Corsair vs Zero (1 Viewer)

[Hiromachi]

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

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.

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.

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...

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]

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

 

[tomo pauk]

...
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.
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.

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]

Anyway, I dont think we should mess as much in the topic

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

...@tomo 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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[bakters]

@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]

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

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]

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 .

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".

 

[bakters]

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]

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]

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.

 

[pbehn]

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.