billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
oops
should be okay now.
Bill
should be okay now.
Bill
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
i read the Francillon article it's sure informative but need to know that the comparisons in the end are with A6M2 (and the zero ever flying at the nominal power (and with a bit error in the setting).
the wep power in the table it's not the wep power but the nominal power, and probably the speed indicated are at the nominal power.
for the soviet pilots interviews i already knew one (shorter) they are informative but they are of the pilots point of view.
I can't seem to locate any evidences that validates what you are suggesting.
There are several more articles posted that publish similar figures.
saying words like "probably" and drawing conclusions outside of what the report shows requires more proof.
For example. I provided Russian interviews that correlate that the P-39 was not decisively faster than the P-40,
Both of these pilots flew these planes in combat for a number of missions. Its a pretty safe call to say that this particular element of their experience has some merit.
The Zero appears to be tested under proper conditions, unless you can site the page and paragraph that suggests it wasn't, your claim is empty.
I'm very interested in knowing more about the A6m3, but i'm not able to locate any other speed information other than dive limits. If you have sources that can validate your claims please share.
thanks
Bill
intelligence summary 85 (A6M2) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf
It very clearly says that speeds are not adjusted for compressibility, so i'm not sure i can conclude anything about the M2's speed from this alone.23rd october '42 test (A6M2) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf
28th march '44 test (A6M3) Hamp Performance Test
sakae nominal TO power and power setting http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/data-base-japanese-aircraft-engines-19466-2.html
thanks Vincenczo
The magazine article appears to match the descriptions of this report almost word for word. There is nothing here that suggests it is not an A6m3, it just makes reference to a Type Zero mk1 model 2.
Further description of the aircraft is found in Intelligence summary no59. That would probably tell us more about the plane and if it was indeed an A6m3 or A6m2.
It very clearly says that speeds are not adjusted for compressibility, so i'm not sure i can conclude anything about the M2's speed from this alone.
This describes the aircraft as a Japanese Mitsubishi Type 0 MK2 using the Nakajima Sakae 21 which is what the a6m3 used.
The performance figures here appear to be a little slower than what the magazine published, perhaps because of engine/rpm settings.
6th february '43 test (A6M2) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/p5016.pdf
again, it shows the a6m2 max speeds under 300mph. Barring instrumentation error, i don't see how this helps prove your point.
I need help with this one, particularly the power settings and how they differ from what was mentioned in the magazine.
"1130 hp at take off, 1100 wep at 2850m"
thanks again
Bill
i hope you're not serious, mk I model 2 it's a A6M2
Agreed, but what speeds do your tests show for the A6m3?i never take a allied test for performance on axis planes this was for show that power setting of the engine was not correct.
not instrumental error the engine go only 2050 rpm so again trouble with engine or incorrect setting
the francillon article give 1100 wep at 2850 but for sakae 21 1100 at 2850 was nominal power (you can read on table in the this forum thread i've linked)so again missinterpretation of engine capability
I would like to know how you can tell, because that classification does not turn up any results.
Pluss the report also mentions IS no 59 which would tell more about the aircraft and engine type.
Its not to say it couldn't be an A6m2, but when you have conflicting sources i don't think assumptions can be made.
Agreed, but what speeds do your tests show for the A6m3?
They look to be slower than 336mph, as explained by the lower power settings.
Well, the confusion is the translation of the terms used by the Japanese, not the outputs.
The US has different power settings, continuous, military, and max. It does not appear that the Japanese made those distinctions, simply that they listed a "nominal power" setting that looks to be the equivalent of a max power setting.
I can look at take off power which is listed at 1130 hp at 300mm boost, and whats listed as "nominal power in the air" at 1100hp with 200mm boost at 2850m altitude.
If you aren't convinced these are max power settings for the A6m3, then show me the max power settings.
They should be listed, right? or do you have another document that shows a higher manifold setting beyond whats listed here?
That should be listed somewhere if not on the chart you've provided.
Otherwise, its just another assumption that needs to be validated.
Bill
I'm sorry Bill but i think you've no intention to go to true only to do propaganda
it's well knew, if you don't know it's your trouble, that intelligenge summary 59 85 came to so told Akutan Zero that it's a A6M2
The No. 85 report is definitely about the 'Akutan Zero'. Many other sources attest that trials of that a/c v various US ones were published at that time. So it was a 零式艦上戦闘機二一型, Zero Type Carrier Fighter21 Model, or some abbreviation of that, is how it would almost always be written in Japanese, and some variation of that on the a/c's namplate. 'A6M2' is also a Japanese designation, the so called short system, but much less commonly used, though elegant and natural for English speakers to use. This a/c would have been correctly called Zeke 21 under the Allied codename system. Some Japanese equipment was known was 'type' 'mark' 'mod' series of numbers but 'Type Zero Mark 1 Carrier Fighter Model 2' is just a mistake. It's 100% certain this a/c was a Zero Model 21, ie A6M2.I was not able to find that intelligence summary no 59. The only reason why i ask is because we have conflicting sources.
. This a/c would have been correctly called Zeke 21 under the Allied codename system. Some Japanese equipment was known was 'type' 'mark' 'mod' series of numbers but 'Type Zero Mark 1 Carrier Fighter Model 2' is just a mistake.
AFAIK it's fairly well established that Japanese official numbers tended to be conservative, so the most likely top speed (of well maintained a/c in good condition, of course) was probably at least equal to the official numbers of ~331mph for Zero Model 21, 338 for the Model 32.
Joe
Also these are land based fighters and the Ki44 would be a significant risk to the P39/P40, strong, fast, well armed and good in a dive.