Bell P-63 (from Wiki, FWIW, but you can find the same in almost any volume).
Maximum speed: 410 mph (660 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Range: 450 mi (725 km)
Ferry range: 2200 mi (3,540 km)
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (12.7 m/s)
Wing loading: 35.48 lb/sq ft (173.91 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.20 hp/lb (0.34 kW/kg)
1× 37 mm M4 cannon firing through the propeller hub
4× 0.50 in (12.7mm) M2 Browning machine guns
Bombs: 1,500 lb (680 kg) bomb load on wing and fuselage
And the A6M .....
Maximum speed: 533 km/h (287 kn, 331 mph) at 4,550 m (14,930 ft)
Range: 3,105 km (1,675 nmi, 1,929 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,000 m (33,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 15.7 m/s (3,100 ft/min)
Wing loading: 107.4 kg/m² (22.0 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 294 W/kg (0.18 hp/lb)
Unsurprisingly, the ONLY arena in which the Zero looks good by comparison is in its low altitude climb rate. The Zero looks good next to just about everything in low-altitude climb.
The funny thing is that the US never fielded the P-63 in combat. They all went to the USSR via lend-lease, and, as I recall, to a few South American allied nations.
< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/24/2012 4:53:28 PM >
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?