav58]

about the Spitfires over Darwin ,they had radar early warning, got to the proper altitude and such but still came out worse and against declining pilots at that. They also supposedly had changed thier tatics and still were loosing.

[old_pop2000]

about the Spitfires over Darwin ,they had radar early warning, got to the proper altitude and such but still came out worse and against declining pilots at that. They also supposedly had changed thier tatics and still were loosing.
Darwin yes, Moresby in early 1942, they did not.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I am sure censorship had its place, but my point is that his experiences are limited about the air battles over Guadalcanal except for what might filter back to the home islands. We cannot take as gospel, all of his comments as they were based on almost zero experience against US pilots until later 1943 and early 1944.

Dennis:

I'll agree with that, but from what I recall, most of his descriptions of combat covered the Port Moresby area. He really only talked about Guadalcanal in the context of his wounding and subsequent struggle to fly back to Rabaul. I'm sure he incorporated information from fellow pilots and their experiences.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I'll agree with that, but from what I recall, most of his descriptions of combat covered the Port Moresby area. He really only talked about Guadalcanal in the context of his wounding and subsequent struggle to fly back to Rabaul. I'm sure he incorporated information from fellow pilots and their experiences.
As I stated, he probably heard from returning pilots some of the information. But an example is the question of the range of A6M3's that were transported to Base Air Force in Rabaul. The impression is that there were many of them. In fact, they made up a very small portion of them. Most were A6M2's and removing the radios did not make that much difference to them. The A6M2's had the range. I have the actual ratio and numbers somewhere. The point being that we have the impression the Japanese fighter pilots did not have time to dogfight over Guadalcanal, and that isn't true, entirely.