Author Topic: F4F-4 vs Zero 21 (Read 5034 times)

brady · « **on:** February 16, 2003, 12:36:31 PM »

The following is the report of a Zero 21 flown aganst an F4F-4 in the states, the Zero was recovered from Akutan Island in the Alutions and then repaired and sent to to San Diego whear the tests were conducted in Augast of 1942.

p.27 Zero Fighter by Robert C. Mikesh

" The Zero was supiour to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1,000 ft, and was superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, with the F4F-4 in neutrail blower, the two planes were equil in leval speed. In a dive, the two planes were equil with the exception that the Zeros engine cut out in in pushovers. There was no comparison between the turning circles of the two aircraft due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low staling speed of the Zero. In view of the foregoing, the F4F-4 type in combat with the Zero was basicaly dependent on mutual support, internal protection, and pull-outs or turns at high speeds where minimum radius is limited by structural or physiological effects of acceleration (assuming that the allowable acceleration on the F4F is greater than that of the Zero.) Howeaver, advantage should be taken where possible, of the superiority of the F4F in pushovers and rolls a high spped, or any combination of the two."

F4UDOA · « **Reply #1 on:** February 16, 2003, 01:08:02 PM »

I have a copy of the original report if you are interested.

Although I must say that the results of these test have very little bearing on head to head results of A/C in AH.

Not because of any great flaw in AH. More the result of what happens when misconception is put aside and actual test are performed with two A/C in a side by side comparison. In other words the manufactures don't always tell the real story.

Many on these boards put these kind of test in a propaganda catagory and discount the results. I think they are the BEST indication of the actual performance of these A/C.

thrila · « **Reply #2 on:** February 16, 2003, 01:18:31 PM »

Quote

Zeros engine cut out in in pushovers

Sorta like the spit I and hurri I?

Didn't know the zero had problems like that.

brady · « **Reply #3 on:** February 16, 2003, 01:45:13 PM »

Thrila, I have had this book for years but was looking through it this am again, and was very interested in this myself.

Another thing I found very interesting is that in the test the Wildcat was:

"There was no comparison between the turning circles of the two aircraft"

In AH they are quiet close imo.

Howeaver later in the book a pasage describes the FM-2 and the Zero 52, and the two are much closer in turn radious, in fact the heaver later model Zero gains only one turn in 8 over the Wildcat.

I realy wanted a more detailed account of the P40 vs the Zero but unfortunatly the P40F they had on hand was not able to do the test do to the fact that they could not get it to preform reliably enough to do the test. While the Zero preformed withought flaw all through the flight testing, which included matchup's aganst the P51, Coursare, P38,and p39.

Innominate · « **Reply #4 on:** February 16, 2003, 01:51:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by brady
T
"There was no comparison between the turning circles of the two aircraft"

In AH they are quiet close imo.

Between the f4f or fm2 and either zero, there is absolutly no competition in turning ability. The zero can get inside the f4f with virtually no effort needed.

Anyone know what model zero this was?

brady · « **Reply #5 on:** February 16, 2003, 01:54:54 PM »

F4UDOA: Somthing you might find interesting( i agree by the way):

"The mere gartering of flight data figures to be compared with similar data of another aircraft is often incocnclusive since flight conditions are not always the same. A true test was to have both aircraft pitted together under the same set of circumstances."

brady · « **Reply #6 on:** February 16, 2003, 01:56:59 PM »

Zero 21, as stated above.

I have quiet a lot of time in the A6M5, just since tour 30, I have around 369 kills in it, tours older than that I have had 300 or so kills in it in some tours, having said that, I realy must say that I find it handels pret close to the wildcat tunrning wise, their is no Big turning advantage, unless i use flaps, which on ocahsion i do aganst wildcats.

The A6M2, I have only some 39 kills in the A6M2 in the same time frame, some 6 or 8 of which are ostys, I must say howeaver that in the time I did spend in it that I was Very suprised to find that it did not easly out turn a wildcat, not at least to the extent that the above statement indicates it would.

My F4F-4 time is considerably lower howeaver, yet what time i did spend in them was with the knowledge that if flow right I could turn fight Zero's, somthing that the above statement would sugest was not posable.

Soulyss · « **Reply #7 on:** February 16, 2003, 02:39:52 PM »

I was a little surprised at the wildcats turning ablility. But I'd still have to put the solid advantage in turning to the Zero. Early in the fight the wildcat can hold it's own but as the fight progresses and speeds drop lower and lower the zero just keeps on turning and turning. And pretty soon the zero ends up behind the wildcat. Whether the difference is pronounced as it "should be" I have no idea.

brady · « **Reply #8 on:** February 16, 2003, 03:08:30 PM »

Well, I think it realy boils down to what plane you are talking abot, the A6M5 and the FM-2 behave prety much as i expected, and prety much as the book sugest's(and other books I have do), it is when you lok at the A6M2 and the F4F-4 that the turning issue ariese.

Innominate · « **Reply #9 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:07:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by brady
it is when you lok at the A6M2 and the F4F-4 that the turning issue ariese.

I still dont understand what you're talking about...
The only thing that can compete with the a6m2 in a turn is the val.

Hooligan · « **Reply #10 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:21:15 PM »

This thread is illustrating why opinions are so useless when comparing flight data.

Quote

There was no comparison between the turning circles of the two aircraft ..

In Brady's OPINION, this statement does not match the AH FMs at all.

IN Innominate's OPINION, this statement does match AH very well.

The statement itself is only opinion, and obviously an erroneous one at that. First of all it is not concrete. It does not say (for example). At stall speed the Zero 21 could turn 360 degrees in a circle of radius X while the F4F-4 only turns 240 degrees at a radius of 1.25X. Secondly the phrase "there was no comparison..." is dramatic and virtually content free. Of course there are meaningful comparisons that could be made. The best turn rates and best turn radiuses and turning data at a variety of set speeds could all be provided. If the report actually provided the comparitive data rather than saying it didn't exist, you could check the FMs against concrete numbers and have something meaningful to talk about.

Hooligan

Frogm4n · « **Reply #11 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:41:40 PM »

killing zeros is easy, just make sure you have alt on them, and if you dont make it dive. that pos will compress and lose all turning ability.

Soulyss · « **Reply #12 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:55:33 PM »

Well put Mr. Hooligan.

brady · « **Reply #13 on:** February 16, 2003, 06:37:49 PM »

Well I had intended to conduct a pissing match( i have a big blader ya know:) ) to determine the winner, but Hoiligan is totaly right. I gues it is a starting point howeaver to conduct a more in depth studdy, clearly imo....the Wildcat turns to good(F4F-4, or the Zero dosent(A6M2), Proving when and why howeaver is another mater interly.

Karnak · « **Reply #14 on:** February 17, 2003, 02:11:32 AM »

In the test of the A6M5b vs. the FM2 that I participated in, the conclusion was that the A6M5b dominated the FM2. If the A6M5b has the alt, all the FM2 can do is dive away and run because the A6M5b will never lose the E advantage and can simply BnZ the FM2, the FM2 will lose E on each break turn and will soon be helpless.

My experience of the A6M2 vs the F4F-4 is that the F4F-4 turns well enough that the A6M2 can never bring his cannon to bear on the F4F-4 and actually be able to see the F4F-4 at the same time. The muzzle velocity on those Type 99 Model 1s sucks. An A6M3 with Type 99 Model 2s would be vastly more leathal to the F4F-4, and more appropriate for most scenarios.

Thrila,

Only the very early A6M2s suffered from the negative G cut out. The vast majority were fuel injected from what I've read.