Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well you better check both sources because that data was not necessarily put together by the operator or pilots. You're going to learn that there's a lot of data and books out there written by people with a limited aviation background or Wikipedia that gets some things very wrong. Flight test reports and the actual flight manuals for some of the best sources of information.Data from The Complete Book of Fighters the Macchi had 2 20mm
i could probably find the source but Wikipedia says 20m/s(3,900 ft per second)
but you can also but it together from your lesson about wing lift it had a big wing area plus it had hydraulic flaps and an elliptical wing and good air foilWell you better check both sources because that data was not necessarily put together by the operator or pilots. You're going to learn that there's a lot of data and books out there written by people with a limited aviation background or Wikipedia that gets some things very wrong. Flight test reports and the actual flight manuals for some of the best sources of information.
what is not clear?
i did a couple of chats upThis is worse than the great P-39 debate, and it hasn't even gotten very far by comparison.
Paolo, if you want to make a claim, don't use "insane" or "much better," post the value you are using from a performance report. It is not very factual to compare something like 1,000 m per minute to "insane climb rate." So, please use the numbers. Nobody cares much if you use feet or metres, but use the real numbers. We can all convert from one unit to another one.
paolo i think corsning just reported the italian evaluation of the prototypes (with the 205 Orione variant)what is not clear?
Hydraulic flaps are not quick movers, they take time to move up or down unless the hydraulic system is really high pressure. Again, look at the wing loading of the Zero and look up what they were for your Italian fightersbut you can also but it together from your lesson about wing lift it had a big wing area plus it had hydraulic flaps and an elliptical wing and good air foil
Data from The Complete Book of Fighters
202.9 kg/m^2 for the c.205Hydraulic flaps are not quick movers, they take time to move up or down unless the hydraulic system is really high pressure. Again, look at the wing loading of the Zero and look up what they were for your Italian fighters
41.6 lb/sq ft202.9 kg/m^2 for the c.205
I don't use freedom units I use metric41.6 lb/sq ft
The Zero's wing loading is 22.0 lb/sq ft. So what do you think that tells you?
thanks for the math but I already admitted it doesn't turn as well but it has other qualitiesMaximum level speeds km/h - mph:
Mitsubishi A6M5a (Aeronautica-Macchi C.205V)
S.L.......475 - 295
1km....497 - 309
2km....520 - 323 (550 - 342)
3km....539 - 335
4km....534 - 332 (581 - 361)
5km....542 - 337
6km....563 - 350 (595 - 370)
7km....571 - 355
8km....547 - 340
9km....528 - 328
10km.486 - 302
Maximums:
A6M5a: 576kph/6,705m - 358mph/22,000ft
M.C.205V M.M.98215: 642kph/6,895m. - 399/22,621ft
M.C.205V M.M.9487: 650.5/7,400m - 404.2mph/24,278ft
All information I post on the A6M5 comes from TAIC 102D report.
All information I post on the M.C.205V comes from tests of aircraft Number M.M.98215
unless noted different.
Climb: A6M5a (M.C.205V)
Meters/sec. - FPM/Time to altitude.
S.L......15.951 - 3140
1km...15.951 - 3140/-1.2 (18.939 - 3728avg/.88)
2km...16.383 - 3225/-2.2
3km...15.697 - 3090/-3.4 (18.725 - 3686avg/2.66)
4km...13.310 - 2620/-4.7
5km...13.310 - 2620/-6.1 (20.066 - 3950avg/4.78)
6km...13.310 - 2620/-7.3
7km...11.304 - 2225/-9.1 (14.366 - 2828avg/7.1)
8km......8.255 - 1625/11.4
9km......5.461 - 1075/13.9
Service Ceiling (.508m/sec - 100 fpm)
A6M5a: 10,668m - 35,000ft
M.C.205V: 11,000m - 36,090ft
Armament:
A6M5: 2 x 13.2mm/? + 2 x 20mm/125rpg
M.C.205V: 12.7mm/370rpg + 2 x 20/250rpg.
Engine:
A6M5: Nakajima Sakae Model 21: 1,227ps - 1,210hp
M.C.205V: Fiat R.A.1040 RC58: 1,350ps - 1,332hp./2,650rpm, 1,475ps - 1,455hp/2,800rpm
Combat Weights:
A6M5: 2,733 kg. - 6,026 lb.
M.C.205V: 3,408kg. - 7,513 lb.
Power Loading:
A6M5: 2.227kg./ps. - 4.980lb./hp.
M.C.205V: 2.524kg./ps. - 5.640lb./hp. @ 2,650rpm, 2.3105kg./ps - 5.164lb./hp.
Wing Area:
A6M5: 21.308 sq. m. - 229.27 sq. ft.
M.C.205V: 16.807 sq. m. - 180.84 sq. ft.
Wing Loading:
A6M5: 128.262 kg./sq. m. - 26.28 lb./sq. ft.
M.C.205V: 202.773 kg./sq. m. - 41.55 lb./sq. ft.
Turn times:
A6M5: 17.0 sec./4,000m.
M.C.205V: 19.5 sec./4,000m.
True but what about energy fighting? Boom and zoom.Whether you use English units or not, you can see that 22 lbs/ sq ft (107.4 kg/m2) is just more than half of the 41.6 lbs/sq ft for the M.C. 205. So, the A6M is WAY more maneuverable than the M.C. 205.
In combat, it would mean that the A6M would likely be much better at speeds below about 280 mph (450 km/h) and the M.C. 205 would come into its own at speeds above about 300 mph (483 km/h). So, if the fight is fast, the M.C. 205 would be a better choice and if the fight is slow, the A6M would be a better choice. It likely comes down to what they were doing and how fast they were going when combat was joined.
Typically, a wing loading of half the opposition means that lighter wing loaded aircraft could likely get on the tail of the heavier wing loaded aircraft within 2 turns or better, from comparative testing that went on during the war, especially with the A6M Zero.