RE: Air combat

RE: Air combat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Air combat (3/12/2012 5:04:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 PRETTY MUCH DEMONSTRATES THE BASIC DESIGN PHILOSOPHY OF THE ZERO. YOU DON'T NEED ARMOR OR SELF-SEALING TANKS IF YOUR SO MANEUVERABLE YOUR ENEMIES CAN'T HIT YOU. Unfortunately it only works for truely gifted and experianced pilots (and not always for them)...., which Japan soon had a particular lack of. But the design philosophy itself was flawed - a fighter does not shoot down the enemy by defending only. While agility is good the fighter must be able to catch the enemy, bring its guns on the enemy and shoot it down. You are correct overall, but at the time the Zero was designed virtually every fighter pilot thought in terms of "Dogfighting"---at which the Zero was superb. And at that time, quite fast and well-armed as well. It was perhaps the major cause for the development of all "run and gun" tactics. So the Zero design cannot be considered "flawed" (witness it's success in the opening months of the war)..., but the answer to the Zero was a change in tactics rather than the need for an entirely new airframe. When the Allies proved able to develope not only new tactics, but superior airframes as well, the Zero was left behind. But as Sakai proved, it still wasn't helpless in the hands of a superb pilot. Agreed, with a but: had Zeros faced state-of-the-art machines and tactics in early/mid 1942(ie. been used vs. RAF or especially the Luftwaffe, or really, even the V-VS...) instead of mostly obsolescent designs, tactics and not that great pilots the western powers had in their backyard. Actually, the first Hurricane and Spitfire units to arrive in the Far East had to learn the exact same lessons that the Buffalos and P-40's before them had learned. You never "Dogfight" with a Zero (or an Oscar, for that matter). And had the Germans had a version of the Zero (with it's enormous range) during the Battle of Britian the results might have been different. Imagine Bf-109 squadrons with a "loiter time" over England measured in hours instead of minutes. The Zero was a product of it's time, and Japan's needs..., and so were it's weaknesses. To get the high maneuverability and huge range there were trade-offs. And eventually the Allies learned how to take advantage of them. At that point the basic weaknessses of Japan's Economy and Government/Military made it impossible for the Japanese to keep up with the ever-increasing numbers of new and improved Allied designs.

btbw -> RE: Air combat (3/12/2012 5:16:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf if you have both speed and MVR, you will dominate the opponent (like spitfire versus Bf-109E) if you have less speed but better mvr, you will be okay (hurricane versus Bf-109E) Please more epic fails.

Erkki -> RE: Air combat (3/12/2012 7:05:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 ctually, the first Hurricane and Spitfire units to arrive in the Far East had to learn the exact same lessons that the Buffalos and P-40's before them had learned. You never "Dogfight" with a Zero (or an Oscar, for that matter). And had the Germans had a version of the Zero (with it's enormous range) during the Battle of Britian the results might have been different. Imagine Bf-109 squadrons with a "loiter time" over England measured in hours instead of minutes. The Zero was a product of it's time, and Japan's needs..., and so were it's weaknesses. To get the high maneuverability and huge range there were trade-offs. And eventually the Allies learned how to take advantage of them. At that point the basic weaknessses of Japan's Economy and Government/Military made it impossible for the Japanese to keep up with the ever-increasing numbers of new and improved Allied designs. Did you notice I forgot to use a verb? [:)] [:D] And yeah, I'd agree that Zero had many qualities that were needed from a CV fighter and required tradeoffs when it was designed(mostly the range). But for actual fighter vs. fighter air combat it was obsolescent by the beginning of the war already and had its early success only thanks to the lack of quality(pilots and aircraft) and quantity of opposition. Considering that by spring of 1942 the Luftwaffe was already receiving its first examples of the Bf 109 G series and had been using the Fw 190 for some time with the RAF not much behind with the Spitfire V and first variants of the Spitfire IX soon to see action, the Zero was facing Allied fighters 2 to 5-6 years behind of their time in a period when aviation technology was advancing quicker than ever before or after... Ki-43 on the other hand was even worse. But air combat performance wise they were still flawed designs with many errors and limitations that would cost a lot and prove impossible to change later. The people who designed the planes probably knew better, but the air services of the Army and Navy received what they had ordered.

LoBaron -> RE: Air combat (3/12/2012 7:54:30 AM)
I agree, Erkki. I think this had as much to do with the ability of Japan to build sophisticated aircraft as just with design philosophy. If you look at the Japanese early war designs, besides a nimble airframe, a relatively simple radial, a low usage of rare raw materiels, and close to no high tech components, these planes perfectly fit within the capabilities of the limited Japanese industry. As soon as Japan started tinkering with inline engines, rare metal alloys, high pressure components, and so forth, the inability of the Japanese production lines to deliver sophistication as well as quality began to show. No wonder planes like the Tony spent most ot the war sitting around the field with minor faults than in the air.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/12/2012 4:15:47 PM)
Japan had 4 fighter airframes available at 12/41 Reisen --> excellent MVR, should have been upgraded with better engines and carried less fuel Shoki --> brilliant concept ahead of its time (only bearcat caught up), needed a bigger engine and better fuel Hien --> a decent spitfire immitation, engine power was 2 years behind allies Heinkel 100 --> could have been in service by mid 1942 ... still beieve japan went overboard with the idea of range more fuel = more weight = less speed european fighters had short legs but they all flew 400+mph in 1941/1942

PaxMondo -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 2:54:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron I agree, Erkki. I think this had as much to do with the ability of Japan to build sophisticated aircraft as just with design philosophy. If you look at the Japanese early war designs, besides a nimble airframe, a relatively simple radial, a low usage of rare raw materiels, and close to no high tech components, these planes perfectly fit within the capabilities of the limited Japanese industry. As soon as Japan started tinkering with inline engines, rare metal alloys, high pressure components, and so forth, the inability of the Japanese production lines to deliver sophistication as well as quality began to show. No wonder planes like the Tony spent most ot the war sitting around the field with minor faults than in the air. Yep, with you here. Also look how look it took them to work out the issues with the Ha-45. Mostly centered on the 2 stage compressor. Strictly manufacturing issues as I read it. They had the design, but could not control the tolerances needed in production.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 3:40:12 AM)
most of japan's engine troubles were because of fuel.. put 87 octane into a ferrari engine and see what happens. Ha-45 was capable of 2000 hp with 100 octane .. but.. in japanese service the Ha-45-12 maybe was 1800hp and Ha-45-21 was 1900hp.. it makes a big difference.. 5-10% in speed this is my idea: japan never thought their designs were slower or inferior to the allies Japanese plane tested in US with high octane fuel = "wow.. this jap plane is really fast.. " US plane (like the corsair they captured) in japan with low octane fuel = "this corsair is quite heavy and slow.. about 370mph.. the reisen is superior" and japan had problem with turbos -- due to lack of high temp materials --> but they did well with 2-stage mechanical superchargers, the Ha-32 was excellent

Nikademus -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 8:20:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki And yeah, I'd agree that Zero had many qualities that were needed from a CV fighter and required tradeoffs when it was designed(mostly the range). But for actual fighter vs. fighter air combat it was obsolescent by the beginning of the war already and had its early success only thanks to the lack of quality(pilots and aircraft) and quantity of opposition. Considering that by spring of 1942 the Luftwaffe was already receiving its first examples of the Bf 109 G series and had been using the Fw 190 for some time with the RAF not much behind with the Spitfire V and first variants of the Spitfire IX soon to see action, the Zero was facing Allied fighters 2 to 5-6 years behind of their time in a period when aviation technology was advancing quicker than ever before or after... Ki-43 on the other hand was even worse. But air combat performance wise they were still flawed designs with many errors and limitations that would cost a lot and prove impossible to change later. The people who designed the planes probably knew better, but the air services of the Army and Navy received what they had ordered. The A6M as a fighter design of 1940 was on a par with or superior to most other designs of the time, including the first versions of the 109 and Spit. Like the F4F itself, all started off unarmored and armed largely with MG's. Even the FW190 (the very first varient) was initially armed with IIRC four MG's but was quickly upgraded with cannon to combat the heavy aircraft it was facing. So i would strongly disagree if by "beginning of the war" you mean WWII in general. Even by late 41 the Zero still was a formidable design. I don't fall in with the typical discounts of the planes success anymore than with the pilots who flew it. Any side can be discounted. I participated in an intersting what if thread that asked about a possible alternate outcome to the BoB if you swapped it with another plane. My choice was the A6M. It was the world's first strategic fighter. It had the range that the 109 lacked. The 109 may have been more upgradable and could have armor installed, but without the range all it's other attributes were useless because it couldn't be where it was needed nor linger long enough to be effective. Was the 109 flawed? No. Its attributes simply did not account for strategic range when it was designed nor were drop tanks part of it's design from the get go. there were no tradeoffs per se for it being a carrier fighter. In fact it was the A6M that disproved that a carrier fighter by default had to be inferior or flawed compared to a land based fighter. Later fighter designs like the F4U and F6F would further prove that. However the A6M design was tight, meaning it could not be readily improved or expanded upon. This tightness wasn't due to 'flaws' but due to the state of the Japanese aircraft industry which limited the total HP it's engine(s) could generate. Thus, the A6M could not be adequately upgraded over time, as were the Spit, Hurricane, 109 and F4F with self sealing tanks and pilot armor. The A6M design revolved around the 950hp Sakai engine and it's specifications were driven by that barrier, thus to meet all of it's specifications it had to be as light as possible with no wiggle room. More powerful engines allowed some upgrading but not enough to keep the plane competetive. However the Reisen's builder himself stated from the beginning that a good fighter design on average has a shelf life of 2-3 years then must be replaced by the next generation. Again Japan's aircraft industry was not up to the task. They couldn't even build enough Zeros much less deploy it's successor....the least worst course of action was to keep building an obsolete plane. As Jiro put it...."better to have an obsolete fighter in the air vs. no fighter in the air" This isn't a flaw in the A6M itself. In it's prime (40-42) it's outstanding combination of speed, agility and hitting power made it a dangerous and competetive foe. Weaknesses? of course. I am unaware of any plane that didn't have them. But "Flawed" is to me a grossly inaccurate term to use. Ki-43 was by 1942, more obsolecent in concept, something Nakajama realized which was why they steered towards the Ki-61 and 84 but it was not flawed either. More so than the A6M it was built to dogfight, something the army pilots were used too from their Ki-27 days. Initial production models had teething issues but once resolved the plane served well. The definitive Ki-43II version was a dangerous opponent but underarmed when asked to intercept the increasing numbers of heavily armored bombers. This didn't stop it from scoring success however. It stymied the RAF Hurricanes and scored competetively against even later 2nd generation aircraft including the Spitfire VIII. In Burma the JAAF was only defeated ultimately by sheer numbers and lack of support/reinforcement. It can be deemed a "failure" as an interceptor but it was never designed to be one anymore than the Ki-44 was designed to be a dogfighter. Often forgotten is that the Ki-43 shares a good portion of the success of Japan's initial thrusts....being misidentified as a Type 0 or "Zero" something that continues to occur to this day in modern literature. The Ki-43 gets no street credit. Yet more JAAF pilots became aces in it than any other type.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 8:40:22 PM)
Japanese airframes: 1) Reisen --> the airframe itself is fine, if they put a Ha-33-62 engine right from 1/43, instead of 6/45 and less fuel it would have lasted a lot longer 2) Hayabusa --> junk from the beginning, ask the pilots 3) Hien --> a decent immitation of a spitfire, but japan was behind in engines 4) Heinkel 100 --> would have been a good idea to produce these yes reisen was behind in performane in late 1941.. but... that is only because it carried a lot of fuel A6M2 could have looked like this [:)] if it was configured better [image]local://upfiles/28382/D8BA9DDCF1834EFF834B3C0D584922CC.jpg[/image] wing loading 96 instead of 107 20mm guns on the cowling faster and better climb loaded weight: 2115 instead of 2410

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 8:45:32 PM)
quote: more JAAF pilots became aces in it than any other type. People also underestimate the flying exp of IJAAF pilots.. ... the prewar pilots were a lot more numerous and a had enormous flying time over china (if if much of that time was spent straffing helpless chinese soldiers) IJAAF pilots hated the Hayabusa at all times.. they wanted to fly the Zero since the 1941 dogfight contest .. they also liked the idea of armor and speed like the Hien

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 8:57:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf quote: more JAAF pilots became aces in it than any other type. People also underestimate the flying exp of IJAAF pilots.. ... the prewar pilots were a lot more numerous and a had enormous flying time over china (if if much of that time was spent straffing helpless chinese soldiers) Actually, I would say they overestimate it. How much skill can be attained flying against virtually untrained Chinese in obsolete A/C? Or bombing undefended civilians? They had experiance as "killers". but so did the members of a Sonderkommando. And nobody called them effective, well-trained, soldiers. Experiance depends greatly on who you recieve it against.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 9:16:07 PM)
1937 - 1941 is a long time just by flying around for thousands of hours practicing dogfights you can train up to about 70 and if you are able to dogfight once a week against an I-15 or I-16 for 2 or 3 years ... you probably go up to 80 or 85 flying hours is a big variable - how do you explain those poles in 303 squadron tearing up all those 109s in the BoB ..were they just more angry?.. no.. probably they had a lot of flight hours before the war and fought a bit over france

Nikademus -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 9:23:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf IJAAF pilots hated the Hayabusa at all times.. they wanted to fly the Zero since the 1941 dogfight contest .. they also liked the idea of armor and speed like the Hien No, they didn't. It was a number of pilots who wanted the Ki-43 to retain the maneuverability of the earlier Ki-27 while also wanting a faster plane. Nakajama came up with a novel way try to meet the conflicting specifications. There were some pilots however who wanted a heavier faster plane even if it meant a loss in maneuverability and Nakajama was dispositioned towards this ideal, which after the Ki-43 they pursued. Ultimately, as with the A6M, the Japanese industries inability to quickly design and then mass produce a proper replacement was crippling and the Ki-43 soldiered on long after it's sun was setting.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 9:33:27 PM)
Japanese pilots said to the press "yes the Hayabusa is wonderful" among themselves.. "Hayabusa is a piece of junk.. idiot officers need to give us the reisen" hayabusa's airframe was inferior to the reisen in every single way, if they put the same amount of fuel and the 20mm wing guns into the hayabusa... it would fly at about 280 mph aerodynamics were bad. very bad. japanese pilots wanted a fast + maneouverable plane without the large fuel load (in fact the Reisen was developed as a compromise between the fighter and long-range bmr commands) (if you read the history of Reisen development, pilots all wanted to reduce the range to lower the wing loading so the Reisen could have the same Mvr as the Type 96 but with more speed and gunpower, they also didn't like the wing cannons and wanted to just have two large caliber guns on the nose for better accuracy)

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 9:34:51 PM)
Hinoki here once again.. have to post to dispel the myth that Hayabusa was well-liked by the pilots... ...what really happened was the experienced IJAAF pilots took a bad plane and achieved some good results (like the poles flying the hurricane in 1940 BoB) [image]local://upfiles/28382/270ED5B89FA141DBB4DC3101DA9AC4A6.jpg[/image]

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 9:37:28 PM)
Ki-43 depressed.. [image]local://upfiles/28382/81216FD4A02D4A71AFED76053CBD4BE4.jpg[/image]

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 9:38:43 PM)
sad Ki-43 pilot goes on.. [image]local://upfiles/28382/11FED8C4E8314A7ABEB68E23E14B3494.jpg[/image]

Nikademus -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 10:38:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf Hinoki here once again.. have to post to dispel the myth that Hayabusa was well-liked by the pilots... ...what really happened was the experienced IJAAF pilots took a bad plane and achieved some good results (like the poles flying the hurricane in 1940 BoB) If you actually sit through the entire interview, you'll see that Mr Hinoki says the plane was quite good, easy to fly and had no vices once the teething issues were resolved and the plane design matured. His recollections taken as a whole (vs. the cut and paste job you keep reposting), despite being decades in the future, tend to track with comments and analysis contained in Shores.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/13/2012 10:51:40 PM)
Doesn't say a single good thing about the plane.. says he was happy to see that nothing bad happened when the squadron commander (Kato) made a test flight. Was happy when they up-gunned to 2x12.7mm but it was still totally ineffective, especially against 2E and 4E in burma. Finally he had his leg shot off and almost bled to death inside one.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eBmnpCO18 here, everyone can watch for themselves..

PaxMondo -> RE: Air combat (3/14/2012 12:14:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus [The A6M as a fighter design of 1940 was on a par with or superior to most other designs of the time, including the first versions of the 109 and Spit. Like the F4F itself, all started off unarmored and armed largely with MG's. Even the FW190 (the very first varient) was initially armed with IIRC four MG's but was quickly upgraded with cannon to combat the heavy aircraft it was facing. So i would strongly disagree if by "beginning of the war" you mean WWII in general. Even by late 41 the Zero still was a formidable design. I don't fall in with the typical discounts of the planes success anymore than with the pilots who flew it. Any side can be discounted. I participated in an intersting what if thread that asked about a possible alternate outcome to the BoB if you swapped it with another plane. My choice was the A6M. It was the world's first strategic fighter. It had the range that the 109 lacked. The 109 may have been more upgradable and could have armor installed, but without the range all it's other attributes were useless because it couldn't be where it was needed nor linger long enough to be effective. Was the 109 flawed? No. Its attributes simply did not account for strategic range when it was designed nor were drop tanks part of it's design from the get go. there were no tradeoffs per se for it being a carrier fighter. In fact it was the A6M that proved that a carrier fighter by default had to be inferior of flawed compared to a land based fighter. Later fighter designs like the F4U and F6F would further prove that. However the A6M design was tight, meaning it could not be readily improved or expanded upon. This tightness wasn't due to 'flaws' but due to the state of the Japanese aircraft industry which limited the total HP it's engine(s) could generate. Thus, the A6M could not be adequately upgraded over time, as were the Spit, Hurricane, 109 and F4F with self sealing tanks and pilot armor. The A6M design revolved around the 950hp Sakai engine and it's specifications were driven by that barrier, thus to meet all of it's specifications it had to be as light as possible with no wiggle room. More powerful engines allowed some upgrading but not enough to keep the plane competetive. However the Reisen's builder himself stated from the beginning that a good fighter design on average has a shelf life of 2-3 years then must be replaced by the next generation. Again Japan's aircraft industry was not up to the task. They couldn't even build enough Zeros much less deploy it's successor....the least worst course of action was to keep building an obsolete plane. As Jiro put it...."better to have an obsolete fighter in the air vs. no fighter in the air" This isn't a flaw in the A6M itself. In it's prime (40-42) it's outstanding combination of speed, agility and hitting power made it a dangerous and competetive foe. Weaknesses? of course. I am unaware of any plane that didn't have them. But "Flawed" is to me a grossly inaccurate term to use. Ki-43 was by 1942, more obsolecent in concept, something Nakajama realized which was why they steered towards the Ki-61 and 84 but it was not flawed either. More so than the A6M it was built to dogfight, something the army pilots were used too from their Ki-27 days. Initial production models had teething issues but once resolved the plane served well. The definitive Ki-43II version was a dangerous opponent but underarmed when asked to intercept the increasing numbers of heavily armored bombers. This didn't stop it from scoring success however. It stymied the RAF Hurricanes and scored competetively against even later 2nd generation aircraft including the Spitfire VIII. In Burma the JAAF was only defeated ultimately by sheer numbers and lack of support/reinforcement. It can be deemed a "failure" as an interceptor but it was never designed to be one anymore than the Ki-44 was designed to be a dogfighter. Often forgotten is that the Ki-43 shares a good portion of the success of Japan's initial thrusts....being misidentified as a Type 0 or "Zero" something that continues to occur to this day in modern literature. The Ki-43 gets no street credit. Yet more JAAF pilots became aces in it than any other type. Nik, Nice dissertation, and one that I largely agree with. In particular the Sakai engine stuck at 950hp. This to me was Japan's biggest undoing: inability to upgrade the power of their engine designs from 42 - 43. They got them working in mid 44, but by then they were already several steps behind in HP. And like it or not, HP/lb engine weight is what drives fighter designs more than anything else. Losing those two years was crucial ....

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/14/2012 12:48:58 AM)
Mitsubishi had decent engines by 1/43 Ha-32-12 (1850hp) Ha-33-62 (1500hp) Kasei could be put into the Shoki, Kinsei into the Reisen --> but they used some nakajima junk instead paxmondo has it --> need hp per mass for the engine Ha-32-21 delivered 1850hp but Pratt-Whitney double wasp had 2000hp (both same diameter and mass) difference was fuel -->with low octane fuel the same engine mass will give less power japanese engines were worse.. and even then they were not using their best ones

Nikademus -> RE: Air combat (3/14/2012 1:28:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf Doesn't say a single good thing about the plane.. Indeed.... [image]local://upfiles/452/05E1FAD5EBE0438DB5129946B31AB386.jpg[/image] As i said, sitting through the entire interview and carefully listening to Mr.Hinoki's recollections, I see some correlations between his comments and early issues suffered by the Ki-43-I as documented in Shores and other book sources, including the structural faults that could manifest when the airframe was put through extreme maneuvers and the armament issue. The plane had been rushed into service in order to fight over Malaya in time for the start of hostilities and had unresolved teething problems along with an interim armament. Despite said early teething problems, and variations in the armament, the plane was overall quite successful. The definitive version, the Ki-43-II corrected the early teething troubles and gave it the intended armament which while still weak compared to other modern fighters was improved and standardized allowing the fighter to compete with enemy fighters and with more difficulty, enemy bombers. The plane was popular in service though as the nature of the war changed the pilots realized they would need a stronger armed and better protected fighter to combat the growing waves of heavy enemy bombers. As with the A6M however this never came to pass due to the limitations of the Japanese air industry coupled with the changing fortunes of war. In Burma for example only a small handful of Ki-61 and 84 would operate in opposition to the combined Allied air effort.

Nikademus -> RE: Air combat (3/14/2012 1:47:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo Nice dissertation, and one that I largely agree with. In particular the Sakai engine stuck at 950hp. This to me was Japan's biggest undoing: inability to upgrade the power of their engine designs from 42 - 43. They got them working in mid 44, but by then they were already several steps behind in HP. And like it or not, HP/lb engine weight is what drives fighter designs more than anything else. Losing those two years was crucial .... Thank you. Perhaps the best analogy was one described in a book dedicated to the A6M. It referred to the image of a modern, sleek state of the art airplane ready for it's maiden test flight, being towed to the airfield by a horse and cart. It nicely displays, without derisiveness, the dilemma "modern" Japan faced at the time. A nation with one foot planted in the 19th century when it was an agarian society and the other foot in the 20th century, focusing on modernizing and industrializing the nation. There were limits to what could be achieved in so short a time frame and these bottlenecks spelled trouble because in the end WWII was an industrial war of attrition. He who can produce the most toys and keep them going wins. Quality is important...but ultimately takes a backseat to numbers and the ability to produce newer designs in numbers.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/14/2012 2:04:52 AM)
the entire sequence of praise.. at best he manages to squeeze out it was possible to fly the AC without it falling apart on you.. .. and it was still of limited military value people still have a number of confusions: 1) Hayabusa was more maneouverable than the Reisen (wrong) why is it wrong? in the historical config Hayabusa I had a lower wing loading than the Reisen II.. 93 versus 107 if you add fuel and the wing guns,the Hayabusa would be even slower (less than 300mph) Point being made: Reisen was to the Hayabusa as the Spitfire was to the Hurricane (in terms of airframe itself) due to much superior aerodynamics.. remove the wing cannons and the fuel from a Reisen and it has the same wing loading but 40mph more speed. 2) Hayabusa was what the pilots wanted, a light maneouverable dogfighter (wrong) why is it wrong? Pilots wanted to preserve dogfighting ability BUT also increase speed and gunpower, etc instead of adding more fuel... pilots demanded a super dogfighter for short range air superiorty . no european fighters carried so much fuel for long range in those days.. because it dropped performance... ..remember a Fw-190 long range variant only flew at 380mph Hayabusa was slow, pilots thought they were used as cannon fodder to protect bmr planes.. ... nothing ridiculous like the Hayabusa existed in the RAF/Lwaffe/VVS.. Europe was flying 400+ mph while Hayabusa was only 300+mph... Do not praise the Hayabusa, it was junk praise the pilots who were a few levels above the allies remember a french foreign legion with an 1896 bolt action rifle will beat a conscript with M1garands [image]local://upfiles/28382/C1AE5CF08D8647DAA6D46772D46173D8.jpg[/image]

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/14/2012 2:12:36 AM)
keep posting this.. but this is what the Japanese pilots wanted when the specification for the Reisen was made (taken from that book 'Zero Fighter' that you are talking about Wing loading: 96.3kg/m2 (same mvr as the Type 96 Claude) Firepower: 2 large caliber guns on the nose with large ammo (no wing guns with small ammo) Range: same as the type 96 Speed: 10-20% faster than the Type 96 claude pilots wanted a dogfighter that could keep up in speed with the european types, but had the maneouverability of the old fixed undercarriage planes [image]local://upfiles/28382/A1F38A8634674279BF6DE68EA7708DF5.jpg[/image]

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/14/2012 2:13:55 AM)
instead the IJAAF got this piece of junk [image]local://upfiles/28382/FE35F7CD85834A978A18B96F4CFDB0CF.jpg[/image]

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/14/2012 2:14:44 AM)
that book 'Zero Fighter' is pretty cool... but it has some ridiculous stats about the war and it mentions all the ideas i am talking about including the IJNAF vs IJAAF dogfight contest in Jan 1941[:)]

Nikademus -> RE: Air combat (3/14/2012 2:41:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf the entire sequence of praise.. at best he manages to squeeze out it was possible to fly the AC without it falling apart on you.. .. and it was still of limited military value You said he didn't say a good thing about the Ki-43. You were incorrect. quote: people still have a number of confusions: 1) Hayabusa was more maneouverable than the Reisen (wrong) Indeed. Please cite accredited sources. Baring in mind that "Maneuverable" can be interpreted widely, what has been repeated in sources i've researched is that the Ki-43 could turn even tighter than the A6M due to Nakajima's novel butterfly flap design. I've never seen this refuted. I await your information with great interest. quote: 2) Hayabusa was what the pilots wanted, a light maneuverable dogfighter (wrong) Japanese pilots tended to fall into two schools of thoughts: those who wanted a faster, heavier but less maneuverable plane and those that wanted maneuverability maximized even at the expense of speed and heavier armament/diving capability. Both Mitsubishi and Nakajima were hard pressed to resolve the conflicting requirements, more so when range was added. For the JAAF.....the pilots tapped wanted to preserve the maneuverability of the Ki-27 in the new plane as much as possible. Were that not the case, Nakajima would not have had to come with it's novel solution. Nakajima however had it's own views having seen the way things were moving in Europe thus the development of both the Ki-61 and the Ki-44. However in the end the Ki-43 design was heavily influenced by what the JAAF pilots felt they wanted at the time. This stands in stark contrast to your claim that "all" the Japanese army pilots hated the Ki-43. Your sole claim of proof actually supports the popularity of the plane. quote: Hayabusa was slow, pilots thought they were used as cannon fodder to protect bmr planes.. ... nothing ridiculous like the Hayabusa existed in the RAF/Lwaffe/VVS.. Europe was flying 400+ mph while Hayabusa was only 300+mph... In 1941? interesting. I guess this means the F4F, F6F and P40 and Hurricane were ridiculous. Spitfire VIII pilots found the Ki-43II a handful despite the performance edge of this Spit variant. All due to the pilots? Certainly the skill and tactics of the pilots factored into it. So did their mounts. RAF Wing co Ritchie felt the same way about his Spitfires and the Hurricane as well. Properly employed both could have done better sooner. quote: Do not praise the Hayabusa, it was junk praise the pilots who were a few levels above the allies So you keep claiming. I praise the Ki-43 for what it was, a formidable plane but with a limited shelf life given the changing nature of the war. I also praise the pilots. If your interested I can post statistics on the Ki-43's loss ratios during the SRA campaign and Burma. The plane gave as good as it got.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Air combat (3/14/2012 2:52:06 AM)
Main points 1) In Dec 1941, RAF is flying spitfire V, Luftwaffe has Fw-190A and Bf-109F4, VVS has Mig-1, Mig-3,and Yak-1 2) If you remove the extra weight from the Reisen the wingloading will be the same as Hayabusa (and be a lot faster) 3) people still confused between the qualities of the airframe itself, and how it is configured instead 4) Hayabusa I in action against the RAF Spit V and Fw-190 would be different than against hurricane and buffalo 5) IJAAF pilots wanted a lightweight dogfighter version of the Reisen since the Jan 1941 dogfight contest, didn't want the Hayabusa 6) IJAAF pilots were highly experienced and skilled and helped the success

PaxMondo -> RE: Air combat (3/14/2012 3:04:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus ... because in the end WWII was an industrial war of attrition. He who can produce the most toys and keep them going wins. Quality is important...but ultimately takes a backseat to numbers and the ability to produce newer designs in numbers. Agreed. Very much so.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875