More like a second or two. One time. Let's move on from this, we're talking about 3mph.
If you really wanted to "move on" from these subjects, then you would not keep making assertions that are pure garbage.
To make these assertions is to throw out a challenge and see if you can get away with it. YOU CAN'T!
As you have been told repeatedly, it isn't about 3 MPH because you will never see that 3 MPH while maneuvering in combat.
It is about the difference in engine power and observations to determine engine power take more than a couple seconds.
Here is an example that may hit a little closer to home:
For a moment, let's talk about cars and tuning for engine power.
Even in a modern computer controlled car, sometimes you can tune things like Fuel Pressure and Initial Timing for the Ignition.
Adjusting Fuel Pressure is actually pretty much the same idea as adjusting mixture in a carburetor engine.
How do you tell what the result of that tuning is? By Sound? I can tell you that method doesn't work.
When I was doing this, we used a Chassis Dynamometer or an Accelerometer to test for differences.
Some changes might give an extra 5-10 HP which is a higher percentage in a 250 HP engine than 25 HP is in the 1150 HP engine in the Airacobra, but you can't tell by sound.
(I have actually been told about a man who could, but I don't know how true that story was and the man is dead now.)
In the Airacobra, you would observe by noticing performance changes and to do that takes longer than a couple seconds.
Now the British don't know how to run a test?
The Japanese were not kind enough to supply the British with an intact A6M3 and a manual to go with it either.
More powerful engine, smaller wing etc, all things that should make the MkII faster, but still only 328mph. Let's move on from this, the A6M2 was slower than the P-39.
First of all, you are making some rather general assumptions here. Even for the A6M3, the speeds listed in the manual for the larger wing Model 22 are faster than those for the smaller wing Model 32.
I have never stated that the A6M2 was faster than the early P-39. I only stated that the early P-39 wasn't 40 MPH faster as you keep claiming.
No amount of slightly different propeller blades of the same diameter, slight differences of CG (if there were any) or slight differences of HP (if there were any) will account for 1000fpm of climb. They were the same airplane, same contract, same engine, same airframe, same plane, simply different internal equipment. If you take any airplane and reduce the weight the climb rate will improve. The only thing that will account for 1000fpm of climb is almost half a ton of weight.
By the way, the C model didn't have the nose armor, how did it keep from falling out of the sky?
First of all, YOU can't quantify the differences between the test aircraft in propeller or engine performance nor can you determine what the airframe differences were. All you can really state with reasonable certainty is that they were built to the same basic design.
These two tests were not on the same aeroplane!
The lighter aeroplane did climb faster but there were probably other factors that made a difference in performance as well.
If you follow performance cars, you would know that even cars that are "the same" that came off the same production line might differ pretty significantly in performance. I have seen plenty of dyno testing that has shown this.
The P-39C had an extra pair of MG and ammunition in the nose and less weight in the back. There may be more differences, but those are the obvious ones. We have been through this already.....
Splitting hairs again. I'd like to move on from this and concentrate on weight and climb.
If you really think those acceleration tests were splitting hairs, then you really don't understand them.
Why is it that the Aleutian A6M2 compared so poorly in THESE tests when combat reports always described it as having very fast acceleration?
If you really wanted to move on from a subject, then stop bringing it up.
- Ivan.