The Most Dominating Aircraft Ever?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Serb
I’m so scared.

You should be. :

Just tell me. When I call you a liar? I’ve never done so. I’ve just wanted to figure out something about people whom you interviewed. And you, btw, still don’t answer me in which circumstances you interviewed them. I was wonder, because in 1991 SU still existed and by laws it was restricted for Soviet pilots to gave interviews for American reporters, it counts as betrayal. I wonder if by modern laws in our military it is allowed for fighter’s pilots to give interview about Russian planes to foreign reporters. I’m sure that such things restricted in many modern armies. It calls security measures. That’s what I’ve talked about. So, if you want to convince me in something you should tell HOW you gain those interviews.

I see your history is as falty here as it is in airpower.
The Soviets fell in 89 sunshine.
It seems there is a great deal you don't know about, in a great many subjects, if this is any indication.

Of course, this is correct but this is may be applied to you as well.

I'm not the one trying to deny history, that is you snuggems.

The same I can do also. It is impossible to know everything.

Yes, but you seem to be going out of your way to prove you know nothing.

Let’s see, you’ve started it with words- Serb, stop being an Ass. Again, I didn’t insult you, I’ve just wanted to find out more about people you interviewed and I was chill during our debate. It is you who constantly insulted me with different rude words.

You will find, that your stupidity and argumentivness will often be met with such remarks.
If you want to talk about these subjects, stop waving a Russian flag and except the inferior performance of Soviet designed and built equipment.
This does not deminish thier efforts, but your acting like a baby, "no, no, you are wrong, they are great, all things Russians are great!"
I laughed at this attitude when the Russian communists used to do it, which was quite often.

Well, if you are 40 year old, as I think, then yes you may call me a child I’m 15 years younger then you are. If you are 40 you have right for this if no, then how old are you then? Btw, I don’t really care how you treat me.

Not caring about how your treated is a sure sign of ignorence.

Sir, Yes, Sir!!!

About time you showed respect!

Of course, only your sources are true, the others are lie.

Your the only one insisting that Russian equipment is the best.

You think that you acted like an adult? I’ve heard only personal insults from you and nothing more, you acting like child more than I.

That is an immpossibility.
Maybe you can tell us more about the great Soviet Strategic airforce of WWII, and how Serbian Migs cleared the skys!!!
Fairey stories are always funny.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Geting back to aircraft discussion, I can't believe people are dissing the Zero.

The plane was over-rated, Tinky.
The allies found a model 32 in the aluetions, once trials were run, US air officals were stunned by it's many weaknesses.

First off, when the allies came up against the Zero, they had nothing that could compete with it. The Zero was faster, more agile and could out climb the Wildcat and the early P-40s.

But only below 7,000 feet.
Above this, the underpowered Zero's performance drops off dramatically.
Sakai in his book Samurai talks about how Zero performance could not be over come, even by the most skilled pilots when fighting an enemy that knew the plane's faults.

Allied pilots were initially caught off guard and then had to develop tactics to balance the field, but even then the Zero held an advantage.

They tried to dog-fight it, as they had been trained.
Once they discarded this, it was a different story.

A couple of posters have mentioned that the American planes could dive faster. That's true, but that advantage only really applies when escaping. Even then, once the American pilot has escaped, he wouldn't had a chance to regain height on the Zero.

Actually, no, your off here.
A faster diving plane, if it has hieght advantage, cannot be intercepted.
Several Japanese pilots stated that they were reluctant to engage US aircraft at a hieght disadvantage, and preferred to move off and climg before attacking.
Also, dive speed can be applied in climbing.
A plane's momentum will continue as it pulls from a dive, this phenominon is know as dive speed climb.
These tatics were first used by Chennault's Flying Tigers in Burma in early 42 to great effect.

The inability to take on a Zero single-handed, led the Americans to adopt team tactics. The Americans also used hit-and-run tactics, particularly after getting faster aircraft. (And Chris62: while the American tactic was to avoid dogfights, this doesn't mean these air battles did not happen.)

They did indeed happen, with less frequency, as the war continued.
The Japanese had a tendancy to act impulsivly in the air, lack of radios often led them to engage alone (this caused the loss of several aces).
But the US could and did fight one on one at times.
Read about a guy named Butch O'hare, they named an airport after him.
He won a medal of honor at Coral sea in a wildcat.

The dominance of the Zero can be seen in the simple fact that Allied pilots had to change their tactics to fight against it.

Allied tactics were WWI in thinking, totall dogfighter mentality.
Once they learned to appreciate their own tech edge, it was game over.

They couldn't take on the zero one-on-one so they developed team tactics. They would avoid fights by diving away. Their only chance was to have superior height at the start of a fight, or to turn head-on and hope that their superior firepower would take down the Zero before they were shot.

Japan learned, as the allies did, that dogfighters are helpless agianst faster and better armed a/c.
The Zero-sen was a sitting duck to Hellcats and Lightnings, it's dominence only came from superior training and faulty allied tactics at the war's outbreak, once the design flaws of the Zero were understood, it could be dealt with.

The Zero didn't have the same firepower, but it was still deadly, particularly in the hands of a skilled pilot.

Yes, it could be very effective.

At the end of 43, the Wildcat appears and the tide is turned against the Zero, but for two years it was clearly the best fighter in the Pacific and it dominated the skies.

I think you mean Hellcat, and it debuts at the begining of 43.

[Midshipman]

I got about 2/3 of the way through this thread and I just had top stop and laugh. You can talk about how your country did this, or the RUssians did that, the facvt is, there is only one nations airplanes have been dominant in ervery war since WWI. US. I hate to sound americanist propaganda, but it is true.

Taking it from the top, lets start with the shuttle rant. The shuttle landing has to be computer controlled, because of the inherant instability in the design of the shuttle. Also, the shuttle can make the landing without anyone aboard, it's just that the US sees no reason to spend the money to send one up[ to space just to prove it can land on its own. In facty, almost all planes have automatic landing systems today, including American ones, including carrier planes. We built that system so wewll that we had to go back and put a flw or two iun it so that it wouldn't hit the same part of the deck everytime and where it out.

Now, onto the debate between the Su-47 (or whatever tyhe newest one is) and the 22. The 22 does exist, and is being built for full service in the USAF. AFAIK, the 47 is just a tech demonstrator that closely resembles the US X-80 in the 1980s. Also, I noticest one brag in there about Russians being able to build a plane that uses "stainless steel." Good for them. It's not as if stainless steel is a relective matierial that will show up on radar, and get the attention of all defense networks in the next four countries.

Also, you told us to ask our veterans of Korea and Vietnam about how well Soviey planes performed. They can't really tell us. Most of the time, especially in Korea, the US had complete air superiority. In Vietnam, the US Navy planes had an air to air kill ratio of 9.6 to 1. That means that 9.6 superior Soviet planes were needed to bring down a USN F-4.

Moving onto one of the Cold War's constant battlegrounds, the Middle East. The US trained and equipped Israeli Air Force routinbley spanked the superior numbers of the Soviet trained and equipped Arab coalitions.

We really couldn't make a comparison in the Gulf, because the Iraqi planes never flew. Something about they had to replace their fight suits because the had been turned brown.

As for your totally unrelated comment about coalitions, and the US needs one to make a move, I ask you - how close do you live to the ocean? Anywhere witin about 400 miles of a coastline, the US can hit you with a major Alpha strike. Anywhere else in the world, we can hit you with cruise missiles, or heavy bombers.

So, the next time you look in the sky, please remember who controls it.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Midshipman


So, the next time you look in the sky, please remember who controls it.

Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! The Martians, right?

You done with Pensacola Midshipman?

[Az]

The Soviets fell in 89 sunshine.

don't 'sunshine' people and mock them for not knowing their facts , before you're certain you're correct , Chris.
The soviet union fell in 91'.

remember , the gulf war, and the Soviet Union didn't veto the SC resolution condemning Iraq?



you dissapoint me.

you got carried away in the heat of the discussion.

( Serb , you made some mistakes too. They were a couple of pages ago... )

[Lancer]

I've given this some thought and I'd say the stealth fighter is the top all time dominating fighter. If you can't see it electronicly you can't shoot it down. In a time when air battles occur at great distances being invisible to radar is the ultimate advantage.

For the future I'd say the F22 will eventually take its place. It's stealthy and the competition on the drawing boards are either not stealthy or a little stealthy.

The US has and will continue to have air superiority for the forseeable future.

(which isn't even a nanosecond I admit)

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
don't 'sunshine' people and mock them for not knowing their facts , before you're certain you're correct , Chris.
The soviet union fell in 91'.

It effectivly ended in 89, and we both know it.
Don't waste my time with semantics.
More then a quarter of the republics had already declared independance at the time.

remember , the gulf war, and the Soviet Union didn't veto the SC resolution condemning Iraq?

The vote was held in 90, if it means anything.
US forces began desert storm in Feb of 91.

you dissapoint me.

Can't always be 100% right, you know that.

you got carried away in the heat of the discussion.

I hate Soviet sops and apologists, they detract from Russia's very real accomplishments, our "friend" hurts their credibility with that nonsense.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The plane was over-rated, Tinky.
The allies found a model 32 in the aluetions, once trials were run, US air officals were stunned by it's many weaknesses.

Stunned? I don't know about that. Undoubtably they identified weaknesses in the Zero's design, but they also identified its strengths. As a result of the tests on the captured Zero, the Hellcat design was upgraded to include a more powerful engine. That gave the Hellcat a speed advantage over the Zero. The need to change the Hellcat's design indicates the strength of the Zero.

Originally posted by Chris 62
But only below 7,000 feet.
Above this, the underpowered Zero's performance drops off dramatically.

The Zero had good performance up to about 15,000 feet. After that it dropped off, but at least it could still operate in high altitudes, unlike the P-40.

Originally posted by Chris 62
Several Japanese pilots stated that they were reluctant to engage US aircraft at a hieght disadvantage, and preferred to move off and climg before attacking.

In general, pilots at that time preferred to avoid fights where the enemy was above them. That was particularly true of the Japanese who, by initially avoiding a fight, could use the Zero's superior climbing power to get above the enemy.

The exception to the general rule was the American tactic of turning into an aircraft diving on them. They gambled that their more numerous weapons would take down the Zero before it got them. The reason they used this tactic was because there was no way they could climb up to meet the Zero because it had a better climb rate.


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Chris 62
Also, dive speed can be applied in climbing.
A plane's momentum will continue as it pulls from a dive, this phenominon is know as dive speed climb.
These tatics were first used by Chennault's Flying Tigers in Burma in early 42 to great effect.
[\QUOTE]
True, but that's pretty much a standard fighter tactic and one that could be used by Zero pilots. Just because the Zero could not dive as fast as the American planes doesn't mean it couldn't dive.

Originally posted by Chris 62
The Japanese had a tendancy to act impulsivly in the air, lack of radios often led them to engage alone (this caused the loss of several aces).

It wasn't the lack of radios. It was a belief in the Samaurai spirit of an individual fighting alone.

Originally posted by Chris 62
But the US could and did fight one on one at times.
Read about a guy named Butch O'hare, they named an airport after him.
He won a medal of honor at Coral sea in a wildcat.

I don't know much about this O'hare guy, but a quick look in one of my books shows he shot down 7 a/c, including five bombers in Feb/42, before the Battle of Coral Sea (May/42).

Perhaps you're thinking of someone else.

Originally posted by Chris 62
Allied tactics were WWI in thinking, totall dogfighter mentality.
Once they learned to appreciate their own tech edge, it was game over.Japan learned, as the allies did, that dogfighters are helpless agianst faster and better armed a/c.
The Zero-sen was a sitting duck to Hellcats and Lightnings, it's dominence only came from superior training and faulty allied tactics at the war's outbreak, once the design flaws of the Zero were understood, it could be dealt with.

I agree that the Hellcat was a better aircraft, but not the P-38 which was not as agile. Richard Bong's preferred the head-on attack because his P-38 couldn't compete otherwise.

Originally posted by Chris 62
I think you mean Hellcat, and it debuts at the begining of 43.

Yes, I meant Hellcat.

[lightblue]

Well I haven't read all the posts, which might come back and bite me in the arse, but...

Isn't a large part of the perceived superiority of the F-15 over Serb or Iraqi Migs due to the fact that the US Airforce has much better air-to-air weapons .

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by lightblue
Well I haven't read all the posts, which might come back and bite me in the arse, but...

Isn't a large part of the perceived superiority of the F-15 over Serb or Iraqi Migs due to the fact that the US Airforce has much better air-to-air weapons .

They have better missiles? OMG, you should edit this out before Serb steps in

[faded glory]

Originally posted by lightblue

Isn't a large part of the perceived superiority of the F-15 over Serb or Iraqi Migs due to the fact that the US Airforce has much better air-to-air weapons .

Yes. Thats the ONLY reason we kick th crap outta there airforces. If it came down to actual dogfighting. It would be more even. But its not. Its safe to say that dogfighting is part of the past. Its still goodto learn ; but every conflict a pilots chances of actually ever seeing the enenmy plane he shoots down is probably low.

[Midshipman]

Originally posted by Lancer
I've given this some thought and I'd say the stealth fighter is the top all time dominating fighter. If you can't see it electronicly you can't shoot it down. In a time when air battles occur at great distances being invisible to radar is the ultimate advantage.

I assume you are talking about the F-117.

Actually, I wouldn't mind going up against the 117. FIrst of all, although I don't think that many people realize it, the 117 is early 80's technology. It can be detected, either with the longer frequency of a long range search radar, or just burned through with the power of an air to air tracking radar. Also, it doesn't carry as many radar absorbing matierials as the newer bombers and fighters, rather relying on the faceted planes of their crafdt to reflect the radar image away from the receiver rather than mask it. ALso, the aircraft is inherently unstable, due to its design.

And, of course, its not even a true fighter, but a ground attack aircraft.

[Alexander's Horse]

Chris, your points about the zero really only reinforce the point that the Japanese didn't do much to develop the aircraft. If they had continuously upgraded it like the Spitfire and BF109 it could have stayed competitive. Instead, they seemed to have concentrated on developing new fighter aircraft, a couple of interesting ones appearing towards the end of the war.

It was a very sound "platform" and there's no getting away from its dominance in 1941 and 42. Everything the allies did was aimed at countering the "zero threat".

[Chris 62]

Actually AH and Tinky, what you guys are not seeing is it's a matter of design philosophy.

The USA considered the Zero to have almost criminal weaknesses (The two most glaring are lack of self-sealing tanks leading to explosions from even ONE bullet and no pilot armor) that no US warplane would have.

The P-40 could adapt and use it's strengths, the Zero couldn't.

They did up rate it, better engines and eventually self-sealing tanks and pilot armor, but it was to late by then, the design was to old, and lost it's two edges, speed and manuver.

Stunned? I don't know about that. Undoubtably they identified weaknesses in the Zero's design, but they also identified its strengths. As a result of the tests on the captured Zero, the Hellcat design was upgraded to include a more powerful engine. That gave the Hellcat a speed advantage over the Zero. The need to change the Hellcat's design indicates the strength of the Zero.

Stunned is the right word, theyt had no idea how vulerable the plane was to fire.

The Zero had good performance up to about 15,000 feet. After that it dropped off, but at least it could still operate in high altitudes, unlike the P-40.

Your data is faulty, it losses it's speed edge at approx 9,000 feet and it's climb edge before this, the un-supercharged Allison V-1710-33 powerplant of the P-40C doesn't suffer significant power loss untill 16,000 feet and then drops off rapidly at that point.
The Rei-sen A6M2 (which we call Zero for simplicity) engine was the Nakajima Sakae 12 engine rated at 950 HP, and even with refinement never exceeded 1200 HP, making it far underpowered against allied aircraft.
The Zero's performance loss at alltitude was first realized by Australian pilots flying over the Owen-Stanleys on New Guinea.

True, but that's pretty much a standard fighter tactic and one that could be used by Zero pilots. Just because the Zero could not dive as fast as the American planes doesn't mean it couldn't dive.

The Rei-Sen could not match many of these tactics, you see Tinky, when pulling out a dive you get negative G stress factors combined with severe osscillaton that can shake apart a plane, the Robust US designs could handle much more of this then the more delicate Rei-Sen.
A number of early WWII fighters suffered from this, not just the Zero, but Britain's Spitfire and Germany's 109 also had this priblem when attempting to dive sprrd climb at a gradient as severe as a P-40 or wildcat could.
The US P-38 also suffered from this till later in the war,

It wasn't the lack of radios. It was a belief in the Samaurai spirit of an individual fighting alone.

It was Sakai's own words, not mine, argue with him, but remember, he was a 60+ ace who was there.

I don't know much about this O'hare guy, but a quick look in one of my books shows he shot down 7 a/c, including five bombers in Feb/42, before the Battle of Coral Sea (May/42).

Perhaps you're thinking of someone else.

Nope, him.

He also damaged a number of a/c in this engagement, the Wildcat was a fine machine when used correctly, and it's service life would continue till the war's end.

The Rei-Sen was a remarkable plane, and did have some superior qualities to allied a/c, but the planes that fought it eventually got the upper hand, even the early war types, once they learned how to deal with it.

[Case]

The Zero's problems mainly derive from the fact that it was designed for meet a fatally flawed doctrine.
From their experience over China, Japan came to believe that low altitude manoeuvrability was the most important attribute for a plane, and that it was worth sacrificing armament, armour and engine capability to meet this requirement.

However, when the Zero came up against better planes and pilots this doctrines flaws were quickly shown up.

The 'Oscar' fighter was an even more extreme example of the fatal flaws in Japan's doctrine. The Oscar was probably the most manoeuvrable fighter of WW2, yet as it was slower and carried even less armament and armour then the Zero, the Oscar was an even greater disaster for the Japanese.