Best radial fighter of '42

[Vincenzo]

I've tried to translate the best I could with my rusty Italian and poor English.

So, the manual of the G.50 and the Finnish test give a maximum speed with the 2520 rpm for 1 minute power setting. The manual of the MC.200 and the Italian tests show 2400 rpm for 1 minute. Of course the maximum power, for emergencies, is usable only for a limited time (1 to 5 minutes usually), as you've noted for the MC.200 manual where it says to use 2520 rpm for 1 minute power setting only for shorter take offs, which imho, given the informations I've already mentioned, there seems to be a difference between the Fiat and Macchi fighter. Given this the top speeds of these two fighters are not directly comparable, since the Macchi can hold its max speed for a longer period of time.

beautiful translation only both "for 1 minute" aren't in my 2520/1' i just tell 2520 rpm

 

[Elvis]

Vincenzo,

The speed could very well be slowed to that speed, if the canopy is left open.
Open canopy increases drag. Any vehicle (car, plane, boat, etc) is not as fast with open canopy as with closed canopy.

For language translation, try Google's Langauge Translator.
Click the link above, then cut and paste the text you want to translate and set the translation from that language to one you understand.

Works quite well!



Elvis

 

[Vincenzo]

oh sorry open canopy it's not the just words, best it's w/o canopy

 

[Jerry W. Loper]

In terms of its dominance over opposing aircraft (in the first six months of 1942), the Mitsubishi A6M2 Reisen (Zero). In terms of sheer performance specs (speed, climb, etc.), the Focke Wulf FW-190 or Vought F4U Corsair.

 

[Elvis]

Vincenzo,

Did I interpret your question incorrectly?
Are you asking about the difference between a closed canopy and an open cockpit ? ("open cockpit" = no canopy)


Elvis

 

[Vincenzo]

Vought Corsair don't meet the requiremnt: fightning in '42

 

[Vincenzo]

Vincenzo,

Did I interpret your question incorrectly?
Are you asking about the difference between a closed canopy and an open cockpit ? ("open cockpit" = no canopy)


Elvis

yes between closed canopy and open cockpit

 

[Vincenzo]

Additionally, I have added a Fw 190A-5 speed graph from a Focke-Wulf chart. It's not calculated since I haven't got around to make a good Fw 190A analysis yet. (The Fw 190A-4 should be very close to the A-5's speed as the difference was just the elongated engine mount and re-positioned cockpit of the latter.)

i saw some graphs for 190A-4 the max speed it's 660/680 km/h

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
on FAF Fiats, some airscrews were smaller, and those planes were a bit slower. Also in some cases pitch control was temperamentical and pitch could be less optimal, so again slower max speed.

I have seen only one test report, that on a test flight after factory repairs, FA-1 on 3 June 1940, 2400 rpm, boost 75, 340km/h IAS, not TAS, at 3800m.

Juha

 

[Elvis]

yes between closed canopy and open cockpit

I thought so.
Thanks for clarifying your question.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised at that much difference in speed between the two configurations, again, for reasons of increased drag with the open cockpit (streamling can do a lot for performance!)
Also, an enclosed cockpit (i.e., "closed canopy") can offer better PILOT performance, as the pilot is less fatigued by much less exposure to the elements.


Elvis

 

[Airbone Bunny]

I prefer the FW 190 any day. My impression is that in a "what if?" scenario, had Germany and Japan fought each other, the Zero would have been in disadvantage against the FW 190.

I know this is an hypothetical issue, but I can't help myself but thinking that the Zero is "overrated".

Nope, I am not saying that the Zero was a bad o regular plane. I agree that the Zero was a great plane. What I am saying is that I feel that the Zero is kinda overrated against other great planes like the FW 190.

Sure the zero had incredible maneuverability, decent firepower and long range. But the plane was very lacking in protection. I understand that the Zero design was in line with Japan's military doctrine putting agility and speed over all... but, no pilot armor? no engine armor? no self-sealing tanks? no fire suppressing system?

Too vulnerable for my likes to consider the Zero as the best. Sure a great plane, but not the best.

 

[Elvis]

Airborne Bunny,

First off, welcome to the forum.

I agree with you, on most points.
The Zero is an older design and suffers from the same differences that would exist between other "match-ups".
The Zero was designed in a time when "fighter performance" was based on info gained during the first world war.
However, the 190 was a child of the conflict for which it was used, thus it was a more "timely" design.
That being said, the Zero could probably dispatch a 190, if the Zero pilot could coerce the 190 pilot into dogfighting.
However, the 190 could always firewall the throttle and simply walk away from the Zero.
Oddly enough, both planes, from that time, have similar climb rates (around 4K + ft./mi.), so "zoom-n-boom" tactics would still prove the Zero to not be quite as easy-to-dispatch foe as might be initially believed.
Still, as the designer of the 190 once said, "...the 190 is a FIGHTING aircraft...", and a smart 190 pilot could easily dictate the fight by flying to his plane's strengths.


Elvis

 

[ssnider]

I think the Zero first flight was in March 1939 while the FW-190 first flew in June 1939

 

[Elvis]

Yes, it appears you are correct.
My apologies. I was thinking it was developed in the mid - late 1930's (probably confusing it with the 109).
Still, the fact remains that the Zero seems to be more suited to WWI dogfighting tactics, while the 190 appears to be a more "advanced" design.
Regardless of time period, it seems thinking was a bit different between Japanese and German designers, thus the way those planes turned out (or course, those respective governments also asked for a machine with certain performance specs, and that would influence design as well).


Elvis

 

[Gatt]

Dont forget the roll rate at high speeds. Togehter with higher speed, these allow the 190A to dictate the dogfight.

No decent 190A pilot would engage a Zeke co-E and co-alt. He would probably B&Z the japanese fighter from a higher state of E or attract him in a high speed shallow dive, then roll fast, zoom and regain an advantage on him.

 

[renrich]

Those tactics described for the FW are the same used by IJN pilots in A6Ms in the Pacific.

 

[Vincenzo]

i saw some graphs for 190A-4 the max speed it's 660/680 km/h

unlucky i don't remember where i saw it but here there are that for A-3 and A-5
A Complete Waste of Space

 

[Airbone Bunny]

Airborne Bunny,

First off, welcome to the forum.

Elvis

Thanks for the greetings

In any case, what I understand is that the Zero was great at the beginning of the war. But from 43 on, its vulnerability to enemy fire was evident. Later versions of the Zero tried to address those deficiencies incorporating armour, self sealed tanks, etc.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Vincenzo,

>unlucky i don't remember where i saw it but here there are that for A-3 and A-5
A Complete Waste of Space

Thanks - this shows that I accidentally mislabeled my Fw 190A-5 speed graph as it's for 1.32 ata/2400 rpm only: Steig- und Kampfleistung or 30 min power, not war emergency power.

This explains the low Fw 190A-5 speed you noticed ... though it's still the fastest of all the fighters included in the comparison.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Soren]

Airbunny,

Although the Zero's vulnerability to enemy fire was too high this wasn't what made it obsolete, the Zero was simply too slow. Maneuverability at low medium speeds was excellent, but at high speeds the controls locked up. The climb rate was also good, but top speed was low, and the maximum allowed dive speed was a great deal slower than that of US fighters.