Here is some interesting information on some major fighters in comparison during WW-II. This took me a long time to type doing some here and there when i had the chance so please excuse any typos you find. I have to break this up into two parts due to it being rather lengthy but well worth the time to read. There is some interesting facts for both sides so without further delay <S> and enjoy all. bull Aircraft comparisons. How They Compared Here are comparisons of four of the most famous fighters of the Second World War, the German-Folke wulf Fw 190A-3, the American P-51B Mustang, the British tempest V and the Japanese A6m5 Zero (Zeke 52) compare with the adversaries they met in combat and, in some cases with their rivals in friendly air forces. The details are taken from reports on comparative trials flown in Great Britain and the U.S.A. during WWII. Interesting though these trials undoubtedly are for the historian, it must be stressed that they were not written with him in mind; they constitute the basic intelligence vital to any fighter pilot who was to survive in action. And from the fighting man?s point of view, a fairly good report immediately was worth far more than a magnificent report six months later. In the nature of things, it was usually some time after their introduction into service that enemy fighters were captured in a state fit for flight trials. Thus there was a tendency for the comparative trial reports to present an optimistic picture from the point of view of the nation conducting them, since the latest equipment on one side was usually being compared with somewhat older equipment belonging to the other. For this reason the exact variant of each type involved in the trial is specified in the introduction; this is important because taking the example of the Spitfire in its mark V, mark IX and mark XIV versions vis-à-vis the Folke Wulf Fw 190A-3, the former moved from inferiority, through parity, to definite superiority in a little over two years (in the meantime the Fw 190 had, of coarse, also improved). When considering the trials results, it was important to be sure exactly what was being compared with what. The above limitations accepted, the trials reports provide the objective comparative assessment of the quality of aircraft described. Combat reports could provide part of the picture but only a part, because they are liable to distortions of their own: unrelated factors such as the quality and training of the pilots, the numbers involved on each side and the rapidly moving tactical situation, all could combine to give an impression of the fighter types that was greatly removed from the truth. FOCKE-WULF Fw 190A-3 The Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3 had an operational take-off weight of 8,770 pounds, which gave it a wing loading of just over 44 pounds per square foot. It was powered by a BMW 801D fourteen-cylinder two-row radial engine with two-speed supercharging, which developed 1,700 horsepower for take-off and 1,440 horsepower at its rated altitude of 18,700 feet. The aircraft carried an armament of two 7.9-mm MG 17 machine guns fitted above the engine and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc, two 20-mm MG 151/20 cannon in the wing root also synchronized to fire through the propeller arc, and two 20-mm MG FF cannons in the wings outboard of the propeller arc. For his protection, the pilot had a seat made of 8 mm thick armor plates, behind his head and shoulders was a shaped armor plate 13 mm thick, and the center panel of his windscreen was of toughened glass, 45 mm thick. Both fuel tanks, situated underneath the pilot?s seat, were self-sealing. The oil tank, situated in front of the engine just to the rear of the lip cowling, was protected by a ring of armor plates of varying thickness. Deliveries of the Fw 190A-3 began in the spring of 1942, and the example used in the trial was captured in June after an inadvertent landing in England. The trial report was issued in August 1942. By that time, however, the A-3 version of the Fw 190 was on the verge of being replaced on production lines by the A-4 which featured water-methanol injection; this gave increases of speed of the order of 20 mph at altitudes up to the rated altitude of the engine. Fw 190 versus Spitfire VB The Fw 190 was compared with a Spitfire VB from an operational squadron for speed and all-round maneuverability at heights of up to 25,000 feet. The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows: At 1,000 ft the Fw 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. At 3,000 ft the Fw 190 is 30-35 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. At 5,000 ft the Fw 190 is 25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. At 9,000 ft the Fw 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. At 15,000 ft the Fw 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. At 18,000 ft the Fw 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. At 21,000 ft the Fw 190 is 25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. At 25,000 ft the Fw 190 is 20-25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. Climb. The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions, the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. Dive. Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the final stages. Maneuverability. The maneuverability of the Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles where the Spitfire can easily out-turn it. The Fw 109 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat. When the Fw 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this maneuver and even when prepared for it was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this maneuver enabled the Fw 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack. Several flights were carried out to ascertain the best evasive maneuvers to adopt if ?bounced?. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at a low speed and was ?bounced? by the Fw 190, it was easily caught up even if the Fw 190 was sighted out of range, and the Spitfire was then forced to take avoiding action by using its superiority in turning circles. If on the other hand, if the Spitfire was flying at maximum continuous cruising and was ?bounced? under the same conditions, it had a reasonable chance of avoiding being caught by opening the throttles and going into a shallow dive, providing the Fw 190 was seen in time. This forced the Fw 190 into a stern chase and although it was eventually caught the Spitfire, it took some time and considerable distance away from its base. This is a particularly useful method of evasion for the Spitfire if it is ?bounced? when returning from a sweep. This maneuver has been carried out during recent operations and has been successful on several occasions. If the Spitfire VB is ?bounced? it is thought unwise to evade by diving steeply as the Fw 190 will have no difficulty in catching up owing to its superiority in the dive. The above trials have shown that the Spitfire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected. It will then, in addition to lessening the chances of being successfully ?bounced?, have a better chance of catching the Fw 190, particularly if it has the advantage of surprise. Fw 190 versus Spitfire IX The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and maneuverability at heights up to 25,000 feet. The Spitfire IX at all heights is slightly superior in speed to the Fw 190 and the approximate differences in speeds at various heights are as follows: At 2,000 ft the Fw 190 is 7-8 mph faster than the Spitfire IX. At 5,000 ft the Fw 190 and the Spitfire IX are approximately the same. At 8,000 ft the Spitfire IX is 8 mph faster than the Fw 190. At 15,000 ft the Spitfire IX is 5 mph faster than the Fw 190. At 18,000 ft the Fw 190 is 3 mph faster than the Spitfire IX. At 21,000 ft the Fw 190 and the Spitfire IX are approximately the same. At 25,000 ft the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph faster than the Fw 190. Climb. During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 feet, the climb of the Fw 190 was falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and pulled into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled into a climb from a dive. It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight, and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative. Dive. The Fw 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB. Maneuverability. The Fw 190 is more maneuverable than the Spitfire IX, except in turning circles, when it is out-turned without difficulty. The superior rate of roll of the Fw 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX if attacked when in a turn, by flicking into a diving turn, and as with the Spitfire VB, the Spitfire IX has great difficulty in following this maneuver. It would have been easier for the Spitfire IX to follow the Fw 190 in a diving turn if its engine had been fitted with a negative ?G? carburetor, as this type of engine with the ordinary carburetor cuts very easily. The Spitfire IX?s worst heights for fighting the Fw 190 were between 18,000 and 22,000 feet and below 3,000 feet. At these heights, the Fw 190 is a little faster. Both aircraft ?bounced? one another in order to ascertain the best evasive tactics to adopt. The Spitfire could not be caught when ?bounced? if it was cruising at high speed and saw the Fw 190 if well out of range. When the Spitfire IX was cruising at low speed its inferiority in acceleration gave the Fw a fighting chance of catching it up and the same applied if the position was reversed and the Fw 190 was ?bounced? by the Spitfire IX, except that overtaking took a little longer. The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, provided the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the acceleration of the two aircraft. The general impression gained by pilots taking part in the trials is that the Spitfire IX compared favorably with the Fw 190 and provided that the Spitfire has the initiative, it has undoubtedly a good chance of shooting the Fw 190 down. Fw 190 versus Mustang IA (P-51A) The Fw 190 was compared with a fully operational Mustang IA for speed and all-round performance up to 23,000 feet. There was little to choose between in speed at all heights except between 10,000 and 15,000 feet, where the mustang was appreciably faster. Approximate differences were as follows; At 2,000ft the Fw 190 is 2 mph faster then the Mustang IA At 5,000ft the Mustang is 5 mph faster than the Fw 190 At 10,000ft the Mustang is 15 mph than the Fw 190 At 20,000ft the Fw 190 is 5 mph faster than the mustang IA At 23,000ft the Fw 190 is 5 mph faster than the Mustang IA Climb The Climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Mustang IA at all heights. The best climbing speed for the Mustang is approximately 10 mph slower than that for the Fw 190; the angle is not nearly so step and the rate of climb is considerably inferior. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb after a fast dive, the inferiority in the initial stage of the climb is not so marked, but if the climb is continued the Fw 190 draws away rapidly. Dive Comparative dives have shown that there is little to choose between the two aircraft and if anything the Mustang IA is slightly faster in a prolonged dive. Maneuverability The Maneuverability of the Fw 190 is better than that of the Mustang except in turning circles where the Mustang is superior. In the rolling plane at high speed the Mustang compares more favorably with the Fw 190 than does the Spitfire. The acceleration of the Fw 190 under all conditions of flight is slightly better than that of the Mustang and this becomes more marked when both aircraft are cruising at low speed. When the Fw 190 was attacked by the Mustang IA in a turn, the usual maneuver of flicking into a dive turning in the opposite direction was not so effective against the Mustang as against the Spitfire, particularly if the aircraft were flying at high speed. The fact that the engine of the Mustang does not cut during the application of negative ?G?s? proved a great asset and gave the Mustang a reasonable chance of following the Fw 190 and shooting it down. It must be appreciated, however, that much depends on which aircraft has the initiative and that obviously the Fw 190 can escape if the Mustang is seen well out of range. The Fw 190 in this case will almost certainly utilize its superior climb. Trials were carried out to ascertain the best maneuver to adopt when ?bounced?. If the Mustang was cruising at high speed and saw the Fw 190 about 2,000 yards away, it usually managed to avoid by opening up to full throttle and diving away, and once speed had been built up it was almost impossible for the Fw 190 to catch it. When the Mustang was ?bounced? by the Fw 190 when flying slowly, it was unable to get away by diving and was forced to evade by means of a quick turn as the fw 190 came into firing range. When the fw 190 was ?bounced? by the Mustang, it could evade by using its superiority in the rolling plane and then pull up violently from the resultant dive into a steep climb which left the Mustang behind. If the Mustang is not seen until it is fairly close, it will get the chance for a short burst before it is outclimbed. Against the Fw 190 the worst heights for the Mustang IA were above 20,000 ft and below 3,000 ft where the Fw 190 was slightly superior in speed. The best height for the Mustang was found to be between 5,000 and 15,000 ft. Fw 190 versus Lockheed P-38F The fw 190 was compared with an operationally equipped Lockheed P-38F flown by an experienced U.S. Army Air Force pilot. The two aircraft were compared for speed and all-round maneuverability at heights up to 23,000 feet. The Fw 190 was superior in speed at all heights up to 22,000 feet where the two aircraft were approximately the same. The difference in speed decreases as the P-38F gains altitude, until at 23,000 ft it is slightly faster. The approximate differences in speed are as follows; At 2,000 ft the Fw 190 is 15 mph faster than the P-38F At 8,000 ft the Fw 190 is 15 mph faster than the P-38F At 15,000 ft the Fw 190 is 5-8 mph faster than the P-38F At 23,000 ft the P-38F is 6-8 mph faster than the Fw 190 Climb. The climb of the P-38F is not as good as that of the Fw 190 up to 15,000 ft. Above this height the climb of the P-38F improves rapidly until at 20,000 ft it becomes superior. The best climbing speed for the P-38F is about 20 mph less than that of the Fw 190 and the angle approximately the same. The initial rate of climb of the Fw 190 either from level flight or a dive is superior to that of the P-38F at all heights below 20,000 ft, and above the height the climb of the P-38F becomes increasingly better. Dive. Comparative dives between the two aircraft proved the fw 190 to be better, particularly in the initial stages. During prolonged dives the p-38F on occasion was catching up slightly with the Fw 190, but during actual combat it is unlikely that the P-38F would have time to catch up before having to break off the attack. Maneuverability. The maneuverability of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the P-38F, particularly in the rolling plane. Although at high speed the fw 190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces its speed to about 140 mph at which speed it can carry out a very tight turn which the Fw 190 cannot follow. The acceleration of the two aircraft was compared and the Fw 190 was found to be better in all respects. When the Fw 190 was ?bounced? by the P-38F and was seen when over 1,000 yards away, the pilots best maneuver was to go into a diving turn and if it was found the Fw 190 was catching up, to pull up into a spiral climb, flying at its slowest possible speed. Although time did not permit trials to be carried out with the fw 190 being ?bounced? by the P-38F, it is thought that the P-38F would stand a reasonable chance of shooting down the Fw 190 provided it had a slight height advantage and the element of surprise. If the pilot of the Fw 190 sees the P-38F when it is just out of range, a quick turn in one direction followed by a diving turn in the opposite direction will give the P-38F a most difficult target, and as the acceleration and speed of the Fw 190 in a dive builds up very rapidly, it is likely to be able to dive away out of range. North American P-51B Mustang The P-51B Mustang had an operational take-off weight of 10,100 pounds, which gave it a wing loading of nearly 44 pounds per square foot. The P-51B in the trial was powered by a V-1650/3 engine, the Packard license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin 61, which with two-stage supercharging developed 1,400 horsepower for take-off, 1,530 at 15,750 feet and 1,300 horsepower at 26,500 feet; thus at its best altitude the P-51B had about 300 horsepower more than the P-51A. The armament comprised four .5-inch Browning guns fitted in the wings and firing outside the propeller arc. For his protection, the pilot had two pieces of armor plate behind his seat: one , 8 mm thick extended from just below the bottom of the seat to a point just level with his shoulders; the other, 11 mm thick, was attached to the top of the other plate and protected his head. Other protection was provided by a 6 mm thick plate fitted to the firewall immediately in front of the cockpit, and the 38 mm thick toughened glass windscreen. Immediately forward of the coolant tank at the front of the engine was a small segment of 6 mm thick armor plates. All internal fuel tanks were self-sealing. Deliveries of the P-51B began in the late autumn of 1943, and the trials report was issued in March 1944. By that time the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-4 and A-8 versions with water-methanol power boosting were well established in service, which were faster than the A-3 in the trials by 20-30 mph up to 18,000 ft. the Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2 in the trial was an early 1943 sub-type; by March 1944 later versions such as the G-6 and G-10 were in service fitted with water-methanol or nitrous oxide power boosting which in their basic versions gave top speeds very nearly as great as that of the P-51B. The trouble with both German fighters was that in their bomber-destroyer versions they were loaded down with heavy cannon; this reduced their performance and made them relatively easy meat for the unhindered Mustangs. P-51B compared with Spitfire IX A very close comparison can be made because the two engines are of very similar design and capacity. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Mustang is a much cleaner aircraft, is slightly heavier, and has a higher wing loading than the spitfire IX (43.8 lbs per sq ft of the Mustang, against 31 lbs per sq ft). Endurance. The Mustang with maximum fuel load hasbetween 1-1/2 and 1-3/4 the range of the Spitfire IX with maximum fuel load. The fuel and oil capacities are 154 Imp (183 U.S.) gallons and 11.2 Imp (13.3 U.S.) gallons respectively, as opposed to 85 Imp (101 U.S.) gallons and 7.5 Imp (9 U.S.) gallons of the Spitfire IX, both without long range tanks, the Mustang can carry a total of 279 Imp (330 U.S.) gallons of petrol as opposed to the Spitfire IX?s maximum of 177 Imp (210 U.S.) gallons. The fuel consumption at similar boost and rev settings is approximately the same for the two aircraft, but the Mustang is approximately 20 mph faster in level flight. Therefore, if the ranges are compared directly according to the fuel capacities of the two aircraft when long-range tanks are fitted, the Mustang will still have something in hand. Speeds. The official speed curves are not yet available. This unit?s speed runs have therefore not been confirmed. They show, however, that in general for the same engine settings the Mustang is always 20-30 mph faster in level flight for all heights. This is also true for the maximum engine setting of 3,000 rpm 67? (+ 18 lbs boost) or whatever is available, depending on the height. The best performance heights are similar, being between 10,000 and15,000 ft, and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft. Climbs. The Mustang has a considerable lower rate of climb at full power at all heights (in a formation take-off, the Spitfire IX maintains formation with 5 lbs less boost). At other engine settings and 175 mph, the two aircraft have a similar climb. The Mustang has, however, a better zoom climb in that it can dive 5,000 ft or more and regain its original altitude at a greater speed. It needs less increase of power to regain its previous altitude and speed. Dives. The Mustang pulls away very rapidly in a slight dive. At the same revs the Spitfire IX requires from 4-6 lbs more boost to remain in formation. Turning circle. The Mustang is always out-turned by the Spitfire IX. Use of flaps on the Mustang does not appear to improve the turning circle. There is adequate warning of a high speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting. Rate of roll. Although the ailerons feel light, the Mustang cannot roll as quickly as the Spitfire IX at normal speeds. The ailerons stiffen up only slightly at high speeds and the rates of roll become the same at about 400 mph. Fire-power. The fire-power of the Mustang consists of four .5 Brownings in the wings. This is very little compared with the Spitfire. P-51B compared with Spitfire XIV Maximum endurance. By comparison the Spitfire XIV has no endurance. Maximum Speed. There is practically nothing to choose in maximum speed. Maximum climb. The Spitfire XIV is very much better. Dive. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away, but less markedly. Turning circle. The Spitfire XIV is the better. Rate of roll. The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV. Conclusion. With the exception of endurance, no conclusions should be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste. P-51B versus Fw 190 Maximum speed. The Fw 190 is nearly 50 mph slower at all heights, increasing to 70 mph above 28,000 ft. It is anticipated that the new Fw 190 (DB 603)* might be slightly faster below 27,000 ft but slower above that altitude. Climb. There appears to be little to choose in maximum rate of climb. It is anticipated that the Mustang will have a better maximum climb than the new Fw 190 (DB 603)*. The Mustang is considerably faster at all heights in a zoom climb. Dive. The Mustang can always out-dive the Fw 190. Turning circle. Again, there is not much to choose. The Mustang is slightly better. When evading an enemy aircraft with a steep turn, a pilot will always out-turn the attacking aircraft initially because of the difference in speeds. It is therefore still a worthwhile maneuver with the Mustang when attacked. Rate of roll. Not even the Mustang Approaches the Fw 190. Conclusions. In the attack, a high speed should be maintained or regained in order to regain height intiative. A Fw 190 could not evade by diving alone. In defence a steep turn followed by full throttle dive should increase the range before regaining height and course. Dog-fighting is not altogether recommended. Do not attempt to climb away without at least 250 mph showing initially. Unfortunately, there is not enough information on the new Fw 190 (DB 603)* for any positive recommendations to be made. ? This was in reference to the long-awaited in-line engine powered Fw 190, of which the allied Intelligence services had obtained some information. The D version (Fw 190-D9) did not go into service until the late summer or 1944, and when it did it was powered by the Junkers Jumo 213 with a Maximum speed of 426 mph at 21,653 (440 mph with boost); 357 mph at sea level. P-51B versus Bf 109G Maximum speed. The Mustang is faster at all heights. Its best heights, by comparison, are below 16,000 ft (30 mph faster approx) and above 25,000 ft (30 mph increasing to 50 mph at 30,000 ft.) Maximum climb. This is rather similar. The Mustang isvery slightly better above 25,000 ft but inclined to be worse below 20,000 ft. Zoom climb. Unfortunately the Bf 109G appears to have a very good high speed climb, making the two aircraft similar in a zoom climb. Dive. On the other hand in defence the Mustang can still increase the range in a prolonged dive. Turning circle. The Mustang is greatly superior. Rate of roll. Not much to choose. In defence ( in a tight spot ) a rapid change of direction will throw the Bf 109G?s sight off. This because the 109G?s maximum rate of roll in embarrassing ( the wing slots keep opening ). Conclusions. In attack, the Mustang can always catch the Bf 109G, except in any sort of climb ( unless there is a high over taking speed ). In defence, a steep turn should be the first maneuver, followed, if necessary, by a dive ( below 20,000 ft ). A high speed climb will unfortunately not increase the range. If above 25,000 ft keep above by climbing or all out level. Combat performance with long-range tanks Speed. There is a serious loss of speed or 40 to 50 mph at all engine settings and heights. The Mustang is, however, still faster than the Fw 190 ( BMW 801 ) above 25,000 ft although slower than the Bf 109G. Climb. The rate of climb is greatly reduced. It is out climbed by the Fw 190 (BMW 801), Bf 109G and the Fw 190 (DB 603)*. The Mustang is still good in a zoom climb (attack), but is still outstripped (defence), if being followed all the way by the Fw 190 (BMW 801) anddefinately outstripped by the Bf 109G. Dive. So long as the tanks are fairly full, the Mustang still beats the Fw 190 (BMW 801) and the Bf 109G in a power dive. Turning circle. The tanks do not make quite so much difference as one might expect. The Mustang at least can turn as tightly as the Fw 190 (BMW 801) with out stalling out and therefore definitely more tightly than the Bf 109G. Rate or roll. General handling and rate of roll are very little effected. Conclusions. The performance of the Mustang is greatly reduced when carrying drop-tanks. Half-hearted attacks could still beevaded by a steep turn, but determined attacks would be difficult to avoid without losing height. It is still a good attacking aircraft especially if it has the advantage of height.
Part II Hawker Tempest V The Hawker Tempest V had an operational take-off weight of 11,400 lbs, which gaveit a wing loading of 37.7 pounds per square foot. It was powered by a Napier Sabre IIB twenty-four cylinder sleeve vavle engine, which developed 2,400 horse-power at sea level and 2,045 horse-power at 13,750 ft. The tempest was a thinner winged and generally improved development of the earlier Typhoon, which had not enjoyed great success as a fighter although it did well as a ground attack aircraft. Like the Typhoon the Tempest carried an armament of 20-mm Hispano cannon; but those fitted to the latter were of the newer Mk V type, which had a rate of fire 15 % greater for a weight of ¼ less than was the case for the earlier Mk II. For his protection the pilot had 6 mm armor plating behind his back and 9 mm plating behind his head. Other pieces of armor were arranged through out the aircraft to protect the ammunition boxes and other vulnerable areas. The pilot?s windscreen was of toughened glass, and all the fuel tanks were self-sealing. The tempest V was employed mainly as a low and medium altitude fighter. It became operational in March 1944 and the trials report was issued at the end of that month. The versions of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 and the Messerschmitt Bf 109 employed in the trial were early ones, and the remarks made earlier apply in this case. Tempest V compared with Typhoon IB The comparison is fairly close and clear because the aircraft are fairly similar, differing chiefly in wing section only. The wing loadings are similar (37.7 pounds for the Tempest, and 39.7 pounds for the Typhoon). Radius of action. The tempest as it stands (no nose tank or long-range tanks) has approximately the same range as the Typhoon IB without long-range tanks. The fuel and oil capacities of the Tempest are 132 Imp (157 U.S.)gallons and 14 Imp (16.7 U.S.) gallons respectively, compared with 154 Imp (184 U.S.) and 16 Imp (19 U.S.) gallons of the Typhoon. The fact that the Tempest cruises at 15-20 mph faster than the Typhoon at the same engine settings approximately cancels out the discrepancy in fuel load. A Tempest fitted with a nose tank. (30 Imp gallons) and two 45 Imp (55 U.S.) gallon long-range tanks (252 Imp gallons total) would have about 1-1/4 times the range of the Typhoon IB with maximum fuel load (243 Imp gallons total). Speeds. According to official speed curves, the maximum speeds of the tempest at all heights are 15-20 mph faster. This is also true for all intermediate settings. Climbs. The tempest climbs at a slightly steeper angle and at the same airspeed producing 200-300 ft increase in the maximum rate of climb. Because of its greater cleanness, its zoom climb is much better. Dive. For the same reasons as the zoom climb, the Tempest pulls ahead. As the speed is increased it does so more rapidly. In fact it has the best acceleration in the dive yet seen at this unit. Turning circle. Very similar. Any difference appears to be in favor of the Typhoon. This is too slight to alter the combat tactics. Rate of roll. The tempest has the better rate of roll at all speeds. Conclusions. Taken all around, the Tempest V is a great improvement on the Typhoon IB. Tempest V compared with P-51B Mustang Range and endurance. By comparison the tempest without nose tank or long-range tanks has no range. When this extra fuel is available it should have a range of little more than half that of the Mustang fitted with two 62-1/2 Imp (75 U.S.) gallons long-range tanks, but without the extra 71 Imp (84 U.S.) gallon body tank. Maximum speed. The Tempest V is 15-20 mph faster up to 15,000 ft, there is then no choice to 24,000 ft when the Mustang rapidly pulls ahead, being about 30 mph faster at 30,000 ft. Climbs. These compare directly with the results of the speed tests. At similar performance height the tempest has a better zoom climb. Turning circle. The Tempest V is not quite as good as the Mustang. Rate of roll. The Tempest is not so good. Conclusions. The Mustang has a superior range of action and general performance above 24,000 ft. Conclusions should not be drawn below this height, but the tempest has a much better rate of climb and speed below 10,000 ft. Tempest V compared with Spitfire XIV Range and endurance. Rough comparisons have been made at the maximum cruising conditions of both aircraft. It is interesting that the indicated airspeed of each is about identical; both with full fuel load (including long-range tanks) and without (also no nose-tank ? Tempest). Maximum speed. From 0-10,000 ft the Tempest V is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is then little to choose until 22,000 ft, when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph faster, the Tempest?s operational ceiling being about 30,000 ft as opposed to the Spitfire XIV?s 40,000 ft. Maximum climb. The tempest is not in the same class as the Spitfire XIV. The tempest V, however, has a considerable better zoom climb, holding the higher speed throughout the maneuver. If the climb is prolonged until climbing speed is reached then, of course, the Spitfire XIV will begin to catch up and pull ahead. Dive. The Tempest V gains on the Spitfire XIV. Turning circle. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Tempest. Rate of roll. The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350 mph. Conclusions. The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require separate handling technique in combat. For this reason, Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIVs, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircrafts particular advantages would not be appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handled, the Tempest is better below 20,000 ft and the Spitfire XIV is better above that height. Tempest V versus Fw 190 Maximum speed. The tempest is nearly 50 mph faster at all heights. It is estimated that the Tempest V may be very slightly faster than the new Fw 190 (*DB 603) up to 20,000 ft. Climb. Except below 5,000 ft the Fw 190 (BMW 801) has a slightly better maximum rate of climb. Because of the Tempest V?s speed and clean lines, however, the tempest has a markedly better zoom climb, where the speed is kept high. Against the new Fw 190 (DB603) it is estimated that the Tempest will have a markedly superior climb below 5,000 ft, but a similar maximum climb above that height. Dive. The Tempest pulls away rapidly in a dive from all heights. Turning circle. There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything, a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest. Rate of roll. The Tempest V cannot compare with the Fw 190. Conclusions. Similar tactics should be used against the Fw 190 as used by the Typhoon squadrons, advantage being taken of high speed. Such handling should prove most effective. The Tempest has an exceptional ground height performance even (estimated) against the new Fw 190 (*DB603). Tempest V versus Bf 109G Maximum speed. The Tempest v is 40-50 mph faster up to 20,000 ft when the difference in speed rapidly diminishes. Climb. The Tempest V is behind the Bf 109G at all heights, but being almost similar below 5,000 ft. The Tempest is only slightly better in a zoom climb if the two aircraft start at the same speed, but if the Tempest has an initial advantage, it will hold this advantage, it will hold this advantage easily providing the speed is kept over 250 mph. Dive. The initial acceleration of the Tempest is not marked, but a prolonged dive brings the Tempest well ahead. Turning circle. The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf 109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near stall. Rate of roll. At normal speeds there is nothing in it, but at speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from the Bf 109G by making a quick change of bank and direction. Conclusions. In the attack, the Tempest can always follow the Bf 109 except in a slow, steep climb. In the combat area the Tempest should maintain a high speed, and in defence may do anything except attempt to climb at slow speed. Mitsubishi A6M5 (Zero Zeke 52) The A6M5 (allied code-named Zeke 52) was equipped to operate from aircraft carriers, and during the trials it was flown against similarly equipped allied fighters. It had an operational take-off weight of 6,094 pounds, which gave it a wing loading of just under 25 pounds per square ft (in each case these figures were far lower than those for comparable Allied or German fighters of the late war period). The A6M5 was powered by a Nakajima Sakae 31-A fourteen-cylinder two-row radial engine with a two speed supercharger, which developed 1,130 horse-power at 9,300 ft and 980 horse-power at 19,600 ft. It is interesting to note that the A6M5 of 1944 had wing and power loadings closely comparable with those of the Mark I Spitfire of 1939; the developed Seafire L.IIC was, of course somewhat heavier. The armament carried by the A6M5 comprised two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns fitted on top of the engine and synchronized to fire through the airscrew arc, and two 20-mm Type 99 cannon in the wings outboard of the propeller arc. The aircraft carried no protective armor plate or toughened glass, and the fuel tanks were not self-sealing. Deliveries of the A6M5 began in the spring of 1944 and the example used in the trial was captured during the invasion of Saipan in June 1944. The reports on the trials were issued in Autumn of 1944. By that time newer models of the A6M5 had appeared but, because they carried heavier armaments and in some cases limited armor protection, there was no major increase in performance over the version tested. In some fighter units of the Imperial Japanese Navy, however, the early versions of the A6M5 were being replaced bu higher performance types such as the Kawanishi N1K1 (?George?) and the Mitsubishi J2M3 (?Jack?). A6M5 Zeke 52 versus F4U-1D Corsair Maximum speed. The F4U-1D was much faster than the Zeke 52 at all altitudes: At sea level the F4U was 48 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 5,000 ft the F4U was 42 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 10,000 ft the F4U was 58 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 15,000 ft the F4U was 70 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 20,000 ft the F4U was 78 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 25,000 ft the F4U was 80 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 30,000 ft the F4U was 74 mph faster than the Zeke 52 The top speeds obtained were 413 mph at 20,400 ft for the F4U-1D and 335 mph at 18,000 ft for the Zeke 52. Climb. The best climb of the F4u-1D was equal to that of the Zeke 52 up to 10,000 ft, about 750 ft/min better at 18,000 ft, and about 500 ft/min better at 22,000 ft and above. The best climbing speeds of the F4U-1D and the Zeke 52 were found to be 158 and 123 Mph indicated, respectively. Dive. Initial dive accelerations of the Zeke 52 and the F4U-1D were about equal, after which the F4U-1D was superior. The F4U-1D was slightly better in zooms after dives. Turning circle. The Zeke 52 was greatly superior to the F4U-1D in slow speed turns at low and medium altitudes, its advantage decreasing to only a slight margin at 30,000 ft. in slow speed turns it could gain one turn in three and one-half at 10,000 ft. At speeds around 205 mph, however, the F4U-1D could, by using flaps, stay with the Zeke 52 for about one-half turn, or until the speed fell to 175 mph. Rate of roll. The rolls of the Zeke 52 were equal to those of the F4U-1D at speeds under 230 mph and inferior above the speed , due to high control forces. Maneuverability. The maneuverability of the Zeke 52 is remarkable at speeds below about 205 mph, being far superior to that of the F4U-1D, Its superiority, however, diminishes with increased speed, due to its high control forces, and the F4U-1D has the advantage at 230 mph and above. Vision. The Zeke 52 was considered to permit better vision in all respects, the rear vision being good due to the use of a bubble canopy and the complete absence of armor behind the pilot?s head. There was no rear vision mirror installed in the Zeke 52 tested. The small gunsight did not interfere with forward vision. Conclusions. Do not dog-fight with the Zeke 52. Do not try to follow a loop or half-roll with pull-through. When attacking use your superior power and high speed performance to engage at the most favorable moment. To evade a Zeke 52 on your tail, roll and dive away into a high speed turn. Zeke 52 versus F6F-5 Hellcat At sea level the F6F-5 was 41 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 5,000 ft the F6F-5 was 25 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 10,000 ft the F6F-5 was 45 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 15,000 ft the F6F-5 was 62 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 20,000 ft the F6F-5 was 69 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 30,000 ft the F6F-5 was 66 mph faster than the Zeke 52 Top speeds attained were 409 mph at 21,600 ft for the F6F-5 and 335 mph at 18,000 ft for the Zeke 52. Climb. The Zeke 52 climbed about 600 ft/min better than the F6F-5 up to 9,000 ft, after which the advantage fell off gradually until the two aircraft were about equal at 14,000 ft, above which the F6F-5 had the advantage, varying from 500 ft/minute better at 22,000 ft to about 250 ft/min better at 30,000 ft. The best climbing speeds of the F6F-5 and the Zeke 52 were found to be 152 and 123 mph, respectively. Dive. Initial dive accelerations of the Zeke 52 and F6F-5 were about equal, after which the F6F-5 was far superior. The F6F-5 was slightly superior in zoom climbs after dives. Turning circle. The Zeke 52 was greatly superior to the F6F-5 in slow speed turns at low and medium altitudes, its advantage decreasing to about parity at 30,000 ft. In slow speed turns it could gain one turn in three and one-half at 10,000 ft. Rate of roll. Rolls of the Zeke 52 were equal to those of the F6F-5 at speeds under 235 mph and inferior above that speed, due to high control forces. Manueverability. The maneuverability of the Zeke 52 is remarkable at speeds below 205mph, being far superior to the F6F-5. Its superiority, however, diminishes with increased speed, due to high control forces, and the F6F-5 has the advantage at speeds above 235 mph. Vision. As for the F4U-1D Conclusions. Do not dog-fight with the Zeke 52. Do not try to follow a loop or half-roll with a pull-through. When attacking use your superior power and high speed performance to engage at the most favorable moment. To evade a Zeke 52 on your tail, roll and dive away into a high speed turn. Zeke 52 versus FM-2 Wildcat Maximum speed. The Zeke 52 was progressively faster than the FM-2 above 5,000 ft. At sea level the FM-2 was 6 mph faster than the Zeke 52 (A6M5) At 5,000 ft the FM-2 was 4 mph slower than the Zeke 52 At 10,000 ft the FM-2 was 12 mph slower than the Zeke 52 At 15,000 ft the FM-2 was 8 mph slower than the Zeke 52 At 20,000 ft the FM-2 was 19 mph slower than the Zeke 52 At 25,000 ft the FM-2 was 22 mph slower than the Zeke 52 At 30,000 ft the FM-2 was 26 mph slower than the Zeke 52 Top speeds attained were 321 mph at 13,000 ft for the FM-2 and 335 mph at 18,000 ft for the Zeke 52. Climb. The best climb of the Zeke 52 was about 400 ft/min less than that of the FM-2 at sea level, became equal at about 4,000 ft, was 500 ft/min better at 8,000 ft became equal again at 13,000 ft, and was only slightly inferior above 13,000 ft. The best climbing speeds for the FM-2 and the Zeke 52 were found to be 140 mph and 123 mph, respectively. Dive. The Zeke 52 was slightly superior to the FM-2 in initial dive acceleration, after which the dives were about the same. Zooms after dives were about equal for the Zeke 52 and the FM-2. Turning circle. The turns of the FM-2 and the Zeke 52 were very similar, with a slight advantage in favor of the Zeke 52. The Zeke 52 could gain one turn in eight at 10,000 ft. Rate of roll. The roll of the Zeke 52 was equal to that of the FM-2 at speeds under 178 mph, and inferior above that speed, due to high control forces. Manueverability. The Manueverability of the Zeke 52 is remarkable at speeds below 205 mph, being slightly superior to the FM-2. Its slight superiority, however, decreases with increased speeds, due to its high control forces, and the FM-2 has the advantage at speeds 235 mph and above. Vision. As for the F6F-5. Conclusions. Do not dog-fight with the Zeke 52. Maintain any altitude advantage you have. To evade a Zeke 52 on your tail, roll and dive away into a high speed turn. Zeke 52 versus Seafire L. IIC Maximum speed. The Seafire L. IIC was faster below about 17,000 ft; the Zeke 52 was faster above that altitude. At sea level the Seafire was 24 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 5,000 ft the Seafire was 24 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 10,000 ft the Seafire was 18 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 15,000 ft the Seafire was 8 mph faster than the Zeke 52 At 20,000 ft the Seafire was 5 mph slower than the Zeke 52 At 25,000 ft the Seafire was 10 mph slower than the Zeke 52 Top speeds attained were 338 mph at 5,500 ft for the Seafire L. IIC and 335 mph at 18,000 ft for the Zeke 52. Climb. The Zeke 52 climbs at a very steep angle and gives an impression of a very high rate of climb. The Seafire L. IIC, however, has a much better initial climb and remains slightly superior up to 25,000 ft. The climb of the Seafire is at a faster speed, but a more shallow angle. The best climbing speeds for the Seafire and the Zeke 52 were 160 and 123 mph respectively. Dive. The Seafire is superior in the dive although initial acceleration is similar. The Zeke 52 is a most unpleasant aircraft in a dive, due to heavy stick forces and excessive vibration. Turning circle. The Zeke 52 can turn inside the Seafire L.IIC at all heights. Rate of roll. The rate of roll of the two aircraft is similar at speeds below 180 mph indicated, but above that the aileron stick forces of the Zeke increase tremendously, and the Seafire become progressively superior. Conclusions. Never dog-fight with a Zeke 52- it is too maneuverable. At low altitudes where the Seafire is at its best, it should make use of its superior rate of climb and speed to obtain a height advantage before attacking. If jumped, the Seafire should evade by using its superior rate of roll. The Zeke cannot follow high speed rolls and aileron turns.
fm2 and zero simuler turn cirles. cant wait till alsop and squril red that. fxf-x planes were soposidly so inferior to super jap planes
Do you see what you read? Watch this: "Conclusions. Do not dog-fight with the Zeke 52. Maintain any altitude advantage you have. To evade a Zeke 52 on your tail, roll and dive away into a high speed turn."
From-> Fighter Aircraft (Combat Development in World War two) by Alfred Price ISBN )-85368-926-1 Do you like the info exec? I really must get a scanner
@ vadim Do you read? Turning circle. The turns of the FM-2 and the Zeke 52 were very similar, with a slight advantage in favor of the Zeke 52. The Zeke 52 could gain one turn in eight at 10,000 ft. Rate of roll. The roll of the Zeke 52 was equal to that of the FM-2 at speeds under 178 mph, and inferior above that speed, due to high control forces. Manueverability. The Manueverability of the Zeke 52 is remarkable at speeds below 205 mph, being slightly superior to the FM-2. Its slight superiority, however, decreases with increased speeds, due to its high control forces, and the FM-2 has the advantage at speeds 235 mph and above. if we go around for 8 circles and he gets on my six, then i'm diving away to the deck where I am faster. Think of of it this way in that plane i would dare to dog-fight, as would Joe Foss and many others. and if he got near to my six, I would do as the 190 does when a Spit IX gets on his tail hit the deck and run/pull away. cc ? Also i don't see the current version of either F4F,F6F or F4U performing as they should. Definately the wildcat can't perform as mentioned above sometimes i feel as if F4F and F6F have the real Zeke 52's attributes with the high control forces aspect in the comparison. Definately due to poor elvator control at the cats peak speeds. This is not a grip really just but i would love to see it perform more to what i posted. I can have wishes can't I
i prefer not to read quotes about aircrafts without sources specified, as well as textes without references. now, i will read your post
The early A6M's slaughtered the early Wildcats because the Wildcats had a low climb rate and an inferior turn radius. Keep in mind that I have always said and still say that the F4F was the best turning plane in US service during WW2. The best US turning plane, though, could not match up to the best Japanese turning plane. Gryphon, bear in mind that the FM-2 described in bizerk's post is blessed with a 1,350 hp engine; this and other modifications made a huge difference in the overall performance. I have also stated that, as a general rule, the slower fighters are the better turners: their higher lift results in more drag. If the F4F series was very slow, then it must have been a series of good turners. The reason why the A6M5 is both a faster plane and a slightly better turning plane is due to the fact that the F4F was unnecessarily heavy: it had heavy armor plating and a heavier engine. In flight, therefore, the F4F needed to make additional lift that would not be necessary if the extra weight was not present. This additional lift was responsible for higher drag, explaining why the F4F was both slower and a slightly inferior turner. The same is true for the early P-39's. As designed by the manufacturer, the P-39 should have been faster than the A6M. The addition of large amounts of armor, the presence of that heavy 37mm cannon and the mechanically complex engine and landing gear systems meant that more lift was necessary to fly this otherwise fast fighter. The result of this need for more lift was a fighter both slower and less maneuverable than the A6M.
Seafire L mk IIc Loaded Weight - 6,995 lbs. Seafire L mk IIc Wing Area - 242 sq. ft. Seafire L mk IIc Wing Loading - 28.9 sq. ft. A6M model 52 Loaded Weight - 6,025 lbs. A6M model 52 Wing Area - 229.27 sq. ft. A6M model 52 Wing Loading - 26.3 lbs./sq. ft. Sources: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mb138.html and Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon. Why does the A6M5 out turn the Spitfire so easily when the wing loadings are not so different? These tests show how the thin profile and low camber of the Spitfire's wing, while suited to high speeds, are a handicap in turning ability. This belief was the basis for many of my posts on this issue. This information proves it. The information provided by bizerk is perfect for drawing conclusions on the Spitfire series. Because wing loadings of the Spitfire series only got worse (higher), if the A6M could out turn the Seafire IIc, then it could out turn any subsequent Spitfire as well. Thank you for the information, bizerk. That looks like it must have been a lot of work, it is a valuable addition to the forum.
It is VERY important to note that the fm-2 is a heavily modified f4f- and shouldnt really be used to compair the f4f/f6f/f4u to the a6m.
/cc its clear that in a slow strall fight zero has advantage but nowing that, pilots could keep speed up near 300 mph were this post claims fm2 rolled and turned better. fm2 only neeed to dive for speed roll turn and lose zero with compressed controls, so evasive were easy if f4f wanst stupid to bleed speed under 200 mph. catching 1 turn on 8 isnt a superior turn radius, how often does any one go round 8 times? such a turn radius would in my opion sugest that fm2 could stick with a zero long enogh to get a soltion, could aford to blead of e for a soltion since diving away its superior. so fm2 pilot would have least a 50% chance of kill by turning inside a zero thats trying to conserve some speed if fm2 pilots willing to blead his and hit or run. persnaly i think fm2 use to farily acuratly simulate this, it use to stay with zero for 3 -4 turns, then zero started winning. but gold decided fxf planes wer uber and they got banned since zeros were being tailed trew a few tuns by fast f4fs... wtg gold. fxf planes were nutted in werd way. the turn and stall catristics worse, roll worse. top dive speed increase, elvater over 300 decreased. but then they butcher zero 2 so there probly even now, but odly both zero and fxfx planes now are better e fighters then turn fighters. spits are the best red turn fighter now short of i153. best gold fighter would be what? ki84 109 f or e? when i started the 2 planes i hated running into in furball was zero, and ki. ki 84 s the only jap plane that realy should be feared as zero is ussaly out-runable and erly kis arnt dangous, ki61 is on par with marjority of populer red fighters. lest this is how it seems but im not pron to fling jap planes often. i stopped fling ki61 and p39 on any kind of reguler bassis since both planes lost there tight tumbling abilitys from fuel rule. neve fly ither over 20% and hate them at 100%.
Gryphon, remember this: F4F still uber? Or This? The FH team seems to overreact; first in making the F4F uber, then tearing its FM to pieces. 1 turn in 8 is not as small a margin as you might think. That is 45 extra degrees per turn for the A6M, or about 1-2 seconds extra time for the A6M. About your suggestion that the F4F could get a snapshot if it wasted energy: that is possible. Keep in mind, however, that any turn the F4F could do the A6M could do a little better. If the F4F can turn sharply to gain a snapshot, then the A6M can make an even sharper turn to avoid the line of fire.
I still dont like that the fm-2 is being compaired to the f4f. They might as well be 2 seperate planes- like spit v and spit x simular- but almost entirely different. If the f4f could turn with an a6m for 8 turns before a 1 turn advantage- than how come IRL the f4f,p39, even the spitfire had no chance in a turnfight against the a6m. Now as far as the fxf planes being ruined- I disagree, but even if it was true- isnt the difference being made up in other planes? P39 is far from the poor performer that was actually flying in ww2, here it stays a good/decent fighter to the end of the war. The i15 is made of canvis- but never gets fuel fires. There is by far more ammo in the wings of the fxf planes, p47, p51, ect. than in most german planes- so why are american planes not exploding from ammo explosions more frequently? 7mm is ineffective against hmacks, 12mm will do the job. In general very few gold fighters have 12mm in the early/mid war- and low ROF mgff cannon, the result is reds have a much easier time killing hmacks than golds. The obious superiority of hispano? Kills from d8 with 1x20mm is just ridiculous. Now the final killer for the fxf rumors that you obiously are lieing about. What gold fighter can close a small field with just its bomb/rocket ordinance? None that I can think of off the top of my head. But as far as red planes- the f6f, f4u, p47,p38, and i think even the p51 can close a small field on their own. NO matter how much you lead rain weenies cry- the f4f "NOT THE FM2!" WAS NOT A CAPABLE TURN AND BURN FIGHTER WITH THE A6M!. If the f4f truely had an edge- then why was it that in the early war the a6m was thought to be invincible? Why is it that lone wolfs couldnt survive, but instead pilots needed a wing for "thatch and weave" tactics? Even still- if the f4f was so capable against the a6m- why were planes like the p38, f6f, and f4u developed for the rolls in the pacific?...honestly....think about it.....the f4f couldnt do it- so they needed faster stronger more powerfull planes. But in a last ditch effort- the fm2 was introduced, which once again has no backing in the f4f vs a6m arguement. The fm2 is a seperate plane.
@ allsy the early F4F-3's were very nimble aircraft (still not as nimble as the Zeke 52 or earlier Zero's) The early F4F-3's had the best climb rate of all varients of F4F's/FM-1 and FM-2's (British versions of Martlet) They could all turn well and were better than the Zero Zekes at medium to fast speeds but could mix it up for a bit at slower speeds and if in they got into trouble they could dive away. Alot also depends on the pilots skill levels too. Do you not agree? the F4F/FM-2's were not flying target drones as you seem to think nor were they big lumbering bombers or transport aircraft, but in fact a Fighter plane so you need to treat it with respect because the 4 or 6 .50's tended to shred the Zero's quite easily. The thatch weave helped big time and it would make you wonder why the Japanese didn't do this more themselves. Anyways I have told you allsy in others posts that the zero is the better turner, but even so the F4F and FM-2's can mix it up with a Zero one on one to a point and if it finds the Zero gaining the upper hand, then it is time to bug-out cc? Now with the F6F and F4U, the same was going on in Japan the development of newer better Aircraft. The US navy and USAAC were not about to stand still. When in war many new good and better idea's are brought forth quicker due to neccesity to get the upper hand and keep it to dominate the opponent. The F6F was a major improvment on the F4F aircraft except turning, but even the F6F could turn to a point with a Zero Zeke. Again pilot quality plays a big part. Newer pilots were advised especially not to dog-fight a Zero but more experienced pilots knew the limits and could engage in more daring fashion when deemed neccisary. Ahhh... i'm to tired to type any more i want ti fly a little bit before i hit the hay. P.S. thanks squirl, glad you like it. took me a long time to type this info out. mart or was it zxszxs once asked me (when i told them i was going to add some very good info to the forum) "why i even bother to try and get FH team to listen or care" and I replied, "to say nothing means to except how it is and give up, but to give information and try means their is always hope and a chance. and hope is better than nothing". And please Fh team do not think i think the whole thing is bad i just think improvments are still needed. I do appreciate everyones effort towards this flight sim. bullet
Also interesting is the Allied comparisons of friendly aircraft against each other. I think Free Host when it started had these aircraft. All handled as described above.
Hiho, i have only one question: How can you translate the words "inferior", "superior" and so on in performance numbers ?? Its interesting to read, but it does not help to modify the FM of any plane imho Cu Flubby
Put simply I guess: An inferior number would be smaller than a superior number...if higher numbers give the peformance advantage, if not reverse.
