PDA

View Full Version : A6M2 and 5 roll rates



mike_espo
06-23-2004, 10:04 AM
I just got an email from Oleg: he will not fix the roll rates for the A6m in FB patch 2.01. He thinks its OK.

Its not.

I just hope we won't get the same zeros in PF. Hopefully, the roll rate will be correct. Decent at speeds below 400kph and slower at higher speeds.

It is a shame that one of the greatest fighters in Aviation history is neutered.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

mike_espo
06-23-2004, 10:04 AM
I just got an email from Oleg: he will not fix the roll rates for the A6m in FB patch 2.01. He thinks its OK.

Its not.

I just hope we won't get the same zeros in PF. Hopefully, the roll rate will be correct. Decent at speeds below 400kph and slower at higher speeds.

It is a shame that one of the greatest fighters in Aviation history is neutered.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

Yellonet
06-23-2004, 10:13 AM
How should the Zero behave then?


- Yellonet

mike_espo
06-23-2004, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:
How should the Zero behave then?


- Yellonet<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It actually was fine in the unpatched version of AEP, except for the incorrect ammo for the type 99 cannon it was too high at 125rpg. Also, the zero 21 did not have WEP or a supercharger.

As it is now, the roll rates of BOTH zero variants are way off. Too slow at slow speeds. At &lt; 375kph IAS, it should roll well, THEN become slower. In 2.01, it rolls like a pregnant whale at slow speeds; ~ 300kph IAS which is incorrect.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

Fennec_P
06-23-2004, 10:55 AM
Is there any info of this?

In that roll chart that you always see around here, the Zero appears to roll poorly at low speeds, and atrociously poor at high speeds.

Like, 60 degrees a second at 300kmh, or something like that.

mike_espo
06-23-2004, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fennec_P:
Is there any info of this?

In that roll chart that you always see around here, the Zero appears to roll poorly at low speeds, and atrociously poor at high speeds.

Like, 60 degrees a second at 300kmh, or something like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm. I would like to see that too. I have been looking online and at the libraries and bookstores for info on the roll rate. All I could find is that it rolled with the P-40 at speeds below 250mph 400kph at med altitudes and above that, got much more difficult.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

Ruy Horta
06-23-2004, 11:27 AM
Posted in a seperate thread, but maybe you can find some answers here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=280100684

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

mseraser
06-23-2004, 11:49 AM
This one?

http://photo.gznet.com/photos/1150578/1150578-KwQM4bPw3p.JPG

VF-3Thunderboy
06-23-2004, 09:46 PM
Crimee, I will upload a digital clip of a REAL a6M5 ZERO doing a 4.75 second roll if anyone can point me where to upload it to!From Roaring Glory Warbirds. The Zero is exellent at rolls at low speed, faster than the hellcat.The Avhistory Zero is very close, if there were ONLY Torque, and P-factor in the sim, it would be about spot on.Rolling to the left is always faster, but this is ususally not modeled.

4.75 Seconds at 160-180KTS

WUAF_Badsight
06-23-2004, 10:34 PM
IF the FB Zero is correct then the Zero IRL doesnt deserve the supreme DFer reputation

only thing on its side is sustained turn & steady climb rate

is not that marvelous at TnB as it is now

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No76_Pacific
06-23-2004, 11:20 PM
This is some good info on P-40 ledgion aircraft against the horrible Zero http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm

BigKahuna_GS
06-24-2004, 08:24 AM
S!

The captured Koga Zero (A6M2)1942 flight tests stated that the ailerons reportedly froze up at speeds above 200kts (230mph). It was described as, the roll rate suffered steadily as speed increased--not just a sudden freeze up at a certain speed. It was also found that at speeds over 200kts the zero had trouble rolling and turning to the right. This information was passed on to the fleet.

Ken Walsh (Corsair Ace) first dogfight with a Zero tested this theory out. While in a dive at 240kts, Walsh broke hard right and left the Zero chasing him behind unable to follow him, Walsh then manuevered behind the Zero and shot it down. The report also stated that the A6M2 also had a negative G acceleration cut out problem due to the float type carburator it used.

In the book "Report of Joint Fighter Confrence" pg310 it states this about a captured Zeke 52 1944 flight tests :

Combat qualities:
"It is a dangerous airplane to dogfight at slow speeds. Fighting qualities good at low speed, poor at high speed. Excellent for low altitude offensive combat or any turning fight where radius of turn or maneuverability is required as prime. Maneuverability is best feature but such items as poor pilot protection, extremely poor ailerons and only fair performance detract from it's usefuleness. Very poor in relation to present American fighters due to low performance, no armoring and stiffness of controls at high speeds.
Record stands for self."

The Zero suffered the same fate as the Japanese military as a whole. It ran wild for the first year of the war until more modern and powerful US fighters arrived in 1943 virtually rendering the Zero obsolete.

The Zero while an excellent airplane in 1941-42, was designed around an antiquated WW1 dogfighting philosophy. While japanese pilots were superbly trained, the dihcotmy was that many Zero pilots had no radios or parachutes and utilized hand signals for communications. A very interesting combination of the code of bushido and WW1 aircombat with very limited team concept in mind.

______

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.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
06-24-2004, 09:00 AM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Mike Espo--Hmmmm. I would like to see that too. I have been looking online and at the libraries and bookstores for info on the roll rate. All I could find is that it rolled with the P-40 at speeds below 250mph 400kph at med altitudes and above that, got much more difficult.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


The Zeros roll rate went from bad to worse as speed increased over 200kts like a sliding scale. The P40 had an excellent roll rate --the Zero never even came close to it.

This comparison of the P40 vs Zero by AVG pilot Erik Shilling :


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 bullets, 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.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
06-24-2004, 02:52 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
mike_espo ----It actually was fine in the unpatched version of AEP, except for the incorrect ammo for the type 99 cannon it was too high at 125rpg. Also, the zero 21 did not have WEP or a supercharger.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


Well I wished I would of seen this sooner. The AEP unpatched version of the A6M5 Zero was grossly overmodeled. The unpatched A6m5 had many non-historical attributes. For example, an icredible diving ability/speed that matched planes known for diving and an unrealistic roll rate at very high speed to name a couple.

The Zero had very poor diving and roll rate charectoristics. Mike, I think you are asking for something that is not historically accurate.


___________

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.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

mike_espo
06-24-2004, 03:15 PM
Jeeeeesh! Im tired of arguing with you 609IAP.

The patched zero roll rate especially the 52 is wrong. It roll rate is less that the type 21! The short wing span 52 gave it a higher roll rate.
I agree that the zero had poor HIGH speed rolling characteristics. It could not be beat in the slow speed category. In FB, dogfights between 275 and 350kph the zero rolls like a pregnant whale. 170 and 220mph. This is SLOW speed. The roll rate should be higher.

As for Dive speed. the Zero 21 was not excessive in AEP, the Zero 52 was stressed for higher dive speeds.

Have an open mind.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

MetalG.
06-24-2004, 03:47 PM
I agree with you mike_espo.
Hopefully this will be adressed for PF.

BigKahuna_GS
06-25-2004, 03:36 AM
S!~
__________________________________________________ ________________________
mike_espo--Jeeeeesh! Im tired of arguing with you 609IAP.
The patched zero roll rate especially the 52 is wrong. It roll rate is less that the type 21! The short wing span 52 gave it a higher roll rate.
I agree that the zero had poor HIGH speed rolling characteristics. It could not be beat in the slow speed category. In FB, dogfights between 275 and 350kph the zero rolls like a pregnant whale. 170 and 220mph. This is SLOW speed. The roll rate should be higher.
As for Dive speed. the Zero 21 was not excessive in AEP, the Zero 52 was stressed for higher dive speeds.
Have an open mind.
__________________________________________________ __________________________



I am not trying to argue--just elighten you. Try to read before you post---200kts or 230mph is hardly high speed--yet before that speed the roll rate of the Zero was already suffering. The onset of a slowing roll rate occurd way before lock up. Look 220mph is not far from complete lock up.

The captured Koga Zero (A6M2)1942 flight tests stated that the ailerons reportedly froze up at speeds above 200kts (230mph). It was described as, the roll rate suffered steadily as speed increased--not just a sudden freeze up at a certain speed. It was also found that at speeds over 200kts the zero had trouble rolling and turning to the right. This information was passed on to the fleet.

You have made several false and misleading staments about the Zero. For example-- how the zero could roll with the P40 which it cannot, that the pre-patch AEP Zero was just fine when in fact it was grossly over modeled.
The pre-patch AEP Zero could match the dive acceleration of late war fast diving A/C 190, P51, P47 and it could roll with all of them at high speed.

That is simply not historically accurate. The Zero was a very poor diving aircraft with a terrible roll rate at anything over 200kts. The onset of this problem manifested itself way earlier than total lock up.

The AEP Zero does not even have the historical problem of difficulty in making a right hand turn with speeds over 200kts and it dives to well according to tests form another thread.

So if you have one specific problem stick with it and quit making wild exagerations all over the place about how great the Zero should be in so many different areas of it's flight model.


__________________

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.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

mike_espo
06-25-2004, 10:22 AM
What makes you such a "expert" on the Zero's Fm in the first place???????

May I see your credentials please? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

sugaki
06-25-2004, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Zeros roll rate went from bad to worse as speed increased over 200kts <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're proven incorrect, by your own cited reference. The US tests of the Koga Zero which you so frequently refer to said the rollrate of the Zero was good (not bad as you say), and that it started to deteriorate above 200 kts. Which means just because the plane hit 200 kts didn't mean it rolled like a dog, but started to roll more slowly. It was good at low speeds, which it isn't in FB. Yes, the P40 rolled better than the Zero, but that isn't the contention. The contention is that the Zero rollrate at any speed sucks, which it does--contrary to reports of the Koga Zero.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The AEP Zero does not even have the historical problem of difficulty in making a right hand turn with speeds over 200kts and it dives to well according to tests form another thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A red herring. All planes tended to turn better on one side due to engine torque, which aren't modelled for any plane, so the point's irrelevant. Dives, like mentioned countless times before, should make the Zero more unresponsive, yes I agree, it should be fixed, but it's irrelevant to Zero rollrates. If you're trying to say the good dive characteristics cancel out the bad roll, it doesn't.

I'm guessing there's probably limitations to the game engine that prevents more drastic deterioration of responsiveness (rollrate, turnrate, dives, etc.). So either it's too good (IE Ki-84), or too bad (A6M Zero), because it can't model the different flight characteristics at different speeds--making them have to choose a single characteristic across all speeds. Make it too good you tick off US enthusiasts, make it too bad you tick Japanese enthusiasts. I'm thinking they tried to strike the middle-ground, which doesn't seem to do the plane justice.

If anything, it might just be a flaw in the flight physics engine itself--meaning no matter how it gets tweaked, somebody's always going to be unhappy.

sugaki
06-25-2004, 11:54 AM
Double posting, but here's a pilot who's one of the few that's qualified to fly the Zero now, giving his thoughts on the Zero.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185354-1.html.

Note "brisk rollrate," and low stallspeed... something which the Zero (especially A6M5) doesn't seem to have.

Fennec_P
06-25-2004, 12:12 PM
It is settled then.

The Zeros roll rate should be changed to "brisk". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I will inform Oleg.


What what it is worth, here are the roll rates of the A6M2 in Warbirds. Granted, these are faster than what is in FB right now. You can do about 70 deg/sec at low speed.

Though not perfect, I find the Warbirds numbers are generally in the ball park.

Roll Rate:
150mph: 4.9s
200mph: 5.9s
250mph: 6.9s
300mph: 14.8s
350mph: 21.6s
400mph:

But can anyone verify these numbers with actual facts?

[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Fri June 25 2004 at 11:29 AM.]

sugaki
06-25-2004, 12:49 PM
Here's another clip from the same article.

"I climbed to about 8,000' at 150 knots, turning, pitching, playing with the airplane. It very quickly became obvious that the roll rate was very impressive, and it was fun going to full lateral stick deflection, rolling from a 90-degree bank one way, to 90 degrees the other, and back, but without loading it up. The roll response is just delightful. As I gained altitude, I started pulling more and more in the turns, loading things up, but not over about 2 to 2.5g for this first flight. I kept trying that at slower and slower airspeeds, until the airplane started talking to me, saying, "Go ahead, just a little more, and I'll show you something."

Abstract or not, it's concrete enough to know that the Zero rollrate's off.

KIMURA
06-25-2004, 04:07 PM
Sugaki

Well I'm in e-mail contact with Randy Wilson who flew the Conferderated AF A6M2 for a couple of year in RL. The way he describes the Zero seems not match the FB Zero by far. Sadly I didn't made any FB trials til yet due to lacking free time but I hope to make trials tha WE for receicing FB values on the turning and roll rates of both Zero types at send them to Randy Wilson. Maybe he'll comment the one or the other thing.

Kimura

BigKahuna_GS
06-25-2004, 04:07 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _____________________
mike espo--What makes you such a "expert" on the Zero's Fm in the first place???????
May I see your credentials please?
__________________________________________________ ______________________



I am quoting from reference material : "Koga's Zero" the 1942 test flights of the captured A6m2 Aero from the Alutian Islands. All this information collected went out to Allied pilots in the PTO and saved many lives.

The other book I am quoting from is : "The Report of Joint Fighter Confrence" 1944. Information from test flights of a captured Zeke 52 type.

I never claimed to be an expert and the info I put in here was from these refrence sources. There is also the only flyable Zero in the world at "Planes of Fame" in Chino California. I have seen this Zero fly many times and talked to the pilot about it's flight performance.

Whats make you guys such experts mike espo & sugaki ?

I have not seen one refrence book listed from either you. All you go on is your opinons and feelings.

Try reading a book or call out to "Planes of Fame" in Chino and talk to the pilot.

______

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.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
06-25-2004, 04:50 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _______________________
sugaki-The contention is that the Zero rollrate at any speed sucks, which it does--contrary to reports of the Koga Zero.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Really it sucks at any speed ? At slower speeds it rolls very nicely until you get to around 300-310kph and up, then its starts to gradualy slow.

SPEED CONVERSION
310 Kilometers per hour equals 192.625 Miles (statute) per hour

From the artical you posted :

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

I climbed to about 8,000' at 150 knots, turning, pitching, playing with the airplane. It very quickly became obvious that the roll rate was very impressive, and it was fun going to full lateral stick deflection, rolling from a 90-degree bank one way, to 90 degrees the other, and back, but without loading it up. The roll response is just delightful. As I gained altitude, I started pulling more and more in the turns, loading things up, but not over about 2 to 2.5g for this first flight. I kept trying that at slower and slower airspeeds, until the airplane started talking to me, saying, "Go ahead, just a little more, and I'll show you something." Again, not for a first flight.

At 8,000' or so, I turned off the boost pump, closed the cowl flaps, and started playing. I did a couple 1g rolls, just because it would have been a sin not to, then played around with the gear and flaps. As expected, the heavy aileron requirement reversed almost instantly as the flaps extended, and back again as they retracted. I was rather pleased with myself for catching that before the flight, as it would have been a rude shock with no warning.


Do you realize just how slow 150kts is ?

SPEED CONVERSION
150 Miles (International, nautical) per hour equals 172.617 Miles (statute) per hour ---now thats slow.

You'll also notice that later in the flight he had "heavy aileron requirment" and he extended his flaps to counter the heaviness. When he retracted his flaps again the "heavy aileron requirment" came back. I dont think he was going all that fast if he dumped his flaps like that. Also think of the drag induced dropping flaps and slowing his airspeed.

If the heavines of the aileron roll is shown to be too early then I am all for fixing it. But I have seen nothing from you guys proving that.

Try not to be so defensive about issues.


___________________

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.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

KIMURA
06-26-2004, 07:32 AM
Kahuna

I just made some tests on the A6M2 as follow: 100%fuel, without flaps)

Starting a turn @ 150knots at 3100ft(270kph)
1st full turn completed after 19seconds (speed @ 1st 360?interpolation point 106knots)
2nd full turn completed after 40seconds (@111 knots
3rd full turn completed after 61seconds (@111knots

Rollrate @150-161 knots (several tries)
72? per second.

I wonder how a pilot who had experienced many different Warbids can be impressed by a slow 72? rollrate as the FB A6M2 has.

Kimura

WUAF_Badsight
06-26-2004, 07:52 AM
is 72 d/sec too slow ?

i know the Zero was a slow roller speed . . . .

but it sure feels REALLY slow even at slow speeds

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

KIMURA
06-26-2004, 10:38 AM
I sent a e-mail to CAF and the Zero pilot and asked for a statement about the rol rate and turn rate figures above. IMHO if a pilot who does specially mention the high roll rate of an a/c, the 72?/sec seems not to match that. Me, as a pilot, don't mention such a poor roll rate as high. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Kimura

mike_espo
06-26-2004, 10:48 AM
609IAP: LOOK at all the posts supporting the fact that the zero FB roll rate is off. Look at Kimura's and Sugaki's post WUAF Badsights also. It seems you are the only one who wants the zero porked. Why????? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Every freshman to aviation history knows about "Koga's Zero". We know. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I read the accounts. Furthermore, I have read 10+ sources both Japanese and American stating the the SLOW, read my lips: SLOW speed rolling characteristics of the zero were on par with early american fighters; including the F4F.

Unless you are going to present useful, new information to the discussion, I don't want any more of your posts on my discussion thread.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

[This message was edited by mike_espo on Sat June 26 2004 at 10:18 AM.]

BigKahuna_GS
06-26-2004, 10:25 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________
mike espo-Unless you are going to present useful, new information to the discussion, I don't want any more of your posts on my discussion thread.
__________________________________________________ ______________________


HeHe, now thats pretty funny. You control free speech now ?
Take it easy espo. I said if the Zero does not roll fast enough at 150kts it should be fixed--did you read that ?

As for porking the Zero- I suspect you want to do that in the plus catagory
by first saying it rolled as fast as a P40 and then saying the Pre-patch Zero was just fine when it was grossly overmodeled.

I did 6 roll rate tests in the A6m5a: full fuel, 1000m, Crimea map.
SPEED CONVERSION 150kts = 172mph
172 Miles (statute) per hour equals 276.807 Kilometers per hour

(IAS) 4.48, 5.23, 4.55

(TAS) 4.25, 3.87, 4.06

(IAS)snap/stall roll 3.35, 2.37, 2.45
This was interesting, if you trimmed the nose up a little and gently pulled the stick back during the roll you enter sort of stall/super snap roll. It would be a very good defensive manuever I think.


I also emailed CAF Zero Pilot John Deaken who wrote the review on his flights of the Zero:


Original Message -----
From: "John Deakin" &lt;jdeakin@advancedpilot.com&gt;
To: Keith
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: Regarding The Story: Pelican's Perch #71:&lt;br&gt;The Legendary Zero
(Part 1)


&gt; Keith,
&gt;
&gt; Thanks for the kind comments.
&gt;
&gt; Me--&gt;Thank you for a very interesting Zero flight story. My father flew with the Marines in the PTO and told me stories about how maneuverable the
Zero was, but he said if you stayed fast you were ok. He also said the
Zero's roll rate dropped off gradualy as speed aproached 170-200mph(IAS) and continued to get worse as speed increased.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;In the book Koga's Zero (A6m2)it states that above 200kts the Zero
&gt; &gt;approached aileron lock up, also that it had a hard time rolling to the
&gt; &gt;right and turning right.
&gt;
&gt; John Deaken--I wouldn't argue with any of that. What airplane did your dad fly, the P-38 or Hellcat? Before those two came along, the Zeros ruled the air.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; me-I saw where you thought the roll rate was very good at 150kts, how many
&gt; &gt;degrees a second do you think you were rolling ?
&gt;
&gt; John Deaken -Didn't time it. I know, not very test-pilot-like. &lt;g&gt; About all I can say is that it's very noticeably snappier than other airplanes, though not as quick as a Pitts, for example.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &gt;How was the roll rate at speeds above 150kts--at what point did the roll
&gt; &gt;rate start to slow ?
&gt;
&gt; Don't really want to go there, haven't had it over 200, and won't. The
&gt; roll rate IS reduced there, can't give you any numbers. Remember, these
&gt; are 60-year-old airplanes, and time has taken its toll on ALL of
&gt; them. I've seen far too many "pristine" restorations that look really,
&gt; really good, but when you look very hard, they can be rotten to the
&gt; core. I don't push 'em, they're priceless, and besides I want to maintain
&gt; my record of never leaving one. &lt;g&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
Best...
&gt; John Deakin
&gt; Fly-Bye-Knight Press http://www.flybyeknightpress.com
&gt; Advanced Pilot Seminars http://www.advancedpilot.com


What I forgot to ask him was 150kts (IAS) or (TAS). I emailed John back for some comparisons to other planes and whether it was IAS or TAS.

The Zero should have a snappy roll rate at 150kts or 172mph or 276kph. What do you guys consider snappy deg/sec ?


______________

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.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

RAC_Pips
06-27-2004, 12:39 AM
Don't know if this helps or not, but in a test conducted by Nakajima they claimed that their manufactured version of the A6M3 Model 22 rolled at 85 degrees/sec at 310km/h IAS at 2500m, whereas the Mitsubishi made version rolled at just under 80 degrees/sec.


This topic came up ages ago on the J-Aircraft discussion board and one of the guys there posted this report. Can't for the life of me remember who it was, I just copied the info. But I do remember that he made the point that Nakajima often made claims like the above, almost as if to say to Mitsubishi that you can design the better planes, but we can make 'em better.

If the above is correct then 85 degrees/sec @ 310km/h IAS is pretty good for a 1940 design, and better than many. The P-40E rolled slightly faster at 95 degrees/sec at 260mph, while the F4F-3 rolls at 69 degrees/sec at 250mph IAS.

Mind you the higher roll speed (mph) of both the P-40 and the F4F-3 gave them a decided advantage in dive and avoid manoeuvers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
06-27-2004, 04:31 AM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
RAC_Pips
posted 26-06-04 23:39
Don't know if this helps or not, but in a test conducted by Nakajima they claimed that their manufactured version of the A6M3 Model 22 rolled at 85 degrees/sec at 310km/h IAS at 2500m, whereas the Mitsubishi made version rolled at just under 80 degrees/sec.
If the above is correct then 85 degrees/sec @ 310km/h IAS is pretty good for a 1940 design, and better than many. The P-40E rolled slightly faster at 95 degrees/sec at 260mph, while the F4F-3 rolls at 69 degrees/sec at 250mph IAS.
Mind you the higher roll speed (mph) of both the P-40 and the F4F-3 gave them a decided advantage in dive and avoid manoeuvers.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Good info Pips, is there a link to the source ? Whose roll rate did they end up goung with Mitsubishi or Nakajima ? It would be nice if there was something on the A6m2 and A6m5 roll rates.

SPEED CONVERSION
310 Kilometers per hour equals 192.625 Miles (statute) per hour
so either a 80 or 85 degree a second @ 192mph IAS (A6m3).


Well just when I thought CAF ZERO pilot John Deaken could shed some light at a good starting point of 150kts for the Zero, he sends this generic email on speed. There is a big difference between IAS, TAS, knots and MPH. So the Zero had a snappy roll rate somewhere at some slow speed. Sorry, I thought he would be more specific with his answer.


At 20:09 6/26/2004, you wrote:
&gt;Was the 150kts speed IAS or TAS when you were rolling the Zero?

John-Heh, heh, you're putting much too fine a point on all this. I'm afraid you'll have to be content with the generalities I've already
mentioned. What I've said is so general it doesn't matter if you express
the "150" or "200" in knots or mph, IAS or TAS! &lt;grin&gt;

To fully answer would require a full test profile, starting with roll rate
measurements at the stall, throughout the speed range to redline, and flaps
up as well as flaps down. I wouldn't even try to apply full aileron at the
higher speeds, so roll rate would be reduced by that alone.


Best...
John Deakin
Fly-Bye-Knight Press http://www.flybyeknightpress.com
Advanced Pilot Seminars http://www.advancedpilot.com


___________

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.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

hop2002
06-27-2004, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to take it a bit off topic, but Eric Shilling is wrong.

I can't speak for the Japanese aircraft, but the P-40s contemporaries were the Spit V and the 109 F.

The P-40 prototype flew 2 years 7 months after the Spitfire prototype.

The first production P-40 flew in April 1940, 2 years after the first production Spit I.

The P-40B that Shilling uses in his comparisons first flew in March 41, a month after the first Spit V.

mkatchmark
06-27-2004, 01:01 PM
I fully agree with Mike on this one. The zero was able to out maneuver just about anything at low speeds mostly because it was a flying chunk of balsa wood lol. But as speeds increased, the roll rate and handling drastically decreased.

KIMURA
06-27-2004, 02:43 PM
That e-mail I received from www.commemorativeairforce.org (http://www.commemorativeairforce.org) , better said from Randy Wilson, who flew the Zero for a couple of years, including some other warbirds. I presented him some datas like turnrates and roll rates, but what I expected, his answer is not that precise as I would have.


Here his answer:


Hello Urs:

Please don't take what I'm about to say personally, but I have had many e-mails and even phone discussions with flight sim gamers over the years about various odd aircraft I've owned and flown, including my Dr. I Triplane, and honestly, I don't think it ever matters to them what I think or say.

But, here goes one more time - the Zero could out turn any contemporary fighter in a classic dog fight - period. I've been orbiting with a Corsair at about 160-170 knots, waiting to run back into an air show when the Corsair tried to out turn me and get on my tail. Even with maneuvering flaps and some yo-yoing, he couldn't pull lead on me, and I was just holding a nice tight turn of about 3gs - the Corsair pilot was a Marine fighter pilot, too.

The Zero at these speeds (less than about 170 knots) is just more maneuverable. The trick to defeating the Zero, which our Navy and Marine Wildcat pilots discovered (I've flown a lot of hours in a Wildcat, including dog fights in both the Zero and Widcat against each other) was to simply not get into a dog fight or turning battle. The US pilots would basically hit and run, using their better training at deflection shooting to make diving high deflection shots and use their speed to get away. The Zero lost most of its agility at high speeds, as in a dive trying to chase a Wildcat or other fighter. Above about 230 knots the ailerons are almost unmovable.

Since I know of no combat between Zeros and Yak-3s, I'm afraid there is no possible definitive answer to that question but if they were to be in a classic turning dogfight, I'd rather be in the Zero's cockpit. I know the P-40E couldn't do it and since I've seen and visited at length with some I-16 pilots, I don't think it would either. The Spit Vb is again something I have no experience with. All the best. Enjoy your gaming. At least the crashes and shoot downs are all survivable!

Randy

Kimura

BigKahuna_GS
06-27-2004, 02:54 PM
S!

Interesting comments by Saburo Sakai 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. A further comment by Sakai was that the skin on the wings started to wrinkle, causing the pilot great concern, since a number of Zero's had shed their wings in a dive." A captured Zero tested by Americans military, showed its top speed to be 319 mph, this was a later model, the AM6M5, and was tested without guns or ammunition. Therefore Saburo Sakai's statement that the top speed of the A6M2 and A6M3 of 309 mph would seem to be correct.

Saburo Sakai, in an interview made on August 11, 1996, admitted that, after flying the P-51 he had changed his mind and now rated the Zero as number two, where as before he thought it was the best. He said, "the P-51 could do everything the Zero could do and more." My comment to him would have been that it's too bad you never got the opportunity to fly the P-40.

Compare this to the P-40's 355 mph, and he the maximum allowable dive speed of 480 mph, (occasionally our pilots dove as fast as 510 mph) 130 mph faster than the Zero. The P-40's roll rate at 260 mph was 96 degrees per second, three times that of the Zero's mere 35 degrees at the same speed.

Japanese pilots were taught the antiquated importance of Dogfighting, or turning combat as used in WW I. Unfortunately our military pilots were taught the same thing, dogfighting. But the Americans didn't have the equipment with which to be successful. When the Japanese encountered Chennault's hit and run tactics, they were at loss. It wasn't in their book, and they didn't know how to handle the situation.


"The P-40's roll rate at 260 mph was 96 degrees per second, three times that of the Zero's mere 35 degrees at the same speed."

_______

__________________________________________________ _____________________
Hop2002-Sorry to take it a bit off topic, but Eric Shilling is wrong.
_The P-40 prototype flew 2 years 7 months after the Spitfire prototype.
_The first production P-40 flew in April 1940, 2 years after the first production Spit I.The P-40B that Shilling uses in his comparisons first flew in March 41, a month after the first SpitV.
__________________________________________________ _____________________


Sorry Hop but Schilling is right :

http://www.aviation-history.com/curtiss/p40.html

The prototype P-40 took to the air in the autumn of 1938, and production was initiated in the following year. Performance of the first version of this single-seat fighter had not really come up to expectations, but as several air forces were desperate for new aircraft, the type was welcomed into service. The US had delayed modernizing its Army Air Service until the last minute, so P-40s made up a large part of their equipment during the first years of war. Britain and France also ordered P-40s to contend with the German Luftwaffe, but in the case of France, deliveries came too late and their P-40s were diverted to the Royal Air Force - to be known as Tomahawks. Similarly, the Soviet Union's outdated air force had fared badly at the hands of the Germans, and P-40s were also sent there.

The P-40 was a relatively clean design, and was unusual for its time in having a fully retractable tail wheel. One hundred and ninety-seven P-40s were built in 1939-40 for the USAAF, and many more were sold abroad to Britain and France. In the RAF, which service purchased 140 outright, it was known as the Tomahawk Mk. I, IA, and IB, and carried two .303 in. Browning machine-guns in place of the 0.30in.-calibre guns fitted in USAAF machines. It retained the standard synchronized armament of two 0.5 in.-calibre machine-guns in the top nose decking.

The Flying Tigers P40's were a hybred of the British Tomahawk MkIB that ended up with a blueprinted Allison engine that delivered an aditional 220hp (20%) power improvement over the stock P40 of the time. You will also notice that Schilling states that subsequent Spitfire and 109 varients were superior to futher models of the P40.

______________

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.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
06-27-2004, 03:38 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _________________
kimura-The Spit Vb is again something I have no experience with.
from the CAF pilot.
__________________________________________________ _________________


NO Allied aircraft could turn fight with a Zero. The RAF was shocked when they tried over Darwin--they lost 21 Spits V in one air battle. The only Air Groups that effectively knew how to fight the Zero was the AVG and some of the Navy F4F groups. It wasnt until later in 1943 that almost all Allied pilots knew how to effectively fight with hit and run tactics.

____

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.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

hop2002
06-27-2004, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The prototype P-40 took to the air in the autumn of 1938, and production was initiated in the following year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The prototype Spitfire flew in March 1936, production began in 1937, and the first production machine flew in early 1938. That means the production Spit was flying 6 months before the first prototype P-40.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>n the RAF, which service purchased 140 outright, it was known as the Tomahawk Mk. I, IA, and IB, and carried two .303 in. Browning machine-guns in place of the 0.30in.-calibre guns fitted in USAAF machines. It retained the standard synchronized armament of two 0.5 in.-calibre machine-guns in the top nose decking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the RAF recieved some P-40s during 1940, when large numbers of Spitfires were already fighting in the BoB. However, they lacked armour, an armoured windscreen, self sealing tanks, and were deemed unfit for combat, and relegated to training.

Put simply, they were not ready for action. The Spitfire was likewise not ready for action a year after production began, but as it was in production 2 years before the P-40, it was ready by the time of the BoB. The P-40 wasn't.

If you want to compare a P-40 to the Spit I, it has to be a P-40, and even then it just started deliveries at a time when the Spit I had been in service for 2 years.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Flying Tigers P40's were a hybred of the British Tomahawk MkIB that ended up with a blueprinted Allison engine that delivered an aditional 220hp (20%) power improvement over the stock P40 of the time. You will also notice that Schilling states that subsequent Spitfire and 109 varients were superior to futher models of the P40.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is my point. He's comparing a Flying Tiger Tomahawk II, which is basically a P-40B, to the Spit I.

The Spit I entered service in 1938. The Spit V first flew in Feb 1941. The P-40B first flew in March 41. That makes the P-40B a contemporary of the Spit V, not the Spit I which had been in service for more than 2 years by that point.

Indeed, by the time the P-40B saw action, the RAF had replaced almost all their Spit Is with Spit Vs.

hop2002
06-27-2004, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>NO Allied aircraft could turn fight with a Zero. The RAF was shocked when they tried over Darwin--they lost 21 Spits V in one air battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never heard those figures before.

44 Spitfires were lost to all causes in the 9 months they were active, so 21 on a single raid seems especially unlikely. The highest figure I have seen for a single raid is 13, 5 actually lost, and 8 force landing in the countryside after running out of fuel or suffering mechanical problems. (The Spit Vs in Darwin were rather tired after service in North Africa, from what I've heard (although I stand to be corrected on that))

RAC_Pips
06-27-2004, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!
NO Allied aircraft could turn fight with a Zero. The RAF was shocked when they tried over Darwin--they lost 21 Spits V in one air battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I may just correct a common misconception. The RAAF didn't lose 21 Spitfires in any one engagement over Darwin. Here's a list or Raids, Losses and Claims, in that order.

2/3.....0.....3B
15/3....4.....2B/6F
2/5.....5.....4F
20/6....3.....9B/5F
28/6....3.....4F
30/6....6.....6B/3F
6/7.....7.....10B/2F
13/8....0.....0 night raid
14/8....0.....0
21/8....0.....0 night raid
16/9....0.....0 night raid
19/9....0.....0
12/11...0.....2B Last raid on Darwin

Note: B=Bomber, F=Fighter

Additional to the above claims are a further 17 for solitary recce flights over the 9 month period. And additional to the losses are some 25 further Spitfires involved in training/landing accidents.

By far and away the best book on the subject is "Spitfires Over Darwin", by Jim Grant. Amazing the amount of political interference with the operations in Darwin - by both the hierarchy of the RAAF and MacArthur's HQ. And professional jealousy.

Here's an example: It refers to Wing Com.Clive Caldwell, as has been written into his personnel file by Air Vive Marshall G. Jones, the Chief of Staff of the RAAF!

"This officer is an Empire Air Trainee (meaning not a professional!) and as such is now considered sufficiently decorated thus as to have no further awards granted, regardless of further service".

The petty jealousy and bickering in the RAAF was legend! Sickening isn't it?

[This message was edited by RAC_Pips on Sun June 27 2004 at 04:21 PM.]

BigKahuna_GS
06-28-2004, 07:31 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Hop-The prototype Spitfire flew in March 1936, production began in 1937, and the first production machine flew in early 1938. That means the production Spit was flying 6 months before the first prototype P-40. Which is my point. He's comparing a Flying Tiger Tomahawk II, which is basically a P-40B, to the Spit I.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

I didnt want to go off topic here but:

Ok, 6 months. But for some reason you left out the fact that both the Spit 1a and the P-40 were being produced at the same time in 1939. Both the Spit1a and P-40 (US) were in service in 1940 at the same time. So they are comparable. If you really want to go back look at how much the P-40 uses from the P36--from the firewall back.

TYPE Number built/Converted Remarks
XP-40 1 (cv) 10th P-36A w/ eng. chg.


I think the point Schilling is making here is that the same P40 produced in 1939/40 at the same time the Spit1 was being produced was basically the same airframe/model that the AVG used in China but with added armor/external self sealing fuel tanks.

Even though the Brits did not have their P40s ready for the Battle of Britain, the US had their P40s on the front lines ready to go--as you put it "ready for action". I am not sure if Schilling was comparing the AVG P-40 model or the 1940 P-40 to the 1940 Spit1a. If anything the perfromace of the P40B would go down from the added weight of amor/self sealing fuel tanks. Externally there is really no difference between the first P-40 thru to the P-40C.

The P40 the AVG used was a hybred of the Mk1A not B(my typo), Allison could not produce enough engines for these planes so they took spare parts and machined them to tight tolerances (bluprinted). The external self sealing fuel tanks (rejected by the brits) were used in these planes. Everything was thrown together for the rush to get them to China.

"Within the context of this knowledge, we can understand that the AVG fighters were a unique model. For that reason, Curtiss gave them their own special designation. Originally contracted for as the Curtiss H81-2A, these fighters were designated as the H81-3A. Many historians and authors have confused the various Curtiss designations, or figured that these were Tomahawk IIB aircraft based upon the serial numbers. We now know that these were a special model. It should also be noted that the serial numbers were assigned months before actual manufacturing began.

So, a unique group of fighter pilots flew an equally unique version of the Curtiss H81/Tomahawk/P-40."
_____________________________

__________________________________________________ ___________________________
Pips--If I may just correct a common misconception. The RAAF didn't lose 21 Spitfires in any one engagement over Darwin. Here's a list or Raids, Losses and Claims, in that order.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________


Pips I cant find the web site and I cant remember excatly what I read-lol. I just remember the RAF Spits getting hammered by Zeros for trying to turnfight with them like they did with 109's in the ETO. It said there was 2 bombing raids on one day and over the course of the day(s) they lost 21 Spits(it was a short time frame). I didnt mean a single engagement.

There might of also been some Seafires invovled.

______

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.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

SkyChimp
06-28-2004, 08:14 PM
The contemporary of the Spitfire I was the Curtiss Hawk-75/P-36. The USAAC took delivery of their P-36As in April 1938, and France received 200 in that same year.

IMO the Curtiss is a highly underrated fighter. While not quite as fast as the Spitfire I, the Curtiss was more manueverable - being superior in dive, roll and turn. It was found to have better flying qualities and better cockpit lay-out, as well as better visibility. It had twice the range. I'd bet it was more rugged as well.

France used it to good effect against Bf-109Ds and Bf-109Es. In fatc, it was France's most successful fighter until it's surrender.

==

Here's a summary of Spitfire actions and losses in the defense of Darwin:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/losses1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/losses2.jpg

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif