[Duel series] - Kawanishi N1K2-J vs Grumman F6F-5

[Hiromachi 8,004]

Like many other, I also enjoy the articles about the airplanes, however I felt lack of something that would present the machine better but also let understand the background of it and time it appeared. I found a good solution to that, as some might know, Osprey Publishing releases from time to time a new book in Duel Series. This not only describes the aircraft (or tank or ship) or its performance but also compares to one of the opponents it fought against. My impression was, that major lack of some articles is inability to show plane in combat, how it actually could perform and what pilots could feel, and Duel Series reflects this as much as possible.

In this case I decided to write in a similar formula a long article about some of the machines, bringing historical background, flight performance and characteristics, pilots who operated those machines and finally the combat experiences to have as close as possible view on the both machines. 

 

The first article I thought, should be a real blow and to attract some attention along with audience I figured a good choice would be a late war warbirds with interesting history and symbolizing this stage of the war - the natural comparison came easily - N1K2-J which is a little bit unknown, has some mysteries but also is a symbol of a final struggle to defend the Homeland. Grumman F6F Hellcat is also a symbol of the Pacific war, with the "dash five" being finest model which brought the war to the heart of Japan.

 

As the competitors were found, rest was easy. The article will be published in a few  parts, starting from the historical and technical background, than the tactics both sides used will be presented and finally real combat histories. I'm interested in the opinions you may have, so please, do not forget to leave a comment :)

 

Part 1. Technical and historical details of competitors
 

Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden-Kai
   
  At the end of the 1941, while finalizing the project of floatplane known later as N1K1 Kyofu (project name was 15-Shi Sujo Sentoki), the constructors of the Kawanishi company under the leadership of main engineer Shizuo Kikuhary proposed building its land based variant. The initial calculations indicated that it can be a fairly good fighter aircraft, and under such circumstances company decided to go with this project.

  Prototype was completed as early as in December 1942 and was labeled as Kascho Ichi-Go Sentoki (Temporary name pursuit aircraft number 1), later known as N1K1-J. Just five days later, on 5^th January 1943 constructors proposed building a new, improved model later known as N1K2-J.

  In a new model it was planned to redesign the airframe, from mid wing to a low wing monoplane. Once again it was task Shizuo Kikuhara had to deal with. The initial designs were completed in February and on March 15 Kaigun Koku Honbu Gijutsubu ordered to build a prototype named in documents Kascho Ichi-Go Kyokuchi Sentoki Kai (Temporary name modified pursuit aircraft number 1).
The new fighter while similar in basics to its predecessor, in many ways was completely different. New streamlined and more aerodynamic fuselage was designed, the length of the aircraft was increased from 8,855 m to 9,346 m. Completely new was also the vertical stabilizer and rudder which covered now whole length of the vertical fin and bottom of the fuselage.
  Even the airfoil was slightly changed, while the LB 620515 at wing-root remained the same, the LB6015512 at the wing-tip was a slight adjustment to improve a quite unpleasant stall characteristics of N1K1-J. Those airfoils, designed by Professor Itiro Tani, the LB preferably (still under historical dispute) meaning Laminar Boundary.  The experiments with laminar airfoils were started before the war and were continued, and so a laminar-flow airfoil was incorporated into N1K1-J and N1K2-J fighters.
   Internally the wings were also redesigned, mainly due to need to place them differently as plane was now a low wing monoplane.  The main externally visible change was the increase of the dihedral angle from 5^o30’ to 6^o.

 

  The most interesting feature were the combat flaps known as Jidōkūsen Furappu (auto-adjusting combat flaps) that improved the turn performance and in vertical maneuvers such as loop.
In the 1942 the tests of those flaps were done on N1K1 floatplane, although they were different from the ones used later on N1K2-J. The maximum deflection was 19 degrees instead of later 30 and they lacked auto adjusting mechanism, pilot had to operate them manually. Tests proved them a useful, indicating the following :

 

 
Details are available in the report, following numbers are examples given in the tables.

Turn

Loop


  Saburo Shimazu, a Mitsubishi Aircraft Works engineer designed the auto adjusting mechanism for the flaps, he made it effective through the use of a small vacuum tube pump. Tomokazu Kasai, one of the 343 Kokutai members recalled that at the top of a loop he could feel the flaps slightly stutter, which pushed airplane tighter into the loop, giving him a bit of advantage over the opponent. 
  
  The comparative trials between Shiden without combat flaps and Shiden with auto-adjusting combat flaps were done on June 1943, when Kawanishi’s test pilot, Yoshio Shiga took Shiden with the combat flaps and paired against Wasuke Otokuni, flying the one without combat flaps. A mock dogfight took place over Naruo Airfield and  the results were remarkable, Shiga ended up on Otokuni’s tail every time.

  N1K2-J was intended to be powered by Nakajima NK9B Homare 11, but soon a new version became available, the Homare 21 with improved supercharger and increased compression ratio. Propeller was produced by Sumitomo Kinzoku Kogyo KK, Puropera Seizosho based on VDM mechanism. Additionally the new, more aerodynamic engine cowling was introduced with air intake for supercharger at the top and air intake for oil cooler at the bottom of the nose.
N1K2-J carried about 970 liters of fuel, though this number has decreased later. All fuel tanks were covered with rubber coating to prevent fuel leaks and received a CO₂ fire extinguishers to put out fire.   The main armament created four 20 mm Type 99-2 Model 4 cannons, the internal carrying 200 rounds and external up to 250 rounds.
Overall weight varied, depending on loadout, from 3800 kilograms with 72 % of fuel loaded, 4000 kilograms with full fuel and up to 4400 kilograms with external fuel tank and two 60 kilogram bombs.

  The first prototype was completed on December 31, 1943 and first flight took place on January 1^st, 1944. First two to fly it, were Kawanishi test pilots, Munekichi Okayasu who performed a short, 15 minute flight and Wasuke Otokuni, who spent in the air over 35 minutes. A week later plane was transferred to Yokosuka where pilots such as Yoshio Shiga and Hajime Koga performed trials and gave their opinions about the aircraft. In those trials Yoshio Shiga managed to reach 796,4 km/h indicated on his gauges in a dive.
Soon production started, beginning in July 1944 but the real increase occurred in November. The serial production models had a few changes, the cannons were raised by 3 degrees and plane received a 70 mm bulletproof glass behind the windscreen.

 

The main concern in discussion is the top speed and climb rate, based on quoted often TAIC 107B gives Shiden Kai top speed of 370 miles per hour at 18,000 feet (595 km/h at 5600 meters).

 

 The Japanese Flight Reference Manual for Prototype Shiden-Kai" published by Naval Aviation Headquarters, in January 1945 credits the plane with top speed of 583 km/h at 3000 meters and 611 km/h at 6000 meters at rated power. The numbers on the left side of the table below refer to the calculated performance based on the Homare 21 performance. However here it has to be noted that prototype plane was not tested on such ratings, engine was derated from the maximum 500 mmHg and 3000 RPM to 400 mmHg and 2900 RPM at take-off power, 3000 RPM and 350 mmHg to 2900 RPM and 250 mmHg as military power. Thus it was about the same as Homare 11 in performance and so was named NK9H-B. The issues which occurred during the test of Shiden (N1K) and Ginga (P1Y) for this are following (starting from this paragraph of the manual -  二,発動機関係 ;
- Lack of proper quality fuel  (available only in limited quantity)
- Overheating of the engine cylinders when taxing   
- Break of kelmet
- Problems with electrical system
- Random drops of oil pressure

  If serial production aircraft flew on the maximum ratings or not, it is still under the dispute by the specialists. The maximum ratings could not be achieved if lower quality gasoline was used, as turned out to be a case for 343 Kokutai in last months of the war. For the purpose of the article the performance for the NK9H-B (or just NK9B) will be used.

 

  Here comes another question, if the TAIC 107B is correct or not. Most certainly it is not top performance as Homare maintained good performance up to 6400 meters and speed would raise up to 7200 meters.

 

  The explanation for the figure of 595 km/h at 5600 meters seems to be simple, it is possible that pilot flew up to 6000 meters and recorded airspeed of 242 knots indicated with a temperature of -40^oC outside. The “corrected” altitude was 5600 meters with a true airspeed of 321 knots – which is exactly 595 km/h.  So the figure is not incorrect, it is just still below the critical altitude.
After correction to standard atmosphere at 6000 meters 242 knots indicated is 330 knots, the given in the table value.
It means that temperature on that day was very close to 0^oC at ground level, which would be consistent with the time and place of the test flights (December 1943 and trials continued for the next 15 weeks), historical weather at Osaka for the January 1946 gives the temperatures absolutely consistent with this. It is still not fully confirmed and requires further research, but the numbers and other records seem to confirm it.
This would give the aircraft speed of 583 km/h at 3000 meters, 611 km/h at 6000 meters and over 630 km/h at 7200 meters at rated power. 

  The new fighter impressed Japanese pilots, Tomokazu Kasai recalled the first time he set eyes on it: “It rolled out of hangar, in the orange test-flight color scheme. It caught my attention with its thick body, four bladed propellers and a pair of 20 mm cannons in each wing.” Like teenagers watching a friend pull up in a new car, the men chattered as they jostled each other around. There were few oil streaks and stains from engine leakage. He said, “The fighter appeared bulky and massive, and it didn't look like a nimble fighter. It looked similar to the F6F Hellcat, and made the Zero look small and pitiful in comparison.”

  Kasai also recalled using the new throat-mic during the radio-transmission test and was impressed that he could be picked up all the way to Atami from Matsuyama. There were five channels (kan-one to kan-five). Another observation was although the 20 mm cannons in the wings were extremely effective, they had limited range. There was a selector switch on the top of the stick about the size of a watch face. This switch could be rotated with the right thumb to fire the two inboard cannons or all four cannons. Kasai said he fired the two inboard first, then once he saw strikes he’d switch to all four the final blow: “The response and recoil of the slow-firing four 20 mm mounted cannons got my attention the first time I fried them.” He motioned with his hands stretched out, resembling machine guns, and moved them back and forth to simulate the canons. He gestured, “They make a big sound, like ‘duh-duh-duh-duh.’”

 

 Unfortunately, there is only a limited number of comments of the American soldiers able to see or test the N1K2-J, however some comments in regard to the N1K1-J can be brought here as planes while different, in some ways were similar. After that the short comments of the N1K2-J will be brought.

  The N1K1-J possessed excellent take-off, climb and high speed characteristics, and afforded good vision from the cockpit, but from the pilot’s viewpoint was inferior to the J2M3 Raiden, not impressing one with that feeling of confidence normally associated with a good, substantial aircraft. Cockpit canopy was considered high and narrow with good all-around vision. Cockpit layout was generally good. Instruments were well grouped and all cranks and handles were readily available and easy to operate with the exception of the landing gear. The airspeed, rpm and manifold pressure gauges were mounted high on the instrument panel and easily read during the take-off run.

  This fighter was fairly comfortable for a pilot of normal stature, but an objectionable feature was the rigging of the stick which was both too high and too far forward for comfort. The aircraft was then tested from the stall up to 360 mph indicated, and the rudder proved light and effective at all speeds while the ailerons were found to be effective but slightly on the heavy side at all speeds up to about 320 mph. The rate of roll was good up to 360 mph at which the ailerons became heavy. The controls were unbalanced in that the rudder and elevators were much lighter than the ailerons and could be considered as too light. The rudder and elevators were fitted with trim tabs for which the controls were positioned on the port side of the cockpit. These controls were excellent.

  Directionally and longitudinally it was statically and dynamically stable and laterally was just about neutrally stable. It performed a snap 1/3 port roll at 125 mph in a 2G turn to port or starboard, it executed rolls and Immelmans rather sloppily but turned well as a result of its good rate of roll and light elevators. 

  On the approach the undercarriage and flap handle had to be returned to neutral or else there was no brake pressure, and there was too much change in trim as the flaps were lowered and speed was lost, but in other respects the approach was very straightforward with excellent vision for the pilot. 

  The Homare power plant appeared to be generally very satisfactory, easily starting up from cold but loading up when hot. It was found to run smoothly at all rev settings. The mixture control was similar to that found on the North American T-6 with positive lock fitted, and the airscrew operation was hooked in to the throttle and functioned very well, this automatic airscrew-throttle arrangement undoubtedly being advantageous in combat. Engine cooling was not good, cowl flaps having to be opened up fairly wide in normal climb, and cylinder head temperatures were very dependent on cowl flap openings.

  The flight lasted for 1 hr 45 min, and the conclusions were that the N1K1-J had the following favorable features: good vision, good stability, good take-off qualities; good performance; a high diving speed and a good instrument layout. Its unfavorable features were: poor stalling and accelerated stalling characteristics; ineffective brakes and rudder brake action; weak undercarriage; complex gear and flap system; poorly balanced controls and heavy ailerons at high speed.

  It is worth noting here that some of the unfavorable features were corrected and eliminated, as mentioned at the beginning of the article the N1K2-J possessed modified airfoil which improved the unpleasant stall characteristics and comfort of flying in low speed conditions. The issues with brakes and weak undercarriage existed partially due to mid wing design as gear required longer legs which were designed in a telescopic form, so while landing the gear would firstly drop down and then extend its length. Mechanism proved to be complicated and often failed and as such was eliminated in N1K2-J as the new fighter benefited from shorter landing gear as a low wing design. The breaking gear legs were still issue, which is even mentioned in a post war interrogation of Minoru Genda but situation was much improved from the previous model. The controls were also slightly adjusted, mainly the rudder size was increased as it was mentioned at the beginning of the article.  Only issue which could not be corrected were heavy ailerons at very high speeds.
 

  Once again in testing role on, Lt Yoshio Shiga along with Lt Hajime Koga of the Naval Kugisho (Air Technical Department) flew it and delighted in its breathtaking performance.
“It was a test flight under limited conditions,” recalled Shiga. “There were still problems with the engine and propeller. At the altitude of 3000 meters there was no problem with stability in either direction, including landing gears and flaps down. Stall came abruptly, which was different from the Zero fighter. Visibility was good. There was no problems with controls. The Shiden-Kai was totally different from the Shiden. I sent signal ‘OK’ by making a loose dive towards the runway and a short-turn landing after pulling up at low altitude.”
“The Shiden-Kai had a peculiar tendency near stalling, but it was an excellent fighter that could exceed the light Zero fighter. If the Zero was a proper young lady, then the Shiden-Kai was a horny downtown girl!”

  According to VF-17 skipper, LCdr Marshall Beebe, an accomplished test pilot and fighter ace: “The Shiden-Kai was equal to or better than the F6F.”

  Yoshio Shiga agreed, but added : “The performance of the Homare engine was lower than expected. Fuel quality was down to 85 Octane because the gasoline was later mixed with oil extracted from pine tree roots which was a volatile oil. However, even under these conditions, pilots such as Oshibuchi and Kanno said that Shiden-Kai was good up to around 9,000 meters. In my opinion, the Shiden-Kai could deal with the F6Fs, but had a hard time against P-51s.”

 

Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat


  In April 1944, having completed 4,402 F6F-3 fighter, Grumman Company shifted to building the F6F-5, the newest production model of the Hellcat. There was no prototype for the F6F-5, Grumman simply shifted production from one model to the other, completing the first F6F-5 on April 4 and the last F6F-3 on April 21. The F6F-5 incorporated some of the modifications implemented already into late F6F-3 and few new, to overall increase the speed, visibility and improve versatility based on extensive testing of the F6F-3 and plane performance in combat.
F6F-5 was powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10W engine with water injection allowing the motor to produce 2,250 HP at emergency power on deck. Further details can be seen in following table:


  A redesigned and more streamlined engine cowling gave the “Dash Five” model a higher maximum speed and a better rate of climb than the F6F-3. In response to pilot complaints, Grumman added in latest F6F-3 and new F6F-5 spring tabs to the ailerons to improve the roll at speeds above 200 miles per hour. To improve forward visibility, the F6F-5 featured a revised front windshield with a flat bulletproof glass. A change in the armament configuration allowed the substitution of 20 mm cannon for the inboard .50 caliber machine guns – this feature was adopted on many of the F6F-5N nightfighters.

Overall speed was increased, exceeding 380 miles per hour at 23,000 feet (gross weight 12,420 lbs).


The climb performance was also improved.

  The weight of the airplane depended on the condition, varying from the Combat Weight of 12,740 lbs up to 15,300 lbs at maximum take-off condition.

  Following tests on an F6F-3, Grumman strengthened  the rear fuselage structure and the horizontal stabilizers to correct some weakness that had appeared on the “Dash Three” and incorporated these changes into the F6F-5, allowing pilots of the latter fighter to dive at higher speeds and make more violent pull-outs in combat. The F6F-5 featured several changes in armament. Carrier squadrons in the Pacific had begun using the F6F-3 as a fighter-bomber, with a bomb adapter on the right wing stub capable of carrying a weapon of up to 1,000lb in weight – the aircraft also had provision for a center-line fuel tank. The F6F-5 had fittings for bomb racks beneath both of the wing stubs, these also being cleared for the carriage of 1,000lb bombs. The fighter retained plumbing for the centerline fuel tank. Three Mk 5 Zero Length rocket launchers were attached to each of the outer wings of the F6F-5, allowing six 5in. HVAR rockets to be carried along with the bomb load. This made the Hellcat even more effective in the fighter-bomber role.

   There were also several improvements in the cockpit area incorporating changes developed for the F6F-3N. The F6F-5 featured red lighting for the instrument panel for improved night flying, a modified windscreen with a flat bullet-resistant glass panel and elimination of the two metal braces on the F6F-3 for better visibility, and a larger sheet of armor plate placed just behind the pilot’s seat. This provided improved protection from attacks from the rear across a roughly 40-degree span in a horizontal plane and a 25-degree span vertically. Rearward visibility was one problem never resolved on the Hellcat, however. The flight characteristics seemed to better than ever before, and F6F-5 was certainly best model, giving pilots confidence in their machine. The pilots were favorably impressed with the longitudinal   stability and control of the F6F airplane.
 

  They considered it an easy airplane to fly, the control forces in abrupt and steady maneuvers were satisfactory. The stall characteristics were between good to moderate;

  1) In the gliding condition stall warning was afforded by a howl in the duct on the underside of the engine cowling  beginning about 18 miles per hour above the stall and by an increased general vibration of the airplane felt in the stick and rudder pedals about 5 miles per hour above the stall. In addition ,  there was a very mild buffeting beginning 1 to 2 miles per hour above the stall and increasing in intensity as the initial roll off to the left occurred. This buffeting preceding the roll-off cannot be relied upon as a stall warning since it was obtained only with very slow approaches to the stall. In the stall, where the pilot attempted to hold the rudder and ailerons fixed after the initial roll-off, a rolling and mild pitching oscillation set in which increased in amplitude until the complete stall.

  2) In the landing condition, a duct howl preceded the stall as in the gliding condition and a very mild buffet set in 1 or 2 miles per hour above the stall. As in the gliding condition the buffet preceding the stall is noticeable only in a very slow stall approach. The stick-fixed stability was high for this condition and the stick was well back at the stall. The initial roll-off in all cases was to the left.

  3) In the approach condition there was no stall warning. The initial roll-off was to the left. After the initial roll-off there was some buffeting of the airplane.

  4)  In the wave-off condition there was no stall warning whatsoever. The initial roll-off was to the right and was more severe than in any of the other conditions tested. This roll-off could be checked, however, by use of ailerons and rudder. 

  In turning flight some stall warning was afforded by a mild buffeting of the entire airplane. The airplane initially pitched out of the turn, then pitched into the turn. During this pitching oscillation, which was probably caused by alternate stalling and unstalling of the wing, the airplane also went through a mild rolling oscillation. The final roll-off was mild and easily controllable.

  In 1944, a US Navy and Army participated in a Joint Fighter Conference in NAS Patuxent River, the purpose was to review various aircraft and compare to each other. Along with new machines such as F8F or F7F, the older such as FM-2 were tested. Grumman F6F-5 received very good comments from the pilots. The cockpit and comfort were complemented, specifically mentioning the good instrument layout. Ground handling, take-off, landing and wave-off were also very positive giving it good stability, good rudder control and only slight torque.

  The Combat Qualities are also interesting, though not as positive as mentioned above characteristics, the rate of climb, acceleration and speed were found to be inadequate and somehow disappointing. Certain pilots went as far as to say; “Excellent for carrier, useless for land” but others “A good rugged work-horse. A little lacking in performance”. Lot of critics was put on the maneuverability, “Maneuverability limited by longitudinal and lateral stability”. It was also commented by some pilots that elevators and ailerons, while very responsive to controlling action were heavy at high speeds.
Overall  it was a good fighter more than capable of dealing with the tasks given for it and opposition it was intended to fight. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography : 
[spoiler]

a) Genda's Blade: Japan's Squadron of Aces: 343 Kokutai by Henry Sakaida, Classic Publications, ISBN-10: 1903223253
b) Report of Joint Fighter Conference: : NAS Patuxent River, MD - 16-23 October 1944 by Schiffer Publishing, ISBN-10: 0764304046

c) F6F Hellcat vs A6M Zero-sen: Pacific Theater 1943–44 by Edward M. Young, ISBN-10: 1782008136

d) Gakken Pictorial Series #24 IJN KAWANISHI N1K2-J SHIDEN-KAI , Gakken Publishing, ISBN: 4-05-602064-7

e) Maru Mechanic Series #21

[/spoiler]

Edited February 14, 2015 by Hiromachi

[Viktor_E 2,121]

Nice article Hiro. I just hope that some people will not hijack it to serve their own bigoted ideals........


By the way Hiro can you do an article about the N1K1-J. You know the pre-configuration float plane design ? There is plenty of articles about the Shiden-Kai. But few about the Kyofu, its predecessor.

[Hiromachi 8,004]

I can try with a Kyofu at some point, sure.

[_TomokoAnabuki 8,995]

All HAIL HIRO,

\o\

/o/

\o/

[PredalienPlush 1,063]

I enjoyed this greatly. The N1K is one of my favorite planes. You should do one with Ki-84 vs P-51D, or A7M3 vs F4U-4 next.

[Hiromachi 8,004]

I have almost finished multicomparison of A6M2 vs P-40E-1 and A6M3 Hamp vs Spitfire Vc. 

Against P-51D I thought more about the Ki-100. 

[Sodanjumala 589]

N1K1 is  superb plane, it just laughs at the clumsy American pussycats. I have never had trouble with Hellcat in N1K1.

[Blazingskitters 952]

Good article, technically solid and informative.

Best to quote your sources at the bottom though, especially when you're taking paragraphs and posts from books and forums such as:

F6F Hellcat vs A6M Zero-sen: Pacific Theater 1943–44
By Edward M. Young
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/George-107A.pdf

Its nice to give a nod to the folks that found the info originally if using it in exact format. Edited February 14, 2015 by Blazingskitters

[Hiromachi 8,004]

 As this is Part 1 of 6, thus I  thought posting whole bibliography is not necessary yet. But seems it is, and as it is not a problem I can do it right now.

And I think there is no need to refer to wwiiaircraftperfromance considering a big watermark on each picture :)

Edited February 14, 2015 by Hiromachi

[Blazingskitters 952]

As this is Part 1 of 6, thus I thought posting whole bibliography is not necessary yet. But seems it is, and as it is not a problem I can do it right now.
And I think there is no need to refer to wwiiaircraftperfromance considering a big watermark on each picture :)

It looks truly professional now. Just jaded with other shady folks who use research and then deny completely any references, not personal at all.

The WWII aircraft reference wasn't aimed at the pictures :)

[Hiromachi 8,004]

The WWII aircraft reference wasn't aimed at the pictures :)

Than I dont know what else are you aiming for, as I didn't use any other source either from main website or from their discussion related sites. In regard to Japanese aircraft there is nothing Mr. Williams archives offer, as I already had, byt contacting National Air and Space Museum or London National Archives. Same for the Hellcat, as I had a lot of performance and stability data from NACA documents, obtained through my friend or archives.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Hiromachi

[Blazingskitters 952]

Than I dont know what else are you aiming for, as I didn't use any other source either from main website or from their discussion related sites. In regard to Japanese aircraft there is nothing Mr. Williams archives offer, as I already had, byt contacting National Air and Space Museum or London National Archives. Same for the Hellcat, as I had a lot of performance and stability data from NACA documents, obtained through my friend or archives.

Wasn't aiming at anything :). You're doing a fantastic job.

Spitfireperformance.com is another reference that may be useful. As well as the spits, there are materials on other aircraft you mentioned that will assist you.
As well as these nice little numbers:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zGCL2baoM6oC&printsec=frontcover&vq=1&output=html_text
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tC22hsLZs9IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=f4u+pilot&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xTbfVIy0I8fQ7AbemYHoDw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA Edited February 14, 2015 by Blazingskitters

[decipher 383]

a lot of interesting information presented in a professionally written way, can't wait to read the next parts of the series. always impressed by the effort you make. front page material.

 

thankyouverymuch!

 

:kamikadze:

Edited February 14, 2015 by decipher

[Hiromachi 8,004]

I got the manual from October 1945 along with NACA analysis of flying properties of Hellcat. Plus the pilot comments coming from NAS Patuxent Joint fighter Conference. I simply saw no reason to take more if already had all what was necessary. Hellcat was already a great fighter, but making "dash five" they put it on another level. One thing that impressed me was that not only P-51 pilots but even those F6F and F4U had the Anti-G suits allowing to pull harder maneuvers, which surprised Japanese pilots a few times. With this Hellcat was just a complete gun platform with ability to use it all the way up to structural limits. 

[Juliet_Six 13,981]

Spitfireperformance.com is another reference that may be useful. As well as the spits, there are materials on other aircraft you mentioned that will assist you.

 

I thought Spitfireperformance.com and wwiiaircraftperformance.org were merged?

[StasRaskolbas 8,397]

I got the manual from October 1945 along with NACA analysis of flying properties of Hellcat. Plus the pilot comments coming from NAS Patuxent Joint fighter Conference. I simply saw no reason to take more if already had all what was necessary. Hellcat was already a great fighter, but making "dash five" they put it on another level. One thing that impressed me was that not only P-51 pilots but even those F6F and F4U had the Anti-G suits allowing to pull harder maneuvers, which surprised Japanese pilots a few times. With this Hellcat was just a complete gun platform with ability to use it all the way up to structural limits. 

 

Well a lot of the -5 was just standardizing the stuff they were doing with the -3.  Early -5's look like late -3's a little bit even thanks to retaining the rear cockpit windows on the first production -5's.  

 

Another big difference was the monochrome glossy sea blue paint scheme which was standardized in the Fleet just as the -5's were coming into service.  Apparently one of the nice things about the gloss paint was it reduced surface drag.  Nearly any -5 you can see in a picture is the monochrome late-war scheme, I don't know if I've ever seen one in 3-tone, but at least, according to modeling websites and such a very few of the first examples were painted that way.  

 

The Joint Fighter Conference comments are interesting as the Hellcat was a bit long in the tooth by that time.  What's interesting is at that point Grumman fighter design diverged somewhat, as the F7F and F8F were of vastly different design philosophies and not only that, of damn near opposite design philosophy to each other - a stripped down lightweight pure fighter hot-rod vs a 4400 horsepower twin-engined brute of an airplane.  The Hellcat was somewhat left at the wayside at that point but it's unfair to say that she couldn't have been upgraded - because she certainly could have been.

 

Grumman took the exact same variant of Double Wasp used in the F4U-4 and installed it in a Hellcat, along with a 4-bladed propeller and called it the XF6F-6.  Top speed was well over 400 MPH, but it was overshadowed by the F4U-4 and F8F and the Navy cancelled it after the war.  Would make an interesting might have been, with the added benefit that there would be no need to retool Plant 3, which was the Grumman plant that made all the Hellcats. for F8F production.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2015 by IronWorks

[Blazingskitters 952]

I thought Spitfireperformance.com and wwiiaircraftperformance.org were merged?

There do seem to be articles on one that aren't on the other.
The spitfire stuff is definitely a bit different

[Anubis_TD 2,224]

cool 

[Cpt_Branko 9,698]

Very nice :)

[weetad 226]

Osprey Publishing is fantastic. I read a book from them about "B-29 Hunters of the IJAAF" Very interesting 

[hanwind 291]

Interesting read, thanks. The "duel concept" of combat aircraft history is certainly interesting - specially if the two planes are technically in more or less equal or have their advantages/disadvantages more or less equalized letting ultimately the tactics and combat skills of pilots in decisive role. If the other side has clearly inferior plane and also clearly inferior/less trained pilots, it is too onesided to be interesting. For this reason I found Hellcat vs. A6M5 duel less interesting than the earlier and more critical duel between Wildcat F4F vs. A6M2. The Osprey book of the latter was fairly good, although somewhat too biased to American side. Perhaps the main reason for that was that Japanese sources were not used by or accessible to author as much as the American ones. 

 

The one about A6M2 vs. P-40 E I wait with interest. The common wisdom is that Zero was better than Kittyhawk/Warhawk but maybe this is not so clear in the light of well researched combat history and careful comparison between advantages/disadvantages of both planes. When it comes to combat skills and subsequent achievements, both sides overclaimed drastically as far as I know but that was quite common in air combat reports of the time. Maybe comparing surviving and dated loss records of both sides gives more balanced picture. If you take just claims or official "kill/loss" stats, both sides shot down more than lost themselves in almost every combat. 

Of the older fighter duels in Japanese context these might have some interest putting "Rata" vs. early Japanese monoplane fighers:

"Ratas" (I-16 type 5/10) and "Claudes" (A5M2/A5M4) over China in 1938/1939
"Nate" (Ki-27 Ko/Otsu) vs. "Rata" (I-16 types 5/10/17/18) over Halhin Gol / Nomonhan 1939 - there is already a good base for this one at the forum.

The best Japanese biplane fighter to my knowledge was "Perry" (Ki-10) - maybe it should be compared with the I-15 bis used by Chinese, but I do not know if there was much air combats between these two planes. 

Edited March 19, 2015 by hanwind

[Dabtk 1,248]

Lol somehow every event N1K or Ki-84 vs my F6F I club hard. They all think flat turning or vertical maneuvers work against the Hellcat!

Interesting read, thanks. The "duel concept" of combat aircraft history is certainly interesting - specially if the two planes are technically in more or less equal or have their advantages/disadvantages more or less equalized letting ultimately the tactics and combat skills of pilots in decisive role. If the other side has clearly inferior plane and also clearly inferior/less trained pilots, it is too onesided to be interesting. For this reason I found Hellcat vs. A6M5 duel less interesting than the earlier and more critical duel between Wildcat F4F vs. A6M2. The Osprey book of the latter was fairly good, although somewhat too biased to American side. Perhaps the main reason for that was that Japanese sources were not used by or accessible to author as much as the American ones. 

 

The one about A6M2 vs. P-40 E I wait with interest. The common wisdom is that Zero was better than Kittyhawk/Warhawk but maybe this is not so clear in the light of well researched combat history and careful comparison between advantages/disadvantages of both planes. When it comes to combat skills and subsequent achievements, both sides overclaimed drastically as far as I know but that was quite common in air combat reports of the time. Maybe comparing surviving and dated loss records of both sides gives more balanced picture. If you take just claims or official "kill/loss" stats, both sides shot down more than lost themselves in almost every combat. 

Of the older fighter duels in Japanese context these might have some interest putting "Rata" vs. early Japanese monoplane fighers:

"Ratas" (I-16 type 5/10) and "Claudes" (A5M2/A5M4) over China in 1938/1939
"Nate" (Ki-27 Ko/Otsu) vs. "Rata" (I-16 types 5/10/17/18) over Halhin Gol / Nomonhan 1939 - there is already a good base for this one at the forum.

The best Japanese biplane fighter to my knowledge was "Perry" (Ki-10) - maybe it should be compared with the I-15 bis used by Chinese, but I do not know if there was much air combats between these two planes. 

P-40 was superior to A6M2 and A6M3 in real life, the Flying Tigers proved it. The speed and durability of the P-40 was more than a match for the A6Ms maneuverability.

[Hiromachi 8,004]

P-40 was superior to A6M2 and A6M3 in real life, the Flying Tigers proved it. The speed and durability of the P-40 was more than a match for the A6Ms maneuverability.

The only thing that we can say was proven, is your ignorance of facts. 

 

The first squadron iof AVG had flown up to Kunming to defend the terminus of the Burma Road and saw some combat action on 20 December 1941 while defending Rangoon from Japanese bombers. So we are talking about the time after the attack of Pearl Harbor. At that time in China there could be found only Japanese Army units, in regard to fighter units that would be 59th and 64th Sentai, as during the second half on 1941 almost all Zeros had been transferred from China to the Pacific Ocean in preparation to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

On 15th September the 12th and 14th Kokutais were disbanded as a result of reorganisation. Most pilots of the 12th Kokutai were transferred to the Tainan Kokutai or to the 3rd Kokutai.

 

The Genzan Kokutai returned to Genzan in the same month.

 

It seems that only Japanese Navy unit in the area was 1st Kokutai, operating G3Ms, which  from time to time supported the attack on Hong Kong during December 1941.

 

So Flying Tigers did not encounter any Zeros and what is more they did not prove anything as a result.

 

 

As for the Army Units, 59th and 64th were equipped with Ki-43-I, the Hayabusa (or Oscar I in US code system). Which is in many ways a very different aircraft from a Zero, its also 40 km/h slower. Aircraft had lower structural integrity, many inferior flight characteristics if compared to Zero and to be completely honest it was disliked by many of the 64th Sentai pilots. Yohei Hinoki left little room for positive comments about it.

 

And if you would like to get actual results or opinions ...

For example in defense of Australia in 1942 (March till August) Allies lost 18 planes and 4 pilots, 3rd Kokutai which was their opponent, lost 8 machines and 6 pilots. Though it should also be noted that Allies managed to bring down about 10 bombers.

 

Another comparison could be drawn from New Guinea campaign (April-November 1942) carried by Tainan Kokutai against 75th and 76th Australian Squadrons (operating P-40 E), American 39th, 35th and 40th Fighter Squadrons (operating P-39 D-1 and P-400s) and of course some Allied bomber units. 

Tainan Kokutai killed 148 Allied aircrew in aerial combat and downed a total of 81 aircraft, those included :

-17 P-40s

- 5 B-17s

- 38 P-39s

- 10 B-25s

- 5 A-24s

- 5 B-26 

In the same time Tainan Kokutai lost 18 Zeros shot down by enemy fighters and 6 by bombers. 

 

Making a statement that P-40 was superior is quite radical taking into account above results, even though they are just an example. From my perspective both machines had advantages and disadvantages, however it was Zero that had some performance edge over P-40. P-40 had higher top speed, but to accelerate to it would take time, and as Zero had initially much better acceleration that would mean an actual advantage was rather in hands of Zeke pilot. 

After the war, former RAAF No. 75 Squadron pilot Pete Masters could recall a following on the Zero performance :

"There was much more we know now, that we didn't know before we got to New Guinea, like the ability of Zeros to outperform us, contrary to what we have learned before we arrived. We were told that the Japanese Zero  was and upgraded copy of the Harvard Trainer as used by the Empire Air Scheme in Canada. It was under-powered and flimsy with very light aluminum and canvas cladding sometimes joined by canvas at the extremities. It had no armor plate to protect the pilot and although it was reputed to fly higher than the Kittyhawk it was much slower and inferior in almost all its characteristics, including firepower.

I am now sure that all this misinformation came about because very few Allied fighters had encountered Zeros in combat prior to New Guinea and those that had in Malaysia, the Philippines or elsewhere had never had a chance to examine the real specifications of this amazing aircraft at close quarters. In fact when I at last saw a Zero on the ground and crawled all over it I too was amazed at the rigidity of its structure and its apparent fighting qualities from the cockpit. In our combat assessments at Port Moresby during the 44 days we fight, we soon concluded that head-to-head combat between Kittyhawk and a Zero was unwise, and at altitudes above 20,000 feet was simply dangerous. 

They were much more maneuverable and could outclimb us in the ratio of two or three to one. What they didn't have was our weight and pilot protection with 1/2 inch armor plate behind the pilot and in the firewall. Our battle plans therefore always included a desire to get above the enemy, if possible into the sun and then to break away and come back for another shot. If we had height we could always get away from the Zero but with equal skills as pilots on both sides, the Zero always had advantage at the same height and also could maneuver much more effectively above 20,000 feet where the Kittyhawk would ten to "fall out of the sky". 

 

P-40 certainly was more durable and had superior diving characteristics. But to utilize this it required a certain altitude advantage, not often possible with very bad climbing performance. 

[Juliet_Six 13,981]

The only thing that we can say was proven, is your ignorance of facts. 

 

The first squadron iof AVG had flown up to Kunming to defend the terminus of the Burma Road and saw some combat action on 20 December 1941 while defending Rangoon from Japanese bombers. So we are talking about the time after the attack of Pearl Harbor. At that time in China there could be found only Japanese Army units, in regard to fighter units that would be 59th and 64th Sentai, as during the second half on 1941 almost all Zeros had been transferred from China to the Pacific Ocean in preparation to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

On 15th September the 12th and 14th Kokutais were disbanded as a result of reorganisation. Most pilots of the 12th Kokutai were transferred to the Tainan Kokutai or to the 3rd Kokutai.

 

The Genzan Kokutai returned to Genzan in the same month.

 

It seems that only Japanese Navy unit in the area was 1st Kokutai, operating G3Ms, which  from time to time supported the attack on Hong Kong during December 1941.

 

So Flying Tigers did not encounter any Zeros and what is more they did not prove anything as a result.

 

 

As for the Army Units, 59th and 64th were equipped with Ki-43-I, the Hayabusa (or Oscar I in US code system). Which is in many ways a very different aircraft from a Zero, its also 40 km/h slower. Aircraft had lower structural integrity, many inferior flight characteristics if compared to Zero and to be completely honest it was disliked by many of the 64th Sentai pilots. Yohei Hinoki left little room for positive comments about it.

 

I thought the AVGs main opponent at the outbreak of the war was the by then completely obsolete Ki-27 as the production of the Ki-43-I was kicking in very slowly and the Ki-44-I did not arrive before February '42?

 

Were the 50th Sentai mainly employed the Ki-27s and suffered the heaviest losses.

[Hiromachi 8,004]

I didnt mention that because it wasnt relevant, as the main possibility to confuse as Zero was to meet Ki-43. And those were only flown by 59th and 64th at the outbreak of the war.