Rising Sun warbirds

syscom3 · Aug 10, 2005

Thats an easy fix to do. The main issue is if the flight sims closely match the flight charachteristics of the real aircraft. In most cases, they do.

evangilder · Aug 10, 2005

But you can't simulate the feel of the aircraft. Some things are more subtle than others.

syscom3 · Aug 10, 2005

well i guess you couldnt be satisfied no matter what.

If you dont think the simulators are 100% effective, dont bother with them.

Bye the way, how would you know what an Me-110 in a stall feels like? you ever experienced it?

The Jug Rules! · Aug 10, 2005

Of course it could stall, I was just exaggerating the fact that I could turn tightly at high speed without the aircraft showing any tendency to stall.

FLYBOYJ · Aug 10, 2005

syscom3 said:
Bye the way, how would you know what an Me-110 in a stall feels like? you ever experienced it?

No, but I could tell you what one feels like a Cub or a Cessna 150 - a lot more violent than 110......

evangilder · Aug 10, 2005

syscom3 said:
well i guess you couldnt be satisfied no matter what.

If you dont think the simulators are 100% effective, dont bother with them.

Bye the way, how would you know what an Me-110 in a stall feels like? you ever experienced it?

Don't get me wrong, there are some that are great. BUt the point is that there are some things that can not be simulated. Some of the aircraft in the simulators are a best guess based on who knows what, especially with aircraft that were one of a kind.

What I am saying is that you cannot completely base how an aircraft performs solely on what you experience in a flight simulator on a computer.

cheddar cheese · Aug 10, 2005

Im looking for a Grob Tutor to download for FS2004 so that when I go up in one ill have a better idea than most of its layout. I should also do the tutorials on how to fly with the instruments...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Aug 10, 2005

syscom3 said:
4 to 1 in favor of the F4F
- from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
8 to 1 in favor of the P-38
- Only a couple of planes were lost to the P38. Most P38 squadrons werent into the thick of things untill early 1943
3 to 1 in favor of the P-40 (excluding the AVG)
- from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
10 to 1 in favor of the F4U
- Irrelevant cause the F4U wasnt in combat untill summer 1943
19 to 1 in favor of the F6F
- Irrelevant cause the F6F wasnt in combat untill early 1943

"If the Zero was so good then why did they lose all there good pilots in it then by 1942 since you say they had no good pilots and why did they lose them all to "inferior aircraft"? I just dont buy this. "
Every AF has attrition rates. The Japanese were even worse than the Germans in a pilot training program, and eventually as the pilots were shot down or incapacitated from the tropical diseases, they lost most of their experienced pilots. If you read my posts, I said for the first year of the airwar, the Zero was a great fighter.

Jan 1943 was the tipping point for the airwar. The Zero had a good run against the first generation of allied aircraft (just like the Germans had a good run against the Russians in 1941). But after the fall of Guadalcanal, the Japanese were running low on experienced pilots and were soon to go up against hordes of superior American planes.

Hello the only reason the Zero was good at first is because it was unknown by the allies. They did not know how to counter it. As you said after 1942 the rate was higher for the allies and you know why because the Zero was not very good!

syscom3 said:
well i guess you couldnt be satisfied no matter what.

If you dont think the simulators are 100% effective, dont bother with them.

Bye the way, how would you know what an Me-110 in a stall feels like? you ever experienced it?

No matter how well a flight simulater models an aircraft flight characteristics you will never get the full effect of an aircraft. There are just too many variables that a home bought computer simulator for you home PC can not simulate. Flying the real deal is totally different.

FLYBOYJ · Aug 10, 2005

cheddar cheese said:
Im looking for a Grob Tutor to download for FS2004 so that when I go up in one ill have a better idea than most of its layout. I should also do the tutorials on how to fly with the instruments...

CC - Great Idea! PM me when if you find a download, i could give you some info!

R Leonard · Aug 10, 2005

syscom3 wrote:
4 to 1 in favor of the F4F
- from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
8 to 1 in favor of the P-38
- Only a couple of planes were lost to the P38. Most P38 squadrons werent into the thick of things untill early 1943
3 to 1 in favor of the P-40 (excluding the AVG)
- from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
10 to 1 in favor of the F4U
- Irrelevant cause the F4U wasnt in combat untill summer 1943
19 to 1 in favor of the F6F
- Irrelevant cause the F6F wasnt in combat untill early 1943

"If the Zero was so good then why did they lose all there good pilots in it then by 1942 since you say they had no good pilots and why did they lose them all to "inferior aircraft"? I just dont buy this. "
Every AF has attrition rates. The Japanese were even worse than the Germans in a pilot training program, and eventually as the pilots were shot down or incapacitated from the tropical diseases, they lost most of their experienced pilots. If you read my posts, I said for the first year of the airwar, the Zero was a great fighter.

Jan 1943 was the tipping point for the airwar. The Zero had a good run against the first generation of allied aircraft (just like the Germans had a good run against the Russians in 1941). But after the fall of Guadalcanal, the Japanese were running low on experienced pilots and were soon to go up against hordes of superior American planes.

DerAdlerIstGelandet wrote:
Hello the only reason the Zero was good at first is because it was unknown by the allies. They did not know how to counter it. As you said after 1942 the rate was higher for the allies and you know why because the Zero was not very good!

Click to expand...

The obvious question is that if the Zero was so good how come the best it could do against such purported inferiors such as the F4F was one to one?

I'd also note that for the first six months of the war, through the Battle of Midway, the score was more like 14 Zeros shot down by F4Fs in exchange for 12 F4Fs shot down by Zeros (actually that's 9 F4Fs for sure and 3 probably - no separate US confirmation, just missing F4Fs and corresponding Japanese claims). So giving full credit, that's 1.167 in favor of the F4F before the widspread adoption of the Thach Beam Defense. Hardly what I'd call an overwhelming performance by the Zero and its supposed commonly acknowledged super pilots.

To put forward that the Zero was such a great fighter plane when the best it could do was not quite 1:1 during the period that was supposedly its heyday is somewhat illogical, i.e., the proof belies the theory.

Regards,

Rich

plan_D · Aug 10, 2005

Really, only that many F4Fs were lost? The impression I get from histories (not aviation histories just general Pacific histories) is there were massive air battles between the USN and IJN during the first 6 months.

I know this is asking a lot but how many aircraft did the USN lose against the Japanese in the first six months up to Midway?

R Leonard · Aug 10, 2005

USN aircraft lost in combat from 7 December 1941 through 6 June 1942:

Carrier aircraft:
To enemy aircraft: 68
To enemy AA fire: 28

Land-based aircraft:
To enemy aircraft: 33
To enemy AA fire: 5

and

Land-based aircraft (USMC):
To enemy aircraft: 22
To enemy AA fire: 4

Rich

plan_D · Aug 10, 2005

Not really a lot, is it? Especially since most of those lost would be bombers, I assume. Since the mainstay fighter was the Wildcat...

syscom3 · Aug 11, 2005

There were only two big carrier battles in the first 6 months.... Coral Sea and Midway.

Once the Guadalcanal campaign started, there were two more big sea battles between the carriers (Santa Cruz and Eastern Solomons), plus numerous times in which the carrier groups had to deploy and fight from Guadalcanal itself. The whole campaign was a meat grinder for both the Japanese and American air forces

FLYBOYJ · Aug 11, 2005

R Leonard said:
USN aircraft lost in combat from 7 December 1941 through 6 June 1942:

Carrier aircraft:
To enemy aircraft: 68
To enemy AA fire: 28

Land-based aircraft:
To enemy aircraft: 33
To enemy AA fire: 5

and

Land-based aircraft (USMC):
To enemy aircraft: 22
To enemy AA fire: 4

Rich

Boy - that "Great Zero Fighter" really scored a lot of kills against the US Navy!

plan_D · Aug 11, 2005

You call that a "meat-grinder" syscom? Look at the losses, it's nothing. 123 to enemy aircraft, that's nothing! How can the Zero have any claim to sweep everything from the skies when the whole IJN only achieved 123 air kills against it's main opponent the USN.

evangilder · Aug 11, 2005

Were all those enemy aircraft losses only attributed to the Zero?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Aug 11, 2005

Probably not.

evangilder · Aug 11, 2005

That's what I was thinking, so that makes the Zero even less impressive.

plan_D · Aug 11, 2005

Well that's changed my view of the IJN in the first six months completely. Having finished "Burma-The Forgotten War" for the second time, I'm still impressed with the complete ignorance of the Western world about Japan and it's military ability or lack of.

Rising Sun warbirds

Pacific Historian

"Shooter"

Pacific Historian

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"Shooter"

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Staff Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant Colonel

"Shooter"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"Shooter"

Lieutenant Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads