How many of you guys getting the Hurricane (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

I am pleased to say for the sake of your national pride that you are totally wrong on this mate. The best late war fighter the US had was the P-51 but it would not turn with the Mark IX and they were relatively equal in speed, climb, dive and roll rates. The Mark XIV "Griffon" Spitfire was in a different class and could run and climb away from the P-51, as well as still out turn it with relatively the same roll rates. They even used Mark XIVs to chase down V-1s and a Mark XIV had the first credited kill of a Me 262. The P-51D model of course had better range and cockpit visibility but the B and C models were actually the better dogfighters.

The unbelievable magic of the Spitfire was the continuation of the relative superiority of its airframe with simple engine changes through its various vintages. It could best any German or Italian fighter at every point throughout the war except for a brief period when the FW190A was introduced and was decidedly better in climb and speed than the Mark V Spitfire in service when it was introduced. Of course, that was soon remedied with the so called interim Mark IX (with a more powerful Merlin engine and which ended up being permanent) and every Mark there after.

I have read just about every published test report on these aircraft, as well as actual combat reports and have spent more hours than I can remember developing computer flight models of these aircraft based on actually aerodynamic inputs and they consistently lead to the same conclusion. The P-51 was a great fighter but it was not better than a Mark IX or VIII and not as good as a Mark XIV. The only other fighter in the same class as these two was the FW190, especially the Dora, but its only advantage was roll rate and even that was nullified by the clipped wing Mark IX, VIII and XIV. Incidentally the Spitfires advised to only dive with Zeros were the Mark Vs that were initially deployed in the Pacific. The Zero could out turn any thing at low speed but the Mark VIII and IX and even the Mark V with adjusted tactics had no difficulty dispatching them. Essentially the only advantage the Zero had was at relatively low speed and G; just read the reports by Clive "Killer" Caldwell and you will see that even the Mark V could easily best a zero if flown properly. Below are some excepts from one of his reports describing an early engaugement between one of his Mark V sections and a larger number of Zeros:

Engaging in turns with a Zeke at about 180 mph IAS and pulling my aircraft as tight as possible, the Zeke did not dangerously close, until the speed began to drop, about the completion of the second turn. Breaking severely downward to the inside of the turn I experienced no difficulty in losing the Zeke. My engine cut momentarily in this maneuver. I observed Zekes to loop, to half roll and fire while on their backs, which, though interesting as a spectacle seemed profitless in dogfighting.....To summarize, in view of the whole circumstances surrounding the brief engagement, and despite the fact that both height and numbers favored the Zekes, I regard the Spitfire as a superior aircraft generally, though less maneuverable at low speeds. In straight and level flight and in dives the Spitfire appears faster. Though the angle of climb of the Zeke is steeper, the actual gaining of height seems much the same, the Spitfire going up at a lesser angle but at greater forward speed - an advantage. No difficulty was experienced in keeping height with the Zekes during combat. I believe that at altitudes above 20,000 feet the Spitfire, in relation to the Zekes will prove an even more superior aircraft in general performance.

Again these were Mark V Spitfires, not the much superior Mark IX or later versions.

Of course there are those out there with different opinions but they are simply that.

Bill,i've never been so happy to be wrong mate!.I must confess i thought the later Spits outclassed the ME109 and the Focker Wulf but wasn't sure if it was better than the P51.Fascinating post and much appreciated.

Oz's point about the Zero does ring bells with me,as a kid/young adult i had always heard what a superb plane it was and how it outclassed the opposition.However as was said earlier, weapon evolution means nothing rules for ever,even the mighty Tiger Tank was in trouble once they put the 17pounder on the Sherman.

So could you tell me what planes the Zero was facing and defeating in the first 2-3 years of the War?.

This really is a great post from you Bill and its got me wanting to study statistics of all these aircraft.I understand there is a new Osprey 'Duel' book that is titled 'Zero v Seafire',sounds good.

Rob

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Bill,i've never been so happy to be wrong mate!.I must confess i thought the later Spits outclassed the ME109 and the Focker Wulf but wasn't sure if it was better than the P51.Fascinating post and much appreciated.

Oz's point about the Zero does ring bells with me,as a kid/young adult i had always heard what a superb plane it was and how it outclassed the opposition.However as was said earlier, weapon evolution means nothing rules for ever,even the mighty Tiger Tank was in trouble once they put the 17pounder on the Sherman.

So could you tell me what planes the Zero was facing and defeating in the first 2-3 years of the War?.

This really is a great post from you Bill and its got me wanting to study statistics of all these aircraft.I understand there is a new Osprey 'Duel' book that is titled 'Zero v Seafire',sounds good.

Rob

Study the statistics. Welcome to the dark side

A few of the planes the zero could dominate early in the war were the P-40 Warhawk, possibly early Spitfires/Hurricanes if there were some in the Pacific that early, F4F Wildcat, and the TBF Avenger and SBD Dauntlass dive bomber.

However, there were even older planes and usually the allied pilots were inexperienced in combat. Some areas like China really had no effective air force. But even the P-40 with the right tactics could effectively battle the zero i.e. Claire Chenault's Flying Tigers.

Terry

 

[jazzeum]

I think that if you anchored hooks in the ceiling properly and attached a good strong fishing line you would be OK. After all they make line strong enough to catch a shark. Surely a poly stone plane doesn't weigh that much !!!

I think the point I was trying to make is what will the stress on the polystone be by hanging it from the ceiling? I don't know enough to know how polystone will act under that pressure if not properly supported.

 

[wayne556517]

What was this post about again.....................

 

[OzDigger]

I think the point I was trying to make is what will the stress on the polystone be by hanging it from the ceiling? I don't know enough to know how polystone will act under that pressure if not properly supported.

I don't know of anyone that hangs Diecast aircraft from the ceiling and I would not recommend it for Polystone versions either

 

[Rob]

I know these are of a different scale guys,and as such i'm contributing to this thread drifting,but as i was the author of the thread i'll give myself a stern telling off later on!

Rob

 

[1879fanatic]

I think the point I was trying to make is what will the stress on the polystone be by hanging it from the ceiling? I don't know enough to know how polystone will act under that pressure if not properly supported.

How about a piece of clear plexiglass 1/4" or so suspended from the ceiling via heavy fishing line? Then you could see underneath the model. Thoughts?
Mike

 

[lancer]

Rob, the question about what aircraft the Zero was meeting and defeating is basically easy. In the early months of the war (until the F6F was introduced) the Zero outclassed everything it went up against. That is not saying that the Zero out-performed every opponent in every category, but it was superior in enough categories to be the better plane. The Zero's opponents included the P-35,P-36,P-39,P-40,F2A,F4F,SBD,TBD as main US aircraft. Of course there were others but these were the main ones. The Zero had the edge in maneuverability, range, speed (narrow to even in some instances), and , initially, tactics. The US aircraft had the advantage in strength and pilot protection and learned, after experience, how to fight the Zero. Once the Allies adopted diving, hit and run, and the Thach Weave tactics, the Zero could be and was fought to a standstill. The advantage went over to the US when the F6F arrived as it had been designed to combat and be superior to the Zero. The strength aspect of US plane design is important for pilot survivability, something the Japanese more or less dismissed with their light weight construction. Many Japanese pilots didn't even wear parachutes. When used correctly the P-40,F4F,SBD, and even the P-39 (when at low altitudes) could fight the Zero and win. I apologize for not including Hurricanes, Fokker XXIs, and others but I am not as familiar with their history against the Zero, although it was probably not good. For reference on the US side, I have 4 great titles - 1 "Doomed at the Start, American Pursuit Pilots in the Philippines 1941-42" by William Bartsch 2- "The First Team, Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway" by John Lundstrom 3-"The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign, Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942" also by Lundstrom and 4- "Flying Tigers" by Daniel Ford. Grub St. Pub. has also done many works on the early air war in the Pacific from the British side but I do not have the titles at hand. -- Al

 

[Rob]

Rob, the question about what aircraft the Zero was meeting and defeating is basically easy. In the early months of the war (until the F6F was introduced) the Zero outclassed everything it went up against. That is not saying that the Zero out-performed every opponent in every category, but it was superior in enough categories to be the better plane. The Zero's opponents included the P-35,P-36,P-39,P-40,F2A,F4F,SBD,TBD as main US aircraft. Of course there were others but these were the main ones. The Zero had the edge in maneuverability, range, speed (narrow to even in some instances), and , initially, tactics. The US aircraft had the advantage in strength and pilot protection and learned, after experience, how to fight the Zero. Once the Allies adopted diving, hit and run, and the Thach Weave tactics, the Zero could be and was fought to a standstill. The advantage went over to the US when the F6F arrived as it had been designed to combat and be superior to the Zero. The strength aspect of US plane design is important for pilot survivability, something the Japanese more or less dismissed with their light weight construction. Many Japanese pilots didn't even wear parachutes. When used correctly the P-40,F4F,SBD, and even the P-39 (when at low altitudes) could fight the Zero and win. I apologize for not including Hurricanes, Fokker XXIs, and others but I am not as familiar with their history against the Zero, although it was probably not good. For reference on the US side, I have 4 great titles - 1 "Doomed at the Start, American Pursuit Pilots in the Philippines 1941-42" by William Bartsch 2- "The First Team, Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway" by John Lundstrom 3-"The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign, Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942" also by Lundstrom and 4- "Flying Tigers" by Daniel Ford. Grub St. Pub. has also done many works on the early air war in the Pacific from the British side but I do not have the titles at hand. -- Al

Al,thanks very much for posting this its very kind of you.Between you and Bill i'm getting good idea of what went on and i am now going to do some research in this area,an area i've not studied much so far.

Thanks again

Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

Al,thanks very much for posting this its very kind of you.Between you and Bill i'm getting good idea of what went on and i am now going to do some research in this area,an area i've not studied much so far.

Thanks again

Rob

Rob it is always a pleasure to have a conversation with someone who is interested in exchanging ideas. For further information, there are many great books on the Spitfire and its relative strengths and weaknesses. Captain Eric Brown, who has flown more WW II aircraft than any other person, has written a number of comparative works. There is also the excellent raw flight testing reports compiled by various allied flight test centers like the RAF's Bascombe Downs. A number of those on the Spitfire are available here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html
Two other books with interesting comparisons between various Spitfire models and axis counterparts are Spitfire: The Biography by Jonathan Glancey and The Spitfire Story by Alfred Price. If you want to know more about pure fighter tactics, the modern bible is Fighter Tactics by Robert Shaw.

As my old RCAF instructor liked to remind me, the goal of fighter combat hasn't changed since WW I, to find and destroy the enemy and survive to return and do it another day. Since every fighter aircraft has some differences from another, this means knowing your relative strengths and weaknesses and flying to maximize your advantage wherever possible. In modern terms, fighter aircraft are often classified as angle or energy fighters. In simple terms, angle fighters turn and roll faster and energy fighters have better acceleration, climb and dive rates. Naturally it is more complicated than that since at different speeds and G loads, the relative advantage of one fighter over another can diminish and even reverse. While pure angles fighters are certainly fun to fly and can make it difficult for an energy fighter, with equal pilot skill, a pure energy fighter will always have the advantage since if it gets in trouble, it can use its energy advantage to disengage. That is why the best fighter aircraft were actually some blend of the two.

In early WW II, the Spitfire became known as a what we would now call an angles fighter because of its relatively greater turn and roll rates over a wide range of speeds and G loads and its ability to retain that advantage up to its relatively lower stall speeds. Its acceleration and climb and dive rates were competitive with its opponents but it was in the turn that its advantages were most obvious. In the ETO, that advantage continued from the Mark I through the Mark V until the introduction of the FW190, which was not only decidedly faster and with a dramatic advantage in the climb and dive but also had a dramatically better roll rate. Thus for the first time, the Spitfire was now reduced to a pure angles fighter with no options but the turn or superior altitude to level an engagement. The Mark IX corrected that by reversing the relative acceleration, dive and climb advantages at various speeds and G loads and still retaining the Spitfire's turning advantage, thus again becoming a fighter that was an home with a blend of angles and energy tactics. By the end of the war, the Mark XIV improved the relative energy advantages of the Spitfire and still preserved its angles superiority against all ETO opponents.

In the early PTO, the Zero was the undisputed king for nearly the same reasons as the Spitfire in the ETO. It had adequate energy performance but unbeatable angles performance and a very low stall speed. Any fighter that fought down to the Zero's optimal turn speeds was soon dead meat. When the Mark V Spitfires first encountered the Zero, their pilots mistakenly attempted to apply their angles oriented tactics across the full speed range of their aircraft and soon found out that they could not turn with the Zeke at slower speeds and lower Gs. That is what Caldwell was talking about in the excerpt I noted. However, while the Zero had superior turn rates at slower speeds, the Mark V could out turn it at higher speeds and G rates and thus reverse the odds of the engagement by using more energy oriented tactics. Of course, when the Mark IX arrived, the game was up since it gave the Spitfire pilot a decided energy edge and thus permitted him to completely dictate the terms of the engagement. This was analogous to the problem posed for the RAF by the FW190 but unlike the Spitfire, the Zero was not sufficiently improved to meet the new challenge.

So what made the Spitfire the best WW II fighter. In simple terms it remained one of the very best angles fighter through out the war and with its continuous engine improvements, became an even better relative energy fighter through each successive model. By comparison, the Zero was a one trick pony and simply did not keep up with the advances in aircraft engine performance as the war progressed.

 

[Rob]

Once again a big thank you Bill,its very kind of you to take the trouble to explain this to me and to post the link.It really has ignited my interest in the performances of these aircraft.For obvious reasons the Spitfire has always been my favourite aircraft and is just something to be so proud of.So its great to hear from an expert as yourself that the later versions were even better than i thought they were.I am going to check out those books you recommend.

Its also good to learn about other really famous aircraft such as the Zero,FW190 and Mustang.For years i've studied Tanks/Battles etc,it may be time to turn my eyes skyward again

Cheers

Rob

 

[forlornhoper]

sorry to get back on subject,but i have ordered the hurricane and most but not all the RAF figures and the MG,i have been informed it looks amazing in the flesh.IMHO this range could be one of K&Cs most popular products,the range has so much promise and potential for the future.

 

[Rob]

Don't worry,as its my thread i don't mind if we are talking Hurricanes,Zero's,RAF,Luftwaffe etc,its all good.

The new RAF range is indeed superb.Its one of the most exciting new ranges in some time in my view,can't wait to get the Hurricane and all the ground crew figures too.There are lots of guys on this forum that grew up watching 'The Battle of Britain' who are going to be very very happy,i know because i'm one of them!

Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

.....There are lots of guys on this forum that grew up watching 'The Battle of Britain' who are going to be very very happy,i know because i'm one of them!

Rob

Uhhhh, some of us are still watching it; it is even better in Blu-ray.

 

[Rob]

Uhhhh, some of us are still watching it; it is even better in Blu-ray.

Not just me then!

Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

LOL, hardly mate, I also watch over again A Piece of Cake, Dark Blue World, The BoB chapter of Frank Capra's Why We Fight series, the Filming of the Battle of Britain and a converted PAL tape on flying the Shuttleworth Spitfires. Of course that says nothing about my two shelves of Spitfire books.

 

[OzDigger]

Sorry, Oz, I have to disagree with you about the Zero. The Zero was the most maneuverable fighter in the Pacific Theater in the early war period, but it was so maneuverable because it lacked armor protection, self sealing gas tanks, and speed. It was also up against outdated allied fighters like the Brewster Buffalo, P40 Tomahawk, and Wildcat.

It was completely overmatched once the Hellcat and Corsair entered the war, and frankly, it was no match for the Mustang in any category, including maneuverability, once it entered the theater late in the war.

The late Mark Spitfires (IX on), the Mustang, the FW190 all outclassed the Zero in capability. The legend of the Zero was built on experienced Japanese airmen fighting rookie airmen in outdated fighters, and was utterly debunked once the Zero fought experienced airmen in modern fighters. The kill ratio of the Hellcat was an obscene 10-1 over the Zero, and the Corsair was referred to by the Japanese pilots as "whispering death". The Zero was a great plane from 1939 to 1942. From 1943 on it was obsolete.

Louis, I feel you guys are still overlooking the fact that dog-fighting is a particular form of aerial combat that the Zero was specifically designed to excel at. In contrast the Spitfire, Me-109, P-51, FW 190 etc were designed for High Speed/High G performance rather than slow speed turning dogfighting combat.

For example here is a summary of the allied tests of a captured Zero against several allied aircraft - including a P-51 Mustang.

"Conclusions:

"The Zero fighter, because of its low wing loading, has superior maneuverability to all our present service type aircraft.

"It is necessary to maintain a speed of over three hundred (300) miles per hour indicated to successfully combat this airplane.

"In developing tactics against the Zero, cognizance should be taken of two facts:

“1. Slow rate of roll of the Zero at high speeds.

“2. Inability of the Zero engine to continue operating under negative acceleration.

"The engine performance of the Zero is superior to the present service type engine without turbo superchargers. This superiority is recognizable in the fact that the maximum manifold pressure can be maintained from sea level to sixteen thousand (16,000) feet.

"Recommendations:

"That the pilots entering the theater of action where the Zero can be expected be instructed in the following:

“1. Never attempt to dog fight the Zero.

“2. Never maneuver with the Zero at speeds below three-hundred (300) miles per hour indicated unless directly behind it.”

“3. Never follow a Zero in a climb at slow speeds. (Service type ships will stall out at the steep angle where the Zero has just reached its most maneuverable speed.) At this point is possible for the Zero to complete a loop putting it in a position for a rear quarter attack.”

Subsequent to the above evaluation allied aircraft got progressively faster and heavier, making them even less proficient at dogfighting than their earlier designs. In summary the allies never made a better dogfighter than the Zero. They did better than that, they designed faster more robust fighters and used tactics that negated the Zeroes low speed agility.

 

[lancer]

Louis, I feel you guys are still overlooking the fact that dog-fighting is a particular form of aerial combat that the Zero was specifically designed to excel at. In contrast the Spitfire, Me-109, P-51, FW 190 etc were designed for High Speed/High G performance rather than slow speed turning dogfighting combat.

For example here is a summary of the allied tests of a captured Zero against several allied aircraft - including a P-51 Mustang.

"Conclusions:

"The Zero fighter, because of its low wing loading, has superior maneuverability to all our present service type aircraft.

"It is necessary to maintain a speed of over three hundred (300) miles per hour indicated to successfully combat this airplane.

"In developing tactics against the Zero, cognizance should be taken of two facts:

“1. Slow rate of roll of the Zero at high speeds.

“2. Inability of the Zero engine to continue operating under negative acceleration.

"The engine performance of the Zero is superior to the present service type engine without turbo superchargers. This superiority is recognizable in the fact that the maximum manifold pressure can be maintained from sea level to sixteen thousand (16,000) feet.

"Recommendations:

"That the pilots entering the theater of action where the Zero can be expected be instructed in the following:

“1. Never attempt to dog fight the Zero.

“2. Never maneuver with the Zero at speeds below three-hundred (300) miles per hour indicated unless directly behind it.”

“3. Never follow a Zero in a climb at slow speeds. (Service type ships will stall out at the steep angle where the Zero has just reached its most maneuverable speed.) At this point is possible for the Zero to complete a loop putting it in a position for a rear quarter attack.”

Subsequent to the above evaluation allied aircraft got progressively faster and heavier, making them even less proficient at dogfighting than their earlier designs. In summary the allies never made a better dogfighter than the Zero. They did better than that, they designed faster more robust fighters and used tactics that negated the Zeroes low speed agility.

Oz hit it on the nose, guys. The Zero was THE deciding weapon in the early Pacific War for what it brought to the table, ie., great range, speed, maneuverability, and the highly trained, veteran pilots. A dogfighting mentality still existed and the Allied aircraft weren't up to the Zero's capabilities in this area. It is probably safe to say a better monoplane dogfighter has never existed (unless you count the Zeros predecessor, the Type 96 "Claude", which was slower, shorter ranged, and underarmed), for it's time and place. Low and slow dogfighting was ruled by the Zero. Tactics evolved, aircraft improved, and the Zero was left behind. Such is the fate of any weapon of war as they are always surpassed by the next generation. To top it off, IMHO, the Zero is the best looking aircraft ever made. -- lancer

 

[Louis Badolato]

Oz,

Maybe we are defining terms differently. If to you dogfighting means out-turning you opposition, you may have a point. But I have never heard that definition before. To me dogfighting means one plane taking on another in aerial combat, attempting to shoot the other plane down. By your definition, the outdated biplane fighters flown by the Soviet airforce, the Chinese airforce, the Polish Airforce, and in some case, the very early war brits (like the Gloster Gladiator) are all far superior dogfighters to the Zero, as they, being biplanes, could all easily out-turn a Zero.

My definition includes all characteristics of a plane, armament, turning ability, speed, climbing and diving ability, armor protection, i.e. everything that adds up to that plane's ability to defeat another plane in combat. By my definition, the Zero is far from the best dogfighter of WWII, because it is slower, unarmored, and easily defeated by its Allied counterparts from late 1942 on.

 

[lancer]

Oz,

Maybe we are defining terms differently. If to you dogfighting means out-turning you opposition, you may have a point. But I have never heard that definition before. To me dogfighting means one plane taking on another in aerial combat, attempting to shoot the other plane down. By your definition, the outdated biplane fighters flown by the Soviet airforce, the Chinese airforce, the Polish Airforce, and in some case, the very early war brits (like the Gloster Gladiator) are all far superior dogfighters to the Zero, as they, being biplanes, could all easily out-turn a Zero.

My definition includes all characteristics of a plane, armament, turning ability, speed, climbing and diving ability, armor protection, i.e. everything that adds up to that plane's ability to defeat another plane in combat. By my definition, the Zero is far from the best dogfighter of WWII, because it is slower, unarmored, and easily defeated by its Allied counterparts from late 1942 on.

Louis, strictly speaking, dogfighting is a tactic within aerial combat as a whole. Dogfighting is simply one way of engaging an enemy as, say , is the hit and run (the diving attack and escape) that Chennault developed to defeat the Zero. The Zero excelled at the dogfighting tactic for which it was designed, not, say, high altitude interception. Specific plane for a specific tactic that was eventually countered. -- Al