GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Seems to me they did that pretty well in the beginning, too...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Seems to me they did that pretty well in the beginning, too..."...Unless you want to fly off a carrier, or project power out more than about 200 miles.... "
Which the Japanese more-or-less wanted to do ..
Didnt early E versions have a controllable prop rather than a CSU.
Where is the Japanese Zero in all of this ...? In December, 1941, it is my understanding that nothing could touch the Zero in the hands of a skilled IJN pilot. And those pilots were experienced and very skillful, IMHO.
"...Only if you tried to fight with it at lower airspeeds and did not use the vertical to take its turning ability away - IMO the Zero was probably the most over-rated fighter of WW2"
That may be a fair comment - you're a pilot, I'm not - but I think the Z's great range gave it (in the early days) great strategic advantage - combined with Ninja-like IJN pilots - turning up where it was least expected.
But the F4u-4 would be a real contender in the late 44 early 45 timeframe
Only if you tried to fight with it at lower airspeeds and did not use the vertical to take its turning ability away - IMO the Zero was probably the most over-rated fighter of WW2
What good is range when your opponent severely exploits your weaknesses and outclasses you the minute you enter combat???I think that the Zero is being slightly underrated here. As the range of the A6M2 was better than the Bf 110C, they were probably the best long range escort fighters available from some time in 1940 until the P-38 was ready for combat in late 1942.
Preproduction A6M2s carried their first escort mission on 19th August 1940 A6M Zero Fighter | World War II Database although they only saw combat on 13th September 1940. Those aircraft weren't fully equipped for carrier use but were otherwise similar to later A6M2s. I agree that they would have been inferior to the Bf 109F or Fw 190A at the end of 1941 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/po...-campaign-1941-1942-a-31741-3.html#post989429 and I suspect that they would have been inferior to a Spitfire V over Europe. However, they proved decisively superior to Hurricane IIs over Ceylon in April 1942 and were probably superior to worn out Spitfire Vs with Volkes Filters over Darwin in Early 1943 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...-spitfires-vs-zeros-the-darwin-debacle/page-7, Spitfire vs Zero | Darwin Spitfires, the real battle for Australia - Spitfire fighter pilots height tactical advantage superior . I suspect that the Zero would have done better against the F4F over Guadalcanal if they had not had to fight with their drop tank. Of course, by 1944 the Zero was obsolete but even then it was not completely simple for Hellcats over Iwo Jima to shoot down a single A6M5 flown by a one eyed pilot Saburo Sakai in Iwo Jima.
If I could be allowed another slight thread divergence ...
A question for those in the know about aircraft engines; here is a snippet from an A&AEE report on the Tomahawk:
'As in other American aircraft no automatic boost control is fitted, and the boost must be hand adjusted with the throttle lever all the time which is a considerable disadvantage - particularly in a fighter aircraft.'
Can anyone give an example of what would cause the boost to change in flight? Variations in speed or altitude? Exactly what is happening in a Tomahawk that isn't happening in, say, a Spitfire?
Thanks.
As you climb, the air pressure decreases and you have to add more throttle to keep the MP or boost up.
The automatic boost maintains the MP/boost, within a certain range, that the pilot sets with the throttle.