Warbird Information Exchange

We looked at 2 assets of a top fighter; armament (a lot of models I didn't know), and level and mach dive speed; some guys focused on low level speed as if we were comparing submarines! One could argue that speed is more important than arms in an attack. Now I think the next category should Maneuverability. Let's take it two ways: First turning. I think the king is the Zero. No one wants to get too tight with it, except maybe at high speed where Zero controls get heavy. Some pilots had success in 38's against Zero's, but even later one O jumped by 2 38's knocked down McGuire. The Spitfire, especilly the lighter ones (Mk V) would be close and outturn everything esle. I'm sure Oz will tell us the MK21 Buttbiter is superior, but I think the next rank is, maybe Tempest. Corsair, Hurricane(especialywhen slow)FW. The 2nd part might be verticlal or pitching like initial dive,or zoom climb. Here the P-51 is tops, then maybe P-47, 109, Corsair. This is a little more subjective, harder to measure, so let's hear it guys.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

It's too difficult to outright answer the question with the data we currently have at hand. The purest way would be to compare Energy-Maneuverability diagrams...but since that concept hadn't yet been invented in WWII, I doubt that there are EM diagrams published for the fighters we're interested in.

It would be very interesting to have some of the military Test Pilot Schools do full energy-maneuverability workups on all the fighters.

The E-M diagram is an easy way to yardstick fighters against one another -- to see at what altitudes and airspeeds each aircraft can generate different turn rates and radiuses.

The trick is to overlay the E-M diagram of your aircraft on top of your opponenent's aircraft and see where your airplane's P-sub-S (that's Specific Excess Power) lines are higher than your opponenets. It lets you exploit the altitudes and airspeeds where your airplane has the advantage -- and avoid the areas where his aircraft has the advantage.

(T-38 E-M diagram for reference)

Thanks again to John Boyd for the EM Theory. If not for him we would not have the F-15, F-16, or the A-10. Indirectly his philosophies are responsible for the next generation of aircraft too.

What about the Hellcat's manueverability ? Grumman worked it's needed flight parameters to specifically counter the Zero. They used the flight test data gathered from the one captured in the Aleutians to use as the benchmark for the F6F performance goals. It's kill tally speaks for itself.

When test flown against a captured Zero it performed as the designers expected.

Some pilots had success in 38's against Zero's, but even later one O jumped by 2 38's knocked down McGuire.

If by "McGuire" you're referring to 38-kill Tommy Mcguire, I don't believe he was ever shot down by a Zero. He did manage to kill himself by trying to turn with a Ki-43 though.

This was at low altitude though (down by the submarines), so maybe the Oscar shouldn't be considered for most maneuverable honors.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

McGuire got stupid and killed himself plain and simple. Low altitude, low airspeed, full fuel and kept the 3/4 full drop tanks (he wanted the fuel to keep hunting after he scored a quick kill). He stalled and the 38 snapped, tucked it's nose down and crashed. The P-38 could turn with a Zero. Jan 18, 1944 the P-38s of the 44th FS were low cover (yes, I said low) for B-25s of the 42nd BG on a mission to Rabual. The USN/USMC top cover never showed but the Zeros did. In a 30-40 minutes on the deck turning dogfight 6 Zeros were downed with 3 by Jim Reddington with each one off another P-38 with the loss of 1 P-38 which made a water landing after getting hit trying to protect the 25s leaving the target area.
I still think it's the pilot that makes the plane and not vice-versa.
Those charts gave me a headache. Don't know how ya guys do it Randy!

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

All I have EVER heard is what a great maneuverer(?) the F6F was.....could ALMOST hang with the Zero and was certainly one of the most maneuverable of the allied fighters.....

Have also heard a P-61 could outturn almost anything we had, despite its almost B-25 size...

Mark

_________________
Mark Morris

Randy, Say what? Those diagrams might be a little over my head! Rick, no doubt the Hellcat should be listed up there. A top warbird guy who's flown about everything, but not in combat, and has no ego to support, told me the Hellcat was impressive and a good opponent for a Spit down low. Up high the Merlin engine pulls away.The Hellcat had real success in it's time and place; but lacks top speed and cannons. Dan K. The Dick Bong book by Gen. Kenne uses the spelling as I did, also see notes p.123. If a P-38 or anything else could outturn a Zero, why were pilots told never to turn or loop with them, rather to fight the same way a 109 would dive on a Spit. The 38 tried to turn with the Japanese fighter, this book says an Oscar which is an upgraded Zero, and went down. So which fighter won this test? Bong is quoted p.58 in 1944 that the current Japanese pilots are not as good as they used to be, "easier to get" which is relevant in evaluating the later US fighters. I don't know much about P-61, but it's got firepower!

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

My father was CO of the 318FG aftewr WWI and frequently engaged the 51 which was his favorite bird in ACM. Said the 61 would out turn the 51 but lost too much energy to compete after 360 degrees - but what firepower - a top turret gunner in a dog fight!

My apologies...it was I who misspelled McGuire. The point being made was that Major McGuire's final combat sortie during which he was killed involved a Ki-43 Oscar, not an A6M.

The Ki-43 is not an upgraded Zero--completely different design. The A6M was a Navy bird; the Ki-43 was flown by Army Air Forces. The Oscar was also considered to be more maneuverable than even the vaunted Zero within certain speed parameters.

An interesting sidelight to Zero history is that early attempts by the brass to convert pilots to the A6M were met with skepticism, as many fighter pilots were convinced the A5M Claude was the superior dogfighter.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Actually the Oscar is a completely different aircraft built by Nakajima for the Army while the Mitsubishi Zero was operated by the Navy. The Fixed gear Army KI-27 Nate and Navy A5M Claude were said to be even more maneuverable and great dogfighters.

I understand the the P-61 wing spoilers were the reason for its great maneuverability has it's ailerons were fairly small. 99.9% of the P-61s had the top turret removed and didn't fly combat with them. The usual crew was just the pilot and RO in the rear of the fuselage. 4 x 20mm cannons apparently did the job well!!!

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

The photos of several 318th FG P-61's in late 1947 before we went to Japan all had the top turret with 4 50's - only reference I had.

The 20's are better if you can pull deflection, but a P-61 would be unique in any dogfight wit a 4-.5O Caliber top turret!

In McGuires fatal fight, both P-38's were lost. So where did the report of what happened come from? Is it an acurate account? Is it from Japanese combat reports? What opposition fighters were in that area? I have read other accounts that it was a Zero, even giving the name of it's pilot. Did US propaganda frame the facts?

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Read this, Bill.

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mcguire.html

Major McGuire was part of a flight of four on Jan. 7. Interaction was with JAAF aircraft, not Navy.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Bill, I must be completely losing my mind. Yes, Tom McGuire bailed out of a P-38 on October 17, 1943, after an attack by Zeros pretty-much ripped both engines apart.

For some reason I couldn't get the picture of his final flight out of my head. This getting older stuff isn't what it's cracked up to be.

May I request a bindfold and final cigarette before the execution?

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

This fighter pilot stuff isn't as low-tech-redneck as it once was, I'll give you that. Although the one I posted is a little tough to see, reading an EM diagram is pretty simple -- no more difficult that working a performance chart in the flight manual. More simple than that, in reality.

Very simply, this is a chart of turn performance in a level turn at a specific altitude and weight. All you're looking at is a plot of airspeed on the "X" axis vs turn rate on the "Y" axis.

The reference lines sloping in from the top right show turn radius in feet. The lines sloping in from the top left show the "G" pulled in the aircraft.

The mountain shaped-line you see highlighted is the max performance of the aircraft. On the left hand side, the max lift limit line -- in other words, along that line you're on the edge of an accelerated stall. On the right side, is the structural limit (max G).

The lines in the middle that mimic the shape of the max-performance mountan tell you how much energy it will cost you to turn that tight and pull that G.

This is what the real value of the chart is...to see what aircraft have the best turn rate/radius, AS WELL AS the thrust to support that turn.