PDA

View Full Version : BS: some of these guys dont know what there talking about!



Avont29
02-24-2007, 04:41 PM
hellcat can outturn a zeke, on Dogfights, it said it had


speed , armor, turning, and something else over the zeke

on dogfights, it shows some zeke trying some maneuver where he looped up, and waited for the hellcat to stall out cause he thought it was a wildcat, but the hellcat kept up with the zeke and killed it

it was on dogfights and they know what there talking about

can't a hellcat outturn a zeke?

Stackhouse25th
02-24-2007, 04:48 PM
depends. zeke earlier versions turned better than later versions. also a lot of pilots wouldnt fly their plane to the maximum as they should have.

id never enter a 2 circle fight with a zeke, EVER. I would however boom and zoom them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fordfan25
02-24-2007, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Avont29:
hellcat can outturn a zeke, on Dogfights, it said it had


speed , armor, turning, and something else over the zeke

on dogfights, it shows some zeke trying some maneuver where he looped up, and waited for the hellcat to stall out cause he thought it was a wildcat, but the hellcat kept up with the zeke and killed it

it was on dogfights and they know what there talking about

can't a hellcat outturn a zeke? never compair RL accounts to the way this game works. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WB_Outlaw
02-24-2007, 04:55 PM
When talking about turn performance in combat, the roll into the turn is usually included in the discussion. Therefore if you have a higher roll rate it will often be said that you can "out-turn" another aircraft even if your turn rate is not as high.

At high speeds the zero had high stick forces which made it difficult to maneuver. The Hellcat had lighter stick forces and was easier to maneuver.

So, if a Zero is coming up on your tail and you execute a hard break turn, he will not be able to follow you initially b/c his reaction time will delay his turn, his slower roll rate will delay his turn, and the high stick force will require him to pull harder on the stick. If the speed is fast enough, the Zero pilot will not be able to pull hard enough to follow the Hellcat.

Now, since a smart pilot won't get suckered into a continued turn fight, even if the speed is not high enough to lock up the Zero's controls, a hard break was often enough to stop the attack. However, if the Hellcat pilot continues to turn hard and bleed off his speed, and the Zero pilot is not worried about being snuck up on, the Zero will reel him very quickly.

--Outlaw.

Edbert
02-24-2007, 05:17 PM
1st off...that show is not 100% accurate on many topics. Typical History Channel stuff, enough accuracy and detail to fool most viewers, but not enough to get past the experten.

2nd...what they were talking about was a zoom climb. The F4F's weakest part was a horrible climb (zoom or sustained), the F6F had enough power to zoom with the lower powered but lighter zeke. The latter could still win in the sustained climb department but likely would not suvive long enough to separate. So a Jap who mistook the F6F on his tail for an F4F and tried to climb away was not long for the world.

RAF56_Ball
02-25-2007, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
When talking about turn performance in combat, the roll into the turn is usually included in the discussion. ...
--Outlaw.
Over all, the rest of your post is solid, good comments. Regarding the first sentence, though, no offence, but not in any discussions by pilots and gators. We only talked about rate and radius of the turn, not the entry into it. Never heard any WW-2 pilots talk about that, either.

Cajun76
02-25-2007, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by Avont29:


on dogfights, it shows some zeke trying some maneuver where he looped up, and waited for the hellcat to stall out cause he thought it was a wildcat, but the hellcat kept up with the zeke and killed it



This exact scenario was part of a book called Wings Of Gold. It had many interviews and quotes from various pilots, maybe even sources. Many accounts are by Jimmy Thatch, and it might have bee one of his, not sure. The F6F was a rude shock to many Japanese pilots who had previously done the Hollywood style loop onto the guy following you six before he can maneuver, when facing the F4F.

XyZspineZyX
02-25-2007, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Avont29:
hellcat can outturn a zeke, on Dogfights, it said it had


speed , armor, turning, and something else over the zeke

on dogfights, it shows some zeke trying some maneuver where he looped up, and waited for the hellcat to stall out cause he thought it was a wildcat, but the hellcat kept up with the zeke and killed it

it was on dogfights and they know what there talking about

can't a hellcat outturn a zeke?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We use a lot of terms here. When someone says "out-turns", it's often assumed this means in any situation, at any speeds, for any number of degrees in a circle

I'm not going to comment on 'Dogfights' other than to say I don't watch it. So I can't comment on their scenario

At high speeds, the Zero's controls become very stiff. This can allow the US aircraft with more speed capability to out-manuever the Zeke in some situations.

"Maneuverability" is another term tossed around here that people assume to understand. They think it means "tight turning", when it really means 'the ability to rapidly change direction'

AVGWarhawk
02-25-2007, 06:20 AM
All I can say is this, the Americans found an overturned zero abandoned on an island. The zero was taken and studied for its abilities. The Hellcat was a direct design to out perform the zero. If I'm not mistaken, the Hellcat is the leader in downed Japanese aircraft in the PTO.

In game, I find the zero still climbs with the Hellcat pretty handly. Other than that, the Hellcat is fine in my view.

Sergio_101
02-25-2007, 06:23 AM
"Dogfights" is told from the winning pilot's perspective.
This does place a bit of "spin" on the story;-)

A F6F-5 Hellcat or a FM-2 Wildcat was not the
Wildcat the Japanese fought early on.
The power to weight was now in favor of the
American fighters.
Power to weight at anything over sea level
was going to be even more favorable to the
American fighters since the A6M Zeros had
no two stage supercharging.

You say that a Hellcat can not turn with a Zero?
Try it at 15,000' or higher.
Power to weight is VERY important in a sustained turn.
Also At speeds ofer 250mph (give or take) the Zero
is at a severe disadvantage.

In a level turn at sea level I give almost any Zero the edge.
A climbing turn or loop at 10,000' and the Zero is easy meat.
High speed combat above 250 mph and the Zero is again at a disadvantage.

Good advise, don't accept Olegs silly lame flight models for
the American planes as fact.
they were better than that.

Sergio

joeap
02-25-2007, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:


Good advise, don't accept Sergio's silly lame views on
the Axis/Soviet planes as fact.
they were better than that.

Sergio

Fixed.


US planes were good though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

harryklein66
02-25-2007, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
they were better than that.
japanese too
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm

WWMaxGunz
02-25-2007, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Avont29:
can't a hellcat outturn a zeke?

In the right situation it can get inside for the shot if you want to call that outturn.

The idiot part is when someone wants to take such situations and call them always. That
is the part where thinks-he-knows-better pilot gets a lesson. Unlike the forum, being
wrong IRL means a good chance of not coming back which in your first post you tell of a
Japanese pilot that thought he knew something not going to go back and tell different.

Fly the planes, don't fly someone's impressions.

VW-IceFire
02-25-2007, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Avont29:
hellcat can outturn a zeke, on Dogfights, it said it had


speed , armor, turning, and something else over the zeke

on dogfights, it shows some zeke trying some maneuver where he looped up, and waited for the hellcat to stall out cause he thought it was a wildcat, but the hellcat kept up with the zeke and killed it

it was on dogfights and they know what there talking about

can't a hellcat outturn a zeke?
Hellcat CAN out turn a Zero. The FW190 CAN outturn the Spitfire...but its highly dependent on speed/relative energy differences.

At high speeds the Zero can't pull as hard because of its control design while the Hellcat can pull very hard and trade speed for angle at a much more rapid pace. The end result is that a Hellcat, diving onto a Zero at high speed, can pull into a turn the Zero is making. The danger to the Hellcat pilot is if he sustains the turn in a WWI style dogfight. Thats where the Zero is superb and can then just keep on tightening as the speeds decrease. But if the Hellcat stays only for a 60 degree turn or so he can stay with and actually improve his turn. Its like the Hellcat has more money in the bank and can spend it quicker than the Zero can.

This is all a part of air combat techniques. Nothing is completely consistent between two planes through the entire altitude/speed range of the two types.

In-game you can do this as well.

p-11.cAce
02-25-2007, 08:04 AM
There are many times in RL and in sim that it does not matter what two planes are flying against each other but WHO is flying them. Just looking at the performance specs is pretty meaningless - it is how each pilot hansdles the aircraft in the heat of battle, often after a few hours of cruise flight in a non-temp controlled unpressurized cockpit that determines the outcome of the fight. Heck I've been flying sailplanes for 2 years now and you can stick me in a "hot" top of the line ship and I'll get my butt handed to me by the experts flying trainers - I do not have the ability to wring 50% of the available performance out of the aircraft. we think of fighter pilots as being some known constant but a rookie in almost any aircraft is at the mercy of the ace in the other.

BSS_CUDA
02-25-2007, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by RAF56_Ball:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
When talking about turn performance in combat, the roll into the turn is usually included in the discussion. ...
--Outlaw.
Over all, the rest of your post is solid, good comments. Regarding the first sentence, though, no offence, but not in any discussions by pilots and gators. We only talked about rate and radius of the turn, not the entry into it. Never heard any WW-2 pilots talk about that, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats not quite correct


This test was conducted pursuant to the "Program for testing the Tactical Suitability of Service Aircraft," this headquarters, dated 9 July 1942, a copy of which is attached as Inclosure No. 1.

Maneuverability: The subject aircraft was flown in mock combat against P-39D, P-40F, P-47C-1, and P-51 types of aircraft and the following results were obtained:

Against the P-39D, P-51, and the P-40F, the P-38F had a longer radius of turn below twelve-thousand (12,000) feet. From twelve-thousand (12,000) feet to approximately fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet, the radius was almost the same, and from fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet on up, the P-38F had a equal or shorter radius of turn.<span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> In the initial turn, due to the slowness of aileron roll of the P-38F, the other types could roll into a turn faster and close up the circle rapidly before the P-38F would reach its maximum radius of turn.</span> so roll was considered when discussing turn speeds on aircraft

WB_Outlaw
02-25-2007, 10:18 AM
Thanks Cuda, saved me the time of looking it up!http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


--Outlaw.

R_Target
02-25-2007, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
All I can say is this, the Americans found an overturned zero abandoned on an island. The zero was taken and studied for its abilities. The Hellcat was a direct design to out perform the zero.

The Hellcat was in development before the Pearl Harbor attack.

AKA_TAGERT
02-25-2007, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Avont29:
hellcat can outturn a zeke, on Dogfights, it said it had


speed , armor, turning, and something else over the zeke

on dogfights, it shows some zeke trying some maneuver where he looped up, and waited for the hellcat to stall out cause he thought it was a wildcat, but the hellcat kept up with the zeke and killed it

it was on dogfights and they know what there talking about

can't a hellcat outturn a zeke? One thing for sure..

T-REX powns King Kong

VMF-214_HaVoK
02-25-2007, 11:34 AM
At high speed the Hellcat can indeed out maneuver the Zeke rather easily. So can many other planes. The chandelle maneuver was also very popular for US pilots.

chandelle maneuver (http://www.ufly.com/lessons/max_maneuvers1.html#chandelles)

JG52Karaya-X
02-25-2007, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
One thing for sure..

T-REX powns King Kong

got track? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bremspropeller
02-25-2007, 11:50 AM
It's XXX-rated.

Feathered_IV
02-25-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Avont29:


on dogfights, it shows some zeke trying some manoeuvre where he looped up, and waited for the hellcat to stall out cause he thought it was a wildcat, but the hellcat kept up with the zeke and killed it

it was on dogfights and they know what there talking about


Just curious. If the IJN pilot was killed in the encounter, how does the History Channel have intimate knowledge of what the pilot was thinking and his motivations when he pulled that manoeuvre? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Badsight-
02-25-2007, 10:32 PM
heavy heavy controls at high speed

commen knowledge & repeated about the new-build Zeros now flying

Saki reckoned some of the Kamakazee that hit the sea got too fast before they wer lined up & couldnt pull out , as he had nearly done the same a few times he would know

JR_Greenhorn
02-25-2007, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
All I can say is this, the Americans found an overturned zero abandoned on an island. The zero was taken and studied for its abilities. The Hellcat was a direct design to out perform the zero. If I'm not mistaken, the Hellcat is the leader in downed Japanese aircraft in the PTO. As R_Target states, the F6F was in development from before the Americans had fought against Zeros, let alone found one in the Aleutians.

The F6F was designed from the start to be a superb carrier fighter. For instance, it's large wings and sturdy landing gear avoid problems that other types suffered. It would be more accurate to say that after testing the captured Zero, the F6F project had a clearly defined performance benchmark that it must exceed.

The F6F does have an impressive kill ratio, however kill ratios depend on number and type of sorties flown, strength of opposition, pilot training and experience, and other factors as much as they depend on the plane's own merits.

LEBillfish
02-25-2007, 11:04 PM
Point blank.......No fighter aircraft can do ALL things better then all others in all conditions. There is ALWAYS a trade off somewhere. The trick to utilize your advantages and not allow them theirs.

Sama51
02-25-2007, 11:40 PM
I have a book called Flying Legends, and throughout it, it gives accounts from Allied and Axis pilots. Here is one from Saburo Sakai when this flight encountered a flight of Hellcats.

"I snapped back in a tight turn. The manouvre startled the enemy pilots as I climbed at them from below, swinging into a spiral. I was surprised: they didn't scatter. Again I spiralled, drawing it closer this time. The opposing fighters refused to yield a foot. This was something new. An Airacobra or a P-40 would have been lost trying to match me in this fashion, and not even the Wildcat could hold a spiral too long against a Zero. But these new Hellcats - they were the most manouvreable enemy planes I had ever encountered."

The hellcat had a lot more power than the earlier Wildcat. This means in a sense, it can do particular manouvers easier because it has the power to weight ratio to do them. In a flat out turn not at bleeding speeds of course the Zero is going to outturn the Hellcat, Just remember to relize it just isn't pulling this stick back in a turn or loop which is considered the criteria for manouvering. The planes are climbing, spiraling, rolling, etc. which all require power to maintin the speed required to pull off the manouver, and a powerful aircraft with very well balanced characteristics like the Hellcat is going to do this well.

Xiolablu3
02-25-2007, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Good advise, don't accept Olegs silly lame flight models for
the American planes as fact.
they were better than that.



Dont accept Sergios silly lame views about this game, he is just some dumb kid who doesnt know how to fly the US planes to their strengths.


I can outurn Zeros at high speeds in a Hellcat in the game very easily. The Zeros controls lock up even earlier than the Bf109's.

And the US planes are already very good, but you must use historical tactics, not fly around like you are in a Zero or Spitfire.

Sergio is one of these people who thinks the P51 and P47 should fly like a Spitfire. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sergio_101
02-26-2007, 03:14 AM
"Silly dumb kid" Thanks, from you it's a compliment.
FM2 Wildcat also had a excellent power to weight.
In fact is out climbed any version of the Hellcat.

The Hellcat's P&W R-2800-10W was a two staged
two speed water injected supercharged engine.
it made good power to about 20,000'.
At sea level with water injection "on" it was
good for about 300hp more, or about 2,300hp.

That's nearly twice the power of a A6M-5 Zero or a F4F-3 Wildcat.
The FM2 Wildcat had "only" 1350 hp, but was
lightened and it's engine gear ratio and propeller were
optimised for climb, and in fact it out climbed
any operational US Navy fighter untill the Bearcat.
FM2 out climbed the F6F-5 by about 35%.

"Silly dumb kid" has 8 years in the USAF and another 30 years
in the avaition field.
I may not be the "Expert" some of you kids are, but I do have
a clue as to what I am talking about.

Sergio

mynameisroland
02-26-2007, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
"Silly dumb kid" Thanks, from you it's a compliment.
FM2 Wildcat also had a excellent power to weight.
In fact is out climbed any version of the Hellcat.

The Hellcat's P&W R-2800-10W was a two staged
two speed water injected supercharged engine.
it made good power to about 20,000'.
At sea level with water injection "on" it was
good for about 300hp more, or about 2,300hp.

That's nearly twice the power of a A6M-5 Zero or a F4F-3 Wildcat.
The FM2 Wildcat had "only" 1350 hp, but was
lightened and it's engine gear ratio and propeller were
optimised for climb, and in fact it out climbed
any operational US Navy fighter untill the Bearcat.
FM2 out climbed the F6F-5 by about 35%.

"Silly dumb kid" has 8 years in the USAF and another 30 years
in the avaition field.
I may not be the "Expert" some of you kids are, but I do have
a clue as to what I am talking about.

Sergio

Sorry, Xiola must have been confused then by your blanket statement that ALL US planes were better in reality than in IL2.

If you feel that all US planes are porked why even post here or play this sim at all? If you cant fight effectively in a P47, a P51, a Hellcat, a Mustang or a P38 YOU are the problem not the sim.

I still remember various argument along the lines of ... "At Reno the P51 can go 490 mph so in IL2 it must be porked", "If German planes were so good why arent their any surving today and winning air races", and "when was the last time you saw a British plane win an air race?" So 30 years aviation industry experience perhaps but certainly not 30 years WW2 aviation experience.

joeap
02-26-2007, 04:21 AM
Guys anyone can claim anything on the internet. I claim I flew an F-5 once. See?

DIRTY-MAC
02-26-2007, 04:29 AM
"Silly dumb kid" has 8 years in the USAF and another 30 years
in the avaition field.
I may not be the "Expert" some of you kids are, but I do have
a clue as to what I am talking about.
Sergio

still you post silly and behave like a 14 years old on these boards http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I dont think you come across as a "8 years in the USAF and another 30 years
in the avaition field" amongs many people here on the forum. and thats because of the
"un"smooth way you post. and its totally your own fault

joeap
02-26-2007, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

"Silly dumb kid" has 8 years in the USAF and another 30 years
in the avaition field.
I may not be the "Expert" some of you kids are, but I do have
a clue as to what I am talking about.
Sergio

still you post silly and behave like a 14 years old on these boards http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I dont think you come across as a "8 years in the USAF and another 30 years
in the avaition field" amongs many people here on the forum. and thats because of the
"un"smooth way you post. and its totally your own fault </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Mac, I posted I flew an F-5, never have. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

p-11.cAce
02-26-2007, 06:35 AM
I still feel that these "performance" discussions turn silly when we just compare test data numbers and assume that all pilots can just be interchanged at a known constant. Imho the variability of pilot performance is the single greatest contributor to the outcome of any dogfight - heck we all see it anytime we fly online.
In RL there were really great pilots and really poor pilots and many in between. When we read dogfighting accounts or watch them on TV we have to look beyond the performance stats and remember that fallible humans were at the controls.
Oh, and I do have 1.2 hours backseat in a L-39 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (not that I did anything but enjoy the ride and keep my hands well away from anything painted red!)

WWSensei
02-26-2007, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s.

Just a nitpick--but it's one of my pet peeves. It's "Lose" not "Loose" and "losing" not "loosing". Lose = Not Win, Loose = opposite of tight.

It's only one extra "o" but it completely changes the meaning you are trying to express.

Vipez-
02-26-2007, 06:38 AM
I find F6Fs very pleasant aircrafts to fly. Zeros really are not a concern, you simply can't shoot something you can't catch. And you can outturn them over 350 kmh easily, keeping speed over 350-400 kmh and the Zero is in trouble.

mynameisroland
02-26-2007, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
I find F6Fs very pleasant aircrafts to fly. Zeros really are not a concern, you simply can't shoot something you can't catch. And you can outturn them over 350 kmh easily, keeping speed over 350-400 kmh and the Zero is in trouble.

Yeah but Bong could out- stall turn Ki 43s so if the P38 could do that the Hellcat should out turn the Zeke at all speeds ? It had a bigger engine didnt it?

p-11.cAce
02-26-2007, 07:17 AM
the Hellcat should out turn the Zeke at all speeds ?
If the pilots are equally G tolerant, have their aircraft trimmed properly, are carrying equivalent "E" into the turn, have their props set properly, have no damage, poorly repaired damage, properly tensioned and maintained controls & engines, equal number of spent or unspent bullets, equivalent fuel loads, clean carbs with no ice, good plugs with no fauling, and good engines without exhaust leaks, manifold leaks, compression issues, fresh oil, and properly set throttle linkages, waste gates, and magneto points.

Every one of these items will affect aircraft performance from spec, some in small ways others in large ways.

mynameisroland
02-26-2007, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Hellcat should out turn the Zeke at all speeds ?
If the pilots are equally G tolerant, have their aircraft trimmed properly, are carrying equivalent "E" into the turn, have their props set properly, have no damage, poorly repaired damage, properly tensioned and maintained controls & engines, equal number of spent or unspent bullets, equivalent fuel loads, clean carbs with no ice, good plugs with no fauling, and good engines without exhaust leaks, manifold leaks, compression issues, fresh oil, and properly set throttle linkages, waste gates, and magneto points.

Every one of these items will affect aircraft performance from spec, some in small ways others in large ways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

must do your revision when it comes to reading sarcasm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p-11.cAce
02-26-2007, 09:08 AM
I apologize for missing the sarcasm but my point still stands - simply looking at performance data for any two opposing aircraft really is not a good way to determine an outcome for a dogfight. How often do we consider that in a RL turning fight the aircraft coming around the "downwind" half of the turn is at a disadvantage? Or that poorly maintained control mechanisms may induce trim requirements which in turn can decrease the top speed of an aircraft by a significant amount?

I'm just saying that when we toss spec. performance numbers around to "prove" a point we are not really considering the entire picture. PZL P-11's did take out quite a few -109's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

R_Target
02-26-2007, 10:24 AM
I always try to keep this in mind:

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/4504/tacitixcx1.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
02-26-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
I always try to keep this in mind:

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/4504/tacitixcx1.gif

And those tactics work flawlessly in this very sim.

VMF-214_HaVoK
02-26-2007, 11:55 AM
FM2 Wildcat also had a excellent power to weight.
In fact is out climbed any version of the Hellcat.

Really? I did not know it was able to out climb the Hellcat. Too bad in this sim its a real pos. I dont think the FM2 ever got a proper look from Oleg and crew. Of course there has never been any real complaining here in the forums. Perhaps its because its rarely used, at least in any of the servers I fly such as ZvW.

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2007, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
I find F6Fs very pleasant aircrafts to fly. Zeros really are not a concern, you simply can't shoot something you can't catch. And you can outturn them over 350 kmh easily, keeping speed over 350-400 kmh and the Zero is in trouble.

Yeah but Bong could out- stall turn Ki 43s so if the P38 could do that the Hellcat should out turn the Zeke at all speeds ? It had a bigger engine didnt it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are trying to apply a situational quote to another plane?
Okay sure, in the --right situation-- the F6F could turn inside any Zero.

F6F had one engine, P-38 had two. Are you comparing one F6F engine to one P-38 engine?

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-26-2007, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
All I can say is this, the Americans found an overturned zero abandoned on an island. The zero was taken and studied for its abilities. The Hellcat was a direct design to out perform the zero.


Actually, the Hellcat was already well on its way and even flew its first test flights a couple weeks before ens. Koga overturned his zero in Alaska. It the took about 2 months to get it salvaged, packed, shipped and repaired for testing purposes.

So, the idea that the Hellcat was actually designed to compete with the zero using data collected from a captured zero...is false. The truth, though, is the F8F was designed and built using some of this data as well as data collected from a captured FW190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

edit: Now that I've read most of this thread...I see I've simply restated facts that have already been expressed. I'll go back to sleep now.

Blutarski2004
02-26-2007, 12:18 PM
Go here -

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

One surprising point re Zeke 52 vs F6F-5 is that the Zeke had a considerably superior climb rate (+600f/s) up to 9,000 ft and was superior to lesser degrees up to 14,000 ft.

Another is that the FM2 could outclimb the Zeke 52 (and the F6F-5) up to 4,000 ft.

It's never as simple as we like to think it is. The more I study this topic, the more I am convinced that Occam took his Razor and went out for lunch when the question of tactical fighter comparisons came up on the agenda.

ForkTailedDevil
02-26-2007, 01:20 PM
Actually the Lightning had more kills in the Pacific than any other US aircraft. The Hellcat just had more kills than any other Navy aircraft. Impressive considering it entered service in the later part of '43 not so impressive considering the cream of the Japanese Navy pilots were mostly gone. Really the Wildcat did most of that work.

Tater-SW-
02-26-2007, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
All I can say is this, the Americans found an overturned zero abandoned on an island. The zero was taken and studied for its abilities. The Hellcat was a direct design to out perform the zero.

This is a myth, and 100% false.

The Koga Zero (the aleutian one you mention) was lost during the diversion operation in early June, 1942. It was discovered later in June, and the first F6F (XF6F-1) flew on June 26th, 1942, having been designed well before that (the contract to build the plane was signed with BuAer June 30, 1941 as a backup for the older project, the F4U). The final prototype (basically a pre-production F6F-3), was the XF6F-3, and flew July 30th, 1942. The Koga Zero was shipped back the US before ever flying, so at a bare minimum it was not even flyable before mid July (unlikely), and the F6F-3 was built and flown by the end of July. I'd have to look up the Koga Zero information, but It's a fair bet that the Koga Zero had not be evaluated by the time the fimal F6F was flown (and certainly not by the time it was too late to change the design anyway).

In reality, the F6F was purpose built to out perform the WILDCAT in every way, not the Zero. Since the F4F (particularly the -3) was very closely matched with the Zero, the F6F beat the Zero in almost every way. (note that low-speed "turn" was not part of the US paradigm at that time, we'd already moved on to more powerful engines and a "BnZ" approach to fighter aircraft. Climb and speed were paramount, though good slow speed handling qualities were a feature of all carrier aircraft for obvious reasons.

tater

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Since the F4F (particularly the -3) was very closely matched with the Zero,

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Hello. I'm from Earth. Where did YOU come from?

LEBillfish
02-26-2007, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Yeah but Bong could out- stall turn Ki 43s so if the P38 could do that the Hellcat should out turn the Zeke at all speeds ? It had a bigger engine didnt it?

WHAT?????!!! Where did you get that from?...Those in NewGuinea that REFUSED to turn more then 90degree's lived, those that tried to turn with the Japanese planes died....point blank...dead, the reasons clearly stated, they broke their own rules of engagement....

No slam roland intended....re-read the text where you found it as I think you'll find Bong spoke of Ki-43's doing snap turns as he'd pass them and instantly be on his tail as though pivoting 180degrees in the sky.

The Ki-43 we have here especially the II flys nothing like any account I have read....There was a reason it was a threat with it's BB guns. They should out turn 99% of the planes we have here.

WWSpinDry
02-26-2007, 02:44 PM
Billfish, he was being sarcastic when he asked that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

BTW: long time no see. Still fly your SE-5a via the keyboard?

Scharnhorst1943
02-26-2007, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s.

Just a nitpick--but it's one of my pet peeves. It's "Lose" not "Loose" and "losing" not "loosing". Lose = Not Win, Loose = opposite of tight.

It's only one extra "o" but it completely changes the meaning you are trying to express. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should losen up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sorry, I could not resist the temptation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

AVGWarhawk
02-26-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
All I can say is this, the Americans found an overturned zero abandoned on an island. The zero was taken and studied for its abilities. The Hellcat was a direct design to out perform the zero.

This is a myth, and 100% false.

The Koga Zero (the aleutian one you mention) was lost during the diversion operation in early June, 1942. It was discovered later in June, and the first F6F (XF6F-1) flew on June 26th, 1942, having been designed well before that (the contract to build the plane was signed with BuAer June 30, 1941 as a backup for the older project, the F4U). The final prototype (basically a pre-production F6F-3), was the XF6F-3, and flew July 30th, 1942. The Koga Zero was shipped back the US before ever flying, so at a bare minimum it was not even flyable before mid July (unlikely), and the F6F-3 was built and flown by the end of July. I'd have to look up the Koga Zero information, but It's a fair bet that the Koga Zero had not be evaluated by the time the fimal F6F was flown (and certainly not by the time it was too late to change the design anyway).

In reality, the F6F was purpose built to out perform the WILDCAT in every way, not the Zero. Since the F4F (particularly the -3) was very closely matched with the Zero, the F6F beat the Zero in almost every way. (note that low-speed "turn" was not part of the US paradigm at that time, we'd already moved on to more powerful engines and a "BnZ" approach to fighter aircraft. Climb and speed were paramount, though good slow speed handling qualities were a feature of all carrier aircraft for obvious reasons.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you find me something in writting? I had read in a book(I will have to get the book and author when I get home). It stated finding a zero and making test with it so as to have a superior Hellcat. I would like to know and have a straight record of it. Another has said the same as you did, this is a myth. If I recollect, I have seen this on the history channel as well...that a zero was found and studied for development of the hellcat.


Also, I enjoy the wildcats much more so than the hellcat in this game. It seems to be a better climber to me. Maybe it is supposed too be a better climber.

AVGWarhawk
02-26-2007, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
All I can say is this, the Americans found an overturned zero abandoned on an island. The zero was taken and studied for its abilities. The Hellcat was a direct design to out perform the zero.

I stand corrected. Apparently Grumman had the hellcat on the drawing board before Pearl Harbor as the replacement to the wildcat. Question is, were does the zero fit in that I read about?

This is a myth, and 100% false.

The Koga Zero (the aleutian one you mention) was lost during the diversion operation in early June, 1942. It was discovered later in June, and the first F6F (XF6F-1) flew on June 26th, 1942, having been designed well before that (the contract to build the plane was signed with BuAer June 30, 1941 as a backup for the older project, the F4U). The final prototype (basically a pre-production F6F-3), was the XF6F-3, and flew July 30th, 1942. The Koga Zero was shipped back the US before ever flying, so at a bare minimum it was not even flyable before mid July (unlikely), and the F6F-3 was built and flown by the end of July. I'd have to look up the Koga Zero information, but It's a fair bet that the Koga Zero had not be evaluated by the time the fimal F6F was flown (and certainly not by the time it was too late to change the design anyway).

In reality, the F6F was purpose built to out perform the WILDCAT in every way, not the Zero. Since the F4F (particularly the -3) was very closely matched with the Zero, the F6F beat the Zero in almost every way. (note that low-speed "turn" was not part of the US paradigm at that time, we'd already moved on to more powerful engines and a "BnZ" approach to fighter aircraft. Climb and speed were paramount, though good slow speed handling qualities were a feature of all carrier aircraft for obvious reasons.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you find me something in writting? I had read in a book(I will have to get the book and author when I get home). It stated finding a zero and making test with it so as to have a superior Hellcat. I would like to know and have a straight record of it. Another has said the same as you did, this is a myth. If I recollect, I have seen this on the history channel as well...that a zero was found and studied for development of the hellcat.


Also, I enjoy the wildcats much more so than the hellcat in this game. It seems to be a better climber to me. Maybe it is supposed too be a better climber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AVGWarhawk
02-26-2007, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
All I can say is this, the Americans found an overturned zero abandoned on an island. The zero was taken and studied for its abilities. The Hellcat was a direct design to out perform the zero.

I stand corrected. Apparently Grumman had the hellcat on the drawing board before Pearl Harbor as the replacement to the wildcat. Question is, were does the zero fit in that I read about?

This is a myth, and 100% false.

The Koga Zero (the aleutian one you mention) was lost during the diversion operation in early June, 1942. It was discovered later in June, and the first F6F (XF6F-1) flew on June 26th, 1942, having been designed well before that (the contract to build the plane was signed with BuAer June 30, 1941 as a backup for the older project, the F4U). The final prototype (basically a pre-production F6F-3), was the XF6F-3, and flew July 30th, 1942. The Koga Zero was shipped back the US before ever flying, so at a bare minimum it was not even flyable before mid July (unlikely), and the F6F-3 was built and flown by the end of July. I'd have to look up the Koga Zero information, but It's a fair bet that the Koga Zero had not be evaluated by the time the fimal F6F was flown (and certainly not by the time it was too late to change the design anyway).

In reality, the F6F was purpose built to out perform the WILDCAT in every way, not the Zero. Since the F4F (particularly the -3) was very closely matched with the Zero, the F6F beat the Zero in almost every way. (note that low-speed "turn" was not part of the US paradigm at that time, we'd already moved on to more powerful engines and a "BnZ" approach to fighter aircraft. Climb and speed were paramount, though good slow speed handling qualities were a feature of all carrier aircraft for obvious reasons.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you find me something in writting? I had read in a book(I will have to get the book and author when I get home). It stated finding a zero and making test with it so as to have a superior Hellcat. I would like to know and have a straight record of it. Another has said the same as you did, this is a myth. If I recollect, I have seen this on the history channel as well...that a zero was found and studied for development of the hellcat.


Also, I enjoy the wildcats much more so than the hellcat in this game. It seems to be a better climber to me. Maybe it is supposed too be a better climber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected!!!! The hellcat was on the drawing board before Pearl Harbor. Apparently the replacement for the wilcat. Where does the found zero factor into this that I read about?

Tater-SW-
02-26-2007, 04:23 PM
Any good book on the F6F will explain the actual history of the aircraft. The 2 prototypes, XF6F-1 and XF6F-3, flew on June 26 and July 30, 1942. The Koga Zero was downed June 3, 1942, found a while after that, and had to be shipped (on a ship) back to the states and tuned up before ever being flown.

The Zero in question is called the "Koga Zero" after its unfortunate pilot, named Koga.

The aircraft was the first Zero extensively tested by the Allies (I don't remember tha date on the Chinese Zero, though I'm sure Chris does, regardless, even if flown in China, it wasn't tested the way the Koga zero was back home).

It had virtually no bearing at all on the F6F design. The tests likely played a role in suggested tactics for F6F pilots, but really it would have only gelled up the lessons learned so quickly. The AVG had appropriate doctrine for dealing with highly maneuverable japanese fighters from day 1, and the pre-war USN doctrine was OK to start with, and very quickly adapted to the new threat of the Zero (literally from the first USN combat with the Zero---USN pilots never had a poor kill ratio vs zeros, contrary to myth).

The F4F-3 and -4 are very poor in the climb, while the FM-2 (a General Motors ("Eastern") built F4F-7) actually had a superior initial climb rate at 3650fpm to the F6F-3's ~3500fpm.

AVGWarhawk
02-26-2007, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Any good book on the F6F will explain the actual history of the aircraft. The 2 prototypes, XF6F-1 and XF6F-3, flew on June 26 and July 30, 1942. The Koga Zero was downed June 3, 1942, found a while after that, and had to be shipped (on a ship) back to the states and tuned up before ever being flown.

The Zero in question is called the "Koga Zero" after its unfortunate pilot, named Koga.

The aircraft was the first Zero extensively tested by the Allies (I don't remember tha date on the Chinese Zero, though I'm sure Chris does, regardless, even if flown in China, it wasn't tested the way the Koga zero was back home).

It had virtually no bearing at all on the F6F design. The tests likely played a role in suggested tactics for F6F pilots, but really it would have only gelled up the lessons learned so quickly. The AVG had appropriate doctrine for dealing with highly maneuverable japanese fighters from day 1, and the pre-war USN doctrine was OK to start with, and very quickly adapted to the new threat of the Zero (literally from the first USN combat with the Zero---USN pilots never had a poor kill ratio vs zeros, contrary to myth).

Thanks Tater! The quick look I took on the Hellcat showed it was long in the works before the Koga zero! So basically this zero was a test bed for pilots to find it strenght and weakness. Good deal!

The FM2 had the water injection, yes? I find the wildcats in game fun to fly....

BadA1m
02-26-2007, 06:19 PM
Hmmmm. Not a peep out of the original poster. Interesting, very interesting. By the way, fairly civil thread, I'm impressed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
02-26-2007, 06:19 PM
Yeah I think the Koga Zero was more of a intelligence victory as once they had a good look at the Zero they realized that it could do what it did because it was so lightly constructed. Tactics were devised and by the time the Hellcat was on the scene the pilots in Wildcats were doing a pretty good job against the Zero anyways. The Wildcat was never really inferior to the Zero but it wasn't really superior either so if used in the proper way it could prevail. The Hellcat took that and tipped the scales heavily in the USN's favour.

Badsight-
02-26-2007, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
Where does the found zero factor into this that I read about? mis-infomation thats been repeated since 1945

Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Wildcat was never really inferior to the Zero but it wasn't really superior either . the wildcat had slower accell , climb , turn & even level speed , which is another thing peeps get wrong about the Wildcat (this is the -3 Wildcat compared against the -21 A6M2)

& had much less range . what it had that the -21 Zero nearly totally lacked (besides a 2-way radio http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ) was decent protection . those Zeke pilots were facing HMG with just about nothing protecting them

ElAurens
02-26-2007, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
the wildcat had slower... level speed ,

Not compared to the A6M2 in the sim it doesn't.

Our A6M2 and A6M2-21 have been clearly undermodeled in level speed from day one of PF.

And Billfish is totally correct on the appalling turn capability of the Ki43 II in the sim. I never fly the II if a Ib is also available.

darkhorizon11
02-26-2007, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Avont29:


on dogfights, it shows some zeke trying some manoeuvre where he looped up, and waited for the hellcat to stall out cause he thought it was a wildcat, but the hellcat kept up with the zeke and killed it

it was on dogfights and they know what there talking about


Just curious. If the IJN pilot was killed in the encounter, how does the History Channel have intimate knowledge of what the pilot was thinking and his motivations when he pulled that manoeuvre? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen that episode and I can't remember the Japanese or the American pilots name... BUT the Japanese pilot was a 19 kill ace in the Pacific. He'd used this tactic before many times, to his credit the HC pointed out that his only real mistake was that he thought he was fighting a Wildcat. Had he been, he no doubt would have claimed number 20...

BillyTheKid_22
02-27-2007, 12:50 AM
http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Hellcats/F6Fani.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AVGWarhawk
02-27-2007, 08:45 AM
I find the wildcat in the game generated campaigns that fly against the A6M2 not bad at all. The wildcat with a good wingman and all is well. Although I can not stick in the turn with the A6M2 I'm able to get the sight in the plane for a few seconds and that is enough to shoot the A6M2 down. If the A6M2 makes a bad move and climbs in front of me, lights out for the A6M2. I like the wildcat in this situation.

Xiolablu3
02-27-2007, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
All I can say is this, the Americans found an overturned zero abandoned on an island. The zero was taken and studied for its abilities. The Hellcat was a direct design to out perform the zero.


Actually, the Hellcat was already well on its way and even flew its first test flights a couple weeks before ens. Koga overturned his zero in Alaska. It the took about 2 months to get it salvaged, packed, shipped and repaired for testing purposes.

So, the idea that the Hellcat was actually designed to compete with the zero using data collected from a captured zero...is false. The truth, though, is the F8F was designed and built using some of this data as well as data collected from a captured FW190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

edit: Now that I've read most of this thread...I see I've simply restated facts that have already been expressed. I'll go back to sleep now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHat the captured Zero did was enable the USAAF to develop definite tactics in order to defeat teh Zero using the 'Cats'.

The orders that R Target posted were a direct result of data gained from the captured Zero. Before the Zero was captured, noone was quite sure about what the best way to tackle it was, and as such the Allies suffered heavy losses.

There is a great Documentary available on Bitorrent, 'Secret Japanese Aircraft of WW2' which tells this story about Frank Mcoy and his intelliegence service.


http://www.mininova.org/get/294809

I love the 'Cat's in the game, and would take one every time over a Zero.

Sergio_101
02-27-2007, 04:41 PM
First flights.

XF6F-1, power by Wright R-2600-10 1,700hp, 6/26/42.

F6F-3, power by P&W R-2800-10 2,000hp, 7/20/42.

F6F-3 with P&W R-2800-10W 2,000hp, 9/1/43. (delivery date).

R-2800-10W was good for about 2,300-2,500 hp with the water alchohol engaged.

Service life for Hellcats in action was VERY short.
I read somewhere that a Hellcat in carrier duty only averaged
about 25 hours in the combat area.
Most were destroyed in landing/deck/handling accidents.

Burning out engines by excessive WEP operation was not a big problem.

Sergio

Sergio_101
02-27-2007, 04:47 PM
Zero was captured, noone was quite sure about what the best way to tackle it was, and as such the Allies suffered heavy losses.

Clair Chennault and the AVG knew how to defeat Japanese planes.
They may have not met a Zero in combat (there is a chance they did)
but they shure knew how to do it, but most did not listen.

By the way, all the AVG that survived claimed they met zeros
at some time during the AVG China campaign. (Flying Tigers).
Most Zero sightings were probibly Oscars.


Sergio

luftluuver
02-27-2007, 06:06 PM
the Allies suffered heavy losses.
Maybe for the 'British' but not for the Americans. F4F vs A6M was almost 1:1.

Xiolablu3
02-27-2007, 06:21 PM
ANd what about other planes that werent F4F? P40/Avenger/Brewster/Bombers?

On the documentary I watched it said the 'Americans' suffered heavy losses when they first met the Zero.

Possibly the score was evened out through 1943 and on.

But anyway - If you lose 50 planes in a day thats heavy losses whether the Japanese lose 50 too or not. In that case you both have 'heavy losses'.

I dont really know if the British suffered heavy losses when they first met the Zero. I wouold expect so because they would be fighting them in Hurricanes and Brewsters and would be totally outclassed. Europe recieved all the best new fighters, and it was a while before the guys in Burma and the Pacific got Spitfires, never mind the later marks like Mk VIII and IX. I know that the Austrailians (Who were the first to face the Japanese in the air I believe) lost quite a few planes at first unitl they developed the correct tactics vs the Japanese planes.

shinden1974
02-27-2007, 06:58 PM
Koga's Zero provided the USN/USMC with needed tactics just prior to the solomons campaign. This is why it was considered vital, Japanese air superiority over guadalcanal would have ended or at least delayed the Island hopping campaign by months if not years. The first hand accounts and reports don't lie. The F6F being developed from the koga zero story is a myth from the Destroy History channel.

The wildcat was an even match for the zero prior because of the wildcat's sheer toughness and the superior team tactics of our pilots. The Thach weave was an excellent counter to the zero's offensive superiority. One-on-One of course the Zero is far superior...anything greater however and zeros become very vulnerable against much tougher fighters covering each others backs closely.

The Japanese knew well the Zero's weakness beforehand and were desperately looking to get a replacement going before even Pearl Harbor. The Hellcat's is superior because of Japan's inability to keep up in the arm's race. Had IJN not had such poor decision making, a true zero succesor should have already been flying by late '42.

WWMaxGunz
02-28-2007, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Zero was captured, noone was quite sure about what the best way to tackle it was, and as such the Allies suffered heavy losses.

Clair Chennault and the AVG knew how to defeat Japanese planes.
They may have not met a Zero in combat (there is a chance they did)
but they shure knew how to do it, but most did not listen.

By the way, all the AVG that survived claimed they met zeros
at some time during the AVG China campaign. (Flying Tigers).
Most Zero sightings were probibly Oscars.


Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does it matter? The same guys did fight Zeros in the PTO when they were absorbed into the
US forces. They used the same tactics as in China with success against Zeros.

OTOH there were PTO pilots that said a P-400 is a P-40 with a Zero on its tail.