Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You see I was thinking the same thing and wanted the opinions of others on this matter as well. I was going to ask the op to site his source but he did in the original post. Idk, just seemed highly unlikely to me. Thank youSeriously doubt it. A6M designed to nearly same load factors as US Military standards. The Zero was just ruthlessly stripped of weight. As mission weight creeped over design gross weight loading - ALL fighters reduce their G load safety factor. As an example - the P-51/Mk I had design load of 8000 gross weight for 8G Limit/12 G Ultimate. That said, at takeoff max GW of 11,600 pounds for P-51D, the Limit load reduces to 5.5G Limit, 7.7G Ultimate
How is the book? I'm currently reading Eagles of Mitsubishi right now and am loving it!The book "Zero" by Robert C. Mikesh says that some of the early Zeros (late 1940 and early 1941 production.) were limited to 250kt dives and 5 G pullouts until they received modifications. Apparently there was a wing flutter problem that was made worse by the installation of balancing tabs on the ailerons. The tabs had not been used on the prototypes or very early production. By May of 1941 production aircraft were getting
1. increased thickness outer wing skin.
2. longitudinal stringers to increase torsional strength
3. added external balance weights to the ailerons until modifications of the internal weights could be worked out.
However once fixed the limits would have gone back to normal. The book makes no other mention of low "G" load limits.
Yes - the P-51B suffered structural failures due to a.) gear uplock failure in a high AoA mode - with gear opening door fairing and creating a huge asymmetricload on the wing due to major loss of lift on that wing, and b.) high speed rolling pullout causing asymmetric load again on the empennage due to a combination of yaw and torque forces palced on rudder and both elevators.Did any piston-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane fighter tear off its wings under loads that the pilot could physically sustain?
Standard "clean" combat weight of a P-51B was 9,680 lbs., where the normal load factor was 6.61 g, assuming you didn't have a lot of fuel in the aft tank. The P-51D had a "clean" combat weight of 10,100 lbs for a 6.34 g load factor. Again, that assumes not much fuel in the aft fuselage tank. So ... how much of a dogfight disadvantage was the 6 g normal load factor for the Zero? Not much, if any at all.
Interesting, the IJN pilots were ripping the radios out of their Zeros because the radio was rubbish.It is weird that you brought this up as I watched a pretty good video last night that delves deeply into the structural strength of the the A6M and other aspects of the fighter as well.
Mosquitos killed a few test pilots in early dive tests, undercarriage or doors bursting open as I remember.Did any piston-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane fighter tear off its wings under loads that the pilot could physically sustain?
I believe it was a combination.Interesting, the IJN pilots were ripping the radios out of their Zeros because the radio was rubbish.
That is awesome, I am actually finishing up his book on the Zero, Eagles of Mitsubishi, great read. I kind of assumed the person that said the wings would snap off at 6 g was full of it, but I just wanted further verification. Thank you for the informative post Greg. So I have to ask, did you ever get a chance to see their Ki-84 before it was given back to Japan, or was that before your time? I cannot remember the year it was brought to Japan. Once again, thanks for the informationAs I understand it, the Zero was not quite designed to the same load factors as a U.S. fighter. The Planes of Fame operates an original A6M5 Model 52 and our zero was restored in the late 1970's with the help of Jiro Horikoshi, the original designer. The Museum has the design documents.
Most U.S. fighters were designed with an 8 g normal load factor with a 50% safety factor for an ultimate load factor of 12 g. That is, you can pull 8 g without damage. If you pull anywhere between 8 and 12 g the aircraft will not fail, but will likely sustain damage of some sort. The severity of the damage goes up as the g-load goes up. If you exceed 12 g, the structure could fail.
The Zero was designed with a 6 g normal load factor and a 100% safety factor. So, you can pull 6 g all day with no damage. If you pull between 6 and 12 g, the aircraft should do it but will likely sustain damage. If you exceed 12 g, the structure could fail.
So, the Zero has the same ultimate load factor as a U.S. fighter, but is basically a 6 g airplane rather than an 8 g airplane. That is not much of a disadvantage since WWII fighters didn't have enough excess power to sustain a 6 g turn indefinitely anyway. I see the 6 g load limit as a tactics factor in dive pullouts, but not in dogfighting. At 180 - 280 mph, the Zero was King of the heap. Above 300 mph it was starting to get out of its element and was quite vulnerable. Above 325 mph, the Zero was, for practical purposes, pretty much done as a super fighter, and was not very maneuverable. The A6M5 Model 52 had higher dive limits than earlier Zeros due to slightly shorter span and slightly heavier wing skins, but the control system was essentially the same.
By the way, the P-51D load factor at 8,000 pounds was 8 g. But the formula for the load factor is: LF = 64,000 / weight [edit: i said g-load, but was just thinking about that. It's weight] . so:
1) 8,000 lbs --> 8 g
2) 8,500 lbs --> 7.53 g
3) 9,000 lbs --> 7.11 g
4) 9,500 lbs --> 6.74 g
5) 10,000 lbs --> 6.4 g
6) 10,500 lbs --> 6.1 g
Standard "clean" combat weight of a P-51B was 9,680 lbs., where the normal load factor was 6.61 g, assuming you didn't have a lot of fuel in the aft tank. The P-51D had a "clean" combat weight of 10,100 lbs for a 6.34 g load factor. Again, that assumes not much fuel in the aft fuselage tank. So ... how much of a dogfight disadvantage was the 6 g normal load factor for the Zero? Not much, if any at all.
possibly, but I am not sure.There were reports of structural failure with early Ki-43 Oscars. Could the veteran have not known the type of plane suffering the failure?