Pacific Glory, by Nicolas Trudgian (P-38 Lightning vs Mitsubishi Zero)
By 16 June photographs showed that aircraft at Rabaul had
increased to 245; the subsidiary ‘ring’ airfields were also full
of planes. There followed the single largest air battle of the entire
Solomon Islands Campaign; 120 Japanese aircraft went up against 104
defenders in a dogfight over Savo Island, Tulagi and Cape Esperance.
The Allies scored a remarkable one-sided victory with 49 Zeros and 32
dive-bombers, 81 planes in aggregate, downed for the loss of just 6
aircraft. While the Japanese were still able to commit large forces
to the battle, the victory on 16 June continued the pattern of an
increasingly one-sided battle for air supremacy. From April to early
June 1943 the ratio of the Allies’ kills-to-losses averaged about
3:1; on 12 June the Allies scored a 5:1 victory and ten days later
the win ratio jumped yet again to 13:1. What was happening?
A 3:1 win:loss ratio for the Allies was already a substantial
advantage that spoke volumes about the advances made by Allied
equipment as well as the quality of their pilots in the first half of
1943. By comparison at the start of the war Japanese Naval and
Military Air Forces had overwhelmed the Allies throughout the
Asia-Pacific Region, often winning air battles by ratios of 10:1 or
more. In the first half of 1943 the Commander of Air Forces in the
Solomons (COMAIRSOL) had already achieved a startling turnaround in
performance. From the middle of June 1943 there was another huge leg
up in comparative performance of Allied fighter forces. As with
Lieutenant-General Kenney’s remarkable victory at the Battle of the
Bismarck Sea, it seems that a number of disparate factors had led to
a tipping point moment. The gradual erosion of the Guadalcanal
Campaign was putting increasing pressure, not so much on the
availability of aircraft, but on the availability of trained pilots.
It was systematic of the entire structure of the Imperial Japanese
General Staff that war was planned as a short-term project with the
emphasis on attack. The Japanese Navy, even more than the Imperial
Japanese Army, was particularly unprepared for a war of attrition;
their psychology, inherited from their great victory at the Battle of
Tsushima, was to focus energy and resources on the winning of a
single transformative engagement rather than planning for a long war.
The Japanese Navy was not only failing to train enough pilots, it
was also failing to protect them. It is instructive to consider that
very few US pilots died when their planes were shot down. In part it
was because, unlike their Japanese counterparts, US fighters had
better armored cockpits. Moreover without self-sealing fuel lines,
Japanese Zero frequently blew up when hit by tracer bullets, killing
the pilot instantly. When US pilots ditched or parachuted into the
sea, the US Navy had a well-organized search and recovery capability.
The Japanese Navy did not. Advantageously most of the dogfights in
the April–June 1943 period took place closer to US held areas. US
pilots were also better conditioned, with rotation and rest and
recreation (R&R) built into the whole logistic framework of the
various forces operating under COMAIRSOL.
New Japanese fighters also had to face a multiplicity of
challenges given the diversity in capability of the six types of
Allied fighter planes with which they were likely to engage. By
contrast US pilots in the South Pacific only had to develop tactics
to combat the Zero. On 28 March 1944, the US Flight Test Engineering
Branch concluded after testing a captured Mitsubishi Zero, “The
airplane is highly maneuverable, has a fair rate of climb, and good
visibility; however, its speed in level flight is low, it is lightly
armed, has no armor protection for the pilot, and the fuel tanks are
not self sealing. The cockpit layout is fair, leg-room is
insufficient for an average sized man …” The Zero had abundant
good qualities; it was reliable, had an extraordinarily long range,
and was, above all, maneuverable and easy to fly. Even with the
swathe of more advanced US fighters now arriving in the South
Pacific, it was not wise to get into a prolonged dogfight with a
Zero.
Nonetheless, Allied pilots learned to exploit the Zero’s
weaknesses. Allied fighters with a superior ‘ceiling’ capability
would look to swoop down on a Zero and then skedaddle before the
enemy fighter could make his better maneuverability count. By
shooting and then diving, US pilots realized that their Japanese
counterparts could not follow because of poorer diving speeds.
Moreover by working in teams US pilots learned to thwart the Zero’s
superior maneuverability in dogfights.
In Tokyo the developing catastrophe in the air was being hidden
from senior commanders. Although losses were heavy, Japanese crews
were reporting massively inflated results for transport ships sunk
and enemy ‘kills’. On 14 April 1943 Yamamoto ordered a
two-pronged force, codenamed Y-1 and Y-2, consisting of 75 fighters
and 23 dive-bombers from the Third Fleet (Y-1) along with the 11th
Air Fleet’s 54 fighters and 44 medium bombers (Y-2), to make a
major attack on Milne Bay, which had become an important logistical
center for the Allied advance in New Guinea and the Solomons.
Japanese pilots claimed to have shot down forty-four Allied
aircraft. In fact Allied losses amounted to a single P-40 and its
pilot killed; four others were shot up and a P-38 crash-landed.
Similarly exaggerated claims were made for ships sunk. Supposedly
four transports had been sunk and six others heavily damaged. The
reality was that only one ship was heavily damaged out of the three
that received hits. Admiral Ugaki noted happily in his diary,
“Today’s operations of Y-1 and Y-2 a great success.
Congratulations! But at the same time our losses gradually increased
too. This was natural.” On this occasion the loss of eight Japanese
aircraft was far from a disaster but the action reports of Japanese
crews were far from ‘natural.’ Ultimately the gross
misinformation provided by both Army and Navy aircrews prevented
their commanders from taking realistic action to change tactics,
attempt to upgrade equipment and training, or take other measures to
improve results.
Japan’s senior commanders were not the only ones deluded in the
performance of their aircrews. The Naval General Staff, after
briefing Emperor Hirohito on the superb performance of Operations Y-1
and Y-2, sent Admiral Ugaki a message from His Majesty with the
pleasing words then recorded in his diary, “… convey my
satisfaction to the Commander in Chief, Combined Fleet, and tell him
to enlarge the war result more than ever.”
By October 1943 it had become clear that the air battle over the
Solomon Islands was taking its toll on the Japanese Navy Air Force
(JNAF). An American intelligence report written in that month noted
that Japanese pilots made glaring tactical mistakes, unnecessarily
exposed themselves to gunfire, got separated and lost mutual support,
and at times seemed to be completely bewildered. Both bomber and
fighter pilots ceased to display the aggressiveness that marked their
earlier combat. Bombers ceased to penetrate to their targets in the
face of heavy fire, as they had formerly done; they jettisoned bombs,
attacked outlying destroyers, gave up attempts on massed transports
in the center of a formation. Fighters broke off their attacks on
Allied heavy and medium bombers before getting within effective
range, and often showed a marked distaste for close-in contest with
Allied fighters.
Some Japanese officers were also becoming aware of deficiencies in
the performance of the JNAF. Commander Ryosuke Nomura, who took over
the role of air operations officer at Rabaul in 1943, became acutely
aware of a decline in pilots performance. He attributed this to
America’s better aircraft, an inability to sustain a high level of
maintenance of their own equipment, and a decline in the experience
and quality of available pilots. By the beginning of 1943 the number
of experienced pilots, normally defined as having more than 600 hours
flying, had fallen by 25 percent from its peak and in February the
tipping point was reached, which saw pilots with between 300 to 600
hours outnumbering experienced pilots for the first time.
Within several months the JNAF would be sending pilots into battle
with less than 200 hours flying time. These new pilots were not only
disadvantaged in combat but also in the seeming basic task of
preserving their equipment. In February 1943, operational losses of
aircraft began to significantly exceed combat losses; 161 were lost
on take-off, flight or landing mishaps while 104 were shot down by
enemy action. The high command of the JNAF either seemed unaware of
the need for rotational relief or simply did not have the resources
to provide it. Combat flying is an exhausting and high stress
activity and many experienced Japanese pilots must have perished
because their levels of concentration collapsed. In the JNAF, pilots
literally flew until they dropped.
Showing posts with label Technical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technical. Show all posts
Friday, August 12, 2016
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Workmanship of Axis aircraft
In Richard M. Bueschel's series on Japanese WWII
fighters (i.e, "Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate in Japanese Army Air Force
Service) and Rene Francillon's "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific
War"), the authors repeatedly mention that the latter-day Japanese
fighters, while technically equal to their Allied counterparts, were plagued by
variable and poor workmanship; Bueschel writes that the Ki-84 could only
rarely achieve a level speed of 400 km per hour. For example, the level speed
of the Nakajima Ki-84 fighter was rated at 620 km per hour, yet
reportedly most late-production specimens could not achieve even 400 km per
hour due to poor workmanship of the airframe and engine.
As for the Ki-84, I remember talking to
a P-51 pilot from SWPA. He said that sometimes they would try to intercept the
Franks, which could and did show them a clean set of heals. If this was an
overall problem I think this "legging it" would not have happened. A
good question would be where did this information come from. Was it from the
US, who did and still do put down aircraft that were either superior or at
least on par with their own, or was this actual Japanese records showing this.
I apologize to our American Friends out there, the above comment is not an attack on you guys but just something that I have seen and heard over the years, by various Authors and Vets.
I apologize to our American Friends out there, the above comment is not an attack on you guys but just something that I have seen and heard over the years, by various Authors and Vets.
I recall reading accounts of trials of captured
Japanese aircraft, in particular the Ki-84, which stated that the fitting of US
spark plugs made a vast difference to the aircraft's performance. The fitting
of US brake pads too, where possible was found to be a must too! Material
shortages and quality problems in seemingly minor areas can have a dramatic
effect on overall performance.
Were the late war Luftwaffe fighters subject to
similar inconsistencies in workmanship and quality control?
Its an accepted fact that workmanship on the
production Me-262s could vary by a huge margin. With components from several
sources and locations, it was impossible to get the same kind of tight
tolerances that a single factory of that period could produce. There were
reports of some Me-262s that were discovered to have foreign objects (tools,
supplies, etc.) pushed into void spaces by their builders, no doubt in response
to their slavery. Also, I read here once that a Junkers 290 crashed and it was
later determined that the tail section was delivered with a very large amount
of very heavy tools hidden in the tail.
The Swiss thought the 109Gs they received were
terrible, as opposed to the few Fs that they received mid-war. The French
thought the same about the Fw.190s they tried to operate postwar. This was
partly due to wartime pressures, and partly to the influence of all the foreign
(slave, if you like) workers employed in the German industry late war.
It should be added that late P-40s were much cruder than the early-war aircraft, though this is due to an intense "simplify and add more lightness" campaign rather than a decline in workmanship as such.
It should be added that late P-40s were much cruder than the early-war aircraft, though this is due to an intense "simplify and add more lightness" campaign rather than a decline in workmanship as such.
Bf 109 quality as perceived in Finland
The Finnish AF also observed a big
decline in workmanship quality of Bf 109G-6s received in summer 1944, compared
with quality of G-2s received in winter-spring 1943. All received 109s were
therefore thoroughly overhauled at VL (except a few aircraft which were ferried
directly to the frontline, and performed the first missions still with German
transfer insignias/see Vol 6 of FAF History by Keskinen&Stenman). The FAF
and VL tried very hard to negotiate a full reparation license for the 109
(including drawings, spares and tools) for the 109, but for obvious political
reasons the Germans were very reluctant (it was known to the Germans that
contacts had already been taken to Moscow in April 1943). Complete sets of
drawings and tools for the 109 were never delivered, why VL tried to design the
indigenous Pyörre-Myrsky around the Daimler-Benz 605 engine,
Flight characteristics
Messerschmitt Bf 109 undergoing wind tunnel testing in 1940.
Flight characteristics - Climb and Ceiling
1."climb rate"
This defines the maximal vertical speed of an aircraft when climbing, while *retaining airspeed*. So no drop in airspeed is permitted for max. climb rate. Climb rate is usually defined in feet/minute
2. "initial climb"
Same as for climb rate, but only for the situation directly after take-off. This figure is important when trees or other high objects are in the direct vicinity of the runway. Aircraft should have a vertical clearance of 15m (45 feet) to any nearby object. So if an aircraft has a poor initial climb, the area adjacent to the runway should be clear of tall objects.
3. "Ceiling"
Ceiling = maximum height (usually measured in feet).
There are two ceilings actually. The operational ceiling (which is the one you probably refer to) and the aerodynamic ceiling.
The first defines how high an aircraft can fly 'normally', thus no drop in airspeed, and reasonable figures like stall speed.
This is where we get to the aerodynamic ceiling. At a certain altitude the aircraft is limited in the 'allowable' speeds. The margin between stall speed and maximum attainable airspeed narrows down to 0 at the so-called 'death man's corner'. A Lockheed U-2 spyplane has an airspeed margin of 30 kts at it's operational height, which is a very narrow margin!
4. "Service Ceiling"
The ceiling at which an aircraft can be flown operationally, which is economically sound or prescribed by the aircraft's mission. As stated, this service ceiling is ridiculously high for the U-2, with little margin for mistakes.
This defines the maximal vertical speed of an aircraft when climbing, while *retaining airspeed*. So no drop in airspeed is permitted for max. climb rate. Climb rate is usually defined in feet/minute
2. "initial climb"
Same as for climb rate, but only for the situation directly after take-off. This figure is important when trees or other high objects are in the direct vicinity of the runway. Aircraft should have a vertical clearance of 15m (45 feet) to any nearby object. So if an aircraft has a poor initial climb, the area adjacent to the runway should be clear of tall objects.
3. "Ceiling"
Ceiling = maximum height (usually measured in feet).
There are two ceilings actually. The operational ceiling (which is the one you probably refer to) and the aerodynamic ceiling.
The first defines how high an aircraft can fly 'normally', thus no drop in airspeed, and reasonable figures like stall speed.
This is where we get to the aerodynamic ceiling. At a certain altitude the aircraft is limited in the 'allowable' speeds. The margin between stall speed and maximum attainable airspeed narrows down to 0 at the so-called 'death man's corner'. A Lockheed U-2 spyplane has an airspeed margin of 30 kts at it's operational height, which is a very narrow margin!
4. "Service Ceiling"
The ceiling at which an aircraft can be flown operationally, which is economically sound or prescribed by the aircraft's mission. As stated, this service ceiling is ridiculously high for the U-2, with little margin for mistakes.
In American usage, "service ceiling" is the altitude at which an aircraft's rate of climb falls to 100 feet per minute. I just skimmed an English book in which they claimed that "service ceiling" was the altitude at which the rate of climb fell to 500 feet per minute. Considering that most WW2 aircraft, other than fighters, have INITIAL rates of climb around 500-700 feet per minute, this would seem a rather harsh standard. Maximum ceiling is worthless for comparisons.
Many German rates of climb are given in meters per second, which I believe is what is displayed on rate of climb indicator gauges (at least modern ones). Comparing an aircraft rated at "22 m/sec" against an aircraft rated at "5.6 minutes to climb to 20,000 feet" is a bit unfair because the second aircraft might have a very impressive rate of climb for the first 1,000 feet.
Flight characteristics - Speed calculation and Actual
Indeed speed
comparisons are very tricky. Many still thinks that Bf110 was slower than a
Hurricane, in fact it was faster at some altitudes and rarely British Fighters
made their claim top speed.
For example, during
test in 1940 Hurricane Mk I's averaged 315mph as opposed to 340mph advertised
and Spitfire about less than 360 as opposed to 369mph advertised.
Many German Pilots
swore that Me109E was faster than Spit Mk I (on paper about 10mph or so slower)
The difference lie in
acceleration. Bf110 was faster than a Hurricane but took a lot of time to get
there where as British fighters has good acceleration. And when you are turning
and looping you can't make the level top speed. The best way to get faster is
to dive and it is another virtue not much relating to level speed.
Perhaps max. level
speed does not matter that much what matters is acceleration, drag to lift
ratio, diving and climbing. Even still valid today. New generation aircraft are
all have slower top speed. (F22 Mach1.7, JSF about 1.5, F18E/F Mach 1.7 however
good old Mig23 do well over Mach 2... for a few minutes so it has no
operational value)
Friday, August 14, 2015
Kayaba Ka-1
The Imperial Japanese Army became interested during the late
1935 in autogyro developments taking place in the USA and, believing that such
an aircraft might be developed for use as an artillery spotter, imported from
America in 1939 a Kellett KD-1A. However, soon after this aircraft had arrived
in Japan it was irreparably damaged during a flight test and the army arranged
for the wreck to be transferred to the Kayaba Industrial Company, which had
been carrying out research into the autogyro configuration. Shortly afterwards
Kayaba was requested to proceed with design and development of a two-seat
autogyro based on the Kellett. The resulting Kayaba Ka-1 prototype comprised a
fuselage with two separate open cockpits in tandem, a tail unit incorporating a
tailplane with twin inverted fins, fixed tailwheel landing gear, and an Argus
As 10c engine mounted conventionally in the nose of the fuselage to drive a
two-blade tractor propeller; the pylon for the three-blade unpowered rotor was
incorporated in the fuselage structure, mounted just forward of the front
cockpit.
First flown on 26 May 1941, the Ka-1 proved successful in
early flight testing, and the type was ordered into production to serve in the
originally intended role as a spotter-plane for artillery units. At the same
time Japanese shipping losses were beginning to rise and it was suggested that
the very short takeoff required by such aircraft would make them suitable for
operation from the light escort carrier Akitsu Maru. A few production Ka-1s
were modified for this role and equipped to carry two 132-lb (60-kg) depth
charges, but because of their limited payload capability these had to be flown
as single-seaters. Operating for some time off Japanese coastal waters they
were the world's first operational armed rotary-wing aircraft, with production
of both versions totalling approximately 240. This number included one Ka-1 KAI
which was tested with rockets attached to the rotor tips in an attempt to
improve payload capability, and a single aircraft that was evaluated with a
240-hp (179-kW) Jacobs L-4MA-7 7-cylinder radial engine, allocated the
designation Ka-2.
Technical data
for Kayaba Ka-1
General
characteristics
Crew: 1-2
Length: 9.2 m (30
ft 2⅛ in)
Rotor diameter:
12.2 m (40 ft 0¼in)
Disc area: 117 m²
(10.9 ft²)
Empty weight: 775
kg (1,709 lb)
Max takeoff
weight: 1,170 kg (2,574 lb)
Powerplant: 1×
Argus As 10c air-cooled inverted V8 engine, 180 kW (241 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 165
km/h (89 knots, 102 mph)
Cruise speed: 115
km/h (62 knots,71 mph)
Range: 280 km (151
nm, 174 mi)
Service ceiling:
3,500 m (11,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 5
m/s (980 ft/min)
Armament
1x 60 kg (132 lb)
depth charges
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




