What is the weakness of Zero?
stormy0...@my-dejanews.com
What is the weakness of A6M2 Zero?
Cheers.
Reality is based on prejudice.
Get ahead or get out.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
DManton300
In article <77c97f$vfh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, stormy0...@my-dejanews.com
writes:
>Hello,
>
>What is the weakness of A6M2 Zero?
>
Well i'm no major expert but as far as my knowledge goes it was lightly
armed, had a complete lack of armour which meant it went up like a roman candle
when hit and whilst it could dance at low speed suffered from a progressive
hardening of controls as speed increased. I'm sure some of the more
knowledgable WWII guys will fill you in more than i can.
regards
Drewe
Rama Lama Yip Diddley Aye
Temple of the Green Grass
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"
find me at:-http://members.aol.com/dmanton300/index.html
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> What is the weakness of A6M2 Zero?
Very light construction, no pilot armour, no self sealing
fuel tanks. These made it extraordinary dangerous opponent
in dogfight but also caused that it would come down from
even a moderately good short burst.
It had quite good weaponry, 2x8mm MGs and 2x20mm cannons
but the cannons were slow firing, had poor ballistics
and small supply of ammo. Didn't though prevent Japanese
ruling the skies over Filippines, for example.
jok
--
Jukka O. Kauppinen jukka.k...@mikrobitti.fi ICQ: 1848 793
Journalist Mail: MikroBitti, Jukka O. Kauppinen,
MikroBitti Kornetintie 8, 00380 HELSINKI, FINLAND
Tel/fax +358-17-824 225 or fax +358-9-120 5747
GSM +358-40-730 0036
http://mikrobitti.fi/~jukkak
The best-selling computer magazine in Scandinavia
http://www.mikrobitti.fi/info (english information)
http://www.mikrobitti.fi/
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
<stormy0...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>What is the weakness of A6M2 Zero?
>
Tamela R. Germano
> Hello,
>
> What is the weakness of A6M2 Zero?
>
> Cheers.
The weakness of the Zero was caused by the same things that gave it
it's strengths. The design was for a fighter that would have the best
agility in the world as a "dogfighter", but this lead to a light as
possible airframe, no armor for the pilot, no self-sealing liners for the
fuel tanks, and control forces that got too heavy as speed went past
275kts or so. The airframe was limited in future growth as
well.
Italy did the same thing with the Macchi MC200, but the basic airframe
had self sealing tanks, pilot armor, and was tougher. It had room for
major growth into the MC-205 of late '42.
Dino in Reno
James Burns
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>What is the weakness of A6M2 Zero?
>
The other responders have not mentioned the Zero's inability
to dive rapidly. Whether as a result of its light weight, relatively
low power, or questionable loading ability, even the most pudgy-butt
early Allied fighters (i.e P-39, P-40, F4F) could engage Zeros from
above on a one-pass diving attack with relative impunity. Don't
believe me, ask Claire Lee Chennault.
Jim Burns
Gregg Germain
: >Hello,
: >
: >What is the weakness of A6M2 Zero?
: >
There were several. Some of them are:
1) Ailerons impossible to move at high speeds.
2) No armor
3) no self sealing fuel tanks
--- Gregg
"I don't want to die, baby.
gr...@head-cfa.harvard.edu but if I gotta die......
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics I'm gonna die last."
Phone: (617) 496-7237 Robert Mitchum
Etienne Le Chevalier
> Don't believe me, ask Claire Lee Chennault.
He's been dead since long ;-)
It was a great man, and one of the best patriots the USA ever had.
Btw, did you know that "Claire" was originally a french name (often used
by brits too) ? But it is exclusively.. feminine ! ;-)
SCStults
myth, this being admitted by Chennault himself ( and where it began, who
knows?)
Chennault's P-40s bounced almost exclusively Bettys and other rather slow
aircraft. Most of the escorts were army, not navy, and thus not Zeros. They
also as a matter of policy tried to avoid the fighters and went for the
bombers.
SCStults
N8PPZ73
The pilots, they kept getting aircraft shot out from underthem.
From what I understand is that the Zero was underpowered.
Can't help more,
Grego
Grego, N8PPZ
N8P...@aol.com
Brad Holman
mind. Didn't the wings come off in a high-speed dive, too?
N8PPZ73 <n8p...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990113233104...@ng05.aol.com>...
Etienne Le Chevalier
This job has to be done too, and it is often more efficient for the
ground offensives than engaging fighters.
I mean: If you have bombers in your side, you have to protect them,
right ? That's what the fighters are made for : protecting your bombers
and killing the ennemy's ones. Dogfight between fighters are just a
result of this..
In this particular case the allied didn't have any bomber in this area.
So it was no use of attacking the zeroes and loosinf theirs precious
P-40 !! OTHO, attacking bettys
Etienne Le Chevalier
sorry, the message was sent accidentally before I wrote the following :
OTHO, attacking bettys was useful, in order to help Chang-Kai-Check's
soldiers.
Btw, when I say that Chennault was a great patriot, it's because of the
job he did in the S-E Asia with his air transport company (the ancestor
of "Air America"). All this without any official help of the US of
course, for political reasons which are easy to guess..
Scott Peterson
> The other responders have not mentioned the Zero's inability
>to dive rapidly. Whether as a result of its light weight, relatively
>low power, or questionable loading ability, even the most pudgy-butt
>early Allied fighters (i.e P-39, P-40, F4F) could engage Zeros from
>above on a one-pass diving attack with relative impunity. Don't
>believe me, ask Claire Lee Chennault.
>
I believe it also had a problem diving and turning left, into the
direction the prop was turning as opposed to turning with it.
Something discovered using the captured Zero from the Aleutians.
Scott Peterson
Bonnie White
Peterson) wrote:
>jeb...@en.com (James Burns) wrote:
>
>
>I believe it also had a problem diving and turning left, into the
>direction the prop was turning as opposed to turning with it.
>
>Something discovered using the captured Zero from the Aleutians.
>
> Scott Peterson
Apparently due to it's light weight, it couldn't keep up with the
heavier american planes in a dive. Japanese ace Sabaru Sakai also
wrote how the Zero could roll and turn much easier in one difection
due to engine torque.
-FTZ
Gregg Germain
: The lack of self-sealing fuel tanks and no armor for the pilot come to
: mind. Didn't the wings come off in a high-speed dive, too?
Quite true. Most US planes could pull more G's without shedding
wings. So if you were in a high speed dive and the Zero was trying to
follow you could actually out turn it in a loop: Either the Zero
pilot pulled fewer G's (bigger turn) or he lost his wings (kill for
you).
Erik Shilling
Erik Shilling
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> shooting down 27 Chinese Fighter Plane without loss to themselves.
> Becasue of this one sided victory over the Chinese Air Force which
> happened several years prior to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese felt the
> Zero was invincible.
And the decimation of Allied air power in Filippines and other
areas during the conquest does not count? It is just another
sci-fi tale how a handful of Zeros ate all the Allied planes
as lunch and won air supremacy?
The facts below sound mostly like the well trashed
study where couple test details were taken and expanded
so that it sounds creditable proof how Zero was so
poor compared to even P-40. Not first time I've seen
it, and seen it also trashed piece by piece. A good attempt,
but not one who actually even knows a bit falls for
it though. It's easy to call things facts. Roll rate in
high speeds is not the single superior quality a
"better" a/c should have. Also roll rate has never equaled
maneuverability.
C.C. Jordan
<jukka.k...@mikrobitti.fi> wrote:
>> The actual myth about the Zero was a result of 13 Zeros
>> shooting down 27 Chinese Fighter Plane without loss to themselves.
>> Becasue of this one sided victory over the Chinese Air Force which
>> happened several years prior to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese felt the
>> Zero was invincible.
>
>And the decimation of Allied air power in Filippines and other
>areas during the conquest does not count? It is just another
>sci-fi tale how a handful of Zeros ate all the Allied planes
>as lunch and won air supremacy?
Time for a basic history lesson.....
The vast majority of aircraft destroyed by the Japanese were
caught on the ground. Another point: More than a few of the
USAAC aircraft in the P.I. were obsolete, such as the P-35
and P-36.
When dealing with the P-40, the Japanese did not fare all
that well. Beginning with Pearl Harbor, on through Burma
and China, the P-40 maintained a substantial positive kill
ratio against all Japanese fighters.
>
>The facts below sound mostly like the well trashed
>study where couple test details were taken and expanded
>so that it sounds creditable proof how Zero was so
>poor compared to even P-40. Not first time I've seen
>it, and seen it also trashed piece by piece. A good attempt,
>but not one who actually even knows a bit falls for
>it though.
Ok, provide a solid source to refute Erik's eyewitness commentary.
Erik was there, in Burma, flying P-40's. What are your credentials
to argue the issue? Besides a library card.
>It's easy to call things facts. Roll rate in
>high speeds is not the single superior quality a
>"better" a/c should have. Also roll rate has never equaled
>maneuverability.
Jukka, if you cannot roll, you cannot turn. If you cannot turn,
what does that equate to? Not much maneuverability. This isn't
hard stuff......
Regards,
C.C. Jordan
The Planes and Pilots of WWII online magazine
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/
A member of the WWII Web-ring.
Honor and remember the WWII veterans.
"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from
a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."
Emmanuel Gustin
>The facts below sound mostly like the well trashed
>study where couple test details were taken and expanded
>so that it sounds creditable proof how Zero was so
>poor compared to even P-40. Not first time I've seen
>it, and seen it also trashed piece by piece. A good attempt,
>but not one who actually even knows a bit falls for
>it though. It's easy to call things facts. Roll rate in
>high speeds is not the single superior quality a
>"better" a/c should have. Also roll rate has never equaled
>maneuverability.
Erik's comments on the P-40 vs. A6M may be criticised for being
rather selective: Of course the A6M did have strong points, such
as range and low-speed turning circle. The point is that the P-40
had strong points too; and even more important: The strengths of
the P-40 and of the A6M were such that if the correct tactics were
used, the P-40 should win most of the time. The proper tactics
means in this context: Keeping the speed high and the combat
mostly in the vertical plane. This was the general technique used
against Japanese combat aircraft, and it worked well. On the other
hand, if the allied pilots were unwise enough to engage in thigh turns
and lose speed, the A6M would be more likely to win.
As for roll rate at high speeds, this is an important tactical parameter.
According to most accounts I have seen, it is far more important than
(sustained) rate of turn. Many of the better fighters of WWII (Fw 190,
P-47, F4U) were known for their high roll rates. Combat calls for quick
changes in direction, and then a high roll rate is essential. Rolling into
a dive became a standard evasive tactic: Few Japanese fighters
could follow.
The P-40 was certainly not, in 1942, the best fighter around; it was mildly
obsolescent. However, the basic concept of the A6M was simply wrong.
Japanese tactical thinking was too much that of the biplane age (although
Navy pilots were actually trained for hit-and-run engagements, not for
dogfights) and too much biased towards the offensive, neglecting
defensive measures such as armour plate and self-sealing fuel tanks.
The A6M essentially represented the philosophy behind the Fokker Dr.I,
turned into modern hardware. Just like the Fokker Dr.I, it gained a
reputation out of proportion to its actual value, because it profited
--- briefly --- from the correct environment.
Over most of the Pacific, the Japanese had the advantage of surprise,
and this gave the A6M and even the Ki.43 the opportunity to build
a reputation. But the AVG was better prepared: A lot of ugly things
have been said about Chennault, and many of them are true, but
nobody has ever denied, AFAIK, that he was an excellent observer
and tactician.
A final remark: Erik has repeated the myth that information about the
A6M from China was ignored by the US military. Not so. US intelligence
did make mistakes, but the A6M was in official aircraft recognition
manuals and notes before Pearl Harbour. Not perhaps in full detail
and entirely correct (especially its range came as a surprise), but that
was partially because, ironically, US experts expected the A6M to be
designed to contemporary standards of strength and weight. It was
not. In that sense, its weakness was also its strength.
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
Home at University of Antwerp: http://nat-www.uia.ac.be/~gustin/
Military Aircraft Database: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/
Fighter Guns Pages: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/
(Delete NoSpam. from my address. If you can't reach me, your host
may be on our spam filter list. Check http://hipe.uia.ac.be/cc/.)
wal...@oneimage.com
>Jukka O. Kauppinen wrote in message <36A521D0...@mikrobitti.fi>...>
>>>Good post, Emmanuel!
>1)"As for roll rate at high speeds, this is an important tactical parameter.
>According to most accounts I have seen, it is far more important than
>(sustained) rate of turn."
P51, the Me 109 in particular had problems at high speed due to lack of rudder
trim and stiffening ailerons. With no rudder trim the pilot had to stand on the
rudder. Since the aicraft is normally set up for zero yaw in cruise, that means
in high speed the aircraft will yaw because the airflow increases the effectiveness
of the built-in rudder bias. At very high speeds this will counter the aileron input
to roll against the rudder's yaw. Carson cites this as a factor in the Me109.
>2)The P-40 was certainly not, in 1942, the best fighter around; it was mildly
>obsolescent. However, the basic concept of the A6M was simply wrong.
of WW2 gun camera shots where the Zero simply disintergrates under concentrated
fifty-cal fire. Contrast that with Bob Johnson's experience in the P47 where an
Fw190 was unable to knock him down with 7.92 fire even after Johnson's Tbolt had
suffered grievous former damage. (It's fully described in "Thunderbolt") BTW
Bob Johnson passed away just a few days ago. Ad atque vale!
3) The surprise came because intel analysts figured the Zero was built like every
one else's fighters. The extreme light weight gave it sparkling performance in climb
and turn but as cited above was its Achilles heel.
4) The tactics chosen by Chemmault were picked to maximize the P40's good points and
minimize those of the Zero. This is axiomatic; every fighter pilot is taught this in
training. Well, now, anyway. The RAF Spitfire pilots had to learn that the hard way;
they didn't do so well the first time they met Zeros.
5) The tragedy of the Zero was that it had to soldier on just like the Me109 because
the Japanese aviation industry couldn't develop and produce sufficient numbers of good
replacements for it. They had good fighters but a terrible engine problem.
6) Recap - roll rate allows one to a) track an enemy and b) dodge him using scissors,
etc. A real good roll rate plus some experience also pretty well engates the target's
scissoring, too . . .
Walt BJ ftr plt ret
MakinKid
>More than a few of the
>USAAC aircraft in the P.I. were obsolete, such as the P-35
>and P-36.
The 24th Pursuit Group and the 4th Composite Pursuit Group, PI, were equipped
with the following aircraft:
34 P-26A (handed over to the Filipino air corps by the time of the attack, but
these were still being delivered from the states for use by the USAAC as late
as Nov. 1940)
57 P-35A (last deliveries March, 1941)
10 A-27 (delivered March, 1941--seized, actually. They had been ordered by
Thailand and were on their way there when the US Army pinched them, a sign of
how desperate the Americans were for airplanes.)
31 P-40B (delivered on May 17, 1941)
50 P-40E (delivered on Sept. 29, 1941)
24 P-40E (delivered on Nov. 25, 1941)
One of the many problems facing the US Army fighter force in the PI was that
they had so little time to transition to the modern P-40E before they were
thrown into a war. Not only the pilots, but the ground crews had little
preparation before hell was upon them. Many pilots went from flying the P-26
to P-40, a very big transition, and had few hours in the much more powerful
machine.
Some of the P-40s delivered two weeks before the Japanese attack were still in
the process of being set up when war broke out, with guns not hooked up or
bore-sighted, some even with the cosmoline still coating them.
One of the big controversies of the time was the belief by the USAAC, in
particular Hap Arnold, that FDR had sacrificed the Philippines to arm Britain.
Had aircraft sent to Britain been delivered to the USAAC instead, the
Philippines would have had a formidable air force. Senior AAC officers were
sick at heart that while the US aircraft industry was producing plenty of
advanced aircraft, they were forced to ship worn-out, obsolete P-26s to the
Philippines.
It should be recalled that in those days the Philippines were not regarded as
some backwater by the US military. In fact, one of the first two US army
flying schools was set up in the Philippines. Army air power had always played
a significant role in defending the PI, and to see it reduced to practically
nothing, with reinforcements of modern aircraft arriving at only the last
minute, too little, too late, was galling for Arnold, et al. They were very
bitter toward FDR for, as they saw it, placing the interests of Britain above
those of the United States. The USAAC officers may have had a point. Britain
received 560 Kittyhawk Mk Is, basically the P-40D, from August to Dec., 1941,
began receiving Mk 1As, the E, from Sept., 1941, getting 1,500 of them by June,
1942. It would have certainly been feasable to have gotten 100 or 200 more
P-40s to the PI by late summer of '41 by diverting shipments intended for
Britain. Of course, even had they been sent, they might have just provided
more ground targets for the Japanese to strafe.
The P-35 was not a well-liked airplane, being a notorious ground-looper, among
other things. Charles Lindbergh had this to say about it: "Most Army pilots
consider it a tricky plane and say that it can't be depended upon. It is
unstable in the air. One officer told me that every landing is a feat with the
P-35. There is no reserve in this plane. it must all be in the pilot. If he
makes a mistake, the plane doesn't help him a bit." He almost crashed on
take-off the first time he took one up, and remarked in his journal that the
P-35 incarnated the old pilot maxim that you only make _one_bad mistake. And
every mistake was a bad mistake with a P-35.
The P-40 was generally liked by pilots. Lindbergh wrote about it: "I was very
pleasantly surprised by the characteristics of the P-40. Everything
considered, it is an excellent single-engine pursuit plane. The P-40 is
probably a little better than the Messerschmit [109, which CAL had flown]."
Lindbergh notes the P-40 is a development of the P-36, which was one of his
favorite planes. About the P-36, he said, "I tried out the P-36 in various
maneuvers--Immelmanns, wingovers, dives, stalls, etc. It rolls out beautifully
on top of a loop and handles better than the European planes, even if it is not
as fast. [Lindbergh had flown, at that point, everything from the Spitfire to
the 109, including Soviet and French aircraft.]
Makin
WEILL
C.C. Jordan wrote in message <36a529f6...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>The vast majority of aircraft destroyed by the Japanese were
>caught on the ground.
That's true.
Another point: More than a few of the
>USAAC aircraft in the P.I. were obsolete, such as the P-35
>and P-36.
Untrue P. 36 were not in use in the groups engaged inthe Philippines fight.
One group still have P 35 A and a Phillipino Air force group had P. 26. All
other fighter groups in the Phillipines were P. 40 equipped.
>When dealing with the P-40, the Japanese did not fare all
>that well. Beginning with Pearl Harbor, on through Burma
>and China, the P-40 maintained a substantial positive kill
>ratio against all Japanese fighters.
One of the most noticeable shortcomings of the P 40 was the use of the
Allison inline engine which never good in altitude. Only when the USAAF
began to use US version of the RR Merlin (Packard built) did the USAAF in
line engined fighters gained true superiority.
>>The facts below sound mostly like the well trashed
>>study where couple test details were taken and expanded
>>so that it sounds creditable proof how Zero was so
>>poor compared to even P-40. Not first time I've seen
>>it, and seen it also trashed piece by piece. A good attempt,
>>but not one who actually even knows a bit falls for
>>it though.
The P 40 was certainly a more rugged airplane, but it was never able to
compare with the nimble Mitsubishi in true dog fights. When the first
flyable Zero 21 was captured in the Aleutians, it was then and then only
that the allies learn the lesson learnt by the AVG (which by the way
scarecely opposed any Zeros after Nov. 1941 because all Navy fighter units
were withdrawn from the theater at that time but the much inferior IJAAF
equivalent Nakajima Ki 43-I Hayabusa): "never intent to dogfight with a
Zero" and developed appropriate hit and run tactics. Beside the aileron
problem which plagued the roll rate of the Model 11 Zeros was partially
solved with mass balances, then with counterweights on Model 21's (The first
ones engaged in the Pacific war), then almost totally solved from Model 32
by different means (clipped wingtips on Model 32, spring tabs on 22's and
22a's and reduced span from Model 52's)
>
>Ok, provide a solid source to refute Erik's eyewitness commentary.
>Erik was there, in Burma, flying P-40's. What are your credentials
>to argue the issue? Besides a library card.
Easy, in Burma there was NO MORE ZEROS.... But Army Ki 43's... A much weaker
airplane driven by good pilots but not of the same proficiency as the Tainan
Kokutai aces ...
>>It's easy to call things facts. Roll rate in
>>high speeds is not the single superior quality a
>>"better" a/c should have. Also roll rate has never equaled
>>maneuverability.
>
>Jukka, if you cannot roll, you cannot turn. If you cannot turn,
>what does that equate to? Not much maneuverability. This isn't
>hard stuff......
High speed engagement tactics were not considered by the Japanese, they
prefered tight turns at slow to middle speed. The counter tactics was hit
and run and it was well known that any allied fighter (including the
splendid ultra maneuvrable Spitfire) was doomed if it accepted the turning
fights the Zero pilots ever attempted to draw their adversaries in.
So far, nobody seems to have take into consideration the facts that what
really doomed the Zero was the development of adapted tactics to use its
weaker points and the constant diminution of the quality of the average
Japanese fighter pilot during the conflict after the attrition war they were
forced to wage in the Solomons. Please remember that as far as 1944 even an
ace of the aces in a P 38 could succumb to a Zero with a god pilot and
that's a FACT.
FPW
Cynthia Keeney
: > The actual myth about the Zero was a result of 13 Zeros
: > shooting down 27 Chinese Fighter Plane without loss to themselves.
: > Becasue of this one sided victory over the Chinese Air Force which
: > happened several years prior to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese felt the
: > Zero was invincible.
: And the decimation of Allied air power in Filippines and other
: areas during the conquest does not count? It is just another
: sci-fi tale how a handful of Zeros ate all the Allied planes
: as lunch and won air supremacy?
: The facts below sound mostly like the well trashed
: study where couple test details were taken and expanded
: so that it sounds creditable proof how Zero was so
: poor compared to even P-40. Not first time I've seen
: it, and seen it also trashed piece by piece. A good attempt,
: but not one who actually even knows a bit falls for
: it though. It's easy to call things facts. Roll rate in
: high speeds is not the single superior quality a
: "better" a/c should have. Also roll rate has never equaled
: maneuverability.
: jok
And how many "modern" fighters of P-40 class or better do you think they
cae up against in the "Fillippines"?
Oh what's the point; I'm sure C.C. & Emm. have hit the bases by now
anyway.
Yama
> Erik's comments on the P-40 vs. A6M may be criticised for being
> rather selective: Of course the A6M did have strong points, such
> as range and low-speed turning circle.
Plus Zero's high-altitude performance wa rather superior compared to
P-40. IMHO we should not forget strategic and operational
circumstances in fighter comparison: as long as Allied did not have
large numerical advantage, and as long as Japanese were able to keep
the initiative in their hands, Zero held the upper hand. Japanese
could choose their fighting place and altitude, and slow-climbing
Allied fighters couldn't pair up against them.
One factor often ignored in Pacific theatre is how little amount of
planes Japanese actually had. IIRC production of Zero didn't reach
2,000 examples until 1943-something, and that was their numerically
most important warplane.
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> >areas during the conquest does not count? It is just another
> >sci-fi tale how a handful of Zeros ate all the Allied planes
> >as lunch and won air supremacy?
Sigh. Somehow you Americans feel you must prove USAAF ate Japanese alive
from the early beginning. And neglect all the victories by them, even
those fought in the air. While Japanese surely destroyed a lot
of planes in ground when starting the offensive they as well
destroyed whole lotta Allied planes in air battles. Time after time.
Not my problem if you want to ignore that.
> Ok, provide a solid source to refute Erik's eyewitness commentary.
> Erik was there, in Burma, flying P-40's. What are your credentials
> to argue the issue? Besides a library card.
I'm a professional journalist. Not on aviation field, but
sometimes I even remember something about what I've seen.
His reference takes few good looking pieces of a larger study
and uses them to make P-40 look good. Few pieces in certain
altitude and speed. It very nicely neglects to mention that
the study overall shows Zero much superior to P-40. It's easy
to twist things when you take just selected pieces of the
total.
This Erik has a plane to defend and he does it neverthless
the big picture. I don't care about his propaganda values,
I can put US and Japan into same line and look at things
from outside not needing the "US is the best" propaganda.
> >It's easy to call things facts. Roll rate in
> >high speeds is not the single superior quality a
> >"better" a/c should have. Also roll rate has never equaled
> >maneuverability.
>
> Jukka, if you cannot roll, you cannot turn. If you cannot turn,
> what does that equate to? Not much maneuverability. This isn't
> hard stuff......
Why didn't P-40 pilots then engage the Zeros in turn combat?
Also, you seem to think that FW 190 was the most agile plane
of the war, then.
Good roll rate in high speeds translates mainly to good high speed
attack and disengagement profile. It does not make the plane a
god sent dogfighter. P-40 was ok plane with some good, some
bad charasterics, but it made its legend only through good tactics
which maximized its capabilities and minimized the chances of
the Japanese. P-40 was a dog in close quarters turnfight, it
couldn't turn well, bled E and climbed poorly and wouldn't
in theory have a chance in low level 1-to-1 fight.
Yama
> The P-40 was generally liked by pilots. Lindbergh wrote about
> it: "I was very
> pleasantly surprised by the characteristics of the P-40.
> Everything
> considered, it is an excellent single-engine pursuit plane. The
> P-40 is
> probably a little better than the Messerschmit [109, which CAL had
> flown]."
Trouble with P-40 vs European fighters was, that when serious
productiuon models finally reached service, Germans were having
109F's, Italians were having Macchi Folgores and British were having
Spitfire V's, all superior to P-40, especially in high.
> Lindbergh notes the P-40 is a development of the P-36, which was
> one of his
> favorite planes. About the P-36, he said, "I tried out the P-36
> in various
> maneuvers--Immelmanns, wingovers, dives, stalls, etc. It rolls
> out beautifully
> on top of a loop and handles better than the European planes, even
> if it is not
> as fast. [Lindbergh had flown, at that point, everything from the
> Spitfire to
> the 109, including Soviet and French aircraft.]
Pre-war flyoffs demonstated that P-36 beated Spitfire I in dive
fight, being far easier to handle in high speeds. But it just had no
performance to compete with top Europeans of the time. Hawk 75A-1
was full 100km/h slower than Spitfire or Bf-109E, and being only
some 20-25km/h faster than Fokker D.XXI (which had fixed landing
gear, 200hp less power and fixed-pitch propeller!) and slower
climber. Even 75A-4, with 1200hp engine was some 60km/h slower than
Spit/109, and in climb it was similarly inferior.
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> > Erik's comments on the P-40 vs. A6M may be criticised for being
> > rather selective: Of course the A6M did have strong points, such
> > as range and low-speed turning circle.
Peeked at Dejanews and it seems Erik is on holy crusade
to prove P-40 as more maneuverable fighter than Zero.
Finding a one sided study, then using it year after year
bringing the subject up whenever someone says "Zero".
His problem, not mine though. It's easy to see how he's
trying to prove things different than they actually are.
I used these keywords to find some messages about this topic:
p-40 zero roll rate comparison
A quote from a discussion one year ago:
>> As you can see, a comparison of roll is the most important
>> attribute an airplane must posses in being more maneuverable than
>> another one. Turning in a tight turn has absolutely nothing to do
>> concerning maneuverability.
>Surely it does, if both planes are turning? It was very common, in 1941,
>for opposing pilots to try to turn inside each other, until one or
>another greyed out or got hit. Pappy Boyington describes such a turning
>encoutner over Rangoon, and British accounts are full of them.
>>> another one. Turning in a tight turn has absolutely nothing to do
>>> concerning maneuverability.
>> Surely it does, if both planes are turning?
> it does. I disagree with Erik when he says that turn radius
>has *nothing* to do with maneuverability. It all depends on how the
>fight progresses and who is doing what.
> Also, Erik's Webster's definitions of maneuverability are slightly at
>odds with today's definition as used in the military:
>> I like to read your posts, Erik, but I still think that the Zero, while a
>> flimsy bit of work, was an awesomely beautiful aircraft--and more
>> maneuverable than a P-40 :)
> By the Definition of Maneuverability that is accepted today, the
>Zero was far far more maneuverable than the P-40.
> The ONLY factor in Erik's proof that actually addresses the issue of
>maneuverability is Roll Rate. And even here, roll rate is more a
>performance measurement than a maneuverability measurement. But it is
>more closely related to manuverability because it dictates how fast
>you are able to enter that turn and begin altering your velocity
>vector. The fact that the P-40 had a better roll rate at high speeds
>than the Zero (or any other Japanese plane at the time) DID mean that
>a fast P-40 could initiate a turn and gain angles on the Zero.
> Maybe even enough angles for a snapshot. But ONLY a snapshot
>because in any sustained turn, the Zero would be all over the
>P-40. This is so for a variety of reasons. First, if the sustained
>turn was at a constant bank angle (i.e. no more rolling -
>non-realisitic I admit), faster rolling rates loses it's
>value. Secondly in order to take advantage of superior rolling rate,
>the P-40 pilot - if he is being attacked, has to change bank angle a
>lot. This will slow him down and once slow, the roll rate superiority
>vanishes.
Kristofer Lindstrom
than the P-40?
Erik Shilling wrote:
> of WW II. It was not, since the P-40B's top speed was 35 mph faster
> than the Zero. This was proven by tests conducted by Americans
>
Steve Hix
> So far, nobody seems to have take into consideration the facts that what
> really doomed the Zero was the development of adapted tactics to use its
> weaker points and the constant diminution of the quality of the average
> Japanese fighter pilot during the conflict after the attrition war they were
> forced to wage in the Solomons. Please remember that as far as 1944 even an
> ace of the aces in a P 38 could succumb to a Zero with a god pilot and
> that's a FACT.
Are you referring to Tommy McGuire?
He killed himself (low/slow, stall/spin while heavy), doing something
he'd repeatedly taught others *never* to do.
If not McGuire, who?
Maury Markowitz
> The actual myth about the Zero was a result of 13 Zeros
> shooting down 27 Chinese Fighter Plane without loss to themselves.
> Becasue of this one sided victory over the Chinese Air Force which
> happened several years prior to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese felt the
> Zero was invincible.
Which came back to haunt them. However this sort of behaviour is hardly
unique to the Japanese - the Brits thought "the bomber will always get
through" and the USAAF that the B-17's guns were defense enough. The real
problem is that the Japanese were very slow to fix the problem (as were the
Germans) whereas the British and US had no specific "belief system" that
forced them into certain thought patters - the British quickly moved to
night bombing for instance.
> To set the record straight, the myth that the Zero was
> invincibility was not true, although the Japanese themselves
> believe it.
However it was an excellent fighter for that country. By this I mean
that it was easy to produce and maintain, cheap, light, long ranged, and
versatile. Japan during the war simply did not have the industrial power
they needed (or thought they had) and as a result "value" was measured not
strictly by performance alone.
> The true facts are that it was acctually inferior even when
> compared to the P-40, an airplane which I am quite familiar with.
It was however markedly superior to other carrier based planes of it's
day. In fact it's likely the first example of a carrier based plane that
could truely compete with land based planes, the fact that it _could_ (and
did) fight the US land based models is impressive enough.
> Many think the Zero was the fastest fighter at the beginning
> of WW II.
Hmmm, who are these many? At the beginning of WWII the Brits had Spits,
the LF had 109's and even some 100's (over 400mph), and the US had the 38,
39 and 40's. I believe all of these are faster than the Zero, notably in
real terms when you consider compressive effects. I have never seen anyone
make this claim.
> There are also those who think that the Zero was more
> maneuverable than the P-40. Also not true. At 280 mph the Zero's
> roll rate was a measly 30 degrees per second. Compare this to the
> P-40's of 96 degrees per second at this same speed.
Come now Erik, you don't seriously suggest that the roll rate is the only
measure of manuverability do you? By any other measure the Zero
outperformed the P-40 by a very wide margin and this claim is disintigous.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> One of the most noticeable shortcomings of the P 40 was the use of the
> Allison inline engine which never good in altitude.
Well that's certainly not true, the P-38 was a superb high altitude
fighter. The issue is the supercharging vs. turbocharging, the former
being poor by european standards.
> ones engaged in the Pacific war), then almost totally solved from Model 32
> by different means (clipped wingtips on Model 32, spring tabs on 22's and
> 22a's and reduced span from Model 52's)
Actually most of these proved to be of little use, and even the
non-produced 80 series had similar problems. The true fix was servo tabs,
but when they tried them they shed the ailerons. They should have fixed
the problem rather than futzing around as they did for so long.
> So far, nobody seems to have take into consideration the facts that what
> really doomed the Zero was the development of adapted tactics to use its
> weaker points and the constant diminution of the quality of the average
> Japanese fighter pilot during the conflict after the attrition war they
> were
Exactly. It was a WWI concept for a plane - light and manuverable vs.
fast and armored - fighting WWII planes.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> Plus Zero's high-altitude performance wa rather superior compared to
> P-40.
But they were unable to put this to truely good use, because they had to
protect the bombers. The same thing is what made the 109E's unable to best
the Spits. If your bombers are going in at 15k, it doesn't matter how good
your relative performance over 20k is!
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> Yes. This lets one chase or evade. According to Kit Carson's book on
> the P51, the Me 109 in particular had problems at high speed due to lack
of
> rudder trim and stiffening ailerons.
As was true for most of the european designs actually, both the Spit and
Hurry had similar problems, with the Spit actually suffering control
_reversal_ at high speeds. These problems were not completely cured until
the 190 was introduced, which has _superb_ control feel over a very wide
range of speeds. In the dive it had better performance than the 51's for
instance, not that it helped them much.
> >2)The P-40 was certainly not, in 1942, the best fighter around; it was
> mildly
> >obsolescent. However, the basic concept of the A6M was simply wrong.
> Wrong in that the Zero could not take punishment. This can be seen in
> myriads
> of WW2 gun camera shots where the Zero simply disintergrates under
> concentrated fifty-cal fire.
And not even close fire too. Compare with european gun footage where
they practically have to insert the rounds manually.
> Fw190 was unable to knock him down with 7.92 fire even after Johnson's
> Tbolt had
> suffered grievous former damage. (It's fully described in "Thunderbolt")
Well that's not too surprising really, the 190 had only 2 of the 7.9's,
and the 7.9 is a light gun to start with. For instance the early Brit
planes had 8 of the similar .303, and it was considered to be far too
lightly armed. Let's not forget that 2x7.9 is what their WWI planes were
armed with.
With a 190 vs. 47, when the 190 runs out of 20mm, it's time to run away
(if he can). They knew this though, and that's why the moved to the 13mm's
as soon as possible. Even their 13mm was not a great comparison for the US
50 though, and they still had only 2 of them.
> training. Well, now, anyway. The RAF Spitfire pilots had to learn that
> the hard way; they didn't do so well the first time they met Zeros.
Indeed, even though the Spit was overall superior to any other plane in
the theatre.
> 5) The tragedy of the Zero was that it had to soldier on just like the
> Me109 because
> the Japanese aviation industry couldn't develop and produce sufficient
> numbers of good
> replacements for it. They had good fighters but a terrible engine problem.
But unlike it, the Germans COULD have moved on, and deliberately didn't.
This is what happens when you let politics dictate markets!
> 6) Recap - roll rate allows one to a) track an enemy and b) dodge him
> using scissors,
> etc. A real good roll rate plus some experience also pretty well engates
> the target's
> scissoring, too . . .
But so does a "really good" anything rate. Let's put it this way, in
terms of manuverability figures I'd bet that a Zero could out-everything a
47, but the 47 is still going to win every fight given equal pilots.
Erik's continued insistance on using roll rate as some sort of deciding
line is silly.
Maury
Jim Erickson
>> the hard way; they didn't do so well the first time they met Zeros.
> Indeed, even though the Spit was overall superior to any other plane in
>the theatre.
When did the RAF and Commonwealth Spitfire pilots learn how to get the
best of the Zero or other Japanese fighters? I doubt that it could have
been before the introduction of the Mk 8 or 9 in the theatre. The Mk 5
Spit, especially when carrying the big drag-causing Vokes filter under
the nose, may not have been as tough an opponent for the Japanese as the
P-40. The Spit 5 was inferior to the P-40 in the dive, inferior in
armament, of much weaker construction, and with the Vokes filter, it may
even have been slower. In short, the tropicalized Spit 5 was inferior to
the P-40 in the very categories that allowed the P-40 to best the Zero.
Given that, it's hard to see how the Spit 5s could have successfully
mimicked the P-40 tactics. On the other hand, if the Spit 5 accepted
combat on the Zero's terms it was in deep trouble, as even the Spitfire
cold not out maneuver the Zero. Combining that with the Spit's
succeptibility to damage when compared to the P-40, I've gotta think
that the P-40 was better suited for battle with the Japanese.
Jim Erickson
Erik Shilling
writes:
> Come now Erik, you don't seriously suggest that the roll rate is the
only measure of manuverability do you? By any other measure the Zero
>outperformed the P-40 by a very wide margin and this claim is
disintigous.
HI Maury:
Never said that, I coupled it in with other atributes, and when
combined, makes the P-40 more maneuverable fighter.
To clairify two of my statement. The top speed of the P-40B was 35 m ph
faster than the Zero. The other should have included the fact that the
P-40B's VNE (never exceed speed was 130 mph fasft than the Zero) I
personally have had the P-40B although the P-40's red line speed was
480 mph I have on a couple ocasion had the P-40 indicating 505 IAS at
8,000 feet. No zero could ever come close to this speed.
MakinKid
>Please remember that as far as 1944 even an
>> ace of the aces in a P 38 could succumb to a Zero with a god pilot and
>> that's a FACT.
>
>Are you referring to Tommy McGuire?
>
McGuire's flight of four (McGuire, wingman Weaver (ETO vet, two kills), element
leader Rittmayer, wingman Thropp (positions reversed when R briefly had engine
trouble). Because of R's engine trouble, the two elements became separated by
some distance. Weaver spotted Sgt. Akira Sugimoto in a Ki-43 12 o'clock low
and called him out to McGuire. The Ki-43 had been accompanied by a Ki-84
piloted by Sgt. Mizunori Fukuda, who had peeled off for his home field seconds
before Weaver spotted Sugimoto. Sugimoto also spotted the P-38 pair. As the
three planes flashed past each other, Sugimoto snapped up into a tight
right-hand-angled Immelmann, while McGuire and Weaver dove sharply into a left
turn. As Sugimoto came over the top of his maneuver and rolled looking for the
Lockheeds, Thropp, now element leader, came into view and Sugimoto executed a
pursuit curve on him from above. Sugimoto opened fire at 100 meters, getting
strikes. Thropp started to release his drop tanks, but then believed he heard
McGuire order the entire flight to "save your tanks." Thropp reacted with some
consternation, knowing his goose was about to be cooked by Sugimoto, but at
this moment Rittmayer did his wingman thing and opened fire on Sugimoto, who
ceased firing and cranked into a hard right climbing turn. This put him behind
and above McGuire and his wingman, who were just completing a left 360.
Sugimoto closed on Weaver and opened fire with a series of short bursts as
Weaver skidded and rolled trying to avoid the gunfire. Weaver called to
McGuire for help, McGuire cranked over into a tight turn, wing tanks still
afixed, hauled around on Sugimoto's tail, but wasn't able to pull enough lead
to fire. He cranked his turn tighter trying to bring the nose onto the target
and stalled. The P-38 snapped-rolled to the left into an inverted spin, the
nose 30 degrees down, hit the ground and exploded.
Throop swung back on Sugimoto, who broke off his firing pass on Weaver and
climbed for cloud cover. Throop climbed after him and hammered him hard.
Sugimoto escaped into the clouds, his Ki-43 fatally hit. He had no parachute,
so he steered his plane to a crash landing in a field. Sugimoto emerged
unscathed from the wreckage, and began making his way back to his home field a
few miles away. Before he reached it, he was set upon by Filipino civilians,
who murdered him.
In the meantime Sgt. Fukuda's Ki-84 was on final when he was made aware of the
nearby dogfight. He throttled up, retracted his gear and roared into the
melee. He was just too late to save Sugimoto's Ki-43 from a pounding by
Throop, but, attacking from 10 o'clock high, he riddled Throop's P-38's left
engine and wingroot, forcing Throop to feather that engine. Weaver fired at
the Ki-84 as it whizzed past, but missed. Rittmayer turned after Fukuda, and
Weaver fell in as his wingman. Fukuda cranked around in a hard 180 and came
back at the three P-38s. Throop had also turned back and F. and T. traded
head-on shots Both missed and Fukuda switched his attention to Rittmayer.
R.'s wingman Weaver fired at Fukuda but missed. Fukuda walked rounds the
length of Rittmayer's left wing and into the cockpit. Rittmayer's P-38 swerved
violently, then plunged straight into the ground and exploded, less than two
miles from the pall of smoke marking McGuire's end. Throop came after Fukuda
and locked onto his tail, one engine feathered be damned. The two planes
twisted and rolled at tree top level before Fukuda managed to outturn Throop in
a tight left-hander (Throop would have had to turn tightly into his dead engine
to follow), and came upon trailing Weaver, who fired and missed yet again.
Fukuda hauled around and made a firing pass on Weaver from 4 o'clock getting
strikes. One-engine Throop, in the meantime, had hauled around on Fukuda again
and tapped Fukuda on the shoulder with some .50 cal, forcing him to break off
his attack on Weaver. Weaver, by this time had had enough of dueling with
Japanese fighters. He fire-walled his throttles and got the hell out, leaving
Throop to take on Fukuda alone. The pair dueled for some time, neither able to
get in a firing position. At one point Throop ducked inside some cloud cover
and Fukuda, low on fuel, took advantage of the opportunity to break off and
head for home. Throop, once inside the cloud cover, decided not to duck back
out but to head on home, himself. His plane was written off as unrepairable
after he landed. Weaver's needed some patching.
Thus ended a hell of a mission for all concerned.
Main sources for this decription Individual Pilot Reports of Throop and Weaver
for Mission 1-668. Fukuda survived the war and later met with the 475th's
historian, Carroll Anderson and filled him in on the details of the fight from
the Japanese side.
Experiments by the 475th's engineering officer after the McGuire incident
revealed that what may have happened was that fuel in the drop tanks, which
were more than two-thirds empty by that time in the flight, may have compressed
to the rear of the tanks, shifting the CG aft and causing the P-38 to nose up
sharper than McGuire anticipated. In any case, he should have dropped his
tanks. That he did not was attributed in the squadron to built up combat
fatigue that clouded his judgement. Throop comes off as one hell of a fighter
pilot in this encounter. Rittmayer was game, too. McGuire was not thinking
clearly. Weaver...needed to practice his gunnery. Fukuda and Sugimoto both
come across as skilled, aggressive fighter pilots.
Makin
MakinKid
>McGuire's flight of four
This fight took place on Jan. 7, 1945.
Makin
Erik Shilling
>
>Plus Zero's high-altitude performance wa rather superior compared to
>P-40.
Since most Japanese bomber came in at various altitudes anywhere from
12,000 to 18,000 feet. If the Japnese bomber were to be protected the
Zeros had to come down to the altitude of the bomber. These were the
altitudes at which the P-40 could best the Zero.
Erik
Erik Shilling
writes:
What I meant to say was that the P-40B's straingt and level top speed
was 35 mph faster than the Zeros. I also failed to point out that the
figure of 130 mph was the P-40B's VNE.
The reason I contuinue to speak of the P-40B, was that this model forty
was 9 mph faster than the P-40C. Although one poster is very insistant
that the AVG flew the P-40C he is mistaken, since he has never admitted
that he was wrong.
Erik
Tamela R. Germano
> Just one point of contention...was the zero 35 mph or 130 mph slower
> than the P-40?
Both.
> Erik Shilling wrote:
>
> > of WW II. It was not, since the P-40B's top speed was 35 mph faster
> > than the Zero. This was proven by tests conducted by Americans
In level flight.
> > mph. A speed that was unattainable by the Zero since its max speed
> > was almost 130 miles slower than that of the P-40.
In a full out dive.
Dino in Reno
C.C. Jordan
>Makin wrote:
>
>>McGuire's flight of four
>
>This fight took place on Jan. 7, 1945.
>
Here's a copy of Weaver's combat report:
You may notice that Weaver refers to every Japanese fighter as
a Zeke. It makes for an interesting comparison to the Japanese
view of the fight. I'd love to see Thropp's report.
9 January 1945
INDIVIDUAL COMBAT REPORT OF CAPTAIN EDWARD R. WEAVER
A. Mission #1-668; 7 January 1945; 431st Ftr Sq; 4 P-38s.
B. Fighter Sweep to Negros Island
C. Time of attack: 0708/I. Altitude: 1,400 feet
D. At 0620/I, 7 January 1945, I took off as #2 man in a flight led by Major
McGuire, of 4 P-38s of the 431st Fighter Squadron. We climbed on course for
Fabrica Airdrome on Negros Island leveling off at 10,000 feet. West of Leyte,
cloud coverage became 10/10ths at 6,000 feet and remained so to the target area.
Over Negros we descended through several layers of stratus clouds breaking out
below the overcast at 1,700 feet, 10 miles NE of Fabrica Strip. We proceeded to
that strip arriving at 0700/I and circled it at 1,400 feet for about five
minutes. Major McGuire then set course at this attitude for the strips on the
western coast of Negros. At about 10/15 miles west of Fabrica I saw a Zeke '52'
coming directly towards us at 500 feet below and 1,000 yards ahead. By the time
I radioed this information, the leader had seen the enemy, he was directly
underneath us. Major McGuire, followed by his flight, made a diving turn to the
left for an attack. The Zeke immediately dived to the left also and came around
on the tail of #3 man, Lt. Thropp, who had previously been instructed by his
element leader, Major Rittmayer, to change positions with him. The enemy was on
the inside of this very tight turn at 300 feet and fired at Lt. Thropp. I
radioed that the Zeke was directly behind us, and Major Rittmayer, in #4
position, fired a burst sufficient to make the enemy turn even more tightly and
lose Lt. Thropp. That put the Zeke in range and inside of me, in #2 position. I
radioed major McGuire that I was being attacked and increased my turn, diving
slightly. The enemy stayed with me, but I was now inside and a little below my
leader. At this time Major McGuire, attempting to get a shot at my attacker,
increased his turn tremendously. His plane snap-rolled to the left and stopped
in an inverted position with the nose down about 30°. Because of the attitude of
my plane, I then lost sight of him momentarily. A second later I saw the
explosion and fire of his crash. The Zeke broke off his attack just before
Major McGuire's crash, and climbed to the North. It is my opinion that the enemy
did not at any time change his attack from me to my leader. I believe his crash
was caused by his violent attempt to thwart my attacker, although it is
possible that the Major was hit by ground fire, which had now begun. When the
Zeke broke away to the North, I also turned in that direction and joined the
remainder of the flight as #3 man. We all chased the enemy and Lt. Thropp, in #1
position, got in a burst just as the Zeke climbed into the overcast. A second
later, as we turned to the South, the Zeke reappeared to the East and headed
toward us. It got a burst at Lt. Thropp from 1000 o'clock high and I saw a
slight amount of smoke come from Lt. Thropp's left engine. Pulling up my nose,
I got a short burst from 30° below. Then I followed Major Rittmayer, the #2
man, in a 180° turn to the right to pursue the Zeke, who swung around and again
attacked from 1000 o'clock high as we jettisoned our auxiliary fuel tanks. I
saw hits on Major Rittmayer and again pulled up my nose turning to the right
for a burst from 30° below. The Zeke, also being closed on by Lt. Thropp who was
now above, behind and to the left of me, made a diving turn to the right from
him and headed North. Lt. Thropp had continued his turn and started home with a
bad left engine. The Zeke swung on his tail and fired just as Lt. Thropp
entered the overcast. I was too far out of range to fire as the Zeke also
climbed into the overcast, breaking off toward the South. I circled the bottom
of the overcast for approximately three minutes waiting for the enemy to show
himself again. Thinking that he might be above, I climbed through the overcast
and looked for him there for a few minutes. Lt. Thropp radioed that he was all
right and on his way home. I then gave up the hunt and set course for my base at
0715/I, landing at 0805/I.
EDWIN R. WEAVER
Captain, Air Corps
wal...@oneimage.com
>In <783vg4$qb6$1...@platane.wanadoo.fr> "WEILL" wrote:>>
Snip:
Gee, I read something in a previous input that made me just jump in here. Erik
cited the Zero's roll rate at 280 MIAS as 30 degrees per second.
Now y'all may not think that's too important but I'm here to tell
you that that is a very very slow roll rate for a fighter - it's about the
same as a wide-body jet! Now, you may have seen the scissoring episode in 'Top Gun'
but I assure you that that maneuver was slowed down for the laity. When you've got
somebody back there and you have to break their tracking solution full aileron coupled
with all the rudder you can apply will generate roll rates that will slam an unprepared
shotgun rider's head against the canopy. The F5s in Top Gun can roll about 450 degrees a second
that is one second! Now if I'm flying a bird than can roll three times faster than the guy
after me he's gonna have a hell of a time hitting me with his guns. The idea is to jink,
reverse, reverse, and so on to get him 180 out of phase if possible and then try something else.
Usually putting the nose down and getting out of Dodge while he has to trun after you and is thus
inhibited from accelerating for a vital few seconds. That few seconds can extend you away from him
a mile or more in a late jet fighter; certainly get out of gun range in a prop. BTW 1500 feet is
stretching the guns capability in a tail chase . . .not that I wouldn't want more 8<)
Bruce Kohrn
MakinKid wrote:
The P-40 was generally liked by pilots. Lindbergh wrote about it: "I was very
pleasantly surprised by the characteristics of the P-40. Everything
considered, it is an excellent single-engine pursuit plane. The P-40 is
probably a little better than the Messerschmit [109, which CAL had flown]."
Lindbergh notes the P-40 is a development of the P-36, which was one of his
favorite planes. About the P-36, he said, "I tried out the P-36 in various
maneuvers--Immelmanns, wingovers, dives, stalls, etc. It rolls out beautifully
on top of a loop and handles better than the European planes, even if it is not
as fast. [Lindbergh had flown, at that point, everything from the Spitfire to
the 109, including Soviet and French aircraft.]
Since there wasn't good radar warning of approaching raids, and standing patrols are relatively few in number, the Japanese were likely to have the altitude edge on the P-40s. As the P-40s' climb rate wasn't very good, it wasn't likely that they would be in a good bounce position. More likely that they would have to pitch straight in where the oppositions' strengths would be maximized.Makin
One weakness the Zero didn't have in 1941 was relative pilot quality.
Bruce Kohrn
MakinKid
>You may notice that Weaver refers to every Japanese fighter as
>a Zeke.
And both he and Thropp thought they were engaging one Japanese fighter, not
two, separately.
Thropp had one kill at the time and Rittmayer four.
Curious, isn't it, that Weaver doesn't mention Rittmayer's death or acknowledge
that Thropp kept in the fight with one engine out. Nor does he confirm Thropp's
kill.
I suppose it's only fair to acknowledge that something such as a dogfight with
multiple participants will never be described accurately as to what _really_
happened, but only as a synthesis of eyewitness reports of more or less candor
and completeness. What McGuire, Rittmayer and Sugimoto did can only be
conjecture, since they died as a result of the fight. Fukuda recalled the
event years after the war ended to Anderson. Weaver seemed abashed by his
performance and Thropp, a 2nd Lt., was not as outspoken about events as he
might have been.
Makin
MakinKid
>Since there wasn't good radar warning of approaching raids, and standing
>patrols
>are relatively few in number, the Japanese were likely to have the altitude
>edge on
>the P-40s.
Especially since most of the P-40s got it while parked on the ground.
One of the grumbles of Arnold and others was that if the Philippines had been
equipped with four or five fighter groups flying P-40s, instead of two, enough
would have survived the initial Japanese onslaught and confusion to still offer
formidable air opposition. Who can say? A lot of what ifs always crop up
discussing the first Philippines campaign. Basically, the USA wasn't ready to
fight yet, didn't have enough assets to waste through bad judgement or bad luck
and still win, suffered both bad judgement and bad luck, and lost. Had the
24th Pursuit Group been equipped with F-16s, it still probably would have taken
a pasting.
Makin
C.C. Jordan
<jukka.k...@mikrobitti.fi> wrote:
>> >And the decimation of Allied air power in Filippines and other
>> >areas during the conquest does not count? It is just another
>> >sci-fi tale how a handful of Zeros ate all the Allied planes
>> >as lunch and won air supremacy?
>
>Sigh. Somehow you Americans feel you must prove USAAF ate Japanese alive
>from the early beginning. And neglect all the victories by them, even
>those fought in the air. While Japanese surely destroyed a lot
>of planes in ground when starting the offensive they as well
>destroyed whole lotta Allied planes in air battles. Time after time.
>Not my problem if you want to ignore that.
That is pure bunk. You misrepresented the facts. I challanged your
"facts" and provided the appropriate answer. Instead of arguing the
facts, you pronounce the above anti-American horseshit. Stick to
the facts and knock off the crap.
>
>> Ok, provide a solid source to refute Erik's eyewitness commentary.
>> Erik was there, in Burma, flying P-40's. What are your credentials
>> to argue the issue? Besides a library card.
>
>I'm a professional journalist. Not on aviation field, but
>sometimes I even remember something about what I've seen.
As a professional journalist, you should know how to properly
research a topic. Provide a source.
>
>His reference takes few good looking pieces of a larger study
>and uses them to make P-40 look good. Few pieces in certain
>altitude and speed. It very nicely neglects to mention that
>the study overall shows Zero much superior to P-40. It's easy
>to twist things when you take just selected pieces of the
>total.
What twisting? The Zero and its pilot were dependent upon
the P-40 pilot fighting to the A6M's strengths. If not, the Zero was
at a decided disadvantage. Battles, be they air battles, ground
battles or sea battles all hinge on tactics. If your enemy avoids
fighting by your terms, you will lose. It's simple really. If the Zero
is a great low speed turner, don't get into low speed turning duels.
If it climbs well, don't try to get away by climbing.
The superior fighter is nor neutralized by tactics, as is the case of the Zero.
What tactics could neutralize the P-40? None. The pilot of the faster
aircraft sets the rules of engagement. The pilot of the slower fighter
has no choice but to accept them and hope the other guy makes a
dumb mistake.
>
>This Erik has a plane to defend and he does it neverthless
>the big picture. I don't care about his propaganda values,
>I can put US and Japan into same line and look at things
>from outside not needing the "US is the best" propaganda.
There you go again. Is it possible that you can avoid including
your nationalistic bias in this discussion?
>> >It's easy to call things facts. Roll rate in
>> >high speeds is not the single superior quality a
>> >"better" a/c should have. Also roll rate has never equaled
>> >maneuverability.
>>
>> Jukka, if you cannot roll, you cannot turn. If you cannot turn,
>> what does that equate to? Not much maneuverability. This isn't
>> hard stuff......
>
>Why didn't P-40 pilots then engage the Zeros in turn combat?
Because only an idiot fights the way his enemy fights best.
Force the Zero to fight at high speed and you beat him.
Again, the Zero must accept your rules of engagement unless
he is willing to be a non-factor. Slow turns, even as an avoidance
maneuver, will only buy you time. Eventually, a P-40 will get a burst
into you.
>
>Also, you seem to think that FW 190 was the most agile plane
>of the war, then.
Really? Where have I said that? Nowhere.
However, the 190 could use its roll rate to snap into a split-s
that could not be matched by a Spitfire or an unboosted P-38.
And that, my friend, will save your bacon.
>
>Good roll rate in high speeds translates mainly to good high speed
>attack and disengagement profile.
When using proper B&Z tactics, what else is there? You get in fast,
you get out fast, you live to talk about it.
>It does not make the plane a god sent dogfighter.
It does, however, make it the better fighter plane.
>P-40 was ok plane with some good, some
>bad charasterics,
Incorrect. The P-40 had some limited capabilities. It had no "bad"
characteristics. That is, other than a greater tendency to ground
loop than say a P-47 or Fw-190.
>but it made its legend only through good tactics
>which maximized its capabilities and minimized the chances of
>the Japanese.
You cannot separate tactics from performance. It is the performance
of an aircraft that determines the tactics utilized. The Zero REQUIRED
the P-40 pilot to use the Zero's tactics for the Zero to be successful.
The P-40, OTOH, did not require the Zero pilot to use the P-40's tactics
for the P-40 to be successful. No mater what the Zero pilot does, as long
as the P-40 pilots sticks to high speed combat, the Zero loses. Regardless
of what the Zero pilot does. That makes the P-40 the superior machine.
> P-40 was a dog in close quarters turnfight, it
>couldn't turn well, bled E and climbed poorly and wouldn't
>in theory have a chance in low level 1-to-1 fight.
See the above paragraph.
My regards,
Erik Shilling
Erik Shilling
>
>maury@remove_this.istar.ca (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>>In <783vg4$qb6$1...@platane.wanadoo.fr> "WEILL" wrote:>>
>Snip:
> Gee, I read something in a previous input that made me just jump in
here. Erik cited the Zero's roll rate at 280 MIAS as 30 degrees per
second. Now y'all may not think that's too important but I'm here to
tell you that that is a very very slow roll rate for a fighter - it's
about the same as a wide-body jet! Now, you may have seen the
scissoring episode in 'Top Gun'
Walt you are taling about jet fighters of today. We are taling about
the Zero of yester year. In roll rate, regardless of what the pilot did
or who he was the Zero was a dog.
Erik Shilling
>
C.C. Jordan
>
>C.C. Jordan wrote in message <36a529f6...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>The vast majority of aircraft destroyed by the Japanese were
>>caught on the ground.
>
>That's true.
>
>>Another point: More than a few of the
>>USAAC aircraft in the P.I. were obsolete, such as the P-35
>>and P-36.
>
>
>Untrue P. 36 were not in use in the groups engaged inthe Philippines fight.
>One group still have P 35 A and a Phillipino Air force group had P. 26. All
>other fighter groups in the Phillipines were P. 40 equipped.
Correct. See Makin's terrific post.
>
>>When dealing with the P-40, the Japanese did not fare all
>>that well. Beginning with Pearl Harbor, on through Burma
>>and China, the P-40 maintained a substantial positive kill
>>ratio against all Japanese fighters.
>
>
>One of the most noticeable shortcomings of the P 40 was the use of the
>Allison inline engine which never good in altitude.
How about the the turbocharged Allisons in the P-38. Or, the two stage,
two speed Allison in the P-63 and P-82? I'm afraid you are way off base.
By the way, it was the Allison that replace the Merlin in the P-82.
> Only when the USAAF
>began to use US version of the RR Merlin (Packard built) did the USAAF in
>line engined fighters gained true superiority.
See above.
>
>>>The facts below sound mostly like the well trashed
>>>study where couple test details were taken and expanded
>>>so that it sounds creditable proof how Zero was so
>>>poor compared to even P-40. Not first time I've seen
>>>it, and seen it also trashed piece by piece. A good attempt,
>>>but not one who actually even knows a bit falls for
>>>it though.
>
>The P 40 was certainly a more rugged airplane, but it was never able to
>compare with the nimble Mitsubishi in true dog fights. When the first
>flyable Zero 21 was captured in the Aleutians, it was then and then only
>that the allies learn the lesson learnt by the AVG (which by the way
>scarecely opposed any Zeros after Nov. 1941 because all Navy fighter units
>were withdrawn from the theater at that time but the much inferior IJAAF
>equivalent Nakajima Ki 43-I Hayabusa): "never intent to dogfight with a
>Zero" and developed appropriate hit and run tactics.
Not exactly accurate. The tactics for defeating the Zero became obvious
as soon as they were encountered. The real problem was re-training pilots
to avoid turning contests. The data from the recovered Zero did not filter
to the training commands until mid 1943. In the meanwhile, tactics were
developed at the Squadron and Group level to deal effectively with the
Japanese fighters.
> Beside the aileron
>problem which plagued the roll rate of the Model 11 Zeros was partially
>solved with mass balances, then with counterweights on Model 21's (The first
>ones engaged in the Pacific war), then almost totally solved from Model 32
>by different means (clipped wingtips on Model 32, spring tabs on 22's and
>22a's and reduced span from Model 52's)
The aileron problem was never fully overcome. Not even in some late war
designs.
>>
>>Ok, provide a solid source to refute Erik's eyewitness commentary.
>>Erik was there, in Burma, flying P-40's. What are your credentials
>>to argue the issue? Besides a library card.
>
>Easy, in Burma there was NO MORE ZEROS.... But Army Ki 43's... A much weaker
>airplane driven by good pilots but not of the same proficiency as the Tainan
>Kokutai aces ...
We know that there were no Zeros in Burma. I asked what credentials Jukka had
to argue the effectiveness of the P-40 with a guy who flew one into combat day
after day. By the way, what are yours?
>
>>>It's easy to call things facts. Roll rate in
>>>high speeds is not the single superior quality a
>>>"better" a/c should have. Also roll rate has never equaled
>>>maneuverability.
>>
>>Jukka, if you cannot roll, you cannot turn. If you cannot turn,
>>what does that equate to? Not much maneuverability. This isn't
>>hard stuff......
>
>High speed engagement tactics were not considered by the Japanese, they
>prefered tight turns at slow to middle speed. The counter tactics was hit
>and run and it was well known that any allied fighter (including the
>splendid ultra maneuvrable Spitfire) was doomed if it accepted the turning
>fights the Zero pilots ever attempted to draw their adversaries in.
The Japanese mindset was typical of their inflexibility in doctrine.
It is inflexibility that sets the stage for defeat.
>
>So far, nobody seems to have take into consideration the facts that what
>really doomed the Zero was the development of adapted tactics to use its
>weaker points and the constant diminution of the quality of the average
>Japanese fighter pilot during the conflict after the attrition war they were
>forced to wage in the Solomons.
The ability to adapt was not one of Japan's strong points.
> Please remember that as far as 1944 even an
>ace of the aces in a P 38 could succumb to a Zero with a god pilot and
>that's a FACT.
Name one please......
Erik Shilling
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> >> >high speeds is not the single superior quality a
> >> >"better" a/c should have. Also roll rate has never equaled
> >> >maneuverability.
> >>
> >> Jukka, if you cannot roll, you cannot turn. If you cannot turn,
> >> what does that equate to? Not much maneuverability. This isn't
> >> hard stuff......
> >
> >Why didn't P-40 pilots then engage the Zeros in turn combat?
>
> Because only an idiot fights the way his enemy fights best.
> Force the Zero to fight at high speed and you beat him.
> Again, the Zero must accept your rules of engagement unless
> he is willing to be a non-factor. Slow turns, even as an avoidance
> maneuver, will only buy you time. Eventually, a P-40 will get a burst
> into you.
>
> >Also, you seem to think that FW 190 was the most agile plane
> >of the war, then.
>
> Really? Where have I said that? Nowhere.
> However, the 190 could use its roll rate to snap into a split-s
> that could not be matched by a Spitfire or an unboosted P-38.
> And that, my friend, will save your bacon.
Just see above. The whole argument was about the P-40 being
more maneuverable than Zero and it was based on that
it could roll better than Zero in certain speeds and
altitudes. Just taking same thing further and your agreement
with it to the FW. Wouldn't still call the FW exactly
maneuverable fighter, nor the P-40.
Using planes good abilities against other's weakness
is the key here. Not claiming P-40 as something it isn't
and trying to prove it using very selected material.
The P-40 pilot is biased and trying to defend his
home turf. Enlightened aviation hobbyists can see
further than that.
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> >high speeds is not the single superior quality a
> >"better" a/c should have. Also roll rate has never equaled
> >maneuverability.
>
> Jukka,
> You are an excellent example of the person who said, "don't bother
> me with the facts," my mind's made up.
After reading your older posts from Deja News shows
that it's you who is more obsessed by that.
Roll rate is only one aspect in a/c. Claiming it decides
what plane is more maneuverable is plain amusing. By
your own words the German Focke Wulf 190 was the most
maneuverable fighter of WW2.
WEILL
>>One of the most noticeable shortcomings of the P 40 was the use of the
>>Allison inline engine which never good in altitude.
>
>How about the the turbocharged Allisons in the P-38. Or, the two stage,
>two speed Allison in the P-63 and P-82? I'm afraid you are way off base.
>By the way, it was the Allison that replace the Merlin in the P-82.
Just one "small" point here, supercharged Allison and P 38 didn't enter
combat until the second part of 1942 and in small number (and with a very
small record of availability when compared to other US fighters), P 63 never
saw combat in any number in the USAAF and appeared much later, not to speak
of P 82, which only saw combat as F82 G in the Korean war... At the
beginning of WW 2 in the Pacific the USAAF just didn't have any fighter of
international class. Even the best of them, which was indeed the P 40 and
saw service even before in the sand of Middle East Desert with the RAF (and
Commonwealth forces) was found inferior to the Spitfire and even the
Hurricane, ending finally as a low level fighter bomber more than a pure
interceptor.
For a later period, let's see the evolution of the Mustang, which began its
career with the Allison (not supercharged) and revealed itself one of the
best (if not the best) single engined fighter of the conflict when - at
least, with the B version - it got the Packard - Merlin...
>Not exactly accurate. The tactics for defeating the Zero became obvious
>as soon as they were encountered.
I think you refer to Navy's experience with the F4F vs Zero tactics
developed by Thatch (Thatch wave). But it was not so obvious for USAAF
pilots in December 1941...
>The real problem was re-training pilots
>to avoid turning contests. The data from the recovered Zero did not filter
>to the training commands until mid 1943. In the meanwhile, tactics were
>developed at the Squadron and Group level to deal effectively with the
>Japanese fighters.
I agree, the point is that the natural tendency of fighter pilots in the
early 40's was still to wage a turning contest. And from this constatation,
it is clear that he Japanese point of view was not as out of fashion as some
had put in this thread. By the way, the general absence of protection the
Japanese will pay for dearly was exactly the same for most allied plane less
than two years ago. The real reason for that was not all the samurai spirit
crap that was given as an explanation but the inability of Japanese engine
manufacturers to issue a compact "power egg" in the 1500 HP range for the
Zero (in the beginning of the conflict). Remember that Zero 21 had a 950 Hp
Sakae 12...
>> Beside the aileron
>>problem which plagued the roll rate of the Model 11 Zeros was partially
>>solved with mass balances, then with counterweights on Model 21's (The
first
>>ones engaged in the Pacific war), then almost totally solved from Model 32
>>by different means (clipped wingtips on Model 32, spring tabs on 22's and
>>22a's and reduced span from Model 52's)
>
>The aileron problem was never fully overcome. Not even in some late war
>designs.
I may partially agree with that because of the necessity to increase speed
and particularly dive speed, the high speed maneuvrability problem of the
Zero was never totally overcame. But the absence of spring tabs on Model 21
was a direct consequence of the imputation under the influence of
Mitsubishi's representives to the dispositive (Air Arsenal adapted without
the clearance of Mitsubishi) on the destruction of two Model 21's in test
flights before the war. A structural weakness that was finally traced to the
rear spar (and corrected on the assembly line at the same time) as when
Model 22 appeared, with the same wing as Model 21 (but two tanks between the
spars) the tabs were reinstated without structural failure). But nobody
could seriously challenge that the Zero was darn good in maneuvrability but
at high speed.
>>>Ok, provide a solid source to refute Erik's eyewitness commentary.
>>>Erik was there, in Burma, flying P-40's. What are your credentials
>>>to argue the issue? Besides a library card.
>>
>>Easy, in Burma there was NO MORE ZEROS.... But Army Ki 43's... A much
weaker
>>airplane driven by good pilots but not of the same proficiency as the
Tainan
>>Kokutai aces ...
>
>We know that there were no Zeros in Burma. I asked what credentials Jukka
had
>to argue the effectiveness of the P-40 with a guy who flew one into combat
day
>after day. By the way, what are yours?
I will outwardly dismiss any credential on an historical point of view of
someone still carrying stories that has been demonstrated wrong (presence of
Zeros against the AVG in axample). Even if these stories were 100%
understandable at the time. Mr. Schilling fought courageously the IJAAF
fighters and bombers in the AVG (no question about that) but his usual
affirmations (I saw many posts he issued, without reacting before) like an
alledged science in fighting the Zero he was obviously not in a position to
get or his tendancy to think that the AVG claims (on the contrary to any
other units in WW 2, allied or axis) should never be challenged as over
rated, his constant tendency to under rate his adversaries (which by the way
looks to my eyes as a diminution of the courage and ability of all the
allied pilots that fought the Japanese in WW 2 and not only to the Japanese
themselves), all this prooves that Mr. Schilling is still living with WW 2
morale boosting propaganda of the time. Many other WW 2 Pacific aces did
recognize the adversary was a tough one and official records of the losses
of the allies in the air during the first period of the war speak for
themselves about that. I will never understand why the captured records of
the IJNAF and IJAAF (papers not to be originally read by the ennemy) should
not be examined with the same degree of reliability as the Nazi archives...
Beside that, Japanese claims which came under close scrutiny of historians
of both sides were also brought back to more reasonable number.
About credentials, I study air war in the Pacific since more than 20 years
and have ample time to discuss with veterans both about Pacific war and ETO.
I take the valuable part of the eyewtitness testimony (the human side, what
they felt, what they experienced, what they saw as a great value). But as
far as headquarters, strategical and camouflage and markings problems or
even identification problems are concerned, unless they have specific
qualifications and there saying is corroborated by documents, I never take
what they say for granted as I've experienced more than often their
unreliability. Just an example one B 17 crew in the Phillipines reported to
have seen Bf 110 in Japanese colours (this is still on the official
archives), unfortunately there was none.
>>>Jukka, if you cannot roll, you cannot turn. If you cannot turn,
>>>what does that equate to? Not much maneuverability. This isn't
>>>hard stuff......
>>
>>High speed engagement tactics were not considered by the Japanese, they
>>prefered tight turns at slow to middle speed. The counter tactics was hit
>>and run and it was well known that any allied fighter (including the
>>splendid ultra maneuvrable Spitfire) was doomed if it accepted the turning
>>fights the Zero pilots ever attempted to draw their adversaries in.
>
>The Japanese mindset was typical of their inflexibility in doctrine.
>It is inflexibility that sets the stage for defeat.
The only real thing that was a stage for defeat was the incapacity of Tojo's
militarists to see the truth: Japan has not the industrial development
compatible with a protracted war against the might of America. A fact
Admiral Yamamoto underlined to them before the conflict to a point he was on
the verge of being assassinated (he also opposed the alliance with the axis
powers). The same Yamamoto promised an uninterrupted sequence of victories
for the first six month but warned that after that he can't promise
anything... He was right. By the way the Japanese tried to develop machines
with high speed and (relative to other models) heavier armament (IJAAF Ki
44, Ki 60; IJNAF - thus later - Raiden) they were never very popular with
the pilots for those attaining production status...
>>So far, nobody seems to have take into consideration the facts that what
>>really doomed the Zero was the development of adapted tactics to use its
>>weaker points and the constant diminution of the quality of the average
>>Japanese fighter pilot during the conflict after the attrition war they
were
>>forced to wage in the Solomons.
>
>The ability to adapt was not one of Japan's strong points.
Again this was not the main factor and "Rabaul Air Force" did try to adapt
(even in copying the finger four tactics, itself copied by the allies from
the Germans) but neither the industrial potential of Japan nor the capacity
to train a sufficient number of pilots in the same quality standard as
pre-war was sufficient. This war was lost even before it began. The IJNAF
was a formidable foe and perhaps the best naval aviation in the world in
1941, but that status, while explaining the initial successes, could not be
possibly maintained. The real problem was the "home front"...
>
>> Please remember that as far as 1944 even an
>>ace of the aces in a P 38 could succumb to a Zero with a god pilot and
>>that's a FACT.
>
>Name one please......
Mc. Guire, whether he was or wasn't properly shot down by his adversary he
was complied to enter an impossible maneuvre by a Zero pilot (and who was
IMHO not the average crap of the time). The US pilots of the second part of
WW 2 not only had better machines and the related technical edge, they werer
much better trained before entering combat than their Japanese foe. The
defeats of 1941 - 42 can't be explained only by the very thin technical edge
of the Japanese in front of what they had to fight against but also because
they were better trained, for a lot of them had combat experience from the
China war (mostly Navy personal) or the Nomonhan incident of 1939 (IJAAF
fighter pilots).
As for the Zero weaknesses proper, I can quote an unprotected very light
structure (a consequence of the insufficient choice of motorization in Japan
and of the range specs) and the mixed caliber armament (as once put by Sakai
himself) which was not conducive to good marksmanship for the average pilot
in deflection shooting). The first point (I mean un protected and too light)
should have been corected at the end off 1943, had the Japanese Navy
authorized the replacement of the Sakae engine by a Mitshbishi Kinsei of
1500 HP as suggested by the engineers in charge at Mitsubishi. In that cas
Zeros should have carried heavier armament, self sealing fuel tanks and
armour plate while keeping the performance of the Hellcat as demonstrated by
the prototype Model 54 c authorized in 1945 and never mass produced. But I'm
not a fool, it should never had changed the final issue of the war. But that
is noreason to admit the P 40 (but under very special circumstances) to be
ranked a more maneuvrable plane than the Zero... This is sheer nonsense.
FPW
WEILL
Erik Shilling wrote in message <7860mi$4...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
>Okay Maury we have been friends for a long time, lets be fair.
>Please reread my post. This was not the only attribute I attributed
>to the P-40 in which it excelled. Also overlooked by you is that my
>reference was when comparing the P-40B to the A6M2 model 21, in
>which the P-40 was faster straight and level by 35 mph. The A6M2
>model 21, a model that's production began in November 1941 and
>ended after 740 had been built.
Mr. Shilling, with all the respect due to a veteran fighter pilot, you
should better verify your sources.
Mitsubishi ended the production of Model 21 in May 1942 to switch to the
Model 32 (Hamp) an dthen top Model 22 and 22 a, before finally issuing the
Model 52. The Mitsubishi production was exactly what you told us. But Model
21 was stil produced and improved by Nakajima until Feb. 1944 (source:
Mikesh from US bomůbing survay statistics) and but for a few Model 22 - 22a
's that served with the fleet carriers stood the one and only variant to be
employed at sea until its final replacement by Model 52's ...
FPW
Kurt Plummer
> "Emmanuel Gustin" <NoSpam...@uia.ua.ac.be> wrote:
> >Jukka O. Kauppinen wrote in message <36A521D0...@mikrobitti.fi>...>
> >Snip:
> >>>Good post, Emmanuel!
> >1)"As for roll rate at high speeds, this is an important tactical parameter.
> >According to most accounts I have seen, it is far more important than
> >(sustained) rate of turn."
> Yes. This lets one chase or evade. According to Kit Carson's book on the
> P51, the Me 109 in particular had problems at high speed due to lack of rudder
> trim and stiffening ailerons. With no rudder trim the pilot had to stand on the
> rudder. Since the aicraft is normally set up for zero yaw in cruise, that means
> in high speed the aircraft will yaw because the airflow increases the effectiveness
> of the built-in rudder bias. At very high speeds this will counter the aileron input
> to roll against the rudder's yaw. Carson cites this as a factor in the Me109.
>
> >2)The P-40 was certainly not, in 1942, the best fighter around; it was mildly
> >obsolescent. However, the basic concept of the A6M was simply wrong.
> Wrong in that the Zero could not take punishment. This can be seen in myriads
> of WW2 gun camera shots where the Zero simply disintergrates under concentrated
> fifty-cal fire. Contrast that with Bob Johnson's experience in the P47 where an
> Fw190 was unable to knock him down with 7.92 fire even after Johnson's Tbolt had
> suffered grievous former damage. (It's fully described in "Thunderbolt") BTW
> Bob Johnson passed away just a few days ago. Ad atque vale!
> 3) The surprise came because intel analysts figured the Zero was built like every
> one else's fighters. The extreme light weight gave it sparkling performance in climb
> and turn but as cited above was its Achilles heel.
>
> 4) The tactics chosen by Chemmault were picked to maximize the P40's good points and
> minimize those of the Zero. This is axiomatic; every fighter pilot is taught this in
> training. Well, now, anyway. The RAF Spitfire pilots had to learn that the hard way;
> they didn't do so well the first time they met Zeros.
>
> 5) The tragedy of the Zero was that it had to soldier on just like the Me109 because
> the Japanese aviation industry couldn't develop and produce sufficient numbers of good
> replacements for it. They had good fighters but a terrible engine problem.
>
> 6) Recap - roll rate allows one to a) track an enemy and b) dodge him using scissors,
> etc. A real good roll rate plus some experience also pretty well engates the target's
> scissoring, too . . .
> Walt BJ ftr plt ret
> >Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
> >Home at University of Antwerp: http://nat-www.uia.ac.be/~gustin/
> >Military Aircraft Database: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/
> >Fighter Guns Pages: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/
> >(Delete NoSpam. from my address. If you can't reach me, your host
> > may be on our spam filter list. Check http://hipe.uia.ac.be/cc/.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Thanks Walt,
For the clarifications and explanations. I've read _Thunderbolt_ and do recall it being a
pretty thoughtful account of the ETO airwar as well as a page turner.
However; somewhere in that or another book (Maybe _Wolfpack_?) a Jug is hit /just once/,
in the rudder, by a '30mm from nowhere' and though it went straight through without
exploding it still had to retire from the fight, crippled with an escort, IIRC.
I think this plus you're comments on the _7.92mm_ 'survival caliber' and someone else's
mention of the torque-turn problem deserve some further mention re: Zero.
First a disclaimer- I've only played /sims/ (AOTP esp.) with the Zero.
In them, my biggest problem was keeping the damn guns _on target_!! You only got like
60rds for the 20's in the wings and a 'whole slew' (300?) of rifle caliber and then
somewhat less .50 in the nose, later on.
And I /never/ submarined a P-40 in with rifle fire!
It was incredibly hard 'wing leaping' a Kitty's turns, even at my best roll rates in
scissors, so that both 20's coned rounds into his plane. You couldn't keep up you're
energy at low throttle settings and at high torque, stamping on the rudders did no good at
all in terms of keeping the nose 'up' and target aligned as the T&B passed 45`.
Even when you could do it after the bank had set (and before he started back the other
way, roll-to-chop-throttle-boot-in was an important S&R 'tactic' I found), the tracers at
least tended to 'wander along the velocity vector' missing by upwards of 20` deflection at
anything but Very Short ranges.
I did notice speed effects on roll rate but still found my best bet was always in energy
traded climbing fights into the bellyside while all my moronic computer wingmen fought in
level lanes and the P-40's yoyo'd in diagonals to stay out of trouble (real collision risk
climbing into them here but when they pull up to become 'aggressive again' they are
perfect duck deflections).
The Zero, as-modelled had good initial bunt-gains in speed on the down hill and it climbed
so steeply, so well, that I didn't need much more than 4-6 seconds unloaded to go from
170-->220 and by 8-240 on the clock, the pull up felt like I was riding a rocket propelled
warkite!! Either was enough to come right back up into the fight with significant
(improving) roll-turn Immelmant agility over the top of the circle (missed).
The highest I ever fought however was 17-21K trying to intercept a medium level bombing
attack over New Guinea I think it was and ehemmm, I didn't do terribly well there. For
such a lightweight the whole plane started to feel both (nose) heavy and 'wobbly' about
all axis like the control surfaces weren't attached or moving right or something.
I guess what I'm trying to say is the -weapons system- also counts.
/When/ I could get both 20's working the target everyplane I fired upon tended to candle
or smoke or wingover (fuel-engine-pilot) and self-sealing/armor concerns didn't seem to
matter, from the belly.
Later in the war there were many times I wished for another 50+mph of cruise but topend
never mattered 'as long as I saw them coming' and as the numbers of 'them' increased I was
-always- cursing for more shells and fewer 'bullets' and a /stronger rudder/.
Of course -the game- in question is a good decade old now and used hit bubbles like barn
doors I'm sure. That may make some of these considerations (negative lead hits with only
two, slow, cannon) improbable, IRL, but I wanted to get it across that if you can hit,
heavy enough, hard enough, often enough then you can survive but if you cannot kill
quickly because you lack the sustained weight of shell, the sight or the airframe
harmonies, armor and/or raw performance aren't enough on their own, at least against the
numeric disadvantagement which I fought the last 2/3rds of the campaigns with.
KP
P.S. I also 'flew' Hayate, Hayabusa and I think Hien so I know the relative best-
differences, at least for that game.
John Campbell
>
<snip>
> Even the best of them, which was indeed the P 40 and
> saw service even before in the sand of Middle East Desert with the RAF (and
> Commonwealth forces) was found inferior to the Spitfire and even the
> Hurricane, ending finally as a low level fighter bomber more than a pure
> interceptor.
>
Don't forget the RAF had peculiar ideas on weapons and usually removed
the
50's sometimes replacing them with 303. Also the Spitfire (of that era)
did
have problems with heat and was not commonly used in N. Africa until
later.
The RAAF was sucessful with the P40 in N Africa and the Pacific. The
Spitfire
in the Pacific was generally used in secondary areas as an interceptor
rather
than as a fighter or for training with the P40 used in the more critical
areas.
> I think you refer to Navy's experience with the F4F vs Zero tactics
> developed by Thatch (Thatch wave). But it was not so obvious for USAAF
> pilots in December 1941...
>
The main question is why the Zeros deficiencies as listed by Erik were
not
more widely known by the Allied pilots. Apparently the Chinese
(Chennault) had
a flyable Zero early in '41 and in fact had flown it to Rangoon? for
onward
shipment and further evaluation in July? 41 but the Brits insisted it be
flown
back to China. Possibly this is why the AVG were more sucessful than
other Allied
air forces of the time.
Regards
JC
Agtabby
The zero was very light, was very manueverable at low speeds, and had very good
range. If you tried to beat it in a slower dogfight, you were in trouble.
One big advantage the Japanese had early in the war was a group of experienced
pilots, remeber that pilot skill is maybe more important than the plane. Late
in the war the US had a huge lead in experienced pilots, so the situation was
reversed.
US planes were in general much more rugged, and survivable for the pilot.
Since everyone uses the same laws of physics, this gave the Japanese some
advantages. Bringing the pilot back home to fight again is very important
though, you keep his skill.
With a good pilot a F4F wildcat could compete well with a zero, provided he
used the right tactics.
Andrew
Jeff Crowell
<wal...@oneimage.com> wrote in message 36a66...@206.168.123.253...
>The F5s in Top Gun can roll about 450 degrees a second
>that is one second!
Actually, the F-5, along with the A-4, can roll at 720 degrees per second.
That, my friends, can and will tumble your gyro!
In flight school, the custom on the stud's first flight in the Scooter
(which
was an instrument hop) was, after the student did his syllabus work the
instructor would bring 'er back around for a normal pattern entry, and
the student would peel back the bag. Coming into the break, while yer
basic clueless student was staring about in wonderment, the instructor
would suddenly yell on the intercom "Hey, what's that over there at 9
o'clock?" and immediately break hard right. Well, the unprepared student
played the part of the ice in your drink and basically stayed in place as
the plane rotated about him. The result was a hell of a shot to the front
of your helmet as the side of the canopy came over to greet you. The
practice was banned after a student was knocked unconscious.
When my first BI flight came, a friend had clued me in. I wear a
size 44 coat, and it was easy for me. Pulling my arms back along
my torso pretty well jammed me in place, and I didn't even make
contact with the canopy.
In keeping with the thread, let me just add that superior roll rate,
particularly when it is superior by the margin seen at high speed
between a P-40 and a Zero, could easily be decisive.
Jeff
WEILL
>Don't forget the RAF had peculiar ideas on weapons and usually removed
>the
>50's sometimes replacing them with 303. Also the Spitfire (of that era)
>did
>have problems with heat and was not commonly used in N. Africa until
>later.
Of course yes, and another problem Hurricane pilots tended to underline in
the far east this time was the weakness of the Spitfire undercarriage on
very rough strips.... But once in the air the Spit was superior to the P 40.
Even the Hurricane, when engaged in the far east were rather unpleasant
surprise for the Japanese (notice that considering the relatively light
airframes of Japanese planes the British deleted 4 out of the twelve .303
their Mk II B had to get a lighter airplane).
>The RAAF was sucessful with the P40 in N Africa and the Pacific.
Well, courageous Aussies and USAAF men of the 49th did their best with their
P 40 E's, but notice that as soon as better machines became available the
40's where withdrawn by the USAAF and replaced by these new machines as the
mainstay of the fighter force. the fact that P 40's stood in the line so
long in the Pacific is more linked to the priority of the ETO decided at
governmental level like the particular merits of the plane. IMHO, until late
in 1944, the best US fighters in the Pacific were Navy and Marines types,
not USAAF's. In North Africa, the most successful missions flown were air to
ground ones. P 40's seem to have just hold the line against bf 109 E's and
been totally otclassed when the "Friedrich" came as pure fighters.
The
>Spitfire
>in the Pacific was generally used in secondary areas as an interceptor
>rather
>than as a fighter or for training with the P40 used in the more critical
>areas.
I have to disagree, but for the fact that they were ever used when available
as interceptors (the role they were made for). The first Spits to enter in
the fray where Darwin's Spits of the RAAF. The first encounter with the Zero
was a disaster as they relied on the proverbial maneuvrability of their
mount. They discovered the Zero was even better. Then they learnt the
lessons and were very efficient but with the same hit and run tactics that
the other allied fighters were forced to rely on. The presence of P 40's in
more critical areas had certainly much more to do with its availability and
inherent ruggedness joint to a more polyvalent use (as Fighter Bomber
noticeably). Also remember that the delicate undercarriage of the Spit
necessitated better infrastructure than what was generally available in the
island hopping campaign. I'm convinved that with what available to the
USAAF, qualitatively speaking, they should have had rough times in the
Solomons as far as fighter vs. fighter combat is concerned. Fortunately,
Navy birds were their, with the F 4 F holding the line and the Corsair
coming at the end of 42...
>The main question is why the Zeros deficiencies as listed by Erik were
>not
>more widely known by the Allied pilots. Apparently the Chinese
>(Chennault) had
>a flyable Zero early in '41 and in fact had flown it to Rangoon? for
>onward
>shipment and further evaluation in July? 41 but the Brits insisted it be
>flown
>back to China. Possibly this is why the AVG were more sucessful than
>other Allied
>air forces of the time.
Agreed again, that's still a mystery... Let's also point out the fact that
the printing and general availability of the first manual of recognition
where the Zero was described were inexplicably delayed... The question
remains why?... The AVG IMHO learnt it more from the intelligence gathered
by Chennault who was in China earlier as there were no more Zeros in the sky
to be fought. The foe was Ki 43, nimble too, even lighter in construction
and with a very light firepower (Ki 43-I a : 2 x 7.7 mm Type 89, -Ib : 1x
7.7mm and 1x 13 mm, -Ic 2x 13 mm) with Army pilots again IMHO of a lesser
value than the IJNAF ones (less experienced).
Now back to the P 40, AVG ones were what the British called Tomahawks (they
were known in the AVG as P 40 B, they were in fact export versions for the
Brits diverted to China in between B and C). For the USAAF, these versions
were already obsolete as the E was already considered standard. I think what
Erik Shilling do not take into account is the fact that he opposed Ki 27's
and Ki 43's, not Zeros and Army pilots not Navy ones. So his comparative is
not relevant. Let's ask some veteran from USAAF or RAAF who was really
opposed to the Zero while piloting a P 40 tells us (if they are connected),
before drawing premature conclusions.
Also notice that the CBI theater was ever the poor man's theater and the
23rd that replaced the AVG didn't receive anything but P 40's of different
versions until very late in the conflict. IMHO not only because of
strategical choices at the highest level, but because they were opposed to
weaker Japanese forces in the air than anywhere else in the Pacific, both
qualitatively up to the fateful engagement of the Army in New Guinea during
1943 and numerically thereafter. The brunt of the Air combats in this
theater was ground support and tactical bombing. Later, during the harsh
campaign at Imphal, the air opposition from the Japanese Army Air Force was
negligible (not so for the toll exerted by ack ack and harsh meteorlogical
conditions, which are a testimony of the courage of the crews).
As to the general opinion on the Japanese capabilities in the American
forces (and I should say for all the ABD forces) when the conflict began in
December 41, it relied more on propaganda bullshits than anything serious
(those myopic Japanese in outmoded biplanes). You must also notice that the
IJNAF have had the best naval fighter in the world since 1936, the 96 Kansen
(Claude) which on the contrary to the Zero never owned its qualities from
questionable compromises with the state of the art of its time. A fighter
that was fully operational in China since 1937 !!! ... It was a fully
metallic monoplane. By the way, the same 96 Kansen were still operational
over the Phillipines from the only carrier engaged in the operation (Ryujo)
and fared well against the P.40's. For the IJAAF the results of the Nomonhan
incident should have made people aware of the capabilities of the Ki 27,
which was at the very beginning of the Pacific war still the standard IJAAF
fighter until the Ki 43 arrived sometimes later (and later than the Zero in
Navy units).
Regards.
FPW
Jeff Crowell
36A6AAAD...@mikrobitti.fi...
>Roll rate is only one aspect in a/c. Claiming it decides
>what plane is more maneuverable is plain amusing.
Jukka, how much flying time do you have? Have you ever flown as pilot
at all? Have you ever flown against another aircraft in real or mock
combat? I have, a little, and some of the people you are arguing with
have done it for hundreds or thousands of hours.
Roll rate isn't the *only* aspect of maneuverability, but it a critical
aspect.
Despite what you may think, air combat does ***not*** consist of two
guys yanking on the stick, turning in one direction until one or the other
gets a shot off. Turning combat consists of continually reversing your
turns,
back and forth, until one or the other player either gets "spit out" in
front
and gets shot, or picks the moment to disengage and "bug out" for safety.
How do you suppose you reverse your turn? Do you suspect that you
might need to roll the aircraft to accomplish this? Don't you think roll
rate
might come into play?
Let's say you're in a Zero and I'm in a P-40. I know you can defeat me
if I slow down and get into a slow, turning fight--so I won't play that game
(why should I choose to give you the advantage?). Instead, I will
use my speed advantage to press in on you. You're only choice is to turn
aside, forcing me to overshoot. If I tried to turn with you, you'd turn
inside
me and get the shot, so no dice. If you tried to dive away from me,
you'd become a strafe target for me. So if I'm smart, I keep my speed
up, climb away, then come back at you. I have you outgunned, out-
protected, and outranged (gunnery-wise), so if we trade a headon
pass, with equal gunnery skills you will lose.
Let's say you have an altitude advantage on me and dive to attack.
At the high speed of your dive, your controls stiffen up (ever look at
the size of the Zero's ailerons? They were unboosted. Think about what
that does to your control forces, i.e. how hard you have to push and pull
to make the controls move!) I don't care how much you lift weights,
you're not going to be strong enough to get much control deflection.
You can hardly roll at all--I'll wait until just before you start shooting,
then
break hard into you. About your only choice is to climb for another pass.
Or I can see you coming and dive away, accelerating--I have the
advantage in diving speed as well. If you come after me, at first you'll
have the speed advantage, so I will do mild rolling reversals to keep you
from getting a good shot at me--roll 90 degrees and turn to the right--you
roll (slower) and follow--I roll 180 degrees to the left and pull to
turn--our
speed is getting up there and I'm starting to pull away from you, and your
roll rate is now so slow that you are still turning to the right, stomping
and pulling hard to come back left, while I am already turning left.
What do you not understand about this?
If it is just us two up there, you basically cannot disengage unless I let
you (whether because I'm low on fuel or other tactical reasons). That is a
huge advantage--your only hope is that I'm a poor shot, or that I'll do
something stupid, like slow down and try to out-turn you where you have
the advantage.
Jeff
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> >what plane is more maneuverable is plain amusing.
> Roll rate isn't the *only* aspect of maneuverability, but it a critical
> aspect.
Yes. I haven't ever argued this. But the original poster
claimed so. Good roll rate and fast diving speed are very
valuable when used with right tactics but that's why
the P-40s were successfull against the Japanese Zeroes -
not slugging them in turnfight. Claiming P-40 is more
maneuverable than Zero because it rolls better in high
speeds is neglecting all the other aspects of air combat
and the rest of the envelopes of combatting a/c.
> Let's say you're in a Zero and I'm in a P-40. I know you can defeat me
> if I slow down and get into a slow, turning fight--so I won't play that game
> (why should I choose to give you the advantage?). Instead, I will
Completely right. I know the drill of air combat and I also
know both the advantages and disadvantages of both a/c.
** My only point here has been that good roll rate does not **
** automatically equal plane is more maneuverable. **
** It's good ability in plane and can be put to good use in **
** right conditions and right hands. But it's no word of god **
** that better rolling plane is the better or more **
** maneuverable plane. **
Using a plane's advantages against the weakness of others
is the key in success. Not coming back 50 years later and
trying to twist facts/opinions.
Finnish AF used exactly same tactics as P-40s vs Zeroes
already in 1939 with Fokker D.XXIs against the Russian AF.
Fokker had higher diving speed and was a very good gunnery
platform. If SU bombers were escorted the Fokkers made
one fast attack through the formation and dove away.
Dunno how it rolled in comparison to I-15, I-15bis and I-16
though.
But using the original poster's claims I could go on
saying Fokker D.XXI was better a/c than the Russians had
since it dove better and rolled well. Speed wasn't one of
the qualities though. I'm not doing that anyway.
I browsed through Deja News for messages about thsi subject
and noticed the original poster has been posting similar
things earlier as well. His points were critizised but he
is still saying exactly the same things which shows he is
not willing to learn or change his opinions. So be it, it
doesn't matter to me.
> What do you not understand about this?
Your examples were good and I agree on all of them. But look above,
I wasn't arguing about them. And not saying P-40 was crap plane,
it was ok if somewhat mildly mediocre. Interesting note here
is that the P-36s in Finnish AF combatted Russian P-40s
in Continuation War. Hopefully I will finish my web project
next summer and dig up stats that would show how they
fared.
BTW, Lately I've formed an opinion that one of the major
weaknesses of Japanese Navy/Army AF was exactly their plane's
fragileness. (plus lack of team tactics)
While that and their amazing maneuverability and high
pilot quality worked for them in early Pac war, later
it contributed very much to their demise. After USAAF/USN
learned to keep E up, bounce japs and not let them
tangle in dogfight japanese faced a major problem.
Their planes would get destroyed from even one short
burst. Allied planes took much more beating.
Allies could put lead into air, take low propability
deflection shots and so on, and if they managed to connect
it often was "byebye jap". Japanese had to keep their fire
in target longer and during this they were easier targets
for nme wingmen/partners. IMHO even the Japanese gunnery
trainign was somewhat faulty, since allied pilots learned
that Japs will open fire with 8mm mgs, after getting
deflection right will stop and change to cannons - and tHEN
it's good time to take evasives, if you're on the taking
side.
Japanese didn't really have much chance in the fragile Zeros/Oscars
after the allies got their tactics right and couldn't engage
in favorable terms. Now, Ki-84, THAT's a plane! :) Too few of
them, unfortunately.
MakinKid
>the P 40
>was found inferior to the
>Hurricane
>in the sand of Middle East Desert
The Hurricane had serious problems in the Middle East, and in the Far East,
mainly involving the design of the Merlin (review dejanews posts re).
Hurricane performance, even unhampered by tropical/desert filters, was closer
to that of the P-36 than the P-40.
The late, great Jeff Ethell carried out a flight test evaluation of Mk II
Hurricane and described it thusly:
"Pilot gets the impression of a reliable, if not spirited, steady and stable
bird.... Aerobatics in the Hurricane match its general impression--solid, if
not sharp. A pilot would have to do something very drastic to get into serious
trouble, but by the same token he would have to be quite experienced to hang on
in a dogfight.... Visibility out of the cockpit is not that great...."
Comment was made that the Navy F4F was better than the P-40 in dealing with the
Zero. Here's Ethell's flight test view of the Grumman (actually GM FM-2):
"The Wildcat has stiff controls, and though it performs fine aerobatically, it
is not a sprightly airplane like the P-40 or Spitfire. Aileron pressures are
high and role rate is slower than later fighters.... The broad ironing-board
wing generates more than enough lift for soaring loops.... Acceleration and
climb rates are outstanding...."
About the Spitfire (Mk 9), Ethell had this to say: "Surprisingly, for such a
small aircraft, the ailerons are quite stiff.... On the other hand, the
elevators are feather light, enabling you to out-turn almost anything....
Aerobatics are delightful since converting mental output to controls to
resulting maneuver is so short...."
About the Me 109 (actually HA-1112), Ethell had this to say: "Though it does
not roll exceptionally well, it has an excellent turn rate and can hold its own
with most wartime types in a dogfight."
For comparison, here is what Ethell had to say about a P-40E he tested:
"For sheer enjoyment of flying, the P-40 is difficult to match.... It has the
sprightly handling characteristics of the last biplane fighters. In
particular, it has wonderful ailerons and a very rapid roll rate.... The
controls quickly become an extension of the brain...."
Re 109F vs Kittyhawk I (P-40D) in the Desert, I have dug this out of my old
notes on the MTO war, from comments on SAAF engagemetn tactics: "We used the
finger-four formation, which was very maneuverable and it worked well. If 109s
attacked, we turned into them and could shoot with every chance of success.
They were invariably above us and could initiate the attack. Their speed and
rate of climb were both superior to ours, so to begin with they had every
advantage. On the other hand, once the;y were committed to the attack, we were
at no disadvantage, for although they could break off at will, we were more
maneuverable."
Re-reading this passage, I was struck by how similar it is to descriptions left
by Japanese pilots flying the Ki-43 and Zero against the Americans. I am
thinking in particular of a report by a Japanese army pilot by the name of
Kozuki which I've got somewhere but can't put my hands on now (it's not in the
box of notes it should be in, drat!) He flew Ki-43s out of Rabaul.
In any case, the SAAF and JAAF pilot comments have the same "yes, they have
some advantages over us but we can handle them" confidence, while in reality
both the SAAF and JAAF fighters were very roughly handled by their opponents.
Once again, it would seem, whatever the maneuver merits of a fighter, the
opponent with the speed and altitude advantage will, in the long run,
out-attrit the foe who relies on aerobatics.
Makin
Jim Erickson
>after the allies got their tactics right and couldn't engage
>in favorable terms. Now, Ki-84, THAT's a plane! :) Too few of
>them, unfortunately.
>jok
Yeah it sure was unfortunate. It's a crying shame the Japanese didn't
get the chance to kill more Allied airmen. (not)
Jim Erickson
David Lentz
WEILL wrote in message <787jc2$bmm$1...@platane.wanadoo.fr>...
<snipped>
>governmental level like the particular merits of the plane. IMHO, until
late
>in 1944, the best US fighters in the Pacific were Navy and Marines types,
>not USAAF's. In North Africa, the most successful missions flown were air
to
>ground ones. P 40's seem to have just hold the line against bf 109 E's and
>been totally otclassed when the "Friedrich" came as pure fighters.
I do not dispute your opinion that the best US figher pilots were Navy or
Marine.
However I have to note the two leading all-time United States Ace, Majors
Richard Bong and Thomas McGuire both flew P-38's in the Pacific. Go figure.
David
MakinKid
>BTW, Lately I've formed an opinion that >one of the major
>weaknesses of Japanese Navy/Army AF was >exactly their lack of team tactics.
Actually, the did use team tactics. But, at least in the early part of the
war, favoured units of three rather than four, a less effective formation.
I've found my notes on Takeo Shibata's instructions to his pilots (he was
commander of the 201st Kokutai, a Navy unit flying Zeros), and Tadashi Kozuki's
instructions to his pilots (he was commander of 248th Sentai, an Army unit
flying Ki-43s). Both stress the importance of formation flying, sticking
together, mutual support, never getting separated from wingmen, always keeping
some planes as top cover, having the height advantage before attacking, dive to
attack having planned an escape route (for example into cloud cover) before
initiating the attack, etc. If a pilot found himself alone in a fight, he was
to immediately dive to the deck, run home at top speed and never try to rejoin
the fight.
A number of both USN and USAAF comments from the early days of the fighting
comment on how well coordinated Japanese fighter tactics were.
Apparently the Japanese had examined US fighters carefully, because the
instructions explain in some detail how to attack the US planes to strike their
weak spots. For example, they knew which engine on the P-38 had the
electrical power unit and recommended aiming for that engine.
They also recommend closing to within 100 meters before opening fire. There is
no mention of using the machine guns for ranging and them opening up with the
cannon. This sounds like a very clumsy process and, I suspect, may be a myth.
Makin
Erik Shilling
writes:
>>740 had been built.
Weill wrote:
>Mr. Shilling, with all the respect due to a veteran fighter pilot, you
>should better verify your sources.
snip
Weill also wrote:
>Mitsubishi ended the production of Model 21 in May 1942 to switch to
>the Model 32 (Hamp) an dthen top Model 22 and 22 a, before finally
>issuing the Model 52. The Mitsubishi production was exactly what you
told us. But Model 21 was stil produced and improved by Nakajima until
Feb. 1944 (source:
>Mikesh from US bomůbing survay statistics) and but for a few Model 22
- 22a 's that served with the fleet carriers stood the one and only
variant to be employed at sea until its final replacement by Model 52's
...
WEILL,
Your reading comprehension leave a great deal to be desired. Therefore
reread what I said about the Model 21.
What I wrote is that productiuon on the A6m2 model 21 continued until
740 had been built. I gave no DATE when production stopped.
Also being a pilot I think I am in a better position to understand as
well as compare performace better than some one who is neither a pilot
nor has flown in combat and only parrots what he has read possibly
written by some one equally ignorant on the subject.
Erik Shilling
Maury Markowitz
> Jukka, how much flying time do you have? Have you ever flown as pilot
> at all? Have you ever flown against another aircraft in real or mock
> combat? I have, a little, and some of the people you are arguing with
> have done it for hundreds or thousands of hours.
And this doesn't divest people of silly opinions based on dogma. I mean
if it doesn't in science, it sure isn't going to in comparative aircraft!
> Roll rate isn't the *only* aspect of maneuverability, but it a critical
> aspect.
So is extra energy, thrust weight, sustained turn and instantaneous turn.
None of these is "most important", although the first on my list likely
comes closest. Roll rate is certainly not near the front of the list.
> Despite what you may think, air combat does ***not*** consist of two
> guys yanking on the stick, turning in one direction until one or the other
> gets a shot off. Turning combat consists of continually reversing your
> turns,
> back and forth, until one or the other player either gets "spit out" in
> front
> and gets shot, or picks the moment to disengage and "bug out" for safety.
Despite what you might thing, air combat rarely has anything whatsoever
to do with manuverability. Over 80% of all air to air kills in every war
happen with the loser not even knowing that the attacker was there. This
is true in WWI, Spain, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam, and I suspect the Gulf too.
> How do you suppose you reverse your turn? Do you suspect that you
> might need to roll the aircraft to accomplish this? Don't you think roll
> rate might come into play?
Do you suspect that everyone's overselling roll performance for no good
reason and ignoring Jukka repeated note about the FW-190? If roll were as
important as it's being sold as here, the FW-190 should have eaten the 51's
for breakfast. It didn't. So it's not as important as everyone is trying
to say it is.
[rest of clearly non-informational "make up" stories snipped]
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> Gee, I read something in a previous input that made me just jump in
> here. Erik
> cited the Zero's roll rate at 280 MIAS as 30 degrees per second.
> Now y'all may not think that's too important but I'm here to tell
> you that that is a very very slow roll rate for a fighter - it's about the
> same as a wide-body jet!
The Mity-Mikes get 720 degrees per second, the best of the WWII fighters,
the 38L's and FW-190's were something around 270 IIRC.
> that is one second! Now if I'm flying a bird than can roll three times
> faster than the guy
> after me he's gonna have a hell of a time hitting me with his guns.
Only if you can couple that with an equally fast change of the pitch.
Roll all you want along one axis, I can still gun your brains out with
ease. The idea of a fast roll rate is to set up another lift vector ASAP,
if your lift vector is small anyway, even a slow rolling plane can catch
you at it. And all of this assumes a tracking shot, which I believe
accounts for something like 20% of all gun shots.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> Walt you are taling about jet fighters of today. We are taling about
> the Zero of yester year. In roll rate, regardless of what the pilot did
> or who he was the Zero was a dog.
Under specific conditions which the pilots (at least the good ones)
avoided.
Sorry Erik, you're overselling this one and losing the audience.
Maury
Erik Shilling
(MakinKid) writes:
>
Part of Jeff Ethel's report on the P-40.
>
>"For sheer enjoyment of flying, the P-40 is difficult to match.... It
has the sprightly handling characteristics of the last biplane
fighters. In particular, it has wonderful ailerons and a very rapid
roll rate.... The controls quickly become an extension of the
brain...."
It is unfortunate tha Jeff never flew the P-40B, because the P-40B was
a dream to fly compared to the P-40E and the B's top speed was
identical to that of the P-40E.
Pilots who had fought both the Oscar and the Zeke felt that the Oscar
was a more formitable fighter.
A comment about the post on the Sim. Once in combat very few pilots
ever chopped or reduce throttle. I always went to METO power and higher
if I felt it necessary. The higher the power setteing the More "G's"
you can pull. At the same speed the more "Gs" you can pull the tighter
the turn. Chopping power looses engergy, a NO NO>
Erik Shilling
Erik Shilling
writes:
> Sorry Erik, you're overselling this one and losing the audience.
So far Maury you and Jukka are the only one who disagree, and from the
amount of postings on this subject, it seem that the audience is
growing. You still haven told me what the advantages the Zero has over
the P-40B.
Also Maury I have tried the Sims as you have suggested. They are a
sorry excuse for the real thing. Therefore don't base Sim experience on
the real thing. It's a different world when your life is at stake and
your opponent has real bullets.
Regard,
Erik
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> no mention of using the machine guns for ranging and them opening up with the
> cannon. This sounds like a very clumsy process and, I suspect, may be a myth.
That one stuck in my mind from a book about the USN aviators,
where the writer stated they were taught so and mentioned
situation(s)(?) where he used this evading the japanese
fighters. Perhaps this is one of those very small details
that so easily get lost among other more pressing things.
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> >weaknesses of Japanese Navy/Army AF was >exactly their lack of team tactics.
>
> Actually, the did use team tactics. But, at least in the early part of the
> war, favoured units of three rather than four, a less effective formation.
> I've found my notes on Takeo Shibata's instructions to his pilots (he was
Notes? May i inquire if these notes are in digital format or
traditional paper way? English?
I am active aviation hobbyist and move a bit around in military aviator
circles as well, but it's so bloody hard to find some materials.
The winning powers usually write the history and since WW2 victors
were mostly english speaking it's very easy to find more material than
one can ever swallow. And tt's not always completely nonbiased.
So I try to dig around for German/Italian/Japanese material as well
to look at things from the other side as well,
but the damn language barrier and poorer selection of books. :(
So, shortly, heck, I would love to see those notes if they're
digital/english.
Jeff Crowell
>In <787kle$9h...@hpbs1500.boi.hp.com> "Jeff Crowell" wrote:
>> Jukka, how much flying time do you have? Have you ever flown as pilot
>> at all? Have you ever flown against another aircraft in real or mock
>> combat? I have, a little, and some of the people you are arguing with
>> have done it for hundreds or thousands of hours.
Maury Markowitz <maury@remove_this.istar.ca> wrote in message
F5xBB...@T-FCN.Net...
> And this doesn't divest people of silly opinions based on dogma. I mean
>if it doesn't in science, it sure isn't going to in comparative aircraft!
Eh... whose dogma, Maury? The one based on experience, or the
one based on "this is how I think it ought to be, don't confuse me
with facts!"
>> Roll rate isn't the *only* aspect of maneuverability, but it a critical
>> aspect.
>
> So is extra energy, thrust weight, sustained turn and instantaneous turn.
>None of these is "most important", although the first on my list likely
>comes closest. Roll rate is certainly not near the front of the list.
Dang it, I never said it was the most important--I said it was one of the
important ones. And it is.
I directly addressed roll rate because that was the sole aspect under
discussion.
> Despite what you might thing, air combat rarely has anything whatsoever
>to do with manuverability. Over 80% of all air to air kills in every war
>happen with the loser not even knowing that the attacker was there.
And the significance of this statement is what, Maury? That we should
not bother to design maneuverability into an aircraft? I think not!
I never suggested that maneuverability would save the life of a pilot
who had his head up his ass, or just plain never saw the attacker.
This is a strawman argument, and beneath you. Since no aspect of
aircraft performance is meaningful (other, perhaps, than the ability to
take a beating) in engagements where you never gain sight of your
attacker, throw them out of the equation as meaningless.
So let's talk about engagements where both sides see each other.
Do you suggest that maneuverability is meaningless there? Feh.
The ability of any aircraft in combat is a combination of all its
attributes, strengths as well as weaknesses, combined with the
strengths and weaknesses of the pilot.
But to sumarily dismiss any aspect of the maneuverability equation,
be it roll rate, energy addition, sustained turn rate, whatever, is
ridiculous.
If I'm behind you and approaching guns with serious overtake,
I propose to you that roll rate will become an important
aspect of your life, no matter how much longer that lasts! And
that's regardless of what you're instantaneous G available is.
Your best bet in a 'Guns D' situation is an out-of-plane
maneuver, and the only way you can generate that is by rolling.
You sure aren't going to accelerate in time to get out of trouble,
so T/W is temporarily meaningless.
Note I said temporarily, so keep the straw men out of it. If you
survive that first pass, other aspects of performance will also
be important.
>This
>is true in WWI, Spain, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam, and I suspect the Gulf
too.
I would suspect that it is becoming less true; at least, one should
at least have some idea you're getting shot at--engagements rarely open
with a gun attack these days. But I won't argue the point.
>> How do you suppose you reverse your turn? Do you suspect that you
>> might need to roll the aircraft to accomplish this? Don't you think roll
>> rate might come into play?
>
> Do you suspect that everyone's overselling roll performance for no good
>reason and ignoring Jukka repeated note about the FW-190? If roll were as
>important as it's being sold as here, the FW-190 should have eaten the 51's
>for breakfast. It didn't. So it's not as important as everyone is trying
>to say it is.
You're missing my point, which is to say that the superior roll rate
of the P-40 goes a long way to make up for its deficiency in other
aspects of performance as compared to the Zero. It is most significant
in 1v1 combat--if you're outnumbered, tactics become less and less
important.
Jeff
Maury Markowitz
> >Erik's continued insistance on using roll rate as some sort of
> deciding line is silly.
> >
> >Maury this is only one of many atribute I mentioned.
Not in terms of manuverability. In terms of manuverability you offer the
roll performance as the only stated measure and then conclude that the
manuverability of the P-40 was better than the Zero.
> Perhaps some of you may be interested in the type of fighters that
> the Zeros were up against which is the reason why they acquired
> their reputation of being invincible.
Not particularily. However I am fairly familiar with the various designs
like I-15bis and I-16's, and from what I understand they could both handily
outroll the Zero.
> A lesser number that fought the Zero were Russian I-16, a monoplane
> with a top speed of 280 mph. These were somewhat similar to the
> US's Boeing P-26. Both these Chinese flown fighter were the same
> models that had been used in the Spanish Civil war.
The I-16 was in no way similar to the P-26 though. It was bigger, faster,
had retractable gear, enclosed cockpits (in some models) and was very
heavily armed with both cannon and machine guns. It is generally
considered to be one of the first truely modern fighters, predating the
Me-109, He-112 and Hurri. The P-26 was a "classically" constructed open
cockpit plane, lightly armed, with external bracing and fixed gear,
outperformed by many of the late-interwar biplanes.
> Maury, I appreciate your input since much of what you post backs up
> my statements. However I was talking about the war in the Pacific
> during late 1941 up to early 1942, and the fighters available to
> Army Air Corps pilots who fought against the Japanese at Pearl
> Harbor and shortly thereafter.
Well if one wishes to define "the beginning of WWII" with 1942 you're in
trouble!!! :-)
> Nearly ever aviation magazine including the Smithsonian's claim
> this. In fact the same issue that had an article by Daniel Ford's,
> was an article by a person by the name of Thompson who claimed the
> Zeros was the most fabulous fighter to have come out of the war.
Fair enough, point taken.
> Please reread my post. This was not the only attribute I attributed
> to the P-40 in which it excelled.
And I would agree, it was the combination of factors that made the P-40 a
better WWII fighter. By that I mean that although the Zero outperformed
the 40 in specific important ways, the 40's strengths allowed it to simply
ignore pick the fight or leave, options the Zero did not have. However to
claim that the 40 was _more_manuverable_ than the Zero is simply not true
in any general way.
> Maury how can you truly believe this, please elaborate.
Certainly, perhaps that's how I should have started my participation in
this thread, it's an excellent time to actually get our terms down I'd say.
"Classic" measures of airplanes typically divide into three parts,
mauverability, performance and "others":
Performance terms include climb rate, cruise speed, max level speed, Vne,
acceleration and etc.
Mauverability terms include instant and sustained terms in the three
axis. Most typically include instant and sustained turn in degrees/second,
and roll rates. Oftenm overlooked, but sometimes very important, are the
accelerations to those rates.
Sadly many truely important terms for any particular aircraft are often
overlooked but have widespread effects on the first two figures. These are
thus catagorized as "others", and typically include stability under gee
loading (guns tracking), dive performance due to engine factors, control
harmonization, control loads and compressibility issues
In terms of aircraft effectiveness another set of variables is needed,
including firepower, load/range and armor (well, general strength, all the
armor in the world doesn't help if your wing comes off!), visibility,
cockpit workload, pilot comfort etc., and let ius never forget THE PRICE OF
THE PLANE!
The US had practically infinite manufacturing capacity and money
available, the effects of emty factories during the depression and not
being bombed or invaded in any serious way. No other power could ramp
production so fast or spend as much of it's money on production. So while
the US was prepared to build a fleet of B-29's regardless of the cost by
any measure, that fleet represents more manpower and money than all of the
Japanese production for the entire war. And don't get me started on the
German's moronic production ideas - suffice it to say that if you let
politics in, you lose the war.
In addition it has to be mentioned that these figures are not terribly
disconnected. For instance, climb rate often tells you how a plane
manuvers, this is because climb rate depends on what we'd now call the
"extra power" term, which is also what determines a large part of
manuverability. If I had today's figures I'd use them, but sadly I don't
So, let's take a look at three planes, the Model 21, the 40E and the
190A4:
Model 21 P-40E FW-190A4
Performance terms:
Climb to 10k 154s 176s 126s
Zoom climb 2600ft 2900ft 3600ft
at 1k ft 300mph
Dive from 15k
down to 5k
- after 30s 300mph 360mph 385mph
- after 60s 285mph 320mph 355mph
- max speed 440mph 490mph 495mph
Max speed 275mph 310mph 340mph
at 1k feet
Manuverability terms:
Instant turn
- corner speed 200mph 260mph 305mph
- time for 1 360 9.8s 12.5s 16.4s
- time for 2 360's 21.6s 28.5s 37.5s
- radius 291ft 492ft 677ft
Sustained turn
- best speed 110mph 140mph 185mph
- times 9.9s 12.8s 17.3s
Roll rate 4.9s 6.1s 3.4s
1k, sustained spd
Other associated terms:
Control feel
- low speed good good excellent
- sustained spd poor good excellent
- high speed horrible good excellent
Visibility good fair excellent
Guns
- firepower poor fair excellent
- feel good excellent excellent
Armor poor good excellent
Durability horrible good good
So, the basic figures show that the zero outperforms the P-40 by a wide
margin in terms of overall performance turns. The speed when entering
turns quickly moves to the sustained number and stays there. "Whoa", I
hear you saying, "that shows the model 21 outrolling a P-40, that's wrong!"
No, look at speeds. The problem with the Zero's roll rate was control
forces at high speed, sadly for the Zero "high speed" started about 225mph
and went directly into VERY high at about 250mph. Also compare with the
190. Note that by the same measures the 190 is very poor indeed. (BTW, at
250 the roll rate is 6.1, and for the P-40 3.8, which are the numbers
you've posted I believe).
But does this manuverability chart tell us the best plane? No, of course
not. The P-40 could dispatch a Zero with ease, and the 190 a P-40 with
similar ease This is the result of the simple fact that manuverability is
good in the 2 out of 10 cases where you see the opponent and fight them.
In the other 8 out of ten cases you want to have good visibility, BIG guns
and lots of armor.
So...
a) is the P-40 more manuverable than the P-40? No.
b) is the zero a better plane that the P-40? No.
Note that these statements are NOT contradictory!
> Please explain the areas in which the Zero excelled, and although
> you may bring up the Zero's ability to turn in a smaller circle,
> this did not negate the superior attributes of the P-40's.
I would never suppose to claim it did though, but I would claim that
negates the claim that the P-40 is more manuverable IMHO.
Maury
Erik Shilling
<jukka.k...@mikrobitti.fi> writes:
>
>Maury, btw, excellent, balanced and fair post. I think it would be
>a honorable way to end this before flames start going up ;-)
I see no necessety to revert to flames, but stating opinions as though
they were fact only leads to frustration. Therefore, If you disagree I
see no reason not to know what your opinion are based upon.
So Far you have only claimed the Zero was more maneuverable, but
apparently not based upon facts since they are not forth coming. Nor
in what specific area the Zeros excelled in.
Although I started this thread about the inferior performance of the
Zero I have learned much more, and incidently reinforces my assesment.
Erik Shilling
Erik Shilling
writes:
>In <7860mi$4...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Erik Shilling wrote:
>> >Erik's continued insistance on using roll rate as some sort of
>> deciding line is silly.
>> >
>> >Maury this is only one of many atribute I mentioned.
>
> Not in terms of manuverability. In terms of manuverability you
offer the roll performance as the only stated measure and then conclude
that the manuverability of the P-40 was better than the Zero.
This is pure nonsense, I mention superior speed, climb, dive. All of
which contribute to maneuverability and survivablility. These allows
the P-40 pilot to control the fight. The P-40 can disengage at any
time. You may claim the ability to turn in a small is the only atribute
the Zero had over the P-40, but even this ONLY at slow speeds.
Again I challange you to state a fact or an opinion if based upon fact
that the Zero was more maneuverable. No just what in your opinion made
you think the Zero was more maneuverable than the P-40.
Erik Shilling
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> > to the P-40 in which it excelled.
>
> And I would agree, it was the combination of factors that made the P-40 a
> better WWII fighter. By that I mean that although the Zero outperformed
> the 40 in specific important ways, the 40's strengths allowed it to simply
> ignore pick the fight or leave, options the Zero did not have. However to
> claim that the 40 was _more_manuverable_ than the Zero is simply not true
> in any general way.
This, THIS is the thing I've been trying to make but failed
in search of words/language barrier.
Maury here speaks true words. I believe we all can accept
his wording and move on?
For example this debate brought up interesting pieces
about the AF in Indonesian theatre and Zeros vs. Russian AF.
I-15s, I-16s etc. I would like to carry on with them, especially
the latter, interesting subjects IMHO. Both these Russian
a/c were also in limited Finnish use as war booty and if I
manage to find my reference I should be able to give some
interesting points there.
Maury, btw, excellent, balanced and fair post. I think it would be
a honorable way to end this before flames start going up ;-)
jok
MakinKid
>Notes? May i inquire if these notes are in digital format or
>traditional paper way? English?
>
Traditional paper. English. Most of them were scribbled down back when I was
plodding through grad school some years ago.
The US military compiled a vast wealth of information on its WW2 enemies. For
aviation, the US Air Force Historical Research Agency and the US National
Archives are marvelous sources of even the most detailed information. Both have
web sites. But you'll have to do your own research. There is an excellent
series of monographs the US commissioned the Japanese to write on their war
activities. Most fighter and bomber groups have published, at least in limited
circulation, histories. All the captured Luftwaffe files are on microfilm at
the AFHRA, the NAR has them, and so does the British War Museum. The originals
have been returned to Germany.
There are also excellently researched articles in the professional journals
such as Air University Review, The Air Power/Aerospace Historian, Military
Review, Airman, Air Force, et al.
The US armed services have published a number of scholarly articles, monographs
and books for their internal consumption but which are available to the public.
But you have to do the digging. The Air Force Academy has done quite a few
things, in particular, oral histories. There are literally tons of material,
unit diaries, etc., that have sat unlooked at for decades. These can often be
surprisingly revealing.
You might want to think about planning a vacation to the USA, but instead of
visiting Disneyland, visit Maxwell AFB, Ala., where the AFHRA is located. If
you are at all interested in the history of military aviation, Maxwell AFB is a
pilgrimage site. It was here that the USA developed all the aviation
strategies and tactics used so successfully in later years.
Makin
Maury Markowitz
maneuverability
Before you continue down this message, let me make my position PERFECTLY
clear so that you don't respond to just the specific words.
Q1: Is the P-40 a better warplane than the Zero?
A1: Yes, in many ways.
Q2: Was the Zero more maneuverable than the P-40?
A2: Yes, in many ways.
Q3: Is A2 important in Q1?
A3: No, the Zero was clearly more maneuverable, and clearly not as good.
Q4: Is the relative roll performance of the P-40 vs. the Zero a factor in
Q1?
A4: No, the primary factors were much better guns, much better armor, and a
much tougher plane.
Q5: Are you saying that maneuverability is not important?
A5: No, I am however saying it is of little importance.
Q6: Is A5 a factor in Q1?
Q6: Yes. Maneuverability plays a small part in overall combat, and thus a
small part in overall measure.
Q7: Is roll performance important in maneuverability?
A7: Yes.
Q8: Is it the most important factor? Very important? Important at all?
A8: It is not the most important. It is not very important. It is
important.
Q9: If you were to rate the importance of various factors, what would they
be?
A9:
1) ability to get the pilot home in one piece regardless of how it does it
2) ability to do (1) while still being good at it's primary mission (ie,
diving out of combat is fine for fighter-fighter, but not for
fighter-bomber, you job is to kill bombers)
3) good firepower combined with ability to shoot straight
4) good altitude/speed numbers
5) easy to fly, easy to learn to fly
6) visibility
7) maneuverability
8) overall pilot comfort and workload
9) adaptability to a variety of missions
10) good range and loiter
11) price in _overall_ terms - reliability, manpower needed, cost etc.
There are MASSIVE amounts of data to back up the Q&A's above. Let's use
this for a few famous planes...
Mig-21 vs. F-4:
F4 wins 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10
Mig-21 wins 5, 7, 8, 11
Tie for 6
Chart win is for the F-4.
Historical winner is the F-4.
Zero vs. P-40:
P-40 wins 1, 2, 3, 4, 11
Zero wins 6, 7, 9 (naval ability), 10
Ties for 5, 8
Chart win is for the P-40
Historical winner is the P-40
Use the chart on historical matchups of your choice.
> >> Roll rate isn't the *only* aspect of maneuverability, but it a critical
> >> aspect.
> >
> > So is extra energy, thrust weight, sustained turn and instantaneous
> turn.
> >None of these is "most important", although the first on my list likely
> >comes closest. Roll rate is certainly not near the front of the list.
>
> Dang it, I never said it was the most important--I said it was one of the
> important ones. And it is.
But you didn't say "one of the important ones", you said "a critical
aspect". It is not a _critical_ aspect.
Facts:
a) The Zero was one of the most maneuverable planes of the war, yet it had
poor roll rates (_at_high_speeds_).
b) The FW-190 had the best roll rate of any plane in the air for the
majority of the war, yet was one of the poorest maneuvering planes.
Conclusion:
Roll rate is not a "critical aspect" of maneuverability.
This is exactly what Jukka was saying. This is exactly what I am saying.
Don't claim we weren't saying this, I read his messages I I knew this was
what he was saying, and I know what I'm saying (most of the time).
> I directly addressed roll rate because that was the sole aspect under
> discussion.
Sorry but _maneuverability_ is what is under discussion, and that's what
always has. Jukka is not saying roll rate is not important, I am not
saying roll rate is not important. We are saying that Erik's statement
that the P-40 ourrolled the Zero, and thus the P-40 was _more_maneuverable_
than the Zero is not correct.
> And the significance of this statement is what, Maury?
Of massive significance, the planes that do best in combat historically
have no clear signs that maneuverability has anything to do with it. The
Spit vs. the FW. The Mig-21 vs. the F-4. The Zero vs. the Hellcat. In all
of these cases the 2nd plane bested the 1st, and performance was the item
that was superior, not maneuverability.
> That we should
> not bother to design maneuverability into an aircraft?
If it's at the expense of other more important factors, sure. If you
can get it, great, if you can't, history says don't bother. However if you
are going to reply to this portion, do not attempt to draw me into a "you
don't think it's important" thread. I do think it's important.
> I never suggested that maneuverability would save the life of a pilot
> who had his head up his ass, or just plain never saw the attacker.
> This is a strawman argument, and beneath you.
Oh come now, the reason I mentioned this is because you were constructing
a strawman argument for Jukka! Didn't you recognize it as such? Yet above
you say this is about aircraft _design_ above, so I'll hold you to that.
Clearly the primary design criterion should be to design the plane to win
most air combat. Most air combat does not involve maneuverability. Most
air combat does involve being shot at. Thus the primary design criterion
should be what to do when you get shot at. Manuverability should be
somewhere below that.
The Japanese designed for maneuverability. They got slaughtered by
planes like the Jug which couldn't get out of it's own way, let alone
other planes. The US designed for punishment. They dealt it out.
The A-10 was designed for survival, it always made it home even after
taking _massive_ damage (for instance, one had a SA-6 spear the right wing
near the root between the two spars. You could see the bottom of the plane
from the cockpit, the hole was larger in circumference than the wing's
chord. The plane flew home and the pilot was uninjured). The F-16 is
designed for manuverability, and several were downed over the course of the
war, most with injuries.
> aircraft performance is meaningful (other, perhaps, than the ability to
> take a beating) in engagements where you never gain sight of your
> attacker, throw them out of the equation as meaningless.
Since armor is clearly of more historical importance than
maneuverability, and that armor is usually a direct tradeoff of
maneuverability (within a given design), then clearly the two are not
independent as you wish to claim. Take a plane, add 20% armor and lose 20%
maneuverability due to increased weight. Historically that plane is now
more effective by the percentage amount that that armor increases the
protection of the pilot.
> So let's talk about engagements where both sides see each other.
> Do you suggest that maneuverability is meaningless there? Feh.
Ahhhh, here we go... I say "this is not as important as you seem to
suggest it is" is now being stated as if I said "maneuverability is not
important". Is maneuverability important? Yes. Is it as important as it
is being presented here? No. Is roll performance as important to
maneuverability as it is being presented here? No.
> The ability of any aircraft in combat is a combination of all its
> attributes, strengths as well as weaknesses, combined with the
> strengths and weaknesses of the pilot.
Exactly.
> But to sumarily dismiss any aspect of the maneuverability equation,
> be it roll rate, energy addition, sustained turn rate, whatever, is
> ridiculous.
And likewise to state that a single measurement of the maneuverability
equation, be it roll rate, energy addition, sustained turn rate, whatever,
is ridiculous. Right? This is exactly what I have been saying since I
entered the thread.
> If I'm behind you and approaching guns with serious overtake,
> I propose to you that roll rate will become an important
> aspect of your life, no matter how much longer that lasts! And
> that's regardless of what you're instantaneous G available is.
If I can generate 9g of turn and you can generate 2, I don't even have to
bother rolling. I pull up, you don't, end of problem.
> Your best bet in a 'Guns D' situation is an out-of-plane
> maneuver, and the only way you can generate that is by rolling.
No no no, out of the ATTACKERS plane. If you didn't start there in the
first place, there's no need to roll.
> You sure aren't going to accelerate in time to get out of trouble,
> so T/W is temporarily meaningless.
I beg to differ, non-rolling unloaded extends is exactly how you get away
from a spit.
Your argument is silly anyway, you're taking a rare situation, setting up
a specific sub-situation, and then saying "Ok, what's important". I've got
one for you. I'm in an F-4 and you're in an unarmed C-152, is roll rate
important? Silly right? Ok, how about a Mustang doing a head-on with a
190? How about then? Both pilots see each other, but guess what, roll is
of zero importance and gun firepower decides the day. Hmmmm, maybe
constructing specific subexamples that highlight my point isn't a good idea
after all?
> I would suspect that it is becoming less true
Future air combat is going to be a series of planes getting blown apart
by AMRAAM's and FMRAAM's without any clue that the missile is inbound, let
alone the opposing fighter. This is why everyone is investing in passive
missile detectors, they are actually easier to see than the planes that
launched them.
Looking to the Gulf I have no specific numbers, but a look-see on the
kills list shows that the one "maybe" Iraqi kill was against a non-knowing
F-18, and that something on the order of 90% of the allied kills were
against planes that were unlikely to know what what happening either. All
AA footage from the war shows allied planes basically flying up behind a
Iraqi plane flying in a nice straight line and then they blow up.
This is the past of air combat, it's the present of air combat, and it's
the future of air combat. That's why I rate pilot workload and visibility
much higher that visibility, because the less time you spend running the
plane is more time you spend looking outside. And the more time you spend
looking outside is cutting off the 82% side of the problem. Increasing
maneuverability is helping cut off the 18% side, and you have to increase
it a whole lot to even notice. Increasing roll rate is cutting off a small
percentage of that small percentage, and I don't care if your plane rolls
500 times faster than mine, it means practically NOTHING in the big
picture. This is PAINFULLY obvious, I don't know why anyone's even bother
to talk maneuverability when you consider the drubbing that P-47 gave to
planes that could pirouette like a ballerina. Sheesh!
> at least have some idea you're getting shot at--engagements rarely open
> with a gun attack these days. But I won't argue the point.
Gun attack? You have a much better idea that someone's coming at you
with a Viper inbound for guns than you'll ever hope to with a F-22 spear
fishing with AMRAAMs from 35 klicks out. Your chance of a BVR radar hit is
basically zero, and any closer than that and something's wrong with the
pilot. _That's_ the future of air combat.
> You're missing my point
You're missing Jukka's. No one's arguing that roll isn't a measure of
maneuverability and important. We ARE arguing that the better rolling
plane is the better maneuvering plane. I don't think you would claim that,
would you?
> of the P-40 goes a long way to make up for its deficiency in other
> aspects of performance as compared to the Zero
I think it wasn't even a terribly important factor. I think guns, armor,
performance and ease of maintenance were the main factors.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
Argg, I was spell checking my reply and hit Close on the wrong window!!!
You'd thinkit would at least ask me if I was sure before closing a non-sent
message! Grrrrr. Anyway...
> This is pure nonsense
Erik, you know I'm not here to get your goat. If anything I have said
offended you in any way, I appologize for it right here and now.
And don't think I'm disagreeing with your overall statement either. The
P-40 WAS a better plane than the Zero, and at long last people are FINALLY
seeing this. The myth of the Zero-as-superfighter is coming to an end, at
least here in this forum. The zero was good at one thing, fooling the
Japanese into thinking they didn't need a new plane so they ended up
building more and more of them until they had no pilots left.
But you did say this, you stated...
There are also those who think that the Zero was more maneuverable than the
P-40. Also not true.
To me this meant "the P-40 is more manuverable than the Zero". Is this
incorrect? Am I reading it wrong? It seems in retrospect that this could
also mean "the Zero is not more manuverable in all ways" which is an
entirely different statement. Is that what you meant in that message? If
so, I'll happily agree with youand take everything back. Indeed, the fact
that I could be reading it wrong means I'll retract all former statements
on this until I hear back.
> Again I challange you to state a fact or an opinion if based upon fact
> that the Zero was more maneuverable.
Fair enough, I'll take that challenge. I'll rate the various bits thus
(from most important to least)...
1) instantaneous turn
2) pitch rate change
3) roll rate
4) sustained turn
5) roll rate acceleration
Note, you don't have to agree with the ordering or the items, feel free
to switch them. I rate them thus because although I don't rate
manuverability highly overall, the place where it's handy is in the "oh
geez, what the heck is that!?" situtation where doing _something_ is of
primary importance. Planes generate a lot more "move" in lift than roll,
so overall changes to direction (the issue) are more dependant on instant
turn ability. The ability to generate that ability (??) varies widely from
plane to plane, thus I have to put it near the top. The change-plane is
next, so roll. Sustained turn is not very important except in the very
rarest of cases. I put roll-rate setting at the end, because the
differences in this term tend to be smaller than the differences in roll
rate itself - ie this number is likely to be a lot smaller delta between
planes than (4), so although in theory it's more important in reality it
doesn't work out that way.
Long and short: I think instantaneous turn performance, and turn
performance in general, is the most important term. So...
Zero Model 21 turn performance:
1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft
300mph
One 360 11.2s 11.5s 12.5s
Two 360s 21.5s 23.2s 25.3s
250mph
One 360 9.8s 10.4s 11.4s
Two 360s 21.6s 22.7s 25.7s
100 (sustained)
13.2s 14.2s 16.7s
200 (corner)
9.9s 10.2s 11.7s
P-40E turn performance:
1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft
300mph
One 360 12.2s 13.4s 14.8s
Two 360s 27.2s 30.0s 33.1s
250mph
One 360 12.5s 13.2s 14.8s
Two 360s 28.5s 19.6s 22.4s
140 (sustained)
18.3s 19.6s 22.4s
260 (corner)
12.8s 13.6s 14.3s
Seems pretty clear to me that the Model 21 outperformed the 40E in turn
at all (measured) altitudes, at all speeds, and had better sustained turn
by a wide margin. Note that the P-40 does do much better in comparison at
corner speed (which is also mugh higher) which speaks of it's much higher
overall airframe strength. Nevertheless the two "biggies" are corner and
sustained, and the Zero wins them both. Even if I allow the numbers to be
at 250mph (which is arguably important because the P-40 called the shots)
the Zero still beats the P-40. Thus an important point - the best speed
for the P-40 vs. the Zero is for the P-40 to be at corner and the Zero at
the same speed (thus well above it's corner) yet even at that speed the
Zero has a bit of an advantage, and this continues even at higher speeds.
Nothing new there, but I think it's a pretty good argument. Take the
numbers with a grain of salt though, they are culled from one of Warbird's
programmers - that's not as bad as some will claim it to be though, they
got the numbers from NACA reports in a massive photocopy spree some time
ago (the 109's numbers are all from orignal German test data for instance).
And although the specific numbers are likely only "reasonably" close, the
_relative_ numbers are likely very close to reality.
Maury
C.C. Jordan
>C.C. Jordan wrote in message <36a680fe...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>>One of the most noticeable shortcomings of the P 40 was the use of the
>>>Allison inline engine which never good in altitude.
>>
>>How about the the turbocharged Allisons in the P-38. Or, the two stage,
>>two speed Allison in the P-63 and P-82? I'm afraid you are way off base.
>>By the way, it was the Allison that replace the Merlin in the P-82.
>
>
>Just one "small" point here, supercharged Allison and P 38 didn't enter
>combat until the second part of 1942 and in small number (and with a very
>small record of availability when compared to other US fighters), P 63 never
>saw combat in any number in the USAAF and appeared much later, not to speak
>of P 82, which only saw combat as F82 G in the Korean war... At the
>beginning of WW 2 in the Pacific the USAAF just didn't have any fighter of
>international class. Even the best of them, which was indeed the P 40 and
>saw service even before in the sand of Middle East Desert with the RAF (and
>Commonwealth forces) was found inferior to the Spitfire and even the
>Hurricane, ending finally as a low level fighter bomber more than a pure
>interceptor.
All non-turbocharged Allisons were supercharged. Most with a single stage
supercharger. The P-38 was in limited service in late 1941. The P-47 had flown
in May of 1941. The P-51 had flown in 1940. The P-63 saw a goodly amount of
combat over the eastern front, where it proved as good or better than the best
the Luftwaffe had to offer.
Additionally, to state that the Hurricane was a better combat aircraft than any
P-40 is false. The Hurricane was obsolete as a fighter by 1939. The airframe
was essentially beyond improvement. The P-40, OTOH, was steadily improved
through the P-40N, which was a far better fighter than the Hurricane ever had
a hope to be.
>
>For a later period, let's see the evolution of the Mustang, which began its
>career with the Allison (not supercharged) and revealed itself one of the
>best (if not the best) single engined fighter of the conflict when - at
>least, with the B version - it got the Packard - Merlin...
Again, the Allison WAS supercharged.
>
>>Not exactly accurate. The tactics for defeating the Zero became obvious
>>as soon as they were encountered.
>
>I think you refer to Navy's experience with the F4F vs Zero tactics
>developed by Thatch (Thatch wave). But it was not so obvious for USAAF
>pilots in December 1941...
The Thatch Weave was an element maneuver. In other words, to be used
by fighters operating in pairs. I was referring to fundamental changes in air
combat doctrine.
[snip]
>>>>Ok, provide a solid source to refute Erik's eyewitness commentary.
>>>>Erik was there, in Burma, flying P-40's. What are your credentials
>>>>to argue the issue? Besides a library card.
>>>
>>>Easy, in Burma there was NO MORE ZEROS.... But Army Ki 43's... A much
>weaker
>>>airplane driven by good pilots but not of the same proficiency as the
>Tainan
>>>Kokutai aces ...
>>
>>We know that there were no Zeros in Burma. I asked what credentials Jukka
>had
>>to argue the effectiveness of the P-40 with a guy who flew one into combat
>day
>>after day. By the way, what are yours?
>
>I will outwardly dismiss any credential on an historical point of view of
>someone still carrying stories that has been demonstrated wrong (presence of
>Zeros against the AVG in axample). Even if these stories were 100%
>understandable at the time. Mr. Schilling fought courageously the IJAAF
>fighters and bombers in the AVG (no question about that) but his usual
>affirmations (I saw many posts he issued, without reacting before) like an
>alledged science in fighting the Zero he was obviously not in a position to
>get or his tendancy to think that the AVG claims (on the contrary to any
>other units in WW 2, allied or axis) should never be challenged as over
>rated, his constant tendency to under rate his adversaries (which by the way
>looks to my eyes as a diminution of the courage and ability of all the
>allied pilots that fought the Japanese in WW 2 and not only to the Japanese
>themselves), all this prooves that Mr. Schilling is still living with WW 2
>morale boosting propaganda of the time. Many other WW 2 Pacific aces did
>recognize the adversary was a tough one and official records of the losses
>of the allies in the air during the first period of the war speak for
>themselves about that.
One thing you need to understand is this: The same tactics that were used
to defeat the Ki-43 were equally effective in defeating the A6M. The overall
performance of these two Japanese fighters is similar enough to classify as the
same, as far as combat doctrine is concerned. I might add that the Japanese
were very poor at applying new tactical doctrine. This is evident in their
design and usage of their air arm, submarine fleet and armor (tanks). Certainly
their use of their surface fleet and carriers were brilliant at the outset of
the war. Yet, they were unable to adapt to the changing strategic situation.
As to your comments about the AVG and Erik's living in WWII propaganda:
I won't give it the slightest credibility with a response. I only want you to
understand this, especially as you are a citizen of France. When French
forces were trapped at Dien Bien Phu, their only source of resupply was
from the air. During the prolonged siege, several C-119's made daily trips
to Dien Bien Phu, braving a wall of communist triple A while flying right
on the deck to deliver food ammunition and medical supplys to the beleagered
French soldiers. They flew these missions right up until the surrender. More
than a few times they had to nurse home an airplane shot half to pieces.
One of those C-119 pilots was Erik Shilling.
Anyone else want to discuss credentials?
I will address the balance of the post at a later time.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
The Planes and Pilots of WWII online magazine
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/
A member of the WWII Web-ring.
Honor and remember the WWII veterans.
"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from
a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."
wal...@oneimage.com
>On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:31:59 +0100, "WEILL" <frp...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:>
>>C.C. Jordan wrote in message <36a680fe...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
As regards the Allison it did good service at lower altitudes in the early P51s and A36s.
As regards Zeros in China: Gerhard Neumann in his autobiography "Herman the German" describes the
restoration of a Zero to flying capability while serving in the AVG. Mr Neumann later was a
superb engine developer for GE and was responsible for the development of the outstanding J79.
And Saburo Sakai also mentions flying Zeros in China in his biography.
BTW Gerhard Neumann was a MAster Sergeant in the AAF and an enemy alien until antionalized by a
specific act of Congress.
Walt BJ ftr plt ret
wal...@oneimage.com
>On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:31:59 +0100, "WEILL" <frp...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:>
>>C.C. Jordan wrote in message <36a680fe...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
Ahem. After pouring through the latest earlier (?) contributions I had not yet
read (my ISP is intermittent) I see something you-all are overlooking.
The idea is to knock off the other guy the quickest safest way possible;
getting wrapped up in a dogfight is just plain dumb and generally not survivable.
If you study Chennault's tactics you see that is what he was aiming at.
No war was ever won in one fight (Well, maybe David and Goliath)
The idea is to attack and survive.
The AVG's goal was to stop air raids, and that is done by attacking the bombers.
Even fighter-bombers back then couldn't wreak the havoc an unopposed bomber formation
could. The AVG was completely correct in making one diving pass through the bomber
formation and then getting out of Dodge to come back another day. Nothing was gained
by mixing it up with the fighters. Nothing but the probability of losing precious aircraft
and pilots.
Y'all have lost sight of what the mission is and how to get it done most efficiently.
C.C. Jordan
>C.C.J...@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan) wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:31:59 +0100, "WEILL" <frp...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:>
>>>C.C. Jordan wrote in message <36a680fe...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>Snip:
>
>Ahem. After pouring through the latest earlier (?) contributions I had not yet
>read (my ISP is intermittent) I see something you-all are overlooking.
> The idea is to knock off the other guy the quickest safest way possible;
>getting wrapped up in a dogfight is just plain dumb and generally not survivable.
>If you study Chennault's tactics you see that is what he was aiming at.
> No war was ever won in one fight (Well, maybe David and Goliath)
> The idea is to attack and survive.
> The AVG's goal was to stop air raids, and that is done by attacking the bombers.
>Even fighter-bombers back then couldn't wreak the havoc an unopposed bomber formation
>could. The AVG was completely correct in making one diving pass through the bomber
>formation and then getting out of Dodge to come back another day. Nothing was gained
>by mixing it up with the fighters. Nothing but the probability of losing precious aircraft
>and pilots.
> Y'all have lost sight of what the mission is and how to get it done most efficiently.
>
> Walt BJ ftr plt ret
I have been trying to make a similar point. As I wrote earlier in the thread,
" You get in fast, you get out fast, you live to talk about it." To mix it up
with enemy fighters in a fashion that plays to their strengths is, to be blunt,
dumb. The basic rule was Altitude and Speed. Altitude because it is converted
into speed. Speed because the Japanese have no counter to it.
Get in, get out, go home.
Carlo Kopp
>
> In <786lb8$6eb$1...@platane.wanadoo.fr> "WEILL" <frp...@wanadoo.fr>
> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Erik Shilling wrote in message <7860mi$4...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
> >>, a model that's production began in November 1941 and ended after
> >>740 had been built.
>
> Weill wrote:
> >Mr. Shilling, with all the respect due to a veteran fighter pilot, you
> >should better verify your sources.
> snip
>
> Weill also wrote:
> >Mitsubishi ended the production of Model 21 in May 1942 to switch to
> >the Model 32 (Hamp) an dthen top Model 22 and 22 a, before finally
> >issuing the Model 52. The Mitsubishi production was exactly what you
> told us. But Model 21 was stil produced and improved by Nakajima until
> Feb. 1944 (source:
> - 22a 's that served with the fleet carriers stood the one and only
> variant to be employed at sea until its final replacement by Model 52's
> ...
> WEILL,
> Your reading comprehension leave a great deal to be desired. Therefore
> reread what I said about the Model 21.
> What I wrote is that productiuon on the A6m2 model 21 continued until
> 740 had been built. I gave no DATE when production stopped.
>
> Also being a pilot I think I am in a better position to understand as
> well as compare performace better than some one who is neither a pilot
> nor has flown in combat and only parrots what he has read possibly
> written by some one equally ignorant on the subject.
> Erik Shilling
Erik,
This would be the crux of a large proportion of disagreements on this
NG. It would seem to me that we have too many NPs (ie non-pilots) here
who genuinely think they know better than people with stick time.
The result is that we have frequently large numbers of people who
genuinely believe mythology produced from 3rd or 4th hand recited (I
like your word "parrotted") sources is the truth.
I think this NG is extremely lucky to have yourself and the other combat
vets here.
Cheers,
Carlo
John Campbell
>
> In <36A7AC15...@mikrobitti.fi> "Jukka O. Kauppinen"
> <jukka.k...@mikrobitti.fi> writes:
> >
> >a honorable way to end this before flames start going up ;-)
>
> they were fact only leads to frustration. Therefore, If you disagree I
> see no reason not to know what your opinion are based upon.
> So Far you have only claimed the Zero was more maneuverable, but
> apparently not based upon facts since they are not forth coming. Nor
> in what specific area the Zeros excelled in.
>
> Although I started this thread about the inferior performance of the
> Zero I have learned much more, and incidently reinforces my assesment.
>
Chinese had a flyable Zero early in '41 and presumably learned a lot
from flying it. (Neumann was apparently involved in the flyable -
testing
bit especially cooling problems with 87 Octane)
I would be very interested to know what the AVG was told about the Zero
performance/limitations pre/during encounters as apparently other Allied
pilots did not have this knowledge (from the Chinese tests, the plane
finished up the US) until late 42/early 43 (from the Aleutian one).
The question as to the delays appears to be simple incompetence. (not on
the part of Chennault or the AVG)
Any comments
Regards
JC
Remove nospam to reply
as to why is presumably
Jeff Crowell
<wal...@oneimage.com> wrote in message 36a80...@206.168.123.253...
> The idea is to knock off the other guy the quickest safest way possible;
>getting wrapped up in a dogfight is just plain dumb and generally not
survivable.
Absolutely! The crux of the matter in simple form.
> Y'all have lost sight of what the mission is and how to get it done most
efficiently.
If you include me in that, Walt, I'd only point out that my argument has
purely been that of the guy who's getting bounced, and what may be
important in living long enough to get the hell out of Dodge.
Jeff
Jeff Crowell
the thread somewhere in the middle...
I have edited heavily to shorten the overall message
attributions:
>Maury Markowitz
>>Jeff Crowell
>Q4: Is the relative roll performance of the P-40 vs. the Zero a factor in
>Q1?
>A4: No, the primary factors were much better guns, much better armor, and a
>much tougher plane.
Yes it, was a factor. The three stated primary factors rank higher.
I don't think you'll gag too much at that.
>Q5: Are you saying that maneuverability is not important?
>A5: No, I am however saying it is of little importance.
And my point has consistently been that in certain tactical cases, the rank
of 'what's important' changes. I can easily come up with realistic
scenarios
where maneuverability is more important than, say, energy addition rate.
You can answer each scenario with onoe of your own where it does does
not.
I never, at any point, said that the P-40 was more maneuverable than
the Zero as a blanket statement. I did state cases where the P-40 could
turn the situation to its advantage using, for example, superior roll rate.
You seem to have taken my comments as saying that maneuverability
is the only aspect of performance that matters, and I did not say that.
>Q8: Is it the most important factor? Very important? Important at all?
>A8: It is not the most important. It is not very important. It is
>important.
I won't argue this because it is ground already covered. We're down to
semantics.
>> Dang it, I never said it was the most important--I said it was one of the
>> important ones. And it is.
>
> But you didn't say "one of the important ones", you said "a critical
>aspect". It is not a _critical_ aspect.
Semantics.
>a) The Zero was one of the most maneuverable planes of the war, yet it had
>poor roll rates (_at_high_speeds_).
>b) The FW-190 had the best roll rate of any plane in the air for the
>majority of the war, yet was one of the poorest maneuvering planes.
>
>Conclusion:
>
>Roll rate is not a "critical aspect" of maneuverability.
You are applying a single criterion and making an overall statement.
> Sorry but _maneuverability_ is what is under discussion, and that's what
>always has. Jukka is not saying roll rate is not important, I am not
>saying roll rate is not important. We are saying that Erik's statement
>that the P-40 ourrolled the Zero, and thus the P-40 was _more_maneuverable_
>than the Zero is not correct.
Fine with me--I didn't say what Erik did.
> Of massive significance, the planes that do best in combat historically
>have no clear signs that maneuverability has anything to do with it.
snip
>The Zero vs. the Hellcat. .... performance was the item
>that was superior, not maneuverability.
Actually, I have read that the Hellcat was specifically designed to
give up some speed to improve its maneuverability... it was
long ago and far away, no idea of the source. Eh.
>> I never suggested that maneuverability would save the life of a pilot
>> who had his head up his ass, or just plain never saw the attacker.
>> This is a strawman argument, and beneath you.
>
> Oh come now, the reason I mentioned this is because you were constructing
>a strawman argument for Jukka! Didn't you recognize it as such? Yet above
>you say this is about aircraft _design_ above, so I'll hold you to that.
My strawman was to show a plausible case where roll rate would (if
only temporarily) become significantly more important than some of
the other classic aspects of maneuverability. Further, it is a tactical
case that specifically occurred in the Pacific--it was the tactic of
choice to evade a Zero attack. As to source, ISTR seeing it in one
or the other of the First Team books.
Paraphrasing, your strawman was that since 80% of all aircraft destroyed
are destroyed before the victim is aware of his impending doom,
maneuverability is meaningless. In those cases, of course it is!
But so is every other aspect of performance *in that case*. So how
is it germane?
> Clearly the primary design criterion should be to design the plane to win
>most air combat. Most air combat does not involve maneuverability. Most
>air combat does involve being shot at. Thus the primary design criterion
>should be what to do when you get shot at. Manuverability should be
>somewhere below that.
Unless, of course, maneuverability is what saves your life until
you can "do some of that pilot shit" and demonstrate the effectiveness
of those other design criteria.
> The Japanese designed for maneuverability. They got slaughtered by
>planes like the Jug which couldn't get out of it's own way, let alone
>other planes. The US designed for punishment. They dealt it out.
The Japanese were forced into the maneuverability/angles fighter
design because they couldn't design an engine that turned out enough
ponies to play the energy game.
Speaking of the P-47, if maneuverability is meaningless, how do
you explain away Bob Johnson's experience of thumping a
Spitfire (Mark V??) with an airplane that couldn't get out of
its own way? He claimed that roll rate was a large part of what
made that possible--along with superior speed.
> The A-10 was designed for survival, it always made it home even after
>taking _massive_ damage
snip
>The F-16 is designed for manuverability, and several were downed
>over the course of the war, most with injuries.
There are a lot of similarities there, aren't there? Yet if I was
going to choose which plane to go fly ACM, guess which I'd
pick? I suspect you'd pick the same one I did. The problem with the
Frigging Falcon is it's too delicate for the ground attack mission.
>> But to sumarily dismiss any aspect of the maneuverability equation,
>> be it roll rate, energy addition, sustained turn rate, whatever, is
>> ridiculous.
>
> And likewise to state that a single measurement of the maneuverability
>equation, be it roll rate, energy addition, sustained turn rate, whatever,
>is ridiculous. Right? This is exactly what I have been saying since I
>entered the thread.
I think you left out a couple words, but I think I see where you're going.
If you meant to say ' to state that a single measurement of the
maneuverability equation, be it roll rate, energy addition, sustained turn
rate, whatever, IS MOST IMPORTANT is ridiculous,' I agree
wholeheartedly (caps used only to emphasize what I added).
>> If I'm behind you and approaching guns with serious overtake,
>> I propose to you that roll rate will become an important
>> aspect of your life, no matter how much longer that lasts! And
>> that's regardless of what you're instantaneous G available is.
>
> If I can generate 9g of turn and you can generate 2, I don't even have to
>bother rolling. I pull up, you don't, end of problem.
Or not. Do the geometry.
>> Your best bet in a 'Guns D' situation is an out-of-plane
>> maneuver, and the only way you can generate that is by rolling.
>
> No no no, out of the ATTACKERS plane. If you didn't start there in the
>first place, there's no need to roll.
Eh (verbal shrug). I should have said 'tracking' guns, to differentiate
it from a crossing/snapshot situation. If I'm approaching guns, it's
probably a guns tracking situation. In that case, we are already
in-plane. And you need to roll.
>> You sure aren't going to accelerate in time to get out of trouble,
>> so T/W is temporarily meaningless.
>
> I beg to differ, non-rolling unloaded extends is exactly how you get away
>from a spit.
Uh huh. Only because a Spit was crappy in a dive. A Zero would not
be advised to use a dive in this situation against a P-40. Anyway,
given that I stated significant closure, as typical in a bounce,
you might not even make it away from a Spit in time. Depends
on other things, such as how far out I am when you see me.
How fast can you overcome 100 or 150 knots of closure?
There's still proper use for the break turn today...
> Your argument is silly anyway, you're taking a rare situation, setting up
>a specific sub-situation, and then saying "Ok, what's important". I've got
>one for you. I'm in an F-4 and you're in an unarmed C-152, is roll rate
>important? Silly right?
Yeah. The Phantom can outroll the C-bird.
>Ok, how about a Mustang doing a head-on with a
>190? How about then? Both pilots see each other, but guess what, roll is
>of zero importance and gun firepower decides the day. Hmmmm, maybe
>constructing specific subexamples that highlight my point isn't a good idea
>after all?
Nuts. I pointed out actual situations where roll rate is important, that's
all.
Obviously it is just as easy to come up with examples where the converse
is true.
> Looking to the Gulf I have no specific numbers, but a look-see on the
>kills list shows that the one "maybe" Iraqi kill was against a non-knowing
>F-18, and that something on the order of 90% of the allied kills were
>against planes that were unlikely to know what what happening either. All
>AA footage from the war shows allied planes basically flying up behind a
>Iraqi plane flying in a nice straight line and then they blow up.
Yeah. That goes back to my claim that no aspect of performance
will help a pilot whose head is firmly up his fourth point of contact.
> Gun attack? You have a much better idea that someone's coming at you
>with a Viper inbound for guns than you'll ever hope to with a F-22 spear
>fishing with AMRAAMs from 35 klicks out. Your chance of a BVR radar hit is
>basically zero, and any closer than that and something's wrong with the
>pilot. _That's_ the future of air combat.
I stand by my assertion--it is far more likely that a reasonably competent
pilot in a reasonably capable plane will at least be aware he is being shot
at, or about to be shot at, than ever before.
> No one's arguing that roll isn't a measure of
>maneuverability and important. We ARE arguing that the better rolling
>plane is the better maneuvering plane. I don't think you would claim that,
>would you?
You lost me here... did you forget a word or two again?
It has been my contention that the better rolling plane **is** more
maneuverable at that performance point. Our disagreement has
more been a matter of how important that turns out to be!
My contention is (and has been all along) that maneuverability may
well make it possible for the attacked pilot to survive long enough to
put other important aspects of his aircraft's design to work.
>> (superior roll rate) of the P-40 goes a long way to make up for its
>>deficiency in other aspects of performance as compared to the Zero
>
> I think it wasn't even a terribly important factor. I think guns, armor,
>performance and ease of maintenance were the main factors.
I agree with your last sentence--as far as it goes.
Jeff
Bob Caissie
What was the typical speed range that you and other AVG members engaged
the Japanese. Also could you describe some engagements you were
involved in.
Thanks,
Bob
David Hyde
[hayuge snip]
: Conclusion:
: Roll rate is not a "critical aspect" of maneuverability.
Written by someone who's never been in a flat scissors against a bogey
with superior low-speed roll performance.
Dave 'out of plane' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Maury Markowitz
> This would be the crux of a large proportion of disagreements on this
> NG. It would seem to me that we have too many NPs (ie non-pilots) here
> who genuinely think they know better than people with stick time.
>
> The result is that we have frequently large numbers of people who
> genuinely believe mythology produced from 3rd or 4th hand recited (I
> like your word "parrotted") sources is the truth.
If you posit that being a pilot somehow makes you immune to making
mistakes as to which set of production numbers to believe, I think you'll
find that hard to back up.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> : Roll rate is not a "critical aspect" of maneuverability.
>
> Written by someone who's never been in a flat scissors against a bogey
> with superior low-speed roll performance.
Written by someone who took the entire post and reduced it to a single
sentance that I clearly stated you shouldn't do.
Thank you for your comments.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> So far Maury you and Jukka are the only one who disagree, and from the
> amount of postings on this subject, it seem that the audience is
> growing.
Hmmm, I don't see this as evidence as anyone one way or the other. No
one else I have seen has agreed that the P-40 was _more_ maneuverable than
the Zero, so this seems to be a moot point. After all, it's certainly not
a popularity contest, I would even bother in that case.
> You still haven told me what the advantages the Zero has over
> the P-40B.
I have in detail, although there appears to be terrible lag in my server
now. I'm receiving your messages in reverse chronological order for
instance.
> Also Maury I have tried the Sims as you have suggested. They are a
> sorry excuse for the real thing.
Of course they are, your computer is a sorry excuse for a real simulator
after all. Staring into a monitor that represents about 20% of the forward
visual area is never going to be able to provide the emmersive experience
that a real Cat3 machine can do. Nevertheless the _relative_ strenghts and
weaknesses of the planes are well represented and that's the issue here.
> Therefore don't base Sim experience on
> the real thing. It's a different world when your life is at stake and
> your opponent has real bullets.
I suppose this comes down to a broader question about whether or not
reality exists. If we can avoid the extistential issues it seems clear to
me that either the Zero was more manuverable than the P-40, or it wasn't.
If the sim's numbers accurately reflect the "real world" numbers, then
certainly it's a better guide than anything else we are likely to get our
hands on.
Of course that's not 100% true either. Seeing as you live sorta close,
why not call up the Planes of Fame and ask them for their take on the issue?
Maury
g_al...@hotmail.com
Jumping in to the discussion rather late, I think we've finally gotten to the
crux of what's been generating all the noise and heat - the 'definition' of
maneuverability. FWIW, I have seen it defined in both textbooks and by pilots
as 'agility', meaning how rapidly you can change the direction of your lift
vector, i.e. by pitching and/or rolling. Maximum sustained turning doesn't
enter in to the equation; you can make a case for instantaneous, but that's
limited by strength or more likely lift, not pitch rate.
I've also seen 'maneuverability' used more loosely to describe turn capability
as well, so before you guys use up any more air, let's agree on a definition.
Erik and several other pilots seem to be using the first, and Maury and others
the second.
If you accept the definition I've given, then Maury's list looks like this:
1. Roll Rate/pitch rate acceleration
2. roll rate/pitch rate
Using these criteria, an a/c like the FW-190 is more maneuverable (at least
in item 1) than the Spitfire, albeit it can't turn with it. Indeed, the
ability to get to your maximum rate of turn in a hurry may in many cases
negate the need to turn tightly for very long. This is borne out by accounts
of Spit V encounters with the 190, wherein the Spit pilots claimed that the
190s could outturn them. Obviously, they couldn't, but if a Spit rolled into
a turn with a 190 behind him, the 190 could roll very quickly to in plane and
start pulling his max. If he could pull enough lead for say 90 deg., he
might well shoot the Spit down, despite the Spit's much better turning
capability. Only if the 190 pilot is dumb enough to maintain the turn will
the Spit's turn advantage become a factor. If he's smart, he'll do nothing
of the kind, but quarter or half roll away, getting out of gun range before
the Spit can follow suit.
You can see this same thing in action if you find Walt's post that describes
the 104's gun tactics against any fighter with a better turn rate/radius.
Track until you can't pull enough lead, quarter roll away, and use your
acceleration advantage to get out of range by either unloading or going
vertical, while your opponent sucks wind trying to get back to point at you.
I can't comment about the relative pitch rates of the P-40 and Zero, although
I suspect the Zero might be better, but the P-40 seems to win the rolling
contest hands down, at least above a certain speed. As long as the P-40s got
some altitude under it, I suspect the Zero's (possible) pitch advantage is
mostly negated - the P-40 can always drop the nose and run.
Maury has mentioned that most pilots (up till now, anyway) have never seen the
guy who shot them. True, so let's look at the factors that are most important
then (especially applicable to guns-only combat).
1. High cruising speed/high acceleration to combat speed/speed advantage over
target, to maximise closure, limiting the time available for the target to
sight the firer. Good dive accel and speed are also part of this.
2. Stealth (Small size, low-vis paint, etc.), especially head-on, to minimize
the chance of being seen during closure.
3. Good controllability at high speeds, for aiming.
4. Good stability at high speeds (i.e. good gun platform), likewise.
5. Effective guns/good sight
Looking at this list, I think the P-40 either ties or beats the Zero in every
category, with the probable exception of level acceleration starting from
cruise speed. Given that bounces usually begin with an altitude advantage,
that'e essentially irrelevant here, as the P-40 will pick up more speed in a
dive.
Guy
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
g_al...@hotmail.com
maury@remove_this.istar.ca (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
<much snipped>
> The Japanese designed for maneuverability. They got slaughtered by
> planes like the Jug which couldn't get out of it's own way, let alone
> other planes. The US designed for punishment. They dealt it out.
>
> The A-10 was designed for survival, it always made it home even after
> taking _massive_ damage (for instance, one had a SA-6 spear the right wing
> near the root between the two spars. You could see the bottom of the plane
> from the cockpit, the hole was larger in circumference than the wing's
> chord. The plane flew home and the pilot was uninjured).
IIRC, we lost either 4 or 6 A-10s in DS. The a/c certainly could take a lot
of punishment (one case mentioned what was believed to be all 4 rounds of a
57mm clip hitting the a/c, which got back to base). Reading the accounts of
damage and losses in Smallwood's book on the A-10 in the Gulf, it does seem
to have had a serious single point failure node, in the tailcone. All the
otherwise separated control runs passed through this one very small area, and
IR MANPADS tended to hit right about there. Who knows, if it had been
designed a few years later, the design might have been significantly changed.
The F-16 is
> designed for manuverability, and several were downed over the course of the
> war, most with injuries.
And it avoided many other losses due to its performance, both in
maneuverability and energy (ability to climb out of or run away from AAA/SAM
envelopes quickly). The A-10 lacked the latter capability, and took many hits
that the F-16 wouldn't have. That it often survived those hits is in its
favor.
I don't have my copy of GWAPS' losses handy, but I don't think the total of
F-16s shot down was significantly different from the A-10. Different jobs,
different emphases.
Jukka O. Kauppinen
>
> Written by someone who's never been in a flat scissors against a bogey
> with superior low-speed roll performance.
Hmm. "Fighter Combat - Tactics and Maneuvering" by Robert L. Shaw
about flat scissors:
'For obvious reasons, the flat scissors is a very desirable maneuver for
fighters
that enjoy a low-speed turn-performance advantage. Less maneuverable,
high-speed
fighters should avoid this situation like the plague.'
'...avoided .... and by simply refusing to engage in a co-planar
nose-to-nose turn with a slower, better turning opponent"