Corsair vs Zero
- Thread starter Cougar
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Take two maneuvers
1/ a turn in an aircraft and on a motorbike
2/a roll in an aircraft and braking on a bike.
Holding an aircraft in a tight turn means on the edge of a stall, cornering on a bike means holding the tyres on the edge of letting go, a tyre produces maximum grip when it is slipping about 10%
I can speak to you about how it feels and what to do but if you cant have the tyres sliding going in and out of every corner you will be in the back half of the field, that is not simulated in a "sim" just as holding a plane on the edge of a stall isnt.
Everyone thinks braking is easy, it is just a question of pulling a lever, it isnt, as you can see if you watch any race the top guys always brake later harder and let the brakes off sooner. A roll in an aircraft isnt a display maneuver it is extremely violent, I havnt done it but I remember reading Bob Doe's account, he didnt do any recognised aerobatics just threw the plane around as violently as possible.
Your replies of "now what" and "so what" really push my buttons. If sims were real you would have one go at it, spend hours learning all basic maneuvers progress from trainer to advanced trainer to combat aircraft then after about 200 hrs in a corsair or maybe 10 hours on a 1945 zeke you take part in your first combat. Any encounter that you lose or crash means you never ever take part in a sim again.
From what I remember about the stats at one stage about 10% of US aircrew were being killed during training (maybe others can give them, I know questions were asked in congress) Almost all pilots had seen their friends or aquaintances killed long before they ever went into action, their primary motivation was staying alive, the ones without that motivation for whatever reason, quickly got shot down.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Exactly!
If they want to make a "true to life" SIM, have it so if you're downed and survive, you cannot rejoin any flights for several months (depending on severity of injuries sustained) because your user is in a hospital or recovering.
For the late war German pilots, have it so they have barely enough fuel to get up and make the mission, but there will be literally hundreds of Allied fighters in the area versus your Schwarme. For the Japanese, if it's late war, poorly maintained aircraft because all the supply ships and subs have been sunk or bases bombed and you have to make due with what little remains in the way of supplies (dwindling fuel, scarce lubricants, low supplies of tires ammunition) and the fact that the Allied fighters are everywhere (CAP, GA, etc.) AND your wingman is a green replacement rushed to the theater with less than 50 hours of flight school.
In the event your user is KIA, you will never be able to run that SIM again - ever.
Agreed competely.
The 52c shows that there is no free lunch, with speed droping down from 556 to 541 km/h. Empty and loaded weight went to 3400 kg for the Model 52c vs. 3150 kg for the 'vanilla' Model 52, the cost being the rate of climb and ceiling.
Completely wrong here.
It would be fine if you showed us how the performance deteriorated with instalation of protection and armament (= added weight and drag) in the 52c, while installation of the Kinsei managed to restore the performance lost and then some - 541 km/h vs. 563 km/h. You also fail to mention the main reason why the loaded weight of the A6M8 was (just) 400 kg greater than of the 52c, namely due to carrying more fuel (and a bit of oil) internally, total of 650 liters vs. 500.
Let's not neglect the Sakae-powered A6M7, that was every bit as heavy as Kinsei-powered M8, while being slow and not anymore a good climber.
It should take maybe 5 min to decypher why the performance drop from the 52 to 52c, and then again rise once the Kinsei was installed. Listing the 'reasons' why the Kinsei should not be installed is just listing the excuses.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
A flaw I noticed when I tried IL2 was takeoff/landings in crosswinds. At crosswind speeds that would have a plane weathercocking all over the place a slight twitch of the rudder and you were good to take off or land. Plus groundlooping was impossible unless you deliberately tried to make it happen.
4 cannon armament was standard in the F4U-1C.
Looks like the engineers working on the engine companies were fools engough to come out with emergency ratings, so were the officers that allowed for that, and so were the pilots that used it. You and everybody other can of course use an own metrics, while disregarding what pilots actually used.
Now, on the supposed normal rating. Normal rating, or max continuous setting for the Merlin 45/50 was 2650 rpm and +7 psig, while the Spitfire V uses 3000 rpm and +9 psig (= more power) to make 360 mph. The Corsair makes, on max contiuous setting, inded 375 mph, vs. Spitfire's maybe 340 on it's max continous.
Lets now use military power on the Corsair, just beacause it was used historically, making 390-400+ mph. This is where the 360 mph mark of the Spitfire fits.
This is befor we start using combat/war emergency power, where the Corsair is again 30-40 mph faster.
So there is plenty to choose from.
'Only' 325 mph on max continuous power (chart), only ~350 mph on military power, only 365 mph on WEP.
Not by cherry picking the numbers, if not skewing them alltogether to suit your agenda.
On iL2 i once failed to catch up with a Polikarpov i16 whislt flying a Bf 109 F-4.
I was full throttle flying straight and he was keeping pace with me whilst doing barrel rolls and such !
Good game though !
I was full throttle flying straight and he was keeping pace with me whilst doing barrel rolls and such !
Good game though !
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Exactly its a game.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
First of all, it seems you don't know the difference between indicated airspeed, calibrated airspeed and true airspeed.
Second, most aerial battles were not at sea-level.
Here's another word for you - TACTICS. That why the F4F had a 6 to 1 kill ratio (claimed) probably 3 to 1 in actuality. Again, please do some research when you try to equate a game to actual history.
Here, some good reading for you...
A6M2 Zero versus F4F-3 Wildcat
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I didn't check this out but we have to remember the major factor combat radius is internal fuel, since drop tanks are usually "dropped" when combat start. As such, since internal fuel, 250 gallons is equal, the F6F-5, with 700 gallons may not have any more of a radius as the F6F-3 with 400 gallons. It will, however, certainly have more loiter time or time on station as CAP.
I never understood on what exactly is this table based, Famous Airplanes of the World brings a lot of accurate and interesting information but their tables seem to be always lacking.But those weight differences you present are not that drastic.
Before you even ask for source, I'll base my numbers on a service manuals for Zeros reprinted in a book, they contain a very nice tables with empty weight, weight of all the equipment, ammunition, gunsight, bombs, fuel and external fuel tanks. Basically table indicating all weight changes in all configurations you cant think of.
This one : http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/m/mmKedK02iZZaHrZ_TWUn70A/s-l225.jpg
Empty weight of A6M5 model 52 (based on airfram no. 4274) is 1876 kg
Weight of the fuel (all internal fuel tanks) is 411 kg
Ammunition is 119 kg
Standard combat weight (full internal fuel, ammunition and no external weight in form of bombs or external fuel tanks) is 2733 kg
The maximum weight I see is 3073 kg - and that is for an aircraft with external fuel tank and two 30 kg bombs, but I dont think we should be comparing the Zeros in those configurations. I mean external loads dont have any relation to our comparison.
A6M5 model 52c table indicates following :
Empty - 1970 kg
Fuel - 411 kg
Ammunition - 170 kg
Standard combat weight - 2955 kg
Just for the purpose of comparing with the FAOTW the maximum weight in table indicated is 3207 kg. That is a configuration with 250 kg bomb.
And no, not only it affected the rate of climb and ceiling. It also affected aircraft take-off distance, landing speed, stall speeds and low speed handling characteristics. Older pilots, if possible, would pass those aircraft to the rookies while keeping the faster, more maneuverable and better handling A6M2-A6M5 models.
There is no A6M8 as book features only documents for mass produced variants, not prototypes as A6M8 was. Thus no details for that one. But to be honest there are few things certain of A6M8, as a matter of fact on j-aircraft boards there was discussion if pictures we know of the A6M8 are real or not, and it appears the known pictures are fake according to Jim Lansdale.
What for ? You are the one trying to prove that it was a great idea to put Kinsei engine into Zero airframe.
And if we are on it already, I dont see anything spectacular here. A6M8 performance restored performance to a 1943 A6M5. And we are talking of the Zero tested in May-June 1945, so production would start when ? In August-September ? When A7M was already supposed to run full production.
A6M8 also carried ADI mixture, as Ha-112-II (Kinsei 62) took advantage of it. Got no idea however what was the load.
But to answer more specific, if of course that data for A6M8 are at least a bit accurate, the weight difference of at least 400 kg was quite significant. 400 kg is not just, that is a lot. Especially for a lightweight fighter like a Zero. In Ki-61-I Tei the weight increase of 350 kg caused the time to 5000 m altitude to drop from 5 min and 30 seconds to 7 minutes. 400 kilograms is more or less equal to addition of two 330 l external fuel tanks. That by no means "just".
I am aware WHY performance in A6M5 model 52c dropped and what was achieved by installing Kinsei. That did not make the aircraft a good climber, that restored the same performance that aircraft had in 1943 when it was already not enough against opposition. It also was at the cost of handling, take-off distance and landing speeds. Multiple characteristics that made Zero so specific were ... vanishing.
The A6M8 has more firepower than the 'original' A6M5, it actually features protection for the pilot and fuel tanks, and it is even a bit faster. It is, in 1945, about as good as Spitfire Vb from 1941. That it was specific in this or that category has no weight, what mattered is whether could do it's job.
If you suspect the weight figures from the 'Famous aircraft', then why picking from them what float your boat, while discarding what does not.
>edit: the Japanese Wikipedia states 1856 kg vs. 2150 for what seems like empty weight of the A6M5 and A6M8 respectively, and 2733 kg vs. 3150 kg for what seems to be the take off weight for the same types; it also gives a bit better speed figures than the table I've posted <edit
Hi, David,
The -5 have had an improvement in fuel system, a device that enabled it to top off the internal fuel tanks from drop tanks once airborne. I'm aware only the Fairey Fulmar and F4U-4 that were with such a device, probably late Grumman and Vought fighters were also with that, probaly also the Firefly. The fuel consumed for warm up (up to 20 min), take off and climb to a safe altitude (before swithching to d. tank) could amount to 30 gals easily, thus the top off device.
Since I don't have exact figures for the -5 with 3 drop tanks, I've provided the radius figures for the F4U-4 that have had a bit less internal fuel, that managed with 2x150 gals in drop tanks the 525 nmi radius.
If you suspect the weight figures from the 'Famous aircraft', then why picking from them what float your boat, while discarding what does not.
>edit: the Japanese Wikipedia states 1856 kg vs. 2150 for what seems like empty weight of the A6M5 and A6M8 respectively, and 2733 kg vs. 3150 kg for what seems to be the take off weight for the same types; it also gives a bit better speed figures than the table I've posted <edit
Hi, David,
The -5 have had an improvement in fuel system, a device that enabled it to top off the internal fuel tanks from drop tanks once airborne. I'm aware only the Fairey Fulmar and F4U-4 that were with such a device, probably late Grumman and Vought fighters were also with that, probaly also the Firefly. The fuel consumed for warm up (up to 20 min), take off and climb to a safe altitude (before swithching to d. tank) could amount to 30 gals easily, thus the top off device.
Since I don't have exact figures for the -5 with 3 drop tanks, I've provided the radius figures for the F4U-4 that have had a bit less internal fuel, that managed with 2x150 gals in drop tanks the 525 nmi radius.
Last edited:
That is correct, but by that time neither this protection, nor additional firepower in outdated airframe with new engine would change anything. Once again, if something would have to be done, than since 1941 it would be much better to run a program for a carrier based fighter powered by 1500-1600 HP engine. It'd not be into Navy policy, but better than nothing.
I mean unless Jiro would by some miracle actually convince Navy to skip the Homare engine for A7M and from the very beginning design it around MK9A like he desired all the time. According to his memoirs A7M if time would not be wasted for Homare, would appear in early or more likely mid 1944 and would just make it for Battle on the Philippine Sea. Of course if everything would go smooth.
I have my doubts over the weight figures, so for what I could I simply brought the ones from original manuals. For the rest I dont have so I rely on the FAOTW table. It's not cherry picking, even if you think it is.
No problems, I've added above the numbers from Japanese Wiki.
I agree that a clean sheet design would've served the IJN better than the warmed up Zero that late in war. Also could not agree more with pointing to the IJN as the guilty part that such a design didn't started the life earlier.
I agree that a clean sheet design would've served the IJN better than the warmed up Zero that late in war. Also could not agree more with pointing to the IJN as the guilty part that such a design didn't started the life earlier.
It's called being concise ...
http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero
Both the newer and older types were encountered over Darwin.
BTW - I tried A6M3 against Spit Vc. All I want to say, is that A6M3 feels much more potent than A6M2.
Did I mention that I won Waterloo for Napoleon, easy really with a good sim? Honestly, your constant switching between what actually happened and what you do on a computer is rendering the discussion a complete nonsense.
What is flip-flopping?
Of course I wonder, if you ever played this game?
Actually, you could do all that, and since I'm the pilot, I can have all the wrong tendencies. I pull to the right, and sometimes trim against it.
Whatever. 100% accuracy is neither achievable nor necessary to draw some conclusions.
All, cannot, infinite, NEVER, anything - for someone who advises caution, you use a whole lot of big words.
BTW - I judge my internet speed with ping.
There were leftovers from last year operations, but 202 Kokutai (formerly known as 3rd Kokutai) has just arrived from Kendari (Indonesia) where it spent time resting after very intensive Guadalcanal campaign and in process acquired new Zeros. It is interesting to note that at this time Japanese units were not lacking pilots, in fact had more of them then necessary, but were lacking aircraft.
Well, no surprise, it has 2-speed supercharger so you can perform pretty well even at higher altitudes.
