PDA

View Full Version : A6M2 Speed



redmanekadrin
06-17-2011, 07:51 PM
I heard recently that Saburo Sakai stated the top speed of the A6M2 was actually 309 mph and not 331 mph (or somewhere around there), and that the accepted speed of 331 was actually from the Akutan Zero which the US tested WITHOUT weapons or ammo and using American 100 octane fuel and not whatever the Japanese were using.

Can anyone help me confirm whether or not practically everyone is using the US tests as their source or if there are actually Japanese documents out there that pre-date them stating a top speed of 331?

horseback
06-17-2011, 11:32 PM
My references tell me that the Zero was faster than the F4F at practically all alts, which tells me that Sakai was probably referring to a top speed in knots rather than mph. Making things worse for Allied opponents, it accelerated quite a bit better than most of them as well (only the Lightning and the despised P-39 could accelerate with the Aleutian Zero). However, its controls got very heavy at speeds over 225 mph, it had unreliable radios, so coordinating with your wingman could be a problem, and it was very flimsy in the sense that it couldn't take a lot of hits the way a P-40 or Wildcat could.

The F4F had a top speed around 320 mph at 18,000 ft (approx 5700m), and could do around 275 at sea level. The Zero was 'somewhat' faster than that; the Aleutian Zero was probably not as fast after the Americans repaired it, though--I seem to recall that some engine parts could not be duplicated, and the American improvisations were probably less than perfect.

Given that Japanese aviation fuels were pretty high quality for at least the first 18 months of the war, I doubt that higher octane American fuel made that much difference at that time.

cheers

horseback

BillSwagger
06-18-2011, 08:55 AM
early A5Ms or A6Ms.... maybe
but the Zero improved as did variants with time.

I've always heard the US test were inflated because of higher octane fuels.


Bill

horseback
06-18-2011, 11:41 AM
Some engines don't respond well to higher octanes and I believe that this would pertain to high performance aircraft engines designed for a specific octane range.

I often wondered if the improved performance of Japanese aircraft in US tests mid to postwar might be due to a better quality of fuel-fewer impurities, better filtering, things like that. Almost every level of Japanese workmanship and skills in every field seems to have declined as the war ground on and the skilled workers and tradesmen went to battle never to return...

The comments about the quality and workmanship of the Aleutian Zero were uniformly complimentary to the point that one wonders if the Americans making them thought that it was superior to American standards and workmanship levels in late 1942.

There were no such statements about the workmanship & finish of later model Zeros, Oscars, or the later generation of Japanese fighters post 1943--which contrasts sharply with accounts I have read by Japanese who were tasked with appraising captured or wrecked Mustangs, Corsairs and Hellcats. They seemed to despair of matching the qualities and workmanship of those aircraft.

cheers

horseback

redmanekadrin
06-18-2011, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
My references tell me that the Zero was faster than the F4F at practically all alts, which tells me that Sakai was probably referring to a top speed in knots rather than mph.

I originally thought he meant knots as well, except 309 knots comes out to something like 354 mph, which we know the A6M2 didn't do.

Not to doubt your word, but could you site your references? That was the original point I was asking in my first post, I wanted to see where everyone was getting their data to see if it was all being traced back to the same US tests, or if someone had Japanese documents predating them.

Also, this was just about the A6M2, I realize the A6M3 and later would all be faster.

berg417448
06-18-2011, 06:58 PM
This may help you out a bit:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/rese...zero_performance.htm (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm)

"Sakai distinguished between normal full power speed (316 m.p.h.) and over boost (345 m.p.h.). His normal full speed is exactly the same as the Zero's maximum speed given in the captured Japanese manual. The San Diego test report, while revealing that the San Diego Zero was not tested at over boost, does confirm Sakai's assertion that such a rating was available. Sakai has credibility that is primarily based on his personal familiarity with the Zero 21 aircraft. These additional factors only bolster his credibility.

The evidence assembled in this report strongly indicates that Sakai's version of the Zero's maximum speed (345 m.p.h.) is highly credible and probably the correct one. Additional support for this conclusion is found in an intelligence document issued in 1944: “Performance data given for the ZEKE Mk. 1 [Allied code name for the Zero 21] was obtained in actual flight tests. Although emergency speed obtained in tests was 328 m.p.h., calculations indicate a maximum speed of about 345 m.p.h. as possible for a short period of time” (Intelligence Summary No. 44-11)."

LEBillfish
06-19-2011, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Some engines don't respond well to higher octanes and I believe that this would pertain to high performance aircraft engines designed for a specific octane range.

Octane, octane, octane.....How often do we hear folks in the sim scream for higher octane, or real life hear of folks pouring it in wanting higher performance?

Horseback is right in that some engines perform worse...Yet let me press that further in saying "ALL engines perform worse when using fuel out of their range both below or above".

Point in fact....A 1969 Dodge R/T we have here with a 440 c.i.d. 10.25:1 compression which SHOULD run better with 102-104 octane runs terrible with that when available, terrible with 100 or 92 available today.......Yet runs awesome with 89-87 and will lift the tires off the ground stock and peg the speedometer (not that it is accurate) at 150m/h.

The two points being;
1. Not all supposedly equal engines run the same (this one/the example actually better) on the same fuel.
2. Higher octane does NOT equal higher performance. In fact when required it means the engine is in a less then optimum state.

Optimum meaning that it can endure peak performance without help to get it there. The higher the octane the more difficult it is for the fuel to burn. When an engine is dirty, has burrs on parts in the flash area, sharp edges and so on it will pre-ignite simply due to pressure or hot spots, excessive pressure.

The dodge above can run with lower octane fuel in that it is working in an optimum state, and due to that can run a MORE volitile fuel. You only run higher octane when the engine due to design or due to performance cannot handle lower octanes and then should only be run at the lowest octane it works well with....lowest, not the highest.

Don't believe me?.......Put high octane in your lawnmower engine....Post back after you had to drain it and refil with lower to get it to run well.

K2

horseback
06-19-2011, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by redmanekadrin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
My references tell me that the Zero was faster than the F4F at practically all alts, which tells me that Sakai was probably referring to a top speed in knots rather than mph.

I originally thought he meant knots as well, except 309 knots comes out to something like 354 mph, which we know the A6M2 didn't do.

Not to doubt your word, but could you site your references? That was the original point I was asking in my first post, I wanted to see where everyone was getting their data to see if it was all being traced back to the same US tests, or if someone had Japanese documents predating them.

Also, this was just about the A6M2, I realize the A6M3 and later would all be faster. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Most recently, I've been reading John B. Lundstrom's The First Team and The First Team at Guadalcanal: Naval Fighter Combat From August to November 1942, but you should also check out Barrett Tillman's definitive works on the Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair (and I'm not talking about the Osprey series stuff). I've also got Mikesh's Zero Fighter laying about somewhere, which lists the top speed of the A6M2 Type 21 at 305 knots/351 mph, and indicates that even the Type 52 was unable to exceed those numbers (although it could handle much higher dive speeds than the Type 21, 22 and 32).

I tend to be skeptical of so-called factory speeds, and look to the overall trend in combat from the opponents' POV; individual aircraft can perform better or worse than factory specs by an appreciable margin due to workmanship or maintenance or just pure luck.

In the case of the A6M2 Zero, skilled opponents in Wildcats, Hurricanes, P-39s and P-40s were all convinced that the Zero was 'faster' or at the very least had much better acceleration on top of being more maneuverable in practically every way.

According to the 'book', we now 'know' that the P-40 and P-39 were faster at most altitudes <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">if they were properly maintained and flown.</span> Unfortunately, Allied fliers had no clue about the Zero's strengths and weaknesses, often assuming that the Japanese were still flying poorly made copies of Western aircraft, and the aircraft they were flying were often badly worn out after a short period in combat, being at the far end of a very long & hazardous supply chain, and in the case of the P-39/400, was unfamiliar to their maintainers.

Flying aircraft that were considered quite maneuverable in western circles like the Hurricane and P-40, they often got suckered into fighting their aircraft in exactly the wrong way against the A6M2 and Ki-43 (which was often mistaken for the Navy's Zero).

cheers

horseback

Badsight-
06-22-2011, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Horseback is right in that some engines perform worse...Yet let me press that further in saying "ALL engines perform worse when using fuel out of their range both below or above". not even remotely true

it depends on the additives. my work car runs best on 98 - worst on its reccomended 91. our fuel is not the same quality as Japans 91 when they made it (their lowest is 89 now afaik)

supercharged engines are more sensitive to fuel octane tho. higher octane combined with the correct timing will provide a big boost in performance (generally) to a high boost engine

LEBillfish
06-22-2011, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Horseback is right in that some engines perform worse...Yet let me press that further in saying "ALL engines perform worse when using fuel out of their range both below or above". not even remotely true

it depends on the additives. my work car runs best on 98 - worst on its reccomended 91. our fuel is not the same quality as Japans 91 when they made it (their lowest is 89 now afaik)

supercharged engines are more sensitive to fuel octane tho. higher octane combined with the correct timing will provide a big boost in performance (generally) to a high boost engine </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ABSOLUTELY true what I said.......

Try and run any engine with too low of octane. It will beat itself to death. Now run any engine with too high of octane, some will just perform worse, and others simply will not run unable to get the fuel to fire.

Addatives cover a vast gambit of issues some having absolutely nothing to do with performance, in fact most.

How you can state that the fuel does NOT have to be within an octane range is beyond me...Yet tell ya what, put some 104 octane in your push mower and tell me how it goes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

K2

KIMURA
06-22-2011, 07:39 AM
Fish seems right on that. A properly set up engine @ a specific fuel grade does not gain performance from itself with the simple use of a higher octane grade. Higher octane result in a higher power output is a pure myth you’ll find all over in the web. Higher octane fuel does allow a higher engine setting, that’s true, after some work on the engine and its settings such as ignition point and possibly an higher compression.

If an engine runs better on a higher fuel grade then it seems that the engine was not properly set up at the lower octane fuel, easy that.

JtD
06-22-2011, 09:54 AM
Or, in modern engines, has sensors that recognize the extra octane and adopt the engine settings accordingly. Most modern car engines have no problem dealing with higher octane.

horseback
06-22-2011, 11:41 AM
The whole 'octane' issue has its roots in the apocryphal USAAF tests of the Ki-84 either late or immediately after the war; what I've read indicates to me that there were several Japanese stock parts replaced by 'equivalent' standard US components in the engine and/or fuel system just to make the plane safe to fly, which may have had more influence on the aircraft's unexpectedly good performance than the fuel octane.

On the other hand, 'octane' is an easy answer.

As for the A6M in the early war period, the Japanese had good stocks of high quality avgas so the probability that 'higher octane' US aviation fuel made the captured examples' perform to a higher level is small. Combat reports of Zero vs P-39 and P-40 in the first 18 months of the war indicate that those aircraft enjoyed a very small (if any, in many cases) top speed advantage at lower altitudes, and none at higher alts.

The Airacobra and Warhawk could manage 350-360 mph at their best altitudes if they were in good repair (something hardly true of the USAAF aircraft operating over the Dutch East Indies, Australia or New Guinea in 1942), so a top speed for a well cared for Zero (much more likely for IJN aircraft at planned bases that first year) would likely be more than competitive with them, at least until the Allies' logistics issues got sorted out, probably no earlier than very late '42.

cheers

horseback

Messaschnitzel
06-22-2011, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The comments about the quality and workmanship of the Aleutian Zero were uniformly complimentary to the point that one wonders if the Americans making them thought that it was superior to American standards and workmanship levels in late 1942.

There were no such statements about the workmanship & finish of later model Zeros, Oscars, or the later generation of Japanese fighters post 1943--which contrasts sharply with accounts I have read by Japanese who were tasked with appraising captured or wrecked Mustangs, Corsairs and Hellcats. They seemed to despair of matching the qualities and workmanship of those aircraft.

I doubt that the Americans thought that the Japanese levels of standards and workmanship were superior than their own concerning their military equipment. One thing that I know for a fact is that manufacturing a product to a high level of close tolerances and finish takes more time than one that requires it to simply perform to whatever levels they are required. Almost every piece of prewar and early war military equipment produced by the countries that fought in WW2 was most likely of a better fit and finish than the ones produced during the war, given that the materials used were of the same standards. As far as industry is concerned, one of the cardinal requirements to wage war successfully is to be able to produce military hardware like rabbits OD'ing on fertility drugs, and that is to put the most product out the door in the shortest amount of time using effective methods of production in order to save material, time, and money.

What the Japanese inspectors and mechanics were probably seeing when they examined the U.S. planes is the manufacturing techniques developed by folks like Henry Ford and company, where any non-critical surfaces have rough finishes, while the critical dimensions are carefully finished. It might look pretty asthetics-wise, but it's stupid to waste spending precious man hours on non-critical component surfaces. A good example of WW2 manufacturing philosophy is the M1 carbine. Almost every component has a somewhat rough finish, and the barrel got turned at a heavier feed rate that leaves the 'ribbed' surface. The critical areas of components gots good finishes. It's not that companies like GM weren't capable of better fits and finishes, it's merely that it was more important to spend less time on the individual components and perhaps get several more rifles out the door in that time that was saved in the time what otherwise got spent finishing one rifle to a higher standard. From what it looks like, Japanese industry finally caught on at some point during the war that they needed to make some manufacturing shortcuts to keep up with the Americans.


To recap: the American standards of manufacturing were already high as a general rule, but given that the U.S. military was short as far as equipment was concerned at the start of the war, U.S. industry streamlined production in an efficient manner to enable arming its military in the shortest possible time.

BillSwagger
06-23-2011, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
How you can state that the fuel does NOT have to be within an octane range is beyond me...Yet tell ya what, put some 104 octane in your push mower and tell me how it goes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

K2

A lawn mower is a two cycle engine...
You'd probably need to mess with valve timing and spark, and possibly TDC and when finished could probably run better with 104 octane.

I think initially, it increased the detonation limit of the manifold pressure of the engine which would increase performance. I think the misconception about octane is that it will always increase performance. Maybe not at sea level,
but maybe at 15k where the air is thinner. Its apples to apples unless you have specifics on engine parts and plumbing.
A good example would be engines used in the late 30s running on 87 octane, and they only gained 100hp using 100 octane.
Then they gained another 100 hp using 100/130 grade.
Each upgrade probably required adjustments in timing, plumbing, supercharging, etc.

I would argue fuel grade is as important as the octane. Probably more important.

To redirect back to the Zero question, i do know that the Japanese used lower octane, however there performance suffered later in the war because of lower fuel quality. They were making av gas from turpentine grown from a root garden.
As far as i know, they didn't have a fuel shortage in 1942.
Its also known that higher grade fuels were spared, even by the US, meaning that some aircraft were given engines to maximize performance on medium grade gasoline.

LEBillfish
06-23-2011, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
A lawn mower is a two cycle engine... ...etc. etc.

Sorry, yet after reading what you posted I'm going to have to walk away from this one.

K2

horseback
06-23-2011, 10:08 AM
My statements about the Aleutian Zero vis a vis contemporary US fighters pertains to early and pre-war quality; the reports mention that the Zero was always ready to test, and had minimal maintenance problems during the testing, while all the American built fighters had problems, particularly with their engines, including the Allison powered P-38E/F, P-39D & P-51, the Packard Merlin (Merlin XX?) powered P-40F, and radial engine Naval fighters like the F4F-4 (R-1830?), and F4U-1 (R-2800). The Sakae engine just continued to purr like a kitten, to the chagrin and dismay of the American engineers and manufacturing reps attending the tests (and one can only imagine how the senior US military officers attending felt).

Remember, these tests were performed around early fall of 1942, while US manufacturers were still sorting themselves out after a long Depression of low production demand. Most aircraft and their engines prewar were more or less hand built, and military aircraft, as some of us are fond of pointing out, were usually built by the lowest bidder. Adjusting to the sudden demands of mass production was harder than most of us can appreciate (and yes, I know we were selling aircraft and military equipment to the Allies before Pearl Harbor, but that was a seller’s market to people far away, while right after Pearl Harbor the US government was dictating the terms, and sometimes contradicting itself).

I think you’ll find that the quality and tolerances of US built aircraft engines and critical systems improved markedly over the course of the war; in the pre-war and early war years, quality was um, shall we say, uneven?

The Japanese were concerned in the late war years not so much by fit and finish (often hard to discern in a recovered wreck), but by things like the Merlin engines on the Mustangs they were able to recover not leaking oil and being much more powerful and reliable than the late model engines they were trying to get ready for the IJN and IJA before the inevitable bombing raids began. Like the Germans, they were having all kinds of problems developing supercharging and turbosuperchargers that would work with their own high altitude designs.

cheers

horseback

Messaschnitzel
06-23-2011, 05:52 PM
Hey horseback, what I was trying to say was that the Americans during the prewar and early war period were definitely capable of making high quality products, the same as the Japanese, British, Germans, etc. As far as the tests with the Zero, would it be fair to say that the Sakae was a simpler design with its gear driven supercharger, whereas the Allison engines and the P&W 18 cylinder water injected Double Wasps were more complex designs that might be prone to more maintenance and attention and just plain temperamental behavior due to the abovementioned complexity? You're right about the adjustment to a wartime production flow, especially one that never saw its like before, especially where Uncle Sam went to lavishly footing the bill. (Heh! It seems that that philosophy is still in place today.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif)



Originally posted by horseback:
I think you’ll find that the quality and tolerances of US built aircraft engines and critical systems improved markedly over the course of the war; in the pre-war and early war years, quality was um, shall we say, uneven?

My guess is that Uncle Sam was being stingy with the financial particulars with the prewar and early war contracts, and that the companies involved gave them their money's worth. As you mentioned, the prewar manufacturing situation didn't get rectified until the government started investing serious money with the defense contractors so as to be able to expand their manufacturing facilities and capabilities. Also, IIRC this was the beginning of the U.S. military publishing numerous specification requirements for quality control and interchangeability that were distributed to the military contractors at this time.


The Japanese were concerned in the late war years not so much by fit and finish (often hard to discern in a recovered wreck), but by things like the Merlin engines on the Mustangs they were able to recover not leaking oil and being much more powerful and reliable than the late model engines they were trying to get ready for the IJN and IJA before the inevitable bombing raids began. Like the Germans, they were having all kinds of problems developing supercharging and turbosuperchargers that would work with their own high altitude designs.

I was curious about that, where I figured that if the Japanese and Germans had trouble with they own designs, then why not make direct copies of the existing captured U.S. powerplants? The only reason I could come up with is that not only would they have to hastily reorganize and retool the factories to produce them, they would also have to take the time to analyze and reverse engineer the various manufacturing techniques used to produce them.

horseback
06-23-2011, 07:23 PM
Well, hard as it is to believe today, Japanese engineering and manufacturing was deservedly sneered at by the non-Asian world right up to Pearl Harbor. Their military aircraft were either license built Western designs or obvious copies right up to the time the adventures in Northern China began in the early 1930. If Westerners were aware of the Ki-27 or A5M, they assumed that they were just more copies of Western designs like the Boeing P-26.

THAT was what made the Zero such a shock, and what was so disturbing to the people testing the Aleutian Zero. The Sakae engine was less powerful than the Pratt & Whitneys & Allisons of the world, but it was a proven and reliable engine, unlike the 'name' engines the Americans were using which were still in their teething stages at that point, and since it was hauling a much lighter aircraft around, the lesser power was a moot point.

My comment about the immediate prewar and early war period was meant to comment upon the disruption and confusion that went with the sudden surge in production. All of our fighters, even the Wildcat and P-40E, were in their very early production stage and pretty buggy in some critical ways.

When we talk about using direct copies of US or British turbosuperchargers or superchargers, you have to consider whether the Japanese engineers could meaasure the key tolerances and convert them to Japanese standards or if Japanese industry at that point in the war could reproduce it quickly. If the metellurgy of some parts was a key consideration too, could they reporduce the needed alloys?

There may also have been compatiblity issues; did P&W design the R-2800 with the GE turbosupercharger in mind? If so, where would that leave Mitsubishi or BMW in adapting that turbosupercharger to their engines?

cheers

horseback

Badsight-
06-23-2011, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
ABSOLUTELY true what I said....... not in the slightest for all petrol engines

Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Addatives cover a vast gambit of issues some having absolutely nothing to do with performance well that shows how little you know about modern fuels

however we are talking about WW2 fuel run under low compression with high boost

in this case increasing the octane & resetting the timing would have a big effect on performance


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
How you can state that the fuel does NOT have to be within an octane range is beyond me... especially seeing how i didnt ~

LEBillfish
06-24-2011, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
~

....I feel like I'm talking with a particular O.T. poster about physics....Don't you know multiple accounts are not allowed?

K2

Messaschnitzel
06-25-2011, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Well, hard as it is to believe today, Japanese engineering and manufacturing was deservedly sneered at by the non-Asian world right up to Pearl Harbor. Their military aircraft were either license built Western designs or obvious copies right up to the time the adventures in Northern China began in the early 1930. If Westerners were aware of the Ki-27 or A5M, they assumed that they were just more copies of Western designs like the Boeing P-26.

THAT was what made the Zero such a shock, and what was so disturbing to the people testing the Aleutian Zero. The Sakae engine was less powerful than the Pratt & Whitneys & Allisons of the world, but it was a proven and reliable engine, unlike the 'name' engines the Americans were using which were still in their teething stages at that point, and since it was hauling a much lighter aircraft around, the lesser power was a moot point.

My comment about the immediate prewar and early war period was meant to comment upon the disruption and confusion that went with the sudden surge in production. All of our fighters, even the Wildcat and P-40E, were in their very early production stage and pretty buggy in some critical ways.

When we talk about using direct copies of US or British turbosuperchargers or superchargers, you have to consider whether the Japanese engineers could meaasure the key tolerances and convert them to Japanese standards or if Japanese industry at that point in the war could reproduce it quickly. If the metellurgy of some parts was a key consideration too, could they reporduce the needed alloys?

There may also have been compatiblity issues; did P&W design the R-2800 with the GE turbosupercharger in mind? If so, where would that leave Mitsubishi or BMW in adapting that turbosupercharger to their engines?

cheers

horseback

Hey horseback, yeah, I agree about the Zero and how it took everybody by surprise at first. As far as the Japanese making direct copies of existing engines, the Japanese did of course make licensed copies of the DB 601, but apparently ran into problems according to this Wiki:

"The DB-601 engine required precise and sophisticated manufacturing; the Ha-40 was lighter by roughly 30 kg (70 lb) and required even higher manufacturing standards. Reaching these standards proved to be a "stretch" for Japanese manufacturers, an issue further complicated by the variable quality of materials, fuel, and the lubricants needed to run a sensitive, high-performance engine. The Japanese equivalent of the more powerful DB-605 engine was the Ha-140, which was fitted onto the Type 3 to produce the Ki-61-II high-altitude interceptor."

Also, I had no idea about another copy that was manufactured by Aichi:

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Aichi_Atsuta

Engine production

Aichi manufactured 873 Atsuta series engines during World War II. These were shared between the twenty-two M6A1/M6A1-K and all D4Y1/2 aircraft. Peak production of the Atsuta 32 engine was in May, 1944, when 107 engines were produced.

Production problems

A serious problem with the Aichi and Kawasaki version of the Daimler-Benz engine was that that of holding a close tolerance fit between the crankshaft and its bearings on this fairly long engine. The result was that the engine proved to be prone to crankshaft failure. Additionally, there was often great difficulties obtaining engine components which, along with repeated air attacks on the Atsuta engine plant, eventually brought engine production to a standstill.

Atsuta production ends

Maintenance difficulties with the Atsuta and Ha-40 engines eventually led to the installation of the more reliable Mitsubishi Kinsei 62 radial engine for the D4Y3 model 33, and the Mitsubishi Ha-112 radial air-cooled engine for the Army's Kawasaki Ki-61, which then became known as the Ki-100 Type 5 Fighter. Such a modification was not possible for the M6A1 as it could only use the liquid-cooled inverted-vee type engine, as it had to fit the submarine's confined hanger. The M6A1 Seiran then became the only Japanese airplane that retained the inverted-vee engine installation throughout the war.

Evaluation by ATSC

Postwar evaluation by the Air Technical Service Command's Foreign Aircraft Evaluation Center for the Air Force (located at Wright Field and Freeman Army Airfield) found the Atsuta engine's standard of workmanship was not as good as that of the Army's Kawasaki Ha-40, and far worse than Mitsubishi and Nakajima.

This kind of info really interests me because one of my hobbies is collecting books and info on the latest 'modern' manufacturing methods and techniques used during the 19th and early 20th centuries. This sort of interest leads me to think that the Japanese aircraft engine industry was in general, using facilities and equipment that was perhaps a bit out of date for efficiently producing these engines which required a higher level of machining and possibly measuring methods to ensure that these engines worked when they were assembled and used. OTOH, the Japanese had plenty of successful experience designing and building radial engines. Not having ever worked on a radial engine, I wonder if they could get away with a less precise fit on the critical components that could be, say, 'fudged' a bit by filing and scraping, or maybe got away with by using looser tolerances for alignment of said components for assembly (maybe sometimes making up for the loose fit by using shim stock), as well as easily swapping parts out for maintenance?

Evidently from the article, they had problems with the seating of the crankshaft and main bearings. My guess is that they didn't have machines available that could reliably line bore the journals. Also, I wonder if the use of micrometers and dial indicators was that widespread in Japanese industry at the time. It could be that they still relied heavily on using spring type calipers to measure inside and outside diameters, along with using fixed 'go - no go' gages that were still in common usage in shops in the U.S. around the WW2 era.


Hey Billfish, you got any possible info or photos about the Japanese aircraft industry during the war? I do recall the great info and pics you posted dealing with the shop that was making the self sealing fuel tanks for the Ki-43, so I figure you might have some more info like this to pull out of the hat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEBillfish
06-25-2011, 11:48 AM
Ever wonder why in old movies they always target the "Bearing Plant" when bombing Germany? Well to this day as far as machine mechanical things go, slides remain about the third most precise, gears a vast leap higher into second, and topping the list being the most difficult to machine, harden, finish would be bearings.

So was the problem with the Ha-40. The design was there, the skills as well. What wasn't however was the equipment which needs a magnitude of precision over what you're making to be able to make it......Someone here a while back sent me a number of pages from "Romance of Engines by Takashi Suzuki" of which chapter 36-38 deals specifically with the Ha-40 vs. the DB601 (perhaps other chapters as well) and as far as the Ha-40 went it boiled down to mostly bearings (at least at first as they improved over the two years of production) with fuel solenoid and filtering problems added to that.

Why considering all other engines had bearings? My guess being Kawasaki had run with a production, and by the time they figured out the issue, fixed it, and so on the run was over (as we're talking a hard push to get aircraft in the air). Don't even bother discussing the Ha-140, that made the Ha-40 problems seem like a cake walk.

Anywho, here is a real interesting step by step construction of army drop tanks.....No biggie? Well, know that for years before the allies had sub-par drop tanks (the link to tank from aircraft most important), the Japanese had developed the best system in the world, the A6M2 DT system never bested that I know of in WWII....and we know the importance of drop tanks.

http://78sentai.org/78V/albums/recon/10001/droptank.jpg

K2

Luno13
06-25-2011, 01:24 PM
In what way were the Japanese tanks so good?

Messaschnitzel
06-25-2011, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Ever wonder why in old movies they always target the "Bearing Plant" when bombing Germany? Well to this day as far as machine mechanical things go, slides remain about the third most precise, gears a vast leap higher into second, and topping the list being the most difficult to machine, harden, finish would be bearings.

So was the problem with the Ha-40. The design was there, the skills as well. What wasn't however was the equipment which needs a magnitude of precision over what you're making to be able to make it......Someone here a while back sent me a number of pages from "Romance of Engines by Takashi Suzuki" of which chapter 36-38 deals specifically with the Ha-40 vs. the DB601 (perhaps other chapters as well) and as far as the Ha-40 went it boiled down to mostly bearings (at least at first as they improved over the two years of production) with fuel solenoid and filtering problems added to that.

Why considering all other engines had bearings? My guess being Kawasaki had run with a production, and by the time they figured out the issue, fixed it, and so on the run was over (as we're talking a hard push to get aircraft in the air). Don't even bother discussing the Ha-140, that made the Ha-40 problems seem like a cake walk.

If only the Japanese would've purchased Timken bearings to make up for the shortfall, they very well could've changed the course of the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

http://file.vintageadbrowser.com/l-wc0vd0zhxe2rp8.jpg

Seriously though, I'm going to look into the book "Romance of Engines by Takashi Suzuki" for the HA-40/DB 601 stuff. Also, thanks for posting the info about the droptanks.

Xiolablu3
06-25-2011, 03:48 PM
The Zero was close to being the perfect plane for close-in WW1 style dogfighting.

Incredibly manouverable in the lower speed range thanks to its very low wing loading, excellent climb rate for 1941 standards, and heavy firepower with its 20mm cannon.

It took the capture of a Zero and intense testing to find out that it was poor at high speed manouvres. Once this was discovered the US, RAF, RAAF and RNAF pilots had something solid to work with and learned to keep their speed up and use B&Z attacks. As long as they kept their cool and used these tactics the Allied planes with their higher top speed could attack the Zeros and Ki43's at their leisure.

Still there were lots of situations right up to the end of the war, where the Allied pilots lost their head for a moment and attempted to dogfight the Zeros (and Ki43's). This usually ended up with them being shot down. One well documented case is between Ki43's and P38's, where the US pilots got too confident after a run of success using the high speed tactics and attempted to dogfight the Japanese planes down on the deck. The P38's were all lost.

Strangely the Japanese were not able to keep pace with the top speed increases in the later versions of Allied planes. For instance the 1940 Spitfire Mk1 top speed of around 350mph was increased to 448mph in the SPit XIV of 1944. The Wildcat to Hellcat had a decent speed increase too. The Zero and Ki43 gap in top speed vs the Allied planes seemed to get wider as the war progressed. (As far as I know, I am ready to be corrected on this if I am wrong. I just know that Zeros in 1941 are competetive. Zeros in 1944 are too slow vs Spitfire's, P51's or Tempests)

horseback
06-25-2011, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Luno13:
In what way were the Japanese tanks so good? In the case of the Zero's belly tank, it was twofold.

First, other than weight, it imposed very small drag and CG penalties to the point that in the first combats over Guadalcanal, IJN pilots were able to dominate the USN Wildcats they encountered, even while retaining those tanks in combat (releasing them before combat would have left them with inadequate fuel to make it back to Rabaul, some 500 miles away).

Second, I'm betting clean release. After installing hard points with a fuel line that will allow them to be selected and deselected,pressurizing them so that the fuel will feed at higher alts, mounting them so that they don't come off when you don't want them to, making 'em so that they don't flip up and bang into your fuselage, wings or tail and making sure that the fuel line leading to them cuts off properly so that you aren't spewing fuel out the wrong way is a lot more complicated than we might fully appreciate.

Consider how long it took for the USAAF to develop a decent belly and then wing pylon drop tanks for the P-47, when everyone realized that the Jug was much too short legged to do the job it was going to be used for long before the first operations began in March-April of 1943.

The Japanese had that all figured out well before they entered the war.

cheers

horseback

LEBillfish
06-26-2011, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Luno13:
In what way were the Japanese tanks so good?

Pretty much all that Horseback said plus in addition that the Navy and initially Army surfaces were left clean/flush after dropping the tank, universal mounts for both fuel stores or ordnance, and though I can't speak to other nations aircraft the solenoids were reliable, simple, and selectable (could drop both or just one at a time and that also meant bombs contrary to in the sim).

Other aspects were simplified sealing of connecting lines and ease of mounting, the list goes on.

So, why so important?....If I have aircraft on a carrier or land that can reach you, yet you cannot me, then I have the option of offense and you don't.

Lastly, here is an excellent example of even current misconceptions....This from a recently published book about specifically Ki-61's vs. P-38's.
http://78sentai.org/78V/albums/recon/10001/prev_ki61range.jpg

WHat a MASSIVE range difference!......and there was, it just really the other way around. Following is a write up I did to answer another guys questions about range discrepencies, and has been looked over by what is the current world authority on Ki-61's (as well as many other aircraft) Mr. J. Long.......Did the math, you tell me?

They say an internal tank only range of 372/373 miles....TAIU testing (not optimum) says 1,520 on just internal, and 2,010 with drop tanks.....Think someone might of been pro P-38 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

K2

The following is from a response I gave a couple years ago here (so note I refer to another datasheet).....Know this however, Mr. Long has the final word on this and is by far the expert as to Ki-61 technical aspects so any comments he adds should be taken as gospel.


Though Mr. Long from my experience here the one truly in the know when it comes to statistics as to this aircraft, let me interject the following much of it based upon his writings and reports.

First off, the Ki-61 over its initial Model I Ko/Otsu/Hei series went through some rather dramatic changes as to fuel capacity. As an example:

The Ki-61 Ko (1a) thru Hei (1c) had various "internal" fuel tanks during it's production run. These varied from 750 liters to 500 liters placed about wings and fuselage....Exact numbers are per serial number (source Jim Long)

* Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I Ko, coded s/n's 113-424
Fuel Tanks: 2/190l. outer wing tanks, 1/170l. center wing tank, 1/200l. fuselage tank = 750l. + 2x200l. drop tanks = 1,150l..

* Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I Ko, coded s/n's 421-500
Fuel Tanks: 2/190l. outer wing tanks, 1/170l. center wing tank, 1/200l. fuselage tank = 750l. + 2x200l. drop tanks = 1,150l..

* Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I Otsu, coded s/n's 501-1092
Fuel Tanks s/n 501-513: 2/190l. outer wing tanks, 1/170l. center wing tank, 1/200l. fuselage tank = 750l. + 2x200l. drop tanks = 1,150l..
Fuel Tanks s/n 514-649: 2/190l. outer wing tanks, 1/170l. center wing tank = 550l. + 2x200l. drop tanks = 950l..
Fuel Tanks s/n 650-1092: 2/170l. outer wing tanks, 1/160l. center wing tank = 500l. + 2x200l. drop tanks = 900l..

* Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I Hei, coded s/n's 3001-3400
Fuel Tanks: 2/170l. outer wing tanks, 1/160l. center wing tank = 500l. + 2x200l. drop tanks = 900l..

Now what we're seeing there are a couple of changes. First off the removal of the 200l. fuselage tank, secondly a reduction in size of internal tanks forced by improvements in bullet-proofing (armor) about the fuel tanks in that you can't make the wings thicker in practicallity, so the tanks get smaller.

Now if you note your data sheet I believe it lists 550l. worth of fuel. The reason most likely for this is simply picking an average aircraft to generate a single set of numbers from......That said lets do a bit more math.

Your data sheet says:
Fuel internal = 550l./145.3Gal.
Fuel External = 2x200l.(400l.)/105.7Gal.
Range Normal = 600Km./373 miles
Range Maximum = 1,100Km./684 miles

If 550l. = 600Km. then 1 liter = 1.090909_Km. or 1.09Km./liter
Therefor 950l. @ 1.09Km./liter = 1,036.36Km.

***However, where I have figured in fuel based upon drop tanks being used, it is possible that the difference we're seeing is simply between a normal and economy setting no drop tanks used either case.

Now that's close yet not close enough basically a 63Km difference. However is relatively close considering flying at a "economy cruise" setting might make up the difference and that often a big part of things yet I do NOT believe so based upon TAIU data, So perhaps might just be the extra drag produced by the droptanks which would seem reasonable though lets see if the numbers add up.

Okay, utilizing TAIU reports I find the following, know however some of this is looking at a graph so not perfect as to numbers. Also note I "believe" (don't know) these were generated with the Cape Gloucester Hien S/N 263 so a 750+400l. version.

Range based upon statute miles vs. Miles per hour in a graph shows 2 curves on page 154A-1:
2,000+SM @ 150MPH to 750+SM @ 265MPH
1,500+SM @ 155MPH to 550SM @ 290MPH

Page 154A-2 yields the following data:
Fuel Internal = 199 U.S. Gal. = 753.3 liters
Fuel External = 100 U.S. Gal. = 378.5 liters
Fuel Total = 299 U.S. Gal. = 1,132 liters

Maximum Range @ 1,500 feet altitude, 148MPH & 299 Gal. Fuel = 2,010 St. Miles/3,235Km = ***2.86Km/liter
Maximum Range @ 75%VM - 1,500 feet altitude, 198MPH & 299 Gal. Fuel = 1,625 St. Miles/2,615Km = ***2.31Km/liter
Maximum Range @ 1,500 feet altitude, 156MPH & 199 Gal. Fuel = 1,520 St. Miles/2,446Km = ***3.25Km/liter
Maximum Range @ 75%VM - 1,500 feet altitude, 215MPH & 199 Gal. Fuel = 1,195 St. Miles/1,923Km = ***2.55Km/liter

***Now a lot of varied conclusions and explinations can be drawn from that....In any case TAIU statistics offer as a best 2,010 statute miles or 3,235Km.. Personally I am not a fan of TAIU test results in that they were using captured aircraft often in not the best of shape and in kind those both flying them and working on them not experienced with that airframe "specifically"............Yet, note the Km/liter ranges achieved by the TAIU testing vs. "supposed" Japanese figures. Yet lets put it into perspective.

***
1. Data from your sheet would indicate the use of a Ki-61-I-Otsu S/N 514-649
2. Data from TAIU testing would be a Ki-61-I-Ko, or if not the S/N 263, then possibly an Otsu S/N 501-513 (doubtful).
3. Base weights for each aircraft "empty" should be relatively the same with the exception of wing gun weights the Otsu 20.6Kg heavier, naturally the addition of the Ko's 200l. internal tank making up some of that.
4. Loaded figures on the other hand would vairy significantly. On the one hand the Otsu would add only roughly 9Kg for ammunition weight over the Ko, armor a fair bit more, yet items such as tailwheel mechanisms, extra fuel tank, yet most of all fuel at approx. .72Kg/l. would add a significant amount of weight (144Kg@200l.) to the Ko....In the end it confuses me as to why the Otsu is always listed as heavier.

Looking over the other publications I have has shown me two issues that need addressing. The first being most data sheets were copied line by line. What that means to me is not so much that they all agree with each other so obviously the majority answer, yet that they should all be lumped together as a single source as they all had a single origin. Secondly I've noted that some sources I'm unable to find information to transcribe for you having difficulty reading Japanese.............YET, if I understand the Mechanism of Military AIrcraft #2 correctly, of it I see when discussing fuel quantities a figure of 1,155 liters, and a range of 3,000Km.......I think (am not sure). However that falls into line with TAIU testing generally.

Luno13
06-26-2011, 02:21 AM
Thanks for the info horseback. I'll look into all the stuff you wrote later billfish. Right now the words are swimming in front of me - need to sleeeep.

horseback
06-26-2011, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Strangely the Japanese were not able to keep pace with the top speed increases in the later versions of Allied planes. For instance the 1940 Spitfire Mk1 top speed of around 350mph was increased to 448mph in the SPit XIV of 1944. The Wildcat to Hellcat had a decent speed increase too. The Zero and Ki43 gap in top speed vs the Allied planes seemed to get wider as the war progressed. (As far as I know, I am ready to be corrected on this if I am wrong. I just know that Zeros in 1941 are competetive. Zeros in 1944 are too slow vs Spitfire's, P51's or Tempests) Nothing strange about it; the Japanese were not equipped for the industrial demands of a long war. They knew from the moment they committed themselves that they had to win (i.e., make the Allies quit) quickly.

See the comments about bearings and how increasingly critical higher precision bearings became to more powerful engines and supercharging systems as the war ground on, and consider how the more industrially sophisticated Germans had to strain and flop about trying to develop a workable high altitude fighter to replace the aging Bf 109 and the less than ideal at higher alts FW 190A.

The Allies had the advantage of a safe haven to work in, a deep technological/industrial base, and access to whatever metals and minerals they required.

Japanese technology (scientific and engineering know-how) was really quite good in many ways at the very top end of their establishment, but they lacked the raw materials and the industrial base (call it the gap between science and the ability to actually produce the technology in useful numbers) to develop high performance fighters in time to stave off the inevitable.

cheers

horseback

Wildnoob
06-26-2011, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
As long as they kept their cool and used these tactics the Allied planes with their higher top speed could attack the Zeros and Ki43's at their leisure.

The Japanese could also b&z them, and they actually did this. The advantage of the Zero and the Ki-43 was more in climb.

I don't agreed much with the "miracle of energy tactics", not with the early war Allied planes. If the Japanese managed to ambush the Allied planes in a favourable situation, they also scored kills. In WWII, the tactical factors were much more important, as most pilots never saw what hit them. The energy tactics surely turned things from very disadvantageous, to a scenario of even American advantage in theory. But In the end, it was up to the numbers.

horseback
06-26-2011, 03:31 PM
One other factor worked against Japanese fighters, regardless of whether they held energy or positional advantage: they were very lightly armed and usually shooting at the most robust fighter aircraft of the period (i.e., F4Fs and P-40s). A single three second burst of 7.7mm rarely destroyed one of these unless it was centered on the cockpit or managed to actually hit something vital in the engine or cooling system.

Added to this was the tendency for the average Japanese pilot to assume a victory/kill when all he had done was what my Plains Indian ancestors would call 'counting coup'; he had touched his enemy in combat and gotten away unscathed.

IJN and IJAAF fighter pilots throughout the war consistantly overcounted the enemy aircraft they made contact with & often claimed any aircraft they thought they got hits on, probably on the basis that their own aircraft would not survive the same hits and make it back to base.

cheers

horseback

Wildnoob
06-26-2011, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
One other factor worked against Japanese fighters, regardless of whether they held energy or positional advantage: they were very lightly armed and usually shooting at the most robust fighter aircraft of the period (i.e., F4Fs and P-40s). A single three second burst of 7.7mm rarely destroyed one of these unless it was centered on the cockpit or managed to actually hit something vital in the engine or cooling system.

Well, true, for the Ki-27 and Ki-43. Army pilots complained about the week armamment, but still they managed to destroy the Allied planes. And even if they damaged them, and the bombers could do the job, and the Army advance on the ground, it was excellent.

Just an audio-visual example of what I said above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BXo-jWcGnw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Added to this was the tendency for the average Japanese pilot to assume a victory/kill when all he had done was what my Plains Indian ancestors would call 'counting coup'; he had touched his enemy in combat and gotten away unscathed.

That's what I said above, if they could just scatter the enemy, it was okay, they were in the offensive. Added to this the explosive 12.7 shells for the Ki-43, their piercing power was week, but they probably scared a lot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

I understand the disadvantages of the Japanese planes, and I really put myself in the place of the guys, as I want to be a pilot myself (although civilian). Still, I think their planes were product of what we can see of them: low wing, monoplanes, with retraclable landing gear, moderated power for early war standards, sufficent to somewhat inferior armament, ligh airframe, and no armor (the last one was not SO bad, as it was something new, and the Japanese know this had to be corrected, but couldn't do it in large scale). So, we can see they were not only turninfighters, because they have features of high speed aircraft, but also were not high speed aircraft, they were a half term. And neighter the Americans were, as their early planes were superior in theory if used correctly, but were designed and flown in a very similar way as the Japanese at the start.

The planes were there, and served very well. Even with the energy tactics, the Japanese pilots could fight the early war Allied planes in even to better terms if the Japanese could keep in the offensive and expel them from the region. Although I think we should let the surprise elemment here, as the Pacific war sucess was mainly about it.

After they have lost the strategic war, their planes or equivalent other would only delay the defeat, as it happened with the Germans and their modern 109s and 190s.

Best planes could have turned the things better? Perhaps, like less losses at the Coral Sea, different actions and so forth, but this is something that nobody can tell. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

horseback
06-26-2011, 08:33 PM
Gotta disagree with you here. IJAAF was not nearly as effective as is generally thought; the British ground command in Burma & Singapore hosed it up so badly that what the IJAAF did wasn't really critical. They actually got smacked around rather badly by RAF and the AVG in Burma, and never quite got over the embarrassment. Read Daniel Ford's excellent book on the Flying Tigers and the Burma campaign to confirm. While Allied air forces were generally outnumbered in the CBI until early 1943, logistics problems and the weather in that part of the world had more to do with limited operations in the summer and fall of 1942 than Japanese air superiority or the lack of Allied air activity.

In the Philippines invasion, the IJAAF had a huge advantage from Day One because MacArthur's AF commander wouldn't send his bombers to strike the nearest Japanese bases on Formosa (Taiwan) that first morning after Pearl Harbor; instead, he got all his air power up and orbiting over their bases waiting for the expected Japanese raid. What he didn't realize is that the IJN and IJAAF bases on Formosa were all fogged in, and he might have caught a goodly proportion of the Japanese air forces on the ground if he had sent his B-17s and B-18s at first light.

When the fog lifted and the Japanese made their delayed strike against US and Filipino bases, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">almost the entire Far East AF was on the ground refueling. </span>Japanese bombs took out most of the aircraft, spares and fuel reserves that day and the USAAF in the Philippines and later in the Southwest Pacific Theater were operating on a shoestring from that point on; it took until early 1943 before they started to turn things around. Veterans were too far separated from incoming units to update them on the best tactics and the enemy's capabilities, so losses were higher than they should have been for most of 1942.

What a lot of modern students of the air war in the Pacific fail to appreciate is that while the Japanese had a very good 'book' on US and RAF fighters' abilities, the Allies had next to no clue about the existance, much less the capabilities of, either the Zero or the Hayabusa (Ki-43), and the Ki-27 Nate was supposed to be an inferior copy of the P-26. By western standards, the P-40B & E, the Brewster Buffalo, and the Hurricane were all formidible dogfighters in the classic sense, and their pilots reflexively tried to mix it up when they first encountered the Nate, the Oscar and the Zero. Unfortunately the survivors of the first confrontations were few and scattered across a huge area of the globe, and it took a long time for the Allies outside of the AVG, the 49th FG and the few RAF, RAAF and RNZAF fighter squadrons who survived Burma, Java and the first combats over New Guinea to get the word out to newcomers.

As for the IJN, they made only sporadic contact with USN and USMC aviation units until Coral Sea in May and Midway in June, but here, the fact that the USN & USMC aviation community was a small and tight knit group that funneled everyone through Pearl Harbor allowed them to disseminate information about the Zero's apparent advantages and formulate their countermoves rather quickly. Their problem was that the Wildcat was far more inferior to the A6M than the P-40s and P-39s were to the Nates, Oscars and occasional Zero that the USAAF faced. The massive losses at Midway in June '42 probably doomed the IJN fighter forces to a war of attrition that they couldn't afford (and that their training pipeline couldn't begin to overcome).

The fact is that the Wildcat's pilots appear to have been able to claim more than a 1:1 kill/loss ratio against the Zero overall, even before the Corsairs and Hellcats deployed in meaningful numbers.

Initial Japanese successes were based mainly on the fact that the Allies were totally unprepared for them to start the war in the Pacific so soon; FDR had literally guaranteed to Churchill that he could keep Japan off balance until spring of 1942, at which point he thought that he could get US forces in the Far East combat ready and with sufficient spares and reserves. Allied air forces were only just beginning to gear up when the Japanese had already put in motion their plans for war.

Had they waited until spring of '42, they may well have had a much harder time of it.

cheers

horseback

BillSwagger
06-27-2011, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
As long as they kept their cool and used these tactics the Allied planes with their higher top speed could attack the Zeros and Ki43's at their leisure.

The Japanese could also b&z them, and they actually did this. The advantage of the Zero and the Ki-43 was more in climb.

I don't agreed much with the "miracle of energy tactics", </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was noted in a mock fight between the A6m and A5M that the A6M was better suited to energy tactics.
The same pilots flew both planes and in both scenarios the A5M was able to out dogfight the A6m.
One scenario or combination doesn't define the whole.
Any fighter pilot would stick to its strengths. Why fight your opponents fight?

I think the "miracle of energy tactics" actually refer to diving on formations at 400+ mph in slashing attacks, something the A6M could not avoid easily especially if they attempted to dive away. Couple that with the fact that zeros lose maneuverability with speed, it would be a particularly easy tactic for the allied plane.

JtD
06-27-2011, 10:18 AM
Question about the A6M3. I've read a US report that quite convincingly stated that the max engine boost for the Sakae 21 was 150mm normal and 250mm at WEP (boost cutout control). However, all Japanese sources I have and manage to understand state that the engine limits were 200mm and 300mm at WEP, as with the Sakae 31, 150/250mm being the limits for the early Sakae 11 and 12 single stage engines.

Does anyone know if early A6M3's were equipped with a downrated engine or does anyone have a good explanation for the US report?

Wildnoob
06-27-2011, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
What a lot of modern students of the air war in the Pacific fail to appreciate is that while the Japanese had a very good 'book' on US and RAF fighters' abilities

You get to my point now. You don't see a connection? That's what I'm trying to mean!

The Japanese already experienced energy tactics with the Soviets in China and Nomonhan, and they know very well it was a question of time for the Allies used them against them, as well as deploy more powerful fighters.

So why they still attack? Simple, because the situation was of much advantage for them, as well as judge vitally necessary. The European colonial powers were weak by the war with Germany, and couldn't defend their colonies, and the war in Europe was also drawing the attention of the Americans. The idea was to destroy the Allied forces in a surprise blow, make them come to terms, and mount a large defensive perimeter. You know history. It wasn't any surprise for the Japanese that they couldn't face an attrition war with the US, as they NEVER wanted it. It was a very risky game, and the aerial and ground equipment in general was not the best eighter, but was judged capable of do the job in that mommment, and actually could have done it.

horseback
06-27-2011, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
What a lot of modern students of the air war in the Pacific fail to appreciate is that while the Japanese had a very good 'book' on US and RAF fighters' abilities

So, you got to my point now. Do you think they were idiots? That's what I'm trying to mean!

The Japanese already experienced energy tactics with the Soviets in China and Nomonhan, and they know very well it was a question of time for the Allies used them against them, as well as deploy more powerful fighters.

So why they still attack? Simple, because the situation was of much advantage for them. The European colonial powers were week by the war with Germany, and couldn't defende their colonies, and the war in Europe was also drawing the American's attention. The idea was to destroy the Allied forces in a surprise blow, make them come to terms, and mount a large defensive perimeter. You know history. It wasn't any surprise for the Japanese that they couldn't face an attrition war with the US, as they NEVER wanted it. It was a very risky game, and the equipment in general was not the best eighter, but was judged capable of do the job in that mommment, and actually could have done it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think that the Japanese really experienced 'energy tactics' from the Soviets; my reading of Soviet pre-and early-war doctrine is that they were very concerned with maneuverability too (much like the Italians were well into the war).

Plus, as I've tried to make clear, the Japanese fighter pilot community were literally blind to the concept of energy/boom & zoom tactics. They wanted their airplanes fast enough to engage enemy aircraft, but they were far more concerned with aerobatics, instant acceleration and climb. They maintained that blindness to a great degree right up to the end of the war.

If the enemy fighters didn't engage in close in, classic dogfighting, IJN and IJAAF fighter pilots usually dismissed them as poorly trained novices <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">even if those 'novices' were shooting them down left and right.</span> Their appraisal of the main western fighters they were likely to face was basically "So what if the enemy fighters are between 10 and 30 per cent faster than our fighters and have a weight of fire more than three times as heavy? We can can turn tighter!"

In theory, a more maneuverable aircraft should be able to dodge the attacks of a heavier and faster aircraft, but in practice, it proved not to be the case, at least not often enough to be militarily practical.

By your and my standards the Japanese militarists actually were a bit irrational, but so were their basic assumptions about their own racial superiority and the decadence of the western powers (particularly the US--maybe they were 70 or 80 years too early, and should have introduced Nintendo games sooner to soften us up) that led them to believe that we would a) inflict at most minor losses on the Imperial Army and Navy and b) accept their catastrophic terms after a few losses of our own.

I've been to Japan a few times, and have done some reading and research about not only WWII, but their culture and overall history, and it sometimes seemed like I was on another planet or reading about an alien race. Much of what a westerner might take for granted just isn't valid in the context of that culture.

It is a mistake to think that people on the other side of the world will look at a problem and come to the same conclusions (no matter how 'obvious' they seem) that you do.

cheers

horseback

Wildnoob
06-27-2011, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
I don't think that the Japanese really experienced 'energy tactics' from the Soviets; my reading of Soviet pre-and early-war doctrine is that they were very concerned with maneuverability too (much like the Italians were well into the war).

Take a look at books like Air War Over Khalkhin Gol, and Japan Against Russia: In The Skies of Nomonhan.


Plus, as I've tried to make clear, the Japanese fighter pilot community were literally blind to the concept of energy/boom & zoom tactics

It wasn't this. The problem was to be solved, but the change of doctrine came just shortly before the war. For example, even with high war priority, the Ki-84 design, that Nakajima put it's hands in the specifications in late 1941, could only enter in service in 1944.


They wanted their airplanes fast enough to engage enemy aircraft, but they were far more concerned with aerobatics, instant acceleration and climb. They maintained that blindness to a great degree right up to the end of the war.

This is simply not truth. The Ki-84 and the A7M were very close to a modern plane like the La-7. This already ansewer other things you put here.


By your and my standards the Japanese militarists actually were a bit irrational, but so were their basic assumptions about their own racial superiority and the decadence of the western powers (particularly the US--maybe they were 70 or 80 years too early, and should have introduced Nintendo games sooner to soften us up) that led them to believe that we would a) inflict at most minor losses on the Imperial Army and Navy and b) accept their catastrophic terms after a few losses of our own.

Well, didn't the Americans also think they were technologically and racially superior?

Still, it looks like the Japanese understimate them less than vice versa...


It is a mistake to think that people on the other side of the world will look at a problem and come to the same conclusions (no matter how 'obvious' they seem) that you do.

I can be very wrong, surely, but until now I don't have any strong argument that can lead me to think other way.

Badsight-
06-27-2011, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
I don't think that the Japanese really experienced 'energy tactics' from the Soviets; my reading of Soviet pre-and early-war doctrine is that they were very concerned with maneuverability too (much like the Italians were well into the war) soviet pilots had one of the best ever bi-plane fighters in the Chaika

it wasnt a match for the mono Ki-27 tho. couldnt match in the turn or out-run. & then that changed with the I-16

& with the increased performance of the I-16 came an increased awearness on the part of the soviets in how to deal with superior DF planes & pilots

the Japanese preference for DF combat in the face of losses to superior tactics is proof of the cultural difference with the Japanese & their mentality regarding combat & warfare

it hamstrung them across all their forces

BillSwagger
06-28-2011, 04:03 AM
quote:
They wanted their airplanes fast enough to engage enemy aircraft, but they were far more concerned with aerobatics, instant acceleration and climb. They maintained that blindness to a great degree right up to the end of the war.

This is simply not truth. The Ki-84 and the A7M were very close to a modern plane like the La-7. This already ansewer other things you put here.

There was also a lot of propaganda floating around at that time.
Look up "WW2 Pacific leaflets". The amount of deception and racially loaded drivel is more a sign of the times where many countries were isolated (ie isolationism) and not on first name basis like countries are today.
I think it was more a moral issue. The A6m was the plane of choice which the Japanese stood by through much of the war.
People tend to stick with the "winner" even when facing overwhelming odds.
Its also a myth they stuck to "tight turn" tactics shown by the developments of later model planes you mentioned. It actually reveals the shift from momentum where the Japanese found themselves having to defend their occupied areas from allied bombing campaigns. Aircraft development focused more on climbing and altitude performance rather than turn performance.

LEBillfish
06-28-2011, 05:47 AM
You guys are forgetting a few things to put much of this into perspective.....First off the Japanese aircraft improved dramatically over the course of the war. The navy N1K2 and ultimately 3 were said to be equal to and in some aspects exceeding any other aircraft by the end of the war. The army Ki-84 was indeed "all that", mustang pilots typically would NOT pursue as it was virtually pointless taking much too long and risking a better turning enemy. Even the Ki-43 though limited by its weapons was continuously upgraded, and don't discount those Ho-103 12.7MM guns as there are many reports of ground crews "assuming" they were seeing 20MM hits from the damage. All aircraft improved both in armament, quality, speed, armor and so on.

Lastly, a single better turning aircraft aware of and keeping in view an opponent can out manuever them all day.....Trouble is when it's pairs or more often the case 4+:1, it's then easy enough to catch them though there are those skilled/lucky noted as evading up to 7 till the attackers simply gave up......and evading is not the point of a fighter whether shot down or not the threat neutralized.

K2

horseback
06-28-2011, 01:21 PM
Take a look at books like Air War Over Khalkhin Gol, and Japan Against Russia: In The Skies of Nomonhan. As I understand it, these two books were written from the Soviet point of view; we are discussing Japanese tactics and I seriously doubt that the VVS’ interpretation of Japanese tactics and what they ‘learned’ over Nomonhan would be useful.
You assume that the Japanese ‘learned’ from the Soviets’ use of the I-16 and I-153 in ‘energy’ tactics. Given that most authorities agree that the Japanese air forces were generally much more successful (especially in contrast with their ground units) in air combat, I question whether they learned anything. Their already existing prejudice in favor of close-in dogfighting was if anything, reinforced by the air battles over Nomonhan.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Plus, as I've tried to make clear, the Japanese fighter pilot community were literally blind to the concept of energy/boom & zoom tactics It wasn't this. The problem was to be solved, but the change of doctrine came just shortly before the war. For example, even with high war priority, the Ki-84 design, that Nakajima put it's hands in the specifications in late 1941, could only enter in service in 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I went back and reread what I have on the Koku Hombu’s specification for the Ki-84; it called for a fighter with the speed and climb performance of the Ki-44 and the maneuverability of the Ki-43 with a heavier armament than either had at that time. I interpret that requirement to mean that the Powers That Be understood that their fighters had to get faster, but only so fast that they were not totally outclassed by the enemy’s fighters. Every fighter design is basically a compromise between squeezing as much speed as possible out of the power available and the desire to be able to turn on a dime or dump your energy and immediately get it back, and the Japanese were quite willing to sacrifice a certain amount of top speed and the higher wing loading it required if they could get what they considered a winning advantage in maneuverability and acceleration.

The Allies (or at least the Americans) opted for the higher speed end of the equation; they reasoned that this would give their fighter pilots the option of entering or breaking off combat at will, which for them translated into being able to ‘pick their spots’ when their chances of success were most favorable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
They wanted their airplanes fast enough to engage enemy aircraft, but they were far more concerned with aerobatics, instant acceleration and climb. They maintained that blindness to a great degree right up to the end of the war.
This is simply not truth. The Ki-84 and the A7M were very close to a modern plane like the La-7. This already ansewer other things you put here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>First, the A7M was a fantasy plane; I read the autobiography of the Zero’s (and the A7M) designer many years ago, and remember quite clearly his difficulties in finding an engine that would deliver the range and performance that the IJN demanded, while fighting a running battle over the aircraft’s size which the range demands alone made necessary. The A7M never even made it into the air, although the first prototype had finally been (mostly) built by the war’s end. It’s actual performance and capabilities are all calculation and imagination and none of them are remotely provable.

The Ki-84 on the other hand was a brilliant design, but it gave up a certain measure of top speed and higher altitude performance for its maneuverability, and was delivered half a generation after planes like the Mustang, Tempest V and the Spitfire Mk XIV were in combat operations. On top of that, by the time it was delivered, Japanese manufacturing capabilities were already in fatal decline.

Finally, I remind you of the tests comparing the Ki-100 to the Ki-84; in spite of being much slower, the Ki-100 was considered the superior fighter because it was so much more maneuverable, much as Japanese tests of the Ki-84 to a captured Mustang judged the Frank superior even though they acknowledged that the pilot of the Mustang could break off or re-enter combat at will with its superior top speed and dive & zoom capabilities (and this was with the earlier, better quality built models of the Ki-84 versus a ‘repaired’ P-51B captured in China).

I think that it is fair to say that Japanese test pilots flew by Japanese rules and expectations; actual combat results seem to decisively favor the Mustang over both of these fighters in most cases. This would be where the pilot who kept the initiative (i.e., the one who knew when to run and when to fight) chose not to play the Japanese’ game. It was well known late in the war that the average Japanese pilot was not very good, but it was also generally accepted that there were still some very dangerous veterans out there, so you entered a dogfight on even terms with Japanese fighters at your peril.


Lastly, a single better turning aircraft aware of and keeping in view an opponent can out manuever them all day.....Trouble is when it's pairs or more often the case 4+:1, it's then easy enough to catch them though there are those skilled/lucky noted as evading up to 7 till the attackers simply gave up......and evading is not the point of a fighter whether shot down or not the threat neutralized.
This Japanese philosophy of air combat is largely based on an assumption that their pilots would always be superior in skills and ability than their opponents. Even taking into account the extremely rigorous training the average IJN pilot had to successfully complete (IJAAF pilots were generally judged to be somewhat inferior), and all the early war advantages the Zero enjoyed over its opponents, it appears that in fighter to fighter combat in 1942-3, the (initially less numerous) guys flying Wildcats held the score at no worse than even, and were actually pulling ahead before the planes with higher performance ever made it to the Pacific.

Even with pre-war training and a superior aircraft, the IJNAF was outmanned by the the US Navy and Marine aviators flying a fighter that could not outrun, outclimb or out maneuver the Zero. The reality is that the upper end of the bell curve is open to anyone, and the Americans had a much larger pool of pilot applicants than the Japanese and a similarly rigorous qualification process.

Well, didn't the Americans also think they were technologically and racially superior?
Of course the Americans believed themselves to be technologically superior; overall, they were correct in that assumption. Naturally, the Zero was a shock, but it was an exception rather than the norm for Japanese military equipment and weapons.

Technologically, it was not a great achievement, but it was an exceptional application of the current technology to the IJN’s requirements for a carrier fighter.

American designs for their carrier fighters were based on different requirements, like pilot survivability and a little thing we like to call meeting a budget. Japan’s government was literally controlled by the military, and they had an almost unlimited budget for their planned wars whereas America’s military aircraft were very much limited by not only budget, but by a Congress who didn’t want to ‘provoke’ the Axis powers or encourage the President in potential foreign adventures. American fighter designs were not allowed to make provisions for drop tanks (a concept already well known at the time) during the pre-war years, hence the crippling lack of range in the F4F, P-40 and P-39, and the P-38’s extra large internal fuel capacity to get around that obstacle in the early war years.

As for race, you are fooling yourself if you believe for one second that the average citizen of your own country (or pretty much any other European country) didn’t make similar assumptions about the non-white peoples in the Far East and Africa. What you are skipping over is the fact that the Japanese went to war with the United States because we cut them off from trade after the American public became so outraged by the Japanese’ behavior in China (where the people the Japanese were oppressing were also of a different race from what you have automatically stereotyped as racist white bread Americans).

Japanese culture and language (and indeed, most Asian languages and cultures) have a bone-deep assumption of racial superiority over non-Japanese; one American writer described them as being outraged that non-Japanese were incapable of recognizing that inherent Japanese superiority and that they just acted out when they thought they could get away with it during WWII. That’s a bit extreme, but the Japanese did ‘act out’ according to their own unique rules throughout the war, being totally unconcerned with what non-Japanese thought of them.

Their openly barbaric treatment of Allied military and civlian prisoners in the early months of the war is what, if anything, put a 'racial' element into the Pacific War.

cheers

horseback

JtD
06-28-2011, 03:53 PM
Ki-84 wasn't delivered half a generation after the Spitfire XIV or Tempest were in combat operations. Unless a generations spans less than a year.

The Allies, including the US, were also concerned about good low speed manoeuvrability of their designs, as can be seen from various comparisons with the Fw 190, where advantages in turns were emphasized and disadvantages in speed belittled - this is not limited to British and Soviet testing.

In 1941, the Japanese Naval equipment was state of the art and overall competitive with the equipment of any other navy in the world and while a little behind in some areas, worlds most advanced in others. Not bad for a nation that only 90 years before had their medieval culture destroyed by a greedy and militaristic foreign nation that forced the Japanese markets open with a threat of overwhelming military force.

You did not cut off the Japanese from trade for humanitarian reasons. You did not do ****, that's for sure. US politicians however did so because they wanted a bigger piece of the pie for the US, humanitarian reasons being a great excuse. Modus operandi for at least a century for many powerful western nations, not just the US.

horseback
06-28-2011, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Ki-84 wasn't delivered half a generation after the Spitfire XIV or Tempest were in combat operations. Unless a generations spans less than a year.

The Allies, including the US, were also concerned about good low speed manoeuvrability of their designs, as can be seen from various comparisons with the Fw 190, where advantages in turns were emphasized and disadvantages in speed belittled - this is not limited to British and Soviet testing.
Timeline:

First pre-production Merlin Mustang flies in November 1942.
First production model rolls out of the Inglewood plant in June of 1943; the first combat unit forming up on the type in late October of 1943 and entering combat operations in December 1943.

First pre-production Spitfire Mk XIV (actually a converted Mk VIII) flies in January of 1943; first combat unit forms on it in January 1944, entering operations that spring, primarily against V-1s.

The first pre-production F4U-4X flies in April 1944 and enters production in October of 1944; first combat units forming on the type by February of 1945.

First pre-production Ki-84 flies in March of 1943, but the first actual production models do not make it out of the factory until April of 1944, the first Sentais converting to the type in the late summer and fall of 1944, some time after several of the almost 85 (hand built) pre-production models had been tested in combat units in China, where they were almost indistinguishable from the Ki-43s they were replacing.

The Ki-84 was an original design; the Mustang, Griffon Spit and -4 model Corsair were up-engined adaptations of already successful designs.

I think that I may have been generous in classing it as a half generation later design than the Mustang, Spit XIV and the -4 Corsair.

I never implied that the Allies weren't looking to improve their fighters' maneuverability, but I would point out that there appears to me to have been a certain lack of urgency, possibly due to the fact that our air forces were doing quite well with what was on hand. If the need for a more maneuverable Mustang with improved climb was an overwhelming concern, the P-51F would have been developed and fielded instead of being set aside for the more refined P-51H model which arrived in numbers shortly before VJ Day.

In 1941, the Japanese Naval equipment was state of the art and overall competitive with the equipment of any other navy in the world and while a little behind in some areas, worlds most advanced in others. Not bad for a nation that only 90 years before had their medieval culture destroyed by a greedy and militaristic foreign nation that forced the Japanese markets open with a threat of overwhelming military force. Do you honestly believe that Japan would not have had their medieval culture 'destroyed' if Perry had not arrived off their shores? Do you maintain that the British, French or Germans would been more benign?

One could make a very strong arguement that that 'medieval culture' you are so concerned about was not destroyed until GEN MacArthur took up his role as the UN's military governor, and that the medieval culture still being in place in the 1930s was what led the Japanese to war in the first place. John Toland's Rising Sun would be a good place to start.

As for Japanese Naval technology, I won't deny that they were quite competant in many areas and that their torpedoes were superb. However, as a Navy veteran myself, I was appalled by some of what I saw of their ships' designs and their doctrines concerning damage control; find a copy of Shattered Sword; the authors make a convincing case that the Japanese defeat at Midway and in succeeding carrier battles was not due so much to the excellent American dive bombing so much as inept Japanese damage control once the bombs hit.
You did not cut off the Japanese from trade for humanitarian reasons. You did not do ****, that's for sure. US politicians however did so because they wanted a bigger piece of the pie for the US, humanitarian reasons being a great excuse. Modus operandi for at least a century for many powerful western nations, not just the US What pie? Cutting off Japan from trade with the US did our economy no good; Japan was buying anything they could get from the US at a time when our economy was in the crapper.

Japan was an obnoxious wannabe colonial power in a China where several thousand Americans were living and working as Christian missionaries. Most Americans were under the delusion that Sun Yat-sen and Chaing Kai-Shek were analogous to the American Founding Fathers, and many of them (like for instance my own maternal grandfather) maintained correspondance with their Chinese counterparts in some social or religious groups like the Masons, Boy Scouts or the Methodist Church.

Business advantages were not nearly as important as you fashion them.

The closest analogy to US reaction to the Japanese' atrocities against the Chinese in the 1930s would be the upswelling of public sympathy for the starving people of Somalia in the early 1990s which led to the abortive interventions in that benighted country.

cheers

horseback

JtD
06-28-2011, 11:50 PM
So, if we go by your dates, which would be April 1944 for the Ki-84 delivery and Spring 1944 for the Spitfire XIV combat operations, where's the "half a generation" between the two dates? I think you were exaggerating so much, that your valid point was lost. Imho, the Ki-84 should have been a contemporary of the Fw 190, Spitfire IX, F4U and P-51, so entering service not in late 1944, but two years earlier.

The point of my statement regarding low speed manoeuvrability, is that you could draw the same conclusions from Allied testing as you are drawing from Japanese testing. It is therefore not a very good argument to support your point of view, even if it is valid. I think the Flying Tigers chapter would be a much more convincing argument.

Gunboat diplomacy as practised by Perry was normal for the 19th century. What wasn't normal is that a 3rd world nation forced into trade with western powers would catch up and become a major power within 50 years, capable of defeating one of the most powerful nations of that time in a military conflict.

The Asia pie. Japan and the US were both competing for it, the diplomatic and economical measures taken before the end of 1941 were taken to damage the other side's efforts. Feel free to point out cultural connections between the US and China, but Western society action is driven by the question "how can I increase my profit" and not by "what is morally correct".

Bremspropeller
06-29-2011, 03:13 AM
Germans would been more benign?

They were, as can be seen at any place Germany had a colony that was then forced to be taken-over by an Allied-country during the course of WW1.


Imho, the Ki-84 should have been a contemporary of the Fw 190, Spitfire IX, F4U and P-51, so entering service not in late 1944, but two years earlier.

The Ki-84 is an entirely new airframe, whereas 190, Spit and Corsair-versions are modifications of the initiel set.

JtD
06-29-2011, 07:28 AM
Spitfire IX was a conversion of the Spitfire V, true. But what airframes were modified to create the 190 and the F4U?

Kettenhunde
06-29-2011, 11:30 AM
regarding low speed maneuverability,

Nobody had the design goal of low speed maneuverability.

[/QUOTE]

Statements like this are why I have trouble accepting that you know as much as you claim to.

The Russians, even now concentrate hard on making their designs manouverable at low speeds.

What is vertical plane *only* thrust vectoring for if not low speed turning? At high speeds fighter pilots can easily pull enough G to black themselves out without thrust vectoring. What was the point in spending all that money?

Even more convincing, the plane needs to be manouverable at low speeds for landing, otherwise it is inherently dangerous to land.


I say your statement 'nobody had the design goal of low speed manouverability' is inherently flawed.

horseback
06-29-2011, 01:04 PM
Kettenhunde! Long time, no see.


So, if we go by your dates, which would be April 1944 for the Ki-84 delivery and Spring 1944 for the Spitfire XIV combat operations, where's the "half a generation" between the two dates? I think you were exaggerating so much, that your valid point was lost. Imho, the Ki-84 should have been a contemporary of the Fw 190, Spitfire IX, F4U and P-51, so entering service not in late 1944, but two years earlier. How ‘bout let’s not conflate production delivery and combat operations; as we both know, there was a much greater gap between delivery and deployment for the Allies, who had a longer proofing/safety requirements, not to mention that in the case of the Americans, there was always an ocean to cross, followed by unpacking, reassembly and flight testing. I chose Allied models of aircraft that entered operations at about the same time as the Ki-84 to demonstrate that its performance was not particularly exceptional in comparison to aircraft of the time.

The fact that it was a new design built with all the advantages of being able to learn from existing designs and building to a specific engine’s power and torque, instead of an existing basic design with a new engine shoved under the cowl like the examples I quoted essentially underlines the point.
The point of my statement regarding low speed manoeuvrability, is that you could draw the same conclusions from Allied testing as you are drawing from Japanese testing. It is therefore not a very good argument to support your point of view, even if it is valid. I think the Flying Tigers chapter would be a much more convincing argument. What I was drawing from Japanese testing vs Allied testing was a point of view divorced from reality; consider how RAF pilots flying the Spitfire Mk V facing the FW 190A in early 1942 were told that, well, the Spit could turn tighter. Those RAF pilots knew damned well that they were on the sh!tty end of the stick and that their lives (not to mention their ability to perform their mission) were in jeopardy until Fighter Command got them something with more performance that would give them the option of running the enemy down when they had the advantage or a decent chance of avoiding a fight until the odds could be improved.

The Japanese attitude in a situation more analogous to flying Spitfire Mk Is with no cannon against a much faster four cannon FW 190A, was “Yay! We’ve got the bastages right where we want ‘em!” They might well have refused cannon armed, faster Mk Vs if they thought it meant losing even a small portion of that turning ‘advantage’.
Gunboat diplomacy as practised by Perry was normal for the 19th century. What wasn't normal is that a 3rd world nation forced into trade with western powers would catch up and become a major power within 50 years, capable of defeating one of the most powerful nations of that time in a military conflict. Your words: Not bad for a nation that only 90 years before had their medieval culture destroyed by a greedy and militaristic foreign nation that forced the Japanese markets open with a threat of overwhelming military force.

My response was not an argument with your hyperbolic praise for the Japanese’ ability to retain their independence and modernize, but with your characterization of my ‘greedy and militaristic nation’ (in 1854? Seriously?) having destroyed their ‘medieval culture’.

That might have been true if the opening of Japan had come at the behest of the German Kaiser, Queen Victoria, or whoever was running France at the time, (or God forbid, the Belgians), but the Americans kicked open the door and then more or less stood aside; they did not take over or attempt to colonize, they pursued trade opportunities on the basis that Japan had products that America might want and America had ‘modern’ goods and technology that Japan would need to modernize.

My own understanding was that American influence and behind the scenes sponsorship was what prevented the European powers from colonizing Japan the way that they had India and China.

By the way, this has to be the first time I’ve ever seen an argument for a feudal system being preserved into the Industrial Age. One can only hope that you have more sympathy for Russian kulaks or sharecroppers in the old South than you do for the average Japanese peasant farmer or tradesman.
The Asia pie. Japan and the US were both competing for it, the diplomatic and economical measures taken before the end of 1941 were taken to damage the other side's efforts. Feel free to point out cultural connections between the US and China, but Western society action is driven by the question "how can I increase my profit" and not by "what is morally correct". To a slight degree this is correct, but the moral issue has usually been a factor with the American public over the course of our history, and public opinion (whether it is artificially or spontaneously shaped) is supposed to be what moves the politicians to act. You seem to assume that everyone everywhere is the same (except possibly for those in medieval cultures) and always have been. I won’t go into the assumption that dark forces (like big business, freemasons or the Trilateral Commission) drive the actions of every government of supposedly democratic nations.

I wouldn't want to live in your world, if that's what you believe.

As I said, Japan was still very much a feudal society attempting to be colonial power in an age where colonialism was falling into disrepute (and bear in mind that most Americans never held the practice in high regard). America was trying to sell products to a potential huge Chinese market (American businessman in 1939: “Okay, let’s see, there are half a billion Chinese and if we can get each of them to drink two Coca Colas a week at a nickel a bottle, that’s two point six million dollars a year!”), and Japan was trying to enslave that market, or at least big heavily populated chunks of it.

Dunno how you might look at it, but I consider that a HUGE moral difference.

On top of that, the Japanese were also a buyer of American goods, but there was little they had to offer us beyond cash—Japanese manufactured goods were considered pretty crude and shoddy at the time and their primary selling point was their cheapness.
Spitfire IX was a conversion of the Spitfire V, true. But what airframes were modified to create the 190 and the F4U? The 190D was literally made from modified 190As, and the F4U-4 Corsair was an up-engined and largely redesigned & refined model of the F4U-1D, just as the Spitfire Mk XIV was an up-engined and (somewhat less) refined version of the Spitfire Mk VIII. All of these aircraft offered significant improvements over the performance and capabilities of the original designs, not the least of which was greater speed and high altitude performance.

cheers

horseback

JtD
06-29-2011, 02:00 PM
horseback, you're taking my statements and adding a lot to it only to argue over the parts that you added.

It was you who was comparing delivery and in operational dates. So if you don't want to do that any more, we can agree on that the Ki-84 was half a generation behind.

US test from 1944:
"It is the opinion of the pilots, that the Fw 190 is not equal to the F6F in combat."
The opinion was based on the facts that the Fw 190 was better climbing, faster, better accelerating, better rolling, zooming equally but turning far worse. So yay, they had the bastages right were they wanted them. Only that front lines would not agree.

If you don't want to respond to my point where I recognize the Japanese for their ability to catch up with Western Nations, then I don't think we need to discuss this any further. I have no interest discussing the US foreign politics on this board. If you take offence in the fact that Perry did not go over and got the markets open by handing out candy, take it up with Perry. If you have a problem with gunboat diplomacy in general, take it up with the 19th century. If you want to tell me that one of the largest growing Western economies of the 19th century was the only one not militaristic and greedy, I'll also tell you a good joke. I've also no interest to discuss your assumption of my love for feudal systems, which frankly is idiotic.

Public opinion is largely influenced by the media, and the media goes wherever they see profit. You do live in my world, it simply appears that you don't want to accept how things work. But, again, this is not a debate for a WW2 flight sim discussion board.

Please stop making the mistake of taking statements of facts and perceptions from my side as statements of preferences, this is very annoying. Just because I see things in a specific way, it doesn't mean I like it.

I know WW2 aircraft fairly well, thank you for trying to tell me basics. My statement referred to the 190, not the 190D and the F4U, not the F4U-4. If I wanted to debate certain subversions, I would have specified them. Brems claims the new airframes were modifications. I know he's wrong. I would have preferred he'd come around to see that for himself, but since you insist on adding your parts to my statements, I've hereby made it clear.

Anyway, I'm still more interested in knowing about possible boost reductions in the early Sakae 31 engine than in all of the above things combined.

Kurfurst__
06-29-2011, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
My response was not an argument with your hyperbolic praise for the Japanese’ ability to retain their independence and modernize, but with your characterization of my ‘greedy and militaristic nation’ (in 1854? Seriously?) having destroyed their ‘medieval culture’.

That might have been true if the opening of Japan had come at the behest of the German Kaiser, Queen Victoria, or whoever was running France at the time, (or God forbid, the Belgians), but the Americans kicked open the door and then more or less stood aside; they did not take over or attempt to colonize, they pursued trade opportunities on the basis that Japan had products that America might want and America had ‘modern’ goods and technology that Japan would need to modernize.

My own understanding was that American influence and behind the scenes sponsorship was what prevented the European powers from colonizing Japan the way that they had India and China.

I must say that view is extremely naive. IMHO the US after the Civil War was very much like a Bismarck's Germany after the unification - an industrial giant without proper resources, as most have been taken/colonized by the British, French and the Spanish (and Russians). And just like Germany, the US wanted a piece of what was left of the pie, regardless how it was sold to the public.

Otherwise correct me if I have a slanted view on this, but how did the US had bases in Hawaii, the Philippines (nice trading there with the natives btw) or in Cuba...? A series of bloody conquests and wars, perhaps? My knowledge on US history are admittedly sketchy, but I am willing to place a bet these places were not originally part of the Thirteen Colonies. This pretty looks like me as colonisation, well, a perhaps more modern and ideologically more fashionable type that was characterizing the XIX century (aka "White Men's Burden" to bring shining light to these poor backward people), rather than the rather straightforward loot and pillage by Cortez and co., but still colonizing, and not "kicked open the door and then more or less stood aside." So how was the US different from the Brits, the Germans, the French - and the Japanese, also latecomers? To simplify things, the two world wars fought for no other reason than that the sharing of the loot was no longer representative of the actual power potential; the French were no longer the most powerful state in Europe, and Britain was no longer ruling the seas without rivals; Russia was no longer a poor semi-Asian country at everyone's mercy; the Ottoman Empire was no longer to superpower of the Muslim world; and the US was no longer just an rebelled ex-colony.

Japan was also very different than China or India. It was united, and the central political power was strong, unlike in India, where it was non-existant, or in China, where it was extremely weak and impotent. Japan was also quite practical in its thinking, despite being strongly traditional in its social ways. It did not hesitate to adopt Western technology (and not way of thinking or living!) and use it against the Nanban.

Bremspropeller
06-29-2011, 05:03 PM
Brems claims the new airframes were modifications.

I think he claims that a 1943 Fw 190A-5 is a modification of a 1941 Fw 190A-1, whereas a 1943 Ki-84 is a new airframe altogether.

He doesn't really see where that's hard to understand at all...


"It is the opinion of the pilots, that the Fw 190 is not equal to the F6F in combat."


Exactly - the 190 is the faster, more maneuverable and harder to see-and-hit aircraft.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JtD
06-29-2011, 10:54 PM
Well, thanks for that unconnected piece of trivia then. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bremspropeller
06-30-2011, 02:46 AM
Obviously you needed some clarification there - always glad to help...

So you're now getting the "half a generation behind"-part?

horseback
06-30-2011, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I must say that view is extremely naive. IMHO the US after the Civil War was very much like a Bismarck's Germany after the unification - an industrial giant without proper resources, as most have been taken/colonized by the British, French and the Spanish (and Russians). And just like Germany, the US wanted a piece of what was left of the pie, regardless how it was sold to the public. You are extremely naïve if you believe that the US had no ‘proper resources’ after the Civil War; the reality is that the United States had within its continental borders all the minerals and farmland necessary to run its economy and easily feed our own population; if we lacked anything in the mid 19th century, it was the population to exploit those resources…In the 1960s, my British playmates were taught in school (and then told me) that the United States could support its key industries without importing raw materials (if necessary). Of course, many materials can be obtained overseas more cheaply now, but we still have a similar capacity today.

We have millions and millions of square miles of land in government reserve containing untapped resources of almost every kind of mineral, natural gas and yes, oil, and much of that land is covered with forests that have not been harvested for lumber in close to a century. We have never really lacked for ‘resources’ beyond those which we deny ourselves.

Otherwise correct me if I have a slanted view on this, but how did the US had bases in Hawaii, the Philippines (nice trading there with the natives btw) or in Cuba...? A series of bloody conquests and wars, perhaps? My knowledge on US history are admittedly sketchy, but I am willing to place a bet these places were not originally part of the Thirteen Colonies. ‘Slanted’ and ‘sketchy’ are exactly the right words. The United States more or less assumed British claims on the southern portion of North America, bought the Missouri/Mississippi rivers’ drainage areas from Napoleon, Florida from Spain about the same time and acquired Texas, New Mexico and California from Mexico after a short war that could easily have led to us taking possession of the whole enchilada had we been so inclined (and I would argue that the Mexican people would be vastly better off today had we done so)—instead, the US paid Mexico in gold for the non Texas portion of the territory, and then came back a few years later and bought some more territory that now comprises the southern borders of Arizona & New Mexico. Alaska was purchased from Russia. There were no organized large tribes of natives who could be described as undisputed ‘owners’ of much of any of this territory—most were small tribes of literally Stone Age hunter gatherers who wandered, intermingled alternated trading with and waging war against each other and later with white settlers over the same pieces of land.

Hawaii was obtained in the 1890s by admittedly less than admirable means (by the way, having spent three years in Hawaii, I consider having it worth my pangs of conscience) and the Philippines were acquired through the war with Spain, after which we let Cuba govern itself (mostly badly). In fact, Cuban independence was one of the USA's stated aims in that war, and part of how it was sold to the US public.

Since the Spanish had been less than good stewards in educating and preparing the people of the Philippines for independence, the United States did retain possession, and the scheduled independence of those islands was delayed by the Japanese invasion of 1941-2. It is easy to imagine that had the US released the Philippines the way they had Cuba that Japan, Russia, Britain or some other imperialist power would have snatched them up and treated them much worse.
This pretty looks like me as colonisation, well, a perhaps more modern and ideologically more fashionable type that was characterizing the XIX century (aka "White Men's Burden" to bring shining light to these poor backward people), rather than the rather straightforward loot and pillage by Cortez and co., but still colonizing, and not "kicked open the door and then more or less stood aside." So how was the US different from the Brits, the Germans, the French - and the Japanese, also latecomers? To simplify things, the two world wars fought for no other reason than that the sharing of the loot was no longer representative of the actual power potential; the French were no longer the most powerful state in Europe, and Britain was no longer ruling the seas without rivals; Russia was no longer a poor semi-Asian country at everyone's mercy; the Ottoman Empire was no longer to superpower of the Muslim world; and the US was no longer just an rebelled ex-colony.
I think that there is a big difference between colonization, where you enter, take control of a country’s resources and government and then drain its wealth and treat its people like (at best) servants or draft animals, and trade, however unequal, where goods are exchanged to the mutual satisfaction (or dis-satisfaction) of both parties, and the ultimate goal is for both parties to get something they need or want.

What you skipped over is that over the bulk of the 19th century (and a good sized chunk of the 20th), the United States was the closest thing in the world to a fully functioning democracy, and had a few major differences from the European nations, the greatest of which was not being ruled by a hereditary parasite class that styled itself as a ‘noble’ elite. This leads to a whole different set of mores and national goals, which apparently remain beyond the imagination of the average European, however well educated.


Japan was also very different than China or India. It was united, and the central political power was strong, unlike in India, where it was non-existant, or in China, where it was extremely weak and impotent. Japan was also quite practical in its thinking, despite being strongly traditional in its social ways. It did not hesitate to adopt Western technology (and not way of thinking or living!) and use it against the Nanban. Many individual principalities in India were much larger and stronger than the British who ultimately conquered them piecemeal by finding factions and rivalries to take advantage of and weaken the stronger native authorities and governors over the course of the 18th and early 19th centuries. I am not convinced that they or some other European power could not have undermined Japan’s system in a similar fashion if they so desired if there were no check on their actions other than Japan's national cohesion, which I agree was a strong influence.

cheers

horseback

joeap
07-01-2011, 03:41 AM
Putting aside the interesting technological discussion for a moment, and regarding the question of how the clash came about between and Japan and the US (and other Western powers) in 1941.

While I think there is some truth to the argument that the main issue for the US-moral outrage at Japanese behaviour in China aside-was an issue of economic interest I think you are all ingoring the specific global context of the time. There was a war going on in Europe at the time, a war which had partly come about because no one had done anything when Japan annexed Manchuria and then invaded China in the 30s. Japan was allied with Nazi Germany which seemed in 1940-41 to be winning and this encouraged them to put pressure on the Dutch and Vichy French-the actual ambargo was put in place in August 1941-soon after Barbarossa remember-in response to this.

I think the clash was far less likely to come had it not been for the war in Europe. I think the reason(s) FDR pushed for tough action were, to maybe keep a Japanese threat to American interests at bay while he concentrated on events in Europe, or getting the US into the war in Europe indirectly - for which he was very lucky Hitler declared war on the US (he didn't have to as the Tripartite Pact with Japan only obliged assistance in case of a direct attack on oen of the Axis partners-not if they initiated hostilities).

I am certain the US felt over the medium to long term a victorious Germany in Europe would threaten the US both whether one agrees or not, while Japan would never have been seen as a direct threat except briefly after Pearl Harbor and the hysteria on the West Coast of North America. My point is that the war in Europe was also entered (by the UK, France, possibly the USSR) for raisons d'etat NOT moral reasons just as much as the Asian/Pacific war in spite of the nastiness of the Axis regimes.

Wildnoob
07-01-2011, 07:19 AM
I have good reasons to belive that Japan would have attacked the USSR in the rear if they have not suffered the oil embargo. Even if the diplomacy managed to lift it before it happened, perhaps. Despite everything being said today about Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese never abandoned their intentions of war with the Soviets. And if one look the conditions the Kwantung Army operated there, gonna see it was of several disadvantages, in constrast with Zhukov's forces. Matsuoka's arguments were very convincing, the problem was the oil embargo. This was confirmed by his secretary in The World at War Banzai episodie.

horseback
07-01-2011, 11:33 AM
Actually, a war with Japan was recognized as probable as early as the 1920s by both the British and US governments; Japan was openly expansionist, opportunist and aggressive as soon as it considered itself militarily capable of competing with European and US military assets in the Far East (hence the war with Russia in the early 1900s), and it was obvious to westerners familiar with Far East affairs that the Empire would not stop expanding or trying to do so until it got its nose thoroughly bloodied. Most US military professionals (and a lot of diplomats) took it for granted that the US and Japan would come to blows no later than 1945 in any case, and their correspondence in the twenties and thirties seems to reflect this, while Germany was a distant second in their list of concerns until the late 1930s.

Japan, as a rising naval power in the Pacific (which we have tended to consider an American lake since not long after the acquisition of California), was a much greater threat to the United States than Germany, which was not even a naval power on the North Sea, effectively providing America with a rather large moat in the form of the Atlantic Ocean. Considering that there was no aircraft able to fly across the Atlantic from Europe and return without landing and refueling until well after 1941 (and we built it), Germany was not considered able to project its military power in any meaningful way against the US by the average citizen.

For the average Joe, and therefore his elected representatives, the war in Europe was Europe’s problem, a squabble between kings and dictators three thousand miles away, while Japan’s navy, with its battleships and carriers, could attack our bases and friends in the Philippines and Hawaii, or even our cities on the west coast of the continent right then.

FDR was able to embargo Japan because public sentiment allowed him to; Congress was coming around from its isolationist stance, but having public support for a major diplomatic break was a critical factor. There was still a lot of debate over the wisdom of getting involved in the war in Europe, and without the spin supplied by the horrific behavior of the Japanese in China, the embargo (and its cost in American jobs & business, particularly on the then Republican west coast) would have been a real hot button issue in the ‘off year’ elections of 1942.

The Japanese military also considered war with the United States inevitable, and since no Japanese Cabinet could be formed without the approval of the both the Army and Navy, their opinion is critical to any discussion of the roots of the Pacific war. There was a lot of discussion about a ‘Northern Strategy’ versus a ‘Southern Strategy’, but the math comes down to this:

The Soviet Union was a land power and while Japan lusted after the resources of Siberia, the Soviets had demonstrated an ability to check Japanese probes into the Soviet controlled territories. The western powers which controlled the (more developed and proven) southern resources were distracted and weakened by war in the west, and they had much longer & more precarious supply lines to reach their bases there. The Soviets’ willingness to sell out their western allies by means of a mutual non-aggression pact with Japan was the icing on the cake.

cheers

horseback

JtD
07-01-2011, 01:17 PM
While the US were still licking their peacetime balls, the USSR was fighting at the capital for the survival of their country and people. Calling a political and military necessity a "sell out" is highly offensive to anyone in that country. So here's the middle finger from me to you.

And you didn't built a plane that could cross the Atlantic back and forth, this were other people and I'm certain they wouldn't be happy with you trying to take credit for their hard work.

Messaschnitzel
07-01-2011, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
While the US were still licking their peacetime balls, the USSR was fighting at the capital for the survival of their country and people. Calling a political and military necessity a "sell out" is highly offensive to anyone in that country. So here's the middle finger from me to you.

Come on JtD, give some credit where it's due! Those annoying and industrious Americans can multitask like you wouldn't believe when they want to. They can lick they peacetime balls in synchronization with spanking the junk with one hand, and at the same time make and give free military equipment and supplies away to the USSR with the other hand. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JtD
07-01-2011, 04:07 PM
Not until after they went to war.

What about stating the US sold out their Allies by not going to war with Germany in 1939? Doesn't make sense either, does it?

horseback
07-01-2011, 06:30 PM
What about stating the US sold out their Allies by not going to war with Germany in 1939? Doesn't make sense either, does it? <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Commonwealth and the Soviet Union WERE NOT our Allies before December 7th 1941.</span> A president cannot declare war or make alliances with the permission of Congress, and FDR would never have gotten that permission without an attack on US bases and interests by the Axis. Democracies can be that way.

However, Britain and the Soviet Union were Allies against the Axis in Europe, and British and Commonwealth bases ansd possessions were attacked along with the United States'.

History did not begin with your birth, and the United States was not always a World Power; after WWI, the US de-mobilized and went back across the Atlantic and returned to doing what people do in peaceful countries. Britain and France were the Great Powers in Europe, and they were welcome to it.

Try to remember that Hitler was over 5,000km away, with a navy that could barely exert control off his own coasts, even if it could generate a minor annoyance or two on blue waters and that up until probably 1938, Uncle Adolph was almost as kissyface with FDR as he was with Stalin.

NOT a threat, certainly not even like Imperial Japan (which had a real blue water navy) in the minds of the average citizen in 1938, and certainly not worth the diversion of scarce economic resources and tax dollars until late 1940 or '41. The average guy did NOT want to have to fight in Europe or help preserve the British Empire, even if he did think that Churchill was a good guy, and the king seemed okay.

Distance. Hitler was not on our borders, he had not indicated that he had territorial ambitions in the Western Hemisphere, he had a cr@p navy and an air force that was built to extend his reach no more than 500km. Yeah, he had a nifty army that was kind of large for his population base, but how could they get to America?

Until he walked over France's army, he was just another clown who liked to wear military uniforms and make long blustery speeches, not unlike two thirds of the heads of state in South America at the time.

As for the Soviet Union selling out with their no-aggression pact with Japan, I remind you that Stalin also turned around and sold out the Japanese when he decided that it would be nice to get a seat at the table when the Pacific War was decided. The Japanese peace factions were trying to get the Soviet Union to act as a conduit between themselves and the Allied Powers, but their messages were not passed on while Uncle Joe moved men and materials east to the Manchurian border.

cheers

horseback

Messaschnitzel
07-01-2011, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Not until after they went to war.

What about stating the US sold out their Allies by not going to war with Germany in 1939? Doesn't make sense either, does it?

In regards to your first statement: who are you referring to, the Soviets or the Americans?

As far as I'm aware of the U.S. didn't have any official pacts with any of its future allies in 1939, so 'selling out' doesn't really apply because there were no obligations to fulfill. IMO it does make sense to not go to war when the opinion of some folks in the U.S. in 1939 was to not get involved in what was considered to be someone else's fight in Europe at the time. In retrospect however, the folks of today can always second guess historical events from a safe and comfortable point of view after they happened and apply their own judgement or condemnation to those involved way back when in history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

EDIT: horseback beat me to it, and wrote it more betterer to boot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

horseback
07-01-2011, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
And you didn't built a plane that could cross the Atlantic back and forth, this were other people and I'm certain they wouldn't be happy with you trying to take credit for their hard work. Look up Boeing B-15 and the Boeing B-29, and check out the dates of their first flights and the payloads they carried.

Shortly after WWII, Convair developed and built the B-36less than 15 miles from where I am sitting right now. That aircraft could carry a 84,000lb (38,140 kg) bomb load quite bit farther than across the Atlantic and back.

AFAIK, nothing else built in that era could carry a useful bombload as far. And how do you know that I haven't worked for Boeing at some point in my 57 years?

cheers

horseback

JtD
07-01-2011, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:

In regards to your first statement: who are you referring to, the Soviets or the Americans?

Both, I guess.


As far as I'm aware of the U.S. didn't have any official pacts with any of its future allies in 1939, so 'selling out' doesn't really apply because there were no obligations to fulfill.

Same with the USSR in April 1941. Last time I checked, the UK supported Finland and not the USSR when they had a choice.

Bremspropeller
07-02-2011, 05:00 AM
Statements like this are why I have trouble accepting that you know as much as you claim to.

The Russians, even now concentrate hard on making their designs manouverable at low speeds.

What is vertical plane *only* thrust vectoring for if not low speed turning? At high speeds fighter pilots can easily pull enough G to black themselves out without thrust vectoring. What was the point in spending all that money?

Even more convincing, the plane needs to be manouverable at low speeds for landing, otherwise it is inherently dangerous to land.


I say your statement 'nobody had the design goal of low speed manouverability' is inherently flawed.

Thanks for replacing the original document with your (wrong) opinion - it really helps this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

T/V is for three things:
- helping heavy aircraft in the low-speed-regime retain an acceptable pitch-rate
- increasing pitch-rate at low speeds for squeezing off a missile
- better runway-performance (shorter runways at the same gross-weight)

It is NOT for turning.
I'm not gonna go any deeper because I have the feeling this is too much "science over feelings" for your taste anyway.

Messaschnitzel
07-02-2011, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
As far as I'm aware of the U.S. didn't have any official pacts with any of its future allies in 1939, so 'selling out' doesn't really apply because there were no obligations to fulfill.

Same with the USSR in April 1941. Last time I checked, the UK supported Finland and not the USSR when they had a choice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could be that the British were taking Stalin's domestic track record during the twenties and thirties into consideration, as well as the attack against Finland in 1939? In view of that, I don't blame the British for not supporting the USSR at that time.

I get the impression that you think that the British should've supported the Soviets in spite of the Winter War and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Remember that as far as p*****cs is concerned, expediency is sometimes considered more important than what's right and wrong, especially when these uncertain (and later historical) events are happening or will will happen in the future. IOW, sovereign countries have always and will always be trying to figure out what their 'neighbors' are up to, even if they are erstwhile friendly nations at the time.

As an example of how uncertain and strange things can be, who would have thought during the mid-war period that the allies would ever have a disagreement and resulting friction that led up to the event known as the Berlin Airlift in 1948-49?

JtD
07-02-2011, 12:17 PM
You're getting a wrong impression. I'm saying that the USSR did not "sell out" its Allies by signing a non aggression pact. That's where I'm coming from, and I'm not going anywhere else...unless someone is willing to state something even remotely related to A6M top speeds.

horseback
07-02-2011, 02:02 PM
First, let me point out that the Soviet Union and Russia cannot be blamed for things decided by one man (Stalin). The former USSR and its people aren't responsible for their country's national policies or sometimes less than ethical war conduct in the same way democracies, supposedly run by leaders selected by the general public should be.

However, right up until the morning that Barbarossa was put into action, Stalin was considered a semi-active member of Hitler's partners by the whole world, which undoubtedly had some influence upon Japan agreeing to the pact in the first place.

That afternoon, the Soviet Union was Britain and the Commonwealth's ally, and the Brits were looking for ways to assist and support the Soviet war effort. The US too was sending Lend Lease and other assistance as soon as it was possible; one example is that Hubert Zemke, who became one of the great 8th AF fighter leaders, was already in Murmansk assisting Soviet pilots to convert onto the P-40B/C when he got word of the attack at Pearl Harbor, less than five months after Hitler attacked the USSR.

Considering the distances and dangers involved, I would infer that his presence at that time indicates an almost immediate decision by the United States to support the Soviet Union against Germany.

While the Soviet non-aggression pact with Japan was signed two months before Barbarossa, when one considers the diplomatic track record of the Stalinist regime, the decision not to renounce the neutrality pact once the Japanese attacked the Allies in the Pacific must certainly have felt like a sellout.

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
07-04-2011, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nobody had the design goal of low speed maneuverability.



Statements like this are why I have trouble accepting that you know as much as you claim to.

The Russians, even now concentrate hard on making their designs manouverable at low speeds.

What is vertical plane *only* thrust vectoring for if not low speed turning? At high speeds fighter pilots can easily pull enough G to black themselves out without thrust vectoring. What was the point in spending all that money?

Even more convincing, the plane needs to be manouverable at low speeds for landing, otherwise it is inherently dangerous to land.


I say your statement 'nobody had the design goal of low speed manouverability' is inherently flawed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Xiolablu3, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a moronic thing to do and abuse of your position as a moderator.

I hope you lose it.

You should have simply replied and offered your opinion.

My post was a direct quote from the AIAA library from a conference on fighter aircraft design. The topic was a chronology of fighter design.

That means a history of design goals...

You can join the AIAA and read it for yourself. It is on their online library.

http://www.aiaa.org/

Of course you have to be enrolled or hold a degree from an accredited aeronautical sciences curriculum.

I think that rules you out, Xio.


Who’s Eligible?
Full Membership in AIAA is open to anyone with a degree in science or engineering or equivalent qualifications earned through professional practice.

Bremspropeller
07-06-2011, 03:50 AM
KH, you have a PM http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

BillSwagger
07-06-2011, 10:51 AM
does anyone know if the military ever used tactics similar to dropping leaflets, where they would try to convince the front line army or others that their government had surrendered, when in fact they hadn't, so that they would stop fighting?


BTW, the late A6M was never faster than 340mph.


Bill

JtD
07-06-2011, 11:30 AM
How so? Even in US tests it got up to 340 mph. What makes you sure the Japanese never attained the official specifications?

Wildnoob
07-06-2011, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
the Soviets had demonstrated an ability to check Japanese probes into the Soviet controlled territories.

Those border conflicts were never authorized by the IGHQ. Most people made a mistake thinking they were. If the Soviets had managed to stop an organized Japanese attack, then I would surely agreed with what is usually claimed about them. Even because the Kwantung Army was in less than ideal conditions in Nomonhan. Now take a look at the "incident" of Lake Khasan, were the 19th division of the IJA (not part of the Kwantung Army) engaged the Soviets without using air power and armored forces, while they used, and still managed to inflict heavy casualities on them and was only defeated by the constant Soviet reinforcements that formed a massive numerical superiority.

I don't like from an exaggeratedly rational thinking, like the Japanese planes and the whole Army were just mounts of trash, and respectively only superior tactics and technology would easily defeat them. The tactical and strategical factors are just as important.


The sample of the first chapter of this book telling about a Japanese sucess in a hipotetic Second Russo-Japanese war is a good example: http://books.google.com/books?...#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=o7_e_yWkq9kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rising+sun+victorius&hl=pt-BR&ei=E7cUTof1K-jJsQK9r9TUDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

The Japanese were well aware that the Soviets could only be smahed in a combined massive offensive of all their forces. And the Army very probably would have launched a war against them if the Empire was not defeated. The Militarists could not live with the Soviets and their conquests in Asia (mainly the expected puppet China) and the Pacific as well as the Nazis and Commies in Europe.

megalopsuche
07-07-2011, 08:47 AM
All of this from an OP that doesn't mention the altitude at which the airspeed was attained, nor whether it was IAS or TAS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
07-09-2011, 04:53 PM
Sukhoi designers sought excellent low speed manouverability when they designed the Su27.

The Su27 excells at close in dogfighting, with short turning radius and excellent aileron control at very low speeds.

I disagree with the statement 'noone seeks low speed manouverabilty'. Sukhoi clearly sought to apply excellent low speed characteristics into their design. It wasnt an 'accident' IMHO.


Thats all.

Bremspropeller
07-10-2011, 05:04 AM
Su-27s are long-range interceptors with an internal fuel-capacity of about 9 tons. Su-27s do not carry external-fuel-tanks and thus, those 9 tons can not be thrown overboard like on western designs - should the situation require that (taking evasive action from a SAM for example).
Su-27s are, just like MiG-29s, optimized for GCI-operations (both aircraft can actually be remote-flown by the GCI-station).

Dodfighting at low speeds was one of the lesser concerns during the aircraft's design-phase.
It was to take-off, find the enemy under GCI-control and shoot it down. Pretty much a fundamentalist approach according to Richthofen.

The Su-27 is not any more maneuverable than the F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 - and it's relative performance is very much down to it's internal fuel-load.

The crash at Lvov was a direct result of excessive internal fuel-load and not taking that into account during the display. So much for "low-speed maneuverability"...

Kettenhunde
07-10-2011, 11:24 AM
I disagree with the statement 'noone seeks low speed manouverabilty'.

You don't seem to understand that design goals change with technology.

In the late 1920's, technology allowed bombers to reach or exceed the speed of most fighters.

Technology had changed from open cockpit, tube and fabric biplanes to complex, closed cockpit, monoplanes and stressed skin monocoque construction.

These changes touched off the race for speed that would dominate fighter aircraft design for the next 25 years.

In the mid-1960's, another revolution in technology saw the development of the air to air missile.

Today, agility is on the forefront as most fighters can attain speeds Mach 2(+).

Nobody dogfights at supersonic speeds....


Air superiority is the primary mission of any modern air force. For this reason, Air-Air Missile (AAM) technology is a critical driving factor which in many instances can determine the outcome of an air battle. The nineties are seeing yet another paradigm in AAMs, with the operational deployment of what are termed agile or fourth generation Within Visual Range (WVR) or dogfight AAMs. These missiles will, much like previous generational steps in AAM design, force another rewrite of tactical air superiority doctrine and fighter weapon system design.


This however was only one side of the equation, as the Russians also evolved the Su-27 to achieve what is termed today "super-manoeuvrability", which is the ability to maintain controlled flight at extreme angles of attack. This gave the late model Flanker a better ability to survive an attack from an established third generation AAM, by aggressively manoeuvring the aircraft to force the inbound AAM's seeker to break lock. The thrust vectoring Su-30MKI, 40 of which were recently purchased by India (see AA 1/97), further extends the superlative agility of the basic aircraft.

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Gen-4-AAM-97.html

So you are taking design criteria for a different generation and technological time period attempting to apply it to the 1930's and 1940's fighter design.

After that last stunt and abuse of your moderator status, I will ignore you from now on.

RegRag1977
07-11-2011, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I disagree with the statement 'noone seeks low speed manouverabilty'.

You don't seem to understand that design goals change with technology.

In the late 1920's, technology allowed bombers to reach or exceed the speed of most fighters.

Technology had changed from open cockpit, tube and fabric biplanes to complex, closed cockpit, monoplanes and stressed skin monocoque construction.

These changes touched off the race for speed that would dominate fighter aircraft design for the next 25 years.

In the mid-1960's, another revolution in technology saw the development of the air to air missile.

Today, agility is on the forefront as most fighters can attain speeds Mach 2(+).

Nobody dogfights at supersonic speeds....


Air superiority is the primary mission of any modern air force. For this reason, Air-Air Missile (AAM) technology is a critical driving factor which in many instances can determine the outcome of an air battle. The nineties are seeing yet another paradigm in AAMs, with the operational deployment of what are termed agile or fourth generation Within Visual Range (WVR) or dogfight AAMs. These missiles will, much like previous generational steps in AAM design, force another rewrite of tactical air superiority doctrine and fighter weapon system design.


This however was only one side of the equation, as the Russians also evolved the Su-27 to achieve what is termed today "super-manoeuvrability", which is the ability to maintain controlled flight at extreme angles of attack. This gave the late model Flanker a better ability to survive an attack from an established third generation AAM, by aggressively manoeuvring the aircraft to force the inbound AAM's seeker to break lock. The thrust vectoring Su-30MKI, 40 of which were recently purchased by India (see AA 1/97), further extends the superlative agility of the basic aircraft.

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Gen-4-AAM-97.html

So you are taking design criteria for a different generation and technological time period attempting to apply it to the 1930's and 1940's fighter design.

After that last stunt and abuse of your moderator status, I will ignore you from now on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

Very interesting, if i understand, in fact, in the offensive phase of modern combat, it is the missile that needs to be agile (sustain turns) at all speeds, and to have a good situational awareness (tracking device), no longer only the fighter pilot or the fighter aircraft?

Turning is today still usefull (as last ditch maneuver to escape a missile)or to "radar lock" a target with a high speed instant turn?. But turning will become even less efficient with the next generation of missiles...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Wow, i wonder what will then be the option for those not having the best missile? I wonder what technology will bring...

The funny part of the article is when the author says that it is the missile type that is credited for the kills not the aircraft...

My question now: Is it ok to say that modern fighter aircraft tend more and more to become a sort of mothership, while the missile tends to become more and more the fighter element of a "two ship fleet"?

Kettenhunde
07-11-2011, 12:03 PM
In this sense, the United States Air Force has made it known that, when the next generation of fighter planes makes their debut, they want them to be able to be piloted remotely.

http://www.slashgear.com/the-a...ter-planes-08112911/ (http://www.slashgear.com/the-air-force-is-aiming-for-pilot-less-next-generation-fighter-planes-08112911/)

http://walesairnetwork.wordpre...d-with-a-welsh-name/ (http://walesairnetwork.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/the-uks-new-pilotless-fighter-aircraft-is-unveiled-with-a-welsh-name/)


If the Unmanned Air Vehicle capabilities become a reality for future air combat fighter planes, pilots may be a thing of the past. This is good as you put humans out of harm’s way. And the plane could execute more complex maneuvers without extreme, life-threatening G forces knocking out the pilots.

http://seventoten.com/2010/11/...less-fighter-planes/ (http://seventoten.com/2010/11/07/new-technology-pilotless-fighter-planes/)

The pilot's physiology is the major obstacle to maneuvering an aircraft. That being said it will be a long time before his ability to problem solve can be replaced.

For example, a few WWII aircraft could sustain a 4 G turn. It took them ~15-16 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn at that load factor.

According to the USAF flight surgeons research data, the average fighter pilot would be GLOC'd in ~10 seconds at a GOR of 4G's.

Almost 100% would have baroceptor issues which result in a tracking error as large as 85% although the pilot would generally report he feels just fine. In other-words most couldn't effectively track a target after such an exposure to acceleration in the z axis. Z-axis is thru your head and out your seat, parallel to your spine.

You guys would probably get more out of your airplane performance discussion's if you considered what the pilot is physically capable of handling. Within the physiological limits of the average fighter pilot, WWII airplanes have very similar maneuvering envelopes.

RegRag1977
07-12-2011, 02:44 AM
Thanks for all the links and quotes Kettenhunde, these perspectives are truly fascinating!


You guys would probably get more out of your airplane performance discussion's if you considered what the pilot is physically capable of handling. Within the physiological limits of the average fighter pilot, WWII airplanes have very similar maneuvering envelopes.


Almost 100% would have baroceptor issues which result in a tracking error as large as 85% although the pilot would generally report he feels just fine. In other-words most couldn't effectively track a target after such an exposure to acceleration in the z axis. Z-axis is thru your head and out your seat, parallel to your spine.

Indeed. I think that many sim pilots are not really aware of this. In fact, the crucial realism point to be developped in air combat sims is, as you say, definitely the human body limits.

PS BTW what does GLOC and GOR exactly stand for?

Kettenhunde
07-12-2011, 06:07 AM
You are welcome.

GLOC = Gravity-induced Loss of Consciousness

GOR = Gradual Onset Rate, the acceleration is applied at a rate of .1G - 5.9G per second.

Rapid Onset Rate = 6G+ per second


In fact, the crucial realism point to be developped in air combat sims is, as you say, definitely the human body limits.

I agree. Everyone is different. That being said the threshold for average is around 4 G's for ~10 seconds in the GOR range. It seems we can withstand very large accelerations at a ROR for short periods of time but not so much at a GOR. Exposure for more than a few seconds to ROR is an almost guaranteed nap time.

3G's GOR will still give you some baroceptor issues but rarely causes loss of consciousness.

RegRag1977
07-13-2011, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You are welcome.

GLOC = Gravity-induced Loss of Consciousness

GOR = Gradual Onset Rate, the acceleration is applied at a rate of .1G - 5.9G per second.

Rapid Onset Rate = 6G+ per second

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In fact, the crucial realism point to be developped in air combat sims is, as you say, definitely the human body limits.

I agree. Everyone is different. That being said the threshold for average is around 4 G's for ~10 seconds in the GOR range. It seems we can withstand very large accelerations at a ROR for short periods of time but not so much at a GOR. Exposure for more than a few seconds to ROR is an almost guaranteed nap time.

3G's GOR will still give you some baroceptor issues but rarely causes loss of consciousness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks again for all the precisions, much appreciated!

Kettenhunde
07-13-2011, 11:54 AM
You are welcome RegRag1977.

Here is an interesting article that discusses Col. Strapps experiments into the threshold of human acceleration tolerances.

http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/voshell/gforce.pdf

He found that ~4G's was the threshold for GOR and an incredible 35G's for ROR.

In WWII designers considered 18G's to be the threshold for ROR and designed all cockpit safety devices accordingly. Harnesses and restraint's would only tolerate 18G's. As such, many crashes which were survivable for the human body were not because the safety equipment failed.

If you look at the chart included in the report for GOR onset rates, anything above 3G's for more than 10 seconds runs a real risk of negative physiological effects.

The same chart has since been updated by other studies which investigated the ability of a pilot to track a target. Those baroceptor issues are not included on the chart in this report.

Wildnoob
07-13-2011, 04:40 PM
Throwing more wood on the fire for the Japanese turninfight vision: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdJyLx4aqI

Kettenhunde
07-13-2011, 06:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Njiw&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vO9NKJNjiw&feature=related)

Bremspropeller
07-14-2011, 09:31 AM
Pilot-accounts: The secondmost useless things after un-sliced bread...

Apart from the issue that pronouncing "Messerschmitt" correctly seems to be impossible on youtube.
Oh, and translting stuff: like the radiator-flaps of the 109, mis-attributed to the 190 in this video.

Wildnoob
07-14-2011, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Pilot-accounts: The secondmost useless things after un-sliced bread...

In the Japanese case at least, pilot accounts can surely be said as the reason for the planes being conceived in te way the were. In the competion that resulted in the Ki-27 being choosen, there was a very advanced type which I don't remember the name, French influence if I'm not wrong, French engine, a 20mm Suiza cannon firing thought the prop hub, retractable gear and other inovative features in a Japanese fighter. It loose in part because foreign technology, which the militarists didn't liked, and from other part because the Ki-27 was more agile and less complex (by this time I guess probably the first mattered more than the last option).

Anyway, I just posted the video to see if it can cause some usefull discussion, because I don't like much of extremist criticism towards one view because frequentely there's another, even if the majority doesn't have it.

Now about the Japanese technology, in my view they were really good, and were already solving, or at least capable of solve their problems. Even because they were mainly caused by wrong tactical and constructional philosophies. Even before the war started, the Japanese already changed their mind over several things in all their Armed Forces, even if some of the new designs only saw combat much late, in few or even none number. They were really rapid in developing and implementing new technology. A mark we know that still can be see very well until today.