PDA

View Full Version : How did the Zero & KI-81 compare against the.....



XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:21 AM
How did the Zero & KI-81 compare against the USAAF fighters ??
i ask this because ive always taken the Zero to be the japs lightweight high performing fighter
i know they had a slight performance advantage at the start of the war but american engineering kicked into high gear & their were awesome new planes that were made by the americans
we all know the outcome of the war ... what i mean is "in the air performance "
not battle performance (kills)
how did the KI-81 & Zero stack up against the american fighters they faced ? as in turning & accelerating & climbing performance
plz im not biased to any particular country ... id just like some of the experts that frequent il2sturmovik.com to give me their opinions
any data based responses would be great !!!

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:21 AM
How did the Zero & KI-81 compare against the USAAF fighters ??
i ask this because ive always taken the Zero to be the japs lightweight high performing fighter
i know they had a slight performance advantage at the start of the war but american engineering kicked into high gear & their were awesome new planes that were made by the americans
we all know the outcome of the war ... what i mean is "in the air performance "
not battle performance (kills)
how did the KI-81 & Zero stack up against the american fighters they faced ? as in turning & accelerating & climbing performance
plz im not biased to any particular country ... id just like some of the experts that frequent il2sturmovik.com to give me their opinions
any data based responses would be great !!!

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:46 AM
Those are two very different aircraft. The zero was cutting edge at the outset of the war, but was outclassed by 1943 with the proliferation of the F6F HellCat in the US NAVY. The A6M5's greatest shortcomings were it's lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. This meant that it couldn't take many hits before the pilot was killed or the thing burst into flames. It was very fast and maneuverable compared to the American counterparts. Historians have called it the greatest fighter fielded by any of the combatant countries in WWII. To my knowledge, the KI-81 was never put into full-scale production, but would have equalled every fighter in US inventory. The NIK-2 George was put into production and did equal US NAVY opposition, and it had 4 20mm cannon, more than enough to knock anything out of the sky. Unfortunately with no factories to build them and only a few pilots to fly them, Japans newer aircraft never had a chance to prove their worth.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:49 AM
The Ki-81 was a heavily armed and armored ground attack version of the Ki-48 light bomber. It never went into service.

Do you mean the Ki-61 Tony? The one that looks like a Messer knock-off? Excellent plane, gave Allied pilots fits. Difficult to maintain and did not hold up well in tropical climates. "...during the mid-war years it was the only Japanese aircraft that could successfully engage the fast Allied fighters by combining some of bte Nipponese machines' traditional maneuverability with a strong and well protected structure" (Francillon, "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War").

tttiger

"Never wise up a chump!" -- W.C. Fields