ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
The thing is, I realize that anyone who could seriously write that the A6M2 Model 21 was "faster" than the Wildcat (there were many Wildcats) and could "dive" with the Wildcat, that the Zero was more "maneuverable" than the Wildcat (these people never heard of rolls, I guess, or performance at various air speeds and altitudes--perhaps we should chip in and buy them a ticket to Air Warrior) either doesn't know his subject (i.e. is just repeating what he read somewhere) or he is
Yeah, I guess you and your sources are right...again. I mean, what would the people who tested the Zero found in the Aleutians know about its performance or superiority over American fighters. Their findings, vis a vis, the Zero vs F4F-4 can't have any relevance. It doesn't agree with your train of thought.
You tend to confuse roll rate with turn rate. Roll rate is simply the ability to rotate around an aircraft's longitudinal axis. That it can be accomplished in straight and level flight should tell you it has little relation to how fast an aircraft can sustain a turn. It does play a part in how fast an aircraft can begin a maneuver but not how it can sustain it. Think of it this way. Roll rate is somewhat analgous to oversteer in a car in a turn. Oversteer allows a car to enter a turn quicker but has no bearing on how many g's the car can sustain in a turn. Turn rate is the degree to which an aircraft can change compass heading. This attribute is a critical component of aircombat maneuvering especially when airspeeds tend to drop as combat progresses due to the heavy maneuvering required to kill or avoid being killed. That the Boom and Zoom could negate this aspect of maneuvering is not disputed. Most US aircraft needed to BnZ in order to achieve a kill. Most fighter pilots will tell you that the retention of energy is extremely important in a dogfight. The aircraft that can retain more energy than its opponent normally dictates the terms of the fight. Energy, in simplistic terms, is the ability of an aircraft to convert speed and altitude into aircraft position, either to kill or avoid being killed. Heavy aircraft are at a distinct disadvantage to lighter aircraft as they bleed off airspeed more rapidly in a climb or turn but can build energy faster during a dive hence the use of Boom and Zoom when opposing Japanese aircraft. It was the only way that they could retain energy.
Quoted from "Informational Intelligence Summary No. 85, December 1942"
12. Zero vs F4F-4:
The Zero is superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1000 feet and is superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, with the F4F-4 in neutral blower, the two planes are equal in level speed. In dive, the two planes are equal with the exception that the Zero’s engine cuts out in pushovers. There is no comparison between the turning circles of the two airplanes due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low stalling speed of the Zero. In view of the foregoing, the F4F-4 type in combat with the Zero is basically dependent on mutual support, internal protection and pull-outs or turns at high speeds where minimum radius is limited by structural or physiological effects of acceleration (assuming that the allowable acceleration on the F4F-4 is greater than that for the Zer. However advantage should be taken where possible of the superiority of the F4F-4 in pushovers and rolls at high speed, or any combination of the two.
Overall, they found it to be superior in maneuverability to all US fighters then engaged in combat. The Zero could outturn the F4F-4, outclimb it and stay with it in a dive. Only above 300kts did the F4F-4 begin to gain an advantage in combat maneuvering. The Spitfire suffered from the same type cutout in pushovers where negative g forces interrupted the flow of the fuel in the carburetor. The fix was to roll into a dive.
EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT OF
ARMY AIR FORCES PROVING GROUND GROUP
Eglin Field, Florida
1. Conclusions:
The Zero fighter, because of its low wing loading, has superior maneuverability to all our present service type aircraft.
It is necessary to maintain a speed over three-hundred (300) miles per hours inducated to successfully combat this airplane.
In developing tactics against the Zero, cognizance should be taken of two facts:
1. Slow roll rate of the Zero at high speeds.
2. Inability of the Zero engine to continue operating under negative acceleration.
The engine performance of the Zero is superior to the present service type engine without turbo superchargers. This superiority is recognizable in the fact that maximum manifold pressure can be maintained from sea level to sixteen-thousand (16,000) feet.
Obviously, these experts' opinion's disagree substantially with your opinion. Maybe Jimmy Thatch's opinion will carry more weight. Quoted from "Fire in the Sky: The AIr War in the South Pacific."
In connection with the performance of the Zero fighter, any success we had against the Zero is not due to the performance of the airplane we fly, but is the result of comparatively poor marksmanship on the part of the Japanese, stupid mistakes made by a few of their pilots and superior marksmanship and teamwork on the part of some of our pilots ...
The deficiency not only prevents our fighter [the F4F] from properly carrying out its mission but it has had an alarming effect on the morale of the fighter pilots in the Fleet at this time and on those who are going to be sent to the Fleet.
Hardly an endorsement of the great attributes of the F4F-4. The most significant characteristics of the F4F-4 in combat (as with most US aircraft of the time) was its durability and firepower.
Chez
Steve, we've been over this before--not you and I but the forum in general.
The Zero performance tersts in San Diego were somewhat misleading to the extent they used higher octance fuel than the Japanese had and the guns/ammo had been stripped out of that Zero, removing a lot of weight. For some reason that never gets mentioned.
Rolls? The Zero couldn't roll at all at decent air speeds, couldn't dive to save its life, was not faster than the Wildcat but slower--Sakai himself said the Zero was good for 309 mph tops loaded--yet it was still more "maneuverable"?
Of course the Zero was better at the circle game as long as the speed was kept low and the altitude didn't get up there. Otherwise the Zero lost that advantage as well.
Anything over 18,000 feet and its prop wouldn't bite into the air properly, leading to slippage. Another Japanese pilot is quoted on that one, and I first posted this back in the UV forum three years ago.
In fact, the Zero was an extremely compromised aerodynamic design, and a poorly armed one at that. As soon as the Allies caught on the "problems" went away. The only thing which held Navy and Marine pilots back was the obsolete nature (basically) of their own machines. They began the war flying 1930's technology for all intents and purposes, and the F4F-4 wasn't all that much better--in some respects worse! But Grumman finally saw the light of day and went to work on the Hellcat. The Corsair was in the works already and the P-38 was coming fast, too. All three of those designs outstripped the Zero in most critical respects.
Anyway, all this talk about how great the Zero was will always get beaten down. That's because the Zero wasn't so hot. It only at best was equal to (actually less than equal versus Navy pilots) the Wildcat in combat. That is a statistical fact.
I respect Thach and his opinions, but he wasn't God and with a lot of other fly boys back then he was not too enchanted with the performance of the Wildcat(s) and fairly impressed from what he initially saw of the Zero. But things got better as these pilots learned how to cope. There are all sorts of accounts from Wildcat pilots other than Thach, plus we know what the score was re kill ratios. Nobody said or implied that the Wildcat was a "superior flier" in general, but you're trying awful hard to make it out to have been a veritable deathtrap which the Allies only escaped because of Japanese mistakes and bad marksmanship. Mistakes? Bad shooting? Whatever happened to those vastly superior Japanese pilots? I thought they has much more experience and infinitely superior training. At least that's what I hear around here all the time. Now all of a sudden now you're happy to turn that around if it's to your momentary convenience in this discussion?
Understanding the Wildcat, though I've never flown one, is fairly simple. It was more rugged, did have armor for the pilot and self-sealing gas tanks, and was better armed--though the F4F-4 came with too little ammo per gun, a mistake that was eventually corrected.
It was heavy plane which could have used more power, no doubt about that, but it rolled okay, was faster than the Zero, not slower, could dive right past a Zero and subsequently climb away--did that all the time--and actually climbed better than a Zero once it got over a certain altitude--that's a guess and I've read several figures, but we know the Zero's prop was not good over 18,000 feet, so it's about there the Zero would begin to lose that race.
So, if you can make out from of all that that the Zero was, on balance, a better performer just because it could turn circles around anything else in the sky at lower air speeds, meanwhile ignoring the inferior kill ratio it racked up early in the war versus the Wildcat, then fine. You're a more creative man than me.
Meanwhile, that site you quoted is still suspect in many respects, as is much of the published work of Francillon and Green.
