PDA

View Full Version : Hurricane VS. Zero which turns better?



XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:07 AM
or will in game i wonder? i now know the hurricane can outturn a spitfire. which i never knew. spitfires were known for turning well too. so will the hurri out turn a zero? and where will the I16 fit into this battle i wonder?

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:07 AM
or will in game i wonder? i now know the hurricane can outturn a spitfire. which i never knew. spitfires were known for turning well too. so will the hurri out turn a zero? and where will the I16 fit into this battle i wonder?

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:47 AM
Zero outturns any monoplane fighter. 360 deg sustained turn time is 16 sec. Better than 18 sec for hurri1 and 19 sec for hurri2. I-16 was quite mediocre for an early fighter: only 20 sec (poor aspect ratio mainly).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/17/0308:49PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 07:35 AM
Zero.... They just neglected teamwork..

rgds

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 08:33 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Zero outturns any monoplane fighter.

definitively NO.

The Ki-43 outturns any Zero, whereas the Ki-43 is outturned by its forerunner Ki-27 and A5M - both monoplanes.

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/sig2.jpg


"Kimura, tu as une tĂÂȘte carrĂ©e comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 09:43 AM
regardless... the Zero.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 09:47 AM
speaking of Zero's... it's not even in the game yet, but i already know that im going to be infuriated when i hit one w/ a Mk 108 and it flys on... a SINGLE Mk 108 should down all of the following w/ no problem, unless it strikes the edges of the Vert / Horizontal stabs...

P-39
LA-5,7
Yak-3


There's a LOT more, but those are 3 specific ones that i've noticed have been taking more than 1 on occasions (the Yak-3 being the least of them), and on one occasion... infact, tonight... i myself hit an LA-5 w/ 4 Mk 108's and upwards of 100 13mm, and i watched a FW D-9 hit w/ at least another Mk 108...

Someone care to explain how that's possible?

other than that, Mk 108 = far better now


P.S... sry for hijacking the thread /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 10:02 AM
doras dont have mk108s.....so how much else of your post is incorrect?.............WUAF hero........

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 10:04 AM
Ah, in that case... and applause for your condescending tone... it was an A-8. I'm sry to dissapoint you.. i don't fly FW, and don't know the loadouts of all the latewar FW's. At any rate, the map only hosted the A-8 and D-9... i assumed it was the later, but was incorrect.

Otherwise, it's all correct... enjoy.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 10:08 AM
- Someone care to explain how that's possible?

Well frankly it is not possible.

Yaks have allways been absorbing too much damage it cannot be denyed. It is a light fighter still it can suck up damage like a heavyer plane. It is not realistic, mayby a fix in future DM tweaks or mayby not.

We have had all kinds of ridicilous explanations ranging from extra tough russian wood material to russian engines being more durable (30% stronger only?), well even a monkey can see through these ones.

Yeah this is personal opinion so if you dont agree send a PM so that another thread wont flame.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 11:17 AM
alarmer wrote:
-- Someone care to explain how that's possible?
-
- Well frankly it is not possible.
-
- Yaks have allways been absorbing too much damage it
- cannot be denyed. It is a light fighter still it can
- suck up damage like a heavyer plane. It is not
- realistic, mayby a fix in future DM tweaks or mayby
- not.
-
- We have had all kinds of ridicilous explanations
- ranging from extra tough russian wood material to
- russian engines being more durable (30% stronger
- only?), well even a monkey can see through these
- ones.
-
- Yeah this is personal opinion so if you dont agree
- send a PM so that another thread wont flame.
-

Agree.. well it is still much better, than we had in FB 1.0.. it is unlikely to get any better.

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 11:19 AM
Zero ofc..most agile fighter /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 11:21 AM
RedDeth wrote:
- doras dont have mk108s.....so how much else of your
- post is incorrect?.............WUAF hero........

Doras have, but only the D-11, not our beloved D-9 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

BTW: what about a D-11 in the game ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.virtual-jabog32.de)

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 11:34 AM
Zero will turn much better than a hurricane,
but if we would talk about the most manouvreble aircraft,
the Ki-27 "Nate" would win,


(it had a wingload of only 87,3kg/#m !)

<ceter>http://www.artehistoria.com/batallas/jpg/BAT575.jpg </center>
THE FORGOTTEN MIG-5

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 12:14 PM
Low wing loading gives great instantaneous turn, but sustained turn rate is affected by the following (plane specific) parameters:

(Thrust - Parasitic Drag)/Weight - this is why power loading is important

Wing Area/Weight - wing loading

Aspect Ratio (AR)

Oswald Factor (e) = aprox 1 - 1/AR


All this factors affect turn rate by exactly the same degree.


KIMURA wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Zero outturns any monoplane fighter.
-
- definitively NO.
-
- The Ki-43 outturns any Zero, whereas the Ki-43 is
- outturned by its forerunner Ki-27 and A5M - both
- monoplanes.


There were no monoplane fighters that could turn below 16 sec, whether Ki-43, Ki-27 or A5M. If you want to say that they turned tighter I agree for Ki-27 or A5M. Otherways your affirmation is not correct.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 12:25 PM
Regarding the original question, the Zeros slaughtered the Hurricanes defending Trincomalee and Colombo during the IJN's carrier raids on Ceylon in early 1942.
Same in Malaya and Java.

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 01:03 PM
Wait until the add on comes out and a zero driver follows you into a steep dive and can actually pull out of it like it was never in it.

I better see them Zero's smacking the ground / water if they try to pull out of a steep one!!!! at over say 450-500 kmh.


krinkle,krinkle...

S!

Tac'

Tis far better to burn out than to Fade AWAY!!!

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 01:57 PM
Aircraft speed plays a factor too. Quote about Zero's maneuverability form Japanese ace 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."

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

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:25 PM
Well imo the zero should out turn anything already in the game. It should climb better and be more evasive then any other plane.

Just one porblem its a rice paper plane, the reason they climb and trun so well is there is no armor, so in the end you wont need a cannon to take one down if you can catch them off guard.

As for out running you most of the planes in the current game are by far faster, i dont think you will see many boom and zoomers in a zero. Oh and to the one post about the a5 that was a later model which was not as maneuverable as the a6m2. I would compare that between the zero and the George.

As for kamikazies they chose different attacks, you see them coming in low, med, and rolling over in a dive from high above. If you think that was a poor choice then tell that to the crew of the USS Franklin that lost 700+ men from one diving from what they guess to be 2,500 feet. Once you have entered into that realm, it didn't matter all the Jap pilots were rookies since the old guys were long gone.

If you ever count up the loss of it the ships suffered more then the pilots. In money loss, and life loss. But to add on that note think about the poor guys that had to fly bombers on a one way trip, how many of them to you think made it to the ships?

May you not become a dirt torpedo.

PlatinumDragon...

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:42 PM
PlatinumDragon wrote:
- Well imo the zero should out turn anything already
- in the game. It should climb better and be more
- evasive then any other plane.
-
- Just one porblem its a rice paper plane, the reason
- they climb and trun so well is there is no armor, so
- in the end you wont need a cannon to take one down
- if you can catch them off guard.


Not quite correct. First Zero's climb performance was good compared with other early war fighters, 2700fpm, but far from best. Zeros saw many years of service and by the end of the war the only advantage they had was the turn rate and radius, but it was completely obsolete in every other way.

One mention though. There were quite a lot of early monoplanes that could complete a 360 deg turn in 16 sec, but most of them were 100kmh slower than Zero. This is why Zero was such a respected design. But Zero had no potential for further development (neither other fast turning early planes), nobody could keep the turn characteristic and still have a competitive max speed.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/18/0309:08AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 03:24 PM
Huck about about:

Ki-43-Ic
---------

Span: 11.44 meters
Length: 8.83 meters
Height: 3.27 meters
Wing surface: 22.00 sq m.
Wing load: 117 kg/m2
Weight empty: 1 590 kg
Weight loaded: 2 583 kg
Engine: Nakajima Ha-25
Power ): 975 HP
Specific power: 377 HP per ton



A6M5b
-----

Span: 11.00 meters
Length: 9.12 meters
Height: 3.51 meters
Wing surface: 21.30 m2
Wing load: 148 kg/m2
Weight empty: 2 155 kg
Weight loaded: 3 150 kg

Engine: Nakajima NK1F 'Sakae 21'
Power 1130 HP
Specific power: 359 HP / ton


http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/sig2.jpg


"Kimura, tu as une tĂÂȘte carrĂ©e comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura



Message Edited on 08/18/0303:25PM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 03:40 PM
You are comparing two models from different periods (also note that your loaded weight value is for a Zero with external fuel). Better compare this:


A6M3 Model 32:
Wingspan, 36 ft. 1 1/16 in.
length, 29 ft. 8 11/16 in.
height, 11 ft. 6 5/32 in.
wing area, 231.746 sq. ft.
power rating, 1130 hp
empty weight, 3,984 lb.
loaded weight, 5,609 lb.
wing loading, 24.2 lb./sq. ft.
power loading, 5lb./hp
maximum speed, 338 mph at 19,685 ft.
cruising speed, 230 mph.
climb to 19,685 ft., 7 min. 19 sec.
service ceiling, 36,250 ft.
maximum range, 1,477 st. miles


Ki-43-IIb:
Wingspan, 35 ft. 6 ⟠in.
length, 29 ft 3 5/16 in.
height, 10 ft. 8 ⟠in.
wing area, 230.367 sq. ft.
power rating, 1150 hp
empty weight, 4,211 lb.
loaded weight, 5,710 lb.
maximum weight, 6,450 lb.
wing loading, 28 lb./sq. ft.
power loading, 5 lb./hp
maximum speed, 329 mph at 13,125 ft.
cruising speed, 273 mph
climb to 16,405 ft., 5 min. 49 sec.
service ceiling, 36,750 ft.
normal range, 1,095 st. miles
maximum range, 1,990 st. miles

data from Rene Francillon, Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War

note that cruise speeds were virtualy the same, speeds given here are for different power settings (and/or different altitude).

<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/18/0309:52AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 03:52 PM
Model 32 is the clipped wing

Better try

Model 52a vs. Ki-43-IIa

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/sig2.jpg


"Kimura, tu as une tĂÂȘte carrĂ©e comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura



Message Edited on 08/18/0304:07PM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 04:01 PM
All subsequent models had the shorter wing. I put the M3 model because here we have a matured Zero, the wingspan and power rating, weight values settled for a while. The same is true for Ki-43-IIb. Also both have similar power rating, earlier models whether one was lighter or another one had a more powerful engine and so on. If you consider those two particular models you can make a very good comparison of the designs. Of course the planes had very similar performance.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 09:14 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Low wing loading gives great instantaneous turn, but
- sustained turn rate is affected by the following
- (plane specific) parameters:
-
-
- (Thrust - Parasitic Drag)/Weight - this is why power
- loading is important
-
- Wing Area/Weight - wing loading
-
- Aspect Ratio (AR)
-
- Oswald Factor (e) = aprox 1 - 1/AR
-
-
OSWALD FACTOR Huck??????????
Is that the enemy plane that sneaks up on you from the "grassy knoll"?????????????????

S!
Chris

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

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 11:11 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- You are comparing two models from different periods
- (also note that your loaded weight value is for a
- Zero with external fuel). Better compare this:

A6M3 Model 32 first deployed in May 1942.
Ki-43-IIb went into production in May 1943.

Sources:

Francillion "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War"
Bueschel "Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa In JAAF, RTAF, CAF, IPSF Service"

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg