Admiral Beez
Major
How about the Germans just buy a few dozen Zeros from Mitsubishi and fly them at the BoB?
A6M - Germany Japan Technology Exchange Missed Opportunity?
- Thread starter NevadaK
- Start date
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Japanese only had 15 hand-built A6Ms (being evaluated by the 12th Kokutai) by August 1940, I seriously doubt they would have sold any to Germany at that point in time...
Admiral Beez
Major
True, but that kills this thread at the onset.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Not nessecarily, there was more to the European air war than the Bob.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I think the only advantage for Germany using the A6 would have been if they ever luanched and put into service the Graf Zeppelin or maybe deep fighter sweeps into Russia
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Would have also been an asset in the Med, protecting their transports (Me323, Ju52, etc.).
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I'd agree to that as well, and would have perhaps been the best use of it.
Admiral Beez
Major
True, but by the time the A6M is available for German use the Luftwaffe is already flying the superlative Fw 190. The Japanese don't really have anything of value to share with the Germans by 1942.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The N1K-J would have been handy in the ETO airwar...
- Thread starter
- #30
In a literal sense, I agree. When the Zero became available in large numbers the FW190 is in service and would outperform the Zero with the exception of operational range.
In a broader sense, and the point of my original post, the Japanese certainly had things of value to share should the Germans been willing to recognize it. In my opinion, they were better airframe designers than they are usually given credit for. The Zero and N1K-J (mentioned by GrauGeist) limitations had very little to do with the airframe and aeronautics, but issues with power plants and compromises to achieve ambitious performance requirements. Had the Germans been aware of or more open to seeing the potential of the Zero airframe in 1939 they could have developed an operation fighter in 1940 that possessed the qualities that would have shaped the BoB differently. For instance, if the Germans had simply installed a BMW 801a (yes, there are some very challenging engineering issues) on the Zero airframe they would immediately have an aircraft that had the range and performance to fight on equal footing over the entire UK. Would it require upgrade for combat resilience? Yes, without question but these would not be insurmountable.
Regards,
Kk
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The great range of the Zero was achieved in a number of different ways.
One was it carried somewhat more fuel than European fighters.
Two was that it often cruised at speeds and altitudes that were unusable by European fighters. (low and slow)
Three (which blends with two) was that the Sakae engine would run in low speed cruise conditions at lean mixture that many other engines would not tolerate.
There are some other minor points or possibilities.
The Early Zero held about 140-141 US gallons in the internal tanks. More than British, French, German or Italian fighters but not as much as American fighters.
The big drop tank helped a lot
Stick an 85 gallon drop tank under a P-40 and fly it at 160kts at low altitude and see what kind of range you get
There wasn't any secret technology, just different engineering choices.
One was it carried somewhat more fuel than European fighters.
Two was that it often cruised at speeds and altitudes that were unusable by European fighters. (low and slow)
Three (which blends with two) was that the Sakae engine would run in low speed cruise conditions at lean mixture that many other engines would not tolerate.
There are some other minor points or possibilities.
The Early Zero held about 140-141 US gallons in the internal tanks. More than British, French, German or Italian fighters but not as much as American fighters.
The big drop tank helped a lot
Stick an 85 gallon drop tank under a P-40 and fly it at 160kts at low altitude and see what kind of range you get
There wasn't any secret technology, just different engineering choices.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Replacing the approximately 1200lb Sakae engine with the 1900lb BMW 801 might have been quite a feat, not only from a CG standpoint, but strength of the airframe and needed a larger vertical fin (or extend fuselage?) to cope with the extra power?
Admiral Beez
Major
Japan made some fantastically competitive fighter aircraft, such as the N1K-J, but they always arrived a year or so late. The 355 mph, 4x20mm armed N1K-J would have entered Luftwaffe service in 1943-44. By this time the British are flying the Griffon-powered Spitfire Mk XII and the Russians the Lavochkin La-5 and 7.
Better make that 2200 lb for BMW 801C and D (plus the armored oil system). The DB 601/605 is a far better bet, despite the need to shove the cooling system somewhere behind the CoG.
- Thread starter
- #35
Thanks Shortround6,
No doubt that it would be a steep challenge. Then again, I design buildings that stay put not lightweight things that move through the sky....
- Thread starter
- #36
Thanks Beez,
The 355 mph figure is at sea level. The N1K-J managed a little over 400 at 20,000. Still not as fast as a MKXIV, but not bad for an airframe that began as a heavy floatplane fighter. If I remember correctly, there were proposals for developing the N1K-J as a land based fighter earlier in its development that would have shaved a few months off of its timeline.
Broadening the discussion a bit further, I've seen a number of reports that fuel quality had a sizable impact on Japanese aircraft performance and that many of the aircraft tested postwar exceeded expectations when flown on higher octane fuels.
I think there's two way to take this thread. One is literally using the Zero in the ETO which, as you have stated, doesn't offer much improvement over contemporary German aircraft and the other is to see the potential for the transfer of design solutions. For me, the latter is the more provocative. Considering others' comments and observations if there had been such an information transfer this is how I see it shaping up:
1. What do the German's take from the Zero planform? My thought here is at least a more volumetric fuselage allowing for greater fuel capacity, planned drop tank capacity, and possibly the larger wing.
2. What Power Plant? The Japanese engine was fairly compact , but lacked altitude performance necessary for the ETO and would have been somewhat underpowered with a heavier airframe. Available German radial engines don't offer much over the Sakae or would necessitate significant reengineering as with the BMW 801. As has been suggested, an inline engine could be adapted and this seems most likely, but there were shortages of the preferred DB 601. No clear path here.
3. What would the German's add to the planform: Armor, obviously as well as self sealing fuel tanks. Better altitude performance and at least an effort for a parity in speed with existing fighters.
4. Who Builds It? My money is still with Heinkel given that company's experience and strong desire to remain in the fighter market.
5. Would the resulting aircraft be recognizable as a Germanic Zero? I think that would depend on the power plant. If a radial engine was retained than there's a good chance that there would be some similarities. If an inline engine is added then probably less so.
6. Could such a plane been ready for combat in summer 1940: Possibly, but not likely. It would require a decisiveness in development and design that I don't believe the German aircraft industry demonstrated and the precognitive recognition of an air campaign that had not yet been experienced.
Kk
Admiral Beez
Major
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The problem with Germany adopting the A6M (or any other type), is that it would either have to be done so very early in the war or before it, in order to tool up and mass produce both the aircraft and it's engine.
The alternative is to purchase the completed aircraft outright, which is physically impossible due to logistics and those pesky Allies getting between Japan and Germany.
If we turn back to Heinkel for a moment, we did see the RLM hold interest at a few stages in the He112's development. The early model did have issues, which were ironed out by the time of the He112B.
At that point, the RLM decided that even with the 112's performance, such as better range than the Bf109, it would be redundant, so it was never given the green light.
So, with that in mind, we look back to the A6M and have to look at it from the RLM's perspective:
What could it do better than the Bf109?
Yes, it had better (much better) range than the 109, but so did the 112 (almost twice the range). This was obviously something the RLM was either oblivious to, or not interested in.
The A6M was better at low altitude maneuvering, granted, however the altitudes that the Luftwaffe and RAF engaged were in the range where the A6M's performance was starting to flatten out.
And then there was the issue of armor and protected fuel tanks.
I would guess that as impreasive as the Model 11 or Model 21 was, the RLM would also consider it redundant.
The alternative is to purchase the completed aircraft outright, which is physically impossible due to logistics and those pesky Allies getting between Japan and Germany.
If we turn back to Heinkel for a moment, we did see the RLM hold interest at a few stages in the He112's development. The early model did have issues, which were ironed out by the time of the He112B.
At that point, the RLM decided that even with the 112's performance, such as better range than the Bf109, it would be redundant, so it was never given the green light.
So, with that in mind, we look back to the A6M and have to look at it from the RLM's perspective:
What could it do better than the Bf109?
Yes, it had better (much better) range than the 109, but so did the 112 (almost twice the range). This was obviously something the RLM was either oblivious to, or not interested in.
The A6M was better at low altitude maneuvering, granted, however the altitudes that the Luftwaffe and RAF engaged were in the range where the A6M's performance was starting to flatten out.
And then there was the issue of armor and protected fuel tanks.
I would guess that as impreasive as the Model 11 or Model 21 was, the RLM would also consider it redundant.
1. (you probably mean 'platform' rather than 'planform'?) The upcoming Fw 190 offers pretty much all of that, and then some.
2. DB 601/605. Kill off the DB 606/610 and Me 210 debacles, reduce the number of Bf 110s produced, and now hundreds, than thousands of DB 601s/605s are available.
3. They can 'add' performance by installing a better engine than Sakae. Yes, LW will be burning the midnight oil to install the protection to their Zeros. Obviously, German guns will be installed.
4. PZL or Avia.
5. Matter of taste?
6. Not likely - Zero is simply too late. The low-hanging fruit of making drop-tank outfitted Bf 109 (already in mass production) is just too tempting, and can serve LW very well for the BoB. But then again, Germany needs to double or, even better, triple the production of 1-engined fighters (that both can perform and have range) if they want to kill off RAF FC in 1940; that needs to be supported with the increase in 'production' of pilots.
- Thread starter
- #40
Well, my background in architecture is showing. We use planform to discuss plan typologies - similarities or unique characteristics of building plans and archetypal organizations. In this forum switching to "platform" works.
