Corsair vs Zero

[The Jug Rules!]

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

Has anyone stopped to consider that most of the aircraft lost by the Japanese at the Battle of the Philippine Sea were bombers? And even then is was more poor pilots than poor planes that caused the losses.

The Zero was a remarkable aircraft. On merely half the horsepower of its rivals, it attained very impressive performance (pit an A6M5 against the similarly powered P-36 and see what happens). It was certainly the best fighter available in that part of the war at the start of the war and (despite the rapid advances in technology) never became truly obsolete (though it did need to be replaced).

The P-36 may win. It has better armor and diving qualities. If the pilot knows how to fight, he will probably win. The AVG did well with B model P-40's wich, if I'm thinking correctly has about the same H.P.

[evangilder]

If you pulled hard enough? It would take super human strength to even attempt, the wings and ailerons would most likely not be able to withstand that kind of loading either. Above 275 MPH, the Zero could barely outmanuever it's own shadow.

[R Leonard]

I'd ask what is your source for the A6M's maneuverability at speeds over 300 mph. My source is not just the USN evaluation reports, but a USN pilot, with two A6M2s to his credit, amongst other types, and a test pilot, who actually flew both the A6M2 and the A6M5. While he found both to be sweet flying machines, he verifies that right turns at high speed were out of the question. Why do you think the USN and USMC pilots were taught that the high speed dive to the right was the easiest way to escape the A6M? What is your source ... please cite. Are you an A6M pilot?

[evangilder]

Agreed, RL, but even left turns at those speeds would be very difficult in the Zero. High speed manueverability was not a strength of the Zero. At low speed, that is another story.

[Soren]

Hahaha !! No im not a Zero pilot. (I wish i were though )

At 275mph the Zero could pull tight turns !, above that it would deteriorate gradually. A right turn at 300mph wouldnt hold, but a left turn would, although it would be hard to pull the stick back !

At slow to medium speeds the Zero ruled the sky !, but when the speed began to go above 275mph, it would deteriorate gradually to a point where right roll's were out of the question. So at high speed the Zero was pretty predictable, and would always roll and turn left.

At 320mph, a turn wasnt going to be as tight anymore, but it would turn nonetheless. Many people think that the Zero was crippled at over 330mph, well it wasnt ! it could still turn and roll, but it would roll faster to the left (As explained by Saburu Sakai )

The turning performance at 300mph for the Zero and Spitfire are as follows:

A6M2 Mod.21 Reisen 'Zero' at 300mph:

One 360 at 1,000ft: 11.2s.
One 360 at 5,000ft: 11.5s.
One 360 at 10,000ft: 12.5s.

Two 360s at 1,000ft: 21.5s.
Two 360s at 5,000ft: 23.2s.
Two 360s at 10,000ft: 25.3s.

----------------------------------------

Spitfire MK Vb at 300mph:

One 360 at 1,000ft: 12.2s.
One 360 at 5,000ft: 12.8s.
One 360 at 10,000ft: 14.6s.

Two 360s at 1,000ft: 26.2s.
Two 360s at 5,000ft: 28.3s.
Two 360s at 10,000ft: 31.0s.

[plan_D]

State your sources for these 'facts', on the kill count and the turning radius. You have just stated that the Zero could turn inside the Spitfire at high speeds, and high altitude which is just plain not true.

[Gemhorse]

You might find the Mk.VIII [8] Spitfire's specs more relative to combat against the Zero......

I've read a number of RAF and Allied ex-ETO pilot's books, and they had great advantage when coming into the PTO with their experience....may have had to adapt, yeah, but they effectively combatted the Zero......a couple of examples would be Aussies, 'Bluey' Truscott and Clive 'Killer' Cauldwell....

AWESOME post, Rich.....sat a few of us on our bums......

Gemhorse

[plan_D]

As the majority of those in Burma were Mk. VIII Spitfires I think that would be a better comparison. The Mk. VIII was the definitive Merlin-Spitfire, after all.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

State your sources for these 'facts', on the kill count and the turning radius. You have just stated that the Zero could turn inside the Spitfire at high speeds, and high altitude which is just plain not true.

300mph isnt 'High' speed ! And i never said at high altitude !

You dont have to say alot on this forum before a 'Source' is required !!

Anyway 'some' of the source's are: British Warplanes of World War II' by Daniel J. March. / Bill Gunston's
'Combat Aircraft of World War II.

[plan_D]

Of course we need sources if you're stating something that's never been said before. You are trying to state that the Spitfire was inferior to the Zero, which is just not true.

The Spitfire would have to be below 300 mph, and at low altitude for the Zero to have a reasonable chance of defeating it. And that's the WORST situation for any plane to be in, low and slow, while in a dogfight.

[Soren]

self Edit because of double-post

[Soren]

First of all, i didnt say the Spitfire was inferior to Zero

But in some ways the Spitfire was inferior to the Zero, like in a Turning dogfight at 300mph But unlike the Zero, the Spitfire wouldnt fall apart almost immediately after being hit by a good spray of 50.cal's
Also the Zero's maneuverability would suffer somewhere between 15,000-20,000ft, the Spitfires wouldnt !

In a classic Dogfight, I would rather be in a Zero than in a Spitfire But if the enemy pilot knows and utilizes the Hit and Run tactics supurbly, then I would much rather be sitting in a Spitfire

One of the more noticable weaknesses of the early Zero's, was that its engine would cut out in a dive. However later on when the A6M3 arrived this weakness had been corrected, along with other weaknesses such as pilots protection. But the Zero nomatter what model, would still fall apart relatively quickly if hit by a good spray of 50.cal's

Overall taking tactics into consideration, the Spitfire is the superior aircraft, as long as it didnt get into a Turn and burn dogfight with the Zero at an altitude below 16,000ft

We won airsuperiorty over the Japanees because we refused to play their game, and completely changed the rules of the game to our advantage.

We beat the Zero by completely changing the rules of the game. Sure if we would have continued to dogfight the damn thing, all of our fighters would have been blown out of the sky. But we learned quickly enough not to play their game. No Zero pilot could afford to make even one mistake. He would not survive it for the most part! Naval and Marine Corps history is full of instances where Grumman "Cats" or Vought Corsairs returned to their carriers or fields shot full of holes and with the armor plate dented from numerous slugs. No Zero pilot ever returned in that condition.
After the thach weave tactic was utilized by U.S. and RAAF pilots, the Zero's days were severely numbered, and it was this tactic that rendered the Zero almost obsolete

[plan_D]

The Spitfire could dogfight with the Zero, just not at low speeds below 300 mph. The Spitfire would just keep itself at high speeds, and was a better diver and roller.
The Spitfire was a faster plane, that kept it at a faster dogfighting pace. The only way the Zero could beat the Spitfire is by somehow, making it low and slow. If the Spitfire got low and slow, then the pilot made a stupid mistake.
The altitude didn't matter, as long as the Spitfire kept its pace which it normally would.

[KraziKanuK]

Anyone seen a dogfight? The dogs stay real close to each other and go round and round.

T&B is a dogfight; B&Z is not. (imho)

[plan_D]

Dogfight is a fight between two aircraft, the pilots can do whatever they need to do but it's still a dogfight. Or do you think as soon as a plane rolls, it's not a dogfight anymore?

The Spitfire is a better turner than the Zero at high speeds, anyway.