PDA

View Full Version : Is the Zero too fast?



XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:04 AM
Anyone else think the Zero is too fast.

The Ki-84 should be, but the Zero seems to keep up with the P-51 pretty easily.

I don't know if that's correct or not.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:04 AM
Anyone else think the Zero is too fast.

The Ki-84 should be, but the Zero seems to keep up with the P-51 pretty easily.

I don't know if that's correct or not.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:33 AM
I didn't notice that. Anytime I was engaged with a zero in a P51, I just made a slight dive and leaved it far behind.

How do you try to escape? If it's level or climbing, you can't outrun a zero, unless he's really far behind at the beginning. If he's close, he'll get you (better level acceleration)

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:41 AM
760 dive speed before lossing controll surfaces and super climb with very little reduction and able to climb to the same alt they were at with extra power to climb higher then initial dive alt. I say they are too quick and power, when i fly the zero I seem to be able to destroy anything with complete ease no matter thier tactics

the most trouble for the zero is the yak3 both handle almost the same but the yak has a better dive speed but both planes can manuever so ridiculously at high speeds without blacking out

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:10 AM
the version of the zero we using right now is the A6m5a Model 52

I read from this that it had a max dive speed of

engine: 1x Nakajima Sakae 21 engine w/two-stage supercharger [1,130hp at take-off, 1,100hp at 9,350ft, 980hp at 19,685ft] w/ 3-bladed constant speed Sumitomo propeller
speed: 348mph at 19,685ft (maximum) (maximum diving speed: 460mph)
climb rate: 7min1sec to 19,685ft
ceiling: 38,520ft
fuel: 540liter internal + 330liter ventral drop tank
range: 1,194miles at 230mph
weight: 4,167lb empty; 6,047lb loaded
armament: 2x 7.7mm Type 97 machine guns w/700rpg, 2x 20mm Type 99 Model 2 Mark 4 cannon w/125rpg, 2x 66lb or 132lb bombs
number built: 391 by Mitsubishi (beginning March 1944) unknown number by Nakajima
notes: fitted with heavier guage wing skinning and belt fed 20mm cannon
GLORY: A6M5 7F6 1/C/15


information from http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/zerofacts.htm

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 02:01 AM
???? If anything too slow on the deck. I can only get 440km/hr. which is 273mph. A bit slow. That was with mix 120 prop 100 and overboost on. Rad pos 2. I thought it could do 303mph on the deck.

http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/insignia/italy/incocca-tende-scaglia.jpg
Saluti!
<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 02:40 AM
Also, it seems there is no reduction in maneuvrability at high speed in a dive. The zero suffered from the need of excessive forces on the stick at high speed. And it looks like it can accelerate very quickly in a dive, unlike it's real-life counterpart. I was able to follow a P-47 easily in a dive several times, and I was very surprised to stay behind it and being able to shorten the distance. And it can sustain more damage than I would have imagined.
Overall, even if I'm a big fan of JAAF and JNAF airplanes, I don't like it. It doesn't look like a real zero to me.
Besides, the tailwheel was not fixed on the real zero, as can be seen on many well known photographs of the type.

-Knokke

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 03:57 AM
The Zeros had very poor control in fast dives. They were flat out lousy at it. The faster they went the worse the control.

I haven't flown the Zeros in IL2-FB yet. It'll be interesting to see how the handle dives.

-------------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:03 AM
Yea, zero is wrong. It turns very well at high speed. That is flat out incorrect.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:10 AM
I just flew the A6...sorry 600+ knots in a hard dive and that baby has awesome control. Reminded me of the day's when we had the Trim cheat. LOL

It's a long way from Cincinnati /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:10 AM
Control's only start to stiffen up around 440kph for me, everything below that and it will outurn a I-16 in a heartbeat.

It had excellent thrust to weight in real life but I don't even think it could indefinately sustain such a sharp turn radius indefinately without much E bleed in the low region.

However, I don't have any trouble dealing with them online because their simply too slow and even though their sustained climb is great its zoom climb sucks. It can take a hell of alot of rifle caliber damage for the most part but it seems to only take one hit in the right spots for it to explode.

The Zero ingame is really only a threat to early war obsolete aircraft such as the hurricane and brewster. Although Brewster vs. Zero dogfights are one heck of a good time.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:17 AM
In the real world, the Zero was no plane to turn your back to. It is a fast aircraft, and a decent climber. The thing can hang on its prop so you do not want to tangle with it in a tnb fight. full flaps and that thing will turn on a dime round and round for an hour. Dont loop with it either. Two to three loops, your hit!
run away from it straight and level. Dont twist or roll, you will only give him more target, just throw the throttle into the wall and fly away level. Take your medicine and set up for another pass. The zero pilot will get any impatient pilot in a heartbeat.

SPECS:

AMD 1.5
490 SDRAM
AGP Gforce 4 mx 420/64
Thundering Digital 5.1 Sound
WIN XP Home

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 05:33 AM
An example of how ridiculous these wild 'claims' can get without astute evidence:

"the most trouble for the zero is the yak3 both handle almost the same but the yak has a better dive speed but both planes can manuever so ridiculously at high speeds without blacking out"

"Also, it seems there is no reduction in maneuvrability at high speed in a dive."

...

Would a game developer model different type of human beings in a game, with some human beings in some planes being more tolerant to G forces?

Not only is that grossly inefficient, but also controversial and unbalancing. Every type of such effects are modelled at the same level for all human pilots in the game, with the possible exception of the P-51D.

Simply put, ask Oleg and I'm about 99% certain that he'll answer "all G forces that effect the pilot are the same." The same Gs will result in the same amount of 'black out' or 'red out' in all planes. That's how all the other sims do it - because that's the most logical way to do it.

The two observations on the same plane quoted above contradicts each other. So, a plane maneuvers hard at high speeds but you don't feel a black out? Pretty easy to explain, as there are only two possibilities(unless the developers are stupid and left out the standard "black-out modelling in some planes"):

1) The effectiveness of pilot stick input is reduced at high speeds - you can't pull enough, or your plane does not respond enough to produce a heavy G load enough to induce black out.

2) The claimed 'high speed', actually wasn't that high at all.

Sooo... if there's no reduction of maneuverability in high speed as the second quote claims, the pilot's gonna feel a lot of black out. But wait.. the first post claims the pilot doesn't black out at high speeds at all. So what gives? Ah, we reach the alternative conclusion that the "developers are dumb". Oh dear.

So, what do I feel about it?

What I can agree to, is the roll rates are better than expected at high speeds. But about it's pitch maneuverability? I can pull all I want in the Zero and don't feel a black out - when my speed isn't that high. When the speed gets higher, I feel the same limitation of black-out coming to the Zero. When the speed gets really high, I don't feel a black out again, since it doesn't respond fast enough.

"Bashing" and "trolling" isn't just an area for few rude cretins. Dare to place irresponsible comments, and THAT'S bashing and trolling, nothing else.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 11/12/0301:35PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 06:24 AM
Not one version of the Zero could break 340mph in real life. As for the Ki84 it had a topspeed of 388mph vs the P-51D with at 437mph. Not so in FB ofcoarse.

http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:30 AM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- Not one version of the Zero could break 340mph in
- real life. As for the Ki84 it had a topspeed of
- 388mph vs the P-51D with at 437mph. Not so in FB
- ofcoarse.
-

Ki-84 tested with poor quality gasoline had a top speed of 388mph...

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:40 AM
Can somebody translate this for me? Thanks. Looks interesting but can't figure it out.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


-- 760 dive speed before lossing controll surfaces and
-- super climb with very little reduction and able to climb
-- to the same alt they were at with extra power to climb
-- higher then initial dive alt.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:48 AM
Zero is wrong. It's maximum allowable speed is about 50mph too much... the roll rate is just a joke (way too good) and it can accelerate in a dive way too quick.

These three are the drawbacks of all Zero's... they had bad roll rate (and it worsens steadely above 200mph) they were slow in acceleration in a dive (as they are very light) and the maximum allowable speed of best Zero was just above 400mph....

... In FB Zero has none of these real life weakneses.

Zero is wrong, wrong, wrong /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:53 AM
RAAF_Edin::
-- Zero is wrong, wrong, wrong /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Which Zero? It may make a difference, I dunno.

Have any raw test data from your FB testing? No? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:18 AM
Have I understood correctly? Zero was very slow (even late model 5a), it didnt roll, it didnt made tight turns, only near stall speed. Also it didnt withstand damage at all, you didnt even need to hit those unprotected fuel tanks to ignite it.

When Brewster and P-40 outperforms it in every aspect then it is rightrightright?

Sounds just like a real life pre Pearl Harbor propaganda to me.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:26 AM
The zero is very slow in level flight at all altitudes. No point in arguing that. As a rule most 1943 and 44 fighters are in excess of 100km/h faster at all altitudes. However just because you are 100km/h faster doesn't mean he can't blow your wing off after you make a pass at him. It just means he only has a few seconds to do it in before you are out of range. The speed seems fine to me below 5000m. The low and medium (200-400km/h) speed turn rate is spot on as is the roll rate at those speeds. At higher speeds the turn rate remains realistic (she gets stiff fast, you can blackout but you have to work at it). The roll rate at high speeds is questionable though. So I will give you that as possibly overmodeled.

About the damage model. The Zero is very fragile. A good 1/2 second burst will bring her down. But that does require you to actually hit him for that 1/2 second. Which like hitting an I-153, is much easier said than done. I have spent a bit of time flying in zero vs mustang fights (in both planes) and the zero is definatly the loser in terms of how much damage they can take. But as said, you do have to put a good burst into the zero and that is not an easy thing to do. With the mustang you can easily score 1 or 2 hits on it somewhere simply because of the amount of ammo you can put out. But in order to kill her it must be concentrated and be atleast 20 hits. This is easy to do if you get the jump on him and so a well aimed 1/2 second burst will do the trick. You just have to hit him with all 1/2 seconds of it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:31 AM
I think you will find most Flight models in FB are not true to life, as this is only a Simulator.

Also do not confuse MPH with KMH as some of you no doubt do.
when you consider that 67MPH is about 110KMH you may find that some of you have made errors in judgement on the AM65.

I think its more a case of some of you guys where expecting the Zero to be an easy kill, it wasnt.
The Am62 will be just as dangerouse as the AM65 just a little slower.

Accross the Board non of the flight models are going to be perfect, if that where the case the Me 262A1A would attain a top speed of 800 kmh at 8000m which it did in real life, ( but not it would seem in IL-2 FB)

However Oleg did work from performance data sent from Japan, I reckon Leave the Zeros alone.

They where dangerouse aircraft in reality, and so it would seem in IL-2/FB.

GOOD WORK OLEG!!

The AM65 ZERO is PERFECT! PERFECT! PERFECT! Oleg dont listen to these guys they would not even come close to building a flight Sim like you have.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:45 AM
Kannaksen_hanu wrote:
- Have I understood correctly? Zero was very slow
- (even late model 5a), it didnt roll, it didnt made
- tight turns, only near stall speed. Also it didnt
- withstand damage at all, you didnt even need to hit
- those unprotected fuel tanks to ignite it.

What are you on? Did I even mention the level speed of the Zero? Did I mention Zero's turn rate? And I also didn't coment on Zero's characteristics of sustaining battle damage... so cool down mate.

I said all Zero's had poor roll rate which they did which steadily worsened above 200mph. Above some 260Mph the controls start to het heavy and above some 300Mph Zero should be as lazy in a roll as a B-17. I managed to do quite nice rolls at some 700Kmph which is well above 300Mph. The maximum dive speed (allowable speed) of best Zero (A6M5) was just over 400Mph... in FB it can do 460Mph.

Worst of all is the FACT that the P-40 has better roll rate at all speeds then Zero and yet it's the oposite in FB... you call that right, right, right?

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:59 AM
Artic_Wulf wrote:
- I think you will find most Flight models in FB are
- not true to life, as this is only a Simulator.
-
- Also do not confuse MPH with KMH as some of you no
- doubt do.
- when you consider that 67MPH is about 110KMH you may
- find that some of you have made errors in judgement
- on the AM65.
-
- I think its more a case of some of you guys where
- expecting the Zero to be an easy kill, it wasnt.
- The Am62 will be just as dangerouse as the AM65 just
- a little slower.

and what are you trying to say with these comments?

First of all saying something is a simulator and then saying it's not supposed to be like in real life is a very stupid contradiction!

Second, I don't think any of the people who actually know what they are talking about confuse Mph and Kmph... I for one don't... maybe you do as your example of 67Mph = 110Kmph is not only incorrect but also a very stupid example. If you want to give a comparison of units... you do just that and instead of saying 67Mph = (what ever) say 1Mph or 10Mph or even 100Mph being equivalent to SI units.

And lastly, saying some aircraft is good or dangerious is useless and irrelevant unless you state in what situation, and for what reason and instead state the facts like certain characteristic at certain flight elements.

Things are very simple:

P-40 should have better roll rate then Zero at any speed.... the greater the speed, the gretaer the difference.

Zero's dive acceleration is much worse then that of the P-40... due to difference in aircraft masses.

Zero is designed for slow to medim speed dogfights... P-40 is meant to be very fast in a dive and strong with good punch of 6x 0.50cal. Nevertheles, Zero has also very powerfull 20mm but this is not in discusion or debatable. Zero is too fast in a dive... The maximum allowable speed if this particular model is just over 400Mph. And the worst thing is that the roll rate of the Zero is too good, and that of the P-40 (at higher speads) is too low.

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

Message Edited on 11/12/0306:00PM by RAAF_Edin

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:00 AM
We wouldn't know if it's right, right, right or wrong, wrong, wrong, until you test, test, test it out in an objective comparison and post, post, post the results and conditions, would we?

So, where do I see, see, see those results? Was there even a testing we should be aware about?





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:03 AM
Oh I tested both P-40 and Zero... and what those tests show is not right.

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:06 AM
RAAF_Edin wrote:

- What are you on? Did I even mention the level speed
- of the Zero? Did I mention Zero's turn rate? And I
- also didn't coment on Zero's characteristics of
- sustaining battle damage... so cool down mate.

You obviously think that I read only your posts.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:07 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
-
- VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
-- Not one version of the Zero could break 340mph in
-- real life. As for the Ki84 it had a topspeed of
-- 388mph vs the P-51D with at 437mph. Not so in FB
-- ofcoarse.
--
-
- Ki-84 tested with poor quality gasoline had a top
- speed of 388mph...
-
---AKD
-


-I know and thats all Japan had. They did not have access to High quality fuel. Most these specs and claims people are rambling off are from captured and restored to excellent condition using high quality fuel. 388mph is all it did when it flew from Japan. So in no way should it be able to catch the P-51D.



http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:07 AM
So where are the numbers? Results? Tracks?

In what condition was this test done at?

..

Or is this one of those comfy "public" tests where people take up some plane and go fight against another one? You may well be right, could be wrong. We need something tangible to admit you're right or not.





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:22 AM
Is it sufficient if I say that my squad mate and I did a test online just the two of us... we both get side by side... match speed and then we dive with maximum power, radiator closed, maximum pitch and guess what... Zero not only can keep up with the P-40 but my squad mate who was flying the Zero told me on comms he had to pull back on the power so he doesn't overtake me... does that sound like something that's right?

Oh and by the way, don't even try to tell me I'm doing something wrong with the P-40 as that is the only aircraft I fly every single day... ask around at HuperLobby when some aussies are around and you'll see what the'll see how I fly it.

And just as another example of a test... the one I did in the QMB, where I tested P-40 and Zero in a matched dive from same altitude, same dive angle and what numbers showed is that P-40 lost elevators at 480Mph IAS which was maybe 490Mph TAS as I was pulling out of the dive at less then 1000ft and lost the elevator as I was very close to the ground. Zero lost its elevators at 460Mph TAS... same situation, same altitude. The only difference between the two was little less speed in a dive for the Zero.

Let me note for those who don't read things properly that I tested the dive speeds and not the turn rate.

About the roll rate...

How about same test by me and my squad mate in same online game where we were both doing about 350Mph IAS one behind the other and when I started to roll in a P-40 (I was in front) and he followed me in a roll (in a Zero) he would finish his full roll and get lever (he'd say on comms: "I'm done") and I am still half way through and inverted.

Talking about wronng modeling of the roll rate of both P-40 and the Zero.

If you don't believe this, believe what you want... test it yourself as I don't really care if you believe or not.

EDIT: I forgot to say the test I did with my squad mate was done in 1.2b... I notice Zero is being toned down in RC patch regarding the roll rate at high speeds... but not enough... it still manages to roll rather good at speeds over 350Mph and the P-40 hasn't changed at all... in fact it stals even easier now.

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

Message Edited on 11/12/0306:30PM by RAAF_Edin

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:00 PM
RAAF_Edin wrote:

I notice Zero is being
- toned down in RC patch regarding the roll rate at
- high speeds... but not enough... it still manages to
- roll rather good at speeds over 350Mph and the P-40
- hasn't changed at all... in fact it stals even
- easier now.

While your own the subject...what about stalling the Zeros. I ragged the heck out of them trying to get them to stall, they sure have high threshold for stall. LOL

---------------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:11 PM
TooCool_12f wrote:
- I didn't notice that. Anytime I was engaged with a
- zero in a P51, I just made a slight dive and leaved
- it far behind.
-
- How do you try to escape? If it's level or climbing,
- you can't outrun a zero, unless he's really far
- behind at the beginning. If he's close, he'll get
- you (better level acceleration)
-
-



Agreed, when I got in trouble, I nosed down and got away. The P-51 will leave the Zero in it's dust.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:42 PM
There is something else that surprised me about the Zero:

I decided to make it spin to test it's behavior in such conditions... but never succeded in entering a spin. It would begin to stall and drop a wing if I pulled the stick brutaly to the side (kind of a Hikerigomi if that the correct name of this maneuver), but it will not spin, whatever I did... it will recover with no input to the stick or rudder in less than a turn. A plane that is unable to spin sounds very strange to me. I've never read a book about the zero stating that the airplane was impossible to spin...

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 05:02 PM
Yea, I even managed to land it at 90 mph or so with landing flaps down. It just hung up there like a kite and never wanted to come down.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 05:45 PM
You would be able to land at very low airspeed in a Zero.
Approach speed is between 65-69 knots, touchdown speed is between 56-61 knots in a real Zero model 52.
Don't forget that this is a carrier aircraft.

BTW, here is some data for the type 52. Not data for US flight tests, but Japanese flight tests (with low grade fuel). It comes from an october 43 document capured on Kwajalein atoll.

maximum speed (kts) at optimum altitude (ft):

low blower: 282/10663
high blower: 294/19357



Rate of climb to 6000m: 7min 27 sec

Range, T.O distance, and fuel consumption are not an issue I suppose, as the're not as much a concern in FB.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 05:48 PM
For Zero, at about 2000m and 100% fuel, I am finding that (roughly) roll rate at 500km/hr is half the roll rate at 200km/hr. I get into a slight dive to reach 500km/hr. No hard data. Must ask SkyChimp how he does roll timing. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

You can visually see it though, start a prolonged roll at 2000m at 200km/hr and your nose will drop and you speed up. You can see the roll rate drop fast as you pick up speed.

Also "feel" that the Zero is slow pulling out of high speed dives. No data.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:08 PM
I do not agree. try to roll at high speed. It takes about ten seconds to 360 deg roll. You is wrong!!

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/zero-105-over-rabaul.jpg

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:30 PM
I'm gonna copy my post from another thread about this.:

The numbers you give for the Zero are incorrect. Well the numbers are right but the UNITS are wrong. The Zero being a Navy plane measured it's speed in nautical miles per hour.
1 Knot + 1.152 mph + 1.85 KpH

So a top speed of 309 Knts + 355.986 Mph

a dive speed limit of 350Kts + 403.2 Mph

and on the latter production model 52a's the skin on the wings was strengthened so the dive limit was moved up to 400Knots = 460.8 mph or 740 Kph which is better than any of the VVS planes currecntly in FB
So the rule for the VVS will be don't turn with a Zero & don't dive with one either!?

Interesting I think.
And:
Well my i took the figures from the Mikesh book on the Zero.
And they match closely all the other books i've seen figures in.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087938915X/002-3616209-7468821?v=glance

Schilling's defense of the P-40 is very good & informative. It wa a very important aircraft. But I think his numbers are wrong.
As for the US not converting to knots till after ww2, I can't say but that has no bearing on the IJN anyway.

if I find anything else of interesti'll try & post a link.
S!


her's one:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/zerofacts.htm

http://www.squadron.com/old/zero52/zero52review.htm


Oh and the Zero holds near it's top speed from SL up to 5000meters IIRC, that is unusual & means the high altitude AAF fighters need to be careful about when & how they engage. Also the Zero is bettter dogfighter than a real war plane. So it should be very good in dogfight servers where everyone goes at it till they die with no objectives & usually flies down low where the Zero is in it's element.

Sakai, said the Americans beat them by flying high & choosing when to fight & by using better team work. killing Zeros in a P-40 or P51 shouldn't be easy if they are flown by good pilots. On the other hand if you get one hit on his wing a Zeke pilot will run out of gas before he can get home -as he can't run away from you. I just have the beta & roll rate maybe too high esp at high speeds,but i am waiting to see the final version.







Message Edited on 11/12/0312:39PM by Saburo_0

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:41 PM
if the zero is wrong perhaps one of you fine fellows will drop Oleg an email a track and supporting data by cop tomorrow so that he can, if he agrees with you, make changes before final?

Thanks.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:46 PM
Zeros at high speed lost enormous amount of control. In fact they were practically un-controllable.

They were great at low altitudes, lower speeds, in T & B engagements. The aircraft's structure was weak and was easily damaged.

The AVG in Burma and China, B & Z'd them in P-40s and were very successful. The Allies became very succesful in taking them out when they began to apply team tactics...and didn't T & B with them.

There were exceptional Zero pilots, and they could make a difference just with their skill in any engagement. As the war progressed, and the skilful pilots were fewer the Zeros were pretty easy pickings...

If you read Baa Baa BlackSheep Pappy Boyington explains how his flight of Corsairs would buzz Japanese airbases just to taunt the japanese to air combat.

---------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:04 PM
if its true that at high speed, lets say 500 kmph, Zeros were clumsy, well...

Earlier today I followed a Zero in a dive, I was in a P-47D10. I was gaining on him...around 600 kmph et started a loop. I blackouted, and 1 sec later he was at my 6!

I mean...thats what I call GREAT high speed elevators response!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ps: I wish AI would blackout too!

__________________

THIS is the graph:

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/Luftcaca.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:17 PM
the zero is not fast but it is very handling and could outclimb, outturn, the p51 because it is light weight the best tactic with it is hit and run keep your speed high....

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:30 PM
nearmiss wrote:
- Zeros at high speed lost enormous amount of control.
- In fact they were practically un-controllable.
-
- They were great at low altitudes, lower speeds, in T
- & B engagements. The aircraft's structure was weak
- and was easily damaged.

I have never heard that the Zero's airframe structure was weak. It was made to be a carrier-borne aircraft, and weak structures are generally not acceptable for carrier operations due to the stresses of take-off and landing.

It did however lack protection for the pilot and for its fuel supply, which made it very vulnerable to even small caliber weapons.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 12:19 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
-
- nearmiss wrote:
-- Zeros at high speed lost enormous amount of control.
-- In fact they were practically un-controllable.
--
-- They were great at low altitudes, lower speeds, in T
-- & B engagements. The aircraft's structure was weak
-- and was easily damaged.

==============================

Structure may have been the wrong word to use. I guess I was reaching. As I recall it couldn't take a lot of punishment from .50 cals.

==============================

- I have never heard that the Zero's airframe
- structure was weak. It was made to be a
- carrier-borne aircraft, and weak structures are
- generally not acceptable for carrier operations due
- to the stresses of take-off and landing.
-
- It did however lack protection for the pilot and for
- its fuel supply, which made it very vulnerable to
- even small caliber weapons.
-
---AKD

==============================

My principle concern is just the fact the aircraft flight model as is, isn't close to uncontrollable at high speeds.

==============================

Even in CFS2 with the avhistory.org 1% flight models it was more representative of actual performance than it is in the IL2-FB as it is now.

I'm not ragging on the developers, just letting them know, this is a beta patch so we might expect some changes.

-------------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 12:59 AM
from the books I have read, the japanese design was maneuverability and range above all else.

The aircraft was very light and was unbeatable early in the war in turns.

Pilot armour and self sealing tanks were scraficed for light weight. Once the allies gained better tatics, they found the zero very easy to chew up.

Didnt a few japanese planes have damage issues ? Im sure ive heard the name "flying cigeratte lighter" applied to one.





"id buy that for a dollar"

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 01:43 AM
The "Betty" the Type 1 attack bomber..Known as the "type one lighter" by its crews. Without protected tanks usually one hit to the fuel tanks would set it alight. Hence the name.

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/zero-105-over-rabaul.jpg

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:31 AM
The Zero had enough structural strength to deal with the stresses of combat manouvers etc....

However, the structure was fairly light, the zero as a whole was a lighter airplane than most off its contemporaies.

This, combined with the aleady noted absence of armour and self sealing tanks lead to its reputation of being a fragile airplane.

It is interesting to compare to the IJA's most deployed fighter, the Ki-43 Hayabusa. The Ki-43 was even more lightly built than the Zero (with even more jaw-dropping low speed manouverability) but was yet more vunerable to enemy fire.

As a side note, if you are ever in Darwin, visit the National Aviation Heritage Museum there. Two of the exhibits are the remains of an A6M2 and a P-40 downed during the raids on Darwin in WW2. It's quite easy to compare the wing structure of the two, and it is clear how much heavier the P-40's structure was than that of the Zero.



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 09:03 AM
SABURO SAKAI

(On the Zero)

During the war, I was convinced the Zero Model 21 was the best fighter plane anywhere. It was always number one with me. Then a few years ago, at Champlin, I had the chance to fly in a Mustang and take the controls for a while. What an incredible plane! It could do anything the Zero could, and many things the Zero can't, like a high-speed, spiraling dive. In the Zero, the stick would be too heavy to control the plane at those speeds. The Mustang's number one with me now, and I'm afraid the Zero's number two!


(On the Zero's maneuverability)

Oh yes, the Zero was incredibly maneuverable, but not over about 250 mph. Above that speed, the stick just gets too heavy because the plane's control surfaces are so huge. You've seen those films of kamikaze plunging straight down into the water far from any U.S. ships, right? The kids in those planes probably put their planes into a dive way too early, and before they realized their mistake, they had too much speed built up to pull out of their dive. They probably died pulling desperately on the stick with all their strength. When I coached those kids [kamikaze pilots], I'd tell them, "If you've gotta die, you at least want to hit your target, right? If so, then go in low, skimming the water. Don't dive on your target. You lose control in a dive. You risk getting picked off by a fighter, but you've got better chance of hitting your target."
-----------------------------------------------













No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 09:50 AM
nearmiss wrote:
- While your own the subject...what about stalling the
- Zeros. I ragged the heck out of them trying to get
- them to stall, they sure have high threshold for
- stall. LOL

I also notice Zeros is very stable regarding the stall but I'm not much suprised about it... it's stall speed without flaps is under 80Mph and with flaps about 67Mph... considering this it really should be a very stable plane. What I am quiestioning is that when I do get it to stall, the moment I release the controls it recovers imediately. I don't know if this is correct or not as I never read anything on Zero's stall recovery characteristics. I assume it should have "normal" characteristics regarding stall recovery as if it were very good or very bad... surely it would be recorded and emphasised on.

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 10:21 AM
I would like to add to this discussion the following:

The Zero model we have in FB is A6M5a. This is the best Zero ever built. The reason for saying "best" is because it had same manouverability as any other Zero plus it's dive speed was increased to about 410Mph (Miles per hour and not Nautical Miles per Hour as "some of you" may think and claim as regardless if this aircraft was carrier based only water vesels use Nautical Miles).

I wanted to test the Zero in RC patch again so my squad mate and I took the same test we did with 1.2b. We found that the level speeds of both Zero and P-40M were pretty much alright with possible 10Kmph deviation which is not really a big issue and can be counted as normal error. At 15,000ft (about 3,200m) P-40 could fly at 355Mph (570Kmph) and Zero about 330Mph (525Kmph).

The roll rate of the Zero has been reduced at higher speeds and we found that at 350Kmph and above Zero now has a very marginal lead in roll rate then P-40M ... I could estimate to maybe less then 5deg/sec difference in favour of Zero. P-40 roll rate has not been change still and is still very low compared to what it should be. At speed ov about 280Mph P-40 should have best roll rate and about 2x that of the Zero! In FB they are very much the same which is very wrong. Also we did not care much about actually timing the roll rate but rather compare the two.

In a dive the safe speed at which the Zero could dive is about 740-750Kmph while P-40m had about 780-790Kmph. This is also not very correct for the Zero and maybe a notch off for the P-40. Even if I acknoledge that this particular model of the Zero was recorder to have achieved 460Mph (735Kmph) in a divea, that is still literally the speed at which Zero could go and any faster, it would lose its wings. The P-40 was recorded to have achieved speeds of just over 500Mph (800Kmph) in a dive without any damage.

I must note that I do not dispute Zero's turn rate is it's suposed to superior to P-40's where the Zero's best turn speed is about 200Mph (320Kmph).

Also Zero's climb is very good. Zero has superior sustained climb rate but the P-40 has better zoom climb rate.

edit: here is a very nice chart of roll rates few well known aircraft with P-40 and Zero included... please compare roll rates of the two then relate that (or test yourself in FB) to what I just said we found in our test:
http://www.il2skins.com/kuky/roll-rates.gif

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

Message Edited on 11/13/0307:38PM by RAAF_Edin

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:19 PM
Well "some of us" if that means me(?). Found a link to a US pilots report :

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185520-1.html

"Next to the EGT is the clock, of course, then the airspeed indicator. It seems odd to have "1.5" show 150 knots, but the airplane has so much "feel," it's not even necessary to have this instrument, except for the airspeed limitations. The red "Gen Off" can be seen just above and to the right of the airspeed.
"

i don't disagree with the fact that the Zero has bad handling at high speeds but I DO think that there have been mistakes because of the difference between knots & MPH.

BTW I have flown Cessna's that had speed indicated in knots, so i don't know why you would find it hard to believe that a long range naval aircraft would use knots. Much better for navigation.

hers a pic:
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/185502_zero_forward_left_panel.jpg






Message Edited on 11/13/0308:32AM by Saburo_0

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 05:58 PM
Great Picture Saburo.

What do you thing the Airspeed marking on the outer ring at about 132 Knts means?

Is that regular crusing speed?

Seems like they made a little notation in black marker on the panel.

(I also like how they put "AIR SPEED" with an arrow above the Japanese tag on the panel, LOL)

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:32 PM
RAAF_Edin wrote:
- Is it sufficient if I say that my squad mate and I
- did a test online just the two of us...

No.

Track file, not "body text".

Email, not ORR.

People reporting horrible, hideous bugs that will cripple the game if left in place, saying that it is the result of their extensive rigorous testing and experience, and backed by the historical record of aircraft test data ..

... but who can't move their mouse mere centimetres to save the track when they're done, or actually quote the test data they reference it against or the ISBN of the book it's in ..

.. are going to be shown all of the respect and credibility they deserve.

Do it the right way. Imagine the heaping of praise and thanks for helping to fix a genuine documented problem rather than the suspicion and derision posting totally unvalidated material.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:34 PM
mchaos wrote:
- Great Picture Saburo.
-
- What do you thing the Airspeed marking on the outer
- ring at about 132 Knts means?

Not sure, it may be covered in the article tho. It is really interesting to find out what is involved in flying these old warbirds for today's pilots.
-
- Is that regular crusing speed?
-
- Seems like they made a little notation in black
- marker on the panel.
-
- (I also like how they put "AIR SPEED" with an arrow
- above the Japanese tag on the panel, LOL)

yeah kinda neat. Authenticity is good and all, but just in case it'd be nice to have a few English reminders, like when it started smoking on him .....





Message Edited on 11/13/0301:00PM by Saburo_0

ZG77_Nagual
11-13-2003, 06:50 PM
Some interesting Zero Stuff

http://www.yarchive.net/mil/zero.html

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:43 PM
Heinz_Knokke wrote:
- There is something else that surprised me about the
- Zero:
-
- I decided to make it spin to test it's behavior in
- such conditions... but never succeded in entering a
- spin. It would begin to stall and drop a wing if I
- pulled the stick brutaly to the side (kind of a
- Hikerigomi if that the correct name of this
- maneuver), but it will not spin, whatever I did...
- it will recover with no input to the stick or rudder
- in less than a turn. A plane that is unable to spin
- sounds very strange to me. I've never read a book
- about the zero stating that the airplane was
- impossible to spin...
-
-

I have no problem whatsoever spinning it, perhaps its your game controller settings.

I do think that it shouldn't dive with the P-39 though!!
;-)



S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

(Former)Reserve Pilot Aircraft #2 of Gruppo 313
Pattuglia Acrobatica Virtuale
http://www.vhvt.com/

http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.calaggieflyers.com/



http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:53 PM
mchaos wrote:
- Great Picture Saburo.
-
- What do you thing the Airspeed marking on the outer
- ring at about 132 Knts means?
-
- Is that regular crusing speed?
-
- Seems like they made a little notation in black
- marker on the panel.
-
- (I also like how they put "AIR SPEED" with an arrow
- above the Japanese tag on the panel, LOL)
-

That looks like the max flap operating speed for the first notch of flaps. The line at 125 is the max full flap operating speed.

This aircraft can be seen at CMA in sothern california, this one happens to be an A6M3, Serial No. 3869; Reg. No. NX712Z.

From the CAF SoCAl Wing (my former CAF base)

"This plane was found on New Guinea (now Indonesia), near the town of Babo. It was restored partly in Russia, and partly in the U.S. It comes to us from The Museum of Flying in Santa Monica. We hope that the Zero will be a long-term visitor. It is one of only three flying Zeros in the world. Over 10,000 were built by Japan."


S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

(Former)Reserve Pilot Aircraft #2 of Gruppo 313
Pattuglia Acrobatica Virtuale
http://www.vhvt.com/

http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.calaggieflyers.com/



http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg





Message Edited on 11/13/0303:00PM by TX-EcoDragon

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 01:25 AM
TX-EcoDragon wrote:
That looks like the max flap operating speed for the
- first notch of flaps. The line at 125 is the max
- full flap operating speed.
-
- This aircraft can be seen at CMA in sothern
- california, this one happens to be an A6M3, Serial
- No. 3869; Reg. No. NX712Z.
-
- From the CAF SoCAl Wing (my former CAF base)
-
- "This plane was found on New Guinea (now Indonesia),
- near the town of Babo. It was restored partly in
- Russia, and partly in the U.S. It comes to us from
- The Museum of Flying in Santa Monica. We hope that
- the Zero will be a long-term visitor. It is one of
- only three flying Zeros in the world. Over 10,000
- were built by Japan."
-
-
- S!
- TX-EcoDragon
- Black 1
- TX Squadron XO

Thanks!
S!

Oh & when i saw that someone from TX squadron had posted I knew i would learn something. Appreciate you all sharing your knowledge.



Message Edited on 11/13/0308:27PM by Saburo_0

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 05:31 AM
Did you also notice that the outline of the airspeed idicator is grean until just before 300kt's then it's red?

No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF



Message Edited on 11/14/0302:32PM by pourshot

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 06:17 AM
There is a flying Zero at the Cavanaugh Air Museum, Addison, Texas and I know of one in Houston, Texas as well.

So...that's it only three /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

--------------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 08:11 AM
nearmiss wrote:
- There is a flying Zero at the Cavanaugh Air Museum,
- Addison, Texas

That one flew in a low bank across the highway while I was driving from Dallas to Austin a few years ago. Kind of surreal to see that hinomaru and distinctive airframe go zipping past at low altitude without expecting it.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 09:00 AM
Those instruments are surely not original as you can see labeling above tacho and altitude gauge is in japanese but writing (ALT, KTS) is in english... I doubt japanese has english labeled instruments in their aircraft.

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

Message Edited on 11/14/0306:06PM by RAAF_Edin

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 09:14 AM
Another thing I noticed is the tacho labeling in A6M5... The first turn of the hand is up to 160...then second is to 300 and it doesn't go any further. I wonder why in the world would an aircraft which was able to do 460Mph have its speedo marked till 300 (some units)??? If we take the speedo shows Nautical Miles / Hour or Knots that 300KTS is still only some 520Kmph or 325Mph. How in the world would a pilot know what speed he's doing in a dive and when not to go any faster as he'll face his aircraft loosing wings???

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 10:49 AM
S!



Saburo Sakai said it All :


SABURO SAKAI


(On the Zero's maneuverability)

Oh yes, the Zero was incredibly maneuverable, but not over about 250 mph. Above that speed, the stick just gets too heavy because the plane's control surfaces are so huge. You've seen those films of kamikaze plunging straight down into the water far from any U.S. ships, right? The kids in those planes probably put their planes into a dive way too early, and before they realized their mistake, they had too much speed built up to pull out of their dive. They probably died pulling desperately on the stick with all their strength. When I coached those kids [kamikaze pilots], I'd tell them, "If you've gotta die, you at least want to hit your target, right? If so, then go in low, skimming the water. Don't dive on your target. You lose control in a dive. You risk getting picked off by a fighter, but you've got better chance of hitting your target."
-----------------------------------------------


I saw the Zero fly at Planes of Fame in Chino California. They actually had a fighter pilots seminar about the Hellcat. Many USN/USMC pilots got up and spoke about the Hellcat and their wartime experiences with it. I took my dad (USMC Pilot) and he ran into some of his ol' buddies.

They then flew the Hellcat and Zero together, I kept waiting for the bullets to start flying-lol.



Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 03:08 PM
pourshot wrote:
- Did you also notice that the outline of the airspeed
- idicator is grean until just before 300kt's then
- it's red?
-
- No1RAAF_Pourshot
- <img
- src="http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68
- /CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg">
-
- No1_RAAF
-
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 11/14/03 02:32PM by pourshot

Yes I did notice that but I cant tell from pics & diagrams i've seen if that was in the original Zero's or just added to remind pilots of this antique museum peice Zero. Aslo I have read that the Japanese aluminium was lighter & just as strong as that used in US aircraft but that after 25 years it could be seen to be breaking down or deteriorating & that this is another reason why there are so few flying zeros today.

I am happy to see you now admit the Zero's speed was measured in Knots tho, that was my point.
The Japanese were not successful because they did not appreciate the value of individual human lives even in the case of highly trained airmen. if they had & if their manufacturing industry had been up to producing quality self-sealing tanks etc the air war could have been much tougher for us. I am thankful it wasn't.

I have another quote from Sakai I'll post later that i think you'll enjoy & find informative (at work now) .

i don't want a super Zero but I do trust Oleg's team morwe than the average amatuer historians,my self included, on the internet. Becasue of the Mariana's Turkey shoot & similar instances many folks think they (being above average pilots) should be able to easily flame any number of Zero's with in days of encountering them in FB. They are wrong.Planes like the Zero4, yak 3 & Spit are superb Defensive fighters & were historically very hard to bring down if their pilot had spotted the attacker.

Fair Dinkum, eh