Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WWII fighter comparison I Zero v P-40

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

  • WWII fighter comparison I Zero v P-40

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Another point, gentlemen, and one far more important. The Japanese lost the war at Midway. The Imperial Japanese Empire died at Nanking.
    Or 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.

  • #2
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Or 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.
    What 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
    Last edited by 1979; 08 Mar 11,, 16:35.
    J'ai en marre.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 1979 View Post
      What 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
      Not started a war in the first place? Certainly not with the greatest industrial power in the world. The Yamato Race insanity. Overrun the European empires and be nice to the indigenes. Give them "independence" like Manchukuo. FDR won't be able to conjure a war out of that. Include Aus and NZ, annexe and expel the English. PR campaign asking how Japenese expansion differs from US? Mexican War, Philippines War of Independence, murdering millions of "subhuman" Indians. Once you have the resources of SE Asia and Australasia, shut down the China Incident. Job Done. But no these people are first order nut jobs. Okay forget that, just fight sensibly, fight with Kido Butai en masse at Coral Sea and Midway, have Yamato and Musashi shoot up Guadalcanal and the Solomons rather than cruisers, ditch a pilot training programme that washes out the perfectly adequate, listen to your aero engineers about the Zero and the Kinsei 61. If you insist on lunatic military adventures, make the sacrifice mean something. Follow up Pearl with a landing, trash the place, withdraw or if that isn't possible abandon the troops to live of the country. The odds are still bad but there is reasonable hope of a draw, fighting sensibly. After all for all the **** excruciating military numb nuttery, it still took 4 years and nearly all the great powers to defeat them.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 1979 View Post
        What 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
        The 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. They 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.

        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


        • #5
          Originally posted by zraver View Post
          The 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.
          The engines available to the Japanese designers in 1941 made that choice for them.
          Originally posted by zraver View Post
          They 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.
          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.

          Originally posted by zraver View Post
          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.
          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.
          J'ai en marre.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 1979 View Post
            The engines available to the Japanese designers in 1941 made that choice for them.
            Really, 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.


            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.
            Fire in the Sky: The Air War In The South Pacific.


            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.
            Uhm 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.....

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              Uhm 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.....
              Nakajima Sakae 12 lost power above 12,000' also zraver, and since it started with
              200 less rate peak HP
              to begin with, the loss was more drastic than in the P-40. The power/mass ratio wich you have quoted also starts shifting in p-40 favor the higher you climb.
              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


              • #8
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                Really, 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.
                The zero and oscar started the war with the US, equipt with weaker engines than the ones Romania had .(IAR K.14-IV C32 1000A ).

                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                Fire in the Sky: The Air War In The South Pacific.
                I''ll have a look at it.
                Last edited by 1979; 09 Mar 11,, 09:09.
                J'ai en marre.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                  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.
                  I 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.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                    I 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.
                    The P-38 had a turbo equipped Allison. The Allisons we started the war with lacked either a turbo or a super charger and as such suffered at altitude. Even the P-38 was not that great up high in Europe thus despite its range was not made the primary bomber escort.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                      The zero and oscar started the war with the US, equipt with weaker engines than the ones Romania had .(IAR K.14-IV C32 1000A ).
                      Uhm 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. It 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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                        the p-40 would not outurn the Zero at any altitude.
                        The P-40 was more nimble at height, at speed, had a faster roll rate and a dive speed advantage of 130mph......

                        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


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          Uhm 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.
                          The point is that even the romanian licence was better than what the zeros and oskars had in 1941.
                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          It 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.
                          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.
                          J'ai en marre.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                            The point is that even the romanian licence was better than what the zeros and oskars had in 1941.
                            No

                            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 Kate and Zero had the same engine just with different ratings. The Val used an engine 2" bigger in diameter and 25 lbs heavier to generate 120 more HP. The a argument that is is a bomber engine is a fail. The engines I listed were from single engine carrier based aircraft. In fact the Kinsei engine on the Val also powered two Japanese fighters including the Ki-100 one of the best IJAAF fighters of the war.

                            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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by zraver View Post
                              The P-40 was more nimble at height, at speed, had a faster roll rate and a dive speed advantage of 130mph......
                              until 1942, after that the Zeros got the Sakae 21 engine, no.
                              It could still out dive it, but that was it.
                              Originally posted by zraver View Post
                              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.
                              The Zero was designed as a naval aircraft ,intercepting B-17's and B-24's is the job of a ground based high altitude fighter.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X