How good was Japanese aviation?

[cheddar cheese]

Hell yeah! Saw a program the other night that demostrated the weakness of the Zero's body panels, not good.

[plan_D]

A little over-excitement there about the weakness of the Zero - but I think we're all agreed that the Spitfire IIA with eight Browning .303 cal would easily rip a Zero to pieces when hitting it.

[arras]

-FW-190A-1 apeared in air combat in September 1941

-first Lightning version that was considered fully combat-ready was P-38F of late 1942

-Typhoon plane became operational only in November of 1942

plan_D wrote:

The Spitfire IIA being a much faster aircraft in accerlation, speed and dive would enable the Spitfire to easily dictate the fight.

that is hardly possible, Spitfre would not be able to dogfight and it would have dificulties to use energy tactic because of Zero better climb rate. It can use hit and run tactic but that is hardly useful for building air superiority or escort duties.
Its spead advantage is similar to that of Bf-109 over Huricane but Spitfre did not enjoied climbing qualities of Bf.

You are all also totaly omiting Zero superiority in range which would be (was) big tactical and strategical advantage.

Zero was aircraft with advantages and disadvantages as anyother including Spitfre. In my eyes overaly there is no superiority of Spitfre over Zero and I would go for Zero in one to one.

[plan_D]

How do you figure the Spitfire couldn't dictate the fight? If the Spitfire saw the situation as unfavourable he could use his superior speed to get away from the Zero - dictating the combat.

Also, while in combat the energy could be used with a higher speed on entrance to the fight - higher speed during the fight - tighter turn above 275 mph - faster dive and faster acceleration.

As I said before the Zero would need to get the fight slow and low to defeat the Spitfire - something the Spitfire could easily avoid.

The Zero superior climb is only off the exact same start point at the exact same speed. The Spitfire would be entering the climb at a higher speed due to higher dive speed - giving the Spitfire more of a jump into the climb. Which would enable it to use energy tactics anyway it wanted.

The Zero did have superior range - it's range was extremely impressive but the Spitfire was never built for range. It was an interceptor - it was designed as an interceptor. Since Britain was actively on the defensive - range wasn't required. The Zero would be coming to the Spitfire - not the other way around.

When the Spitfire finally did arrive in the CBI - the Spitfire achieved an eightne kill ratio over the Japanese. Of course not all against the Zero - but it's something to think about.

[cheddar cheese]

Yes but that extra range has no effect in a dogfight - in effect its probably a disadvantage when dogfighting because of the extra fuel it would be carrying when compared to the short fueled Spitfire (If the Spit was intercepting).

Yes - The Zero can climb away, the Spitfire can accelerate/dive away. If the Spit pilot keeps his speed up he could easily take the Zero out, as plan_D said. Once on the Zero's tail, it wouldnt have to be for long since one short burst of .303 rounds will penetrate the thin skin, set the fuel tanks on fire and the Zero would be History.

I would have the Spitfire in a dogfight.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by arras

-first Lightning version that was considered fully combat-ready was P-38F of late 1942

The 39th FS of the 35th FG, operating out of Port Moresby, New Guinea began operations in October, 1942, their "F" models were well "combat ready" way before that as they were flown there from Australia.

Originally Posted by arras

You are all also totaly omiting Zero superiority in range which would be (was) big tactical and strategical advantage.

The Zero's range is based on operating at economical cruise power (probably at 55%) 1,200 miles (internal fuel), 1,844 miles with drop tank.
The Spit II had half that range at high cruise, but then again the Spit wasn't designed to fly across oceans.

Originally Posted by arras

Zero was aircraft with advantages and disadvantages as anyother including Spitfre. In my eyes overaly there is no superiority of Spitfre over Zero and I would go for Zero in one to one.

.

You're entitled to your opinion but with the speed (especially in the dive) advantage coupled with 8 .303 machine guns of the Spitfire further enhanced with "Flying Tiger type tactics" would of made the Zero a great clay pigeon! Less capable aircraft than the Spitfire (the Wildcat specifically) feasted without mercy on the Zero through out the entire Pacific War!

[the lancaster kicks ass]

in a dogfight i too would say spitfire though, she, that's what she was designed to do, and she was very good at it..........

[plan_D]

I personally think the Zero wasn't even good in a dogfight - it was average in a dogfight. All round it was a great plane mixing it's fighting capability with excellent range but it was just a poor plane in combat and only had the 6 months of success against ignorant Western pilots and second-rate Western equipment.

The Gloster designed F.5/34 was a lot like a Zero in a dogfight with just superior speed, it was rejected by the MOD.

[cheddar cheese]

Cool! It looks like an MC.200 or G.50 or similar.

[plan_D]

It was built in 1937 - and the first prototype flew in May of that year.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I personally think the Zero wasn't even good in a dogfight - it was average in a dogfight. All round it was a great plane mixing it's fighting capability with excellent range but it was just a poor plane in combat and only had the 6 months of success against ignorant Western pilots and second-rate Western equipment.

Best explination on this yet!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Im with Plan_D on this one. Sorry arras but the Zero was only feared at first because no one knew anything about it. They soon realized that above 275mph on the early models she was easily outclassed. As was stated by even the airframe was built like a coke can and the she did not have self sealing tanks. She would have been chewed apart by a Spitfire.

Also as was posted by Plan_D here, there are a lot of circumstances that are not posted on paper stats and therefor you can not just go off of speed and dive characteristics. The Spit was a much better aircraft. As a matter of fact the Zero was ouclassed by most aircraft past 1943. Why do you think the Hellcats and Wildcats had such better shoot down rates than the Zero. Now take an aircraft like the Spitfire which could outfly both of the hellcat and Wildcat.

[arras]

You don't have to be sorry DAIG, it is just a discusion.

I gona stop here since I think opinions were writen alredy and there is no sense to prolongate this.

I think that Zero had showed its quality while shoting down Huricanes, Wildcats and P-40s (which was the best US fighter of the time) in numbers and it did that with overhelming superiority. If it was superior to them it would be at last equal to Spitfre if not better ..just my opinion.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by arras

You don't have to be sorry DAIG, it is just a discusion.

I gona stop here since I think opinions were writen alredy and there is no sense to prolongate this.

I think that Zero had showed its quality while shoting down Huricanes, Wildcats and P-40s (which was the best US fighter of the time) in numbers and it did that with overhelming superiority. If it was superior to them it would be at last equal to Spitfre if not better ..just my opinion.

How could you say that! The Wildcat had at least a 4 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero! The Flying Tigers claim an 8 to 1 kill ratio!

Erik Shilling (AVG Pilot), "The P-40 was a hell of a lot better fighter than those who have never flow it think. If it had had the top speed of a 51 I would take it over any fighter the US had."

Jeff Ethell (Pilot, aviation author and historian), "After years of reading that the P-40 could not maneuver, particularly with a Zero, and that it had to make diving slash attacks to be effective, I had come to accept the general opinion that it was outclassed by almost everything else flying. Sitting in the cockpit, with the controls in my hands, having written a book about the aircraft and said all those things, the accepted history in my brain was wrestling with the seat of my pants. No question it did not have the top speed and high altitude performance to disengage targets at will, but it was certainly more maneuverable than other American fighters, particularly the P-51."

I'm not pushing the P-40 here but you can't argue with history! Yes you are entitled to your opinion but actual facts and documeted history show that the Zero got Mauled!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree FBJ, and well put.