PDA

View Full Version : Dive Acceleration Comparison



RAAF_Edin
06-11-2004, 09:55 AM
In particular, I am highly interested why my test show the following:

(Test conducted in QMB, 100% fuel, full power "aiming" through gunsight at pre-set static point on the ground. Dive starting imediately after QMB start at 1000m altitude and 22deg declination)

Results in Km/h TAS (as per speedbar) at time of impact into ground.

P-40E 570Km/h
P-40M 570Km/h
P-47D-27 610Km/h
P-51D20NA 630Km/h
Spitfire HF MkIXe 590Km/h
Bf-109G-2 600Km/h
Bf-110G-2 600Km/h
FW-190A4 610Km/h
Ki-84 Ia/Ib/Ic 630Km/h
A6M2 540Km/h
A6M5a 560Km/h

Now, what really interests me, and I would like your opinion on these results, compared to historical data you can find or have, the P-40 variants. The P-40 best strong-point was it's amaising ability to accelerate into a dive and reach quite safely a whooping 480Mph and it's also been recorded that some variant reahced even 510Mph in a dive safely. The Zero on the other hand is quite the oposite especially the A6M2 model. What these results indicate is that the P-40 is just a fraction faster in a dive then it's Zero counterparts.

I though then maybe because the dive angle wasn't high enough I should try a vertical dive, applying the same principle and I got even more amusing findings:

P-40E 570Km/h
P-40M 570Km/h
A6M2 560Km/h
A6M5a 570Km/h

Looks like the Zero does even better in these circumstance. I know though, that if this dive would have continued, the P-40 would easily reach those 480-ish Mph and the Zero couldn't. But the logic to me applies that in this relatively short dive (which really it isn't that short at all considering a 1000m altitude has been shed) the Zero accelerated better then the P-40. I say it accelerated better because considering the Zero being very light and P-40 rugged and heavier, and having better aerodynamics for high speed dive, Zero should see the P-40 accelerate from it in such a dive. In fact, The P-40 is by far one of the worst in a dive from this list and that is just plainly wrong.

That just beats me how Oleg keeps getting and setting this FM data into various aircraft.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

[This message was edited by RAAF_Edin on Fri June 11 2004 at 09:05 AM.]

RAAF_Edin
06-11-2004, 09:55 AM
In particular, I am highly interested why my test show the following:

(Test conducted in QMB, 100% fuel, full power "aiming" through gunsight at pre-set static point on the ground. Dive starting imediately after QMB start at 1000m altitude and 22deg declination)

Results in Km/h TAS (as per speedbar) at time of impact into ground.

P-40E 570Km/h
P-40M 570Km/h
P-47D-27 610Km/h
P-51D20NA 630Km/h
Spitfire HF MkIXe 590Km/h
Bf-109G-2 600Km/h
Bf-110G-2 600Km/h
FW-190A4 610Km/h
Ki-84 Ia/Ib/Ic 630Km/h
A6M2 540Km/h
A6M5a 560Km/h

Now, what really interests me, and I would like your opinion on these results, compared to historical data you can find or have, the P-40 variants. The P-40 best strong-point was it's amaising ability to accelerate into a dive and reach quite safely a whooping 480Mph and it's also been recorded that some variant reahced even 510Mph in a dive safely. The Zero on the other hand is quite the oposite especially the A6M2 model. What these results indicate is that the P-40 is just a fraction faster in a dive then it's Zero counterparts.

I though then maybe because the dive angle wasn't high enough I should try a vertical dive, applying the same principle and I got even more amusing findings:

P-40E 570Km/h
P-40M 570Km/h
A6M2 560Km/h
A6M5a 570Km/h

Looks like the Zero does even better in these circumstance. I know though, that if this dive would have continued, the P-40 would easily reach those 480-ish Mph and the Zero couldn't. But the logic to me applies that in this relatively short dive (which really it isn't that short at all considering a 1000m altitude has been shed) the Zero accelerated better then the P-40. I say it accelerated better because considering the Zero being very light and P-40 rugged and heavier, and having better aerodynamics for high speed dive, Zero should see the P-40 accelerate from it in such a dive. In fact, The P-40 is by far one of the worst in a dive from this list and that is just plainly wrong.

That just beats me how Oleg keeps getting and setting this FM data into various aircraft.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

[This message was edited by RAAF_Edin on Fri June 11 2004 at 09:05 AM.]

k5054
06-11-2004, 11:04 AM
You have chosen conditions which favour the a/c with better power/weight. At speeds below the max level speed the biggest differentiator on dive acceleration is the P/W, over max level it's the drag/weight. Start higher and faster and the P40 will have time to pull ahead.
Then you will get into the area where I think all dive accelerations are too high. Still gathering data at this point.

Diablo310th
06-11-2004, 01:53 PM
From waht I've seen just about all ac can dive at teh same max speed. The difference is when they reach compressibility. Some planes can reach those speeds without much shuddering and wings ripping off. In fact I'm not sure any ac now will shed wings in a dive like they used to. Can anyone comment on this that has tested it? What about a dive from 3000m instead of 1000??

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/Diablos20Sig.jpg

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2004, 03:59 PM
The Brits compared a P47-C with an FW-190A-4 or 5 I can't remember which.
Start speed 250mph, no change in throttle in the dive, 10,000 ft down to
3,000 ft at a 65 degree angle (steep as hell). P-47 didn't catch the 190
till they *got* to 3,000 ft at the bottom of the dive. At that point, the
P-47 was noted to be moving "much faster and had a better angle of recovery
and subsequent zoom".

Funny, the P-47 is universally noted for being better in dives than the
190's, any of them AFAIK. What's wrong here is simply that most universal
dive advantage quotes don't specify dive angle, start speed or time of dive.
What else is wrong is that people seem to take lack of specifics as license
to fill in to suit.

Until an object is moving fast enough for drag to have a major effect above
the force of it's weight (mass x gravity), all objects accelerate at the same
rate of appx 9.81 m/s/s. Then you have the prop and thrust which gives more
at low speeds and tapers off with increased speed ~but~ is also divided by the
weight of the plane. A plane with higher excess power (power beyond what it
needs just to go as fast as it does) to weight will pick up faster in the start
of the dive, well really until it's going fast enough that its excess power to
weight is equal or less than the other plane.

You may ask, just how long does that take? Well, about to where the max level
speed of the slower plane is reached, then excess power for that plane is about
zilch. And how many of the planes in that first set of the original post had
gotten to their max level speeds?


I might suggest that for fun you try 30 degree dives and cut the prop pitches
way back just one time as speed gets real high and see if it don't get higher.


Neal

RAAF_Edin
06-11-2004, 06:11 PM
This time I used a simple dive test to test max dive speed and actuall weight/drag influence of the fuselage in a dive acceleration/speed.

I chose purpousefully the P-40E and A6M2 models only simply because I felt that Zero is still way too fast in a dive and the P-40 does not accelerate fast enough in a dive.

I went with 3000m altitude this time and approximately 40deg dive angle and as the last time "aiming" at a specific point on the ground each time. First, I used no power at all and the pitch was set to full course in order to test actual airframe capability to dive due to its weight/drag factor. Second, I chose to go full power and again course pitch so the engine would not over-rev and certainly not reach it's max rpm value. Third, again full power but this time 1/2 the pitch to see if engine power does any difference.

1. 3000m, 40deg angle, full course pitch, no power;
*********************
P-40E reached 740kmph
A6M2 reached 660kmph

2. 3000m 40deg angle, full course pitch, full power;
*********************
P-40E reached 780kmph
A6M2 reached 670kmph (lost control surface just before reaching the ground)

3. 3000m 40deg angle, 1/2 pitch, full power;
*********************
P-40E reached max dive speed of 790kmph before loosing control surface(s)
A6M2 reached 670kmph (done in test 2)


First here is a snip from Saburo's interview which I think is a good reference about the Zero:

"In a short but informative interview with Saburo Sakai, Japans leading living Ace, I asked, "Commander, what was the Zero's top speed?" His answer amazed me when he said, "The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph. and a maximum allowable dive speed of 350 mph. It became extremely heavy on the controls above 275 mph, and approaching 350 mph, the Zero's controls were so heavy it was impossible to roll."

By the way there are plenty of references stating this exact same thing. It was also registered that some P-40 pilots reached about 500mph in a dive which sugests that marked 480mph is most certainly a good safe max dive speed.

However, test show A6M2 model to have 70kmph over it's max dive speed (using 660kmph as safe dive speed from the test and 590kmph as stated max dive speed) and the P-40 lost its control surface in this test at 790kmph where as a completely safe dive speed of 480mph (800kmph) should be reachable without any problems.

One pity comes to my mind as I would also like to obtain dive speeds at certain time intervals which would give even a better picture about at which points the engine power makes biggest influence into acceleration and when drag factor kicks in but maybe more to that later on.

ps: I find it to be such a shame that when I consider only 2 aircraft and compare them to historical facts I see discrepancies and I can just imagine how many more things that I and other do not know about just becuase we are not interested in those aircraft so we don't know the facts and never bother to make any tests.
--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2004, 08:52 PM
Easy way to make data points:
Run your flight single plane offline and record a full track at the end.
Record your data during playback using pause and 1/4 speed.

With pitch use, I know it's not simple but you need to start out using a
higher pitch to match the plane and the speed and then reduce pitch as the
plane speeds up. This will give you the max accel at the start and present
the least drag once the plane is moving faster than the engine power can
sustain in level flight, which it will.

You can show the power/pitch relationship by leaving pitch high in level
flight while reducing power and keeping the plane level. If you reduce
power a lot, the plane will slow way down pretty quickly from cruise speed.
Get back up to speed, reduce pitch and power equally with pitch first and
see how long it takes to lose the same amount of speed while staying level.
I've noted that with high pitch/rpms you can only go so fast even at full
power. It's great until then for acceleration although some engines overheat
quicker. Once you get to full 100% pitch speed, it's easy enough to check on
best pitch by trimming level and then dropping the pitch 5% and watching the
nose. If the nose goes up, you've gained thrust. I've run many of the planes
at 90%-90% and very good speed with rads closed and no overheat, in fact the
rads cool a bit and I make reserve for later need while at high cruise. What
it all tells me is full pitch is not the ticket to full speed and in a dive it's
just like riding the brake. So drop the pitch as speed goes up and close rads.


Neal

LEXX_Luthor
06-11-2004, 10:20 PM
You can start the mission at any desired dive angle by setting proper waypoint altitudes in FMB.

Set initial waypoint say 5km altitude, and final waypoint 5km horizontal away at low 100m altitude. That starts you in the cockpit at 45 degree nose down angle (FMB missions do this neat Feature). You can add a Tirpitz or something on the ground at the final waypoint and keep it in your gunsight to maintain the exact desired dive angle.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-12-2004, 07:16 PM
I set one up with a concrete base at the bottom and the upper point just off east.
Then I went into the .mis file with notepad and edited the upper waypoint to exactly
where I wanted. Problem is that if you nose down at the waypoint, your path will be
steeper depending on how high it is and how fast you hit the point so start early to
test dives from combat speeds... and 300kph is not combat speed unless you're in a
damned slow plane.


Neal

k5054
06-13-2004, 05:50 PM
I found another dive test in 'Mustang, a documentary history' By Jeff Ethell. The test is P-51D-5 vs A6M5, so it represents one of the best divers vs one which is not too good by late standards. It was done at Eglin Field in 1945.
Quote:
Dive acceleration:

10,000ft. The run was begun from a line abreast formation at 200 IAS, with full power applied as the dive was entered. The P-51 began to pull ahead immediately. The selected red line airspeed (325IAS) of the Zeke was reached after 27 seconds. At this time the P-51 had a lead of approximately 200yds.

25,000ft.
Result were much the same as at 10,000ft. The Zeke reached 325IAS after 20 seconds, and the P-51 was rapidly widening a lead begun shortly after the dive was entered.

Unquote.

Note that the dive angle is not mentioned. In my opinion it was shallow, the Zeke gained around 130mph (true) in the 27 seconds. This is 190 ft/sec, an acceleration of 7ft/sec/sec, 0.22G. This net acceleration is going to be around the sine of the angle of dive, and that makes the angle 12 degrees. And around 20 degrees for the 25,000ft test. (A steep dive at 10,000 for 27 seconds is obviously out of the question, if you want to pull out.)
I fed those values into my dive spreadsheet and got a difference for the P-51 of around 600ft.

The Eglin test has some zoom values too. I'll be testing them in due course, but right now I'd like to know how long the two a/c take to get to 325IAS in a shallow dive in AEP.

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2004, 06:26 PM
200 yd lead after 27 seconds but surely after that the lead widened quicker.
But how much? The P-51 started out faster and yet after 27 seconds was 200
yards ahead which doesn't speak of vastly different average speeds. 600 ft
divided by 27 seconds gets just over 22 ft/sec average. Very roughly, since
they started out at the same speed we might say the P-51 was doing 44+ ft/sec
at the 27 second point, 44 fps is 30mph. For sure the Zero was top ended and
the Mustang was just getting into stride but the whole thing illustrates a
point about dive advantages, that you need a good margin to just dive out of
range. Throw in barrel rolls and other jinks and you can get away with less,
them Zeroes didn't roll well at what was high speed for them and with max at
325mph, hehehe, well didn't Sakai write about rolls at speeds over 250 mph?


Neal

BigKahuna_GS
06-13-2004, 06:54 PM
S!


Here is some more of that P47 vs 190 dive test and fly off :

Part of the test-----

3) Diving

(a) 10,000-3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65 degrees with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out.

(note-the 47 caught and passed the 190 at the 3,000ft mark)

(b) Turning and handling below 250mph. Turns were made so rapidly that it was impossible for the aircraft to accelerate. In making the usual rather flat turns in a horizontal plane, the FW190 was able to hang onto its propeller and turn inside the P-47. The FW190 was also able to accelerate suddenly and change to a more favorable position during the turn.

However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute a series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190.

The maneuver started with a a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep which again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point. The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher.

The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver.

R.Johnson did this many times.


___

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2004, 11:00 PM
The FW also had a less efficient pullout from dive than the P-47 with a noted
'tendency to sink'. This favored the P-47 in both compares shown above. In
the dive test, the P-47 catches and passes the FW at the bottom of the dive.
What do planes do at the bottom of the dive?

How far would I have to dive in the P-47 to equal the speed of the FW? And
to have a much greater speed? For sure the zoom and dive to reverse didn't
go nearly 7,000 feet from bottom to top?

In the zoom and dive maneuver there is again the transition every time. If my
plane makes a tight, quick and efficient transition while you have to baby your
plane through then I'm going to be faster about it, ain't I?

Just things to consider. Not everything is written down in one document.


Neal

k5054
06-14-2004, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Describes the mood or content of the topic posted 13-06-04 17:26 Sun June 13 2004 05:26 PM
200 yd lead after 27 seconds but surely after that the lead widened quicker.
But how much? The P-51 started out faster and yet after 27 seconds was 200
yards ahead which doesn't speak of vastly different average speeds. 600 ft
divided by 27 seconds gets just over 22 ft/sec average. Very roughly, since
they started out at the same speed we might say the P-51 was doing 44+ ft/sec
at the 27 second point, 44 fps is 30mph. For sure the Zero was top ended and
the Mustang was just getting into stride but the whole thing illustrates a
point about dive advantages, that you need a good margin to just dive out of
range. Throw in barrel rolls and other jinks and you can get away with less,
them Zeroes didn't roll well at what was high speed for them and with max at
325mph, hehehe, well didn't Sakai write about rolls at speeds over 250 mph? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The spreadsheet (with usual caveats) shows the Zeke at 367mph true and the P-51 at 402, at 7200ft alt. The mustang is gaining by 2mph (4 vs 2) each second at this point. At 35 seconds it is 1000ft ahead.

I repeat this is a test with two a/c we would expect to show big differences. If we slotted P-47 and FW190 in here they would be a lot closer.

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2004, 02:14 PM
The Zero is supposed to max out at 325 in 27 seconds so 367 is way off.

Aaron_GT
06-14-2004, 02:20 PM
"(a) 10,000-3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65 degrees with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out."

Makes sense - the 190 has initially better excess power loading at 10000ft, but loses out on aerodynamics. At 30,000ft then for an A5 you'd expect the P47 to have better excess powerloading too (less drop of HP with altitude)

Aaron_GT
06-14-2004, 02:24 PM
"However, test show A6M2 model to have 70kmph over it's max dive speed "

The redline speed is the speed at which pilots were not permitted to fly. It doesn't mean that the plane could or would not go faster, just that the wear/tear/risk was such that pilots were instructed not to. If you look at combat manuals of some fighter planes some proscribe all manner of aerobatics that pilots regularly used as combat maneouvers, or allowed them only with huge amounts of altitude for recovery. It doesn't mean you couldn't do them, just that there was a risk if things went wrong and they didn't want pilots trying the maneouvers unless it was absolutely necessary.

VW-IceFire
06-14-2004, 02:25 PM
So is this why I can almost never dive away from opponents...even if we start at 6000 meters. The other guy always seems to catch me....

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

k5054
06-14-2004, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>posted 14-06-04 13:14 Mon June 14 2004 01:14 PM
The Zero is supposed to max out at 325 in 27 seconds so 367 is way off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

325 indicated, 367 true, you have to use true speed to work out acceleration, and it is at 7000ft, about.

Note that the P-47/FW dive takes place over about 14 seconds, not long for a lead to develop when the two a/c are similar in P/W

RAAF_Edin
06-14-2004, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"However, test show A6M2 model to have 70kmph over it's max dive speed "

The redline speed is the speed at which pilots were not permitted to fly. It doesn't mean that the plane could or would not go faster, just that the wear/tear/risk was such that pilots were instructed not to. If you look at combat manuals of some fighter planes some proscribe all manner of aerobatics that pilots regularly used as combat maneouvers, or allowed them only with huge amounts of altitude for recovery. It doesn't mean you couldn't do them, just that there was a risk if things went wrong and they didn't want pilots trying the maneouvers unless it was absolutely necessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then I would like to repeat again:
"However, test show A6M2 model to have 70kmph over it's max dive speed (using 660kmph as safe dive speed from the test and 590kmph as stated max dive speed) and the P-40 lost its control surface in this test at 790kmph where as a completely safe dive speed of 480mph (800kmph) should be reachable without any problems"

Please note that if by your logic, Zero M2 model has max dive speed of 350Mph can safely go beyond that (like you say "if neccessery") but the P-40 which was so rugged, looses control surfaces just under it's rated max dive speed of 480Mph?

Zero goes from max 590Kmph and stays safe at 660Kmph (70Kmph extra speed)
P-40 goes from max 800Kmph and breaks at 790Kmph (10kmph less speed)

This is highly incorrect.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2004, 07:23 PM
Got to agree there. Maybe both need tweaked? Hope 1C set aside time.

Aaron_GT
06-15-2004, 11:10 AM
"Please note that if by your logic, Zero M2 model has max dive speed of 350Mph can safely go beyond that (like you say "if neccessery") but the P-40 which was so rugged, looses control surfaces just under it's rated max dive speed of 480Mph?"

Ok, I don't understand why if plane A, which fought plane B in WW2 has problems, people complain about plane B, rather than plane A! This was my confusion. The Zero doesn't fall apart over its redline speed, which is to be expected. If the P40 does, then the problem with the P40, not the zero!

RAAF_Edin
06-15-2004, 06:09 PM
I think the reason "why" is obvious... Zero can go safely way beyond it's limitations in a dive, and P-40 can't even reach it rated limit. My point being:

Both plane A and plane B are off, however plane B (A6M2) being worse off then plane A (P-40E) when it comes to dive speed.

Nevertheless, dive acceleration is off for plane A (P-40) and is somewhat too slow. This can simply be seen from a high angle dive and leting the dive occur only due to aircraft weight and high speed aerodynamics factor (since i used no engine power in such dive test).

PS: This is of greatest importance in relation to these two aircraft as this P-40 great advantage was / is the only exploit it can use against any Zero. The slowest P-40 had 350Mph in level flight... and the fastest A6M2 could dive was 350-360Mph and surely Zero's dive limitations were tested by test pilots otherwise why would anyone say "This aircraft's safe max dive speed is 350Mph" if test pilots could dive it to 400Mph and live to tell and actually land the plane after such manouvre? So all the talk about aircraft having the "Extra dive speed if neccessary past it's rated limit" is ridicilous.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2004, 06:44 PM
From the way I read it, the safe max had to do with being able to control
the plane at all. Much more and the pilots who got there felt the rig
would come apart maybe if they tried to pull out or maybe by itself. We
do know that at some point into mach, fixed-tail aircraft tend to nose
down hard uncontrollably and from there it's tumbling pieces time....
I doubt that FB modelling can go that far, so we get the exploding plane
at a set limit or condition.

Can't find the site or quote but IIRC a P-40 Pacific pilot had stated that
the P-40's could dive from the Zeroes because at high speed the P-40 could
outturn the Zero due to it's control tightening up so hard, esp ailerons.
So the P-40 would dive and spiral with the Zero unable to get in a shot
and the P-40 would take off before it got too low, still in a dive running.

Can the Zero be rolled worth a damn at over 250mph? Should be slow and
slower as speed increases.


Neal

jurinko
06-16-2004, 03:25 AM
seems that this dimension is still missing in FM calculations

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

BigKahuna_GS
06-17-2004, 02:53 PM
S!


A letter by Erik Shilling comparing the P40 to other types of A/C at that time frame of WW2 1941 :

Erik Shilling Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's
Flight Leader Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers


From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Zero, P-40, Me. 109 E-3, Spite Mk I, Hurricane
Date: 11 Aug 1996 19:34:52 GMT

A different approach may convince some of the readers the
reason why our successes against the Japanese was so outstanding.
After reading the following, don't feel sorry for Japanese, they
started the damn war.

All of the aircraft listed below are contemporaries of the P-40. As
an added comment and question, why do many insist upon comparing
apples and oranges. Surely there can be no doubt in anyone's mid
that the F8F was superior to its forerunners, but it wasn't flying
in combat in December of 1941. Why compare it to earlier fighters?
Makes as much sense as camparing the F-16 with Germany's Fokker
triplane.

The P-40's contemporary fighter aircraft, were the Japanese AM62
21, and the Hayabusa Ki-43. Germany's Me. 109 E-3, Briton's Spitfire
Mark I as well as the Hurricane.

The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet
P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was.

The P-40B flown by the Flying Tigers had. . .
Self sealing fuel tanks. . . Japanese aircraft had none.
Armor plate that would stop any bullet fired from a Japanese
fighter or bomber encountered over Burma.
Bullet proof windshield that would stop any Japanese fighter or
bomber's machine gun bullets.
Very much stronger than the flimsily constructed Japanese aircraft.
A number of Zero's shed their wings at speeds slightly over 350 IAS
mph. Japanese would not even attempt a dive that approached 350
IAS. None of Japan's aircraft could even stand up to P-40's 30 and
50 caliber guns. It only required a few incendiary bullet, even
from our 30 cal. guns, to set fire or explode their aircraft.

Although subsequent model P-40s did fall behind the new model
Me.109s and British Spitfires in performance, however in every case,
each new model Zero that came out remained inferior to their
contemporary P-40.

Now why in the hell would anyone consider the Zero to be the best
fighter of the war?

Hell it didn't even start out that way. . .
The above is not just my opinion, but garnered from available
facts, and flying the P-40 in combat.

What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting
combat that had been used during of WW I.

Erik Shilling

--

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
06-17-2004, 03:07 PM
S!


Saburo Sakai (Zeros Manueverability & Speed):

Saburo Sakai on the Mustang
vs (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 key to a good fighter plane)
By far the most important thing for a good fighter plane is its range. I can't tell you how much that affects you when you're in the cockpit. When you know you've got plenty of gas, it really lets you relax. Those poor Germans in their Me109s! They could barely get to altitude and fight for a couple of minutes before they had to start worrying about their fuel supply. When you are worried about your gas, it really affects what you do with your plane, even how you fight. Think of how many German fighters ended up at the bottom of the English Channel because they didn't have the gas to get home. A plane that doesn't have the gas to fly is just junk. If the Germans had had 1000 Zeros in 1940, I don't think England would still exist today. Think about it: With Zeros, they could have operated from airfields near Paris and still hit any target anywhere in the British Isles, or escorted bombers, and still have plenty of gas to get home. I once flew a Zero for 12 hours continuous once in an experiment to see just how far it could go. That plane's range was incredible. That's part of what made the Mustang great, too.

(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."

(On the IJN's leadership)
Promotions in the Navy were based on what school you graduated from and who you knew, it had nothing to do with merit. Some guy could smash up 20 planes trying to learn how to fly, and then not shoot down a damn thing and he'd be promoted faster than me or any other successful pilot simply because he came from the right school. Those were the kinds of idiots we had leading us. How were we supposed to win the war with leadership like that? Take that idiot [Minoru] Genda. He could barely fly, but he jumped up and down about the Shiden-kai ["George"], so everybody else pretended to like it, too. That plane was a piece of ****, put together by a third-rate firm [Kawanishi].

(On the atomic bomb)
Once, I was on a discussion panel with [Enola Gay pilot] Col. Paul Tibbets in the U.S. and somebody asked me what I thought about the A-bomb. I said "If Japan had had the bomb, and they told me to fly the plane that carried it and bomb San Francisco or something, I would have done it gladly. That's a soldier's job. To follow orders and fight for his country." I think Tibbets was a great hero for the U.S. To fly out there with just two B-29s and no fighter escort, that takes a lot of guts. At the time, nobody knew about the A-bomb; there was no international treaty against its use, like there was for chemical weapons. The U.S. even dropped leaflets warning people in Hiroshima that a new weapon was going to be used. That's just war.

(On Okinawans' and other Japanese peace groups protests of U.S. bases in Japan)
Those people are so stupid. Do they think that soldiers actually want to start a war or something, even though they would be the first ones killed? Do they think that if we get rid of armies, that we can rid the world of war? Do they also think that if we banish doctors, that we can rid the world of disease? Why don't they understand that armed forces are like an insurance policy for use in case of emergency. Who do they think is going to protect them if someone were to actually invade Japan? Article 9 of the Constitution [the part of the Japanese Constitution that renounces war as a sovereign right]? Do they think that if they staple copies of Article 9 onto boards and post them all around Japan's shores that a foreign invader is going to turn around and go home if they read it?

BUSHIDO
"Do not give up under any circumstances"
(The Japanese Field Service Code, adopted 8 Jan 1941)
The battlefield is where the Imperial Army, acting under the Imperial command, displays its true character, conquering wherever it attacks, winning whenever it engages in combat, in order to spread Kodo [Literally "The Imperial Way," whereby the Japanese people, achieving a unity of mind, with Emperor as Master and serving Him with loyalty and devotion, endeavor to establish a highly moral nation through whose moral influence they hope to contribute to the peace and welfare of the world] far and wide so that the enemy may look up in awe to the august virtues of His Majesty. Those who march to the battlefield, therefore, should exalt throughout the world the glories of the Empire by fully realizing what the country stands for and firmly upholding the moral tenets of the Imperial Army.

The Imperial Rescript to the armed forces is explicit, while the regulations and manuals clearly define the conduct in combat and methods of training. Conditions in the zone of combat, however, tend to cause soldiers to be swayed by immediate events and become forgetful of their duty. Indeed, they should be wary there lest they run counter to their duties as soldiers. The purpose of this code lies in providing concrete rules of conduct, in the light of past experience, so that those in the zone of combat may wholly abide by the Imperial Rescript to enhance the moral virtues of the Imperial Army.

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________


http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"