Corsair vs Zero

[GregP]

To be concise, bakters, sims ... particularly commercial gaming sims that are less than $200 ... are as good as the equations used and no better. It is a simple fact that the precise equations of maneuver, acceleration, and other critical parameters are simply not known by commercial gaming programmers, almost all of which are not aeronautical engineers who have studied WWII combat aircraft, particularly fighters. What they mostly do is tweak the flight characteristics to produce a fun to play game and an aircraft model that doesn't snap roll or break the wings off when you pull too hard.

It has little to nothing to do with a real WWII combat fighter.

You methods of discussing and replying to posts say a lot about you. Only you can decide if you like the persona presented. Reading the last 4 pages of post replies, you can maybe guess what other people see.

 

[tomo pauk]

I will say this much: there is a tremendous amount of information (that fell of deaf ears) posted regarding the A6M and how it stacked up against the USN types, so all was not totally lost!

Very true

Our Shinpachi was so kind to translate the table about different Zero models to English. The excel sheet can be downloaded from here.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

Just to add a bit about this.
The Ha-140 on the Ki-61-II was rated to 1250 HP at 5700 m, the Ha-112 was at 1250 HP at 5800 m. The Ki-61-II will be faster beacuse the V-12 will do less drag; the Ki-100 will climb better because it is lighter (by 10%), mainlydue the Ha-112 not having the liquid cooling system.

 

[Hiromachi]

Biggest problem of Ki-61-II was the Center of Gravity, Ki-61 was not originally designed so long. Ha-140 was like DB 601 E, longer and required longer airframe. That and addition of Ho-5 in Ki-61 Tei messed with weight. Hence there was added some "dead weight in the back". I remember reading that pilots who flew Ki-100 were very happy that aircraft was much better balanced.

Though it wasn't exactly what Takeo Doi wanted, his initial Ki-61-II had new wings designed, only that it failed ...

I will say this much: there is a tremendous amount of information (that fell of deaf ears) posted regarding the A6M and how it stacked up against the USN types, so all was not totally lost!

Very true, ever our arguing with tomo pauk was very interesting (at least for me )and left a lot of data here.

 

[fastmongrel]

Bakter if you have a fight between two pilots of equal ability at starting at 10,000ft with a sky clear to the horizon, basically a medieval jousting match but with planes not horses.

Up to about 180/200mph the Zero will win more often
Between about 200 and 240 its about equal
About 250 the Zero is struggling badly it cant accelerate away in the vertical its controls get heavier the faster it goes so it cant break in the horizontal but a good pilot can still survive and win against a green pilot
Above 250 the Zero is in trouble and only a very good pilot will survive

Some other guys will probably step in and say my speed figures are off but they are in the ball park and obviously height will alter them. The whole problem with the Knights of the air jousting is it didnt happen Allied fighters by 43 were hunting in packs. Whilst the Zero pilot was manouvering against the Corsair or Wildcat, Hellcat, P38, P51, Spitfire, Seafire, Firefly. His wingman or his 10 other buddies were waiting patiently for you to fly into their sights.

Go and fly your Sim against 12 other Sim gamers and tell us how well that went.

 

[tomo pauk]

You might browse some older threads, our arguing is nowhere as like it as when Spitfire and Bf 109 fans clashed. Or, sometimes heated, discussions between Shortround6 and me, too bad the knowledgable man is not arround

The Ha-40 was 1948 mm long, vs the Ha-140 at 2008 mm, a 6 cm difference. What was probably of greater improtance for the CoG is that Ha-140 was 80 kg heavier. We dont know how much of the weight increase was ballanced out by installing a bigger (=heavier) radiator, installed behind the CoG.

 

[bakters]

Thats proper testing. It can work, so Im not going to say there is no benefit. Even the commercial entertainment sims have some merit. But they are not flying, they cant replace flying, and to make debateable claims based solely on the experiences of a product designed primarily for entertainment is foolish and unsound.

What debatable claim I made, especially one in open disagreement with historical accounts?

That a Zero is a difficult opponent? It's debatable now?

I can agree with the basic premise , that the Zeke was a highly competitive type in 1942. Its fair to claim it was the best carrier based fighter up to 1943. but it had serious flaws. basically they are well known, and relate to poor dive capability, poor high speed maneouvre and flimsy and flammable construction. Once the allies worked out its weaknesses and applied the correct tactics it became a liability.

Fine. So which tactics should I apply to defeat a Zero which is aware of my presence and intentions?

One-on-one, I can have an altitude and speed on my side, just to be unfair.

 

[Hiromachi]

You might browse some older threads, our arguing is nowhere as like it as when Spitfire and Bf 109 fans clashed. Or, sometimes heated, discussions between Shortround6 and me, too bad the knowledgable man is not arround

Oh no no, by no means I'd dare jump into such a discussion. I saw way too many discussions, particularly from Luftwaffle pilots in various sim forums trying to prove incredible things. Or Spitfire fans trying to prove otherwise. And of course P-51 fans defending the claim that it was best ww2 fighter. Everyone has his favorite warbirds, but not everyone goes into "argument furball"

The Ha-40 was 1948 mm long, vs the Ha-140 at 2008 mm, a 6 cm difference. What was probably of greater improtance for the CoG is that Ha-140 was 80 kg heavier. We dont know how much of the weight increase was ballanced out by installing a bigger (=heavier) radiator, installed behind the CoG.

There was lately published a book about Ki-61 history, written by L.A. Wieliczko from Kagero Publishing. A very nice monograph, if I will find it I'll try to look for more details.

 

[bakters]

That the Zero was an exceptional low-medium speed dog fighter?

It used to be that Zero only dominated at slow speeds. Since at high speeds it obviously didn't, there was an impression that at medium speeds it was more or less equal.

It looks like progress to me.

Most of us know that. That the Zero stood a chance against the Corsair if the latter was drawn into a turning dogfight? I think we already had a fair idea that that could happen.

So, how do you defeat a Zero without ever slowing down? Head-on attack works, but you guys dismissed this approach, as too risky. I get it. So how to do it?

Otherwise what else is bakters trying to prove, apart from the fact that he draws all his experience from a flight sim?

I'm trying to show that there was no "I win" button you could press against a well flown Zero. If I'm wrong, I want to know where this button is, and how to press it.

This "debate" is going nowhere and is proving nothing.

You mean, the debate is going in the wrong direction, and it's proving that defeating a supremely maneuverable fighter with decent climb and acceleration is not an easy task?

 

[bakters]

Bakter if you have a fight between two pilots of equal ability at starting at 10,000ft with a sky clear to the horizon, basically a medieval jousting match but with planes not horses.

Thanks. I somehow missed this post up to now. You seem to take it in the direction I expected the discussion to go from the very start.

Up to about 180/200mph the Zero will win more often

Like in "always"?

Between about 200 and 240 its about equal

I disagree, and historical accounts support my stance. The Zero was rated as excellent fighter at those speeds.

About 250 the Zero is struggling badly it cant accelerate away in the vertical its controls get heavier the faster it goes so it cant break in the horizontal but a good pilot can still survive and win against a green pilot
Above 250 the Zero is in trouble and only a very good pilot will survive

I believe there is some gross misunderstanding going on here. If a Zero is at 250mph, it still has very good elevator authority, decent rudder authority and limited aileron authority. Even A6M2 will roll, just slower.

But it does not matter much anyways. If you follow the "tactical egg" in maneuvers, you will never even attempt to turn in the horizontal. You pull up and change directions at the top of your climb, with absolute ease, and with great energy conservation.

You do not turn in the horizontal if you can avoid it!

Some other guys will probably step in and say my speed figures are off but they are in the ball park and obviously height will alter them.

Fine. I can concede the fight for numbers, as long as we stay on topic and try to discuss the tactics in a pragmatic manner. High speed, medium speed and low speed is fine with me.

The whole problem with the Knights of the air jousting is it didnt happen Allied fighters by 43 were hunting in packs. Whilst the Zero pilot was manouvering against the Corsair or Wildcat, Hellcat, P38, P51, Spitfire, Seafire, Firefly. His wingman or his 10 other buddies were waiting patiently for you to fly into their sights.

Japanese could play this game too, assuming they had the advantage in numbers...

Go and fly your Sim against 12 other Sim gamers and tell us how well that went.

That's exactly how I explain high Zero losses. People here tend to argue, that technological superiority of American fighters was the reason why Zeros fared so badly by the end of the war. Do you agree with me? Be careful, it seems to be a risky stance around here...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

To be concise, bakters, sims ... particularly commercial gaming sims that are less than $200 ... are as good as the equations used and no better. It is a simple fact that the precise equations of maneuver, acceleration, and other critical parameters are simply not known by commercial gaming programmers, almost all of which are not aeronautical engineers who have studied WWII combat aircraft, particularly fighters. What they mostly do is tweak the flight characteristics to produce a fun to play game and an aircraft model that doesn't snap roll or break the wings off when you pull too hard.

It has little to nothing to do with a real WWII combat fighter.

You methods of discussing and replying to posts say a lot about you. Only you can decide if you like the persona presented. Reading the last 4 pages of post replies, you can maybe guess what other people see.

Not really hard to understand.

So are we all in agreement that the gaming talk should stick to the gaming threads.

Growing tired...

 

[fastmongrel]

Like in "always"?

There is never ever in a million combats an "always" You could fly a Sopwith Camel against an F22 Raptor and in a certain set of circumstances the Camel could win.

The Zero in any of its iterations was an excellent dogfighter, it wasnt the best but it was in the top rank. Its early success was due to a combination of probably the best trained most experienced group of pilots ever to fly, an excellent advanced aircraft, inexperienced opposition, shock at its appearance and the opposition flying right into the Zeros perfomance and handling sweet spot.

 

[Hiromachi]

That shock was actually interesting in a way that both British and American commands underestimated Japanese, expecting rather outdated monoplanes, not much faster than biplanes used in China. And than boom, Japanese presented a full metal monoplane faster than its opposition, climbing according to the witnesses twice as fast as their own aircraft, having a great range and simply being able to "outfly" them. Reading lately "Doomed at the Start: American Pursuit Pilots in the Philippines, 1941-1942" I encountered incidents where P-40 pilots simply bailed out to avoid engaging Zeros, there were multiple instances where P-40s .50 cals jammed and they were defenseless even before entering combat. The Zero shock was real and it wasn't deep into 1943 when US pilots were flying with full confidence. Early in 1943 US pilots still could get badly beaten by Zeros.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Enough!!! Here is where the gaming threads are found found!!!!


http://ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation-gaming/

bakters - take all your jibberish to the gaming section. I am only going to warn you once!!!

 

[bakters]

Enough!!! Here is where the gaming threads are found found!!!!


http://ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation-gaming/

bakters - take all your jibberish to the gaming section. I am only going to warn you once!!!

Can you explain it to me where I ignored your earlier suggestion? (Apart from being a bit late on reading the posts, it took me a moment to notice it.)

As far as I'm concerned, I stopped referring to sims... I ignored all the replies which referred to this topic. Did I not?

So, which was the exact transgression which caused this loud response on Your part? I'm genuinely puzzled. I'm willing to go with whatever written and unwritten rules you guys have here for as long as I'm willing to participate in the discussion.

 

[bakters]

There is never ever in a million combats an "always" You could fly a Sopwith Camel against an F22 Raptor and in a certain set of circumstances the Camel could win.

The Zero in any of its iterations was an excellent dogfighter, it wasnt the best but it was in the top rank. Its early success was due to a combination of probably the best trained most experienced group of pilots ever to fly, an excellent advanced aircraft, inexperienced opposition, shock at its appearance and the opposition flying right into the Zeros perfomance and handling sweet spot.

The thing is, it's not easy to avoid Zero's sweet spot. If you want to get a good shot at the enemy, you need to be only slightly faster than him. Many, many, wwII pilots said it outright. The best shot you will have is when you are directly behind your enemy while flying at his speed.

Nikolay Gerasimovich Golubnikov I quoted earlier said that the ability to decelerate your aircraft is very important. Not just accelerate, but decelerate, so you can deliver a well aimed burst.

Shooting at high approach speed is a low percentage affair. You may make the other guy go evasive, you may score a lucky hit, but it's really rare that you'll finish the fight this way.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Can you explain it to me where I ignored your earlier suggestion? (Apart from being a bit late on reading the posts, it took me a moment to notice it.)

As far as I'm concerned, I stopped referring to sims... I ignored all the replies which referred to this topic. Did I not?

So, which was the exact transgression which caused this loud response on Your part? I'm genuinely puzzled. I'm willing to go with whatever written and unwritten rules you guys have here for as long as I'm willing to participate in the discussion.

READ THIS:
http://ww2aircraft.net/forum/basic/ground-rules-folks-7159.html

MY LAST WARNING

 

[pbehn]

That's exactly how I explain high Zero losses. People here tend to argue, that technological superiority of American fighters was the reason why Zeros fared so badly by the end of the war.

Not the technical superiority of "fighters" which can be argued for or against it was the complete superiority of allied, mostly american industry not only in technical matters but scale of production and training. It is a war it is not meant to be a fair fight. If you lose one on one at low speed then never fly alone or slowly.
Japan's Fatally Flawed Air Forces in World War II | History Net: Where History Comes Alive – World US History Online | From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher
I made a comment about radio quality in japanese aircraft, if you have no radio you are fighting a ww1 battle in ww2, I think all allied pilots were authorised to turn back if the radio stopped working, it was quite common in Japanese A/C

Radio Systems in the Early A6M Zero
which says this

Very early in the war the lack of radios severely limited tactical control options that could be exercised by flight commanders. Sakai, Saburo wrote of the death of fellow pilot Miyazaki, Yoshio and the near ambush of Lt. Sasai, Junichi under circumstances where formations had drawn apart and he was unable to tell the straying aircraft that they were about to be bounced. These incidents occurred over New Guinea in May 1942. Later, during the air battles around Guadalcanal, Japanese fighter formations had great difficulty coordinating escort actions due to heavy cloud conditions degrading visibility at multiple altitudes. John Lundstrom cites this on page 192 of "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign".

 

[GrauGeist]

As I mentioned earlier, the other factor to the A6M's shortcomings as the war progressed, was the poor quality of the Japanese pilot replacements.

The U.S. was producing enough aircraft to support it's two front war AND supply it's allies. With these aircraft, came fresh, well trained pilots.

No matter how well the A6M performed (or any other IJN/IJA type, for that matter), they simply could not compete in skies dominated by U.S. and Allied aircraft.

 

[bakters]

Not the technical superiority of "fighters" which can be argued for or against it was the complete superiority of allied, mostly american industry not only in technical matters but scale of production and training. It is a war it is not meant to be a fair fight.

I can easily agree with that. If the impression I got from reading the whole thread was similar, I'd never register and respond.

If you lose one on one at low speed then never fly alone or slowly.

Even 4 against 2 with energy advantage was not a forgone conclusion. I remember reading a report by one Corsair pilot. 4 Corsairs jumped 2 Zeros, the wingman started smoking after their first pass (Zeke didn't blow apart, though...). Corsairs turned around quickly to finish the Japanese leader.

What? 4 on 1 (the wingman was crippled and out of the fight) in superior planes? Sure they went after him.

And they were like "whaaaaat?" That's how quickly the Japanese flight-leader reversed on all of them and started threatening their very lives.

I don't exactly remember how it went further, but I think that they dove, extended and shot him down by dividing his attention. What I remember for sure though, is that simple numerical advantage and energy advantage was not enough. The Zero could still be a threat, as long it was not caught dreaming.

Interestingly, I remember reading a similar account when two 109-G-something pilots took on a single Yak-3. They tried their best, both experienced pilots, and at least the author a fetching personality, but it didn't work. In the end they did a Thatch weave of sorts. The wingman took fire while the flight-leader had a good shot at the Yak. Both sides suffered minor damage and disengaged, but the take home message was that Yak-3 was a better plane.

Better! Not just comparable. German pilot was willing to admit, that Soviets built a better plane.

Japan's Fatally Flawed Air Forces in World War II | History Net: Where History Comes Alive – World US History Online | From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher
I made a comment about radio quality in japanese aircraft, if you have no radio you are fighting a ww1 battle in ww2, I think all allied pilots were authorised to turn back if the radio stopped working, it was quite common in Japanese A/C

Radio Systems in the Early A6M Zero
which says this

Very early in the war the lack of radios severely limited tactical control options that could be exercised by flight commanders. Sakai, Saburo wrote of the death of fellow pilot Miyazaki, Yoshio and the near ambush of Lt. Sasai, Junichi under circumstances where formations had drawn apart and he was unable to tell the straying aircraft that they were about to be bounced. These incidents occurred over New Guinea in May 1942. Later, during the air battles around Guadalcanal, Japanese fighter formations had great difficulty coordinating escort actions due to heavy cloud conditions degrading visibility at multiple altitudes. John Lundstrom cites this on page 192 of "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign".

Better radios make sense to me. Soviet pilots praised American radios very much. They were good.