Corsair vs Zero

[bakters]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

During World War I, I served in the cavalry and in the infantry. I had seen the harsh conditions under which military equipment had to work in wartime. I felt sure that a quite different breed of fighter would also have a place in any future conflict: one that could operate from ill-prepared front-line airfields; one that could be flown and maintained by men who had received only short training; and one that could absorb a reasonable amount of battle damage and still get back.

This was the background thinking behind the Focke-Wulf 190; it was not to be a racehorse but a cavalry horse.

 

[tomo pauk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

Fw190 V1 had a BMW139 rated at 1,529 hp.

 

[Starfighter91]

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]

double post

 

[GrauGeist]

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?

 

[Starfighter91]

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]

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]

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!