the things were poorly armored and because of this they were very fast. But the downside was, just a single round from a 30 or 50 cal cannon would rip them to shreds
Simply put, the Allies grinded Axis air forces with superior numbers, improved aircraft, better training and experience, harsh lessons learned from early in the war, and supreme logistics. For the Pacific, the IJN's loss of fleet carriers and well trained early war pilots was disastrous, losses they were never able to replace.
"Knowing yourself and your enemy, you win 100 out of 100" - Zhuge Liang (Chinese military tactician, 181–234)
Simply put, Japan and Germany did know (or overestimated) themselves but didn't know (or underestimated) the US.
Hitler should have finished the war as quickly as possible without dragging the US into it. Hirohito and military dogs shouldn't have attacked the US, a sleeping lazy giant. Only Yamamoto Isoroku in Japan at that time knew Zhuge Liang's age old advice.
Japan banked on a short campaign decided by early critical battles and get the US to negotiate for favorable peace. But it didn't work out like that. Even Adm.Yamamoto said that he could guarantee 6 months of his forces raging and winning across the Pacific, after that, all bets were off.
YouTube doesn't like posted links, but google "Nihon kaigun," enter the site, and hit the link for "War Production Stats."
I am glad that Japs got what they had asked for by gambling against the US. There are ones who learn lessons from their mistakes, and there are ones who don't nevertheless.
Regardless, the Zero was the premier fighter of the Pacific Theater until 1943 when the US started fielding better aircraft in very significant numbers. Also what must be taken into account is that Japan couldn't replace decently trained pilots fast enough compared to the Allies. Allied aircrews became more numerous, received more initial training, with better chances of survival (and gaining experience) compared to Axis aircrews (yes, incl. the Luftwaffe).
Mitsubishi Zero earned a good reputation up until the early stage of WW2 due to its speed and maneuverability. But Zero's speed and maneuverability were not obtained by any technical superiority but by simply sacrificing the armors, self-ceiling fuel systems and fire power. A big mistake by Japanese.
The US later captured and studied a Zero and got shocked to find out how fragile and flammable Zeros were. So, Zeros were called flammable paper planes by the US.
@youngk9lover Stupid plane? Speed? Lack of fire power? Good god kid get your facts straight, first off, the Zeke was in no way "fast" compared to most planes of WWII, second calling the zero "stupid" makes you look ignorant and like a 9 year old. The A6M was somewhat advanced for its era when it came into service, however very weak engines gave it a very low top speed. Also it didn't have good firepower? It had 2 20mm Cannons and 2 7.7mm MG's, great fire power in fact.
(1) Zero was considered fast compared to "the early stage planes" of WW2.
(2) Because of the weak engine, it sacrificed the armors, self-ceiling fuel systems and fire power to gain its agility and speed.
(3) 2 x 20mm cannons and 2 x 7.7mm guns were considered good only at early stage of WW2. However, most US fighters had 2 cannons and 2 guns at that stage. (For example, Wildcat had 4 × 12.7mm guns)
(4) U didn't mention the armors and self-ceiling fuel systems of Zero.
Jap pilots in WW2 also knew all these weaknesses about their Zeros.
That's why the US pilots got shocked to find out how fragile and flammable Zeros were. That's why the US pilots called Zeros "flammable paper planes" as easy prays.
In other words, Zeros were stupid planes, alright.
@youngk9lover You have some much more valid points there, however, having said that you just make yourself look immature and ignorant by calling such a beautiful piece of history "stupid".
However, whether a fighter plane is beautiful or not is not a focal point for me. Besides, a beauty is not important at all for any fighter planes especially at war. And Zeros are not civilian tour planes, either. That's why I call Zeros stupid planes.
In that sense, you look more immature and ignorant to me. However, I wouldn't call you immature and ignorant because that's your personal perspective that I respect. Thank you.
when referring to ki-44 I was referring to the entire "Ki" line. Which was the Japanese primary land based plane LINE. So yes, most of the F4U's would STILL have racked up kills against Ki's. Regardless of model number
nice seen it fly this year at planes of fame airshow 2011 my grandpa shot at a few zeros during ww2 on a usmc tbf avenger surpised ,slow big torpedo bomber shot once but still came home
F4u entered service/combat at Guadalcanal, 1942=1943. Current US fighters in late 1941 were P 43, P 36, P 40, some P 38s. The F 4u had protracted development and deployment problems and only got going as a late war fighter, You are right, the F4u was better, so was the F6F, The Zero was the plane that they were built to beat. Japan could not afford to build US style fighters, they were too thirsty and used too much resources.
The F4u Corsair was faster than the Japanese planes, more rugged, and an all around better plane. It entered service in 1940, long before Pearl Harbor. Also the P38 was much faster than the Zero. The differance was numbers at the start of the war, and the experience of the pilots. Once we caught up, it was all over. The Corsair had an 11 to 1 kill ratio over the zero. Several countries used the Corsair until well into the 1960s, not many zeros around...
@stormadj1 Corsair didn't come into service until december '42, and as a ground attack fighter, it seldom engaged Zero's, it racked up kills against mostly ki-44's.
Zero was only superior to early american carrier planes (F4F) and struggled against land based fighters, even the lowly P40.
Biggest difference between american and Japanese planes was fuel quality. Japan had to dilute their fuel so much to make it last, that it actually effected aircraft performance.
The Corsair was a fighter-bomber and not ground attack only. About 87% of all single engined Japanese fighters were A6M, Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-61, and Ki-84s. The Ki-44 Shōki amounted to barely 4% of Japanese fighters built. USMC F4Us first went into action in the Solomons whereas JAAF Ki-44s first deployed to Indo-China. An F4U pilot had more chances of meeting the other more widely produced types and therefore could not have "..racked up kills against mostly Ki-44's."
@mrcraig41 when referring to ki-44 I was referring to the entire "Ki" line. Which was the Japanese primary land based plane LINE. So yes, most of the F4U's would STILL have racked up kills against Ki's. Regardless of model number
If I had a chance to buy any one WW2 aircraft? The A6M5 Zero. Call me crazy, but if I didn't have to worry about being shot at, the Zero would be about the funnest thing going.
I hope they never take that aircraft into the air. I've seen a number of YT vid clips showing classic WWII aircraft crashes. Tragic when pilots are killed or injured, and another piece of aviation history disappears.
Its so rare...dont fly with it...!!! Its war time equippment. Its not designed to last to many flight hours. Its old by now..So loosing it would be a really big loss for the
air history!
I know..Id love to see and hear it fly, but is it worth the risk?
It's the only one flying with the rare original Sakae engine. There are two or three others that fly with R-1820 engines. All total, I see a list for 15 Zeros in the US, either airworthy, static display, partial wrecks, or current restorations. The same list shows 44 Zeros worldwide, with some only being partial wrecks.
Really? Why would you use an airplane solely designed for speed records to design a fighter aircraft?? Air racers were excellent at going fast straight ahead, but will make horrible fighters.
It is VERY unlikely some of Hughes' drawings ended up in Japanese hands in the 30's.
If anything Japan tended to look more at Nazi Germany for their designs, and their doctrines.
@McLarenMercedes No, Japan didn't look to Germany for designs before the war. During the war they did somewhat, as allies, but that never bore fruit. And they absolutely didn't look to Germany for doctrines. While the Zero wasn't any copy, it is perfectly true that Japan got their aviation technologies from USA. But they hardly "stole" them. It was an ambitious technology transfer program, which was mostly conducted openly (and paid for). And US didn't seem to mind much, before the war.
For anyone who want to own an old warbird, can somebody just put a reliable modern engine with the old drawing of any fighter back in the days? Why have to spent so much money to restore one? Just like a company in New Zealand did with the I-16 soviet fighter in WW2. I just dont know why it can be done? Happy flying!
@russiaviation because then the plane would not be the same ;) thats the point of having the entire plane in the original condition. putting a modern engine in one of these bird would be like putting a new wine in an old bottle. it looks like it, but by far it is not.
There aren't any "modern" piston engines suitable for these large warbirds. Most of the remaining large piston engine manufacturing ended decades ago. The only example may be FlugWerk replicas using the ASh-82 engines that were manufactured into 1970s. Otherwise, you need to obtain a pickled engine or build one, which IS expensive in addition to actually building the plane. Re-manufacturing the old engines may have be become a reality to keep flying in the future.
Continued..... Another example are the Me262 replicas which actually do have modern turbines replacing the original Jumo engines which are not safe to use for any flying example. (One project does plan to fly with modernized Jumos, though.) An engine swap is also not simple, since there is a lot of paperwork and engineering to be done before you get it certified to fly. So that won't necessarily reduce the costs. Aviation is an expensive hobby any way you look at it.
I agree with the commentators here who lament the fact that so many WWII aircraft weren't preserved like this Zero.
Apparently, much of the aluminum alloy they got from rendering down the retired aircraft went into the construction of cooking pots, pans and frypans - but at least some of it went into the construction of other aircraft.
True, range was a major problem for the Spitfire Mk1. But it was built to be as light as it's main adversary, the formidable Bf 109. Any heavier and it would have been shredded.
The range was improved on Spitfires Mk VIII, IX and XVI with the option of big drop tanks - but they were in short supply.
The Griffon 65 powered Spitfire Mk XIV saw range go from 434 miles to 750. With a drop tank, 1,150 miles. 485 Squadron flew these types as far as the Swiss border on ground attack missions.
The first Spitfire Squadrons to encounter the Zero in Burma (flying Mk Vc's) made the mistake of not adopting the tactics of the AVG P-40 squadrons. They thought they didn't have to - having outmaneuvered everything they'd fought against previously.
They got quite a shock - the Zero could turn inside the Spitfire relatively easily. So they went to the AVG tactics subsequently.
Arriving later, the Merlin 60 series powered Spitfire MkVIII bettered the Zero easily - but you STILL didn't mix it up.
@Merlin2Stage2Speed You're right on that one about the Zero: dogfighting with one meant disaster and the Zero pilot would be happy to oblige. The British felt that their "tried and true" tactics of the Battle of Britain would work just as good. They were wrong. The Zero could out-turn and out-climb both and its 20mm cannon did give it a slight advantage in firepower. Chennault was still right though: never dogfight with a zero. it's in "Ragged, Rugged Warrios" by Martin Caidin. Thanx.
@ClanHalo001 That depends. The P51 was designed about 10 years after the original Zero. The P51 was designed in response to a very different performance spec, particularly in range and straight line speed. The first and second model P51 were nothing to write home about. With the 'C' model it got the RR Merlin, which transformed it, and with the 'D' model it got the bubble canopy which further improved it. The Zero was an older, simpler, cheaper and much lighter aircraft.
@Kneedragon1962 straight facts: Zero first flew spring '39. P-51 flew atumn '40. Zero was operational mid '40. P-51 was operational early '42. So not "10 years" but rather 1½ year. And the first P-51 WAS something to write home about! And it was cheap.
You have the right idea though. It is important to recognize the time. Technology moved fast during WW2. Both Zero and P-51 were outstanding designs. The japanese had their priorities wrong though (aerobatics), which eventually became apparent.
@ClanHalo001 (continued) It's a bit like comparing a brand new king of the hill Corvette to an '80s vintage Z28. Or an early model Supra. There's no doubt the 'Vette is a far better car, but it'd want to be! It isn't really a direct comparison.
@ClanHalo001 Actually it doesn't "really blows". In terms of range*speed*climb*maneuverability performance it was incredible for its time. Zero's top speed was comparable to early hurricanes, spits and bf 109, while range was so many times greater it's not even funny, combined with great climb and an ability to literally fly in circles around those planes. It never managed to evolve with time much though, and it was fragile.
@Vermiliontea Well ya im just comparing to a p-51 which was made alot later than the this zero so your right it was amazing for the time but as time changes you gotta keep up if you know what i mean
And it kept its original colors. I heard the Americans repainted captured Japanese planes with their own so they don't get shot down by allies on accident. If I ever get a plane license I would love to buy and fly one of these, though I can only imagine how much they would cost!!
As a foreshadowing of things to come, it was noted during an American test of the Zero against contemporary fighters that the Zero was the only aircraft in the test that required no repairs, aside from normal maintenance, for the duration of the evaluation. Sorta like the Toyota Corolla of fighters. From a Budd Davisson article, I believe.
@dzdz80 Meserschmitt design for what became the Bf-109 was governed by the principal of the smallest possible airframe that would fit around the DB-601 engine. Performance took priority over endurance.
Howard Hughes claims the general design of the Zero was highly influenced by his Hughes H1 racer from 1935. However this was Hughes idea alone and few shared his view at the time. As a matter of fact other allied and German aircraft have some rather striking similarities with Hughes H1 racer as well.
The designer of the Zero claims he was not influenced by the racer since a racer and a fighter have little in common.
My dad saw a Zero at Naval Air Station North Is. I think it may have been the one recovered from Alaska. At any rate, I remember him saying that when the engine was at idle, it sounded to him like a model A Ford. I would say from this video, I would have to agree. What-a-know, dad was right again. :o)
My Grandfather used to tussle with these a/c over the pacific during WW2, and they called these planes Rice Burners, tell a war vet, who fought for freedoms we have today thats a racisct comment, spoon
Yeah most people only know the "big name" aircraft. I like a lot of the lesser known (but often better preforming) aircraft. Yak3/9. La7's, Ki84's and the like. Try talking about the Russian planes and people look at ya like "did they even have an air force in W W2"?!
They burn you AFTER they skin you. :D . God help you if you don't think the spitfire is the "most beautiful aircraft ever" as well. ( I think the FW190, Yak3, and the ki83 "Oscar" are).
Yea really. What I love is when they pump up their favorite plane by saying illogical things like. "The P-38 out maneuvers the zero at ALL speeds". They dont understand that all fighters have their strengths and weaknesses
Ki44 is one of my personal favorites. It was the beginning of the change in japanese fighter philosophy. Going from light, maneuverable aircraft to heavier, faster planes. But I will not sit up and say to you that it outdives say, a P-47
I... I don't think there is a complete airframe out there. I don't know if enough technical drawings exist to fabricate a modern one either. I'd love to see a new 61 Tony in the air. Probably never happen. :( . We as the Allies were pretty good at eliminating the aircraft of the conquered.... Foolishly. :( .
King Cobra? I bet folk give ya a hard time over that favorite, it wasn't as bad as people make out either. I know I get it over my favorite American plane which is the lowly Brewster Buffalo, seems like all my real favorites are foreign aircraft. I like the Buffalo though, it reminds my of a fat satisfied cat. :D
Yea they were sold to and flown notably by chinese pilots along side the AVG. American pilot accounts say it outperforms the p-40 at high altitude. I am guessing at low altitude it was vice versa. But I really like the way the plane looks
There is an ongoing project to build several flyable Ki-61 aircraft. I don't have any current status. This is also a complete Ki-61 on display in Japan. In addition there are a few Kawasaki types or partial wreckage on display in the US, UK, China, and Australia.
The zero got all the cred due to being infamous. The Ki84 was a totally superior fighter to the Zero but relatively few of them were made. The Supermarine Spitfure may get all the focus as the plane that saved the battle of Britain in 1940, but in reality 5/7 of all German planes were shot down by Hawker Hurricanes, the workhorse of that battle.
Also there were more B24 liberators than B17's but the B17 got all the headlines.
The Japanese legend...should have saved more of these WW2 planes from being cut-up at the end of WW2...only if...now we could have more of these planes in flyable condition...
they quickly became obsolete when the jets appeared and were quickly phased out. besides there was a great shortage in materials in many countries after WW2 and the war was over. so it makes perfect sense many planes became tin cans
many german military uniforms were stripped of their markings and became working uniforms after the war
@McLarenMercedes Most unfortunately, you are absolutely correct. The same with great classic architecture & estates. Places that would have been worth their weight in gold over time, also like the great classic aircraft...were out of fashion & sold only for land value...as the aircraft for scrap value...very short sited...and the sign of the times I suppose.
@mbandarra3 I think people forget that back then these things were a memory of death and destruction people wanted to forget. It was still very raw, not like today when we 'look back through rose tinted glasses'. It's like saying we should keep some tanks that were in the battle of Fallujah. I agree with you though we should of kept more Japanese and german aircraft in particular.
@dzdz80 They should save the blueprint (or whatever the design drawing is called) of the plane, the blueprint (or whatever it's called) of the engine, and 3 airframes after a war.
@JaleelJohanson62 I believe tooling exists to manufacture a new Zero if you have the cash. There was a project to recreate the airframes and I'm quite sure one flew and parts probably exist for 2 more. Was it Blayde Manufacturing?
@JaleelJohanson62 Well it certainly was true as I visited their workshops a number of years back at Carman, Manitoba. The project then moved to the US and the first aircraft was finished and flown. It is referred to as a restoration but the aircraft was wholly constructed around a data plate. It was in effect a new Zero. There is nothing unusual in that routine as there are many aircraft that have virtually no components from the original other than the maker's plate.
@schlusselmensch I only added the 'if true' part because you originally said you believed the tooling existed. Since it exists, then yes, I agree it's simply a newly manufactured Zero and every bit as 'real' as the originals.
More than on Zero survives, but I think only one flies with the original Sakae engine while the others have R-1820s or similar. I am a firm believer that all remaining wreckage that are not war graves should be gathered up from remote areas to either be put in museums or for restorations before it is either stolen for scrap metal or just rots away like much of it is doing.
you can't push to much on zero, it will rip its wings. the air frame of zero is too thin but because of it, zero is faster than any allied warbird in earlier time.
Lascalpab a zero couldn't dive as skin was to thin and would distort, it lacked speed, so it could turn big deal...ask any ballied pilot if they'd trade seats in a spit or P-51 with a death trap zero?
trainasia: NO allied aircraft danced around the Zero. including Spitfire and P-51.
The advantages of the allied planes: speed, armour, firepower. Orders were NOT to dogfigth Zeros, but use the "boom and zoom" technique: Zoom in from above, shoot, zoom out, repeat if need be.
A Zero would loop in a radius of 150 yards. A Spit pilot recalled the day when had a Zero in his sights and suddenly it disappeared and popped out on his six in a matter of seconds. The speed of his Spitire saved his ass..
Zero was fast but the P51 would dance around the Zeke with a cigar and one eye close with no problem. But if you are talking about the P40, then may be it is true, train, you give us trains guys a bad name!
Forcing your enemy to fight the way your machine has an advantage is the best policy. Claire Lee Chennau is second to none when it comes to tactics, something the Army Air Corps failed to realize until later in the war.
The P-40 had major advantages that made it better than the Zero. Armor, self-sealing fuel tanks and superior speed. Later models of the P-40 were comparable in many ways to later models of the A6M. Ruggedness is a big factor too.
The zero had no amour,no self sealing gas tanks and the p 40 in air 2 air combat had a higher kill ratio than the zero.You add the superior training of the P 40 pilots,the havoc of the six 50 caliber machine guns, nearly a 100 mph top speed over the zero,armor, and that shark paint job was scary as all hell if it was on your ass.You add all that together and the kill against Japanese planes was a 70 to one ratio and you have a plane that can be a hell of asset but its only as good as the pilot
There are a few Zero copies made from T6's out there, a trend started by the CAF. There are a few original Zero's that have been restored also, but this is the only one with an authentic and correct engine.
for all you idiots the japanese zero was the fastest plane in WW2 beacuse of its light armor, it has 2 20mm type 99 cannons and 2 7.7 mm machine guns and could also carry 2 100 pound bombs. and any of you who say it was the P-51D mustang that was the fastest it wasnt till the british put a rolls royce engine in it that made it fast.
and?... P-51D was stil faster then the zero. And ta152h was the fastest piston engined fighter of the time.(760 km/h - 472 mph) Altough its production never exceeded 40 something planes. (760 km/h - 472 mph) Zero was fast at the begginning of the war but as the time passed allied forces catched up.
The Zero had one of the best turning rates and a very good rate of climb due to it's light weight. Many Allied and Axis ac were faster in level flight and dive speed.
the zeros were so fast because of its light armor, but because of the planes light armor it was destroyed faster. but because it was so light they could pull up and the ally planes would try to follow then stall giving the zero time to make the kill. to make it easier to say its fast because its light lol
the things were poorly armored and because of this they were very fast. But the downside was, just a single round from a 30 or 50 cal cannon would rip them to shreds
sammy2trees 1 month ago
Sound on the right channel is broken!
Director84 2 months ago
Can this thing still fly? I mean, we gotta hear that in the air
UUUOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM
nzigen31 3 months ago
@nzigen31 Yes, it can!
MrAnton275 2 months ago
Simply put, the Allies grinded Axis air forces with superior numbers, improved aircraft, better training and experience, harsh lessons learned from early in the war, and supreme logistics. For the Pacific, the IJN's loss of fleet carriers and well trained early war pilots was disastrous, losses they were never able to replace.
Warmaker01 3 months ago
@Warmaker01
"Knowing yourself and your enemy, you win 100 out of 100" - Zhuge Liang (Chinese military tactician, 181–234)
Simply put, Japan and Germany did know (or overestimated) themselves but didn't know (or underestimated) the US.
Hitler should have finished the war as quickly as possible without dragging the US into it. Hirohito and military dogs shouldn't have attacked the US, a sleeping lazy giant. Only Yamamoto Isoroku in Japan at that time knew Zhuge Liang's age old advice.
youngk9lover 3 months ago
@youngk9lover
Japan banked on a short campaign decided by early critical battles and get the US to negotiate for favorable peace. But it didn't work out like that. Even Adm.Yamamoto said that he could guarantee 6 months of his forces raging and winning across the Pacific, after that, all bets were off.
YouTube doesn't like posted links, but google "Nihon kaigun," enter the site, and hit the link for "War Production Stats."
Warmaker01 3 months ago
@youngk9lover aren't u glad it didn't happen that way.
hotlava777 2 months ago
@hotlava777
I am glad that Japs got what they had asked for by gambling against the US. There are ones who learn lessons from their mistakes, and there are ones who don't nevertheless.
youngk9lover 2 months ago
Regardless, the Zero was the premier fighter of the Pacific Theater until 1943 when the US started fielding better aircraft in very significant numbers. Also what must be taken into account is that Japan couldn't replace decently trained pilots fast enough compared to the Allies. Allied aircrews became more numerous, received more initial training, with better chances of survival (and gaining experience) compared to Axis aircrews (yes, incl. the Luftwaffe).
Warmaker01 3 months ago
top.
JonnyChannel 3 months ago
Stupid plane made by Japanese.
Mitsubishi Zero earned a good reputation up until the early stage of WW2 due to its speed and maneuverability. But Zero's speed and maneuverability were not obtained by any technical superiority but by simply sacrificing the armors, self-ceiling fuel systems and fire power. A big mistake by Japanese.
The US later captured and studied a Zero and got shocked to find out how fragile and flammable Zeros were. So, Zeros were called flammable paper planes by the US.
youngk9lover 4 months ago
@youngk9lover Stupid plane? Speed? Lack of fire power? Good god kid get your facts straight, first off, the Zeke was in no way "fast" compared to most planes of WWII, second calling the zero "stupid" makes you look ignorant and like a 9 year old. The A6M was somewhat advanced for its era when it came into service, however very weak engines gave it a very low top speed. Also it didn't have good firepower? It had 2 20mm Cannons and 2 7.7mm MG's, great fire power in fact.
TheSoloPilot 4 months ago
@TheSoloPilot
(1) Zero was considered fast compared to "the early stage planes" of WW2.
(2) Because of the weak engine, it sacrificed the armors, self-ceiling fuel systems and fire power to gain its agility and speed.
(3) 2 x 20mm cannons and 2 x 7.7mm guns were considered good only at early stage of WW2. However, most US fighters had 2 cannons and 2 guns at that stage. (For example, Wildcat had 4 × 12.7mm guns)
(4) U didn't mention the armors and self-ceiling fuel systems of Zero.
Stupid plane.
youngk9lover 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSoloPilot
Jap pilots in WW2 also knew all these weaknesses about their Zeros.
That's why the US pilots got shocked to find out how fragile and flammable Zeros were. That's why the US pilots called Zeros "flammable paper planes" as easy prays.
In other words, Zeros were stupid planes, alright.
youngk9lover 4 months ago
@youngk9lover You have some much more valid points there, however, having said that you just make yourself look immature and ignorant by calling such a beautiful piece of history "stupid".
TheSoloPilot 4 months ago
@TheSoloPilot
I respect your personal point of view on Zeros.
However, whether a fighter plane is beautiful or not is not a focal point for me. Besides, a beauty is not important at all for any fighter planes especially at war. And Zeros are not civilian tour planes, either. That's why I call Zeros stupid planes.
In that sense, you look more immature and ignorant to me. However, I wouldn't call you immature and ignorant because that's your personal perspective that I respect. Thank you.
youngk9lover 4 months ago
when referring to ki-44 I was referring to the entire "Ki" line. Which was the Japanese primary land based plane LINE. So yes, most of the F4U's would STILL have racked up kills against Ki's. Regardless of model number
OneEyeWonderWeasil 5 months ago
nice seen it fly this year at planes of fame airshow 2011 my grandpa shot at a few zeros during ww2 on a usmc tbf avenger surpised ,slow big torpedo bomber shot once but still came home
1JOHNBOY213 6 months ago
The engine sound realy like them ancestor, the Gnome Rhone 14K : Japan buy the license before the war , and improve it more and more...
oiseautempete 6 months ago
F4u entered service/combat at Guadalcanal, 1942=1943. Current US fighters in late 1941 were P 43, P 36, P 40, some P 38s. The F 4u had protracted development and deployment problems and only got going as a late war fighter, You are right, the F4u was better, so was the F6F, The Zero was the plane that they were built to beat. Japan could not afford to build US style fighters, they were too thirsty and used too much resources.
beowulf342000 7 months ago
The F4u Corsair was faster than the Japanese planes, more rugged, and an all around better plane. It entered service in 1940, long before Pearl Harbor. Also the P38 was much faster than the Zero. The differance was numbers at the start of the war, and the experience of the pilots. Once we caught up, it was all over. The Corsair had an 11 to 1 kill ratio over the zero. Several countries used the Corsair until well into the 1960s, not many zeros around...
stormadj1 7 months ago
@stormadj1 Corsair didn't come into service until december '42, and as a ground attack fighter, it seldom engaged Zero's, it racked up kills against mostly ki-44's.
Zero was only superior to early american carrier planes (F4F) and struggled against land based fighters, even the lowly P40.
Biggest difference between american and Japanese planes was fuel quality. Japan had to dilute their fuel so much to make it last, that it actually effected aircraft performance.
OneEyeWonderWeasil 6 months ago
@OneEyeWonderWeasil
The Corsair was a fighter-bomber and not ground attack only. About 87% of all single engined Japanese fighters were A6M, Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-61, and Ki-84s. The Ki-44 Shōki amounted to barely 4% of Japanese fighters built. USMC F4Us first went into action in the Solomons whereas JAAF Ki-44s first deployed to Indo-China. An F4U pilot had more chances of meeting the other more widely produced types and therefore could not have "..racked up kills against mostly Ki-44's."
mrcraig41 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrcraig41 when referring to ki-44 I was referring to the entire "Ki" line. Which was the Japanese primary land based plane LINE. So yes, most of the F4U's would STILL have racked up kills against Ki's. Regardless of model number
OneEyeWonderWeasil 5 months ago
serious awesome plane, could outclimb most US junk
germanysjim 8 months ago 2
@germanysjim out climb, sure...but most were flown into something solid ...like buildings, ships, etc..
bwild61 6 months ago
that is until america brought the hell cat fighter plane?
TheDegree777 8 months ago
I wish my car still started 70 years after fabrication... great restoration!
viclope 8 months ago
If I had a chance to buy any one WW2 aircraft? The A6M5 Zero. Call me crazy, but if I didn't have to worry about being shot at, the Zero would be about the funnest thing going.
Bassdaddy404 8 months ago
Just Beatiful Aircaft!
M1993G 8 months ago
ok nevermind bout the dealer thing i read the description now. i will subscrube btw
jlsniper1 9 months ago
that.. was just beutifull (by the way what was it doing in a dealer; i think thats a dealer)
jlsniper1 9 months ago
one of the most beautiful airplanes of the 2 WW
EFODERFIX 9 months ago
BANZAI!!!
supergian1977 9 months ago
BANZAI !!!
DanielSlaves 10 months ago
my god that sound is pure eeeeevillll =D
ooUooUoo 10 months ago
pretty
JuglarEuskaldun 10 months ago
shoot it!!
InmanBach 11 months ago
It looks so simple, yet so deadly.
jimmyxx3 1 year ago
I hope they never take that aircraft into the air. I've seen a number of YT vid clips showing classic WWII aircraft crashes. Tragic when pilots are killed or injured, and another piece of aviation history disappears.
MrDavkoz 1 year ago
@MrDavkoz they probably have restored the duralumin frame... i saw this one (in another video) take to the air rather effortlessly.
FilipinoZeroFighter 1 year ago
Its so rare...dont fly with it...!!! Its war time equippment. Its not designed to last to many flight hours. Its old by now..So loosing it would be a really big loss for the
air history!
I know..Id love to see and hear it fly, but is it worth the risk?
SatorIICodex 1 year ago
I wonder if THIS is the only flying/airworthy zero in the US? Only a handful in the WHOLE world left.
vaigit777 1 year ago
@vaigit777
It's the only one flying with the rare original Sakae engine. There are two or three others that fly with R-1820 engines. All total, I see a list for 15 Zeros in the US, either airworthy, static display, partial wrecks, or current restorations. The same list shows 44 Zeros worldwide, with some only being partial wrecks.
FiveCentsPlease 1 year ago
Manufactured by MITSUBISHI MOTORS!
drumgrey915 1 year ago
@drumgrey915
..because they stole the design. Japan/Mitsubishi can thank the American Howard Hughes for this plane.
XskiXedgeX 1 year ago
@XskiXedgeX
Really? Why would you use an airplane solely designed for speed records to design a fighter aircraft?? Air racers were excellent at going fast straight ahead, but will make horrible fighters.
It is VERY unlikely some of Hughes' drawings ended up in Japanese hands in the 30's.
If anything Japan tended to look more at Nazi Germany for their designs, and their doctrines.
McLarenMercedes 11 months ago
@McLarenMercedes No, Japan didn't look to Germany for designs before the war. During the war they did somewhat, as allies, but that never bore fruit. And they absolutely didn't look to Germany for doctrines. While the Zero wasn't any copy, it is perfectly true that Japan got their aviation technologies from USA. But they hardly "stole" them. It was an ambitious technology transfer program, which was mostly conducted openly (and paid for). And US didn't seem to mind much, before the war.
Vermiliontea 11 months ago
@McLarenMercedes The Supermarine Spitfire was based on a racer, and it was one of the best fighters of all time.
hipcat13 10 months ago
@XskiXedgeX Really? Prove it! I bet that a young man named Jiro Horikoshi designed the A6M Rei-sen.
lemonite1 9 months ago
@lemonite1 oh, let me contact my time traveler for a friend.. you moron.
XskiXedgeX 9 months ago
@XskiXedgeX prove it.
lemonite1 9 months ago
@lemonite1 better yet, you prove your theory. if you cant, then get off my nuts.
XskiXedgeX 9 months ago
@XskiXedgeX Prove it.
lemonite1 9 months ago
@lemonite1 what a 13 year old troll move. no respect. this will be my last comment
XskiXedgeX 9 months ago
@XskiXedgeX So, you prove nothing.
lemonite1 9 months ago
@engaurd you are right the spitfire is a decendant of the supermarine s.6 racing floatplane from the schnieder cup races
ere1313 1 year ago
kamikadzeee
Kozlaxyz 1 year ago
For anyone who want to own an old warbird, can somebody just put a reliable modern engine with the old drawing of any fighter back in the days? Why have to spent so much money to restore one? Just like a company in New Zealand did with the I-16 soviet fighter in WW2. I just dont know why it can be done? Happy flying!
russiaviation 1 year ago
@russiaviation because then the plane would not be the same ;) thats the point of having the entire plane in the original condition. putting a modern engine in one of these bird would be like putting a new wine in an old bottle. it looks like it, but by far it is not.
inar64 1 year ago
@russiaviation
There aren't any "modern" piston engines suitable for these large warbirds. Most of the remaining large piston engine manufacturing ended decades ago. The only example may be FlugWerk replicas using the ASh-82 engines that were manufactured into 1970s. Otherwise, you need to obtain a pickled engine or build one, which IS expensive in addition to actually building the plane. Re-manufacturing the old engines may have be become a reality to keep flying in the future.
FiveCentsPlease 1 year ago
@russiaviation
Continued..... Another example are the Me262 replicas which actually do have modern turbines replacing the original Jumo engines which are not safe to use for any flying example. (One project does plan to fly with modernized Jumos, though.) An engine swap is also not simple, since there is a lot of paperwork and engineering to be done before you get it certified to fly. So that won't necessarily reduce the costs. Aviation is an expensive hobby any way you look at it.
FiveCentsPlease 1 year ago
even back then the japanese engines seem to start alot easier than ours....lol. guess they were onto something even then.
zx12ryder 1 year ago
"A sport plane with a 900 horse power engine" is how one Allied pilot put it upon testing it.
kolbpilot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
japanese zeroes are an ok plane for a very cheap plane and come with a large pay load 50.cal bullets and very weak armor
TRISTAN1095 1 year ago
I Love this old-fashioned Planes!!!! THIS is flying Guys!!!!! Give a F*** on this shit new Jets!!!!!
CS1B3 1 year ago
Talk about beating swords into plowshares...
Jrhoney 1 year ago
I agree with the commentators here who lament the fact that so many WWII aircraft weren't preserved like this Zero.
Apparently, much of the aluminum alloy they got from rendering down the retired aircraft went into the construction of cooking pots, pans and frypans - but at least some of it went into the construction of other aircraft.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@engaurd
True, range was a major problem for the Spitfire Mk1. But it was built to be as light as it's main adversary, the formidable Bf 109. Any heavier and it would have been shredded.
The range was improved on Spitfires Mk VIII, IX and XVI with the option of big drop tanks - but they were in short supply.
The Griffon 65 powered Spitfire Mk XIV saw range go from 434 miles to 750. With a drop tank, 1,150 miles. 485 Squadron flew these types as far as the Swiss border on ground attack missions.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
The first Spitfire Squadrons to encounter the Zero in Burma (flying Mk Vc's) made the mistake of not adopting the tactics of the AVG P-40 squadrons. They thought they didn't have to - having outmaneuvered everything they'd fought against previously.
They got quite a shock - the Zero could turn inside the Spitfire relatively easily. So they went to the AVG tactics subsequently.
Arriving later, the Merlin 60 series powered Spitfire MkVIII bettered the Zero easily - but you STILL didn't mix it up.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@Merlin2Stage2Speed You're right on that one about the Zero: dogfighting with one meant disaster and the Zero pilot would be happy to oblige. The British felt that their "tried and true" tactics of the Battle of Britain would work just as good. They were wrong. The Zero could out-turn and out-climb both and its 20mm cannon did give it a slight advantage in firepower. Chennault was still right though: never dogfight with a zero. it's in "Ragged, Rugged Warrios" by Martin Caidin. Thanx.
TheSV3 8 months ago
take note how this plane really blows compared to the p-51 mustang and or any other british/american fighter.
ClanHalo001 1 year ago
@ClanHalo001 That depends. The P51 was designed about 10 years after the original Zero. The P51 was designed in response to a very different performance spec, particularly in range and straight line speed. The first and second model P51 were nothing to write home about. With the 'C' model it got the RR Merlin, which transformed it, and with the 'D' model it got the bubble canopy which further improved it. The Zero was an older, simpler, cheaper and much lighter aircraft.
Kneedragon1962 1 year ago
@Kneedragon1962 straight facts: Zero first flew spring '39. P-51 flew atumn '40. Zero was operational mid '40. P-51 was operational early '42. So not "10 years" but rather 1½ year. And the first P-51 WAS something to write home about! And it was cheap.
You have the right idea though. It is important to recognize the time. Technology moved fast during WW2. Both Zero and P-51 were outstanding designs. The japanese had their priorities wrong though (aerobatics), which eventually became apparent.
Vermiliontea 1 year ago
@ClanHalo001 (continued) It's a bit like comparing a brand new king of the hill Corvette to an '80s vintage Z28. Or an early model Supra. There's no doubt the 'Vette is a far better car, but it'd want to be! It isn't really a direct comparison.
Kneedragon1962 1 year ago
@ClanHalo001 Actually it doesn't "really blows". In terms of range*speed*climb*maneuverability performance it was incredible for its time. Zero's top speed was comparable to early hurricanes, spits and bf 109, while range was so many times greater it's not even funny, combined with great climb and an ability to literally fly in circles around those planes. It never managed to evolve with time much though, and it was fragile.
Vermiliontea 1 year ago
@Vermiliontea Well ya im just comparing to a p-51 which was made alot later than the this zero so your right it was amazing for the time but as time changes you gotta keep up if you know what i mean
ClanHalo001 1 year ago
Kamikaze!
MasonZstudios 1 year ago
And it kept its original colors. I heard the Americans repainted captured Japanese planes with their own so they don't get shot down by allies on accident. If I ever get a plane license I would love to buy and fly one of these, though I can only imagine how much they would cost!!
guibin 1 year ago
@guibin i hear you dude :)
ClanHalo001 1 year ago
As a foreshadowing of things to come, it was noted during an American test of the Zero against contemporary fighters that the Zero was the only aircraft in the test that required no repairs, aside from normal maintenance, for the duration of the evaluation. Sorta like the Toyota Corolla of fighters. From a Budd Davisson article, I believe.
schlusselmensch 1 year ago
i dont like the sight of a zero
alexmun133 1 year ago
Saburo Sakai once said he felt sorry for the German pilots & their 90 minutes worth of fuel in the 109.
kolbpilot 1 year ago
@kolbpilot... Yes, somehow the clever Germans never figured out how to put in at least another 100 liters of of fuel into the Bf 109.
dzdz80 1 year ago
@dzdz80 Meserschmitt design for what became the Bf-109 was governed by the principal of the smallest possible airframe that would fit around the DB-601 engine. Performance took priority over endurance.
VeeGlo 1 year ago
This is the land-based model not the IJN one, right?
uberkelvin 1 year ago
is it true that the Japanese stole the design of the Zero from Howard Hughes's aviation company?
TheErdman3 1 year ago
@TheErdman3
Howard Hughes claims the general design of the Zero was highly influenced by his Hughes H1 racer from 1935. However this was Hughes idea alone and few shared his view at the time. As a matter of fact other allied and German aircraft have some rather striking similarities with Hughes H1 racer as well.
The designer of the Zero claims he was not influenced by the racer since a racer and a fighter have little in common.
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
amazing....would love to fly that thing!!!
uzimodem 1 year ago
lol first attempt to start engine fail :D
Love the shape and sound of the airplane
pongboy1100 1 year ago
ロック岩崎のゼロ戦の操縦を見たかったです。
3dannsiki 1 year ago
My dad saw a Zero at Naval Air Station North Is. I think it may have been the one recovered from Alaska. At any rate, I remember him saying that when the engine was at idle, it sounded to him like a model A Ford. I would say from this video, I would have to agree. What-a-know, dad was right again. :o)
F4FWildcat 1 year ago
how much this is?
osgeeks 1 year ago
@osgeeks Priceless
Steve181 1 year ago
Nice plane and great engine sound!
ccalidor 1 year ago
Cool plane. Nice to see one original still moving around.
Lockbar 1 year ago
sweet plane
DrPilotRedC 1 year ago
it's very good style
loarrinq 1 year ago
the zero sounds like it is missing a piston
2400346 1 year ago
That plane is gorgeous to watch fly. I got to help clean it as a volunteer at Planes of Fame museum in Chin, CA.
jtp0321 2 years ago
Beautiful planes *)))
grzegorzprey 2 years ago
すごい、まじかで見てみたい。
ai19211 2 years ago
My Grandfather used to tussle with these a/c over the pacific during WW2, and they called these planes Rice Burners, tell a war vet, who fought for freedoms we have today thats a racisct comment, spoon
BlueRibbonWinner 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You smell rice burning?
BlueRibbonWinner 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah, thanks for your racist comments. Spanner.
tadswana 2 years ago
I was there when they did that. It's nice to see a video of it. It looks awesome.
TheMilitarynut 2 years ago 2
Zero fighter : fighting specs(A6M5,3,2)
JP1 VS Allied1
P51 type D>SM spitfire Mk.IX>A6M5>F6F>P51 A,B,C>F4U>A6M3>F4F FM2>A6M2>SM spitfire Mk.I>F4F>Australian fighters(sorry)
JP2or3 VS Allied 2or4
P51 all type>SM spitfire Mk.IX>F6F>A6M5>SM spitfire Mk.I>A6M3>F4F FM2>A6M2>F4F>Australian fighters(sorry)
Thanks!
showanoisoroku 2 years ago
Lightweight and very maneuverable; I love how similar in concept the Zero is to my favorite car: the Mazda MX-5.
dattomcat89 2 years ago 2
Why does everyone focus on the Zero, what about the ki84 Hayate?
bloodmoonblooz 2 years ago
Ki 84 i hear she was a beauty
timpatjoe 2 years ago
Beautiful aircraft that was a warrior as well.
bloodmoonblooz 2 years ago
becouse the Zero was The fighter in the war till the Hellcatand the Corsair came along.
BLS1313666 2 years ago
it does everything better than the zero. It even outperform some allied planes below a certain altitude
yakovlev3a 2 years ago
Yeah most people only know the "big name" aircraft. I like a lot of the lesser known (but often better preforming) aircraft. Yak3/9. La7's, Ki84's and the like. Try talking about the Russian planes and people look at ya like "did they even have an air force in W W2"?!
bloodmoonblooz 2 years ago
Yea and god forbid you say that p51 had flaws. They will burn you at the stake LOL
yakovlev3a 2 years ago
They burn you AFTER they skin you. :D . God help you if you don't think the spitfire is the "most beautiful aircraft ever" as well. ( I think the FW190, Yak3, and the ki83 "Oscar" are).
bloodmoonblooz 2 years ago
Yea really. What I love is when they pump up their favorite plane by saying illogical things like. "The P-38 out maneuvers the zero at ALL speeds". They dont understand that all fighters have their strengths and weaknesses
Ki44 is one of my personal favorites. It was the beginning of the change in japanese fighter philosophy. Going from light, maneuverable aircraft to heavier, faster planes. But I will not sit up and say to you that it outdives say, a P-47
yakovlev3a 2 years ago
@yakovlev3a Ah, the Tojo, I forgot about it! That is a nice aircraft!
bloodmoonblooz 2 years ago
yea its just a shame that there are none left. Come to think of it, are there ANY kawasaki fighters restored and in flying condition?
yakovlev3a 2 years ago
I... I don't think there is a complete airframe out there. I don't know if enough technical drawings exist to fabricate a modern one either. I'd love to see a new 61 Tony in the air. Probably never happen. :( . We as the Allies were pretty good at eliminating the aircraft of the conquered.... Foolishly. :( .
bloodmoonblooz 2 years ago
Yea that sucks
dang......
at least there is a zero left. I would have liked to see others but oh well.
I will have to settle for my favorite american plane the p-63 instead
yakovlev3a 2 years ago
King Cobra? I bet folk give ya a hard time over that favorite, it wasn't as bad as people make out either. I know I get it over my favorite American plane which is the lowly Brewster Buffalo, seems like all my real favorites are foreign aircraft. I like the Buffalo though, it reminds my of a fat satisfied cat. :D
bloodmoonblooz 2 years ago
yea I recently found out that Finnish pilots flew that plane
yakovlev3a 2 years ago
They did good in them as well, just like the Russians did with the P39.
bloodmoonblooz 2 years ago
Another obscure fighter that I like is the P-43 lancer. It looks like a lighter, more agile thunderbolt. I know very little about it though
yakovlev3a 2 years ago
Wow that's a new one on me, maybe I need to do more research on American aircraft. :D
bloodmoonblooz 2 years ago
Yea they were sold to and flown notably by chinese pilots along side the AVG. American pilot accounts say it outperforms the p-40 at high altitude. I am guessing at low altitude it was vice versa. But I really like the way the plane looks
yakovlev3a 2 years ago
It does look "aggressive" be spooky to look back and see it on your six!
bloodmoonblooz 2 years ago
@yakovlev3a
There is an ongoing project to build several flyable Ki-61 aircraft. I don't have any current status. This is also a complete Ki-61 on display in Japan. In addition there are a few Kawasaki types or partial wreckage on display in the US, UK, China, and Australia.
FiveCentsPlease 1 year ago
@bloodmoonblooz
The zero got all the cred due to being infamous. The Ki84 was a totally superior fighter to the Zero but relatively few of them were made. The Supermarine Spitfure may get all the focus as the plane that saved the battle of Britain in 1940, but in reality 5/7 of all German planes were shot down by Hawker Hurricanes, the workhorse of that battle.
Also there were more B24 liberators than B17's but the B17 got all the headlines.
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
The Japanese legend...should have saved more of these WW2 planes from being cut-up at the end of WW2...only if...now we could have more of these planes in flyable condition...
dzdz80 2 years ago 30
You are right dzdz80. Almost all the planes ..american, german, Italian japanese, british..were turned into tin cans after the war. What a waste.
mbandarra3 2 years ago 19
they quickly became obsolete when the jets appeared and were quickly phased out. besides there was a great shortage in materials in many countries after WW2 and the war was over. so it makes perfect sense many planes became tin cans
many german military uniforms were stripped of their markings and became working uniforms after the war
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
@McLarenMercedes Most unfortunately, you are absolutely correct. The same with great classic architecture & estates. Places that would have been worth their weight in gold over time, also like the great classic aircraft...were out of fashion & sold only for land value...as the aircraft for scrap value...very short sited...and the sign of the times I suppose.
mbandarra3 1 year ago
Comment removed
mbandarra3 1 year ago
What a waste of all those poor Mustangs and Spitfires...they were so beautifull...
MasonZstudios 1 year ago
@mbandarra3 I think people forget that back then these things were a memory of death and destruction people wanted to forget. It was still very raw, not like today when we 'look back through rose tinted glasses'. It's like saying we should keep some tanks that were in the battle of Fallujah. I agree with you though we should of kept more Japanese and german aircraft in particular.
Valkyriepure 1 year ago
@dzdz80 They should save the blueprint (or whatever the design drawing is called) of the plane, the blueprint (or whatever it's called) of the engine, and 3 airframes after a war.
Tabby266 1 year ago
@Tabby266 Useless unless they save the tooling as well....
JaleelJohanson62 1 year ago
@JaleelJohanson62 I believe tooling exists to manufacture a new Zero if you have the cash. There was a project to recreate the airframes and I'm quite sure one flew and parts probably exist for 2 more. Was it Blayde Manufacturing?
schlusselmensch 1 year ago
@schlusselmensch Cool if true!
JaleelJohanson62 1 year ago
@JaleelJohanson62 Well it certainly was true as I visited their workshops a number of years back at Carman, Manitoba. The project then moved to the US and the first aircraft was finished and flown. It is referred to as a restoration but the aircraft was wholly constructed around a data plate. It was in effect a new Zero. There is nothing unusual in that routine as there are many aircraft that have virtually no components from the original other than the maker's plate.
schlusselmensch 1 year ago
@schlusselmensch I only added the 'if true' part because you originally said you believed the tooling existed. Since it exists, then yes, I agree it's simply a newly manufactured Zero and every bit as 'real' as the originals.
JaleelJohanson62 1 year ago
@schlusselmensch
More than on Zero survives, but I think only one flies with the original Sakae engine while the others have R-1820s or similar. I am a firm believer that all remaining wreckage that are not war graves should be gathered up from remote areas to either be put in museums or for restorations before it is either stolen for scrap metal or just rots away like much of it is doing.
FiveCentsPlease 1 year ago
A6m Zero Rulz! : D
LuisJimenez92 2 years ago
you can't push to much on zero, it will rip its wings. the air frame of zero is too thin but because of it, zero is faster than any allied warbird in earlier time.
mushyakoji 2 years ago
Lascalpab a zero couldn't dive as skin was to thin and would distort, it lacked speed, so it could turn big deal...ask any ballied pilot if they'd trade seats in a spit or P-51 with a death trap zero?
gotcha109 2 years ago
trainasia: NO allied aircraft danced around the Zero. including Spitfire and P-51.
The advantages of the allied planes: speed, armour, firepower. Orders were NOT to dogfigth Zeros, but use the "boom and zoom" technique: Zoom in from above, shoot, zoom out, repeat if need be.
A Zero would loop in a radius of 150 yards. A Spit pilot recalled the day when had a Zero in his sights and suddenly it disappeared and popped out on his six in a matter of seconds. The speed of his Spitire saved his ass..
Lascalpab 2 years ago
Zero was fast but the P51 would dance around the Zeke with a cigar and one eye close with no problem. But if you are talking about the P40, then may be it is true, train, you give us trains guys a bad name!
TrainAsia 2 years ago
P-40 was no slouch. Flying Tigers had great success using P-40s. The skill of the pilot is most important factor.
1971Copperhead1968 2 years ago 2
Forcing your enemy to fight the way your machine has an advantage is the best policy. Claire Lee Chennau is second to none when it comes to tactics, something the Army Air Corps failed to realize until later in the war.
GottJukrapun 2 years ago
sorry, reality check, ALL the p-40 pilots were trained to dive onto a zero formation.
All they had was speed in the dive.
They were told NOT, by any means to dogfight with a zero ! EVER !
apatheticempathy 2 years ago
The P-40 was a capable fighter. AVG had great success dogfighting P-40 against Japanese Zero. You are the one in need of a reality check.
1971Copperhead1968 2 years ago
Yea right, ... read the books, review the films. Wake up. The a6M2 was 10 times better than ALL and every P-40 EVER built.
apatheticempathy 2 years ago
The P-40 had major advantages that made it better than the Zero. Armor, self-sealing fuel tanks and superior speed. Later models of the P-40 were comparable in many ways to later models of the A6M. Ruggedness is a big factor too.
1971Copperhead1968 2 years ago
10 times better? Please explain
kbroma01 2 years ago 2
The zero had no amour,no self sealing gas tanks and the p 40 in air 2 air combat had a higher kill ratio than the zero.You add the superior training of the P 40 pilots,the havoc of the six 50 caliber machine guns, nearly a 100 mph top speed over the zero,armor, and that shark paint job was scary as all hell if it was on your ass.You add all that together and the kill against Japanese planes was a 70 to one ratio and you have a plane that can be a hell of asset but its only as good as the pilot
molanlabexm15 2 years ago
thats the spirit, and thats the true! :DD
everybody whines when i told em that
a6m2 was really modern plane back then, and it was.
usa was winner => usa ruled the propaganda => usa made people blind for the truth :l
ju57m333 2 years ago
Plane to plane to Zero was superior to the P-40 in almost every way, it was superior tactics that won the day.
oxyman10 2 years ago
The P-40 was capable in the hands of the AVG, David Lee "Tex" Hill being one of those pilots. He speaks with high regard about the P-40s performance.
TheSteamLocomotive 2 years ago
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you train.
indypete25 2 years ago 2
amen to that, probally saw a t-6 tora replica Q
apatheticempathy 2 years ago
and its not the only one flying today, i just saw one a couple days ago at the Hill AFB air show and it looked way diffrent then this one.
trains457 2 years ago
There are a few Zero copies made from T6's out there, a trend started by the CAF. There are a few original Zero's that have been restored also, but this is the only one with an authentic and correct engine.
ejlister 2 years ago 3
for all you idiots the japanese zero was the fastest plane in WW2 beacuse of its light armor, it has 2 20mm type 99 cannons and 2 7.7 mm machine guns and could also carry 2 100 pound bombs. and any of you who say it was the P-51D mustang that was the fastest it wasnt till the british put a rolls royce engine in it that made it fast.
trains457 2 years ago
and?... P-51D was stil faster then the zero. And ta152h was the fastest piston engined fighter of the time.(760 km/h - 472 mph) Altough its production never exceeded 40 something planes. (760 km/h - 472 mph) Zero was fast at the begginning of the war but as the time passed allied forces catched up.
allnations31 2 years ago
The Zero had one of the best turning rates and a very good rate of climb due to it's light weight. Many Allied and Axis ac were faster in level flight and dive speed.
RUNBITSYEMMA 2 years ago 3
Now Train, it's not nice to insult people when you haven't done your homework. Please also work on your "spelling".
Thank you
kbroma01 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Henriiksen 2 years ago
You sir, are an idiot.
Fastest aircraft is not even a debate to those in the know....it was in fact the Donier Do-335 as far as level flight goes.
The aircraft capable of climbing like no other was of course the Me-163!
Get a clue!
bart260 2 years ago
how were these planes so fast with such short props?
tickdog3 2 years ago
the zero was crap they could even make a fast dive without loosing control of rudders. no armament no nothing
nolifemerc 2 years ago
Historical inaccuracy's...
Improper grammar...
Incorrect spelling...
The "Hat-Trick" of Stupidity!
: )
Awesome plane!!!
igottalongone 2 years ago
I agree, except it is spelled "inaccuracies".
Also, by the use of the apostrophe, you are indicating the possessive.Good points, however, and great plane.Cheers.
greenjeansmjr 2 years ago
the zeros were so fast because of its light armor, but because of the planes light armor it was destroyed faster. but because it was so light they could pull up and the ally planes would try to follow then stall giving the zero time to make the kill. to make it easier to say its fast because its light lol
wowtank15 2 years ago