# Corsair vs Zero



## Cougar (Jan 27, 2005)

This is probually one of the most famous pair of planes of the pacific theater. The corsair, very manuverable tough and fast (417mph), one of the biggest fighters of the war with its massive 18 cylinder double wasp R-4360 raidial engine puting out 3,600 hp that spun the huge 13 foot 3 blade prop. It was feared by zero pilots. Six 50 cals could tear the zero apart and could sink small ships It was a leap in avaiation technology with new ways of making the fusalage more drag resistant and the gull wing to prevent the prop from hitting the deck of a carrier. Its combat carrier didnt stop after the war. Its bombing capabilitys were also acceptable and was used in korea and could carry 4500lbs of ordanance. and even shot a few migs down. 
The zero,a copied design of howard hughes racer. at the start of the war was feared by american pilots it was very agile and fast compared to the wildcat. being very lite it only had a 900 hp 14cylinder double row raidial engine. It armerment was small ,two 7.7 mm machine guns in the nose and two 20mm cannons in the wings.
Until the corsair arrived the zero ruled the sky's but when the Corsair came it was majorly outclassed and was slaughtred. The Corsair was obviously the supirior fighter. 

What do you think???

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JCS (Jan 27, 2005)

> The zero,a copied design of howard hughes racer



I didnt know that....you wouldnt know the model of the plane it was copied from would you?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Pope (Jan 27, 2005)

Again with the story of the Zero being based on Hughes' racer! This has been debunked many times, but it still comes up. About as often as the one about the FW-190 also being copied from it. Neither has an ounce of truth to it! They were totally independent designs. Other than being low-wing monoplanes with round engines, there is no design commonality. Why not say the Jug or the Hellcat was a Hughes knockoff, too?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Cougar (Jan 27, 2005)

youve never seen the racer have you, huges plane is so much like the zero, the tappred tail,the landing gear, the fusalage design. THe thunderbolt was also like the racer.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Cougar (Jan 27, 2005)

I think its a striking resemblance


----------



## Cougar (Jan 27, 2005)

.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

You must think all radial-engined aircraft look alike then. Try reading the book "Zero" and you'll find that it was a totally orignal design. And before you knock the Zero's fire power, compare it to the other designs of the times, like the 8 x .303s in contemporary Spits and Hurricanes or the 2 x .50s and 4 x .30s in a contemporary P-40s. The equipping of the 20mm gun was very advanced for its time.

And if you want to discuss the Zero vs. the Corsair, check your info. The Corsair was powered by a R-2800 Double Wasp which intially delivered 2,000hp though late-war models had this up to 2,850hp with water injection. The R-4360 Wasp Major to which you refer was only fitter to the F2G the grand production total of which was exactly 10 units with no combat time recorded.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2005)

Someone just opened a can.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## plan_D (Jan 28, 2005)

Of course the Corsair was superior but it wasn't the Corsair that stopped the Zero. The F6F Hellcat with proper tactics slaughtered the Zero, along with the P-38, the Spitfire Mk. VIII and several other planes arriving in 1943. Even then the P-40s from the AVG and Hurricane Mk.I from the RAF and IAF Squadrons in Burma were giving the Zero a run for their money.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 28, 2005)

I'm with plan_D on this one. Granted, the F4U could do some serious damage to the zeros, and often did, the planes before it did alot more. LG is right, the fact are a little incorrect. 4,500 lbs. of bombs? WWII versions typically carried either 2 x 1,000 lbs. bombs or 8 x 5-inch rockets. 

The Zero doesn't look like the Hughes racer IMO. It certainly does not look like the Thunderbolt.


----------



## R Pope (Jan 28, 2005)

"Never seen the Hughes racer"? I have a copy of the blueprints drawn up for the ill-fated replica. Much smaller than the Zero, it was made of wood, and the landing gear legs had no cover doors, the legs themselves being contoured to fit flush. In some ways a more advanced concept than the Zero, and yet in others less so, the racer was acknowledged by Hughes himself as being unadaptable for combat. The Focke-Wulf looks more like it than the Zero does. This story stems from wartime jingoism, denigrating anything designed anywhere but in the USA. There was even a story that the first 190's encountered over France were captured P-36's! As if!!!!


----------



## R Pope (Jan 28, 2005)

Plan-D---The AVG P-40's mostly fought against Oscars of the Japanese Army. The Zero was Navy. They always misidentified the Oscar as a Zero, much as Luftwaffe pilots always insisted it was a Spitfire that shot them down, not a lowly Hurricane. The Brits called it "Spitfire snobbery">


----------



## R Pope (Jan 28, 2005)

Read my posts and saw an error, meant to say "The wings were made of wood" on the racer. The fuselage was of course a metal monocoque structure.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 28, 2005)

Saying that the Japanese aviation industry was dependant on copying American designs smacks of 1940 prejudices. Mind you it was exactly that kind of thinking that made the Zero (and vitrually all the other early-war Japanese types) such a shock to Western pilots.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 28, 2005)

I associate the P-38 with the Zero more than the Corsair. That said, I think the Corsair was far superior to the Zero...


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Jan 28, 2005)

Aren't we forgeting someone? Even the lowly wildcat had a great combat record against the zero.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Jan 28, 2005)

R Pope said:


> Plan-D---The AVG P-40's mostly fought against Oscars of the Japanese Army. The Zero was Navy. They always misidentified the Oscar as a Zero, much as Luftwaffe pilots always insisted it was a Spitfire that shot them down, not a lowly Hurricane. The Brits called it "Spitfire snobbery">



I never knew that!!    The Hurricane isn't exactly easy meat...

Cougar, stop knockin' my Jug!  The racer looks more like a P-36 (from some angles) than anything else IMO.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2005)

yes but if you ask someone to name the most famous jap and us fighter from the pacific they will proberly say the corsair and zero.........


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Jan 28, 2005)

True...

That pic of the Corsair up top must be the cannon armed version???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2005)

it's a very nice shot.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 28, 2005)

The pic is of a cannon armed Corsair. A -5 I believe.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Jan 28, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Someone just opened a can.....



Ha Ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!


----------



## Cougar (Jan 28, 2005)

The Jug Rules! said:


> True...
> 
> That pic of the Corsair up top must be the cannon armed version???


yea

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 29, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> You must think all radial-engined aircraft look alike then. Try reading the book "Zero" and you'll find that it was a totally orignal design. And before you knock the Zero's fire power, compare it to the other designs of the times, like the 8 x .303s in contemporary Spits and Hurricanes or the 2 x .50s and 4 x .30s in a contemporary P-40s. The equipping of the 20mm gun was very advanced for its time.



The Type 99 I guns on the orginal A6M2 zero's can hardly be considered advanced. Some japanese sourced indicate that actual RoF of these guns was well under 200 rpm. And they were known frequently to bounce off Wildcats doing nothing more than making a golf ball sized dent in the sheet alluminum. Most Japanese pilots considered them rather useless.

The Zero was no match for the Corsair. Unless the Corsair pilot made a gross error, or got bounced while sleeping, it should beat the Zero consistantly.

=S=

Lunatic

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2005)

The AVG, RAF and IAF would have met plenty of Zeros though. As Nagumo went around to the Indian Ocean with 5 aircraft carriers and supported Japanese Army movements. The Akagi was attacked by 11 Sqn. Blenheims at one point, obviously supported by either AVG P-40s or Hurricanes (Possibly Buffalos)


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The AVG, RAF and IAF would have met plenty of Zeros though. As Nagumo went around to the Indian Ocean with 5 aircraft carriers and supported Japanese Army movements. The Akagi was attacked by 11 Sqn. Blenheims at one point, obviously supported by either AVG P-40s or Hurricanes (Possibly Buffalos)



I don't think it was the AVG. I don't think they ever encountered a Zero.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2005)

Well, I don't know for sure but in 'Burma - The Forgotten War' by Jon Latimer, it states that the an AVG Squadron was posted to Burma (which it was) and saw service against the IJN while they supported Japanese Army movements. 
While defending Rangoon they, with RAF Hurricane Mk. Is and Buffalos, shot down some 17 Japanese planes. Counting some as Zeros, most as Bettys. While only losing two P-40s and some Hurricanes. I'll go find the proper story, when I have time.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but if you ask someone to name the most famous jap and us fighter from the pacific they will proberly say the corsair and zero.........



Or the P-38, or maybe even the Hellcat.

But in truth if you asked a normal person that question, theyd say the 109 and a Spit


----------



## R Pope (Jan 29, 2005)

There were, like, 15 Zeroes sent to inland China for evaluation purposes in the proper time frame to have encountered the AVG, so an encounter was possible.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

if they even knew about the 109............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

Ok then, just "Messerschmitt"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

that they would have heard of, but they'll just say "the messerschmitt"


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 29, 2005)

R Pope said:


> There were, like, 15 Zeroes sent to inland China for evaluation purposes in the proper time frame to have encountered the AVG, so an encounter was possible.



Don't think so.

_FIRST COMBAT

The Third A.V.G. squadron moved to Rangoon on *December 12, 1941*, to join the R.A.F. in the defense of Rangoon. The First and Second squadrons flew from Toungoo to Kunming on the afternoon of the 18th. The first combat for the A.V.G. occurred over southern Yunnan Province on *December 20, 1941*. In their first combat, a combination of the First and Second Squadrons, shot down nine out of ten Japanese bombers with a loss of one A.V.G. aircraft. The second engagement brought the Third Squadron onto action over Rangoon on December 23, with the R.A.F. flying beside the Tigers. The total haul of Japs was six bombers and four fighters. The R.A.F. lost five planes and pilots and the A.V.G. lost four planes and two pilots._

The first sorties by the 15 pre-production A6Ms was on *Aug 19 1940* of the 12th Kokutai led by Lt Tamotsu Yokoyama escorting 54 G3M2s to Chungking. No opposition was met until the 4th mission flown on the *Sept 13 1940* when I-15s and I-16s of the CAF were spotted and engaged.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 29, 2005)

I don't think the AVG ever encountered Zero's. The resulting 23rd FG would certainly have come up against them though.

And from Robert C. Mikesh's book on the Zero . . . "The Type 99 cannon was a very large calibre weapon to be used on the Zero at this time when compared to the world standards. True, it did have its shortcomings in low muzzle velocity and slow rate of fire, but reports of these cannon rounds hitting their targets and exploding brought a much higher total in kill records than if the lighter armament had been used as some proposed."


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 29, 2005)

The AVG never had any combats with the Zero...

My Grandfather flew Corsairs in the Pacific and said that the Zero was totally outclassed by the F4U....


----------



## Cougar (Jan 29, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> You must think all radial-engined aircraft look alike then. Try reading the book "Zero" and you'll find that it was a totally orignal design. And before you knock the Zero's fire power, compare it to the other designs of the times, like the 8 x .303s in contemporary Spits and Hurricanes or the 2 x .50s and 4 x .30s in a contemporary P-40s. The equipping of the 20mm gun was very advanced for its time.
> 
> And if you want to discuss the Zero vs. the Corsair, check your info. The Corsair was powered by a R-2800 Double Wasp which intially delivered 2,000hp though late-war models had this up to 2,850hp with water injection. The R-4360 Wasp Major to which you refer was only fitter to the F2G the grand production total of which was exactly 10 units with no combat time recorded.


 sry about the wrong info, jus did this from memory next time ill reasearch im not knocking the zeros fire power but compared to 6 50 cals they are small, 
and im not reading a whole book on the zero


----------



## Cougar (Jan 29, 2005)

You must think all radial-engined aircraft look alike then
lol, no our s2r thrushes dont look like any raidal aircraft but a t6


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 30, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Well, I don't know for sure but in 'Burma - The Forgotten War' by Jon Latimer, it states that the an AVG Squadron was posted to Burma (which it was) and saw service against the IJN while they supported Japanese Army movements.
> While defending Rangoon they, with RAF Hurricane Mk. Is and Buffalos, shot down some 17 Japanese planes. Counting some as Zeros, most as Bettys. While only losing two P-40s and some Hurricanes. I'll go find the proper story, when I have time.



I suppose it is possible, but I seem to recall someone showing (on another forum) that the AVG never faced the Zero.

Oscars were frequently mis-identified as Zero's, especially early in the war.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Chocks away! (Jan 30, 2005)

I think a well flown zero could face just about anything. even though obviously the corsair was more advanced.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

well a determined japanese ace in a zero could take on anything really.............


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 30, 2005)

The Corsair is a good 130 mph faster than the Zero, if the Corsair pilot never goes below 350, the Zero really does not have a chance. The inability of the Zero to fight at speed made them easy meat for the Hellcats and Corsairs. Weak armament and lack of armor also hurt.

If you look at the history of it, the Zero did very poorly after 1942. There was not much the Zero pilot could do against the much faster, better armed, tougher planes like the Corsair.

The air battle over the Marianas wasn't called the "Turkey Shoot" for nothing.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

are you aware of how good and determined jap aces were?? especailly the early war ones..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Now matter how good the pilot was theres no way he can make the plane go faster, it isnt possible.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> are you aware of how good and determined jap aces were?? especailly the early war ones..............



Yes. But it didn't matter. Have you read Sabaru Sakai's book?

Determination is great, but it is not going to help you much when you're in a plane with a 230 IAS performance limt and your fighting planes with a 350 IAS performance limit. All you can do is try to survive their attacks.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Jan 30, 2005)

I think its simply that the Zero was out of date by the time the Corsair came on the scene. in its heyday the A6M was untouchable and a brilliant machine but the Japanese just couldn't keep up with the US's advances in R D.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 30, 2005)

trackend said:


> I think its simply that the Zero was out of date by the time the Corsair came on the scene. in its heyday the A6M was untouchable and a brilliant machine but the Japanese just couldn't keep up with the US's advances in R D.



Yes it did fairly well early in the war. But even against the Wildcat, once the Zero's weaknesses were uncovered, it did not fare that well.

The Zero was a plane of a few notable strengths, but many notable weaknesses.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 30, 2005)

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

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


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 30, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Has anyone stopped to consider that most of the aircraft lost by the Japanese at the Battle of the Philippine Sea were bombers? And even then is was more poor pilots than poor planes that caused the losses.
> 
> The Zero was a remarkable aircraft. On merely half the horsepower of its rivals, it attained very impressive performance (pit an A6M5 against the similarly powered P-36 and see what happens). It was certainly the best fighter available in that part of the war at the start of the war and (despite the rapid advances in technology) never became truly obsolete (though it did need to be replaced).



The Zero's didn't even do that well against the Wildcats once the plane was understood. It could not take hits, it could not fight at speeds above 230-245 IAS (varies a little with model), it could not manuver to the right at speeds much above 200 IAS, its terminal dive speed was very low (depends on initial altitude), and it had a weak gun package and horrible sights.

Skilled Zero pilots fighting inexperianced enemies who had no idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the Zero did very well early in the war, mostly against even older designs. However, within a year they were at best holding there own and after that they were getting beat consistantly. Once the faster planes such as the Corsair and Hellcat came into the war, the day of the Zero was totally over and it got slaughtered.

The Zero design compromised everything for range.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Cougar (Jan 30, 2005)

face it zeros arnt as good as some say, outclassed by most


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 30, 2005)

In the latter part of the War, this is most evident during the Marianas Turkey Shoot.....

But in the opening years of the conflict, the Zero was unmatched....
Pre-production A6M2's of the 12th Rengo Kokutai were rushed to China for Operational Trials, where they were remarkably successful against Soviet I-15's and I-16's.... The Zero scored its first victory on 9/13/40, and by the end of the year the single Zero Squadron had claimed 59 kills without the loss of a single aircraft......

In the early years of the war, the Allies basically had the use of 4 aircraft, the Buffalo, P-36, P-40, and the Hurricane..... None of these aircraft could handle a dogfight with an experienced Zero pilot....

After Petty Officer Koga was forced to land on a remote island in 1942, and the first captured Zero was in the hands of the Allies, America was able to design the next generation of fighters to combat the weaknesses of the Zero.....


----------



## Cougar (Jan 30, 2005)

i agree that zeros in the start of the war were better, not in the later part though


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 31, 2005)

I dont think ull find anyone to dispute that....


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 31, 2005)

Apparently, the AVG destroyed 286 Japanese aircraft, and Chennault was aware of the Zero's turning-dogfight ability....and the idea wasn't to get into a turning fight, but dive to get speed...the inline shape of P-40's were always faster in the dive than the radial Zero, so one zoomed down then climbed, then dived with a firing-pass...Chennault always advocated a head-on attack, but otherwise, don't dogfight the Zero...which, going by my reading, the AVG did tangle with Zeros.......

The Corsair first began operations in October 1942, and it's obvious the pilots knew by then the abilities of the Zero...The Corsair clobbered 2,140 Japanese aircraft for the loss of 189, in combat.....

Also, essentially the Zero was a Naval fighter, and in the big sea battles of the Pacific, as the Japanese started to get what they got, their best-trained pilots were obviously becoming seriously depleted as they were pushed back up the Pacific......Consequently, with ever-improving Allied aircraft and well-trained pilots, against slowly decaying Japanese forces, which didn't have new more modern fighters coming on stream, or suitably trained pilots, let alone seasoned ones to train them, they were doomed......Also, I feel the only reason the Hellcat enjoyed the highest score in the PTO, was because they became the main carrier fighter, which to the Japanese, the enemy carriers were the priority, as to try and protect their own......The Corsair was 'broken-in' by the 'Leathernecks' and did most of their work off landing-strips, and exceptional ground-attack work they did....but my feeling is that they were the Best American Fighter, ground-attack was just their specialty, they endeared themselves to all because it was more than a match for the Zero........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 31, 2005)

I'm still trying to find that information on the Rangoon raid. Can someone give me some info and pictures of the Oscar then, if they kept mistaking them for the Zero.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 31, 2005)

Here is a nice three view and also a plate of the Oscar. I don't think it looks all that much like a Zero but the mistake was commonplace and I can understand it. Most of the quick recognition features are similar (radial engines, bubble canopy, rounded wings). In the heat of battle mis-identification was common (Fw-190s as P-36s for example). Add to the fact that the Allies knew next to nothing about Japanese aircraft at the start of the war and it becomes quite easy to understand. Any Japanese fighter flying rings-around its competion was likely to be called a Zero regardless of what it was.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 31, 2005)

Cheers for that. So, was the Oscar any good or what?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 31, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Cheers for that. So, was the Oscar any good or what?





> Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon) "Oscar"Performance:
> Maximum Speed (Ki 43 I): 308 mph
> Maximum Speed (Ki 43 II): 320 mph (515 km/h)
> Maximum Speed (Ki 43 III): 363 mph (585 km/h)
> ...



More info on Oscar: http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm

In general, the Oscar probably turned a little better than the Zero. It had good range, but the range of the early model was not as good as that of the Zero and it could not carry drop tanks. And of course, it was not a carrier capable plane. Most notably, it had very poor armament. While 12.7 mm guns are shown, evidently in practice these were rarely used until quite late in the Oscar's life because the Ho-103 was quite unreliable. Most Oscars were armed with just two 7.7mm guns (at least until it was facing later model Allied fighters). The A6M2 was a little faster and climbed notably better than the Ki-43-I, but both out climbed early Allied fighters by such a margin that it hardly mattered.

Both planes had similar problems at higher speeds. The Japanese emphasis on individual dogfighting and manuverabiltiy resulted in large control surfaces which became nearly unusable at high speeds.

As you can see from the images in LG's post, it is easy to see how Allied pilots might mistake these two types. The most distinctive visual difference is the tail, on the Oscar the rudder does not extend back past the elevators, on the Zero it does. But in the heat of combat, such a distinction would be difficult to make even if you knew to look for it, which of course Allied pilots in 1940-1942 did not. If it had a radial engine, rounded wingtips, and meatballs it was a "Zero".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2005)

never heard them called meatballs though...........


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 31, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> never heard them called meatballs though...........



The big red dot was often referred to as a "meatball".


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2005)

well i'm aware of what you're refering to, i've just never heard the term before..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 31, 2005)

At least is was by the Americans.

The Oscar was numerically the most important JAAF fighter of the war and second overall to only the Zero. As RG noted it did turn better than the Zero but lacked the firepower. One other advantage it had over the Zero was the installation of early self-sealing tanks. Granted they were of a rather crude design but they were better than nothing.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 31, 2005)

I always thought the '' meatball '' referred to the earlier US insignia of the white star with red dot in the middle, all set in a blue circle......

Gemhorse


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 31, 2005)

I've never heard it called the "meatball." Of course that scheme was discontinued so as to avoid confusion with the Japanese insignia.


----------



## R Pope (Feb 2, 2005)

The Oscar has been called the most maneuverable retracting-gear monoplane fighter ever built. In a dogfight it was supreme, but once the Yanks learned to keep their speed and not fall into a turning battle, they blasted poor old Oscar from the sky in droves.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

which was pretty mush their tactics with all jap planes as most could turn inside them...........


----------



## evangilder (Feb 2, 2005)

At slower speeds, yes they could out-turn the American aircraft, but at higher speeds, they could not. This is well documented.


----------



## Viper (Feb 2, 2005)

then when the zero is in the sights..... six 50cals opened up on them and theres no eascaping that.


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 3, 2005)

The 6x .50 cals served admirably against Japanese fighters, even the P-40 had it's way with them, it was the drain of seasoned Jap pilots who could really fly them, combined with more progressive models of solid Allied fighters, that exploited the weaknesses of Jap aircraft tactics [and they were wily! ], that tipped the balance, even in the face of their more desparate tactics....and it started with Chennault, and the guys he taught.....


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 3, 2005)

Oh, my, what an interesting thread.

I’ll throw in my two cents here and then another post to comment on some of the earlier posts.

The problem with the A6M series, and, indeed, most of the Japanese fighters at the beginning of the war, was that they were designed to fight a different war than what they faced against their eventual opponents. This was especially true for the A6M and though that’s the airplane to which I will refer in most of this, the basic concept could be applied to the Ki-43. The A6M design was driven by a demand for a fighter that was both long ranged (a specification in which the Mitsubishi folks were singularly and notable successful . . . though not necessarily for the good) and a highly maneuverable aerial combat aircraft. The problem was that almost all was sacrificed for those two goals . . . very poor high speed performance, some loss of critical forward visibility, no armor protection, and inferior armament. Essentially, the A6M was a modern mono-wing fighter designed to fight in a WWI bi-plane tactics environment. 

So, in order . . .

Very poor high speed performance –

Once the Americans learned to deny the A6M its low-speed maneuverability advantage, besting it became somewhat academic. Thus, the battle became one of tactics more than anything else. For the Americans, especially the USN and USMC pilots who were more likely to encounter A6Ms than any other Japanese fighter types, speed was life. As long as they kept their speed up, they might not shoot down an A6M, but they certainly wouldn’t be shot down themselves. So, if caught in a really bad fix, a fast dive off to the right meant that the A6M, with its poor high speed performance, could not follow. This phenomena was a combination of the A6Ms inability to perform a right turn at speeds greater than 300 kts and the greater diving speeds of the American aircraft. 

I offer the report of Lieut. Commander Eddie Sanders, the initial test pilot in his report of September 29, 1942 on the famous “Koga Zero” recovered from Akutan Island in the Aleutians:

"All controls are very light, free from friction and all are over-balanced statically. High maneuverability at normal speeds is obtained with small control movement. The ailerons are unusually long and lateral control is excellent right down to the stall. Aileron forces increase with speed. They are still fair around 200 KTS to 210 KTS, but at 230 to 250 KTS they practically freeze up and fast rolling cannot be done at 250 KTS. Could detect no buffeting or reversal at maximum displacement obtainable which is very small at high speed. The rudder is light and very effective. The elevator is the only control on which there is much change in trim with speed and power changes and that is not excessive. An adjustment elevator tab is the only tab provided. The others are fixed. Action from movement of any control is immediate.

"The plane handles remarkably like an SNC-1, feels about as light and maneuvers about the same. The main difference is in the ailerons where much less movement is needed for the rolling effect.

"The horizon was not working, but by estimating the angles, obtained 1.35 sec. to the right, and 1.1 sec. to the left for the standard rate of roll test in landing condition. The angle was probably more like 60 degrees. Rate of roll at 200 KTS was 5.4 sec. for 360 degrees. This was with not much more that half aileron displacement, but it was as far over as I could put it because of the high forces. Forces are higher to the right than left."

Some of Sanders' pertinent points in his evaluation were:

"Engine quits on push-overs"

"Ailerons get very stiff at higher speeds making fast rolls at high speeds (above 250 knots) physically impossible. At 200 knots the rate of roll (with ailerons) is slightly slower than an F4F. At lower speeds the Zero probably has an increasing advantage in any rolling maneuvers since it is highly maneuverable."

"Started getting considerable vibration and some flutter at 280 knots indicated. May be peculiar to this plane, but believe the diving speeds are probably considerably restricted."

"Believe F4F would accelerate faster in a dive and could roll or spiral at high speeds in such a way that a Zero could not follow because of aileron forces along [sic], if not speed and acceleration restrictions necessitated by strength limitations."

[NB: I believe the word after "forces" above should be "alone" not "along".]

My particular copy of the Sanders report has a cover distribution and memo dated November 29, 1942, from Headquarters, Allied Air Forces, South West Pacific Area, Directorate of Intelligence and signed by Major Frank T. McCoy, USAAC.

And from "Technical Aviation Intelligence Briefing #3" dated November 4, 1942 and published by the Navy's Aviation Intelligence Branch, Bureau of Aeronautics:

"Distribution - All ships and Units concerned with aircraft."

[. . . not bothering with background history information in the beginning of the report . . .]

"GENERAL: All metal low-wing monoplane, flush riveted with clean smooth exterior. Great emphasis has been given to saving weight wherever possible. Wing is integral with the fuselage, no leakproof tanks or armor, and wings fold only at tips. Landing gear, flaps and breaks [sic] are hydraulically operated. Visibility is excellent with no difficulty seeing astern. Cockpit is not much more cramped than a Spitfire, except that the longest pedal position is quite short and knees stick up rather high. Arrestor hook retracts into lower part of the fuselage. Flotation bag in rear of fuselage - watertight compartments in wings, outboard of cannons."

(Report continues with statistics on dimensions, weights, engine, propeller, armament, instruments, fuel capacity, and oil capacity. Then some fun stuff

"PERFORMANCE
"Maximum speeds and rates of climb are given below.
"Maximum speed.. Sea level.........270 (m.p.h.)
.........."..........."........5,000 feet.…..287......"
.........."...........".......10,000..."........305......"
.........."...........".....*16,000..."........326......"
.........."...........".......20,000..."........321.5..."
.........."...........".......25,000..."........315......"
.........."...........".......30,000..."........306......"

"Rate of Climb... Sea level..........2750 (ft/min)
....."...."......".......15,000 feet........2380......"
....."...."......".......20,000 feet........1810......"
....."...."......".......30,000 feet..........830......"

" * Critical Altitude.
"SERVICE CEILING: 38,500 feet."

The real good stuff in the report talks about the Zero's characteristics and comparison with the F4F-4 and the F4U-1. It echoes the Sanders report:

"CHARACTERISTICS:

"STABILITY: (a) Longitudinal stability is positive throughout. The elevator control is light and effective, and has very desirable control movement characteristics. (b) Directional stability is positive and control is light. There is no rudder trim tab and a moderate pedal force is carried in climb. (c) Lateral stability is positive in cruise condition and close to neutral in landing condition. Ailerons are abnormally large and the rate of roll at low speeds is extremely high. However the ailerons forces increase excessively with airspeed, and above 200 kts. indicated the airplane is very difficult to roll. At speeds above 250 kts. it is almost impossible to maneuver the plane laterally. At moderate to high speeds the rate of roll to the right is definitely lower that to the left, due to relative control forces.

"COMPARISON WITH F4F-4: The Zero is superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1000 feet, and is superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, with the F4F-4 in neutral blower, the two planes are equal in level speed. In dive the two planes are equal with the exception that the Zero's engine cuts out in pushover. There is no comparison between the turning circles of the two airplanes due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low stalling speed of the Zero. In view of the foregoing, the F4F-4 type in combat with the Zero is basically dependent on mutual support, internal protection, and pull-outs or turns at high speeds where the minimum radius is limited by structural or physiological effects of acceleration (assuming that the allowable acceleration on the F4F is greater that that for the Zero). However advantage should be taken wherever possible, of the superiority of the F4F in pushovers and rolls at high speed, or any combination of the two. 

"COMPARISON WITH THE F4U-1: The Zero is far inferior to the F4U-1 in level and diving speeds at all altitudes. It is inferior in climb at sea level. And inferior above 20000 feet. Between 5000 and 19000 feet the situation varies. With slightly more that normal fighter load, which may be distributed to give equal range and gun power, the Zero is slightly superior in average maximum rate of climb. This superiority becomes negligible at altitudes where carburetor air temperatures in the F4U are down to normal; close to the blower shift point it is more marked. However, the Zero cannot stay with the F4U in high speed climbs. The superiority of the F4U at 30000 feet is very marked and will persist at considerably higher loads. Attention is called to the fact that in the foregoing condition of loading all fuel in the F4U-1 is protected. In combat with the Zero, the F4U should take full advantage of its speed, and its ability to pushover and roll at high speed if surprised. Due to its much higher wing loading, the F4U should avoid any attempt to turn with the Zero unless at high speed, and may expect the latter to outclimb him at moderate altitudes and low airspeeds. In this case the F4U should continue to climb at high airspeeds and on headings which will open the distance and prevent the Zero from reaching a favorable position for diving attack. After reaching 19000-20000 feet the F4U will have superior performance in climb and may choose its own position of attack."

For comparison, the December 1942 US Army Air Forces "Informational Intelligence Summary No. 85 - Flight Characteristics of the Japanese Zero Fighter" was distributed to all USAAF squadrons. It summarizes the Sanders and Navy Comparison reports and provides comparisons with the P-38F, P-39D-1, and P-51:

“7. METHOD OF TEST:

“The Zero fighter was flown against the P-51, P-38F, P-39D-1 and a P-40F.

“Each of the above service type aircraft was flown with the “Zero” and comparable climbs, maneuverability, defensive and offensive tactics were determined from sea level to twenty-five-thousand (25,000) feet. The test was conducted in five-thousand (5,000) feet steps.

“Take-offs were started together and each climb was started from each ship’s best climbing speed. Every effort was made to eliminate the possibility of zooming when the climb was started.

“Notes to the actual trials are set forth below.

“8. ZERO vs P-38F:

“Ships took-off in formation on a pre-arranged signal. The Zero left the ground first wand was about three-hundred (300) feet in the air before the P-38 left the ground. The Zero reached five-thousand (5,000) feet about five (5) seconds ahead of the P-38F. From an indicated speed of two-hundred (200) miles per hour the P-38F accelerated away from the Zero in straight and level flight quite rapidly. The Zero was superior to the P-38F in maneuverability at speeds below three-hundred (300) miles per hour. The P-38F could out dive and out turn the Zero at this altitude at speed above three-hundred (300) miles per hour.

“The planes returned to formation and both ships reduced to their best climbing speeds. Upon signal the climb was started to ten-thousand (10,000) feet. Again the Zero was slightly superior in straight climbs reaching ten-thousand (10,000) feet about four (4) seconds ahead of the P-38F. Comparable accelerations and turns were tried with the same results.

“From ten-thousand (10,000) to fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet the two airplanes were about equal. The Zero was slightly ahead, but not enough to be considered advantageous. Again comparable accelerations, speed, and maneuverability were tried with the same results.

“In the climb from fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet to twenty-thousand (20,000) feet, the P-38 started gaining at about eighteen-thousand-two-hundred (18,200) feet. At twenty-thousand (20,000) the P-38 was superior to the Zero in all maneuvers except slow speed turns.

“This advantage is maintained by the P-38F at all altitudes above twenty-thousand (20,000) feet.

“One maneuver in which the P-38F is superior to the Zero is a high speed reversal. It is impossible for the Zero to follow the P-38F in this maneuver at speed above three-hundred (300) miles per hour.

“The test was continued to twenty-five-thousand (25,000) and thirty-thousand (30,000) feet. Due to the superior speed and climb of the P-38 at these altitudes, it could out maneuver the Zero by using these two advantages. The Zero was still superior in slow speed turns.

“9. ZERO vs P-39D-1:

“Climb from sea level to five-thousand (5,000) feet indicated. Take-off was accomplished in formation on signal. P-39D-1 was drawing 3000 RPM and seventy (70) inches manifold pressure. Engine started to detonate so manifold pressure was reduced to fifty-two (52) inches. P-39D-1 left the ground first and arrived at five-thousand feet just as Zero was passing four-thousand (4,000) feet indicated. Fifty-two (52) inches manifold pressure could be maintained to four-thousand-five-hundred (4,500) feet indicated. At five-thousand (5,000) feet indicated from a cruising speed of two-hundred-thirty (230) miles per hour indicated the P-39D-1 had a marked acceleration away from Zero. Climb from five-thousand (5,000) feet to ten-thousand (10,000) feet at the respective best climbing speeds, (thus eliminating zoom) P-39D-1 reached ten-thousand (10,000) feet indicated approximately six (6) seconds before Zero. At ten-thousand (10,000) feet indicated, from a cruising speed of two-hundred-twenty (220) miles per hour indicated, P-39D-1 still accelerated away from Zero rapidly. Climbing from ten-thousand (10,000) feet to fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet, both airplanes maintained equal rates of climb to twelve-thousand five-hundred (12,500) feet. Above this altitude the Zero walked away from the P-39D-1. At fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet indicated, from a cruising speed of two-hundred-ten (210) miles per hour indicated the P-39d-1 accelerated away from the Zero slowly.

“Climb from fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet indicated to twenty-thousand (20,000) feet indicated the Zero took immediate advantage and walked away from P-39D-1. At twenty-thousand (20,000) feet indicated at a cruising speed of two-hundred (200) miles per hour indicated, and from a starting signal for acceleration, the Zero momentarily accelerated away from P-39D-1. It took P-39D-1 thirty (30) seconds to catch up and go by Zero.

“Climb from twenty-thousand (20,000) feet to twenty-five thousand (25,000) feet was not completed as P-39D-1 was running low on gasoline.

“Climb from sea level to twenty-five thousand (25,000) feet indicated. Take-off was accomplished in formation on signal, P-39D-1 left the ground with 3000 RPM and 55 inches manifold pressure. P-39D-1 maintained advantage of climb for take-off to fourteen-thousand eight-hundred (14,800) feet indicated. Above this altitude P-39D-1 was left behind reaching twenty-five-thousand (25,000) feet indicated approximately five (5) minutes behind Zero. At twenty-five-thousand (25,000) feet indicated from a cruising speed of one-hundred-eighty (180) miles per hour indicated Zero accelerated away from P-39D-1 for three (3) ship lengths. This lead was maintained by the Zero for one (1) minute and thirty (30) seconds and it took the P-39D-1 thirty (30) more seconds to gain a lead of (1) ship length.

“10. ZERO vs P-40F:

Tests were not completed with the P-40F because it was found impossible to obtain maximum engine operation.

“11. Zero vs P-51:

“Climb from sea level to five-thousand (5,0000 feet indicated. Take-off was accomplished in formation on signal. P-51 was drawing 3000 RPM and forty-three (43) inches manifold pressure. This low manifold pressure was due to the setting on the automatic manifold pressure regulator. The Zero reached its best climbing speed before the P-51 left the ground. The Zero left the ground approximately six (6) seconds before the P-51. The Zero reached five-thousand (5,000) feet indicated approximately six (6) seconds before the P-51. At five-thousand feet indicated for a cruising speed of two-hundred-fifty (250) miles per hour indicated, P-51 accelerated sharply away from Zero.

“Climb from five-thousand (5,000) to ten-thousand (10,000) and from ten-thousand (10,0000 to fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet produced the same results as Zero walked away from P-51 in rate of climb. At ten-thousand (10,000) feet indicated from a cruising speed of two-hundred-fifty (250) miles per hour indicated the P-51 accelerated sharply away from Zero. At fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet indicated from a cruising speed of two-hundred-forty miles per hour indicated the P-51 accelerated away from Zero, but slightly slower that at five and ten-thousand feet.”

Particularly though, the report draws the following general conclusions and recommendations:

"Conclusions:

"The Zero fighter, because of its low wing loading, has superior maneuverability to all our present service type aircraft. 

"It is necessary to maintain a speed of over three hundred (300) miles per hour indicated to successfully combat this airplane.
 
"In developing tactics against the Zero, cognizance should be taken of two facts:

“1. Slow rate of roll of the Zero at high speeds.

“2. Inability of the Zero engine to continue operating under negative acceleration.

"The engine performance of the Zero is superior to the present service type engine without turbo superchargers. This superiority is recognizable in the fact that the maximum manifold pressure can be maintained from sea level to sixteen thousand (16,000) feet.

"Recommendations:

"That the pilots entering the theater of action where the Zero can be expected be instructed in the following: 

“1. Never attempt to dog fight the Zero.

“2. Never maneuver with the Zero at speeds below three-hundred (300) miles per hour indicated unless directly behind it.”

“3. Never follow a Zero in a climb at slow speeds. (Service type ships will stall out at the steep angle where the Zero has just reached its most maneuverable speed.) At this point is possible for the Zero to complete a loop putting it in a position for a rear quarter attack.”

In August 1942, in an interview with senior officers conducted in BuAer in Washington, DC, Lieut. Comdr. John Thach, just returning from the Pacific as CO of VF-3 reported his observations on action against the A6M:

“ . . . Twenty Zero fighters hit my division from above and a few seconds later some more Zeros came in from the side to hit our torpedo planes. We were, of course, slightly outnumbered . . . “ [Thach had but four F4Fs in his division and one of them was shot down in the first moments of the Japanese attack.] 

“We were being attacked from above and from the side in rapid succession by the Zero fighters. There were so many fighters above us that they had to wait their turn to come in and attack. They usually try to make an approach from above and from the rear. By using the tactics which we have since incorporated into the Revised USF 74, we were able to defend ourselves . . . “ [The tactics he refers to is the now famous ‘Thach Weave’ or, as he termed it the ‘Beam Defense’.] 

“ . . . The three of us continued to fight for about fifteen minutes and then remained over the Jap ships five minutes longer, after the Zeros had stopped fighting us.

“Our tactics were always purely defensive. They were successful in keeping ourselves from being shot down, but we had little opportunity to use any offensive action, which we should have used, and should be able to use in a fighter. When we departed there were two Zeros above us and one below. We didn’t take the bait.” [Thach’s “little opportunity to use any offensive action” accounted for at least five A6Ms shot down against his division’s one initial loss.]

“ . . . In connection with the performance of the Zero fighter, any success we have had against the Zero is not due to the performance of the airplane we fly, but is the result of comparatively poor marksmanship on the part of the Japanese, stupid mistakes made by a few of their pilots and superior marksmanship and teamwork on the part of some of our pilots. The only way we can ever bring our guns to bear on the Zero fighter is to do it when they are preoccupied shooting another one of our planes, or else trick the Zero into recovering in front of us.

“This deficiency not only prevents our fighter from properly carrying out its mission, but it has had an alarming effect on the morale of the fighter pilots in the Fleet at this time, and those who are going to be sent out to the Fleet. If we expect to keep our carriers afloat, in my opinion, we must supply a fighter that is superior in climb and speed, if not in rate of turn.” [Of course by the time Thach gave his interview, the F6F was already on order and he had, the morning of the day of the interview looked over an F4U-1, but had yet to fly it.]

Later, in the question and answer portion of the interview Thach answered a question on A6M performance:

“Q. Do pilots think that the Japs had the same Zeros, the same type, at Midway as they had at the Coral Sea?
“A. No. There seems to be a little variation in the story on performance. Every pilot who came back from Midway stated that the Zero, even after the fighter pilot was on him and read to shoot, could climb right on up and away without any possibility of being caught by the Grumman. In the Coral Sea I believe several pilots stated they could stay with the Zero as far as speed was concerned and did a pretty good job of climbing at high altitudes. Of course, in the Coral Sea action we had mostly F4F–3’s, but they’re both so inferior to the Zero fighter that there’s no use in trying to judge on of them over the other, there’s no choice between the two, except the fact that the folding wing of the F4F–4 gives you a superior number – naturally we would take one.

Lieutenant Noel Gayler, a veteran of early actions with VF-3 and VF-2, in an BuAer interview in June 1942 commented in a similar vein:

“The Jap fighters have excellent performance; their rate of climb is as good as that of any plane I’ve ever seen. They can climb at an attitude that most planes won’t climb in, and their general maneuverability is very good. They have big ailerons on the trailing edge and are extremely maneuverable. The Jap pilots, however, make mistakes and quite often give you a good shot at them.” 

So now we have a general idea of the characteristics of the A6M2. Note the dates of the USN and USAAF reports. These reports were printed up and rapidly distributed to deploying squadrons and undoubtedly saved some lives. The Zero was designed to relatively low speed, acrobatic dog fighting a la the First World War, a concept that rapidly going out of date when the war broke out in the Pacific and was totally out of date by early 1943. Japanese doctrine and tactics were hand-in-hand with this outmoded thinking. The result was, divorced from the structure of divisions and sections (another subject altogether) and tactics in general, was an aircraft that could not perform aileron turns at high speeds and an engine that cut out in high speed push-overs.

Loss of critical forward visibility:

The position of the pilot and the geometry of the nose of the A6M made moderate to high deflection shots a little difficult. In these situations the pilot had to drop his nose to see his intended target then bring it back up in order to fire at a point in space where he expected his victim to be when his bullets got there. As a result, the victim in such situations was briefly out of the A6M driver’s field of vision. This is why USN/USMC pilots were taught to, whenever possible, show an attacker a full deflection angle. In the situation with the A6M this was important as an alert pilot, seeing an A6M coming in on a full deflection run could actually see the nose drop and then come back up. As the nose came up, the now alert victim momentarily out of the view of the A6M driver could to breakaway in another direction, preferably down and to the right. This was not a hard concept to sell to the USN/USMC fighter pilots as they were trained in deflection gunnery. The Japanese propensity for the overhead and from the rear attack, a zero-deflection solution, indicates that they (the Japanese) were obviously aware of the problem. Gayler commented on the effectiveness of the favored Japanese approach:

“A typical attack is for them to take the topside from you if they can and come out on your tail at so much speed that they overrun. That’s a typical mistake they make. Realizing they’re in a bad spot they will pull out directly in front of you. They climb so fast that they open the range on you as you’re shooting at them. About the time you get well on them your Grumman [Gayler is referring to the F4F-3] will run out of flying speed and you drop out of it. Then they come back at you. However, they do give you a good shot at them and if you can shoot you should be able to hit them.” 

Thach commented on the superiority of the F4F and in the full deflection solution in this regard: 

“Also one thing that was particularly desirable on the Grumman airplane was the 6½ degree angle downward from the sight to the nose which allows the pilot to see the enemy target before he opens fire on it. 
“In an overhead approach or beam shot it’s necessary to lead the plane a great distance. It’s necessary to put the sight ‘way ahead and give the plane too much lead and let drift back, because once you have not enough lead you can never pull up again.”

The later F6F also had the down angle from the site to the nose, although it was not as pronounced as in the F4F. Thach also commented on this particular design feature as related to the F4U:

“In the F4U I understand that the cowling comes up to cut the 100–knot ring. It will be extremely difficult with that to make those particular deflection attacks – and they are the ones in which we encounter practically no free gun opposition, and which we usually get a chance to make.”

Thus the length of the nose of the F4U may have presented a full deflection shot limitation. My primary source, a pilot with considerable experience in the F4F, F6F, and F4U (not to mention some 47 other types and 34 variants of 16 of them) tells me that it turned out to be not that much of a problem, one that was resolved by the elimination of the early “birdcage” canopy and raising of the pilot’s seat, and other less noticeable modifications, found in what became known as the F4U-1A.

No Armor:

The lack of protective armor for the pilot and critical fuel systems made the A6M a death-trap if it came under serious fire for more than just a few seconds. The airplane’s only real defense was its maneuverability. If caught by surprise or at a disadvantageous maneuvering position, under the fire from the standard USN fighter 6 .50 cal M-2s, there was usually no escape. Thach spoke on the efficacy of the US fire on the Japanese fighter:

“Q. Are present gun combinations effective? What combination would you prefer to use?
“A. Our present gun combination is very effective. Naturally, it’s better if you can have your guns in the fuselage, directly along the sight. As far as the number of guns is concerned, I would like to have six .50 caliber guns, provided the performance of my airplane was superior to that of the enemy. If it’s inferior, I would say that four .50 caliber guns was optimum. If taking out two .50 caliber guns, or having two .50 caliber and two .30 caliber will make it easier to get on the tail of an enemy fighter, I will accept that. I know you can hit better with guns close to the sight and directly parallel to it. It’s just like you handle a shotgun shooting ducks.

“Q. It has been brought to our attention that one method of combating these Zeros, after you have made a leak in their gas tank is to direct the tracer aft and below into the slip stream and that would cause it to blow up.
“A. That’s true of any Japanese, or any other aircraft, when gasoline is seen streaming from any point the thing to do is to aim at that white vapor and try to hit it, aim at that spot and a satisfactory fire will result.

“Q. What is the minimum ammunition you need per gun?
“A. In a fighter I would like to have 500 rounds per gun, but would be satisfied with 400.

“Q. What sort of firing do you have in combat, short bursts or what?
“A. The experienced fighter pilot will fire only when he knows he’s on and hitting. In fighting the Zeros sometimes we – well, I might say most of the time, we get only what we call snap–shots or pot–shots at them when they’re climbing vertically away from us, and those shots are as far away as 400 yards. They can be effective that far away, but the lead must be exact and it’s difficult to hit an airplane at that range. We have knocked them down at 400, but we like to get in closer of course, but the performance of our airplanes won’t let us.

“Q. How about tracer ammunition in fixed guns?
“A. We use it. It is excellent to determine any error in deflection. We don’t particularly trust it in range, although if the tracers appear to be going ahead of the target you know they are probably going in. If they appear to going in the target in range you know that they’re going astern.

“Q. If you had a given amount of ammunition would you prefer to have a less number of guns and more rounds per gun or more guns?
“A. I feel that four .50 caliber guns is optimum considering this performance problem we have. I believe that two are not enough. I would rather have four guns and 400 rounds per ammunition than six guns and only 250 rounds.

Gayler commented in his interview: “ . . . the Zero fighter is apparently not protected at all . . .” and in the same breath mentioned the A6M’s armament on which more later, “. . . and in addition it has very poor armament; two light machine guns and two slow firing 20 mm cannon which are not as damaging as you might think, even if they get hits. And they don’t get hits.”

Both Thach and Gayler were career naval officers, both of whom retired as four-star Admirals. Gayler’s last comment leads us to the subject of inferior armament.

The A6M2 carried two 7.7 mm Type 97 machine guns firing through the propeller arc and in each wing one 20 mm Type 99-1 cannon. The nose mounted 7.7 load out was 500 rounds each, while the 20 mm load out was 60 rounds per gun. So already we can see a somewhat inferior load out in 20 mm ammunition. Additionally, against the armor of the typical USN fighter, absent a lucky hit, the 7.7 was relatively useless and served to simply warn a, perhaps inattentive, pilot that he was under attack. When you examine the specifics of the weapons operation the picture becomes even more dismal. The 7.7s had a rate of fire of 1000 rounds per minute (r/min). That meant there was only 30 seconds of firing time or only about 17 rounds per second per gun (r/sec/gun). The Type 99-1 20 mm had a low rate of fire, only 490 r/min, resulting in about 7 seconds of fire which works out about 8 r/sec/gun. The disparity in duration led the A6M drivers to usually use their 7.7s to range in on a target and then, when close, cut loose with the 20mm’s to minimize firing time and at the same time make up for the Type 99-1’s somewhat poor range. Significantly, the weight of an A6M2’s fire, i.e., one second of fire, came out at 5.76 pounds.

Later A6Ms, such as the A6M5c, carried a heavier armament, in this case a 20 mm Type 99-2 cannon and a 13.2 mm Type 3 machine gun in each wing, plus a single 13.2 mm Type 3 firing through the propeller arc. The Type 99-2 was an improvement over the -1 and was belt fed (as opposed to the -1’s magazine feed) with 125 rounds. The Type 3 machine guns were similar to the US M-2 .50 cal Browning in both appearance and performance. Their load out, both wing and nose was 300 rounds. The Type 99-2 20 mm’s 125 rounds with an r/min of 750 resulted in an available 10 seconds of fire at a little better than 12 r/sec/gun. The Type 3 13.2 mm machine guns had a r/min of about 800, or about 13 r/sec/gun for about 23 seconds. Again, the A6M 20 mm would run out before its other weapons, but the 13.2 mm was a marked improvement in hitting power over the Type 97 7.7 mm. The fire weight of the A6M5c works out to 7.68 pounds.

On the other hand, the various USN and USMC adversaries of the A6M series were armed with the M-2 .50 cal. Browning machine gun, first developed in 1918 (and still in use today). Their similar statistics were:

F4F-3:
2 .50 cal. per wing; 460 rounds per gun
Rate of fire: 700 r/min
Firing time available: 39 seconds; 12 r/sec/gun
Weight of fire: 5.35 pounds

F4F-4:
3 .50 cal. per wing; 240 rounds per gun
Rate of fire: 700 r/min
Firing time available: 21 seconds; 12 r/sec/gun
Weight of fire: 8.01 pounds

F6F-3 and F6F-5:
3 .50 cal. per wing; 400 rounds per gun
Rate of fire: 700 r/min
Firing time available: 34 seconds; 12 r/sec/gun
Weight of fire: 8.01 pounds

F4U-1, F4U-4, and FG-1:
3 .50 cal. per wing; 400 rounds per gun
Rate of fire: 700 r/min
Firing time available: 34 seconds; 12 r/sec/gun
Weight of fire: 8.01 pounds

FM-2:
2 .50 cal. per wing; 400 rounds per gun
Rate of fire: 700 r/min
Firing time available: 39 seconds; 12 r/sec/gun
Weight of fire: 5.35 pounds

This means, with the exception of the F4F-4 the USN/USMC fighters enjoyed a longer available firing time. Significantly, for the F4F-4, F6F -3 and -5, and F4U-1 and F4U-4, there was a marked advantage in the number of rounds through the barrel. One second of fire from each of these airplanes would generate some 70 rounds heading for a target. This was more then 22 r/sec greater than the A6M5c and 24 r/sec then the A6M2. The F4F-3 and the FM-2 could generate a respectful battery of 47 r/sec, which while on par with the A6M5c, exceeded the A6M2 In either case, their total firing time available exceeded that of the A6Ms. The F4F-3 was out of front line service after June 1942. 

In effect, the A6M was an airplane that was only truly effective if you played by its rules, any departure from the Zero’s optimal performance envelope drastically reduced its combat maneuvering effectiveness. It’s lack of armor protection meant it was fatally vulnerable to even short bursts of fire, especially from the .50 cal Brownings mounted in its USN/USMC adversaries. While the early use of the 20 mm cannon was perhaps a harbinger of future fighter aircraft, the Japanese versions were less then effective in terms of range and basic load out. This meant the Japanese pilot had to close with his adversary in order to insure hits and conserve ammunition. This often led to target a target fixation that left them particularly vulnerable to such maneuvers as the “Thach Weave,” a simple break-away in a full deflection situation, or, as the war went on, a knowledge on the part of the Americans of what the A6M drivers would probably do in a give situation. For the Americans, all this increased one’s chances of, at least, escaping being damaged or shot down and, at best, turning the tables and damaging or shooting down the Zero.

Regards, 

Rich


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 3, 2005)

Okay, now some comments on posts:



> Lightning Guy’s post of Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:53 pm
> And if you want to discuss the Zero vs. the Corsair, check your info. The Corsair was powered by a R-2800 Double Wasp which intially delivered 2,000hp though late-war models had this up to 2,850hp with water injection. The R-4360 Wasp Major to which you refer was only fitter to the F2G the grand production total of which was exactly 10 units with no combat time recorded.



Absolutely correct in all respects. The A6M was designed based on specifications drawn up by the IJN and independent of any foreign influence . . . except maybe in instrumentation . . . the altimeter of the famous “Koga Zero” clearly had a Sopwith logo on the back . . . and maybe the propeller, which was a Hamilton-Standard knockoff.
F4Us used during the war were powered by the R-2800, as was the F6F.



> The Jug Rules! post of Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:17 pm
> Aren't we forgeting someone? Even the lowly wildcat had a great combat record against the zero.



Certainly my favorite. Indeed, the F4F, in the first year if the war managed to maintain a 1 for 1 victory to loss ratio with the A6M2. This was a rate that, while unhappy in terms of absolute numbers, the Americans could afford, but the Japanese could not.



> plan_D post of Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:11 am Post subject:
> The AVG, RAF and IAF would have met plenty of Zeros though. As Nagumo went around to the Indian Ocean with 5 aircraft carriers and supported Japanese Army movements. The Akagi was attacked by 11 Sqn. Blenheims at one point, obviously supported by either AVG P-40s or Hurricanes (Possibly Buffalos)



It has been pretty well established that the AVG, which did not enter combat until 20 Dec. 41, fought only against the IJAAF and not against the IJNAF. AVG fighter to fighter actions were against Ki-27s and Ki-43s. I suggest a look at Dan Ford’s “Flying Tigers” in which he identifies the squadrons and types involved in each of the AVG actions.



> lesofprimus post of Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:07 pm
> In the early years of the war, the Allies basically had the use of 4 aircraft, the Buffalo, P-36, P-40, and the Hurricane..... None of these aircraft could handle a dogfight with an experienced Zero pilot....



There was the F4F, of course, as well.

From same post:


> After Petty Officer Koga was forced to land on a remote island in 1942, and the first captured Zero was in the hands of the Allies, America was able to design the next generation of fighters to combat the weaknesses of the Zero.....



Not really. The only development of a US fighter ever connected, however erroneously, with the recovery of the “Koga” or “Aleutian” Zero was the F6F. The association of the development of the Grumman F6F-3 with the restoration of #4593 A6M2 is one of the great urban legends of WWII. Nothing of the kind happened. Other then the fact that the Navy knew the F4F was just holding its own against the A6M2 and needed replacement with something better, the A6M2 had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the F6F and, specifically the “Koga” or “Aleutian” Zero had nothing to do with its development. 

The only USN/USMC fighter combat experience at with the A6M at the time that Koga’s plane was being recovered, and at the time the XF6F was being first flown, occurred with the VF squadrons that fought at Coral Sea, VF-2 and VF-42, and the VF squadrons at Midway, VF-3 (and 59% of the combat flying pilots in VF-3 were from VF-42), VF-6 and VF-8. By the time the F6F-1 was ready to take to the air, the after action reports from these actions had yet to be distributed. Further, having read those reports, I can safely say that there is not much in them at all that could possibly be of interest to a Grumman designer, especially since the F6F-1 was already built. 

The “Aleutian Zero” was # 4593, recovered, shipped, and restored by US Navy personnel at North Island NAS, San Diego, California. Grumman had absolutely nothing to do with the restoration. It first flew with a US pilot (Lt Cdr Eddie Sanders) on 20 September 1942. My father’s log book show that he flew this same airplane on 14 September 1944, 19 September, 14 October, 21 October, and 25 October 1944. It was destroyed in a taxiway accident in February 1945. My father salvaged the port wingtip and some instruments all of which he donated to the USN Museum at the Washington Navy Yard in the mid-1980’s. 

The US Navy asked Grumman to start the design of the F6F in June 1941 as a hedge against problems with the development of the Chance-Vought F4U which was scheduled to replace the Grumman F4F series. Grumman was already out of the starting blocks on this having begun studies on a concept for an improved F4F in early 1938; by 1940 the concept had received a company designation of G-50. The Navy’s order of 30 June 1941 was for two of the G-50 models, now designated as the XF6F-1 and the XF6F-2. As things turned out having Grumman design its own replacement for the F4F was a good idea as there were development and deployment problems with the F4U. 

The Grumman XF6F-1 first flew almost a year later, on 26 June 1942, (20 days after the Battle of Midway and 7 days after VF-3, VF-6, and VF-8 arrived back at Pearl Harbor), with a Wright R-2600 engine. Even at that time, it was already obvious that the 1600 hp R-2600, in either its R-2600-10 version in the XF6F-1 or its R-2600-16 version in theXF6F-2, was not going to provide the speed desired for the airplane. The solution, which Grumman had already identified, was a switch to the 2000 hp Pratt Whitney R-2800 engine. The XF6F-1 flight with the R-2600-10 was essentially a test to verify what Grumman and the Navy already suspected, the need for more power. The XF6F-3, the re-designated XF6F-1 now mounting the R-2800 engine, first flew on 30 July 1942. This was almost two months before A6M2 # 4593 got into the air over North Island. The F6F-3 was version of the Hellcat that first entered combat and of which some 4403 were produced. The Navy, with remarkable prescience, placed its first order for the F6F-3 on 23 May 1942, before any version ever got in the air (and two weeks after USN fighter pilots had encountered the A6M2 for the first time at the Battle of the Coral Sea). 

The F6F was developed independent of the restoration of the A6M2 # 4593 and most, if not all of the basic design work accomplished long before the USN VF squadrons first ran into the A6M2 at the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942. 

Suggest you look at 

“Koga’s Zero” by Jim Rearden (originally published as “Cracking the Zero Mystery”), ISBN 0-929521-56-0, published by Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., Inc., Missoula, MO. 
and
“Hellcat – The F6F in World War II” by Barrett Tillman, ISBN 0-87021-265-6, published by Naval Institute Press, Annapolis MD 

These two works should clear up any ambiguities on this matter. 

Regards to all,

Rich


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 3, 2005)

And a last commentary evaluation of the A6M2. Here’s the comments made by an experienced USN fighter pilot, an ace with 2 A6M2’s to his credit that give a nice general evaluation of the A6M2 and my usual source for period comments (from an original letter):

“I first saw the captured Zero as a pile of salvage shortly after it arrived from Alaska. Soon after I was sent to the Southwest Pacific and didn’t see the plane again until August 1943 when I was assigned as fighter training officer at San Diego.

“The Zero had gone to Tactical Air Intelligence Center and was based at Anacostia Naval Air Station, near Washington, D.C. After Sanders, Hoffman, and others tested, compared, and evaluated the airplane, the Army put it though similar paces.

“While fighter training officer at San Diego, I learned that Koga’s Zero was still at Anacostia, airworthy, but unused. I arranged for it to be flown to San Diego. The Zero 21 was a mighty sweet machine, even in its superannuated state. The refined aerodynamic design was not compromised by mass production. Fit and finish of all plates, rivets, the close and accurate fit of fairings, engine cowl, access plates, canopy, and wheel doors were most faithfully executed.

“The propeller spinner faired into a cowling that smoothed the contours of the reduction gear housing of the engine. The interior aerodynamics of the engine cowling permitted the adequate cooling of the two-row 14-cylinder engine with a remarkably small intake. Contrast that with the inlet on the F4F-3 and -4 which originally came with a spinner but had to sacrifice it to cure engine overheat problems. The Sakae engine looked and sounded much like our R-1830. It ran smoothly and cool. Displacement was somewhat less that the Pratt and Whitney 1839, but its 1130 hp was smoother and adequate. It was not supercharged as extremely as the R-1830-76/86 and at very high altitude (over 30,000 feet) compared very poorly with the Pratt and Whitney. But we hardly ever encountered Zeros above 10,000 feet with our F4F-3s and -4s, so we were carrying supercharger hardware as extra baggage. The F4F, which became the FM-2, was re-engined with the Wright R-1820 with about the same power as the R-1830, but much less supercharger. This was a better machine to fight Zeros with, but we didn’t get in squadrons until 1944, and by that time the Zero was not the problem it had been in the beginning. 

“By the time I was flying the Zero 21 it may have had some of its automatic systems disabled. An example is the automatic altitude compensation of carburetor mixture. The first time I went for altitude the engine began to cut up disgracefully above 5000 feet. Worried that the engine was giving up, mixture came to mind. On this machine full rich is a rearward position of the mixture control. Manual leaning comes by easing this control forward. On doing this gingerly the engine smoothed up beautifully and the airplane jumped ahead with about 500 more horses - no less.

“The propeller was auto hydraulic cum Hamilton – no mysteries. We ran the engine as though it was an R-1830, but did not let the RPM go over 2600. 

“The case of the manifold pressure gauge had been cracked in the crash at Akutan and it leaked. It was left in the instrument panel, but we used a standard AN type attached to a bracket nearby.

“The throttle sat in a quadrant outboard of the mixture control. It was shaped like the handle of a knife – complete with wood side plates for contour. It was about five inches long and on the top had a switch to be operated by the left thumb. This switch was for cutting in or out the 20mm cannon.

“The Zero carried many rounds of 7.7mm for the two fuselage guns and only 80 to 100 for each of the 20mm wing guns. Ergo, sight in with the 7.7 then cut in the two 20s for telling shots. I dimly remember there was a trigger lever you could pull up and squeeze on the front edge of the throttle. If you were not in combat, this lever would drop down where inadvertent firing was precluded (we had sad events because the trigger on the stick of U.S. fighters was easily squeezed in excitement).

“Cockpit was not so tidy as the F4F, but easily as tidy as the F4U and earlier Vought birds. Instruments were much like ours, but metric for pressures, temperatures, [and] altitude. Airspeed was in knots. It had an inner and outer scale as the needle needed to go around about 1½ circles to get to the high end of the scale.

“In the Zero 52 there was an exhaust temperature gauge as well as the usual cylinder head temperature gauge. My guess is that it was a refinement to fine tune the mixture to get the remarkable endurance and range the Zero was famous for.

“Gyro horizon had a sky blue upper half like some of the German WWII instruments I have seen. To the envy of every F4F pilot, the landing gear was hydraulically actuated!

“Tail wheel was fully retracted behind tight doors. Tail hook was faired into a recess along the keel. The hook was hinged on the end of its strut, latched in the snatch position to catch the wire then dumped, so the Zero could taxi forward over other wired unimpeded. I understand we toyed with this idea but gave it up because of worries it might misbehave and cause an unarrested landing.

“Brakes were hydraulic – weak. The wide tread and relatively low landing speed favored weak brakes so you might say they were adequate. Rudder bar was center-pivoted with stirrups for each foot. Brakes were actuated by a hand lever; rudder angle determined which wheel received braking action.

“The canopy gave a beautiful view of the outside world, noticeably good to the rear in contrast to our VF’s. The enclosure was made up of many panes of plexi, some contoured. Wind noise was moderate. Some of the enclosure had been destroyed and was remade by A and R.

“The windscreen section was original, for it bore deep craters from the corrosion that took place during its dip into the marsh of Akutan. These cavities had a way of coming into focus when air speeds built up. I often wondered why they had not been replaced by A and R. In VF-42 we had some nasty experiences with the original F4F windscreens blowing out on use when flying at more that 300 knots. Grumman corrected it with a beef-up that robbed us of valuable forward vision, but it ended the problem. The Zero had no such heavy structure in the first place, so it was a source of uneasiness.

“The Zero 21 had no primer for engine starting. The carburetor had a large capacity acceleration pump you feel when you moved the throttle. To start, you had the mechanic wind up the inertia starter as you wobbled up fuel pressure and work the throttle two or three times to spray in the discharge of the accelerator pump. On contact the engine rolled over readily, caught, and picked up to run without complaint.

“The carburetor barrel has an oil jacket through which circulated lube oil to combat any tendency to form ice. I’m not sure whether it was always in action of selectable from the cockpit. We never touched it as I remember. Seems a tidy way to handle ice.

“In February-March 1945 I had a dandy low-time fresh-caught Zero 52 to fly. It was much like Koga’s Model 21, but heavier because of two more guns. It had a hundred or so more horses, and ejection type exhaust stakes, but flew essentially like the Model 21 – very sweet.”

Regards,

Rich


----------



## trackend (Feb 4, 2005)

Very interesting R L. Thanks for the infomation a well researched and informative artical I shall add this to my personal aircraft data base.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

Some great info there RL...


----------



## evangilder (Feb 4, 2005)

Rich, that was a very good evaluation of the Zero's performance. You obviously put alot of time and research into the above. Nice job.


----------



## Soren (Feb 6, 2005)

Hello

Regarding the Zero vs Corsair:

The Corsair is the superior fighter because of its much higher speed and better roll rate. However the Corsair was only superior because of the Hit and run tactic utilized by allied pilots against the 'Zeke'. 
However if you get into a dogfight with the 'Zeke' your in deep truble ! And if you try and turn with the 'Zeke', your dead meat  Even the Spitfire IIV would be dead meat against the 'Zeke' in a turning dogfight, wich the british learned the hard way !. The rule set for allied pilots was "Never" to turn or climb with a 'Zeke', as "NO" allied fighter could turn inside the 'Zeke'. Although the 'Zeke's' turning ability started drop at speeds over 275mph, it would still turn tighter than any Allied fighter at high speed  (The 'Zeke' could normally only reach 331mph, so it wasnt fast, and this should be its downfall later on)

These are some of the reasons that early in the pacific war, the 'Zeke' was regarded as "indestructable" by allied pilots. 
However later on the U.S. developed tactics to defeat the 'Zeke', like the "Thach Weave" tactic. With these new tactics the Zero's days of indestructability were severely numbered ! 

Overall the Corsair is a better fighter than the Zero in many ways, however it would mean almost certain death for the Corsair to get into close dogfight with the Zero  (wich is why allied always always used the Thach Weave tactic when facing a Zero.

Cheers


----------



## plan_D (Feb 6, 2005)

What exactly is a Spitfire IIV?  

The Spitfire V and VIII which were sent out in 1943 got a 8:1 kill ratio over Japanese planes. There's no hardship there...


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2005)

> What exactly is a Spitfire IIV?



Sorry, i ment Spitfire VII  Damn those roman numerals !  



> The Spitfire V and VIII which were sent out in 1943 got a 8:1 kill ratio over Japanese planes. There's no hardship there...



Yes japanees "planes"  But when they incountered the the 'Zeke' they were in trouble !, except if they sticked to the Shoot and scoot tactic ! But if the Spitfire tried to turn with the Zero, it was as good as dead ! 

Also it is important to note that in 43 the Japanees fighter-pilots werent as properly trained as in 41 for example.

Overall i would rather be in the Spit though, as its wings wouldnt be ripped up at 370mph as the 'Zeke's' would


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2005)

It wasn't in trouble when it met Zeros, the Spitfire was just a better plane overall.


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It wasn't in trouble when it met Zeros, the Spitfire was just a better plane overall.



Well if the Spitfire engaged in a low altitude dogfight with 'Zeke', and the 'Zeke' is on the Spitfire's tail, then i dont see how the Spitfire would ever get out of harms way ! It cant dive away because there isnt space enough. And it cant climb away as then the Zero will catch it with ease ! And it cant make a sharp turn, as the Zero would have no problem what so ever following the turn, thus that would be the same as turning yourself into gunfodder  

The Spitfire's only chance of escaping a 'Zeke' that is on its tail is to dive, if the altitude allows it


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Feb 7, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > The AVG, RAF and IAF would have met plenty of Zeros though. As Nagumo went around to the Indian Ocean with 5 aircraft carriers and supported Japanese Army movements. The Akagi was attacked by 11 Sqn. Blenheims at one point, obviously supported by either AVG P-40s or Hurricanes (Possibly Buffalos)
> ...




Wait a minute. I read "God is my Copilot", and I can remember plenty of times when R.S.Scott brought his bird back with CANNON holes in it. Now, the Oscar at its best only had 2 .50 cal guns. His personal fighter was put out of action because of structural damage caused by cannons. Where's all the cannon damage coming from?


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Feb 7, 2005)

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


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2005)

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


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2005)

The Jug Rules! said:


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



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


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


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



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

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

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

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


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2005)

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


----------



## evangilder (Feb 7, 2005)

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


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2005)

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


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



The Zero would turn tighter than the Spitfire at 300mph


----------



## evangilder (Feb 7, 2005)

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

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


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I highly doubt that. While the Zero was supremely maneuverable at low speeds, its controls became heavy at high speeds, and it rolled to the left much more easily than it rolled to the right. Also, due to its float-type carburetor design it tended to stall under negative gees, as would be encountered if the Zero were climbing and then had to drop back downward while remaining upright.
> 
> At low speeds, the Zero could out-turn anything. At high speeds, it was not as manueverable. The key was big ailerons, the ones on the Zero are really big. Joel Paris, who flew P-40s said that the ailerons on the Zero were "big as barn doors". But those ailerons did not have the strength at high speed to make high speed rolls. Most pilots agreed that over 275 MPH, anything could out-turn a zero.



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

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


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Feb 7, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Has anyone stopped to consider that most of the aircraft lost by the Japanese at the Battle of the Philippine Sea were bombers? And even then is was more poor pilots than poor planes that caused the losses.
> 
> The Zero was a remarkable aircraft. On merely half the horsepower of its rivals, it attained very impressive performance (pit an A6M5 against the similarly powered P-36 and see what happens). It was certainly the best fighter available in that part of the war at the start of the war and (despite the rapid advances in technology) never became truly obsolete (though it did need to be replaced).



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


----------



## evangilder (Feb 7, 2005)

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


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 7, 2005)

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


----------



## evangilder (Feb 7, 2005)

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


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2005)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spitfire MK Vb at 300mph:

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

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


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2005)

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


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 7, 2005)

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

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

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

Gemhorse


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2005)

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


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

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

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


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2005)

self Edit because of double-post


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2005)

First of all, i didnt say the Spitfire was inferior to Zero  

But in some ways the Spitfire was inferior to the Zero, like in a Turning dogfight at 300mph  But unlike the Zero, the Spitfire wouldnt fall apart almost immediately after being hit by a good spray of 50.cal's  
Also the Zero's maneuverability would suffer somewhere between 15,000-20,000ft, the Spitfires wouldnt !

In a classic Dogfight, I would rather be in a Zero than in a Spitfire  But if the enemy pilot knows and utilizes the Hit and Run tactics supurbly, then I would much rather be sitting in a Spitfire  

One of the more noticable weaknesses of the early Zero's, was that its engine would cut out in a dive. However later on when the A6M3 arrived this weakness had been corrected, along with other weaknesses such as pilots protection. But the Zero nomatter what model, would still fall apart relatively quickly if hit by a good spray of 50.cal's  

Overall taking tactics into consideration, the Spitfire is the superior aircraft, as long as it didnt get into a Turn and burn dogfight with the Zero at an altitude below 16,000ft 

We won airsuperiorty over the Japanees because we refused to play their game, and completely changed the rules of the game to our advantage.  

We beat the Zero by completely changing the rules of the game. Sure if we would have continued to dogfight the damn thing, all of our fighters would have been blown out of the sky. But we learned quickly enough not to play their game. No Zero pilot could afford to make even one mistake. He would not survive it for the most part! Naval and Marine Corps history is full of instances where Grumman "Cats" or Vought Corsairs returned to their carriers or fields shot full of holes and with the armor plate dented from numerous slugs. No Zero pilot ever returned in that condition.  
After the thach weave tactic was utilized by U.S. and RAAF pilots, the Zero's days were severely numbered, and it was this tactic that rendered the Zero almost obsolete


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

The Spitfire could dogfight with the Zero, just not at low speeds below 300 mph. The Spitfire would just keep itself at high speeds, and was a better diver and roller. 
The Spitfire was a faster plane, that kept it at a faster dogfighting pace. The only way the Zero could beat the Spitfire is by somehow, making it low and slow. If the Spitfire got low and slow, then the pilot made a stupid mistake. 
The altitude didn't matter, as long as the Spitfire kept its pace which it normally would.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 8, 2005)

Anyone seen a dogfight? The dogs stay real close to each other and go round and round.

_T&B_ is a dogfight; _B&Z_ is not. (imho)


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

Dogfight is a fight between two aircraft, the pilots can do whatever they need to do but it's still a dogfight. Or do you think as soon as a plane rolls, it's not a dogfight anymore? 

The Spitfire is a better turner than the Zero at high speeds, anyway.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 8, 2005)

The use of the term _dogfight_ in WW2 is not a true dogfight as originally used to describe early air combat in WW1. 

It is a misnomer to call WW2 air combat a dogfight.


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2005)

Lets say a Spitfire comes racing towards the Zero head-on at lets say 350mph and the Zero at 310mph. When they meet each other, they are either going to climb or make a sharp turn ! The second the Spitfire either climbs or turns it looses about 40-50mph, wich brings it down to 310mph were it is equal in turning ability to the Zero. But the spitfire keeps on turning to get behind the Zero, as it so happily was able to do against the luftwaffe in the ETO. But by keeping on turning the spitfire looses more speed yet, but the Zero doesnt loose as much speed because of its low wing loading and good acceleration, so now the table has turned. And it wont be long before the Zero is on the Spitfire's tail. 

Now you would think that the pilot flying the Spitfire was stupid to try and engage in such a close dogfight with the Zero. But he wasnt, infact he was most likely an 'Ace' from the ETO who was use to happily outturn his Lufwaffe counterparts most of the time. Had the RAAF pilots listened to Joe Foss who, at request of the RAAF, flew the Spitfire and tried to lecture them on how to fight the Zero, then these kinds of incidents most likely wouldnt have happened.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

The Zero would lose speed too, and if the Spitfire has climbed the only way the Zero would be able to go with it is if the Zero climbed too. If the Spitfire climbed and the Zero turned, he's put himself below the Spitfire and the Spitfire can dive to speed up to get on him. 
The Zero climbs and the Spitfire turns, he's not going to slow down and he's definately not going to just keeping going around in circles. If the Zero and Spitfire somehow meet head on, at the Zeros optimum speed then the Spitfire is just able to carry on at 340mph, and beat the Zero because above 300 the Zero was nothing special, in fact it was inferior to most things out there. 
Plus, if they're getting into a turning fight at 310 mph the Japanese pilot has to be inhumanely strong to pull the Zero into its tight turns.


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2005)

The moment you climb or turn your Spitfire you will reduce its speed dramaticly with about 40-50mph, the Zero would with about 30-35mph. But it didnt matter for the Zero as it was at its max performance at 275mph and it could gain speed quickly because of its nimbleness. And at 310mph the Zero can also pull tight turns but not as tight as at 301mph, wich is the Max limit for a ultra tight turn for a Zero if you dont want risk your plane ! However the Spitfire pilot will almost by instinct still try to get behind the Zero, because he is unaware of the Zero's abilities at speeds from 300mph and downwards. The Spitfire pilot is used to ETO dogfight's, wich is going to be his downfall. 

But if the Spitfire pilots uses the new Hit and run tactics wich the RAAF pilots would later on, he will most likely prevail against the Zero. As long as he is careful about the altitude and doesnt get into a European style dogfight with the Zero !


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

The Spitfire could do anything it wanted, but get into a low speed-low level dogfight with the Zero. 
And what's this, trying to say only RAAF flew the Spitfire in Burma?


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2005)

Well if 15,000ft is low level and 305mph is low speed, then yes !

And no im not trying to say that it was only the RAAf who flew the Spit in Burma ! But i started by saying it was pilots coming in from europe who would have trouble against the Zero !


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

There were RAF pilots flying Hurricanes and Buffalos from the start, which got transfered to Spitfires. 

You can dive from 15,000 feet, so the Spitfire could escape easily if a Zero managed to get on its tail. Plus, at 300 mph the Zero pilot would have to be pulling extremely hard on the stick to get it to turn. It's roll rate would be stupidly bad, and the engine tended to cut out under negative Gs. The Spitfire would have to be brought down to a stupid low level, like below 5000 feet.


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2005)

As i also explained before, after the Zero model A6M3 the problem with the engine cutting out in negative G's was corrected, and the wings and ailerons were strengthened. And yes at 300mph it would take a little more strenght to turn 'hard' because of its big ailerons ! But because they were big also ment that it didnt take much pulling back in the stick before it would turn very hard, so it wasnt such a big problem ! (But at over 305mph or so, if you pulled back your stick far enough for a ultra turn, you aircraft was at serius risk !)


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

The force on those barn doors, known as ailerons on the Zero, would have been huge when it was turning at 300. To get it to turn tightly the pilot would have to have amazing strength, and then the tighter the turn, the more force which does as you said, put risk on the aircraft falling to bits, but also puts more strain on the pilot AND takes away concentration from the pilot. The pilot would be fighting the aircraft more than the Spitfire, whereas the Spitfire pilot is having an easy time to turn his aircraft and can concentrate on everything.


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2005)

He doesnt have to have amazing strength to turn the Zero tightly at 300mph ! That did infact not take to much strength at all ! But only 5-10 more mph and you would really feel the controls getting hard, and you would ultimately loose concentration ! 

The Zero would turn tighter than the Spitfire at 300mph, but the Spitfire would roll faster ! and at 310mph they would both turn equally tight, although if the Zero pilot pulled with all his strength risking his aircraft and concentration could outturn the Spitfire even at that speed ! But at 310mph the roll of the Zero wouldnt be good anymore and it is about this speed where the spit gets the advantage !

Overall the Spitfire is the better plane because it had the ability to adapt to Hit and run tactics. Had the Spitfire pilots stayed with the ETO dogfighting methods in the PT then they would have lost severely !


----------



## evangilder (Feb 8, 2005)

The controls on a zero got _very_ stiff at 275 MPH. This was documented by the pilots that tested the captured Zeroes.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

See, evan knows what he's on about, the Zero could not turn with a Spitfire at speeds around and above 300 mph because the pilot wouldn't be able to force it. And if he did, it would fall apart. 

What good is making the Zero turn really tight, if while you're fighting the plane the Spitfire has got away without you noticing.


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2005)

Not according to Saburo Sakai who flew it and knew its limits ! 

His only complaint was it would roll faster to the left than right. But that it was able pull tightly at even 300mph. But he wouldnt pull 'extreem' turns at over 300mph ! 

And somewhere between 15,000-20,000ft it would loose its maneuverability to an extent where it would almost not be able to roll !


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

Of course he's going to say it was almost perfect. The fact is, the Zero would not turn effectively at 300 + mph because the pilot would be fighting the plane, probably beyond what any normal pilot could achieve. 
And take into account that he stated he would NOT pull extreme turns at 300 + mph...

...the Zero isn't going to be pulling any turns inside the Spitfire, because the pilot isn't going to risk it. 

At anywhere above 5000 feet, the Spitfire could always easily just dive away from the Zero. 

As it has been said before, the Zero has more disadvantages than advantages. It's only real chance in a fight is low and slow combat. The Spitfire coming in at 300 plus miles per hour isn't going to be in a lot of trouble, unless by a fatal error he puts himself below diving height and at low speeds.


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2005)

> Of course he's going to say it was almost perfect. The fact is, the Zero would not turn effectively at 300 + mph because the pilot would be fighting the plane, probably beyond what any normal pilot could achieve.
> And take into account that he stated he would NOT pull extreme turns at 300 + mph...



I find his testimony more reliable than U.S. tests with an damaged A6M2 ! The U.S. couldnt affort to loose it so they didnt push it to its extreems ! 



> ...the Zero isn't going to be pulling any turns inside the Spitfire, because the pilot isn't going to risk it.



Yes it will ! but it most likely would not try at over 300mph ! Saburo Sakai would have no problem turning inside any allied aircraft at 300mph ! But he wouldnt attempt at over 300mph, at 300mph was OK but not any further for your own sake !. (At least thats how it was with the A6M2)



> At anywhere above 5000 feet, the Spitfire could always easily just dive away from the Zero.



No because the A6M3-5-7's engine wouldnt cut out ! 



> As it has been said before, the Zero has more disadvantages than advantages. It's only real chance in a fight is low and slow combat. The Spitfire coming in at 300 plus miles per hour isn't going to be in a lot of trouble, unless by a fatal error he puts himself below diving height and at low speeds.



300mph isnt low speed !


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2005)

I find the US remarks more reliable because they would not lie. If they lied then they risked the lives of their men. They have to tell the truth, to tell their men the real weaknesses and strengths. 

At 300mph, the pilot isn't going to risk it. That's if he can get the strength to force it, the best turn rate for the Zero is at something like 250mph. After that, it gets harder and harder to turn. 

The Spitfire could out-dive the Zero. Even if the Zero wouldn't cut out, it's so light it's dive speed was appalling. The Spitfire would just dive down to the right, and get away from the Zero. 

300mph isn't low, no, but the Spitfire Mk.VIII [8] could hit 408 mph which is a lot faster than the Zero can consider dogfighting at.


----------



## Soren (Feb 15, 2005)

> I find the US remarks more reliable because they would not lie. If they lied then they risked the lives of their men. They have to tell the truth, to tell their men the real weaknesses and strengths.



Offcourse they wouldnt lie ! But the A6M2 they were testing was damaged, and didnt even come near its top speed under tests conducted in 42. Later tests revealed this  



> At 300mph, the pilot isn't going to risk it. That's if he can get the strength to force it, the best turn rate for the Zero is at something like 250mph. After that, it gets harder and harder to turn.



That is completely untrue  

The Zero's abnormally large "ailerons" made it extreemly maneuverable at speeds below 275mph, above that they were reported to get really Stiff !! 

However as you probably know ailerons have no effect on turns, only rolls  And the Roll rate would be significantly worsened at High speeds, because of the large control surfaces of the Ailerons  

But the "Elevators" wich control your rate of turn, were reported as being extreemly light, and that they behaved very comfortably ! The A6M2 would be easy to turn very tightly even at over 300mph, and it wouldnt loose its turn rate at any possible speed in the Zero  
However in the early model Zero's (A6M2) it was not a good idea to turn extreemly tight at over 300mph, as the body could fall apart under the immense G forces.




> The Spitfire could out-dive the Zero. Even if the Zero wouldn't cut out, it's so light it's dive speed was appalling. The Spitfire would just dive down to the right, and get away from the Zero.



Oh but it just isnt that easy  It will take time for your Spitfire to gradually dive away from a A6M5 with Methanole injection on its tail  



> 300mph isn't low, no, but the Spitfire Mk.VIII [8] could hit 408 mph which is a lot faster than the Zero can consider dogfighting at.



Now thats correct ! But the Zeke could easely lure the Spitfire to come down to its level of speed ! Because the only way for the Spitfire to "dogfight" with the Zeke would be to go down in speed to at least 300mph ! ( And RAF, RAAF, and RN pilots were very happy for dogfights !)


----------



## Soren (Feb 15, 2005)

The US Army Air Forces "Informational Intelligence Summary No. 85 -Flight Characteristics of the Japanese Zero Fighter" was distributed to all squadrons. It summarizes the Sanders and Navy Comparison reports and provides comparisons with the P-38F, P-39D-1, and P-51.

Particularly though, the report draws the following general conclusions and recommendations:

"Conclusions:

"The Zero fighter, because of its low wing loading, has superior maneuverability to all our present service type aircraft. 

"It is necessary to maintain a speed of over three hundred (300) miles per hour indicated to successfully combat this airplane.

"In developing tactics against the Zero, cognizance should be taken of two facts:

1. Slow rate of roll of the Zero at high speeds.

2. Inability of the Zero engine to continue operating under negative acceleration.

"The engine performance of the Zero is superior to the present service type engine without turbo superchargers. This superiority is recognizable in the fact that the maximum manifold pressure can be maintained from sea level to sixteen thousand (16,000) feet.

"Recommendations:

"That the pilots entering the theater of action where the Zero can be expected be instructed in the following: 

1. Never attempt to dog fight the Zero.

2. Never maneuver with the Zero at speeds below three-hundred (300) miles per hour indicated unless directly behind it.

3. Never follow a Zero in a climb at slow speeds. (Service type ships will stall out at the steep angle where the Zero has just reached its most maneuverable speed.) At this point is possible for the Zero to complete a loop putting it in a position for a rear quarter attack."


----------



## Soren (Feb 15, 2005)

Also the only thing that is recorded as to becoming stiff at high speeds is its ailerons ! Read the following:

_Ailerons are abnormally large and the rate of roll at low speeds is extremely high. However the ailerons forces increase excessively with airspeed, and above 200 kts. indicated the airplane is very difficult to roll. At speeds above 250 kts. it is almost impossible to maneuver the plane laterally. At moderate to high speeds the rate of roll to the right is definitely lower that to the left, due to relative control forces._

Additionally this is reported:

_The elevator control is light and effective, and has very desirable control movement characteristics. (b) Directional stability is positive and control is light. _

In 'NO' U.S. test reports is it ever written that the Elevators get stiff at high speeds  And neither is it ever implied that the rate of turn will be reduced with higher speed. 

Only the Roll rate of the Zero will suffer at high speeds


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2005)

When an aircraft turns the force on the wings, including ailerons is immense. The large ailerons on the Zero would create more force on them.


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 15, 2005)

Soren



> You dont have to say alot on this forum before a 'Source' is required !! (Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:49 pm)



And when you make pretty bald claims as to performance you might expect someone to question your sources. You’ll note I tend to list my sources up front. Saves a lot of questions later. Further, I’d opine that actual hands evaluation and first hand observed performance have somewhat more weight than a table of some sort of optimal performance statistics.



> 300mph isnt 'High' speed ! (Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:49 pm)



At only some 32 mph short of top end for a Zero, that would be high speed. Compared to, say, an SR-71, no, that’s not high speed. High speed is relative to the capability of the aircraft concerned, n’est ce pas? To pretend otherwise is somewhat disingenuous. High speed for a Sopwith Camel is damn close to stall speed for late WWII fighters. It’s all relative.

The performance claims:


> Even at over 300mph the A6M2 would turn tighter than the Spitfire (Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:46 pm)
> At 332mph wich is the A6M2's max speed, it would still turn tighter than the Spitfire, it just wouldnt roll as fast. (Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:09 pm)



But, are you backing off on your claims here? 


> Sure the Zero's controls were heavy at over 275mph, but if you pulled hard enough it wouldnt be a problem, and it would for sure outturn a Spitfire . (You'd just have to pray for the ailerons to hold )
> However at 320mph and upwards, it would be foolish for a Zero pilot to pull a real 'tight' turn, as that allmost certainly ment the destruction of his ailerons, or controls. (Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:46 pm)



Or here?


> At 275mph the Zero could pull tight turns !, above that it would deteriorate gradually. A right turn at 300mph wouldnt hold, but a left turn would, although it would be hard to pull the stick back! (Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:06 pm)



But then you come back in almost the same breath with 


> At 320mph, a turn wasnt going to be as tight anymore, but it would turn nonetheless. Many people think that the Zero was crippled at over 330mph, well it wasnt ! it could still turn and roll, but it would roll faster to the left (As explained by Saburu Sakai ) (Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:06 pm)



And you also say


> However as you probably know ailerons have no effect on turns, only rolls And the Roll rate would be significantly worsened at High speeds, because of the large control surfaces of the Ailerons (Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:37 am )



Not to sound pedantic, but I’m wondering if you really understand the terminology. You repeatedly claim that the Zero can out turn Spitfires, for example, then you say that it wouldn’t roll as fast. You, apparently, are not a pilot. Airplanes do not turn in a single plane. You do understand the relations ship between turns and rolls in three dimensions, don’t you? The purpose of roll is not just to perform barrelrolls; at speed, an airplane must roll to make a turn. So a poor roll performance equals poor turning performance. We’re talking about real airplanes here, not a flight sim. When you try to make the airplane do something beyond its design capabilities bad things happen and you probably won’t be able to restart the game. Here, let me quote from the late Erik Shilling, an AVG pilot, who wrote in 1998:

“Why roll rate was important, is that one must remember that all maneuvers, except for a loop, started with a roll. The slower the roll rate the longer it took before the turn began. 

“1. If he turned away, he set you up on his six. A most undesirable position for him, because he would be a dead duck. 

“2. The enemy invariably turned toward you which was normal and anticipated. With his slower roll rate, you could beat him into the turn, get a deflection shot at him, and when you slowed down to where he started gaining on you in the circle, you rolled and dove away before you were in his sights. If you haven't tried it don't knock it. 

“This is where roll rate came into the picture. As far as Japanese fighters were concerned, their inferior roll rate was at all speeds. Above 240, it would take the Zero 3 seconds before he attained bank angle for max turn. (And the airplane doesn't start turning until bank angle is established.) 

“Since you could see him starting to bank, which you would have anticipated, you could easily bank more quickly and establish max bank angle within 1 second, and pull whatever ‘Gs’ necessary to establish lead. 

“At this speed, and with your lead already established, you could maintain lead for some time before speed bled off to where the Zero could turn inside, you got the hell out. (Don't forget same speed and same ‘G’ equal same radius of turn. Above 220 IAS the radius of the circle was determined by pilots ability to withstand ‘Gs.’ You could turn with the Zero as long as the speed was above 220 IAS. 

“If the situation was reversed and the Zero was attacking you. Your roll rate would save your ass by allowing you to roll to max turning bank, use 6 ‘Gs’ or more, then continue rolling to inverted and dive. Rolling 180 degrees to dive would take less than 2 seconds, the Zero took 6. The Zero would never get a shot. He couldn't get lead, and by the time he was inverted you would already be out of range, gaining speed much more rapidly than the Zero. 

“As can be seen from the above illustration, that in the beginning roll rate was the primary factor in starting any maneuver except the loop. After bank angle was established then speed was the primary factor. To escape from a zero, roll rate again became the primary factor then speed. 

“Anyone who disagrees with the above has never been in combat, and as far as I know, few books if any bring this out.”

Now, I’ll go back and quote the Sanders A6M2 report:

“ . . . Aileron forces increase with speed. They are still fair around 200 KTS to 210 KTS, *but at 230 to 250 KTS they practically freeze up and fast rolling cannot be done at 250 KTS*.” (Bold is my emphasis)

I’ll do you a favor . . . knots to mph

200 KTS = 230 mph
210 KTS = 242 mph
230 KTS = 265 mph
250 KTS = 288 mph 

So, with what part of “over 300 mph” are you having trouble.

"The horizon was not working, but by estimating the angles, obtained 1.35 sec. to the right, and 1.1 sec. to the left for the standard rate of roll test in landing condition. The angle was probably more like 60 degrees. Rate of roll at 200 KTS was 5.4 sec. for 360 degrees. This was with not much more than half aileron displacement, but it was as far over as I could put it because of the high forces. Forces are higher to the right than left." 

Translated this means that at 230 mph he was already feeling the pressure on the ailerons. Note “. . . *half aileron displacement, but it was as far over as I could put it because of the high forces *. . .” And he notes that right roll was already worse than left.

Eddie Sanders wasn’t some neophyte. He was a senior test pilot assigned to the Anacostia NAS Flight Test program which was where the USN did most of its testing before moving that operation to Patuxent NAS. He was quite used to the idea of putting an airplane through its paces and pushing it as far as it would go.

"Ailerons get very stiff at higher speeds making fast rolls at high speeds (above 250 knots) physically impossible. At 200 knots the rate of roll (with ailerons) is slightly slower than an F4F . . .”

Note “. . . *physically impossible*."

So, above 288 mph there’s the Zero with an inability to execute a fast roll, certainly to right and only with difficulty to the left. That inability would directly impinge upon the Zero’s ability to turn, resulting in flat skids or, worse, damage, possibly fatal, to the aircraft.

On the other side of the wall from where I sit right now is a USN fighter pilot who is not only an ace with 2 A6M2’s to his credit (in F4F’s), but was also a test pilot and had experience in flying both the A6M2 and the A6M5. I read to him some of your statements regarding the A6Ms turning ability and it’s relation to roll. His response was just a smile, then, “the Zero would evidence a reluctance to roll at 275 and turning was accordingly slowed. At 300 it would not roll . . . so, no turn either. Sure you keep applying pressure, but there’s not much point in tearing the airplane apart when you’re up there all by yourself.” He confirms Sanders findings in all respects. This gent is the guy who brought the “Koga Zero” back to the west coast in started it’s formal use in training of fighter pilots and, indeed, on a few occasions, mixed it up with USN fighters himself just to prove the point. What did they teach? Keep your speed up over 250 KTs. Do not get in turning contests, especially below 250 KTs. Do not play the Zero’s game, make the Zero play your game. Use team tactics. Use deflection gunnery. If you are jumped unexpectedly, max throttle, break right, and roll down and away, the Zero cannot follow you. A Zero in the same situation is likely to break left, be ready for it.

You state:


> Sure the Zero's controls were heavy at over 275mph, but if you pulled hard enough it wouldnt be a problem, . . .



And what is your source for that? My source says “I take it he’s never flown a Zero? Depends how he wants to define ‘problem’. No ailerons, that’s a problem. Dead . . . now that’s real a problem.”

You state:


> As explained by Saburu Sakai



Where? And what did he say?

And please don’t quote Caiden. He’s the guy who ghost wrote a transcript of a translation made by a guy who had no aviation knowledge. He’s the guy who credits Sakai with 64 victories. If I may quote aviation historian and researcher Henry Sakaida relating a conversation he had with Sakai: “I asked him pointblank if he shot down 64 planes. I was surprised when he said no. He said that was a myth created by Martin Caidin and he could never figure out why he came up with that figure.” (1975) Caiden’s the guy who came up with Sakai getting shot up by a bunch of TBF’s when the USN planes involved were SBD’s. And Caiden only interviewed Sakai once . . . ONCE! . . . it must have lasted for days! A most dependable source . . . the guy who reports, with an absolutely straight face and a “it really happened,” of a P-38 that flies all by itself, hours after it should have run out of fuel, and conveniently breaks up over its home base with a long dead pilot at the controls . . . oh yeah, he’s believable alright. Jimmy Thach (hmmm . . . he had 3 A6M2’s to his credit . . . another successful F4F pilot) said of Caiden’s ghosting of _*Zero*_: “The story written by Masatake Okumiya deserves better treatment than it received at the hands of the collaborator, Mr. Caiden.” 

How about Erik Shilling, again writing in 1999:

“About 5 years ago while Saburo Sakai was in Los Angeles I had the opportunity to talk to him. One of the questions I asked was what was the Zero's top speed with full load.

“His answer was 309 mph. He also said that Japanese pilots would not dive above 300 mph IAS, because the skin on the wings started wrinkling and caused the pilot great concern. He also added to this that above 300 it was almost impossible to roll.”

You state:


> However at 320mph and upwards, it would be foolish for a Zero pilot to pull a real 'tight' turn, as that allmost certainly ment the destruction of his ailerons, or controls.



320? More like 290. Long, long before you get to the Zero’s max speed. . . .”foolish” . . .? How about impossible, or better, suicidal? 

So, are you going to make up your mind? How does this jive with your “if you pull hard enough”? Only if you’re Ahhhnold and wind up with the joy stick yanked out of the floor or you just punt and tear off the wings. 

And what about the RAF? Here’s the results of high speed tactical trials between an A6M3 and a Spitfire Mk Vc. You can find this on the net . . . Google is your friend.

“Results:
“Hap commenced tests on Spitfire's tail:
“1. In high speed flight, Spitfire was able to loop in a smaller radius. Hap pilot blacked out endeavoring to follow.
“2. Spitfire carried 3 loops in succession at high speed and finished in firing position on Hap's tail.
“3. Spitfire carried out roll off top of loop. Hap was unable to follow in same radius and lost considerable distance.
“4. Spitfire executed a series of high speed, tight diving turns to right; Hap pilot unable to follow and was on verge of graying out.
“5. Spitfire executed a ½ roll to right from 45° dive at 280 mph IAS and 330 mph IAS and pulled out abruptly into vertical climb. Hap pilot unable to follow this maneuver either at 280 or 320 mph and finished up in both instances approximately 1000 feet below Spitfire and some distance behind.

“Conclusions:
“1. Spitfire was able to evade and outmaneuver Hap by combining high speed and High ‘G’.
“2. Spitfire required a minimum speed of 250 mph to retain maneuverability advantage.
“3. Hap was able to evade and outmaneuver Spitfire by maneuvering at low speeds.
“4. Stresses placed upon both aircraft during tests were not measured. However, the Hap pilot considers his tolerance in reference to blacking out to be above average.”

And here’s the results of a comparison of the Seafire L IIC vs Zeke 52 (A6M5) from Alfred Price's _*Spitfire*_ . This model Seafire was similar to the Spitfire V.

“Manoeuverability:
“Turning plane - the Zeke 52 can turn inside the Seafire L IIC at all heights. The Zeke 52 turns tighter to the left than to the right.

“Rolling plane - the rate of roll of the two aircraft is similar at speeds below 180 mph IAS, but above that the aileron stick forces of the Zeke increase tremendously, and the Seafire becomes progressively superior.

“Dive - The Seafire is superior in the dive although initial acceleration is similar. The Zeke is a most unpleasant aircraft in a dive, due to heavy stick forces and excessive vibration. 

“Tactic: Never dogfight with the Zeke 52, it is too manoeuverable. At low altitudes where the Seafire is its best, is should make use of its superior rate of climb and speed to obtain a height advantage before attacking. If jumped, the Seafire should evade by using its superior rate of roll. The Zeke cannot follow high speed rolls and aileron turns.”

So, do you have some actual test results?

Frankly what I’m seeing is a repeat of lot of 1950’s-1960’s style Zero-Centric nonsense, á la Caiden; the sort that goes right along with the Japanese super-duper superman pilots (there’s a whole new thread) of 1941-1942. 

In my opinion, which, of course, requires no source, this is all a bunch of nonsense.

Rich


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2005)

He's much better at it than me.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 16, 2005)

Thank you again, RL, for taking the time to type all that up! It follows with everything that I have read and heard about the Zero, and I have worked on one.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

Well I'll be short !  

Yes to initiate a turn you must roll first, and at above 275mph that would be slow in a A6M2 ! Just so we are clear, I totally agree with this.

However the next step in a Tight turn is to pull back the stick, activating the elevators ! And when the Zero had completed its roll, to make the turn, the pilot would have "NO" problem in pulling back the stick even at 320mph  "NO" test pilots ever complained about the elevator controls were ever hard or got stiff with speed, no they actually were quite light and behaved well ! 
(This is why it is urgent you "DONT" follow a Zero in a turn at any speed, "Get him while he's initiating the turn with a roll instead, then zoom away".

But in an A6M2 it would be foolish to pull a tight turn at 320mph, as the body and wings would flex ! And could break apart if enough G's were present  

However the A6M5 would have no such limitations, as its body and wings were much stronger than the A6M2's wings and body ! Also the A6M5's wings have been shortnened to make high speed rolls, abit faster  (But still not as fast as a Spitfires !

Anyway my point is that in an A6M5, if you get the chance to roll your Zero to the left or right, then you start pulling back on your stick to turn, and then no allied aircraft can follow your turn, nomatter what speed your in


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

The force on ailerons is still immense, and I doubt that it was physically possible for a man to force the Zero through a turn at 320 mph. When a plane turns air is slamming against those wings at amazing force, and the Zero had stupidly large ailerons which would take the brunt of the force. 

It was a weak and feeble aircraft, over 300 mph it had no chance. The Spitfire could be coming down at over 400 mph and still be in a situation where the plane can be handled.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

The force on the ailerons has nothing to do with your ability to turn, if you have already made the initiating roll 

You'll just be pulling back your stick, and that wouldnt be hard in a Zero at 'ANY' speed  

However in a A6M2 it would be abit risky to pull back all the way, if your at a speed of over 300mph  

But the A6M5 had a strenghtened body and wings, so it wouldnt be a problem fo that particular Zero-model and beyond


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

The A6M5 was still weak, it would still have a problem with turning at high speeds [being 300 mph for the Zero]. The whole plane comes under force when a plane turns, but the ailerons and elevators are at the greatest risk because they are not stable attachments.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

The turning radius of a A6M5 Zero will always be tighter than a Spitfire's at any speed  However the Roll that will initiate the turn will be slower than the Spitfires


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The A6M5 was still weak, it would still have a problem with turning at high speeds [being 300 mph for the Zero]. The whole plane comes under force when a plane turns, but the ailerons and elevators are at the greatest risk because they are not stable attachments.



The A6M5 was 'Alot' stronger than the A6M2  And the A6M5 would take 'ALOT' more G forces than the A6M2 

But you must remember that the Spitfire also had Ailerons and elevators, and speed would also stiffen them ! Although the ailerons on the Spitfire wouldnt freeze up as much as the Zero's would.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

The Zero couldn't out-turn the Spitfire above 300 mph, and that's a clear fact. The Zero was of poor quality at it's own high speeds, it would be coming into the fight slow and would bring itself into an immediate disadvantage. 

The Spitfire was a stronger, and more robust design than the Zero. No one ever said the Spitfire's ailerons wouldn't stiffen, but they wouldn't fall off! Take into account that the Zero would be dead while it was rolling to turn anyway, this amazing turning capability to turn well below 300 mph means nothing. 

The fact is, the Spitfire would come down at a faster pace than the Zero and the Zero would be torn apart by 20mm and .50cal rounds from the e-wing. The Zero lacked any kind of protection, so would be blown out of the sky with ease. 

8:1 kill ratio over Japanese aircraft, taking into account their not all Zeros still gives for a nice success rate. The Zero was inferior to the Spitfire Mk.V and even more so inferior to the Spitfire Mk.VIII.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

Again i say the ailerons on the 'A6M5' wouldnt fall off !! And neither would the elevators, they wouldnt even fall off on the A6M2 at high speed turns 

The 'A6M5' would turn inside 'ANY' Spitfire model at any speed, but it wouldnt roll as fast as the Spitfire at high speed  (even with clipped wings)


Read: British Warplanes of World War II. This book explains how the Spitfires first faired when they met the Zero (Not good).

Also remember the defence of Darwin !


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

No it wouldn't turn inside the Spitfire at any speeds. Since when? The Zero couldn't do bugger all at high speeds (300 mph and above with the Zero)! The Spitfire could come in nearing 400 mph and the Zero wouldn't stand a chance because it couldn't turn or roll above 300 mph! The ZERO was useless beyond 300 mph! Everyone, and every piece of history says so. Even the Zero pilots said they wouldn't try and turn above 300 mph...


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> No it wouldn't turn inside the Spitfire at any speeds. Since when? The Zero couldn't do bugger all at high speeds (300 mph and above with the Zero)! The Spitfire could come in nearing 400 mph and the Zero wouldn't stand a chance because it couldn't turn or roll above 300 mph! The ZERO was useless beyond 300 mph! Everyone, and every piece of history says so. Even the Zero pilots said they wouldn't try and turn above 300 mph...



Give me ONE source just ONE, that says the elevators would freeze in high speeds ! (If you can i will rest my case  But you can't because there isnt any ) 

Sanders report from 42 just reports the ailerons getting stiff, and rolls at 250kt are very hard ! like every other report !


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

Where...anywhere...did I state that the elevators stiffen? Do you think it's only the elevators that say if the aircraft can turn tightly or not?


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Where...anywhere...did I state that the elevators stiffen? Do you think it's only the elevators that say if the aircraft can turn tightly or not?



To put it simple:

The elevators are the ones that pull the plane upwards and downwards, and they are also the ones you use to turn the plane, after you have rolled your plane to either direction. The elevators are triggered when you pull back on the stick ! 

So when your Zero is rolled to the left, you pull back the stick wich will be easy 'also' at high speed 

Also remember that the A6M5 was much stronger in its body than the A6M2. Hey just compare the dive speed limit of the two model's ! :

Dive speed limit.

A6M2: 380mph 

A6M5: 460mph


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

Well, your mind is stupidly simple then. Because the slenderness of plane, how easily air flows over the aircraft, the strength of the aircraft, how far the elevators can be pulled, the engine torque, the speed...ALL have to be taken into account when making an aircraft turn.


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 16, 2005)

Flight sim BS. My friend, you either only think you know how an airplane works or you are simply and deliberately obscurantist. When evidence is presented as to the high speed failure of the ailerons in the A6M design, from people (plural) who actually flew the damn thing, A6M2's and A6M5's, you launch off into a discussion of elevators. HOT FLASH! All these things must work in concert, ailerons, elevators, rudder in order to execute a turn. Must work in concert . . . that means all together and at the same time . . . get that part? Any failure of one of them means the entire maneuver fails. I doubt anyone will find any comments regarding A6M elevator performance as there wasn't much point in discussing a non-issue vis-a-vis the the lack of aileron control at high speed, i.e., if forces on the ailerons preclude a roll, then there is no turn and no point in worrying about what the elevators are or are not doing. Your elevator arguments are red herrings. 

Let's see you come up with legitimate sources (hasn't that been asked before?) that confirm your theses. Not your opinion, mind you, but something concrete from someone, preferably with A6M flight experience, that supports you contentions. And something quotable, if you please, not just some vague reference. Just as you challenge for sources on elevators, I challenge you for sources in general. And if you can't produce them, since you believe any lack of sources in views opposing yours buttresses your position, then in the absence of your presenting sources, then, you, too, must be mistaken.

Rich


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

What i think has happened here judging from your rudeness ! is that there has been an missunderstanding. 

Sure, Aileron and Elevator work in concert to make a turn: The aileron puts the plane into the right position to make the turn, afterwords the elevator takes over to pull the plane into a tight turn. Thats how it works !

What my arguement is all about, is that once the Zero has been put into position to turn, then NO allied aircraft can follow it, nomatter what speed. 

Maby this is an unworthy advantage to mention, as the Zero cant make fast rolls at high speeds, i dont know. 

Anyhow there's no need to get rude !

About the sources... they are the same as yours buddy ! Sanders report from 42 and The US Army Air Forces "Informational Intelligence Summary.


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 16, 2005)

Sigh . . .

Your contention is/was the A6M could out turn the Spitfire and any other adversary at high speed.

All the evidence and experience points to an inability of the A6M to execute at roll at speeds in excess of 300 mph. 

You continue to stipulate that this was untrue. Your source, please. And the intelligence reports, which I might add, I went to the trouble to transcribe, do not, at all, support your position. How about you find and transcribe something that does.

And you say


> . . . once the Zero has been put into position to turn, then NO allied aircraft can follow it, nomatter what speed



And I ask, just how does an A6M get in that postion to turn at high speed without aileron controlled roll? Your statement is a nonsequitur. 

If you find the bald truth to be insulting or rude then there's not much I can do about that.

Rich


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

Sigh.....

I never questioned the fact that at over 300mph, the Zero wouldnt be able make fast rolls  

However if the Zero already was in position to turn, meaning one of its wings were pointing downwards  and then starts to turn, then there's nothing that can follow it  The low wingloading will see to that


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

Actually, in a turn you do not just pull the stick back because the aircraft tends to drop. I don't know if you've ever seen an aircraft pull an extended turn, but the plane rocks up and down as the pilot corrects it with aileron moves.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

Your absolutely correct  However those small corrections in flight aint at all significant ! But your right nonetheless.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

They actually make a lot of difference, plus you use your rudder. 

Anyway, Rich is right. The Zero couldn't even get into position above 300 mph, and it's not going to be speeding up from 275 mph while banking.


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 16, 2005)

Getting the wings into some position other than horizontal, i.e., roll, and for fast turning that requires close to vertical, is required to make a turn. If you can't get there in the first place, then there's no turn. You keep trying to put the aircraft into a position it cannot achieve in order to make some dubious point. At high speed, the A6M was not going to be able to initiate the roll necessary for a turn . . . no initiation, no turn. Therefore it could not be already in your supposed attitude to out turn anyone. And that, my friend, is the point. It simply couldn't do what you claim it could do. You can't magically have an A6M, wings vertical, at 300 mph and say, "okay, we'll start here." Further, I'd suggest that even if you could do that, you can probably kiss one or both wings good-bye . . . the airplane obviously wasn't built to handle that kind of stress. If it were, you'd be able to execute the meneuver from the beginning. Any you can't. QED.

Still waiting for your sources.

Rich


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

Haha !! 

Are you litteraly saying the Zero couldnt roll at all at over 300mph ?? 

The sources ?? What do you need sources on ?? What claimes have i made that you need a source on ??


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 16, 2005)

Soren said:


> Haha !!
> 
> Are you litteraly saying the Zero couldnt roll at all at over 300mph ??
> 
> The sources ?? What do you need sources on ?? What claimes have i made that you need a source on ??



The roll rate of the Zeke was the same as the Typhoons at 300mph IAS, ~42-43 deg/sec at 10,000ft. 

At 340mph IAS, the roll rate was 35deg/sec. At that rate, over 10 seconds for a 360, it would classed as a 'slow roll' during show aerobatics.

Even the P-47C, which is not known for its roll rate, is ~2.2 times faster than that of the Zeke.

from NACA Report 868


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

Exactly !! It was slow, but it 'could' roll !!!

Thank you Kraz ! can I call you 'Kraz' ?


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 16, 2005)

If at max speed it takes the A6M about five seconds to roll in to a turn, and it takes a Spitfire some two and a half seconds to execute the same maneuver at the same speed, which one is going to turn inside the other? And if the Spitfire, or F4U, or F6F or whatever can execute the maneuver at higher speeds than the A6M can even achieve, which one turns inside the other? So here’s the A6M driver is trying to horse the poor baby around at 300 mph. I wonder how much of his attention is directed towards correcting a skid, watching for the insipient stall, and other sensory inputs caused by the airplane’s remarkable (in the truest sense of the word, so bad that is is remarked upon) lack of performance in executing the maneuver. Could an A6M roll at 300 plus mph?

oh, s.u.r.e, .o. .n. .l. .y . . .v. . .e. . .r. . .y . . . .s. . . .l. . . .o. . . .w. . . .l. . . .y

in comparison to it’s adversaries. Whoever reaches a firing solution first usually win. In high speed maneuvering the A6M was at a obvious, distinct, and noted disadvantage. Might even partially explain how in the last 12 months of the war F6F’s were credited with downing some 1000 A6Ms in exchange for 75 losses, F4Us 327 A6M credits for 27 losses, and FMs 87 A6Ms for 2 losses.

Though I’d still like to see something beyond just your opinion, it is obviously not forthcoming. 

Now, you don’t agree with me; I don’t agree with you; in all probability neither of us is going to change. I’m going to leave it at that and let others draw their own conclusions. 

Regards,

Rich


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

R Leonard said:


> in comparison to it’s adversaries. Whoever reaches a firing solution first usually win. In high speed maneuvering the A6M was at a obvious, distinct, and noted disadvantage. Might even partially explain how in the last 12 months of the war F6F’s were credited with downing some 1000 A6Ms in exchange for 75 losses, F4Us 327 A6M credits for 27 losses, and FMs 87 A6Ms for 2 losses.



  

Yeah you go ahead and believe in that !!  Jesus christs !  

If the Zero wants to lose a Spitfire on its tail at over 300mph, all the pilot has to do is to pull back the stick and the Spitfire will be gone in seconds.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

Sure it will. Even then climb rate isn't the factor to this discussion, turn rate is. The Zero cannot get into turning position, so it cannot turn. End of story really, the Spitfire would be turning inside it because the Zero would barely be able to get there!


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 16, 2005)

He obviously didn't read the part about Spitfires, A6Ms, and loops at high speed.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

I'm going to leave it there, I think you put the whole discussion in it's place there Rich. You've quite a lot of knowledge stored up there, mate!


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

R Leonard said:


> He obviously didn't read the part about Spitfires, A6Ms, and loops at high speed.



And you obviously believe everything you read, as long as it strengthens your opinion 

The Zero's loop would be of alot less diameter


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

And you obviously believe the crap you read if it strengthens your opinion.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

Well atleast i read Plan_D


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

What a moron you are. Now provide your sources or shut up.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

I already did  But you obviusly can't read 

And your obviously not very old, because your simply too rude to be over 15  And name-calling also seems to be one of your primitive defenses.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

My lord, you really are a moron. Your 'source' was a book written by a Zero pilot with no quote at all.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

I quoted other sources buddy


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

You've already been proven wrong by Rich, who happened to provide sources for everything he said that backed him up. You don't, you just babble.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

Man i just think you beat the "How wrong can one be in one day record".


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 17, 2005)

> And you obviously believe everything you read, as long as it strengthens your opinion



Pot, kettle, black

Worse, even, you can't even cite a source that affirms your theories.

Was there something in the RAF report you did not understand? Was there something in all the information provided that you missed? Obviously, there must be as you try to use the Sanders report and the USAAF report to buttress your position when even the quotes you use clearly contridict your position. 

Do you contend that those who have actually flown the airplane don't know what they are talking about? Do you contend that those who have actually flown the airplane did not experience the effects that they did? Are we to take your words over those of experienced fighter and test pilots? And your experience as a fighter or a test pilot is exactly, what? *And your experience in piloting an A6M is exactly, what? *

Again, what can you offer that would be counter to all that has been posted here besides whines of "can, too; can, too." In case you haven't noticed, most folks around here can back up what they say. You singularly fail to do so.

And do you have any evidence to offer to the contrary on the F6F, F4U, and FM credits in the last year of the war? And your source for that evidence is, what? Oh, just your opinion? Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Your one-liners have become indicative of a lack of real research and some pretty shallow thinking. Suggest you leave off with the popular histories and move on to something with a little more depth. Also suggest you look a little further in to the concept of flight altogether, as there are, from your writings, some obvious basic fundamantal misconceptions on your part. When you can present something with some meat to it and not just your throw away lines maybe people will give your theories a little more credence. In the meantime, as long as you write like some freshman who's never been challenged you will continue to receive short shrift.

So call names and throw your darts. Makes no difference. You can't support your arguments. Must be truly fulfilling to stand alone in the face of the evidence and decry all as wrong. No, my friend, it is you who is wrong. Welcome to the real world where people who make bald statements as fact must learn to provide the evidence of their convictions. End of story.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

What do you need sources on ?? You continuesly talk about sources, however you never specify what it is you need !!

You can find millions of reports out there, and alot of them will be contradict each other ! So reports have almost no merit. The british claimed their Spitfire could outtun a 109 at any speed, but was that true "NO". 

I have NO pilot experience in a A6M Zero, and i probably never will. I do fly myself though, and no i didnt say anything about flight that doesnt add up, you have simply missunderstood me.

Anyway im glad that you do not use name-calling or the likes as a defense, as that shows your a man of age and knowledge and that you know better than that.

However you continuesly implied that the Zero couldnt Roll at all over 300mph, wich isnt true at all. And i would like to know where you got that impression from.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

Just leave it Rich, he'll start lowering your IQ eventually.


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 17, 2005)

Rich, Roger, Out.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Hee hee this was a funny conversation


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2005)

yes it is rather.........


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 20, 2005)

Short clips of Corsair vs japanese aircraft.


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 20, 2005)

Hey ive been trying to get in on this conversation for days now is anyone on any more or are we still angry.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

Why have you stole my avatar?


----------



## Soren (Feb 20, 2005)

R Leonard said:


> He obviously didn't read the part about Spitfires, A6Ms, and loops at high speed.



Hmm... There's only one Zero vs Spitfire test that im aware of.

Fact is the Zero's loop and turning radius would always be tighter than the Spitfire's at 'ANY' speed, as long as it was below 15,000ft .

So now i ask you, "At what altitude did the Spitfire make a tighter loop than the Zero ?" 

I can tell you this much, "Above 16,000ft the Zero wouldnt be maneuverable at all " And at 17,000ft it would be as maneuverable as a Bomber !  

So since i can't remember the test with the Zero and the Spitfire that well (I have it available though), i ask you at wich altitude did this test accure !?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 20, 2005)

Funny you should mention this. I had a conversation with Steve Barber yesterday, who happens to fly one of the 2 surviving flyable Zeroes. His direct quote was, below 10,000 feet and below 250 MPH nothing could out-turn the zero. Above these two, no way. His direct quote was that above 250 MPH, the ailerons are like concrete. He also stated that you would be pretty hard pressed to do over 300 knots on the Zero because of the thickness of the wing chord. This is coming from a guy that _regularly_ flies the zero.


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Funny you should mention this. I had a conversation with Steve Barber yesterday, who happens to fly one of the 2 surviving flyable Zeroes. His direct quote was, below 10,000 feet and below 250 MPH nothing could out-turn the zero. Above these two, no way. His direct quote was that above 250 MPH, the ailerons are like concrete. He also stated that you would be pretty hard pressed to do over 300 knots on the Zero because of the thickness of the wing chord. This is coming from a guy that _regularly_ flies the zero.



Oh you did ? Well i think you should ask him again then because:

_The roll rate of the Zeke was the same as the Typhoons at 300mph IAS, ~42-43 deg/sec at 10,000ft. 

At 340mph IAS, the roll rate was 35deg/sec. At that rate, over 10 seconds for a 360, it would classed as a 'slow roll' during show aerobatics.

NACA report 868._

He should know this


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2005)

Ask him again? This man has hundreds of hours in that airplane! Have _you_ flown the Zero? It is very nimble at below 10,000 and below 250 MPH, above that, you have a very difficult, if not impossible aircraft to roll into a turn. Remember that IAS can be quite different from actual air speed.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 21, 2005)

Soren, some other roll rates from that report.

300mph IAS

Fw190 - 128*/sec
Spit (clipped) - 116*/sec
Spit - 76*/sec
P-47C - 82*/sec
F4F-3 - 66*/sec
F6F-3 - 68*/sec
P-51B - 94*/sec
P-40F - 94*/sec
P-39D - 63*/sec

note: give or take a degree

Even the Grummans are 50% faster than the Zeke.


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2005)

Yes but he said "stiff like Concrete" !

They are making it sound like it couldnt roll at all  

Its not that i don't believe you Evangilder, not at all, but "Stiff like concrete" isnt that just overreacting a little ?

The Zero could roll at 340mph, but it would be slow  (meaning a F6F Hellcat or any other could beat the Zero into the turn, and get a deflection-shot.)

Now Evangilder, if you could ask him about how the Zero A6M5 handles a loop at lets say 320mph and at below 10,000ft, then we could get that solved also. 

Btw Evanglider don't get me wrong, I really appreciate that you toulk the time to ask a real Zero pilot


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2005)

The problem with your question is that there are no A6M5 models flying. Ours is an A6M3. To say that Steve is "overreacting" is silly. This man has more stick time in multiple different types than just about anyone else I know. He owns a Yak-3 and has flown it, the F6F, Spitfire, F8F, Mustang, Hurricane and a host of others. He doesn't exaggerate and he does know his stuff, he has to. They don't let mediocre pilots fly these planes. 

He definitely said that the stiffness occurs at 250 MPH, like concrete was exactly how he put it, and I have no reason to doubt him, he makes flying look easy.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

> He owns a Yak-3 and has flown it, the F6F, Spitfire, F8F, Mustang, Hurricane and a host of others.



Damnit im jealous...


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2005)

Yeah, me too! He has had a truly remarkable life in aviation. He is also the civilian coordinator for the legacy flights, where they fly current Navy jets with the CAF planes. He flew a Hellcat in formation with a Hornet! To watch him fly is a real treat.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

I think next year I will convince my folks to go to CA for our holiday...Spain gets boring, and theres no airshows


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2005)

Evangilder this is a A6M3(Front) and a A6M5 (back) .


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2005)

Whoops, that is correct, the one in Chino is an A6M5. But that is not part of our organization. The A6M3 is ours. I still question the capability of manuevers above 300MPH TAS.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

Thats a good picture Soren! 8)


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2005)

There's also an A6M2 flying


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2005)

Now Evangilder 'Steve' flew the A6M3 Mod.22 with a 12.10m wingspan. The reason i wanted you to ask him about the A6M5 is because it had clipped wings, and thus better roll-performance at high speed.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2005)

That A6M2 pic is pretty old. That airplane has been sitting in our museum for over 5 years. It has not flown for a number of years and was until about three months ago, in 2 pieces. There are only 2 flying today, in Camarillo and Chino. 

I will see about the A6M5, but Steve is not always around, he has a quite busy schedule.


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2005)

> That A6M2 pic is pretty old. That airplane has been sitting in our museum for over 5 years. It has not flown for a number of years and was until about three months ago, in 2 pieces. There are only 2 flying today, in Camarillo and Chino.



I see. You wouldnt happen to know whether its going to fly again or not ?



> I will see about the A6M5, but Steve is not always around, he has a quite busy schedule.



Thanks Evan i appreciate it


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2005)

Will it fly again? Perhaps, but it won't be on our dime. It has been in suspended restoration since before we got our new hangars. They put it back to one piece, with some of the external aluminum missing for a potential buyer. The potential buyer is a mystery, but rumor has it that the person is Japanese, and it may even be the Japanese government, but I don't really know. The problem is that the Zero is STILL illegal to fly in Japan! Personally, I think they need to modify the law to be able to fly one of the original Zeroes in Japan. I don't think it poses much of a threat to anyone today. 

I have a couple of shots of that one "Fugu" on my drive at home. I will post them later. That poor bird needs a new home where it wil get the care and restoration it needs to fly again.


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2005)

The Japanees arent allowed to fly it ?!  Hmm.. I guess they'd rather just forget the war down there ! I know that they felt alot of shame after the war, and maybe still do  

Anyway im looking forward to hear from you about the A6M5 Evan


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2005)

It was written into their constitution about 60 years ago, so it still can't fly there. It is a legal technicality that I would think they could get around these days. I hope they do, we could use the money from the sale.


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2005)

Well one can always hope


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2005)

Here are the shots of "Fugu" as she sits now, and as she was for many years before.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2005)

Soren said:


> Yes but he said "stiff like Concrete" !
> 
> They are making it sound like it couldnt roll at all
> 
> ...



No the Zero could not roll at speeds over 250 IAS. Technically, it could not roll to the right at all and could barely roll to the left. Even at 230 IAS roll performance to the right was extremely poor and to the left it was quite slow. The problem was the ailerons were quite large and the ratios of the cabling were low. This resulted in very snappy performance in the intended combat speed range of 180-220 mph but made the stick so stiff the pilot could not work it at higher speeds. Pilots even extended the stick with a piece of pipe to achieve the performance noted above, otherwise 200 mph would have been the limit. Elevator response was also limited at high speed, though not as strictly as aileron response.

Corsair pilots would sit on the left turn of a Zero as they overtook it. They knew the plane could not manuver to the right and it's only devensive manuver would be to roll into a hard split-S to the left. When being attacked from the six, Corsair pilots would bank and do a slight climbing turn to the right, then use the rudder to complete the very mild hi-yoyo move onto the six of the attacking zero. Once the weakenesses of the Zero were found by testing the captured units, it's day was done and they were easily defeated by pilots that enageded them properly.

The Zero was also known to have a low terminal dive speed. Anything over 320 IAS in a moderate dive was fatal, the steeper the dive the lower the terminal threshold. So the answer to your loop question is probably that it was not possible to survive such a manuver.

Newbie Kamakazi pilots assigned the Zero were told to fly relatively level to the target, and those that tried to dive steeply into the target invariably crashed into the sea in an uncontrolled dive.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

> No the Zero could not roll at speeds over 250 IAS.



Yes it could   The A6M2 would have a hard time rolling fast at that speed, and the A6M5 at 275mph. (But they could roll )




> Technically, it could not roll to the right at all and could barely roll to the left. Even at 230 IAS roll performance to the right was extremely poor and to the left it was quite slow. The problem was the ailerons were quite large and the ratios of the cabling were low. This resulted in very snappy performance in the intended combat speed range of 180-220 mph but made the stick so stiff the pilot could not work it at higher speeds.



The A6M2's stick was set to operate at a 250 IAS   (You are quoting 'Claude' stats !)



> Pilots even extended the stick with a piece of pipe to achieve the performance noted above, otherwise 200 mph would have been the limit. Elevator response was also limited at high speed, though not as strictly as aileron response.



Untrue  Even a Modern day Zero pilot will tell you that 




> The Zero was also known to have a low terminal dive speed. Anything over 320 IAS in a moderate dive was fatal, the steeper the dive the lower the terminal threshold. So the answer to your loop question is probably that it was not possible to survive such a manuver.
> 
> Newbie Kamakazi pilots assigned the Zero were told to fly relatively level to the target, and those that tried to dive steeply into the target invariably crashed into the sea in an uncontrolled dive.



The A6M2's weak wings would hold to around 360-380mph in a dive. The A6M3's 410mph. The A6M5's 460mph. So again you are incorrect 

According to the Japanees, the A6M7 Zero went into an uncontrolled dive at around 450mph


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

Great pictures Evan !!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2005)

I would highly doubt that dive speed in the A6M3. The wing chord line is too thick and introduces alot of drag. 300 knots IAS is about the best you could hope for in a dive with the A6M3. That was one of Steve's comments about the Zero, and he was talking about the one that he flies regularly.


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

I found some results on the Zero vs Spitfire test.

_Test No. 1 - Commencing at *17,000 feet*: _(*A good deal over the Zero's max maneuverability altitude *!!)
_1. Spitfire and Hap to approach head on and maneuver, without loss of altitude, until one aircraft gets on the other's tail._

_Result:
Both aircraft passed at about 50 yards. Spitfire executed steep climbing turn. Hap steep turned and was on Spitfire's tail within 2Â½ turns.
2. Hap on Spitfire's Tail. Spitfire to complete 4 steep turns to left. Reform position and carry out 4 steep turns to right.
Result:
Hap was able to turn easily inside Spitfire. However, jinking was necessary to watch Spitfire and check on deflection allowance. Hap did not steep turn as easily to right as to left.
3. Spitfire on Hap's Tail. Steep turns to left and right as in previous test.
Result:
Hap commenced steep turning at 220 mph IAS. Spitfire was unable to turn with Hap., either in left or right hand turns, for more than Â¾ turn by which time Spitfire was close to stall.
4. a. Hap on Spitfire's Tail. Spitfire to perform loop.
b. Spitfire on Hap's Tail. Hap to perform loop.
Result:
a. Spitfire commenced looping at 300 mph IAS with speed of 140 mph IAS on top. Hap had no trouble in following Spitfire.
b. Hap commenced lop at 220 knots IAS and completed two loops in succession. Spitfire endeavored to follow Hap and stalled at top of first loop and fell out. Hap finished on Spitfire's tail._

Even at 17,000ft and at 300mph IAS, the Zero could easely follow the Spitfire in this high speed loop


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I would highly doubt that dive speed in the A6M3. The wing chord line is too thick and introduces alot of drag. 300 knots IAS is about the best you could hope for in a dive with the A6M3. That was one of Steve's comments about the Zero, and he was talking about the one that he flies regularly.



Well the Zero wasnt exactly intended for a 60 year long service time either !  Some parts will offcourse weaken with time.

I doubt any modern Zero pilot would even push a A6M5 over 400mph, souly because it is so old !


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2005)

It's not about age, it's about the chord line and how the air reacts to the wing. He does not push the aircraft for obvious reasons, but he has to know what the limitations of the aircraft are before he flies it, otherwise, how would he know when he is pushing the limits?


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

If the airframe hasnt been changed in 60 years, and is still the original, then it would clever for the pilot not to push it to its 60 year old specification-limits  

Even our modern day Fighters has to have their airframe changed or checked for metal-fatitude once in a while.

You dont push an 60 year old aircraft to its previus limits, as they have changed over time !


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2005)

If you fly a 60 year old airplane that has not had that kind of inspection, it is a recipe for disaster. The aircraft was restored to a flyable condition in the 1990s. If you don't think these planes are as sturdy as the day they were built, you haven't spent time in a CAF hangar. Restoration entails years of work inspecting every inch of the airframe, assuring structural integrity and replacing parts that have even a hint of potential to fail. 

There are NO planes from that time frame that are 100% original in their airframes. The FAA would never allow an unsafe aircraft to leave the ground.

The reason they don't push it to their limits is for safety, period. We don't want to lose a 60 year old airplane, for sure. But we certainly don't want to lose our friends either.


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

> If you fly a 60 year old airplane that has not had that kind of inspection, it is a recipe for disaster. The aircraft was restored to a flyable condition in the 1990s. If you don't think these planes are as sturdy as the day they were built, you haven't spent time in a CAF hangar. Restoration entails years of work inspecting every inch of the airframe, assuring structural integrity and replacing parts that have even a hint of potential to fail.



A wise decision !



> The reason they don't push it to their limits is for safety, period. We don't want to lose a 60 year old airplane, for sure. But we certainly don't want to lose our friends either.



Exactly, they first of all dont want a casualty, and they don't want to lose a 60 year old antique !


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 22, 2005)

didn't you say you had a saying, summit like "if you find yourself about to crash [when flying an old aeroplane] don't bother ejecting, if you survive we'll kill ya".................


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2005)

Soren, do you know the difference between TAS and IAS? Your figures are TAS figures at 10-15000 feet.

Have you read the test evaluations of the A6M2 captured in the Alutians? Seem's not. Have you read Sabaru Sakai's book?


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2005)

Soren said:


> I found some results on the Zero vs Spitfire test.
> 
> _Test No. 1 - Commencing at *17,000 feet*: _(*A good deal over the Zero's max maneuverability altitude *!!)
> _1. Spitfire and Hap to approach head on and maneuver, without loss of altitude, until one aircraft gets on the other's tail._
> ...



Where is this test data from? What model Spitfire?

Why does the Spitfire drop into the Zero's manuver envelope at 220 mph? Why not stay at 300 mph?

And, how does the Zero manage 300 IAS at 17000 feet? Its top speed is only 350 TAS (for the A6M5) and this is less than 300 IAS at 17,000 feet!



> While the Zero was supremely maneuverable at low speeds, its controls became heavy at high speeds, and it rolled to the left much more easily than it rolled to the right. Also, due to its float-type carburetor design it tended to stall under negative gees, as would be encountered if the Zero were climbing and then had to drop back downward while remaining upright. An American fighter could escape the Zero by bobbing up, diving while the Zero's engine stalled, and then rolling to the right.
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html



=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

Yes i have read them all. 
But Saburo Sakai's book isnt worth much, as half of it is made up !  ( 'Caiden' you know !  )

The A6M2 captured in the Aleutians was damaged, and was never flown to its limits ! The engine never worked properly.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2005)

Soren said:


> Yes i have read them all.
> But Saburo Sakai's book isnt worth much, as half of it is made up !  ( 'Caiden' you know !  )
> 
> The A6M2 captured in the Aleutians was damaged, and was never flown to its limits ! The engine never worked properly.



All pilot accounts have to be taken with a large grain of salt. That doesn't make them worthless.

More Zero's were captured as the war went on, and the test results were the same.

Koga's Zero (from the Aleutians) never ran at peak performance, but this was not necessary to evaluate its performance enevlope.

Every reputable source, both American and Japanese, indicates that by ~250 IAS the Zero was nearly uncontrollable. Some improvement was had in the very late models in this respect, but at a severe cost in lower speed manuverability, and by then the plane was totally outclassed by US fighters anyway.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

> Where is this test data from? What model Spitfire?



Vc.



> Why does the Spitfire drop into the Zero's manuver envelope at 220 mph? Why not stay at 300 mph?



It is a test !! A british one !! Not a real combat situation, plus it might be a Typo, i would suspect it is 220 knots.




> While the Zero was supremely maneuverable at low speeds, its controls became heavy at high speeds, and it rolled to the left much more easily than it rolled to the right. Also, due to its float-type carburetor design it tended to stall under negative gees, as would be encountered if the Zero were climbing and then had to drop back downward while remaining upright. An American fighter could escape the Zero by bobbing up, diving while the Zero's engine stalled, and then rolling to the right.
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html



Oh you shouldnt have brought that up, that problem was long gone with the Hap Lunatic !!


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2005)

Soren said:


> > Where is this test data from? What model Spitfire?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The "Hap" is the Zero. Later it was changed to "Hamp" because Hap Arnold did not care to have a Japanese plane named after him. Later still, it was called the Zeke when it was realized it was just a zero with clipped wingtips. And the A6M3 was not a "winner" design anyway.

It is funny, you say that problem was "long gone", but the Black Sheep pilots used this info to sucessfully kill Zero's that got on their six regularly - even the A6M5 model. They would climb sligthly, then push foward into a dive, then roll and turn right, climb a bit, and swoop down onto the six of the Zero and blast it to smithereens!

Come on man, lets see some of your sources!


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

Lieut. Comdr. ER Sanders A6M2 report of September 29, 1942:

_All controls are very light, free from friction and all are over-balanced statically. High maneuverability at normal speeds is obtained with small control movement. The ailerons are unusually long and lateral control is excellent right down to the stall. Aileron forces increase with speed. They are still fair around 200 KTS to 210 KTS, but at 230 to 250 KTS they practically freeze up and *fast* rolling cannot be done at 250 KTS_


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

_In the war with Japanland-based Spitfires gave their main service on the Burma front supporting the British Fourteenth Army, and in the south-west Pacific operating as part of General Macarthur's forces. Spitfires of the Australian Air Force were in action from early 1942 onwards - primarily in defensive operations against Japanese air raids, and most notably in the defense of the northern Australian port of Darwin. In 1942-3 the majority of the Spitfires in front-line service in the Far East were Mk Vs. Later in the war these were largely replaced by the superb Mk VIII, generally acknowledged to be the best production Spitfire variant as regards its handling qualities when airborne. 

It was in operations in defence of Darwin that Spitfire pilots first became aware of the exceptional maneuverability of the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero. In their many European actions with the Luftwaffe's fighters Spitfire pilots had always enjoyed superior maneuverability - at least as regards their aircraft's rate-of-turn in level flight. It was a shock to the Allied 
air forces to discover that the Zero could easily out-turn their own fighters, and combat tactics had to be revised.

In defensive operations based on Australia in 1942-43 the Spitfire generally suffered from a higher loss rate than the other Allied fighters involved. _

'British Warplanes of World War II'


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2005)

Soren said:


> Lieut. Comdr. ER Sanders A6M2 report of September 29, 1942:
> 
> _All controls are very light, free from friction and all are over-balanced statically. High maneuverability at normal speeds is obtained with small control movement. The ailerons are unusually long and lateral control is excellent right down to the stall. Aileron forces increase with speed. They are still fair around 200 KTS to 210 KTS, but at 230 to 250 KTS they practically freeze up and *fast* rolling cannot be done at 250 KTS_



Which are true speeds, probably below 8,000 feet (as going higher required a refit with O2 equipment).

"_practically freeze up_" is the critical part of the evaluation, don't you think?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

PERFORMANCE:
_Maximum speeds and rates of climb are given below.
Maximum speed.. Sea level.........270 (m.p.h.)
.........."..........."........5,000 feet.…..287......"
.........."...........".......10,000..."........305......"
.........."...........".....*16,000..."........326......"
.........."...........".......20,000..."........321.5..."
.........."...........".......25,000..."........315......"
.........."...........".......30,000..."........306......"

"Rate of Climb... Sea level..........2750 (ft/min)
....."...."......".......15,000 feet........2380......"
....."...."......".......20,000 feet........1810......"
....."...."......".......30,000 feet..........830......"_

This is with a not properly working engine


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Which are true speeds, probably below 8,000 feet (as going higher required a refit with O2 equipment).
> 
> "_practically freeze up_" is the critical part of the evaluation, don't you think?
> 
> ...



He says *fast* rolling cannot be done at 250 KTS  That is what he says 

Meaning rolling could be done at 250 KTS, but it wouldnt be fast  

Still keep in mind were talking about an 'A6M2' with a not properly working engine


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2005)

Additionally it is said:

_Rate of roll at 230mph was 5.4 sec. for 360 degrees._

Still A6M2 stats !


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 23, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Which are true speeds, probably below 8,000 feet (as going higher required a refit with O2 equipment).
> ...



Other accounts are that only a slow roll to the left was possible, and rolling to the right was almost impossible, at speeds above 230 IAS. Your source does not give a very precise statement, but "practically freeze up" means "practically cannot be moved" which implies extremely sluggish response, and this does not conflict with "fast rolling cannot be done".

And the engine has nothing to do with roll performance, except to make rolls to the right under higher power levels even more difficult.

Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (Hamp) has lots of good info on the A6M3 design. 

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2005)

> Other accounts are that only a slow roll to the left was possible, and rolling to the right was almost impossible, at speeds above 230 IAS.



What accounts ? Where ? 

The only thing that is right in what your saying is that the rolling to the right at high speed would be slower than to the left !

The '*Claude's*' controls were set to operate at 200-220mph, above that and they would become very stiff  

There were numerous Mock-dogfights between the 'Zero' and 'Claude', where the Claude won almost every time ! This was because these were classic dogfights at speeds od 200-220mph. 
However the Zero severely beat the Claude when the speeds progressed to 250-275mph, where the Zero's controls were set to operate, and where the Claude's would get stiff as ****.



> Your source does not give a very precise statement, but "practically freeze up" means "practically cannot be moved" which implies extremely sluggish response, and this does not conflict with "fast rolling cannot be done".




Report on the A6M2:

_Conclusions:

The Zero fighter, because of its low wing loading, has superior maneuverability to all our present service type aircraft. 

It is necessary to maintain a speed of over three hundred (*300*) miles per hour indicated to successfully combat this airplane.

In developing tactics against the Zero, cognizance should be taken of two facts:

1. Slow rate of roll of the Zero at high speeds.

2. Inability of the Zero engine to continue operating under negative acceleration.

The engine performance of the Zero is superior to the present service type engine without turbo superchargers. This superiority is recognizable in the fact that the maximum manifold pressure can be maintained from sea level to sixteen thousand (*16,000*) feet.

Recommendations:

That the pilots entering the theater of action where the Zero can be expected be instructed in the following: 

1. Never attempt to dog fight the Zero.

2. Never maneuver with the Zero at speeds below three-hundred (*300*) miles per hour indicated unless directly behind it.

3. Never follow a Zero in a climb at slow speeds. (Service type ships will stall out at the steep angle where the Zero has just reached its most maneuverable speed.) At this point is possible for the Zero to complete a loop putting it in a position for a rear quarter attack._

Clear enough ?




> And the engine has nothing to do with roll performance, except to make rolls to the right under higher power levels even more difficult.



I never said it did ! But did you see the Performance chart i gave you ?! Those speeds were reached with a malfunctioning engine 



> Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (Hamp) has lots of good info on the A6M3 design.



Lunatic I have known about that site for a long time, and it mainly gives an idea of how the 'Hamp' is build up piece by piece. 

Also any goofball can make a website and write whatever on it, so websites don't have a whole lot of credability.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2005)

unless you check the info against other sources, if several sources say the same thing you can be pretty sure it's reliable................


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 23, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> unless you check the info against other sources, if several sources say the same thing you can be pretty sure it's reliable................



Not neccessarily true. 

For example: Many sites, and books, say the 109K-4 had MG151/20 cowl weapons. This originated with Green and has been 'copied and pasted' continuously ever since.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2005)

i don't nesisarily have to check other websites, and there has to be a point when you accept something as fact or you'll forever be looking for sources..............


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2005)

Sure but just don't use sources from the Internet as a reference


----------



## evangilder (Feb 23, 2005)

You can use sources from the internet if you get a second source. Not everything on the web is inaccurate. Plus there are a number of sites that will list their references so that you can double check them. Never single source anything. Even some books have errors. I read a book about a captured B-17 that gave a very different story of how the aircraft was brought down than the official bomb-group association told.


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2005)

If the Site quotes a book as reference, then it can most likely be used. But still it would be a good idea to get a hold of similar info from another source first, before you use it as a reference.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 23, 2005)

Exactly, ALWAYS get a second source.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2005)

which is baisically what i said!!!!!


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2005)

Yeah well one should still be skeptic, since as KraziKanuk demonstrated it can be totally wrong sometimes, nomatter how many website's supports it !


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 24, 2005)

Soren said:


> What accounts ? Where ?



Mostly from interviews with USN, USMC, and Japanese fighter pilots. In particular, the surviving (at the time of filming) Black Sheep pilots.

If you read the entire San Diego report (attached), it points out that the Zero was incapable of doing a reversal at 300 mph. It is ludicrous to take the report at face value and believe the Zero is manuverable right up to 300 mph and then suddenly becomes totally non-manuverable at that speed. Clearly, manuverability starts to drop off well before 300 mph at which point it is totally gone. This is the reason for the 300 mph recommended minimum speed for all positions except "from behind", where the speed could be reduced. As long as the US plane maintained 300 IAS the Zero was helpless, turning or engaging in combat at speeds below 300 mph would mean that E-bleed would drop the plane into the Zero's manuver envelope and give the enemy a chance, which would be foolish. 300 mph gives a cushion against this.

Above 250 IAS, the Zero's manuverability was poor, and by 300 IAS, it could barely manuver at all.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## R Leonard (Feb 24, 2005)

Hey, that's my copy \/


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2005)

> Mostly from interviews with USN, USMC, and Japanese fighter pilots. In particular, the surviving (at the time of filming) Black Sheep pilots.



Wich ? They must be available somewhere !



> If you read the entire San Diego report (attached), it points out that the Zero was incapable of doing a reversal at 300 mph. It is ludicrous to take the report at face value and believe the Zero is manuverable right up to 300 mph and then suddenly becomes totally non-manuverable at that speed. Clearly, manuverability starts to drop off well before 300 mph at which point it is totally gone. This is the reason for the 300 mph recommended minimum speed for all positions except "from behind", where the speed could be reduced. As long as the US plane maintained 300 IAS the Zero was helpless, turning or engaging in combat at speeds below 300 mph would mean that E-bleed would drop the plane into the Zero's manuver envelope and give the enemy a chance, which would be foolish. 300 mph gives a cushion against this.
> 
> Above 250 IAS, the Zero's manuverability was poor, and by 300 IAS, it could barely manuver at all.
> 
> ...



Let me be abit more specific ! "At 300 IAS it could barely roll"  

Also Lunatic be careful you don't 'overanalyze' every single word in the report  

You should also bear in mind at wich altitudes the tests were carried out in  

Btw i couldn't see the document. But it doesnt matter because I have a copy myself !


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 24, 2005)

> Let me be abit more specific ! "At 300 IAS it could barely roll"



With respect the a/c it had to fight against, for sure.

The NACA report 868 has the roll of the Zeke the best at 160mph IAS (56*/sec) and continually decreasing to 29*/sec at 390mph IAS.

Above 180mph IAS every a/c on the graph is has a better roll rate, and the rate increases the greater the speed, than the Zeke except for the Typhoon which surpasses the Zeke's roll rate at 230mph IAS.


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2005)

Yes the roll rate of the Zeke was slow at high speeds, but it wasnt phenomenal at slow speeds either ! 

As a matter of fact im sure the Hellcat could roll faster than the Zeke at slow speeds ! 

The rate of roll wasnt the Zeke's strong side, its low wing-loading was 
It was its low wingloading that allowed it to make those extreem banking maneuvers, and it was also what made it very good at Turn 'n' Burn dogfights


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 24, 2005)

Soren said:


> Yes the roll rate of the Zeke was slow at high speeds, but it wasnt phenomenal at slow speeds either !
> 
> As a matter of fact im sure the Hellcat could roll faster than the Zeke at slow speeds !
> 
> ...



How does the Zeke get into those extreme banking manuevers?


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the roll rate of the Zeke was slow at high speeds, but it wasnt phenomenal at slow speeds either !
> ...



You see there lies the problem !  

As a matter of fact there were many Zeke pilots who died trying make these banking maneuvers with Hellcat's on their tail. 
As the Hellcat could roll faster it could make a deflection shot, wich when were talking six 50.cals vs Zero durability is saying something !

However if the Zeke is already turning, the Hellcat would be foolish to follow !


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 24, 2005)

Soren said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > Soren said:
> ...



The ability to turn a tight circle is only significant if the enemy plays the low speed horizontal turnfight game - US pilots did not. Rate of roll is always critical and can make up for turn rate in many instances. By 230 IAS the Zero rate of roll was so bad that it was totally outclassed by every opponent, and this only got worse with additional speed.

I really don't understand your point here. You seem to be agreeing with me that the roll rate of the Zero was horrible at even moderate speeds.

???

Also, the low speed "turn-n-burn" fight was a fools fight. When engaged in such combat, you are a sitting duck for any other enemy plane that might come along. Come play Fighter Ace sometime and see - it happens all the time - you are turn fighting with an enemy on the deck, maybe even gaining the advantage, when one of his mates comes along at twice your speed and blasts the hell out of you.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2005)

what i really hate on flight sims is when you're wingmen take your kill, you've just hit a target quite bad an it's going down, then the'll come along and hit it like twice, an as they got the last bullet on it it normally counts as their kill.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2005)

I dont find that a problem as my wingmen normally always go down  Cant blame em, P-39 vs A6M2 isnt exactly well matched


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what i really hate on flight sims is when you're wingmen take your kill, you've just hit a target quite bad an it's going down, then the'll come along and hit it like twice, an as they got the last bullet on it it normally counts as their kill.............



In Fighter Ace if you do enough damage you get the kill and he gets an assist, if you don't, it's the other way around. I think the one to do the last 25% of damage to the target (approximate since damage % figures do not relate that well to actual damage) gets the kill.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2005)

> The ability to turn a tight circle is only significant if the enemy plays the low speed horizontal turnfight game - US pilots did not.



Exactly, and thats what the U.S. pilots learned and utilized. (Why do you think the Japanees lost airsuperiorty ? They had all the most maneuverable planes, but not the right tactics !)



> Rate of roll is always critical and can make up for turn rate in many instances. By 230 IAS the Zero rate of roll was so bad that it was totally outclassed by every opponent, and this only got worse with additional speed.



Yes its 'Roll rate', I agree and always have ! But it 'Could' roll even at 340mph  Thats my point ! 



> I really don't understand your point here. You seem to be agreeing with me that the roll rate of the Zero was horrible at even moderate speeds. ????




No, but its roll rate nomatter what speed was never phenomenal, it was 'good' at slow speeds and 'enough' at moderate speeds.



> Also, the low speed "turn-n-burn" fight was a fools fight. When engaged in such combat, you are a sitting duck for any other enemy plane that might come along. Come play Fighter Ace sometime and see - it happens all the time - you are turn fighting with an enemy on the deck, maybe even gaining the advantage, when one of his mates comes along at twice your speed and blasts the hell out of you.



A Turn 'n' Burn dogfight with the Zeke even at high speed would be foolish  Sure the Zeke's ailerons would get stiff at high speed, but its elevators wouldnt at all, and it could just keep on turning until it was on the enemy fighter's tail. (If the Enemy fighter chose to keep on the 'Dogfight', wich is exactly what Spitfire pilots did when they first met the Zero, and it proved fatal )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2005)

you have to be incredibly stupid or very brave to enter any form of turning fight with a zero.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2005)

What about a Milk-turning fight? I dont think Zero's can make milk turn very quick...


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 25, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you have to be incredibly stupid or very brave to enter any form of turning fight with a zero.............



That's not really true. As long as you maintain 300 mph in your turn you are quite safe. If the Zero tries to keep its nose pointed at you, it will loose ground, and if it keeps trying, it will end up turning a very tight circle and loosing all its E, at which time the opponent has a very easy kill.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Feb 25, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > you have to be incredibly stupid or very brave to enter any form of turning fight with a zero.............
> ...



No ! Because the Zero is a very slow E bleeder, thanks to its low wingloading  So the Zero will have no problem in following you in a turn at 300mph, unless you start making fast rolling maneuvers wich the Zero can't follow at 300mph !

Lunatic i hope your not using a computer-game for evaluating aircraft perfomance ! The real thing is 'very' much different


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...



LOL - computer games tend to allow unrealistic E retention, especially in turns. In a computer game the Zero likely could turn to keep its nose pointed at the enemy without loosing energy. But in real life...

Think about it. The Corsair pulls away from the Zero and from a safe distance executes a 300+ mph slow turn. It now comes back and maybe even takes a long range shot at the Zero but stays out of the Zero's gun range. To hold its nose to the Corsair the Zero must now execute a very hard turn, bleeding speed. The Corsair can easily do a hi yo-yo turn and come back with almost its full speed where the Zero's speed is depleted.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Feb 26, 2005)

Lunatic do you know what the Zero's stall speed is ? Its 'very' low !! 
The Zero is a slow E bleeder, one of the slowest !

Btw i know the topics title is "Corsair vs Zero", but we were currently talking about Zero vs Spitfire ! And the Spitfire wont just pull away!


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

Soren said:


> Lunatic do you know what the Zero's stall speed is ? Its 'very' low !!
> The Zero is a slow E bleeder, one of the slowest !
> 
> Btw i know the topics title is "Corsair vs Zero", but we were currently talking about Zero vs Spitfire ! And the Spitfire wont just pull away!



Do you know the difference between a stall and an accelerated stall?

What does the low stall speed of the Zero matter? I agree if it went slow enough it could keep its nose pointed at the enemy, but at such speed it would be helpless.

And at high speed the Zero was poor at retaining E. The large wings act like a brake and the small engine cannot pull it through the turns at speed. Low wingloading is a huge advantage in a slow turn-n-burn fight, but it is not in a fast E fight.

Consider the following definition of Compressibility, which refers specifically to the issues for the Spitfire, Bf109, and the Zero (and the P-38 prior to this excerpt):



> Compressibility
> ...
> A similar problem effected some models of the Supermarine Spitfire. At high speeds the ailerons could apply more torque than the Spitfire's thin wings could handle, and the entire wing would twist in the opposite direction. This meant that the plane would roll in the direction opposite to what the pilot expected, and led to a number of accidents. This wasn't noticed until later model Spitfires like the Mk.IX started to appear, because earlier models weren't fast enough. This was solved by adding considerable strength to the wings, and was wholely cured when the Mk.XIV was introduced.
> 
> ...



=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2005)

Low wingloading is great for slow-moderate Turn 'n' Burn dogfights and sure it would act like a brake when it turns in high speed, but thats what makes it turn so damn tight  

And the reason less maneuverable plane could outturn a Zero at high speeds, was because the Zero could barely roll at high speeds ! 

If in a Hellcat wich can make some pretty nasty turns itself  You'd just have to hold the speed above 300mph, and the Zero wouldnt have much chance of surviving ! 

At all speeds over 200KTS the Hellcat could outturn any 'USAAF' fighter


----------



## rolandkk (Jun 9, 2007)

Okay, so tell me.....did the Corsair have a 3-blade or a 4-blade prop, The picture at the top of this thread says 3-blade prop but actually shows a 4-blade prop......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2007)

rolandkk said:


> Okay, so tell me.....did the Corsair have a 3-blade or a 4-blade prop, The picture at the top of this thread says 3-blade prop but actually shows a 4-blade prop......



Depends on the model.......


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 9, 2007)

Both.
3 blade - F4U-1, F4U-1C, F4U-1D, F4U-2, FG-1, FG-1D
4 blade - F4U-4, F4U-4B, F4U-4P, F4U-5, F4U-5N, F4U-5P, AU-1, F2G-1 F2G-2

Rich


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 10, 2007)

If the F2G-1 F2G-2 had seen service, which would be the closest axis rival in performance? Would there be anyone?


----------



## renrich (Jun 11, 2007)

Actually the F2G was not much if any faster than the F4U 4 except had a slightly better rate of climb.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 12, 2007)

Really? Even with that HUGE engine?!


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2007)

F4U4-Vmax 446 mph @ 26200 ft, rate of climb 3870 fpm, F2G1D-Vmax 435 mph, rate of climb 4400fpm, the F2G could touch 399 mph at sea level whereas the F4U4 could do 380 mph at sea level. Incidently, that 380 mph at sea level for the 4 was the fastest of all US ww2 production fighters in "normal" trim.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2007)

tell me if this a repeat..

I will delete it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2007)

Well it is a Spit not a Corsiar...


----------



## Flightcommander (Mar 20, 2008)

if were betting i would put my money on the corsair. It was credited with an 11 :1 ratio of kills to losses in action against Japanese aircraft.


----------



## p47thunderboltking (Feb 19, 2013)

Nice article
But I didnt think that it was 417mph
thats way too fast!


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 19, 2013)

R Pope said:


> Again with the story of the Zero being based on Hughes' racer! This has been debunked many times...



Yeah, we all know that it was copied from the Gloster F.5/34:







or maybe not...


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2013)

The F2G Corsair was considerably better than 4,400 fpm! From a standstill it cold reach 9150 meters in 4 minutes. That's 30,019 feet in 4 mintes for an average of 7,500 feet per minute from sea level to over 30,000 feet. It was about 1,000 pounds heavier than an F4U-1A empty and grossed about 1,000 pounds less than the F4U-1A, so it was actually lighter at heavier loadings with 50% more power.

According to Bob Odegaard, who used to fly into the Planes of Fame every once in awhile in his F2G, it had no trouble outclimbing anything he ever climbed against up until 3rd-generation jets .. and he wasn't far behind them in a lot of cases. He flew with a LOT of airplanes and knew what he was talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## krieghund (Feb 20, 2013)

I think as prop aircraft the designers were quickly approaching the limits of what technology could deliver in terms of performance capability. The top speed area around 500 mph was the limits for the then current engine/prop efficiency. The only way to exceed that speed marginally is by using today's prop technology arrangement of the An-70 but its weight penalties limit it to only large aircraft. 

Anyway here's some late war data on the latest aircraft under test and use.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 20, 2013)

Bob's didn't quite perform that way ... and it was defiitely a real F2G. And he NEVER flew it at 15,000+ pounds. They mostly didn't in service either ... all 10 of them. Mostly at 11,000 - 12,000 pounds.

No argument here, just saying what I've seen with my own eyes. It goes up better than your table and still does (Bob had 2 of them and one is still around). I don't care to fight about it, but a live demo tells all ... and did. I can't think of any propeller fighter than could out climb or out accelerate it up to its top speed and service ceiling, including any Spitfire.

But, since there were only 10 made, it is really a footnote in history, like the Ta-152 ... only I got to see this one do its thing once. I won't ever doubt it again. Walked away from a Bearcat in climbout ... but only 10 made, so it isn't really that important in the relative scheme of things.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 21, 2013)

Speaking of Corsairs, ours (Planes of Fame) is the oldest Corsair flying. It started life as a "birdcage" with the flat cockpit canopy, was converted to the F4U-1A (3-piece plexi) and then the F4U-1D (1-piece plexi).

We're converting ours back to F4U-1A status and I overhauled the old F4U-1A sliding canopy with the 3-piece plexiglass and made the ADF antenna for the firewall. You stretch the wire from the wood (Oak) antenna to the tail and wrap a wire from the receiver around it at a point and solder it. The the signal centers when you point at the transmitter ... voila ... an ADF. Next time you see it, it should have the older sliding canopy and the firewall antenna on it (actually has the antenna on it now). So it's getting more period-authentic. When we're done it will be a virtually stock F4U-1A Corsair ... except for the old ADF receiver. We're working on that one.

Come to Chino and see it any time. look on our website for the dates when it will be flying. (PlanesofFame.org)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrumpyBadger (Nov 2, 2013)

Greg,

I do love that Corsair. I've visited the museum a couple times in the past. That Corsair is pretty much the start of my love of WWII aviation and especially the Corsair. I was eight or so when I first saw her take flight. I was hooked from then on. I was also pretty young my first visit to the museum. It was when y'all first got the Zero up into the air and had the P-38 fly with her. Those are some great memories I'll never forget.

I've been working on a "skin" for IL2 based on your Corsair.


----------



## Timppa (Nov 3, 2013)

GregP said:


> The F2G Corsair was considerably better than 4,400 fpm! From a standstill it cold reach 9150 meters in 4 minutes. That's 30,019 feet in 4 mintes for an average of 7,500 feet per minute from sea level to over 30,000 feet. It was about 1,000 pounds heavier than an F4U-1A empty and grossed about 1,000 pounds less than the F4U-1A, so it was actually lighter at heavier loadings with 50% more power.
> 
> According to Bob Odegaard, who used to fly into the Planes of Fame every once in awhile in his F2G, it had no trouble outclimbing anything he ever climbed against up until 3rd-generation jets .. and he wasn't far behind them in a lot of cases. He flew with a LOT of airplanes and knew what he was talking about.



Frankly my baloney meter pegged right on these numbers. 
F2G 1,000 lbs lighter than F4U-1A ? Operational plane ?
9150 metres in 4 minutes ?

FYI ,a second generation jet, the F-104 could climb 9,000 metres (~30,000 ft) in 81.14 seconds.
That is about 22,000 ft per minute. MiG-21 , and some others were in the same class. 
Try follow them in a climb in any prop plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 3, 2013)

You're right. I should have said first-deneration jets like the F-86, MiG-15, mystere, etc.


----------



## DVH (Nov 10, 2013)

Miss identification was commonplace. The americans tended to call all japanese fighters zeros, and the japanese called the p40 spitfires. The ki 61 was labelled as both an me 109 and a macci before the type was properly identified.
When you are flying combat, it must be difficult to make a decent id. Combat reports are notorious for innaccuracies about lots of details


----------



## GregP (Nov 10, 2013)

I'm pretty sure it WAS hard to make an accurate ID until you were a combat veteran. Then it was easier since you had seen them enough times without being killed to make a decent ID.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2013)

There was also the issue of Allied Intelligence's initial inability to distinguish between one Japanese aircraft type and another, which tended to frustrate those at the front line's attempts at assessing their enemy.

This discussion of Corsair versus Zero is a very uneven and certainly loaded one - ridiculously so and smacks of patriotic intent in its suggestion. Because although both types met each other in combat they were both so very different in philosophy and execution that comparison is extremely difficult. Conceived before the war in a different age and without the benefit of military hindsight the F4U designers possessed when conceiving their new fighter, the A6M was a compromise between old ideals and new technologies, but executed with a panache not normally associated with an Asian nation - Japan, of course was Asia's first superpower and was consequently very proud of this achievement. When introduced into service to replace the A5M from the same design team - itself an ultra-modern design when first unveiled in the early 1930s, the Type '0' Carrier Fighter symbolised the rebirth of an ancient Empire that was rapidly becoming a powerhouse on the world stage, but with a foot firmly in the past with its emulation of the earlier aircraft's manoeuvrability. Its spiritual, if not technological equal was the Hawker Hurricane- itself a potent symbol of military might that bridged the gap between old and new, but also a child of the business of military expansionism; the Hurricane was subject to the biggest order for military aircraft in British history up to that time, before the war broke out.

The Corsair was everything the Zero was not. It was big, powerful and American in ideal and two aircraft that carried out the same role could not be any more different than these two machines. The Americans were not so circumspect in the Corsair's concept; it meant business, like the American approach to the war; there was no room for spiritual overtones and symbolism - the Japanese always accused the Americans of being Spiritually lazy, but if anyone understood the capitalistic approach to the war and the benefits that came with that, it was the Americans and the F4U evolved into what it was as a result of this. Unlike the Zero, the F4U was uncompromising, brutal almost, and supremely business like.

So a comparison between the Zero and F4U can be compared with the titanic struggle between two polar opposite Empires at war, one old and wisened and the other young and courageous. Ultimately the fight becomes one of idealism, but what emerges in the midst is a battle of intellect; tenacity and blind faith with only go so far in this fight, as both the British, the Germans and the Americans all learned in WW2, but the Japanese failed to do so. Their failing, a lack of anticipation of how their enemies would react to their own global posturing cost them dearly; as the former three waged a war of countermeasures and one-upmanship in Europe, the Japanese clung desperately to romantic ideals that offered no satisfactory conclusion for them. And that was the fate of the Mitsubishi Zero at the hands of the United States Navy equipped with the F4U Corsair (and other types, need it be said).

Zero versus F4U = Japan versus the United States?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 10, 2013)

Even some combat veterans made mistakes. Going by combat reports an awful lot of He 113s were shot down during the BoB. 

Me 109s were shot down in the south pacific.


----------



## GregP (Nov 11, 2013)

Hi Nuumann,

What is "American Design?" The Corsair isn't "American," it is a logical development of the previous Vought planes.

It isn't spiritual in any way, it is a good fighter with good speed, good roll rate, good turn rate, and decent armament.

What the heck are you thinking?


----------



## CobberKane (Nov 11, 2013)

The Corsair was a generation beyond the Zero, with a performance advantage that left the Japanese fighter in a purely defensive mode. To put it in perspective, the Corsairs maximum speed in level flight was greater than the A6M2s maximum permissible speed in a dive. There was no way for the Zero to gain the initiative unless it began the fight with a big energy advantage, or the Corsair pilot was dumb enough to slow down to speeds where the Japanese fighter performed better. Defensively, the Zero could still outmanoeuvre the Corsair at low to moderate speeds, but this was a defensive advantage only; ultimately the Zero could twist and turn as much as it liked, but eventually the Corsair pilot would get his deflection shot right, and one burst was generally enough.
Regarding the Zero’s supposed derivation from the Hughs racer – baloney. They were built in entirely different ways. The Zero’s wings were built as part of the fuselage – the Hughs racer’s wings and fuselage weren’t even made of the same material . In fact, the Zero looks a lot more like the Gloster F5/34, another aircraft it had nothing to do with. The fact is the Japanese produced indigenous designs throughout the war that were the equal of anything the Allies had. It was production capacity that limited them, not innovation.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2013)

The Corsair was about one year newer than the Zero, starting with the initial design specifications/design competitions. First flights were about 5 months apart. Engines take much longer to develop ( or did at that time) And the US had 1600-1850-2000hp engines much closer to production than the Japanese did. The Japanese may have been a generation behind in engine development but not a generation behind in aerodynamics or structures. 

How you design a fighter with under 1000hp available (initial Zero/Ki 43) and how you design one with 1700-2000hp available ( F4U/F6F/P-47) are very different. And they don't have a lot do to "National Philosophies" or spiritualism. 

The Japanese Navy may have been much more pragmatic in their approach to things than the Army. The code of Bushido only goes so far when dealing with 14" naval guns and 1 ton (and up) torpedoes. The Navy demanded and got virtually the same cannon that were in the Bf 109E and they demanded them BEFORE the BoB. They took the hit on maneuverability (the Zero does NOT out turn the Ki 43) in order to get "world class" fire power, at least world class as understood in in 1939/40. 

The Japanese aircraft designers (and in many cases the air staff/s) were as up to date as anybody else. They spent too much time and money on too many different projects and too much infighting between the services (NOBODY used more different types of guns and ammo in planes than the Japanese, because the Army and Navy could not, WOULD NOT agree to co-operate).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Nov 11, 2013)

I understand what nuuuuman is saying and on the whole I agree with him. Although I'm sure that none of that is exactly what the designers of each country were trying to achieve.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 11, 2013)

Thank you, Chris.

Methinks you guys are taking it a bit out of context... I'm not saying that is why the F4U or even the Zero were designed the way they were, but the differences between the aircraft can be equated to the idealogical differences between the two nations at war. Also, the symbolism of the Zero is pertinent here; I woulda thought that was obvious, as for the F4U - re-read what I said - although both types had their first flights a year apart, they are worlds apart in design and philosophy. 

As for 'American design', it means its designed in America (and if the F4U wasn't 'American' what was it, Greg?) and all that entails; big engine, big cockpit, big on power... Geez, do I have to explain _EVERYTHING_ to you guys?


----------



## Njaco (Nov 11, 2013)

you forgot the 'smiley' emoticon!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Thank you, Chris.
> 
> Methinks you guys are taking it a bit out of context... I'm not saying that is why the F4U or even the Zero were designed the way they were, but the differences between the aircraft can be equated to the idealogical differences between the two nations at war. Also, the symbolism of the Zero is pertinent here; I woulda thought that was obvious, as for the F4U - re-read what I said - although both types had their first flights a year apart, they are worlds apart in design and philosophy.
> 
> As for 'American design', it means its designed in America (and if the F4U wasn't 'American' what was it, Greg?) and all that entails; big engine, big cockpit, big on power... Geez, do I have to explain _EVERYTHING_ to you guys?



It "can be equated to the idealogical differences" but that is reading an awful lot into things _after_ the fact. 

The Japanese had limited choices for engines and both the KI 43 ( a plane perhaps more suited to this "Japanese ideological difference" in that it placed more emphasis on pilot skill than even the Zero) and the first choice, the Mitsubishi Zuisei came up a bit short on power at the time in question. Both Japanese planes replaced the Zuisei with the Sakae after just a few prototypes. The Bigger Japanese radials at the time were considered bomber engines ( something the US didn't do, categorize engines) and were larger, heavier engines that would not give the range required. 

I would note that the F4U was _extensively_ modified from prototype to first production model and gained 1447lbs in empty weight and 2680lbs in loaded (clean) weight. Wing loading was originally just under 30lb per sq ft and while not as low as some aircraft it was lower than a 109E. The original three .50 cal and one .30 cal gun were hardly the standards the US would use in it's service aircraft but certainly don't give a huge advantage over the early Zero armament. 
The Japanese will NOT see an engine of the power class of the R-2800 fly in prototype aircraft until 1942/43, two years behind the R-2800. 

It was not a question of _national ideology_ but a Question of what they could actually build. 

The Zero did become a symbol for the Japanese but it became a symbol because it could actually do the job _better_ than they hoped, at least for the first 1/2 year of the war. 

AS for Japanese Navy philosophy or ideology.

Work started on the J2M Radian in October 1938 on a high speed, fast climbing plane vs maneuverable and long ranged plane. Shortage of engineering staff and other problems caused long delays. Aboutone year passed before official specifecation was drawn up for one thing. 

In 1940 the Japanese Navy issues the 16-Shi specification for replacement for the Zero. Again, the shortage of engineering staff and preoccupation with building/improving existing types causes the program to be put on hold and brought up again in April 1942 as the 17-Shi specification (2 months before Midway) that leads to the A7M Reppu. 







a 332 sq ft wing area aircraft that went over 10,000lbs clean. 

Shortage of industrial capacity (including trained engineers) meant the Zero soldiered on with minor improvements far too long, and better replacements were too late and too few, not because of ideology or philosophy that small and light and pilot skill would carry the day.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 11, 2013)

> It "can be equated to the idealogical differences" but that is reading an awful lot into things after the fact.



That is EXACTLY what he was offering - an observation after the fact. And I agree with many of his points. Very nice mind exercise.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2013)

It is an interesting mind exercise.

My problem with it is that the basic premise doesn't hold up too well according to the time line and facts. 



> Conceived before the war in a different age and without the benefit of military hindsight the F4U designers possessed when conceiving their new fighter, the A6M was a compromise between old ideals and new technologies, but executed with a panache not normally associated with an Asian nation - Japan, of course was Asia's first superpower and was consequently very proud of this achievement.



The Corsair was conceived in the first half 1938. Contract for the prototype was placed June 11th 1938. The F4U designers had NO military hindsight when they laid out _their_ new fighter. They may have modified it in late 1940 and 1941 with the benefit of British combat experience, production contract for 584 planes was placed June 30th 1941, all modifications from original prototype are already agreed to. 

The Japanese had every right to be proud of the A6M but it was firmly on the side of new technologies. It used new alloys, the new construction methods and so on. Getting the cannon for it was also a saga in it self. It took several retired admirals setting up a company to licence the Oerlikon gun to get it into production in 1938/39. Negotiations had started in 1936 for the licencing of the guns and the first company approached (Japan Special Steel Comapany,Ltd.) was acquired by the army as negotiations neared completion. Several other companies were approached and refused. The 20mm guns were not an after thought but a fundamental part of the design. The weight of the installed armament being almost 3 times the weight of the armament in the early Ki43 fighters. Part of the light weight and maneuverability were a by product of the take-off and landing speeds needed for carrier operations and the range requirement. 




> When introduced into service to replace the A5M from the same design team - itself an ultra-modern design when first unveiled in the early 1930s



The A5M first flew in Feb 1935 (10 months before the Hawker Hurricane) and didn't enter service until 1936. First prototype/s used 550-600hp engines, production planes used 785hp engines max at times when US fighters were using 900-950 hp radial engines. 
The A5M was all metal stressed skin construction unlike the fabric covered early Hurricanes. 



> the Type '0' Carrier Fighter symbolised the rebirth of an ancient Empire that was rapidly becoming a powerhouse on the world stage, but with a foot firmly in the past with its emulation of the earlier aircraft's manoeuvrability. Its spiritual, if not technological equal was the Hawker Hurricane- itself a potent symbol of military might that bridged the gap between old and new, but also a child of the business of military expansionism;



The Zero didn't symbolize anything until it was used in combat as it's stable mates, the Nakajima B5N2 and the Aichi D3A1 were also expected to do their part in establishing Japanese Naval air power along with the land based Mitsubishi G3M which was to be replaced by the G4M as soon as possible. Requirement for the G4M was issued in Sept 1937 and first flight by prototype was 23rd Oct 1939. 

The Japanese were very inventive. Their engineers were skilled and up to date. The Navy air staff had few illusions about individual combat between fighters.

They were limited by the numbers of engineers available, the engines available, the production facilities available and the vast areas they were trying to (or planning to) operate over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Nov 11, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> ...snip...
> The Japanese had limited choices for engines and both the KI 43 ( a plane perhaps more suited to this "Japanese ideological difference" in that it placed more emphasis on pilot skill than even the Zero) and the first choice, the Mitsubishi Zuisei came up a bit short on power at the time in question. Both Japanese planes replaced the Zuisei with the Sakae after just a few prototypes. The Bigger Japanese radials at the time were considered bomber engines ( something the US didn't do, categorize engines) and were larger, heavier engines that would not give the range required.
> ...snip...


The IJN could have used a more powerful engine. 

The obvious alternative was the Kinsei that was used in A6M8. A contemporary of the A6M2 would have used the Kinsei 44, also used in the D3A1, giving 1070 hp at 4200 m at 2500 rpm. The A6M3 equivalent would have used the Kinsei 51 like the D3A2 giving perhaps 1200 hp at 3000 m at 2500 rpm (1300 hp for take off at 2600 rpm). The A6M5 equivalent would have been the A6M8. We can calculate the performance of all those imaginary versions from the A6M8 but note that the A6M8 had thicker skinning that the A6M2 to give a 400 knot dive speed, a heavier armament and even had some armour (armoured windscreen and an 8mm seat). The Kinsei 62 of the A6M8 gave 1340 hp at 2100 m and 1190hp at 5800 m. I am guessing that those imaginary fighters would be a little tougher and faster diving and very slightly faster but would climb and turn slower and would have significantly less range. Of course, they might alternatively have had the A6M2 wings with lower dive speeds.

The next step up would use the Nakajima Ha 41 giving 1260 hp at 3700 m at 2450 rpm. Unfortunately, the Ha-41 may have been up to a year behind the Sakae and Kinsei as the Ki 44 was running a year behind the Zero with its prototype first flying in August 1940 (the earlier Ha-5 gave 1160 hp at 3700 m at 2450 rpm and would have been available). Also the Ha 41 was 1,260 mm in diameter (the Sakae was 1,150 mm and the Kinsei 1,218 mm). This series of engines wasn't either Nakajima's or Japan's first priority for development. The Ha 109 of the Ki 44 II gave 1520 hp at 2650 rpm for take off and military powers at 2600 rpm of 1440 hp at 2100 m and 1320 hp at 5200 m but there was never a version with water/methanol injection. We may be able to guess at the ultimate potential by looking at the Ha 44-12 of 1945 which used 18 rather than 14 cylinders and gave 2450 hp at 2800 rpm for take off and at 2700 rpm gave military powers of 2350 hp at 1100 m and 2200 hp at 4400 m. The problem is trying to imagine what an aircraft built to something like the Zero specification with a Ha-41 would have looked like. A comparison of the Ki 84 and the A7M1 suggests that it wouldn't have had the Ki 44's performance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2013)

DVH said:


> Miss identification was commonplace. The americans tended to call all japanese fighters zeros, and the japanese called the p40 spitfires. The ki 61 was labelled as both an me 109 and a macci before the type was properly identified.
> When you are flying combat, it must be difficult to make a decent id. Combat reports are notorious for innaccuracies about lots of details



In the beginning of the war many combatant aircraft were misidentified, you're painting every situation with a broad brush.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 12, 2013)

cherry blossom said:


> The IJN could have used a more powerful engine.
> 
> The obvious alternative was the Kinsei that was used in A6M8. A contemporary of the A6M2 would have used the Kinsei 44, also used in the D3A1, giving 1070 hp at 4200 m at 2500 rpm. The A6M3 equivalent would have used the Kinsei 51 like the D3A2 giving perhaps 1200 hp at 3000 m at 2500 rpm (1300 hp for take off at 2600 rpm). The A6M5 equivalent would have been the A6M8. We can calculate the performance of all those imaginary versions from the A6M8 but note that the A6M8 had thicker skinning that the A6M2 to give a 400 knot dive speed, a heavier armament and even had some armour (armoured windscreen and an 8mm seat). The Kinsei 62 of the A6M8 gave 1340 hp at 2100 m and 1190hp at 5800 m. I am guessing that those imaginary fighters would be a little tougher and faster diving and very slightly faster but would climb and turn slower and would have significantly less range. Of course, they might alternatively have had the A6M2 wings with lower dive speeds.
> 
> The next step up would use the Nakajima Ha 41 giving 1260 hp at 3700 m at 2450 rpm. Unfortunately, the Ha-41 may have been up to a year behind the Sakae and Kinsei as the Ki 44 was running a year behind the Zero with its prototype first flying in August 1940 (the earlier Ha-5 gave 1160 hp at 3700 m at 2450 rpm and would have been available). Also the Ha 41 was 1,260 mm in diameter (the Sakae was 1,150 mm and the Kinsei 1,218 mm). This series of engines wasn't either Nakajima's or Japan's first priority for development. The Ha 109 of the Ki 44 II gave 1520 hp at 2650 rpm for take off and military powers at 2600 rpm of 1440 hp at 2100 m and 1320 hp at 5200 m but there was never a version with water/methanol injection. We may be able to guess at the ultimate potential by looking at the Ha 44-12 of 1945 which used 18 rather than 14 cylinders and gave 2450 hp at 2800 rpm for take off and at 2700 rpm gave military powers of 2350 hp at 1100 m and 2200 hp at 4400 m. *The problem is trying to imagine what an aircraft built to something like the Zero specification with a Ha-41 would have looked like. A comparison of the Ki 84 and the A7M1 suggests that it wouldn't have had the Ki 44's performance.*



Interesting post. 
Another thing to consider is the IJN's 'love affair' with floatplane fighters. They squandered the limited resources to the 'Rex' (here), too. 
Re. bolded part - much of Shoki's speed was the consequence of the plane's smallish wing,.


----------



## cherry blossom (Nov 12, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> ...snip...
> Re. bolded part - much of Shoki's speed was the consequence of the plane's smallish wing,.


Agreed, although I dont know how efficient it was. The A7M wing had much more area than a Ki 84 wing, which was one reason that the A7M1 was slower than a Ki 84 with the same engine.



tomo pauk said:


> ...snip...
> Another thing to consider is the IJN's 'love affair' with floatplane fighters. They squandered the limited resources to the 'Rex' (here), too.
> ....


That opens up the question of how a 1942 version of the N1K2-J with a Mitsubishi Kasei would have performed as an example if the IJN had chosen to use the biggest engine that was in production at the start of the Pacific War and which powered the G4M. 

It is not hard to find the power of a 1941-2 Kasei, which weighed about 720 kg. An early Kasei, Ha 32-11, gave 1530 hp at 2450 rpm for take off and at 2350 rpm gave military powers of 1480 hp at 2200 m and 1380 hp at 4100 m. Perhaps the Ha 32-13 version with the extension shaft for the J2M might be more relevant as it had a supercharger optimised for higher altitude but I don't know if the higher weight of 770 kg and the lower military rpm were due to the extension shaft. That model gave 1460 hp for take off with military powers of 1420 hp at 2000 m and 1300 hp at 6000 m.

Unfortunately, we don't have generally agreed data on the actual performance of the N1K2-J or its Homare 21 engine, so we cannot simply calculate a speed with a cube root. We might believe Nakajima that the heavier, 830 kg, but narrower Homare gave 1900 hp at 2000 m and 1700 hp at 6400 m but Mitsubishi would tell you that the A7M1 engine only gave about 1300 hp at altitude. 

Something like a Kasei powered N1K2-J would have had a higher landing speed than any Zero or a A7M2 Reppu but might possibly have been able to operate from carriers. It would surely have had a lower speed than 312 kt at 6,000 m quoted for the J2M1 Raiden with a smaller wing (20 m² versus 23.5 m²) at Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Thunderbolt). However, it might still have been at least as fast as an A6M2 or even an A6M3 and would have speeded up significantly when using later Kasei engines with water methanol injection.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 12, 2013)

Cherry B, some questions:


> I am guessing that those imaginary fighters would be a little tougher and faster diving and very slightly faster* but would climb and turn slower* and would have significantly less range.



Why should we assume that up-engined Zeros would've featured lower RoC than historical ones?



> Something like a Kasei powered N1K2-J would have had a higher landing speed than any Zero or a A7M2 Reppu but might possibly have been able to operate from carriers. It would surely have had a lower speed than 312 kt at 6,000 m quoted for the J2M1 Raiden with a smaller wing (20 m² versus 23.5 m²) at Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Thunderbolt). However, it might still have been at least as fast as an A6M2 or even an A6M3 and would have speeded up significantly when using later Kasei engines with water methanol injection.



Equivalent of the Seafire, but with longer range maybe? The 'Rex' was rather light, 6067 lbs, while having 2 cannons aboard, and range (1000+ miles, internal fuel only?) was useful.


----------



## cherry blossom (Nov 12, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Why should we assume that up-engined Zeros would've featured lower RoC than historical ones.


I was being illogical by comparing a A6M8 refitted with a lower powered Kinsei with a A6M2. The extra weight of the Kinsei is a factor but I was assuming that the A6M2 equivalent also had stronger wings, heavier armament, some armour and self sealing fuel tanks. We can see the consequences of those additions by looking at Zero Facts and Figures, where we see that the A6M2 climbed to 5000 m in 5min 55sec while the A6M5c took 5min 50sec. Thus the extra weight almost exactly compensated for the extra power. The A6M8 although still heavier was the fastest climbing variant reaching 6,000 m in 6min 50sec compared to 7min 27sec for the A6M2, 7min 19sec for the A6M3 and 7min 1sec for the A6M5a. (note that the fastest climbing Sakae model is the A6M5a which is about 600 lbs lighter than the A6M5c empty).

My only excuse is that we can calculate the performance of my imaginary aircraft using the A6M8 data.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 13, 2013)

No need for excuses, I appreciate your posts. We all know that, for example, Spitfires climbed better with every new series of engines mounted, despite increased weights.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Nov 13, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Geez, do I have to explain _EVERYTHING_ to you guys?



Well maybe yes. 

I sometimes think this forum is a place to come when one has an urge to be misunderstood… 

I think I understood what you were trying to say…


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 13, 2013)

SR6, I think you are taking nitpicking to a new level (the J2M Raiden was not designed as a carrier fighter; not the same as the Zero) - and, yes Chris, I forgot the smiley emoticon! As for hindsight, yep, that's why I wrote my paragraph - it's about hindsight, but I think my comment still stands about attempting to compare the two aircraft of a similar level; both are so very different in almost every way. 

Here you go, Chris  This is because I've just got back from taking a close look at the RNZAF Museum's newly restored P-40 yesterday, which looks fantastic and I can't stop smiling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DVH (Nov 16, 2013)

Abolutely its a broad brush, but certainly not limited to the early years, nor every situation.
Friendly fire incidents were and still are common. Thats mis identification. This happened in all fronts throughout the war. For example, ive read how american pilots ignored luftwaffe aircraft and attacked. Russians during the later years. But even this account is. By its nature unreliable.
My point is that most of the cases put in this thread are based on testament of battle from over 70 yeras ago. Those statements were flawed even at the time, for example, kill counts were wildly innaccurate. In the heat of the moment, its all very unreliable. Add the huge time gap and even with documents to back a case, its far from solid.


----------



## N4521U (Nov 16, 2013)

Oh geez, it's so easy................ Corsair wins!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 16, 2013)

> Oh geez, it's so easy................ Corsair wins!



20 pages and you sum it up in one sentence! Brilliant!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## proton45 (Nov 16, 2013)

IDK...except for the fact they both saw action in the pacific, its kind of a weird comparison. The A6M entered combat status in 1940, and was largely designed to combat the fighters found in the Pacific at the time...that and extended range. The F4U entered combat in 1942 and was designed to combat fighters...like the A6M and KI-43.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 16, 2013)

While the F4U didn't enter service until 1942 ir was NOT designed to combat the A6M and Ki-43. It was designed in 1938-39 and first flew in 1940.


----------



## proton45 (Nov 16, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> While the F4U didn't enter service until 1942 ir was NOT designed to combat the A6M and Ki-43. It was designed in 1938-39 and first flew in 1940.



well its true that development plans where originally set down in 1939...however the F4U was designed to meet fighters that met the specification's of fighters like the A6M Ki-43. To be more accurately stated.

Edit...I dont really think that the point I was raising is altered. Had an engine (that met the spec, set down in 1940) been available, the A7M (the "zero's" replacement) would have been an interesting opponent to debate, but alas...it never came to be.


----------



## DVH (Nov 17, 2013)

Its tempting to say corsair, thats easy. Faster, better armed, better armament, more advanced. Design etc.
But despite all that, i cant imagine the corsair out turning, manouvering an a6m. Its a bigger, heavier aircraft. 
Does this mean that combat wise theres a winner? Thats down to tactics. 
Straight on turning dogfight, maybe zero, but the corsair would probably absorb fire, zero definately not.
Pilot skills also a factor
All that said, the more effective combatant, corsair.


----------



## CobberKane (Nov 19, 2013)

It’s certainly true that the Zero would easily beat the Corsair in a sub-250mph, low altitude dogfight. Equally the Corsair would dominate at higher altitudes and higher speeds. What has to be kept in mind is initiative; the Corsairs greater power and superior high speed handling meant that if it initiated the attack it could choose to fight in an envelope where it was clearly the better fighter, and if attacked while operating at a lower speed where the Zero exceled it could (given any altitude) quickly get back to where it wanted to be by diving. The Zero on the other hand could only hope to maintain the initiative if it caught the Corsair low and slow, a situation the Corsair pilot should be trained and equipped to avoid. Hence the Zero’s low speed prowess is going to determine tactics much more than outcomes. 
The progress in fighter development throughout the war was towards more power, more speed and, necessarily, more weight because such aircraft were usually able to dominate opposition designed for agility. Particularly when that agility was enabled by lack of armour and self- sealing tanks, as with the Zero . Very often we see descriptions of a given fighter’s abilities compared to its opposition qualified with an ‘if’, as in ‘the P-40 was a match for the 109 IF it engaged below 15000 ft. and without an altitude deficit’ or ‘the Zero remained a dangerous opponent IF the Corsair pilot attempted to fight low and slow’. I think these ‘ifs’ often serve as a tacit acknowledgement of the subject fighter’s deficiencies, and the fact that the aircraft it is being compared to was, qualifications aside, a better aerial weapon.


----------



## cudwo (Oct 30, 2015)

Cougar said:


> This is probually one of the most famous pair of planes of the pacific theater. The corsair, very manuverable tough and fast (417mph), one of the biggest fighters of the war with its massive 18 cylinder double wasp R-4360 raidial engine puting out 3,600 hp that spun the huge 13 foot 3 blade prop. It was feared by zero pilots. Six 50 cals could tear the zero apart and could sink small ships It was a leap in avaiation technology with new ways of making the fusalage more drag resistant and the gull wing to prevent the prop from hitting the deck of a carrier. Its combat carrier didnt stop after the war. Its bombing capabilitys were also acceptable and was used in korea and could carry 4500lbs of ordanance. and even shot a few migs down.
> The zero,a copied design of howard hughes racer. at the start of the war was feared by american pilots it was very agile and fast compared to the wildcat. being very lite it only had a 900 hp 14cylinder double row raidial engine. It armerment was small ,two 7.7 mm machine guns in the nose and two 20mm cannons in the wings.
> Until the corsair arrived the zero ruled the sky's but when the Corsair came it was majorly outclassed and was slaughtred. The Corsair was obviously the supirior fighter.
> 
> What do you think???



Corsair had 2000 HP not 3500 (but still very impressive).It was a great land based fighter but a horrible carrier base fighter.The Americans discontinued the Corsair from Aircraft Carrier use until the British figured out how to land on a Carrier and Take off from a Carrier with the Corsair.After the British Re-trained the Americans ,only then was it used in the South Pacific off American aircraft carriers.British also had to modify a few things to make this work.Remember you couldnt see what was ahead of you in this aircraft.Thats why they fish tail down the run way to line up B4 takeoff.Sometimes they had a soldier sit on each wing to taxi them.....Great Fighter though when it got airbourne


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2015)

cudwo said:


> Corsair had 2000 HP not 3500 (but still very impressive).It was a great land based fighter but a horrible carrier base fighter.The Americans discontinued the Corsair from Aircraft Carrier use until the British figured out how to land on a Carrier and Take off from a Carrier with the Corsair.After the British Re-trained the Americans ,only then was it used in the South Pacific off American aircraft carriers.British also had to modify a few things to make this work.Remember you couldnt see what was ahead of you in this aircraft.Thats why they fish tail down the run way to line up B4 takeoff.Sometimes they had a soldier sit on each wing to taxi them.....Great Fighter though when it got airbourne



FYI - this thread has been dead for 2 years.


----------



## bakters (Dec 15, 2015)

I tried it in a sim. I know it's just a game with various inaccuracies and plain stupidities, but since it doesn't matter much which plane I'm flying against a Zero, I somehow don't think that it has exactly zero (pardon the pun) meaning.

Spitfire seems the easiest, but even with that plane I can't really gain an obvious advantage. Just like with any other plane, all I'm able to do is force a head-on attack and be "brave" about it. Easy to do in a sim, I know. 

So why do I write all this? I read the whole thread (hard to believe, but true) and I do not think I'm able to grasp how come it was supposedly so "easy" to win a one-on-one dogfight against the Zeke. Until my opponents makes an obvious mistake, I can't ever get a good shot at him. Bots do make mistakes, so do I, but it's never easy. 

What exactly I'm supposed to do to make it "easy". Many people argued that it would be "easy" to outmaneuver the Zeke while staying at high speed. Go ahead and "maneuver" while staying at high speed... I can't do that. Diving and turning, diving and rolling, nothing really works. Actually, just diving and jinking is the most effective way of getting out of range, but who knows, I may be doing it 'rong.

On the other hand, me in a Zeke and a bot in a "fastplane" is quick and clean. They never get their sights anywhere near me before they die.

So what exactly I'm supposed to do in a "fastplane", to never give the Zeke a chance to shoot at me and kill it cleanly?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2015)

bakters said:


> I tried it in a sim. I know it's just a game with various inaccuracies and plain stupidities, but since it doesn't matter much which plane I'm flying against a Zero, I somehow don't think that it has exactly zero (pardon the pun) meaning.
> 
> Spitfire seems the easiest, but even with that plane I can't really gain an obvious advantage. Just like with any other plane, all I'm able to do is force a head-on attack and be "brave" about it. Easy to do in a sim, I know.
> 
> ...



Spot your enemy, attack in his blind side, shoot him down, go home.


----------



## GregP (Dec 15, 2015)

The Zero was not related to Howard Hughes' racer in any way. That's old WWII-era propaganda. It was an original design by Jiro Horikoshi. His next design was the J2M Raiden, also an original design and unrelated to any other aircraft. It was related by company and designer only.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2015)

bakters said:


> I tried it in a sim. I know it's just a game with various inaccuracies and plain stupidities, but since it doesn't matter much which plane I'm flying against a Zero, I somehow don't think that it has exactly zero (pardon the pun) meaning.
> 
> Spitfire seems the easiest, but even with that plane I can't really gain an obvious advantage. Just like with any other plane, all I'm able to do is force a head-on attack and be "brave" about it. Easy to do in a sim, I know.
> 
> ...


2Lt. Walsh, USMC MoH DFC (21 victories), of VMF-124 once said of the Corsair:


> I learned quickly that altitude was paramount. Whoever had altitude dictated the terms of the battle, and there was nothing a Zero pilot could do to change that — we had him. The F4U could outperform a Zero in every aspect except slow speed manoeuvrability and slow speed rate of climb. Therefore you avoided getting slow when combating a Zero. It took time but eventually we developed tactics and deployed them very effectively... There were times, however, that I tangled with a Zero at slow speed, one on one. In these instances I considered myself fortunate to survive a battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2015)

Can you use a sim 200 miles over water from anyone that will rescue you, and instead of re starting the game jump in the water? I wouldnt besmirch any servicemans reputation but that last thing a pilot wants to do in combat is to "be brave", much better to use what you have to give the opponent no chance.

As someones quote on here says, "if it is a fair fight, you did something wrong"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> 2Lt. Walsh, USMC MoH DFC (21 victories), of VMF-124 once said of the Corsair:



I found this today thumbing through an old book...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Dec 15, 2015)

bakters said:


> I tried it in a sim. I know it's just a game with various inaccuracies and plain stupidities, but since it doesn't matter much which plane I'm flying against a Zero, I somehow don't think that it has exactly zero (pardon the pun) meaning.
> 
> Spitfire seems the easiest, but even with that plane I can't really gain an obvious advantage. Just like with any other plane, all I'm able to do is force a head-on attack and be "brave" about it. Easy to do in a sim, I know.
> 
> ...


Get above it and dive on it. Dogfighting it is playing to its strength.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I found this today thumbing through an old book...
> 
> View attachment 307744


That's awesome!

I wish I would have had the foresight to have collected autographs from the guys that I met - but I was young and thought these guys would be around forever...


----------



## GregP (Dec 15, 2015)

If I read that right, it is Ken Walsh (21 kills). Right? Great you got that one! Better put it under glass and keep it safe, huh? Have any more?

With all the people you have met in the business, my bet is there's more than one.

I have framed aircraft prints signed by Erich Hartmann (Bf 109G), Saburo Sakai (A6M5), and Ivan Kozhedub (La-5FN). They are safely wrapped up right now, but I'll likely never give them up until I pass away, at which time they'll hopefully go where I want them to go. I won't be able to affect it other than to have said where I want them to go. Hopefully I manage to get them out and hang them when I get into a place where I can unpack my household goods. Since I moved from a 2800 sq foot house into a small apartment, there just isn't room right now.


----------



## bakters (Dec 15, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> 2Lt. Walsh, USMC MoH DFC (21 victories), of VMF-124 once said of the Corsair:


Oh, I get it. It's not supposed to be easy? Now it all makes more sense. It even explains why I had the most success in a Spit, because the Spit has better climb rate than the Zeke, so it's possible to slowly gain on him and get the altitude advantage.

Playing unfair - Yes, of course. In the real world that's what I would do, but in a sim I'm just trying to figure out how to fight when the enemy is aware of me and can react. In a better plane I should not need to play unfair to win if I do everything right.

Dive from altitude - So I hold all the cards? Better and faster plane with both speed and altitude advantage? As unfair as it can be, baring the other guy flies blind. I tried that, and that's how it works when playing against humans.

1. You attack from altitude.
2. The Zeke sees you, but pretends not to (easier that way, I guess).
3. When it's too late for you to correct, the Zeke makes a lazy turn under your nose or some other evasive maneuver.
4. Now there are two options
a.) You zoom up and try to follow with another quick attack, hoping you will catch him somehow. FOOLISH! But everybody knows that, so let's forget about it.
b.) You do not zoom, but extend away, even keep on diving.
5. A stupid Zeke might try to follow you in a dive, but a smart one will climb at his optimal (slow) climbing speed. (Or he might follow... You never know, especially in a Corsair with poor rear visibility.)

So the end result is, that you expended a fair amount of your energy in a dive while the Zeke expended a tiny bit while going evasive, but then steadily gains! Any quick follow up attack will mean that the energy states became closer.

Seriously, I will try an I-153 Russian biplane if it's modeled. Should be fun.


----------



## GregP (Dec 16, 2015)

Sims don't replicate combat very well.

They make for good games because the stakes are zero. In real combat, if you guess wrong, you may die ... quickly or slowly in the water, snow, etc. .. wherever you go down if you don't die immediately when you get shot down.

*Nobody *makes the same decisions when their life is at stake as when they're playing a game.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 16, 2015)

bakters said:


> 2. The Zeke sees you ...



This is the big one. Most online competitive sims have bright, coloured icons over friend and foe alike, drastically changing (ruining) the most important aspect of WWII aerial combat.

I'd have to see video of your tactics to make a real comment. But if you want to triple or quadruple your success with a real Corsair tactic that's guaranteed to work in the game; _always fly with a wingman_.


----------



## bakters (Dec 16, 2015)

"If you see one Zero, run! You are being outnumbered!" - That's what you mean? 

More seriously, I chimed in because from what I've tried in games, fighting any fighter with superior climb rate one-vs-one is difficult! Fighting an airplane with superior climb rate and unmatched maneuverability is extremely difficult, if the other guy knows what he's doing. 

And there is no "I win!" button you can press by going boom&zoom way. Yes, you can and should refuse to turn with the light plane, but he can and should refuse to follow you in a dive. In the end it boils down to who can get above the other guy, and here the climb rate is the crucial factor.


----------



## bakters (Dec 16, 2015)

Greyman said:


> This is the big one. Most online competitive sims have bright, coloured icons over friend and foe alike, drastically changing (ruining) the most important aspect of WWII aerial combat.
> 
> I'd have to see video of your tactics to make a real comment. But if you want to triple or quadruple your success with a real Corsair tactic that's guaranteed to work in the game; _always fly with a wingman_.



If the solution is to either jump the other guy unawares or outnumber him, then it's pretty much conceding defeat, is it not? 

Just a thought that entered my head right now. I remember seeing on Youtube a propag... I mean a History Channel flick on Hellcats, and how they owned Zeros with absolute ease. Poor Japanese had no chance in their outdated slow acrobatic toys, if you believe in what was being said.

Then I read comments section and there was a guy claiming to fly hellcats in the war. I checked on him. A guy of his name really served on one carrier, he flown Hellcats and Corsairs in the war and had some victories to his name. *He must have felt really good learning that his job was practically a child's play...*

Anyway, he wrote that one-on-one Japanese had the advantage, but they never let them have a fair fight, and that's how they won.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 16, 2015)

bakters said:


> If the solution is to either jump the other guy unawares or outnumber him, then it's pretty much conceding defeat, is it not?



If by 'conceding defeat' you mean admitting that gladiatorial contest and knightly jousting are things of the past, then yes. As a fighter pilot (even a virtual one) your job is to tear the enemy in half the easiest, least dangerous way possible.


----------



## bakters (Dec 16, 2015)

Greyman said:


> If by 'conceding defeat' you mean admitting that gladiatorial contest and knightly jousting are things of the past, then yes. As a fighter pilot (even a virtual one) your job is to tear the enemy in half the easiest, least dangerous way possible.



And if the other guy sees me, then I run because I'm being "outnumbered"? That is defeat all right, in my book.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 16, 2015)

bakters said:


> And if the other guy sees me, then I run because I'm being "outnumbered"? That is defeat all right, in my book.



Bakters,

Running is not always to be associated with defeat. If I'm in a superior plane, in a very bad position even one on one, then I'm most likely running (mission dependent). I will run if on a pure fighter sweep because the my superiors, training, squadron, flight, crew chief, tax payers and loved ones expect me not to squander my life or their plane away. If I'm in a bad position, out numbered, but am protecting a High Value Asset, then I'm expendable and expected to inflict as much damage as I can before donating my life to the cause/mission.

Running allows you to learn what to avoid next time or get smarter, it saves the tax payers investment especially when the production lines are no longer opens and replacements are no longer being made, and it saves you life for future use.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 16, 2015)

Grayman is correct, fly with a wingman. Two guys working coordinated tactics are much more lethal than one very good guy alone.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## bakters (Dec 16, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Bakters,
> 
> Running is not always to be associated with defeat. If I'm in a superior plane, in a very bad position even one on one, then I'm most likely running (mission dependent). I will run if on a pure fighter sweep because the my superiors, training, squadron, flight, crew chief, tax payers and loved ones expect me not to squander my life or their plane away. If I'm in a bad position, out numbered, but am protecting a High Value Asset, then I'm expendable and expected to inflict as much damage as I can before donating my life to the cause/mission.
> 
> ...



Yes, of course I agree with everything you wrote. But what does it exactly mean that I am "in a very bad position"? Because if "the other guy is aware of me" is sufficient to be "in a very bad position", then maybe I'm not in a superior plane?

Teamwork is OP. Of course I know that, but both sides can play this game, and until it is shown to me that teamwork in a "fastplane" is more OP than in a "lightplane", then I consider it a non-issue.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 16, 2015)

Bakters,

What is OP?

A bad position is one in which you are not favored to win. You are correct in your understanding on aware, bad position, and superior plane.

Team work even in WW2 was effective. Unfortunately it's not talked about much on the History Channel because it's all about the shooter, not the shooters team / wingman. If you put two Eagle Drivers in a pair of Mustangs, got them comfortable with what it could or couldn't do, and threw them back in time to the "Big One", they would do very well in my opine. They would use formations similar to what the Germans flew, but would be much more flexible with passing the formation tactical leadership back and forth to allow the guy with the more favorable position to employ without fear of hitting or frating his wingman.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Greyman (Dec 16, 2015)

We'd really have to see a recording of your fight to give specifics. If you're in a faster, better-rolling aircraft, bouncing an enemy, and still being killed, you're definitely doing something wrong.

I can't say as to what without far more detail. 

Without knowing your starting point there are a hundred variables.

*Edit for Biff: *
OP = Over Powered. Generally from the video gaming community meaning something is very good in the game. In this case used as hyperbole.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2015)

bakters said:


> And if the other guy sees me, then I run because I'm being "outnumbered"? That is defeat all right, in my book.



I really do think you have forgotten what "sim" is short for, "defeat" in the real situation means you possibly/probably die depending on where you are. Running means you are still alive in an armed aircraft and can look to get into a situation of advantage later on that or another day.


----------



## bakters (Dec 16, 2015)

Greyman said:


> We'd really have to see a recording of your fight to give specifics. If you're in a faster, better-rolling aircraft, bouncing an enemy, and still being killed, you're definitely doing something wrong.
> 
> I can't say as to what without far more detail.
> 
> ...


I'm not being killed, I just can't get a shot at the Zero without giving him a chance to shoot back. As I wrote before, all I can do is bounce him, and abort when he turns toward me. Then I extend while guessing all the time where exactly he might be and what he decided to do. If he follows me, I need to extend further, if he decided to go elsewhere I should turn around in the vertical and bounce him again.

Seems easy, if the opponent does not climb toward me, which he should do. If he does, I can't bounce him from above after my turn-around, so I lose my energy advantage. The only way I can recover my energy advantage is when I'm in a better climbing plane, not just in a faster plane.

I hope it's clear enough. Sorry, but I don't feel like learning how to record game footage just to show my mediocre skills.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 16, 2015)

bakters said:


> ... I extend while *guessing all the time where exactly he might be* and what he decided to do.



Huge red flag here. Always keep sight of your opponent. If you're guessing where he is - he has the upper hand.




bakters said:


> If he follows me, I need to extend further, if he decided to go elsewhere I should turn around in the vertical and bounce him again.
> 
> Seems easy, if the opponent does not climb toward me, which he should do. If he does, I can't bounce him from above after my turn-around, so I lose my energy advantage. The only way I can recover my energy advantage is when I'm in a better climbing plane, not just in a faster plane.



Without more information my first guess is that you're underestimating his energy state before your bounce, or not attacking with enough of an energy advantage yourself.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2015)

bakters said:


> And if the other guy sees me, then I run because I'm being "outnumbered"? That is defeat all right, in my book.


Even the fastest, most heavily armed fighter in WWII (the Me262) would use their superior climbing ability to get away from the large numbers of the Allied escorts. To do otherwise was foolish. In the "olden days", a Knight would certainly stand his ground if challenged by another Knight - if the conditions dictated. But if that Knight looked around and saw that he was standing alone and the other Knight was approaching with a line of landsknechts (footmen), you can be sure that he would take to option to depart. There is no dishonor or cowardice in "turning tail" unless you committed to the duel (or tilt) in a verbal or written agreement (according to the code of chivalry) in the company of witness...it's called self preservation.

And the A6M was indeed a phenominal aircraft, but as the war progressed, the A6M was simply being outclassed. The newer, more powerful IJN or IJA types were being flown by the aces or experienced pilots and the A6M was being relegated to the junior and "FNG" pilots. The bottom line is, that the A6M was not a mysterious beast with mythical powers, it could be beaten by the F4F and even the SBD, both of which were a great deal behind the F6F in performance.

Years ago, when I flew SIMs, we used to keep flags, markers and icons off (full switch realism) - spins, flutter, blackout/redout, full engine management/overheat, accurate landing/takeoff, limited fuel and weather all turned on. That offered a fairly close approximation of the real deal...but was still far from the real deal, because it's a SIM.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bakters (Dec 16, 2015)

Greyman said:


> Huge red flag here. Always keep sight of your opponent. If you're guessing where he is - he has the upper hand.


Sure. How am I supposed to do it in a Corsair?


> Without more information my first guess is that you're underestimating his energy state before your bounce, or not attacking with enough of an energy advantage yourself.


How am I supposed to gain the energy advantage in a plane which climbs worse? If the other guy is doing his job, he will climb at his best speed while he follows me extending. He sees what I'm doing, while I'm guessing most of the time.


----------



## bakters (Dec 16, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> And the A6M was indeed a phenominal aircraft, but as the war progressed, the A6M was simply being outclassed.


 That's exactly what I am trying to figure out here. Was it really outclassed? As a carrier born fighter? So which fighter was so obviously superior? Hellcats couldn't match it for range and ease of operation, Corsairs were even worse in this role, at least early on. But both were obviously better at air combat, were they not?

Actually, it seems to me they were not obviously better at it...



> Years ago, when I flew SIMs, we used to keep flags, markers and icons off (full switch realism) - spins, flutter, blackout/redout, full engine management/overheat, accurate landing/takeoff, limited fuel and weather all turned on. That offered a fairly close approximation of the real deal...but was still far from the real deal, because it's a SIM.


I use the same game. There are better ones for a specific period and a few chosen planes, but with all the patches the old IL2 is the most versatile and the richest environment still.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2015)

The pluses of Hellcat vs. Zero: raw speed, durability (overall; plus particulary protection of fuel tanks that no Zero had, ever), folding wings (the CV can store more of them), weaponry equaly suited for attack on enemy fighters and bombers in the Pacific. The range of the Hellcat can be increased when having 3 drop tanks, so I don't believe the Zero had the edge here. Hellcat was equally well suited for novice and veteran pilots, there were no vices in handling. Speed was also important, the Allies have had bombers in service that Zero had problems catching.
So I'd say Hellcat was obviously better, the Corsair was still a bit better as a carrier aircraft after minor chages.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2015)

bakters said:


> That's exactly what I am trying to figure out here. Was it really outclassed? As a carrier born fighter? So which fighter was so obviously superior? Hellcats couldn't match it for range and ease of operation, Corsairs were even worse in this role, at least early on. But both were obviously better at air combat, were they not?
> 
> Actually, it seems to me they were not obviously better at it...


In 1940, the A6M was a world-beater. Add to the A6M's performance, the fact that they were piloted by combat experienced pilots and the USN and USAAC had their hands full with the aircraft in service at the start of the war for the U.S.

Towards the latter stages of the war, the A6M hadn't improved much, in order to stay ahead of the U.S.'s development and even though the A6M had great range, the U.S. had carriers that were closing in on Japan proper, so range wasn't a necessity. The A6M had a max. speed of a little over 330 mph (533kph) at medium altitudes while the F6F had a max. speed of 390mph (629kph) within the same altitudes. Compare the F6F's rate of climb: 3,500 ft/min (17.8 m/s) to the A6M's: 3,100 ft/min (15.7 m/s) and you can see that the Zero's "glory days" had been eclipsed. Toss in the F4U's numbers: 416mph (670kph) and a rate of climb of 3,000 ft/min (which increased to 3,500 ft/min under boost) and you can see that the Zero was in serious trouble. Also factor in that a short burst of .50s from the Hellcat or the Corsair would shred the Zero.

Where the U.S. fighters like the F6F, P-51 and F4U ran into trouble, was with Japanese types like the KI-84, KI-100 and the N1K 




bakters said:


> I use the same game. There are better ones for a specific period and a few chosen planes, but with all the patches the old IL2 is the most versatile and the richest environment still.


Perhaps you'd enjoy looking at this section of the forum...lots of good stuff in there: IL-2 Sturmovik Pilot's Lounge


----------



## bakters (Dec 16, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The pluses of Hellcat vs. Zero: raw speed, durability (overall; plus particulary protection of fuel tanks that no Zero had, ever), folding wings (the CV can store more of them), weaponry equaly suited for attack on enemy fighters and bombers in the Pacific. The range of the Hellcat can be increased when having 3 drop tanks, so I don't believe the Zero had the edge here. Hellcat was equally well suited for novice and veteran pilots, there were no vices in handling. Speed was also important, the Allies have had bombers in service that Zero had problems catching.
> So I'd say Hellcat was obviously better, the Corsair was still a bit better as a carrier aircraft after minor chages.


I don't know what was the exact combat radius of a Hellcat. The numbers in Wikipedia made no sense to me, and actually there was a discussion on them and someone provided a (dead now) link to navy history page which supposedly showed the Hellcat to have a combat radius of just 310 nm. Could be true, if ferry range is supposed to be 1300-ish nm with all droptanks and no allowance for combat. Anyway, A6M2 had better range, later models maybe not so much.

A6M2 mod 21 had folding wingtips, while a Hellcat was longer by 1m. Which one packed better? I don't think there is much between them here. 
Edit: I didn't check how it was done, and those folding wingtips didn't buy you much space. Anyway, they packed their planes tightly by overlapping their wings. http://http://www.wwiitimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ship_shokaku23.jpg Simple, though maybe a bit more cumbersome.

Novice pilots - A6M2 had stall speed of 45-ish KT, a Hellcat 73 KT. With no wind and the carrier making a lazy 15 KT the approach speed is reduced to 30 KT for A6M2 and 58 KT for a Hellcat. Twice worse, it seems to me.

Armament - 6 50 cals is roughly about equal to 2 Hispanos. Type 99s are not Hispanos, but they are cannons nonetheless. I don't think there's much between the two. 

Not being able to catch bombers is obviously a problem, but less so if they come to you. Were Zeros capable of defending their own carrier and their own bombers, provided Japanese had enough decent naval pilots? I don't know. I suspect they were, but I was wrong before.

Anyway, I don't see how Zero was outclassed? I may agree that it wasn't great any more, and it could not duke it out with land-based opposition, but outclassed in its primary role? I may be blind, but I can't see it.


----------



## bakters (Dec 16, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Towards the latter stages of the war, the A6M hadn't improved much, in order to stay ahead of the U.S.'s development and even though the A6M had great range, the U.S. had carriers that were closing in on Japan proper, so range wasn't a necessity. The A6M had a max. speed of a little over 330 mph (533kph) at medium altitudes while the F6F had a max. speed of 390mph (629kph) within the same altitudes. Compare the F6F's rate of climb: 3,500 ft/min (17.8 m/s) to the A6M's: 3,100 ft/min (15.7 m/s) and you can see that the Zero's "glory days" had been eclipsed. Toss in the F4U's numbers: 416mph (670kph) and a rate of climb of 3,000 ft/min (which increased to 3,500 ft/min under boost) and you can see that the Zero was in serious trouble.


Spit has even better numbers, so what? All those numbers didn't help it much over Darwin. (BTW - I'm a total sucker for Spits, so it physically hurts me to admit that.)


> Also factor in that a short burst of .50s from the Hellcat or the Corsair would shred the Zero.


The only description of a Zero kill by a Hellcat I remember right now was this guy from (I think!) USS Yorktown CV-10, He killed his Zeke with a short burst, but this burst killed the pilot, the plane did not fall apart. I think that the fragility card is slightly overplayed. And of course it's not like a Zeke is an easy target to hit, so there is something for something here.


> Where the U.S. fighters like the F6F, P-51 and F4U ran into trouble, was with Japanese types like the KI-84, KI-100 and the N1K


Land based, doesn't count. And I'm not so sure about N1K anyways.


> Perhaps you'd enjoy looking at this section of the forum...lots of good stuff in there: IL-2 Sturmovik Pilot's Lounge


Thanks, I will. Maybe I'll learn how to land on a carrier, finally.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2015)

There was a blend of land-based and naval fighters in the PTO...you cannot seperate the two, because IJN fighters encountered U.S. Army aircraft as well as USN aircraft encountering IJA aircraft. An early example would be the battle of Midway, were IJN forces encountered USN, USMC and Army aircraft in the initial attack, until the Yorktown and other naval forces engaged the Japanese fleet.

The first kill of an A6M by the Hellcat came in October 1943 during the battle of Wake Island, when Capt. Torrey of VF-9 downed a Zero in the initial brawl followed shortly by Lt. McWhorter, who was nearly downed by the debris of a Zero that exploded from his short burst.

You may want to research the A6M a little more, as it seems you're not aware that the A6M lacked proper armor and self-sealing tanks in an effort to provide maximum performance and range. There was nothing to protect the Zero's pilot, engine and fuel tanks except the aluminum skin. When six or eight .50 MGs snapped a volley into the A6M, terrible things happened.

Also, the F6F accounted for a large percentage of total Japanese aircraft lost diring the war. Many of those were the A6M.


----------



## bakters (Dec 16, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> There was a blend of land-based and naval fighters in the PTO...you cannot seperate the two, because IJN fighters encountered U.S. Army aircraft as well as USN aircraft encountering IJA aircraft. An early example would be the battle of Midway, were IJN forces encountered USN, USMC and Army aircraft in the initial attack, until the Yorktown and other naval forces engaged the Japanese fleet.
> 
> The first kill of an A6M by the Hellcat came in October 1943 during the battle of Wake Island, when Capt. Torrey of VF-9 downed a Zero in the initial brawl followed shortly by Lt. McWhorter, who was nearly downed by the debris of a Zero that exploded from his short burst.
> 
> ...


Generally speaking, land based fighters should be better, so even if Zeke was outperformed by its land based opposition or competition, it still does not mean it was outclassed by Hellcats and Corsairs. 

Regarding armor, yes you couldn't put it on Zeke without big performance cost. Some extra losses when attacking bombers, maybe some lost pilots who could be saved otherwise. Well, it's war. But it's not like other nations, including USA, packed a few inches or reinforced concrete onto their planes either. Nothing which could stop a 20mm.

Zero losses to Hellcats - Turkey shoot, kamikaze, overclaiming, overwhelming numerical and tactical superiority. Do we need to blame the Zeke to explain its losses? For example, what would happen if Japanese had Hellcats and the USA had A6M5s? Would they fare any better? Personally, I see no reason to believe they would. 

(BTW - previously I badmouthed N1K. I confused it with J2M somehow. I have no opinion on N1K, although it seems to be a great plane.)


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2015)

bakters said:


> I don't know what was the exact combat radius of a Hellcat. The numbers in Wikipedia made no sense to me, and actually there was a discussion on them and someone provided a (dead now) link to navy history page which supposedly showed the Hellcat to have a combat radius of just 310 nm. Could be true, if ferry range is supposed to be 1300-ish nm with all droptanks and no allowance for combat. Anyway, A6M2 had better range, later models maybe not so much.



With one 150 gal drop tank, the range of the Hellcat is either between 1340 and 1635 miles, depending what sheet one reads; radius is quoted at 335 or 375 miles. Speed used is 166 mph for range. Sheets can be seen here. The -5 can carry 3 drop tanks, so both range and radius will go up.
I was not been able to find the range/radius data for the Hellcat with 3 drop tanks (600 gals total), but data for the F4U-4 with 2 x 150 gals (534 gals total) can give us balpark - 525 n.miles of radius at 178 mph. 
The Zeke 52 is listed at 1640 n. miles of range with the drop tank at 147 mph, the radius of 467 n. miles (here).
So I'd say that Hellcat with 3 drop tanks has more range and radius than any Zero.


> Novice pilots - A6M2 had stall speed of 45-ish KT, a Hellcat 73 KT. With no wind and the carrier making a lazy 15 KT the approach speed is reduced to 30 KT for A6M2 and 58 KT for a Hellcat. Twice worse, it seems to me.



Could you please double-check the stall speed for the Zero you've provided? The similarly small light F2A was at ~65 kt. At any rate, the Hellcat was praised for it's low speed handling, due to it's big wing being outfitted with 'extendable' flaps, similar to the Fowler-type.



> Armament - 6 50 cals is roughly about equal to 2 Hispanos. Type 99s are not Hispanos, but they are cannons nonetheless. I don't think there's much between the two.



Depends what is the target and who is the marksman. Whether the Hellcat lands bullet on the fuel tank, engine or the cockpit, the Zero is killed. Having 6 HMGs, each on it's own capable to icapacitate the Zero, gives the chances for an not-so-good marksman. The zero's cannons were useful, especially those belt-fed more powerful variants of the Oerlikon FFL were aboard. Shortcoming was the lower total RoF (1500 rpm vs. 4800 rpm) and, much greater problem, the ammo carried (100 rpg for the belt fed cannon, vs. 400 rpg)



> Not being able to catch bombers is obviously a problem, but less so if they come to you. Were Zeros capable of defending their own carrier and their own bombers, provided Japanese had enough decent naval pilots? I don't know. I suspect they were, but I was wrong before.



All of the IJN carriers sunk in 1942 were sunk by air power, predominantly by the SBD dive bombers. I will not state that was only Zero's fault, the Japanes have had no radar-assited command control center(s) when that happened. 
With that said - Zero was not able to kill any B-17 during the Midaway, it bagged just one B-26 of only four that attacked the carriers there, ammo load for the cannons was pitiful back then (60 rpg), only the unescorted Marine's dive bombers were badly mauled by Zeros*. Even prior the Midway, RAF's Blenheims penetrated the fighter screen and only luck saved the IJN carriers from being bombed. That is with 'creme de la creme' pilots of IJN.



> Anyway, I don't see how Zero was outclassed? I may agree that it wasn't great any more, and it could not duke it out with land-based opposition, but outclassed in its primary role? I may be blind, but I can't see it.



It was outclassed. This might be of interest.

*added: of course, the USN torpedo bombers were decimated by Zeroes


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2015)

Not concerning any aircraft type but I read somewhere (I believe on this forum) that at the time Japanese radios were very unreliable, so unreliable that some pilots had them removed. The force multiplying effect of communication can never be underestimated.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2015)

bakters said:


> Generally speaking, land based fighters should be better, so even if Zeke was outperformed by its land based opposition or competition, it still does not mean it was outclassed by Hellcats and Corsairs.


You really seem to be entrenched in the idea that the Zero was invinsable, even to the end.



bakters said:


> Regarding armor, yes you couldn't put it on Zeke without big performance cost. Some extra losses when attacking bombers, maybe some lost pilots who could be saved otherwise. Well, it's war. But it's not like other nations, including USA, *packed a few inches or reinforced concrete onto their planes either. Nothing which could stop a 20mm.*


What??
Show me one aircraft, U.S. or otherwise that used concrete as armor. The IL-2 and the Hs129 used a hardened steel "bathtub" to protect their pilot. Other types used a hardened steel plate behind the pilot, like the P-47, etc.



bakters said:


> Zero losses to Hellcats - Turkey shoot, kamikaze, overclaiming, overwhelming numerical and tactical superiority. Do we need to blame the Zeke to explain its losses? For example, what would happen if Japanese had Hellcats and the USA had A6M5s? Would they fare any better? Personally, I see no reason to believe they would.


The A6M was developed from the A5M, it was an excellent design for it's time and delivered results beyond the designer and the IJN's expectations. However, it did not mature like it's contemporaries of the time, such as the Bf109 and the Spitfire. It became a dead end as other more improved Japanese types were being introduced. The only way to improve the A6M to be competitive and have survivability in the face of the newer Allied types, would be to improve it's engine output as well as introduce armor and self sealing tanks, for which it was not designed...this would mean a complete redesign. As it happens, the Japanese were intoducting new types and it didn't make sense to go to all that trouble to rebuild the Zero when better options were becoming available.

So the A6M was literally becoming extinct as the war drug on, because all the experienced pilots were getting the newer, more formidable Japanese types or they were being killed. In addition, the newer replacement pilots were not getting the training needed to survive the increasing numbers of Allied pilots.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2015)

If I may add about this:



bakters said:


> ...
> Regarding armor, yes you couldn't put it on Zeke without big performance cost. Some extra losses when attacking bombers, maybe some lost pilots who could be saved otherwise. Well, it's war. But it's not like other nations, including USA, packed a few inches or reinforced concrete onto their planes either. Nothing which could stop a 20mm.



The protection of fuel tanks would've eaten into the fuel volume, thus reducing the range/radius, not a great proposal for the IJN. As for the comment 'weel, it's war' - the line of thinking that pilots don't need protection was proven as faulty. Pilots, especially well trained and experienced don't just grow on trees. The table I've provided the link notes that only Zero (both marks listed) does not feature any pilot or fuel tank protection, and it actaully meant it was obsolete.
Protection is not just there to protect from the hits from eemy fighters, it can save a day vs. the bomber defensive fire. 

The reinforced concrete armor in the aircraft is a good joke  The 20 mm shell will detonate on the aircraft skin, granted many aircraft will be downed by the cannon fire. Quirk is that shrapnels need to incapacitate the pilot, or ignite the fuel in the tanks lines, the Hellcat was well protected.



> Zero losses to Hellcats - Turkey shoot, kamikaze, overclaiming, overwhelming numerical and tactical superiority. Do we need to blame the Zeke to explain its losses? For example, what would happen if Japanese had Hellcats and the USA had A6M5s? Would they fare any better? Personally, I see no reason to believe they would.
> ...



Nobody is blaming exclusively the Zero for the lost air-mava battles and the outcome of Pacific war. Everybody will agree that Zero was one of the greatest fighters that took part in ww2.
The IJN is to blame for not having at least two designs that would suceed Zero from 1943 on. Lousy output of both pilots and planes until it was too late to matter. We can blame the IJN for not having a belt-fed cannon in the Zero already in early 1942, if not in 141. We can blame the hawks from the IJN for starting the war with the USA in the 1st place. We can blame Jamamoto for underestimating the fighting spirit of the USN in 1942, thus coming out with the plan that cost him 4 carriers in one day, 300 aircraft and numerous trained capable men, plus the altreatment the survivors (really a low point i the IJN conduct of war).The whole concept of desisive victory oer USN was faulty. Lack of anti-aircraft means on the ships, lack of good preparation to contain the ships damage. Lack of prepardnes for the submarine threat. 
This uncomplete list dwarfs shortcomings of a particular weapon of the IJN.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bakters (Dec 17, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> So I'd say that Hellcat with 3 drop tanks has more range and radius than any Zero.


More ferry range, maybe. Combat radius should not change, until Hellcat is capable of fighting with a droptank. But more important than lofty figures is actual practice. We know for sure that Zekes could reach and fight over Guadalcanal while escorting bombers, which is almost 500 nm (483 nm in a straight line). That's actual practice, not theory. And we know it was not the absolute extreme, because of Sakai. Actual practice for Hellcats was much more modest, well below the theoretical radius. (I want to write 250-ish nm, but I'm nowhere near sure about it.)



> Could you please double-check the stall speed for the Zero you've provided? The similarly small light F2A was at ~65 kt. At any rate, the Hellcat was praised for it's low speed handling, due to it's big wing being outfitted with 'extendable' flaps, similar to the Fowler-type.


You are right, the number I previously found is fantasy. More typically people quote around 66 mph landing speed, which is 57 kt. Still a significant advantage for the Zeke, but not a crushing one. (Hellcat number seems to be correct.)



> Depends what is the target and who is the marksman. Whether the Hellcat lands bullet on the fuel tank, engine or the cockpit, the Zero is killed. Having 6 HMGs, each on it's own capable to icapacitate the Zero, gives the chances for an not-so-good marksman. The zero's cannons were useful, especially those belt-fed more powerful variants of the Oerlikon FFL were aboard. Shortcoming was the lower total RoF (1500 rpm vs. 4800 rpm) and, much greater problem, the ammo carried (100 rpg for the belt fed cannon, vs. 400 rpg)


Everybody went for cannon armed fighters for a reason. It's not like they don't work, and I read in this thread that the Zeke was worse also in this regard, while it carried more firepower than most Bf109s, most Soviet fighters and not much less than most Spits. Not many fighters limped home with a 20mm hole anywhere.



> All of the IJN carriers sunk in 1942 were sunk by air power, predominantly by the SBD dive bombers. I will not state that was only Zero's fault, the Japanes have had no radar-assited command control center(s) when that happened.
> With that said - Zero was not able to kill any B-17 during the Midaway, it bagged just one B-26 of only four that attacked the carriers there, ammo load for the cannons was pitiful back then (60 rpg), only the unescorted Marine's dive bombers were badly mauled by Zeros*. Even prior the Midway, RAF's Blenheims penetrated the fighter screen and only luck saved the IJN carriers from being bombed. That is with 'creme de la creme' pilots of IJN.


While I agree that Reisen is not the best plane to take out heavy strategic bombers, they managed to do that. It's not like you could take B-17 and do an unobstructed attack on a tactical level with Reisens flying around, and it's also not as any other fighter of the war was guaranteed to take out this bomber without any troubles. Germans for example tried ramming at some point. 
BTW - how well Hellcats and Corsairs would do against such target? In my opinion worse, simply because of 50 cals. You need a sustained and localized burst to achieve the result of a single shell. Hard to do while trying not to die.

Regarding Midway - Japanese lost, because they decided to refuel their fighters at the wrong moment, did they not? Hardly the Zeke's fault if they didn't leverage its greatest asset...



> It was outclassed. This might be of interest.


How so? It climbs better or the same at least where it counts, it truly outclasses the Hellcat in maneuverability while having slower top-speed. Top-speed is nice to have, but it does not predict the actual combat speed all that well. Energy retention in maneuvers, acceleration and climbing performance tend to be better predictors of which aircraft is actually faster when engaging the enemy. 

It could be argued that a Hellcat outperforms a Zeke. I could see this working (although personally I rather disagree than agree), but outclasses? It makes no sense at all.


----------



## bakters (Dec 17, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> You really seem to be entrenched in the idea that the Zero was invinsable, even to the end.


If I'm entrenched anywhere, that would be in my conviction that a well flown Reisen was a very dangerous opponent. Yes, until the very end of the war. I do believe that people who downplay its abilities show disrespect to those guys who had to take on her. A Zeke is never defenseless, it's never safe to be around her. Maybe if she's parked, but I'm not so sure about it either.


> What??
> Show me one aircraft, U.S. or otherwise that used concrete as armor. The IL-2 and the Hs129 used a hardened steel "bathtub" to protect their pilot. Other types used a hardened steel plate behind the pilot, like the P-47, etc.


Concrete was a hyperbole. IL2s were well armored, but slow as snails. Exactly what's ordered when you are supposed to attack ground targets while tanking AA fire. Fighters were not armored to a significant degree, and none carried enough armor to defeat a 20mm. For example, armored backrest could kill the pilot. A shell that would otherwise miss would explode into the cockpit. 50 cal from the front could injure or kill the pilot due to spalling even if it missed.

Was it worth it? I don't know. Probably yes since everybody did it, especially when dealing with bombers or taking some flak. But it's not like the Japanese were totally suicidal here.



> The A6M was developed from the A5M, it was an excellent design for it's time and delivered results beyond the designer and the IJN's expectations. However, it did not mature like it's contemporaries of the time, such as the Bf109 and the Spitfire. It became a dead end as other more improved Japanese types were being introduced. The only way to improve the A6M to be competitive and have survivability in the face of the newer Allied types, would be to improve it's engine output as well as introduce armor and self sealing tanks, for which it was not designed...this would mean a complete redesign. As it happens, the Japanese were intoducting new types and it didn't make sense to go to all that trouble to rebuild the Zero when better options were becoming available.


I know the "official" story, I just happen not to believe it 100%. For example, if A6M2 could deal with Spits Vc, which were comparable or better in performance to Hellcats and Corsairs (you wouldn't say that a Corsair outclassed Vc, would you?), then A6M5s must at the very least remain competitive. 


> So the A6M was literally becoming extinct as the war drug on, because all the experienced pilots were getting the newer, more formidable Japanese types or they were being killed. In addition, the newer replacement pilots were not getting the training needed to survive the increasing numbers of Allied pilots.


Land based fighter does not need to crawl through air before it lands. You can make different compromises, especially if you are being bombed. No surprises they went "German" way, they faced similar threats. But since you can't "strategically bomb" a carrier, in this role A6M was still effective. 
USA slaughtered Zeroes later on, because Japanese sent total rookies on one-way missions against overwhelming odds. Not because she was useless.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2015)

bakters said:


> More ferry range, maybe. Combat radius should not change, until Hellcat is capable of fighting with a droptank. But more important than lofty figures is actual practice. We know for sure that Zekes could reach and fight over Guadalcanal while escorting bombers, which is almost 500 nm (483 nm in a straight line). That's actual practice, not theory. And we know it was not the absolute extreme, because of Sakai. Actual practice for Hellcats was much more modest, well below the theoretical radius. (I want to write 250-ish nm, but I'm nowhere near sure about it.)



The Allied data for the Zero matches what was achieved in reality. By same token, we can be sure that US data for the Corsair with 300 gals in drop tanks will match what was the it capable for in reality. Nobody will fight in the Hellcat with a drop tank attached to it, but at least the F6F-5 will arive to the combat area with all of it's 250 gals of internal fuel, being outfitted with a pump to top off the internal fuel tank(s) with fuel from drop tanks, where actually 450 gals could be carried for 700 gals total, not 600 as I've wrote earlier. The Hellcat has 10% more fuel on internal tanks than Corsair, that should cover the eventualities.
We can guess all day, what matter are the figures from back then.



> Everybody went for cannon armed fighters for a reason. It's not like they don't work, and I read in this thread that the Zeke was worse also in this regard, while it carried more firepower than most Bf109s, most Soviet fighters and not much less than most Spits. Not many fighters limped home with a 20mm hole anywhere.



I'm all for cannons, no problem with that, nobody said they don't work. A fighter holed by 20 mm shell still can still allow it's pilot to ditch near the friendly forces/territory, Hellcat being in a better position than most of the ww2 fighters. At least the pilot can jump and use the parachute. With the Zero, a burst of heavy MG fire that hit home will likely set the aircraftf ablaze or kill the pilot immediately. 
The fact that cannon ammo on count on the Zero was low still stands, as well as the total RoF.



> While I agree that Reisen is not the best plane to take out heavy strategic bombers, they managed to do that. It's not like you could take B-17 and do an unobstructed attack on a tactical level with Reisens flying around, and it's also not as any other fighter of the war was guaranteed to take out this bomber without any troubles. Germans for example tried ramming at some point.



The B-17s were used on tactical level in the Pacific, even for low level bombing of the ships. The Zero has no armor to withstand the defensive fire, and it's top speed was in 1942-45 same as what the Spitfire and Bf-109 were capable in 1939. Of the anti-bomber triade - firepower, speed, protection - the Zero has maybe 1.5.
The Germans found that even 4 x 20mm don't guarantee the kill on the B-17, going for the 30mm. Japanese also went for the 30mm, Zero never got these. Again - no B-17s were killed by Zeros during the Midway.



> BTW - how well Hellcats and Corsairs would do against such target? In my opinion worse, simply because of 50 cals. You need a sustained and localized burst to achieve the result of a single shell. Hard to do while trying not to die.



They will have the speed to position them into any firing position they find most favorable, while being reasonably protected from the defensive fire. Can do the head-on pass to kill the crew at front half of the bomber. Don't like the 6 HMGs? Okay, then 4 cannons on the F4U, 2 cannons + 4 HMGs in the F6F. 



> Regarding Midway - Japanese lost, because they decided to refuel their fighters at the wrong moment, did they not? Hardly the Zeke's fault if they didn't leverage its greatest asset...



You're wrong on the 1st sentence, IJN lost because of strategical mistakes, that dwarfed any technical or servicemen issues. Nobody is blaming the Zero, despite being not the ideal fleet defender.



> How so? It climbs better or the same at least where it counts, it truly outclasses the Hellcat in maneuverability while having slower top-speed. Top-speed is nice to have, but it does not predict the actual combat speed all that well. Energy retention in maneuvers, acceleration and climbing performance tend to be better predictors of which aircraft is actually faster when engaging the enemy.
> It could be argued that a Hellcat outperforms a Zeke. I could see this working (although personally I rather disagree than agree), but outclasses? It makes no sense at all.



You can interprete the report as you wish, I guess.


----------



## bakters (Dec 17, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> IfThe protection of fuel tanks would've eaten into the fuel volume, thus reducing the range/radius, not a great proposal for the IJN.


Would it stop a leak from a direct 50 cal. hit? 


> As for the comment 'weel, it's war' - the line of thinking that pilots don't need protection was proven as faulty. Pilots, especially well trained and experienced don't just grow on trees.


Can they swim 200 nm home? If not, not many will be saved by armor protection. Sometimes they didn't even take chutes. Faster that way, I guess.


> The table I've provided the link notes that only Zero (both marks listed) does not feature any pilot or fuel tank protection, and it actaully meant it was obsolete.


At worst it means that her fuel tanks were obsolete. It's not like installing rubber baloons requires a major redesign. 


> Protection is not just there to protect from the hits from eemy fighters, it can save a day vs. the bomber defensive fire.


Yes, but people tend to make such a big deal out of it. Sure it helps a little, but an armored fighter is still very fragile. 


> The reinforced concrete armor in the aircraft is a good joke  The 20 mm shell will detonate on the aircraft skin, granted many aircraft will be downed by the cannon fire. Quirk is that shrapnels need to incapacitate the pilot, or ignite the fuel in the tanks lines, the Hellcat was well protected.


So, how many came back home with 20mm holes in them? For comparison, I read an interview with a Russian pilot who fought through the war. He remembered very few such cases. He managed to do it once, but the shell ripped a hole in his wing. Hellcat didn't have armored wings, so it does not change much. 

I'm not trying to say that armor is totally useless. It saves people, it comforts them too, but it's not such a big deal in the end. 


> Nobody is blaming exclusively the Zero for the lost air-mava battles and the outcome of Pacific war. Everybody will agree that Zero was one of the greatest fighters that took part in ww2.


Yes, I know. One of the best fighters ever, the best fighter in the war at some point and totally useless just a year later.

And it makes sense, somehow... Supposedly.


----------



## bakters (Dec 17, 2015)

Just one quick comment on armor and survivability based on Pug-Sakai fight over Guadalcanal.

So Sakai unloaded a long stream of bullets into Pug's 'cat, but the plane remained airborne. Sakai is impressed. Such a strong plane! Of course the 'cat barely flies, so Sakai takes careful aim and takes out two cylinders from 'cat's P&W (they found the engine). Plane goes down, Pug miraculously survives, comes back to States, teaches others, recovers physically and mentally and shoots some more Japanese. Success story.

Or maybe not? Because Sakai wrote that he has never experienced such mastery of flying. For him it was poetry in motion. By that I gather, that in a better plane Pug would not be an easy target at all, and maybe he would have shot Sakai down, not the other way around. 

As it was, Pug's plane was damaged with WWI weaponry. Two 30 cals in the nose. The cannon brought him down, but WWI armament won the fight. Then in purely pragmatic, ruthless, Zhukov way of thinking, his miraculous survival tied up some resources on the Henderson field. He had to be taken care of, fed and evacuated and still constituted a loss. 

What if he had a lighter plane? Could he win against Sakai and inflict a loss instead of becoming one? We'll never know.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2015)

The USN, or every other user of fighter aircraft, never went to delete protection on their aircraft once the installing of the protection became common, judging it rightly that trained experienced pilot is the major asset. USN in particular didn't canceled out the F6F nor the F4U so it can churn out more FM-2 (while deleting the protection). The pilot in the raft boat cann be saved, the one cought in a burning aircraft is done. Saving a pilot or crew was a major thing for any air force, no matter how one want's do downplay it.
Nobody in 1943/44/45 have had a fighter with 1100 HP and no protection as the premier fighter, if it can have somehting better. So yes, by 1943 the Zero was behind the curve, in 1944 it was obsolete. For the Zero to still be competitive - install the more powerful engine earlier, not in Aug 1945, install protection of the pilot and fuel tanks while accepting the loss in internal fuel (ballanced out with either a bigger drop tank or 2 drop tank installation, or maybe an aux fuel tank behind the pilot), increase the cannon ammo at 150 rpg. Maybe install the butterfly flaps to help out with low speed behaviour, since any improvement will add weight. See whether the high speed handling can be improved.


----------



## bakters (Dec 17, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The Allied data for the Zero matches what was achieved in reality. By same token, we can be sure that US data for the Corsair with 300 gals in drop tanks will match what was the it capable for in reality. Nobody will fight in the Hellcat with a drop tank attached to it, but at least the F6F-5 will arive to the combat area with all of it's 250 gals of internal fuel, being outfitted with a pump to top off the internal fuel tank(s) with fuel from drop tanks, where actually 450 gals could be carried for 700 gals total, not 600 as I've wrote earlier. The Hellcat has 10% more fuel on internal tanks than Corsair, that should cover the eventualities.
> We can guess all day, what matter are the figures from back then.


Combat radius for Hellcat you quoted is something like 350-ish nm, while we know for sure that Zekes flown sorties from Rabaul to Henderson field. That's more than 100 nm further one way (480nm), and with a safety margin included (Sakai case).

Are you trying to tell me that now you don't believe your own data, and that "in reality" Hellcats could reach further than those 350nm round trip, even further than the Zeroes? Because I simply do not understand it all.



> The B-17s were used on tactical level in the Pacific, even for low level bombing of the ships. The Zero has no armor to withstand the defensive fire, and it's top speed was in 1942-45 same as what the Spitfire and Bf-109 were capable in 1939. Of the anti-bomber triade - firepower, speed, protection - the Zero has maybe 1.5.
> The Germans found that even 4 x 20mm don't guarantee the kill on the B-17, going for the 30mm. Japanese also went for the 30mm, Zero never got these. Again - no B-17s were killed by Zeros during the Midway.


Those B-17 didn't do any harm, did they?

Anyway, if you are in a slow fighter, you simply need more time, or maybe more skill, to do a decent pass. WWII instructional movie on attacking bombers I watched once showed how to do it, but it's not easy. You basically do aerobatics while you dive, a different one from every angle. It worked in gaming practice weirdly enough, or maybe unsurprisingly enough.

The point of it all, if you can gain on the bomber, you can harm it. The faster you are, the faster you will gain and the more passes you can do in whatever time you have, but you can manage in a slower fighter too. More patience is all.

Durability can be offset by maneuverability even in this case, at least to some extent.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2015)

It looks like you did not bothered to read the docs I've linked to. 
The F6F-3 with one 150 gal drop tank, total of 400 gals is indeed at 335 nmi. 
The F4U-4, with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks for total of 534 gals, radius of 525 nmi. The internal fuel tanks can be topped off from drop tanks after take off.
The F6F-5 can carry 3 x 150 gal d.t. for total of 700 gals. It also can top off internal fuel tanks from d.t. It has 250 gals of internal fuel, vs. 234 for the F4U-5, not really 10% more but still.
Everyone can now try to guess the radius of the Hellcat with 700 gals of fuel, whatever the figure is it won't be less than the F4U-4 that carry less fuel.



> Those B-17 didn't do any harm, did they?



They helped stretching the Zero's umbrella thin. Maneuvering the carriers away from the bombes did not help out with flight operations either. 
But whatever the B-17s did or did not still does not 'cure' the fact that IJN air defence system and Zero as the main ingridient were incapable to make any kills of the B-17s.



> The point of it all, if you can gain on the bomber, you can harm it. The faster you are, the faster you will gain and the more passes you can do in whatever time you have, but you can manage in a slower fighter too. More patience is all.
> Durability can be offset by maneuverability even in this case, at least to some extent.



Durability allows the pilot to steady it's aim without worrying that some stray bullet will make damage to him or to it's aircraft. See both armoured and 'plain' Fw 190s, plus a host of the US fighters.
If one slowly gains on the bomber, the tail gunner will have a far better chance to make impression than what it would be the case with a faster fighter. There was a reason why airforces insisted in training the side attacks, where the gunners have had far a demanding target.

BTW:


> I know the "official" story, I just happen not to believe it 100%. *For example, if A6M2 could deal with Spits Vc, which were comparable or better in performance to Hellcats and Corsairs (you wouldn't say that a Corsair outclassed Vc, would you?)*, then A6M5s must at the very least remain competitive.



Care to toss some good numbers that would back up the bolded part, namely that Spitfire Vc (out of all Spitfires one can choose) was better or comparable vs. Hellcat and Corsair?


----------



## Aozora (Dec 17, 2015)

bakters said:


> Anyway, if you are in a slow fighter, you simply need more time, or maybe more skill, to do a decent pass. WWII instructional movie on attacking bombers I watched once showed how to do it, but it's not easy. You basically do aerobatics while you dive, a different one from every angle. It worked in gaming practice weirdly enough, or maybe unsurprisingly enough.
> 
> The point of it all, if you can gain on the bomber, you can harm it. The faster you are, the faster you will gain and the more passes you can do in whatever time you have, but you can manage in a slower fighter too. More patience is all.



The longer it takes to pursue and overtake a bomber, the more chance there is that the bomber's defensive firepower will harm your aircraft and you - particularly if the bomber being pursued is in a tight formation with others. The Zero's lack of armour and fuel tank protection made it extremely vulnerable to return .50 cal fire



bakters said:


> Durability can be offset by maneuverability even in this case, at least to some extent.



How can low speed maneuverability (which is what the Zero excelled at - at speeds above 300 mph, the Zero quickly lost any edge in maneuverability) save you when you are pursuing at high speed, then steadying to shoot? While your Zero is making pretty maneuvers it is losing speed and unable to get into a shooting position. 

Read these reports: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwbgo0lWwg_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MjYTnUH1LE_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2eFXvQyVx0_

This video shows the reality of how the Zero fared in high-speed combat against the F6F; the only time the Zero gained any advantage is when the American pilots were foolish enough to get into low speed dogfights (the same applies to the F4U):


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmtc1HnwMeQ_


----------



## parsifal (Dec 17, 2015)

regarding the range issue, whatever the published figures, the reality is that carrier strikes strikes from US carriers never exceeded 240 nm if they involved F6f and/or F4U. the reason these strike distances were so constrained relates to a number of reasons, form up times, having to escort strike aircraft at less than optimal speeds and/or altitudes.

by comparison the effective combat radius off carriers for the zeke could be as high as 350 nm. but the truth is they also seldom were able to strike at that distance. You need to have a sighting report in order for the airstrike to be launched, and often the strike had to be held back until sightings were confirmed. The most significant occasion where the Japanese got the range drop on the US was at Phil Sea, and ended very badly for them. by late that day the range was down to under the 240nm which allowed the US to retaliate, though the numbers of fighters that could be included was constrained for the americans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 17, 2015)

Oh boy, what a discussion. I love that. I only wanted to say at the beginning that any sim duel (which I presume is bakters situation) reflects little to none realism, while situations when 1 vs 1 pilot were common, they were not happening in such a knightly mode with opponents at same altitude, same speed and facing each other. 

In reality pilot should (and most often did) look for easiest possible firing solution without putting himself at risk. Sure, there were some crazy guys, after all those pilots were often in their early 20s, and as we all know young people have a tendency for bravery and can loose their heads in the heat of battle. But point is that an average pilot should never attempt a fight at equal terms, because that is 50-50 of winning to loosing. I'd not put my life at such risk, better come back home with no victories than come back in metal box.

So more or less what you are expecting from us is a bit of theory-crafting - trying here to apply real experiences for a purpose of artificial situation.


Afaik, there are few things that I wanted to correct or point out.

@GrauGeist


> The bottom line is, that the A6M was not a mysterious beast with mythical powers, it could be beaten by the F4F and even the SBD, both of which were a great deal behind the F6F in performance.


P-38s were shot down by F1M Pete, some Soviet I-153 biplanes managed to bring down 109 fighters. It has little to do with aircraft itself, but more with pilot awareness and tactical positioning. If you catch someone pants down you can beat him with no effort. 
That of course does not change the fact that you got him, hence credited victory is fully deserved.



> The A6M had a max. speed of a little over 330 mph (533kph) at medium altitudes while the F6F had a max. speed of 390mph (629kph) within the same altitudes.


That would be A6M2 you are talking about. And it had maximum speed approaching 550 km/h at emergency power. If we are talking of a Hellcat however, than I'd assume that in 1943 or 1944 a more common opponent would be A6M5. That one had if I'm not mistaken speed of aprox. 560 km/h at rated power.



> Compare the F6F's rate of climb: 3,500 ft/min (17.8 m/s) to the A6M's: 3,100 ft/min (15.7 m/s) and you can see that the Zero's "glory days" had been eclipsed.


That is again for a specific F6F, actually in multiple accounts from 1943/1944 I've read Hellcats had problems catching Zeros due to latter superior acceleration and rate of climb. It wasn't until late F6F-3 with P&W 2800-10W with water injection that Hellcat got complete domination. Earlier ones had certain issues, while being faster they did not have such a high boost.

@tomo pauk 


> All of the IJN carriers sunk in 1942 were sunk by air power, predominantly by the SBD dive bombers. I will not state that was only Zero's fault, the Japanes have had no radar-assited command control center(s) when that happened.
> With that said - Zero was not able to kill any B-17 during the Midaway, it bagged just one B-26 of only four that attacked the carriers there, ammo load for the cannons was pitiful back then (60 rpg), only the unescorted Marine's dive bombers were badly mauled by Zeros*. Even prior the Midway, RAF's Blenheims penetrated the fighter screen and only luck saved the IJN carriers from being bombed. That is with 'creme de la creme' pilots of IJN.



Now that is a bit exaggeration to put a blame on Zeros that they did not manage to bring down B-17s flying high, when they had duties low with all the other aircraft. I'm not going to open Shattered Sword now and count but how effective Zeros could be SBD and TBD in particular are a proof. 

Overall the Japanese pressed home two attacks on the American task force. They did so with forces far weaker than those the Americans threw at their carriers. Japanese had a fighter escort in each case although it was weak and partially distracted from its main task. Despite the American advantage of radar, effective anti-aircraft fire and a strong force of intercepting fighters Japanese inflicted telling damage in both strikes. Japanese losses were heavy but comparatively somewhat lower than American.

The outcome of the battle overwhelmingly favored the Americans but in specifics the Japanese often outperformed Americans. Seven of eighteen Japanese bombers attacked a radar alerted Yorktown and scored a much higher ratio of hits than the fifty American dive bombers that surprised Japanese fleet. A couple Japanese torpedo bombers managed to score two hits on the same carrier while about fort American torpedo bombers scored none on the Japanese carriers. Despite a lack of radar and relatively inferior anti-aircraft defenses, Japanese fighters essentially on their own inflicted a cruel losses on the American attackers. 



> It was outclassed. This might be of interest.


Well yes, but that is a November 1944 report when Japanese were more than aware of that themselves. 



> The 20 mm shell will detonate on the aircraft skin, granted many aircraft will be downed by the cannon fire. Quirk is that shrapnels need to incapacitate the pilot, or ignite the fuel in the tanks lines, the Hellcat was well protected.


Well, not exactly. There is a fuze for some reason designed, and it was present in Japanese, German, British, Soviet and US 20 mm HE ammunition. 



> The IJN is to blame for not having at least two designs that would suceed Zero from 1943 on. Lousy output of both pilots and planes until it was too late to matter.


Well, they were working on A7M since April 1942, since that month was a meeting of Mitsubishi and Navy representatives regarding the parameters of the new aircraft. It was rather a lack of engine that hampered the design throughout the war, one simply cant forget that Japan had much smaller industrial and intellectual base than US. Engineers do not grow on trees, they must study at universities and than gain their experience working on real projects. 



> We can blame the IJN for not having a belt-fed cannon in the Zero already in early 1942, if not in 1941.


Well, Germans having much earlier access to Oerlikon did not come up with any belt fed mechanism. Japanese first upgraded the Oerlikon design and than worked on solving existing issues - low ammo capacity was quickly solved by introduction 100 drum magazine and all new fighters since mid 1942 had them (so A6M3 and later produced A6M2), low muzzle velocity severely reducing the range - that was solved by the end of 1942 with introduction of Type 99-2 with long barrel and a new cartridge, which basically had same flight trajectory as machine guns used in A6M. All fighters were equipped with long barrel Type 99 since December 1942 (That is A6M3 and next ...)



> install the more powerful engine earlier, not in Aug 1945, install protection of the pilot and fuel tanks while accepting the loss in internal fuel (ballanced out with either a bigger drop tank or 2 drop tank installation, or maybe an aux fuel tank behind the pilot), increase the cannon ammo at 150 rpg.


 All of this was attempted, thought and yet common answer was - the lack of proper engine along with drastic mass increase would make a machine perform terribly. 

@Aozora


> These gun camera recordings show how vulnerable the Zero's fuel tanks were: the F6F and F4U in similar circumstances didn't flame like that.



Well, they actually did. Post war surveys indicated that majority of US aircraft lost, went down due to damage to oil and fuel systems or pilots killed. Those areas, while protected, still remained most vulnerable in whole machine. 
Pappy Boyington and his wingman both were shot down in flames.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bakters (Dec 17, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> It looks like you did not bothered to read the docs I've linked to.
> The F6F-3 with one 150 gal drop tank, total of 400 gals is indeed at 335 nmi.
> The F4U-4, with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks for total of 534 gals, radius of 525 nmi. The internal fuel tanks can be topped off from drop tanks after take off.
> The F6F-5 can carry 3 x 150 gal d.t. for total of 700 gals. It also can top off internal fuel tanks from d.t. It has 250 gals of internal fuel, vs. 234 for the F4U-5, not really 10% more but still.
> Everyone can now try to guess the radius of the Hellcat with 700 gals of fuel, whatever the figure is it won't be less than the F4U-4 that carry less fuel.


You are right, I didn't read those docs, and thanks for reminding me. I'm still getting used to the forum, and I simply missed those links while replying. 

I finally got it. Yes, you seem to be correct here. Corsairs and Hellcats could beat the Zeke for range, at least later models. (I think I wrote before that they could probably compete with later models, but no matter. I got what you mean.)



> They helped stretching the Zero's umbrella thin. Maneuvering the carriers away from the bombes did not help out with flight operations either.
> But whatever the B-17s did or did not still does not 'cure' the fact that IJN air defence system and Zero as the main ingridient were incapable to make any kills of the B-17s.


Zero in general could kill and did kill B-17 at times. This time they did not, but as you write yourself, the main task of this "strategic" distraction was to distract them. They didn't get distracted to the point of chasing the bait. That's good, not?



> Durability allows the pilot to steady it's aim without worrying that some stray bullet will make damage to him or to it's aircraft. See both armoured and 'plain' Fw 190s, plus a host of the US fighters.
> If one slowly gains on the bomber, the tail gunner will have a far better chance to make impression than what it would be the case with a faster fighter. There was a reason why airforces insisted in training the side attacks, where the gunners have had far a demanding target.


You do not gain on a bomber within his gun's range. You fly to the side and/or get above, out of range. Once you are in front, you dive to get speed and then attack from whatever angle you wish.



> Care to toss some good numbers that would back up the bolded part, namely that Spitfire Vc (out of all Spitfires one can choose) was better or comparable vs. Hellcat and Corsair?


Of course there were better Spitfires, but this one faced A6M2s over Darwin and fared really poorly. 
F4U Performance Trials F4U-1 1943.
Spitfire Mk V Performance Testing
1. Armament - Spit wins. 4 Hispanos.
2. Climbing speed - Spitfire, by a landslide. 3710fpm vs. 2810fpm.
3. Top speed - Corsair, by a tad. 395mph vs. 371mph.
4. Acceleration - Spitfire.
5. Maneuverability - Spitfire
6. Speed during combat - Spitfire (better acceleration and energy retention in maneuvers).
7. Visibility - Spitfire, by a landslide.
8. Looks - Corsair. hehe, I got you, did I not? No contest here.


----------



## Aozora (Dec 17, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> Well, they actually did. Post war surveys indicated that majority of US aircraft lost, went down due to damage to oil and fuel systems or pilots killed. Those areas, while protected, still remained most vulnerable in whole machine.
> Pappy Boyington and his wingman both were shot down in flames.



Of course some F4Us and F6Fs went down in flames; the point is that the A6M was far more vulnerable to hits in the fuel tanks, while the chances of the pilot surviving were far lower; the three Youtube clips highlight how quickly the Zero lit up. What we are talking about is how survivable a fighter with armour and self-sealing fuel tanks is cf a mainly unarmoured fighter (late A6M5s did have some armour) without self-sealing fuel tanks. 

With limited or no armour and s-s fuel tanks, the the Zero and its pilot were far more vulnerable to all classes of weapon from greater ranges than the Corsair or Hellcat - particularly when the latter two fighters attacked at high speeds using boom and zoom tactics: being able to outmaneuver an opposing aircraft only works if you happen to see the opposition in time or if you can draw them into a maneuvering fight. And if the Zero did happen to draw the Corsair or Hellcat into such a fight it was still far more vulnerable to being hit, whereas the Corsair/Hellcat might still be able to stagger home... 

Example: Ens McWhorter's Hellcat was damaged early on in his combat with Zekes in November 1943 but took the punishment while allowing McWhorter to evade and shoot down another Zeke (25 to 28 minutes into last video).


----------



## bakters (Dec 17, 2015)

Aozora said:


> The longer it takes to pursue and overtake a bomber, the more chance there is that the bomber's defensive firepower will harm your aircraft and you - particularly if the bomber being pursued is in a tight formation with others. The Zero's lack of armour and fuel tank protection made it extremely vulnerable to return .50 cal fire


50 BMG can penetrate an inch of steel armor! There are locomotives being shot through on gun camera footage. Let's be real, OK?



> How can low speed maneuverability (which is what the Zero excelled at - at speeds above 300 mph, the Zero quickly lost any edge in maneuverability) save you when you are pursuing at high speed, then steadying to shoot? While your Zero is making pretty maneuvers it is losing speed and unable to get into a shooting position.


In the second link they write that A6M5 surpasses all American fighters in maneuverability at *medium* speeds and altitudes. Not just slow speeds!



> Read these reports:
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxI6kW7bFU_
> This gun camera footage shows plenty of German fighters being shredded just like the Zekes you have shown. The same effects of destroyed fuel tanks and huge clouds of atomized fuel trailed behind the hit plane. Sometimes those fumes ignited, sometimes they did not.
> 
> ...


----------



## GregP (Dec 18, 2015)

Visibility is not Spitfire by a landslide. It's almost the same. The corsair was a bit blinder on landing but, at combat speed, visibility over the nose wasn't great in either one. Off to the side or forward / rearward, the Spitfire had no advantage at all.

Maneuverability might not be so clear-cut as you think. While it is likely the Spitfire could out-pitch the Corsair, the Corsair should rather handlily out-roll the Spitfire. An advantage in one area doesn't necessarily carry over to other areas.

Top speed is Corsair by rather more than a tad.

Why would the combat speed be better for the Spitfire? The Corsair is faster and is rather good acceleration despite being perhaps a bit less than the Spitfire.

The wartime results in the Pacific fall rather firmly on the side of the Corsair if you looks at missions flown and results obtained.

Not to say the Spitfire is bad, it isn't by any stretch of the imagination, but you ARE comparing a land-based mostly-European fighter against a Naval fighter that was more numerous in the Pacific and had a lot more combat encounters.


----------



## bakters (Dec 18, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> Oh boy, what a discussion. I love that. I only wanted to say at the beginning that any sim duel (which I presume is bakters situation) reflects little to none realism,


Why? I used to be a scientist, and why I'm fully aware that no model *is* reality, all decent models at least reflect something about it. 

If a model is demonstrably inaccurate, you can make only gross estimations based on it. If it's more accurate, you can make more accurate predictions. No models are faultless, none can ever be, and none need to be faultless to be useful.



> P-38s were shot down by F1M Pete, some Soviet I-153 biplanes managed to bring down 109 fighters. It has little to do with aircraft itself, but more with pilot awareness and tactical positioning. If you catch someone pants down you can beat him with no effort.


Actually, I tried I-153 against A6M2. It's not as difficult as it may seem, and I managed to shoot down the Zeke at first try despite struggling with controls on an unfamiliar plane. Basic strategy is the same as with Zeke against Corsair, that is you starve your opponent of energy, press him against the ground and make him turn in the horizontal while you use yo-yos to attack. Works well against a bot.

The other way around, me in a Zeke and a bot in a Chaika, it was more difficult, but not as difficult as when trying to shoot down a Zeke in a Corsair. I can with absolute ease gain energy advantage in a Zeke when a bot flies a Chaika. *I can gain his six!*, which I couldn't do in a Corsair against a Zeke. But I can't shoot the bot down easily, because AI is pretty damn good at avoidance, and a biplane is never too slow to maneuver.

But overall it's not so bad. Zeke is obviously a better fighter, but underestimate the biplane and you are a wreck. I promise you that with absolute conviction!



> Well yes, but that is a November 1944 report when Japanese were more than aware of that [Zeke's being outclassed] themselves.


I don't get it. You show that even in speed A6M5 was actually comparable to Hellcats, while holding the edge in climb rate and I'm tired of replaying the maneuverability card. So how was it outclassed at the same time? Vastly improved armament, decent speed in actual combat, superior acceleration, superior or at least comparable climb rate and still outclassed?


----------



## bakters (Dec 18, 2015)

GregP said:


> Visibility is no Spitfire by a landslide. It's almost the same. The corsair was a bit blinder on landing but, at combat speed, visibility over the nose wasn't great in either one. Off to the side or forward / rearward, the Spitfire had no advantage at all.


Nonsense. Just try it. War Thunder is free, it has all the fighters of WWII with cockpits fully modeled. You can "fly" with mouse and keyboard, no special skills are required.

Just an x-ray feature showing internal components of every plane in the game is worth it for a history buff. Which reminds me, I need to update this game...



> Top speed is Corsair by rather more than a tad.


Okay, you made me search for it.
Part 4
_A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you constantly say that the basic Soviet fighters, the Yak and the Lavochkin, were equal to the German fighters in speed, although reference books contradict this. According to reference data, German aircraft always have superiority in speed. How do you explain this difference between reference data and practical data?

N.G. Reference data is obtained under ideal conditions, in “ideal” aircraft. Tactical and technical characteristics are always lower under actual use conditions.

A.S. Yes, but we also determine the tactical and technical characteristics of our aircraft in ideal conditions. So let’s attempt to approach this phenomenon from another perspective. What kind of actual speed (by instrument) did German fighters attain in aerial combat?

N.G. The Bf-109E—from 450 to 500 kmh [270—300 mph]. The Bf-109F: 500—550 kmh [300—330 mph]. The Bf-109G was equal to the F in speed or perhaps just a bit faster. The superiority of the G over the F was in armament, not speed.
The FW-190 reached speeds of 470—550 kmh [280—330 mph]. All of these aircraft approached speeds 30 kph greater in a dive.
You know, we didn’t pay particular attention to our instruments during an aerial engagement. It was obvious without looking that your own aircraft was lagging behind in speed or it wasn’t. Therefore I can affirm that the Airacobra, Yak, and La [Lavochkin] were not surpassed by the German fighters in speed._

The whole interview is worth reading, but his explanation of what "combat speed" is just after the above quote is particularly relevant to our discussion here.



> Why would the combat speed be better for the Spitfire? The Corsair is faster and is rather good acceleration despite being perhaps a bit less than the Spitfire.


Corsair is a much heavier plane. It will lose more energy in every maneuver it performs. That on top of worse acceleration. In actual combat it's going to be slower if you are trying to actually *do* anything, not just fly in a straight line.



> The wartime results in the Pacific fall rather firmly on the side of the Corsair if you looks at missions flown and results obtained.


"Wartime results" show that over Darwin Spits gave as good as they got, while the surviving archives show 10/1 K/D for the Zeros.



> Not to say the Spitfire is bad, it isn't by any stretch of the imagination, but you ARE comparing a land-based mostly-European fighter against a Naval fighter that was more numerous in the Pacific and had a lot more combat encounters.


Well, I was asked to do so.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 18, 2015)

bakters, do you realize how heavy 1 inch steel weighs? 

Self-sealing fuel tanks used a butyl-style liner material that allowed the projectile to pass through the fuel cell and then closed the hole. Fuel tanks as a rule, did not have armor plate. Some aircraft designed for ground attack had additional protection for fuel cells, but not 1" steel.

This ongoing defense of the "super invincible" A6M is getting tiresome. I am not sure what you know, that the entire Imperial Japanese General staff did not, but the fact remains, that the A6M was a dead end and thye did not pursue further development. 

You can keep going back and forth, but plenty of knowledgable people here have given you examples, details and hard numbers and it leads to the fact that the Zero's time had come and gone.

In the world of combat sims, there is always inconsistancies, and you cannot rely on anything in a sim to be relevant in the real world.


----------



## GregP (Dec 18, 2015)

Hey bakters,

I am talking about real airplanes, not a simulator. The title says "Corsair vs Zero" and doesn't mention a simulator, which has no place in an aviation forum on WWII combat. It belongs in a dedicated gamer forum on the site that is separate. They have little to nothing in common.

Nobody much admires magnificent men in their flying simulators. They do tend to think fondly of aces in harm's way in real fighter airplanes.

People who fly sims don't do very well when I turn them upside down and let them have the stick. They freak out and don't react properly since they have never experienced negative (or, in fact, much positive) g before. It's different when you are trying to find a control and your arms are 4 times heavier or your feet come off the rudder pedals because you don't know enough to keep them there when you go to negative g situations than it is sitting at a computer desk in comfort and pressing "reset" when you screw up.

You don't sweat at a computer desk. Try flying aerobatics and NOT sweating, especially in the summer.

Admittedly, negative maneuvers aren't much used in combat but you get the point. Good combat pilots can fly a sim easily. Good sim pilots cannot do the same in reverse and have NO sense of what is real. Commercial gamer sims are made to sell and make money, not to be realistic representations of a real airplanes.

Let the average sim pilot attempt to fly a warbird (after it's airborne) and he'll (or she'll) kill the engine rather quickly. Sims don't really want to you to go down just because you took off and left it at full throttle and full rpm. Real warbirds WILL die if you do that.

The list could go on ... but it isn't necessary.

Now if you're talking a full-on military grade sim, that may be different.

Most gamers don't fly $2.5M simulators. More like $68.95 .


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 18, 2015)

I can give an example of what happens when a real warbird pilot flies a sim:
Many years ago, there was a combat sim that was a standard that all other sims were judged by, called Jane's WW2 fighters. It was as accurate as technology would allow for the day (1998), and it had a stellar list of veteran combat pilots as advisers for the game's development.

Among the regulars was a user by the name of Monroe, who had been an actual P-47 pilot in the ETO. Now I have a good amount of hours logged as an actual pilot, so I am not a slouch when it comes to flying in sims, but Monroe (who passed away several years ago, sadly) would kick my ass whenever we tangled over the wintery skies of Europe, 1944. He could make his P-47 (no surprise there) run circles around my Fw190A-8...I never had a chance...and I was fairly well known to be a dangerous adversary, but he made me look like a total rookie.

But to put things into perspective, he used to comment that he would have given money to have his actual P-47s fly in real life as well as they did in the sim...


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 18, 2015)

That's a bit harsh Greg, while mostly true, I just wanted to point out that not everyone can afford flying real aircraft or not everyone can do this due to various health problems (my eyes for example, I'm not sure I'd be allowed to fly anything with my eyesight). Simulators can be a decent substitute, while obviously limited in experience to vision and sound, they still require some levels of control, engine management and so on. Point is to feel like in an aircraft, not exactly to be in one. 

But true, your desk cant pull G's. My friend who was real life pilot and designer in flight sim, tended to make various jokes about those thinking that they are as good as real pilots. For example sims cant simulate effects of spin, I mean you see your aircraft spinning but you dont experience the feeling - so he proposed to pause the game for a moment and do dozen of spins in chair. Than one would have to regain control over his "warbird" and ... himself 




bakters said:


> Why? I used to be a scientist, and why I'm fully aware that no model *is* reality, all decent models at least reflect something about it.
> 
> If a model is demonstrably inaccurate, you can make only gross estimations based on it. If it's more accurate, you can make more accurate predictions. No models are faultless, none can ever be, and none need to be faultless to be useful.



Because its not economy or some physical model, it is a game that tries to be reality, while has limited ways to reflect the latter one. Read what Greg told you, now think how much of this can you experience ? Nothing. You dont feel G-loads, you dont feel the sun on your face when cruising thousands of feet over the ground, etc. 



> I don't get it. You show that even in speed A6M5 was actually comparable to Hellcats, while holding the edge in climb rate and I'm tired of replaying the maneuverability card. So how was it outclassed at the same time? Vastly improved armament, decent speed in actual combat, superior acceleration, superior or at least comparable climb rate and still outclassed?



It was not only about the aircraft, despite some want to make it look like that. It was about general change of tactics, where US pilots engaged with numerical and altitude advantage, putting emphasis on teamwork. Having superior communication and being guided by the radar they could always gain such advantages.

In raw performance A6M5 wasnt that outclassed if compared to F6F-3, however introduction of newer models with water injection along with further deterioration of quality of Japanese pilots gave a massive advantage Americans - thus Japanese were outclassed. 




bakters said:


> Nonsense. Just try it. War Thunder is free, it has all the fighters of WWII with cockpits fully modeled. You can "fly" with mouse and keyboard, no special skills are required.
> 
> Just an x-ray feature showing internal components of every plane in the game is worth it for a history buff. Which reminds me, I need to update this game...


The moment you mentioned war thunder you lost it, that game is not simulator even in moder simulators meaning. It is rather an arcade game, giving opportunity to shoot and fly in aircraft but has limited sense of realism, even for a sim. 





GrauGeist said:


> I can give an example of what happens when a real warbird pilot flies a sim:
> Many years ago, there was a combat sim that was a standard that all other sims were judged by, called Jane's WW2 fighters. It was as accurate as technology would allow for the day (1998), and it had a stellar list of veteran combat pilots as advisers for the game's development.
> 
> Among the regulars was a user by the name of Monroe, who had been an actual P-47 pilot in the ETO. Now I have a good amount of hours logged as an actual pilot, so I am not a slouch when it comes to flying in sims, but Monroe (who passed away several years ago, sadly) would kick my ass whenever we tangled over the wintery skies of Europe, 1944. He could make his P-47 (no surprise there) run circles around my Fw190A-8...I never had a chance...and I was fairly well known to be a dangerous adversary, but he made me look like a total rookie.
> ...


That reminds me of something, a real FW-190 D-9 pilot asked to test a virtual model : 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvKs9VLUcCg_


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 18, 2015)

Bakters,

I'll throw a few things on the table here for your consideration, let me know what you think.

When I first started training in the F15 using visual sims the new guy standard was to fight slow, in tight turning matches. It was only after some serious instruction with an IP critiquing everything you were doing that your skill set and understanding expanded.

The Zero was a beautiful flyer, light responsive controls and good energy sustaining. That never changed however its opponents did, both mechanically and with greater knowledge.

The faults of the Zero were its higher speed maneuverability, lack of armor and self sealing tanks. The F6F-5, and Corsairs had speed in climb (not rate), level flight and a dive as well as the ability to maneuver in that range without fighting the weight of the flight controls or sluggish flight controls. The energy sustainability is not driven by weight but by CG, drag and thrust to weight. We're the US men and planes had the advantage over the Zero was speed, firepower, and eventually knowledge (of the Zero strengths / weaknesses) of how to exploit them.

In previous posts we have had some discussions on knowing your aircrafts strengths and weaknesses as well of those of your adversaries, then using that knowledge in a fight to influence the outcome in your favor. Sun Tzu, "know your enemy and know yourself and you will know the outcome of every battle". I might be off a little bit on the quote but the essence is what's important. 

What all this boils down to in my opinion is the knowledge of how to fight a Zero with a faster but not as maneuverable aircraft is what you need. Also realize it might work out even having those skills might not be enough for success in a particular game.

History has shown us that staying fast, and not turning much with a Zero was the best way to kill one. What you need in the game is the rest of your flight to help increase lethality by using coordinated team tactics.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2015)

bakters said:


> ...
> You do not gain on a bomber within his gun's range. You fly to the side and/or get above, out of range. Once you are in front, you dive to get speed and then attack from whatever angle you wish.



Problem for the fighter is that defensive guns on the B-17 are fairly long ranged, while the cannon on the Zero, before the Type 99-2 cannon was introduced, have low muzzle velocity and range and hence it will need to press home a close attack. A slowish fighter atempting not just to gain on the bomber but also to climb as well just gives the bomber more time.



> Of course there were better Spitfires, but this one faced A6M2s over Darwin and fared really poorly.
> F4U Performance Trials F4U-1 1943.
> Spitfire Mk V Performance Testing
> 1. Armament - Spit wins. 4 Hispanos.
> ...



I'll start the Darwin discussion separately 

1 - Spitfires with 4 cannons were not that common, you can (can you?) pick the Corsair with 4 cannons if you want.
2 - Spit was the king of climb. Corsair with water injection is pretty close to it, though.
3 - This Spitfire Vc was good for 360 mph at 19000 ft, and 370 mph at 13000 ft. The Corsair was tested above 400 mph, and that is above 20000 ft, where the Vc can't compete.
4 - Agreed.
5 - The roll rate comes in here, the Corsair is better.
6 - Corsair is not a Zero, neither it is Spitfire. Use the altitude to gain speed, make the fireing pass, use the built up speed to gain altitude. Turning fight will get you shot, as stated in the USN report.
7 - Okay.
8 - I don't care  Spitfire was Marilyn Monroe of ww2 fighters, and then some.
Let's not forget other numbers:
9 - Combat radius
10 - Ammo count
11 - Ruggednes
12 (should be 1) - Carrier capable.
where Corsair does better.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 18, 2015)

Anyway, I dont think we should mess as much in the topic 



Aozora said:


> Of course some F4Us and F6Fs went down in flames; the point is that the A6M was far more vulnerable to hits in the fuel tanks, while the chances of the pilot surviving were far lower;




Every aircraft was vulnerable to those hits, self sealing fuel tanks were there to prevent leakages from a certain type of ammunition, early designs could work fine against low caliber machine guns, later US designs were considered "immune" to .50 caliber rounds. But they still could be defeated by 20 or 30 mm cannon ammunition. 
And afaik, F4U wing tanks were not protected. If I'm not mistaken they were considered as secondary and were not supposed to be used in combat, however they were notoriously. 



> the three Youtube clips highlight how quickly the Zero lit up. What we are talking about is how survivable a fighter with armour and self-sealing fuel tanks is cf a mainly unarmoured fighter (late A6M5s did have some armour) without self-sealing fuel tanks.



Those are 3 selectively chosen records, can find similar for FW-190 or Bf-109. Can also find this 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37SjI8mQT3M_

Gun cameras are limited source for claiming, as they are only a small portion of all events. For thousands of aircraft shot down during a ww2, they show dozens only. 



> With limited or no armour and s-s fuel tanks, the the Zero and its pilot were far more vulnerable to all classes of weapon from greater ranges than the Corsair or Hellcat - particularly when the latter two fighters attacked at high speeds using boom and zoom tactics:



That is absolutely correct, the lack of protection was a major contribution to the death toll. Japanese pilots had 3-4 times lower chances of surviving combat damage. 



> being able to outmaneuver an opposing aircraft only works if you happen to see the opposition in time or if you can draw them into a maneuvering fight. And if the Zero did happen to draw the Corsair or Hellcat into such a fight it was still far more vulnerable to being hit, whereas the Corsair/Hellcat might still be able to stagger home...



Being able to dive away only works when you can see the opponent. Same argument can be used for any other situation. 
Oscar pilots flying in Burma and China claimed that in combat with P-38 and P-51 as long as they knew that enemy was approaching they could dodge easily and get out of firing line. 

I'd say no matter how strong your aircraft is, you should avoid being hit. Even a single 7.7 mm bullet can kill a pilot. 

There is a very uniqe video of a Zeros fighting over Rabaul, with some of them being hit and returning to base, than the damage is being shown and number of holes is counted. If I will manage to find it, I'll put it here. In many situations combat damaged Zeros returned home, almost every Kodachosho I read indicating some combat mission had not only mentioned aircraft shot down and pilots killed/missing, but also pilots injured and machines lightly and heavily damaged.


----------



## Aozora (Dec 18, 2015)

bakters said:


> 50 BMG can penetrate an inch of steel armor! There are locomotives being shot through on gun camera footage. Let's be real, OK?



So bakters is seriously saying that having no protection at all, for either the pilot or for the fuel tanks, is a whole lot better than having armour plate and self-sealing fuel tanks, just because the .50 cal BMG can penetrate 1 inch of steel? That's about as silly as stating that the Tiger I didn't need armour because the 17 pdr with APDS could penetrate its frontal armour at most ranges.



bakters said:


> In the second link they write that A6M5 surpasses all American fighters in maneuverability at *medium* speeds and altitudes. Not just slow speeds!



In other words, below 300 mph - bakters has forgotten the part about the American fighters avoiding turning dog fights at such speeds



bakters said:


> I don't know about Corsair, but a Hellcat has wing fuel tanks? Not armored with an inch thick steel plate? Then a Hellcat can also become a fireball with a bit of bad luck and a few .50 APIs through the wing root.



Any aircraft of WW 2 could have been set on fire with a bit of "bad luck" and a few .50 cal APIs in the wrong place. I doesn't change the fact that both the Corsair and Hellcat with their self-sealing fuel tanks and armour were a lot harder to set on fire and shoot down than the Zero.



bakters said:


> It's a propaganda flick. Have you ever tried to use those "sophisticated" hit&run tactics yourself?
> 
> Because it's not as easy as it may seem. You approach at high closing speed, the other guy maneuvers and you just missed before you even pulled the trigger. It's not easy. And Zeke is not a biplane, it has speed too and it can accelerate just as well or better than contemporary American opposition. Your own report states that.



Bakters can dismiss the film as 'propaganda" as much as he likes - thousands of Zeros found out the hard way that the hit and run tactics used by Corsairs and Hellcats were highly effective. What happens in a computer game in 2015 doesn't have any bearing on the realities of _REAL_ air-to-air combat 70 odd years ago.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> [email protected] pauk
> Now that is a bit exaggeration to put a blame on Zeros that they did not manage to bring down B-17s flying high, when they had duties low with all the other aircraft. I'm not going to open Shattered Sword now and count but how effective Zeros could be SBD and TBD in particular are a proof.
> 
> Overall the Japanese pressed home two attacks on the American task force. They did so with forces far weaker than those the Americans threw at their carriers. Japanese had a fighter escort in each case although it was weak and partially distracted from its main task. Despite the American advantage of radar, effective anti-aircraft fire and a strong force of intercepting fighters Japanese inflicted telling damage in both strikes. Japanese losses were heavy but comparatively somewhat lower than American.
> ...



I was trying to poit out that, while a good fighter, the Zero was far from the ideal fleet defender even in 1942. A good deal of Zero's success was it's pilots, the Kates Vals were also with 1st rate crews of sizable war experience ( that was not true for most of US crews back then). The torpedo that could be released on greater speed and range was also the Japanese advantage. All this in aggregate guaranteed a favorable hit ratio.
The fact still stand that RAF's Blenheims penetrated the fighter screen of the IJN carriers earlier in 1942.
The cruel losses of the USN torpedo bombers and Marine dive bombers were an outcome of several factors - lack of efficient, or any escort, far slower speed of the US TBs vs. Kates, especially when making the torpedo runs, no distraction from dive bombers as prescribed by doctrine, piecemeal application of TB/DB force. This US attackers suffered same as the Battles in Belgium or Su-2 in the eastern front.



> Well yes, but that is a November 1944 report when Japanese were more than aware of that themselves.



Already in 1942 the Allies knew that one does not turn with Zero or Oscar.



> Well, not exactly. There is a fuze for some reason designed, and it was present in Japanese, German, British, Soviet and US 20 mm HE ammunition.



The fuse will set on aircraft skin. If the shooter is good or it's luck holds, the shrapnel(s) will find the way past or through of protection and make a kill.



> Well, they were working on A7M since April 1942, since that month was a meeting of Mitsubishi and Navy representatives regarding the parameters of the new aircraft. It was rather a lack of engine that hampered the design throughout the war, one simply cant forget that Japan had much smaller industrial and intellectual base than US. Engineers do not grow on trees, they must study at universities and than gain their experience working on real projects.



Thank's for informing me on how to get engineers 
The A7M is just one design, and it was too late, the work on the sucessor fleet defender can be commenced once the design of the Zero is finished - already in 1941, if not in late 1940.



> Well, Germans having much earlier access to Oerlikon did not come up with any belt fed mechanism. Japanese first upgraded the Oerlikon design and than worked on solving existing issues - low ammo capacity was quickly solved by introduction 100 drum magazine and all new fighters since mid 1942 had them (so A6M3 and later produced A6M2), low muzzle velocity severely reducing the range - that was solved by the end of 1942 with introduction of Type 99-2 with long barrel and a new cartridge, which basically had same flight trajectory as machine guns used in A6M. All fighters were equipped with long barrel Type 99 since December 1942 (That is A6M3 and next ...)



By 1942 other peolple's 20mm cannons were with 140-250 rpg. The Germans (even though they DID come out with and used a belt-fed MG FFM version) developed their own MG 151, a belt feed cannon; Soviets were even earlier.



> All of this was attempted, thought and yet common answer was - the lack of proper engine along with drastic mass increase would make a machine perform terribly.



They could install the Kinsei in 1942/43, not wait until Aug 1942. Or the Ha-41, that was installed in the far smaller Ki-44. The Zero was bigger than Fw 190, after all.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 18, 2015)

> I was trying to poit out that, while a good fighter, the Zero was far from the ideal fleet defender even in 1942.



Can you point any better than ? In 1942 ? I honestly cant find so versatile carrier-borne fighter in any other Navy, F4F was slower and its climbing speed made it not suited for fast interceptions. Of course radar helped to fix that. But same could be done if Japanese would employ radar much earlier. Than we could look for Fairey Fulmar or Sea Hurricane - neither was even considered a great solution, even by the British. 



> A good deal of Zero's success was it's pilots, the Kates Vals were also with 1st rate crews of sizable war experience ( that was not true for most of US crews back then).


I'd also say that good deal of Zero's success was its performance, especially rapid rate of climb along with good acceleration. Having to deal with constant aerial attacks in Midway operation, ability to take-off fast and catch up to "bandits" had great important.
But than yes, pilot skills were essential as well. I can agree with that 



> The fuse will set on aircraft skin. If the shooter is good or it's luck holds, the shrapnel(s) will find the way past or through of protection and make a kill.



Well, to go through the protection Japanese Navy had APHE rounds which were supposed to penetrate the armored plates and than explode. 
I was more referring to He rounds that would enter the aircraft interior and explode inside of fuselage or wing structure, causing a massive structural damage.




> Thank's for informing me on how to get engineers


Sorry, I just couldnt resist 



> The A7M is just one design, and it was too late, the work on the sucessor fleet defender can be commenced once the design of the Zero is finished - already in 1941, if not in late 1940.


Unfortunately we come again to problem with insufficient amount of engineers to assign them to all tasks, Jiro Horikoshi was in 1941-early 1942 focusing on J2M which he later left for others to finish while giving full attention to A7M. 



> By 1942 other peolple's 20mm cannons were with 140-250 rpg. The Germans (even though they DID come out with and used a belt-fed MG FFM version) developed their own MG 151, a belt feed cannon; Soviets were even earlier.


British used a belt fed Hispanos for a long time. And besides, it wasnt an issue with the lack of belt fed Type 99 but amount of space in A6M wing, even a Type 99-2 Mod 4 which were belt fed, had no more than 125 rpg. The first aircraft that could really take advantage of belt fed Type 99 was J2M.



> They could install the Kinsei in 1942/43, not wait until Aug 1942. Or the Ha-41, that was installed in the far smaller Ki-44. The Zero was bigger than Fw 190, after all.



Please compare the engine weight, diameter and fuel consumption. 
Sakae 21 has a dry weight of 590 kg and diameter of 1150 mm. In comparison Kinsei 50 series (such as used in D3A2 or later G3M models) had a dry weight of 609 kg and 1220 mm diameter. Ha-41 was supposed to be used to power bombers and thus the weight and diameter were not a great consideration, it was even heavier than Kinsei - 630 kg and had diameter of 1260 mm. 
Now the FW-190, or to be precise BMW 801 had great diameter - 1290 mm being closer to P&W R-2800 than Sakae, and the weight was a killer - over 1000 kg.
Now if you add to it a fuel consumption of those engines ...

Jiro Horikoshi made it clear in his book, that usage of Kinsei engine while would give more power, would also require designing larger cowling - the overall result would be increased drag, so power would be wasted to overcome it. Kinsei had also higher fuel consumption, thus fighter would be forced to carry even more fuel - increasing its weight. That would affect flight characteristics, particularly maneuverability, rate of climb and landing speed. 

A6M was designed around such an engine, initially Zuisei and than Sakae. If you want something with a lot more power, than means it will be heavier, larger and will eat fuel like crazy. How will you compensate that ?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> Can you point any better than ? In 1942 ? I honestly cant find so versatile carrier-borne fighter in any other Navy, F4F was slower and its climbing speed made it not suited for fast interceptions. Of course radar helped to fix that. But same could be done if Japanese would employ radar much earlier. Than we could look for Fairey Fulmar or Sea Hurricane - neither was even considered a great solution, even by the British.
> I'd also say that good deal of Zero's success was its performance, especially rapid rate of climb along with good acceleration. Having to deal with constant aerial attacks in Midway operation, ability to take-off fast and catch up to "bandits" had great important.
> But than yes, pilot skills were essential as well. I can agree with that



Nobody in 1942 have had the ideal fleet defender. 
Fulmar have had the great combat endurance through the amount of fuel and ammo, but was lacking in performance; on the plus side it did not lost due to air attacks that many carriers/ships it was protecting, and that is a major thing. Sea Hurricane was not that far away from Zero in raw performance, especially the Mk.II, it should outclimb it under 10000-15000 ft, though. The 8 .303s ammo will last much longer than the 60 rd for the Zero's cannons. Radius/endurance is lacking. F4F - the -3 was better than -4 in performance and ammo count, the -4 carries greater firepower and can have drop tanks. 
You're right that Zero had the great rate of climb, acceleration and that was manuverable. The shortcomings still stand, though.



> Unfortunately we come again to problem with insufficient amount of engineers to assign them to all tasks, Jiro Horikoshi was in 1941-early 1942 focusing on J2M which he later left for others to finish while giving full attention to A7M.



There were other Japanese companies more than eager to sell fighters to the navy. Plus, why go with dedicated float plane fighters that kawainshi was doing - come out with a plain vanilla fighter and attach the floats on those, as with the Rufe. Why go with J2M that is not a carrier fighter 1st, then produce the land-based version? Too much of the resources and time was wasted from IJN (and IJA), with apaling number of aircraft produced.



> British used a belt fed Hispanos for a long time. And besides, it wasnt an issue with the lack of belt fed Type 99 but amount of space in A6M wing, even a Type 99-2 Mod 4 which were belt fed, had no more than 125 rpg. The first aircraft that could really take advantage of belt fed Type 99 was J2M.



The zero's were outfitted with wing HMGs plus cannons, so there was plenty of space in Zero's wings.



> Please compare the engine weight, diameter and fuel consumption.
> Sakae 21 has a dry weight of 590 kg and diameter of 1150 mm. In comparison Kinsei 50 series (such as used in D3A2 or later G3M models) had a dry weight of 609 kg and 1220 mm diameter. Ha-41 was supposed to be used to power bombers and thus the weight and diameter were not a great consideration, it was even heavier than Kinsei - 630 kg and had diameter of 1260 mm.
> Now the FW-190, or to be precise BMW 801 had great diameter - 1290 mm being closer to P&W R-2800 than Sakae, and the weight was a killer - over 1000 kg.
> Now if you add to it a fuel consumption of those engines ...



The weight difference between Kinsei 50s and Sakae 21 is a mere 19 kg  Ditch the fuselage LMGs their ammo and one saves weight. The A6M8 was to have the Kinseis, so this is the case of proof is in the pudding 
The Ka-41 was powering the tiny Ki-44, should look good on the Zero too. Shortcomings of fuel consumption can be mitigated by installing the twin drop tank installation, or with usage of a bigger drop tank, plus more fuel can be carried behind the pilot, like the Ki-61 and Ki-100 had.



> Jiro Horikoshi made it clear in his book, that usage of Kinsei engine while would give more power, would also require designing larger cowling - the overall result would be increased drag, so power would be wasted to overcome it. Kinsei had also higher fuel consumption, thus fighter would be forced to carry even more fuel - increasing its weight. That would affect flight characteristics, particularly maneuverability, rate of climb and landing speed.



They still went with Kinsei eventually 



> A6M was designed around such an engine, initially Zuisei and than Sakae. If you want something with a lot more power, than means it will be heavier, larger and will eat fuel like crazy. How will you compensate that ?



I've suggested the compensation. The biggest compensation would be the better performing Zero, hopefully now with at least some armor.


----------



## bakters (Dec 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> bakters, do you realize how heavy 1 inch steel weighs?
> 
> Self-sealing fuel tanks used a butyl-style liner material that allowed the projectile to pass through the fuel cell and then closed the hole. Fuel tanks as a rule, did not have armor plate.


Of course I know that 1" plate is not a realistic protection on a fighter, but that's what it takes to simply "pass through" with a 50 BMG AP(I). With much less protection the bullet does not "pass through", especially if it tumbles. It punches a fist size or bigger exit hole. No liner is going to plug that.



> This ongoing defense of the "super invincible" A6M is getting tiresome.


Who said she was invincible? I simply read here that it was very easy to beat her, because other planes were faster. I just don't know how to do it in a sim, so I ask how exactly am I supposed to beat her *easily*? Supposedly by "not playing the Zero game", I guess, but what exactly does it mean? And how are you supposed to outmaneuver her at high speed? That too.



> I am not sure what you know, that the entire Imperial Japanese General staff did not, but the fact remains, that the A6M was a dead end and thye did not pursue further development.


Like in, they decided to outfit their carriers with a totally different design? Which one?



> You can keep going back and forth, but plenty of knowledgable people here have given you examples, details and hard numbers and it leads to the fact that the Zero's time had come and gone.
> 
> In the world of combat sims, there is always inconsistancies, and you cannot rely on anything in a sim to be relevant in the real world.


Fine, I accept that this is potentially a serious problem. So which parameters are totally off? I can do the tests and try to compensate for the errors. Like, if she's climbing too fast and turning with too much ease while retaining energy too well, I'll fly her with a full fuel load, while the Corsair model will be almost empty.

Do you think that's enough? If so, I kinda did it already. _First by choosing A6M2 as my Zeke, not A6M5..._ But I'm open to other suggestions.


----------



## bakters (Dec 18, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hey bakters,
> [...]


Hey Greg.

I'm trying to be as honest as possible. If I gave the impression that I boast of my sim-playing skills, it was not intended at all. _I'm mediocre at best!_ I would be slaughtered online on a proper sim server.

Then, about mistaking sims for reality. I'm a sailor and a biker in real life. I used to do some mountain climbing when I was young too, but never pursued aviation due to my poor eyesight. I tried to do parachute jumping at one point, and I even faked my eyesight results to do so (taking notes on lectures with no glasses was fun ).

What I mean by that, is that I understand danger and risk as far as any other guy who was never in combat can, or at least I believe to that I do. I know sims are not reality, but they don't need to be perfect to be _useful_. For me sims are toys and tools. Nothing more than that, but also nothing less.

For example, I drive a car and I played car racing sims. They are not the real thing, but they relate to reality in a fairly consistent manner. Until conclusions I try to make are way too precise, I don't need perfection.

If perfect models were a necessity to draw _any_ conclusions, science would die. I love science. I would cry myself to sleep if she would disappear.


----------



## bakters (Dec 18, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> That's a bit harsh Greg,


I don't feel offended at all.



> Because its not economy or some physical model, it is a game that tries to be reality, while has limited ways to reflect the latter one. Read what Greg told you, now think how much of this can you experience ? Nothing. You dont feel G-loads, you dont feel the sun on your face when cruising thousands of feet over the ground, etc.


That's kinda good, in my book. All those _feelings_ will only cloud your judgement. 

Anyway, do my results reflect reality in any meaningful way, and if not then why? You see, when I "fly" Corsair I experience the same lack of experiences as when I "fly" a Zeke. Both errors cancel each other, not? 

I'm willing to change my stance on the matter if someone shows me how exactly you can beat a Zero in real life easily, but not in a sim. I'm sure you understand me.



> It was not only about the aircraft, despite some want to make it look like that. It was about general change of tactics, where US pilots engaged with numerical and altitude advantage, putting emphasis on teamwork. Having superior communication and being guided by the radar they could always gain such advantages.


I agree. 



> In raw performance A6M5 wasnt that outclassed if compared to F6F-3, however introduction of newer models with water injection along with further deterioration of quality of Japanese pilots gave a massive advantage Americans - thus Japanese were outclassed.


Japanese were outclassed, Zeke was fine. Again, I just agree.



> The moment you mentioned war thunder you lost it, that game is not simulator even in moder simulators meaning. It is rather an arcade game, giving opportunity to shoot and fly in aircraft but has limited sense of realism, even for a sim.


War Thunder is not a sim. It's just an arcade shoot-em-up video game. But it's free and has plenty of work put into modelling cockpits. You can use it as a tool, or as a toy. Nothing more and nothing less.

Thanks for the vid. I'll watch it for sure.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 18, 2015)

> ea Hurricane was not that far away from Zero in raw performance, especially the Mk.II, it should outclimb it under 10000-15000 ft, though. The 8 .303s ammo will last much longer than the 60 rd for the Zero's cannons. Radius/endurance is lacking.


But you will need a lot more of them to bring down enemy. .303 were found to be ineffective, even against unprotected fighters of 1939-1941 period. Besides, you really miss the point with 20 mm in Zero, they were not a weapon to spray&pray like machine guns, they were there to finish the opponent when close. The main armament of A6M were 7.7 mm Type 97 machine guns. Even Saburo Sakai admitted that most of the aircraft he shot down by using his machine guns, while 20 mms were used to deliver the killing blow.



> You're right that Zero had the great rate of climb, acceleration and that was manuverable. The shortcomings still stand, though.


It had shortcomings, it is known and I do not negate that. However having superior performance allowed pilots to disengage if opponent could threaten them. Japanese also used if possible altitude advantage.



> There were other Japanese companies more than eager to sell fighters to the navy. Plus, why go with dedicated float plane fighters that kawainshi was doing - come out with a plain vanilla fighter and attach the floats on those, as with the Rufe. Why go with J2M that is not a carrier fighter 1st, then produce the land-based version? Too much of the resources and time was wasted from IJN (and IJA), with apaling number of aircraft produced.



Which ones ? The major contractor was Mitsubishi. Nakajima was already focusing on delivering Zeros as well, being forced by Navy. They also had to split their time and effort making naval torpedo bombers, Army fighters and bombers. Kawasaki was relatively smaller company if compared to major "players" and had more experience with inline engines, thus was tasked with work on Type 3 fighter and Type 2 Twin-engine fighter.
What is left is Aichi, which was doing more than a good job delivering dive bombers (in particular they were focusing on new D4Y Judy) and Kawanishi having no experience with fighter aircraft, but only with seaplanes and flying boats. Kawanishi soon was given a chance to produce something and the first effects were disappointing as N1K1-J did not meet the expectations and it wasn't until 1944 with N1K2-J that Kawanishi finally produced a superior fighter.

It was Navy that had to issue the requirements first, for the new fighter and as a result Mitsubishi would respond.


About J2M, it may look useless but Navy had their own bases and targets to defend and needed a land based fighter aircraft. It may look weird, but that was the specific of their policy. One would ask why Americans had at the same time present 6 types of fighters over Pacific - F6F, F4U, FM-2, P-51, P-47, P-38 ? 



> The zero's were outfitted with wing HMGs plus cannons, so there was plenty of space in Zero's wings.


You're talking about A6M5c, with 13.2 mm HMGs. But they were place on the outer side of the wing, and most importantly they were shorter. Type 99-2 was relatively long, and ammo boxes were placed deep in wing structure. Look for some technical drawings and you will see how exactly the placement of those weapons and ammo for them looked like.




> The weight difference between Kinsei 50s and Sakae 21 is a mere 19 kg Ditch the fuselage LMGs their ammo and one saves weight. The A6M8 was to have the Kinseis, so this is the case of proof is in the pudding



Well, you try to sound like you know better than a man who designed that aircraft. This sounds a bit arrogant. Let me quote you exactly what Jiro said about choosing the Zuisei over Kinsei :


> Only when the engine has been selected can a designer produce a draft of the airframe. In case of Prototype 12 (12-Shi - prototype name of A6M) the Mitsubishi Kinsei Type 46 and the Zuisei Type 13 were listed as candidate engines, the Kinsei being the more powerful of the two. If we used the Kinsei, we could have an airplane with high performance and high speed in one jump. For just that reason I felt it should be selected. This was in keeping with my philosophy that it would be better to design a high performance fighter in one big leap rather than to eventually reach that goal by making numerous small improvements to a lower performance aircraft over the span of its lifetime.
> But there was a fateful obstacle in using Kinsei: it required a bigger airframe. The Kinsei was more powerful than the Zuisei, and it also was larger, heavier, and consumed more fuel. Because of this the airframe would be larger than if a smaller engine were used, and the fuel weight would be greater. In order to carry the increased weight, the wing must be larger and the fuselage and tail would also have to be larger. This, in turn, would require a stronger landing gear and yet another increase in airframe size.
> A quick weight estimate showed the airplane's weight would be about 3000 kg. This was acceptable for a land-based plane, but pilots accustomed to flying small 1,600 kg Type 96 fighters would not readily accept the heavy new fighter. And this would mean the loss of the Prototype 12 contract. In contrast, if we used the Zuisei engine, the airplanes weight was estimated to be about 2,300 kg, the wing span would be in the neighborhood of twelve meters with a wing area compatible with a good fighter performance.



Aircraft is always a compromise, and engine being a heart of the warbird affects all other systems - heavier and larger engine requires stronger and larger airframe, rises the amount of fuel that has to be carried to maintain the range, etc. etc.

Besides, ditching fuselage machine guns would be out of question since they were requirement. I agree that they were obsolete, would be so much better if Navy could use Army 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns, especially that they were of similar size and weight, thus would not require changes in cowling construction. 

A6M8 was an act of desperation. And according to the books I read the effect of more powerful engine was negated by added weight of armor, additional weapons and ammunition gained through A6M5 series and new engine weight - aircraft reached 563 km/h at 5600 meters - so was as fast as A6M5 due to increased drag. It could reach 6000 meters in 6 minutes and 50 seconds, being about 10 seconds faster than A6M5. The weight increase was tremendous though - from 3080 kilograms of the A6M5 to 3800 kilograms. This of course affected handling, landing speed and stalls. 
Point of Zero was a light, maneuverable and fast climbing airplane. This was basically negating all the characteristics.



> They still went with Kinsei eventually


Desperation, desperation ... they also went for Kamikaze attacks and balloon bombs...



> I've suggested the compensation. The biggest compensation would be the better performing Zero, hopefully now with at least some armor.


A6M5c had armor and self sealing fuel tanks - that was a 8-10 mm thick armored plate behind pilots back and 55 mm thick bulletproof glass behind pilots head.

I'm also not sure if people are aware, but A6M5s produced by Mitsubishi from December 1943 (S/N 4274 and onward) and by Nakajima from February-March 1944 (it is known that the 96th Nakajima A6M5 in the collection of the Imperial War Museum in the UK produced in mid-March 1944) were equipped with automatic CO2 Fire Extinguishers. That constitutes (at least in theory) for over 750 A6M5s from 1150 produced by Mitsubishi and around 700 produced from 820 by Nakajima being equipped with Fire Extinguisher. 
It was a simple single use equipment, required only activating by pilot and than would work automatically - when fire was detected it would release through pipelines a CO2 and spray it around the burning fuel tank. Pilot was aware of fire and its extinguishing by the panel placed in cockpit, which indicated fire by lighting a small lamp, when extinguished the lamp would be turned-off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bakters (Dec 18, 2015)

@Azora

I never wrote that protection is totally irrelevant, just overrated. Maneuvering above 300mph in those planes means that you are diving and trying to shake the Zeke off your tail, not that you are actively getting oh her tail. 

You will not get on her tail by maneuvering! That's what all those reports say. It's not something you can expect to happen. "Never attempt to dogfight a Zero" means exactly that. "Never attempt to outclimb her at slow speed" means that stall-trapping will not work either. People who fought her and tested her wrote those sentences. We should respect their opinion.

Anyway, why do You refer to me in third person while responding to my post? Was I disrespectful in any way? If so, I apologize. It was not my intention. I try to be respectful, and I try to follow the rules as I understand them. I may err nonetheless, but if such a thing happened, please forgive me.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 18, 2015)

> I never wrote that protection is totally irrelevant, just overrated.


That is a bit shocking, there is nothing overrated about protection when it comes to saving life. 

Sure, there are situations when further increase of armor leads to minimal increase of protection, while price is a huge deterioration of aircraft performance, but basic protection is a must. It's easier to make a new fighter than train a new pilot, not to mention allowing him to stay alive and gain experience.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> But you will need a lot more of them to bring down enemy. .303 were found to be ineffective, even against unprotected fighters of 1939-1941 period. Besides, you really miss the point with 20 mm in Zero, they were not a weapon to spray&pray like machine guns, they were there to finish the opponent when close. The main armament of A6M were 7.7 mm Type 97 machine guns. Even Saburo Sakai admitted that most of the aircraft he shot down by using his machine guns, while 20 mms were used to deliver the killing blow.



In one hand, the 2 LMGs are the main weapon. But then, the 8 .303s were 'found to be ineffective'. Sorry, the logic behind this escapes me 



> Which ones ? The major contractor was Mitsubishi. Nakajima was already focusing on delivering Zeros as well, being forced by Navy. They also had to split their time and effort making naval torpedo bombers, Army fighters and bombers. Kawasaki was relatively smaller company if compared to major "players" and had more experience with inline engines, thus was tasked with work on Type 3 fighter and Type 2 Twin-engine fighter.
> What is left is Aichi, which was doing more than a good job delivering dive bombers (in particular they were focusing on new D4Y Judy) and Kawanishi having no experience with fighter aircraft, but only with seaplanes and flying boats. Kawanishi soon was given a chance to produce something and the first effects were disappointing as N1K1-J did not meet the expectations and it wasn't until 1944 with N1K2-J that Kawanishi finally produced a superior fighter.
> It was Navy that had to issue the requirements first, for the new fighter and as a result Mitsubishi would respond.



It was indeed Navy's job to make a request. 
We know that Judy was in pipeline as early as 1941 (to replace the Vals), several examples serving already at Midway. The Kate will be superseeded in 1943, at least that was the plan with B6N Jill. There are two land-based fighters in development, the J2M and N1K1 (developed from floatplane fighter). The high speed recon aircraft is in development. However, there is no fighter design in pipeline, to replace the Zero until too late.
My suggestionn is that both Mitsubishi develops a carrier-based fighter instead of the J2M, while the Kawanshi will be doing the same. The winning design will be produced as a CV fighter, land-based fighter, single-engined recon, and, if we really want it, as a floatplane fighter. 
The Type 2 fighter was powered by radial engines 



> About J2M, it may look useless but Navy had their own bases and targets to defend and needed a land based fighter aircraft. It may look weird, but that was the specific of their policy. One would ask why Americans had at the same time present 6 types of fighters over Pacific - F6F, F4U, FM-2, P-51, P-47, P-38 ?



The 'de-navalized' new fighter can do whatever the J2M can do. If thier policy was to have small number of specialized aircraft for each duty, that's an own goal. The comparison with US fighters really does not hold water, Americans were able to churn their aircraft in quantities far beyond jaanese capabilities.



> You're talking about A6M5c, with 13.2 mm HMGs. But they were place on the outer side of the wing, and most importantly they were shorter. Type 99-2 was relatively long, and ammo boxes were placed deep in wing structure. Look for some technical drawings and you will see how exactly the placement of those weapons and ammo for them looked like.



I was suggesting more ammo, not another pair of cannons.



> Well, you try to sound like you know better than a man who designed that aircraft. This sounds a bit arrogant. Let me quote you exactly what Jiro said about choosing the Zuisei over Kinsei :
> <snip>
> Aircraft is always a compromise, and engine being a heart of the warbird affects all other systems - heavier and larger engine requires stronger and larger airframe, rises the amount of fuel that has to be carried to maintain the range, etc. etc.



The Bf-109 went from smal engine to a bigger heavier one to further heavier ones. The Fw 190 did the same. The Italian fighters replaced the light radial with heavy V-12. Mustang replaced light V-1710 with much heavier 2-stage Merlin. Spitfire is a well known example of succesfull engine change. Zero wasn not a small fighter, nor it was of flimsy construction. 



> A6M8 was an act of desperation. And according to the books I read the effect of more powerful engine was negated by added weight of armor, additional weapons and ammunition gained through A6M5 series and new engine weight - aircraft reached 563 km/h at 5600 meters - so was as fast as A6M5 due to increased drag. It could reach 6000 meters in 6 minutes and 50 seconds, being about 10 seconds faster than A6M5. The weight increase was tremendous though - from 3080 kilograms of the A6M5 to 3800 kilograms. This of course affected handling, landing speed and stalls.
> Point of Zero was a light, maneuverable and fast climbing airplane. This was basically negating all the characteristics.
> Desperation, desperation ... they also went for Kamikaze attacks and balloon bombs...



A you've noted, it is not engine that made the A6M8 heavier that much, but the addition of other things judged necessary, thus the performance remained unchanged.



> A6M5c had armor and self sealing fuel tanks - that was a 8-10 mm thick armored plate behind pilots back and 55 mm thick bulletproof glass behind pilots head.



Interesting - could you please provide the details about the fuel system on that variant?



> I'm also not sure if people are aware, but A6M5s produced by Mitsubishi from December 1943 (S/N 4274 and onward) and by Nakajima from February-March 1944 (it is known that the 96th Nakajima A6M5 in the collection of the Imperial War Museum in the UK produced in mid-March 1944) were equipped with automatic CO2 Fire Extinguishers. That constitutes (at least in theory) for over 750 A6M5s from 1150 produced by Mitsubishi and around 700 produced from 820 by Nakajima being equipped with Fire Extinguisher.
> It was a simple single use equipment, required only activating by pilot and than would work automatically - when fire was detected it would release through pipelines a CO2 and spray it around the burning fuel tank. Pilot was aware of fire and its extinguishing by the panel placed in cockpit, which indicated fire by lighting a small lamp, when extinguished the lamp would be turned-off.



Thank you for that.
Were the fire extinguishers incorporated also on te aircraft with s-s fuel tanks?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hey bakters,
> 
> I am talking about real airplanes, not a simulator. The title says "Corsair vs Zero" and doesn't mention a simulator, which has no place in an aviation forum on WWII combat. It belongs in a dedicated gamer forum on the site that is separate. They have little to nothing in common.
> 
> ...





Hiromachi said:


> That's a bit harsh Greg, while mostly true, I just wanted to point out that not everyone can afford flying real aircraft or not everyone can do this due to various health problems (my eyes for example, I'm not sure I'd be allowed to fly anything with my eyesight). Simulators can be a decent substitute, while obviously limited in experience to vision and sound, they still require some levels of control, engine management and so on. Point is to feel like in an aircraft, not exactly to be in one.
> 
> But true, your desk cant pull G's. My friend who was real life pilot and designer in flight sim, tended to make various jokes about those thinking that they are as good as real pilots. For example sims cant simulate effects of spin, I mean you see your aircraft spinning but you dont experience the feeling - so he proposed to pause the game for a moment and do dozen of spins in chair. Than one would have to regain control over his "warbird" and ... himself



With no dog in this fight I have to agree 100% with Greg - as you point out however that some sim "players" and designers do understand that no matter how good the sim, you're not going to experience real world conditions. Point here, some folks on this forum and been blessed to fly aircraft and some have flown warbirds. Some of us may get a bit perturbed when we're haring someone trying to validate a sim into real world conditions. As been pointed out and I'll repeat, I've taken "sim experts" up in a C172 and they couldn't complete coordinated turns, hold a heading and were scared to be demonstrated a stall, let alone do one on their own, so don't try to tell me how you're going to fly a P-51 in combat and compare it to real world conditions.

PS - and guys, listen to Biff, he's a wealth of knowledge and "been there, done that".

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bakters (Dec 18, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> That is a bit shocking, there is nothing overrated about protection when it comes to saving life.
> 
> Sure, there are situations when further increase of armor leads to minimal increase of protection, while price is a huge deterioration of aircraft performance, but basic protection is a must. It's easier to make a new fighter than train a new pilot, not to mention allowing him to stay alive and gain experience.


You are aware perfectly well that there is a cost-benefit function going on here, which you prove both in your qualifying statement here, and in other posts.

Appealing to emotions gets us nowhere. Since you are way more competent at this topic than I am, why don't you enlighten me how things should have been done? I'll read it and think about it. Maybe learn something too.

Pozdrowienia.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 18, 2015)

> In one hand, the 2 LMGs are the main weapon. But then, the 8 .303s were 'found to be ineffective'. Sorry, the logic behind this escapes me



If you would use any than maybe it would not escape you. There is no logic contradiction. 7.7 were claimed to be main weapon by Zero pilots, however we know that they were ineffective as in fact even 8 of them were not sufficient during combat over Britain. I see no logic contradiction here.



> We know that Judy was in pipeline as early as 1941 (to replace the Vals), several examples serving already at Midway.


They were in development for long, but as it was found during trials the wing section were not strong enough to sustain a high speed dives necessary for modern dive bombing and thus initially D4Y1 was produced in recce variant of D4Y1-C. And in such role 2 of them were used in Midway operation. While at the same time Aichi worked fast on fixing the issue with the wing strength.



> However, there is no fighter design in pipeline, to replace the Zero until too late.


I already told you that there was, since April 1942 that was A7M2. Considering that first A6M2 were in small numbers employed over China in 1940, and proper carrier variant (A6M2 model 21) reached carrier units in 1941 I dunno how much faster you want it to be, with all the limited resources.



> My suggestionn is that both Mitsubishi develops a carrier-based fighter instead of the J2M, while the Kawanshi will be doing the same. The winning design will be produced as a CV fighter, land-based fighter, single-engined recon, and, if we really want it, as a floatplane fighter.


But than you would have no land based fighter to protect Navy bases or oil fields in Dutch East India. And you would expect full competition, I am aware of Army competitions run in 30s (like for Ki-27, when it had to compete with Ki-33 and Ki-28) but I cant recall Navy having such policy.



> The Type 2 fighter was powered by radial engines


 I guess the lack of this symbol in that sentence " , " made you think that I thought Ki-45 was also powered by inline engines. No no. 



> The 'de-navalized' new fighter can do whatever the J2M can do.


Are you sure ? To me requirements for a high speed and fast climbing interceptor look different than for a versatile carried borne fighter. 



> I was suggesting more ammo, not another pair of cannons.


And I understand that, but to put more ammo you need to extend the existing ammo box - which in this case was in the middle of the wing. 13.2 mm HMGs had ammo boxes closer to the leading edge, not interfering with deep in wing.



> The Bf-109 went from smal engine to a bigger heavier one to further heavier ones. The Fw 190 did the same. The Italian fighters replaced the light radial with heavy V-12. Spitfire is a well known example of successful engine change.


Was any of them a naval fighter ? 
And to be specific, the BF-109s did not require that many changes to accommodate newer engines. Switching between DB 601 A to N was not an issue in E models, a new DB 601 E was longer than previously used 601 N and that required a certain amount of changes in the airframe. Again switch from DB 601 to DB 605 required some changes. But those engines were not getting much wider, it was easier to accommodate them. I dont know much of Merlin changes, got original manual for Spitfire MK I and thats all my materials for Spitfires  If you know the details of engine changes, please enlighten me. 

Using a larger radial engine requires larger cowling, thus leading to increase of drag. 



> Zero wasn not a small fighter, nor it was of flimsy construction.



Zero wasn't small, nor flimsy. It was in fact quite a strong structure. But the fuselage was intended to be as small as possible, not to produce any more drag. Hence why such a specifically designed cowling, propeller and spinner. 
If the engineer such as Jiro cant convince you, than honestly I will stop trying. 



> A you've noted, it is not engine that made the A6M8 heavier that much, but the addition of other things judged necessary, thus the performance remained unchanged.


Weight has lower effect on level speed than drag. Drag produced by much wider engine along with redesigned cooler had great effect, hence almost no speed gain.



> Interesting - could you please provide the details about the fuel system on that variant?


What do you mean ?
A6M5c had 1 main fuselage fuel tank and 2 fuel tanks in each wing - overall 5 fuel tanks. 



> Thank you for that.
> Were the fire extinguishers incorporated also on te aircraft with s-s fuel tanks?


Yes, of course. 
Even A6M2s fighter-bomber variant produced by Nakajima had fire extinguishers.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 18, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> With no dog in this fight I have to agree 100% with Greg - as you point out however that some sim "players" and designers do understand that no matter how good the sim, you're not going to experience real world conditions. Point here, some folks on this forum and been blessed to fly aircraft and some have flown warbirds. Some of us may get a bit perturbed when we're haring someone trying to validate a sim into real world conditions. As been pointed out and I'll repeat, I've taken "sim experts" up in a C172 and they couldn't complete coordinated turns, hold a heading and were scared to be demonstrated a stall, let alone do one on their own, so don't try to tell me how you're going to fly a P-51 in combat and compare it to real world conditions.
> 
> PS - and guys, listen to Biff, he's a wealth of knowledge and "been there, done that".



I agree with Greg, just wanted to point that some simulators can be pretty close. Particularly newer Digital Combat Simulator puts a huge emphasis on that as they cooperate with various museums having real aircraft flying. But true, nothing this can compensate for the lack of feeling inside of the cockpit. 

On the joke side, I knew a guy who claimed that virtual pilots were better than real pilots, because virtual pilots could die and respawn again and keep flying analyzing their mistakes, while real pilots had only one chance and small mistake could end their life, so they could not gain experience from mistake.
I honestly facepalmed. 


Yes yes, I listen to. And wish one day I will visit US and experience the Planes of Fame show.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 18, 2015)

If a sim shows that a zero cannot be beaten and the spitfire V is next best then the sim is not a good sim, history proves that.

I have never flown but I have raced motorcycles ridden them on the road and used a sim, riding a fast road bike is not even a good "sim" for racing it. As a club racer the most that you do is 3 races of 5 or 6 laps about 6 to 8 minutes a race. After three races in a day you are not only physically tired but mentally too. I can play on a sim all day without even a raise in heartbeat.

F1 drivers use sims occasionally when a new circuit is used, it saves them about 3 laps in getting used to the circuit, nothing more.


----------



## bakters (Dec 18, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Bakters,
> 
> I'll throw a few things on the table here for your consideration, let me know what you think.
> 
> When I first started training in the F15 using visual sims the new guy standard was to fight slow, in tight turning matches. It was only after some serious instruction with an IP critiquing everything you were doing that your skill set and understanding expanded.


I'll be as honest as I can convey in English. Yes, I agree that "turnfighting" is the instinctive way of doing it for all new players, and probably many new fighter pilots too. Yes, I may lack some deeper understanding on how to do it properly. I admit to that.

But do I really think I'm not capable of exploiting the advantages of high speed over a slow fighter in the environment I'm familiar with? To be perfectly honest, I think I know what I'm doing.

But maybe I do not? That's why I _asked for advice_, not just thrown my conclusions onto everybody as some sort of revelation. Be fair. That's what I did, nothing else.



> The Zero was a beautiful flyer, light responsive controls and good energy sustaining.


Yes. I didn't bring it up yet, but aiming in a Zeke is just easier. I didn't bring it, because even a small inaccuracy in modelling can give you such an impression, despite it being totally unrealistic. 

But since you wrote it first, I'm allowed to say that's how it feels in a sim too.



> That never changed however its opponents did, both mechanically and with greater knowledge.
> 
> The faults of the Zero were its higher speed maneuverability, lack of armor and self sealing tanks. The F6F-5, and Corsairs had speed in climb (not rate), level flight and a dive as well as the ability to maneuver in that range without fighting the weight of the flight controls or sluggish flight controls.


What do you mean by that? That you could escape a Zeke on your tail by diving and rolling away? Sure you could. Could you get on her tail by doing those maneuvers? If so, I can't see how.



> The energy sustainability is not driven by weight but by CG, drag and thrust to weight. We're the US men and planes had the advantage over the Zero was speed, firepower, and eventually knowledge (of the Zero strengths / weaknesses) of how to exploit them.


Fine. So how to do it? How to get on Zero's tail, to be blunt about it? And how to stay there...? 



> What all this boils down to in my opinion is the knowledge of how to fight a Zero with a faster but not as maneuverable aircraft is what you need.


Exactly. How to do it?



> History has shown us that staying fast, and not turning much with a Zero was the best way to kill one. What you need in the game is the rest of your flight to help increase lethality by using coordinated team tactics.


History has shown us that if you start dogfighting with a Zeke you die. If you stay fast, you don't die. If you have friendlies above, the Zeke will die. Eventually. Especially if it's piloted by a n00b.

Am I missing something? (Sorry to be blunt, but I promised to be as honest as I can, and I'm keeping my word.)


----------



## Balljoint (Dec 18, 2015)

Interesting; but I think the sim and real world -while both valid- are different discussions.

Also, with the benefit of hindsight and perhaps with a bit of help from ignorance, it would seem the zero designers missed –or were late for- the boat with their improvements. The salient shortcoming of the zero was high speed roll rate due to weak ailerons and some wing structure weakness at high speed. Fix this and the zero becomes much more effective against the earlier opposition though ultimately hurting against the big iron corsair.

Keep in mind that roll rate is not for 720° degree rolls as in the movies. The idea is to get your wings oriented appreciably differently from the pursuers so you can turn perpendicular to the wing orientation while the pursuer lags.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> If you would use any than maybe it would not escape you. There is no logic contradiction. 7.7 were claimed to be main weapon by Zero pilots, however we know that they were ineffective as in fact even 8 of them were not sufficient during combat over Britain. I see no logic contradiction here.



<while disregarding snarky comment>
The 8 Brownings were efficient enough to help inflict LW a major setback during the BoB. The logic is maybe that Sakai used 2 LMGs to down most of it's victims, downing them once more with cannons.



> I already told you that there was, since April 1942 that was A7M2. Considering that first A6M2 were in small numbers employed over China in 1940, and proper carrier variant (A6M2 model 21) reached carrier units in 1941 I dunno how much faster you want it to be, with all the limited resources.



So let's waste the resources on the submarine-based dive bombers, dedicated flotplane fighters, dedicated S/E recon. That is before the duplication of Army and Navy land-based aircraft and their armament is mentioned, a waste of 1st order.



> But than you would have no land based fighter to protect Navy bases or oil fields in Dutch East India. And you would expect full competition, I am aware of Army competitions run in 30s (like for Ki-27, when it had to compete with Ki-33 and Ki-28) but I cant recall Navy having such policy.



I would have them. Starting from Zero, continuing with a version of it's successor.



> I guess the lack of this symbol in that sentence " , " made you think that I thought Ki-45 was also powered by inline engines. No no.



Nope. You stated that Kawasaki's experience with liquid cooled engines led to, amongs Ki-61, for them to design a radial enginedKi-45.



> Are you sure ? To me requirements for a high speed and fast climbing interceptor look different than for a versatile carried borne fighter.



The carrier-borne fighter also need to climb fast and to be fast. It's land-based version still need to provide the escort for the land based bombers the IJN had.



> And I understand that, but to put more ammo you need to extend the existing ammo box - which in this case was in the middle of the wing. 13.2 mm HMGs had ammo boxes closer to the leading edge, not interfering with deep in wing.



The ammo box pointed towards the fuselage, from the cannon's receivers, that also meant the inner pair of the wing fuel tanks were not protruding as much outboard as it could before 'touching the receivers. Maybe switch the cannons', so the ammo box points outwards, use the space gained to install bigger tanks?



> Was any of them a naval fighter ?
> And to be specific, the BF-109s did not require that many changes to accommodate newer engines. Switching between DB 601 A to N was not an issue in E models, a new DB 601 E was longer than previously used 601 N and that required a certain amount of changes in the airframe. Again switch from DB 601 to DB 605 required some changes. But those engines were not getting much wider, it was easier to accommodate them. I dont know much of Merlin changes, got original manual for Spitfire MK I and thats all my materials for Spitfires  If you know the details of engine changes, please enlighten me.
> Using a larger radial engine requires larger cowling, thus leading to increase of drag.



Seafire was a naval fighter, that went from 1-stage Merlin to 2-stage Griffon.
Bf-109 started from small light Jumo 210, not from bigger heavier DB 601A. Spitfire went from lighter smaller 1-stage Merlin to th bigger and heavier Griffon and 2-stage Merlin, and then to again bigger heavier 2-stage Griffon.
Using a more powerful V-12 also means bigger coolers, plus intercoolers if used, all that adds to the drag, let alone weight.


> Zero wasn't small, nor flimsy. It was in fact quite a strong structure. But the fuselage was intended to be as small as possible, not to produce any more drag. Hence why such a specifically designed cowling, propeller and spinner.
> If the engineer such as Jiro cant convince you, than honestly I will stop trying.



On the one side we have many fighters that went from being small and light as possible to being powerful as possible, paying the price in process. On the other side we have Mr. Hirokoshi that says otherwise, despite the installation of the very engine he found unfavorable. People can draw their own conclusion.



> What do you mean ?
> A6M5c had 1 main fuselage fuel tank and 2 fuel tanks in each wing - overall 5 fuel tanks.



Details like capacity and weight vs. non s-s tanks.



> Yes, of course.
> Even A6M2s fighter-bomber variant produced by Nakajima had fire extinguishers.



Thanks.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 18, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> On the one side we have many fighters that went from being small and light as possible to being powerful as possible, paying the price in process.



I would only disagree with this in terms of all planes being built as small and light as possible/practicable, they were always built around the most powerful designs available or projected to be available.

The 109 and Spitfire would have been much different if they were designed around a 2000+ HP engine and required to do carrier landings from the start. It is a testament to the original design that they could still be a competitive aircraft after the original power was more than doubled.

A hellcat designed around a 1000HP engine would be something like a wildcat.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I would only disagree with this in terms of all planes being built as small and light as possible/practicable, they were always built around the most powerful designs available or projected to be available.


Let me give you a quote from Kurt Tank in regards to that theory:


> The Messerschmitt 109 and the British Spitfire, the two fastest fighters in world at the time we began work on the Fw-190, could both *be summed up as a very large engine on the front of the smallest possible airframe*; in each case armament had been added almost as an afterthought.
> 
> These designs, both of which admittedly proved successful, could be likened to racehorses: given the right amount of pampering and easy course, they could outrun anything. But the moment the going became tough they were liable to falter.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2015)

The Fw 190 was the epitome of 'big engine, small airframe' concept, initilly too small as they found out and installed a bigger (but still smalish) wing. Unlike the Spitfire. The Fw 190 was conceived with 4 MGs as the armament, heavier armament being installed as an afterthought, same as with Bf 109?
Spitfire was with the wing big enough to allow for a practical carrier-suitable conversion. The Bf-109T was outfitted with bigger wings for same purpose.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 18, 2015)

Far be it from me to question Kurt Tank but I would point out that he had the luxury of looking at a Spitfire and a 109 and then look at the power output of engines available before penning his design. The first Spitfires in service had 850HP and the 109 was first tried out with a kestrel engine. Try a Corsair with 850BHP?

The Spitfire definitely carried the armament it was originally designed for 4x303 mgs this was increased to 8 mgs and later 2 canon +mgs or 4 canon


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 18, 2015)

> The 8 Brownings were efficient enough to help inflict LW a major setback during the BoB. The logic is maybe that Sakai used 2 LMGs to down most of it's victims, downing them once more with cannons.



British conducted tests with their .303 caliber and German 7.92 mm fire against one of their Blenheim light bombers equipped with armor. Fired from 200 yards through the bomber's structure (.028 inch aluminum alloy skin) at an angle 60 degrees against 4 mm armor plate the majority of shots were deflected by aircraft structure and of those hitting the armor only a small fraction penetrated.

Should I remind you that there were some examples of He-111 bombers returning to the airfields being peppered by 0.303 rounds. 0.303 could be an effective weapon, if it pierced radiator or coolant lines it would still be fatal to the enemy aircraft, but overall the ineffectiveness in combat, particularly against bombers was becoming apparent. 



> Nope. You stated that Kawasaki's experience with liquid cooled engines led to, amongs Ki-61, for them to design a radial enginedKi-45.


Which is not incorrect, Ki-45 was a result of a competition started in March 1937 for a strategic fighter - Nakajima with Ki-37, Kawasaki with Ki-38 and Mitsubishi with Ki-39. Both Kawasaki competitors being already too busy with other projects simply backed off and hence Kawasaki was intended to continue with a full metal, twin engine fighter powered by two inline engines Ha-9 IIa. That however failed and project was stopped at the stage of mockup as then engines proved to be unreliable. In December 1937 Koku Hombu change the requirements also changing the name of the project for Ki-45, now the aircraft was supposed to be powered by two radial engines - Ha-20b.



> The carrier-borne fighter also need to climb fast and to be fast. It's land-based version still need to provide the escort for the land based bombers the IJN had.



Carrier borne fighter requires also a naval equipment such as tailhook and few other things, is supposed to land at lower speeds to match a short deck of a ship - to achieve that it is necessary to balance the weight and wing area. Interceptor does not have to be "bothered" with that, can have smaller wing area which results in lower drag and higher top speed (that is a bit a generalization but I guess you are getting the point) and also does not require a low landing speed, though good handling characteristics are desired in every aircraft.



> The ammo box pointed towards the fuselage, from the cannon's receivers, that also meant the inner pair of the wing fuel tanks were not protruding as much outboard as it could before 'touching the receivers. Maybe switch the cannons', so the ammo box points outwards, use the space gained to install bigger tanks?


Just get the wing drawings of A6M5 with frames and spars and internal equipment and try to draw how would you see that placed. I guess there is no better way to see if what you think would necessary, would actually be possible.



> Seafire was a naval fighter, that went from 1-stage Merlin to 2-stage Griffon.
> Bf-109 started from small light Jumo 210, not from bigger heavier DB 601A. Spitfire went from lighter smaller 1-stage Merlin to th bigger and heavier Griffon and 2-stage Merlin, and then to again bigger heavier 2-stage Griffon.
> Using a more powerful V-12 also means bigger coolers, plus intercoolers if used, all that adds to the drag, let alone weight.



Inline engines rather "grow" longer than wider, thus there is little to no drag increase with that. And with those bigger coolers, how much bigger was cooling area in 109 F if compared to Emil, or K-4 if compared to G-6 ? 
Because those are still smaller parts of the aircraft, however when you place a new, larger radial that means whole fuselage has to be enlarged to accommodate that.



> On the other side we have Mr. Hirokoshi that says otherwise, despite the installation of the very engine he found unfavorable.


And installation of that engine resulted in almost no performance gain over 1-2 year earlier produced fighters. Once again, compare the speed and climb of A6M8 and A6M5.



> Details like capacity and weight vs. non s-s tanks.



Capacity for those is 25 liters for outer wing ones, 155 liters for inner wing ones and 140 liters for fuselage fuel tank. There is no data on their weight, but if that satisfies you there is exact drawing of various layers of rubber and overall thickness of the coatings, something between 14 to 18 mm thick (depending on the fuel tank).



> Thanks.


 No problem, I like to bring some new things


----------



## Starfighter91 (Dec 18, 2015)

> In 1940, the A6M was a world-beater. Add to the A6M's performance, the fact that they were piloted by combat experienced pilots and the USN and USAAC had their hands full with the aircraft in service at the start of the war for the U.S.



I disagree completely!
The A6M was an aircraft which was optimized for a dogfight or better turnfight at medicore speed!
Over 400km/h and increasingly to it's best output performance, she had a handling like a tank, even the Bf 109 E or F were miles better in high speed handling! And now were are not talking about handling of a Spitfire V, Bf 109 F4 or a FW 190 A3!
To get it right, at 1940 against a Spitfire II with 100 octane and a Bf 109 E4, the A6M would be outclased at high speed boom and zoom at the ETO. Against a 100 octane Spitfire V, Bf 109 F4 and a Fw 190 A (X) she would be *totaly* outclased at high speed boom and zoom!
The A6M is nothing more then a totaly overrated turn fighter aircraft in history, if she would be compared against the best aircrats and pilots at the ETO 1940/41/42, she would be easily totaly outclased, because at the ETO turnfighting was the past and was replaced by boom and zoom from the LW since 1940!!

That's a fact from all primary sources I have read!


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> ...
> Should I remind you that there were some examples of He-111 bombers returning to the airfields being peppered by 0.303 rounds. 0.303 could be an effective weapon, if it pierced radiator or coolant lines it would still be fatal to the enemy aircraft, but overall the ineffectiveness in combat, particularly against bombers was becoming apparent.



I didn't claimed that 8 .303s were ideal armament, though that kind of battery had it's good sides and proven to be a right choice for the early RAF fighters. Having the 2-3 times the duration of fire vs. the cannon with 60 rounds can make plenty when the enemy bomber must be stopped before reaching the carrier. Going through the 'Shattered Sword', the low cannon ammo count was highlighted as a serious shortcoming.



> Which is not incorrect, Ki-45 was a result of a competition started in March 1937 for a strategic fighter - Nakajima with Ki-37, Kawasaki with Ki-38 and Mitsubishi with Ki-39. Both Kawasaki competitors being already too busy with other projects simply backed off and hence Kawasaki was intended to continue with a full metal, twin engine fighter powered by two inline engines Ha-9 IIa....



Thank you. 
Looks like Kawasaki was able to come out with a fair product despite the inexperience with radial engined aircraft.



> Carrier borne fighter requires also a naval equipment such as tailhook and few other things, is supposed to land at lower speeds to match a short deck of a ship - to achieve that it is necessary to balance the weight and wing area. Interceptor does not have to be "bothered" with that, can have smaller wing area which results in lower drag and higher top speed (that is a bit a generalization but I guess you are getting the point) and also does not require a low landing speed, though good handling characteristics are desired in every aircraft.



The intention is for the carrier-based fighter to have the tail hook  The interceptor also benefits from generous wing area since it will climb better, like Spitfire for example. The land based fighter is not strictly the interceptor, it will also be tasked to provide the escort, thus an all-arounder is needed.



> Inline engines rather "grow" longer than wider, thus there is little to no drag increase with that. And with those bigger coolers, how much bigger was cooling area in 109 F if compared to Emil, or K-4 if compared to G-6 ?
> Because those are still smaller parts of the aircraft, however when you place a new, larger radial that means whole fuselage has to be enlarged to accommodate that.



The DB 601 was wider than Jumo 210, the 605 was still wider, especially when outfitted with big supercharger. Cooling loads depend on the engine power. The 109E used two engine coolers and a bigger oil coolers vs. the earlier models. The 109G used bigger engine coolers than the 109F, the size of oil coolers icreased with time.
The whole fuselage does not need to be enlarged when replacing a radial with a little bigger radial, after all such major surgery was not needed when LaGG-3 become La-5, no when Ki-16 become Ki-100.




> And installation of that engine resulted in almost no performance gain over 1-2 year earlier produced fighters. Once again, compare the speed and climb of A6M8 and A6M5.



With what A6M5 sub-type? The one with drum fed cannons, the one with belt-fed cannons and more ammo, with or without HMGs and their ammo, the one with or without fire extinguishers, with or without protection? The Kinsei was direly needed to restore back the performance for the Zero having all the best features, same as the Merlin 45 was needed just to restore performance on the level of the Spitfire I that was without protection, with lighter prop and MG-only. Should we propose deleting the protection from the Spitfire V, and revert back to the 8 .303s battery, install back the fixed-pich prop?
'There aint such thing as a free lunch' rule applies as ever.



> Capacity for those is 25 liters for outer wing ones, 155 liters for inner wing ones and 140 liters for fuselage fuel tank. There is no data on their weight, but if that satisfies you there is exact drawing of various layers of rubber and overall thickness of the coatings, something between 14 to 18 mm thick (depending on the fuel tank).



Thank you again. The resulting volume is then 500 L, or 132 US galons. Is there a firm data on weight between A6M2, -3, -5 and -5c?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Far be it from me to question Kurt Tank but I would point out that he had the luxury of looking at a Spitfire and a 109 and then look at the power output of engines available before penning his design. The first Spitfires in service had 850HP and the 109 was first tried out with a kestrel engine. Try a Corsair with 850BHP?
> 
> The Spitfire definitely carried the armament it was originally designed for 4x303 mgs this was increased to 8 mgs and later 2 canon +mgs or 4 canon



I'd ask what Spitfires have had just 850 HP, and not 1000+?


----------



## Starfighter91 (Dec 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Far be it from me to question Kurt Tank but I would point out that he had the luxury of looking at a Spitfire and a 109 and then look at the power output of engines available before penning his design. The first Spitfires in service had 850HP and the 109 was first tried out with a kestrel engine. Try a Corsair with 850BHP?
> 
> The Spitfire definitely carried the armament it was originally designed for 4x303 mgs this was increased to 8 mgs and later 2 canon +mgs or 4 canon



What bogus!

The Bf 109, FW 190, Bf 110 and FW 187 were all from the beginning, advertisements to a more then 1000PS engine!
The FW 190 had next the FW 187 (Jumo 210) the strongest requirements, because she must be better in more then 1 category compare the Bf 109, to get in mass production.
The first FW 190 prototypes were flying at a timeline 1938/39, in which the Bf 109 was flying with Jumo 210 in the production serial, but was tested with DB 601 engines and record DB 601 engines.
The FW 187 V4 (2 seater, with 2 x 210G) was ready and tested at Rechlin against the Bf 109 B and C and Bf 110 B before any Bf was ever produced with a DB 601 engine. Read some sources!


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 18, 2015)

> I didn't claimed that 8 .303s were ideal armament, though that kind of battery had it's good sides and proven to be a right choice for the early RAF fighters. Having the 2-3 times the duration of fire vs. the cannon with 60 rounds can make plenty when the enemy bomber must be stopped before reaching the carrier. Going through the 'Shattered Sword', the low cannon ammo count was highlighted as a serious shortcoming.


It was, even in Japanese memoirs that is often recalled. And it was addressed as by mid to late 1942 A6M2 and A6M3 were receiving a 100 drum magazines. 




> Thank you.
> Looks like Kawasaki was able to come out with a fair product despite the inexperience with radial engined aircraft.



Yes, though the concept was a bit outdated and instead of escort fighter it was rearmed and reassigned as a night fighter or "bomber hunter". Nick was an interesting aircraft, rather a small size for a twin engine and decent power provided by engines gave it fairly good performance at the time of introduction. 
But that is thanks to Takeo Doi, who proved to be a very good engineer having time to work around Ki-45, Ki-60, Ki-61, Ki-61-II and eventually Ki-100. 
Shame we dont have any good books about Japanese engineers in english, you can find a lot of information about R. Mitchell, Willy Messerschmitt or Kurt Tank but except for Jiro Horikoshi, nothing can be found about other aeronautical designers. And they sure had some achievements in aviation. Also, reading about them would reveal some decisions and why they were made during design, testing and so on.
Of course such books exist, but are only available in Japanese language.



> The whole fuselage does not need to be enlarged when replacing a radial with a little bigger radial, after all such major surgery was not needed when LaGG-3 become La-5, no when Ki-16 become Ki-100.


Yes, but that sacrificed some of the features LaGG had. In this case the power produced by the engine was sufficient to overcome the drag penalties and increased engine weight. Other thing that should be noted was the lack of range requirement, thus no additional fuel had to be carried. Zero on the other hand was expected to possess a specific range.

And yes, Ki-100 is a good example of an airframe designed over inline engine that was effectively replaced by radial. But in this case it was influenced by the analysis of FW-190 and employing this technology into existing design. Also Ki-100 in fact was lighter than Ki-61 as some of the added weight, particularly in the rear section of the fuselage to balance the aircraft and create a good Center of Gravity was removed in Ki-100. This still did not give anything more than achieving a similar performance - Ki-100 achieved top speed around 590 km/h while Ki-61-II 610 km/h (despite Ha-112 producing 50 HP more than used previously inline, Ha-140) and it had same time to altitude. Of course pilots praised the changes as machine was in this case lighter and very favorable flight characteristics were apparent.

Now look again at A6M8, 500 HP more gained giving no performance increase and decrease of flight characteristics.

Instead of simply trying to add more and more, I'd go for designing a new fighter aircraft built around 1500-1600 raidal engine. Such engines were available from mid or late 1942. 



> With what A6M5 sub-type? The one with drum fed cannons, the one with belt-fed cannons and more ammo, with or without HMGs and their ammo, the one with or without fire extinguishers, with or without protection?


There were no significant differences between A6M5 model 52, model 52a and model 52b - with second having thicker wing skin and carrying those 50 more rounds for cannons, and last one replacing a single 7.7 mm with 13.2 mm HMG. The performance changes were not as drastic as in regard to A6M5 model 52c which gained a lot of weight from incorporating additional two HMGs, armor, rocket racks, etc. 



> The Kinsei was direly needed to restore back the performance for the Zero having all the best features


No, it managed to restore the performance of the earlier A6M5s only while further decreasing flight characteristics. A6M8 weight almost 3800 kilograms, that is more than Ki-84 which was powered by a 2000 HP engine. 



> Is there a firm data on weight between A6M2, -3, -5 and -5c?


You mean the aircraft weight ? Or the fuel load weight ? 
A6M2 carried less fuel, due to absence of outer wing fuel tanks but Sakae 11 consumed less fuel as well. The replacement of Sakae 11 with Sakae 21 (which had differently placed air intake for supercharger) resulted in reduction of amount of fuel carried by fuselage fuel tank, engine consumed more fuel and at the end A6M3 model 32 had shorter range while being a bit heavier. 
But yeah, I got weight data. Quite detailed actually, what you need specifically |


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 18, 2015)

Fw190 V1 had a BMW139 rated at 1,529 hp.


----------



## Starfighter91 (Dec 18, 2015)

And what is the difference to the final 801A?
Weather the FW 190 nore the FW 187 were ever influenced by the designs of Willy Messerschmitt!
It would be better to read some sources and got over historical myths!

The FW190 was a design from 1937/38, also the FW187 was a single seater design from 1936, which was developed further, to a two seater design at 1937/38, without any help from Willy Messerschmitt or Heinkel!

The FW 190 was a development totaly around the BMW/Bramo engine 14 cylinders two row engine , which was finaly solved at around 1940/41, but as I wrote, the beginning was 1937/38!!

To compare german development people, it is very important to read primary sources


----------



## Starfighter91 (Dec 18, 2015)

double post


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 18, 2015)

Starfighter91 said:


> And what is the difference to the final 801A?
> Weather the FW 190 nore the FW 187 were ever influenced by the designs of Willy Messerschmitt!
> It would be better to read some sources and got over historical myths!


What are you babbling about?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Starfighter91 (Dec 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> What are you babbling about?





> Far be it from me to question *Kurt Tank but I would point out that he had the luxury of looking at a Spitfire and a 109 and then look at the power output of engines available before penning his design*. The first Spitfires in service had 850HP and the 109 was first tried out with a kestrel engine. Try a Corsair with 850BHP?
> 
> The Spitfire definitely carried the armament it was originally designed for 4x303 mgs this was increased to 8 mgs and later 2 canon +mgs or 4 canon



About this! Perhaps you could read!
What a totaly bogus


----------



## pinsog (Dec 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> What are you babbling about?



English doesn't appear to be Starfighter91's first language. (although it is considerable better then the 0% of 2nd languages that I can't speak)


----------



## Starfighter91 (Dec 18, 2015)

Rofl, perhaps you can be a little more specific!
See post 395 and 392!
Perhaps you are too stupid too read the posts, headline and meaning!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2015)

Chill out! Insulting other members will not be tolerated.
Consider this first and only warning.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2015)

I merely stated that the original engine in the Fw190 V1 was over 1,000 hp when the other aircraft in early development were less than that, so technically, I was backing up your statement.

Regarding what I posted about Kurt Tank's comment and you're reply:


Starfighter91 said:


> About this! Perhaps you could read!
> What a totaly bogus



Those are Kurt Tanks words, from the man himself. Alfred Price did several books regarding Kurt Tank and his works.

I would suggest that YOU do a little more reading and less talking...but I suspect that unless there are pictures in the book, it may not do you any good

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Problem for the fighter is that defensive guns on the B-17 are fairly long ranged, while the cannon on the Zero, before the Type 99-2 cannon was introduced, have low muzzle velocity and range and hence it will need to press home a close attack. A slowish fighter atempting not just to gain on the bomber but also to climb as well just gives the bomber more time.


Yes, close attack is what is required, but not only with a short range cannons. With any weaponry you need to get close to be effective, but it's not hard with speed and altitude on your side. You do a slashing attack (with some maneuvers) and go from one side to the other. You wouldn't want to go back.

Sure, a slow fighter will need more time to set it all up. But it's not impossible.



> I'll start the Darwin discussion separately


Nice. I love Spits, and I hope to learn why they were slaughtered over there.



> 1 - Spitfires with 4 cannons were not that common, you can (can you?) pick the Corsair with 4 cannons if you want.
> 2 - Spit was the king of climb. Corsair with water injection is pretty close to it, though.
> 3 - This Spitfire Vc was good for 360 mph at 19000 ft, and 370 mph at 13000 ft. The Corsair was tested above 400 mph, and that is above 20000 ft, where the Vc can't compete.
> 4 - Agreed.
> ...


I can't pick a 4-cannon Corsair, because it was not a standard armament. 4 Hispanos was standard armament for Vc.

Speed - I want to avoid "the battle of the spec sheets", where everybody is trying to use some theoretical maximum values achievable for a few minutes under ideal conditions. Let's go with normal rating. Spit Vc with Merlin 45 can go 360 mph while a F4U-1 can achieve 375 mph. Nothing to choose between the two.

Interestingly, the Corsair can go only 311 mph at sea level. Think about it guys, when you bring all those "F4U can outmaneuver the Zero above 300mph _with ease_" arguments.

Roll rate may go to the Corsair, but I don't think even you believe that Corsair should win at overall maneuverability.

Ruggedness - both fighters are capable of killing each other with a short burst on target. I would say that a Spit should win here, since even one shell pretty much anywhere will usually be enough for victory, but I don't care enough to fight over it. 

In summary, I don't think I need anything more to support my stance. Spit Vc is at least as good, and definitely not outclassed by Corsair, and A6M2 won a crushing victory over this plane above Darwin. That's all I wanted to show here.


----------



## GregP (Dec 19, 2015)

Bakters, 

First, why are you continuing to spout Spitfire stuff when the thread title is Corsair versus Zero? If you want to discuss the Spitfire, start a thread on it rather than continue to hijack this one. That way, you can find it, even if you don't know the thread went off-subject.
 
And a 15 mph difference is not negligible. It usually means the ability to separate after a firing pass. Once some separation is achieved after a pass, 15 mph can let you either evade or continue the attack. I'd rather have 25 mph, but negligible means less than a 5 mph difference. At that speed delta, pursuit of a fleeing aircraft after separation will usually mean a time limit on the engine for catching him. With a 15 mph delta you can catch up or extend 1.25 miles in 5 minutes, which isn't out of the realm of possible pursuit or, conversely, certainly lets the slower pursuer know he can't catch you. I'd rather have less ... say 3 minutes, but 5 may be possible. Much more isn't before hitting engine limits.

Just saying ... the engine will determine the ability to pursue or separate as long as you are the faster plane by enough to avoid engine WER limits or water-methanol/other ADI tank limits.


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

Balljoint said:


> Interesting; but I think the sim and real world -while both valid- are different discussions.


Let me answer here, although many people brought up this topic.

The main problem I see, is that people are quick to dismiss _any_ conclusions if they happen to be drawn from sim experience. I believe it's just wrong to do so. We need to understand the limitations of "sim experience" and never go too far, but some broad generalize conclusions can be drawn anyways.

And if we want to dismiss them, we should be able to point to which errors in a simulation make the whole experiment invalid. Not just repeat "it's not the same" with a lot of hand-waving. That's not enough to dismiss it. 

What "is not the same" and why it matters? 

In sims you are safe, so it's not the same.

I've trained martial arts and I was in real fights. I think I know how danger and stress works. You default to the level of your training which you mastered, and you go for the most instinctive behavior.

For example, you'd go back more often than do a fancy dodge. You'd cover your head instead of doing a fancy counter-punch. I get it.

What does it change in a Zero-vs-Corsair fight? Well, if anything I'd give the edge to the Zero here. Turnfighting is the more instinctive way of aerial combat, and that's what you are supposed to do in a Zeke. It's very difficult to run in a straight line without knowing what the Zeke does while extending. Then, it's *very* tempting to follow her in maneuvers, especially if she's just out of range.

So under real stress I'd give an edge to the Zeke, but I'm willing to make it even, just to be on a safe side.



> Also, with the benefit of hindsight and perhaps with a bit of help from ignorance, it would seem the zero designers missed –or were late for- the boat with their improvements. The salient shortcoming of the zero was high speed roll rate due to weak ailerons and some wing structure weakness at high speed. Fix this and the zero becomes much more effective against the earlier opposition though ultimately hurting against the big iron corsair.


They did all those improvements in later versions. I played in A6M2 (just to be on a safe side), and it was enough in my hands against a Corsair. How would Corsair do against A6M5 with her better high speed roll, speed, acceleration and dive? My guess is only worse, but I can try it too.



> Keep in mind that roll rate is not for 720° degree rolls as in the movies. The idea is to get your wings oriented appreciably differently from the pursuers so you can turn perpendicular to the wing orientation while the pursuer lags.


I know the theory. The problem in practice is that you can hardly see behind you in a Corsair. You can see very well in a Zeke, so a Zeke can do it with more ease.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 19, 2015)

I was actually wondering what was exactly the performance of the earliest F4U-1 - the birdcage one, used early in 1943. It had no water injection and aircraft itself had no features later added to F4U-1d. Anyone ever saw a manual for the early F4U ? I'd be sure that there must have been some manual issued in 1942 for the first squadrons preparing to jump into Pacific, but never saw one.


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

Starfighter91 said:


> I disagree completely!


 Fine! You are at least very clear about your stance on the matter. No hand waving, simple WRONG! I get it, and respect your clear and concise statement.



> The A6M was an aircraft which was optimized for a dogfight or better turnfight at medicore speed!
> Over 400km/h and increasingly to it's best output performance, she had a handling like a tank, even the Bf 109 E or F were miles better in high speed handling! And now were are not talking about handling of a Spitfire V, Bf 109 F4 or a FW 190 A3!
> To get it right, at 1940 against a Spitfire II with 100 octane and a Bf 109 E4, the A6M would be outclased at high speed boom and zoom at the ETO. Against a 100 octane Spitfire V, Bf 109 F4 and a Fw 190 A (X) she would be *totaly* outclased at high speed boom and zoom!
> The A6M is nothing more then a totaly overrated turn fighter aircraft in history, if she would be compared against the best aircrats and pilots at the ETO 1940/41/42, she would be easily totaly outclased, because at the ETO turnfighting was the past and was replaced by boom and zoom from the LW since 1940!!
> ...


I disagree with your "optimized for dogfighting" statement. I believe she was optimized for carrier landing and range, and just happened to become one of the greatest dogfighters ever by accident.

But no matter. You say it's easy, and even much worse planes can beat her "easily", so why don't you tell me how _exactly_ I'm supposed to do it, or at least how you are doing it? Simples, ain't it?

(I can and I will explain in very long and boring details what I'm doing and how it does not work wonders. Just ask me for it. I don't want to produce a "wall of text" without some encouragement.)


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

GregP said:


> Bakters,
> 
> First, why are you continuing to spout Spitfire stuff when the thread title is Corsair versus Zero?[


Short answer - I was asked to do so. 

Longer answer - I mentioned Spits, because they are quite universally regarded as formidable dogfighters. They faced A6M2s, and were slaughtered, while having "specs" comparable or better than Corsairs.

TLDR: If Spits couldn't duke it out with well flown Zeros, how come Corsairs would do any better?



> And a 15 mph difference is not negligible.


I disagree. 



> It usually means the ability to separate after a firing pass.


I disagree.



> Once some separation is achieved after a pass, 15 mph can let you either evade or continue the attack. I'd rather have 25 mph, but negligible means less than a 5 mph difference.


I disagree. 5mph top-speed difference is neither here nor there. It's nothing. Other factors are so much more important, that such minuscule difference under ideal conditions is not even _detectable_, and definitely not decisive.



> At that speed delta, pursuit of a fleeing aircraft after separation will usually mean a time limit on the engine for catching him. With a 15 mph delta you can catch up or extend 1.25 miles in 5 minutes, which isn't out of the realm of possible pursuit or, conversely, certainly lets the slower pursuer know he can't catch you. I'd rather have less ... say 3 minutes, but 5 may be possible. Much more isn't before hitting engine limits.


Nice theory. Can we make it work in practice? Sim practice. 



> Just saying ... the engine will determine the ability to pursue or separate as long as you are the faster plane by enough to avoid engine WER limits or water-methanol/other ADI tank limits.


Yeah, I heard it before. The best fighter and the best interceptor are synonyms, supposedly....


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> Longer answer - I mentioned Spits, because they are quite universally regarded as formidable dogfighters. They faced A6M2s, and were slaughtered, while having "specs" comparable or better than Corsairs.
> 
> .



When were Spits slaughtered by A6M2s I know the early Spit Vs with the performance sapping Vokes filter didnt do very well when they encountered Japanese aircraft (mostly Ki43 Oscars not Zeros) partly due to the filter and partly due to the wrong tactics but I didnt think they got slaughtered.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> What "is not the same" and why it matters?
> 
> In sims you are safe, so it's not the same.



You say you are a biker, well go to a racing school and try it, see how close your actual fastest lap gets to a lap on a sim. When you establish who has a lap speed about as fast as yours have a race for a plastic trophy with all your mates watching. Then you will find out what is "not the same", in fact the only thing that is the same is the scenery. Then consider that in combat you can not only die on take off and landing but the other guys in the "game" actually want to kill you.


Consider how many kills the top aces had, then compare to the number of sorties those aces had. Now compare to your sim how many engagements end in no result. Most of the reading I have done has been about the BoB. For the British it was not important for a pilot to make a kill on his first mission, just to survive it, and then survive as many as possible until he sussed what was going on and came eventually and hopefully proficient enough to start scoring instead of just being a target.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

Duplicate


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> When were Spits slaughtered by A6M2s


Over Darwin.



> I know the early Spit Vs with the performance sapping Vokes filter didnt do very well when they encountered Japanese aircraft (mostly Ki43 Oscars not Zeros) partly due to the filter and partly due to the wrong tactics but I didnt think they got slaughtered.


From memory - 2 Zeroes and 1 K1-43 lost versus 36 Spitrires. Maybe it was 3 Zeros? I think it was 2, whatever.


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

pbehn said:


> You say you are a biker, well go to a racing school and try it, see how close your actual fastest lap gets to a lap on a sim.


Why should it matter? Even my skill as a sim-rider vs. real life rider is irrelevant. 



> When you establish who has a lap speed about as fast as yours have a race for a plastic trophy with all your mates watching. Then you will find out what is "not the same", in fact the only thing that is the same is the scenery. Then consider that in combat you can not only die on take off and landing but the other guys in the "game" actually want to kill you.


 I considered it. Now what? Corsair wins _easily_?




> Consider how many kills the top aces had, then compare to the number of sorties those aces had. Now compare to your sim how many engagements end in no result.


They come out more or less the same. If you survive, you end up with lots of kills, even if you do not try to get them. If you try to get lots of kills, you die.

How does it relate to Zeke-vs-Corsair problem? 



> Most of the reading I have done has been about the BoB. For the British it was not important for a pilot to make a kill on his first mission, just to survive it, and then survive as many as possible until he sussed what was going on and came eventually and hopefully proficient enough to start scoring instead of just being a target.


True. So what?


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> How does it relate to Zeke-vs-Corsair problem?


It doesnt it relates to the difference between a sim and real life, the question you asked, you now say your question doesnt matter. You alternate between discussing the real life performance in combat and the performance in a sim as and when it suits. I am now of the opinion that you a provocative for the sake of it, goodbye.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 19, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> When were Spits slaughtered by A6M2s I know the early Spit Vs with the performance sapping Vokes filter didnt do very well when they encountered Japanese aircraft (mostly Ki43 Oscars not Zeros) partly due to the filter and partly due to the wrong tactics but I didnt think they got slaughtered.



Technically he is right, but its generalized so much ...

Those were not A6M2s but A6M3s that fought Spitfires MK Vc powered by Merlin 46 optimized for higher altitudes, which in fact favored Spitfires as lot of combat over Darwin in 1943 occurred at altitudes of 15,000 feet to 30,000 feet.
Also, by Vokes air filter you mean the myth of it ?



> (...) Meanwhile, at RAAF Richmond, Group Captain Walters, CO 1 Fighter Wing, sought the advice of Robin Norwood concerning this matter of Spitfire performance. Norwood had been flying Spitfires since 1940, and had 500 hours on a range of marks from the Mark.1 to all models of Mark V – all of which had had the temperate intake. Contrary to expectation, he refuted the VCT’s poor reputation:
> 'These aircraft at height, with the Vokes Filter, are just as good, and probably better, than the Mark Va b’s we used to fly at home, and will, I think, give a good account of themselves…at height these are the best yet. I make great insistence on height but then these are designed for high speeds high up, not low down.'[3]
> Norwood’s emphasis upon height relates to the fact that the RAAF’s Spitfires were fitted with the high altitude Merlin 46, which produced its maximum power output at 21 500 feet, rather than the 11 000 feet rated altitude of the Merlin 45 fitted to most Spitfire V aircraft in the UK. The Merlin 46 produced a modest 1115 hp at take-off, but thanks to its supercharger was still producing 1150 hp at its rated altitude of 19 000 feet, and with a maximum power output of 1210 hp at 21 500 feet (both outputs were achieved at 3000 rpm and plus 9 pounds boost).[4]
> However, to settle the matter, conclusive data had to be obtained. In pursuit of this, HQ Eastern Area rapidly initiated comparative tests between standard aircraft fitted with the Vokes filter and aircraft modified with one of the temperate carburettor intakes fabricated by 2 Aircraft Depot, delivering the modified aircraft to Richmond in December 1942. Norwood conducted the trials, finding that although the standard VCT was ‘not particularly fast’ below 10 000 feet, and although its climb rate was 100-200 feet per minute less than the aircraft with the temperate cowling,[5] the speed difference was minor: about 3 knots under 10 000 feet, and no greater than 8 knots up to 20 000 feet.[6]
> ...


http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=the-vokes-air-filter-controversy
I highly recommend reading the articles on the website and of course the book itself, there is some controversy about the author attributing some Japanese aircraft losses which cannot be confirmed to the Spitfire pilots but overall this is a remarkable position and I enjoyed every bit of it.


As for the losses, they were heavy indeed - aprox. 40 aircraft (I'm not sure about the precise number, 38 or less) with 27-29 of them being Spitfires. On the other hand 3 pilots were lost with their Zeroes, one Zero ditched but pilot survived, and 15 other Zeroes suffered repairable damage. Also all the Zero losses were not 100% certainly caused by Spitfires, but also by AA fire, worth keeping in mind if one would quibble about whether certain Spitfire losses on these missions were 100% certainly due to Zeroes or not. According to mentioned A. Cooper book from all the Spitfire losses only two can be attributed to the defensive fire of the G4M bombers, thus they really posed a minimal threat, especially if pilot would press the attack from any other direction than rear (where Betty had 20 mm cannon).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 19, 2015)

The Japanese admitted to losing 65 aircraft during raids on the Australian mainland, not all those 65 were shot down by Spits some went down to Hurricanes and P40s. The RAF/RAAF admitted to losing 16 Spitfire Vs shot down (the Japanese losing 8 Zeros and 1 Oscar to all defences) and lost another 36 to 54 (I cant find any sources who agree on the figure) due to the usual accidents, terrible ground conditions, mechanical failures and several planes that ran out of fuel. 

Not a glorious battle for the Spit but the Vb and Vc when fitted with a Vokes filter had very little if any performance advantage over an AM6 especially when some of the airframes were 3rd hand ex Desert Air Force and some had been bouncing around as deck cargo on a ship for 6 months. 

Over Burma Spit Vs did poorly at first against the Oscar (which is probably the most underated fighter ever and shot down more aircraft than the legendary Zero) but better aircraft and better tactics beat the Oscar out of the sky by late 44. The RAF was slow to learn the right tactics against the Japanese fighters the USN in particular learnt that lesson in 1942 but in todays instant communication world we forget that information could take months to get to high commands then months to be assimilated and passed onto operational squadrons half way round the world. The chances of an RAF/RAAF pilot in India or Australia meeting a USN or USAAF pilot thousands of miles away to discuss tactics would have been less than zero till later in the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> I'd ask what Spitfires have had just 850 HP, and not 1000+?



The one on the design board. The merlin wasn't rated at 1000BHP until the G was being delivered in 1938.

I was trying to say that the designers must produce a design that can accept projected increases in horse power but it must perform with the engines available to win an order. The merlin eventually produced 2000BHP but if the spitfire was designed for 2000BHP and tested with the engine used in the original prototype it probably would not have been ordered.


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

pbehn said:


> It doesnt it relates to the difference between a sim and real life, the question you asked, you now say your question doesnt matter. You alternate between discussing the real life performance in combat and the performance in a sim as and when it suits. I am now of the opinion that you a provocative for the sake of it, goodbye.


I'll be as clear as I can.

How does extra risk relate to Zeke-vs-Corsair in a sim vs. real life? What does it change? Which plane is favored and why?

Elsewhere I wrote my own understanding of what real risk changes and which plane (if any) should benefit from it. I think that it would be rather a Zeke than a Corsair, but since I don't know, I'm willing to make it even-steven.

I do not think that I'm being particularly provocative, until contradicting agreed upon opinion within some community is enough to be particularly provocative. I try to be civil and I try to be as clear-cut as I can.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2015)

pbehn said:


> It doesnt it relates to the difference between a sim and real life, the question you asked, you now say your question doesnt matter. You alternate between discussing the real life performance in combat and the performance in a sim as and when it suits. I am now of the opinion that you a provocative for the sake of it, goodbye.


Yeah, I've seen some flip-flopping, too.

About the only truly accurate SIM out there was CFS3, especially when it had the 1% planes added. IL-2 has serious flaws in it's flight model, even after being patched. When a Sturmovik can match a Me262 in a climb, you have to wonder.

Also, anyone that uses a SIM to gauge the real-life perfomance of historical airframes is entirely missing the point. SIM means simulator, not magic portal to the past. A SIM can only replicate a preset amount of data and may add a random event via programming, but that's all. It cannot calculate a close turning fight that involves a cross-wind AND the aircraft's engine needing an overhaul because it's reached max. hours. BUT the adversary has a bent windtip because it scuffed the ground in a tight turn and the AI pilot has a tendancy to pull to the left, etc. etc. etc.

All SIMs have a limited set of perameters and simply cannot replicate true life and it's infinite set of variables. They can be used to get a sense and a feel for what happened 70 years ago, but should NEVER be used to judge anything, except how fast your internet connection is, nothing more.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Also, anyone that uses a SIM to gauge the real-life perfomance of historical airframes is entirely missing the point. SIM means simulator, not magic portal to the past. A SIM can only replicate a preset amount of data and may add a random event via programming, but that's all. It cannot calculate a close turning fight that involves a cross-wind AND the aircraft's engine needing an overhaul because it's reached max. hours. BUT the adversary has a bent windtip because it scuffed the ground in a tight turn and the AI pilot has a tendancy to pull to the left, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> All SIMs have a limited set of perameters and simply cannot replicate true life and it's infinite set of variables. They can be used to get a sense and a feel for what happened 70 years ago, but should NEVER be used to judge anything, except how fast your internet connection is, nothing more.



Throw in the fact that in the event of a crash, malfunction, shoot down, etc., you hit the reset button, walk to your fridge get a beer and start over.

Sim = Well designed game.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 19, 2015)

Well, that ends sim topic to my mind. 
Now I hope to learn something about early Corsairs

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> I'll be as clear as I can.
> 
> How does extra risk relate to Zeke-vs-Corsair in a sim vs. real life? What does it change? Which plane is favored and why?
> 
> ...



Take two maneuvers 
1/ a turn in an aircraft and on a motorbike
2/a roll in an aircraft and braking on a bike.

Holding an aircraft in a tight turn means on the edge of a stall, cornering on a bike means holding the tyres on the edge of letting go, a tyre produces maximum grip when it is slipping about 10%
I can speak to you about how it feels and what to do but if you cant have the tyres sliding going in and out of every corner you will be in the back half of the field, that is not simulated in a "sim" just as holding a plane on the edge of a stall isnt.

Everyone thinks braking is easy, it is just a question of pulling a lever, it isnt, as you can see if you watch any race the top guys always brake later harder and let the brakes off sooner. A roll in an aircraft isnt a display maneuver it is extremely violent, I havnt done it but I remember reading Bob Doe's account, he didnt do any recognised aerobatics just threw the plane around as violently as possible.

Your replies of "now what" and "so what" really push my buttons. If sims were real you would have one go at it, spend hours learning all basic maneuvers progress from trainer to advanced trainer to combat aircraft then after about 200 hrs in a corsair or maybe 10 hours on a 1945 zeke you take part in your first combat. Any encounter that you lose or crash means you never ever take part in a sim again.

From what I remember about the stats at one stage about 10% of US aircrew were being killed during training (maybe others can give them, I know questions were asked in congress) Almost all pilots had seen their friends or aquaintances killed long before they ever went into action, their primary motivation was staying alive, the ones without that motivation for whatever reason, quickly got shot down.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Throw in the fact that in the event of a crash, malfunction, shoot down, etc., you hit the reset button, walk to your fridge get a beer and start over.
> 
> Sim = Well designed game.


Exactly!

If they want to make a "true to life" SIM, have it so if you're downed and survive, you cannot rejoin any flights for several months (depending on severity of injuries sustained) because your user is in a hospital or recovering.

For the late war German pilots, have it so they have barely enough fuel to get up and make the mission, but there will be literally hundreds of Allied fighters in the area versus your Schwarme. For the Japanese, if it's late war, poorly maintained aircraft because all the supply ships and subs have been sunk or bases bombed and you have to make due with what little remains in the way of supplies (dwindling fuel, scarce lubricants, low supplies of tires ammunition) and the fact that the Allied fighters are everywhere (CAP, GA, etc.) AND your wingman is a green replacement rushed to the theater with less than 50 hours of flight school.

In the event your user is KIA, you will never be able to run that SIM again - ever.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 19, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> There were no significant differences between A6M5 model 52, model 52a and model 52b - with second having thicker wing skin and carrying those 50 more rounds for cannons, and last one replacing a single 7.7 mm with 13.2 mm HMG. The performance changes were not as drastic as in regard to A6M5 model 52c which gained a lot of weight from incorporating additional two HMGs, armor, rocket racks, etc.



Agreed competely. 
The 52c shows that there is no free lunch, with speed droping down from 556 to 541 km/h. Empty and loaded weight went to 3400 kg for the Model 52c vs. 3150 kg for the 'vanilla' Model 52, the cost being the rate of climb and ceiling.



> Now look again at A6M8, 500 HP more gained giving no performance increase and decrease of flight characteristics.
> No, it managed to restore the performance of the earlier A6M5s only while further decreasing flight characteristics. A6M8 weight almost 3800 kilograms, that is more than Ki-84 which was powered by a 2000 HP engine.



Completely wrong here. 
It would be fine if you showed us how the performance deteriorated with instalation of protection and armament (= added weight and drag) in the 52c, while installation of the Kinsei managed to restore the performance lost and then some - 541 km/h vs. 563 km/h. You also fail to mention the main reason why the loaded weight of the A6M8 was (just) 400 kg greater than of the 52c, namely due to carrying more fuel (and a bit of oil) internally, total of 650 liters vs. 500.
Let's not neglect the Sakae-powered A6M7, that was every bit as heavy as Kinsei-powered M8, while being slow and not anymore a good climber.

It should take maybe 5 min to decypher why the performance drop from the 52 to 52c, and then again rise once the Kinsei was installed. Listing the 'reasons' why the Kinsei should not be installed is just listing the excuses.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

Ha Ha grau, same idea same time.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 19, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Also, anyone that uses a SIM to gauge the real-life perfomance of historical airframes is entirely missing the point. SIM means simulator, not magic portal to the past. A SIM can only replicate a preset amount of data and may add a random event via programming, but that's all. It cannot calculate a close turning fight that involves a cross-wind AND the aircraft's engine needing an overhaul because it's reached max. hours. BUT the adversary has a bent windtip because it scuffed the ground in a tight turn and the AI pilot has a tendancy to pull to the left, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> All SIMs have a limited set of perameters and simply cannot replicate true life and it's infinite set of variables. They can be used to get a sense and a feel for what happened 70 years ago, but should NEVER be used to judge anything, except how fast your internet connection is, nothing more.



A flaw I noticed when I tried IL2 was takeoff/landings in crosswinds. At crosswind speeds that would have a plane weathercocking all over the place a slight twitch of the rudder and you were good to take off or land. Plus groundlooping was impossible unless you deliberately tried to make it happen.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> I can't pick a 4-cannon Corsair, because it was not a standard armament. 4 Hispanos was standard armament for Vc.


 
4 cannon armament was standard in the F4U-1C.



> Speed - I want to avoid "the battle of the spec sheets", where everybody is trying to use some theoretical maximum values achievable for a few minutes under ideal conditions. Let's go with normal rating. Spit Vc with Merlin 45 can go 360 mph while a F4U-1 can achieve 375 mph. Nothing to choose between the two.



Looks like the engineers working on the engine companies were fools engough to come out with emergency ratings, so were the officers that allowed for that, and so were the pilots that used it. You and everybody other can of course use an own metrics, while disregarding what pilots actually used. 

Now, on the supposed normal rating. Normal rating, or max continuous setting for the Merlin 45/50 was 2650 rpm and +7 psig, while the Spitfire V uses 3000 rpm and +9 psig (= more power) to make 360 mph. The Corsair makes, on max contiuous setting, inded 375 mph, vs. Spitfire's maybe 340 on it's max continous.
Lets now use military power on the Corsair, just beacause it was used historically, making 390-400+ mph. This is where the 360 mph mark of the Spitfire fits.
This is befor we start using combat/war emergency power, where the Corsair is again 30-40 mph faster.
So there is plenty to choose from.



> Interestingly, the Corsair can go only 311 mph at sea level. Think about it guys, when you bring all those "F4U can outmaneuver the Zero above 300mph _with ease_" arguments.



'Only' 325 mph on max continuous power (chart), only ~350 mph on military power, only 365 mph on WEP. 



> In summary, I don't think I need anything more to support my stance. Spit Vc is at least as good, and definitely not outclassed by Corsair, and A6M2 won a crushing victory over this plane above Darwin. That's all I wanted to show here.



Not by cherry picking the numbers, if not skewing them alltogether to suit your agenda.


----------



## rochie (Dec 19, 2015)

On iL2 i once failed to catch up with a Polikarpov i16 whislt flying a Bf 109 F-4.
I was full throttle flying straight and he was keeping pace with me whilst doing barrel rolls and such !

Good game though !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 19, 2015)

rochie said:


> On iL2 i once failed to catch up with a Polikarpov i16 whislt flying a Bf 109 F-4.
> I was full throttle flying straight and he was keeping pace with me whilst doing barrel rolls and such !
> 
> *Good game* though !



Exactly its a game.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> Interestingly, the Corsair can go only 311 mph at sea level. Think about it guys, when you bring all those "F4U can outmaneuver the Zero above 300mph _with ease_" arguments.



First of all, it seems you don't know the difference between indicated airspeed, calibrated airspeed and true airspeed.

Second, most aerial battles were not at sea-level.

Here's another word for you - TACTICS. That why the F4F had a 6 to 1 kill ratio (claimed) probably 3 to 1 in actuality. Again, please do some research when you try to equate a game to actual history.

Here, some good reading for you...

A6M2 Zero versus F4F-3 Wildcat


----------



## davparlr (Dec 19, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> It looks like you did not bothered to read the docs I've linked to.
> The F6F-3 with one 150 gal drop tank, total of 400 gals is indeed at 335 nmi.
> The F4U-4, with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks for total of 534 gals, radius of 525 nmi. The internal fuel tanks can be topped off from drop tanks after take off.
> The F6F-5 can carry 3 x 150 gal d.t. for total of 700 gals. It also can top off internal fuel tanks from d.t. It has 250 gals of internal fuel, vs. 234 for the F4U-5, not really 10% more but still.
> Everyone can now try to guess the radius of the Hellcat with 700 gals of fuel, whatever the figure is it won't be less than the F4U-4 that carry less fuel.


I didn't check this out but we have to remember the major factor combat radius is internal fuel, since drop tanks are usually "dropped" when combat start. As such, since internal fuel, 250 gallons is equal, the F6F-5, with 700 gallons may not have any more of a radius as the F6F-3 with 400 gallons. It will, however, certainly have more loiter time or time on station as CAP.


----------



## rochie (Dec 19, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> Exactly its a game.



Yup


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 19, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Agreed competely.
> The 52c shows that there is no free lunch, with speed droping down from 556 to 541 km/h. Empty and loaded weight went to 3400 kg for the Model 52c vs. 3150 kg for the 'vanilla' Model 52, the cost being the rate of climb and ceiling.



I never understood on what exactly is this table based, Famous Airplanes of the World brings a lot of accurate and interesting information but their tables seem to be always lacking.But those weight differences you present are not that drastic.
Before you even ask for source, I'll base my numbers on a service manuals for Zeros reprinted in a book, they contain a very nice tables with empty weight, weight of all the equipment, ammunition, gunsight, bombs, fuel and external fuel tanks. Basically table indicating all weight changes in all configurations you cant think of.
This one : http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/m/mmKedK02iZZaHrZ_TWUn70A/s-l225.jpg

Empty weight of A6M5 model 52 (based on airfram no. 4274) is 1876 kg
Weight of the fuel (all internal fuel tanks) is 411 kg
Ammunition is 119 kg
Standard combat weight (full internal fuel, ammunition and no external weight in form of bombs or external fuel tanks) is *2733* kg
The maximum weight I see is 3073 kg - and that is for an aircraft with external fuel tank and two 30 kg bombs, but I dont think we should be comparing the Zeros in those configurations. I mean external loads dont have any relation to our comparison.

A6M5 model 52c table indicates following :
Empty - 1970 kg
Fuel - 411 kg
Ammunition - 170 kg
Standard combat weight -* 2955 kg*
Just for the purpose of comparing with the FAOTW the maximum weight in table indicated is 3207 kg. That is a configuration with 250 kg bomb. 

And no, not only it affected the rate of climb and ceiling. It also affected aircraft take-off distance, landing speed, stall speeds and low speed handling characteristics. Older pilots, if possible, would pass those aircraft to the rookies while keeping the faster, more maneuverable and better handling A6M2-A6M5 models.


There is no A6M8 as book features only documents for mass produced variants, not prototypes as A6M8 was. Thus no details for that one. But to be honest there are few things certain of A6M8, as a matter of fact on j-aircraft boards there was discussion if pictures we know of the A6M8 are real or not, and it appears the known pictures are fake according to Jim Lansdale. 




> Completely wrong here.
> It would be fine if you showed us how the performance deteriorated with instalation of protection and armament (= added weight and drag) in the 52c, while installation of the Kinsei managed to restore the performance lost and then some - 541 km/h vs. 563 km/h. You also fail to mention the main reason why the loaded weight of the A6M8 was (just) 400 kg greater than of the 52c, namely due to carrying more fuel (and a bit of oil) internally, total of 650 liters vs. 500.
> Let's not neglect the Sakae-powered A6M7, that was every bit as heavy as Kinsei-powered M8, while being slow and not anymore a good climber.
> 
> It should take maybe 5 min to decypher why the performance drop from the 52 to 52c, and then again rise once the Kinsei was installed. Listing the 'reasons' why the Kinsei should not be installed is just listing the excuses.



What for ? You are the one trying to prove that it was a great idea to put Kinsei engine into Zero airframe. 
And if we are on it already, I dont see anything spectacular here. A6M8 performance restored performance to a 1943 A6M5. And we are talking of the Zero tested in May-June 1945, so production would start when ? In August-September ? When A7M was already supposed to run full production. 

A6M8 also carried ADI mixture, as Ha-112-II (Kinsei 62) took advantage of it. Got no idea however what was the load. 

But to answer more specific, if of course that data for A6M8 are at least a bit accurate, the weight difference of at least 400 kg was quite significant. 400 kg is not just, that is a lot. Especially for a lightweight fighter like a Zero. In Ki-61-I Tei the weight increase of 350 kg caused the time to 5000 m altitude to drop from 5 min and 30 seconds to 7 minutes. 400 kilograms is more or less equal to addition of two 330 l external fuel tanks. That by no means "just". 

I am aware WHY performance in A6M5 model 52c dropped and what was achieved by installing Kinsei. That did not make the aircraft a good climber, that restored the same performance that aircraft had in 1943 when it was already not enough against opposition. It also was at the cost of handling, take-off distance and landing speeds. Multiple characteristics that made Zero so specific were ... vanishing.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 19, 2015)

The A6M8 has more firepower than the 'original' A6M5, it actually features protection for the pilot and fuel tanks, and it is even a bit faster. It is, in 1945, about as good as Spitfire Vb from 1941. That it was specific in this or that category has no weight, what mattered is whether could do it's job. 
If you suspect the weight figures from the 'Famous aircraft', then why picking from them what float your boat, while discarding what does not.

>edit: the Japanese Wikipedia states 1856 kg vs. 2150 for what seems like empty weight of the A6M5 and A6M8 respectively, and 2733 kg vs. 3150 kg for what seems to be the take off weight for the same types; it also gives a bit better speed figures than the table I've posted <edit

Hi, David,



> I didn't check this out but we have to remember the major factor combat radius is internal fuel, since drop tanks are usually "dropped" when combat start. As such, since internal fuel, 250 gallons is equal, the F6F-5, with 700 gallons may not have any more of a radius as the F6F-3 with 400 gallons. It will, however, certainly have more loiter time or time on station as CAP.



The -5 have had an improvement in fuel system, a device that enabled it to top off the internal fuel tanks from drop tanks once airborne. I'm aware only the Fairey Fulmar and F4U-4 that were with such a device, probably late Grumman and Vought fighters were also with that, probaly also the Firefly. The fuel consumed for warm up (up to 20 min), take off and climb to a safe altitude (before swithching to d. tank) could amount to 30 gals easily, thus the top off device. 
Since I don't have exact figures for the -5 with 3 drop tanks, I've provided the radius figures for the F4U-4 that have had a bit less internal fuel, that managed with 2x150 gals in drop tanks the 525 nmi radius.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 19, 2015)

> The A6M8 has more firepower than the 'original' A6M5, it actually features protection for the pilot and fuel tanks, and it is even a bit faster. It is, in 1945, about as good as Spitfire Vb from 1941. That it was specific in this or that category has no weight, what mattered is whether could do it's job.
> If you suspect the weight figures from the 'Famous aircraft', then why picking from them what float your boat, while discarding what does not.


That is correct, but by that time neither this protection, nor additional firepower in outdated airframe with new engine would change anything. Once again, if something would have to be done, than since 1941 it would be much better to run a program for a carrier based fighter powered by 1500-1600 HP engine. It'd not be into Navy policy, but better than nothing. 
I mean unless Jiro would by some miracle actually convince Navy to skip the Homare engine for A7M and from the very beginning design it around MK9A like he desired all the time. According to his memoirs A7M if time would not be wasted for Homare, would appear in early or more likely mid 1944 and would just make it for Battle on the Philippine Sea. Of course if everything would go smooth. 


I have my doubts over the weight figures, so for what I could I simply brought the ones from original manuals. For the rest I dont have so I rely on the FAOTW table. It's not cherry picking, even if you think it is.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 19, 2015)

No problems, I've added above the numbers from Japanese Wiki. 
I agree that a clean sheet design would've served the IJN better than the warmed up Zero that late in war. Also could not agree more with pointing to the IJN as the guilty part that such a design didn't started the life earlier.


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> Technically he is right, but its generalized so much ...


It's called being concise ... 



> Those were not A6M2s but A6M3s that fought Spitfires


http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero
_Both the newer and older types were encountered over Darwin._

BTW - I tried A6M3 against Spit Vc. All I want to say, is that A6M3 feels much more potent than A6M2.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> BTW - I tried A6M3 against Spit Vc. All I want to say, is that A6M3 feels much more potent than A6M2.



Did I mention that I won Waterloo for Napoleon, easy really with a good sim? Honestly, your constant switching between what actually happened and what you do on a computer is rendering the discussion a complete nonsense.


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Yeah, I've seen some flip-flopping, too.


What is flip-flopping?



> About the only truly accurate SIM out there was CFS3, especially when it had the 1% planes added. IL-2 has serious flaws in it's flight model, even after being patched. When a Sturmovik can match a Me262 in a climb, you have to wonder.


Of course I wonder, if you ever played this game?



> Also, anyone that uses a SIM to gauge the real-life perfomance of historical airframes is entirely missing the point. SIM means simulator, not magic portal to the past. A SIM can only replicate a preset amount of data and may add a random event via programming, but that's all. It cannot calculate a close turning fight that involves a cross-wind AND the aircraft's engine needing an overhaul because it's reached max. hours. BUT the adversary has a bent windtip because it scuffed the ground in a tight turn and the AI pilot has a tendancy to pull to the left, etc. etc. etc.


Actually, you could do all that, and since I'm the pilot, I can have all the wrong tendencies. I pull to the right, and sometimes trim against it.

Whatever. 100% accuracy is neither achievable nor necessary to draw some conclusions. 



> All SIMs have a limited set of perameters and simply cannot replicate true life and it's infinite set of variables. They can be used to get a sense and a feel for what happened 70 years ago, but should NEVER be used to judge anything, except how fast your internet connection is, nothing more.


All, cannot, infinite, NEVER, anything - for someone who advises caution, you use a whole lot of big words.

BTW - I judge my internet speed with ping.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 19, 2015)

> Both the newer and older types were encountered over Darwin.


There were leftovers from last year operations, but 202 Kokutai (formerly known as 3rd Kokutai) has just arrived from Kendari (Indonesia) where it spent time resting after very intensive Guadalcanal campaign and in process acquired new Zeros. It is interesting to note that at this time Japanese units were not lacking pilots, in fact had more of them then necessary, but were lacking aircraft.

Well, no surprise, it has 2-speed supercharger so you can perform pretty well even at higher altitudes.


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Did I mention that I won Waterloo for Napoleon, easy really with a good sim? Honestly, your constant switching between what actually happened and what you do on a computer is rendering the discussion a complete nonsense.


Did you understand what I wrote? I didn't compare A6M3 with Spit Vc, because both planes felt much to close. But I can compare A6M2 and A6M3, at least in a rough way. The later feels more potent. That's it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> What is flip-flopping?
> 
> Of course I wonder, if you ever played this game?
> 
> ...



No your not the pilot. You are sitting on a swivel chair in front of a computer screen, with a cold glass of coke next to you all while sitting on the ground and not at 15,000 ft.

The point people are making is that since you will always walk away, there are no life or death situations and decisions to be made. You can not replicate that, and therefore your decision making will never be the same.

Now cam Sim talk be moved to the gaming threads?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> Did you understand what I wrote? I didn't compare A6M3 with Spit Vc, because both planes felt much to close. But I can compare A6M2 and A6M3, at least in a rough way. The later feels more potent. That's it.



No you can't, you are comparing one part of a programme with another part of the programme. You are comparing what the people who made the programme want you to compare. You rubbished my idea of actually doing something to compare real life to a sim. You can compare a game programme called "A6M2" to another called "A6M3" it means absolutely nothing in terms of the history of the Corsair and Zero, discuss one or the other.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 19, 2015)

Bakters, suggest you state your position, not in game terms, but what your hypothesis actually is. What is it you believe. Main points. be clear, be simple. 

Then we can ask you the basis or support that you have for your position.

Thats what people are getting annoyed about. Its very difficult to follow your line of argument, and the raison detre for the positions you are taking look flimsy. People here are passionate about their a/c, and when someone comes jaunting in acting like they know everything and in fact they are in the opposite, it tends to get peoples back up. 

You should try to understand that you are taliking with people some of whom have flown some of these birds, for real, others who have Dads or Grandads who flew, others who have read books that are written by real life experts. All these experiences and information sources are far more reliable than a sim. Some respect for people who have been in harms way in service for their countries wouldnt hurt either. 

And i can say that because Im a champion player at sims, and once upon a time made a living out of simulating combat theories, in the military . Computer based tactical sims in the open market are generally Horse shite Im afraid.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No your not the pilot. You are sitting on a swivel chair in front of a computer screen, with a cold glass of coke next to you all while sitting on the ground and not at 15,000 ft.
> 
> The point people are making is that since you will always walk away, there are no life or death situations and decisions to be made. You can not replicate that, and therefore your decision making will never be the same.
> 
> Now cam Sim talk be moved to the gaming threads?



seconded


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Take two maneuvers
> 1/ a turn in an aircraft and on a motorbike
> 2/a roll in an aircraft and braking on a bike.
> 
> Holding an aircraft in a tight turn means on the edge of a stall, cornering on a bike means holding the tyres on the edge of letting go, a tyre produces maximum grip when it is slipping about 10%


It's much easier to do in real life than in any sim I ever tried. 


> I can speak to you about how it feels and what to do but if you cant have the tyres sliding going in and out of every corner you will be in the back half of the field, that is not simulated in a "sim" just as holding a plane on the edge of a stall isnt.


Agreed. Actually, I don't like sims. On a computer, I'd rather play proper computer games which do not pretend to be reality.



> Your replies of "now what" and "so what" really push my buttons.


It's not like I'm being treated with velvet gloves here, is it?



> If sims were real you would have one go at it, spend hours learning all basic maneuvers progress from trainer to advanced trainer to combat aircraft then after about 200 hrs in a corsair or maybe 10 hours on a 1945 zeke you take part in your first combat. Any encounter that you lose or crash means you never ever take part in a sim again.
> 
> From what I remember about the stats at one stage about 10% of US aircrew were being killed during training (maybe others can give them, I know questions were asked in congress) Almost all pilots had seen their friends or aquaintances killed long before they ever went into action, their primary motivation was staying alive, the ones without that motivation for whatever reason, quickly got shot down.


I know it's not reality, and I know it's perfectly safe. But what does it change?

You see, it's like I read a long thread on some car forum, where guys agreed that Dodge Challenger and Ford Mustangs would easily beat Mazda Miata in an autocross. So I fired up Forza or whatever, and there Miata is 5s faster in each lap. So I ask where to find those missing 5 seconds?

And I'm being told that:
1. I pretend to be a real race driver.
2. I mistake Forza for a racetrack.
3. I should cheat to win, because that's how it is in reality.
4. I flip-flop (whatever it means)
5. And finally and the most often I'm being told that since I don't die when crashing, it all makes no sense whatsoever.

How it makes no sense whatsoever? I don't die when I "drive" a Miata or a Challenger. It cancels out.


----------



## Aozora (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> Whatever. 100% accuracy is neither achievable nor necessary to draw some conclusions.



So what percentage of accuracy is needed to draw the right conclusions? 99.9%? 59.9%? To claim that a flight sim accurately represents real-life combat is drawing a very long bow. Why?

1) There is _no guarantee_ that the program accurately depicts all of the flight and performance characteristics, under all conditions encountered in the real environment, of the aircraft being depicted: all the flight simmer has is the developer's claims and the player's perceptions. Read any flight simmer forum and see all the lengthy and often contentious arguments about how the sim is performing and ask yourself who has the final say in how your favourite aircraft will perform. 

2) Your aircraft is not subjected to the wear and tear of operational service - every time you take off you are in a brand new, well maintained aircraft that has no problems. How often did this happen in the Pacific, particularly for the Japanese?

3) The computer does all the flying for you: you do not have to heave the aircraft around with your arm and leg muscles; you do not get fatigued and sore through constant high-g manoeuvres; you are not subjected to grey-outs or black-outs, with the attendant physiological effects; you have the option of pausing the game to take time-out for a cup of coffee; you are not going to get killed; you are not going to get burned or mutilated if things go wrong (unless your computer explodes). 

4) A flight sim does not change history - like it or not, the Corsair shot down a far larger number of Zeros, using the right tactics of boom and zoom, than Zeros that shot down Corsairs in low-medium speed dogfights. That's all that needs to be said.

As for dismissing that film about the F6F as so much propaganda? No offense, but I'll believe the experiences of real life pilots flying real life operations rather than your vast experience as a sim pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> Agreed. Actually, I don't like sims. On a computer, I'd rather play proper computer games which do not pretend to be reality.


Sorry friend, I prefer people who live in the real world. I could write pages but you are wise as a drunk thinks he is sober, there are people posting on this thread who have actually flown some of the aircraft in the discussion and others who have been front line pilots. You argue with them on the basis of what you experience sitting drinking a cola in front of a computer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> Of course I wonder, if you ever played this game?


Air Warrior
Jane's WW2 Fighters
CFS2
CFS3 (shockwave add-on enhanced)
CFS3: BoB
CFS3: MTO
CFS3: PTO
IL-2
IL-2: FB
IL-2: PF
IL-2: 1946

Also did some post-release object and airframe design in Jane's WW2F
Also did add-on airframe design in CFS3 (Turbo Squid and GMAX software via MS SDK)

So, yes. I am a little familiar with SIMs.

If you took the time to look through the gaming section of this forum, you would have known that and saved us the trouble of this reply, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Bakters, suggest you state your position, not in game terms, but what your hypothesis actually is. What is it you believe. Main points. be clear, be simple.
> 
> Then we can ask you the basis or support that you have for your position.


Zeke was much tougher nut to crack than people give her credit. How much tougher? I don't know. We never started to actually discuss it here yet.



> Thats what people are getting annoyed about. Its very difficult to follow your line of argument, and the raison detre for the positions you are taking look flimsy. People here are passionate about their a/c, and when someone comes jaunting in acting like they know everything and in fact they are in the opposite, it tends to get peoples back up.
> 
> You should try to understand that you are taliking with people some of whom have flown some of these birds, for real, others who have Dads or Grandads who flew, others who have read books that are written by real life experts. All these experiences and information sources are far more reliable than a sim. Some respect for people who have been in harms way in service for their countries wouldnt hurt either.


How I'm being disrespectful? Just because I do not simply agree with everything I'm being told? I'll agree when I'll read a reasonable argument. Sorry, but "we know better" is not one of those. 

I had a nasty fight online once about Harley Davidson bikes. There disagreeing was enough to offend. Is here the same?



> And i can say that because Im a champion player at sims, and once upon a time made a living out of simulating combat theories, in the military . Computer based tactical sims in the open market are generally Horse shite Im afraid.


So, are you saying that inaccuracies in my sim make the result invalid? Because if so, I can respond. If not, I don't know if I should.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> So, are you saying that inaccuracies in my sim make the result invalid? Because if so, I can respond. If not, I don't know if I should.


Allow me to explain the gaming world, if the "sim" was realistic and you were up against an ace you would die or if you were wise you may possibly escape, but the sim makers want to hook you to play it talk about it and get others to play it. That is how "real" your sim is. A newly qualified pilot has almost zero chance of taking down an ace in a one on one combat in any era, if the player always loses then he uses a "better" sim, one where the player has more "success"


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

Aozora said:


> So what percentage of accuracy is needed to draw the right conclusions? 99.9%? 59.9%?


The more accurate the model, the more precise conclusions you can draw. With a rough, inaccurate, qualitative model you can only draw rough, inaccurate, qualitative conclusions.

My conclusion, which I repeated over and over, and still people seem not to get it.

*It was not easy to beat the Zero in a dogfight.*



> To claim that a flight sim accurately represents real-life combat is drawing a very long bow.


I claim no such thing.



> Why?
> 
> 1) There is _no guarantee_ that the program accurately depicts all of the flight and performance characteristics, under all conditions encountered in the real environment, of the aircraft being depicted: all the flight simmer has is the developer's claims and the player's perceptions. Read any flight simmer forum and see all the lengthy and often contentious arguments about how the sim is performing and ask yourself who has the final say in how your favourite aircraft will perform.
> 
> ...


Interestingly, your arguments work even better against spec-sheet wars, don't they?

Regarding historical accounts - veterans seem to agree with me here, when they say that altitude and teamwork were of incredible importance. They agree when they write "never dogfight with a Zero". I read a report in a wartime newspaper once, where the pilot wrote that a Zero is a good plane, strongly built, which behaves in the air according to expectations. She stiffened up at speed, but all planes do it, nothing special here. But don't worry, readers. We can beat her, because Japanese lack good pilots [really!]. They are a bit cowardly [REALLY!] and have bad eyesight...

Regarding historical results - Japanese were beaten into a pulp. All host of reasons could result in high losses in the air. Was inadequacy of their carrier-borne fighter one of those? I think not.


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Allow me to explain the gaming world, if the "sim" was realistic and you were up against an ace you would die or if you were wise you may possibly escape, but the sim makers want to hook you to play it talk about it and get others to play it. That is how "real" your sim is. A newly qualified pilot has almost zero chance of taking down an ace in a one on one combat in any era, if the player always loses then he uses a "better" sim, one where the player has more "success"


I play against the bot, then switch planes and compare results. 

Essentially, I play against myself. I cancel out any hand-holding. It helps me equally in both planes.


----------



## bakters (Dec 19, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No your not the pilot. You are sitting on a swivel chair in front of a computer screen, with a cold glass of coke next to you all while sitting on the ground and not at 15,000 ft.
> 
> The point people are making is that since you will always walk away, there are no life or death situations and decisions to be made. You can not replicate that, and therefore your decision making will never be the same.


I've been in danger. I think I know what it changes, and I addressed this aspect already.



> Now cam Sim talk be moved to the gaming threads?


How do we compare which parameter on a spec-sheet is of great importance, and which is of minor importance? Without testing?

I read here that 5mph top-speed difference is decisive. That's totally off.  Not a small inaccuracy caused by lazy programming or feedback limitations, but a gross error.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2015)

bakters said:


> I play against the bot, then switch planes and compare results.
> 
> Essentially, I play against myself. I cancel out any hand-holding. It helps me equally in both planes.



Seriously, are you simple? You never enter or fly a "plane" you play on a game, I was much better than my wife at Spiro the dragon, I believe that spiro could have overcome the American superiority had he been introduced in 1941.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 19, 2015)

We do need to be fair in this. Sims can help to understand broad principals. The military use simulations to work out strategies and tactics all the time. Theres nothing wrong with that, AS A STARTING POINT. You develop a theory, and do some low grade testing using the known variables. If your strategy shows promise you take it to the known specialists (in this case the pilots) and ask for their advice. modify the theory accordingly. Then on to the tac warfare school, which in oz is a building housing a 9 floor building filled with a super computer to handle all the algorithms, and ours is a toy compared to what some nations have. If the theory still holds promise we then would test it on the range, with flight observers to see if the idea would work or not. US has an entire flight school, backed up by the best boffins they can find. If the theory holds up, it will be adopted. But always under review. 

Thats proper testing. It can work, so Im not going to say there is no benefit. Even the commercial entertainment sims have some merit. But they are not flying, they cant replace flying, and to make debateable claims based solely on the experiences of a product designed primarily for entertainment is foolish and unsound. 

I can agree with the basic premise , that the Zeke was a highly competitive type in 1942. Its fair to claim it was the best carrier based fighter up to 1943. but it had serious flaws. basically they are well known, and relate to poor dive capability, poor high speed maneouvre and flimsy and flammable construction. Once the allies worked out its weaknesses and applied the correct tactics it became a liability.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (Dec 19, 2015)

All I can see is that bakters has hijacked this thread for 10 pages and has airily dismissed everyone who is trying to explain the differences between flight sims and real life with often flippant remarks or condescending non-replys, all to prove what, exactly? That the Zero was an exceptional low-medium speed dog fighter? Most of us know that. That the Zero stood a chance against the Corsair if the latter was drawn into a turning dogfight? I think we already had a fair idea that that could happen. Otherwise what else is bakters trying to prove, apart from the fact that he draws all his experience from a flight sim? 

This "debate" is going nowhere and is proving nothing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2015)

Again move the game talk to the game threads.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 20, 2015)

> This "debate" is going nowhere and is proving nothing


.

Yep. 

Ill come back to this debate if and when it matures a bit.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2015)

I will say this much: there is a _tremendous amount of information_ (that fell of deaf ears) posted regarding the A6M and how it stacked up against the USN types, so all was not totally lost!


----------



## GregP (Dec 20, 2015)

To be concise, bakters, sims ... particularly commercial gaming sims that are less than $200 ... are as good as the equations used and no better. It is a simple fact that the precise equations of maneuver, acceleration, and other critical parameters are simply not known by commercial gaming programmers, almost all of which are not aeronautical engineers who have studied WWII combat aircraft, particularly fighters. What they mostly do is tweak the flight characteristics to produce a fun to play game and an aircraft model that doesn't snap roll or break the wings off when you pull too hard.

It has little to nothing to do with a real WWII combat fighter.

You methods of discussing and replying to posts say a lot about you. Only you can decide if you like the persona presented. Reading the last 4 pages of post replies, you can maybe guess what other people see.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> I will say this much:* there is a tremendous amount of information (that fell of deaf ears) posted regarding the A6M* and how it stacked up against the USN types, so all was not totally lost!



Very true 

Our Shinpachi was so kind to translate the table about different Zero models to English. The excel sheet can be downloaded from here.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> And yes, Ki-100 is a good example of an airframe designed over inline engine that was effectively replaced by radial. But in this case it was influenced by the analysis of FW-190 and employing this technology into existing design. Also Ki-100 in fact was lighter than Ki-61 as some of the added weight, particularly in the rear section of the fuselage to balance the aircraft and create a good Center of Gravity was removed in Ki-100. *This still did not give anything more than achieving a similar performance - Ki-100 achieved top speed around 590 km/h while Ki-61-II 610 km/h (despite Ha-112 producing 50 HP more than used previously inline, Ha-140)* and it had same time to altitude. Of course pilots praised the changes as machine was in this case lighter and very favorable flight characteristics were apparent.



Just to add a bit about this.
The Ha-140 on the Ki-61-II was rated to 1250 HP at 5700 m, the Ha-112 was at 1250 HP at 5800 m. The Ki-61-II will be faster beacuse the V-12 will do less drag; the Ki-100 will climb better because it is lighter (by 10%), mainlydue the Ha-112 not having the liquid cooling system.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 20, 2015)

Biggest problem of Ki-61-II was the Center of Gravity, Ki-61 was not originally designed so long. Ha-140 was like DB 601 E, longer and required longer airframe. That and addition of Ho-5 in Ki-61 Tei messed with weight. Hence there was added some "dead weight in the back". I remember reading that pilots who flew Ki-100 were very happy that aircraft was much better balanced. 

Though it wasn't exactly what Takeo Doi wanted, his initial Ki-61-II had new wings designed, only that it failed ...



GrauGeist said:


> I will say this much: there is a _tremendous amount of information_ (that fell of deaf ears) posted regarding the A6M and how it stacked up against the USN types, so all was not totally lost!



Very true, ever our arguing with tomo pauk was very interesting (at least for me  )and left a lot of data here.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 20, 2015)

Bakter if you have a fight between two pilots of equal ability at starting at 10,000ft with a sky clear to the horizon, basically a medieval jousting match but with planes not horses.

Up to about 180/200mph the Zero will win more often
Between about 200 and 240 its about equal
About 250 the Zero is struggling badly it cant accelerate away in the vertical its controls get heavier the faster it goes so it cant break in the horizontal but a good pilot can still survive and win against a green pilot
Above 250 the Zero is in trouble and only a very good pilot will survive

Some other guys will probably step in and say my speed figures are off but they are in the ball park and obviously height will alter them. The whole problem with the Knights of the air jousting is it didnt happen Allied fighters by 43 were hunting in packs. Whilst the Zero pilot was manouvering against the Corsair or Wildcat, Hellcat, P38, P51, Spitfire, Seafire, Firefly. His wingman or his 10 other buddies were waiting patiently for you to fly into their sights.

Go and fly your Sim against 12 other Sim gamers and tell us how well that went.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2015)

You might browse some older threads, our arguing is nowhere as like it as when Spitfire and Bf 109 fans clashed. Or, sometimes heated, discussions between Shortround6 and me, too bad the knowledgable man is not arround 

The Ha-40 was 1948 mm long, vs the Ha-140 at 2008 mm, a 6 cm difference. What was probably of greater improtance for the CoG is that Ha-140 was 80 kg heavier. We dont know how much of the weight increase was ballanced out by installing a bigger (=heavier) radiator, installed behind the CoG.


----------



## bakters (Dec 20, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Thats proper testing. It can work, so Im not going to say there is no benefit. Even the commercial entertainment sims have some merit. But they are not flying, they cant replace flying, and to make debateable claims based solely on the experiences of a product designed primarily for entertainment is foolish and unsound.


What debatable claim I made, especially one in open disagreement with historical accounts?

That a Zero is a difficult opponent? It's debatable now? 



> I can agree with the basic premise , that the Zeke was a highly competitive type in 1942. Its fair to claim it was the best carrier based fighter up to 1943. but it had serious flaws. basically they are well known, and relate to poor dive capability, poor high speed maneouvre and flimsy and flammable construction. Once the allies worked out its weaknesses and applied the correct tactics it became a liability.


Fine. So which tactics should I apply to defeat a Zero which is aware of my presence and intentions?

One-on-one, I can have an altitude and speed on my side, just to be unfair.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 20, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> You might browse some older threads, our arguing is nowhere as like it as when Spitfire and Bf 109 fans clashed. Or, sometimes heated, discussions between Shortround6 and me, too bad the knowledgable man is not arround


Oh no no, by no means I'd dare jump into such a discussion. I saw way too many discussions, particularly from Luftwaffle pilots in various sim forums trying to prove incredible things. Or Spitfire fans trying to prove otherwise. And of course P-51 fans defending the claim that it was best ww2 fighter. Everyone has his favorite warbirds, but not everyone goes into "argument furball" 




> The Ha-40 was 1948 mm long, vs the Ha-140 at 2008 mm, a 6 cm difference. What was probably of greater improtance for the CoG is that Ha-140 was 80 kg heavier. We dont know how much of the weight increase was ballanced out by installing a bigger (=heavier) radiator, installed behind the CoG.


There was lately published a book about Ki-61 history, written by L.A. Wieliczko from Kagero Publishing. A very nice monograph, if I will find it I'll try to look for more details.


----------



## bakters (Dec 20, 2015)

Aozora said:


> That the Zero was an exceptional low-medium speed dog fighter?


It used to be that Zero only dominated at slow speeds. Since at high speeds it obviously didn't, there was an impression that at medium speeds it was more or less equal.

It looks like progress to me.



> Most of us know that. That the Zero stood a chance against the Corsair if the latter was drawn into a turning dogfight? I think we already had a fair idea that that could happen.


So, how do you defeat a Zero without ever slowing down? Head-on attack works, but you guys dismissed this approach, as too risky. I get it. So how to do it?



> Otherwise what else is bakters trying to prove, apart from the fact that he draws all his experience from a flight sim?


I'm trying to show that there was no "I win" button you could press against a well flown Zero. If I'm wrong, I want to know where this button is, and how to press it.



> This "debate" is going nowhere and is proving nothing.


You mean, the debate is going in the wrong direction, and it's proving that defeating a supremely maneuverable fighter with decent climb and acceleration is not an easy task?


----------



## bakters (Dec 20, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> Bakter if you have a fight between two pilots of equal ability at starting at 10,000ft with a sky clear to the horizon, basically a medieval jousting match but with planes not horses.


 Thanks. I somehow missed this post up to now. You seem to take it in the direction I expected the discussion to go from the very start.



> Up to about 180/200mph the Zero will win more often


 Like in "always"?



> Between about 200 and 240 its about equal


 I disagree, and historical accounts support my stance. The Zero was rated as excellent fighter at those speeds.



> About 250 the Zero is struggling badly it cant accelerate away in the vertical its controls get heavier the faster it goes so it cant break in the horizontal but a good pilot can still survive and win against a green pilot
> Above 250 the Zero is in trouble and only a very good pilot will survive


I believe there is some gross misunderstanding going on here. If a Zero is at 250mph, it still has very good elevator authority, decent rudder authority and limited aileron authority. Even A6M2 will roll, just slower.

But it does not matter much anyways. If you follow the "tactical egg" in maneuvers, you will never even attempt to turn in the horizontal. You pull up and change directions at the top of your climb, with absolute ease, and with great energy conservation.

You do not turn in the horizontal if you can avoid it!



> Some other guys will probably step in and say my speed figures are off but they are in the ball park and obviously height will alter them.


Fine. I can concede the fight for numbers, as long as we stay on topic and try to discuss the tactics in a pragmatic manner. High speed, medium speed and low speed is fine with me.



> The whole problem with the Knights of the air jousting is it didnt happen Allied fighters by 43 were hunting in packs. Whilst the Zero pilot was manouvering against the Corsair or Wildcat, Hellcat, P38, P51, Spitfire, Seafire, Firefly. His wingman or his 10 other buddies were waiting patiently for you to fly into their sights.


Japanese could play this game too, assuming they had the advantage in numbers...



> Go and fly your Sim against 12 other Sim gamers and tell us how well that went.


That's exactly how I explain high Zero losses. People here tend to argue, that technological superiority of American fighters was the reason why Zeros fared so badly by the end of the war. Do you agree with me? Be careful, it seems to be a risky stance around here...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2015)

GregP said:


> To be concise, bakters, sims ... particularly commercial gaming sims that are less than $200 ... are as good as the equations used and no better. It is a simple fact that the precise equations of maneuver, acceleration, and other critical parameters are simply not known by commercial gaming programmers, almost all of which are not aeronautical engineers who have studied WWII combat aircraft, particularly fighters. What they mostly do is tweak the flight characteristics to produce a fun to play game and an aircraft model that doesn't snap roll or break the wings off when you pull too hard.
> 
> It has little to nothing to do with a real WWII combat fighter.
> 
> You methods of discussing and replying to posts say a lot about you. Only you can decide if you like the persona presented. Reading the last 4 pages of post replies, you can maybe guess what other people see.



Not really hard to understand.

So are we all in agreement that the gaming talk should stick to the gaming threads.

Growing tired...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 20, 2015)

bakters said:


> Like in "always"?



There is never ever in a million combats an "always" You could fly a Sopwith Camel against an F22 Raptor and in a certain set of circumstances the Camel could win. 

The Zero in any of its iterations was an excellent dogfighter, it wasnt the best but it was in the top rank. Its early success was due to a combination of probably the best trained most experienced group of pilots ever to fly, an excellent advanced aircraft, inexperienced opposition, shock at its appearance and the opposition flying right into the Zeros perfomance and handling sweet spot.


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 20, 2015)

That shock was actually interesting in a way that both British and American commands underestimated Japanese, expecting rather outdated monoplanes, not much faster than biplanes used in China. And than boom, Japanese presented a full metal monoplane faster than its opposition, climbing according to the witnesses twice as fast as their own aircraft, having a great range and simply being able to "outfly" them. Reading lately "Doomed at the Start: American Pursuit Pilots in the Philippines, 1941-1942" I encountered incidents where P-40 pilots simply bailed out to avoid engaging Zeros, there were multiple instances where P-40s .50 cals jammed and they were defenseless even before entering combat. The Zero shock was real and it wasn't deep into 1943 when US pilots were flying with full confidence. Early in 1943 US pilots still could get badly beaten by Zeros.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2015)

*Enough!!! Here is where the gaming threads are found found!!!!*


http://ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation-gaming/

 *bakters - take all your jibberish to the gaming section. I am only going to warn you once!!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bakters (Dec 20, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *Enough!!! Here is where the gaming threads are found found!!!!*
> 
> 
> http://ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation-gaming/
> ...


Can you explain it to me where I ignored your earlier suggestion? (Apart from being a bit late on reading the posts, it took me a moment to notice it.)

As far as I'm concerned, I stopped referring to sims... I ignored all the replies which referred to this topic. Did I not?

So, which was the exact transgression which caused this loud response on Your part? I'm genuinely puzzled. I'm willing to go with whatever written and unwritten rules you guys have here for as long as I'm willing to participate in the discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bakters (Dec 20, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> There is never ever in a million combats an "always" You could fly a Sopwith Camel against an F22 Raptor and in a certain set of circumstances the Camel could win.
> 
> The Zero in any of its iterations was an excellent dogfighter, it wasnt the best but it was in the top rank. Its early success was due to a combination of probably the best trained most experienced group of pilots ever to fly, an excellent advanced aircraft, inexperienced opposition, shock at its appearance and the opposition flying right into the Zeros perfomance and handling sweet spot.


 The thing is, it's not easy to avoid Zero's sweet spot. If you want to get a good shot at the enemy, you need to be only slightly faster than him. Many, many, wwII pilots said it outright. The best shot you will have is when you are directly behind your enemy while flying at his speed.

Nikolay Gerasimovich Golubnikov I quoted earlier said that the ability to *decelerate* your aircraft is very important. Not just accelerate, but decelerate, so you can deliver a well aimed burst.

Shooting at high approach speed is a low percentage affair. You may make the other guy go evasive, you may score a lucky hit, but it's really rare that you'll finish the fight this way.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2015)

bakters said:


> Can you explain it to me where I ignored your earlier suggestion? (Apart from being a bit late on reading the posts, it took me a moment to notice it.)
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, I stopped referring to sims... I ignored all the replies which referred to this topic. Did I not?
> 
> So, which was the exact transgression which caused this loud response on Your part? I'm genuinely puzzled. I'm willing to go with whatever written and unwritten rules you guys have here for as long as I'm willing to participate in the discussion.



*READ THIS:*
http://ww2aircraft.net/forum/basic/ground-rules-folks-7159.html

*MY LAST WARNING*

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2015)

bakters said:


> That's exactly how I explain high Zero losses. People here tend to argue, that technological superiority of American fighters was the reason why Zeros fared so badly by the end of the war.



Not the technical superiority of "fighters" which can be argued for or against it was the complete superiority of allied, mostly american industry not only in technical matters but scale of production and training. It is a war it is not meant to be a fair fight. If you lose one on one at low speed then never fly alone or slowly. 
Japan’s Fatally Flawed Air Forces in World War II | History Net: Where History Comes Alive – World US History Online | From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher
I made a comment about radio quality in japanese aircraft, if you have no radio you are fighting a ww1 battle in ww2, I think all allied pilots were authorised to turn back if the radio stopped working, it was quite common in Japanese A/C 

Radio Systems in the Early A6M Zero
which says this

Very early in the war the lack of radios severely limited tactical control options that could be exercised by flight commanders. Sakai, Saburo wrote of the death of fellow pilot Miyazaki, Yoshio and the near ambush of Lt. Sasai, Junichi under circumstances where formations had drawn apart and he was unable to tell the straying aircraft that they were about to be bounced. These incidents occurred over New Guinea in May 1942. Later, during the air battles around Guadalcanal, Japanese fighter formations had great difficulty coordinating escort actions due to heavy cloud conditions degrading visibility at multiple altitudes. John Lundstrom cites this on page 192 of “The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign”.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2015)

As I mentioned earlier, the other factor to the A6M's shortcomings as the war progressed, was the poor quality of the Japanese pilot replacements.

The U.S. was producing enough aircraft to support it's two front war AND supply it's allies. With these aircraft, came fresh, well trained pilots.

No matter how well the A6M performed (or any other IJN/IJA type, for that matter), they simply could not compete in skies dominated by U.S. and Allied aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bakters (Dec 20, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Not the technical superiority of "fighters" which can be argued for or against it was the complete superiority of allied, mostly american industry not only in technical matters but scale of production and training. It is a war it is not meant to be a fair fight.


I can easily agree with that. If the impression I got from reading the whole thread was similar, I'd never register and respond. 



> If you lose one on one at low speed then never fly alone or slowly.


Even 4 against 2 with energy advantage was not a forgone conclusion. I remember reading a report by one Corsair pilot. 4 Corsairs jumped 2 Zeros, the wingman started smoking after their first pass (Zeke didn't blow apart, though...). Corsairs turned around quickly to finish the Japanese leader. 

What? 4 on 1 (the wingman was crippled and out of the fight) in superior planes? Sure they went after him. 

And they were like "whaaaaat?" That's how quickly the Japanese flight-leader reversed on all of them and started threatening their very lives.

I don't exactly remember how it went further, but I think that they dove, extended and shot him down by dividing his attention. What I remember for sure though, is that simple numerical advantage and energy advantage was not enough. The Zero could still be a threat, as long it was not caught dreaming.

Interestingly, I remember reading a similar account when two 109-G-something pilots took on a single Yak-3. They tried their best, both experienced pilots, and at least the author a fetching personality, but it didn't work. In the end they did a Thatch weave of sorts. The wingman took fire while the flight-leader had a good shot at the Yak. Both sides suffered minor damage and disengaged, but the take home message was that Yak-3 was a better plane.

Better! Not just comparable. German pilot was willing to admit, that Soviets built a better plane.



> Japan’s Fatally Flawed Air Forces in World War II | History Net: Where History Comes Alive – World US History Online | From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher
> I made a comment about radio quality in japanese aircraft, if you have no radio you are fighting a ww1 battle in ww2, I think all allied pilots were authorised to turn back if the radio stopped working, it was quite common in Japanese A/C
> 
> 
> ...


Better radios make sense to me. Soviet pilots praised American radios very much. They were good.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2015)

bakters said:


> I can easily agree with that. If the impression I got from reading the whole thread was similar, I'd never register and respond.
> 
> Better radios make sense to me. Soviet pilots praised American radios very much. They were good.


The forum is an aviation forum, discussion of individual aircraft strength and weaknesses are what it is for and what it does. You can produce an account to support almost anything, a plane was shot down with a revolver, no one would suggest it was a sound armament strategy though. The A/C designer must give the pilot the best chance of making a kill in the highest number of situations, and the best chance of surviving and landing safely.

Better radios are one thing, having no radio at all in any aircraft is a disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## bakters (Dec 20, 2015)

pbehn said:


> The forum is an aviation forum, discussion of individual aircraft strength and weaknesses are what it is for and what it does. You can produce an account to support almost anything, a plane was shot down with a revolver, no one would suggest it was a sound armament strategy though. The A/C designer must give the pilot the best chance of making a kill in the highest number of situations, and the best chance of surviving and landing safely.
> 
> Better radios are one thing, having no radio at all in any aircraft is a disaster waiting to happen.


Spec-sheets have been done to death. The numbers are known, even if often misunderstood. The only practical test of how those numbers related to reality is forbidden topic here. What else remains but concentrating on combat reports? 

When a Corsair pilot writes that he was incredibly surprised at the ease with which the Japanese leader reversed on them, then it's telling something which can be hard to figure out from bare numbers. When another pilot writes to newspaper readers that they can beat the Zero, because Japanese pilots are badly trained, cowardly and short sighted that's also telling something.

Perfect? No. Nothing ever is perfect, though.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2015)

bakters said:


> When a Corsair pilot writes that he was incredibly surprised at the ease with which the Japanese leader reversed on them, then it's telling something which can be hard to figure out from bare numbers.


One of the greatest strengths of any fighting unit is learning from your mistakes and those of others. The US airforces constantly improved training and tactics to maximise the times they had the advantages and minimise the times they didnt. Pilots reporting how a Zero reversed on them would be asked how it happened what did they do, what could be done better what should not be ever done, that is how you get to grips with an enemy.

By this the effectiveness of the whole unit slowly improved and this coupled with its ever increasing size overwhelmed both the LW and IJN forces. By wars end the Japanese and Germans had very few top class pilots left.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2015)

bakters said:


> Spec-sheets have been done to death. The numbers are known, even if often misunderstood. *The only practical test of how those numbers related to reality is forbidden topic here*.



Is it?!?!? There are many documented encounters between allied aircraft and the Zero and it's performance was well documented, some of those reports praised the Zero (VMF-211 over Midway) and other condemned it (475th Fighter Group, SW Pacific) so spare us the sarcasm. If you took the time to read some of the posts here you'll find a pretty even assessment of *ALL* WW2 aircraft, and although some may have their bias, I think discussions here about the Zero (as well as other Japanese aircraft) are discussed fairly and accuracy. History shows us that the Zero was indeed a deadly dogfighter at about 250 mph, and could be a deadly opponent anytime encountered, up to the end of the war, however due to tactics and pilot skills, it was all but swept from the skies, I think the end result of WW2 more than verifies this. Later model Zeros were an improvement but were too little too late.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2015)

The "Thatch weave" is not dependent on aircraft performance but had a major impact on losses to Zero's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thach_Weave

Once you read it it seems so much like the obvious thing to do it is amazing no one had ever thought of it before 1941, the fact is though no one had, or at least no one had thought to train crews in it as the maneuver of choice.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2015)

I earlier posted a first-hand account by an Ace who successfully flew against the A6M and it was brushed off. This is real world advice coming from a man who's actions against the Japanese was life or death. One mistake would mean failure resulting in death, injury or swimming.

These are the best possible means of determining how well the Allied or Axis planes performed. There were a great deal more pilots, who's opinions couldn't be shared, because they made a mistake and paid the ultimate price for that error.

When a captured A6M5 was flown in trials against the F6F, the summary was as follows:


> "Do not dogfight with a Zero 52. Do not try to follow a loop or half-roll with a pull-through. When attacking, use your superior power and high speed performance to engage at the most favourable moment. To evade a Zero 52 on your tail, roll and dive away into a high speed turn."


Now perhaps it could be said that this trial may have been flawed because it did not have a Japanese pilot, however, all pilots (Allied or Axis) will have similar abilities and one objective, to kill and avoid being killed.

And again, 2Lt. Walsh, an Ace with VMF-124 shared his experience with his A6M encounters while flying the F4U:


> I learned quickly that altitude was paramount. Whoever had altitude dictated the terms of the battle, and there was nothing a Zero pilot could do to change that — we had him.
> The F4U could outperform a Zero in every aspect except slow speed maneuverability and slow speed rate of climb. Therefore you avoided getting slow when combating a Zero. It took time but eventually we developed tactics and deployed them very effectively...
> There were times, however, that I tangled with a Zero at slow speed, one on one. In these instances I considered myself fortunate to survive a battle. Of my 21 victories, 17 were against Zeros, and I lost five aircraft in combat.


And he was there, he lived to tell about his engagements. He was also awarded the Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Flying Cross among other achievements. So I would take his advice very seriously. 

You can compare charts, numbers, statistics and such all day long, but in the end, it's what the Pilots themselves have to say, that holds any weight.

bakters, I want you to follow this link An afternoon with Saburo Sakai and see the words of Saburo Sakai and pay attention to what he says. If there was ever a human being that would hold the true secret of the A6M, it would be this man. Think about his experience, so when he makes a comment like:


> putting a kid with only about 20 hours flight time into a plane and telling him to take on U.S. pilots in Hellcats and Corsairs is just as much a suicidal tactic as being a kamikaze


He is not quoting charts, tables or any other source...he was there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2015)

Bottom line, the F4U claimed an 11 to 1 kill ratio during WW2. In the book Vought F4U Corsair by Martin W. Bowman; it shows that there were only 189 F4Us lost to enemy fighters while claiming 2,140. I have not found information on what the exact F4U to Zero ratio is but even if it's embedded in those numbers its obvious that the F4U was clearly superior to the Zero. 

More on the Zero including the assessment of the Aleutian Zero.

Koga's Zero | Texas Flying Legends Museum

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 20, 2015)

On actual combat from 1943 perspective, so when tides were turning I'd recommend getting this :











It's of course in Japanese so few here may actually read the contents, but there are tables that should be easy to decipher even with google translate. It also contains a lot of lesser known pictures. I mention this specifically because of F4U ( along with P-38 ) and Zero battled over Solomon Islands throughout 1943 which is a great base to draw some conclusions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 20, 2015)

bakters said:


> The only practical test of how those numbers related to reality is forbidden topic here.



that is because the flight models you are basing your experience and conclusions on are biased, flawed, and in a lot of cases completely erroneous. spread sheets and performance reports give the best snap shot of what it was like back then. the mods have warned of taking gaming here so I wont say anything more than I am well versed in Gaijin flight models and antics ( since 2009 )....and will converse via PM about this if you wish....or you can open a thread in the gaming section here and we can talk openly.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2015)

I thought the best practical test was use of an enemy aircraft to test which was why so much effort was put into getting them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 20, 2015)

and hence write a report....see the combat over Darwin thread. the reports there are a perfect example...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bakters (Dec 21, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bottom line, the F4U claimed an 11 to 1 kill ratio during WW2. In the book Vought F4U Corsair by Martin W. Bowman; it shows that there were only 189 F4Us lost to enemy fighters while claiming 2,140. I have not found information on what the exact F4U to Zero ratio is but even if it's embedded in those numbers its obvious that the F4U was clearly superior to the Zero.
> 
> More on the Zero including the assessment of the Aleutian Zero.
> 
> Koga's Zero | Texas Flying Legends Museum


Claimed victories to real losses? Against rookie pilots sent on one-way missions? While often having overwhelming numerical and tactical superiority? 

No, it's not obvious which plane was a better dogfighter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 21, 2015)

*bakters*, did you read my post (#486) which contained the link to the the interview with Saburu Sakai??


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 21, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> *bakters*, did you read my post (#486) which contained the link to the the interview with Saburu Sakai??



I never exactly understood how did this interview was done and what was the quality of person translating but in many points it contradicts what we know from "Samurai", "Winged Samurai" or "Genda's Blade". Hell, I even have Combat Flight Simulator 2 manual which except for all game details contains crucial here interviews with Allied veterans as well as interview with S. Sakai. No such language was used as in interview posted above. 

Things that especially caught my attention : 


> Take that idiot [Minoru] Genda. He could barely fly, but he jumped up and down about the Shiden-kai ["George"], so everybody else pretended to like it, too. That plane was a piece of crap, put together by a third-rate firm [Kawanishi].


First, I honestly dont believe that Sakai would call someone, especially his superior an idiot. After the war he became rather a peaceful Buddhist acolyte and such words simply dont fit. Other thing is that I doubt Sakai was unaware of the Gendas flight experience and skill, Genda was one of the best pre-war pilots of ww2 and along with his wingmen they created a feared formation known as "Genda's Flying Circus".
Last is the Kawanishi N1K2-J, while N1K1-J indeed had multiple issues, lot of that has been corrected in N1K2-J. Reading through multiple accounts, most of them written post war so there was no pressure from former leaders or military itself, aircraft was praised for its handling and firepower. Again it had its flaws, but calling it a piece of crap.


There are too many things that contradict each other, that I only would recommend reading this along with other books or interviews to get more clear view.


----------



## bakters (Dec 21, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> *bakters*, did you read my post (#486) which contained the link to the the interview with Saburu Sakai??


Yes. I always loved the guy.


----------



## bakters (Dec 21, 2015)

Hiromachi said:


> I never exactly understood how did this interview was done and what was the quality of person translating but in many points it contradicts what we know from "Samurai", "Winged Samurai" or "Genda's Blade". Hell, I even have Combat Flight Simulator 2 manual which except for all game details contains crucial here interviews with Allied veterans as well as interview with S. Sakai. No such language was used as in interview posted above.
> 
> Things that especially caught my attention :
> 
> ...


_I did not take notes nor use a tape recorder during our conversation, and these "quotes" are paraphrased by myself to the best of my memory. Please do not repeat them or attribute them to Sakai-san in any published forum. _

Edit: It appeared to me, since the interviewer didn't take notes or recorded anything, Sakai could have been more honest here...


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 21, 2015)

bakters said:


> _I did not take notes nor use a tape recorder during our conversation, and these "quotes" are paraphrased by myself to the best of my memory. Please do not repeat them or attribute them to Sakai-san in any published forum. _



That is a bit logically contradiction, you take the interview to present view and ideas of a person you are interviewing in his own words. But anyway, I managed to dig my CFS 2 manual (which is a beautiful thing, a testament how much some people cared about making their products) and here is an interview with Saburo Sakai, it is supplied by much bigger one that was available on Microsoft website 15 years ago. I am that kind of person that copies and saves everything since internet is not a book, things may disappear and they do, even as most say otherwise.
Interview was under this link Object moved 
It was done by Michael Ahn, and please keep in mind that it was related to a game hence some questions and answers are directed towards those who will play it, but I still find it very informative and showing certain perspective. 

PART 1


> *Interviewer:* If you could offer one bit of advice to a new pilot about surviving an encounter with the enemy, what would you tell him?
> *Saburo Sakai:* Remain calm and collected.
> 
> *Interviewer:* What were your "rules of engagement?" Did you have "style" of entering a fight with the enemy?
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 21, 2015)

Part 2 


> *Interviewer:* Did your men have strengths and weaknesses in their flying skills?
> *Saburo Sakai:* Our strength was the individual skill of our pilots (i.e. how to fight one-on-one, and the marksmanship of the pilots - we didn't let our skills lapse, we kept practicing the same things over and over). That was the only strength of Japan in the war. Our weakness on the other hand was our group tactics. When you talk about features of a car or an airplane, they are just machines. They themselves don't fly. They don't try. It's the combination of pilot and machine. The pilot who can maximize the feature of the machine - that is the strong pilot. The good pilot. The Zero pilot can see three hundred and sixty degrees and can find anything much quicker. The pilot of the American fighters can't see behind him (because of the fuselage). Because of that, we targeted to the rear. But the American planes had armor to protect the pilot but the Zero, to maximize its horsepower didn't add anything like armor. The Zero pilot had to use his ability to see the enemy first, instead of armor. The American airplanes' powerful engines and the machine guns were much better than the Zero. When they received hits, the Zero often exploded or burned - it's quite fragile and easy to burn. But the American planes were very strong and were designed to protect the pilots' lives. The Japanese pilot as well as the aircraft were regarded as "consumables". That was the philosphy - a foolish philosophy. Also, the Japanese Navy placed too much emphasis on the warship. They thought the navies would fight each other by huge war vessels so they didn't place much emphasis on the airplane. The Americans had a much better philosophy -America produced more aircraft and trained more, eventually catching up with the Japanese. It was fighter against fighter in WWI, but in WWII it was group against group. The Japanese were very bad at this, but the Americans used the philosophy of American football - teamwork. Excellent.
> 
> *Interviewer:* Other than by actual combat, how did you learn of new enemy planes? Was there any intelligence on this? How did everyone share information on fighting against different enemy planes such as the P38, the Wildcat, the Hellcat and the Corsair? What did you think of these planes?
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (Dec 21, 2015)

Part 3 


> *Interviewer:* Can you tell the story of the formation flight over Port Moresby with Nishizawa and Ota?
> *Saburo Sakai:* During the Japan-China war, I was on a bombing mission when I saw one of our pilots land on the enemy's field burning. He blew up on the field. Later at Rabaul and Lae, we were fighting every day and I knew I wouldn't live long. I wanted to do something before I died, like what that pilot did when he landed on the enemy's base. We couldn't copy that, so we decided to do something as pilots - fly a great, beautiful flight to demonstrate our skills. That was our promise to each other. Nishizawa and Ota - I called them and said, if we have time and the others return to base and we have enough ammo and fuel, we can fly as a team and perform these aerobatics. So when the rest of the flight turned for home, Nishizawa and Ota joined me on my wing as number two and number three. I signaled, "Let's start" and we started. So we did a beautiful loop over the American base, but Nishizawa signaled that our altitude must be much lower! So we lowered our altitude to less than 1,000 meters - 700 or 800 meters. I signaled - three times. So we did a loop three times. I raised my arm in triumph - "ah we did it!" and we flew back. This was a secret between the three of us. Because we knew we could die at any time, we did what we wanted to do. The next day was cloudy day and a P-40 dove from the clouds and dropped a bag with a streamer attached to it.. We opened it and found a note in English. Sasai-san confronted us with note, reading it to us: "Yesterday you performed aerobatics over our base and it was really exciting. We applauded. Next time you come we'll be ready to dogfight - please come wearing a green muffler - we'll be waiting for you, wearing a green muffler as well." Sasai read this to us and yelled, "What is the meaning of this!?" We apologized profusely to him. But I'm sorry I never was able to have that dogfight. After the war, I met some of the U.S. soldiers who were Port Moresby who saw our aerobatics that day - they told me they stopped firing their guns as we did our maneuver, and stopped to applaud us.
> 
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2015)

bakters said:


> Claimed victories to real losses?


As you become more educated here you'll learn that there is much discussion about claims vs. actual kills. It is well know that ALL sides overclaimed aerial victories


bakters said:


> Against rookie pilots sent on one-way missions? While often having overwhelming numerical and tactical superiority?


Not always the case - look at the F4U's operational record when it first saw combat - the first squadrons who flew it encountered some excellent pilots from both the IJN and JAAF.


bakters said:


> No, it's not obvious which plane was a better dogfighter.



The F4U had the better war record and could out maneuver the Zero in certain tactical situations but the important points are pilot skill and training and eventually the allied forces fielded both.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2015)

Dogfighting is not an end in itself, a fighter is there to allow something else to happen, shooting down a fighter is only significant if it means the enemy has fewer fighters and good pilots the following day, or allows your mission to succeed/theirs to fail. If the Japanese were attacking a target the Zeros job is not to dogfight but to stop the enemy taking out the bomber/torpedo planes, not quite the same thing. The Japanese suffered heavy losses trying to break through organised protective screens of fighters protecting a fleet, getting involved in a fight with the screening fighters is what the defenders want you to do, it stops you doing the actual mission you were sent on.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Dogfighting is not an end in itself, a fighter is there to allow something else to happen, shooting down a fighter is only significant if it means the enemy has fewer fighters and good pilots the following day, or allows your mission to succeed/theirs to fail. If the Japanese were attacking a target the Zeros job is not to dogfight but to stop the enemy taking out the bomber/torpedo planes, not quite the same thing. The Japanese suffered heavy losses trying to break through organised protective screens of fighters protecting a fleet, getting involved in a fight with the screening fighters is what the defenders want you to do, it stops you doing the actual mission you were sent on.



Exactly! As the old line goes, "fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history!"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Exactly! As the old line goes, "fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history!"



The RAF found out in France what sending fighters over to "dogfight" with an enemy who doesn't really care what you bomb results in, they only want to "play" when they hold all the aces. Lots of bounces and few dogfights.


----------



## bakters (Dec 21, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As you become more educated here you'll learn that there is much discussion about claims vs. actual kills. It is well know that ALL sides overclaimed aerial victories


Of course, and that's why comparing claimed victories against actual losses is not very accurate.

Over Darwin, based on Wildcat's compilation of sources, the overclaim rate was a bit more than 2:1. I know it's not entirely warranted, but let's pretend it is, and let's apply it to late war Corsair record. Then from 11:1 we are at 5:1. Most of those were not Zeros. I would expect the enemy fighter to do better than other aircraft.

Very rough estimation, but probably better than taking claimed victories at face value.



> Not always the case - look at the F4U's operational record when it first saw combat - the first squadrons who flew it encountered some excellent pilots from both the IJN and JAAF.
> 
> The F4U had the better war record and could out maneuver the Zero in certain tactical situations but the important points are pilot skill and training and eventually the allied forces fielded both.


The training disparity was especially high by the end of the war. USN pilots graduated with about 600 hours in the air, Japanese with as little as 90.

Therefore it's difficult to assess comparative qualities of those two planes based on combat record.


----------



## bakters (Dec 21, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Dogfighting is not an end in itself, a fighter is there to allow something else to happen, shooting down a fighter is only significant if it means the enemy has fewer fighters and good pilots the following day, or allows your mission to succeed/theirs to fail. If the Japanese were attacking a target the Zeros job is not to dogfight but to stop the enemy taking out the bomber/torpedo planes, not quite the same thing. The Japanese suffered heavy losses trying to break through organised protective screens of fighters protecting a fleet, getting involved in a fight with the screening fighters is what the defenders want you to do, it stops you doing the actual mission you were sent on.


I don't see engaging the enemy fighter screen as a mistake, but maybe I don't understand something. What do you propose they did instead?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2015)

bakters said:


> Therefore it's difficult to assess comparative qualities of those two planes based on combat record.



And both aircraft were evaluated after the war by pilots of equal skill and training - the F4U was the better combat aircraft by leaps and bounds, it's just plain silly to try to say anything to the contrary.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 21, 2015)

bakters said:


> I don't see engaging the enemy fighter screen as a mistake, but maybe I don't understand something. What do you propose they did instead?


It's simple:
The escorting fighters are there to ensure that the bombers get through the screen to score hits against the enemy.

To wander off in a show of bravado and engaging the defenders leaves the bombers wide open to being ravaged. It is the escort's duty to remain near the bombers and drive off the defenders.

A CAP mission is free to intercept and engage the enemy, but an escort mission carries different responsabilities.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 21, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Exactly! As the old line goes, "fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history!"



8)

That really hurt my feeling...

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 21, 2015)

look at it this way biff.....the movie stars get the hot chics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 21, 2015)

Bakers,

I would evaluate the two aircraft by putting two very good pilots in each. Tell them to fight their a/c's best fight and see who wins the most out of 10 times. My money would be on the F4U due to its ability to stay or go at will. That means I fight only until I start going defensive, then separate (get range until I turn back in) or leave. The Zero would have no option but to stay until the adversary chose to end the fight. I have fought this battle many times Eagle vs Hornet. Same strengths and weaknesses as the older metal. Once you know your adversaries plus/minuses it becomes a formula you use agin and again. You can actually learn it to the extent the adversary pilot is almost removed from the equation.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2015)

bakters said:


> I don't see engaging the enemy fighter screen as a mistake, but maybe I don't understand something. What do you propose they did instead?



The zero fighters job is to stop the enemy getting a shot on the bomber/torpedo plane, to make them pull out of an attack but still stay with the bomber. You could say a series of "Thatch waves" making a kill isnt important, making the enemy pull out of his attack on your friend is. As soon a zero takes on a fighter in a dogfight it is out of the game, the planes that he is escorting is gone and without an escort is dead meat. 

An escorts job was to make sure their big friends got through to the target, an interceptors job was to get the bombers/torpedo planes. The US navy would not be happy to be told that every Zero was downed but ten torpedoes took out 5 ships, the IJN would not be happy being told that zeros took out 100 corsairs with no loss but not a torpedo or bomb reached the target. Ridiculous exaggerations I admit, just to illustrate the principle.

I dont know so much about the Pacific theatre but generally aeroplanes did not operate alone. One on one combats did occur but they were not the norm. If I was a pilot flying alone over the Pacific and saw an enemy flying alone, unless I was sure he hadnt seen me and absolutely sure he didnt have friends above that I couldnt see (how are you ever sure) I would probably decide that discretion is the better part of valour and do what I was planning/ordered to do, or call up any friends I have in the area.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> 8)
> 
> That really hurt my feeling...
> 
> ...



I am sure the memories help you cope with the hurt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2015)

bakters said:


> Of course, and that's why comparing claimed victories against actual losses is not very accurate.


That totally makes no sence. If Compare "CLAIMS" to "ACTUAL LOSSES" *you determine how accurate your claims were!!!*



bakters said:


> Over Darwin, based on Wildcat's compilation of sources, the overclaim rate was a bit more than 2:1. I know it's not entirely warranted, but let's pretend it is, and let's apply it to late war Corsair record. Then from 11:1 we are at 5:1. Most of those were not Zeros. I would expect the enemy fighter to do better than other aircraft.


 You cannot quantify and compare fighting over Darwin to the entire F4U war record, the entire scenario was different in so many areas, you need to do some research and understand all the environments the F4U and Zero operated under.




bakters said:


> USN pilots graduated with about 600 hours in the air, Japanese with as little as 90.



Your source for that?!?


bakters said:


> Therefore it's difficult to assess comparative qualities of those two planes based on combat record.



Again, you're making a statement about pilot experience when it varied through out the war. Obviously Japanese pilot skill diminished as the war continued. Corsair pilots with "600" hours did not always engage Japanese pilots with "90" hours, to believe that is just plain silly!!!!

Here is a page that tells the ACTUAL pilot training story at the start of the war. There is also a page on here that shows even if the IJN didn't lose many of their most experienced pilots during Midway, they still would have suffered severe attrition because of the demands made on choosing pilots before the war started...

Support: Pilot Training Is Out of Gas

_" In 1941, a Japanese pilot trainee 700 hours of flight time to qualify as a full fledged pilot in the Imperial Navy, while his American counterpart needed only 305 hours. About half of the active duty pilots in the U.S. Navy in late 1941 had between 300 and 600 hours flying experience, a quarter between 600 and 1000 hours, and the balance more than 1000 hours. Most of these flight hours had been acquired in the last few years. But at the beginning of the war nearly 75 percent of the U.S. Navy's pilots had fewer flying hours than did the least qualified of the Japanese Navy's pilots. 



On the down side, the Japanese pilot training program was so rigorous that only about 100 men a year were being graduated, in a program that required 4-5 years. In 1940, it was proposed that the pilot training program be made shorter, less rigorous, and more productive, in order to build up the pool of available pilots to about 15,000. This was rejected. Japan believed it could not win a long war, and needed the best pilots possible in order to win a short one. 



Naturally, once the war began, the Imperial Navy started losing pilots faster than they could be replaced. For example, the 29 pilots lost at Pearl Harbor represented more than a quarter of the annual crop. The battles of the next year led to the loss of hundreds of superb pilots. This finally forced the Japanese to reform their pilot training programs. Time to train a pilot, and hours in the air spiraled downward. By 1945 men were being certified fit for combat duty with less than four months training. In contrast, the U.S. Navy was actually increasing its flight time, while keeping pilot training programs to about 18 months. In 1943, the U.S. Navy increased flight hours for trainees to 500, while Japan cut its hours to 500. In 1944, the U.S. hours went up to 525, while Japan cut it to 275 hour. In 1945, a shortage of fuel had Japanese trainee pilots flying on 90 hours before entering combat. In the air, this produced lopsided American victories, with ten or more Japanese aircraft being lost for each U.S. one."_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 21, 2015)

bakters said:


> I don't see engaging the enemy fighter screen as a mistake, but maybe I don't understand something. What do you propose they did instead?



how much damage is a fighter going to inflict on a country? maybe shoot down a plane or 2...strafe a train or barge. how much damage is loaded bomber going to inflict? exponentially way more....take out a factory, knock down a bridge, destroy a rail yard. the germans tried to bait the fighter escorts to give chase after them and it they did...another swarm of lw fighters would freely attack the unprotected bombers. in the beginning fighters were ordered to stay with the bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2015)

bakters said:


> Therefore it's difficult to assess comparative qualities of those two planes based on combat record.



You are seeking a purist answer that cannot be given. One of the Japanese aces quoted on the thread states "we did not have radar" another that I provided by a link showed that the Japanese sometimes did not have radios at all or functioning ones at least. Regardless of an aeroplanes qualities even in WW2 with no radar or radio you are starting almost all engagements at a disadvantage. Take radio from any side in the Battle of Britain and you decide the winner, take Radar from the RAF and they lose, it would certainly have changed the Pacific war. 

You could produce exact new copies of the Corsair and the Zero and fly them off together to decide which is best, history shows that the Corsair as part of the US military outperformed the Zero as part of the Japanese. The actual performance of the two aircraft in the air one v one relative to each other is just a small part of that.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> how much damage is a fighter going to inflict on a country?



You can take out your enemy's top admiral in an ambush, but you need a few thousand of your best brains at home figuring out the systems to do it, another illustration that the fighter is just the equipment that meets the enemy, there must be a whole nation behind it to make it work to best effect.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 21, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I am sure the memories help you cope with the hurt.



Pbehn,

Yes they do! It's been a good stroll down memory lane here with you folks. 

However I can't believe no one has commented on my "singular" feeling...

Cheers,
Biff
8)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 22, 2015)

Hey Biff,

Many of us just don't believe the bomber quote. It's a team effort, and the bombers won't get through without the point players. Fighters are always on point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 22, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hey Biff,
> 
> Many of us just don't believe the bomber quote. It's a team effort, and the bombers won't get through without the point players. Fighters are always on point.



Greg,

You are right it is a team effort. One does not do well without the other and a ton of support behind both! Recruiting, training, mentoring, procurement, logistician, crew chief all contribute to the guy in the flight suit in the air. Then the fighters, bombers, tankers, AWACS, and a bunch more aircraft all contribute SA, munitions, and presence to the battlefield. Without a group effort there would be no success!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2015)

I can only agree with that to a point (no pun intended). Most of the fighting over Rabaul and New Guinea 1942-3 was undertaken with heavily armed heavy and medium bombers which used their massed firepower to either keep the japanese at bay or force their way to their targets. Its an old fashioned way, I admit, but in the pacific, where the numbers of fighters and the geographical distribution of targets greater than in more concentrated ETO environments.

There were of course exceptions to this. over carrier TFs, vital targets like Japanese cities, high value military targets. but Japanese air defence was never in the same league as their german counterparts, their defensive fighters more vulnerable and flimsy , and the targets often dispersed, so unescorted raids were feasible for the allies,


----------



## GregP (Dec 22, 2015)

If there weren't any escort fighters, daylight bombing would have been abandoned. If there weren't an mechanics, the fighters and bombers wouldn't take off. And it just keep son coming ...

However, if there wasn't an Obama, we'd probably have a good President.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2015)

Fighters were indeed important and an integral part of the campaign, but there were many raids undertaken without fighter escort. more than half of these unescorted raids were at night but some were not. 

Some of the operations got caught and were shot up, but equally, air superiority was not achieved by fighter operations in the pacific. Or at least not predominantly by fighters. Most of the heavy lifting was done by strike aircraft, which downgraded Japanese capability and made it easier for other element to win battles and do their part.

The Japanese fighter forces were always hard pressed by the heavy defensive armament of the allied bombers , the thin ranks of their own number and the lightweight construction of their fighters. The distances involved also played a big part in this. New Guinea is roughly 2.5 times longer from end to end than London to Berlin. The island is roughly twice the size of Germany. The German were flat out defending their country with 1000 fighters, the Japanese might have 300 to cover the same area. Having the fighters there was "nice to have", "a help", but not essential, in the environment of the SWPAC battles. Most aircraft were being lost to causes other than those to fighters by a wide margin.


----------



## GregP (Dec 22, 2015)

So ... you want to eliminate the fighters? Or what?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2015)

No they are needed, and in 1942 were more critical in defending allied airfields against Japanese attentions than escorting enemy fighters. More than anything, the battles in the SWPAC and SoPac were battles for airfields. You used your own fighters to mostly defend your own airfields, and your bombers to dislocate and damage your opponents airpower capabilities, mostly by suppression of his airfields and supply points (which usually were the same thing). Only if you had spare fighter capacity would you use them to escort your bombers.

You are saying it was a team effort, and I agree with that. Id even agree, to an extent that it was a team effort within the narrow parameters you are applying (ie escort bombers etc). But it was more of a team effort of an all arms effort, with airpower in general ploughing the fields so that our ground and naval forces could occupy and contain the enemy with minimal losses, whilst our fighters protected our airfields and thereby keep our airpower relevant and dominant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 22, 2015)

That's one way to look at it. It has merit.

I'd say that attacking an airfield with fighters just before a bombing raid would do a LOT to suppress response by enemy aircraft and might even take out some flak and personnel, making the fighters an integral part of the overall airfield attack ... perhaps the most effective part if they get a lot of aircraft on the ground.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 22, 2015)

pbehn said:


> You can take out your enemy's top admiral in an ambush, but you need a few thousand of your best brains at home figuring out the systems to do it, another illustration that the fighter is just the equipment that meets the enemy, there must be a whole nation behind it to make it work to best effect.



yes, I do have to concede to that point...yamamoto was ambushed and Rommel was taken out of action by strafing fighters. those circumstances did have an effect on various situations. AND fighters carrying bombs provided essential CAS....but you are not going to win a war of any magnitude soley with fighter bombers.


----------



## GregP (Dec 22, 2015)

Neither will you win one solely with bombers. Hence, the "teamwork."


----------



## pbehn (Dec 22, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> yes, I do have to concede to that point...yamamoto was ambushed and Rommel was taken out of action by strafing fighters. those circumstances did have an effect on various situations. AND fighters carrying bombs provided essential CAS....but you are not going to win a war of any magnitude soley with fighter bombers.


I was making the same point in a different way. Operation Vengeance is described as an aviation mission performed by fighter aircraft. The mission was merely a by product. Prior to the mission taking place the allies had to set up systems to intercept Japanese messages. They had to find out a system to break their codes. Once the codes had been broken they had to be translated. Once translated they had to be again decoded (Yamamoto wasnt named he himself had a code). Then an operation had to be devised to spring the ambush and much more importantly convince the Japanese that it was not by breaking codes. All in all literally thousands of people were involved in in some way in getting those fighters in position to ambush Yamamoto.

Keeping the fighters ahead of the opposition and the bombers of all types ahead of the game regarding getting there and back safely and with increasing accuracy was a massive effort by all branches. The US Bomber campaign in Europe involved covering huge areas of the UK in concrete for bombers, fighters and recon aircraft and all the accommodation food power telephone lines etc etc etc etc WW2 was a massive technical and civil engineering project.


----------



## Mobick (Dec 3, 2017)

Most of you guys have some pretty extensive knowledge of the aviation jistory of WW2 and then of course, the Korean War. It is something that has always fascinated me. But one question? When the the Flying TIgers were fighting on behalf of China vs Japan, how did the American fighters fair against what the Japs were flying? What were the Japs flying and what were the Flying Tigers' aircraft? It's my understanding that the only thing that the Americans had to their advantage, was an aircraft that could take significant amounts of damage and would continue to fly. How many squadrons were in China and how well did they fare in Air to Air combat against the Japanese? Was only one squadron named the Flying TIgers? How much action did we see in those years before we declared war on Japan, after Pearl Harbor? Were we still providing assistance to the Chinese after Pearl harbor? Also, how did the Japanese conquer so much land from the Chinese when they still had the most populous country in the world (not sure about India). Why didn't the Chinese throw million and millions of men at the Japanese? The Japs were not only destroying every village or town that they set out to conquer but they were told to impregnate all the women. I don't understand how a country (Japan) that at that time had no more than 18-20M people living on that island (I am guessing high here as now the country only has a populous of 25M), defeat the Chinese and of course, not for America, it would have been worse. I ask because I am wondering about a conflict with China now? Could Japan, if we continue to encourage them to build a stronger fighting force, take on China by themselvs? China would have air superiority, however Japan is part of NATO, Correct? So again we would have to defend Japan, or if they eliminate the JSDF and buy billions of dollars in American planes, again, would Japan be able to handle China on their own? I have seen the Chinese version of the F-35 and it is larger and less manuverable than ours is, but I am pretty certain that F-18A (all models) could engage and destroy any Chinese fighter jet. At what point does the Chinese get an advantage over Japan with their military that could easily be fielded in the tune of 15 million men ( a number I pulled out of my hat, but they have 1 Billion people to draw from)?. Would the US have air superiority over every country? Russian MIG's are (are they on 31 now?) I think just as capable of all of our planes, sans the F-22 and F35? The F-35 has so many problems, that I think our best aircraft right now is the F-22. Can any Russian plane match the F-22? One thing I am certain of is that our pilots are the best in the world. Second best is the Israel Air Force. This comes to me from my uncle that flew F4's in the Vietnam War. That's his opinion, clearly not mine, as I would not know. But I love all things related to combat aviation; maybe one of you guys can give me the many answers to my many questions?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 3, 2017)

Mobick said:


> Most of you guys have some pretty extensive knowledge of the aviation jistory of WW2 and then of course, the Korean War. It is something that has always fascinated me. But one question? When the the Flying TIgers were fighting on behalf of China vs Japan, how did the American fighters fair against what the Japs were flying? What were the Japs flying and what were the Flying Tigers' aircraft? It's my understanding that the only thing that the Americans had to their advantage, was an aircraft that could take significant amounts of damage and would continue to fly. How many squadrons were in China and how well did they fare in Air to Air combat against the Japanese? Was only one squadron named the Flying TIgers? How much action did we see in those years before we declared war on Japan, after Pearl Harbor? Were we still providing assistance to the Chinese after Pearl harbor? Also, how did the Japanese conquer so much land from the Chinese when they still had the most populous country in the world (not sure about India). Why didn't the Chinese throw million and millions of men at the Japanese? The Japs were not only destroying every village or town that they set out to conquer but they were told to impregnate all the women. I don't understand how a country (Japan) that at that time had no more than 18-20M people living on that island (I am guessing high here as now the country only has a populous of 25M), defeat the Chinese and of course, not for America, it would have been worse.



Welcom to the forum.
If I may advise you to use term 'Japanese', the short term you use is considered derogatory today.
Above Burma in late 1941/early 1942 Japanese were flying mostly Ki-27 (monoplane, fixed undercarriage, good maneuverability, rate of climb & visibility; weak firepower, protection, rate of roll & dive; radios??) and Ki 43 (reractable U/C, faster than Ki 27 but considerably slower than what Flying tigers had, again good maneuverability and other attributes as for the Ki 27); plus bombers, of course. Flying tigers' fighters were far better mount if the pilot playes to it's strengths (speed, rate of roll & dive). 'FT' also have had a rudimentary early warning chain, where the incoming raids were spotted from ground and alert was issued. IIRC they have had a 20 min to warm up engines, take off and climb.
Flying Tigers were not present in China. Please take a look here. They were fighting Japanese after the Peral Harbour was attacked, not before.
From 1942, US was helping China materially to wage war vs. Japan.
Japan have had more people than Germany, for example, plus what was under their control i Korea and Manchuria. Almost 72 milion of people at start of 1939. For how a low-population country can defeat a high-population - please see UK vs India, or Mongolia vs. China in the medieval times. One can't just throw men at bullets.




> I ask because I am wondering about a conflict with China now? Could Japan, if we continue to encourage them to build a stronger fighting force, take on China by themselvs? China would have air superiority, however Japan is part of NATO, Correct? So again we would have to defend Japan, or if they eliminate the JSDF and buy billions of dollars in American planes, again, would Japan be able to handle China on their own? I have seen the Chinese version of the F-35 and it is larger and less manuverable than ours is, but I am pretty certain that F-18A (all models) could engage and destroy any Chinese fighter jet. At what point does the Chinese get an advantage over Japan with their military that could easily be fielded in the tune of 15 million men ( a number I pulled out of my hat, but they have 1 Billion people to draw from)?. Would the US have air superiority over every country? Russian MIG's are (are they on 31 now?) I think just as capable of all of our planes, sans the F-22 and F35? The F-35 has so many problems, that I think our best aircraft right now is the F-22. Can any Russian plane match the F-22? One thing I am certain of is that our pilots are the best in the world. Second best is the Israel Air Force. This comes to me from my uncle that flew F4's in the Vietnam War. That's his opinion, clearly not mine, as I would not know. But I love all things related to combat aviation; maybe one of you guys can give me the many answers to my many questions?



There is plenty of opinions mixed with flag vawing in this paragraph. Perhaps it would've been the good thing to post this in the 'Modern' sub-forum.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 3, 2017)

I don't think I've ever seen so many misconceptions put forth in one paragraph. 
So many I don't know if anyone would want to tackle them all.

Wikipedia is hardly the gold standard when it comes to accurate information, but I think you could help yourself by looking on Wiki about Flying Tiger history, WW2 and earlier in China, etc.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2017)

Mobick said:


> One thing I am certain of is that our pilots are the best in the world.



I am glad you appreciate the quality of training in the RAF.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

