Corsair vs Zero

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Chill out! Insulting other members will not be tolerated.
Consider this first and only warning.

 

[GrauGeist]

I merely stated that the original engine in the Fw190 V1 was over 1,000 hp when the other aircraft in early development were less than that, so technically, I was backing up your statement.

Regarding what I posted about Kurt Tank's comment and you're reply:

About this! Perhaps you could read!
What a totaly bogus

Those are Kurt Tanks words, from the man himself. Alfred Price did several books regarding Kurt Tank and his works.

I would suggest that YOU do a little more reading and less talking...but I suspect that unless there are pictures in the book, it may not do you any good

 

[bakters]

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.

Yes, close attack is what is required, but not only with a short range cannons. With any weaponry you need to get close to be effective, but it's not hard with speed and altitude on your side. You do a slashing attack (with some maneuvers) and go from one side to the other. You wouldn't want to go back.

Sure, a slow fighter will need more time to set it all up. But it's not impossible.

I'll start the Darwin discussion separately

Nice. I love Spits, and I hope to learn why they were slaughtered over there.

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.

I can't pick a 4-cannon Corsair, because it was not a standard armament. 4 Hispanos was standard armament for Vc.

Speed - I want to avoid "the battle of the spec sheets", where everybody is trying to use some theoretical maximum values achievable for a few minutes under ideal conditions. Let's go with normal rating. Spit Vc with Merlin 45 can go 360 mph while a F4U-1 can achieve 375 mph. Nothing to choose between the two.

Interestingly, the Corsair can go only 311 mph at sea level. Think about it guys, when you bring all those "F4U can outmaneuver the Zero above 300mph with ease" arguments.

Roll rate may go to the Corsair, but I don't think even you believe that Corsair should win at overall maneuverability.

Ruggedness - both fighters are capable of killing each other with a short burst on target. I would say that a Spit should win here, since even one shell pretty much anywhere will usually be enough for victory, but I don't care enough to fight over it.

In summary, I don't think I need anything more to support my stance. Spit Vc is at least as good, and definitely not outclassed by Corsair, and A6M2 won a crushing victory over this plane above Darwin. That's all I wanted to show here.

 

[GregP]

Bakters,

First, why are you continuing to spout Spitfire stuff when the thread title is Corsair versus Zero? If you want to discuss the Spitfire, start a thread on it rather than continue to hijack this one. That way, you can find it, even if you don't know the thread went off-subject.

And a 15 mph difference is not negligible. It usually means the ability to separate after a firing pass. Once some separation is achieved after a pass, 15 mph can let you either evade or continue the attack. I'd rather have 25 mph, but negligible means less than a 5 mph difference. At that speed delta, pursuit of a fleeing aircraft after separation will usually mean a time limit on the engine for catching him. With a 15 mph delta you can catch up or extend 1.25 miles in 5 minutes, which isn't out of the realm of possible pursuit or, conversely, certainly lets the slower pursuer know he can't catch you. I'd rather have less ... say 3 minutes, but 5 may be possible. Much more isn't before hitting engine limits.

Just saying ... the engine will determine the ability to pursue or separate as long as you are the faster plane by enough to avoid engine WER limits or water-methanol/other ADI tank limits.

 

[bakters]

Interesting; but I think the sim and real world -while both valid- are different discussions.

Let me answer here, although many people brought up this topic.

The main problem I see, is that people are quick to dismiss any conclusions if they happen to be drawn from sim experience. I believe it's just wrong to do so. We need to understand the limitations of "sim experience" and never go too far, but some broad generalize conclusions can be drawn anyways.

And if we want to dismiss them, we should be able to point to which errors in a simulation make the whole experiment invalid. Not just repeat "it's not the same" with a lot of hand-waving. That's not enough to dismiss it.

What "is not the same" and why it matters?

In sims you are safe, so it's not the same.

I've trained martial arts and I was in real fights. I think I know how danger and stress works. You default to the level of your training which you mastered, and you go for the most instinctive behavior.

For example, you'd go back more often than do a fancy dodge. You'd cover your head instead of doing a fancy counter-punch. I get it.

What does it change in a Zero-vs-Corsair fight? Well, if anything I'd give the edge to the Zero here. Turnfighting is the more instinctive way of aerial combat, and that's what you are supposed to do in a Zeke. It's very difficult to run in a straight line without knowing what the Zeke does while extending. Then, it's very tempting to follow her in maneuvers, especially if she's just out of range.

So under real stress I'd give an edge to the Zeke, but I'm willing to make it even, just to be on a safe side.

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.

They did all those improvements in later versions. I played in A6M2 (just to be on a safe side), and it was enough in my hands against a Corsair. How would Corsair do against A6M5 with her better high speed roll, speed, acceleration and dive? My guess is only worse, but I can try it too.

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.

I know the theory. The problem in practice is that you can hardly see behind you in a Corsair. You can see very well in a Zeke, so a Zeke can do it with more ease.

 

[Hiromachi]

I was actually wondering what was exactly the performance of the earliest F4U-1 - the birdcage one, used early in 1943. It had no water injection and aircraft itself had no features later added to F4U-1d. Anyone ever saw a manual for the early F4U ? I'd be sure that there must have been some manual issued in 1942 for the first squadrons preparing to jump into Pacific, but never saw one.

 

[bakters]

I disagree completely!

Fine! You are at least very clear about your stance on the matter. No hand waving, simple WRONG! I get it, and respect your clear and concise statement.

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!

I disagree with your "optimized for dogfighting" statement. I believe she was optimized for carrier landing and range, and just happened to become one of the greatest dogfighters ever by accident.

But no matter. You say it's easy, and even much worse planes can beat her "easily", so why don't you tell me how exactly I'm supposed to do it, or at least how you are doing it? Simples, ain't it?

(I can and I will explain in very long and boring details what I'm doing and how it does not work wonders. Just ask me for it. I don't want to produce a "wall of text" without some encouragement.)

 

[bakters]

Bakters,

First, why are you continuing to spout Spitfire stuff when the thread title is Corsair versus Zero?[

Short answer - I was asked to do so.

Longer answer - I mentioned Spits, because they are quite universally regarded as formidable dogfighters. They faced A6M2s, and were slaughtered, while having "specs" comparable or better than Corsairs.

TLDR: If Spits couldn't duke it out with well flown Zeros, how come Corsairs would do any better?

And a 15 mph difference is not negligible.

I disagree.

It usually means the ability to separate after a firing pass.

I disagree.

Once some separation is achieved after a pass, 15 mph can let you either evade or continue the attack. I'd rather have 25 mph, but negligible means less than a 5 mph difference.

I disagree. 5mph top-speed difference is neither here nor there. It's nothing. Other factors are so much more important, that such minuscule difference under ideal conditions is not even detectable, and definitely not decisive.

At that speed delta, pursuit of a fleeing aircraft after separation will usually mean a time limit on the engine for catching him. With a 15 mph delta you can catch up or extend 1.25 miles in 5 minutes, which isn't out of the realm of possible pursuit or, conversely, certainly lets the slower pursuer know he can't catch you. I'd rather have less ... say 3 minutes, but 5 may be possible. Much more isn't before hitting engine limits.

Nice theory. Can we make it work in practice? Sim practice.

Just saying ... the engine will determine the ability to pursue or separate as long as you are the faster plane by enough to avoid engine WER limits or water-methanol/other ADI tank limits.

Yeah, I heard it before. The best fighter and the best interceptor are synonyms, supposedly....

 

[fastmongrel]

Longer answer - I mentioned Spits, because they are quite universally regarded as formidable dogfighters. They faced A6M2s, and were slaughtered, while having "specs" comparable or better than Corsairs.

.

When were Spits slaughtered by A6M2s I know the early Spit Vs with the performance sapping Vokes filter didnt do very well when they encountered Japanese aircraft (mostly Ki43 Oscars not Zeros) partly due to the filter and partly due to the wrong tactics but I didnt think they got slaughtered.

 

[pbehn]

What "is not the same" and why it matters?

In sims you are safe, so it's not the same.

You say you are a biker, well go to a racing school and try it, see how close your actual fastest lap gets to a lap on a sim. When you establish who has a lap speed about as fast as yours have a race for a plastic trophy with all your mates watching. Then you will find out what is "not the same", in fact the only thing that is the same is the scenery. Then consider that in combat you can not only die on take off and landing but the other guys in the "game" actually want to kill you.


Consider how many kills the top aces had, then compare to the number of sorties those aces had. Now compare to your sim how many engagements end in no result. Most of the reading I have done has been about the BoB. For the British it was not important for a pilot to make a kill on his first mission, just to survive it, and then survive as many as possible until he sussed what was going on and came eventually and hopefully proficient enough to start scoring instead of just being a target.

 

[pbehn]

Duplicate

 

[bakters]

When were Spits slaughtered by A6M2s

Over Darwin.

I know the early Spit Vs with the performance sapping Vokes filter didnt do very well when they encountered Japanese aircraft (mostly Ki43 Oscars not Zeros) partly due to the filter and partly due to the wrong tactics but I didnt think they got slaughtered.

From memory - 2 Zeroes and 1 K1-43 lost versus 36 Spitrires. Maybe it was 3 Zeros? I think it was 2, whatever.

 

[bakters]

You say you are a biker, well go to a racing school and try it, see how close your actual fastest lap gets to a lap on a sim.

Why should it matter? Even my skill as a sim-rider vs. real life rider is irrelevant.

When you establish who has a lap speed about as fast as yours have a race for a plastic trophy with all your mates watching. Then you will find out what is "not the same", in fact the only thing that is the same is the scenery. Then consider that in combat you can not only die on take off and landing but the other guys in the "game" actually want to kill you.

I considered it. Now what? Corsair wins easily?

Consider how many kills the top aces had, then compare to the number of sorties those aces had. Now compare to your sim how many engagements end in no result.

They come out more or less the same. If you survive, you end up with lots of kills, even if you do not try to get them. If you try to get lots of kills, you die.

How does it relate to Zeke-vs-Corsair problem?

Most of the reading I have done has been about the BoB. For the British it was not important for a pilot to make a kill on his first mission, just to survive it, and then survive as many as possible until he sussed what was going on and came eventually and hopefully proficient enough to start scoring instead of just being a target.

True. So what?

 

[pbehn]

How does it relate to Zeke-vs-Corsair problem?

It doesnt it relates to the difference between a sim and real life, the question you asked, you now say your question doesnt matter. You alternate between discussing the real life performance in combat and the performance in a sim as and when it suits. I am now of the opinion that you a provocative for the sake of it, goodbye.

 

[Hiromachi]

When were Spits slaughtered by A6M2s I know the early Spit Vs with the performance sapping Vokes filter didnt do very well when they encountered Japanese aircraft (mostly Ki43 Oscars not Zeros) partly due to the filter and partly due to the wrong tactics but I didnt think they got slaughtered.

Technically he is right, but its generalized so much ...

Those were not A6M2s but A6M3s that fought Spitfires MK Vc powered by Merlin 46 optimized for higher altitudes, which in fact favored Spitfires as lot of combat over Darwin in 1943 occurred at altitudes of 15,000 feet to 30,000 feet.
Also, by Vokes air filter you mean the myth of it ?

(...) Meanwhile, at RAAF Richmond, Group Captain Walters, CO 1 Fighter Wing, sought the advice of Robin Norwood concerning this matter of Spitfire performance. Norwood had been flying Spitfires since 1940, and had 500 hours on a range of marks from the Mark.1 to all models of Mark V – all of which had had the temperate intake. Contrary to expectation, he refuted the VCT's poor reputation:
'These aircraft at height, with the Vokes Filter, are just as good, and probably better, than the Mark Va b's we used to fly at home, and will, I think, give a good account of themselves…at height these are the best yet. I make great insistence on height but then these are designed for high speeds high up, not low down.'[3]
Norwood's emphasis upon height relates to the fact that the RAAF's Spitfires were fitted with the high altitude Merlin 46, which produced its maximum power output at 21 500 feet, rather than the 11 000 feet rated altitude of the Merlin 45 fitted to most Spitfire V aircraft in the UK. The Merlin 46 produced a modest 1115 hp at take-off, but thanks to its supercharger was still producing 1150 hp at its rated altitude of 19 000 feet, and with a maximum power output of 1210 hp at 21 500 feet (both outputs were achieved at 3000 rpm and plus 9 pounds boost).[4]
However, to settle the matter, conclusive data had to be obtained. In pursuit of this, HQ Eastern Area rapidly initiated comparative tests between standard aircraft fitted with the Vokes filter and aircraft modified with one of the temperate carburettor intakes fabricated by 2 Aircraft Depot, delivering the modified aircraft to Richmond in December 1942. Norwood conducted the trials, finding that although the standard VCT was 'not particularly fast' below 10 000 feet, and although its climb rate was 100-200 feet per minute less than the aircraft with the temperate cowling,[5] the speed difference was minor: about 3 knots under 10 000 feet, and no greater than 8 knots up to 20 000 feet.[6]
It is noteworthy that the standard VCT aircraft demonstrated a maximum speed of 316 knots at 22 500 feet in several separate tests - achieved once again at 3000 rpm and plus 9 pounds of boost. This was a much better performance than might have been expected, given the Vokes Filter's bad press, for it was only a little less than the 321 knots achieved by temperate-intake aircraft in the UK powered by the same Merlin 46.[7]
In short, it appears that the adverse reputation of the Vokes Filter was greatly exaggerated! Under the pressure of further perceived performance shortfalls while chasing speedy Mitsubishi Ki.46 reconnaissance machines during the 1943 Darwin raids, the matter was revisited and comparative tests re-run, but these confirmed that the performance difference was less than 5 knots. A few of the re-engineered temperate air intake cowlings saw service with aircraft of 79 Squadron in New Guinea , but the bulk of the Mark VC fleet soldiered on to the end with its unsightly air filters doing the prosaic but necessary job for which they were designed.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=the-vokes-air-filter-controversy
I highly recommend reading the articles on the website and of course the book itself, there is some controversy about the author attributing some Japanese aircraft losses which cannot be confirmed to the Spitfire pilots but overall this is a remarkable position and I enjoyed every bit of it.


As for the losses, they were heavy indeed - aprox. 40 aircraft (I'm not sure about the precise number, 38 or less) with 27-29 of them being Spitfires. On the other hand 3 pilots were lost with their Zeroes, one Zero ditched but pilot survived, and 15 other Zeroes suffered repairable damage. Also all the Zero losses were not 100% certainly caused by Spitfires, but also by AA fire, worth keeping in mind if one would quibble about whether certain Spitfire losses on these missions were 100% certainly due to Zeroes or not. According to mentioned A. Cooper book from all the Spitfire losses only two can be attributed to the defensive fire of the G4M bombers, thus they really posed a minimal threat, especially if pilot would press the attack from any other direction than rear (where Betty had 20 mm cannon).

 

[fastmongrel]

The Japanese admitted to losing 65 aircraft during raids on the Australian mainland, not all those 65 were shot down by Spits some went down to Hurricanes and P40s. The RAF/RAAF admitted to losing 16 Spitfire Vs shot down (the Japanese losing 8 Zeros and 1 Oscar to all defences) and lost another 36 to 54 (I cant find any sources who agree on the figure) due to the usual accidents, terrible ground conditions, mechanical failures and several planes that ran out of fuel.

Not a glorious battle for the Spit but the Vb and Vc when fitted with a Vokes filter had very little if any performance advantage over an AM6 especially when some of the airframes were 3rd hand ex Desert Air Force and some had been bouncing around as deck cargo on a ship for 6 months.

Over Burma Spit Vs did poorly at first against the Oscar (which is probably the most underated fighter ever and shot down more aircraft than the legendary Zero) but better aircraft and better tactics beat the Oscar out of the sky by late 44. The RAF was slow to learn the right tactics against the Japanese fighters the USN in particular learnt that lesson in 1942 but in todays instant communication world we forget that information could take months to get to high commands then months to be assimilated and passed onto operational squadrons half way round the world. The chances of an RAF/RAAF pilot in India or Australia meeting a USN or USAAF pilot thousands of miles away to discuss tactics would have been less than zero till later in the war.

 

[pbehn]

I'd ask what Spitfires have had just 850 HP, and not 1000+?

The one on the design board. The merlin wasn't rated at 1000BHP until the G was being delivered in 1938.

I was trying to say that the designers must produce a design that can accept projected increases in horse power but it must perform with the engines available to win an order. The merlin eventually produced 2000BHP but if the spitfire was designed for 2000BHP and tested with the engine used in the original prototype it probably would not have been ordered.

 

[bakters]

It doesnt it relates to the difference between a sim and real life, the question you asked, you now say your question doesnt matter. You alternate between discussing the real life performance in combat and the performance in a sim as and when it suits. I am now of the opinion that you a provocative for the sake of it, goodbye.

I'll be as clear as I can.

How does extra risk relate to Zeke-vs-Corsair in a sim vs. real life? What does it change? Which plane is favored and why?

Elsewhere I wrote my own understanding of what real risk changes and which plane (if any) should benefit from it. I think that it would be rather a Zeke than a Corsair, but since I don't know, I'm willing to make it even-steven.

I do not think that I'm being particularly provocative, until contradicting agreed upon opinion within some community is enough to be particularly provocative. I try to be civil and I try to be as clear-cut as I can.

 

[GrauGeist]

It doesnt it relates to the difference between a sim and real life, the question you asked, you now say your question doesnt matter. You alternate between discussing the real life performance in combat and the performance in a sim as and when it suits. I am now of the opinion that you a provocative for the sake of it, goodbye.

Yeah, I've seen some flip-flopping, too.

About the only truly accurate SIM out there was CFS3, especially when it had the 1% planes added. IL-2 has serious flaws in it's flight model, even after being patched. When a Sturmovik can match a Me262 in a climb, you have to wonder.

Also, anyone that uses a SIM to gauge the real-life perfomance of historical airframes is entirely missing the point. SIM means simulator, not magic portal to the past. A SIM can only replicate a preset amount of data and may add a random event via programming, but that's all. It cannot calculate a close turning fight that involves a cross-wind AND the aircraft's engine needing an overhaul because it's reached max. hours. BUT the adversary has a bent windtip because it scuffed the ground in a tight turn and the AI pilot has a tendancy to pull to the left, etc. etc. etc.

All SIMs have a limited set of perameters and simply cannot replicate true life and it's infinite set of variables. They can be used to get a sense and a feel for what happened 70 years ago, but should NEVER be used to judge anything, except how fast your internet connection is, nothing more.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Also, anyone that uses a SIM to gauge the real-life perfomance of historical airframes is entirely missing the point. SIM means simulator, not magic portal to the past. A SIM can only replicate a preset amount of data and may add a random event via programming, but that's all. It cannot calculate a close turning fight that involves a cross-wind AND the aircraft's engine needing an overhaul because it's reached max. hours. BUT the adversary has a bent windtip because it scuffed the ground in a tight turn and the AI pilot has a tendancy to pull to the left, etc. etc. etc.

All SIMs have a limited set of perameters and simply cannot replicate true life and it's infinite set of variables. They can be used to get a sense and a feel for what happened 70 years ago, but should NEVER be used to judge anything, except how fast your internet connection is, nothing more.

Throw in the fact that in the event of a crash, malfunction, shoot down, etc., you hit the reset button, walk to your fridge get a beer and start over.

Sim = Well designed game.