Which was better?Zero./P38 Lightning
Posted 14 December 2016 - 10:05 AM
Although the Lightning was faster, the Zero was a formidable opponent especially if they were flown by experienced pilots. The armament of both aircraft were very effective although the Lightning had forward firing 50 calibrate machine guns which gave direct line of fire ,the Zero,s fire power consisted of wing positioned cannon and machine guns whilst having forward mounted guns firing through the prop..
The lighting however had a high operational ceiling than the the Zero so I believe, but the Zero being far lighter than the the Lightning was much more manoeuvrable, although the lack of armour plating for the pilot in the cock pit was a disadvantage..the fuel tanks too 5in total two in each wing and one positioned forward of the pilot,gave the Zero a greater range.Although the lighting was probably more advanced and more technical tha the Zero, it was even equipped with a dive break /flap which the pilot would use to slow the P38 whilst in a dive to stop the wings vibrating.
Anyway just wanted to know your thoughts on this .thankyou for your time guys.
Posted 14 December 2016 - 12:09 PM
The naval use makes it not Zero the most likely opponent to the P-39.
After Midway became experienced pilots a rarity in the Japanese airforces.
The problems of the P-39 in dive was lack of response beyond certain speed. However this was way over the possible speed of the Zero, hence diving was a suitable evasive manouvre, whereafter the Zero was to be out-speeded and out-climbed leaving it with it's only advantage: The manouvrability.
I wish to underline that the Zero likely had forward(!) firing guns! ;-)
- [email protected] likes this
Posted 14 December 2016 - 03:32 PM
All the best
Posted 14 December 2016 - 08:57 PM
My 2 cents for this would be that P-38 has most the advantages over A6M. A6M had range and lateral maneuverability. Armament was effectively comparable.
However, tactically it seems that USAAC did not for long time appreciate what they had, but tried to combat the Zero's on their own terms. Same went with RAF and RAAF in area.
Prince of Heräkulma
Posted 14 December 2016 - 09:43 PM
Which was better? Zero / P-38?
Just to put a little twist on your original question I will answer it from a civilian standpoint.
The Zero hands down would be my choice. The reasons are the following.
1. Way cheaper to operate.
2. Much easier to fly and handles like a dream.
3. I imagine the slow tight, completely controllable turns putting a smile on your face.
4. If you are not worried about being the fastest kid at the airshow, the maneuverability is
5. I am sure I forgot about a half dozen other good points also.
BUT IF I HAVE TO GO INTO COMBAT WITH IT, THE P-38. PERIOD!
- Heräkulman Ruhtinas likes this
Posted 14 December 2016 - 10:18 PM
The original question stirs up another question. WHEN, what is the time frame?
First of all the speed advantage goes to the P-38 anytime during the war. The
Lightning was anywhere from 30 to 90 mph or more faster depending on model
The Zero held the overall edge until the P-38G showed up. The P-38E/D were
just not maneuverable at all.
Range: internal / maximum at economical cruise in miles.
A6M2 1,030 / 1,580
A6M3 995 / 1,585
A6M5 1,200 / 1,844
P-38G 850 / 1,670
P-38H 710 / 2,200
P-38J 1,175 / 2,260
P-38L 1,210 / 2,200
Edited by CORSNING, 18 December 2016 - 03:29 PM.
Posted 15 December 2016 - 12:28 AM
The A6M had 2 0.303" mgs and 2 x 20mm Cannon.
The P-38L had 1 x 20mm cannon and 4 x 0.5" mg.
The Zero's 20mm cannon fired a lighter shell at a lower muzzle velocity and rate of fire than the Hispano cannon in the P-38L. So the P-38L had the greater firepower.
The P-38L had the speed and climb advantage over the Zero, and by some margin.
The P-38L's dive brakes allowed it to dive more steeply than earlier versions, but it was still restricted. That may not have been as much of a problem against the A6M as it was against the Bf 109 and Fw 190.
The Zero had the manoeuvrability, but that advantage was best at speeds below 250mph IAS, above which it wasn't as responsive.
Posted 15 December 2016 - 06:50 AM
Thankyou once again for your comments .
All the best
Posted 15 December 2016 - 08:41 AM
Posted 15 December 2016 - 12:49 PM
The altitude of an airbattle aren't laid by any law, agreement or common rules. It is caused by the possibilities and willingness of the participants and as both the Zero and the Wildcat could manage 33000ft I can't see any reason why it shouldn't have been btought to the top and I've noticed that a try on outclimbing the Zero was a death trap as the Wildcat would stall before the persuing Zero, hence read between the lines: The fight above the Pacific was(!) done above medium height!
Service ceiling is irrelevant as the Pacific air war was generally conducted at medium to low altitudes
In Europe was the fighters of both sides equipped with superchargers wich caused the altitude of the airbattle to rise quite high from the very start as every pilot tried to exploit His possibility of gaining height - Leaving the arrived USAAF pilots as spectators from beneath as their uncharged aircraft couldn't manage such height.
However, the P-38 was the first American fighter to have turbo charged engines, and later came P-47 with a huge system of airducts for the turbo-charger in the Jug's big fuselage. The Mustang achieved only it's heritage after getting the Supercharged Merling engine fitted.
Ceiling is(!) a major factor!
Edited by Armand, 15 December 2016 - 01:25 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users