Spitfire vs different models of zeros
- Thread starter Micdrow
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wildcat
Major
Excellent!! Still scouring the Australian archieve eh! I loved the comment from the Beaufighter report "Watch out s/e fighter boys or you will be out of a job" 
- Thread starter
- #3
Wildcat
Major
Tell me about it! I've spent many hours going through various squadron ORB's. fascinating stuff.
Many thanks for your efforts mate, I for one appreciate it!
- Thread starter
- #5
I totally agree with you Wildcat.
MD you have gone above and beyond for this forum. Thank you very much.
All the best.
Graham.
- Thread starter
- #7
Hello All,
That Spitfire Vc versus A6M3-32 comparison makes interesting reading. (I presume these were the models being compared.)
One interesting thing I found was the quoted maximum speed of Hap:
335 mph @ 16,000 feet with engine at 2600 rpm and 40" boost (about +250 mm) seems to be way too low of a throttle setting. 2700 rpm is the military power setting and 2750 rpm at 41.7" boost (+300 mm) is WEP setting.
This is a minor change in topic, but recently I have been watching You-Tube videos. Some appear to be historic Japanese and some are of a A6M5 (61-120) that is still flying today. I watched a Ki-43-I Oscar do a full 360 degree roll in about 1.5 seconds. The modern A6M5 did a full 360 degree roll in 3.1 seconds and did not appear to be really rolling as fast as he could. I have seen the tables in NACA Report 868 which suggest that at least the Zero should roll a whole lot slower. Capt. Eric Brown suggests that the Zero did not have a high roll rate. The A6M5 pilot (Steve Hinton?) claimed that the Zero had a very good roll rate. With the Huge ailerons, I would guess that the A6M5 pilot was right.
How does one resolve all these conflicting reports?
- Ivan.
That Spitfire Vc versus A6M3-32 comparison makes interesting reading. (I presume these were the models being compared.)
One interesting thing I found was the quoted maximum speed of Hap:
335 mph @ 16,000 feet with engine at 2600 rpm and 40" boost (about +250 mm) seems to be way too low of a throttle setting. 2700 rpm is the military power setting and 2750 rpm at 41.7" boost (+300 mm) is WEP setting.
This is a minor change in topic, but recently I have been watching You-Tube videos. Some appear to be historic Japanese and some are of a A6M5 (61-120) that is still flying today. I watched a Ki-43-I Oscar do a full 360 degree roll in about 1.5 seconds. The modern A6M5 did a full 360 degree roll in 3.1 seconds and did not appear to be really rolling as fast as he could. I have seen the tables in NACA Report 868 which suggest that at least the Zero should roll a whole lot slower. Capt. Eric Brown suggests that the Zero did not have a high roll rate. The A6M5 pilot (Steve Hinton?) claimed that the Zero had a very good roll rate. With the Huge ailerons, I would guess that the A6M5 pilot was right.
How does one resolve all these conflicting reports?
- Ivan.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Keep in mind as well the flying Zeros you see today don't have original engines as far as I know.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I would investigate the difference in torque between the 2 engines with their respective propeller installations. I know Steve Hinton and run into him several times a year, the next time I see him I'll ask him about his comments.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Please ask him what he thinks the maximum roll rate is on the A6M5 he flies, and "Does he know that he is contradicting NACA Report 868?"
- Ivan.
Will do Ivan - I may out his way at the beginning of December, anytime I'm at Chino I always try to get by the museum. If I don't see him then, It might not be till the spring or early summer.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
It could also be self imposed restrictions on aerobatics to minimize airframe stress.
Hi Ivan,
>One interesting thing I found was the quoted maximum speed of Hap:
335 mph @ 16,000 feet with engine at 2600 rpm and 40" boost (about +250 mm) seems to be way too low of a throttle setting. 2700 rpm is the military power setting and 2750 rpm at 41.7" boost (+300 mm) is WEP setting.
Good catch! Here is a translation of an original document listing engine data, translated by our forum member Shinpachi:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/japanese-piston-engines-8450.html#post381951
>I have seen the tables in NACA Report 868 which suggest that at least the Zero should roll a whole lot slower.
I believe the graph in question is annoted "Force limits unknown" or something like that, so it might not be comparable to the other graphs in the diagram.
I'd expect the A6M to have a great roll rate at low speeds - the historical reports all seem to hint at a low roll rate at high speeds only.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>One interesting thing I found was the quoted maximum speed of Hap:
335 mph @ 16,000 feet with engine at 2600 rpm and 40" boost (about +250 mm) seems to be way too low of a throttle setting. 2700 rpm is the military power setting and 2750 rpm at 41.7" boost (+300 mm) is WEP setting.
Good catch! Here is a translation of an original document listing engine data, translated by our forum member Shinpachi:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/japanese-piston-engines-8450.html#post381951
>I have seen the tables in NACA Report 868 which suggest that at least the Zero should roll a whole lot slower.
I believe the graph in question is annoted "Force limits unknown" or something like that, so it might not be comparable to the other graphs in the diagram.
I'd expect the A6M to have a great roll rate at low speeds - the historical reports all seem to hint at a low roll rate at high speeds only.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Here's the chart:
Maybe most of the people know very well this subject but for the few still not yet inside it, it could be worth nothing that when looking to roll rates figures and graphs, one should take into account they refer to the "steady state roll rate", that is the amount of degree per second the aircraft rolls once the transient phase is over. In most combat situations, however, is the inital (transient) phase to be important, since during these few seconds it is vital to quickly change the direction of the "lift" vector in order to gain angular separation between you and the enemy. And typically once you have got, let us say 90* or some more roll, you've got your result. Then it's no more a matter of roll but, it's a problem of turn rate.
Steady state roll rates, by way of example, aren't affected by the moment of inertia of wings etc, whereas the transient rolling performace heavily depends on it.
As to the Zero rolling performance, I've read that this kite suffered more than other aircrafts for the aeroelesticity of its wing structures. In poor words, the deformation of wing/aileron profiles, under the the rolling command, partly compensated the intended ailerons deflection thus reducing the net effect. In limit conditions, such compensation is total. Almost all aircrafts suffer from these problems but the Zero more than the average. On the other side Zero was delightfully light. Thus a good transient roll performance could be compatible with a poor steady state one.
Steady state roll rates, by way of example, aren't affected by the moment of inertia of wings etc, whereas the transient rolling performace heavily depends on it.
As to the Zero rolling performance, I've read that this kite suffered more than other aircrafts for the aeroelesticity of its wing structures. In poor words, the deformation of wing/aileron profiles, under the the rolling command, partly compensated the intended ailerons deflection thus reducing the net effect. In limit conditions, such compensation is total. Almost all aircrafts suffer from these problems but the Zero more than the average. On the other side Zero was delightfully light. Thus a good transient roll performance could be compatible with a poor steady state one.
Hi HoHun,
I am following that thread with the notes by shinpachi as well. Really good information! I believe I also have a question in that area for the Compression Ratio of the Sakae 21.
The point I was trying to make was that if the speed of the A6M3-32 was 335 mph without even using full throttle, I would imagine that it would be significantly faster at the full throttle setting, yet most sources quote a figure around 335 mph for this plane.
The aero-elasticity aspect is noted in the book "Eagles of Mitsubishi". I am referring to timing a 360 degree roll by a A6M5 (61-120) that was shown in a You-Tube video. My stopwatch says 3.10 seconds or so which works out to around 120 degrees per second and I believe the pilot wasn't even trying hard because there was noticeable deceleration to come back to level flight.
To me, that is pretty fast for a WW2 fighter. The video of the Ki-43-I was even more spectacular at about 1.5 seconds.
As you pointed out, neither roll was "steady state", so the steady state roll rate should be even higher.
- Ivan.
I am following that thread with the notes by shinpachi as well. Really good information! I believe I also have a question in that area for the Compression Ratio of the Sakae 21.
The point I was trying to make was that if the speed of the A6M3-32 was 335 mph without even using full throttle, I would imagine that it would be significantly faster at the full throttle setting, yet most sources quote a figure around 335 mph for this plane.
The aero-elasticity aspect is noted in the book "Eagles of Mitsubishi". I am referring to timing a 360 degree roll by a A6M5 (61-120) that was shown in a You-Tube video. My stopwatch says 3.10 seconds or so which works out to around 120 degrees per second and I believe the pilot wasn't even trying hard because there was noticeable deceleration to come back to level flight.
To me, that is pretty fast for a WW2 fighter. The video of the Ki-43-I was even more spectacular at about 1.5 seconds.
As you pointed out, neither roll was "steady state", so the steady state roll rate should be even higher.
- Ivan.
This may be a silly question, but what are the the standards for atmospheric pressure for the various manifold pressure ratings?
With US, Absolute pressure in inches of Mercury are used, so there is no required "reference" pressure.
With the Germans, a multiple of standard atmospheric pressure is used such as 1.42 ata, but how many inches of Mercury is 1.00 ata???
With the Japanese, Millimeters of Mercury above atmospheric pressure are used. I believe their standard reference is 760 mm of Mercury from some of the numbers that were converted to Inches of Mercury.
With the British, Pounds of pressure above one atmosphere are used. I would hope that the standard 1 atmosphere would around 14.7 pounds, but what is the precise number?
Thanks for any information.
- Ivan.
With US, Absolute pressure in inches of Mercury are used, so there is no required "reference" pressure.
With the Germans, a multiple of standard atmospheric pressure is used such as 1.42 ata, but how many inches of Mercury is 1.00 ata???
With the Japanese, Millimeters of Mercury above atmospheric pressure are used. I believe their standard reference is 760 mm of Mercury from some of the numbers that were converted to Inches of Mercury.
With the British, Pounds of pressure above one atmosphere are used. I would hope that the standard 1 atmosphere would around 14.7 pounds, but what is the precise number?
Thanks for any information.
- Ivan.
