Messerschmitt Bf 109 Vs North American P-51 Mustang

[JtD]

So? It doesn't make the A6M a "1940 machine". And the competition is also different, Bf109E -> Bf109F, Spit I -> V, nothing -> Fw190. Another year of evolution in Europe, but a year of no progress for the A6M. Or we can look at the A6M's used in the Guadalcanal campaign until the end of 1942. "1942 machines" - still the same A6M2. Now easily more than 100 km/h slower than contemporary European fighters, or US competition such as P-38 or F4U. At any rate, I made a point about the competitiveness of the A6M in 1941. Or I could make the general point that the A6M throughout it's career had a few moments of glory, but was not nearly an as competitive fighter as the P-51 overall.

 

If you were trying to correct me, I'm afraid you just misunderstood me, again. If you were just trying to add how the A6M was barely competitive when brand new, never mind, I misunderstood you.

Edited February 26, 2015 by JtD

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

A6M is certainly a 1940 machine. Pre production models appeared since January 1940, serial production was launched in May and first unit was supplied to certain combat units like Yokosuka Kaigun Kokutai or 12th Kokutai. The Japanese claim that in 1940 the Zero completed more than 150 sorties, shooting down up to 60 aircraft, and destroying more than 100 on the ground. They admit light damage to only 13 Zeros and not one loss.

Thus A6M2 was produced, flown and operated in 1940 making also quite a good score.

 

Well yes, soon the competition of the landbased machines turned from Bf-109 E to 109 F or Spitfire I to Spitfire V, but none of this could do what Zero was capable of while Zero could be used effectively as an interceptor from airfields and in fact was used by many units. 

 

In 1941 was tested A6M3 model 32 with new Sakae 21, squared wingtips to improve roll rate and multiple other changes. There was constant progress through the production too, with increase of the amount of ammunition carried or modifications of cockpit equipment. It was introduced to combat units in July 1942, first to receive was Tainan Kokutai fighting in the New Guinea front. A6M3 model 32 was faster, having a maximum continuous speed of 544 km/h and emergency of 565 km/h. And that was before any P-38 or F4U appeared. 

 

 

But even if we move back to 1941, best Americans could introduce in 1941 was Tomahawk as Kittyhawk was just starting to be supplied. US Navy had still in operation earlier versions of F4F Wildcat while switching to F4F-4. 

First P-38 used on the Pacific was Lockheed F-4 long reconnaissance variant which was shipped to Australia in July or August 1942, that model had no armament. First combat P-38 was E model which appeared over Aleutian Islands, far from any important front. The first major supply was F model introduced to combat units somewhere in November 1942.

The first unit to receive F4U-1 was VFM-124 which occurred in October 1942, but they saw first combat on 14th February 1943 (on 12th February they arrived at Guadalcanal).

The amount of P-38s and F4Us (or in fact lack of Corsais in 1942) was minor, major aircraft still used were P-40E, P-39D, P-400, F4F or ... Fairey Fulmar.

 

While faster again those P-38s and F4Us had a hard beginning, on the February 14th, known as Saint Valentines Day Massacre, when nine PB4Y-1 Liberators escorted by ten P-38 Lightnings from the 347th Fighter Group, 339th Fighter Squadron plus twelve F4U Corsairs from VMF-124 were engaged by 30 A6M Zeros and about 15 A6M2-N Rufes floatplanes. During the air combat, the Americans claim 14 Zekes and 1 F1M2 Pete shot down; Japanese records reveal they lost only one plane. The Americans lost a ten aircraft, two of them were PB4Y, rest P-38s and F4Us. Until mid 1943 the combat records show that losses were close, so despite the performance advantage A6M2s and A6M3s were quite capable of fighting. 

 

 

 

Spit I -> V

Fun fact is that Japanese fought with Spitfire Vs and dominated them. In 1943a  No. 1 Fighter Wing, comprising three units : 54th RAF Squadron, 452 and 457 RAAF Squadrons fought a series of battles over northern Australia, Darwin mainly, with 202nd Kaigun Kokutai equipped with A6M2 model 21 and A6M3.
From mid-March until September 1943, 202nd Kokutai pilots claimed 101 enemy aircraft shot down,  Australian and British sources confirm a loss of 38 planes -  between 28 to 32 of them were Spitfires. On the other hand  3 pilots were lost with their Zeroes, one Zero ditched but pilot survived, and 15 other Zeroes suffered repairable damage. It is worthy noting that all the Zero losses were not 100% certainly caused by Spitfires, but also by AA fire, worth keeping in mind if one would quibble about whether certain Spitfire losses on these missions were 100% certainly due to Zeroes. 

 

 

 

 

 At any rate, I made a point about the competitiveness of the A6M in 1941.

That it was more than competitive was shown by the achievements of that and following year.

 

 

 

 

Or I could make the general point that the A6M throughout it's carrier had a few moments of glory, but was not nearly an as competitive fighter as the P-51 overall.

That few moments of glory lasted over 3 years. For its role, theater and tasks was more than competitive. But nonetheless P-51 was also extremely competitive fighter, I see no problem here in fact. As P-51 fan (although not such a maniac as Solty ) I absolutely agree about the competitiveness of P-51   

 

 

 

 If you were just trying to add how the A6M was barely competitive when brand new, never mind, I misunderstood you. 

I was simply trying to show you that you were wrong in some beliefs, but of course you have right to have a different opinion and I respect that but can try to argue as this is forum. 

Also, please, show me more competitive carrier borne fighter between year 1940 and 1943. If Zero was such a mediocre, please show me a better fighter that was powered by a 950 HP (or similar) radial engine, that was faster than a Zero and possessed similar range and flight characteristics.  

[JtD]

If you spent half as much time reading as you appear to spend typing, you wouldn't need to type half as much as you have just been typing. "Beliefs". Over and out.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Fun fact is that Japanese fought with Spitfire Vs and dominated them. In 1943a  No. 1 Fighter Wing, comprising three units : 54th RAF Squadron, 452 and 457 RAAF Squadrons fought a series of battles over northern Australia, Darwin mainly, with 202nd Kaigun Kokutai equipped with A6M2 model 21 and A6M3.

From mid-March until September 1943, 202nd Kokutai pilots claimed 101 enemy aircraft shot down,  Australian and British sources confirm a loss of 38 planes -  between 28 to 32 of them were Spitfires. On the other hand  3 pilots were lost with their Zeroes, one Zero ditched but pilot survived, and 15 other Zeroes suffered repairable damage. It is worthy noting that all the Zero losses were not 100% certainly caused by Spitfires, but also by AA fire, worth keeping in mind if one would quibble about whether certain Spitfire losses on these missions were 100% certainly due to Zeroes. 

 

We've already had this discussion on WT forums, and the Spitfire Vc/trop that were presented in Darwin not only were in poor shape but even in pristine shape had a performance that was comparable to the Lagg3 below 6km due to the poorly designed Volkes filter.

 

Not only that, there was also serious trouble with the guns and ammunition, the 20 mm cannon shells had to be hand checked because the production was so poor that a lot of rounds had different size.

 

And add to that Spitfire pilots were also using the same tactics that they used while fighting Me 109s, which was totally the wrong tactics when fighting the Zero.

 

 

 

In short, the Spitfire V over Darwin was not the representation of what a true Spitfire V 'scapability over the Zero, a better example would be the Seafire III which had the performance of the Spitfire V, only navalized, and the Seafire III did dominate the Zero.

Edited March 12, 2015 by GrapeJam

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Trying to compare Warbirds for me is like trying to compare apples and oranges. When you listen to, or read about pilot experiences from WWII it always seems that the aircraft that they in flew was the best. The Spit ,109, Zero, P-51 and the 190 (and many others) were all great aircraft as we know for differing reasons. When it's all said and done though, a lot of it was down to individual skill and luck.  

 

When referring to pilot skill Günther Rall said of the campaign of 1943–1945:

 

In my experience, the Royal Air Force pilot was the most aggressive and capable fighter pilot during the Second World War. This is nothing against the Americans, because they came in late and in such large numbers that we don't have an accurate comparison. We were totally outnumbered when the Americans engaged, whereas at the time of the Battle of Britain the fight was more even and you could compare. The British were extremely good.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

You are pretty consistent on hating on the P-51. Is it because it stole the Thunder of your spitfire ?

 

Dang, you got me!

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

 

Trying to compare Warbirds for me is like trying to compare apples and oranges. When you listen to, or read about pilot experiences from WWII it always seems that the aircraft that they in flew was the best. The Spit ,109, Zero, P-51 and the 190 (and many others) were all great aircraft as we know for differing reasons.

 

All of these designs had their good and bad points. In a nerdy kind of way it is interesting to speculate how these machines match up, what condition would favour who etc.

 

It's a matter of taste I presume.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

 

All of these designs had their good and bad points. In a nerdy kind of way it is interesting to speculate how these machines match up, what condition would favour who etc.

 

It's a matter of taste I presume.

 

Definitely agree with you there. From a personal view point two of my favourite aircraft from WWII are the de Havilland Mosquito and the F4U.

I have to admit I'm a bit of an FW190 fan boy at times though!

Edited March 12, 2015 by OriginalCustard

[Solty]

So? It doesn't make the A6M a "1940 machine". And the competition is also different, Bf109E -> Bf109F, Spit I -> V, nothing -> Fw190. Another year of evolution in Europe, but a year of no progress for the A6M. Or we can look at the A6M's used in the Guadalcanal campaign until the end of 1942. "1942 machines" - still the same A6M2. Now easily more than 100 km/h slower than contemporary European fighters, or US competition such as P-38 or F4U. At any rate, I made a point about the competitiveness of the A6M in 1941. Or I could make the general point that the A6M throughout it's career had a few moments of glory, but was not nearly an as competitive fighter as the P-51 overall.

 

If you were trying to correct me, I'm afraid you just misunderstood me, again. If you were just trying to add how the A6M was barely competitive when brand new, never mind, I misunderstood you.

Well... it is hard to change whole outfit of fighters on a carrier when it is not in Japan. It is a hard logistical operation, and US was bringing new carriers with new plane outfits. Also, you can't realy compare P-51 or P-38 with A6M and not take into consideration their role. Of course they are both fighters... but Army planes and Navy planes of the time had very different needs.

 

I agree that P-38 or P-51 would eat most A6Ms if flown correctly. But that doesn't mean A6M was not competetive. If you want comparison that would make sense, which is between two main fighters of the Pacific war, you need to talk about F4F vs A6M2 and later F6F+ vs A6M3+. All publications I've read point out the lack of good teamwork and tactics of IJN Airforce units, which was probably the main issue why Zero was so "bad".

 

Hurricane was also worse than Bf109, and yet it was the Hurricane that has shot down majority of German airplanes during BoB.

 

Comparision with Japanese planes is always hard, because not much data is left about them. So comparison between Ki84 vs P-51D is going to be hard if not impossible.

Edited March 12, 2015 by =LD=Solty

[[BTEAM]_Shifty_]

 

 

So comparison between Ki84 vs P-51D is going to be hard if not impossible

good example

Ki84 is better than P-51 in all aspects except top speed, how come it lost the war so badly? 

Because how good the plane is doesn't matter much. Numbers and pilots and production and tactics and other things matter.

[Solty]

good example

Ki84 is better than P-51 in all aspects except top speed, how come it lost the war so badly? 

Because how good the plane is doesn't matter much. Numbers and pilots and production and tactics and other things matter.

 

Well... that was not my intetion

 

To be Frank (see what I did there?) we don't know much about Ki84. Only tests were made on US higher octane fuel and we have no idea about stick forces at different speeds, nor the reliability of the engine, weapons, durability and many other aspects that are crucial in air combat.

So I wouldn't say "Ki84 is better than P-51 in all aspects except top speed". Just because there is not enough information available.

 

But yes. Numbers, tactics and pilot training matter the most in air combat... but strategy is what wins the war. Bf109 example has shown us that it was not capable of gaining air superiority. Even though pilots were very good and Germans had numerical advantage. Range was too short. It was a good airplane, but not one suited for the mission. It was downright awful as bomber escort or air superiority fighter having just 10min of flight time over target area.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

But yes. Numbers, tactics and pilot training matter the most in air combat... but strategy is what wins the war. Bf109 example has shown us that it was not capable of gaining air superiority. Even though pilots were very good and Germans had numerical advantage. Range was too short. It was a good airplane, but not one suited for the mission. It was downright awful as bomber escort or air superiority fighter having just 10min of flight time over target area.

 

It would have been interesting to see what it would be able to do if the table were turned. Imagine the RAF having really built up reserved in 1938-39 and gone on an all-out bombing offensive against the Luftwaffe-held bases in France. A sky black with Wellingtons and Hamptdens, eskorted by Hurries and Spitfires. The Fairey Battle and Beaufighter in the roles of Stukas and Bf 110s respectively.

 

My prediction is the short-range Bf 109 E with their cannons would be a horribly effective adversary.

[Solty]

It would have been interesting to see what it would be able to do if the table were turned. Imagine the RAF having really built up reserved in 1938-39 and gone on an all-out bombing offensive against the Luftwaffe-held bases in France. A sky black with Wellingtons and Hamptdens, eskorted by Hurries and Spitfires. The Fairey Battle and Beaufighter in the roles of Stukas and Bf 110s respectively.

 

My prediction is the short-range Bf 109 E with their cannons would be a horribly effective adversary.

Well... that would be just similar to BoB. Just the other way around. GB didn't have any long range airplane to escort bombers as well...

 

It is not my fault that Germans wanted to invade everything.

Edited March 12, 2015 by =LD=Solty

[YSoMadTovarisch]

good example

Ki84 is better than P-51 in all aspects except top speed, how come it lost the war so badly? 

Because how good the plane is doesn't matter much. Numbers and pilots and production and tactics and other things matter.

 

 

The only aspects of the Frank that were clearly better than the P51 are initial acceleration and low speed turning.

 

That.is.it.

 

Which plane is actually more maneuverable? You can look at the Frank's ability to turn tighter at low speed and say that the Frank's more maneuverable.

 

But that kind of maneuverability is mostly irrelevant in actual combat scenario of the day.

 

By the time the Frank appeared, high speed combat tactics had completely dominated aerial combat.

 

Take for one example as for why: you can be more maneuverable at low speed but as long as your opponent stays fast, you don't get to use your advantage, and then we take your opponent's wing man into account, if he's more maneuverable at high speed than you, then he has the advantage you'll be either forced to slow down and waste precious energy, or become easy target.

 

And add to that, because the Mustang's faster  and far superior in a dive it can escape whenever it want, the Mustang completely dictate the terms in actual combat.

 

Oh BTW, the Ki84's actually not superior to the Mustang in a climb, at typical combat load(empty fuselage fuel tank) and running at 75"hg, the Mustang's equal to the Ki84 in climbing, Mustangs in the Pacific theater running on 115/145, using 80"hg power setting might have very likely outclimbed it.

Edited March 12, 2015 by GrapeJam

[YSoMadTovarisch]

And facts spoke for itself, Allies pilots greatly respected the 190 over the 109 despite the latter having better high altitude performance, and the J2M had the best kill ratio out of all Japanese fighters.

[JtD]

If you want comparison that would make sense, which is between two main fighters of the Pacific war, you need to talk about F4F vs A6M2 and later F6F+ vs A6M3+.

The original point made was that the A6M was what the P-51 was in 1944, but already 4 years earlier. I'm disagreeing with that, because where the P-51 was as good as any other prop driven fighter of the time, the A6M was not. That necessarily includes comparisons with the best the enemy had to offer at the time, not just a couple of US carrier based models.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

The 2 most major differences between the A6M and the P51 was that, the A6M had extremely limited design potential, and that it was designed for a style of combat that was outdated by the beginning of WW2. The success it got was due mostly to that:

 

1. IJN pilots were the most well trained pilots in the world at the beginning of the war.

 

2. Wrong tactics used by the Allies.

 

The F4F, even with inferior performance, on paper, piloted by pilots of inferior skill, were able to hold their own against the A6M when the right tactics were used. On the rare occasion that A6Ms were used in the mainland China-Burma against P40 flown by pilots familiar with BnZ tactics, they were massacred.

Edited March 12, 2015 by GrapeJam

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

We've already had this discussion on WT forums, and the Spitfire Vc/trop that were presented in Darwin (...) but even in pristine shape had a performance that was comparable to the Lagg3 below 6km due to the poorly designed Volkes filter.

First, not Volkes but Vokes.

 

Second, the performance of the Spitfire Vc/trop was inferior but that was not the reason of usage of Vokes filter but usage of different Merlin engine, designed for high altitude combat. The Merlin 46.

This was main reason why so many problems could occur in combat below 20,000 feet.

 

To quote a specialist here:

 

At RAAF Richmond, Group Captain Walters, CO 1 Fighter Wing, sought the advice of Robin Norwood concerning this matter of Spitfire performance. Norwood had been flying Spitfires since 1940, and had 500 hours on a range of marks from the Mark.1 to all models of Mark V – all of which had had the temperate intake. Contrary to expectation, he refuted the VCT’s poor reputation:

 

'These aircraft at height, with the Vokes Filter, are just as good, and probably better, than the Mark Va & b’s we used to fly at home, and will, I think, give a good account of themselves…at height these are the best yet. I make great insistence on height but then these are designed for high speeds high up, not low down.'[3]

 

Norwood’s emphasis upon height relates to the fact that the RAAF’s Spitfires were fitted with the high altitude Merlin 46, which produced its maximum power output at 21 500 feet, rather than the 11 000 feet rated altitude of the Merlin 45 fitted to most Spitfire V aircraft in the UK. The Merlin 46 produced a modest 1115 hp at take-off, but thanks to its supercharger was still producing 1150 hp at its rated altitude of 19 000 feet, and with a maximum power output of 1210 hp at 21 500 feet (both outputs were achieved at 3000 rpm and plus 9 pounds boost).

In the environment Spitfires fought (above 15,000 feet or even 20,000 feet was completely normal altitude for Japanese to carry operations over Australia at that time) they seem to be best than those guys flew at homebefore.

 

Source:  Signal, RAAF London to RAAF HQ, dated 12.5.1942; & Memo from 1AD dated 7.10.1943 in NAA A705: 9/41/74. via darwinspitfires.com

 

Aware of the shortcomings in performance with Vokes filter decision was made to produce by RAAF their own filter :

 

While the wing was still headquartered at Richmond in late 1942, prior to deployment to Darwin, work was begun to produce a locally-manufactured temperate air filter at 2 Air Depot, in pursuit of an ambitious intention on the part of HQ Eastern Area to convert the RAAF’s Spitfire fleet back to non-tropicalised configuration. In the absence of manufacturer’s drawings of the factory-standard cowling, the engineers at 2 Aircraft Depot fabricated their own version in impressively rapid time, but the experienced Spitfire pilot Flight Lieutenant Robin Norwood, Flight commander with 54 Squadron RAF, could not escape the suspicion that the 2 AD cowling did not deliver the same performance as the stock original. Indeed, comparative tests throughout 1943 continued to produce engine performance irregularities which strongly suggest that the locally-engineered intake was not production-ready.

 

However, to settle the matter, conclusive data had to be obtained. In pursuit of this, HQ Eastern Area rapidly initiated comparative tests between standard aircraft fitted with the Vokes filter and aircraft modified with one of the temperate carburettor intakes fabricated by 2 Aircraft Depot, delivering the modified aircraft to Richmond in December 1942. Norwood conducted the trials, finding that although the standard VCT was ‘not particularly fast’ below 10 000 feet, and although its climb rate was 100-200 feet per minute less than the aircraft with the temperate cowling, the speed difference was minor: about 3 knots under 10 000 feet, and no greater than 8 knots up to 20 000 feet.

 

It is noteworthy that the standard VC Tropical aircraft demonstrated a maximum speed of 316 knots at 22 500 feet in several separate tests - achieved once again at 3000 rpm and plus 9 pounds of boost. This was a much better performance than might have been expected, given the Vokes Filter’s bad press, for it was only a little less than the 321 knots achieved by temperate-intake aircraft in the UK powered by the same Merlin 46.

Source: Signal, RAAF London to Air Board, 26.12.1942, in NAA A1196: 1/501/478. via darwinspitfires.com

 

 

 

 

not only were in poor shape

Initially the unit was equipped with 6 Spitfires as rest was "given" to Egyptian units.  On 2nd July the convoy with machines put into Sierra Leone on the West coast of Africa and the Nigerstown’s aircraft were diverted to Takoradi in Ghana. The remainder of the convoy, with only six Spitfires for three squadrons, sailed on to Australia, arriving in Melbourne, Victoria on 13 August. 

 

It was not until 1943 that Spitfires became combat available in larger quantity, as 43 brand new MK VCs left Liverpool on 4th August 1942 on the freighter Hoperidge and arrived in the third week in October. This vessel docked at Melbourne and the crated fighters were transported to Laverton for assembly. Spitfires began to reach the squadrons in useful numbers early in November, and during the next two months the units worked hard preparing for action. 

 

The aircraft were given the code name Capstan, (a popular cigarette of the time), and their engines were to be known as Marvels! 

 

Source: AMSE [Air Member of Supply & Equipment] - Equipping of "Capstan" squadrons 

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/SearchScreens/BasicSearch.aspx

 

Not only that, there was also serious trouble with the guns and ammunition, the 20 mm cannon shells had to be hand checked because the production was so poor that a lot of rounds had different size.

 

Dont have any information about the Hispano ammunition problems. There were two main issues with Spitfires armament - the Hispanos were prone to jam under high G maneuvers and there were serious issues with guns being peculiarly sensitive to cold, which did not bode well for gun reliability after prolonged flight at or above 30 000 feet - as was normal in norther Australia operations. 

 

In Battle of Britain, on Spitfires MK I the freezing up of the .303 inch Browning machine guns at altitude had prompted a simple modification, by which hot air from the radiator was ducted into the wing cavity and then vented through an exit port on the underside of the outer wings.

Similar modification was done on the MK V models, known as Modification 314, applied part way through the Mark V production run.

 

Unfortunately, this outwardly simple heating system was poorly engineered and badly manufactured, and therefore beset with problems. This was especially disadvantageous for 1 Fighter Wing, as it operated the Spitfire on the far side of the earth from the type’s production and modification centres in the UK. Problems that were solved quickly closer to the source had to be stoically endured at the dangling end of a long supply chain, with every required action and modification delayed and confused by the rigours of technical correspondence over long distances.

 

From darwinspitfires.

 

 

 

In short, the Spitfire V over Darwin was not the representation of what a true Spitfire V 'scapability over the Zero, a better example would be the Seafire III which had the performance of the Spitfire V, only navalized, and the Seafire III did dominate the Zero.

The standard Spitfire V would operate even worse, it was not capable of operating in such climate. There is a reason why Spitfire VIII was designed and almost exclusively operated in tropical regions, while other Spitfires were not. 

 

Spitfire Vc/trop while not being the best of the Spitfires, represented as good as possible the "family" on the very far front. 

 

Seafire III had only one combat with Zeros. One. With A6M5 model 52c, it is hardly any way to set a pattern. Especially that combat took place in year 1945 with the pilots with little to no flight experience and less than 60 flight hours. Besides, the numbers credited to British pilots could not be verified due to absence of Japanese Kodachosho documentation. We base on British claims, certainly British won that combat and there is no discussion about their superiority at that stage, but the exact numbers and sustained losses or damage are not known in case of Japanese.

 

 

 

 

And facts spoke for itself, Allies pilots greatly respected the 190 over the 109 despite the latter having better high altitude performance, and the J2M had the best kill ratio out of all Japanese fighters.

As a matter of fact, pilots which did not respect the opponent usually died. That is universal truth for every aircraft and every pilot.

 

 

The original point made was that the A6M was what the P-51 was in 1944, but already 4 years earlier. I'm disagreeing with that, because where the P-51 was as good as any other prop driven fighter of the time, the A6M was not. That necessarily includes comparisons with the best the enemy had to offer at the time, not just a couple of US carrier based models.

Well, than tell me JtD what makes P-51 that good and what A6M lacks in given periods ?

I can name for both :

- good performance

- complete domination over the combat field at the time of arrival (and for P-51D it continued till the end of the war, as Allies thanks God won that war, while Zero dominated since 1940 to the very beginning of 1943, when F4U and P-38 started turning the tables and eventually later F6F arrived and dominated skies)

- ability to escort bombers all the way to target zone and back

- ability to operate as interceptor

- easiness for young pilots to operate the machine 

- extremely reliable engine

 

What I think you mean (please, be so kind and correct me if I'm wrong) is direct comparison with any existing aircraft at that time. That is a bit artificial as excludes the whole background and operation history. 

[JtD]

The A6M lacked speed, protection, radio, high speed manoeuvrability, high altitude performance. In addition, much of its performance was the result of an extreme focus on weight reduction, which was frigging expensive, whereas one of the P-51's design premises was cheap and easy construction. The A6M was good for winning a duel, the P-51 was good for winning an air war. And the A6M was much better at landing on a carrier.

 

I'd also recommend you check on how the A6M "completely dominated" the Chinese skies or the skies around Guadalcanal. And how many carrier battles did the IJN actually and clearly win? It probably were assessments like yours that got Yamamoto killed.

Edited March 12, 2015 by JtD

[YSoMadTovarisch]

First, not Volkes but Vokes.

 

Second, the performance of the Spitfire Vc/trop was inferior but that was not the reason of usage of Vokes filter but usage of different Merlin engine, designed for high altitude combat. The Merlin 46.

This was main reason why so many problems could occur in combat below 20,000 feet.

 

To quote a specialist here:

In the environment Spitfires fought (above 15,000 feet or even 20,000 feet was completely normal altitude for Japanese to carry operations over Australia at that time) they seem to be best than those guys flew at homebefore.

 

Source:  Signal, RAAF London to RAAF HQ, dated 12.5.1942; & Memo from 1AD dated 7.10.1943 in NAA A705: 9/41/74. via darwinspitfires.com

 

Aware of the shortcomings in performance with Vokes filter decision was made to produce by RAAF their own filter :

Source: Signal, RAAF London to Air Board, 26.12.1942, in NAA A1196: 1/501/478. via darwinspitfires.com

 

 

Initially the unit was equipped with 6 Spitfires as rest was "given" to Egyptian units.  On 2nd July the convoy with machines put into Sierra Leone on the West coast of Africa and the Nigerstown’s aircraft were diverted to Takoradi in Ghana. The remainder of the convoy, with only six Spitfires for three squadrons, sailed on to Australia, arriving in Melbourne, Victoria on 13 August. 

 

It was not until 1943 that Spitfires became combat available in larger quantity, as 43 brand new MK VCs left Liverpool on 4th August 1942 on the freighter Hoperidge and arrived in the third week in October. This vessel docked at Melbourne and the crated fighters were transported to Laverton for assembly. Spitfires began to reach the squadrons in useful numbers early in November, and during the next two months the units worked hard preparing for action. 

 

The aircraft were given the code name Capstan, (a popular cigarette of the time), and their engines were to be known as Marvels! 

 

Source: AMSE [Air Member of Supply & Equipment] - Equipping of "Capstan" squadrons 

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/SearchScreens/BasicSearch.aspx

 

Dont have any information about the Hispano ammunition problems. There were two main issues with Spitfires armament - the Hispanos were prone to jam under high G maneuvers and there were serious issues with guns being peculiarly sensitive to cold, which did not bode well for gun reliability after prolonged flight at or above 30 000 feet - as was normal in norther Australia operations. 

 

In Battle of Britain, on Spitfires MK I the freezing up of the .303 inch Browning machine guns at altitude had prompted a simple modification, by which hot air from the radiator was ducted into the wing cavity and then vented through an exit port on the underside of the outer wings.

Similar modification was done on the MK V models, known as Modification 314, applied part way through the Mark V production run.

 

Unfortunately, this outwardly simple heating system was poorly engineered and badly manufactured, and therefore beset with problems. This was especially disadvantageous for 1 Fighter Wing, as it operated the Spitfire on the far side of the earth from the type’s production and modification centres in the UK. Problems that were solved quickly closer to the source had to be stoically endured at the dangling end of a long supply chain, with every required action and modification delayed and confused by the rigours of technical correspondence over long distances.

 

From darwinspitfires.

 

The standard Spitfire V would operate even worse, it was not capable of operating in such climate. There is a reason why Spitfire VIII was designed and almost exclusively operated in tropical regions, while other Spitfires were not. 

 

Spitfire Vc/trop while not being the best of the Spitfires, represented as good as possible the "family" on the very far front. 

 

Seafire III had only one combat with Zeros. One. With A6M5 model 52c, it is hardly any way to set a pattern. Especially that combat took place in year 1945 with the pilots with little to no flight experience and less than 60 flight hours. Besides, the numbers credited to British pilots could not be verified due to absence of Japanese Kodachosho documentation. We base on British claims, certainly British won that combat and there is no discussion about their superiority at that stage, but the exact numbers and sustained losses or damage are not known in case of Japanese.

 

Read this discussion:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=175294

The Spitfire V simply didn't perform as it should in Darwin like it did in Europe. That's why I used the Seafire which had the performance of a Spitfire V but actually perform as it should in this enviroment.

And I've already stated one of the primary reasons the Spitfire V failed against the Zero: Totally wrong tactics utilized.

 

Well, than tell me JtD what makes P-51 that good and what A6M lacks in given periods ?

I can name for both :

- good performance

- complete domination over the combat field at the time of arrival (and for P-51D it continued till the end of the war, as Allies thanks God won that war, while Zero dominated since 1940 to the very beginning of 1943, when F4U and P-38 started turning the tables and eventually later F6F arrived and dominated skies)

- ability to escort bombers all the way to target zone and back

- ability to operate as interceptor

- easiness for young pilots to operate the machine 

- extremely reliable engine

 

What I think you mean (please, be so kind and correct me if I'm wrong) is direct comparison with any existing aircraft at that time. That is a bit artificial as excludes the whole background and operation history.

I've already posted above and I'll post it again:

 

1.Lack of development potential. There's a reason the Japanese had to design the very different A7M as the successor to the A6M instead of just simply put the a new engine in it.

 

2.Being designed for up to date combat tactics.

 

 

As a matter of fact, pilots which did not respect the opponent usually died. That is universal truth for every aircraft and every pilot.

Yeah, but you don't respect and fear a rabbit as much as a tiger.

Edited March 12, 2015 by GrapeJam

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Purely from a carrier-based fighter perspective the F4U seems to win hands down. When used by the US navy in the Pacific, from April 1944 they were credited with no fewer than 2,140 victories with the loss of 189 of their number. Admittedly this was late in the war and lots of mitigating factors would have to taken into consideration, but still it is a remarkable air victory to loss ratio.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Well regarding the F4U's poor entry combat performance. If you read Whistling Death, early F4U-1 when introduced had a lot of problems, including that cockpit controls reach(like rudder and stuffs) were too far because the cockpit initially was designed due to according to input from the very large Boone Guyton.

Edited March 12, 2015 by GrapeJam

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Well regarding the F4U's poor entry combat performance. If you read Whistling Death, early F4U-1 when introduced had a lot of problems, including that cockpit controls reach(like rudder and stuffs) were too far because the cockpit initially was designed due to according to input from the very large Boone Guyton.

I agree that entry was poor, but the late war numbers are the numbers.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Quick conclusions, but if you dont mind I will try to correct some.

 

 

The A6M lacked speed

In regard to its opposition it did not, except of P-39 slowly pulling away, Zero was hard to outrun for anything else until P-38 or F4U.

 

protection

That is correct, but was a result of absence of such requirement in 12-Shi document issued in 1937 and further experiences over China or early Pacific war. Little to no losses = no need for protection.

 

radio

That is myth. All Zeros were manufactured with radios - Type 96 set, later replaced by Type 3 Model 1 radio. Zero was also equipped with Type 1 Ku Model 7  Direction finder and Carrier Wave (CW) teletype key.

 

It was a personal decision of pilots in some land based units to remove the radios.

 

high speed manoeuvrability

High speed roll rate certainly. That was a major issue and was exploited. That is absolutely correct.

 

But the elevator and rudder were not unresponsive.

The NACA report indicated no complains in excessive stick forces on elevator and rudder was considered sufficiently powerful.

 

Source is  "Preliminary Measurments of Flying Qualities of the Japanese Mitsubishi 00 Pursuit Airplane" issued in 1943.

 

high altitude performance

 

This in fact is largely incorrect, although A6M2 had a single stage supercharger it was good enough to give it superior performance at altitude against opposition such as P-40 or P-39.

To quote Pete Masters, RAAF No. 75 Squadron pilot. On the performance of the Zero he wrote : "There was much more we know that we didn't know before we got to New Guinea, like the ability of Zeros to outperform us, contrary to what we had learned before we arrived. We were told that Japanese Zero was an upgraded copy of the Harvard Trainer as used by the Empire Air Scheme in Canada. It was under-powered and flimsy with very light aluminum and canvas cladding sometimes joined by canvas at the extremities. It had no armour plate to protect the pilot, and although it was reputed to fly higher than the Kittyhawk it was much slower and inferior in almost its characteristics, including firepower. 

I am now sure that all this misinformation cam about because very few Allied fighters had encountered Zeros in combat prior to New Guinea and those that had in Malaysia, the Philippines, or elsewhere had never had a chance to examine the real specifications of this amazing aircraft at close quarters. In fact when I at last saw a Zero on the ground and crawled all over it I was amazed at the rigidity of its structure and its apparent fighting qualities from the cockpit. In our combat assessments at Port Moresby during the 44 days we fought, we soon concluded that head-to-head combat between Kittyhawk and Zero was unwise, and at altitudes above 20,000 feet was simply dangerous.

 

They were much more maneuverable and could outclimb us in the ratio of two or three to one. what they didnt have was our weight and pilot protection with 1/2 inch armour plate behind the pilot. Our battle plans therefore always included a desire to get above the enemy, if possible into the sun, and then to break away and come back for another shot. The Zero always had the advantage at the same height and also could maneuver much more effectively above 20,000 feet where the Kittyhawk would tend to "fall out of the sky" 

 

Further quote :

 

Airacobras clashed with the Zero on April 30, 1942 in a low level action near Lae , New Guinea . From May to August 1942 combats between Airacobras and Zeros took place on a regular basis over New Guinea . After the first few combats Lt. Col. Boyd D. Wagner wrote a report on the early actions. After commenting that the Zero outperformed the P-39 markedly in maneuverability and climb, Wagner commented on the relative speeds of the aircraft at low altitudes. According to Wagner: “…the Zero was able to keep up with the P-39 to an indicated 290 mph. At 325 indicated just above the water, the P-39 pulled slowly out of range.” Wagner also commented that the P-39's performance above 18,000 feet was very poor.

 

In later actions combat reports sometimes offer helpful insights into the relative performance of the two aircraft. Lt. Paul G. Brown chased a Zero at 12,000 feet. “He nearly stayed away from me at 350 mph” (Brown). In a low level action: “I indicated 320 mph straight and level at 1,000 feet. Zero kept me in range” (Royal). In another action on the same day Zeros encountered P-39s and P-400s at 21,000 feet. “Zeros stayed with the Airacobras. I dived 12,000 feet indicating 450 miles per hour and Zero stayed with me and followed me to ground level firing. Lt. Martin pulled him off me” (Price). “4 Zeros were over Kokoda and attacked us on the way home. We were barely able to out speed them at 10,000 feet. We were indicating about 350 mph in a very slight dive. Their probable speed 340 mph” (Egenes).

    Source: http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm     

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

In addition, much of its performance was the result of an extreme focus on weight reduction, which was frigging expensive, whereas one of the P-51's design premises was cheap and easy construction.

 

 

I think I already explained that in one of previous posts :

 

Airframe was strong in fact, just not capable of withstand a lot of damage, though there are quite a few examples of Zeros returning with battle damage and than flying combat again after field repairs. Zero was made of special Duralumin, produced by Sumitomo Metals it was called "Super Ultra Duralumin" or "Extra Super Duralumin", and was a zinc aluminium alloy equivalent to modern day 7075 material. It's strength properties were significantly higher than those of the normally used copper aluminum alloys, while its unit weight was almost the same. 

 

Lt. Col. J. M. Hayward, chief of foreign development projects at Wright Field stated in Air Force magazine in January 1943: “Claims that German and Japanese airplanes were poorly constructed of unsatisfactionary materials have not been substantiated by fact.” Hayward’s and other Allied reports noted that the Japanese had expended considerable effort in lightening aircraft structures but at the expense of basic safety and structural integrity. An intelligence report on the Zero recovered in Alaska reported it was well constructed and debunked that it was “flimsy.”

                   

 

I'd also recommend you check on how the A6M "completely dominated" the Chinese skies or the skies around Guadalcanal. And how many carrier battles did the IJN actually and clearly win?

 

In China Zeros are credited with shooting down over 100 enemy aircraft for not a single loss. Two machines were shot down by anti-aircraft fire. Not sure to what you refer.

 

New Guinea which was first campaign with very strong allied opposition was again in favor of Zero pilots. Tainan Kokutai  in combat over New Guina and Rabaul between April and October 1043 for the loss 18 pilots in combat with other fighters and 6 being killed by bomber gunners, shot down 81 aircraft and 148 allied aircrew. Those included :

- 17 P-40 E 

- 5 B-17 E and F

- 38 P-39 and P-400

- 5 A-24 Banshee

- 10 B-25 C and D

- 1 Lockheed Hudson

- 5 B-26 Marauder

 

In combat over Northern Australia, research done by Australian researcher Gordon R Birkett indicated that from March 1942 till August the 3rd Kokutai lost 8 planes and 6 pilots, on the other hand Allied units lost 18 planes but only 4 pilots. 

 

Skipping all the combat over Malaya, Philippines, Ceylon or other areas we move to Guadalcanal.

 

That was a major blow to Japanese, but that is not because of Zero poor characteristics but overall combat situation.  Japanese had to fly 650 miles in one way, thus it required not only a lot of strength to sustain such a long flights but also to use the external fuel tanks. Zeros reportedly engaged enemies with those, otherwise they would never be able to return to their base.

Furthermore Japanese flew into a well protected area with radars, allowing them to precisely follow the targets.

The huge losses over Guadalcanal were a combination of great allied air intelligence and huge distances Japanese had to fly.

Besides, the complete numbers on losses are still not known due to absence of Japanese sources in English positions on that topic, for the time being all numbers are based on American losses and claims on Japanese aircraft shot down.

Or well, there is just now available a new position which is supposed to contain all available Japanese documentation:

http://www.aerostories.org/~aerobiblio/article4609.html

 

 

Besides, since when carrier battles are won by fighters ? It was the fighters that Japanese were lacking but radar.

And if we are already on that topic. In Midway operation Chester Nimitz claimed 3:1 victory ratio of his fighters. In fact it were the US Navy and Marines who sustained a heavier losses.

 

The initial attack on Midway island of 108 aircraft (36 of them were Zeros) was intercepted by 18 Marine F2A and 6 Wildcats which despite initial altitude advantage easily were fought by escorts. 7 Japanese aircraft failed to return to carriers, that amounted 17% of all the aircraft destroyed or damaged in raid. Marines lost 13 Buffaloes and Navy lost two Wildcats, missing fourteen pilots. Seven of returning fighters were badly damaged and five returned with wounded pilots.

 

In the meantime the rest of the Zeros (36, or less in fact as not all were providing CAP at the same time until are were called into air due to air attack) provided a CAP over carriers, engaging attackers.

First were new TBFs followed by B-26s. Five TBFs were shot down, one badly damaged returned to Midway and was written off. Two B-26s were badly damaged in the combat.

 

Next attack occurred 30 minutes later, when 16 SBDs, 14 B-17s and 11 SB2Us assailed Japanese ships. They were engaged by 19 Zeros, nine of them were already aloft and additional scrambled as the bombers approached. Dive bomber leader was shot down in flames and seven other SBDs were lost. None of them scored hits. B-17s met little opposition and returned to Midway sustaining only minor damaged if any. SB2Us were last to arrive and 3 of them were shot while other 3 were damaged beyond repair.

This attack had drawn all available Zeros on the carriers aloft in defensive patrols and four of them had been shot down.

 

When first major attack came there were 18 Zeros in the air, further 11 were launched after the combat started. Initially they engaged TBD Devastators, with first wave almost totally destroyed and second wave of 14 Devastators engaged by similar number of Zeros, which led to destruction of 9 Devastators and tenth ditched upon its return to US fleet.

 

Next on the scene was the Yorktown's attack group.  Twelve TBDs escorted by six F4Fs closed in a low level attacks. They were opposed by 25 Zeros. This was the important and critical moment as 17 Yorktown dive bombers were flying at 15,000 feet along with incoming 32 from Enterprise, which were not spotted until it was too late.

Eventually in this attack Japanese shot down 10 Devastators, further 2 were badly damaged. One Wildcat was shot down and further two were so badly damaged that they crashed upon landing.    

After that the most important attack of dive bombers occurred which in a matter of minutes brought destruction to three Japanese aircraft carriers. Zeros tried to intercept the dive bombers after their attack, while Yorktowns returned safely, 18 of Enterprise SBDs failed to return. 

 

Of the 41 Zeros participating in this combat, 14 went down with at least one of them being lost to friendly anti-aircraft fire and further two possibly. It is obvious that some of the Zeros were victims of the Wildcats. 

 

The next was a Japanese reply of 18 dive bombers escorted by 6 Zeros. En route Japanese fighters attacked a half dozen American fighters. Two were damaged and returned to Hiryu, although one had to ditch upon landing. Four Zeros continued the escort mission, although at the same time dive bombers were engaged by 20 F4Fs directed by radar and Japanese Zeros were not able to provide cover initially. F4Fs are credited with 11 D3A dive bombers, and eventually only other 7 delivered attack but these scored three direct hits and two damaging near hits on Yorktown. Zeros in the meantime engaged F4Fs, driving them away, damaging some and shooting down one. Three Zeros eventually failed to return.

 

After that came another wave of 10 B5N torpedo bombers escorted by 6 Zeros. Americans sent 22 Wildcats. Initially one B5N and two Wildcats were shot down. Within minutes Yorktown was hit by two torpedoes. In the end five B5Ns and two Zeros failed to return. Four Wildcats went down.

 

Final American blow was delivered by 24 SBDs which scored 4 hits on Hiryu, three of those were shot down by 14 Zeros still in the air. 

 

All other Zeros were lost due to absence of another carrier to land.

 

Overall the Japanese pressed home two attacks on the American task force. They did so with forces far weaker than those the Americans threw at their carriers. Japanese had a fighter escort in each case although it was weak and partially distracted from its main task. Despite the American advantage of radar, effective anti-aircraft fire and a strong force of intercepting fighters Japanese inflicted telling damage in both strikes. Japanese losses were heavy but comparatively somewhat lower than American.

 

The outcome of the battle overwhelmingly favored the Americans but in specifics the Japanese often outperformed Americans.  Seven of eighteen Japanese bombers attacked a radar alerted Yorktown and scored a much higher ratio of hits than the fifty American dive bombers that surprised Japanese fleet. A couple Japanese torpedo bombers managed to score two hits on the same carrier while about fort American torpedo bombers scored none on the Japanese carriers. Despite a lack of radar and relatively inferior anti-aircraft defenses, Japanese fighters essentially on their own inflicted a cruel losses on the American attackers. 

 

 

It probably were assessments like yours that got Yamamoto killed. 

Not sure what you imply. Yamamoto was killed being caught by surprise by much faster and better armed P-38s. Even than Zeros managed to bring down one P-38, while none of six escort fighters was lost. 

 

 

 

1.Lack of development potential. There's a reason the Japanese had to design the very different A7M as the successor to the A6M instead of just simply put the a new engine in it.

It had development potential, but limited due to extremely rigorous initial requirements. Besides, the work on A6M started at the beginning of 1938. The work on A7M (or 14-shi at that time) started early in 1941. Thats 3 years after the beginning of work on A6M, in my opinion a good time to start thinking on replacement.

 

And the better engine could be fitted any time as Kinsei was already considered at the stage of prototype, but it was consuming too much fuel which led to limitation of combat radius which was a requirement issued in 12-shi specification. 

 

 

 

2.Being designed for up to date combat tactics.

Machines are build not up to combat tactics but given by engineers specifications. 

Edited March 12, 2015 by =LD=Hiromachi

[YSoMadTovarisch]

It had development potential, but limited due to extremely rigorous initial requirements. Besides, the work on A6M started at the beginning of 1938. The work on A7M (or 14-shi at that time) started early in 1941. Thats 3 years after the beginning of work on A6M, in my opinion a good time to start thinking on replacement.

 

And the better engine could be fitted any time as Kinsei was already considered at the stage of prototype, but it was consuming too much fuel which led to limitation of combat radius which was a requirement issued in 12-shi specification.

 

The kinsei was just modest improvement in power, I doubt the zero's airframe could handle a 2000hp engine. While the Mustang got fitted with anything from 1150hp Allison engine to 2450hp and above griffon engine.

 

Hell the 109 and the Spitfire were more than 3 years older designs than the Zero aged much better, and both were fitted with engines that more than tripled it's original power.

 

 

Machines are build not up to combat tactics but given by engineers specifications.

Yeah, and these engineers specification just happened to be based on an outdated combat philosophy.

Edited March 12, 2015 by GrapeJam

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Grapejam, Kinsei was never a 2000 HP engine. Kinsei had a couple of variants, with early ones of performance slightly below 1100 HP were considered at the stage of prototype. Than Kinsei 54, a 1300-1370 HP was considered and eventually a Kinsei 62, a 1500 HP engine (known in Army as Ha-112-II) which was tried in A6M8.

Kinsei 54 would be fully available in 1942, but at that time range was critical, especially later in Guadalcanal campaign. 

 

Edit: I misunderstood.

Well, technically speaking Homare was only a bit wider than Sakae as in fact Homare was a development from Sakae. But weight and length were higher than in Sakae though. Anyway, 1370 HP or eventually 1500 HP would be enough in regard to performance improvement. The lack that would come would be range, and that was not acceptable until 1944. So the time when A7M was expected to arrive and should but never did.  

 

 

Yeah, and these engineers specification just happened to be based on an outdated combat philosophy.

 

They were issued by Naval Aeronautics Headquarters and titled : "Planning requirements for the Prototype 12-Shi Carrier based fighter". Document contained about 20 requirements, few of them Jiro Horikoshi mentioned in his book. 

Those were :

a) Purpose - Escort fighter with dogfight performance superior to that of its opponents. It also must be an interceptor capable of destroying enemy attackers.

b) Dimensions - Wing span must be less than 12 meters.

c) Maximum speed - more than 500 km/h at 4,000 meters altitude.

d) Time to climb : Less than 3.5 minutes to 3000 meters altitude.

e) Flight endurance - at full power using internal fuel only, 1.2 to 1.5 hours at 3000 meters altitude. In overload condition using both internal and external fuel tanks, 1.5 to 2.0 hours. At economic cruising speed, 6 to 8 hours. Or range of 1,870 kilometers with a normal load and 3,110 kilometers with external fuel tanks.

f) Take-off field length: Less than 70 meters with a head wind of 12 meters per second, to be able to take of from a carrier deck. Approximately 2.5 times the 70 meters distance for no wind condition.

g) Dogfight performance - not lower than the Type 96 fighter (A5M2).

h) Armament: Two 20 mm cannons and two 7.7 mm machine guns.

i) Communications Equipment - Radio and full direction finding equipment.

j) Power plant - Mitsubishi Zuisei Type 13 engine or Mitsubishi Kinsei Type 46.

Edited March 12, 2015 by =LD=Hiromachi

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Grapejam, Kinsei was never a 2000 HP engine. Kinsei had a couple of variants, with early ones of performance slightly below 1100 HP were considered at the stage of prototype. Than Kinsei 54, a 1300-1370 HP was considered and eventually a Kinsei 62, a 1500 HP engine (known in Army as Ha-112-II) which was tried in A6M8.

Kinsei 54 would be fully available in 1942, but at that time range was critical, especially later in Guadalcanal campaign. 

 

Edit: I misunderstood.

Well, technically speaking Homare was only a bit wider than Sakae as in fact Homare was a development from Sakae. But weight and length were higher than in Sakae though. Anyway, 1370 HP or eventually 1500 HP would be enough in regard to performance improvement. The lack that would come would be range, and that was not acceptable until 1944. So the time when A7M was expected to arrive and should but never did.  

If the A7M was cancelled why not just fit the Homare instead of the Kinsei? Weren't the A6M8 prototypes completed long after the A7M was cancelled? Or is that the redesign for the airframe to handle 2000hp would be so much you might as well design a new aircraft? Neither the 109, nor the Spitfire, nor the Mustang had this problem.

 

And we can't really say that the A6M8's performance was good enough, can we?

 

 

 

 

They were issued by Naval Aeronautics Headquarters and titled : "Planning requirements for the Prototype 12-Shi Carrier based fighter". Document contained about 20 requirements, few of them Jiro Horikoshi mentioned in his book. 

Those were :

a) Purpose - Escort fighter with dogfight performance superior to that of its opponents. It also must be an interceptor capable of destroying enemy attackers.

b) Dimensions - Wing span must be less than 12 meters.

c) Maximum speed - more than 500 km/h at 4,000 meters altitude.

d) Time to climb : Less than 3.5 minutes to 3000 meters altitude.

e) Flight endurance - at full power using internal fuel only, 1.2 to 1.5 hours at 3000 meters altitude. In overload condition using both internal and external fuel tanks, 1.5 to 2.0 hours. At economic cruising speed, 6 to 8 hours. Or range of 1,870 kilometers with a normal load and 3,110 kilometers with external fuel tanks.

f) Take-off field length: Less than 70 meters with a head wind of 12 meters per second, to be able to take of from a carrier deck. Approximately 2.5 times the 70 meters distance for no wind condition.

g) Dogfight performance - not lower than the Type 96 fighter (A5M2).

h) Armament: Two 20 mm cannons and two 7.7 mm machine guns.

i) Communications Equipment - Radio and full direction finding equipment.

j) Power plant - Mitsubishi Zuisei Type 13 engine or Mitsubishi Kinsei Type 46.

You can have your control surfaces designed for either low speed, or high speed. The A6M chose the former, and apparently was too focused on it that it had worse high speed maneuverability than both 109 and Spitfire at the end of the war.

Edited March 12, 2015 by GrapeJam

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

A7M was never cancelled. No clue where you found that. Besides, as said, Homare was longer and consumed far more fuel, was also heavier. 

 

 

 

Neither the 109, nor the Spitfire, nor the Mustang had this problem.

 

Neither of them was powered by radial engine.  Same problem would arise if the far more bulky Wildcat would be equipped with R-2800.   

 

 

 

You can have your control surfaces designed for either low speed, or high speed. The A6M chose the former, and apparently was too focused on it

While the ailerons were always an issue and as presented in this post Jiro Horikoshi was aware of that and tried to solve it :

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14475-comparison-fighter-roll-rates-10kft/page-3?do=findComment&comment=232810

 

About the elevator, the initial prototype was equipped with differently designed controls (other linkages or something) and according to Jiro Horikoshi elevator was oversensitive, especially at higher speeds which posed a danger of over-stressing the airframe.

Zeros elevator was designed to give the ability to develop a maximum lift coefficient and not overstress the airframe. After all, according to NACA no excessive stick forces on elevator controls were present.

 

 

 

than both 109 and Spitfire at the end of the war.

You mean that 109 which even at best form as K-4 suffered terribly at high speeds ? Solty is extremely happy about what happened in DCS and how he can enjoy his P-51D again   

[YSoMadTovarisch]

A7M was never cancelled. No clue where you found that. Besides, as said, Homare was longer and consumed far more fuel, was also heavier. 

 

Wasn't production stopped due to the factory being bombed and resources were instead shifted to the N1K2?

 

As for the Homare, range's no longer a problem, well, fuel is a problem but then again fuel would be wasted if the planes can't complete it's mission or worse, get shot down due to inadequate performance, the Germans even with their fuel shortage still put more powerful engine into their planes.

 

 

Neither of them was powered by radial engine.  Same problem would arise if the far more bulky Wildcat would be equipped with R-2800.   

 

You might wanna look up the original size of Jumo 210 engine, then compared to DB 605 engine, or the Merlin II vs Griffon 65. The Americans also managed to put the Wasp Major into their Corsair, and that engine was more or less twice the size of R2800. The only excuse is that for the Zero it would take too much work, really.

 

While the ailerons were always an issue and as presented in this post Jiro Horikoshi was aware of that and tried to solve it :

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14475-comparison-fighter-roll-rates-10kft/page-3?do=findComment&comment=232810

 

About the elevator, the initial prototype was equipped with differently designed controls (other linkages or something) and according to Jiro Horikoshi elevator was oversensitive, especially at higher speeds which posed a danger of over-stressing the airframe.

Zeros elevator was designed to give the ability to develop a maximum lift coefficient and not overstress the airframe. After all, according to NACA no excessive stick forces on elevator controls were present.

You're sure?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/RAAF_Hap_Trials.pdf

Page 22:

 

At 200 mph A.S.I, 75-100lbs stick force is required to obtain 4G, with considerable increase in elevator heaviness as the speed approach 300 mph A.S.I

Well I guess it's all relativity.

You mean that 109 which even at best form as K-4 suffered terribly at high speeds ? Solty is extremely happy about what happened in DCS and how he can enjoy his P-51D again   

 

Yep, and the Zero was even worse than that, it's something really.

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Wasn't production stopped due to the factory being bombed and resources were instead shifted to the N1K2?

 

Production was postponed and was resumed in June 1945 but before enough engines and airframes could be completed war ended. One serial production A7M2 was thrown out of cliff by workers so Americans would not capture it, other was claimed by Japanese to be lacking spare parts so Americans gave up on bringing it to US.

 

And no, A7M was intended to be produced in huge quantity. What is more it was N1K2-J that would be stopped, or rather changed, as Mitsubishi MK9A was intended to power it either.

 

 

 

As for the Homare, range's no longer a problem, well, fuel is a problem but then again fuel would be wasted if the planes can't complete it's mission or worse, get shot down due to inadequate performance, the Germans even with their fuel shortage still put more powerful engine into their planes.

 

Zero was still carrier based fighter aircraft, cutting the range to nothing on it was out of question. If one wants a short range than builds a land based fighters  and that was done in form of N1K and J2M. 

 

 

 

You're sure?

Would you like me to scan for you a page from Jiro Horikoshi book ?

 

 

 

At 200 mph A.S.I, 75-100lbs stick force is required to obtain 4G, with considerable increase in elevator heaviness as the speed approach 300 mph A.S.I

 

Well, you misunderstood. Zero initially had oversensitive elevator. As that bothered Horikoshi he installed sort of elastic linkages  to reduce the effectiveness. Anyway, I know that RAAF document. As said, I have NACA graphs and testing documentation of A6M2. Once again, they did not see the elevator forces to be excessive. Although with speed the stiffening was raising, it was not such a problem as with ailerons. 

 

 

 

Yep, and the Zero was even worse than that, it's something really.

Not if you take into consideration that Zero was not intended to serve so long in combat. It was supposed to be replaced by A7M and only the war outcome changed that.

 

109 K along with 190 D were on the other hand to be still a major Luftwaffe fighter types. 

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Zero was still carrier based fighter aircraft, cutting the range to nothing on it was out of question. If one wants a short range than builds a land based fighters  and that was done in form of N1K and J2M. 

 

Errr, by that time the A6M8 was complete Japan was pretty much home defense, range was no longer a question.

 

And I really think you're underestimating the amount of work needed to make a plane handle 2000hp when it's original design was for half that power.

 

 

 

Would you like me to scan for you a page from Jiro Horikoshi book ?

 

 

 

 

Well, you misunderstood. Zero initially had oversensitive elevator. As that bothered Horikoshi he installed sort of elastic linkages  to reduce the effectiveness. Anyway, I know that RAAF document. As said, I have NACA graphs and testing documentation of A6M2. Once again, they did not see the elevator forces to be excessive. Although with speed the stiffening was raising, it was not such a problem as with ailerons. 

 

Err, the 109 had that kind of stick force at 500 km/h it was widely considered as excessively heavy I don't know how the Zero's stick force was that at half the speed and considered not heavy.

 

 

 

Not if you take into consideration that Zero was not intended to serve so long in combat. It was supposed to be replaced by A7M and only the war outcome changed that.

 

109 K along with 190 D were on the other hand to be still a major Luftwaffe fighter types. 

 

Err, no, the 109 was supposed to be replaced by the Me 309 a few years earlier, in fact the 190 itself was considered to be replaced by 1943 version of Ta 152 but due to Messersmidth's lobbying Kurt Tank didn't get access the necessary engine.

Edited March 12, 2015 by GrapeJam

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Errr, by that time the A6M8 was complete Japan was pretty much home defense, range was no longer a question.

No. For Home defense was responsible Japanese Army.

 

 

 

And I really think you're underestimating the amount of work needed to make a plane handle 2000hp when it's original design was for half that power.

I'm not underestimating anything. I simply see not need and possibility to stick a 2000 HP engine into Zero. Especially as better machines were already flying.

 

 

 

Err, the 109 had that kind of stick force at 500 km/h it was widely considered as excessively heavy I don't know how the Zero's stick force was that at half the speed and considered not heavy.

 

I dont know, this document may well have a mistakes in some points or might not be accurate, overall it is very good source but any time I can I would put NACA as simply more professional and consistent.

 

One thing I know. Naca tested elevator in a relation between the elevator angle and lift coefficient at straight flight and in maneuvers. In a couple of conditions. For example, this was a straight flight up to 150 mph and accelerated flight between 150-160 mph. Than straight flight between 175-210 mph and also accelerated flight between 175-200 mph, etc. 

[JtD]

Quick conclusions, but if you dont mind I will try to correct some.

I'm sure you are incapable of that.

 

In regard to its opposition it did not, except of P-39 slowly pulling away, Zero was hard to outrun for anything else until P-38 or F4U.

Little reality check - already early P-40's were faster, so were Spitfires and at some altitudes even Hurricanes. Not to mention actually fast types.

 

That is correct, but was a result of absence of such requirement in 12-Shi document issued in 1937 and further experiences over China or early Pacific war. Little to no losses = no need for protection.

Early Pacific war at latest showed a dire need for protection, the aircraft losses sustained were unbearable in the long term. Which is a reason why the IJN send empty carriers into battle later in the war.

 

That is myth. All Zeros were manufactured with radios - Type 96 set, later replaced by Type 3 Model 1 radio. Zero was also equipped with Type 1 Ku Model 7  Direction finder and Carrier Wave (CW) teletype key.

 

It was a personal decision of pilots in some land based units to remove the radios.

So it lacked a radio.

 

High speed roll rate certainly. That was a major issue and was exploited. That is absolutely correct.

 

But the elevator and rudder were not unresponsive.

The NACA report indicated no complains in excessive stick forces on elevator and rudder was considered sufficiently powerful.

 

Source is  "Preliminary Measurments of Flying Qualities of the Japanese Mitsubishi 00 Pursuit Airplane" issued in 1943.

 So it lacked high speed manoeuverability.

This in fact is largely incorrect, although A6M2 had a single stage supercharger it was good enough to give it superior performance at altitude against opposition such as P-40 or P-39.

A FTH of 15000' is not the reference when it comes to good high altitude performance. Try a Merlin XX, at least.

 

blabla anecdotes

Try facts.

 

I think I already explained that in one of previous posts :

What's this got to do with a design focus on weight reduction and resulting high unit costs is lost on me.

 

In China Zeros are credited with shooting down over 100 enemy aircraft for not a single loss. Two machines were shot down by anti-aircraft fire. Not sure to what you refer.

Do you believe these figures? Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?

 

Besides, since when carrier battles are won by fighters ? It was the fighters that Japanese were lacking but radar.

OK, you can't answer. One. That's all. And fighters are so important elements in carrier operations, for escort and intercept alike, that all Navies increased relative fighter strength on board their carriers. Except for the Japanese, who fielded an unprotected, slow, low altitude aircraft without a radio and poor high speed manoeuverability as their premier fighter and sustained too heavy losses to maintain carrier aviation.

 

Not sure what you imply. Yamamoto was killed being caught by surprise by much faster and better armed P-38s. Even than Zeros managed to bring down one P-38, while none of six escort fighters was lost.

He only went there because everybody told him how the Japanese fighters were totally dominating the area.

 

Overall, thanks for posting stuff I've already read 5 years ago. Maybe one day you'll be able to come around and to assess the A6M's qualities realistically.

Edited March 13, 2015 by JtD

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I'm sure you are incapable of that.

If someone does not want to put into consideration that he might be mistaken than obviously I'm incapable of that.

 

 

 

early P-40's were faster

You mean marginally faster ?

 

 

Zero-sen possessed superior acceleration at all altitudes, loosing the advantage only when both machines were reaching the speed limits. And maximum level speed was only slightly better. 

 

 

 

so were Spitfires

 

Spitfires indeed were faster, but mainly at higher altitudes.

 

 

 

at some altitudes even Hurricanes

 

Shamefully none of them presented such advantage over Singapore.

And some Hurricanes were faster, only after + 12 lb/sq in boost was approved.

 

Before ... not so much :

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_II_Z-2974_Level.pdf

 

 

 

Early Pacific war at latest showed a dire need for protection, the aircraft losses sustained were unbearable in the long term. Which is a reason why the IJN send empty carriers into battle later in the war.

Now this is a sensation ? First I've heard of that. Neither in battle of Philippine sea  nor Leyte Gulf the carriers were empty ...

 

 

 

So it lacked a radio.

In some units, by individual decision. How does that make a pattern for  anything ? Every Zero was produced with all kinds of radio equipment, and if some removed, well, it was their decision.

Its like saying that P-40F overall lacked protection because some pilots decided to remove the armored plates to slightly improve the climb rate.

 

 

 

 So it lacked high speed manoeuverability.

It lacked a high speed roll rate. If that counts for all kinds of maneuverability ...

 

 

 

Try facts.

Maybe you should present any ? For the time being you haven't presented anything except of semantics.

Besides, the "anecdotes" are actual combat reports issued by the pilots. They are also a fact. 

 

 

 

Do you believe these figures? Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?

Its not a matter of believing, its a matter of admitting. Chinese admitted suffering huge losses in 1940/1941 and it is clearly visible by the decisions they made, to move their air forces back from the front. The actual Chinese air resistance was crushed.

 

 

 

OK, you can't answer. One. That's all. And fighters are so important elements in carrier operations, for escort and intercept alike, that all Navies increased relative fighter strength on board their carriers. Except for the Japanese, who fielded an unprotected, slow, low altitude aircraft without a radio and poor high speed manoeuverability as their premier fighter and sustained too heavy losses to maintain carrier aviation.

Bla bla bla, no facts but a stubborn guy afraid of admitting that he has no arguments. 

 

 

 

He only went there because everybody told him how the Japanese fighters were totally dominating the area.

Any actual proof of that ?

 

 

 

Overall, thanks for posting stuff I've already read 5 years ago. Maybe one day you'll be able to come around and to assess the A6M's qualities realistically.

Overall, thanks for answering stuff I've been reading on all kinds of forums for years. Maybe one day you will be able to come around and will have mind open enough to accept different points of view. For the time being, with all respect, but your head JtD is as closed as jar.   

 

I don't see any need to continue arguing if you are unable to talk on any of the points. You havent presented any argument, you haven't even elaborated any of your points. So its pointless to argue, have a nice day than. 

[YSoMadTovarisch]

You mean marginally faster ?

 

 

Zero-sen possessed superior acceleration at all altitudes, loosing the advantage only when both machines were reaching the speed limits. And maximum level speed was only slightly better. 

 

The P40's also fair superior in a dive, both in speed and dive acceleration.

 

In some units, by individual decision. How does that make a pattern for  anything ? Every Zero was produced with all kinds of radio equipment, and if some removed, well, it was their decision.

Its like saying that P-40F overall lacked protection because some pilots decided to remove the armored plates to slightly improve the climb rate.

 

The problem is Japanese aerial radios were so unreliable that they were often removed to save weight.

 

 

 

It lacked a high speed roll rate. If that counts for all kinds of maneuverability ...

 

For high speed tactics, roll rate is far more important, if you can't roll , you're pretty much a straight line fighter. This is why the 190 was an excellent high speed fighter despite having very heavy elevator at high speed (German test showed that the 190's elevator was only slightly lighter than the 109 at high speed) because it had an excellent high speed roll rate.

 

And let's not kid ourselves here, the Zero's elevator was even heavier than the 109 at high speed I doubt most pilot could exert enough strength to execute hard maneuvers above 400mph. Plus because the guns triggers are on the throttle, good luck hitting anything that is not a bomber at high speed with only one hand on the stick.

Edited March 13, 2015 by GrapeJam

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

The P40's also fair superior in a dive, both in speed and dive acceleration.

 

Of course, its much heavier aircraft. Absolutely can agree with that Grapejam.

 

 

 

The problem is Japanese aerial radios were so unreliable that they were often removed to save weight.

Not the radios themselves. The case was not that the early Japanese radios had only one channel, which made them useless if anyone would be jamming the radio communication and the main hindrance to their effectiveness was caused by scant attention to shielding and grounding the installation. This poor shielding of the Zero-sen dual ignition system in particular caused interference to radio reception and transmission.

 

The Tainan Kokutai, one of the units known for removing the radios, had only a few technical officers at Lea or Rabaul sufficiently familiar with the radio system to effectively modify or maintain them.

[JtD]

...blabla...

So its pointless to argue, have a nice day than.

Likewise and the same to you.

 

When you'll be able to see a difference between flying 650 miles and still be competitive with the best the enemy has and flying 650 miles to sustain unbearable losses, we can talk again.

[sallee]

Skua

[ShamrockOneFive]

It's simple... the P-51D can (with the huge training program active in North America) effectively fight against the late model FW190D and Bf109G and K series while having the range that requires the plane to have a pee tube installed... for pilot comfort . Those other types are better in other raw stats but not by enough to make up the difference that being able to fly 1600 miles makes.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

It's simple... the P-51D can (with the huge training program active in North America) effectively fight against the late model FW190D and Bf109G and K series while having the range that requires the plane to have a pee tube installed... for pilot comfort . Those other types are better in other raw stats but not by enough to make up the difference that being able to fly 1600 miles makes.

I agree and the P-51 was a remarkable aircraft (I personally don't think it was the best "pure" fighter in WWII), but as we all know later in the war, the sheer numbers advantage that the Allied air forces had over the Luftwaffe was a major contributing factor.