SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Aw c'mon, let me remain iggerant and let me imagine Super Bugs doing beam defense maneuvers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"Thatch" was from post #1,232...Is that the same thing as a Thach Weave? Or perhaps it's a new form of baldness treatment for the discerning gentleman?
4 Zeros and 1 KI43 shot down vs 28 Spitfies shot down (this doesn't include at least 10 Spitfires that were run out of fuel over their own territory by Zeroes flying 500 miles 1 way) I'd say a Zero pilots chance of survival was excellent as long as he was fighting Spitfires.At the expense of 200mph+ maneuverability, ruggedness, protection, communication and any hope of pilot survival.
Comparing the AIRCRAFT, the Spits operated by the RAAF were far superior. TACTICS and pilot skill came into play. Why don't you use the same rationale 19–20 June 1944?4 Zeros and 1 KI43 shot down vs 28 Spitfies shot down (this doesn't include at least 10 Spitfires that were run out of fuel over their own territory by Zeroes flying 500 miles 1 way) I'd say a Zero pilots chance of survival was excellent as long as he was fighting Spitfires.
A Zeros ailerons didn't stiffen up until 300 mph, not barely over 200, and according to the Zero vs Spitfire test at the first of this thread the Spitfire could BARELY out roll a Zero at high speed.
5 wins vs 28 losses. Could someone please name a sports team who's coach wouldn't get fired with such a dismal record?
Who would put a wager on a boxer, mma fighter, tennis player etc that had a 5 win 28 loss record against the opponent they were about to face?
The Spitfire was on the receiving end of a 1 sided, curb stomping beat down by the Zero, end of story.
I continue to be amazed and perplexed by this thread.
Because they can do the "Thatch" Weave?
I just read that somewhere on the internet, so it must be true...
Comparing the AIRCRAFT, the Spits operated by the RAAF were far superior. TACTICS and pilot skill came into play. Why don't you use the same rationale 19–20 June 1944?
Well you can disagree all you want, you're actually cherry picking. Take the filter off and enter combat "boom and zoom" and see what happens. The MkV was some 30 MPH faster than the A6M2 and wasn't hampered by high stick forces at high speeds. The beating the RAAF took over Darwin in May 43' was soon rectified once new tactics were established. The biggest factor here was tactics and pilot skill.I have to disagree with you on that Flyboy. Spitfires based in Europe I would probably agree, but the Spitfire V with the filter used in Australia was most definitely not far superior. I don't have time to post the whole test but here are quotes from the 2 test pilots that flew the Spitfire and Hap in the test. The Spitfires tail was bent 9 degrees during the trial
Take that air filter off and that updraft carb on the Spitfire will fill that Merlin full of dirt on every trip down that unpaved Australian runway. A trip or 2 like that and you won't have to wait until a Zero shoots you down your motor is going to blow up by itself.Well you can disagree all you want, you're actually cherry picking. Take the filter off and enter combat "boom and zoom" and see what happens. The MkV was some 30 MPH faster than the A6M2 and wasn't hampered by high stick forces at high speeds. The beating the RAAF took over Darwin in May 43' was soon rectified once new tactics were established. The biggest factor here was tactics and pilot skill.
Sorry, that part of the story is a bit exaggerated and the filters probably did more harm than good and if you read the complete references I posted it shows how these "inferior Spitfires" (and green pilots) were eventually able to stop the Japanese.Take that air filter off and that updraft carb on the Spitfire will fill that Merlin full of dirt on every trip down that unpaved Australian runway. A trip or 2 like that and you won't have to wait until a Zero shoots you down your motor is going to blow up by itself.
The Spitfire HAD to have that filter to survive in that environment. The Zero, P40, Wildcat etc were better aircraft in THAT environment.
The Zero was designed to fight in a WWI scenario.Not quite…
The Zero being far superior is a myth, almost as bad as anything built by the Germans was a Wunderwaffe.
The Zero had superior performance initially at lower speeds. By 1943 it was being eclipsed by allied aircraft. Additionally, the Zero sacrificed armor and armament for that initial performance boost.
The Zero was a formidable aircraft throughout the entire wire, but lets not paint it as a far superior aircraft.
Maybe you should look at all the facts, the Spit V's used over Darwin were worn out aero planes running 9 PSI boost Merlin 46"s, of the 26 spits shot down 19 were lost when they were attacking the bombers, their primary target, 5 were shot down in one engagement when both the top cover squadron and attacking squadron both dived on the bombers via a communication problem and were bounced, only 6 of the 96 pilots who flew over Darwin had ever been in combat. You would not be amazed if you read the facts.4 Zeros and 1 KI43 shot down vs 28 Spitfies shot down (this doesn't include at least 10 Spitfires that were run out of fuel over their own territory by Zeroes flying 500 miles 1 way) I'd say a Zero pilots chance of survival was excellent as long as he was fighting Spitfires.
A Zeros ailerons didn't stiffen up until 300 mph, not barely over 200, and according to the Zero vs Spitfire test at the first of this thread the Spitfire could BARELY out roll a Zero at high speed.
5 wins vs 28 losses. Could someone please name a sports team who's coach wouldn't get fired with such a dismal record?
Who would put a wager on a boxer, mma fighter, tennis player etc that had a 5 win 28 loss record against the opponent they were about to face?
The Spitfire was on the receiving end of a 1 sided, curb stomping beat down by the Zero, end of story.
I continue to be amazed and perplexed by this thread.
Both the Me109 and P40 were made with tropical filters, the P40's by Vokes, what did the Japanese know that the British Germans and Americans didn't?.Take that air filter off and that updraft carb on the Spitfire will fill that Merlin full of dirt on every trip down that unpaved Australian runway. A trip or 2 like that and you won't have to wait until a Zero shoots you down your motor is going to blow up by itself.
The Spitfire HAD to have that filter to survive in that environment. The Zero, P40, Wildcat etc were better aircraft in THAT environment.
Both the Me109 and P40 were made with tropical filters, the P40's by Vokes, what did the Japanese know that the British Germans and Americans didn't?.
So if the Zero was based in Darwin or the middle East it would need a tropical filter, like the Spitfire, 109, P40 and every other plane.Japanese aircraft that flew from SE Asian air bases against Darwin didn't needed the filters in the 1st place.
I'll read that tomorrow. ISorry, that part of the story is a bit exaggerated and the filters probably did more harm than good and if you read the complete references I posted it shows how these "inferior Spitfires" were able to stop the Japanese.
They probably had the intake on top of the cowling where there isn't as much dust. The Wildcat didn't have a dust filter, neither did the P47 or P38.Both the Me109 and P40 were made with tropical filters, the P40's by Vokes, what did the Japanese know that the British Germans and Americans didn't?.
No, the Zero air intake was up high out of the dust. Did ALL P40's have a filter or only the Merlin powered P40's?So if the Zero was based in Darwin or the middle East it would need a tropical filter, like the Spitfire, 109, P40 and every other plane.