Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
WWII fighter comparison I Zero v P-40
Collapse
X
-
WWII fighter comparison I Zero v P-40
Tags: None
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostOr rather over the skies of Nanking. The lessons Japan gleaned from China in regards to air combat proved to be completely opposite what was needed to fight an industrial air war against a foe who used technology, production and organization to create an air dominance force as part of a unfied strategy to win.
Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLast edited by 1979; 08 Mar 11,, 16:35.J'ai en marre.
-
Originally posted by 1979 View PostWhat could they do different? they got to do something ... because they were not able to produce anything like this in large numbers
Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comment
-
Originally posted by 1979 View PostWhat could they do different? they got to do something ... because they were not able to produce anything like this in large numbers
Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even much maligned fighters like the P-40 were superior to the Zero if properly used. The P-40 could out dive the Zero and more importantly above 20,000' could out turn it. This despite its mediocre Allison engine.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe Japanese assumed the disorganized nature of the Chinese air force and poor training of the Russian was a global common. As a result they built the IJAAF and IJNAF fighters that maximized low altitude agility over everything else but range, they sacraficed armor, armament, ceiling and speed and as a result sacraficed pilots.
Originally posted by zraver View PostThey also refused to adopt cooperative tactics like the wingman or finger four. In WWII Japanese fighters in large groups were called gaggles or swarms precisely becuase they had no discernable formation.
I'm not familiar to be called that way at Midway or Coral Sea so i must ask for a source.
Originally posted by zraver View PostEven much maligned fighters like the P-40 were superior to the Zero if properly used. The P-40 could out dive the Zero and more importantly above 20,000' could out turn it. This despite its mediocre Allison engine.
above 20,000 it could out turn it exactly because of the Allison engine
and it is mediocre only if you compare it to the Rolls Royce Merlin.J'ai en marre.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 1979 View PostThe engines available to the Japanese designers in 1941 made that choice for them.
They were called gaggles or swarms at the Battle of the Philippine Sea in 1944 after the Japanese lost a lot of good pilots.
I'm not familiar to be called that way at Midway or Coral Sea so i must ask for a source.
Well no...
above 20,000 it could out turn it exactly because of the Allison engine
and it is mediocre only if you compare it to the Rolls Royce Merlin.
The reason the zero failed vs the p-40 up high has to do with the Zero's flawed design. In order to maximize agility at low levels the Zero had big wings 39' long on a plane only 29' long. It had more total wing area than the P-40 which was 3,000lbs heavier. Oh BTW the Zero had 200 less rate peak HP. The zero had 5.59lbs per HP compared to the P-40's 7.2lbs per HP.
The design made the Zero very agile in the thick air down low but limited speed and agility up high. The P-40 could sprint to 360mph which was 29mph faster than the Zero which was both lighter and more powerful.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostUhm no, the Allison was considered worthless in Europe because it lost power above 12,000'. This is exactly why the Soviets loved the engine in the P-39, it never went high so the handicap didn't matter.
The reason the zero failed vs the p-40 up high has to do with the Zero's flawed design. In order to maximize agility at low levels the Zero had big wings 39' long on a plane only 29' long. It had more total wing area than the P-40 which was 3,000lbs heavier. Oh BTW the Zero had 200 less rate peak HP. The zero had 5.59lbs per HP compared to the P-40's 7.2lbs per HP.
The design made the Zero very agile in the thick air down low but limited speed and agility up high. The P-40 could sprint to 360mph which was 29mph faster than the Zero which was both lighter and more powerful.....200 less rate peak HP
however once the japanese introduced the Sakae 21 ( in 1942 ) wich had a better performance than the Allison engine , the p-40 would not outurn the Zero at any altitude.J'ai en marre.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostReally, hrmmm seeign as they had roughly the same engine technology as the United States, in some cases the exact same engine technology thanks to license built Wright radial engines. They also had French double bank technology mistral major 14k engines.
Originally posted by zraver View PostFire in the Sky: The Air War In The South Pacific.Last edited by 1979; 09 Mar 11,, 09:09.J'ai en marre.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 1979 View PostWell no...
above 20,000 it could out turn it exactly because of the Allison engine
and it is mediocre only if you compare it to the Rolls Royce Merlin.
It was the Allison that made the P38 a great fighter - when it wasn't derated for export it was a very good engine, but the Merlin was an even better one.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
-
Originally posted by USSWisconsin View PostI agree
It was the Allison that made the P38 a great fighter - when it wasn't derated for export it was a very good engine, but the Merlin was an even better one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 1979 View PostThe zero and oscar started the war with the US, equipt with weaker engines than the ones Romania had .(IAR K.14-IV C32 1000A ).
Comment
-
Originally posted by 1979 View Postthe p-40 would not outurn the Zero at any altitude.
Once Western pilots figured out the importance of team work, height and speed the Zero got slaughtered. This truth is sometimes obscured by the battles over Austrailia and New Guinea where the allies were intercepting low flying japanese attacks which limited the allies ability to use speed, hieght and dive. However when the allies were on the attack such as bomber escort for B-17's and B-24's the Japanese took it in the shorts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostUhm no, that engine a version of a French engine is the same engine (license built in Japan) that powered the Zeros that escorted the bombers that attacked Pearl Harbor.
Originally posted by zraver View PostIt was also a weaker motor than other Japanese types like the double bank Kinsei (1070hp) used in the Val divebombers, or the improved version of the French engien called the Sakae (1000hp) used in the kate bombers over Pearl.
The take more space, weigh more ( with all the aditrional drag problems asociated ) eat more fuel (wich leads to lower range) and they have the same single speed supercharger wich puts them in disadvantage at high altitude.J'ai en marre.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 1979 View PostThe point is that even the romanian licence was better than what the zeros and oskars had in 1941.
because those are bomber engines.
The take more space, weigh more ( with all the aditrional drag problems asociated ) eat more fuel (wich leads to lower range) and they have the same single speed supercharger wich puts them in disadvantage at high altitude.
The examples I cited were used on bombers and fighters and were not type specific and out performed the base model licenced produced engine. Power ratings are not decided by engine size or physical limits and quality alone but by the tune put on the engine. Thus you can have 3 engines all from different company but all based on the exact same base (France, Romania, and Japan) and end up with differnt power levels as the engiens have different tunes for different missions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe P-40 was more nimble at height, at speed, had a faster roll rate and a dive speed advantage of 130mph......
It could still out dive it, but that was it.
Originally posted by zraver View PostOnce Western pilots figured out the importance of team work, height and speed the Zero got slaughtered. This truth is sometimes obscured by the battles over Austrailia and New Guinea where the allies were intercepting low flying japanese attacks which limited the allies ability to use speed, hieght and dive. However when the allies were on the attack such as bomber escort for B-17's and B-24's the Japanese took it in the shorts.
the Japanese tried to develop such a fighter but failed because :
1 engine technology available
2 complexity of the design which meant low production numbers.
3 raids on Japanese factories.
None of the above have anything to do with lessons the japanese might or might have not learned flying over NANKING.J'ai en marre.
Comment
Comment