Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The P-47 was designed as a Fighter Bomber.

Actually it was designed as a high altitude interceptor..., and above 27500 feet it could pretty much hold it's own against any other fighter on either side in maneuverability.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The real difference between Japanese and Allied aircraft development, IMO, is in the engines. Allied engines progressed rapidly in HP, and Japanese engine designs didn't. Better engines = faster, more guns, more armor on the airframe

+1

Totally and completely agree. And it wasn't exactly the engine, it was the induction system. IJ struggled to get multi-stage (as opposed to multi-speed) super chargers and twin-chargers into production. The multi-stage charger is what delayed the Homare Ha-45 for 2 years ... 2 critical years of the war (42 - 44).

As QB states that lack meant far less HP/kg especially at altitude, and as he states all of the crucial performance metrics.

PS: their engine designs (cylinder, HP/bulk m3, etc. were actually quite good. They had taken the Wasp design (and others) and advanced them quite nicely. At least as well as the allies did, arguably maybe a bit better. The Homare was a very good design*. Very compact with high HP output potential finally realized in '44, about 2 years behind the allies ...

*The allies never recovered enough Homare's to thoroughly test, or if they did I haven't tripped across the reports. The design was very compact. We will never know how good because compact high HP radial engine development essentially stopped at the wars end in favor of jets. Otherwise, we would be able to see if any of the Homare design engineering had been utilized in post war designs. That never happened, so we will never know.

My questions would revolve around its cyclinder useful life-cycle. Did it have a very high cylinder replacement rate? We know it did anecdotally from IJ war notes that they did replace a lot of cylinders on the Homare, but I can't tell if it was combat damage or simply overheat wear as to the cause. Again, I doubt we will ever know much more than the testing performed on the Frank post-war which gave it rave reviews ... in large part due to that Homare engine.

Anyway, just my Saturday morning ramblings here with a large mug of latte ... [;)]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The P-47 was designed as a Fighter Bomber.

Actually it was designed as a high altitude interceptor..., and above 27500 feet it could pretty much hold it's own against any other fighter on either side in maneuverability.

+1

I agree with MS1. Later, after they found out how 'tough' the airframe was, they developed a FB version.

[mdiehl]

the concept of the large radial engine, with the smallest possible fuselage and tiny wing area (15m2? )
was far ahead of its time

Four words: Pratt Whitney Double Wasp.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The P-47 was designed as a Fighter Bomber.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Actually it was designed as a high altitude interceptor..., and above 27500 feet it could pretty much hold it's own against any other fighter on either side in maneuverability.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
+1

I agree with MS1. Later, after they found out how 'tough' the airframe was, they developed a FB version.

When the 9th AF was formed, it's primary role was to support the ground advance in Europe. The USAAF initially followed British practice and assigned the first P-51s to the 9th. Someone realized that the P-51 was better suited to the 8th AF's role and the P-47 to the 9ths so the two AFs came to an agreement that all future P-51s would go to the 8th and the cast off P-47s would go to the 9th as 8th AF units converted.

The P-47D already had hard points in the center of the fuselage and on the wings for drop tanks. For the FB role, they just put bombs on those racks instead of fuel tanks. Later they added rocket rails, but that wasn't part of the load out of the first FBs.

As far as I know, there were no modifications to the P-47s made to convert them to the FB role unless they added some radio equipment for ground communication.

Bill

[Commander Stormwolf]

Four words: Pratt Whitney Double Wasp.

needed a Tojo with the PWDW

or Ha-32-21 until the Ha-43 was developed


Tojo was a briilliant design, let down by the poor engines and fuel the japanese had at their disposal

the only way to compensate was to maximize the config, like the soviets did with the La-5

[mdiehl]

They didn't need the Tojo. They had the F4U-4. Top speed in the mid-400s. More maneuverable and faster climb rate than ANY Japanese plane, even the Zero, by a wide margin. Ceiling above 40K.

[Commander Stormwolf]

Allied planes in general were fast, but had a poor turn rate

only exception is the Spitfire probably, it had both speed and low wing loading,
the result of good materials and a well thought out design

also it carried very little fuel to keep its weight down

a mustang in an interceptor config would also be scary

[mdiehl]

Turn rate only matters if the competing aircraft have roughly comparable top speeds. The speed difference between a 400+ mph plane and a 350 mph plane was a huge advantage to the pilot of the faster plane. That is why well trained US pilots with little combat experience racked up huge kill ratios at the expense of highly experienced Japanese pilots flying slower but slightly more maneuverable planes.

Moreover, several Japanese planes lost even their turn rate edge at higher speeds. A Zero could out turn a lowly F4F wildcat at 260 mph. Above 270 the wildcat started to get the edge. Above 310 and the wildcat turned faster because the Zero's ability to roll started to be impaired. In dives, the Zero's controls were notorious for approaching lock-up. A Zero couldn't follow a Wildcat in a turning dive even at 340 mph because the Wildcat could turn away from the Zero completely.

Eric Shilling wrote that the best way to beat Oscars with the P-40 was to ramp up to high speed and out turn them. He was convinced that at high speed the P40 was much more maneuverable. And there are numerous accounts of F4Fs at high speed turning inside Zeroes around Guadalcanal and shooting them down (notably in Lundstrom's second "First Team" book).

[Commander Stormwolf]

compare the A6M5 and the F6F

what if you give the A6M5 the same durability as the F6F?
the same firepower?

a 350 mph plane with 120 kg/m2 , would do well against the 380 mph plane with 180 kg/m2

need to understand the equations of what is happening


bad pilots was a big reason why the A6M started to lose in 1943

it had bad firepower and bad durability, that's what usn pilots will tell you

"one burst, and it lit up light a christmas tree"
"i had a zero in front of me at 1000 feet and .. *whistles* it rolled right under me (split-S),
my corsair wouldn't a done it, it woulda hit the deck"

[Commander Stormwolf]

about the ailerons locking, that is the early models (A6M2) that carried servo tabs

they reduced the force needed at low speed, but increased the force at high speed

A6M2 was designed to dogfight at low speed, and it couldn't dive fast as well (would dissintegrate in a 400 mph dive)


by 1943, the lessons of combat against the USAAF had been incorporated into the A6M5, but their config still remained bad
the navy couldn't give any priorities to mitsubishi (horikoshi wanted to put the ha-33-62 into the reisen airframe, navy said no)


now about the wildcat, it was among the most maneouverable allied fighters (besides the P-36)
also well configured with armor, well suited to an attritional campaign like the solomons

but give it the same long range as a Reisen, and it wouldn't be very good
testing a long range escort fighter against a short range fighter isn't all that fair
Reisen could have been an implaccable fighter if configured for short range

[mdiehl]

bad pilots was a big reason why the A6M started to lose in 1943

The A6Ms started to lose against the F4Fs in April 1942. In every CV vs CV engagement in 1942, F4F shot down more Zeroes than Zeroes shot down in F4Fs. John Lundstrom puts the Talley through Midway at something like 17 A6Ms shot down to 10 F4Fs. That explicitly does not include operational losses, Zeroes or Wildcats shot down by non-fighters (such as SBDs) or losses to ground fire. That's just fighters vs fighters. The results were even more favorable for the F4Fs over the course of the August-Sept carrier battles.

Well rested experienced well trained Japanese naval aviators generally lost when faced by well rested, trained USN aviators from the very outset of the war.

[DuckofTindalos]

You know Diehl, everytime you "quote" from a book that you clearly don't own and haven't read, I wonder if you're spelling the Google search phrases correctly... Are you in fact iliterate? Don't be ashamed of that; I'm sure there are courses you can take.

[Nikademus]

Ok. Termi's post got me curious.....so I looked [:)]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


The A6Ms started to lose against the F4Fs in April 1942. In every CV vs CV engagement in 1942, F4F shot down more Zeroes than Zeroes shot down in F4Fs.

The Japanese carrier Zero drivers scored a 2:1 stat victory over the carrier F4F drivers. 3 Zeros fell to 6 Wildcats.

John Lundstrom puts the Talley through Midway at something like 17 A6Ms shot down to 10 F4Fs.

wrong. Depending on how one goes about it, one gets several figures. Lundstrom says 15 A6M to 10 F4F in the forward of Vol II. However a careful sifting of Vol I gives a different number. 14 x A6M to 12 x F4F. Lundsrom isn't counting the USMC F4F's lost which tips the scale back to the IJN from a statistical angle in Vol I. He does address USMC losses in Vol II.

Well rested experienced well trained Japanese naval aviators generally lost when faced by well rested, trained USN aviators from the very outset of the war

A misleading, generalistic and inaccurate statement.

Back to your regularily scheduled Green Button. I know you don't like book sources CSW.....but at least you should get accurate info if someone's gonna try to beat you over the head with it. [:)]

[mdiehl]

I'll have the exact quote from Lundstrom tonight, Cdr. IIRC, it's on or about pp.16-18 of Lundstrom's 1st Team Vol 2. But I can get the exact page numbers later. I've posted both the quote, the page number, and the full bibliographic cite in these forums in the past.

[Historiker]

Do you base your knowledge around a single book?

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Ok. Termi's post got me curious.....so I looked [:)]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


The A6Ms started to lose against the F4Fs in April 1942. In every CV vs CV engagement in 1942, F4F shot down more Zeroes than Zeroes shot down in F4Fs.

The Japanese carrier Zero drivers scored a 2:1 stat victory over the carrier F4F drivers. 3 Zeros fell to 6 Wildcats.

John Lundstrom puts the Talley through Midway at something like 17 A6Ms shot down to 10 F4Fs.

wrong. Depending on how one goes about it, one gets several figures. Lundstrom says 15 A6M to 10 F4F in the forward of Vol II. However a careful sifting of Vol I gives a different number. 14 x A6M to 12 x F4F. Lundsrom isn't counting the USMC F4F's lost which tips the scale back to the IJN from a statistical angle in Vol I. He does address USMC losses in Vol II.

Well rested experienced well trained Japanese naval aviators generally lost when faced by well rested, trained USN aviators from the very outset of the war

A misleading, generalistic and inaccurate statement.

Back to your regularily scheduled Green Button. I know you don't like book sources CSW.....but at least you should get accurate info if someone's gonna try to beat you over the head with it. [:)]

Who the hell "doesn't like book sources"? Except for iliterates?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'll have the exact quote from Lundstrom tonight, Cdr. IIRC, it's on or about pp.16-18 of Lundstrom's 1st Team Vol 2. But I can get the exact page numbers later. I've posted both the quote, the page number, and the full bibliographic cite in these forums in the past.

Indeed. You should have an answer to your PM's/Emails by then hopefully.

I'll save you the trouble. Its not on page 16, 17 or 18.

Its on page 4.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Do you base your knowledge around a single book?

I do.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Who the hell "doesn't like book sources"? Except for iliterates?

CSW has told me a couple times that books are misleading because anyone can write them. To an extent he's right. Just because a book says something doesn't mean its 100% truth, or more commonly that the author's interpretation or conclusions are 100% accurate. Lundstrom himself admitted to Brady that he could only do the best job he did after the whole Val "Canister" issue came up and that he might have been mistaken. In the end people have to decide for themselves what to believe.