|
mdiehl -> RE: The P-39 was an inferior fighter...as if we didn't all know this already (7/13/2007 5:46:30 AM)
|
quote:
You've presented no data (references).
That is on the whole incorrect. It is however correct for this thread. I'm going to assume that you can recalculate the math (on closing rates) on your own. As to the A6M and P-39s top airspeeds, I have to work with the assumption that anyone offering an opinion here is capable of verifying same at any old time. Nevertheless, FOR YOU, here are:
Wilson, Stewart
1998 Aircraft of WW2. Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd, Fishwyck, Australia.
A6M types (p.125-127)
A6M2: max (sea level) 282 mph, 331 at 14,930.
A6M3: max (sea level) 279 mph, 328 mph t 19,685 ft
A6M5: max (19,685 ft) 351 mph. "Modified flaps and ailerons were fitted and the wing skinning was of a heavier gauge to allowed increased diving speeds, an important tactical consideration given the superiority of the American opposition" (which I read as "superiority in diving and roll rates at high speed" -- otherwise why modify the ailerons eh?)
A6M6-8: max speed 340 mph at 21,000 ft. (Note, this plane lost many of the better characteristics of the zeke in an attempt to fit it with self-sealing fuel tanks... which added weight).
A6M2-k/5-K: max speed 296 moh at 13,125. This was a 2 seat training variety that only saw combat service as a kamikaze.
A6M2 time to 19000 feet, 7.5 minutes
QUA
Bell P-39 airacobra (p.20):
P-39D: max 368 mph at 13,800 feet, time to 15,00 feet, 5.7 minutes.
P-39Q: max 385 mph at 11,000 feet, time to 15,000 feet, 4.5minutes.
Thus the P-39 can be said to be faster than any variant of the Zeke at the P-39s best operational altitudes. Were it a race to 15,000 feet, the P-39 would win if both airplanes were already moving fast. If it was a race from a runway ramp, I suspect that the A6M would reach 15K feet faster than a P-39, but I would bet that the climb vs airspeed vs altitude graphs of both planes would indicate ranges where first one then the other excelled at climb.
If you want the data summaries from Lundstrom and Shores et al. you will have to visit the steakhouse, although if Matrix folks find it desirable I will cross post the results here somewhere when I'm done.
quote:
YOU are mistaken
So you claim.
quote:
You have not purchased the game
That is correct.
quote:
You have no interest in improving the game.
That is not correct.
quote:
You have no business here.
If Matrix mokes find my posts inconvenient I am sure they will let me know.
quote:
Of course, I knew you wouldn't publish it here on the WitP forum where you've made your claims. Not where people who have more than just a passing interest in the subject would read it. Make sure that you list only substantiated kills, not just "claims." I'd hate to see you accused of bias!
You obviously don;t know the Steakhouse very well. The Council of War forum is a good place for grognards, but the CoW forum does not suffer, well, grandiose distortions of others' claims particularly well. It would explain your reluctance to visit.
NO worries about claims. I've stated for years the general uselessness of pilots' claims AND, for that matter, "confirmed kills" awarded to pilots after they were debriefed. That is after all what makes doing the sort of counts I'm doing so interesting. When you see the distorted claims made about Zeros successes or the "aura of invincibility" you find out that neithe claim is substantiated by facts. Thach & Flatley both wrote that they never felt particularly intimidated. And it's not looking like the P-40 drivers in the PI felt that way either.
So where YOU, Chez, derive your 'the Zero bonus is appropriate because of the shock and awe and demoralization experienced by pilots who faced the Zero' rationale (most recently expressed in the form of your suggestion that early war Allied pilots simply have lower EXP ratings, rather than a Zero bonus) is anyone's guess. The only way I can imagine anyone clinging to that idea is if the ONLY source they had about Allied plane losses and allied a.c. performance was Zero Pilot.
|
|
|
|
