The Zero's Maneuverability

[Ivan1GFP]

Hi Pat. I didn't call YOU arrogant. I said not flying their aircraft was militarily arrogant.

Again, flying their airplane to see what challenges it may present does not mean you want an Air Force of enemy-built airplanes and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the "design philosophy" or philosophy at all. It means you are looking to find out how their equipment flies so you can tell if your guys are in some trouble, are evenly-matched, or are over matched. The ONLY way to find out in WWII was to fly the enemy aircraft with pilots who had some test-flying experience and see.

Despite the sophistication of computer simulation today, the only way today to REALLY find out is still to fly it. You can get close with a sim, but you need the flight data points to program the sim. Gotta' fly it to get the data points, and you have to get points all over the flight envelope to do it justice. Just try flying the MS Flight Simulator P-51 to verify that part. It doesn't fly much like real P-51, which is strange. The C-172 is decently close except for the ability to fly inverted.

You might find this interesting but for some of the MS sims, a P-51 is just a highly modified 172.
Many of the data points are near impossible to find experimentally and one has to make assumptions based on pilot reports and analogies. It is hard to get reliable data on roll stability and pitch moments at AoA = 135 degrees for example. No one is about to fly a P-39 in high-G maneuvers with an intentional aft CG loading or try to make it tumble. Descriptions can be found in old pilot reports if you due your diligence.

 

[SaparotRob]

Wasn't there a test done, involving different ammo load-outs, trying to do just that? I'm sure that it is somewhere in the Groundhog thread.

 

[GrauGeist]

You really should read the thread. There is plenty of disagreement and explanations and optimal technique seems to vary with type.
Are you actually flying a P-51 or P-40, Corsair, Wildcat or 109?

I was taught by pilots who did fly P-40s, F4Us, Bf109s, P-51s and F4Fs in combat.

Their experience and advice gained from their days flying those types was directly passed on to me.

I don't need to read a discussion board or people's opinions regarding a subject about flying.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I was taught by pilots who did fly P-40s, F4Us, Bf109s, P-51s and F4Fs in combat.

Their experience and advice gained from their days flying those types was directly passed on to me.

I don't need to read a discussion board or people's opinions regarding a subject about flying.

That response says an awful lot.
I expected better from you.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Wasn't there a test done, involving different ammo load-outs, trying to do just that? I'm sure that it is somewhere in the Groundhog thread.

If we are discussing the P-39, the Soviets did a lot of research. I went through a couple reports but was always under the impression that not everything was well documented. There was also the question of how much the later versions had improved just out of the factory.
The most critical load was the amount of remaining ammunition for the .50 cal cowl guns.

 

[GregP]

You might find this interesting but for some of the MS sims, a P-51 is just a highly modified 172.
Many of the data points are near impossible to find experimentally and one has to make assumptions based on pilot reports and analogies. It is hard to get reliable data on roll stability and pitch moments at AoA = 135 degrees for example. No one is about to fly a P-39 in high-G maneuvers with an intentional aft CG loading or try to make it tumble. Descriptions can be found in old pilot reports if you due your diligence.

Figured something like that.

But, any aircraft, much outside the CG limit aft, will exhibit broadly-similar pitch characteristics. Far enough aft and it will tumble, tail under nose, in a normal stall. Though I am a pilot, I also flew radio control (RC) airplanes for more than 20 years, and have flown both nose-heavy and tail-heavy airplanes on several occasions.

I had a Midwest Sweet Stick that I converted to tailwheel configuration, and also put a 60-size engine instead of a 40-size on it, with a tuned pipe. Needless to say, it was heavy, for a Sweet Stick anyway, and exhibited very interesting stall and spin behavior. It was a bit nose-heavy in addition to heavy overall, and would flat spin around the propeller spinner. A burst of power with opposite rudder would get it out immediately. Too long a burst and it would simply rotate the other way if you held opposite rudder in.

The tail-heavy RC birds I flew were extremely interesting around the stall. Depending on how tail-heavy, they were more or less similarly-behaved. They would mush along near the stall and the tail would drop and tumble at the stall if more than a small bit tail-heavy. If the bird was only slightly tail heavy enough to do that, you could recover it. If it was too tail-heavy, there was no recovery. I quickly (two airplanes) found out how far aft you could be safely. At that time (late 1970s), a flying Sweet Stick with a 4-channel Kraft radio and a K&B 40 was about $100 if you built it from a kit, so it wasn't exactly only a rich man's sport.

Now, these were all aerobatic planes, with large control surfaces that all had a good amount of control surface travel, usually 30° or more at full travel. It might not have been so much fun with sport-type planes that had relatively smaller control surfaces and only limited control surface travel.

My point is simply that it didn't take me long to get behavior like a tail-heavy P-51 is described as having when flying an RC. I wasn't trying to do that. I was just having some fun with RC airplanes, investigating flight behavior with CG changes. All my investigations involved adding extra power. If you want less power, throttle back or fly a glider and you have it.

The entire point is not about me ... it is that it is not difficult to investigate flight behavior, if you so desire. If I were going to market a P-51 simulator, I'd not hesitate to get a few foam P-51 RC models and try them out progressively more aft loaded and see what they do. It isn't very expensive and foamies aren't easily killed when they come down.

But, hey, that's just what I might do. It is entirely likely that most flight simulator developers aren't pilots, full scale or RC, and might not even consider actually flying the models at the edges of the flight envelope to see how they behave. But, if they wanted to do so, it isn't exactly difficult.

 

[Engineman]

Figured something like that.

But, any aircraft, much outside the CG limit aft, will exhibit broadly-similar pitch characteristics. Far enough aft and it will tumble, tail under nose, in a normal stall. Though I am a pilot, I also flew radio control (RC) airplanes for more than 20 years, and have flown both nose-heavy and tail-heavy airplanes on several occasions.

I had a Midwest Sweet Stick that I converted to tailwheel configuration, and also put a 60-size engine instead of a 40-size on it, with a tuned pipe. Needless to say, it was heavy, for a Sweet Stick anyway, and exhibited very interesting stall and spin behavior. It was a bit nose-heavy in addition to heavy overall, and would flat spin around the propeller spinner. A burst of power with opposite rudder would get it out immediately. Too long a burst and it would simply rotate the other way if you held opposite rudder in.

The tail-heavy RC birds I flew were extremely interesting around the stall. Depending on how tail-heavy, they were more or less similarly-behaved. They would mush along near the stall and the tail would drop and tumble at the stall if more than a small bit tail-heavy. If the bird was only slightly tail heavy enough to do that, you could recover it. If it was too tail-heavy, there was no recovery. I quickly (two airplanes) found out how far aft you could be safely. At that time (late 1970s), a flying Sweet Stick with a 4-channel Kraft radio and a K&B 40 was about $100 if you built it from a kit, so it wasn't exactly only a rich man's sport.

Now, these were all aerobatic planes, with large control surfaces that all had a good amount of control surface travel, usually 30° or more at full travel. It might not have been so much fun with sport-type planes that had relatively smaller control surfaces and only limited control surface travel.

My point is simply that it didn't take me long to get behavior like a tail-heavy P-51 is described as having when flying an RC. I wasn't trying to go that. I was just having some fun with RC airplanes, investigating flight behavior with CG changes. All my investigations involved adding extra power. If you want less power, throttle back or fly a glider and you have it.

The entire point is not about me ... it is that it is not difficult to investigate flight behavior, if you so desire. If I were going to market a P-51 simulator, I'd not hesitate to get a few foam P-51 RC models and try them out progressively more aft loaded and see what they do. It isn't very expensive and foamies aren't easily killed when they come down.

But, hey, that's just what I might do. It is entirely likely that most flight simulator developers aren't pilots, full scale or RC, and might not even consider actually flying the models at the edges of the flight envelope to see how they behave. But, if they wanted to do so, it isn't exactly difficult.

That is an interesting piece about handling and sim modeling.
IMO, accurate detail about handling military combat aircraft was very-much the seat of the pants general advice until possibly the 1960's. Most aircraft had general guidance, limitations and some specifics like stall and spin characteristics and recovery (or not). Tactical manoeuvre advice (classified) would also be in the manuals and enemy equipment performance and weaknesses would also be covered.
But when it comes down to really detailed handling and aircraft behaviour modeling for serious simulation in industry, I suspect that you have to look to the 1970's! I think that was because data logging, recording and computer simulation was not mature enough before that time. Overall, before that I think it was possible to define/model simple flight characteristics and performance, but response beyond the stall or outside of weight and balance limits etc, would not be accurately modelled, and to be honest, I doubt that modeling of mishandled response was modelled well either.
I do doubt the validity of foam model dynamics. The accuracy of build, speed, scale weight, weight distribution, power, control response etc, would seem to be difficult! Beyond that, real world aircraft are usually tested to extremes because modeling is not precise enough.
Fortunately, things like Spitfire turning circles at certain airspeeds etc are available and the data can be interpreted for an envelope. But some information is very sketchy.

Eng

 

[Ivan1GFP]

My point is simply that it didn't take me long to get behavior like a tail-heavy P-51 is described as having when flying an RC. I wasn't trying to go that. I was just having some fun with RC airplanes, investigating flight behavior with CG changes. All my investigations involved adding extra power. If you want less power, throttle back or fly a glider and you have it.

The entire point is not about me ... it is that it is not difficult to investigate flight behavior, if you so desire. If I were going to market a P-51 simulator, I'd not hesitate to get a few foam P-51 RC models and try them out progressively more aft loaded and see what they do. It isn't very expensive and foamies aren't easily killed when they come down.

But, hey, that's just what I might do. It is entirely likely that most flight simulator developers aren't pilots, full scale or RC, and might not even consider actually flying the models at the edges of the flight envelope to see how they behave. But, if they wanted to do so, it isn't exactly difficult.

The problem is that getting data for the simulator isn't really quite that simple.
I suspect you already know most of this but the biggest problem explained simply for those not so well acquainted with model aircraft is that although the model is scale-able, Air is not, nor is the physical effects of air. Think of flight at high and low Reynolds numbers.
A really precise laminar flow airfoil is darn near meaningless when taken down to model aircraft scales because almost ANYTHING is laminar flow. Think of the blocky sheets of balsa that "fly" pretty well. The simple explanation is that air is more "viscous" at smaller scales.
Insects don't look all that aerodynamic but certainly fly well enough on not a lot of power. This also brings into discussion the square-cube law. Areas rise as to the square of linear (scale) dimensions but weight rises as to the cube of linear dimensions. Models often have enough power to hang on their props but most real aircraft they are modeled after can not do the same.
Speed of sound is also quite meaningless for a model airplane but not so much for the propeller on the full scale airplane.
You were playing with Longitudinal CG, but Vertical CG is also quite important. Location of Wings, Stabilizers and such is also quite important but not likely to be something that is subject of experimentation.
One of the issues I was experimenting with was trying to make a simulator P-39 tumble. From pilot reports, I knew that when flown in a vertical zoom until it ran out of airspeed, it had a slight tendency to pitch either up or down (I forget which). This was hard enough to reproduce in a simulator but I can't imagine how to go about reproducing this "slight" tendency in a physical model so it doesn't overwhelm normal flight characteristics.

 

[GregP]

One time, after having flown at maybe 10 RC pattern events, I got to fly an F-18 model with twin turbines.

It had leading edge slats, flaps, and normal controls, and was scale weighted and scale mass distributed.

It was a University of North Carolina project that was being used to test flight characteristics of the F-18 (not a Super Hornet, a plain old Hornet).

It flew very well, but the scale amount of control throw meant it also had a very scale roll response, not exactly cutting edge for RC models. But we WERE able to sense accelerations in pitch, roll, and yaw (remote reporting) and also g-force reporting so we didn't over-stress it. There was a second guy next to me talking me through the g-force in turns and it was quite interesting. Was WAY cheaper than flying a full-scale Hornet, for sure!

So, I know it CAN be done, with some budget to play with. I personally wouldn't do it because scale jets are not much fun to fly. I'll stick with aerobatic (purpose-built aero birds) or fun-fly birds (like a So-Do-Koi or Jerry's Big Boy) for fun.

Jerry's Big Boy show below.

View: https://youtu.be/P0WI-vspAO8

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

One time, after having flown at maybe 10 RC pattern events, I got to fly an F-18 model with twin turbines.

It had leading edge slats, flaps, and normal controls, and was scale weighted and scale mass distributed.

It was a University of North Carolina project that was being used to test flight characteristics of the F-18 (not a Super Hornet, a plain old Hornet).

It flew very well, but the scale amount of control throw meant it also had a very scale roll response, not exactly cutting edge for RC models. But we WERE able to sense accelerations in pitch, roll, and yaw (remote reporting) and also g-force reporting so we didn't over-stress it. There was a second guy next to me talking me through the g-force in turns and it was quite interesting. Was WAY cheaper than flying a full-scale Hornet, for sure!

So, I know it CAN be done, with some budget to play with. I personally wouldn't do it because scale jets are not much fun to fly. I'll stick with aerobatic (purpose-built aero birds) or fun-fly birds (like a So-Do-Koi or Jerry's Big Boy) for fun.

Jerry's Big Boy show below.

View: https://youtu.be/P0WI-vspAO8

Do you have video of the scale-Hornet in flight you might post?

 

[wrathofatlantis]

Not really for every other fighter. The Fw 190 would do aileron rolls at 400 mph that would tear the wings off Allied fighters.

There is a very nice roll authority chart on WWIIaircraftperformance showing the Fw 190's roll authority quite well. The Spitfire is not thought of as a great roller, but apparently the later models were no slouches.

Several fightfers did pretty well at higher speeds. They were the ones with marginal stability at cruise speeds, unless I misremember. It's been known to happen ...

That chart is from a report titled NACA 868: As stated in that report a few pages earlier, it is entirely made of calculated values (probably based on a few real life data points):

It is calculated, as stated in the 868 report itself, which means it has absolutely no bearing on real life values.

One hint of that is that the values are in true airspeed. Usually they would be quoted in IAS.

I know the data is meant to be calculated as peak roll, not from a dead start, but this does not make that big of a difference...

As an example, the P-51B peak is here at 95 degrees per second at 310 mph TAS.

The SETP in 1989 had the P-51D more like 75 dps at 1 G, with the left side even slower than that. Under 3 G it was far lower, 55 dps, with the left side even slower yet.

Similarly, the real life data for Spitfire MK XII, which is clipped on top of that(!), is around 50 dps one way. I think it was similar both ways for a Mk IX, given it was said by Supemarine test pilots to be 2/3rd the Mk V from the Mk IX onwards, with the XIV even worse. The real life peak value for a Mk V full wing was 78 dps (Australian test), which is actually pretty good. The later Wartime marks were all slower.

All Spits had a low roll rate peak of 220 ias, which is correctly reflected in the chart. No, the chart below is not some stiffer wing post war Spitfire variant, it is just that CALCULATIONS have no relevance to reality...

The A6M2 Zero was more like 70-80 dps to the left, much slower to right. The A6M5 was about 90 dps left and again much slower right, and probably neither peaked at 160 mph TAS as depicted below...

Many WWII comparative documents are maths based and presented as if they are real life data. They are not. The Spit I vs Me-109E turn rate chart being a case in point: It is stated as fully calculated, and claims minimum radiuses in the 600 ft range for the Spit I. Real life data was 1025 ft... Me-109E 880 feet. Hurricane I 800 feet... Then the RAE reports states: "The Spitfire out-turns the Me-109E, but a surprising number of times the Me-109 manages to hang on because the Spitfire pilot seems unwilling to exploit the full performance."

It's the pilots fault if they don't replicate the math, get it?

 

[wrathofatlantis]

The Zero in real life avoided low speed circle fighting like the plague, as per standard IJN practice, which was never relaxed. It did like a particular kind of sliding loop called the Hinero-Komi, around which an entire pilot cuture was built... Saburo Sakai: "Each pilot has his own Hinero Komi."

"On October 21, 1943, the Group launched eight aircraft along with four Mustangs from the 530th on a big Japanese supply dump at Kamaing in Burma. The 530th squadron's P-51As met numerous Mitsubishi Zeros when they accompanied B-24s and B-25s on bombing missions. On the way down, I came up behind Lt. Geoffrey Neal, who was chasing a Zero [Mitsubishi A6M] down to the deck! I latched on to their formation and watched as he drove the enemy fighter right into the ground. The pilot of the Zero had tried everything to get rid of Lt. Neal except to circle fight. At this point, Lt. Arasmith had two confirmed kills, but the fight wasn't over…"-311th Fighter Group Unit history

-Drachinifeld, YT, "Zero or Hero?" (Interview with Justin Pyke, UCalgary MA in Military and Intelligence History, @CBI_PTO_History) 59:07 "Intelligence reports assumed that these tactics (hit and run) indicated the Zero lacked maneuverability." 59:22 "Judging from their apparently long fuselage, these planes do not have a small turning circle, and are not very maneuverable." 59:33 "The Chinese report in question noted the reluctance of the Japanese Navy pilots to dogfight." 1:00:05 "Chinese pilots report that the Japanese will not engage in a turning duel." 1:01:42 USN pilot comment (1942): "In my opinion, they [Zero pilots] had generally poor fighter tactics: Zeros could not be shaken by us if they would chop their throttles and sit on our tails (meaning chopping the throttle and turn)."


View: https://youtu.be/ApOfbxpL4Dg?si=5Jt2iJFHp6UIsy4O

This is not to say it did not do hard high speed turns, mostly to the left, but this rarely went past 180 degrees: Not true circle fighting... Japanese Navy pilots were thouroughly indoctrinated in 1930s speed and hit and run theories, and, unlike other services, they never let it go. Hit and run had the disadvantage of requiring a mostly straight unaware target...

 

[Shortround6]

Then the RAE reports states: "The Spitfire out-turns the Me-109E, but a surprising number of times the Me-109 manages to hang on because the Spitfire pilot seems unwilling to exploit the full performance."

It's the pilots fault if they don't replicate the math, get it?

It actually is, however there are at least two reasons and probably more.
Depending on speed the close to minimum radius was several Gs. If you were descending while turning (and many fights ended considerably lower than they started) you could trade altitude for speed and pull more Gs.
The Spitfires (and Hurricanes) started with the more upright pilot position which affected resistance to Gs. This was changes with the different foot pedals.
Many pilots had not practiced at high Gs and were unfamiliar with the effects, (blacking out or graying out) which could be fatal at low altitudes.
Spitfires, especially early ones, had rather sensitive elevators (low effort) and could be over controlled stalling the plane. This was changed with a plum bob system(?).
109s with the slats gave a very noticeable indication that the stall was imminent and while a green pilot may not be able to fly on the edge of the stall like an expert he may be more willing to push things to start. The Spitfire gave a warning, just not as dramatic, and if you haven't done it a few times at 4 Gs or higher (greying out) getting the pilots to push the aircraft may have been a little harder.

Experiencing a high speed stall or approaching stall at close to 3 Gs (or more) is a lot different than practicing a low speed/level stall. A high speed/banked stall is almost always going to result in a spin or inverted spin.

The British pilots got better at turning with little or no changes to the aircraft near the end of the BoB.
So is the problem the aircraft or the pilot or training/use of the aircraft?

 

[PAT303]

Its a tough call criticising pilots for not turning up to the stall when most of them hadn't even ventured out of their own villages before the war started.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Its a tough call criticising pilots for not turning up to the stall when most of them hadn't even ventured out of their own villages before the war started.

Much different times. The cockpit checklist only originated after the fatal crash of the prototype B-17

 

[R Leonard]

Of course one can always read through these and draw your own conclusions

 

[GregP]

That chart is from a report titled NACA 868: As stated in that report a few pages earlier, it is entirely made of calculated values (probably based on a few real life data points):

It is calculated, as stated in the 868 report itself, which means it has absolutely no bearing on real life values.

One hint of that is that the values are in true airspeed. Usually they would be quoted in IAS.

I know the data is meant to be calculated as peak roll, not from a dead start, but this does not make that big of a difference...

As an example, the P-51B peak is here at 95 degrees per second at 310 mph TAS.

The SETP in 1989 had the P-51D more like 75 dps at 1 G, with the left side even slower than that. Under 3 G it was far lower, 55 dps, with the left side even slower yet.

Similarly, the real life data for Spitfire MK XII, which is clipped on top of that(!), is around 50 dps one way. I think it was similar both ways for a Mk IX, given it was said by Supemarine test pilots to be 2/3rd the Mk V from the Mk IX onwards, with the XIV even worse. The real life peak value for a Mk V full wing was 78 dps (Australian test), which is actually pretty good. The later Wartime marks were all slower.

All Spits had a low roll rate peak of 220 ias, which is correctly reflected in the chart. No, the chart below is not some stiffer wing post war Spitfire variant, it is just that CALCULATIONS have no relevance to reality...

The A6M2 Zero was more like 70-80 dps to the left, much slower to right. The A6M5 was about 90 dps left and again much slower right, and probably neither peaked at 160 mph TAS as depicted below...

Many WWII comparative documents are maths based and presented as if they are real life data. They are not. The Spit I vs Me-109E turn rate chart being a case in point: It is stated as fully calculated, and claims minimum radiuses in the 600 ft range for the Spit I. Real life data was 1025 ft... Me-109E 880 feet. Hurricane I 800 feet... Then the RAE reports states: "The Spitfire out-turns the Me-109E, but a surprising number of times the Me-109 manages to hang on because the Spitfire pilot seems unwilling to exploit the full performance."

It's the pilots fault if they don't replicate the math, get it?

View attachment 797531

Hi Wrathofatlantis. When I mentioned the Fw 190 roll rate, yes it was that chart I had in mind, But, more importantly, are the combat reports of it's ability to out-roll almost anything in combat. When it came out, the Spitfire Vs could not match it and nothing else could, either. The only thing the Mk V had on the Fw 190 was turn radius, The Mk IX would come out to combat it, with a 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger, returning the Spitfire to being as fast or faster, with better climb and altitude performance. It never matched the Fw 190 in roll.

Nothing else did, either, until you got over 360 mph IAS in speed. There the P-51D was a match for it. SO, naturally, the Mustang driver wanted to fight fast. A Spitfire driver wanted to catch the Fw 190 slow, below 220 mph IAS if he wanted to roll with it.

 

[GregP]

The Zero in real life avoided low speed circle fighting like the plague, as per standard IJN practice, which was never relaxed. It did like a particular kind of sliding loop called the Hinero-Komi, around which an entire pilot cuture was built... Saburo Sakai: "Each pilot has his own Hinero Komi."

"On October 21, 1943, the Group launched eight aircraft along with four Mustangs from the 530th on a big Japanese supply dump at Kamaing in Burma. The 530th squadron's P-51As met numerous Mitsubishi Zeros when they accompanied B-24s and B-25s on bombing missions. On the way down, I came up behind Lt. Geoffrey Neal, who was chasing a Zero [Mitsubishi A6M] down to the deck! I latched on to their formation and watched as he drove the enemy fighter right into the ground. The pilot of the Zero had tried everything to get rid of Lt. Neal except to circle fight. At this point, Lt. Arasmith had two confirmed kills, but the fight wasn't over…"-311th Fighter Group Unit history

-Drachinifeld, YT, "Zero or Hero?" (Interview with Justin Pyke, UCalgary MA in Military and Intelligence History, @CBI_PTO_History) 59:07 "Intelligence reports assumed that these tactics (hit and run) indicated the Zero lacked maneuverability." 59:22 "Judging from their apparently long fuselage, these planes do not have a small turning circle, and are not very maneuverable." 59:33 "The Chinese report in question noted the reluctance of the Japanese Navy pilots to dogfight." 1:00:05 "Chinese pilots report that the Japanese will not engage in a turning duel." 1:01:42 USN pilot comment (1942): "In my opinion, they [Zero pilots] had generally poor fighter tactics: Zeros could not be shaken by us if they would chop their throttles and sit on our tails (meaning chopping the throttle and turn)."


View: https://youtu.be/ApOfbxpL4Dg?si=5Jt2iJFHp6UIsy4O

This is not to say it did not do hard high speed turns, mostly to the left, but this rarely went past 180 degrees: Not true circle fighting... Japanese Navy pilots were thouroughly indoctrinated in 1930s speed and hit and run theories, and, unlike other services, they never let it go. Hit and run had the disadvantage of requiring a mostly straight unaware target...

No one in WWII used the term "circle-fight," and nobody "drives another airplane into the ground." If some pilot hits the ground, it is obviously pilot error, but he doesn't get driven into it. One Zero running does NOT mean very many others didn't dogfight. The Zero was the best dogfighter in the world when we first encountered it.

I'm assuming you mean dogfighting, which has little to do with a circle.

I've been looking at this since the 1950s and you are the ONLY person I have ever heard say the Zero didn't dogfight. Everyone else, including more than 50 WWII pilots, says it was an excellent and potent dogfighter. The way to combat it was never to dogfight, it was to stay fast. The Japanese pilots always wanted to fight at medium speeds. When we forced them into higher-speed fights, they were much lass comfortable because the Zero was a low-to-medium-speed dogfighter and did lend itself to high speeds and agility simultaneously.

 

[tyrodtom]

Were there any Zeros in Burma in Oct. of 1943?
I thought the Burma campaign was strictly a IJA affair
There was a period where the allies was calling any low wing, retractable gear, single radial powered Japanese aircraft Zeros, It took a while before they realized the IJAAF had Oscars.
Then when they did admit to Oscars, the claimed they were just Ki-27's with a retractable landing gear.

But the Oscar was quite a dogfighter too.

 

[ThomasP]

I think there were A6M2 squadrons employed in the Burma theater in the early stages, but they were then withdrawn(?) when the IJA took over operations.

Not sure.