Corsair vs Zero

[The Jug Rules!]

I know how to get out of trouble... Slam the throttle to the firewall....!

 

[plan_D]

The Spitfire was faster than the Zero plus there's more to dogfighting than climbing, diving and turning. The Spitfire pilot must have been an appalling pilot to allow himself to be at low altitude, with a Zero on his tail and at slow speeds.

 

[Soren]

I know how to get out of trouble... Slam the throttle to the firewall....!

Well your plane isnt going to be faster than bullets ! So before your aircraft would be to gain speed, it would be as holed as a "sand-filter"

 

[Soren]

The Spitfire was faster than the Zero plus there's more to dogfighting than climbing, diving and turning. The Spitfire pilot must have been an appalling pilot to allow himself to be at low altitude, with a Zero on his tail and at slow speeds.

Who said anything about slow speeds ? Even at over 300mph the A6M2 would turn tighter than the Spitfire

And no he doesnt have to be an appalling pilot, as he most likely was used to the traditional dogfighting being carried out over the skies of europe against the Luftwaffe boys.

A Zero could easely loure a Spitfire to go low with it, so to ensure the Spitfire wouldnt be able to escape by diving away ! It just depended on how agressive the Spitfire pilot was ! But early on this wasnt nessecary, as the Spitfire wich was use to happily engage in a turning dogfight would be completely surprised to see the Zero on its tail in a matter of a few seconds.

The true story is that the Spitfire would struggle in a 'Dogfight' with a Zero Pilots coming in from Europe all too often were shot down by the Zero because they thought they were still fighting Jerry. Example: Air defense of Darwin in '43 by European-experienced Brits and Australians flying Spitfires. Six raids by the Japanese Navy (some raids by G4M "Bettys",escorted by Zeroes; some fighter sweeps by just the Zeroes). ACTUAL losses (where there is maintenance and inventory records of both sides available): 2 Bettys, 3 Zeroes, 38 Spitfires lost A far worse fate for the Spitfires than the one they got in the early encounters with the Fw 190.

 

[plan_D]

I don't believe that kill count, at all.
The majority of pilots flying the Spitfires had been in Hurricanes and knew about the Zero. The Spitfire was a better performer than the Zero at higher speeds, plus it was better armed and armoured. There was much more of an advantage to a Spitfire than a Zero.
The Zero was CRAP at high speeds, fact. The Spitfire would have to be low and slow, and of course the pilot would have been stupid, to fall easy prey to the Zero.

 

[evangilder]

There is no way that a zero could pull a tight turn at 300 MPH. The ailerons on that airplane are simply not strong enough to hold a turn at that speed. At slow speeds, it was a devil to fight, but at higher speeds, the plane didn't turn well at all. Engine torque was also a factor with the Zero, affecting turning into the torque.

 

[Soren]

I don't believe that kill count, at all.

Well that is your own choice, as it is a confirmed count

The majority of pilots flying the Spitfires had been in Hurricanes and knew about the Zero

Yeah but they didn't listen to Joe Foss who, at request of the RAAF, flew the Spitfire and tried to lecture them on how to fight the Zero (teamwork, don't dogfight). They ignored his advice "Have another beer, Joe . . . We've been fighting Jerry for two years in the Spit!" Those pilots later had to be withdrawn and re-trained, as they would loose badly to the Zero with their European theatre style tactics.

The Spitfire was a better performer than the Zero at higher speeds, plus it was better armed and armoured. There was much more of an advantage to a Spitfire than a Zero.

What higher speeds ? 300mph "No" 330mph "No".

The Zero was CRAP at high speeds, fact. The Spitfire would have to be low and slow, and of course the pilot would have been stupid, to fall easy prey to the Zero.

At 332mph wich is the A6M2's max speed, it would still turn tighter than the Spitfire, it just wouldnt roll as fast.
And again "No" the pilot just had to rely on European theatre tactics.

 

[Soren]

There is no way that a zero could pull a tight turn at 300 MPH. The ailerons on that airplane are simply not strong enough to hold a turn at that speed. At slow speeds, it was a devil to fight, but at higher speeds, the plane didn't turn well at all. Engine torque was also a factor with the Zero, affecting turning into the torque.

The Zero would turn tighter than the Spitfire at 300mph

 

[evangilder]

I highly doubt that. While the Zero was supremely maneuverable at low speeds, its controls became heavy at high speeds, and it rolled to the left much more easily than it rolled to the right. Also, due to its float-type carburetor design it tended to stall under negative gees, as would be encountered if the Zero were climbing and then had to drop back downward while remaining upright.

At low speeds, the Zero could out-turn anything. At high speeds, it was not as manueverable. The key was big ailerons, the ones on the Zero are really big. Joel Paris, who flew P-40s said that the ailerons on the Zero were "big as barn doors". But those ailerons did not have the strength at high speed to make high speed rolls. Most pilots agreed that over 275 MPH, anything could out-turn a zero.

 

[Soren]

I highly doubt that. While the Zero was supremely maneuverable at low speeds, its controls became heavy at high speeds, and it rolled to the left much more easily than it rolled to the right. Also, due to its float-type carburetor design it tended to stall under negative gees, as would be encountered if the Zero were climbing and then had to drop back downward while remaining upright.

At low speeds, the Zero could out-turn anything. At high speeds, it was not as manueverable. The key was big ailerons, the ones on the Zero are really big. Joel Paris, who flew P-40s said that the ailerons on the Zero were "big as barn doors". But those ailerons did not have the strength at high speed to make high speed rolls. Most pilots agreed that over 275 MPH, anything could out-turn a zero.

Don't you mean out-roll it ? Sure the Zero's controls were heavy at over 275mph, but if you pulled hard enough it wouldnt be a problem, and it would for sure outturn a Spitfire . (You'd just have to pray for the ailerons to hold )

However at 320mph and upwards, it would be foolish for a Zero pilot to pull a real 'tight' turn, as that allmost certainly ment the destruction of his ailerons, or controls. (as you said they were as big as barn-doors ! )

 

[The Jug Rules!]

Has anyone stopped to consider that most of the aircraft lost by the Japanese at the Battle of the Philippine Sea were bombers? And even then is was more poor pilots than poor planes that caused the losses.

The Zero was a remarkable aircraft. On merely half the horsepower of its rivals, it attained very impressive performance (pit an A6M5 against the similarly powered P-36 and see what happens). It was certainly the best fighter available in that part of the war at the start of the war and (despite the rapid advances in technology) never became truly obsolete (though it did need to be replaced).

The P-36 may win. It has better armor and diving qualities. If the pilot knows how to fight, he will probably win. The AVG did well with B model P-40's wich, if I'm thinking correctly has about the same H.P.

 

[evangilder]

If you pulled hard enough? It would take super human strength to even attempt, the wings and ailerons would most likely not be able to withstand that kind of loading either. Above 275 MPH, the Zero could barely outmanuever it's own shadow.

 

[R Leonard]

I'd ask what is your source for the A6M's maneuverability at speeds over 300 mph. My source is not just the USN evaluation reports, but a USN pilot, with two A6M2s to his credit, amongst other types, and a test pilot, who actually flew both the A6M2 and the A6M5. While he found both to be sweet flying machines, he verifies that right turns at high speed were out of the question. Why do you think the USN and USMC pilots were taught that the high speed dive to the right was the easiest way to escape the A6M? What is your source ... please cite. Are you an A6M pilot?

 

[evangilder]

Agreed, RL, but even left turns at those speeds would be very difficult in the Zero. High speed manueverability was not a strength of the Zero. At low speed, that is another story.

 

[Soren]

Hahaha !! No im not a Zero pilot. (I wish i were though )

At 275mph the Zero could pull tight turns !, above that it would deteriorate gradually. A right turn at 300mph wouldnt hold, but a left turn would, although it would be hard to pull the stick back !

At slow to medium speeds the Zero ruled the sky !, but when the speed began to go above 275mph, it would deteriorate gradually to a point where right roll's were out of the question. So at high speed the Zero was pretty predictable, and would always roll and turn left.

At 320mph, a turn wasnt going to be as tight anymore, but it would turn nonetheless. Many people think that the Zero was crippled at over 330mph, well it wasnt ! it could still turn and roll, but it would roll faster to the left (As explained by Saburu Sakai )

The turning performance at 300mph for the Zero and Spitfire are as follows:

A6M2 Mod.21 Reisen 'Zero' at 300mph:

One 360 at 1,000ft: 11.2s.
One 360 at 5,000ft: 11.5s.
One 360 at 10,000ft: 12.5s.

Two 360s at 1,000ft: 21.5s.
Two 360s at 5,000ft: 23.2s.
Two 360s at 10,000ft: 25.3s.

----------------------------------------

Spitfire MK Vb at 300mph:

One 360 at 1,000ft: 12.2s.
One 360 at 5,000ft: 12.8s.
One 360 at 10,000ft: 14.6s.

Two 360s at 1,000ft: 26.2s.
Two 360s at 5,000ft: 28.3s.
Two 360s at 10,000ft: 31.0s.

 

[plan_D]

State your sources for these 'facts', on the kill count and the turning radius. You have just stated that the Zero could turn inside the Spitfire at high speeds, and high altitude which is just plain not true.

 

[Gemhorse]

You might find the Mk.VIII [8] Spitfire's specs more relative to combat against the Zero......

I've read a number of RAF and Allied ex-ETO pilot's books, and they had great advantage when coming into the PTO with their experience....may have had to adapt, yeah, but they effectively combatted the Zero......a couple of examples would be Aussies, 'Bluey' Truscott and Clive 'Killer' Cauldwell....

AWESOME post, Rich.....sat a few of us on our bums......

Gemhorse

 

[plan_D]

As the majority of those in Burma were Mk. VIII Spitfires I think that would be a better comparison. The Mk. VIII was the definitive Merlin-Spitfire, after all.

 

[Soren]

State your sources for these 'facts', on the kill count and the turning radius. You have just stated that the Zero could turn inside the Spitfire at high speeds, and high altitude which is just plain not true.

300mph isnt 'High' speed ! And i never said at high altitude !

You dont have to say alot on this forum before a 'Source' is required !!

Anyway 'some' of the source's are: British Warplanes of World War II' by Daniel J. March. / Bill Gunston's
'Combat Aircraft of World War II.

 

[plan_D]

Of course we need sources if you're stating something that's never been said before. You are trying to state that the Spitfire was inferior to the Zero, which is just not true.

The Spitfire would have to be below 300 mph, and at low altitude for the Zero to have a reasonable chance of defeating it. And that's the WORST situation for any plane to be in, low and slow, while in a dogfight.