What counts in a dogfight?

[FOF]

Hi all.
Decided to register after viewing the phenominal thread on the best fighter of WW2.
In any event, that thread got me thinking about what characteristics were essential in order for a plane to be considered a good dogfighter.
Obviously certain planes were better than others at certain things, for example a Spit being able to turn inside a bf109, or a P-47 being able to dive faster than any other piston engined plane.

What i don't understand is how a pilot could maximise his plane's advantage.
For example, if a 109 pilot found a Spit on his 6, what could he do, since the Spit could turn inside the 109 (thus being more manouverable?)
If the roles were reversed, surely all the Spit pilot would need to do is keep turning in circles? :D

In theory, what could each disadvantaged pilot do to:

a) escape
b) turn the tables

Forgive the naive questions - I'm a budding enthusiast.

[simon]

The example you give highlights some of the fundamental problems in assessing which are the crucial advantages. Yes, the Spitfire pilot could just carry on turning, but what he'd find is that he'd get shot down. Not by the Bf109 pilot he was trying to avoid, but probably by the wingman he'd forgotten about!

I'm assuming your talking Battle of Britain Spitfire MkIs vs. Bf109E, in which case the a single Messerschmitt pilot with a single Spitfire (Or for that matter Hurricane) on his six would just push his nose down and dive. The Spitfire pilot with his carburettor (sp?) Merlin would then have to either half roll to throw the necessary amount of fuel into his engine and dive, by which point the Bf109 would be nowhere to be seen, or attempt to follow the Bf109 into his dive in which case the Merlin would cut out in the negative G manouevre and the Bf109 would quickly accelerate away.

If the Spitfire pilot elected to turn in order to evade a following Bf109, and assuming that there was no wingman, all the Bf109 pilot would have to do would be break the circle by getting some distance (and hopefully altitude) between himself and the Spitfire, then turn and make a long(ish) straight run at the Spitfire with his machine guns firing, using his cannon when he saw hits. (What's sometimes refered to as a "Zoom and Boom" engagement).

No such thing as a naive question, actually it's quite a good one, and hopefully one that may provoke some debate.

Welcome on board!

[FOF]

Thanks Simon, you certainly helped answer my question.

Yes, my scenario was more a one-on-one situation, as opposed to having wingmen etc.

Does anyone know if pilots adopted particular strategies against certain planes, and regarding their own planes as well?

For instance, did Spifire pilots attempt to lure 109's into 'classic' dogfights, or was it more according to how the situation developed?

What tactics would you guys use in the following examples? (for both pilots)

109 E Vs. Mk 2 (?) Spitfire

Fw 190 A-4 Vs. Mk IX Spitfire

A6M Zero vs. Hellcat

Dora 9 Vs. P51-D Mustang

Demanding, aren't I? :D

[Ricky]

Hi FOF,

have a quick read of Capitalus's post on page 21 of the 'Best Fighter' stand. He has included an interesting description of how the Finnish pilots would attack different types of Russian planes.

oh, and if you're in a Zero - get up close & personal. You can out-dogfight pretty much anything except possibly an Oscar!

[simon]

The Spitfire MkII had only a marginally superior performance to the MkI, so that engagement would be more or less as per the MkI.

The Fw190A I've read had a phenomenal roll characteristic, so in any close engagement the Fw190 pilot would likely 1/4 roll and perform a high G turn in an effort to evade his attacker. The Spitfire pilot by comparison I believe (Going from memory here!), has the edge in speed and climbing ability so he could either perform an "Immelmann" (Basically half a climbing loop followed by a half roll to get you straight and level again), or just climb and accelerate away, hoping he can get the distance before the Fw190 pilot can sight his guns.

A6M Vs. Hellcat, depends largely on model of Zero, but to take the arguably diffinitive A6M2, all the Hellcat pilot has to do is "Zoom & Boom", avoiding the classic dogfight at all costs. Another distinctly riskier alternative would be to try and get the Zero into a diving chase, a number of sources indicate that the Zero's light construction leant it a tendency to shed it's wings in some cases at speeds of as little as 350mph! The other point worthy of note here is that the Hellcat would have a good chance of being able to take a few hits and survive, against the Hellcat's guns the Zero would quickly disintegrate.

Dora-9 against Mustang, I'm not greatly knowledgable on the Dora-9, but I guess, especially at altitude it would be a roughly equal contest with the edge going to the better pilot, unless the Mustang had the gyroscopic gunsight, in which case a slight edge to the Mustang from the outset.

All these assume a roughly medium(ish) sort of altitude and generally favourable conditions, so that pilots have plenty of room to manouevre.

As for specific tactics, hidden somewhere, I think it is in the "Hellcat" thread is the best description I've read of the Thach Weave, developed by the US Navy pilot and commander who gave it the name, and this was designed (With matchsticks of all things!) to counter the Zero Fighter.

I think that is the key here, much of the successes or failures of many aircraft was as much down to the tactics used in their employment as the aircraft themselves. The much copied "Schwarm" of the Luftwaffe gave their pilots a great edge against the RAF and Commonwealth pilot's Vics of the early part of the war, although arguably to a degree the sophistication and efficiency of the RAF's command and control system more than balanced that out during the Battle of Britiain.

Of course pure classic one on one dogfights were exceedingly rare in WWII, so much of this is supposition gleened from my own somewhat limited readings.

[GregP]

Welcome FOF!

The great majority of aircraft shot down in WWII (also WWI, Korea, etc.) were shot down by a foe they never saw until they were hit by the first burst. Thus, the crucial thing in aerial combat is surprise. Therein lies the best chances for a kill.

Simon's post is right on.

Also, the American AVG also had to use the P-40 to its advantage when attacking Zeros in China. They were taught to get high and in the sun, perform a diving attack, shoot the buggers as you go by, and either zoom up for another diving attack ... or use the speed to escape after flaming the enemy. The thing NOT to do was turn with a Zero if you were frlying a P-40. That's only ONE example of using YOUR strengths against the enemy's weaknesses.

Most WWII fighters and, indeed, even most jets today, had (or have)various strengths & weaknesses. Therefore, there was probably a favored "method of attack" once the dogfight was joined depending on your mount of the moment.

In the P-38L, for instance, the fighter could outclimb almost anything in the theater and was VERY maneuverable, so a climbing, turning fight was the thing to get into after the first high-speed pass. The P-47 tried to stay high and, if he got into serious trouble, could dive away from anyone else.

There's more, but Simon said it very well.

Likewise, the Bf 109 was superb at many things, too. One the things it was quite good at was remaining in control while nibbling on the edge of a stall in a low-speed turning fight. This held true at higher altitudes and higher speeds, too. So ... if the Bf 109 pilot could get his opponent to slow down and fight, then he was fighting from a position of advantage, especially in climb ... the 109 being an excellent slow-speed climber.

All the WWII fighters were good at SOMETHING or they wouldn't have been selected and produced. Most were good at several things. A few, the real standouts, were good at a great many things.

However, despite protestations to the contrary, there was NO single fighter aircraft that was the best at everything a fighter does. That's why the "best fighter" is really determined by the question, "What is today's mission? ... and at what altitude and range?"

Once you know that, then you can start to pick out a "best" fighter."

The lowly and despised P-39 was an abysmal failure at 25,000 feet, but was quite deadly at low level. At 3,000 feet, many a "superior" fighter fell to P-39s.

Anyway, welcome again, and don't be reluctant to chime in and join the fray. We tend to "discuss" things here more than resorting to personal attacks when opinions differ. It's what mnakes this forum a great one. You can have a differeing opinion and not be "run out of town."

If you look, you'll see people from the U.S.A., England, Australia, the Ukraine, Russia, India, etc. So, we have a broad cross section of knowledge to talk with.

Naturally, Russian ... or, more properly, former Soviet viewpoints about their own aircraft and aerial history are WAY more interesting than western viewpoints to me, since I live in the U.S.A. anmd already know the score from OUR point of view. I'm sure that, to the former Soviet territories, Western viewpoints are worthy of some interest, too. If nothing else, we get to talk about our differing opinions.

[FOF]

Great points, thanks guys.

As you say, the 'classic' 1-on-1 dogfight almost never happened.
I remember once seeing an interview with a German ace (forget his name) and he said the biggest advantage in a dogfight was seeing the enemy first! Makes sense I guess...

[Corsarius]

For me: What Simon and Greg have already said goes for me, too.

Otherwise I'll add my own spin and try to keep it simple

109 E Vs. Mk 2 (?) Spitfire

109 on spit's six: Spit uses superior turning circle and attempts to engage 109 in turning dogfight. 109 tries to use zoom to overshoot spit and rake it with cannon armament.

Spit on 109's six: 109 uses superior fuel injection system to increase distance. "lips pulled back and eyes popping from the sockets" (adolf Galland). Spit pilot curses German inventiveness and relatively weak armament and attempts to gain altitude to come around and engage in a head-on where the 109 begins to climb.

Fw 190 A-4 Vs. Mk IX Spitfire

Similar but reversed roles. the 190 is regarded as a GREAT rolling aircraft, so with a spit on it's tail it will roll away quickly. The spit should TRY to follow, or zoom and use altitude to it's advantage.

190 on Spit's tail, the spit will attempt to climb (against the engine torque of the radial-engined fighter) and immelmann his way back into a zoom combat situation.

A6M Zero vs. Hellcat

Zero has superior armament and turning circle, but some nasty vices and has trouble in starboard turns. The Hellcat can capitalise on this.

Alternately, in a 1 on 1, the hellcat has a lower performance for manoeverability than the zero-sen so it would be good to time the hellcat's zoom, turn tightly and follow it down, attacking when it has the least energy.


Dora 9 Vs. P51-D Mustang

Dunno. I don't know a lot about the Dora-9.

[GregP]

Nice post, Corsarius.

The Dora-9 was and is a very good fighter. However, its real strengths are probably known only to some aging German ex-fighter pilots. Certainly, it was among the best.

It retained the wings of the Fw 109A _so roll was just as good as the Fw 109A) and had a longer fuselage to accommodate the inline Jumo engine ... and the necessary short aft fuselage extension to keep the CG correct. So, the horizontal tail was moved aft by about a foot or so relative to the Fw 109A model.

Whether or not the extra moment arm resulted in better maneuverability (turn rate), worse, or the same as the Fw 190A would have to come from an ex-German pilot who flew both models.

Otherwise, we JUST DON'T KNOW! You are one of the few who actually admitted not knowing. Kudos.

[Ricky]

Ok, here is a question...
The Spitfire started the war with rounded wingtips, but some later versions were produced with clipped wings, which I beleive was in order to boost the roll rate.

The Bf109, on the other hand (and not entirely related), started the war with square wingtips, but later models were produced with rounded wingtips.
Why? What is the advantage of rounded over square, when the Spitfire appeared to go the other way?

[GregP]

The Spitfires you are speaking about had cut-off wingtips to enhance roll rate and for a bit of extra speed down low. They were NOT high altitude fighters. The High altitude Spits had wing tip extensions for more span and better high altitude capability (higher aspect ratio and better span efficiency).

So, the ailerons extended all the way to the tip on the clippede-wing spits while they did not on others.

The Bf 109's redesign from the E-model to the F-model were truly major. All manner of aerodynamic changes were made including a much larger spinner, a different propeller, redesign of the wing outline and airfoil, major changes to the slat system, a strengthened tail section, elimination of the tail struts, etc. Too bad they didn't fix the main gear while they were at it.

The rounded wing tips of the F-model and later models are a concession to higher altitude since rounded wing tips produced tip vorticies of much lower energy, resulting in better high altitude performance of the wing.

Remember that B-17s were bombing Germany from 30,000 feet about the time the Bf 109F was turned out.

I do NOT have a comparison of the rate of roll between the E and F-model 109s, but most WWII Bf 109 pilots all agree that the F-model flew better than any other model, and was the pinacle of the mark. By the time the G-model was introduced, the Bf 109 had passed its prime and the flying characteristics deterioriated to the point of alomst being dengerous at low speeds. If kept fast, the Bf 109G was STILL a great fighter, but almost all the great aces preferred the Bf 109F.

[ickysdad]

Corsarious,
A Zero has better armament than a Hellcat??????

[Corsarius]

I'm afraid so.

The Hellcat had 6*.50 calibre machine guns

The Zero-sen (earlier A6M aircraft). 2*7.7mm machine guns, 2*20mm cannon.
Later A6m5 and A6m6 aircraft: 3*13.2mm machine guns, 2*20mm cannon.

While we've all gone around the merry-go-round of 'which gun is better' a few times, I still feel that the combination of the two is superior, with the 20mm providing some serious hitting power at at range that the .50cal lacked.

This may only be my opinion, but I believe that it is general consensus.

[simon]

Overall though when you compare the Hellcat's ability to take damage and the Zero's ability (or lack off) to take damage, I'd say even against an A6M6 (It wasn't all A6M5s that were armed like that, just the A6M5c, the earlier "a" and "b" had two 13.2mm HMGs not three), the Hellcat is more likely to survive a burst of fire from the Zero's guns than the Zero is to survive a burst of fire from the Hellcat.

Also the cannon on the earlier A6M2 were a relatively poor weapon in air to air combat (being as I understand it licence built copies of the MG-FF), however I'm not trying to re-start the debate on the relative merits or otherwise of the weapons (Which I think has pretty much run it's course now!), just trying to add to this one!

[Kain]

Thought this would be the best place to ask this question:

Does anyone know which plane had the best kill rate in the against zeros?
And, this plane, (if it operated in Europe), how well did it do there?

(No need to give a big reply) keep it simple please.

Thanks.

[simon]

I believe that would be the Hellcat, although if you ask why that could spark another re-run of the Hellcat debate.

And pretty well as far as I'm aware are the short replies, welcome on board in any case!

[GregP]

The Hellcat is the correct answer.

It was the first carrier-based fighter to oppose the Zero with a better performance than the Zero. It was faster, accelerated better, rolled better, and was much tougher. At low speeds, say 250 mph, the Zero was still probably more maneuverable. But at higher speeds, above 300 mph, the Hellcat was superior in all respects.

It could have been a MUCH better fighter if Grumman had eliminated the dihedral in the outer wing panels. But the war effort did not allow time to cut in that modification since it would have interrupted the production lines. Hellcats weren't used much in Europe, but would have done well there. They wouldn't have been as fast as the competition, but would have given a great account of themselves if the enemy caught up with them.

I wonder which fighter was more maneuverable, the Spifire or the Hellcat? If we go by wing loading at normal maximum weight, the Spitfire would have had the edge. It also had the edge in power loading.

Certainly, the Hellcat could absoeb more damage than a Spitfire.

At the end of the war the Hellcat had the edge in kill ratio by a wide margin, and that was in opposition against an opponent even more maneuverable than the Spitfire, the Zero.

[simon]

Whilst the comparisson between the A6M2 and the tropicalised Spitfire MkVs may be true it has to be said that this is not true of all Spitfires, and certainly not the later model Zeroes where the addition of armour, self-sealing tanks, additional weapons and a more powerful engine greatly deteriorated the type's manouevrability.

Also as has been discussed the Hellcats had the Thach Weave, and increasingly the advantages of greater numbers of better trained pilots, all things the Japanese lacked.