str8jax
Airman
What was the B17 full load weight Vs the Lancaster? Full fuel,bombload, crew etc?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What I am getting at is, I dont think the Lanc could have done it with only 1 engine. The 17 was known to have flown on occasion with half of its loaded weight on only 1 engine. Naturally it would drop its weight to get back home but the 17 could do it.
I will have to look it up tomorrow but the Lancaster had a higher max take off weight and a larger bomb load than the B-17.
B-29 (these aren't from the world's most reliable source however)
4x R-3350 at 2,200hp each (when you could get them working) total- 8,800hp
Empty weight- 74,500lbs
MTOW- 135,000lbs
power/MTOW ratio- 0.065hp/lb
no modern fighter in ww2 that had the slow speed maneuver capabilities of the Zero.
renrich said:Having more than an hour to spend in the air over Britain instead of 15 or 20 minutes would have had a huge impact on the battle. The British Battle of Britain veterans in spitfires flying out of Darwin in 1942 tried to dogfight the A6M and paid heavily for that mistake. It is my understanding that neither the British or German fighters in 1940 had self sealing tanks so the 109 would have had no advantage in ruggedness and in fact with the air cooled engine the Zero would have had an advantage.
Those BoB vets you speak of tried to fight the Zero on it's terms - dogfighting under 300 mph. Above 300 mph the Zero lost most if not all its mystical maneuvering ability - it's controls got stiff and did not have the speed to out dive most allied aircraft.The A6M had more than twice the range of the 109 and there was no modern fighter in ww2 that had the slow speed maneuver capabilities of the Zero. Having more than an hour to spend in the air over Britain instead of 15 or 20 minutes would have had a huge impact on the battle. The British Battle of Britain veterans in spitfires flying out of Darwin in 1942 tried to dogfight the A6M and paid heavily for that mistake. It is my understanding that neither the British or German fighters in 1940 had self sealing tanks so the 109 would have had no advantage in ruggedness and in fact with the air cooled engine the Zero would have had an advantage.
Correct - but in 1940 there was little known about the Zero or any other Japanese aircraft. The only country who had any experience fighting the Japanese with modern equipment was the Soviet Union.Thank youall for your replies. In 1940 the A6M had two 7.7 MGs in the nose and two 20mm in the wings which I believe was equal to the 109. Of course it had no armor and control forces above 300 mph were too high. However my point is that in 1940 the Zero was probably the equal of any fighter in the world and with it's long range, at least twice any other operational fighter of that time, it was formidable. Actually, in 1940, the F4F-3 was a better performer than the Hurricane and in some ways was better even than the 109 or the spitfire.
The A6M2 was the first Zero model to see combat and that was in August of 1940. Few knew little of this aircraft. Chennault probably had knowledge of this aircraft as well as the Oscar (which was more maneuverable than the Zero) but no one with the exception of the Russians fought her in combat with modern equipment. Untill the start of WW2.In 1940 Chennault knew about the A6M and fighting them with the Chinese and assorted other nationalities.