USN air combat data from Office of Naval Intelligence

[mogami]

Hi the latest UV 'Super' P-47 like Betty attack. From PBEM game. Result =32VP to Allied score 1 USN CA out of action for 79 days (19 days to PH 40 days repair 19 days back to Noumea. ) But I'll likely get another CA before then.


Air attack on TF, near Noumea at 52,67

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 43

Allied aircraft
P-40E Kittyhawk x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 27 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 14 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 damaged

FLT J. Jackson of No. 75 Sqn RAAF is credited with kill number 3

Allied Ships
CL St. Louis
BB South Dakota
CA Pensacola, Torpedo hits 1
DD Mugford
CLAA Van Heemskerck


Actual result
10xBetty shot down air to air
22xBetty shot down AA
several more crashed on way home

(Thats 2xBetty Daitai ruined in 1 attack)

[Luskan]

I have a question for you: why do you hold, as elusive as you find "truth" to be in a historical sense, that games of this kind are necessarily "more fun" if presently inaccurately? (Or maybe I've misconstrued your intended meaning, and if so please correct me.)

That is, whatever the historical "truth" might be in your view or anyone else's I can very well point to specific inaccuracies per se within the model which strongly suggest that whatever that historical truth must have actually been the model itself, by definition, couldn't possibly get it "right."

Well, although I can't specify truth, I can speficy a few facts: the big one being how many years the war lasted. The primary concern for me is to get the game balance right so that the war lasts as long at it historically went (plus or minus however well or badly it is played, maybe with a little bit of crazy chance thrown in for spice). If the game goes that long (longer in fact, if I'm not up to date with atomic bombs), then although I've probably trampled all sorts of acute statistical evidence, I'm getting a big tick for the one historical fact that is absolute (Luskan now pauses waiting for some genius forum-ite to point out that no fact is absolute and that the war actually went for a different length of time).

I think that the axis fanboys have presented better arguments and evidence closer to what I percieve as a: more likely to be right "on average", b: much more commonly accepted doctrine (right or wrong I don't really care as along as . . .) c: the game is fun and has the chance to last as long as it did historically, if not longer for the good IJN player.

I can understand that you don't accept their arguments (much as they don't seem to accept yours). I can certainly agree with you that the model right is not ever gonig to get everything right. But, like I said, i'm more concerned with the big picture correctness. If you get bogged down in the minutae of wargaming you'll never get all the stats to match up to the total sort of thing.

However I can say, as someone with some little flight experience, that if given a choice between flying a zero and an f4f-4, I'd pick the zero every time. Sure, I'd chuck the radio out, and be damned sure to stay away from anyone who might shoot the hell out of my fuel tank, but once I'm down to 1000-2000ft, under 240mph and have sucked my f4f-4 opponents into a low, slow turning game, well they're fubar. This sort of battle happened so often due to the distances involved in the pacific precluding pilots from spending an hour circling and climbing to get to 15k or higher. Dogfights = turns = less airspeed = less altitude = zero wins this sort of fight, or climbs away from it faster.

p-38 was supposed to be the turning point in allied combat strategy with the zoom and boom (thatch weave, for all its purported effectiveness, was still a turning game - wildcats loosing height etc. etc.).

Unfortunately, at this point playing the alpha all the way through (while possible) would be meaningless and add absolutely no info on whether or not the "big picture" balance is correct or not. But - my big testing goal is to plot myself a factual, date specific timeline, and see how long I can keep a HtoH game glued to the timetable (not forever of course, after a while chance takes its toll) but you get the drift.

[Tristanjohn]

It seems the discussion has headed toward altitude and its effect on performance.I'd just like to throw out a couple of things. An aircraft's "service ceiling" is by definition the highest altitude at which it can maintain a rate of climb of 500' per minute. Its not the highest altitude at which you are able to conduct ACM. Secondly, at high altitudes sudden violent manuvering is likely to lead to an accelerated stall. What I'm trying to get at is you're not going to see any furballs with piston powered aircraft at 30,000'.

Correct. Though you need to downgrade that estimate of altitude.

Before late 1942 neither side was equipped with high-performance fighter-interceptor aircraft designed for maximum sustained performance at much over 12,000 feet (as we've seen, the P-39's effective operational ceiling was 11,800 feet "according to the book," though veteran pilots can be found who state it was "okay" up to 15,000, but no more; it was a similar story for the "Zero" even though the UV model would have it otherwise ) and so to begin the war interception of high-altitude bomber formations was problematic and so-called "dogfights" as a rule took place at 12,000 feet and below for this was where early-war pilots could maintain their planes at full power--pilots like full power because full power equates into full performance and thus full safety.

With the advent of the Allison V-1710-E2 turbo-supercharged (V-12 chemically-cooled) P-38, and then the Corsair, the Allies possessed the first of the new-generation fighter-aircraft designs (sea-level performance up to 25,000 feet), at which juncture the "furball" tide began to turn decidedly in favor of the good guys (and, when the Japanese were so foolish, these engagements commenced at higher and higher altitudes, always more and more in favor of Allied fortunes).

This recalls the story of "Pappy" Boyington driving his USMC Corsair high over Rabaul challenging the Japanese, "Why don't you come up and fight?" with the signatory response from the Japanese radio operator, "Why don't you come down?"

Well, that's why.

Would you please tell me where this post of yours that Mogami refers to is? I can't find it.

[Tristanjohn]

Well, although I can't specify truth, I can speficy a few facts: the big one being how many years the war lasted. The primary concern for me is to get the game balance right so that the war lasts as long at it historically went (plus or minus however well or badly it is played, maybe with a little bit of crazy chance thrown in for spice). If the game goes that long (longer in fact, if I'm not up to date with atomic bombs), then although I've probably trampled all sorts of acute statistical evidence, I'm getting a big tick for the one historical fact that is absolute (Luskan now pauses waiting for some genius forum-ite to point out that no fact is absolute and that the war actually went for a different length of time).

I think that the axis fanboys have presented better arguments and evidence closer to what I percieve as a: more likely to be right "on average", b: much more commonly accepted doctrine (right or wrong I don't really care as along as . . .) c: the game is fun and has the chance to last as long as it did historically, if not longer for the good IJN player.

The "Axis fanboys" have not presented better argument but rather very much worse argument to an audience which either cannot discern the difference and/or is predisposed for whatever reason to receive this very-much-worse evidence sympathetically.

I can understand that you don't accept their arguments (much as they don't seem to accept yours).

That's immaterial. What counts is if you can and are willing to discern the actual difference yourself. If you cannot then I put it to you that you are unqualified to test anything.

I can certainly agree with you that the model right is not ever gonig to get everything right.

I don't know if the model ever could or could not get everything "right." I do know the model at this juncture is being fed false data and at that rate no model in the world might be expected to generate reasonable results.

But, like I said, i'm more concerned with the big picture correctness. If you get bogged down in the minutae of wargaming you'll never get all the stats to match up to the total sort of thing.

I don't care much about incidental statistics. I do care a lot about how a wargame "feels" in play, and the "feel" of UV just doesn't cut it, sometimes (quite often, actually) rendering positively ludicrous results.

However I can say, as someone with some little flight experience, that if given a choice between flying a zero and an f4f-4, I'd pick the zero every time.

This might well be construed as an "Appeal to Authority" ad hominem argument in its own right, but I'll let it go.

Sure, I'd chuck the radio out, and be damned sure to stay away from anyone who might shoot the hell out of my fuel tank . . .

Sounds to me like you wouldn't enter combat in the first place then.

. . . but once I'm down to 1000-2000ft, under 240mph and have sucked my f4f-4 opponents into a low, slow turning game, well they're fubar.

I see. Once you've "arranged the pieces" according to your wishes on this "dogfight chessbaord" of yours then you'd "tear 'em to pieces!" with your Axis-fanboy "Zero."

Wonderful story!

This sort of battle happened so often due to the distances involved in the pacific precluding pilots from spending an hour circling and climbing to get to 15k or higher.

You think it required 60 minutes to climb to 15,000 feet?

Dogfights = turns = less airspeed = less altitude = zero wins this sort of fight, or climbs away from it faster.

Well, I'll tell you one thing guy: you're not much of a thinker.

p-38 was supposed to be the turning point in allied combat strategy with the zoom and boom (thatch weave, for all its purported effectiveness, was still a turning game - wildcats loosing height etc. etc.).

Or a writer. I've no idea what the above means or even what it might have been meant to mean.

Unfortunately, at this point playing the alpha all the way through (while possible) would be meaningless and add absolutely no info on whether or not the "big picture" balance is correct or not. But - my big testing goal is to plot myself a factual, date specific timeline, and see how long I can keep a HtoH game glued to the timetable (not forever of course, after a while chance takes its toll) but you get the drift.

God help us all.

[Tristanjohn]

The term "sweet zone" that TJ used in a recent post offers some possibilities.We've all heard again and again that the basic air-to-air system can not be replaced at this point in development. It can only be "adjusted". Here is a possible "adjustment".

Virtually every aircraft has a "best" altitude, by design or happenstance. The point at which all of it's design charicteristics "mesh" overall. Normally it's part of the design. Few carrier missions required altitudes over 18,000 feet. Not that carrier planes couldn't fly higher, but medium and low altitudes was where the great majority of use would take place, and that (coupled with the need to operate from a carrier) controlled the design process. Different requirements than those of a B-17 or a P-47, both of which were designed around High Altitude service.

If you assume that the Aircraft performance stats quoted as base in the game come from it's "best" altitude (and I think that's fair---what manufacturer quotes his "worst" features in releasing the specs?), then even a fairly symple algorithm added to the system could "trim" those specs for every x000 feet above or below it's "sweet spot" the aircraft was operating. Performances generally fell away faster going up than down, so the number represented by "x" would be different depending on the direction of the change. But it would be a relatively simple way of introducing some needed variation in the specs.

You could also look into a "bounce bonus" for the first round of combat if one side had a significant edge in altitude. Probably have to couple that with a "spotting modifier"---if you're too far above the enemy you might not see them in time to intercept.

I'm not claiming these are GREAT ideas. I'd just like to see them "kicked around" the forum a bit to see if there is anything great in them. At least they would make the altitude more significant. And they might be a way to deal with some of the anomolies that keep cropping up.

That's not bad thinking as far as it goes, Mike. It's a bit too simplistic to get it "right" but I certainly agree it wouild offer improvement over what we have now. The problem always lies in the actual implementation of these good ideas.

The perfect example of this is the bogus "altitude advantage" UV models for the "Zero" over the P-39 at anything greater than 10,000 feet. There never was any such advantage (as it is defined by the model), indeed, to a degree the game would fall closer to the truth if the model reflected a similar but reverse aeronautical dyanmic, but the case is no amount of reasoned argument will change the minds of some of the people in this forum, and as you can see for yourself not all that many users of any persuasion are bothering to post here to begin with.

Interest in accuracy appears to be small.

Look. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make that beast drink once it gets there. And the "beasts" in this forum are just too special-interest and "clubby" of nature and downright stupid in some of the more worrying cases to "drink" the good water you've proposed. At least they aren't likely to "drink it" intelligently, though should a way be schemed to have the combat still come out in favor of their precious "Zero" then all would still be well. Well with them, that is--the air model would remain compromised, as always, but that isn't real big item of interest in some circles around here.

[mdiehl]

Hi, There were pilots would scored over 80 kills in Zeros.

There are no Japanese pilots who verifiably shot down 80 or more Allied a/c. The 80+ number is Japanese pilot claimed and "confirmed killed" by the Japanese. I would not place any faith in either of these. (Warding off the usualy ad hominem attack that I know expect from others, not you, Mogami, let me add that Allied pilot claims and "confirmed kills" of Japanese planse are also utterly valueless in my POV).

Given the choice I'd take an F4F any time. I'd make head-on runs into formations of Zekes where my superior firpower and their incredible fragility, and my very robust a/c's capability to absorb punishment would result in a clear path at my 12'Oclock. By the time they'd turned I'd be knockin and rockin at 320+ mph, and well clear of the combat area. None of the guys in my 12 O'clock would live to see a turning engagement at speeds lower than 280 mph. By the time the airspeeds dropped that low, I'd be long gone or regrouped at 20,000 feet and ready for another head-on pass or diving attack.

[Daniel Oskar]

Correct. Though you need to downgrade that estimate of altitude.

I don't have any time in WWII vintage aircraft, though I have a great deal of time in the T-34C, a single engine turboprop. While there can't be much parallel in engine performance let me tell you about aerobatic performance at altitude. You can still wring the airplane out pretty well at 20-25K, but you can't be ham fisted or you may get into an accellerated stall. I admit performance isn't nearly as good as it is at Sea Level, but you could mix it up there if you knew what you were doing. The reason I mentioned 30K in my post is that most fighter aircraft of the era we are discussing have their service ceiling above that altitude. WWII aircraft were unable to manuver aggressively there because they lacked sophisticated high lift devices to enable them to(computer conrolled flaps/slats ect...) and their engines were unable to even come close to producing peak power.

Before late 1942 neither side was equipped with high-performance fighter-interceptor aircraft designed for maximum sustained performance at much over 12,000 feet (as we've seen, the P-39's effective operational ceiling was 11,800 feet "according to the book," though veteran pilots can be found who state it was "okay" up to 15,000, but no more; it was a similar story for the "Zero" even though the UV model would have it otherwise ) and so to begin the war interception of high-altitude bomber formations was problematic and so-called "dogfights" as a rule took place at 12,000 feet and below for this was where early-war pilots could maintain their planes at full power--pilots like full power because full power equates into full performance and thus full safety.

I agree that there were no great high altitude performers untill late '42, but interceptions of bombers wasn't all that problamatic. The problem was the interception of escorted bombers. Unless you had a great deal of advance warning intercepting fighters lacked climb performance to get up to the bombers before they delivered their payloads anyway. Even with warning the interceptors would probably be at slow speed hanging on their props when the escorts got there, pretty vulnerable. Also, I understand what your trying to get at with "full performance" below 12,000' but its not entirely true. An aircraft of the era we are discussing would have max performance at sea level, not 12K. If it had a good supercharger it would still have solid performance, but not max. Thinner air results in slower accelleration, greater turn radius, ect...

With the advent of the Allison V-1710-E2 turbo-supercharged (V-12 chemically-cooled) P-38, and then the Corsair, the Allies possessed the first of the new-generation fighter-aircraft designs (sea-level performance up to 25,000 feet), at which juncture the "furball" tide began to turn decidedly in favor of the good guys (and, when the Japanese were so foolish, these engagements commenced at higher and higher altitudes, always more and more in favor of Allied fortunes).

Not entirely true. As I already mentioned the air is thinner up high with a result in diminished aerobatic performance. As for sea level engine performance, I have a reprint of the F4U-1 pilots manual, and war emergency power is available up to 20,000 at 59.5" hg/2700rpm producing 1975hp. At sea level the thing puts out 2250hp with 57.5" hg/2700rpm. While it may not be "sea level" power I will say that at the end of 1942 no Japanese aircraft could come close to this performance.

Would you please tell me where this post of yours that Mogami refers to is? I can't find it.

The flight hour post is #68 in this thread on page 5 I think.

[Tristanjohn]

I don't have any time in WWII vintage aircraft, though I have a great deal of time in the T-34C, a single engine turboprop. While there can't be much parallel in engine performance let me tell you about aerobatic performance at altitude. You can still wring the airplane out pretty well at 20-25K, but you can't be ham fisted or you may get into an accellerated stall. I admit performance isn't nearly as good as it is at Sea Level, but you could mix it up there if you knew what you were doing. The reason I mentioned 30K in my post is that most fighter aircraft of the era we are discussing have their service ceiling above that altitude. WWII aircraft were unable to manuver aggressively there because they lacked sophisticated high lift devices to enable them to(computer conrolled flaps/slats ect...) and their engines were unable to even come close to producing peak power.

I agree that there were no great high altitude performers untill late '42, but interceptions of bombers wasn't all that problamatic. The problem was the interception of escorted bombers. Unless you had a great deal of advance warning intercepting fighters lacked climb performance to get up to the bombers before they delivered their payloads anyway. Even with warning the interceptors would probably be at slow speed hanging on their props when the escorts got there, pretty vulnerable. Also, I understand what your trying to get at with "full performance" below 12,000' but its not entirely true. An aircraft of the era we are discussing would have max performance at sea level, not 12K. If it had a good supercharger it would still have solid performance, but not max. Thinner air results in slower accelleration, greater turn radius, ect...

Not entirely true. As I already mentioned the air is thinner up high with a result in diminished aerobatic performance. As for sea level engine performance, I have a reprint of the F4U-1 pilots manual, and war emergency power is available up to 20,000 at 59.5" hg/2700rpm producing 1975hp. At sea level the thing puts out 2250hp with 57.5" hg/2700rpm. While it may not be "sea level" power I will say that at the end of 1942 no Japanese aircraft could come close to this performance.

The flight hour post is #68 in this thread on page 5 I think.

Thanks for the corrections, Dan, with which I agree for the most part (please see below). I was being reasonably representative for the purpose of this (as I view it mislead, misunderstood and mis-intentioned ) argument.

A truism would be that each aircraft would have its own handling peculiarities (these subject to change themselves as the plane wore on in flight) at various altitudes/air speeds and I don't expect a model at this scale to try to get at any of that. But for the sake of this discussion only I wished to make the point that as it's currently modeled UV (and I have to suppose WitP as well) hasn't a ghost of a chance of getting it "right" with respect to "Zero"/P-39/P-40/Wildcat engagements for the reason bad gas is being pumped into the game's air-module engine.

Bad gas in, reduced performance out. That much I know for sure.

Re "full performance": for the early-war P-39 a case might well be made that of all the pre-1943 (or late 1942 if you prefer) fighter aircraft in question this plane enjoyed the most consistent performance within its "normal" operating range of altitude. I never flew it myself but when it all boils down this is the gist of what I gather from various accounts of pilots who did drive the Aircobra. The P-39 seemed to do about as well at 2,000 feet as at 12,000, or maybe a tad higher than that even.

For sure and for certain it was saddled with no relative inherent 10,000-foot real-world altitude penalty versus the "Zero" at over 10,000 feet and below 15,000 feet. Up toward 20,000? I just don't know. (I imagine this would depend primarily on the respective pilots.)

[Tristanjohn]

The flight hour post is #68 in this thread on page 5 I think.

Post #68 is by Mogami. I need a better number.

[HMSWarspite]

First off, I will admit to extremely limited data on this, so I would appreciate someone providing some reliable data. (I can give you the Merlin full throttle alts if you like! ). However, I have trouble with any discussion comparing altitude performance of the Zero that has it's performance falling off as low as 10 or 11000ft. From the data I do have, the full throttle altitude was 15000ft in the A6M2, and 19000ft in later models. This is not a guarantee, but this means that the a/c should hold their performance until these altitudes. I wish I could remember where I have seen thism but I have a recollection of the Zero's performance falling off markedly above 20000ft, which would fit with the full throttle height of the later models.

Given the P39 had no supercharger, it is reasonable to me that it did would have markedly lower performance at altitude than the Zero. Having said which, some form of modelling the max performance altitudes of all the fighters (and bombers for that matter) would be nice (as suggested). I can see an issue with 2 speed blowers, and also some Turbos. The P39 is a particular case, though and may well justify special treatment (not having a blower at all).

Data please anyone?

[mogami]

Hi, I don't have the data but just basing this comment on the altitude Japanese Zeros liked to fly during missions would indicate to me they didn't have problems at least below 15k. A good number of my AAR from allied pilots have the Japanese fighting at 14k (and shooting down F4F's)

I am still interested in the number of USN/USMC aces who were shot down by Zeros (I don't mean killed, I know Foss and Carl were shot down at least once by Zeros during their careers) If the Zero could shoot these guys down then either the pilots or aircraft (or both) were not as bad as some suggest.

I don't find as many US fighter pilots being shot down after mid 1943 (and living so perhaps it's just that in 42 and early 43 they were over their own bases)

If I ever get time I'm going to make a list of USN/USMC aces and then see how many times combined they were shot down.

VMF-121 was the highest scoring USMC fighter squadron and it lost over 20 percent of its pilots during the Guadalcanal Campaign.

[Tristanjohn]

First off, I will admit to extremely limited data on this, so I would appreciate someone providing some reliable data. (I can give you the Merlin full throttle alts if you like! ). However, I have trouble with any discussion comparing altitude performance of the Zero that has it's performance falling off as low as 10 or 11000ft. From the data I do have, the full throttle altitude was 15000ft in the A6M2, and 19000ft in later models. This is not a guarantee, but this means that the a/c should hold their performance until these altitudes. I wish I could remember where I have seen thism but I have a recollection of the Zero's performance falling off markedly above 20000ft, which would fit with the full throttle height of the later models.

Given the P39 had no supercharger, it is reasonable to me that it did would have markedly lower performance at altitude than the Zero. Having said which, some form of modelling the max performance altitudes of all the fighters (and bombers for that matter) would be nice (as suggested). I can see an issue with 2 speed blowers, and also some Turbos. The P39 is a particular case, though and may well justify special treatment (not having a blower at all).

Data please anyone?

With the "Zero" series it wasn't their engines as much as the fact they didn't have adequate propellers to bite into the thinner atmosphere. This surprised me, too, when I first read it, but there you go--though when you think about it this does make sense. (This information was collected from an account given by a surviving Japanese "Zero" pilot so don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger on this one--no analysis on my part whatsoever.)

Of course, having said as much (here's come the analysis) any beefier prop setup would require (imply) more engine power, and then that must imply a stengthened airplane body somewhere somehow. How much more engine power, how much more strengthening throughout the plane's body I do not know--those would be questions for a qualified engineer.

[Tristanjohn]

Given the P39 had no supercharger, it is reasonable to me that it did would have markedly lower performance at altitude than the Zero. Having said which, some form of modelling the max performance altitudes of all the fighters (and bombers for that matter) would be nice (as suggested). I can see an issue with 2 speed blowers, and also some Turbos. The P39 is a particular case, though and may well justify special treatment (not having a blower at all).

Data please anyone?

With the P-39 anything over 15,000 feet (11,800 factory rated) was bad news in terms of the plane's actual performance dropoff. Pilot accounts tell us as much and there's no reason to doubt these people. In relation the "Zero" it becomes a question of just how much performance dropff did each plane suffer, and in exactly what respects, at what altitudes over a given (say, 12,000 feet for the sake of argument here) nominal cutoff altitude for each plane?

The game's modeled 10,000-foot altitude penalty for the P-39 is absolute hogwash. Until the designers accept that as fact no discussion on this other stuff will bear any good fruit.

[mogami]

Hi, The P-39 must have had serious problems. The British grounded theirs after only 4 flights and the USAAF issued orders for P-39's to avoid fights with Zeros
under all conditions in July 42.

But I'm still not convinced it was performance per say that made the P-39 avoid dogfights. (It tested at 386mph at 15k even with changes to engine) It is another liquid cooled aircraft and with engine in rear. I've read reports of them being shot down just by hitting their cooling lines. (The story of trailing coolent instead of fire or smoke on the way down)



Why did they screw with this design? As built the proto-type did 390mph at 20k

However I think it is going overboard to say game has to change anything. I posted test results of P-39D at 9k and 20k and there was little difference in results.

[fcooke]

With the P-39 anything over 15,000 feet (11,800 factory rated) was bad news in terms of the plane's actual performance dropoff. Pilot accounts tell us as much and there's no reason to doubt these people. In relation the "Zero" it becomes a question of just how much performance dropff did each plane suffer, and in exactly what respects, at what altitudes over a given (say, 12,000 feet for the sake of argument here) nominal cutoff altitude for each plane?

The game's modeled 10,000-foot altitude penalty for the P-39 is absolute hogwash. Until the designers accept that as fact no discussion on this other stuff will bear any good fruit.

After the first few engagements the P400s/P39s were taken off interception because they could not compete with the zeros. I place a lot of weight on the opinions of the guys who were on the ground at the sharp end.....I'm not saying zeros were good at altitude/high speed - but they were better than the 'Iron Dogs', that's what their pilots called them - not the Japanese....

[Mike Scholl]

Hi, The P-39 must have had serious problems. The British grounded theirs after only 4 flights and the USAAF issued orders for P-39's to avoid fights with Zeros
under all conditions in July 42.

But I'm still not convinced it was performance per say that made the P-39 avoid dogfights. (It tested at 386mph at 15k even with changes to engine) It is another liquid cooled aircraft and with engine in rear. I've read reports of them being shot down just by hitting their cooling lines. (The story of trailing coolent instead of fire or smoke on the way down)



Why did they screw with this design? As built the proto-type did 390mph at 20k

The Bell Prototypes were delivered with a super-charger on their Allison's---but
the Army Air Corps insisted it be removed from the production model to simplify
manufacture and avoid bottlenecks in super-charger production. They clearly
shot themselves in the foot (and many of their pilots in the back) with this
short-sighted decision. It was DESIGNED as a much better aircraft than was
produced.

[mogami]

Hi, Sierra/Dynamix made a flight simulator game a few years back known as "Aces of the Pacific" My best friend Mike (Known as Bear among the biker set) loves to play this game.
One night I showed up at his place with 2 cases of beer (he can drink a case before I finish a 6 pack) and Bear was flying an Iron Dog. He proudly showed me his mission stats. After 25 missions he had shot down 60-70 Zeros.
I was very impressed. But then I noticed he was flying with unlimited ammo and flight charactorics off. I said "Why don't you take real ammo and fly the P-39 like a P-39?" he said "Are you crazy? I'd get killed"

Completely off topic.
Bear rode with me to the World Open Chess Tourny in Philadelphia a few years ago. During one of the rounds he fell asleep in a chair outside the room the games were being played in and began to snore. Loudly. The door was open and there was muttering in the room. One of the tourny directers went out into the hall. The snoring continued. I finished my game (win in 22 moves) and went out to post the result. In the hall were the directer and two security guards. "You wake him up" said the director "no you wake him up" replied the guards. I woke him up and we left. (Bear is a big boy)

This occured in July. In November I played in the Kings Island Open in Cincy.
While waiting between rounds I heard one of the players telling how he lost a game in Philly because of snoring from the hall.

[Daniel Oskar]

I asked for and got a little more aircraft data from my buddy at Pax River, it is included alongwith the numbers I previously posted.

Max Level Speed:
A6M2: 282mph@SL 331mph@14,930'
Ki-43II: 272mph@SL 329mph@13,120'
F4F-4: 274mph@SL 320mph@18,800'
P-39D: 309mph@SL 368mph@13,800'
P-40E: 287nph@SL 362mph@15,000'

Best rate of climb:
A6M2: 3150fpm
Ki-43II: 3250fpm
F4F-4: 1950fpm
P-39D: 2550fpm
P-40E: 2100fpm

Power/wt ratio:
A6M2: 5.7lb/hp
Ki-43II: 4.9lb/hp
F4F-4: 6.5lb/hp
P-39D: 5.6lb/hp
P-40E: 6.4lb/hp

Wing Loading:
A6M2: 22lb/sqft
Ki-43II:24.8lb/sqft
F4F-4: 29.9lb/sqft
P-39D: 35.6lb/sqft
P-40E: 31.4lb/sqft

Sustained Turn rate in deg/sec:
1000' 10000' 15000'
A6M2 27 22 20
Ki-43:28 23 19
F4F-4 21 20 17
P-39D 20 16 13
P-40E 20 16 14

Initial Turn rate in deg/sec:
1000' 10000' 15000'
A6M2 40 35 31
Ki-43 40 34 31
F4F-4 33 31 28
P-39D 29 26 23
P-40E 31 27 25

Best turn Radius:
sustained radius sustained turning airspeed
A6M2 339' 110mph
Ki-43 338' 115mph
F4F-4 519' 125mph
P-39D 587' 140mph
P-40E 597' 140mph

Roll Rate in deg/sec:
150mph 200mph 250mph 300mph 350mph 400mph
A6M2 73 61 52 24 17 --
Ki-43 59 63 55 44 21 --
F4F-4 61 67 72 64 49 --
P-39D 63 75 69 59 50 45
P-40E 59 78 100 116 133 75

VNe (never exceed speed):
A6M2: 410mph
Ki-43: 460mph
F4F-4: 480mph
P-39D: 495mph
P-40E: 540mph

[Tristanjohn]

After the first few engagements the P400s/P39s were taken off interception because they could not compete with the zeros. I place a lot of weight on the opinions of the guys who were on the ground at the sharp end.....I'm not saying zeros were good at altitude/high speed - but they were better than the 'Iron Dogs', that's what their pilots called them - not the Japanese....

I agree that they were bad interceptors. Go back and read what I've written about the P-39 over the past few weeks.

However, this argument isn't about how "good" the P-39 was in any absolute sense but rather, in part at least, about the game's mistaken 10,000-foot altitude penalty the P-39 is assessed against the "Zero."

Now I would agree a "penalty" of sorts might actually exist in that matchup, actually did exist (except I'm not comfortable with the term "penalty"), but not at higher altitudes but lower, and at lower speeds as well. The thing is, with the way the air system has been designed there just is no way to factor this in intelligently that I can see--it wasn't thought out well enough coming in to take these sorts of niceties into account.

Meanwhile, the P-39 did not perform worse versus the "Zero" at around 15,000 feet but actually better--and remember, we always want to express this in terms of relative performance, for what was actually happening is that the "Zero's" prop was not pulling it through the thinner air at 15,000 feet as fast as it had been a couple thousand feet lower.

Anyway, as they say in Boiklyn: dem's da fax.

[mogami]

Hi, Dans 'facts' have the Zero achiving it's fastest speed at 14,930
with the P-39 getting it's fastest speed at 13,800

Where do you get the 10k for P-39D disadvantage? The Manual says "high altitude" I don't think 10k is considered high (I'm thinking the P-39 problem is at 20k...well over 15k at least. In testing the results at 9k and 15k were the same)

When I want to beat up P-39s in UV I set the bombers to 16k and my Zeros to 17k (then the P-39 have to climb while I can dive)