PDA

View Full Version : was the zero really that good



XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 09:24 PM
I'm not shure if this is the right forum but ill take my chances http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have allways heard that the Zero was a very maneuveral litle plane but the AI seems to be able to turn with me, or even turn better than me, when I fly the I-16! . Now the zero we've got is from '43, and I therefor assume that it cannot have been the lightest of all the types of zeros produced. So it does supprise me that it can turn with the I-16 from '39 that, like the zero, was built with maneuverability in mind.

Could the Zero from '43 turn with the I-16 at low altitudes? - If so I'm impressed!


Swiftwing

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 09:24 PM
I'm not shure if this is the right forum but ill take my chances http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have allways heard that the Zero was a very maneuveral litle plane but the AI seems to be able to turn with me, or even turn better than me, when I fly the I-16! . Now the zero we've got is from '43, and I therefor assume that it cannot have been the lightest of all the types of zeros produced. So it does supprise me that it can turn with the I-16 from '39 that, like the zero, was built with maneuverability in mind.

Could the Zero from '43 turn with the I-16 at low altitudes? - If so I'm impressed!


Swiftwing

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 09:28 PM
Swiftwing wrote:
- I'm not shure if this is the right forum but ill
- take my chances http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
-
- I have allways heard that the Zero was a very
- maneuveral litle plane but the AI seems to be able
- to turn with me, or even turn better than me, when I
- fly the I-16! . Now the zero we've got is from '43,
- and I therefor assume that it cannot have been the
- lightest of all the types of zeros produced. So it
- does supprise me that it can turn with the I-16 from
- '39 that, like the zero, was built with
- maneuverability in mind.
-
- Could the Zero from '43 turn with the I-16 at low
- altitudes? - If so I'm impressed!
-
-
- Swiftwing
-
-
-
-

Well, Zeros certainly ate I-16s for breakfast in China.



--AKD

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

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 11:27 PM
Remember, the AI does cheat and has better performance on aircraft than what we get.

-----
In memory of 'The Few'
<img src=http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg>
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 11:40 PM
The Mitsubishi Zero Sen was born to be a dogfighter, and it knew no equal when it came to fighting the slow-speed, groveling match to which all true dogfights eventually deteriorate. That was the goal behind its design: make it turn quickly, make it go fast, and do it with only 1,100hp.


Jiro Horikoshi, Mitsubishi's chief designer, knew that the only way to meet the design specifications was to make it light-unbelievably light. This meant eliminating such combat "niceties" as self-sealing gas tanks and pilot armor. More important, it meant compromising production in favor of light weight. For instance, the plane had no normal wing fittings: the wings and forward fuselage were built as a single unit, which greatly complicated the distribution of its production throughout "cottage-industry" locations. For that reason-although in production for more than five years-only slightly over 10,000 Zeros were finished, while more than three times as many Messerschmitt 109s were built during the same period.


The Zero's biggest drawback was that owing to its combat success during the first six months of the War, the Imperial leadership saw no reason to aggressively seek a replacement. When Hellcats and Corsairs began to choose their own fights and use their speed and brute firepower to gnaw away at Japan's few experienced pilots and aircraft, the leadership's mistake was obvious. By then, there was too little time left for Japan to adequately develop its own high-powered, heavily armed fighters. If the Zero hadn't been such a superb fighter at the outset, perhaps our pilots would have found themselves battling Jacks and Franks in larger numbers. The Zero was, quite literally, a victim of its own success.


The Mitsubishi A6M-called "Zero," "Zeke" and "Hamp" by the Allies-was one of the major technological surprises sprung by the Japanese in WW II. Because they had long been contemptuously regarded as being capable only of copying foreign airplane designs, their highly original, carrier-based fighter was startling.


he designation "Zero" came from the Japanese Navy practice of designating airplane types by the last two digits of the Japanese Dynastic calendar. The Japanese year 2600 matched our calendar year 1940, so "00" was shortened to "Type 0" for the A6M, which was named "Raiden." The naval model designation of "A6M" reflected the sixth A-model built by Mitsubishi (M). The sub-designation for the A6M-1 was Model 11, while the A6M-2 became Model 21, and the A6M-3 became Model 32, etc. The Allies also referred to it broadly as "The Zero," but when code names were applied to Japanese military aircraft, the standard models were called "Zeke," and the short-wing Model 32 was called "Hamp."


The prototype, which was powered by a 780hp Mitsubishi Zuisei engine, flew April 1, 1939, and was quickly ordered into production as Type 0 fighter Model 11. It entered combat in China in July 1940. Allied Intelligence reported on its capabilities, but the warnings were disregarded, and that caused later regrets.


For two years, the Zero was superior to any plane it fought. It was fast and highly maneuverable and, thanks to its auxiliary fuel tanks, it had a long range. Its shortcomings included a lack of armor protection for the pilot, a light structure and fuel tanks that weren't self-sealing. The Zero was also highly vulnerable to the .50-caliber guns of U.S. fighters-when they were able to hit it.


Its initial armament was two 7.7mm machine guns in the nose and two 20mm cannon in the wings. Armament varied during production to a maximum of a single 13.2mm gun in the nose, two more in the wings, plus the two cannon. Its bomb load ranged from two 132-pound bombs to a single 1,102-pounder, or up to eight 22-pounders. Late -6 and -8 versions could also be fitted with rockets.


Although it was obsolete by mid-1943, when new Allied fighters opposed it, the Zero remained in production until the end of the War, with 3,879 built by Mitsubishi and 6,570 built under license by Nakajima, for a total of 10,449.


Most Zeros-Models 11, 21, 52 and 64 (AM6-1, -2, -5 and -8)-had wingspans of 39 feet, 4 inches, but Model 32 (A6M-3) had its span shortened to 36 feet. Other data for Zero Model 52 (A6M-5): powerplant: 1,130hp Nakajima Sakae 21; wing area: 229.27 square feet; empty weight: 4,136 pounds; gross weight: 6,025 pounds; high speed: 351mph at 19,685 feet.



Source: Flight Journal Magazine


=S=

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/plane_profiles/corsair/corsair_head.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 11:52 PM
Interesting read HaVoK.

The top speed figure bothers me though....

Saburo Sakai is quoted as sayin that the Zero...any Zero...could not exceed 309mph in level flight, and that speeds in excess of 350mph in the dive could, and did, damage the skin on the wings....



<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 12:32 AM
Sakai very likely meant IAS not TAS.

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 12:39 AM
Sakai was speaking of Knots. 1 knot +1.15 Mph or 1.85 Kmh.

Most usual quoted speed for the A6m5 is 303 knots coming out to 348.45 Mph at 6000 meters.
Dive speed was 400 knots or 460Mph or 740 Kmh if you use the speed bar.

S!

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 01:13 AM
For quick conversions you can use the following page:

http://www.flightplan.za.net/page3.php

Converts IAS to TAS and other thingies we pilots like.

rgds

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 04:06 AM
Well the zero is not that good in the offline game...went I153 against Zeros 4v4.....same level ACE and and no advantage.
Had 2/1 kill ratio...favor of I153's. Also did same thing with P40's....same result. So Zero AI isn't that great.

"Nothing difficult is ever easy"

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 08:02 PM
I've read Samurai! about 3 times now, IIRC, Sakai says of one instance when he was being chased by a large number of F6Fs: "I looked at the airspeed indicator. 350 mph. The best the Zero could do".
I'ts been awhile, But I've always thought max speed for the Zero was 350.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 08:30 PM
buz13 wrote:
- Well the zero is not that good in the offline
- game...went I153 against Zeros 4v4.....same level
- ACE and and no advantage.
- Had 2/1 kill ratio...favor of I153's.

That's cos Zero is the BnZ fighter here (/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ) , and Oleg's AI mostly likes turn fighting. AI Zero does better against AI I~16. Also, the cannon vs pure machine gun versions of the Polikarpov fighters does make a difference. Use pure machine gun for I~153 this reduces the slaughter, slightly.

Here is the whopper. Try 4 AI Zero against 4 AI Ki~84, and....well I will just let you see what happens.

Even back in the 1930s the Soviet I~16 pilots were told to use high speed attack and runs against the more maneuverable Japanese Ki~27, the idea probably goes back to the Spad. I guess in the Korean WAR the P~51 was a turn fighter against the MiGs. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 08:56 PM
A6M@MaxSpeed(IJN value)F

A6M2aiZero Model11)F316mph
A6M2biZero Model21)F331mph
A6M3 iZero Model32)F338mph
A6M5 iZero Model52)F351mph
A6M5aiZero Model52kou)F347mph
A6M5biZero Model52otu)F347mph
A6M5ciZero Model52hei)F335mph
A6M7 iZero Model62)F337mph
A6M8 iZero Model54)F355mph

A6M@DiveSpeed

A6M2aiZero Model11)F322mph
A6M2biZero Model21)F391mph
A6M3 iZero Model32)F414mph
A6M5 iZero Model52)F414mph
A6M5aiZero Model52kou)F460mph
A6M5biZero Model52otu)F460mph
A6M5ciZero Model52hei)F460mph
A6M7 iZero Model62)Fover460mph?
A6M8 iZero Model54)F461mph


Zero's MaxSpeed of "Performance and characterstics data
Japanese Aircraft A.T.A.D -1 October 1943"
(USNavy's Value)

A6M2biZero Model21)F328mph(wight:5555lb)
A6M3 iZero Model32)F348mph(wight:5750lb)
A6M5 iZero Model52)F357mph(wight:6026lb)

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 08:32 AM
Anyone carre to say just how does the pilot of the WWII aircraft know it's TAS???

I'd really like to know this as I can't see any other way to state your speed (when you're in the aircraft) other then looking at your instruments... which... show IAS.

I also doubt that it's KTS used in Zero's speedo as all I read in Sakai Saburo's interviews him talking in Mph... never KTS... and he did say... top dive speed of any Zero was 350Mph.

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

Message Edited on 11/18/0306:09PM by RAAF_Edin

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 01:18 PM
sakai saburo did not use "MPH" in pacific war.
Because IJN used only "knot".(IJA was "km/h")
and Zero's speed mator is "knot".
I never saw "MPH" on my source(I have Zero's Handling description Oct 1944)
and MPH was used in only Allies.

TAS? IAS? Japanese aircraft's catalog data is TAS.
I read about its in horikoshi jiro's book(I forgot Title)
It was story is prototype zero's speed test.
calculation's miss for speed was written.

Dive speed "350MPH" is , I think may be It's a A6M2b.
Because he liked A6M2b very much, and he had ridden on A6M2b in the longest period for him.

He did not like A6M5 and N1K2-J.
He said slander for A6M5 and N1K2-J sometimes.
(Sakai saburo ride A6M5 on Iwojima)

I think, Sakai's Zero is only A6M2b.

-------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I missed character.
I write again Zero's Max speed and dive speed.
and, This MPH is changed from km/h.
This is IJN catalog data.

A6M MaxSpeed(IJN value)

A6M2a (Zero Model11) 316mph
A6M2b (Zero Model21) 331mph
A6M3 (Zero Model32) 338mph
A6M5 (Zero Model52) 351mph
A6M5a (Zero Model52kou) 347mph
A6M5b (Zero Model52otu) 347mph
A6M5c (Zero Model52hei) 335mph
A6M7 (Zero Model62) 337mph
A6M8 (Zero Model54) 355mph

A6M DiveSpeed

A6M2a (Zero Model11) 322mph
A6M2b (Zero Model21) 391mph
A6M3 (Zero Model32) 414mph
A6M5 (Zero Model52) 414mph
A6M5a (Zero Model52kou) 460mph
A6M5b (Zero Model52otu) 460mph
A6M5c (Zero Model52hei) 460mph
A6M7 (Zero Model62)over460mph?
A6M8 (Zero Model54) 461mph


Zero's MaxSpeed of "Performance and characterstics data
Japanese Aircraft A.T.A.D -1 October 1943"
(USNavy's Value)

A6M2b (Zero Model21) 328mph(wight:5555lb)
A6M3 (Zero Model32) 348mph(wight:5750lb)
A6M5 (Zero Model52) 357mph(wight:6026lb)

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 08:04 PM
I re read the releveant section of Samurai & it doesn't state the dive speed is limited to 350 Mph.
You are reading English-probably largely American sources, Americans don't even know what a kilometer is for the most part so everything is translated into mph.

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/185502_zero_forward_left_panel.jpg


RAAF_Edin wrote:
--
- I also doubt that it's KTS used in Zero's speedo as
- all I read in Sakuro's interviews him talking in
- Mph... never KTS... and he did say... top dive speed
- of any Zero was 350Mph.
-
- <center><font
- color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
- ''''''''''''''''
- RAAF Kuky</font>
- <a
- href='http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authori
- dfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=
- 1064037392' target=_blank>Get my skins @
- IL-2Skins</a>

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 08:09 PM
To Swiftwing

Hehe. Zero were incredible fighters. No wonder why it took so long before the US could take advantage in Pacific.

If they ever make a Pacific theater... expect to have the Oscar (KI-43 i think). This plane even Out turns Zeros. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


S~

XyZspineZyX
11-18-2003, 08:31 AM
WUAF_Gen_Falco wrote:
- To Swiftwing
-
- Hehe. Zero were incredible fighters. No wonder why
- it took so long before the US could take advantage
- in Pacific.
-
- If they ever make a Pacific theater... expect to
- have the Oscar (KI-43 i think). This plane even Out
- turns Zeros.

It took the USA so long to start killing zeros becuase pilots wanted to get into "slow" turn fights and thats a mistake.

But once pilots worked out that speed was the key the zero had no chance.The greatest weakness of the zero was that it could not dictate the terms of engagement it was a turn fighter pure and simple and if you hit and run against it the zero pilot had no chance at all it was just to slow.

And god forbid you took a hit as it would more than likely result in a fire.

If we ever get the model 21 zero in FB it will be a easy kill even for my p40 just as it was in real life if flown correctly.

And finaly why do people think that a fighter that can turn better is the best fighter ? After all turning is only one element of air combat and really the last resort.

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

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
11-18-2003, 01:14 PM
Let's not take the importance of maneuverability so lightly.

Given any engagement, the ability to turn better, translates itself as an immediate advantage in combat maneuvering - whereas advantage in speed, needs to go through a few clever steps in 3-dimensional maneuvering, to manifest itself as a direct combat advantage.

There's a reason why "n00bs" know nothing but to turn, and also a reason why people prefer planes with both good maneuverability and speed, rather than a plane with good climb-rate and speed. This is because in any circumstances a Yak-9U, Yak-3, or a La-7, can immediately gain a combat advantage against a Bf109G-10 or a K-4, whereas the Bf109s, need time, patience, experience, and anticipation, to really start 'dictating' the fight to its own terms.

Also, there's no guarantee that you're gonna meet an enemy plane with alt advantage. In co-alt situations, starting off with the same amount of potential energy amassed in the form of altitude, the better maneuvering plane is with a huge advantage, especially if the difference in speed/climb performance between the two planes, aren't anything near something stellar.

One may be able to dictate the fight against the Zero if he was in a 1944~45 monster plane, exceeding some 4000fpm climb rate and 420mph top speed. But if you are in a pre-1942, early 1942 plane, something like the P-40B, P-40E, F4F-3 or F4F-4, the chances are, you're gonna need a friend to shoot down a single Zero, if you meet him without a huge advantage in altitude. If you are unlucky, the Zero might shoot both of you down. It is very unlikely a contemporary USN plane is going to be able to shoot down a Zero in a 1vs1 engagement.

Speed may be the key, but that's a key that fits only those fighters which can severely outpace a Zero. The P-40s, are not one of them. If there's anything one needs to kill a Zero in a contemporary plane, it's gonna be lots of altitude, and lots of friends.

Yes, turning is only one element of air combat, but it is also THE first element of combat.

Turning is a last resort to the planes that can't turn. For planes that can turn, and with grace, turning is as natural and reasonable to them as water flows from high ground to low.




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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-18-2003, 01:23 PM
"But once pilots worked out that speed was the key the zero had no chance.The greatest weakness of the zero was that it could not dictate the terms of engagement it was a turn fighter pure and simple and if you hit and run against it the zero pilot had no chance at all it was just to slow."

yeap.. once aircraft like the P38 started working in pairs, the zeros days of dominance was over.

Technology is one thing.. but tactics can make a huge difference.





"id buy that for a dollar"

XyZspineZyX
11-18-2003, 02:09 PM
kweassa wrote:


One may be able to dictate the fight against the
- Zero if he was in a 1944~45 monster plane, exceeding
- some 4000fpm climb rate and 420mph top speed. But if
- you are in a pre-1942, early 1942 plane, something
- like the P-40B, P-40E, F4F-3 or F4F-4, the chances
- are, you're gonna need a friend to shoot down a
- single Zero,


Well the model 21 had a top dive speed of 320-350mph(its level speed was not much lower than this) depending on who you read and when you compare that to the p40 level speed of 360mph its just to slow ,add to that the fact that the p40 can be dived to around 500mph then a smart pilot in a p40 should never have to worry about the early model zero.

Oh and did you know a p40 can out roll a zero by around 3 to 1 (in real life not like in this sim) and seeing as you cant brake turn without rolling that is a huge advantage.

In high speed manouvers the zero was out of it's element and at risk.

IMHO the zero is the best slow turn fighter ever but as a overall package it was lacking.

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

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
11-18-2003, 02:25 PM
sry, abotu MAX dive spped of the ZEros:

my source is "Zero , Combat and Development " from Robert C. Mikesh

and he took it from "Information Intelligence Summery No85 , Intelligence Sevice, US Army Air Forces , December 42



there the Modell 21 is called for 340 kts IAS (dive limitits are ALWAYS IAS, TAS is only usefull for navigation, nothing more and World Recorts /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ! ) for maximum allowed Dive speed.
thats ~ 629km/h.

the Model 52a had a max allowed dive speed of 400kts IAS , for that it had thicker wing s´kin pannels - thats ~740km/h - like its around in the game FB







http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif


Message Edited on 11/18/0301:30PM by JG53Frankyboy

XyZspineZyX
11-18-2003, 04:52 PM
"Well the model 21 had a top dive speed of 320-350mph(its level speed was not much lower than this) depending on who you read and when you compare that to the p40 level speed of 360mph its just to slow ,add to that the fact that the p40 can be dived to around 500mph then a smart pilot in a p40 should never have to worry about the early model zero."

You'd be interested to know that the Series 5 Zero actually performs better, and flies faster than the P-40E over 5000m.

The P-40E stays about 5~8mph faster than the A6M5a upto 3300m. Between 3300~5000m, the Zero drops performance, while the P-40E steadily increases it's speed, meeting maximum speed little bit under 5000m. At 5000m, the P-40E outpaces the zero by almsot 25mph. Over 5000m, the superchargers of the A6M5a kicks in, pushing the speed back up - and at 5600m or so, the Zero starts to push faster than the P-40E, and retains a speed advantage of almost 20~30mph, against the gasping Allison engined plane.

5~10mph(8~16km/h) speed difference, under those circumstances, are almost negligible. Not to mention that the acceleration rates are very much in favor of the Zero. Too slow? The Zero? I think not. At least, against the P-40E it ain't.

....

"Oh and did you know a p40 can out roll a zero by around 3 to 1 (in real life not like in this sim) and seeing as you cant brake turn without rolling that is a huge advantage."

How long do you think that kind of advantage, can remain meaningful against a better maneuvering plane, when you are already seriously engaged with him? Just think about the Fw190D-9 vs La-7 fights - how long will you be able to dodge a La-7 stuck behind you with just good rolls alone?

....

"In high speed manouvers the zero was out of it's element and at risk. "

That's about the only exploitable advantage the P-40 has against a Zero. But you're not going to be able to shoot down an enemy by diving and running. Nor will you be able to dive indefinately.

All you can do in a P-40E, provided that you have enough safety alt-margin to reach speeds higher than the Zero can comfortably maneuver in, is run away in safety at will.

Are you going to be able to come back up? I don't think so - not when the A6M5a Zero climbs almost 1000fpm faster than the P-40Es over 3500m. Those two planes share simular climb rates upto about 3300m(about 300fpm advantage to the Zero) - however, the P-40E is on emergency power to reach that rate, when the Zero is on military power.

So, what about firepower? Or durability? The P-40E has a definate advantage - if, it is on the attack. But you're not going to get to puncture a hole and turn a Zero into a fireball, when you can't get behind it, or set it in a favorable angle at all.

....

So, what it basically comes down to, is this:

The P-40E is severely disadvantaged against the Zero in equal conditions. It might have a chance to run away, and leave the Zero pilot smacking his chops in envy as he helplessly watches the P-40E dive away - but that's only when there's enough altitude in the first place.

The P-40E, might be able to fare well against a Zero if it starts off with alt-advantage, but you're not going to get more than a few passes, until the superior climb rate, and acceleration rate of the Zero, quickly neuters the initial advantage. Then, it has to run away again.

....


"IMHO the zero is the best slow turn fighter ever but as a overall package it was lacking."

The Zero was suited for its role, and had all it needed. It was arguably the best fighter of its time, before new competition rose from the Hellcats, Lightings and Corsairs.

What was lacking, was not the plane, but the strategical foresight of the Imperial Japanese military. Also, the lack of substantial training programs, absence of systematic development of fighter tactics, use of desperate and foolish measures, tendency to do rely to high-risk naval warfare and etc - thinned away both material and human resources at a rapid rate.

Loss of 3~4 carriers and fighters, to the USN, could be replaced in months. To the IJN, losing 3~4 carriers and fighters, pilots, in a single battle, was a low-blow from hell.

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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-18-2003, 05:03 PM
The AI is not subject to G-forces, Airframe Stress, Wind & Turbulence, Clouds & can pull off crazy moves that you as a Human pilot can't

"An attack against a unit of Flying Fortresses was something like controlled suicide...Sometimes 50, Sometimes 80 machine guns were firing at you... You attempted to close your eyes & continue to fire, Frightened to death, Frightened to death."

Oberst Johannes Steinhoff (176 kills)

XyZspineZyX
11-18-2003, 06:17 PM
Pourshot wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If we ever get the Model 21 Zero in FB it will be a easy kill even for my P-40 just as it was in real life, if flown correctly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not one-on-one, Pourshot. And especially if you're not co-altitude. If the Zero gets above you, your only option in a P-40 is to RUN. You have the speed and the dive rate to do that succesfully, but you can't climb with a Zero, and if you even try it, you become SLOW. Total advantage to the Zero in that case.

A P-40 is always outclassed by a Zero. But if there are large numbers of planes involved, where the P-40 can use the "dive and roll" escape, combined with high speed slashing gunnery attacks at targets of opportunity, then it has a chance.

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 07:58 AM
Stiglr wrote:

-If the Zero gets above you, your only option in a P-40 is to RUN


But I have that option in the p40 the pilot of the zero does not./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And in any case you would be foolish to engage a enemy with a alt advantage regardless of what he's flying.



but you
- can't climb with a Zero, and if you even try it, you
- become SLOW. Total advantage to the Zero in that
- case.

So dont do that it would be stupid to fly the way your enemy wants you to.

-------------

Saburo Sakai (On the Zero's maneuverability)

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

-----------------------

From Erick shilling (a flying tiger)

Interesting comments by Saburo Sakai concerning the Zero:

In a short but informative interview with Saburo Sakai, Japans
leading living Ace, I said, "Commander, what was the Zero's top
speed?" His answer, "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 correct.)
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. Even Tokyo Rose complained bitterly on one
of her English language broadcast, saying that the Americans were
coward and afraid to stay and fight..........

------------

Now look at what Sakai said about the heavy controls at speed if it is correct then a good pilot should only fight a zero at speed as it was done in real life.

As good as the zero was I just dont think it's as invincible as people would like you to think.

And i know that the p40 was not the best fighter going but it was not all bad /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



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

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 09:06 AM
All you people that claim Zero is a "better" aircraft talk into empty air. Saying something is "better" means absolutely nothing unless you state the reasons why, where, how, etc.

It is very simple:

Zero is designed to dogfight... P-40 is faster (doesn't matter by how small the margin is) then Zero at level speed. P-40 should roll better then Zero at any speed... at any altitude. Zero has better steady climb speed while the P-40 has better zoom climb speed. P-40 is way tougher then any Zero... and can dive faster then any Zero. Even if the A6M5a model could dive to 400Kts (which I seriously doubt) it could do this because it's wing surface was made tougher... however, the control surfaces design remained the same... this means the diving at that speed is pure suicide as you couln't either roll or pull... Saburo clearly says many new Japanese pilots dove to their death because they picked up too much speed and went straight into the ocean... he says himself he never went to follow anyone in a dive (I can think of an obvious reason why he never did that).

So stop all this nonsence Zero is "better" then P-40... it means nothing as it all depends on the circumstance of engagement, if there is to be one. History showed Zero's ruled the skies for the first 6 months (and that doesn't seem too long to me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ) only because their enemy enaged them in turn fights... which was obviously a mistake. Once US pilots started using tactics that exploited Zero's weakneses and AVG is a suppern evidence of this... they dominated the Japanese because they did not go into engagements by Zero's favourable rules.

This shows that P-40 can dominate it no matter how manouverable the Zero was.

ps: just to say one more thing... I said in the past myself P-40 had in some occasions 3/1 the roll of Zero... any Zero (their controls remain unchanged in all variants... only the dive was improved in A6M5a and that the bullets were belt-fed). After checking and paying more attention to the roll rates chart, it is actually more like 2/1 then 3/1... just wanted to clarify this.

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

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 03:25 PM
The only problem here is that some of you are speaking of reality, not FB. In FB the Zero has no weakness to speak of. It may not take too much to bring down, but really, it's not particularly weak. Most importantly, it does not stiffen up significantly at high speed. It does lose *some* control authority, yes, but no more than any other plane. That is the real problem. This is exacerbated by the amazing zoom climb it has (for a light radial fighter, this seems highly dubious).

As it stands, the Zero in FB is a total UFO. One that hopefully will be banned along with the jets and rockets on online servers, pending an FM that bears some resemblence to reality.

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 03:53 PM
The zero is a great turner and it can hang on a prop forever..However, it is not a super plane. I have been flying nothing but the zero since beta came out. It is NOT a noob plane either I don't care what people say.. I can get kills in a zero, but I get killed alot more in the zero than in the 109. One burst and you are gone. No exceptions.

The zero can be beat. The key is what happened in history. Fight in pairs. Use teamwork. In DF servers I will always win a 1 vs 1 with my zero if the pilot is obliging to turn with me. If he B Z s he will usually get impatient and I have him. However, if he sticks to B Z I will usually break off because I know some friends of his will kill me. Once you go after someone in the zero, get him fast because the most common thing is target fixation concentrating on your kill and getting killed by the plane you never see. Many times the screen goes black on me as I am lining up for the kill.......

Also, the DF servers are unrealistic for these reasons. In a combat situation, you would have 10+friendlys in formation flying versus a simmilar formation of zeros. Historically, the American formation would bouce the zeros from altitude and climb back for altitude using their withering fire power to advantage.

Historically Americans would not engage the zero unless they had a numerical advantage and an altitude advantage. Until the advent of the Hellcat, the zero had the upper hand in dogfighting as it does in FB.

Read ZERO! by Masatake Okumiya and Jiro Horikoshi. It is a frank, realistic work describing the combat virtues and faults of the zero. Jiro Horikoshi was the inventor of the Zero fighter and Masatake Okumiya was a air staff officer in every major air engagement of the Pacific war from Rabaul to Okinawa. Great Read!!! You will learn alot.



Read ZERO! by

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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 04:34 PM
U.S. pilots were taught one basic rule about the Zero, "Never enter a turning fight with a Zero", U.S. planes did'nt have the manueverablity to keep up with it they would use high speed passes & teamwork, By the way how is the damage model on the 2 Japanese planes in 1.2, If i remember correctly most Japanese planes did'nt take much punishment before they went down, The Japanese did'nt consider armor a vital necessity, Especially pilot armor.

"An attack against a unit of Flying Fortresses was something like controlled suicide...Sometimes 50, Sometimes 80 machine guns were firing at you... You attempted to close your eyes & continue to fire, Frightened to death, Frightened to death."

Oberst Johannes Steinhoff (176 kills)

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 06:11 PM
In this game, $hit doesn't stink and gold doesn't shine.


http://www.danford.net/shilling.htm

http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html

Have a nice day
heartc

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 06:20 PM
If you want to see a proper, well-modelled example of the intracacies of the Zero/P-40 matchup, go fly Target:Rabaul.

http://www.targetware.net

The Zeros lock up at speed, making rolls "minute-long adventures"...and requiring you to also keep a LOT of stick forward to keep the plane controllable. It is really WORK to fight in a Zero at high speeds....and you quickly learn how to monitor your throttle and RPMs in a Zero...or you find another plane.

The P-40s are very maneuverable (just not as maneuverable as a Zero), and their roll rate is nice even at speed. But they can't climb to save their lives, unless they've got a lot of built up smash. It is very easy to simply drop the nose and roll away from a Zero, extend and try and come back for a head-on (which is really your only option against a well-flown Zero one-on-one).

If multiple numbers are involved, you can steal a page from the F4Fs and use Thach Weave techniques to "switch off" on Zeros chasing other planes and use those 6 x .50 cals to score telling blows with snapshots.

I've only flown the FB Zero once, and I was not impressed with its modeling at all. The view was too far forward (effectively giving the pilot NO controls he can view), it taxiied very strangely, and the handling in air at speed seemed to have that "on rails" feel that the AI tend to exhibit. Felt more like I'd imagine a Spit or a Hurri would handle.

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 06:26 PM
Amen Stiglr.

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 08:04 PM
Stop your whining and learn the virtues of teamwork and of your aircraft when fighting the zero. Sick of these crybabies! As soon as a plane comes along which beats anything in a dogfight people cry foul!!! Wussies!

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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 08:18 PM
mike_espo wrote:
- Stop your whining and learn the virtues of teamwork
- and of your aircraft when fighting the zero<LI>. Sick of
- these crybabies! As soon as a plane<LI> comes along
- which beats anything in a dogfight people cry
- foul!!! Wussies!
-

Next time you blame someone to be comfortable with a fantasy plane think about this statement of yours lol.

<LI> A plane? Sure. But not a Zero. Sure.



=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 08:24 PM
Heart_C wrote:
-Next time you blame someone to be comfortable with a
- fantasy plane think about this statement of yours

Its true, you are nothing but wussies. The zero is meant to be a great dogfighter. Its meant to climb better because of its light structure. Have you ever flown the zero? Its slow as hell. Anything can dive away from it. For Chrst sake, do some research and maybe you will learn that American aircraft never dogfought the zero unless, they had altitude and numbers on their side. The zero is far from a wonderplane. Idiots!

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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 08:34 PM
mike_espo wrote:
- Heart_C wrote:
--Next time you blame someone to be comfortable with a
-- fantasy plane think about this statement of yours
-
- Its true, you are nothing but wussies. The zero is
- meant to be a great dogfighter. Its meant to climb
- better because of its light structure. Have you ever
- flown the zero? Its slow as hell. Anything can dive
- away from it. For Chrst sake, do some research and
- maybe you will learn that American aircraft never
- dogfought the zero unless, they had altitude and
- numbers on their side. The zero is far from a
- wonderplane. Idiots!
-

Thanks a lot for your advice, I appreciate it. And now, I have an advice for you: Make up for the lack of reading comprehension skills which seems to have gone by unnoticed at school by working on them now. Good luck, you need it.

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 08:49 PM
It bears no resemblance to the real plane. It's a UFO. Sorry to anyone who likes it the way it is. It zooms impossibly, and never loses control authority in comparison to other planes, regardless of speed. Ki's are also meat on the table in comparison. Can't wait to see how *that* is explained as making sense. lol

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 11:33 PM
Hand held flight computers - even today the U.S. military issues it's pilots the E6-B flight computer, that will allow many conversions and calcualtions, including TAS calculations.
Also, many of the aircrafts operators manuals provided charts for IAS or CAS to TAS.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 12:32 AM
simple and plain.

teamplay rulez the sky.

<div style="text-align: center;">
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;">
<a href="http://ifh.firstones.com" target=_blank><img src=http://ifh.firstones.com/img/banners/banner01.jpg border=0<>

Mess with the best, die like the rest...

"Never argue with an idiot! They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." (S.U.X Infinity)

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:39 AM
buz13 wrote:
- Well the zero is not that good in the offline
- game...went I153 against Zeros 4v4.....same level
- ACE and and no advantage.
- Had 2/1 kill ratio...favor of I153's. Also did same
- thing with P40's....same result. So Zero AI isn't
- that great.
-
- "Nothing difficult is ever easy"

Played 8 Zeros against 4 Mustangs and 4 Thunderbolts all at Vet level.

Zeroes-8, Enemy-0.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:22 AM
was the Zero really that good .... well to make this short ....YES

but the KI-43 hayabusa was more manuerverable , all over

the KI-27 was even better at turning

the KI-27 was the tightest turning Monoplane of WW2 , it was un-touchable in a turn fight

didnt stop it getting shot down tho

the japanese airmen were turn fighting extrodinars , the american pilots were ordered NOT to turn with the japs in DFs

the KI-43 was the pick of the bunch tho cause of having more power than the KI-27 , it had amazing abilitys in the air

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:39 AM
yes DDT some planes were actually Really Really good

it is a little not true to life as it is now tho , it should stiffen up like the BFs do now

but the Zero had excellent climb for its HP

its not a total UFO

my suggestion is that the P-40 not be so useless , ever since FB v1.0 the P-40 has needed skill to be effective

this Zero shows even more that the P-40 as it is , is not as good as it should be

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:45 AM
mike_espo wrote:
- Heart_C wrote:
--Next time you blame someone to be comfortable with a
-- fantasy plane think about this statement of yours
-
- Its true, you are nothing but wussies. The zero is
- meant to be a great dogfighter. Its meant to climb
- better because of its light structure. Have you ever
- flown the zero? Its slow as hell. Anything can dive
- away from it. For Chrst sake, do some research and
- maybe you will learn that American aircraft never
- dogfought the zero unless, they had altitude and
- numbers on their side. The zero is far from a
- wonderplane. Idiots!

You winn the "stupid man of the topic" award by my standards. Not just that you do nothing but insult... but you insult those that say exactly what you just said... Zero is a dogfighter... but nothing more then that, in real life that is! In FB, the Zero handles way too good at high speed... and for Pete's sake man, you do some research and test FB FM then come to a conclusion you were such an idiot /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:26 AM
damn! not one mention of the tactics the aussies (P40-E) used against the Zeros over PNG!

Or should I say against Japanese bombers being escorted by zeros .. hit and run. Dive on the bombers, hit them then keep diving and home.

This tactic was apparently very effective but didn't boost moral one bit! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My old Geography teacher at high school flew a P40 over PNG, I could never get him to talk about those times expect to say luck played a major in who lived and died. One time his undercarriage gave way on landing and his aircraft disintegrated around him but he didn't get a scratch while his friend died when his aircraft flipped while taking off.


FOKKER G1 - What heavy fighters should have been.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/hastati/g1-1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:35 AM
yes... same tactics that P-40 is really good at.

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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 03:13 PM
WUAF_Badsight wrote:
- yes DDT some planes were actually Really Really good

Yeah, like the K4, La7, Yak3, F6F, F4U, F8F, P-51, P-47.....


- it is a little not true to life as it is now tho ,
- it should stiffen up like the BFs do now

Should stiffen up *far* more than the 109s. Simply taking the fight above 250mph was not enough to beat 109s, it was for Zeros.


- but the Zero had excellent climb for its HP

Sustained climb, sure.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 04:18 PM
I agree with DDT. The Zero in FB has far too much high speed manueverability. The roll rate is absurdly high at low speed, not to mention high.

And DDT is also correct in that 250 was about the upper limit to achieve the superb manueverability from the Zero. Much above that, and the plane was really at a disadvantage against even "inferior" plnes like the F4F Wildcat, P-39 and P-40.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sighell.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:50 PM
Agree the Zero seems to handle too well at high speeds, but it's a BETA!

Also think too many people expect the Zero to be "easy meat" in dogfight server type situations. Actually those are ideal conditions for Zeros.

Even the 1st P38 pilots tried to turn fight at first & had No success, then they learned to use their speed and altitude performance to advantage. hard for many to imagine just how insticntive turn fighting is. Even Flying Tiger's pilots who had been taught better tactics by Chennault often had to learn the hard way, to break off when an Oscar went into a turn. Buck-fever and all. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


the fact is early war American pilots in p39s & P40s felt thier aircraft were completely outclassed by the Zero.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 09:12 PM
Saburo_0 wrote:
- Also think too many people expect the Zero to be
- "easy meat" in dogfight server type situations.
- Actually those are ideal conditions for Zeros.
-
- Even the 1st P38 pilots tried to turn fight at first
- & had No success, then they learned to use their
- speed and altitude performance to advantage. hard
- for many to imagine just how insticntive turn
- fighting is. Even Flying Tiger's pilots who had been
- taught better tactics by Chennault often had to
- learn the hard way, to break off when an Oscar went
- into a turn. Buck-fever and all. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
-
- the fact is early war American pilots in p39s & P40s
- felt thier aircraft were completely outclassed by
- the Zero.


You are absolutely right Saburo_0
No self-respecting (or simply not suicidal) WW2 pilot would get involved in slow turnfight with the Zero at 1000m altitude like we see on almost all the DF servers on HyperLobby. Real pilots were not seeking thrills of the turnfight, they were doing their job. Killing enemies was the job and none would object doing what was the right way of dealing with the threat like Zero (or any other, more maneuverable but slower airplane) - Hit And Run. When they didn't - they died (McGuire).
Hartmann said that %80 of his victims never saw him. Same true Bong on his P-38. Same would have been true about Kozhedub would he been flying P-47 or P-51.
There is no way to outturn it and nowhere to dive - it would be a near instant death for real pilots.
We, on the other hand, don't risk much - just hit "escape" and "re-fly" .

And if someone will ask my personal opinion - P-40 should roll slightly better and Zero - slightly worst. This would allow to use "real-world" tactics against Zero, at list when P-40 pilot have some altitude to escape by diving. Hope they will in "Real" 1.2 patch.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 05:04 AM
- And if someone will ask my personal opinion EP-40
- should roll slightly better and Zero Eslightly
- worst. This would allow to use "real-worldEtactics
- against Zero, at list when P-40 pilot have some
- altitude to escape by diving. Hope they will in
- "RealE1.2 patch.
-
-
-
- AKA_Bogun

seems like the P40 should roll better at "high speeds" I have lost my Zero book for the time being which is really annoying, but stuff happens. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Hartmann said that %80 of his victims never saw him.
- Same true Bong on his P-38.

YEP! and when you figure Sakai with one eye was able to evade an entire squadron of navy hellcat pilots even after flying right up to them, then you start to realize that in the real war there weren't that many dogfights like we imagine them. Eddie Rickenbacher (sp?) said aerial combat is nothing more than scientific murder. -----doesn't sound like much fun does it ?

But back on topic, if the Japanes would have had a large number of pre-war trained pilots, the Mariana's Turkey shoot may have turned out very differently. The short-comings of the Zero are numerous & also in part responsible for the lack of trained pilots, but I think many do not realize just how great the accomplishments of men like Thach were.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 06:36 AM
Saburo_0 wrote:

- But back on topic, if the Japanes would have had a
- large number of pre-war trained pilots, the
- Mariana's Turkey shoot may have turned out very
- differently. The short-comings of the Zero are
- numerous & also in part responsible for the lack of
- trained pilots,


I would have expected them to have alot of skilled flyers at the start of the war when you consider the fact thay had been fighing the chinese for several years as well as the russians I think the shortage can be blamed on the lack of care given to pilot survival eg.the total lack of any armour and self sealing tanks.

And the turkey shoot was such a success becuase the Yank's knew well in advance the attack was comming,so in the end the fate of those Jap pilots was decided before they even took off.

But to go back on topic people are finaly starting to say what I have been trying get across all along and that is as it stands now we cant use realistic tactics unless the FM for both the Zero and p40 are fixed.


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

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:50 PM
S does anyone have figures for the roll rates of the P40 & Zero at any speeds ?

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 01:40 AM
This is a chart I lifted from one of buzzsaws post his info is preety trust worthy.


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/42.gif


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

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 02:36 AM
Woh cool chart! had to save that.

OK haven't tested planes in game or anything (work work work.) But I really don't think the P40 rolls close to that well in the game, does it ?

I assume Zero was rather incomplete FM , but P40 should be mostl;y completed by now & that shows it out-rolling the mustang up to almost 300 mph ias. Had NO idea the P40 rolled that well. Well you have got my support Pourshot.

Zero DM is good imho but high speed roll rate seems way to good, will do a few tests this weekend, (tho i do'nt consider myself a test pilot type of simmer i suspect numbers for both P40 & Zero will be off enough that even i can tell. )

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 08:03 AM
... the roll rate... well the chart speaks for itself /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Try it in FB and you'll see P-40 does not roll better then Zero at any speed or altitude... talking about roll rate being off /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 08:00 PM
I think it depends on the AI setting you use. According to Saburo Saki in his book, the traing method produced some of the best pilots. If you used Veteran or Ace AI, by 1943 those pilots were some of the best around.

The Zeros manuverabilty was a direct result of the virtual lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.

My understanding to the I-16, was that the engine torque,(like the Sopwith Camel) helped it turn so good, but it was very unstable to fly.

Erich Hartmann proved over Budepest, that it is not the plane, but the pilot's skill that does alot to win. His only non Eastern front kills were all against Mustangs when I remember correctly.


Your worst Nightmare.

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 09:21 PM
OMG guys if you can't beat up a ZERO .... go back to flight school.

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:35 PM
Jaws2002 wrote:
- OMG guys if you can't beat up a ZERO .... go back to
- flight school.


Pfft

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

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 11:43 PM
Jaws2002 wrote:
- OMG guys if you can't beat up a ZERO .... go back to
- flight school.
-
Thank you!!!!! My sediments exactly!

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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 12:40 AM
No seriously guys. The Zero we have is a 1943 model. you can beat it with all the 1943 fighters in the game, La-5 FN is better, Yak-9t, P-47, Me-109 G6, Fw-190 A5 are all better fighters overall. Do not expect to beat it in a close quarters turn fight with no room to dive, or hope to get away on a step climb. In my opinion the faster plane is always better, and all this are faster than the zero. Now if you think that in the regular QMB (1000m alt, Smolensk map) a P40 should kill 4 Zeroes set at ace, you don't think straight. Until the Hellcat, Corsair, and P38 came to the Pacific there was no match for the zero. The only way was disciplined team tactics, and hit and run attacks.
And then is the skill, knowing your plane, knowing the enemy plane. Is very important to know how much you can mix it up with the Zero and when is the time to get the heck away.
just my 2 cents

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 02:13 AM
Jaws2002 wrote:
- OMG guys if you can't beat up a ZERO .... go back to
- flight school.

Who said we can't beat it? Since couple of you guys fail to read or understand what we're talking about, better keep out of the discussion you don't know much about.

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

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 09:28 AM
Zeros, if u tray to zoom and boom one experienced pilot, he will make a quick roll and get on ur six, and while you are getting far he will trow u some sniper shots, this is what good zero pilots did in the pacific, some got 30 corsairs and so on.....

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

MicroSoft Most Wanted
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/the-aztek-eagles/oleg.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 08:33 PM
RAAF_Edin wrote:
- Jaws2002 wrote:
-- OMG guys if you can't beat up a ZERO .... go back to
-- flight school.

Nobody asked you. Go eat your vegimite sandwich gday!

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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 07:50 AM
mike_espo wrote:
- RAAF_Edin wrote:
-- Jaws2002 wrote:
--- OMG guys if you can't beat up a ZERO .... go back to
--- flight school.
-
- Nobody asked you. Go eat your vegimite sandwich
- gday!


Mike you make no sense with your post to who are you aiming your remark?

And you should say G'day at the start of the sentence not the end /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 08:20 AM
pourshot wrote:
- Mike you make no sense with your post to who are you
- aiming your remark?

obvously he's just being stupid /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


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