[skidmarksdiecast]

I believe Aircrafty's comment was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.

The Zero has a slower stall speed than the typical 4th gen fighter. That's about the only performance characteristic, of the Zero, that is better than a modern fighter. Oh... and a Zero might be able to out turn an F-16 at speeds below 140 knots. So yes, if you restricted, say, an F-16 to a maximum of 160 miles per hour, you'd have a good match up.

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

If the Zero was so good, how come they lost the bloody war?

Ok, I was being a bit tongue in cheek

However most experts agree that the Zero still remains the worlds best dogfighter. But it was designed for long distance operation at the expense of everything else, making it not such a good fighter post 1941, especially when pounced. But frankly I think it would be a rather foolish jet fighter pilot to give an experienced Zero pilot a cheery wave and say lets dog fight with guns only at low airspeed.

Btw I don't know much about present air to air missiles but I suspect the heat signature of an air cooled Zero engine would be hard to detect unless the missile's sensitivity was adjusted beforehand. Acknowledging that, I wonder how correct the scene in "The Final Countdown" is where the F-14 takes out a Zero with a Sidewinder.

The Zero's rise and fall: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1159

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by skidmarksdiecast

The Zero has a slower stall speed than the typical 4th gen fighter. That's about the only performance characteristic, of the Zero, that is better than a modern fighter. Oh... and a Zero might be able to out turn an F-16 at speeds below 140 knots. So yes, if you restricted, say, an F-16 to a maximum of 160 miles per hour, you'd have a good match up.

Correct, the Zero would have a chance under the conditions you describe, no doubt about it. But it just goes to show you don't fight an opponent on HIS terms, but on YOURS.

It's funny how people keep forgetting that dogfights are 3 dimentional. They focus on horizontal turning capability to the exclusion of anything else. An F-16 fighting a Zero would obviously use the vertical, where it would enjoy such a huge advantage as to make it quite unfair, really. On top of that, the EEGS (Enhanced Envelope Gun Sight) sight on the F-16's HUD is incredibly accurate (even without a radar lock), far more than the Zero's which was very crude. One burst and it's all over.

I might add that even in a horizontal turning fight, the F-16 would win. If you know the difference between a one-circle versus a two-circle fight, then you know what I mean (the F-16 would go two-circle and cream the Zero).

As fas as heat-seeking missiles being able to track a zero, no problem (I'm talking about the generations from the early-80s on, not Vietnam War era models). Last year during the southern Lebanon "trouble," an Israeli F-16 shot down a Hezbollah piston-engine powered UAV using a heater. These things have gotten pretty sensitive to any discreet heat signature...

FVD

[Old Crow]

FVD, if you don't mind, would you explain one circle versus two circle fights.

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

FVD, if you don't mind, would you explain one circle versus two circle fights.

OC, check Chapter Five of this link: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/acmintro.htm#Menu

[mustangdriver]

Aircrafty is right as far as a guns only turning dogfight, but it would be fair to say that any WWII fighter would do the same. Not just the Zero. The slower prop aircraft would turn tighter than the jet, except for maybe the F-22.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

Aircrafty is right as far as a guns only turning dogfight, but it would be fair to say that any WWII fighter would do the same. Not just the Zero. The slower prop aircraft would turn tighter than the jet, except for maybe the F-22.

Yes, but MD, that's assuming the jet stays in the horizontal, and stays slow. I guess a lot of people think of a dogfight in terms of relatively slow, minimum-radius turns, but there's a lot more to it than that (fighting in the vertical for one, but a lot more...). Aircrafty's link above seems to be pretty good actually at explaining some of the basics.

My reference to one versus two-circle fight is based on the fact that a small-turn-radius plane like the Zero would want to engage in a one-circle fight, as it can get inside the other plane's turn circle and maybe get a quick gun shot first. A two-circle fight goes to the advantage of the plane who can sustain a higher turn rate, without necessarily having a tighter turn radius. That's why a jet would want to use that as a tactic (not to mention going vertical, of course).

A dogfight does NOT necessarily mean slowing down and getting into rolling scissors or such (in which case, yes, the Zero would have an advantage). But the point is the airplane with more power/speed/energy maneuverability (a modern jet) has many, many more options against an opponent like the Zero. So if you don't restrict your conception of dogfights to "tightest radius turns," then the Zero would have no chance, at least against an F-16 class jet flwon by a halfway competent pilot (meaning smart enough not to slow down below 200 knots or so, I would even say 250).

Interesting discussion, BTW...

FVD

PS: I remember one of the "Dogfights" series episodes talked about rolling scissors, if you want to know more about that (I wish I could remeber exactly which one...). Maybe Aircrafty's link does too, I haven't had time to read it all. Suffice to say it would not be good for an F-16 to engage in that maneuver with a Zero, unless maybe it was a vertical rolling scissors.

[Aircrafty]

You can't argue with the fact that most jets could swat a Zero very quickly if the jet's speed, power etc were used. However if the speed and accerelation were restricted to the Zeros limitations I feel the Zero would prove a difficult opponent as it was very maneuverable in turms and had a fast rate of climb. It's chief disadvantages were its light build resulting in a poor dive speed together with a lack of robustness compared to most US fighters of WWII, and of course the US pilots were advised to use these advantages against it. I forgot about the jets with thrust vectoring nozzles such as the F-22, Hawker Harrier etc which would certainly have an advantage over the Zero if they were allowed to use them at the speeds allowed in this scenario.

[FormerViperDriver]

Well, the Zero had a fast rate of climb for its day, but compared to any modern jet, NOT!

In any event, yes, if you restrict a jet to the Zero's best portion of the flight envelope, sure, there is a good chance it might lose against the WW II veteran. But that's true of most airplanes, really. A good pilot fights using his plane's advantages and avoids flying at speeds/altitudes or performing maneuvers where the enemy has a known advantage.

Anyway, enough said on this subject, IMHO.

FVD

[Aircrafty]

Ok, back to jets then.
IMHO if the two dueling jets were starting out at the same altitude, which is only fair for a showdown style dogfight, I'd back the one with vectoring thrust in flight capability. For example in the Falklands the Hawker Harrier proved in a combat situation that maneuverability is still as important as overall speed.