Corsair vs Zero

[evangilder]

It was written into their constitution about 60 years ago, so it still can't fly there. It is a legal technicality that I would think they could get around these days. I hope they do, we could use the money from the sale.

[Soren]

Well one can always hope

[evangilder]

Here are the shots of "Fugu" as she sits now, and as she was for many years before.

Originally Posted by Soren

Yes but he said "stiff like Concrete" !

They are making it sound like it couldnt roll at all

Its not that i don't believe you Evangilder, not at all, but "Stiff like concrete" isnt that just overreacting a little ?

The Zero could roll at 340mph, but it would be slow (meaning a F6F Hellcat or any other could beat the Zero into the turn, and get a deflection-shot.)

Now Evangilder, if you could ask him about how the Zero A6M5 handles a loop at lets say 320mph and at below 10,000ft, then we could get that solved also.

No the Zero could not roll at speeds over 250 IAS. Technically, it could not roll to the right at all and could barely roll to the left. Even at 230 IAS roll performance to the right was extremely poor and to the left it was quite slow. The problem was the ailerons were quite large and the ratios of the cabling were low. This resulted in very snappy performance in the intended combat speed range of 180-220 mph but made the stick so stiff the pilot could not work it at higher speeds. Pilots even extended the stick with a piece of pipe to achieve the performance noted above, otherwise 200 mph would have been the limit. Elevator response was also limited at high speed, though not as strictly as aileron response.

Corsair pilots would sit on the left turn of a Zero as they overtook it. They knew the plane could not manuver to the right and it's only devensive manuver would be to roll into a hard split-S to the left. When being attacked from the six, Corsair pilots would bank and do a slight climbing turn to the right, then use the rudder to complete the very mild hi-yoyo move onto the six of the attacking zero. Once the weakenesses of the Zero were found by testing the captured units, it's day was done and they were easily defeated by pilots that enageded them properly.

The Zero was also known to have a low terminal dive speed. Anything over 320 IAS in a moderate dive was fatal, the steeper the dive the lower the terminal threshold. So the answer to your loop question is probably that it was not possible to survive such a manuver.

Newbie Kamakazi pilots assigned the Zero were told to fly relatively level to the target, and those that tried to dive steeply into the target invariably crashed into the sea in an uncontrolled dive.

=S=

Lunatic

[Soren]

No the Zero could not roll at speeds over 250 IAS.

Yes it could The A6M2 would have a hard time rolling fast at that speed, and the A6M5 at 275mph. (But they could roll )

Technically, it could not roll to the right at all and could barely roll to the left. Even at 230 IAS roll performance to the right was extremely poor and to the left it was quite slow. The problem was the ailerons were quite large and the ratios of the cabling were low. This resulted in very snappy performance in the intended combat speed range of 180-220 mph but made the stick so stiff the pilot could not work it at higher speeds.

The A6M2's stick was set to operate at a 250 IAS (You are quoting 'Claude' stats !)

Pilots even extended the stick with a piece of pipe to achieve the performance noted above, otherwise 200 mph would have been the limit. Elevator response was also limited at high speed, though not as strictly as aileron response.

Untrue Even a Modern day Zero pilot will tell you that

The Zero was also known to have a low terminal dive speed. Anything over 320 IAS in a moderate dive was fatal, the steeper the dive the lower the terminal threshold. So the answer to your loop question is probably that it was not possible to survive such a manuver.

Newbie Kamakazi pilots assigned the Zero were told to fly relatively level to the target, and those that tried to dive steeply into the target invariably crashed into the sea in an uncontrolled dive.

The A6M2's weak wings would hold to around 360-380mph in a dive. The A6M3's 410mph. The A6M5's 460mph. So again you are incorrect

According to the Japanees, the A6M7 Zero went into an uncontrolled dive at around 450mph

[Soren]

Great pictures Evan !!

[evangilder]

I would highly doubt that dive speed in the A6M3. The wing chord line is too thick and introduces alot of drag. 300 knots IAS is about the best you could hope for in a dive with the A6M3. That was one of Steve's comments about the Zero, and he was talking about the one that he flies regularly.

[Soren]

I found some results on the Zero vs Spitfire test.

Test No. 1 - Commencing at 17,000 feet: (A good deal over the Zero's max maneuverability altitude !!)
1. Spitfire and Hap to approach head on and maneuver, without loss of altitude, until one aircraft gets on the other's tail.

Result:
Both aircraft passed at about 50 yards. Spitfire executed steep climbing turn. Hap steep turned and was on Spitfire's tail within 2½ turns.
2. Hap on Spitfire's Tail. Spitfire to complete 4 steep turns to left. Reform position and carry out 4 steep turns to right.
Result:
Hap was able to turn easily inside Spitfire. However, jinking was necessary to watch Spitfire and check on deflection allowance. Hap did not steep turn as easily to right as to left.
3. Spitfire on Hap's Tail. Steep turns to left and right as in previous test.
Result:
Hap commenced steep turning at 220 mph IAS. Spitfire was unable to turn with Hap., either in left or right hand turns, for more than ¾ turn by which time Spitfire was close to stall.
4. a. Hap on Spitfire's Tail. Spitfire to perform loop.
b. Spitfire on Hap's Tail. Hap to perform loop.
Result:
a. Spitfire commenced looping at 300 mph IAS with speed of 140 mph IAS on top. Hap had no trouble in following Spitfire.
b. Hap commenced lop at 220 knots IAS and completed two loops in succession. Spitfire endeavored to follow Hap and stalled at top of first loop and fell out. Hap finished on Spitfire's tail.

Even at 17,000ft and at 300mph IAS, the Zero could easely follow the Spitfire in this high speed loop

[Soren]

Originally Posted by evangilder

I would highly doubt that dive speed in the A6M3. The wing chord line is too thick and introduces alot of drag. 300 knots IAS is about the best you could hope for in a dive with the A6M3. That was one of Steve's comments about the Zero, and he was talking about the one that he flies regularly.

Well the Zero wasnt exactly intended for a 60 year long service time either ! Some parts will offcourse weaken with time.

I doubt any modern Zero pilot would even push a A6M5 over 400mph, souly because it is so old !

[evangilder]

It's not about age, it's about the chord line and how the air reacts to the wing. He does not push the aircraft for obvious reasons, but he has to know what the limitations of the aircraft are before he flies it, otherwise, how would he know when he is pushing the limits?

[Soren]

If the airframe hasnt been changed in 60 years, and is still the original, then it would clever for the pilot not to push it to its 60 year old specification-limits

Even our modern day Fighters has to have their airframe changed or checked for metal-fatitude once in a while.

You dont push an 60 year old aircraft to its previus limits, as they have changed over time !

[evangilder]

If you fly a 60 year old airplane that has not had that kind of inspection, it is a recipe for disaster. The aircraft was restored to a flyable condition in the 1990s. If you don't think these planes are as sturdy as the day they were built, you haven't spent time in a CAF hangar. Restoration entails years of work inspecting every inch of the airframe, assuring structural integrity and replacing parts that have even a hint of potential to fail.

There are NO planes from that time frame that are 100% original in their airframes. The FAA would never allow an unsafe aircraft to leave the ground.

The reason they don't push it to their limits is for safety, period. We don't want to lose a 60 year old airplane, for sure. But we certainly don't want to lose our friends either.

[Soren]

If you fly a 60 year old airplane that has not had that kind of inspection, it is a recipe for disaster. The aircraft was restored to a flyable condition in the 1990s. If you don't think these planes are as sturdy as the day they were built, you haven't spent time in a CAF hangar. Restoration entails years of work inspecting every inch of the airframe, assuring structural integrity and replacing parts that have even a hint of potential to fail.

A wise decision !

The reason they don't push it to their limits is for safety, period. We don't want to lose a 60 year old airplane, for sure. But we certainly don't want to lose our friends either.

Exactly, they first of all dont want a casualty, and they don't want to lose a 60 year old antique !

[the lancaster kicks ass]

didn't you say you had a saying, summit like "if you find yourself about to crash [when flying an old aeroplane] don't bother ejecting, if you survive we'll kill ya".................

Soren, do you know the difference between TAS and IAS? Your figures are TAS figures at 10-15000 feet.

Have you read the test evaluations of the A6M2 captured in the Alutians? Seem's not. Have you read Sabaru Sakai's book?