Rising Sun warbirds

KraziKanuK · 08-08-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

If Pearl Harbour had a squadron of Spitfire IIAs stationed there, the IJN would have been going up against designed interceptors with much superior dogfighting abilities than the Zero. The Spitfires could have climbed to the IJNs height with ease and been squatting them like the flies they really were.

The Spits would have ended up the same as the Spits in northern Ozland did, scrap metal. That is is if they could get off the ground due to the very numerous mech problems. Did you conviently forget the first battles between Spit Vs and Zeke?

FLYBOYJ · 08-08-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Jan 1943 was the tipping point for the airwar. The Zero had a good run against the first generation of allied aircraft (just like the Germans had a good run against the Russians in 1941). But after the fall of Guadalcanal, the Japanese were running low on experienced pilots and were soon to go up against hordes of superior American planes.

And why was that? Becuase throughout 1942 the Zero was starting to get it's butt kicked. You just want to make a case for the Zero based on 1 year of fighting. That's nonsence! Even with 1942 kill ratios, the Zero was getting smoked and it was becuase of those early losses the situation only got worse........

plan_D · 08-08-2005, 06:44 PM

I've got a reply to this but it won't let me post it! This is beyond odd, seriously I've got this massive reply and I'm not allowed to post it. It says it cannot detect the website. Even if I cut the reply down to a paragraph of it, it won't let me! And if you don't believe me I could even start a new threat with the exact reply. And it was all written by me too!

In fact, I'll PM someone it and they can try and post it. Who wants to be the test subject?

It won't even let me start a new thread with it. Man, this is f*cking wrong. How the hell can it do that!? I can write all this but not all what's in my reply. Conspiracy!

Holy ****! I can't even PM it to people. Someone PM me their e-mail so I can send it to you via e-mail, then try and post it on here.

plan_D · 08-08-2005, 10:01 PM

If the IJA thought the CBI as unimportant they would not have bothered at all. China and Burma were both important areas of conflict. In fact, more Japanese units were stationed in China than against the U.S. Burma was vital for the Japanese to cut off the supply route into China and create a shield from the British in India.

Had the Japanese abandoned Burma, China would be supplied by the U.S lend-lease, the British could have attacked all Japanese gains in the South-West Pacific from the land. On top of that, Burma has it's own oil reserves or did you forget that?

Obviously you do not know what "active defence" means. "Active defence" refers to a defence created by offence. The attack on Pearl Harbour was "active defence" in Japanese eyes as they saw the threat from the U.S.
The assault on Imphal by the IJA was part of their active defence. It was to destroy the British offensive capability in India/Burma. So, yes, the Japanese assaults throughout late 1942/1943 were in active defence.

The Japanese knew they needed to keep Burma that is why there was such dogged resistance from the Japanese units in Burma. If it had been so unimportant, it would have been abandoned. You just don't have a clue about the CBI, do you?

The Zeke's could have flown around in circles constantly losing speed while the Spitfires intercept the bombers and shoot them down. The idea of an interceptor is to rise to the offence of the enemy, the Zero would come on the offence and the Spitfire would rise to meet it.

The first Spitfires met the Japanese over India/Burma in 1943, they achieved a 8:1 kill ratio over the IJAAF and IJN. It didn't take long for the RAF to know how to utilise their superior characteristics (which was basically everything) against the slothe paper Zero.

Yeah! It worked!

FLYBOYJ · 08-09-2005, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

It didn't take long for the RAF to know how to utilise their superior characteristics (which was basically everything) against the slothe paper Zero.

Yeah! It worked!

The Jug Rules! · 08-09-2005, 04:09 PM

There was a Japanese aircraft... I believe it was called the ki 87 or ki100, that could outfight the p-51h and the (sob!) p-47N. I happened to fly It in cfs 2, and it is a dofighter's dream. It WOULD NOT STALL!!! It acellerated like a champ, and could out-turn and outclimb almost anything.

FLYBOYJ · 08-09-2005, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jug Rules!

There was a Japanese aircraft... I believe it was called the ki 87 or ki100, that could outfight the p-51h and the (sob!) p-47N. I happened to fly It in cfs 2, and it is a dofighter's dream. It WOULD NOT STALL!!! It acellerated like a champ, and could out-turn and outclimb almost anything.

The KI-87 and the KI-100 were excellent aircraft and were probably par with the P-51. The P-47N, well I don't know?

As far as them not stalling, that's impossible! Any aircraft with conventional control systems (no fly-by-wire) will stall, regardless of weight, airspeed and altitude.....

Henri Mignet's popular Flying Flea sports airplane was supposed to be stall proof. Folks bought the kit, flew it and tried to stall it, eventually they were successful - eventually they also died!

evangilder · 08-09-2005, 07:51 PM

I wouldn't use a computer game flight simulator as the basis for the flight characteristics of any airplane.

FLYBOYJ · 08-09-2005, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

I wouldn't use a computer game flight simulator as the basis for the flight characteristics of any airplane.

syscom3 · 08-09-2005, 08:31 PM

Flight sim's have been shown to be very accurate.

Many of them match perfectly to the documented flight charachteristics. Only less than perfect modeling with them, is the cannon and MG "destructiveness".

KraziKanuK · 08-09-2005, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The KI-87 and the KI-100 were excellent aircraft and were probably par with the P-51. The P-47N, well I don't know?

Only 1 Ki-87 was built. The Ki-87 was to use a turbocharged engine(Nakajima Ha-217).

syscom3 · 08-09-2005, 08:36 PM

The Japanese had a plane under development, the "The Kyushu J7W Shinden"

It had canards which does lower the stall speed to a quite low airspeed.

http://members.aol.com/pelzig/shinden.html

FLYBOYJ · 08-09-2005, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Flight sim's have been shown to be very accurate.

Many of them match perfectly to the documented flight charachteristics. Only less than perfect modeling with them, is the cannon and MG "destructiveness".

Agree for the most part but there are still many "shortfalls" inherent in flight sims, especially to the non-pilot who, unless properly trained,won't recognize them....

GregP · 08-09-2005, 10:12 PM

Japanese aircraft were well designed and well engineered. They were reliable and had decent armament. Their weakness was a lack of regard for pilot safety, a tenant of the Samurai.

With mostly non-sealing fuel tanks, they were vulnerable to weak hits, even fro 30-cal MG. With no regard for pilot safety, they had no armor plate for protection.

As a result, they were VERY maneuverable at slow to medium speeds, a bit tricky above 400 mph, and were not designed for long life. Also, the Japanese flew mostly on 87-Octane fuel, which resists supercharging at high altitudes with great skill.

I see the Japanese aircraft of WWII as the best that could be done at the time with what was available to the Japanese at the time.

If you dont think that, try to make a better fighter than the Zero in 1943 with no raw material and no production lines. At the time, the Zero was fantastic, and was not expected to be eclipsed. Imagine their surprise when the Hellcat, P-38, and Mustang came along ... not to mention the F4U Corsair. They msu have thought they were being punished by the Gods.

Designs don't stand still in wartime. If either the Bf-109 or the Spitfire had stood still, they would also have been eclipsed. They didn't. The Japanese must have been running a government wothout a knowledgeable aircraft advocate in power. Otherwise, the Zero would have been replaced or improved to meet the challenge.

By 1945, the quality of the steel was so poor that landing gear legs on the Shinden-Kai were regularly fracturing on landing. So, I'd say the Japanese aircraft effort was laudable in the effort, but not particularly well done due to lack of resources.

The Zero, even the A6M3, was simply not all that competitive in 1945 unless you wanted to slow down and fight at their game. At that, it was unbeatable.

evangilder · 08-10-2005, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Flight sim's have been shown to be very accurate.

Many of them match perfectly to the documented flight charachteristics. Only less than perfect modeling with them, is the cannon and MG "destructiveness".

Some aircraft yes, but not all aircraft. The Japanese aircraft mentioned that could not be stalled, a good example. Obviously if there were a lot of the aircraft made and people who flew them still around, the accuracy will be better.

But if you do not fly, or have not flown small aircraft or even in small aircraft with someone else flying, you don't know what the feel of the aircraft is. That is one severely lacking part of sims. Good example, fly in a twin engine aircraft with the engines not running the same RPM, you can hear and feel the difference that a sim cannot give you. But it is something that you cannot miss if you are inside the airplane.