Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WWII fighter comparison I Zero v P-40

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 1979 View Post
    The p-40 would not turn tighter at high altitudes and high speeds than the Zero , because it's wing (due too higher wing loading and lower lift coefficient) would stall at a lower bank angle than the Zero.
    Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Bank Angle and G's
    That effectively means that even thou the p-40 with superior roll rate, could reach that bank angle quicker than than the A6m, it could not keep it in a level turn because of the reduced lift.
    If the zero could not turn due to poor aerilon design and wing design, the p-40 could and DID turn inside the zero at speed and up high.

    Comment


    • #32
      I was trying to work out the math , but without a trusted source on the P-40 stall speed in clean configuration, i'm getting nowhere.
      also the Zero stall speed listed in the wikipedia page seams to be with flaps deployed not clean configuration.
      Last edited by 1979; 17 Mar 11,, 18:43.
      J'ai en marre.

      Comment


      • #33
        I have heard several good historians point out that the P40 had an undeserved bad reputation. It was kept in production until the end of the war, and the final variants had very good performance. Other designs like the Vindicator torpedo bomber were dropped quickly. In the right hands it did well against the Japanese fighters. Pilot quality made a big difference, as I understood: when inexperienced pilots take on experienced pilots, the aircraft type is secondary to the outcome.

        Another interesting point I read about was that the flight controls of the Zero had a variable effect provided by control cables that would stretch a bit at higher speeds giving slightly less range of motion which was good for those conditions. The US engineers studying the crashed aircraft captured in the Aleutien islands were very interested in this feature.
        sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
        If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 1979 View Post
          I was trying to work out the math , but without a trusted source on the P-40 stall speed in clean configuration, i'm getting nowhere.
          also the Zero stall speed listed in the wikipedia page seams to be with flaps deployed not clean configuration.

          Microsofts firepower series of war bird simulators says 90mph wheels down and flaps set for takeoff. Probalby a but lower with wheels up.

          However stall speed up high isn't that important in the context of this discussion. Since height and speed are interchangable there is no reason to go slow. What matters is responsiveness or the ability of the aircraft to do what the pilot wants. The P-40 was responsive up high and at speed, the zero wasn't.

          At low speeds the Zero was like a miata vs a full size sedan on a SCAA road course. At high speeds the zero was like a dragster vs that sedan on a SCAA road course.

          Comment


          • #35
            I was thinking the other way around, at 8000 m due to the low air density, the A6m stall speed increases to 162 kph (~100mph) .
            Trying to execute a 8g load level turn, the accelerated stall speed becomes (162kph*square root of the load factor) 458 kph, close to the top speed of the aircraft.
            J'ai en marre.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by 1979 View Post
              I was thinking the other way around, at 8000 m due to the low air density, the A6m stall speed increases to 162 kph (~100mph) .
              Trying to execute a 8g load level turn, the accelerated stall speed becomes (162kph*square root of the load factor) 458 kph, close to the top speed of the aircraft.
              Given the unresponsiveness of the aerilons above 250KIAS and the wings design and poor construction its unlikely the zero could pull anything close to those G's.

              Comment


              • #37
                Whiskie,

                I think one of the reasons for its success was it was a rugged gun truck...not elegant but got the job done.

                And it was not as bad an aircraft as has sometimes been made out.

                That said, Z & 1979, I don't think any P-40s would have met up with any Zeros over Japan in 1945 whcih means we have wandered a bit away from the thread topic (something I am VERY guilty of on occasion).

                Its a good discussion...youmay want to restart it either in the Aviation Folder or open a new one here under the World Wars.
                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                Mark Twain

                Comment


                • #38
                  WWII fighter comparison I Zero v P-40

                  AR,

                  No it was not a bad aircraft, early in the war it was the most agile of the Western fighters and only suffered from a lack of high altitude performance compared to the me-109. It dominated the skies over China and gave a very good account of itself in North Africa. It could match the Me-109's speed at sea level and medium altitudes and out turn it.
                  Last edited by zraver; 18 Mar 11,, 15:49.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    i want to add somethings about Zero vs P-40 combats as an every-night simulator pilot :) (best ww2 simulator: IL-2 Sturmovik)

                    as an addicted Axis planes pilot i must say that Zeros advantages are only on paper...they dont work in simulator dogfights...

                    in this case i assume this is a combat between a6m2/21-a6m3 vs p40 variants...a6m5's fought against f4's me thinks...

                    P-40 can be a bit slower at the climb and can not outturn Zero's yes but they simply dont need these...(btw i wouldnt want to outclimb a p40 especially with that armament and Zeros unprotected fuel tanks)

                    if you climb higher than p40 it can outperfom you in every way....if you stay at low alts....BnZ & group tactics simply tore you apart....

                    when you get to his 6oc, p40 simply outdives you in seconds

                    even if you manage to get p40's 6oc and stay there...your low velocity 20mm guns dont help you that much considering p40's legendary rugged construction .the rotte of that p40 catches your 6oc and slightest hits turns your to a flyin cooker.

                    i think that the Japanese philosophy was totally different than US's...so they build their planes accordingly at first...later (after guadalcanal) it was too late...

                    oh btw, Zero can not be a match for b-17's or even b-25's let alone b-24's...Japanese made other (and greater) planes for this mission such as J2M3-5 or Ki-84's or N1K2's...
                    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Big K View Post
                      i want to add somethings about Zero vs P-40 combats as an every-night simulator pilot :)
                      Did you stick with them until the other guy goes bingo fuel ?
                      J'ai en marre.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I realize we ARE drifting, but it definitely is an interesting VS comparison, as most of these are F6F vs Zero, etc, not the P-40. One must always remember the Japanese combat philosophy of the individual Knight of the Air, vs. U.S. element/flight teamwork method. In the former (Japanese), a fellow in a light, nimble aircraft who is a precise and talented acro pilot can potentially wreak havoc, which is what happened early on. The Zero was an ideal ride for this sort of fight, this style of aviator.

                        But a noob pilot in an airplane that (while nimble) is poorly armored and less protected is not going to do well, to say the least. ARMOR (such as that in the rugged Hellcat) allows a new guy to survive his early encounters and learn from them. If I were to guess, if you took a Hellcat Ace in 1945 and said "Given your experience and expertise, would you like us to remove most of the armor and protection from your bird? You'll improve climb and turn by 15%, range by 10%, etc." you'd have a few guys willing to do it to get just a bit more edge on his enemy.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          ?? sorry didint get the point?...

                          Zero have an incredible range....if you can survive... :)
                          Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Big K View Post
                            if you can survive... :)
                            Versus the AI is easy ,againts humans...
                            J'ai en marre.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Chogy View Post
                              I realize we ARE drifting, but it definitely is an interesting VS comparison, as most of these are F6F vs Zero, etc, not the P-40. One must always remember the Japanese combat philosophy of the individual Knight of the Air, vs. U.S. element/flight teamwork method. In the former (Japanese), a fellow in a light, nimble aircraft who is a precise and talented acro pilot can potentially wreak havoc, which is what happened early on.
                              Which takes us back to the original assertion of mine that Japan lost WWII before Pearl harbor when she learned the wrong lessons from China and went into WWII with an air combat doctrine that did not reflect the lessons coming out of Europe or published American doctrine and thinking.

                              The Japanese strategy worked at first, in part becuase the early foes under-estimated japanese skill and technical ability. They thought a plane like the a5m was the best the Japanese had, and had also ignored the lessons over China and missed the incredible individual skill of the Japanese pilots.

                              One man did pay attnetion and Chennault's AVG shows what could have happened if the US, Uk and Aus had paid attnetion to China. The AVG was using P-40 A and B variants even less advanced than what active US squadrons were using and they destroyed the IJAAF. By 1942 the Japanese had lost air supremecy over China and they never regained it. Yet in other theaters they held on to it in to 1943.

                              Once tactics focused on slashing attacks or teamwork became par for the course the Japanese design philosphy totally failed.

                              Saburō Sakai, the famous Japanese ace, relates their reaction to the Thach Weave when they encountered Guadalcanal Wildcats using it:[1]

                              For the first time Lt. Commander Tadashi Nakajima encountered what was to become a famous double-team maneuver on the part of the enemy. Two Wildcats jumped on the commander’s plane. He had no trouble in getting on the tail of an enemy fighter, but never had a chance to fire before the Grumman’s team-mate roared at him from the side. Nakajima was raging when he got back to Rabaul; he had been forced to dive and run for safety.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                                Versus the AI is easy ,againts humans...
                                i never fly against AI...worthless :))
                                Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X