# Best naval fighter II



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

So the Corsair pilot can escape where the Shiden has the advantage and the Shiden cannot do the same. Above 20,000ft the Shiden is losing power at a ridiculous rate (which is about where the R-2800 on the Corsair really gets going). So only below 20,000ft and only if the Corsair is tied to a specific location can we begin to consider the Shiden better. By the way, the -4 Corsair is 10mph faster at sea lever that the Shiden is at its best altitude.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

If the Shiden is above the Corsair at sea level it can dive down on it. Putting it that way, the Corsair is only better above 20,000 ft and on a fighter sweep.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2004)

the shiden could force a corsair into a battle if it had supprise..............


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

If the Shiden managed to come out of the Sun, or cloud when the Corsair was none the wiser those 4*20mm would rip it apart.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

And that proves nothing because it is the same if the positions are reversed. If the Corsair comes out from a cloud of behind the sun it will make short work on the Shiden. And the Corsair is superior to the Shiden above 20,000ft regardless of the mission because the Shiden has no power (which means no sustained maneuvers of any kind) and the speed differential is approaching 100mph.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

The Shiden was much harder to kill for the Corsair as the the Corsair was for the Shiden.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

No . . . because the Shiden is 70mph SLOWER!! You can't kill what you can't catch.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

you make it sound like as soon as the corsair pilot sees the shiden he can floor it and he'll be safe, it would take him a while to get up to speed, the shiden would have been able to keep up with it for a while.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

that is a valid point, though corsair could just go into a dive


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Not at 100ft, the Corsair NEEDS altitude.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

Well at 100ft the Corsair pulls back on the stick and waves bye-bye. The Shiden can't climb with it either. Also, I'm having trouble finding info on this, but I believe the Corsair would have been a match for the Shiden in a roll. In tests between a F4U-1D and an A6M5 the Corsair was equal or better to the Zero at all speeds. I know that's not the same plane but I don't see the Shiden being much (if any) better than a Zero in a roll.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Never assume, check. No military thinking at all.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

I don't have anything here that would confirm or deny that. And I'm always a little skeptical of what someone just sticks on their website.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

I'm the same, but a lot of the time you can't trust books either.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Well, ideally, an editor and or publisher have checked the book. Nobody ever checks the websites.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Yes, ideally.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

I still always get several different books on the same subject.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

yes, when your getting info its always good to check a number of sources 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

it's the same with me, out of the many many books i have on the subject, most give different information, the biggest difference had to be that one source says the meteor F.3 could hit 415mph, another says the same planes could do 548mph..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Most of the sources I've seen have been closer to the 415mph mark. In the case the 262 would have been clearly superior the the Meteor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

ive seen a few stats around the 470 mark, but never any higher than 500


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

ive seen a few stats around the 470 mark, but never any higher than 500


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

i'm gonna have to show you my book then you'll see...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

i bet on the back page it says

all information researched at tgplanes


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

no.....................

i'm very sorry, i found out i was wrong, my book actually says the F.3 could hit 585mph at sea level.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

485mph? Maybe. But most certainly not 585mph.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

585 at sea level! If that were the case the F.3 certainly would have been the first supersonic aircraft and I just can't buy into that.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

How do you work that out? Mach 1 (Speed of Sound) is 760 mph at sea level, this means that it would be no where near being supersonic. 
The Swallow was reported to break the sound barrier anyway, in a power dive.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

I figure that this way. Planes get faster at altitude and the speed of sound gets lower. It was not uncommon for a piston engine aircraft to be 50-70mph faster at altitude. So a jet with a speef of 585mph on the deck is probably capable of doing 635-655mph (maybe even more) at altitude. That could well be breaking the speed of sound (depending on what the altitude is).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

it's true, i'll show C.C the book...........

and what was the the payload of post war meteors??


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The speed of jets does increase so greatly at altitude, and the speed of sound does not drop so dramatically. 
A plane has optimum altitude, and the Meteors optimum altitude would have still kept it off the sound barrier.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

unless it was in dive from 50,000ft, i'd imagine it could break it then.............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

That's how the Swallow broke it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

i hear a spit hit 0.87 in a dive.................


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Good for the spit, but that's not that fast.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

The speed of jets do increase considerably at altitude. And the speed of sound does decrease. At 30,000ft the speed of sound is down to 678mph and at 40,000ft it has dropped to 660mph. If the F.3 Meteor truly was capable of making 585mph on the deck it would have been very close (if not exceeding) the speed of sound at altitude.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

That's not dramatic, at 40,000 ft it has gone down by 100, the Meteor was probably struggling to get up there, and altitude doesn't mean speed. There is an optimum altitude for planes, and even if it is 585 mph on the deck, at 40,000 ft it probably would be like 630, at best.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

Once you get above the aircrafts optimum altitude, you start getting inefficent, and sometimes even slower. They only get faster with altitude to a point.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

This I know. It's called an aircraft's critical altitude. Does anyone know what the critical altitude and absolute maximum speed of the F.3 supposedly were?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

OK, I did some checking on some of this stuff this afternoon. Several modern jets are capable of substantially higher speeds at altitude (like 300-400mph greater). However, it appears that this only applies to jets equipped with afterburners while non-afterburning aircraft have a fairly constant top speed at all altitudes so I was wrong on that point.

The F.I Meteor had two engines rated at 1700lbs of thrust each. I've checked several sources and they all agree that the Mark I's top speed was 410-415 mph. Now the engines on the F.III produced 2,000lbs each and I do not see that being enough to produce a top speed of 585mph. The Mark 4 did hit 616 mph (temorarily setting a speed record) but that was with engines producing 3,500lbs each. The best speed I've seen listed for the F.III is 495 mph which seems reasonable but well below the 262.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

So, we've gathered that the Me-262 was faster. And that even if the F.3 could do 585 mph on the deck, it couldn't break the sound barrier at any altitude. But then again it doesn't do 585 mph, it might have said 585 km/h. 

It's not just for aircraft with after-burners, it does increase on all engines to a point. The engines in the '40s were poor though, so their optimum altitude would have been around 20,000 ft. Where as modern day aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 it's 40,000 ft. And the EE Lightning could get to 40,000 ft and Mach 0.9 in 2 minutes 30 seconds, AND IT WAS DESIGNED IN 1949  . That's not it's fastest since it's rate of climb was 50,000ft per minute but that's uneconomic.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

It couldn't have been 585kph since that is only around 365mph. And I realize that non-afterburning engines to increase to a point, my point was their speed doesn't increase like an afterburning engine will. But yes, the 262 was definitely faster than any wartime mark of the Meteor.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

> And the EE Lightning could get to 40,000 ft and Mach 0.9 in 2 minutes 30 seconds, AND IT WAS DESIGNED IN 1949 . That's not it's fastest since it's rate of climb was 50,000ft per minute but that's uneconomic.



it's top speed was Mack 2.2 but obviously it couldn't maintain that speed................


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

The F.6 Lightning actually went Mach 2.3 and it could mantain it for a while. I was talking about its rate of climb, which was unbeaten until the F-15 came along. The reason why I said 40,000 ft and Mach 0.9 was because that's the Lightnings cruising altitude and speed. The ceiling of the Lightning was something like 60,000ft. 

And all this time I've been wrong, it was designed in 1947. So, the Germans wouldn't have stood a chance if the war carried on. We had the Canberra flying by 1947 as well.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

I'm not sure you can say the EE Lightning being design in 1947 would have guaranteed victory because (even in wartime) it could easily have taken a couple years to get something THAT advanced into service. Did the Allies have any missiles to hang on the thing or would the Lightning have simply been a REALLY fast gunfighter? By 46 or 47 the Luftwaffe could have been deploying the X-4 missile in mass and could have had the Gotha Go-229 flying.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

i think if the luftwaffe had the go-229 flying we would have been in trouble


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

I agree with that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 20, 2004)

depends how early it came in, no matter how good the plane is, if it's fighting for a side that can bearly put fuel in it, it's gonna be useless.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

well it almost got in to service anyway, another month or 2 and we'd had it


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

It was in flight testing by the wars end. Plan_D had mentioned the war continuing and the possibility of the EE Lightning seeing action. Now I am not claiming that the Go-229 was better than the EE Lightning but it would have been into action at least 2-3 years sooner.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

The EE Lightning would have been unstoppable when it entered service (Nothing could touch it when it did) the BAD Firestreak missile used on the Lightning (Later changed to BAD Red Top) was first designed in 1952. This however was a later development as the EE Lightning was always designed to carry missiles, as the Fairey Fireflash was in service previous to the Firestreaks development. The EE Lightning would have probably been in service anywhere between 1949 - 1953 with war time funding, it's hard to accurately say. It would have been missile armed though. 

We still had the Canberra bomber flying by 1947 which would have been deadly to the Germans.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

But the Go-229 would have been flying by 46 at the latest and it would have been unstoppable when it arrived.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 21, 2004)

but if the war had gone on longer, the development of the canberra and the EE Lightening would have been allot faster owing to the need for them so they would have been introduced before the date they actually were..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

Possibly, but the Go-229 would have been flying before the EE Lightning was even being designed. And it's not as if German designers would have been standing still. Question about the EE Lightning, was it's design assisted by German engineers of technology?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 21, 2004)

don't quote me on this, but i don't think us brits got any of the german scientists after the war, they all went to america or russia..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

Just a question. Had the war continued, the Brits might have chosen to focus on developing what they had rather than inventing something new. But if the German jets had been taking a tool, the Brits might have rushed something into service.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 22, 2004)

ill agree to that.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

The EE Lightning was only helped by the Germans through their research of swept wings, this still was not a huge contribution as the British were designing swept wing aircraft, and were testing swept wings before the wars end. 
Britain however did not gain any records, or German scientists after the war. They merely studied the captured planes, and questioned America on their findings. Not much of this contributed to the Lightnings design.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not extremely familar with anything between WWII and the 1980s are so and that is especially true of non-American designs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

well you should read up about the lightning, it's an amazing plane, it's often dubbed the last all-brittish fighter and is one of only four jets i really like..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

It was replaced by Phantoms and Tornados wasn't it?


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

It was phased out by the F.1 Tornado. The EE Lightning was the only interceptor in the world capable of reaching the heights of the Russian 'Bears' and 'Bisons', and in fact the EE Lightning had a 15,000 ft advantage over those bombers. 
The Phantom, brilliant plane, was put into service alongside the Lightning in the 70s but was still inferior to the Lightning for interception duties, but at least very capable of the job. 

The Tornado on the other hand is both inferior to the Lightning and Phantom in everything except payload and range.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

But the Phantom had multi-role versatility that nothing else in the world could match. It was the last combat aircraft to be used by the USN, USAF, and USMC (plus just about half of NATO).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2004)

during the 70's they could get two lightnings anywhere in the country in 10 minuites..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

is that including tea breaks?


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

I know LG that's why I said it was a brilliant plane, because it was. It still couldn't match the Lightning in interception duties. Where have you heard that Lanc? 
The truth is every base with Lightnings had two on stand by at all times, and every one with Phantoms (When they came in) had two Phantoms. The two were always ready to go, straight away. The Pilot would jump in and within 3 minutes they'd be at 40,000 ft and heading towards the enemy, that's the Lightnings, not the Phantoms, they couldn't do it. 
On top of that, as soon as the alarm went out the rest of the squadron would be getting prepared.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2004)

i read it in a article about lightnings in Flypast......................


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

They could get there quicker than that, they had these quick response flights up and down the East coast of Britain. The F.6 Lightning could get up to 40,000ft and Mach 0.9 in 2 minutes 30 seconds.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

i'm having trouble thinking of a better intercepter out of all the planes ever made.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

Well, better in what sense? The MiG-25 had better performance but poorer electronics. The F-14 has rough comparable performance to the EE Lightning but considerably better avionics and weapons.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

The F-14 cannot climb as fast, nor does it have the ceiling of the EE Lightning. They do have better equipment, and better armament though. 
The F-15 Eagle was the aircraft to break the EE Lightnings climb rate. As the F-15 has more thrust than weight, so it doesn't slow down on a climb. 

The MiG-23 was not a better performer than the EE Lightning, slower speed, slower climb rate, and lower altitude.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

the lightning had a power/weight ratio as well, it weighed 29,000lb with a thrust of 30,000lb.....................


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

The MiG-25 'Foxbat' is faster, and has a higher ceiling. It does not have the climb rate to match the F.6 Lightning, and it was designed 12 years after the Lightning. Remember the Lightning was designed in 1947, and it was only beaten in climb rate by the F-15 Eagle designed in 1976.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

The lower ceiling and climb rate of the F-14 are more than made up for by the Phoenix missles it carries. And I know that the MiG-25 came along later, I was just noting that (in some ways) in was superior to the Lightning.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

Lanc, you are thinking of an empty Lightning (Without Fuel and Armament). The thrust of a Lightning is two 'Avon' engines giving 15,608lbs each, the weight of the Lightning when empty is 28,000 lbs, when loaded it is 50,000lbs. 
The MiG-25 was also inferior at handling at sub-sonic speeds, therefore not too good of a bomber interceptor as most travel sub-sonic. The MiG-25 also had two crew. 

The F-14 also came a lot later than the Lightning.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

MiG-25 had a crew of one (excepting training and possibly recon versions). It's derivative, the MiG-31 'Foxhound' has a crew of two, less performace, but considerably improved avionics.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

Again designed a lot later than the Lightning. The Lightning is out-classed now, but it was the superior interceptor all the way up to the 70s when the F-16, F-14 and F-15 were designed. And it was designed in 1947, it was always funny, the Americans calling it the 'all aluminum pursuit ship'.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

Again designed a lot later than the Lightning. The Lightning is out-classed now, but it was the superior interceptor all the way up to the 70s when the F-16, F-14 and F-15 were designed. And it was designed in 1947, it was always funny, the Americans calling it the 'all aluminum pursuit ship'. 

Lanc, I don't know if you've ever seen a Lightning take off but they can go vertical straight from getting off the runway. They used to do it at air shows, and they would slow down at about 20,000 ft. They were told to stop it though because of stress on the air frame.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

I'm not saying these planes should be directly comparable to the Lightning. I was responding to the post wondering if there were any interceptors since better than the Lightning. I was just listing a few contenders.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

> Lanc, I don't know if you've ever seen a Lightning take off but they can go vertical straight from getting off the runway



not fopr real but i've seen it on video...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

I've not seen a Lightning do that, but I have seen F-15s do it and that is a most impressive sight.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

I've also witnessed a F-15 do it, the more impressive thing about the F-15 is that it will still be gaining speed when it does it. The Lightning looks odd, it looks as if it shouldn't be able to do it, so bulky and heavy, it does however and for a design from 1947 it certainly is impressive. The Lightning does start to slow down at around 20,000ft and turns to a shallow climb.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

I can't believe I forgot this, I've also witnessed a Vulcan do it. You may not believe this, but it's the truth, I've seen a Vulcan pull up vertically off the runway just like a F-15 or Lightning, it got to 1000 ft and banked on its wing tip turned, and flew off. I was amazed, as were the rest of the crowd.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

wow  now vulcans are pretty big...


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

I know, no one expected it. A large delta winged bomber pulling straight up off the runway, it is a sight to see. It only reached 1000 ft though, but it is still very impressive.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Yeah, there is no way it could hold that very long, but like you I'm amazed that it was even able to do it.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

You'd be even more amazed if you saw it. It looks an impossible feat for something so big, it does it with difficulty but it does it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2004)

well it can take off on two engines and fly on one so i'd imagine it's got a bit of extra thrust lying round, but still that's pretty amazing............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Flying is one thing. Climbing is another. And climbing straight up is considerably harder than either.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

It sure is amazing, and just think something that big and heavy can do it but the Tornado can't. It has to put it's afterburners on to take off for Gods sake.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 27, 2004)

I saw the 707-80 do a barrel roll on TV yesterday. 707-80 was the prototype for the commercial Boeing 707 airliner. VERY BIG. VERY CRAZY.
It was almost as crazy as this test on the 707-80 (another one) involving "non-igniting" gas that was supposed to make crash-landings safe. Needless to say, the reason the video was crazy is because the gas didn't work. BIG FIREBALL!!! Oh yeah, the barrell roll was through the maniacal thinking of the pilot, not a test. This was done on the first flight of the prototype over a lake at about 500 feet.


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

That 'non-igniting' fuel does work. The test was with a remote controlled 707 and the pilot screwed it up, he hit the engine on one of the posts so it ripped the engine apart and sparked it as it was changing from 'non-igniting' to normal flammable fuel. That's why there was a big fire ball.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

trying to barrel role a plane that big's a bit stupid isn't it?


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

Not really that dramatic in a 707. Those things are good planes, and for their size very manuverable. Still idiotic, but he obviously trusted its ability.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

the 707's a twin engined plane isn't it?


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

4-engined commercial jets. The 707 was the basis of the E-3 Sentry, I believe they use 767s now.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

i thought the 767 was a twin engined jet??

or am i wrong again..........


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

The 707 is four engined, the 767 is two engined. The E-3 Sentry used to use the 707 as the platform, but they now use the 767 as the platform.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

so the sentry went from being a 4 engined to a 2 engined plane??


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

It's not correct to call it an E-3 Sentry. The E-3 is the AWAC based on the 707 design, I don't know the name of the 767 AWAC but I have read reports of Boeing using the 767 body instead, I have only seen one picture though and it's a Japanese plane. 
From 4 to 2 yes, but more powerful engines. The 707 is an old plane now.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 29, 2004)

But then again, the E-3's in British service are a lot better and still have 4 engines. They have uprated Rolls engines and a better radar and early warning system.


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

The RAF E-3s replaced the TF33 turbofans with CFM56-2A-3 turbofans which are superior to the TF33 of the 707, and American E-3s. They also have an inflight refueling probe. 
On the wing tip they mounted Loral 1017 'Yellow Gate' ESM pods, the last RAF one was said to be the ultimate 707 airframe produced, which after it production of the 707 airframe ceased. The Japanese were forced to order AEW version of the 767, using E-3C equipment. 
The 767s engines do create more power than the last of the 707s.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

> AEW



once again i don't seem to know what this one means either, please explain..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

yes, explain 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

Airborne Early Warning.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

ah, thanks 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

We used to use Avro Shackleton as our AEW.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

isn't that the same as the other one??


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

What? Are you saying the AEW is the same as the AWACS? No, it isn't. 
Airborne Early Warning is to warn against attacks, and other threats in the air. 
Airborne Warning and Control System, warns and controls the actions of the battlefield. They do have different jobs in the sky. But collectively will be known as the 'eye in the sky'.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

amazingly enough, that makes sence to me....................


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

We is that amazing, do you hold such a low opinion on yourself? I would think much more that it would make sense, not sence. 
In any case, the Avro Shackleton AEW.2 was our main stay AEW before the failed Nimrod project, that made us buy the E-3 Sentry off the Americans. Which we, of course, improved. 
The Shackleton was based off the airframe of the Avro Lincoln.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

> The Shackleton was based off the airframe of the Avro Lincoln



which in turn was based on the lancaster, you see, it shows what a great aircraft it was................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

and in turn to that the lanc was based on the manchester, showing what a great aircraft themanchester was


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

touché..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2004)

whooo, spam's back.................

not that it ever really left..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

as long as im here spam'll never leave


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2004)

glad to hear it.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

back on topic 8) (see i can do it  )

best naval fighter was the zero


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2004)

cirtainly the most manouverable................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

and possibly japans most successful plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2004)

undoubtibly their most sucessfull...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

indeed 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

The Zero was Japan's most successful plane, but not the best naval fighter of the war. Both the Hellcat and the Corsair proved themselves to be better than the Corsair. Even the Wildcat held a slight edge over the Zero in head to head combat.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

> the Corsair proved themselves to be better than the Corsair



??

the zero was easily more manouverable, but to get this it had to sacfice armour and armourment, witch wasn't a good idea against big beefy american fighters....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

Better than the Zero. My typing hasn't been so hot lately (not that it ever is). I must be making my posts too late. The Zero was more maneuverable, by the Corsair and the Hellcat had almost every other advantage of the Zero and the Hellcat could even out-turn it at all but the slowest speeds.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

it hnk the problem for the zero was it's engine, it was weak, it only gave out 740h.p. which isn't allot...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

The Sakae 21 engine in the A6M2 produced 940hp at take-off and in the A6M5 was only putting out 1130hp. Considering those low figures the performances of the Zero was incredible.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

yup, and i suppose it because the engines were underpowered that they had a range of 1,940 miles?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

Well that was one part of it. The Zero didn't carry THAT much fuel (138.7 gallons internally plus a 87.2 gallon drop tank). In general, lower powered engines do get better 'gas mileage.' The other thing was the lightweight of the Zero.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 6, 2004)

also the tanks could be bigger because they weren't self-sealing, and as LG said, due to lack of armour, our armorment, it wasn't that heavy, the lighter a plane, the further it'll go...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 6, 2004)

The Japanese tried fitting self-sealing tanks to the A6M5 but the tanks had all kinds of problems (leaky self-SEALING tanks are a bad thing). They ended up including fire-extinguishers around the fuel tanks which (theoretically) would stop a fire but would do nothing for the fuel being lost from the tank.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 7, 2004)

Now now it also depends on the pilot.It is very dificult to tell who would be the best out of the two, really it depends on the circumstances.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

what are you refering to.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

The self-sealing tanks were not used that much because of ground crew problums. The crews were just not that familier with the systems. The A6M was at the begining very good and when used and fought on it's turms could hold win! It was the evolution of Allied aircraft and more to the point tactics that did them in.

But the kighter I would go for is the A6m's replacement the N1K2 "Violet Lightening". It was as good or better then the F6F and F4U in claim turn, and handleing. But the numbers of production and the development problums were its big downfall. The J2M also was a cabable fighter.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2004)

The A6M was the plane that gave Japan it's invunerable status. It made out as if the Japanese were impossible to beat, as the Zero was running rings around the Wildcats. 
The same stance the Americans took on the ground in Vietnam.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

Wildcats held the edge over the Zero in head-to-head combat. That's a fact. MP-Willow, the Shiden wasn't seen as a successor to the Zero and neither was the J2M Raiden or 'Jack'. Both of these aircraft were designed to be interceptors, the Zero was an air superiority fighter. The closest thing the Zero had to a true successor was the A7M Reppu or 'Sam'.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2004)

And another FACT is the Zero ran rings around the Wildcat.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 17, 2004)

So they did. But running rings around something is different from shooting it down. Was the Zero the better fighter, yes. But the Wildcat still had the better head-to-head record.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2004)

That's great. The Zero was still the better, fighter and aircraft. And that's why the USN was getting a severe beating for the first six months. Which forced them to change tactics, and get new improved planes like the Hellcat and Corsair.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 17, 2004)

I agreed the Zero was better than the Wildcat. But both the Hellcat and Corsair were clearly superior to the Zero.


----------



## David m Card (Jun 18, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I agreed the Zero was better than the Wildcat. But both the Hellcat and Corsair were clearly superior to the Zero.


Corsair forsure!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cls12vg30 (Jun 18, 2004)

Actually the Wildcat pilots developed new tactics quite quickly to deal with the zero, to best take advantage of the Wildcat's rugged construction, which was the main advantage they held over the Zeroes, with their unarmored cockpits and fuel tanks, and lightweight construction.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

That's true, the Thatch weave was being employed as early as the battle of Midway.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2004)

the zero could easily out turn any american fighter out there, but that was it's only real advantage over them, the truth was that they were under armed and under armoured.........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

The Zero wasn't underarmed. It initially carried 2 7.7mm mgs and 2 20mm cannons. That would compare very favorably with the armamenr being employed on Spits, Hurricans, 109s, and P-40s at the same time. Later versions carried more than double the ammo for their cannons and had 13mm mgs in stead of 7.7mm.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2004)

for some reason you're comparing it to planes in the ETO, against big beefy planes like the wildcat and corsair, they didn't do much....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

First of all, those were the planes that were contemporay with the Zero and no one complains about their being undergunned. The A6M2 threw a slightly higher weight of fire than the Wildcat but had less muzzle energy (due to the low muzzle velocity of the Japanese 20mm weapons). The Corsair did have the A6M5 outgunned, but it was close. It is also interesting to compare the Zero with the most used Japanese Army fighter, the Ki-43 'Oscar' which was most commonly armed with 2 12.7mm mgs. No contest there.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

The American tactics did get sorted out in Midway, but if you re-read my post it quite clearly states for the first 6 months. I don't know if you've ever realised but Midway was 6 months after the start.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2004)

but as i said, the american planes in the PTO could take more damage as they were "beefier" than planes in the ETO..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

I agree with all of that, but if you are going to pick a Japanese plane to pick on for it's armament, don't pick on the Zero. It was better armed than ANYTHING in Japanese service until the Jack and George came into service at they didn't really get into the action until 1944. The armament carried by the Zero was very similar to that used by the 109 and the Spit throughout the war and pilots of those aircraft had no trouble, and neither did pilots of the Zero.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

Oh, on the note of American tactics, I would like to again mention the AVG who well before Midway had demonstrated the proper tactics for combating the Japanese. Unfortunately, the American government was too stubborn to listen to Chennault, but the tactics did exist and had been proven in combat.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

The Zero still walked all over the Wildcat for the first six months. And the fact that the Wildcat needed to resort to 'far-out' tactics to achieve victory proves the Zero the better fighter. 

In every dogfight you take advantage of your enemies weaknesses, and keep away from their strengths. It's how you win a fight.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2004)

so using that theory you wouldn't start a fight with a zero, you would run...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

I think I've said all of that before . . . Yes the Zero was the better fighter but the Wildcat had the better record. I'm not sure how much action there truly was between the Wildcat and the Zero during the first six months, there was Wake, Coral Sea, and the Midway. I don't think they saw much head to head action during the carrier raids since America was mostly making quick strikes and trying to avoid a head-on encounter with the Japanese.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

No Lanc, that is the theory of fight. And the Wildcat pilots did that, when they started to win. Going on at them head-on.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

It depends on the situation. The Wildcat and P-40 pilots were basically in the same situation. There advantages were diving speed, firepower, and rugged construction. If they had an altitude advantage, they were happy to dive down and bounce the Zero from above. The P-40 was fast enough in the climb that it might be able to zoom back up to altitude for another pass.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 18, 2004)

Speed, dive and break off. If rhe Zero culd play in a slow speed turning classical dogfight the P-40 and F4F were outclassed. They could only hope that sturdy frame could keep them alive.

The AVG had reported the A6M to the Governant, but the War Department did not act on what they were given in a timly manner. The P-40 did truely hold its own. So did the F4Fs on Wake, until they ran out of everything and were out numbered 

Plan_D, the RN was given a good shelacking in the Indian Ocean so you should remember that


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

I think you should remember that Naval Warfare isn't like any other warfare, the RN kept what it needed. And since not much was needed in the Pacific and South-East Asia, it wasn't hard. Most, if not all, British land was lost to land forces.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 20, 2004)

The RAF forces that were fighting along with the AVG took a thumping in China as well.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

China wasn't lost, therefore RAF wasn't given a beating. Do you want me to start naming all the places, dates and times America got a beating?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

Easy Plan_D. There wasn't any ill-will intended in that comment. But compare the records of the RAF in China with that of the AVG. The RAF took worse that they gave there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 21, 2004)

the word henderson comes to mind here.......................


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 21, 2004)

I think we know how the F4F and P40 compared. How did the Hurricane compare head to head? Without looking it up, the Hurricane was probably faster and better gunned. Did it have armor and self sealing tanks? How about manuverability?

Thorlifter


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 21, 2004)

> How did the Hurricane compare head to head



with what??


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 21, 2004)

oops, sorry. Head to head with the Zero.

BTW Lanc. I don't know if you get it over in GB, but our History Channel did an computer animated recreation of the Damn Busters this weekend! Pretty cool stuff.

Thorlifter


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

The Hurricane was an inferior fighter to the Zero, in my opinion. Then again in a lot of peoples opinions the Hurricane (Technically) was inferior to the 109, it still did good up against it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

The Zero could outrun, outclimb, and easily out turn the Hurricane. The Hurricane was probably a little more rugged which was good since the Zero also out-gunned it.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2004)

Am I right in saying the Hurricane could out-dive the Zero. And I don't believe 'easily out-turn' it could out-turn it but the Hurricane had a pretty tight turning circle.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

I imagine the Hurricane could out-dive the Zero but I haven't seen any direct comparisons on the two. The skin on the initial versions of the Zero was pretty then and the result was a low diving speed. 

When I said the Zero could easily out turn the Hurricane I was quoting a book from the Imperial War Museum. "Zeroes easily out-turned opposing RAF Hawker Hurricanes."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 22, 2004)

but in a dogfight i think the lack of armour/ability to take hits would mean the hurricane would win it, but it depends on pilot ability, a good hurricane pilot would know to avoid a turning dogfight, a good zero pilot would know how to use his manouverability to beat the hurricane.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 22, 2004)

Lanc- with that argumane you made the case for the P-40s that did a good job Yes, it still had its problums but the pilots got all they could out of it. It did create a jod amout of Aces.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

Well the P-40s used over China had a slight firepower edge over the Hurricane. But I believe the Zero actually out-gunned both fighters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2004)

but the zero carried very little armourment for it's cannon, and once that had run out, it's two MGs weren't gonna do anything, and the zero engine was, well, weak to be honest, only about 940-960hp, the hurricane could use his extra power to his advantage....................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 23, 2004)

Thorlifter said:


> oops, sorry. Head to head with the Zero.
> 
> BTW Lanc. I don't know if you get it over in GB, but our History Channel did an computer animated recreation of the Damn Busters this weekend! Pretty cool stuff.
> 
> Thorlifter



Talkin' 'bout that "Greatest Raids-The Damnbusters" special? I saw a bit of that, but I was watching the 1am re-run and was tired, so I didn't finish it...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 23, 2004)

The Hurricane didn't have that much more power than a Zero. The Mk.I was only rated at 1,030hp. The low ammo count for the Zero's cannon was a problem (60rpg) but it's not as if the Hurricane had an excessive amount of ammo (350rpg won't last long when you are firing 1150rpm). But the ultimate factor would have been the pilot and I believe that the IJN pilots in 1941 were the best in the world.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 24, 2004)

LG -I think that in 1941 the IJN was the best. Only after some of the USN and Marine pilots were able to return to help train the new crop did we start to see returns. Also after 1942 the top IJN pilots with the experiance were being lost at a greater rate then to be replaced. Also by '43 the USN had the planes to deal with the situation. Also oe on one the A6M and F6F could fly all day with two good pilots who understood the other plane, I think they were a god mach.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2004)

> I think they were a god mach.



are you talking about the A6M and the F6F of the A6M and hurricane??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

A6M and F6F. The A6M5 and the F6F were pretty equal in performance except for diving speed. But by the time it arrived on the scene, the average American pilot was far superior to the average Japanese pilot.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

If the RAF could afford to send Spitfires out to the Pacific in 1941 it could be a heated discussion as who was better. I won't mention that RAF pilots managed to hold off 3,700 Luftwaffe planes...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

I don't think the Spit would have made that much difference. The Zeroes made realitvely short work of the Hurricanes they encountered over India and the Spits available in 1941 weren't THAT much better than the Hurricane.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

Yes they were. Less rugged but they were more manuverable. Spitfire Mk. V against a A6M, interesting dogfight, no?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2004)

> The Zeroes made realitvely short work of the Hurricanes they encountered over India



that was because the japs had a bit more experience back then.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

Spit. Mk. V and an A6M would probably be interesing. I think the A6M would hold a pretty decent advantage over the Spit Mk. I. 

Lanc, the Japanese did have a huge experience edge over the Hurricane pilots. An edge they still would have held if the RAF boys had been in Spitfires. The IJN pilots had already been in action for several years against the Chinese and had to endure what was probably the most rigorous pilot training in the world at that time.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 25, 2004)

A better plane increases the chance of survival though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

The RAF pilots might have faired better, but I still don't think they would have been able to handle the IJN in 1941. The Zero was one of the very best fighters in service anywhere at the time and the IJN pilots were arguably the best of the entire war.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 25, 2004)

If the Spitfire mk. I was to makeit to India would it have the advatage to dive away as did the P-40s? Also I cannot remember if the Mk I had self-sealing fuel tanks? The bigest braw back for both the RAF and USN was range, so to follow and to stay in combat for as long as the IJN was hard.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2004)

but remember, if the zero wanted to stay in the air for a long time it would have to stay at it's cruising speed, making it easier for you to catch up........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

But the Zero could turn and shoot at you . . . 

The Spit Mk. I would have had most of the same advantages the P-40 had. It would have had a little less firepower and a little less durability but could still out dive and out run the Zero. If the RAF kept away from the turning fights they should have been able to come out ok.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 25, 2004)

It's the same situation as Corsair (Spitfire) and Shiden (Zero) in which you argued the Corsair to be the better of the two.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

It's not the same situation for several reasons. The Corsair was 70mph faster than the Shiden. At best the Spit Mk. I was what 20 mph faster? The Corsair could also outclimb the Shiden and I doubt the Spit Mk. I could outclimb the Zero. But I think the biggest difference is that in 1945 the Americans new better than to try and turn with the Japanse fighters. In 1941, no one in the Western world new what the Zero was capable of. The Spit was a very maneuverable fighter and the British pilots probably would have attempted traditional turning dogfights which was doomed to failure against the Zero.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2004)

after a while thoguh we would have come up with a effective stratagy for dealing with them......................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 26, 2004)

The RAF may have learnt quickly. If they were quick to understand how to dogfight with a 109 in a Hurricane, then we could understand how a Spitfire would be best against a Zero. 

The Americans did it with the Wildcat, I don't see why the British couldn't do it with a Spitfire which was superior to anything else out in the Pacific (Allied) in 1941.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2004)

perhaps not in durability or range, but definately in grace........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 26, 2004)

I agree that the British would have been able to develop the tactics to counter the Zero. But I'm not sure they would have been as quick as the Americans. Since the Spitfire was clearly a better dogfighter than anything the Americans had in the Pacific in 1941, the British might have been tempted to hold to the traditional dogfight.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2004)

well, that would be the typically stubborn british way of doing things.......................


----------



## Dan (Jun 27, 2004)

apparently i heard that the F4U-1D was the best variant naval plane built in world war II


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 27, 2004)

F4U-4 was the best variant of the Corsair to see action during WWII Dan.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2004)

That's the stubborn way of any force doing it, Lanc. Look at Germany before the war, Guderian had a major task ahead of him convincing the OKH and OKW that his armour tactics were the best. 

In 1941 there were the newer Spitfires coming out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2004)

there were newer spits coming out al the time, what's your point......................

BTW, i'm sorry if that sounded a bit vindictive.........................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2004)

All the talk of Mk. I Spitfires. When refering to the Spitfire you refer to the mark because all the marks were a different plane. Would you put the Mk. XIV in with a Mk. I Spitfire? They look, fly and perform very differently.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 28, 2004)

Plan_D, at best in 1941 the Mk V was rolling, but it did not make it to the Pacific until latter, and that is the key to this little debate. The RAF would have learned the hard way as did the USN the the Zero can turn better then you!! But if I was in a spitfire and knew how agiale that arcraft was the why not try and turn with it. 

For any of you B-24 lovers or just lovers of producton lines my new sig is for you and Me!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2004)

ohoh, yes, i am an avid lover of production lines, they're almost as good as the lancaster......................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2004)

MP, the RAF sent very few Spitfires out in the first place. The discussion should be, had the RAF sent out what it did in Europe, then what?


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 29, 2004)

Ok Plan_D, if we say that, and the RAF would have been able to get the aircraft to the Pacific, where would they be produced? So here is a point for you all to ponder; producing the Spitfire in the US or Canada in large numbers and equiping troops for the Pacific.

Lanc, the Lancaster might have done ok on a line like Willow Run, but the Lanc still needed to have sseveral changes to make it line ready. Please corect me if I am wrong, but the British production of Lancs had more man hours per plane us?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

The British Commonwealth should have given some thought to senting up Spit production in Australia. The Aussies were desparate for a fighter to hold back that Japanese and although the Boomerang gave good service they Spitfire (even the early marks) was far superior.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2004)

> but the British production of Lancs had more man hours per plane us?



yes but we didn't need to pump them out like you did *grolsh advert voice* shtop, they're not ready yet.....................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2004)

I don't think many Americans will get that one...  
Yes, the production of the Spitfires could have been set up in Australia and New Zealand, only Darwin was bombed. Spitfires would have actually been able to dogfight with the Japanese.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

Only at high speeds. The Spitfire was good, but in 1941 there was nothing that could touch the Zero in a traditional turning fight. Still, the Spitfires would have proven useful in the Pacific even though their range would have been something of a liability.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2004)

but as you said yourself, it had to be a slow fight, the spitfire pilot could use his speed, climb and dive t his advantage...............


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 30, 2004)

Yes speed was the key to attacking the Zero. As for the Spitfire legs it was solved in latter marks but if the Austraila had it under licence then they could creat improvments that would not have to effect the production at Southahmpton. 

Lanc are you trying to say we created aircraft on a massive and crazy scale? WE did create a lot yes, but we used a lot up and gave or sold a lot as well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2004)

> Lanc are you trying to say we created aircraft on a massive and crazy scale



not at all, i know we couldn't produce anything near the numbers of America and Germany....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

Early Spits wouldn't have been able to outclimb a Zero Lanc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2004)

but a P-40 could couldn't it?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2004)

Lanc, Britain was producing on the same scale as Germany.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 1, 2004)

I don't know of anything in the Pacific in 1941 that could outclimb a Zero. A P-40 or a Spit could probably hang with it in a zoom climb, but once that Zoom wore off the Zero would pull away from both easily.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2004)

> Lanc, Britain was producing on the same scale as Germany



but they produced 35,000+ 109s, 20,000+ 190s, many bombers and other fighters, we produced 12,000+ hurricanes, 20,000+ spits and 7,000+ lancs.........................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2004)

No, in total 33,000 109s were produced from pre-war, war and post war (in Spain).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2004)

ok but that 2,000 doesn't make a huge difference.....................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 2, 2004)

the Bf 109 production is a hot iteam. Of the 30,000 or so produced only a few hundred finished the war. Personally I go for the 34,000 number, but it could be 32 to34k and I would not have a problum.

The A6M ruled the skies in 1941. The P-40s were able to hold out because of tactics and solid construction. For an in-line engine it could take a lot of damage. Any compairison to the P-38s engine?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2004)

I was trying to make the point that not all the 32-35 thousand 109 (variants) were A) Not built by Germany B) Not built Pre-War or War. Many post-war 109s (that go into the overall number) were built by Spain after the war. 

Besides that, we created 14, 231 Hurricanes. 20,334 Spitfires and 2,556 Seafire (excluding conversions). On top of the other many different aircraft. 
Also we produced other weapons and products in equal or greater quantities. Britain had the second largest economy in the world in 1936.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 3, 2004)

please god don't bring the P-38 into the argument MP, it'll turn into a thread where we argue about which was better, the P-38 or the mossie.....................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2004)

Ok the P-38 was not a Navy fighter really, so sorry if I did bring it in.

So to narrow our focus why not restrict discussion to aircraft that were ship lanched? in that casr I would say the A6M2 is a good pick. But it did suffer after 1943.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2004)

i think the the general concenus is that it would have to be a carrier based aircraft, and the zero's a pretty good choice........................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 6, 2004)

ok then we have talked a good bit of the Zero, but why not more. Range, roll and clime. Along with Turn and good arms made it the top fighter in the Pacific until 1943. Any other coment? Cons?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 6, 2004)

> Cons?



little armour, no self sealing fuel tanks..........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 6, 2004)

Only as good as its pilot. An average pilot in a Hellcat was still a force to be reckoned with. The Zero was only a really effective weapon in the hands of a master. The Corsair, and especially the -4 was the best carrier-based fighter of the war. I know how much you all like the Shiden but the -4 was faster in every aspect of flight AND, unlike the Shiden, carrier based.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 7, 2004)

there was a varient for carrier operations, the problem was that they didn't really have any carriers to put it on, and the fact that it was designed as a land based interceptor......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 7, 2004)

Total production of the N1K4-A, carrier-based version was one prototype. The type didn't even see land-based service. I think to be considered the best carrier fighter you need to have had at least entered service and preferably actually flown off of a carrier.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 8, 2004)

Lightening Guy, I was thinking that as I read and wrote for this. The F4U was good, but I would feel a little scared about it because of the poor vision over the nose. Landing on a carrier must have been a real advanture, over the normal crazy one it already is.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

It was difficult which is why many pilots prefered the easy-to-fly Hellcat. However, the Corsair easily out-performed the Hellcat. In my opinion, the Bearcat was better than either. It WAS in service before the end of WWII (unlike the carrier-capable Shiden) but did not see action.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2004)

> I think to be considered the best carrier fighter you need to have had at least entered service and preferably actually flown off of a carrier.



if you look i NEVER said it was the best carrier fighter.......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

I know you didn't, but some people on this site have expressed that opinion.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 9, 2004)

but if it was successfull used as sutch then it surely would have benn a contender....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

If it had been used . . . maybe. I still believe the Corsair was superior and that both the Bearcat or the Reppu (A7M) were better designs having equal armament, equal or better maneuverability, and considerably better performance.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 9, 2004)

ok the corsair couldn't beat the shiden's 4x20mm, and the shiden could out manouver it............................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

I was making reference to the Bearcat and Reppu with those comments. However, the 6 .50cals of the Corsair were more than adequate and it's speed, climb, and diving advantages would have allowed it to fight the Shiden without too much difficulty. The only thing the Shiden was clearly superior in was rate of turn.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 10, 2004)

and as i mentioned, armourment.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 10, 2004)

It was supperior in armament but in fighter v. fighter combat 4 20mm is sort of overkill. The 6 .50cals in the Corsair were more than capable of knocking down the Shiden.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 11, 2004)

i never doubted that, i'm just saying that as we are comparing the two aircraft, the shiden had better armourment........................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 12, 2004)

OK are there any known clashes with the shiden and Corsair? Let's try to look at it as what happened. Also the Shiden was out numbered and its repair and replacemnt ability were limited and under fire. 

Did the F8F get to the Pacific?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 12, 2004)

it was a bit late.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 12, 2004)

VF-19 equipped with the Bearcat in May of 1945 and was underway for the Pacific when the war ended. I haven't seen any action reports on Shidens vs. Corsairs. Most things I have seen on the Shiden state that it was superior to "most US ship-borne fighters." I assume that means the Hellcat, leaving the Corsair as at least the equal of the Shiden. Of course, I think any combat results would have been a little skewed as the Shiden was given to the very best pilots the Japanese had left.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 17, 2004)

Why not give your best stuff to the best. with limited planes and crews it needs to go as fare as posible. The F8F did do well in Korea, but the time of piston engines was goinmg to a close.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 19, 2004)

I don't think the Bearcat ever served in Korea but the French did use it over Vietnam.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 20, 2004)

my god, everythings.....the same  (this isnt a return, just an annoying message from the king)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 21, 2004)

whhhhoooooooooooooooo...........................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 23, 2004)

Ok I read the freanch useing it post war. But was that in the 50s? The Fresnch were in indoChina for a very long and painful time, more so then the Americans.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 23, 2004)

I think the French and the Americans were involved in Indochina/Vietnam for about the same length of time. French military action there began in the early fifties and had been concluded for some time before the Americans became involved there.


----------



## toffi (Jul 23, 2004)

And so the French used the Bearcats eg. in the battle for Dien Bien Phu 1954 as an "air artillery".


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 24, 2004)

ok thanks. The F8F was a good gun platform.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 24, 2004)

The F8F was good at pretty much anything. It was very fast on the level or in the climb and could literally fly rings around anything else in US service at the time. A match-up between the Shiden or Reppu and the Bearcat would have produced some wonderful dogfights.


----------



## Schrage Muzik (Jul 26, 2004)

Most effect: F6F Hellcat. Don't argue, it's true. Even the R.N.F.A.A. bought them in spades.

The F8F Bearcat was the better plane, though. I also think that the Goodyear F2G-2 Super Corsair was pretty cool.


----------



## Schrage Muzik (Jul 26, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I haven't seen any action reports on Shidens vs. Corsairs.



Full Shinden production was ordered a few days before Hiroshima was hit, so they were just tooling up when the surrender came down.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 26, 2004)

Shinden, or Shiden? If the R.N.F.A.A. bought them, they must be good.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 26, 2004)

Schrage Muzik said:


> Full Shinden production was ordered a few days before Hiroshima was hit, so they were just tooling up when the surrender came down.



There were almost 1000 _Shidens_ built (deliveries starting in early 1944), and 400+ of the Shiden Kai (Improved), with delivery starting in July 44.

A Shiden kai once engaged 12 Hellcats and shot down 4 of them before the rest were driven away.


----------



## toffi (Jul 26, 2004)

dead parrot said:


> deliveries starting in early 1944



And the most interesting thing is that Shiden appeared as an idea of Kawanishi itself, not the Kaigun Koku Hombu. The KKH had an aversion to it, because Shiden was not KKHs' idea. 
This fact caused at least one year delay in production of Shiden. If J2M Raiden wouldn't have been urged by KKH (and than the J3K1/J6K1) Shiden will surely had saw action in early 1944.


----------



## Schrage Muzik (Jul 26, 2004)

dead parrot said:


> Schrage Muzik said:
> 
> 
> > Full Shinden production was ordered a few days before Hiroshima was hit, so they were just tooling up when the surrender came down.
> ...



I was under the impression that that is a legend.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 26, 2004)

I certainly believe it. The Hellcat was rugged but against four 20mm it'll just disintergrate, and the Shiden was more manuverable.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 26, 2004)

Schrage Muzik said:


> dead parrot said:
> 
> 
> > Schrage Muzik said:
> ...




I think you're confused...


Shiden~Best Japanese fighter of the war. N1K1/N1K2 [improved]



Shinden~Interesting Japanese prototype armed with four 30mm cannons, equipped with a pusher prop and candard foreplanes.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 26, 2004)

I think the Ki-84 was better than the Shiden, faster, better climb, equal firepower, not sure about maneuverability comparison.

The Shiden was a fine fighter, but in failed to be what Japan was trying to produce . . . and interceptor. Rate of climb was unimpressive and high altitude performance was dismal. 

The F2G was blazing at low altitude, but only achieved this at the sacrifice of range and high altitude ability. More conventional F4U-4s were nearly as fast on the deck and the F4U-5 was even faster. Both of these planes could easily out-run the F2G at medium to high altitudes.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Agree completely that it was a failure as a home defence interceptor--it just couldn't get at the bombers.

I've been trying to find info on Corsair VS Shiden encounters, but with not much luck so far. During the defence of a Japanese base, the 343rd group (Squadron of Experts) on March 19th apparently shot down a combined 48 Hellcats and Corsairs plus 4 Helldivers, with 5 more US planes down to base flak. Losses for the Japanese were 13-16(?) planes.


----------



## toffi (Jul 27, 2004)

Shiden vs. Corsair

On 19th March 1945 301. Hikotai (1st and 3rd squadron) commanded by Cpt. (I'm not sure if Polish rank kpt. is the same as Cpt. in English) Naoshi Kanno attacked over Kure 15 Corsairs of VMF-123. In first attack two F4U-1D flown by Lt. Woostere and Ens. Russel were downed. Than Shiden Kais of 301. Hikotai went into circular dogfight with Corsairs. In effect one of Corsairs had to land on water on its' route back to carrier and three more were almost shot apart so they had to be thrown into the sea after landing. More five F4U were severely damaged. Though Marines reported 9 kills, none of the Shidens were downed. Only three of them were damaged (Cpt. Kannos' Shiden was amongst them). 
While main forces of 301. Hikotai were engaged over Kure, 2nd squadron commanded by Lt. Isaburo Inoue met about 10 F4U-1D of VBF-10 from USS Intrepid pretending to attack Kure base. Although Japanese concentrated on a pair of Corsairs flown by Cpt. Hill and Ens. Erickson, they have lost two Shidens with Bos. Kubo and Sm. Izawa without succes.

More about encounters Shiden vs. Corsairs soon.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Nice info toffi, thank you. That is indeed the engagement I'd read about.



toffi said:


> ...Cpt. (I'm not sure if Polish rank kpt. is the same as Cpt. in English) Naoshi Kanno...



Yeah, his rank was "Taii" in Japanese, which is usually translated as Captain.


----------



## toffi (Jul 27, 2004)

Shiden vs. Corsair part 2

On 10th April 1945 301. Hikotai arrived at Kanoya. First action 301. saw on 12nd April - sweep over Anami Shoto isles before operation Kikusui 2. 44 Shidens Kais were supposed to participate, but 10 of them weren't able to put themselves into air. Mostly it was caused by bad quality fuel which wasn't "liked" by Homare 21 engines. On the way to mission objective one of Shidens stayed behind the formation because of engine problems (bad fuel again). And this Shiden flown by bos. Sugitaki was first to be attacked by numerous Corsairs. After long dogfight Sugitaki managed to slip away with his heavily damaged Shiden.

On 2nd June 1945 21 N1K2-J commanded by Cpt. Hayashi surprised over Kagoshima 16 F4U-1 of VF-85 and VBF-85 (USS Shangri La). Pilots of 343. Kokutai shot down 5 Corsairs and one more severely damaged was thrown into the sea when came back to the carrier. The cost of this victory were two Shidens.
Next day 28 N1K1-J under command of Cpt. Kanno went into a dogfight with flight of reconaissance F6F-5 of VF-9 and over a dozen of F4U-1 of VFB-85. Three Corsairs were downed, as well as one Shiden.

On 22nd June 1945 343. Kokutai protected the last (10th) operation Kikusui. 31 of planned 50 N1K2-J took part in it. 19 Shiden Kais weren't able to fly. Japanese went into combat with about 20 F4U-1 of VMF-113. Result - 4 pilots including Cpt. Keijiro Hayashi lost their lives. Only two Corsairs were scored as killed, three more damaged.


That's all I managed to find about encounters between Shidens and Corsairs.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Great accounts--where did those come from? It's interesting about the engines. It seems that a lot of the later-war Japanese planes had problems with engines--they weren't bad, but they tended to be very tempremental and hard to maintain.


----------



## toffi (Jul 27, 2004)

I took these info from periodical Nowa Technika Wojskowa.

Homare engine was one of the first Japanese engines that had almost 2000 HP. It was smaller, lighter and used less fuel than similar US engines. Unfortunately it was horribly complicated and hard to maintain. It required high technical culture form mechanics.
Homare 11 was driven into production a bit too early, when it still had many weaknesses of early period of development. Situation went better after introducing Homare 21. But then shortage of stock extorted usage of replacement materials what shortened its vitality.
Another problem was quality of fuel. At last addition of alcohol in fuel was so huge, that it not only shortened engines' vitality but also caused drop of combat capabilities. So the Homare engines did not achieved "catalogue" capabilities and very much depended on specimen of engine and the maintenance crew.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

now you see if they were diesil............................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 28, 2004)

They would have been even worse . . .


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

From those encounters the Shiden seems to hold an edge. Although the Corsairs would have had a variety of skill level pilots, while the Shidens were all experts.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 28, 2004)

And those were early Corsairs, F4U-1Ds. The F4U-4 was a different animal all together. It would have been interesting seeing the Shiden take on VMF-214 or VF-17.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Maybe but in those encounters the Shiden holds the edge. And by that it is obvious that the Corsair wasn't going to just destroy the Shiden with ease.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 28, 2004)

I never claimed it would. But I believe the Corsair was the better aircraft. Being the better aircraft doesn't mean you are going to mop the floor with the other guy.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

In the encounters the Shiden was on top of the Corsair though. There were only F4U-1Ds but it's still a Corsair.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 28, 2004)

And I was arguing for the F4U-4. Granted the F4U-1D would have enjoyed the same advantages the -4 did (speed, climb, dive) but not to the same extent. Furthermore, in the above examples, the kill-loss ratios were very close even with numerical advantages on the side of the Shiden plus the pilot quality which has already been mentioned.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

i still believe that in a traditional dogfight the shiden would win...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 28, 2004)

Probably. But by 1943 the Americans had learned not to dogfight with the Japanese in the traditional style. In a slashing, diving fight, the Corsair holds all the cards.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

however the shiden stands a better chance in a "slashing, diving fight" than a zero....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Then you've got to have the pilots in the Corsairs who know what they're doing, well. While in the Shiden you have average pilots. It wasn't like that though, the Shiden pilots were experts. So, it depends on pilot skill. 

The Corsair would probably have an easier time if it was an average pilot though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2004)

but like you said, the shiden was given to the best the japs had..............


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

If I was a rookie I'd rather be in the Corsair. If I was a well conditioned pilot, with lots of experience I'd rather be in the Shiden.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 28, 2004)

There is a saying in air combat, "Speed is life." The Corsair had it. The Shiden didn't.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

The Shiden wasn't slow, just slower. If that saying accounted for everything, then whatever is fast is the best. The Me-163 Komet was the best fighter of the war then.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 28, 2004)

If u took the best 10 F4U-4 pilots the PTO had to offer, and the 10 best Shiden pilots, put them all 1 vs. 1, the Corsairs would come out on top 70% of the time...

Pilots flew against the weaknesses of the other aircraft... They wouldnt dogfight a Zero the same way they would a Shiden...

The -4 was a much better and well rounded fighter than the Shiden... 

Strap my ass into a Corsair...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 28, 2004)

The -4 Corsair was 70mph faster than the Shiden. That is a huge difference.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 29, 2004)

> They wouldnt dogfight a Zero the same way they would a Shinden...



but the shiden could outmanouver the corsair, and it was better armed.................


----------



## toffi (Jul 29, 2004)

It indeed was better armed but had far less ammo.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2004)

With higher calibre rounds though, it takes less to bring a plane down. Sure the Corsair could do it, but the better armament on the Shiden made up for less ammo. 

Mix of cannon and machine gun is always the best though.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 29, 2004)

Lanc... Are u saying that the Zero couldnt outmanouver the Corsair???

Plan D... Higher caliber rounds also travel alot slower...

And if a mix of cannon and machine guns is always best, how come the Corsair, the Hellcat, the Mustang, and the T-Bolt all have machine guns, and no cannons??? (generally speaking of course)

And a final question... Was the Shiden an all-metal constructed fighter???


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2004)

Just because those planes didn't have the best mix, it doesn't mean it's not the best mix. The Spitfire Mk. XIV was the best dogfighter of the war, with two 20mm and four .303. That would be better as .50cal though. 

I think we all on here have realised that a mix of both is better. And the Mustang III had four 20mm cannons.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 29, 2004)

We are running circles on this thread. Yes the Shiden could outmaneuver the Corsair (at low speeds, I have my doubts at high speeds). But the Shiden couldn't stay with the Corsair in the vertical plane. That is actually pretty important in a dogfight. The Corsair could pull away in a straight climb or dive but was also superior in a climbing turn or diving turn. The Corsaid also the the advantage of being able to sustain maneuvers because of its greater power. Finally, the Corsair can choose to engage or disengage virtually whenever and wherever.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2004)

However the encounters between the Corsair and Shiden were in the Shidens favour.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 29, 2004)

By a narrow margin. When the Shiden pilots were almost certainly of the highest quality. And they held significant numerical advantages. I don't think they prove anything.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2004)

No they didn't hold significant numercial advantages. It says nothing of the sort, especially in the second encounter when it says 34 Shidens against numerous Corsairs, or whatever


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 29, 2004)

A summary of the encounters based on the previous posts:

March 19, 1945 - '2 squadrons' of Shidens v. 15 Corsairs
- '1 squadron' of Shidens v. 10 Corsairs
April 10, 1945 - 33 Shidens v. 'numerous' Corsairs (very ambiguous)
June 2, 1945 - 21 Shidens v. 16 Corsairs
June 22, 1945 - 31 Shidens v. 20 Corsairs

In every incident where clear numbers are provided, the Shiden was enjoying an advantage of at least 25% (and may well have held the advantage on the April 10th incident).

Furthermore, it is interesting to note the number of Corsairs that returned damaged. The reason I point this out is that (contrary to what has been said before) the Shiden could not simply blow the Corsair out of the sky.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 30, 2004)

Great points LG....


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2004)

You cannot assume the 10th April numbers, LG. The squadrons of Shidens, are we sure they are full strength? 
On top of that, if the Shidens were holding a clear advantage. And the Corsairs were able to pick and choose their fights. Surely all those encounters should have been avoided by the Corsair pilots. 

The damaged Corsairs were wrecked as they returned. Counting an aircraft lost for the USN. If you are trying to deny that the higher calibre round is not more destructive, then I can only laugh.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 30, 2004)

You cannot assume the Corsairs were wrecked upon landing... And why would u assume that the Corsair pilots would avoid any combat from any fighter, odds in favor or against???

"Oh my, so many Shidens... Lets run for home ..." 

NOT...

92.662% of all fighter pilots had that attitude of invincibility in the air.. If u didnt, u didnt live very long in a dogfight...

Shidens were not the only Jap fighter that fired high calibre rounds at the Corsair ...

The higher calibre round is definatly more destructive, but the Corsair could take a hell of alot of damage and still be put down on the ground intact, and repairable for another days sortie...

I saw a pic of a Corsair with almost half his left wing sheared off from a power line, and that plane was on the ground, intact... Also saw a pic of a Corsair wing that had a hole in it that u could have stuck ur whole body through...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2004)

I'm not assuming the Corsairs were wrecked upon landing. It stated that one was ditched in the ocean, and the others damaged were wrecked. 
Well in that case, the Corsairs ability to pick and choose its battles has no place in this discussion. Although a great fighter should know when to fight, and although the Corsair had the ability to pick it, if the pilot didn't then its pointless. 

The Corsair could take a lot of damage, but the Shiden could cause a massive amount of damage with four 20mm cannons.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 30, 2004)

and, while not as strong as the corsair, the shiden was no lightweight itself.......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 30, 2004)

You have to consider somethings about theses incidents. 

Fact: the quality of the Japanese pilots had dropped incredibly by 1945. Thus, Allied pilots were often caught off guard when they did encounter good Japanese pilots.

Fact: the quality of the average American pilot had probably degraded some as the average American pilot was getting fewer chances to hone his skills.

There are several possible reasons why the Americans might not have avoided combat. They probably (as noted) underestimated the quality of the Japanese pilots. The circumstances of their missions may have prevented it. Note that several of these incidents involved VBF or VMF squadrons which were most likely flying stikre missions. The Corsairs may have been bounced. And the numerical superiority of the Shidens may have limited their ability to avoid combat (properly deployed they had the numbers to literally surround the Corsairs).

My point about the damaged Corsairs was this: it has been said that the 4 20mm cannons of the Shiden would totally rip a Corsair apart. Clearly this is not true. As far as single-engined fighters go, only the P-47 challenged the durability of the Corsair. It seems to me that the Corsair was less vulnerable to the 4 20mm of the Shiden than the Shiden was to the 6 .50cals of the Corsair.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2004)

There's no evidence to back up that assumption on the Corsair against Shiden durability. That's a quite good excuse to make for the Corsair, they were caught off guard. And now, the average American pilot was getting poor. Come on, were the American pilots good or bad? 

And the Corsairs ability to avoid combat has been blown out of the water then. As earlier I stated situations in which the Corsair couldn't avoid combat, which gives the Shiden the edge. Turns will always be needed, and the Shiden could turn tighter.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 30, 2004)

And if turning is all there is the Shiden should never have been shot down! 

I think everyone would agree that seeing combat makes for a better pilot. The pilots assigned to fly in the Shiden were the very best Japan had. As the number of Japanese aircraft decreased and the number of Americans increased there were fewer chances for an American pilot to see air-to-air combat. Many American pilots flew completed whole tours without seeing so much as a single Japanese aircraft. The result was that you probably had the very best pilots the Japanese had against average American pilots. This proves nothing concerning the quality of the planes.

The tactical situation does not prove anything concerning the quality of aircraft either. P-40s had good success when they were bouncing Zeros, does that make them a better fighter?

Read the comments that Japanese pilots made during the war. In a slow, turning dogfight, there was little or anything that could hang with the Zero. Yet, Zero pilots primarily point to the superior performance of the Hellcat, Lightning, and Corsair as being the dominant factors. The Corsair maintained everyone of these advantages over the Shiden. It can maintain maneuvers longer because of it's power, it cannot be touched in the vertical regime, and gave a good account of itself when faced with better pilots in greater numbers.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2004)

I never said there were only turns in a dogfight. The advantages held by the Corsair over the Zero were much reduced over the Shiden. If the Shiden and Zero were identical, it'd be pretty pointless. 
If the Shiden was shooting down the Corsairs, it obviously was perfectly capable of achieving kills. The Corsairs can dive down on the Shiden, or run away from it with speed. Tactical combat.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

HMMMM... Id like to find out the differences between the flight characteristics of the Zero vs. the Shiden... If im not mistaken, the Zero could out turn the Shiden...

I dont think anyone is saying that the Shiden was not a capable aircraft in the kills department... However, only the best Jap pilots flew them... 

If a marginal pilot, or a newbie rookie were behind the controls, I believe we wouldnt be having this conversation...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2004)

I did say earlier that being a rookie would be better in a Corsair but a well-conditioned ace would be more suited to the Shiden.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

True Statement...

No comment on the Zero vs Shiden performance question???


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2004)

I know the Shiden was better armoured and armed. I think it was faster too.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

Faster yes... definatly... Armour and Armament are not performance issues...

But what about the other 5? flight characteristics that make up an aircraft performance???

I would assume that because it was heavier, that it could outdive the Zero... Climbing ability??? Probably would depend on the altitude and speed at moment of said climb...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2004)

Well armour and armament are quite important in a dogfight. If you can't take a pounding, or dish out a pounding you're pretty pointless.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

I agree... Im asking about performance issues of the Zero vs the Shiden... Im gonna do some research on this...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 31, 2004)

The Shiden was faster than the Zero by about 20mph but was 70mph slower than the -4 Corsair. I believe the Zero had the Shiden beaten in the climb and in range. The Shiden probably held the advantage in a dive but I haven't seen anything on that.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2004)

This is a major problem with the Shiden Vs. Corsair discussion. What is said about the -4 Corsair is not the same as -1D Corsair.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2004)

And there are 2 different versions of the Shiden... The Kawanishi N1K1-J and the 2-J... 

The -1J had major problems with the landing gear, and the limited visibilty on the ground problem.... Only 1,032 -1J's were produced, starting in 1943... 

The F4U-1 series began production in June 1941, and the F4U-1D in April 1944... The F4U-4 began at the end of 1944... The horsepower went from 2,250 in the 1-D, to 2,485 hp in the -4... Not bad...

The only thing the N1K1-2 J retained from the -1J was the engine, the wing, and the armament of its predecessor, with productions starting in June 1944... 

The fuselage and tail fins had been completely redesigned in order to allow the wing to be lowered from the middle of the fuselage farther down... This of couse made it possible to shorten and simplify the landing gear and consequently to improve overall visability on the ground...

A huge production run began in June 1944, but due to the continuous raids by American bombers, only 423 M1K2-J's came off the factory lines before the bombs were dropped and ended the war... 

And like many other aircraft in the PTO, Many of the 2-J's were sacrificed in suicide attacks...

I believe the that the -1J would have had serious issues with a decent F4U1-D pilot with 3-8 kills under his belt, let alone one flying in a -4...

The -2J would have stood a much better chance of combattin the -1D, but were seriously in a bad situation against the F4U-4 (both with skilled pilots)...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 1, 2004)

i think that the fact that the shiden was flown by the best the japs had gave it the edge in combat....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2004)

Ok... I think we got on the worng page here... 

Lets use this as the platform for opinion...

2 pilots of identical talent, (5 kills worth)...
Neutral posistioning on attack...
Altitude 30,000 ft...
F4U-4 vs. N1K2-J

Something I would sacrifice my right testical to be a part of IRL...

The -4 comes out on top 7 outta 10 engagements...
The -4 was a much better designed, constructed, and utilized plane...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 1, 2004)

Above 30,000ft the Shiden would have been in trouble against a -1D Corsair as the Shiden had very poor performance at high altitude. When discussing the relative merits of the two AIRCRAFT pilots ought not be discussed as a good pilot can make a lousy airplane do some amazing things.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 1, 2004)

but in saying that a pilot can only do what his aircraft will let him..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2004)

I agree LG... 

Actually i believe anywhere over 26,000 the Shiden's performance dropped drastically...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2004)

So above 26,000 feet the -1D is most likely going to come out on top. At 5000 feet, it's a different story though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 1, 2004)

The Shiden was probably closer to the Corsair (particularly the -1D) at low altitudes. But I would imagine there would be a pretty noticable difference in performance starting as low as 15,000ft or so.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 2, 2004)

And combat is usually not initiated anywhere below 15,000 feet....


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2004)

That's a broad comment, it all depends on the tactical situation.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 2, 2004)

Combat in the Pacific was generally fought at lower altitudes. But the since the P-40 and P-39 had problems due to their poor high-altitude performance, I believe things would have been similarly true for the Shiden.


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 2, 2004)

Shiden design was slow and troubled as stated. Yes they had the best pilots and as Lightening guy says repeatedly the pilot is the key to all this. with that in mind the kills that the Sheden has is not that unthinkable. If we agree that the average USN or USMC pilot might have 1 or 2 kills over the war, in the last few years that is I think a good number. So the Japanese pilots who to start with have to go through a very hard program anywho. Those who survived would get to move on and keep gaining mre combat time. Also we have said that the Japanese were in China by 1936 flying and we were not until the earliest about 1939-40. 

The Japanese engies were plaged by poor quality latter in develipment and by b-29 bombing. The Ki-61 program is a good excample of that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2004)

it wasn't just the engine, the fuel wasn't exactily the best quality aviation fuel, it had a large quantity of alcohol in it as well.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 2, 2004)

By 1945 the Japanese had almost no ability to refine gasoline left. As a result they were almost left with using crude oil as aviation fuel, hardly a good idea.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2004)

but like i said, if they used diesil engines that wouldn't be a problem.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 3, 2004)

No even the desil engines have problums.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 4, 2004)

The Japanese were having trouble enough developing a decent petrol engine.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

I read a statistic one time that over 60% of Japanese Industrial Engineers were killed during WW2...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 4, 2004)

In the book Zero, Masatake Okumiya describes the situation Japan was facing at the end of the war. The were literally dragging people off of the street into the factories. As expected, quality control went to pot.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

for sure...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2004)

indeed....................


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2004)

indeed....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2004)

you're getting the hang of this spam......................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

Is double posting like urself the real trick???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2004)

i take great offence at that actually, i've only ever made one double post, CC was the one that made double posts........................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)




----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2004)

as a rule you never make more than one spam post in a row.....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

There are rules for spamming??? HA...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2004)

there are many unwritten rules of spam.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

hehe..


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2004)

many of which you've managed to break................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

Am I the only one??? I doubt it... lol


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2004)

ne but it's almost unheard of for a newbie to do it.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

lol im not really newbie man... Ive been on message boards before, as well as a founding member of one of the best Hockey fighting message boards...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 5, 2004)

I believe it was me who pointed out the unwritten rules of spam and the board, and long ago 'brad' fell for it.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 5, 2004)

God, I sure did hate that kid...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 5, 2004)

We all recognised your hatred, and after a while he did too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 5, 2004)

after we had to explain what GrGs meant...................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 5, 2004)

Of course, but he was only 10...


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 5, 2004)

Why corupt another one to your SPAM ways?

LG-that sound realy bad to be grubbing for any kind of worker to get the tools of war. But I can understand tht quote of 60% engineers and tecs lost. The war was a big drain on people.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

Wars? Drain? Beer, but why!?!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

yet suprisingly beer is one of the things that got us through.................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

Vodka got the Soviets through. And the Germans were drunk on victory...well the OKH and OKW were.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 8, 2004)

althought the americans seemed to fuction on coka cola....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

Without it, they're screwed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 8, 2004)

although the stereotypes would dictate that we can't survive without tea.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

You fight with more determination with a hot brew in your stomach.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 9, 2004)

or some of betty's hotpot.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2004)

An army marches on its stomach, as the saying goes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 10, 2004)

question, why is it only people that are called betty can make hotpot??


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2004)

I only know of one, the woman out of Coronation Street.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

it's a stereotype....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

Must be one Southerners use for Northerners.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

if you like....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

I'm not bothered, Manchester is in drip county (Lancashire).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

the funny thing is, down here we all take the piss out of the yourkshice accent, but it's not that different to ours................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

Which Yorkshire accent?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

the fred dibna one.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

The Fred who one!?!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 12, 2004)

fred dibnah, he does allot of industrial programs.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2004)

Oh k...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 13, 2004)

you know the one i'm on about?? he makes you all sound like simpletons.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 20, 2004)

what are you on lanc, the yorkshire accent sounds NOTHING like the cornish accent


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

Is that like sayin a New Yorkers accent is the same as a Hick from the Delta of Mississippi????


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

that means nothing to me.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

or me


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

"you wouldn't" 

ahh, that brings back memories...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

as does that, please don't do that again................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

well now u know how we non-Brits feel when u talk about cornish accents vs yorkshire ones....

WE are clueless, just like urselves...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

are you implying that the cornish are clueless??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

i hope so  8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

may i remind all of you that if it wasn't for a "clueless" cornishman we wouldn't have the steam engine, the enigne that powered the industrail revolution and without the steam engine we wouldn't have internal combustion engines............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

I havent met a non-clueless individual since 1979... Old Bob McGuilacutty... Whar a character he was... He had a clue...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

hmmmmm thats true, but someone else would have probably invented it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

i have more than a clue, as does my dad, a cornishman......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

to be honest id rather i didnt live in cornwall, the minute i get my driving license im outta here


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

surely it's a good idea to find i house before you go??


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

Clue-less when compared to Country differences....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

what??


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

Dude...... The accent posts...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

very true mate 8) no ill have a camper van, live in that  much cheaper


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

now that i'd love to see, you trying to move around in a campervan................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

id only sleep in it  but think about it, its brilliant! you have a car and a house in one, you dont have to pay rent or put up with flat mates and you have all the freedom in the world


----------

