Corsair vs Zero

plan_D · 02-06-2005, 06:59 PM

What exactly is a Spitfire IIV?

The Spitfire V and VIII which were sent out in 1943 got a 8:1 kill ratio over Japanese planes. There's no hardship there...

Soren · 02-06-2005, 11:52 PM

Quote:

What exactly is a Spitfire IIV?

Sorry, i ment Spitfire VII

Damn those roman numerals !

Quote:

The Spitfire V and VIII which were sent out in 1943 got a 8:1 kill ratio over Japanese planes. There's no hardship there...

Yes japanees "planes"

But when they incountered the the 'Zeke' they were in trouble !, except if they sticked to the Shoot and scoot tactic ! But if the Spitfire tried to turn with the Zero, it was as good as dead !

Also it is important to note that in 43 the Japanees fighter-pilots werent as properly trained as in 41 for example.

Overall i would rather be in the Spit though, as its wings wouldnt be ripped up at 370mph as the 'Zeke's' would

plan_D · 02-07-2005, 09:17 AM

It wasn't in trouble when it met Zeros, the Spitfire was just a better plane overall.

Soren · 02-07-2005, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

It wasn't in trouble when it met Zeros, the Spitfire was just a better plane overall.

Well if the Spitfire engaged in a low altitude dogfight with 'Zeke', and the 'Zeke' is on the Spitfire's tail, then i dont see how the Spitfire would ever get out of harms way ! It cant dive away because there isnt space enough. And it cant climb away as then the Zero will catch it with ease ! And it cant make a sharp turn, as the Zero would have no problem what so ever following the turn, thus that would be the same as turning yourself into gunfodder

The Spitfire's only chance of escaping a 'Zeke' that is on its tail is to dive, if the altitude allows it

The Jug Rules! · 02-07-2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

The AVG, RAF and IAF would have met plenty of Zeros though. As Nagumo went around to the Indian Ocean with 5 aircraft carriers and supported Japanese Army movements. The Akagi was attacked by 11 Sqn. Blenheims at one point, obviously supported by either AVG P-40s or Hurricanes (Possibly Buffalos)

I don't think it was the AVG. I don't think they ever encountered a Zero.

=S=

Lunatic

Wait a minute. I read "God is my Copilot", and I can remember plenty of times when R.S.Scott brought his bird back with CANNON holes in it. Now, the Oscar at its best only had 2 .50 cal guns. His personal fighter was put out of action because of structural damage caused by cannons. Where's all the cannon damage coming from?

The Jug Rules! · 02-07-2005, 12:35 PM

I know how to get out of trouble... Slam the throttle to the firewall....!

plan_D · 02-07-2005, 01:29 PM

The Spitfire was faster than the Zero plus there's more to dogfighting than climbing, diving and turning. The Spitfire pilot must have been an appalling pilot to allow himself to be at low altitude, with a Zero on his tail and at slow speeds.

Soren · 02-07-2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jug Rules!

I know how to get out of trouble... Slam the throttle to the firewall....!

Well your plane isnt going to be faster than bullets !

So before your aircraft would be to gain speed, it would be as holed as a "sand-filter"

Soren · 02-07-2005, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Spitfire was faster than the Zero plus there's more to dogfighting than climbing, diving and turning. The Spitfire pilot must have been an appalling pilot to allow himself to be at low altitude, with a Zero on his tail and at slow speeds.

Who said anything about slow speeds ? Even at over 300mph the A6M2 would turn tighter than the Spitfire

And no he doesnt have to be an appalling pilot, as he most likely was used to the traditional dogfighting being carried out over the skies of europe against the Luftwaffe boys.

A Zero could easely loure a Spitfire to go low with it, so to ensure the Spitfire wouldnt be able to escape by diving away ! It just depended on how agressive the Spitfire pilot was ! But early on this wasnt nessecary, as the Spitfire wich was use to happily engage in a turning dogfight would be completely surprised to see the Zero on its tail in a matter of a few seconds.

The true story is that the Spitfire would struggle in a 'Dogfight' with a Zero

Pilots coming in from Europe all too often were shot down by the Zero because they thought they were still fighting Jerry. Example: Air defense of Darwin in '43 by European-experienced Brits and Australians flying Spitfires. Six raids by the Japanese Navy (some raids by G4M "Bettys",escorted by Zeroes; some fighter sweeps by just the Zeroes). ACTUAL losses (where there is maintenance and inventory records of both sides available): 2 Bettys, 3 Zeroes, 38 Spitfires lost

A far worse fate for the Spitfires than the one they got in the early encounters with the Fw 190.

plan_D · 02-07-2005, 01:52 PM

I don't believe that kill count, at all.
The majority of pilots flying the Spitfires had been in Hurricanes and knew about the Zero. The Spitfire was a better performer than the Zero at higher speeds, plus it was better armed and armoured. There was much more of an advantage to a Spitfire than a Zero.
The Zero was CRAP at high speeds, fact. The Spitfire would have to be low and slow, and of course the pilot would have been stupid, to fall easy prey to the Zero.

evangilder · 02-07-2005, 02:07 PM

There is no way that a zero could pull a tight turn at 300 MPH. The ailerons on that airplane are simply not strong enough to hold a turn at that speed. At slow speeds, it was a devil to fight, but at higher speeds, the plane didn't turn well at all. Engine torque was also a factor with the Zero, affecting turning into the torque.

Soren · 02-07-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

I don't believe that kill count, at all.

Well that is your own choice, as it is a confirmed count

Quote:

The majority of pilots flying the Spitfires had been in Hurricanes and knew about the Zero

Yeah but they didn't listen to Joe Foss who, at request of the RAAF, flew the Spitfire and tried to lecture them on how to fight the Zero (teamwork, don't dogfight). They ignored his advice "Have another beer, Joe . . . We've been fighting Jerry for two years in the Spit!" Those pilots later had to be withdrawn and re-trained, as they would loose badly to the Zero with their European theatre style tactics.

Quote:

The Spitfire was a better performer than the Zero at higher speeds, plus it was better armed and armoured. There was much more of an advantage to a Spitfire than a Zero.

What higher speeds ? 300mph "No" 330mph "No".

Quote:

The Zero was CRAP at high speeds, fact. The Spitfire would have to be low and slow, and of course the pilot would have been stupid, to fall easy prey to the Zero.

At 332mph wich is the A6M2's max speed, it would still turn tighter than the Spitfire, it just wouldnt roll as fast.
And again "No" the pilot just had to rely on European theatre tactics.

Soren · 02-07-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

There is no way that a zero could pull a tight turn at 300 MPH. The ailerons on that airplane are simply not strong enough to hold a turn at that speed. At slow speeds, it was a devil to fight, but at higher speeds, the plane didn't turn well at all. Engine torque was also a factor with the Zero, affecting turning into the torque.

The Zero would turn tighter than the Spitfire at 300mph

evangilder · 02-07-2005, 02:37 PM

I highly doubt that. While the Zero was supremely maneuverable at low speeds, its controls became heavy at high speeds, and it rolled to the left much more easily than it rolled to the right. Also, due to its float-type carburetor design it tended to stall under negative gees, as would be encountered if the Zero were climbing and then had to drop back downward while remaining upright.

At low speeds, the Zero could out-turn anything. At high speeds, it was not as manueverable. The key was big ailerons, the ones on the Zero are really big. Joel Paris, who flew P-40s said that the ailerons on the Zero were "big as barn doors". But those ailerons did not have the strength at high speed to make high speed rolls. Most pilots agreed that over 275 MPH, anything could out-turn a zero.

Soren · 02-07-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

I highly doubt that. While the Zero was supremely maneuverable at low speeds, its controls became heavy at high speeds, and it rolled to the left much more easily than it rolled to the right. Also, due to its float-type carburetor design it tended to stall under negative gees, as would be encountered if the Zero were climbing and then had to drop back downward while remaining upright.

At low speeds, the Zero could out-turn anything. At high speeds, it was not as manueverable. The key was big ailerons, the ones on the Zero are really big. Joel Paris, who flew P-40s said that the ailerons on the Zero were "big as barn doors". But those ailerons did not have the strength at high speed to make high speed rolls. Most pilots agreed that over 275 MPH, anything could out-turn a zero.

Don't you mean out-roll it ?

Sure the Zero's controls were heavy at over 275mph, but if you pulled hard enough it wouldnt be a problem, and it would for sure outturn a Spitfire

. (You'd just have to pray for the ailerons to hold

)

However at 320mph and upwards, it would be foolish for a Zero pilot to pull a real 'tight' turn, as that allmost certainly ment the destruction of his ailerons, or controls. (as you said they were as big as barn-doors !

)