It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Aircraft debates

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Ok folks, Fighter Master Fin has challenged me to a debate on aircraft, so I'm gonna throw this open to everyone who wants to join in. We're gonna start in WWII and work our way forward from there. Obviously not EVERY plane but we'll use the most common ones used.

The rules-
1. We're debating good vs bad points of each plane. Only provable facts about each aircraft, with sources.
2. Keep it civil. This is being done for the fun of it, not to bash one type of plane over another, or one country over another.
3. Only similar types of planes in each debate. Fighters vs fighters, dive bombers vs dive bombers, etc.

We're starting off with the Japanese Zero vs the Chance Vought F4U Corsair from WWII. Have fun!

Oh yeah I'm taking the side of the Corsair.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Zaphod58]




posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   
OK, but before we start... is this thread in the right place... Shouldn't we debate in the debate forum on ATS...?



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:53 AM
link   
It's not really an aircraft project, or a conspiracy thread, so this is probably the best place for it.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   
The Corsair is a very unique design, and one of the few if not only Gull Wing designs. This allowed it to have a high top speed and be very manuverable. The use of lightweight ailerons allowed it to have a higher roll rate than the A6M Zero, which was used to great advantage during combat. There are claims of kill ratios as high as 11-1 against Japanese planes during combat. Even if these are somewhat inflated, there is no debating the fact that the Corsair was able to outfly, outturn, and outdive their Japanese opponents.

The stability of the design proved to be perfect for dive bombing, as was shown by the continued use of it for this mission into the Korean War. The armament included 6 12.7mm machine guns, with 390 rounds of ammunition, and two 1,000 pound bombs or 8 rockets carried in underwing positions.

The Corsair design was one of the first and few designed for the USN during WWII that didn't use a liquid cooled engine. Navy requirements for shipboard operations were for a liquid cooled engine, which pilots didn't like. These engines were less powerful and had other design problems. The Corsair used an air cooled Pratt&Whitney R-2800-18W engine. The biggest of its time. To acheive more power from the engine Vought used the biggest propellor they could manufacture, which required the nose of the aircraft to sit higher than other designs of the time. However, due to these two factors they were able to acheive a 4,800 fpm climb rate, and a top speed of 425 mph, including 404 mph on one of the first flights.

www.csd.uwo.ca...
www.military.cz...



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
OK... Let's debate here...

A6M5 "Zero" was the first Japanese plane with fully enclosed cocpit. And also the first plane in the world that was credited with wing spars that provide high strength, but were constructed of light weight aluminum. Doesn't these facots prove that the "Zero" was a plane in it's own class. It's always brave to go out there and do something, at least when you are doing it as the first person in the world.

But that isn't all, the first Corsair model was only capable of carrying machineguns, no rockets, no bombs. When the "Zero" again was capable of carrying torpedos and machineguns.

The plane was also perphaps cheaper to fly with, it also had a very low oil consumption. The engineers had also planned the plane well. The armament machine gun and cannons were triggered on the throttle, not the control column like in Allied fighters. Wich made it easier to fly. And the fact that the pilot could see the landing gears when landing, made it much easier to actually land with the palne.

The new mode in the Zero, wich allowed flying on low-power settings, increased it's range dramaticly. That was actually one main reason why the plane was chosen for Pearl Harbour, they were cheap, the could travel faar, but still highly maneuverable.



[edit on 10-9-2005 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
The A6M had the turning radius and climbing ability to out manuver most US fighters, however it was so lightly armored that when hit it would tend to come apart. There were no self-sealing fuel tanks, no seat armor, and no cockpit armor to protect the pilots and no firefighting equipment.

At high speeds the ailerons would stiffen, and the wings were in danger of structural damage. This severly limited the dive speed of the aircraft, allowing Allied aircraft to get away from them by simply diving at high speed.

The engine on the A6M2 Zeke was only rated at 940HP limiting the top speed to 330mph.

www.csd.uwo.ca...

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Yes, that may be... But let me ask you the question. Would you rather take a plane that is highly manuverable or a plane that is very secure... I think that many of us would choose the first plane, in this case the japanse "Zero". Yes, the Corsair had better armour, but hardly enough to to repell anti air, so in that case it didn't matter how much armour you've got.

But let's talk about weaponry, as said the first Corsair model was unable to carry any other weapons than it's machineguns, when the Zero again could carry a torpedo. The "Zero" had 7.7 mm machineguns, wich were higly killing, the "Corsair" had "only" 7.62 mm machineguns. That might not sound lke it would make a difference, but it's still another point for the "Zero". And yes, the statistics show that the "Corsair" was a better plane. But they don't tell the truth. The Americas might have been better pilots, better anti air, better fighting tactics. Those statistics don't tell us wich plane is better.

My link



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
The Zero might be more manuverable, however the added protection of the Corsair meant that many Allied pilots that were shot down were able to survive and come back to fight another day.

As far as armament the Corsair carried six synchronized guns, with 390 rounds per gun, where as the Zero carried only two 7.7mm machine guns, and 2 20mm cannons. It should be noted that the cannons only carried 60 rounds per gun, so you had to be stingy with the ammunition for them in a protracted dogfight, or you'd likely find yoursef relying on only the machine guns before the end of the fight.

www.csd.uwo.ca...
www.military.cz...



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Thanks for the invite. I must say I can't really add too much to this debate as it is already very informative and well argued


I would like to point out though that the Corsairs gull wings were not for high speed and manouverability per se, as has been said, but for it to be able to use a much shorter undercarriage than would therwise have been necessary with its very large propeller. The benefit of this was in saved weight, which of course had knock on effects in speed and agility but I thought it worth spelling out as it was a deliberate design feature.

Overall I am with the F4U in this debate. Whilst the early Zero's definitely had the advantage with being so light and nimble, even early marks of the Spitfire were beaten with relative ease, any advantage borne of a lack of protection in the form of self sealing tanks and armour plating is only a transient one and once the ever improving performance of rival fighters has caught up (Corsair variants as well as Spitfire IX etc) you are sunk as ADDING these features will only degrade your aircrafts performance even further.

The big problem with the zero was the feeble powerplants that Mitsubishi was forced to use in them.


For example, bringing different aircraft in to explain the point, with engines producing 1,000 to 1,200hp allied designers could choose between range and speed, examples being the short ranged but sparkllingly fast Spitfire and the very much slower but longer ranged Hellcat.

By sacrificing the aforementioned protection the A-6M Zero managed not only to combine the speed of the Spitfire with the range of the Hellcat, but it also did it with less than 900hp!

Unfortunately, for Japan, as allied engines approached 2,000hp there was no reciprocal increase in power for Japanese aircraft and soon the zero was not only woefully underprotected, but easily outperformed too. At that point it was 'game over' for the zero.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Do either of you have a suggestion for debate part 2? I'm up for any era and planes.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I like this thread,
Corsair for me also




How about The Spitfire vs Messerschmitt ME 109

The various strengths and shortcomings of the Messerschmitt, the Hurricane, and the Spitfire largely cancelled out in combat. The Hurricane's comparative weakness in acceleration was offset by its extreme strength and ruggedness. There was little to choose between the Spitfire and the Me109 between 12,000 and 17,000 feet, but above 20,000 feet the Messerschmitt was undoubtedly the better machine. It dived faster than its opponents, but required much more physical effort to fly. The weak, narrow undercarriage caused many accidents, but despite this and the cramped cockpit, the aircraft was popular with its pilots.

Spitfire 4 me your thoughts



[edit on 11-9-2005 by Jezza]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
A couple of points occur to me about the two aircraft.

The Bf 109 (it was never called the Me 109, the designation change for messerschmitt aircraft is marked by the Bf 162 being followed by the Me 163) had a very poor canopy design that was not only more cramped with its flat glass panels by comparison with the Malcolm blown hood used on the Spitfire (and early P-51's in RAF service) and very restrictive in the field of visibility with its heavy framing but was also lethally dangerous if the aircraft came to rest upside down as its side hinged design made it impossible to open.

Despite it being an absolutely superb, even legendary, engine, the Spitfire was handicapped by the fact that it used a normally aspirated carburretor whilst the DB 601 of the Messerschmitt usede fuel injection. This meant that the Spitfires engine actually cut out when inverted or when in negative g.

However the Spitfire was the more manouverable of the two (but less manouverable than the Hurricane) and the Bf 109 pilot would do anythying to avoid becoming embroiled in a turning fight.

Another advantage of the Messerschmitt was in its use of cannon armament by comparison with the early Spitfires use of machine guns. Even with a battery of eight of them the Spitfire was forced to get up really close in order to do any real damage, though this was rectified when Spitfires began to carry 20mm Hispano cannon with the Mk V.

There's more on this but that was just me rambling off the top of my head.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   
I have found these comparison tables from the 'Putnam History of Aircraft' and they are quite enlightening. There are several others too if people are interested;



these excepts are copied verbatim from official reports of combat trials carried out during the Second World War using captured aircraft.

Vought F4U-1D Corsair and Mitsubishi A6M5 Zeke 52


The F4U ranged from 48 mph faster at sea level to 80 mph faster at 25,000ft. In the climb it was equal to the Zeke 52 below 10,000ft, at all altitudes above that the Corsair was superior, up to 750ft/min better at 18,000ft.

Below 230 mph the rate of roll of the two fighters was similar, above that speed the F4U was much the better. Below 200mph the Zeke 52 was far more manouverable than the F4U while above 230mph the F4U was more manoeverable.

General points

Do not dogfight with the Zeke 52

Do not try to follow a loop or half roll with pull through.

When attacking use your superior power and high speed performance to engage at the most favourable moment.

To evade a Zeke 52 on your tail, roll and dive away into a high speed turn.




And here is a comparison relating to our second match up;




Spitfire XIV versus Messerschmitt Bf 109G

maximum speed The Spitfire XIV is 40mph faster at all heights except near 16,000ft where it is only 10 mph faster.

climb The same result; at 16,000ft the two aircraft are identical, otherwise the Spitfire XIV outclimbs the Bf 109G. The zoom climb is practically identical when the climb is made without openeing the throttle. Climbing at full throttle the Spitfire draws away quite easily.

Dive During the initial part of the dive the Bf 109G pulls away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph is reached the Spitfire begins to gain on the Bf 109G.

Turning circle The Spitfire easily out turns the Bf 109 in either direction.

Rate of roll The Spitfire rolls much more quickly.

Conclusion The Spitfire XIV is superior to the Bf 109G in every respect.




[edit on 12-9-2005 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I have found these comparison tables from the 'Putnam History of Aircraft' and they are quite enlightening. There are several others too if people are interested;



these excepts are copied verbatim from official reports of combat trials carried out during the Second World War using captured aircraft.

Vought F4U-1D Corsair and Mitsubishi A6M5 Zeke 52


The F4U ranged from 48 mph faster at sea level to 80 mph faster at 25,000ft. In the climb it was equal to the Zeke 52 below 10,000ft, at all altitudes above that the Corsair was superior, up to 750ft/min better at 18,000ft.

Below 230 mph the rate of roll of the two fighters was similar, above that speed the F4U was much the better. Below 200mph the Zeke 52 was far more manouverable than the F4U while above 230mph the F4U was more manoeverable.

General points

Do not dogfight with the Zeke 52

Do not try to follow a loop or half roll with pull through.

When attacking use your superior power and high speed performance to engage at the most favourable moment.

To evade a Zeke 52 on your tail, roll and dive away into a high speed turn.




And here is a comparison relating to our second match up;




Spitfire XIV versus Messerschmitt Bf 109G

maximum speed The Spitfire XIV is 40mph faster at all heights except near 16,000ft where it is only 10 mph faster.

climb The same result; at 16,000ft the two aircraft are identical, otherwise the Spitfire XIV outclimbs the Bf 109G. The zoom climb is practically identical when the climb is made without openeing the throttle. Climbing at full throttle the Spitfire draws away quite easily.

Dive During the initial part of the dive the Bf 109G pulls away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph is reached the Spitfire begins to gain on the Bf 109G.

Turning circle The Spitfire easily out turns the Bf 109 in either direction.

Rate of roll The Spitfire rolls much more quickly.

Conclusion The Spitfire XIV is superior to the Bf 109G in every respect.



'Putnam History of Aircraft'
Mate put some more comparisons up. Very good

[edit on 12-9-2005 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
how about the F 86 sabre and the MIG 15.


When operating over northwestern Korea, in "MiG Alley", the Sabres' range restricted them to some 20 minutes over the Yalu, whereas the MiG-15s were within a few minutes flying time of their bases in Manchuria. Apart from the Sabre's range problems, it was also inferior to the MiG-15 in various aspects of performance.
The MiG could outclimb the Sabre at all altitudes, although the latter was marginally faster in level flight. The MiG's greater operational ceiling gave it an initial advantage in combat, yet although it had a greater initial acceleration in a dive, the heavier Sabre had the advantage in a sustained dive. The MiG's zoom climb and tight turning characteristics (except at high speeds) were valuable, but the fighter's good points were counterbalanced by such undesirable features as poor control at high speeds, a low rate of roll and directional instability at high altitudes. Its heavy armament (two 23mm and one 37mm cannon) was better suited to bomber interception than to fighter-vs-fighter combat; but the Sabre's six 0.5 cal MGs, while having a faster rater of fire, lacked the range and hitting power necessary for jet combat. On the plus side, the Sabre had the marvelous K14 radar gun-sight, which gave enormous assistance to our pilots, particularly in derivative movement information of enemy aircraft, which gave invaluable lead-time in dog-fights.

Sabres operating in MiG Alley faced large formations of 50 to 70 enemy fighters flying at heights of 50,000 ft or more, which the American fighters could not match. This meant that the US fighter pilots had to evolve tactics to cope with a "bounce" by fast-flying MiGs diving down on them from high altitude at a time and place of the enemy's choosing. The solution was the "jet stream" of 16 Sabres divided into four-aircraft flights, each of which entered the Alley at five-minute intervals and at different altitudes between 27,000 and 33,000 feet. The Sabres flew at high speed (typically Mach 0.87, so as soon as one flight was engaged by the MiGs the others could rapidly converge on the combat. The flights adopted a "fluid four" tactical formation, comprising two element leaders each covered by a wingman. So, although operating at a considerable initial disadvantage against the high-flying MiGs, the mutually supporting Sabre formations were able to meet the MiG's bounce with a vigorous counter-attack.

The Sabre's combat record in Korea was, by any standards, impressive. Of the 900 aerial victories claimed by USAF pilots during the war, 792 were MiG-15s shot down by Sabres. The MiGs in their turn managed to knock down only 78 Sabres. American fighter pilots thus established a ten-to-one kill/loss ration in their favor.

Documented postwar research indicates there were actually only about 379 US victories.

Whatever the actual victories and losses this was quite an accomplishment, against the odds.



[edit on 15-9-2005 by Jezza]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join