Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: vonKrimm on December 09, 2013, 09:37:58 PM
-
Okay, I've got an ashhat over here http://forum.worldofwarplanes.com/index.php?/topic/24953-for-the-last-time-no-current-change-to-bnz/page__p__347008#entry347008 (http://forum.worldofwarplanes.com/index.php?/topic/24953-for-the-last-time-no-current-change-to-bnz/page__p__347008#entry347008) (stop laughing at me! WoWP is just fun to me, okay?) that is going on about the A6m2 being a better climber than the P-38F and I am asking for some assistance in educating him as to why he is mistaken. His sole source is this http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Informational_Intelligence_Summary_No._85 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Informational_Intelligence_Summary_No._85) and I know that that cannot be the only documentation for Zero vs. lightning in existence. Just point me at the materials and I'll beat him senseless with it; but if any of ya'll want to use it on him yourselves, feel free to join the thread.
-
IMO you shouldn't get worked up over an internet fight. You will never get him to say he is wrong or vise versa. Nor will you ever get the satisfaction of an "oh snap" moment if you can somehow change his mind. The Zeke had a higher angle of climb, while the P38 had a greater rate of climb. Without knowing the condition of the Zekes engine, the planes weight, the RPM setting and the MP it was pulling during that test, the exact numbers for its rate of climb I doubt can be concluded on that report alone.
Doubt I helped any but cheers anyway :cheers:
-
It might have had a slight advantage at low altitudes over the P-38F but the higher the fight went, the climb rate advantage swung to the P-38F. Keep in mind, the P-38F didn't have WEP and its engine power was hampered by it's cooling system. The P-38G, H, J and L models all out climbed the A6M2 and the other Zekes.
ack-ack
-
Peak measured rates of climb for the A6M vary significantly between tests.
An underperforming A6M2 - down by about 50 hp - did 2710 ft/min in US testing and was estimated at 3150 ft/min in another test. A RAAF test has the A6M2 at 2850 ft/min.
The RAAF also tested an A6M3 at 3410 ft/min. US trials have it at about 3180 ft/min.
US TAIC tests for the A6M5 show 3000 ft/min at low altitude. Another TAIC test shows the A6M5 as being as good as the F4U-1D up to 10,000 and around 600 ft/min better than the F6F-5 to 9000 ft. This would imply a peak RoC of somewhere around 3400 ft/min to 3800 ft/min. Other USN test have 3,340 ft/min.
The RAAF concluded that the A6M5 had a better rate of climb than their Spitfire Mk Vs at low altitudes. Their Tropicalised Mk Vs were tested as good for between 2700 and 3250 ft/min, so by implication the A6M5 would be better than this.