Corsair vs Zero

[Soren]

Great pictures Evan !!

 

[evangilder]

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]

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 2½ 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 ¾ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 2½ 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 ¾ 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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 i 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 !!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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