Corsair vs Zero

[plan_D]

I find the US remarks more reliable because they would not lie. If they lied then they risked the lives of their men. They have to tell the truth, to tell their men the real weaknesses and strengths.

At 300mph, the pilot isn't going to risk it. That's if he can get the strength to force it, the best turn rate for the Zero is at something like 250mph. After that, it gets harder and harder to turn.

The Spitfire could out-dive the Zero. Even if the Zero wouldn't cut out, it's so light it's dive speed was appalling. The Spitfire would just dive down to the right, and get away from the Zero.

300mph isn't low, no, but the Spitfire Mk.VIII [8] could hit 408 mph which is a lot faster than the Zero can consider dogfighting at.

 

[Soren]

I find the US remarks more reliable because they would not lie. If they lied then they risked the lives of their men. They have to tell the truth, to tell their men the real weaknesses and strengths.

Offcourse they wouldnt lie ! But the A6M2 they were testing was damaged, and didnt even come near its top speed under tests conducted in 42. Later tests revealed this

At 300mph, the pilot isn't going to risk it. That's if he can get the strength to force it, the best turn rate for the Zero is at something like 250mph. After that, it gets harder and harder to turn.

That is completely untrue

The Zero's abnormally large "ailerons" made it extreemly maneuverable at speeds below 275mph, above that they were reported to get really Stiff !!

However as you probably know ailerons have no effect on turns, only rolls And the Roll rate would be significantly worsened at High speeds, because of the large control surfaces of the Ailerons

But the "Elevators" wich control your rate of turn, were reported as being extreemly light, and that they behaved very comfortably ! The A6M2 would be easy to turn very tightly even at over 300mph, and it wouldnt loose its turn rate at any possible speed in the Zero
However in the early model Zero's (A6M2) it was not a good idea to turn extreemly tight at over 300mph, as the body could fall apart under the immense G forces.

The Spitfire could out-dive the Zero. Even if the Zero wouldn't cut out, it's so light it's dive speed was appalling. The Spitfire would just dive down to the right, and get away from the Zero.

Oh but it just isnt that easy It will take time for your Spitfire to gradually dive away from a A6M5 with Methanole injection on its tail

300mph isn't low, no, but the Spitfire Mk.VIII [8] could hit 408 mph which is a lot faster than the Zero can consider dogfighting at.

Now thats correct ! But the Zeke could easely lure the Spitfire to come down to its level of speed ! Because the only way for the Spitfire to "dogfight" with the Zeke would be to go down in speed to at least 300mph ! ( And RAF, RAAF, and RN pilots were very happy for dogfights !)

 

[Soren]

The US Army Air Forces "Informational Intelligence Summary No. 85 -Flight Characteristics of the Japanese Zero Fighter" was distributed to all squadrons. It summarizes the Sanders and Navy Comparison reports and provides comparisons with the P-38F, P-39D-1, and P-51.

Particularly though, the report draws the following general conclusions and recommendations:

"Conclusions:

"The Zero fighter, because of its low wing loading, has superior maneuverability to all our present service type aircraft.

"It is necessary to maintain a speed of over three hundred (300) miles per hour indicated to successfully combat this airplane.

"In developing tactics against the Zero, cognizance should be taken of two facts:

1. Slow rate of roll of the Zero at high speeds.

2. Inability of the Zero engine to continue operating under negative acceleration.

"The engine performance of the Zero is superior to the present service type engine without turbo superchargers. This superiority is recognizable in the fact that the maximum manifold pressure can be maintained from sea level to sixteen thousand (16,000) feet.

"Recommendations:

"That the pilots entering the theater of action where the Zero can be expected be instructed in the following:

1. Never attempt to dog fight the Zero.

2. Never maneuver with the Zero at speeds below three-hundred (300) miles per hour indicated unless directly behind it.

3. Never follow a Zero in a climb at slow speeds. (Service type ships will stall out at the steep angle where the Zero has just reached its most maneuverable speed.) At this point is possible for the Zero to complete a loop putting it in a position for a rear quarter attack."

 

[Soren]

Also the only thing that is recorded as to becoming stiff at high speeds is its ailerons ! Read the following:

Ailerons are abnormally large and the rate of roll at low speeds is extremely high. However the ailerons forces increase excessively with airspeed, and above 200 kts. indicated the airplane is very difficult to roll. At speeds above 250 kts. it is almost impossible to maneuver the plane laterally. At moderate to high speeds the rate of roll to the right is definitely lower that to the left, due to relative control forces.

Additionally this is reported:

The elevator control is light and effective, and has very desirable control movement characteristics. (b) Directional stability is positive and control is light.

In 'NO' U.S. test reports is it ever written that the Elevators get stiff at high speeds And neither is it ever implied that the rate of turn will be reduced with higher speed.

Only the Roll rate of the Zero will suffer at high speeds

 

[plan_D]

When an aircraft turns the force on the wings, including ailerons is immense. The large ailerons on the Zero would create more force on them.

 

[R Leonard]

Soren

You dont have to say alot on this forum before a 'Source' is required !! (Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:49 pm)

And when you make pretty bald claims as to performance you might expect someone to question your sources. You'll note I tend to list my sources up front. Saves a lot of questions later. Further, I'd opine that actual hands evaluation and first hand observed performance have somewhat more weight than a table of some sort of optimal performance statistics.

300mph isnt 'High' speed ! (Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:49 pm)

At only some 32 mph short of top end for a Zero, that would be high speed. Compared to, say, an SR-71, no, that's not high speed. High speed is relative to the capability of the aircraft concerned, n'est ce pas? To pretend otherwise is somewhat disingenuous. High speed for a Sopwith Camel is damn close to stall speed for late WWII fighters. It's all relative.

The performance claims:

Even at over 300mph the A6M2 would turn tighter than the Spitfire (Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:46 pm)
At 332mph wich is the A6M2's max speed, it would still turn tighter than the Spitfire, it just wouldnt roll as fast. (Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:09 pm)

But, are you backing off on your claims here?

Sure the Zero's controls were heavy at over 275mph, but if you pulled hard enough it wouldnt be a problem, and it would for sure outturn a Spitfire . (You'd just have to pray for the ailerons to hold )
However at 320mph and upwards, it would be foolish for a Zero pilot to pull a real 'tight' turn, as that allmost certainly ment the destruction of his ailerons, or controls. (Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:46 pm)

Or here?

At 275mph the Zero could pull tight turns !, above that it would deteriorate gradually. A right turn at 300mph wouldnt hold, but a left turn would, although it would be hard to pull the stick back! (Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:06 pm)

But then you come back in almost the same breath with

At 320mph, a turn wasnt going to be as tight anymore, but it would turn nonetheless. Many people think that the Zero was crippled at over 330mph, well it wasnt ! it could still turn and roll, but it would roll faster to the left (As explained by Saburu Sakai ) (Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:06 pm)

And you also say

However as you probably know ailerons have no effect on turns, only rolls And the Roll rate would be significantly worsened at High speeds, because of the large control surfaces of the Ailerons (Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:37 am )

Not to sound pedantic, but I'm wondering if you really understand the terminology. You repeatedly claim that the Zero can out turn Spitfires, for example, then you say that it wouldn't roll as fast. You, apparently, are not a pilot. Airplanes do not turn in a single plane. You do understand the relations ship between turns and rolls in three dimensions, don't you? The purpose of roll is not just to perform barrelrolls; at speed, an airplane must roll to make a turn. So a poor roll performance equals poor turning performance. We're talking about real airplanes here, not a flight sim. When you try to make the airplane do something beyond its design capabilities bad things happen and you probably won't be able to restart the game. Here, let me quote from the late Erik Shilling, an AVG pilot, who wrote in 1998:

"Why roll rate was important, is that one must remember that all maneuvers, except for a loop, started with a roll. The slower the roll rate the longer it took before the turn began.

"1. If he turned away, he set you up on his six. A most undesirable position for him, because he would be a dead duck.

"2. The enemy invariably turned toward you which was normal and anticipated. With his slower roll rate, you could beat him into the turn, get a deflection shot at him, and when you slowed down to where he started gaining on you in the circle, you rolled and dove away before you were in his sights. If you haven't tried it don't knock it.

"This is where roll rate came into the picture. As far as Japanese fighters were concerned, their inferior roll rate was at all speeds. Above 240, it would take the Zero 3 seconds before he attained bank angle for max turn. (And the airplane doesn't start turning until bank angle is established.)

"Since you could see him starting to bank, which you would have anticipated, you could easily bank more quickly and establish max bank angle within 1 second, and pull whatever 'Gs' necessary to establish lead.

"At this speed, and with your lead already established, you could maintain lead for some time before speed bled off to where the Zero could turn inside, you got the hell out. (Don't forget same speed and same 'G' equal same radius of turn. Above 220 IAS the radius of the circle was determined by pilots ability to withstand 'Gs.' You could turn with the Zero as long as the speed was above 220 IAS.

"If the situation was reversed and the Zero was attacking you. Your roll rate would save your ass by allowing you to roll to max turning bank, use 6 'Gs' or more, then continue rolling to inverted and dive. Rolling 180 degrees to dive would take less than 2 seconds, the Zero took 6. The Zero would never get a shot. He couldn't get lead, and by the time he was inverted you would already be out of range, gaining speed much more rapidly than the Zero.

"As can be seen from the above illustration, that in the beginning roll rate was the primary factor in starting any maneuver except the loop. After bank angle was established then speed was the primary factor. To escape from a zero, roll rate again became the primary factor then speed.

"Anyone who disagrees with the above has never been in combat, and as far as I know, few books if any bring this out."

Now, I'll go back and quote the Sanders A6M2 report:

" . . . Aileron forces increase with speed. They are still fair around 200 KTS to 210 KTS, but at 230 to 250 KTS they practically freeze up and fast rolling cannot be done at 250 KTS." (Bold is my emphasis)

I'll do you a favor . . . knots to mph

200 KTS = 230 mph
210 KTS = 242 mph
230 KTS = 265 mph
250 KTS = 288 mph

So, with what part of "over 300 mph" are you having trouble.

"The horizon was not working, but by estimating the angles, obtained 1.35 sec. to the right, and 1.1 sec. to the left for the standard rate of roll test in landing condition. The angle was probably more like 60 degrees. Rate of roll at 200 KTS was 5.4 sec. for 360 degrees. This was with not much more than half aileron displacement, but it was as far over as I could put it because of the high forces. Forces are higher to the right than left."

Translated this means that at 230 mph he was already feeling the pressure on the ailerons. Note ". . . half aileron displacement, but it was as far over as I could put it because of the high forces . . ." And he notes that right roll was already worse than left.

Eddie Sanders wasn't some neophyte. He was a senior test pilot assigned to the Anacostia NAS Flight Test program which was where the USN did most of its testing before moving that operation to Patuxent NAS. He was quite used to the idea of putting an airplane through its paces and pushing it as far as it would go.

"Ailerons get very stiff at higher speeds making fast rolls at high speeds (above 250 knots) physically impossible. At 200 knots the rate of roll (with ailerons) is slightly slower than an F4F . . ."

Note ". . . physically impossible."

So, above 288 mph there's the Zero with an inability to execute a fast roll, certainly to right and only with difficulty to the left. That inability would directly impinge upon the Zero's ability to turn, resulting in flat skids or, worse, damage, possibly fatal, to the aircraft.

On the other side of the wall from where I sit right now is a USN fighter pilot who is not only an ace with 2 A6M2's to his credit (in F4F's), but was also a test pilot and had experience in flying both the A6M2 and the A6M5. I read to him some of your statements regarding the A6Ms turning ability and it's relation to roll. His response was just a smile, then, "the Zero would evidence a reluctance to roll at 275 and turning was accordingly slowed. At 300 it would not roll . . . so, no turn either. Sure you keep applying pressure, but there's not much point in tearing the airplane apart when you're up there all by yourself." He confirms Sanders findings in all respects. This gent is the guy who brought the "Koga Zero" back to the west coast in started it's formal use in training of fighter pilots and, indeed, on a few occasions, mixed it up with USN fighters himself just to prove the point. What did they teach? Keep your speed up over 250 KTs. Do not get in turning contests, especially below 250 KTs. Do not play the Zero's game, make the Zero play your game. Use team tactics. Use deflection gunnery. If you are jumped unexpectedly, max throttle, break right, and roll down and away, the Zero cannot follow you. A Zero in the same situation is likely to break left, be ready for it.

You state:

Sure the Zero's controls were heavy at over 275mph, but if you pulled hard enough it wouldnt be a problem, . . .

And what is your source for that? My source says "I take it he's never flown a Zero? Depends how he wants to define 'problem'. No ailerons, that's a problem. Dead . . . now that's real a problem."

You state:

As explained by Saburu Sakai

Where? And what did he say?

And please don't quote Caiden. He's the guy who ghost wrote a transcript of a translation made by a guy who had no aviation knowledge. He's the guy who credits Sakai with 64 victories. If I may quote aviation historian and researcher Henry Sakaida relating a conversation he had with Sakai: "I asked him pointblank if he shot down 64 planes. I was surprised when he said no. He said that was a myth created by Martin Caidin and he could never figure out why he came up with that figure." (1975) Caiden's the guy who came up with Sakai getting shot up by a bunch of TBF's when the USN planes involved were SBD's. And Caiden only interviewed Sakai once . . . ONCE! . . . it must have lasted for days! A most dependable source . . . the guy who reports, with an absolutely straight face and a "it really happened," of a P-38 that flies all by itself, hours after it should have run out of fuel, and conveniently breaks up over its home base with a long dead pilot at the controls . . . oh yeah, he's believable alright. Jimmy Thach (hmmm . . . he had 3 A6M2's to his credit . . . another successful F4F pilot) said of Caiden's ghosting of Zero: "The story written by Masatake Okumiya deserves better treatment than it received at the hands of the collaborator, Mr. Caiden."

How about Erik Shilling, again writing in 1999:

"About 5 years ago while Saburo Sakai was in Los Angeles I had the opportunity to talk to him. One of the questions I asked was what was the Zero's top speed with full load.

"His answer was 309 mph. He also said that Japanese pilots would not dive above 300 mph IAS, because the skin on the wings started wrinkling and caused the pilot great concern. He also added to this that above 300 it was almost impossible to roll."

You state:

However at 320mph and upwards, it would be foolish for a Zero pilot to pull a real 'tight' turn, as that allmost certainly ment the destruction of his ailerons, or controls.

320? More like 290. Long, long before you get to the Zero's max speed. . . ."foolish" . . .? How about impossible, or better, suicidal?

So, are you going to make up your mind? How does this jive with your "if you pull hard enough"? Only if you're Ahhhnold and wind up with the joy stick yanked out of the floor or you just punt and tear off the wings.

And what about the RAF? Here's the results of high speed tactical trials between an A6M3 and a Spitfire Mk Vc. You can find this on the net . . . Google is your friend.

"Results:
"Hap commenced tests on Spitfire's tail:
"1. In high speed flight, Spitfire was able to loop in a smaller radius. Hap pilot blacked out endeavoring to follow.
"2. Spitfire carried 3 loops in succession at high speed and finished in firing position on Hap's tail.
"3. Spitfire carried out roll off top of loop. Hap was unable to follow in same radius and lost considerable distance.
"4. Spitfire executed a series of high speed, tight diving turns to right; Hap pilot unable to follow and was on verge of graying out.
"5. Spitfire executed a ½ roll to right from 45° dive at 280 mph IAS and 330 mph IAS and pulled out abruptly into vertical climb. Hap pilot unable to follow this maneuver either at 280 or 320 mph and finished up in both instances approximately 1000 feet below Spitfire and some distance behind.

"Conclusions:
"1. Spitfire was able to evade and outmaneuver Hap by combining high speed and High 'G'.
"2. Spitfire required a minimum speed of 250 mph to retain maneuverability advantage.
"3. Hap was able to evade and outmaneuver Spitfire by maneuvering at low speeds.
"4. Stresses placed upon both aircraft during tests were not measured. However, the Hap pilot considers his tolerance in reference to blacking out to be above average."

And here's the results of a comparison of the Seafire L IIC vs Zeke 52 (A6M5) from Alfred Price's Spitfire . This model Seafire was similar to the Spitfire V.

"Manoeuverability:
"Turning plane - the Zeke 52 can turn inside the Seafire L IIC at all heights. The Zeke 52 turns tighter to the left than to the right.

"Rolling plane - the rate of roll of the two aircraft is similar at speeds below 180 mph IAS, but above that the aileron stick forces of the Zeke increase tremendously, and the Seafire becomes progressively superior.

"Dive - The Seafire is superior in the dive although initial acceleration is similar. The Zeke is a most unpleasant aircraft in a dive, due to heavy stick forces and excessive vibration.

"Tactic: Never dogfight with the Zeke 52, it is too manoeuverable. At low altitudes where the Seafire is its best, is should make use of its superior rate of climb and speed to obtain a height advantage before attacking. If jumped, the Seafire should evade by using its superior rate of roll. The Zeke cannot follow high speed rolls and aileron turns."

So, do you have some actual test results?

Frankly what I'm seeing is a repeat of lot of 1950's-1960's style Zero-Centric nonsense, á la Caiden; the sort that goes right along with the Japanese super-duper superman pilots (there's a whole new thread) of 1941-1942.

In my opinion, which, of course, requires no source, this is all a bunch of nonsense.

Rich

 

[plan_D]

He's much better at it than me.

 

[evangilder]

Thank you again, RL, for taking the time to type all that up! It follows with everything that I have read and heard about the Zero, and I have worked on one.

 

[Soren]

Well I'll be short !

Yes to initiate a turn you must roll first, and at above 275mph that would be slow in a A6M2 ! Just so we are clear, I totally agree with this.

However the next step in a Tight turn is to pull back the stick, activating the elevators ! And when the Zero had completed its roll, to make the turn, the pilot would have "NO" problem in pulling back the stick even at 320mph "NO" test pilots ever complained about the elevator controls were ever hard or got stiff with speed, no they actually were quite light and behaved well !
(This is why it is urgent you "DONT" follow a Zero in a turn at any speed, "Get him while he's initiating the turn with a roll instead, then zoom away".

But in an A6M2 it would be foolish to pull a tight turn at 320mph, as the body and wings would flex ! And could break apart if enough G's were present

However the A6M5 would have no such limitations, as its body and wings were much stronger than the A6M2's wings and body ! Also the A6M5's wings have been shortnened to make high speed rolls, abit faster (But still not as fast as a Spitfires !

Anyway my point is that in an A6M5, if you get the chance to roll your Zero to the left or right, then you start pulling back on your stick to turn, and then no allied aircraft can follow your turn, nomatter what speed your in

 

[plan_D]

The force on ailerons is still immense, and I doubt that it was physically possible for a man to force the Zero through a turn at 320 mph. When a plane turns air is slamming against those wings at amazing force, and the Zero had stupidly large ailerons which would take the brunt of the force.

It was a weak and feeble aircraft, over 300 mph it had no chance. The Spitfire could be coming down at over 400 mph and still be in a situation where the plane can be handled.

 

[Soren]

The force on the ailerons has nothing to do with your ability to turn, if you have already made the initiating roll

You'll just be pulling back your stick, and that wouldnt be hard in a Zero at 'ANY' speed

However in a A6M2 it would be abit risky to pull back all the way, if your at a speed of over 300mph

But the A6M5 had a strenghtened body and wings, so it wouldnt be a problem fo that particular Zero-model and beyond

 

[plan_D]

The A6M5 was still weak, it would still have a problem with turning at high speeds [being 300 mph for the Zero]. The whole plane comes under force when a plane turns, but the ailerons and elevators are at the greatest risk because they are not stable attachments.

 

[Soren]

The turning radius of a A6M5 Zero will always be tighter than a Spitfire's at any speed However the Roll that will initiate the turn will be slower than the Spitfires

 

[Soren]

The A6M5 was still weak, it would still have a problem with turning at high speeds [being 300 mph for the Zero]. The whole plane comes under force when a plane turns, but the ailerons and elevators are at the greatest risk because they are not stable attachments.

The A6M5 was 'Alot' stronger than the A6M2 And the A6M5 would take 'ALOT' more G forces than the A6M2

But you must remember that the Spitfire also had Ailerons and elevators, and speed would also stiffen them ! Although the ailerons on the Spitfire wouldnt freeze up as much as the Zero's would.

 

[plan_D]

The Zero couldn't out-turn the Spitfire above 300 mph, and that's a clear fact. The Zero was of poor quality at it's own high speeds, it would be coming into the fight slow and would bring itself into an immediate disadvantage.

The Spitfire was a stronger, and more robust design than the Zero. No one ever said the Spitfire's ailerons wouldn't stiffen, but they wouldn't fall off! Take into account that the Zero would be dead while it was rolling to turn anyway, this amazing turning capability to turn well below 300 mph means nothing.

The fact is, the Spitfire would come down at a faster pace than the Zero and the Zero would be torn apart by 20mm and .50cal rounds from the e-wing. The Zero lacked any kind of protection, so would be blown out of the sky with ease.

8:1 kill ratio over Japanese aircraft, taking into account their not all Zeros still gives for a nice success rate. The Zero was inferior to the Spitfire Mk.V and even more so inferior to the Spitfire Mk.VIII.

 

[Soren]

Again i say the ailerons on the 'A6M5' wouldnt fall off !! And neither would the elevators, they wouldnt even fall off on the A6M2 at high speed turns

The 'A6M5' would turn inside 'ANY' Spitfire model at any speed, but it wouldnt roll as fast as the Spitfire at high speed (even with clipped wings)


Read: British Warplanes of World War II. This book explains how the Spitfires first faired when they met the Zero (Not good).

Also remember the defence of Darwin !

 

[plan_D]

No it wouldn't turn inside the Spitfire at any speeds. Since when? The Zero couldn't do bugger all at high speeds (300 mph and above with the Zero)! The Spitfire could come in nearing 400 mph and the Zero wouldn't stand a chance because it couldn't turn or roll above 300 mph! The ZERO was useless beyond 300 mph! Everyone, and every piece of history says so. Even the Zero pilots said they wouldn't try and turn above 300 mph...

 

[Soren]

No it wouldn't turn inside the Spitfire at any speeds. Since when? The Zero couldn't do bugger all at high speeds (300 mph and above with the Zero)! The Spitfire could come in nearing 400 mph and the Zero wouldn't stand a chance because it couldn't turn or roll above 300 mph! The ZERO was useless beyond 300 mph! Everyone, and every piece of history says so. Even the Zero pilots said they wouldn't try and turn above 300 mph...

Give me ONE source just ONE, that says the elevators would freeze in high speeds ! (If you can i will rest my case But you can't because there isnt any )

Sanders report from 42 just reports the ailerons getting stiff, and rolls at 250kt are very hard ! like every other report !

 

[plan_D]

Where...anywhere...did I state that the elevators stiffen? Do you think it's only the elevators that say if the aircraft can turn tightly or not?

 

[Soren]

Where...anywhere...did I state that the elevators stiffen? Do you think it's only the elevators that say if the aircraft can turn tightly or not?

To put it simple:

The elevators are the ones that pull the plane upwards and downwards, and they are also the ones you use to turn the plane, after you have rolled your plane to either direction. The elevators are triggered when you pull back on the stick !

So when your Zero is rolled to the left, you pull back the stick wich will be easy 'also' at high speed

Also remember that the A6M5 was much stronger in its body than the A6M2. Hey just compare the dive speed limit of the two model's ! :

Dive speed limit.

A6M2: 380mph

A6M5: 460mph