Chill out! Insulting other members will not be tolerated.
Consider this first and only warning.
Consider this first and only warning.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
About this! Perhaps you could read!
What a totaly bogus
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.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.
Nice. I love Spits, and I hope to learn why they were slaughtered over there.I'll start the Darwin discussion separately
I can't pick a 4-cannon Corsair, because it was not a standard armament. 4 Hispanos was standard armament for Vc.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 careSpitfire 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.
Let me answer here, although many people brought up this topic.Interesting; but I think the sim and real world -while both valid- are different discussions.
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.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.
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.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.
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.I disagree completely!
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.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!
Short answer - I was asked to do so.Bakters,
First, why are you continuing to spout Spitfire stuff when the thread title is Corsair versus Zero?[
I disagree.And a 15 mph difference is not negligible.
I disagree.It usually means the ability to separate after a firing pass.
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.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.
Nice theory. Can we make it work in practice? Sim practice.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.
Yeah, I heard it before. The best fighter and the best interceptor are synonyms, supposedly....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.
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.
.
What "is not the same" and why it matters?
In sims you are safe, so it's not the same.
Over Darwin.When were Spits slaughtered by A6M2s
From memory - 2 Zeroes and 1 K1-43 lost versus 36 Spitrires. Maybe it was 3 Zeros? I think it was 2, whatever.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.
Why should it matter? Even my skill as a sim-rider vs. real life rider is irrelevant.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.
I considered it. Now what? Corsair wins easily?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.
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.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.
True. So what?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.
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.How does it relate to Zeke-vs-Corsair problem?
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.
http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=the-vokes-air-filter-controversy(...) 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.
I'd ask what Spitfires have had just 850 HP, and not 1000+?
I'll be as clear as I can.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.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.
GrauGeist said: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.