Oh my god!
Rising Sun warbirds
- Thread starter Aggie08
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
you sound like a 13 year old girl.........
oh god i just walked into a joke about me wanting to have sex with your or summit didn't i
oh god i just walked into a joke about me wanting to have sex with your or summit didn't i
You are a 13 year old girl.
cheddar cheese
Major General
When it comes to young girls lanc is a bit of a "Fiddler" 
Oh, are we not playing this game anymore?
Oh, are we not playing this game anymore?
Yeah its getting old.
GregP
Major
The Japanese made some very good aircraft. Some that come to mind are:
1) Ki-46 Dinah. 1941. Recon aircraft. Beautiful, fast, and one of the best at its task.
2) Aichi B7A Ryusei. 1944. Torpedo Bomber. Again, beautiful, fast, and not too bad at defending itseld when the torpedo was gone.
3) Mitsubishi J2M Raiden. 1942. Fighter. A good climber, reasonably fast, and well armed.
4) Mitsubishi Ki.83. 1944. Heavy Escort Fighter. I'm stretching a bit since they only made 4 of these, but it was fast (438 mph) and well armed, but the factory was bombed too often to continue building it.
5) Nakajima C6N "Myrt". 1943. Recon. One of the best Japan made.
6) Nakajima Ki-84 "Gale". Allied code name Frank. 1944. Fighter. Equal to or better than every Allied type it encountered, and they made ver 3,000 of them.
7) Rikugin Ki-93. 1945. Heavy Fighter. Could have been a good one, but the war was winding down quickly by the time it flew.
There were others. Their aircraft had many excellent qualities, but were almost all built with less concern for the pilot than were Western types. That is not a design flaw. It is a reflection of the culture at the time. Had they so desired, the Japanese could have built a well-armed and well-armored aircraft, but it was not in their minds to do so.
All aircraft have flaws, even the mighty Spitfire and Mustang and Fw-190.
We make light of the flaws in these aircraft and decry the flaws of the Japanese aircraft. However, many an allied plane found itself right squarely in the middle of a Japanese aircraft's best performance envelope and didn't make it home to fly another day.
In 1942, the Zero was invincible. By 1944, we had learned how it fought best and how to counter that. In 1945, if a rookie forgot and tried to dogfight a Zero, he found out the hard way that it was still a pretty good fighter.
1) Ki-46 Dinah. 1941. Recon aircraft. Beautiful, fast, and one of the best at its task.
2) Aichi B7A Ryusei. 1944. Torpedo Bomber. Again, beautiful, fast, and not too bad at defending itseld when the torpedo was gone.
3) Mitsubishi J2M Raiden. 1942. Fighter. A good climber, reasonably fast, and well armed.
4) Mitsubishi Ki.83. 1944. Heavy Escort Fighter. I'm stretching a bit since they only made 4 of these, but it was fast (438 mph) and well armed, but the factory was bombed too often to continue building it.
5) Nakajima C6N "Myrt". 1943. Recon. One of the best Japan made.
6) Nakajima Ki-84 "Gale". Allied code name Frank. 1944. Fighter. Equal to or better than every Allied type it encountered, and they made ver 3,000 of them.
7) Rikugin Ki-93. 1945. Heavy Fighter. Could have been a good one, but the war was winding down quickly by the time it flew.
There were others. Their aircraft had many excellent qualities, but were almost all built with less concern for the pilot than were Western types. That is not a design flaw. It is a reflection of the culture at the time. Had they so desired, the Japanese could have built a well-armed and well-armored aircraft, but it was not in their minds to do so.
All aircraft have flaws, even the mighty Spitfire and Mustang and Fw-190.
We make light of the flaws in these aircraft and decry the flaws of the Japanese aircraft. However, many an allied plane found itself right squarely in the middle of a Japanese aircraft's best performance envelope and didn't make it home to fly another day.
In 1942, the Zero was invincible. By 1944, we had learned how it fought best and how to counter that. In 1945, if a rookie forgot and tried to dogfight a Zero, he found out the hard way that it was still a pretty good fighter.
evangilder
"Shooter"
The Zero was never invincible. It's capabilities were unknown and it somehow reached a mythic status. I know of at least one occasion when a Zero got shot down by a P-26! That was late 1941, when the Japanese invaded the Philippines.
NAVAIR
Airman
GregP said:
Late war Japanese fighters suffered badly in terms of quality control. Performance had generally improved, but lagged well behind western and Soviet designs. They had better aircraft in prototype stages, but they were never going to get them into service.
Later Zeros were still very underpowered and suffered greatly when encountering Allied fighters. Early Zeros (A6M2, Zeke 21) were highly maneuverable and good climbers. However, they were far from invincible. P-39s and P-40s were considerable faster, especially in a dive. Above 250 mph, the Zero's roll rate was almost non-existent due to incredibly high stick forces. Exceeding 425 mph in a dive would result in structural damage, beginning with wrinkled skin. Their interim A6M3 wasn't a lot better.
Some aircraft were capable, but not first tier by any stretch. These would include the N1K2-J, Ki-84, Ki-100 and JM2-3. The fastest of these was the Ki-84, capable of speeds in the high 300s (382-391 mph). However, it was not as structurally study as the Allied aircraft, being dangerous to dive at high speeds. Mitsu's Raiden had potential, but suffered from engine unreliability and poor outward vision. For some undefinable reason, many feel the Ki-100 was a match for the P-51D. However, it was no faster than its ancestor, the Ki-61 (about 360 mph) and was a poor performer above 20,000 feet.
By 1945 Japan's fighters were facing Allied fighters such as the P-51D, P-38L, P-47N, F4U-4, F4U-1D, F6F-5, Spitfire Mk.VIII and late marks of the Seafire. In the pipeline, arriving in theater at wars end were the P-51H, F8F-1 and F7F-2, all considered to be among the best piston-engined fighters ever made. Thus, had the war not ended when it did, things would only have become vastly more one-sided.
By early 1944, Japan was well behind in fighter performance and would never have any opportunity to recover. They simply lacked the industrial power to compete equally and their factories were now exposed to vast hordes of B-29s. They didn't lack for brilliant designers, that's for sure.
Nonetheless, Japanese fighters and their pilots gave a good account of themselves. No one should be bashing Japanese aircraft or airmen.
My regards,
NAVAIR
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
GregP said:
Not really, look at the stats posted here - it was invincible because those fighting against it gave it that much respect. In reality, the Zero didn't come close to what it's reputation personified.....
GregP said:
In 1945 if a rookie tried to dogfight a Zero, he probably got what was coming to him - but then again that lapse of judgment probably would of been evident during flight training....
d_bader
Airman
I think that we are all slightly biased and I think that we should be fairer with our opinions. The zero desrved its fame because it did cause a lot of trouble for allied forces and must have been quite good to get a reputation like that. If planes like the mustang and thunderbolt were used in the pacific then maybe a more realistic story of how good the zero was would of appeared.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Hey d_bader, do me a favour. Put your one line comments in one post from now on. Use the edit function if necessary. I did it this time.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
d_bader said:
You are right about the Zero causing trouble for allied forces as US obsession with it used up valuable manpower and resources, but what you're missing is the combat record shown what the Zero actually accomplished does not make it out to be that great of a fighter. Considered the worse US Naval fighter by many, the F4F had almost a 4 to 1 kill ratio against it, and even at Coral Sea where the Zero had just over a 1 to 1 kill ratio over the F4F, you would of thought the Zero would of performed a lot better for being this swift, mystical, super maneuverable fighter against a fighter that it was faster and more maneuvable than......
No bias here - just facts.......
Oh and for your information bader, the P-51 and P-47 were used in the Pacific. Find out who Neil Kearby was.....
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i think he knows they were used in the pacific and what he's trying to say is that the zero mush have been pretty good if they had to get great planes like the -51 and -47 in to counter them........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:
The -51 came in late in the war, the -47 was there in limited numbers starting in late 43' (I think). By then the Zero was being pretty well pounded......
I don't know Lanc, the F4F did pretty well against it - the F6F slaughtered it!
And as far as the USAAF - the P-38 also gave it (and other Japanese fighters) a good thrashing, not to say at any given time it was a cake walk for the USN or the USAAF.......
I am sorry if you feel that way. Most people here have to come to the conclusion that your precious Zero is overated and a myth. And based off of facts it is. Hell the Great Turkey Shoot is a great example of the Zero getting destroyed by so called inferior allied planes. I think it is the other way around.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Yep!
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
that wasn't my opinion i was just trying to expalin what i thought he was saying.........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:
No worries Lanc
My post was not meant for yours Lanc. It was meant in general to d_baders post about how we are biased. I think we have based out bias off of facts.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep - especially some of the facts posted by Rich.....
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
