Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

Can I presume that at some point in this...The Zero will eventually commit to an attack. Or is the Zero pilot going to wait for the F4F to reach his altitude.

 

that's just it.....the Zero can stay higher and toy with the F4F...that's why they call it ACM-- air combat maneuvering.....they are trying to out maneuver the other pilot...one pilot does a maneuver, the other tries to counter
... can't the Zero dive toward the Wildcat, and and maneuver just out of range, to left or right, then up and around since he has mucho speed, ?etc , then try to swing around...? .... there can be any number of ways for the Zero to try to get into a better position, where as the F4F is more limited? ...can't the Zero make a slight climbing turn? if F4F follows, loses distance and speed?? eventually the F4F will run out of power, and need to stop climbing?....
remember, the Zero pilot knows how to cut his speed for agility, but still be in position to regain that speed and good position...
and, here's a big factor, neither pilot knows where the other pilot is going next......but the Zero pilot has more options?

 

But the Wildcat actually had a higher ceiling than the Zero by a pretty significant amount.

Here's a good article on the topic:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/1v1_zero_wildcat.htm

 

Yes, I agree. Members not thinking realistically. If one was thinking realistically, then one would know that the Zero lacked agility in a dive. They would also know that the Zero lacked agility at high speeds. Thus, if one was thinking realistically, one would not be making such a claim.

Oh well, que sera sera.

Your blanket statement

allows for such. As no specifications are giving for the engagement.

The F4F can turn the tables on the Zero and become the aggressor, with advantage, by turning into an attacking Zero for a head-on pass.

Thus, your blanket statement is a false one.

There I go again, thinking realistically...

If the Zero is diving to attack...Then, realistically, he should have achieved it.

Then neither can the Zero...Since the Browning .50 caliber outranged the Type 99-1 20mm.

I never said that did I? Nor, have I made such a blanket statement that allowed for such.

Yes.

Tell that to Jack Conger, John Smith, Joe Foss, Harold Bauer, etc. I hope those names sound familiar to you.

Ok, Bauer was killed when he had to ditch his F4F in the ocean after a head-on pass with a Zero...But, he did get the Zero, and was alive when he abandoned his sinking F4F.

That is providing that the Zero survives the head on pass, and that the F4F takes no other actions...And the F4F taking no further action after completing a head on pass. Well, that is just unrealistic.

 

If the planes are approaching head-to-head their is no maneuvering. If the Zero tries to turn, the F4F gets a good chance at a snap shot.

Naval aviators wore brown, the Marines - I have seen photos of them wearing their combat boots.

You should have thought of that before you posted your blanket statement.

The F4F could and did turn the tables on the Zero, and vice-versa. There is no such thing as a sure-thing.

 

I thought head to head was not as common as ACM.....? and shouldn't the Zero pilot know head to head is not good for a Zero? a good pilot will use his advantages--height and speed-- to get in a good shooting position, not a head on attack.... and the shoes question was just a 'joke' on how we need more information on the initial contact...

page 191 of Black Sheep..I quote Boyington ..remember, he had mucho experience..he was with the AVG, etc

""We could fly to Bougainville at any altitude we chose. the main thing to remember was always to be on top of the enemy before starting to work on him"...bold mine...obviously, not good to be below........can't ''work'' on the enemy...not many options,if any at all......if they found themselves below the enemy would they just climb and go head to head.....! ?

page 164

"" the next thing I saw , about the most beautiful sight a fighter pilot can dream of, climbing in an easterly direction... ,....was a formation of thirty Nippon Zeros. we were fortunate in having the midday sun coming over our shoulders....which is another thing a fighter pilot desires..""..... bold mine....the climbing Zeros was about the ''most beautiful sight '' for a fighter pilot

 

What plane was he flying at that time? I think he was in the Flying Tigers once flying P-40s, but they never faced Zeros. So either F4F or F4U, I assume?

 

Corsair, sorry.....good catch.......and F4U was better than the F4F! rate of climb 2890 fpm.....speed over 400
much thanks all replies....very interesting

 

Bauer wasn't climbing into the Zero, to my knowledge.....what about the others?? I've of course read about them, except Conger not remembered......talking about pilots knowing their aircraft, I thought the Harrier pilots used the rotatable nozzles to gain advantage int the Falklands.... ?

 

I guess there were many but Germans believed the Bf 110 would act as a long distance fighter but could not fill those boots which made big problems to bombing operations.

 

Although the Media reports indicated such, No.

The advantages the Harriers had were; the British had received the AIM 9L (Argentinians had only AIM-9B, French Matra's 530 & 550, and the Israeli Shafrir 2, all a generation older), the British had superior radar, the British aircraft's proximity to the carrier, Argentines having to fly from the mainland giving very little time over the AoO (many aircraft lacked inflight refueling), and training; the British had trained against every fighter type in the Western world, while the Argentian airforce pilots had only trained with/against their own.

"HMS Glamorgan vectored a pair of SHAR towards three targets approaching at supersonic speed. As the SHAR turned towards the threat, the three targets turned away and used their superior speed advantage to escape. The SHAR returned to their CAP station until a few moments later the Glamorgan controller announced that the targets had returned and were descending in bound at some 25 miles away.
The SHAR immediately turned towards the targets, and decided to perform the hook manoeuvre: the lead aircraft flew head-on to the target and the wingman split to swing around to attack the targets from the rear.
The lead plane was unable to get a lock onto the fast approaching Mirage aircraft but the Hook maneuver worked perfectly as the Mirage pilots didn’t spot the wingman turning onto their tails until it was too late.
The wingman got his tone and released the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile, that hit the Mirage for the first Sea Harrier’s confirmed kill.

The Navy’s SHARs went on to score 20 kills (none of which was achieved using the famous trick of stopping the plane midair by pointing the jet nozzles slightly forward inducing a 2g deceleration) to no loss in air-to-air combat. However, two were lost to ground fire (radar guided 30mm AA and a Roland missile) and a further two were lost to accidents during the conflict.

The kill-to-loss ratio does not reflect the skill and braveness of the Argentinean pilots who had to face a truly astonishing fighter, which had remarkable slow flight characteristics, even without the thrust vectoring, and a superior radar."

http://theaviationist.com/2012/05/22/sea-harrier-the-forgotten-hero-that-won-the-war-in-the-falklands-to-be-replaced-by-the-f-35b/

The AIM 9L
"This was the first "all-aspect" Sidewinder with the ability to attack from all directions, including head-on, which had a dramatic effect on close in combat tactics."

"Its first use in a large-scale conflict was by the United Kingdom during the 1982 Falklands War. In this campaign the "Lima" reportedly achieved a kill ratio of around 80%, a dramatic improvement over the 10–15% levels of earlier versions..."

"In combat uses of the AIM-9L, opponents had not developed tactics for the evasion of head-on missile shots with it, making them more vulnerable."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder

“We had fought the Sea Harrier against every airplane in the western world,” says Tim Gedge, then a lieutenant commander."

"Argentina’s pilots were long on ability and courage, but years of isolation had deprived them of priceless experience. They had practiced combat only against themselves, and the air force had never trained to fight at sea."
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/air-war-in-the-falklands-32214512/?no-ist

 

much thanks ......great and interesting reading...a very interesting and ''different'' air conflict.....I apologize if off topic, but wanted to go into how pilots can ''work'' and manipulate their aircraft, not just 'fly' it...it was my understanding the WW2 pilots could control their speed in a dive --to a degree, --a skid here, throttle adjust, etc.... while diving, maneuver for the best position...sighting enemy was usually out of gun range......they did not just fly or dive straight to the enemy..--if the situation called for it...another reason why they couldn't and didn't want to fly straight to the enemy was the enemy is also maneuvering for a good position..
once in range, of course they have to go at the enemy..
I'm looking for input from CAC

 

as stated in another thread, WW2 air combat was ''slow motion'' compared to the fighters today...obviously...and it wasn't like the TV series Baa Baa Black Sheep

 

Well...The first photo is a "High Yo Yo", not a barrel roll. And the second photo is a Lag Pursuit Roll, not simply a "roll".

Since it appears that you have a copy of "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering" by Robert L. Shaw. Perhaps you should go back a few pages to Figure 2-2: Defenses against Lead Pursuit...Look at the graphic and read that particular section.

Your pictures show what fighters can do once they have already begun mixing it up, not what they were doing before...

 

AFAIK, Boyington never flew combat in an F4F, only the P-40 & F4U. Although, he did train in and ferry F4Fs to Guadalcanal while he was part of VMF-122, based out of Turtle Bay, Espiritu Santo.

 

these were just to illustrate the fluid, continuously changing, 3D, etc world of air to air combat.....it's not ''straight at em''......what are the lower altitude fighters going to do on sighting enemy, before mixing it up? are they not trying to gain altitude---while trying to somehow get into a less disadvantageous position? if they have time, they can try to zoom up fast......they definitely are not climbing straight toword the higher altitude enemy ..?? they would be safer zooming up perpindicular or in direct opposition to the enemy ... and as they change direction, the enemy counters, no? ..as stated, both are trying to get the most favorable position before going for the 'straight' attack in the final moments of the air 'dancing'' dual??

 

Ahhh...So you posted pictures from the book...But, you have never read or looked at the book.

Let me help you.

 

Assuming he was a fighter pilot before he joined the Flying Tigers, I wonder what he flew? Probably the F3F but there were still some F2Fs , FFs and maybe a couple of F4Bs still around. He was in the reserves but he was flying something.

 

While serving in the Marine Corps(the first time), he flew the F3F-2 and the F4B-4. Can't say that I remember reading about him flying the F2A Brewster Buffalo.

I'd recommend reading Bruce Gamble's "Black Sheep One: The Life of Gregory Pappy Boyington"
Google preview: https://books.google.com/books?id=ifFetVT1x9UC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Thanks for the recommendation but I'm going to pass. He was a terrific fighter and a hero deserving his Medal of Honor but he seemed like a cranky unpleasant SOB to me so I probably wouldn't enjoy reading it.