Corsair vs Zero

[plan_D]

What a moron you are. Now provide your sources or shut up.

 

[Soren]

I already did But you obviusly can't read

And your obviously not very old, because your simply too rude to be over 15 And name-calling also seems to be one of your primitive defenses.

 

[plan_D]

My lord, you really are a moron. Your 'source' was a book written by a Zero pilot with no quote at all.

 

[Soren]

I quoted other sources buddy

 

[plan_D]

You've already been proven wrong by Rich, who happened to provide sources for everything he said that backed him up. You don't, you just babble.

 

[Soren]

Man i just think you beat the "How wrong can one be in one day record".

 

[R Leonard]

And you obviously believe everything you read, as long as it strengthens your opinion

Pot, kettle, black

Worse, even, you can't even cite a source that affirms your theories.

Was there something in the RAF report you did not understand? Was there something in all the information provided that you missed? Obviously, there must be as you try to use the Sanders report and the USAAF report to buttress your position when even the quotes you use clearly contridict your position.

Do you contend that those who have actually flown the airplane don't know what they are talking about? Do you contend that those who have actually flown the airplane did not experience the effects that they did? Are we to take your words over those of experienced fighter and test pilots? And your experience as a fighter or a test pilot is exactly, what? And your experience in piloting an A6M is exactly, what?

Again, what can you offer that would be counter to all that has been posted here besides whines of "can, too; can, too." In case you haven't noticed, most folks around here can back up what they say. You singularly fail to do so.

And do you have any evidence to offer to the contrary on the F6F, F4U, and FM credits in the last year of the war? And your source for that evidence is, what? Oh, just your opinion? Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Your one-liners have become indicative of a lack of real research and some pretty shallow thinking. Suggest you leave off with the popular histories and move on to something with a little more depth. Also suggest you look a little further in to the concept of flight altogether, as there are, from your writings, some obvious basic fundamantal misconceptions on your part. When you can present something with some meat to it and not just your throw away lines maybe people will give your theories a little more credence. In the meantime, as long as you write like some freshman who's never been challenged you will continue to receive short shrift.

So call names and throw your darts. Makes no difference. You can't support your arguments. Must be truly fulfilling to stand alone in the face of the evidence and decry all as wrong. No, my friend, it is you who is wrong. Welcome to the real world where people who make bald statements as fact must learn to provide the evidence of their convictions. End of story.

 

[Soren]

What do you need sources on ?? You continuesly talk about sources, however you never specify what it is you need !!

You can find millions of reports out there, and alot of them will be contradict each other ! So reports have almost no merit. The british claimed their Spitfire could outtun a 109 at any speed, but was that true "NO".

I have NO pilot experience in a A6M Zero, and i probably never will. I do fly myself though, and no i didnt say anything about flight that doesnt add up, you have simply missunderstood me.

Anyway im glad that you do not use name-calling or the likes as a defense, as that shows your a man of age and knowledge and that you know better than that.

However you continuesly implied that the Zero couldnt Roll at all over 300mph, wich isnt true at all. And i would like to know where you got that impression from.

 

[plan_D]

Just leave it Rich, he'll start lowering your IQ eventually.

 

[R Leonard]

Rich, Roger, Out.

 

[Soren]

 

[cheddar cheese]

Hee hee this was a funny conversation

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes it is rather.........

 

[CharlesBronson]

Short clips of Corsair vs japanese aircraft.

 

[P51ace 16]

Hey ive been trying to get in on this conversation for days now is anyone on any more or are we still angry.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Why have you stole my avatar?

 

[Soren]

He obviously didn't read the part about Spitfires, A6Ms, and loops at high speed.

Hmm... There's only one Zero vs Spitfire test that im aware of.

Fact is the Zero's loop and turning radius would always be tighter than the Spitfire's at 'ANY' speed, as long as it was below 15,000ft .

So now i ask you, "At what altitude did the Spitfire make a tighter loop than the Zero ?"

I can tell you this much, "Above 16,000ft the Zero wouldnt be maneuverable at all " And at 17,000ft it would be as maneuverable as a Bomber !

So since i can't remember the test with the Zero and the Spitfire that well (I have it available though), i ask you at wich altitude did this test accure !?

 

[evangilder]

Funny you should mention this. I had a conversation with Steve Barber yesterday, who happens to fly one of the 2 surviving flyable Zeroes. His direct quote was, below 10,000 feet and below 250 MPH nothing could out-turn the zero. Above these two, no way. His direct quote was that above 250 MPH, the ailerons are like concrete. He also stated that you would be pretty hard pressed to do over 300 knots on the Zero because of the thickness of the wing chord. This is coming from a guy that regularly flies the zero.

 

[Soren]

Funny you should mention this. I had a conversation with Steve Barber yesterday, who happens to fly one of the 2 surviving flyable Zeroes. His direct quote was, below 10,000 feet and below 250 MPH nothing could out-turn the zero. Above these two, no way. His direct quote was that above 250 MPH, the ailerons are like concrete. He also stated that you would be pretty hard pressed to do over 300 knots on the Zero because of the thickness of the wing chord. This is coming from a guy that regularly flies the zero.

Oh you did ? Well i think you should ask him again then because:

The roll rate of the Zeke was the same as the Typhoons at 300mph IAS, ~42-43 deg/sec at 10,000ft.

At 340mph IAS, the roll rate was 35deg/sec. At that rate, over 10 seconds for a 360, it would classed as a 'slow roll' during show aerobatics.

NACA report 868.

He should know this

 

[evangilder]

Ask him again? This man has hundreds of hours in that airplane! Have you flown the Zero? It is very nimble at below 10,000 and below 250 MPH, above that, you have a very difficult, if not impossible aircraft to roll into a turn. Remember that IAS can be quite different from actual air speed.