Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's just ridiculously insane. Absolutely no one thinks that...Then you are purposely being obtuse about it. The point of the post, and why it is not over exaggeration is because for many people there was no other aircraft fighting the Germans. That is why many consider it overrated. Not because of it's abilities or performance, or it's contribution.
I made that very clear. Now if you just want to argue...
I actually don't - and i can see there is a lot. I have already learned a great deal here and did so even before I joined - it's why i joined.
But I have read these forums for years and seen many of the same cliches and tropes repeated over and over, I've seen some people so invested in the ideology or propaganda of one side or the other that they let that cloud their opinions. I have read through some farcical debates on here when newly emerging data doesn't match peoples cherished beliefs. I read an old one last night about some action between the the Ta 152 vs Tempest. Data was fascinating, the subsequent debate was a bit disappointing.
I can tell I am ruffling some feathers right now, so be it. You are a mod, it's not my forum, if you don't want me here ban me. I may not agree with the consensus on some things like how crappy the A6M was and how Uber the 109 was, but I think I have something to offer regardless. I've tried to post some useful data and been careful in writing my posts. That's the best I can do brother.
S
That's just ridiculously insane. Absolutely no one thinks that...
I'm not going to ban you, why would I. I just want you to tone it down...
Sorry, I disagree. I spend A LOT of time in aviation circles and even the most uninformed know better than this...Then you are blind to it, sorry. It happens all over the internet. Even here from time to time. Not so much with informed knowledgable people like most of the members here.
I kind of agree and kind of disagree. In terms of performance, it wasn't the best in any category except for range (and sometimes speed), but it was near the top in all categories. Whether it was a better dogfighter or not against the Germans depended a lot on which variations of each plane you're comparing. In some comparisons it was better, in some it wasn't as good. But our pilot's training, and a dwindling of experienced German pilots favored the Mustang drivers...I think the P-51 is considered to be over rated by some as a lot of people (not necessarily on this forum) consider it the best at everything when in fact in most areas it was good to adequate. What makes it a great aircraft is that it was good to adequate over Berlin.
It wasn't a better dogfighter than the Germans but it was a good enough dogfighter that it could hold its own when it had to and meant that there was nowhere the bombers couldn't go where they didn't have an escort.
Sorry, I disagree. I spend A LOT of time in aviation circles and even the most uninformed know better than this...
I kind of agree and kind of disagree. In terms of performance, it wasn't the best in any category except for range (and sometimes speed), but it was near the top in all categories. Whether it was a better dogfighter or not against the Germans depended a lot on which variations of each plane you're comparing. In some comparisons it was better, in some it wasn't as good. But our pilot's training, and a dwindling of experienced German pilots favored the Mustang drivers...
You forgot Best Trainer !!I think everyone agrees it is one of the greatest aircraft ever built, but feel it is overrated because people put it on such a high pedestal that they forget there were many great planes contributing to the defeat of Germany.
You would think:
Best Fighter: P-51
Best Transport: P-51
Best Bomber: P-51
Best Seaplane: P-51
You get my drift...
I get the gist, but I don't think that the phenomenal range of the Zero especially and specifically as compared to the Spitfire or the Bf 109, suddenly drops 90% if they have to pick up their cruising speed to max continuous for part of the flight. When they brought Spit Vs to Australia they had major problems with them due to range - in spite of the luxury of being able to fly over water. The difference in reach was striking between the Spit and the Zero in that Theater, just as it would in any other.
I don't know precisely how much the range would be reduced but I have seena min-max on range for the A6M2 of 1,600 to 1,900 miles. I assume that difference probably has something to do with the cruise speed. I do not believe as Shortround was suggesting that the range of the Zero would drop down to that of the Spitfire if they increased the cruise speed a bit. I think that is spurious logic - and "reaching" quite consciously.
As I also noted previously, they could use that phenomenal range to loop out into the Atlantic and attack from unexpected (and less protected) directions such as from the Bay of Biscay.
Nor do I think carrying a drop tank would be problematic. It wasn't problematic for P-51s, P-47s, P-38s and so on flying over Europe. You use the fuel for climbing up to altitude and forming up and everything from the drop-tank. Again, spurious and disingenuous.
talk about spurious and disingenuous. a Spitfire had a range slightly over 400 miles and that included a warm-up and take-off allowance and no external tank.The bottom line is it's a fact that the A6M2 had 5 times the range of a Spitfire, substantially longer even than the P-38, no matter how you slice it - if one has to slow down to raid France or Belgium, than so does the other. And range does confer a Tactical as well as Strategic or Operational advantage.
When they brought Spit Vs to Australia they had major problems with them due to range - in spite of the luxury of being able to fly over water. The difference in reach was striking between the Spit and the Zero in that Theater, just as it would in any other.
Sorry, I don't know. All what I know on the RAAF mission is from the Wildcat's message. IIRC the info on the 131 Sqn La Pallice mission is from one of Price's Spitfire books. All I can say that the Pilot's Notes for Spit VII and VIII says that for max range fly 170 mph IAS using 1,800 rpm and adjust the throttle to give the recommended speed, but do not exceed +7lb./sq.in. boost. Max obtained air miles was 7 AMPG, that was true at all heights from 10,000 to 25,000 ft and for Merlins 63 and 64. The notes says that the info for Merlin 66 and 71 will be given when available. Of course gallons are ImpG. Internal fuel load was 122 gal.Interesting stuff. Do you happen to know the altitude and speed of the Spits during these escort missions?
This shows an initial rate of climb for the Zero of 3,410ft/min and a time to 20,000ft in 6.84 minutes at military power. At rated (normal) power, the initial climb rate was 2,785ft/min and time to 20,000ft was 8.11 minutes.
Military power was at 2,600rpm and 40inHg MAP, normal power was 2,400rpm and 36inHg MAP. [Note that the critical altitudes for Military power was 6,100ft and 15,700ft and for normal power was 7,800ft and 15,500ft.]
This shows a maximum climb between 10,000ft and 15,000ft of 2,690ft/min (thought it actually says ft/s) at an IAS of 130mph.
And this report on an A6M2 shows an initial climb of 2,710ft/min.
Note that on a long range escort mission there would be little need for a climb at military power.
I have my doubts about 5600lbs with a full drop tank.
87 gallons at 6lbs per gallon is 522lbs.
Sorry, I don't know. All what I know on the RAAF mission is from the Wildcat's message. IIRC the info on the 131 Sqn La Pallice mission is from one of Price's Spitfire books. All I can say that the Pilot's Notes for Spit VII and VIII says that for max range fly 170 mph IAS using 1,800 rpm and adjust the throttle to give the recommended speed, but do not exceed +7lb./sq.in. boost. Max obtained air miles was 7 AMPG, that was true at all heights from 10,000 to 25,000 ft and for Merlins 63 and 64. The notes says that the info for Merlin 66 and 71 will be given when available. Of course gallons are ImpG. Internal fuel load was 122 gal.
The F6F won the second Battle of the Philippines.