In article b3tBc.87266$0y.49768@attbi_s03,
"Chelvam" wrote:

"Bromo" wrote in message
news:w4jBc.64693$Hg2.9199@attbi_s04...
On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

snip..snip..

It was the observation and dogged pursuit of detail that
revealed the real truth. This is not the same in magnitude, but similar
in
effect.

And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were
aerodynamically impossible.

What aviation engineer? When?

I suspect you are believing some of the popular mythology about the
Zero. There _was_ some wonderment in U.S. military aviation circles at
the astonishing initial reports of the Zero's prowess. But then the
Navy got some real operational experience flying against the Zero, and
began to get a true idea of its capabilities and weaknesses. Later, a
nearly intact Zero was captured and all remnants of uncertainty were
removed.

Perhaps an aviation engineer might have said the early rumored Zero was
aerodynamically impossible. He would have been right.

The real Zero turned out to have nothing mysterious about it. It was
quite comparable in aerodynamics and general technology level to
contemporary U.S. designs. It merely had a different set of engineering
tradeoffs. It sacrificed range, structural strength, armament (to an
extent), and fireproofing to make the aircraft lighter. The light
weight allowed it to be fast and maneuverable. Speed and
maneuverability were the traits held in highest regard by Japanese naval
aviators during the development of the Zero, and Mitsubishi built what
they wanted.

U.S. designers generally chose to make much heavier, better armored and
better armed airplanes with less performance. As a result, early-war
U.S. airplanes were outperformed by Zeros in many regards, but had
abilities Zeroes did not. For example, the straight line speed
advantage of a Zero over the Grumann F4F-4 or F4F-6 Wildcat could be
negated if the F4F pilot had enough altitude. Push the nose down into a
steep dive and the F4F would pull away every time, unless the Zero pilot
wanted to lose his wings; the F4F's stronger airframe gave it a much
higher Vmax. This was quickly incorporated into battle tactics: engage
at altitude, dive out of trouble.

The F4F's armor and fireproofing also allowed it to take incredible
amounts of damage without going down (pilots lovingly referred to the
Grumann factory as the Grumann Iron Works), whereas Zeroes tended to
break up or catch fire if caught with a good burst.

--
Tim