Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You missed the part that said at low speed, what 1945 fighter pilot flying a Spit XIV P47D P51D capable of doing over 400mph would get into a turning fight with a Zero under 200mph?
The Pacific war was 8 days short of 6 months old at on May 29 and those early P-38s were notorious hangar queens. The A6M series never had that reputation and had been in combat with the AVG in China long before Pearl Harbour and had destroyed hundreds of USAAF aircraft before 9 August 1942.[/B]
The A6M had been in combat in China long before Pearl Harbor but it had NOT been in combat with the AVG. The AVG's first combat occurred on 20 Dec 1941. In fact, the AVG never encountered the A6M in combat.
As someone else suggested earlier to another poster, I would suggest you spend a few dollars and shout yourself some flying lessons or maybe a hard ride in an aerobatic aircraft and see for yourself how fast speed decays once you leave the straight and level and start pulling even moderate Gs.
Clogging up a different forum with our inane drivel? Perhaps one dedicated to piano-playing cats?
Did I just hear the pot call the kettle black? See that lump in buffnut's cheek? That's his tongue, man. Not everybody is deathly serious all the time. Oops, like I'm being right now. Here, please hold the reins while I dismount. Got a mounting step handy? It's a long way down from up here!And your experience flying WW2 combat aircraft is exactly the same as the rest of us so step down from your high horse.
Or a low speed turning fight with a Cessna Acrobat in your T34. Same dynamic, smaller scale, lighter G loads. "Know thine enemy!"Or maybe I will take advice from one of the members on here who is a fighter pilot and not fight to my enemy's strength, as an example, getting into a low speed turning fight with a Zero.
And your experience flying WW2 combat aircraft is exactly the same as the rest of us so step down from your high horse.
If only we had been in charge, things would have been different.No high horse here, mate, which is why I said "our inane drivel". Those who lack our fascination with aviation history tend to look on, with pitying shakes of the head, at the detail we cite in our discussions. To many non-aviationists, our discussions are, at best, boring and, at worst, pointless, inane drivel.
Did I just hear the pot call the kettle black? See that lump in buffnut's cheek? That's his tongue, man. Not everybody is deathly serious all the time. Oops, like I'm being right now. Here, please hold the reins while I dismount. Got a mounting step handy? It's a long way down from up here!
Cheers,
Wes
If only we had been in charge, things would have been different.
I agree that the Spitfire was EVENTUALLY developed as far as it could practically be taken, but the types that did almost all the heavy lifting during the war years were "interim" types. Models knowingly lacking features and refinements were thrust into service for fear of leaving a gap.
In another universe, as was stated on this thread previously, the Mk.III would have followed the BOB era Mk.II's, and to be superseded by the Mk.VIII. I am not sure what development model the Mk.XIV was an interim for, perhaps the Mk.XVIII or 21? If the UK had the breathing room available, perhaps the Mk.V developmental "low point" and subsequent performance deficit wouldn't have happened
Quite likely a torsional rigidity issue with the Zero's light weight construction. Deflecting an aileron forcefully at high speed has been sometimes known to actually twist a wing, changing its AOA at the tip, with unpleasant results.Fortunately for us the Japanese never fixed the high stick forces at high speed problem.
I thought the Zero couldn't roll because the ailerons were too big for the pilot to move at high speed? Pilot simply didn't have the strength to move them at high speed? But they were awesome at low speed.Quite likely a torsional rigidity issue with the Zero's light weight construction. Deflecting an aileron forcefully at high speed has been sometimes known to actually twist a wing, changing its AOA at the tip, with unpleasant results.
Cheers,
Wes
That is correct, but somebody mentioned "boosting" them with a servo tab, a relatively simple solution and one Horikoshi Jiro would surely have adopted if it didn't have drawbacks. I was speculating about possible drawbacks.I thought the Zero couldn't roll because the ailerons were too big for the pilot to move at high speed? Pilot simply didn't have the strength to move them at high speed? But they were awesome at low speed.
If that's not right please correct me.
Which is why the Spit had durability issues when adapted to carrier ops.When you compare the A6M with American aircraft (except the P-39 rear fuselage) the difference is huge but when compared to the Spitfire fuselage the skins and structure are similar, except over the fuel tank where the Spitfire has a heavy skin but no structure. The Spitfire wing has a massive leading edge skin by anyone's standards but behind the spar it is again similar to the A6M series.
With three main differences that affect seaborne durability.when compared to the Spitfire fuselage the skins and structure are similar
I would also add a bouncy undercarriage not corrected until the Seafire XVII.With three main differences that affect seaborne durability.
1) Lighter weight of the Zero meant slower landing speeds and softer touchdowns.
2) The round, conical fuselage shape of the Zero gave greater resistance to buckling than the oval cross section of the Spit, especially with regard to lateral loads.
3) The narrow landing gear of the Spit encouraged more tipping and swerving under arrestment, imposing more lateral loads on the after fuselage.
Cheers,
Wes
Or you could look at it as two highly touted fighters that evolved to a great extent in their lifetimes vs one who didn't didn't change all that much. Or you could rate them by the size of their fan clubs. Or by their kill counts, or by their appearances in popular media, or....ad infinitum.This thread is noteworthy as it compares two short-ranged European land-based fighters to a long-ranged naval fighter, akin to comparing a Grumman F6F Hellcat to a Lavochkin La-7. Two very different roles and aircraft requirements. Perhaps the more apt comparison with the Zero is the Seafire or Firefly.