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