Zoe Brain
11-13-2013, 02:42
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97ZPWEdp5H5cmViV241SlpIZGM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97ZPWEdp5H5VFdIWlNEVVoxbzg
WINGS March 20, 1945
SPITFIRE VIEW OF A ZERO
By F’Lt C.N. 'Bardie' WAWN DFC.
Anyone who has flown against a Zero in combat is impressed mainly by one thing – its amazing manoeuvrability – and Allied fighter pilots base their tactics accordingly on that factor. No sane pilot would attempt to stay and manoeuvre with a Zero in a dogfight; he relies on surprise and speed to“bowl ‘em over.”
Nearly two years ago a captured Zero and a RAAF Spitfire, flown by myself, went up together for some very interesting trials. The story could not be told until now for security reasons.
That these tactics are good is proved at a glance at the squadron scoreboards in NE and NW areas.
It is pretty hard to analyse accurately the fighting qualities of a plane when you are fighting with it – you’ve got so many other things to think about, and you rarely have an open go at one because one of your cobbers butts in to help you or one of the other fellow’s cobbers does the same for him.
For that reason I found the trials we carried out between a Spitfire and Hap very interesting and very informative. We had the whole sky to ourselves, and, what’s more, we used a fair bit of it.
When all is said and done, a fighter is only a flying gun platform, and in that respect the Zeke or Hap isn’t so hot. Its armament sounds quite impressive on paper, but it is a little misleading, because neither its cannon nor machineguns have the same hitting power as our equivalent calibres. However, there are a few pilots around who will tell you it was good enough on certain occasions.
You don’t want to run away with the idea that the Zero is manufactured in the same factories as the Made in Japan goods you used to see in the two and sixpenny stores. It isn’t. Although lightly constructed, it is strongly made and well designed.
There is a well-known story about the Kittyhawk pilot who looked around and saw a Zero chasing him. “So I dived her to 300 knots,” said the pilot, “and there he was, still following me. Then I dived her to 400 knots, looked around and he was still following me. So then I dived her up to 450 knots and looked around. He was still following me, but didn’t have any wings.” I think that is a pretty good story.
“But the Zero hasn’t got any armour plating,” everyone has either heard or said that at some time.
The Japs rightly reason that the best defence is manoeuvrability. In other words, if you can’t get a shot at another plane, you can’t shoot it down.
It was quite warm at 27,000 feet, and the nearness of that Hap – complete with markings – made me perspire anyhow. We broke off right and left, counted four, turned towards each other, and it was on.
Hap on my tail
Just to reassure myself, although I knew the inevitable result, I used the tactic we employed with success against ME109’s and FW190’s in Europe – that is, a climbing right or left hand turn at slow speed on the stall all the time.
No good. In less than twenty seconds the Hap was on my tail, turning inside me, while the Spit was ruddering and flicking and doing its best to fall out of the sky.
So down I went, straight for the earth, with the Hap after me. As my speed built up I turned on a few aileron rolls to make it tough for him.
He followed me around the first couple, but as our speed approached the 400 mark I noticed he was having trouble in following them around. So when I had gained half a turn on him I sneaked out the side and lost him temporarily.
At high speed the ailerons of a Hap are inclined to freeze, causing a loss of manoeuvrability in the rolling plane. They do in most aeroplanes, for that matter, but more so in the Hap than our best fighters.
We tried loops, one after the other, and although he could not get much of a shot at me, he could stay on my tail all right. Rolls off the top – same results. These manoeuvres are never used in dogfights, anyway, but we tried them for fun.
With the Spit on the Hap’s tail, it was quite east to stay there as long as speeds were not allowed to drop too low. If they did, then the superior manoeuvrability of the Hap at slow speeds showed up again.
Straight and level, flat out, the Hap would only run into a place, especially if the race was a long one. Whereas a Spit will take full bore for as long as your petrol will last. I think the Jap fitters would have a lot of extra work if little Yum Yum, or whatever his name may be, came in after flying around the skies for hours with the teat pressed. That is, if he got home at all.
It is quite a good motor, for all that, and the Jap pilot seems to have plenty of faith in it, because at times, he crosses large expanses of water to escort his bombers.
Japs don’t like head-on attacks in Haps or Zekes. The reasons are, firstly, their firepower is not as good as ours, and secondly, they have no protection in the shape of bullet-proof glass in the windscreen.
They are not, in my opinion, very good pilots. They don’t seem to get the best out of their machines and do silly things at times, such as leaving a perfectly good position behind an Allied fighter to skid out and up to the side to make a deflection shot out of it. That doesn’t make it any easier. Although they vary a good deal, the Army pilots in particular don’t seem to be very good shots.
I’m glad the ex-Kittyhawk pilot who flew the Hap was not flying it in New Guinea on the side of the Japs … (W/Cdr Les Jackson, DFC … Ed.)
All of which boils down to the fact that you can’t dogfight with a Hap at slow speed. No aeroplane can. Keep your speed up, though, and you have several advantages. Manoeuvrability is about equal, and you have better fire power and armour and speed.
Six second delay
The last war axiom of get above him before you attack, applies to the Hap too. We tried it with the Spitfire at 19,000 feet and the Hap at 15,000 feet. The Spitfire could dive down, have a squirt, and be back at 19,000 feet before the Hap knew what had happened. And there was nothing he could do about it. Incidentally, quite a few Jap pilots seem to suffer from what we call a six second delay. It was noticed in New Guinea on several occasions.
Zeros flying along unconcernedly with tracer from our Kittyhawks whistling around them, even under their noses. But they still continued to fly along straight and level. Suddenly they would realise all was not well and they would take the most evasive action, sometimes in the wrong direction.
Those were Army pilots. Apparently the Navy pilots are 100 per cent on those chaps, and some of them seemed to be quite good.
Summing up, the Japs have a good aeroplane in the Hap. But all round the Spitfire is better, especially at height. As for the pilots who fly them … the Japs aren’t in the race.
The Spitfire in this trial was found after landing to have a 15 degree bend in the tail section due to the excessive 'Gs' placed on it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97ZPWEdp5H5VFdIWlNEVVoxbzg
WINGS March 20, 1945
SPITFIRE VIEW OF A ZERO
By F’Lt C.N. 'Bardie' WAWN DFC.
Anyone who has flown against a Zero in combat is impressed mainly by one thing – its amazing manoeuvrability – and Allied fighter pilots base their tactics accordingly on that factor. No sane pilot would attempt to stay and manoeuvre with a Zero in a dogfight; he relies on surprise and speed to“bowl ‘em over.”
Nearly two years ago a captured Zero and a RAAF Spitfire, flown by myself, went up together for some very interesting trials. The story could not be told until now for security reasons.
That these tactics are good is proved at a glance at the squadron scoreboards in NE and NW areas.
It is pretty hard to analyse accurately the fighting qualities of a plane when you are fighting with it – you’ve got so many other things to think about, and you rarely have an open go at one because one of your cobbers butts in to help you or one of the other fellow’s cobbers does the same for him.
For that reason I found the trials we carried out between a Spitfire and Hap very interesting and very informative. We had the whole sky to ourselves, and, what’s more, we used a fair bit of it.
When all is said and done, a fighter is only a flying gun platform, and in that respect the Zeke or Hap isn’t so hot. Its armament sounds quite impressive on paper, but it is a little misleading, because neither its cannon nor machineguns have the same hitting power as our equivalent calibres. However, there are a few pilots around who will tell you it was good enough on certain occasions.
You don’t want to run away with the idea that the Zero is manufactured in the same factories as the Made in Japan goods you used to see in the two and sixpenny stores. It isn’t. Although lightly constructed, it is strongly made and well designed.
There is a well-known story about the Kittyhawk pilot who looked around and saw a Zero chasing him. “So I dived her to 300 knots,” said the pilot, “and there he was, still following me. Then I dived her to 400 knots, looked around and he was still following me. So then I dived her up to 450 knots and looked around. He was still following me, but didn’t have any wings.” I think that is a pretty good story.
“But the Zero hasn’t got any armour plating,” everyone has either heard or said that at some time.
The Japs rightly reason that the best defence is manoeuvrability. In other words, if you can’t get a shot at another plane, you can’t shoot it down.
It was quite warm at 27,000 feet, and the nearness of that Hap – complete with markings – made me perspire anyhow. We broke off right and left, counted four, turned towards each other, and it was on.
Hap on my tail
Just to reassure myself, although I knew the inevitable result, I used the tactic we employed with success against ME109’s and FW190’s in Europe – that is, a climbing right or left hand turn at slow speed on the stall all the time.
No good. In less than twenty seconds the Hap was on my tail, turning inside me, while the Spit was ruddering and flicking and doing its best to fall out of the sky.
So down I went, straight for the earth, with the Hap after me. As my speed built up I turned on a few aileron rolls to make it tough for him.
He followed me around the first couple, but as our speed approached the 400 mark I noticed he was having trouble in following them around. So when I had gained half a turn on him I sneaked out the side and lost him temporarily.
At high speed the ailerons of a Hap are inclined to freeze, causing a loss of manoeuvrability in the rolling plane. They do in most aeroplanes, for that matter, but more so in the Hap than our best fighters.
We tried loops, one after the other, and although he could not get much of a shot at me, he could stay on my tail all right. Rolls off the top – same results. These manoeuvres are never used in dogfights, anyway, but we tried them for fun.
With the Spit on the Hap’s tail, it was quite east to stay there as long as speeds were not allowed to drop too low. If they did, then the superior manoeuvrability of the Hap at slow speeds showed up again.
Straight and level, flat out, the Hap would only run into a place, especially if the race was a long one. Whereas a Spit will take full bore for as long as your petrol will last. I think the Jap fitters would have a lot of extra work if little Yum Yum, or whatever his name may be, came in after flying around the skies for hours with the teat pressed. That is, if he got home at all.
It is quite a good motor, for all that, and the Jap pilot seems to have plenty of faith in it, because at times, he crosses large expanses of water to escort his bombers.
Japs don’t like head-on attacks in Haps or Zekes. The reasons are, firstly, their firepower is not as good as ours, and secondly, they have no protection in the shape of bullet-proof glass in the windscreen.
They are not, in my opinion, very good pilots. They don’t seem to get the best out of their machines and do silly things at times, such as leaving a perfectly good position behind an Allied fighter to skid out and up to the side to make a deflection shot out of it. That doesn’t make it any easier. Although they vary a good deal, the Army pilots in particular don’t seem to be very good shots.
I’m glad the ex-Kittyhawk pilot who flew the Hap was not flying it in New Guinea on the side of the Japs … (W/Cdr Les Jackson, DFC … Ed.)
All of which boils down to the fact that you can’t dogfight with a Hap at slow speed. No aeroplane can. Keep your speed up, though, and you have several advantages. Manoeuvrability is about equal, and you have better fire power and armour and speed.
Six second delay
The last war axiom of get above him before you attack, applies to the Hap too. We tried it with the Spitfire at 19,000 feet and the Hap at 15,000 feet. The Spitfire could dive down, have a squirt, and be back at 19,000 feet before the Hap knew what had happened. And there was nothing he could do about it. Incidentally, quite a few Jap pilots seem to suffer from what we call a six second delay. It was noticed in New Guinea on several occasions.
Zeros flying along unconcernedly with tracer from our Kittyhawks whistling around them, even under their noses. But they still continued to fly along straight and level. Suddenly they would realise all was not well and they would take the most evasive action, sometimes in the wrong direction.
Those were Army pilots. Apparently the Navy pilots are 100 per cent on those chaps, and some of them seemed to be quite good.
Summing up, the Japs have a good aeroplane in the Hap. But all round the Spitfire is better, especially at height. As for the pilots who fly them … the Japs aren’t in the race.
The Spitfire in this trial was found after landing to have a 15 degree bend in the tail section due to the excessive 'Gs' placed on it.