Even though it was carefully staged for safety, the dogfight sequence was very interesting in contrasting the hopelessly outclassed but light and nimble Zero (well, Zero substitute) to the far superior, but much HEAVIER, less maneuverable Tomcat.
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
It could be argued that the F-14 is actually more maneuverable. The mismatch on film is exasperated by the fact that in order to even tail the Zero, the F-14 needs to stay near stall speed. The F-14 has a better roll-rate, turn rate, climb rate, better acceleration and a much better angle-of-attack in the dog fighting performance envelope.
You are taking a dump and they call GQ do you pinch it off or finish your business?
With all due respect, I cannot believe a Tomcat could outmaneuver a Zero in close ACM. Are you suggesting a Tomcat can perform a tighter minimum radius turn than a Zero? Isn't that maneuver critical in ACM? (no sarcasm intended)
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
So than what is the Min Turn Radius,Sustained Turn Rate and Instantaneous Turn Rate at all speeds for the zero and what is the Min Turn Radius, STR/ITR at all speeds for the F-14?
I think you would be rather surprised at the minimum turn radius of the F-14. Try youtube. Unless the Zero is flying below the F-14s stall speed........
You are taking a dump and they call GQ do you pinch it off or finish your business?
but this movie is about a airship who goes through a portal into the year 1941...
--I Would Be Mr. Red--share
If there's a youtube sequence showing a F-14 outmaneuvering a Zero-like plane, I'd really like to see it.
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
I can't believe you people are making these arguments.
shareI can't believe you're objecting. If you accept the obvious scifi aspect of the movie, this sequence was the best part. IMHO, of course.
What did you think of the movie?
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
This film basically stunk. But for some of the actors, it was their last big production before retirement.
This flick is for people that simply want to witness a mindless orgy of violence.
This flick is for people that simply want to witness a mindless orgy of violence.
OK.. with that comment, it's obvious you're just trolling.
You do not know what you are talking about.
In war, all assets have to be used. The Japanese had over 300 airplanes. The Nimitz at most would carry only 80. So, yes, all airplanes had to be launched. Not in revenge but to assure victory. Some fighters would be used against the airplanes attacking Pearl. Others escorting the bombers going against the Imperial Japanese Navy. And don't forget the Nimitz as well. Some fighters would have to stay to protect the Nimitz.
A "full carrier strike is very violent." But we did not see a "full carrier strike." They were recalled before they struck! And not all airplanes were launched. Only two flights of each squadron. A squadron has about 12 airplanes. We did not see 12 Tomcats flying with 12 Intruders. And so on. We only saw 4 of each...
Don't worry about him. Kurt has proved himself a troll and a moron on several occasions.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Some people just LOVE to "nit=pick", and some people watch movies to enjoy the show and get away from real life for a while.
shareStall speed of a Tomcat is MUCH less than 400.
When doing a Landing on a Carrier their approach speed is 125 Knots (~145 MPH) They should not have to much problem flying and maneuvering at 200 MPH.
But I believe that the Zeros WOULD be more maneuverable at that speed. Mostly because the Tomcat is too close to their stall speed that he cant maneuver to violently without risking a stall.
However the Zero would never be able to out run them and all the Tomcats would have to do is circle around and get behind them again. The Zeros dont have Radar and the Tomcats do.
And they would not need to use their weapons to splash them. A shockwave/wake from Supersonic flyby 200 feet from the zero would knock them right out of the sky.
But it doesn't have to. Assuming just guns, not all things are equal.
The zeros had a low rate of fire 20 mm cannon. The Tomcats have an M61 rotary gun firing at a very high rate of fire, a much larger 20 mm cartridge. Oh, with an auto-leading gunsight.
The F14 can put effective gunfire into the Zero from much further away. No need to fight equal terms.
Tomcat's still flying at 130 knots.
the idea of a 400 knot stall speed is a joke.
whoever said that had no farking clue what they were talking about.
Maneuverability and speed are two very different things.
Just because a slow plane can turn in a very tight circle does not mean it is more maneuverable than a high speed aircraft not capable of flying that slow.
No. A zero cannot outmaneuver a Tomcat.
Try looking up the aeronautical term, "Corner Velocity" and how it relates to air combat maneuvering.
A slow plane can turn a smaller radius circle, but it does so very slowly
A faster plane would rate its nose around and get turned in the opposite direction much faster, but carve a much larger radius circle in the sky.
Corner velocity is defined as the slowest speed where the plane can still pull its maximum amount of Gs.
Below that speed, a plane cannot pull max Gs and loses maneuverability. It may make a small, tight turn, but does so slowly.
Above that speed, then max G is reached and the excess speed is wasted in a much wider turn than necessary taking longer to gwt around, thus losing maneuverability. It is making the fastest turn it can but the excess speed is creating a much wider turn.
Corner velocity thus is where a plane can make its fastest AND tightest turn.
Above or below that speed, it can do one or the other, not both.
So yeah... a Zero may turn a smaller circle than a Tomcat is capable of. That does not mean a Zero can outmaneuver an aircraft.
To be out maneuvered, means that one plane gets in the kill position on the other.
By the time the zero can turn, the Tomcat is out of range and turning back in for its own kill shot.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
[deleted]
I try.
There's plenty I don't know.
But unlike a lot of posters, I generally only comment on what I know, and know when to defer to others who know more than me.
So it only seems like I'm a know-it-all.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
[deleted]
Of course that link is accurate. That site is the work of Jonathon Parshall, who along with Anthony Tully, wrote Shattered Sword.
You should read his essay which is required reading at the Naval Academy, "Reflecting on Fuchida".
You can find it in PDF at the Naval War College itself.
I had just read that thread and have nothing to add to it but that losing all three carriers would not have altered the ultimate end of the war whith Japan losing, but very likely would have extended the war late into the 40's perhaps into the 50's with millions more dead.
I also tend not to comment when I have nothing new to add and agree with whats already been said, unless some naysayer comes along and says something contradictory to facts.
(one of the reasons it seems all my posts are negative atracks on a lot of people, I tend to comment most often against trolling idiots)
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
In the late 1940's the RAF flew their latest jets against Spitfires (the jets were going to be deployed to Hong Kong and the tests were designed to identify the most effective jet fighter responses to Red Chinese piston engined aircraft). In every case in which the jets used their superior speed and acceleration instead of being drawn into slow turning contests (attempting to match the Spitfire's smaller turning circle), the jets completely bested the prop fighters.
shareC.G. Sailor I know about as much of are dynamics then I do Macro economics
Your statements are OBVIOUSLY that of a competent naval officer
Was at Intrepid Museum in NYC recently the museum showed a film about dogfighting with Intrepid's Fighter Planes
In the sixties a Naval PROP plane took of and by chance battled a Soviet MIG
Touch and go for a bit In the end The Prop (A Cougar I believe BEAT the MIG
Gotta check My Jane's Aircraft book
[deleted]
Many posters have already explained how the Zero would be no match for the F14, but even back when the Zero was contemporary, Allied planes learned to fight to *their* strengths, not the Zeros.
The much maligned (revisionist history) Curtis P40 couldn't turn with a Zero at very low speed, but Col Chennault (Flying Tigers) trained his pilots to use the P40's strengths, which were superior speed, roll rate, fire power, and dive characteristics. For instance, the big "barn door" ailerons on the Zero were great for low speed maneuverability, but were a serious detriment over 250 mph. The P40 could turn inside the Zero at high speed. Whereas a P40 could dive and maneuver (with difficulty) at close to 400 mph, the Zero would essentially lock up over 300 mph and would actually disintegrate over 350 mph.
Much as an F14 pilot would do against a Zero, a smart P40 pilot would "boom and zoom", and not get into a slow turning dog fight with a Zero. The P40s Brownings easily shred the Zero which had no armor protection and was lightly constructed - image what the Tomcat's M61 20mm cannon would do (6000 rounds per minute).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan