PDA

Archiv verlassen und diese Seite im Standarddesign anzeigen : A6M5 vs. Seafire LIIc



KIMURA
09-09-04, 05:33
Aus "Sie flogen die Spitfire" von Dr.Alfred Price. Verfasser mehrerer Spitfirebücher. Jemand hat sich die Mühe gemacht und dies in PF-Forum gestellt:

(Anm.zu einem späteren Zeitpkt.)

From Fighter aicraft by Alfred Price comes this comparative report-
Zeke 52 (A6M5) versus Seafire L.IIC
Maximum Speed.
The Seafire was faster below about 17,000ft; the Zeke was faster above that altitude.
At sea level the Seafire was 24mph faster than the Zeke.
At 5,000ft the Seafire was 24mph faster than the Zeke.
At 10,000ft the Seafire was 18mph faster than the Zeke.
At 15.000ft the Seafire was 18mph faster than the Zeke.
At 20,000ft the Seafire was 5mph slower than the Zeke.
At 25,000ft the Seafire was 10mph slower than the Zeke.
Top speeds attained were 338mph at 5,500ft for the Seafire and 335mph at 18,000ft for the Zeke.
-------------------
Climb.
The Zeke climbs at at very steep angle and gives the impression of a high rate of climb. The Seafire,
however, has a much better inital climb and remains slightly superior up to 25,000ft. The climb of the
Seafire is at a faster speed, but a more shallow angle. The best climb speeds for the Seafire and
Zeke were 160 and 123mph respectively.
Dive.
The Seafire is superior in the dive although inital acceleration is similar. The Zeke is a most unpleasent aircraft in a dive due to heavy stick forces and excessive vibration.
Turning Circle.
The Zeke can turn inside the Seafire at all heights.
Rate of Roll.
The rate of roll of the two arcraft is similar at speeds below 180kts indicated, but above that the aileron stick forces of the Zeke increase tremendously, and the Seafire becomes progressively superior.
Conclusion.
Never dog-fight with a Zeke-it is too manoeuvrable. 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.
---------------------------------
The SeafireL.IIC was powered by 1,640hp Merlin 32. Loaded weight 7,000lb. It had clipped wings for optimum low level performance.

Kimura

KIMURA
09-09-04, 05:33
Aus "Sie flogen die Spitfire" von Dr.Alfred Price. Verfasser mehrerer Spitfirebücher. Jemand hat sich die Mühe gemacht und dies in PF-Forum gestellt:

(Anm.zu einem späteren Zeitpkt.)

From Fighter aicraft by Alfred Price comes this comparative report-
Zeke 52 (A6M5) versus Seafire L.IIC
Maximum Speed.
The Seafire was faster below about 17,000ft; the Zeke was faster above that altitude.
At sea level the Seafire was 24mph faster than the Zeke.
At 5,000ft the Seafire was 24mph faster than the Zeke.
At 10,000ft the Seafire was 18mph faster than the Zeke.
At 15.000ft the Seafire was 18mph faster than the Zeke.
At 20,000ft the Seafire was 5mph slower than the Zeke.
At 25,000ft the Seafire was 10mph slower than the Zeke.
Top speeds attained were 338mph at 5,500ft for the Seafire and 335mph at 18,000ft for the Zeke.
-------------------
Climb.
The Zeke climbs at at very steep angle and gives the impression of a high rate of climb. The Seafire,
however, has a much better inital climb and remains slightly superior up to 25,000ft. The climb of the
Seafire is at a faster speed, but a more shallow angle. The best climb speeds for the Seafire and
Zeke were 160 and 123mph respectively.
Dive.
The Seafire is superior in the dive although inital acceleration is similar. The Zeke is a most unpleasent aircraft in a dive due to heavy stick forces and excessive vibration.
Turning Circle.
The Zeke can turn inside the Seafire at all heights.
Rate of Roll.
The rate of roll of the two arcraft is similar at speeds below 180kts indicated, but above that the aileron stick forces of the Zeke increase tremendously, and the Seafire becomes progressively superior.
Conclusion.
Never dog-fight with a Zeke-it is too manoeuvrable. 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.
---------------------------------
The SeafireL.IIC was powered by 1,640hp Merlin 32. Loaded weight 7,000lb. It had clipped wings for optimum low level performance.

Kimura

EJGr.Ost_Vader
09-09-04, 05:42
Hi!

Ach Kimura, die sind doch alle sowas von wrong, wronger geht's garnicht. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Im Ernst: Interessanter Bericht!

Gruß...
Vader

JG53Frankyboy
09-09-04, 05:44
Seafire , im spiel wirds dann die L.MkIII , gegen A6M5a wird wohl eines der launigsten matchups des planesets http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

macht jetzt schon einen heiden spass mit Spitfire LF.MkV gegen A6M5a - für beide seiten http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

".....- Dying is undermodeled, however."
from a former USAF A-10 pilot about flying the A-10 in LOMAC

KIMURA
09-09-04, 05:51
Ja gut, die L IIc ist ja ne VbCW mit stärkerem "Block". Also nossing niu on sä Sockenfront. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kimura

JG53Frankyboy
09-09-04, 05:54
doch, das die Seafire die doppelte menge an Hispano mun haben wird - das macht dann schon was aus http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

".....- Dying is undermodeled, however."
from a former USAF A-10 pilot about flying the A-10 in LOMAC

KIMURA
09-09-04, 06:04
hmm, wenn man in FB nicht mal den Unterschied CW/Standard feststellen kann.............. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kimura

JG53Frankyboy
09-09-04, 06:08
eh egal , da die Seafire L.MkIII in PF wohl nur mit normalen flächen kommen wird . die CW variante floge im Pazifik wohl eher nicht rum

".....- Dying is undermodeled, however."
from a former USAF A-10 pilot about flying the A-10 in LOMAC

yogy
09-09-04, 13:13
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
eh egal , da die Seafire L.MkIII in PF wohl nur mit normalen flächen kommen wird . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...außerdem hat sie im Vergleich zur Seafire IIc einen stärkeren Motor: Merlin 55, 1585PS http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Da wirds die Zero schwer haben, solange sich der Commonwealth-Mann auf keine Kurbelei einläßt...

Rata - ta - peng

yogy AKA Jög Wiedemann AKA 88.IAP_Pirx

http://www.88-iap.de/

JG53Frankyboy
09-09-04, 13:16
naja, laut dem bericht da oben hat die L.IIc mehr leistung http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

aber der Merlin55M dürfte wohl noch mehr auf das leistungsband bis 3000m getrimmt worden sein.

das nach 42 der gegner fast immer schneller ist dürfte jedem japanpiloten hier klar sein - also nix neues

".....- Dying is undermodeled, however."
from a former USAF A-10 pilot about flying the A-10 in LOMAC

KIMURA
09-09-04, 14:07
Die LIIIc ist ne navalized IX, wenn die nicht mit ne Zero klarkommt geht grundsätzlich was falsch. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kimura

JG53Frankyboy
09-09-04, 14:15
nein , die ist schon noch in grundzügen ein ableger der Mk.V.

siehe unterflächen kühler (nicht zwei gleiche wie bei IX) . sie hat "nur" einen 4 blatt propeller. auch ist ihr Merlin 55M keine 2 stufenmotor wie die Melrin60 reihe . sondern ein ganz simpler einstufen , eingang lader motor. nur auf tiefflug optimiert.

richtig äregelich wirds dann auch mit K-43 gegen Spitfire Mk.VIII über Burma - eieiei http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

".....- Dying is undermodeled, however."
from a former USAF A-10 pilot about flying the A-10 in LOMAC

KIMURA
10-09-04, 00:02
Ach ja stimmt.
Soweit ersichtlich, ist ja die Hayabusa ne Frühe - Ia. Lämplein gegen Powerhouse. Ich kann schon das Gejammer höen. die Spit kann dies und kann das nicht. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Kimura

yogy
10-09-04, 00:50
Korrektur / Unklarheit:

Eine andere Quelle sagt zur Seafire II / Merlin 55:
1470PS, v_max=563km/h in 3.800m (!)

Watt isn jetzte für ne Leistung drinne in dem Mk55? Die v_max ist bei beiden ähnlich und auch in ähnlichen Höhen.

Rata - ta - peng

yogy AKA Jög Wiedemann AKA 88.IAP_Pirx

http://www.88-iap.de/

JG53Frankyboy
10-09-04, 04:10
hier wurde auch ein interresanter bericht gepostet

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=969004517

interresant ist das der Sakae12 der A6M2 keine negativen G verträgt ! sollte noch reinkommen !
beim Sake21 bin ich mir da nicht so sicher - wird oben im test mit der Seafire ja nicht erwähnt, wäre aber ein wichtiger punkt falls es der fall gewesen wäre ! mal so in blaue: also wären A6M3 und A6M5 fähig zu negativen Gs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

die ausserodentlich miese leistung der A6M2 im test könnte von einer fehlerhaften Porpeller pitch regelung herrühren , die bei einem testflug später in den USA festgestellt wurde !


sollte dann auch nicht bei den Oscars vergessen werden ! denn generell haben Oscar und Zero den gleichen Nakajima motor http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
also Ki-43-I verträgt keine ng G , Ki-43-II hingegen schon http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

".....- Dying is undermodeled, however."
from a former USAF A-10 pilot about flying the A-10 in LOMAC

KIMURA
10-09-04, 04:19
Franky, Du hast doch auch Mikesh's Zero-Buch?!!! Ich meine dies aber im Vergleich mit der A6M2 dort gelesen zuhaben - oder irre ich mich??
edit: oder im Aerodetail Zero?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Wenn Oleg ein Cut-out einbringt, vielleicht kriegt die Zero dann die adequate Rollrate wieder zurück, die sie haben sollte.

http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/horn1.jpeg

Kimura

JG53Frankyboy
10-09-04, 04:29
ääähhhhhhhh, was genau ???

".....- Dying is undermodeled, however."
from a former USAF A-10 pilot about flying the A-10 in LOMAC

JG53Frankyboy
10-09-04, 05:19
und wenn maddox die seitenruder trimmung erst ab A6M3 Model22 einführt wird das Zero fliegen 1942 so richtig ungemütlich http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

".....- Dying is undermodeled, however."
from a former USAF A-10 pilot about flying the A-10 in LOMAC

KIMURA
10-09-04, 05:22
den Cut-out meine ich, ist der nicht aus Mikesh's Buch herauszulesen?? Habe es nicht zur Hand da auf Arbeit.



http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/horn1.jpeg

Kimura

JG53Frankyboy
10-09-04, 05:28
ja schon , aber eher nach den tests mit Sakae12 maschinen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

siehe seite 79 . bei den Sakae21 Zeros wirds nicht erwähnt - was ja ein wichtiger taktischer punkt wäre

".....- Dying is undermodeled, however."
from a former USAF A-10 pilot about flying the A-10 in LOMAC

KIMURA
10-09-04, 05:33
Hast Du das Buch zur Hand also! Das müsste doch bei der Motorenentwicklung evtl. drinnestehn!!??



http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/horn1.jpeg

Kimura

Zmir88IAP
10-09-04, 06:57
Gerade diesen exzellenten Link im GD gefunden:
http://yarchive.net/mil/zero.html

Wenn man dem Bericht oben glauben darf wird das ja richtig langweilig in der Spit.

KIMURA
10-09-04, 07:24
Franky, vielleicht noch nicht entdeckt. Test A6M2 vs. RAAF Spitty.

Section 1: Fighter Tactics
Tactics of Japanese "Tony" Type Fighter
1. The 80th Fighter Squadron has twice encountered "Tony" type fighters in combat, both times in the vicinity of Bogadjin. The first time was on 21 Jul 43 and the second time was on 23 Jul 43.
2. From these experiences with this type fighter not much information has been brought to light. However, pilots have reported speeds up to 400 mph indicated air speed in this type fighter.
3. One pilot reported having followed one of this type fighter from eighteen thousand feet to sic or seven thousand feet. A shallow dive was maintained all the way with the P38 indicating 400 mph, and during this time the P38 was unable to gain on the enemy. At this time another P38, indicating close to 500 mph, dived from above and succeeded in shooting the enemy plane down after a long accurate burst. Another indication of the speed of this type of fighter may be derived from combat on 21 Jul 43 when a P38 found the enemy fighter behind him. The P38 went into a shallow dive and was unable to lose the enemy when indicating 400 mph at low altitude. This "Tony" was finally chased away by another P38 who dived from above firing a burst at long range.
4. In combat in this squadron there has been no indication as to the maneuverability of the enemy fighter. However, the "Tony" has, on one or two occasions, shown no inclination to get into a steep dive when that action would seem to be advantageous to him. In each case where P38s have been on the tail of a "Tony" the only action taken by the enemy has consisted of maintaining a gradual dive with speed building up to 400 mph.
5. There are further indications that the "Tony" is not as apt to catch fire as are the "Zeke" and "Oscar". Although they have been shot down in flames in several cases, a long accurate burst was necessary to accomplish this destruction and they did not show a tendency to explode which has been characteristic of the Japanese fighter airplanes


Tactical Trials Between Japanese S.S.F. Type "0" Mark II "Hap" and Spitfire V.C.
1. Comparative performance trials were not carried out at the time and these performance figures will be supplied at a later date.
2. Both aircraft were flown at normal combat weight minus belly tanks.
3. Brief Particulars of Hap:
a. Take-off run - 900' using 2600 rpm and 30" MP.
b. Approach speed, wheels and flaps fully down - 75 knots.
c. Stalling speed, landing condition - 53 knots.
d. Rated altitude - 16,000'.
e. Combat ceiling - 32,500'.
f. Maximum speed at rated altitude - 335 mph, 2600 rpm, 40" MP.
g. Armament - 2 x 7.7 synchronized machine guns, 600 rounds per gun (Identical with Vickers). British .303 ammunition may be used - 2 x 20 mm cannons, 100 rounds per gun Identical to Oerlikon).
h. Figures shown in b, c, and f are approximate. Air speed indicator had not been calibrated.

4. Flying Characteristics of Hap
a. No tendency to swing in take off or landing. However, a tail wheel locking device was incorporated since the brakes were inoperative.
b. Short take off and landing runs.
c. Good visibility.
d. Stick loadings normally not light and increasing with speed. This is more evident with right stick.
e. Movement of elevator trim extremely stiff.
f. Rudder loading normal but tiring in climb due to absence of rudder trim.
g. Very stable stalling characteristics. No tendency to spin even in high speed stalls.
h. Extremely maneuverable at low speeds, rolling off the top of loops can be executed at 180 knots.
i. Boost gauge calibrated in centimeters.
j. Seating position cramped, rudder position to suit short legged pilots only.


Test No. 1 - Commencing at 17,000 feet:
1. Spitfire and Hap to approach head on and maneuver, without loss of altitude, until one aircraft gets on the other's tail.

Result:
Both aircraft passed at about 50 yards. Spitfire executed steep climbing turn. Hap dteep turned and was on Spitfire's tail within 2â½ turns.
2. Hap on Spitfire's Tail. Spitfire to complete 4 steep turns to left. Reform position and carry out 4 steep turns to right.
Result:
Hap was able to turn easily inside Spitfire. However, jinking was necessary to watch Spitfire and check on deflection allowance. Hap did not steep turn as easily to right as to left.
3. Spitfire on Hap's Tail. Steep turns to left and right as in previous test.
Result:
Hap commenced steep turning at 220 mph IAS. Spitfire was unable to turn with Hap., either in left or right hand turns, for more than â¾ turn by which time Spitfire was close to stall.
4. a. Hap on Spitfire's Tail. Spitfire to perform loop.
b. Spitfire on Hap's Tail. Hap to perform loop.
Result:
a. Spitfire commenced looping at 300 mph IAS with speed of 140 mph IAS on top. Hap had no trouble in following Spitfire.
b. Hap commenced lop at 220 knots IAS and completed two loops in succession. Spitfire endeavored to follow Hap and stalled at top of first loop and fell out. Hap finished on Spitfire's tail.
5. Hap on Spitfire's tail. Spitfire to shake Hap off.

Result:
Spitfire commenced evasive action by executing diving aileron rolls to right. Hap had difficulty in following this maneuver and was unable to get into firing position. Spitfire then did a high speed vertical climbing turn which Hap was just able to follow. Hap was able to comfortably follow all other maneuvers which were not carried out above 250 mph.


Conclusion:
1. Hap considerably more maneuverable than Spitfire at low speeds.
2. Hap stalling speeds considerably lower than Spitfire.
3. Hap able to turn and loop in much smaller radius.
4. Hap able to carry out any aerobatic maneuver at a much lower speed than Spitfire, e.g, roll off the top of loop - Hap 205 mph, Spitfire 250 mph.
5. Hap experienced considerable difficulty in following Spitfire in High-G, High-Speed maneuvers, especially to right.
6. At medium and low levels Hap easily able to evade Spitfire abd turn the tables.


Recommendations:

1. Do not attempt to dogfight the Hap, especially at low airspeeds.
2. If you have a height advantage, use excess speed obtained in your diving attack to climb vertically thus retaining your height advantage.
3. High Speed - High G tactics will considerably alter the disparity in maneuverability.
4. Keep your speed high. Don't stagger through the sky.


Test No. 2 - Commenced at 27,000 Feet:

The results obtained in Test No. 1 were confirmed and the following additional conclusions were reached.

1. Spitfire had an approximate advantage of 25 mph at 26,000 feet.
2. Spitfire had a slight advantage in rate of climb at 26,000 feet.
3. Spitfire initially gained speed slightly faster in a vertical dive.
4. The Spitfire's advantage in 2 and 3 are not sufficient to evade the Hap's fire.
5. At altitudes over 20,00 feet with a height advantage of approximately 3,000 - 4,000 feet, the Spitfire can dive and attack the Hap with impunity. The breakaway would be made in a vertical climb, thus maintaining height advantage.


Tests No. 3 and 4 - Commenced at 17,000 and 32,000 Feet Respectively:

1. No appreciable differences were noted at 17,000 and 27,000 feet.
2. A special Spitfire was used for these trials.
3. All maneuvers were carried out at high speed and high "G".

Results:
Hap commenced tests on Spitfire's tail:
1. In high speed flight, Spitfire was able to loop in a smaller radius. Hap pilot blacked out endeavoring to follow.
2. Spitfire carried 3 loops in succession at high speed and finished in firing position on Hap's tail.
3. Spitfire carried out roll off top of loop. Hap was unable to follow in same radius and lost considerable distance.
4. Spitfire executed a series of high speed, tight diving turns to right; Hap pilot unable to follow and was on verge of graying out.

5. Spitfire executed a â½ roll to right from 45â? dive at 280 mph IAS and 330 mph IAS and pulled out abruptly into vertical climb. Hap pilot unable to follow this maneuver either at 280 or 320 mph and finished up in both instances approximately 1000 feet below Spitfire and some distance behind.


Conclusions:
1. Spitfire was able to evade and outmaneuver Hap by combining high speed and High "G".
2. Spitfire required a minimum speed of 250 mph to retain maneuverability advantage.
3. Hap was able to evade and outmaneuver Spitfire by maneuvering at low speeds.
4. Stresses placed upon both aircraft during tests were not measured. However, the Hap pilot considers his tolerance in reference to blacking out to be above average.


Spitrfire vs. Zero
Report of Combat - 2/3/43
Duration of engagement was approximately eight (8) minutes from the time of first attack on enemy formation, which was well enough disposed for its purposes. The enemy tactics employed in this first instance were, I consider, unsound and based on false premises, and/or lack of experience.

When first sighted the enemy were flying in 3 sections as follows.
No. 1 E/A section comprised of 3 single engined L.E with a close escort of 3 Zekes at a height of approximately 10,000 feet. No. 2 E?A section comprising 4 Zekes about 400 yards on the port beam of No. 1 E/A section and approximately 2,000 feet above them. No. 3 E/A section comprising 5 Zekes about 800 yards on starboard beam of No. 1 E/A section and approximately 5,000 feet above them.
The positions of my own formations of 6 Spitfires flying in 3 sections of 2 aircraft in line astern, section abreast, was at this time approaching from slight astern of the starboard beam of the enemy formation, height slightly above the No. 2 E/A section , at an IAS of 230 mph.
The enemy made no attempt to alter the disposition of their aircraft though our approach must have been observed, but continued to fly as before at approximately 190 mph IAS (estimation).
From what took place subsequently it was obvious that the enemy considered we would not place ourselves beneath the Zeros, but attempt in the first place either climb away for height in order to engage the top or No. 3 E/S section, which would then no doubt have climber also, or alternatively, if failing to observe the top cover to move across and engage the No. 1 E/A section, thus leaving ourselves open to attack in the rear by No. 3 section E/A above.
My own tactics were governed primarily by our pressing shortage of petrol.
We had been airborne at this stage approximately one hour fifteen minutes mostly at altitudes in excess of 20,000 feet under fighter sector control.
My own tanks showed less than 30 gallons, which as leader would exceed that of any of the other 5 Spitfires. We were now 40 or more miles from our base on a vector and at a height instructed by 5 fighter sector, and a Spitfire at combat revs and boost uses petrol at a rate between 70 and 90 gallons per hour. Therefore it was impractical waste time and petrol in attempting to climb after the top cover or No. 3 section of the E/A section. To attack No. 2 section on our left, in view of the position of No. 3 section, or to attack No. 1 E/A section from astern, in view of the respective positions of No. 2 and No. 3 E/A sections would have been inadvisable in the extreme.
I therefore flew my formation directly under the No. 3 E/A section and some 3,000 feet below, where any attack from them must be preceded by such maneuvers as to give us sufficient warning to meet it. That is the Zekes directly above must either turn on their backs and attack vertically downwards, a difficult shot and easily avoided; loop fully as they are credited with doing so freely, thus going behind us, or losing height to turn onto out tails, in either case giving us sufficient warning. When abreast of No. 1 section E/A, I dived to attack at a steep angle from full beam breaking to the rear in a wide climbing turn to port and was followed into the attack by the rest of my formation. No. 3 section of the enemy, the top cover, appeared slow to appreciate the significance of the move and failed to get position behind us in time to be dangerous.
No. 1 E/A section moved herein to intercept us directly, but were not successful in doing so, and the break to the rear gave us enough clear air momentarily, to sustain the altered position, and at the end of the zoom I found I was well up in height in relation to the Zekes which had lost height after us. A diving head-on attack was refused by a Zeke who broke downward before coming to range. This was repeated in the case of another Zeke a few minutes later. I observed several Zekes firing on me and took momentary action, others not seem may have fired, but the shooting was bad despite liberal use of tracer, and the attempts at correcting aim were poor. Engaging in turns with a Zeke at about 180 mph IAS and pulling my aircraft as tight as possible, the Zeke did not dangerously close, until the speed began to drop, about the completion of the second turn. Breaking severely downward to the inside of the turn I experienced no difficulty in losing the Zeke. My engine cut momentarily in this maneuver. I observed Zekes to loop, to half roll and fire while on their backs, which, though interesting as a spectacle seemed profitless in dogfighting.
During the engagement I saw a Spitfire diving away with a Zeke on its tail. The Spitfire appeared to be gaining distance.
When leaving the combat area, I dived steeply away and was followed down in a dive by a Zeke. At a speed in excess of 400 mph IAS the Zeke did not close the distance and gave up quickly, though supported by several of his kind. The Zekes appeared to be armed with M.G. and 30 mm cannon.
To summarize, in view of the whole circumstances surrounding the brief engagement, and despite the fact that both height and numbers favored the Zekes, I regard the Spitfire as a superior aircraft generally, though less maneuverable at low speeds. In straight and level flight and in dives the Spitfire appears faster.
Though the angle of climb of the Zeke is steeper, the actual gaining of height seems much the same, the Spitifre going up at a lesser angle but at greater forward speed - an advantage. No difficulty was experienced in keeping height with the Zekes during combat. I believe that at altitudes above 20,000 feet the Spitfire, in relation to the Zekes will prove an even more superior aircraft in general performance.
It must be remembered however, that the Japanese pilots had been airborne for a very long period and their efficiency must necessarily be impaired by consideration of fuel conservation and fatigue.

(Signed Clive "Killer" Caldwell) C. K. Caldwell,
Wing Commander,
Wing Commander flying,
No. 1 Fighter Wing,
R.A.A.F Darwin



http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/horn1.jpeg

Kimura

[This message was edited by KIMURA on Fri September 10 2004 at 02:55 PM.]

KIMURA
10-09-04, 07:31
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
hier wurde auch ein interresanter bericht gepostet

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=969004517

interresant ist das der Sakae12 der A6M2 keine negativen G verträgt ! sollte noch reinkommen !
beim Sake21 bin ich mir da nicht so sicher -

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Der Sakae 21 erhielt eine neue Fallstromvergaseranlage, statt des beim Sakae 12 verwendeten Steigstromvergasers. Dies behob die Cut-outs.


http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/horn1.jpeg

Kimura

[This message was edited by KIMURA on Fri September 10 2004 at 04:33 PM.]

JG53Frankyboy
10-09-04, 20:12
warten wir mal gespannt ab welche "features" die PF Reisens bringen werden

".....- Dying is undermodeled, however."
from a former USAF A-10 pilot about flying the A-10 in LOMAC

FlKp_21Josip
12-09-04, 17:48
Die Seafire L IIc ist eigentlich eine marineversion der Spitfire LF Mk V mit Clipped Wings. Hat also nur einen einstufigen Merlin auf niedrige Höhen optimiert (gekröpfte Laderschaufeln). Die Seafire Mk III ist im Grunde dasselbe, der einzige Unterschied ist das sie faltbare Flügel (normales Profil) hat. Diese sind zweifach faltbar und die Spitzen zeigten nach aussen, was ihr den Spitznahmen "Gottesanbeterin" einbrachte.