Corsair vs Zero (2 Viewers)

[Njaco]

you forgot the 'smiley' emoticon!

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you, Chris.

Methinks you guys are taking it a bit out of context... I'm not saying that is why the F4U or even the Zero were designed the way they were, but the differences between the aircraft can be equated to the idealogical differences between the two nations at war. Also, the symbolism of the Zero is pertinent here; I woulda thought that was obvious, as for the F4U - re-read what I said - although both types had their first flights a year apart, they are worlds apart in design and philosophy.

As for 'American design', it means its designed in America (and if the F4U wasn't 'American' what was it, Greg?) and all that entails; big engine, big cockpit, big on power... Geez, do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you guys?

It "can be equated to the idealogical differences" but that is reading an awful lot into things after the fact.

The Japanese had limited choices for engines and both the KI 43 ( a plane perhaps more suited to this "Japanese ideological difference" in that it placed more emphasis on pilot skill than even the Zero) and the first choice, the Mitsubishi Zuisei came up a bit short on power at the time in question. Both Japanese planes replaced the Zuisei with the Sakae after just a few prototypes. The Bigger Japanese radials at the time were considered bomber engines ( something the US didn't do, categorize engines) and were larger, heavier engines that would not give the range required.

I would note that the F4U was extensively modified from prototype to first production model and gained 1447lbs in empty weight and 2680lbs in loaded (clean) weight. Wing loading was originally just under 30lb per sq ft and while not as low as some aircraft it was lower than a 109E. The original three .50 cal and one .30 cal gun were hardly the standards the US would use in it's service aircraft but certainly don't give a huge advantage over the early Zero armament.
The Japanese will NOT see an engine of the power class of the R-2800 fly in prototype aircraft until 1942/43, two years behind the R-2800.

It was not a question of national ideology but a Question of what they could actually build.

The Zero did become a symbol for the Japanese but it became a symbol because it could actually do the job better than they hoped, at least for the first 1/2 year of the war.

AS for Japanese Navy philosophy or ideology.

Work started on the J2M Radian in October 1938 on a high speed, fast climbing plane vs maneuverable and long ranged plane. Shortage of engineering staff and other problems caused long delays. Aboutone year passed before official specifecation was drawn up for one thing.

In 1940 the Japanese Navy issues the 16-Shi specification for replacement for the Zero. Again, the shortage of engineering staff and preoccupation with building/improving existing types causes the program to be put on hold and brought up again in April 1942 as the 17-Shi specification (2 months before Midway) that leads to the A7M Reppu.

a 332 sq ft wing area aircraft that went over 10,000lbs clean.

Shortage of industrial capacity (including trained engineers) meant the Zero soldiered on with minor improvements far too long, and better replacements were too late and too few, not because of ideology or philosophy that small and light and pilot skill would carry the day.

 

[Njaco]

It "can be equated to the idealogical differences" but that is reading an awful lot into things after the fact.

That is EXACTLY what he was offering - an observation after the fact. And I agree with many of his points. Very nice mind exercise.

 

[Shortround6]

It is an interesting mind exercise.

My problem with it is that the basic premise doesn't hold up too well according to the time line and facts.

Conceived before the war in a different age and without the benefit of military hindsight the F4U designers possessed when conceiving their new fighter, the A6M was a compromise between old ideals and new technologies, but executed with a panache not normally associated with an Asian nation - Japan, of course was Asia's first superpower and was consequently very proud of this achievement.

The Corsair was conceived in the first half 1938. Contract for the prototype was placed June 11th 1938. The F4U designers had NO military hindsight when they laid out their new fighter. They may have modified it in late 1940 and 1941 with the benefit of British combat experience, production contract for 584 planes was placed June 30th 1941, all modifications from original prototype are already agreed to.

The Japanese had every right to be proud of the A6M but it was firmly on the side of new technologies. It used new alloys, the new construction methods and so on. Getting the cannon for it was also a saga in it self. It took several retired admirals setting up a company to licence the Oerlikon gun to get it into production in 1938/39. Negotiations had started in 1936 for the licencing of the guns and the first company approached (Japan Special Steel Comapany,Ltd.) was acquired by the army as negotiations neared completion. Several other companies were approached and refused. The 20mm guns were not an after thought but a fundamental part of the design. The weight of the installed armament being almost 3 times the weight of the armament in the early Ki43 fighters. Part of the light weight and maneuverability were a by product of the take-off and landing speeds needed for carrier operations and the range requirement.

When introduced into service to replace the A5M from the same design team - itself an ultra-modern design when first unveiled in the early 1930s

The A5M first flew in Feb 1935 (10 months before the Hawker Hurricane) and didn't enter service until 1936. First prototype/s used 550-600hp engines, production planes used 785hp engines max at times when US fighters were using 900-950 hp radial engines.
The A5M was all metal stressed skin construction unlike the fabric covered early Hurricanes.

the Type '0' Carrier Fighter symbolised the rebirth of an ancient Empire that was rapidly becoming a powerhouse on the world stage, but with a foot firmly in the past with its emulation of the earlier aircraft's manoeuvrability. Its spiritual, if not technological equal was the Hawker Hurricane- itself a potent symbol of military might that bridged the gap between old and new, but also a child of the business of military expansionism;

The Zero didn't symbolize anything until it was used in combat as it's stable mates, the Nakajima B5N2 and the Aichi D3A1 were also expected to do their part in establishing Japanese Naval air power along with the land based Mitsubishi G3M which was to be replaced by the G4M as soon as possible. Requirement for the G4M was issued in Sept 1937 and first flight by prototype was 23rd Oct 1939.

The Japanese were very inventive. Their engineers were skilled and up to date. The Navy air staff had few illusions about individual combat between fighters.

They were limited by the numbers of engineers available, the engines available, the production facilities available and the vast areas they were trying to (or planning to) operate over.

 

[cherry blossom]

...snip...
The Japanese had limited choices for engines and both the KI 43 ( a plane perhaps more suited to this "Japanese ideological difference" in that it placed more emphasis on pilot skill than even the Zero) and the first choice, the Mitsubishi Zuisei came up a bit short on power at the time in question. Both Japanese planes replaced the Zuisei with the Sakae after just a few prototypes. The Bigger Japanese radials at the time were considered bomber engines ( something the US didn't do, categorize engines) and were larger, heavier engines that would not give the range required.
...snip...

The IJN could have used a more powerful engine.

The obvious alternative was the Kinsei that was used in A6M8. A contemporary of the A6M2 would have used the Kinsei 44, also used in the D3A1, giving 1070 hp at 4200 m at 2500 rpm. The A6M3 equivalent would have used the Kinsei 51 like the D3A2 giving perhaps 1200 hp at 3000 m at 2500 rpm (1300 hp for take off at 2600 rpm). The A6M5 equivalent would have been the A6M8. We can calculate the performance of all those imaginary versions from the A6M8 but note that the A6M8 had thicker skinning that the A6M2 to give a 400 knot dive speed, a heavier armament and even had some armour (armoured windscreen and an 8mm seat). The Kinsei 62 of the A6M8 gave 1340 hp at 2100 m and 1190hp at 5800 m. I am guessing that those imaginary fighters would be a little tougher and faster diving and very slightly faster but would climb and turn slower and would have significantly less range. Of course, they might alternatively have had the A6M2 wings with lower dive speeds.

The next step up would use the Nakajima Ha 41 giving 1260 hp at 3700 m at 2450 rpm. Unfortunately, the Ha-41 may have been up to a year behind the Sakae and Kinsei as the Ki 44 was running a year behind the Zero with its prototype first flying in August 1940 (the earlier Ha-5 gave 1160 hp at 3700 m at 2450 rpm and would have been available). Also the Ha 41 was 1,260 mm in diameter (the Sakae was 1,150 mm and the Kinsei 1,218 mm). This series of engines wasn't either Nakajima's or Japan's first priority for development. The Ha 109 of the Ki 44 II gave 1520 hp at 2650 rpm for take off and military powers at 2600 rpm of 1440 hp at 2100 m and 1320 hp at 5200 m but there was never a version with water/methanol injection. We may be able to guess at the ultimate potential by looking at the Ha 44-12 of 1945 which used 18 rather than 14 cylinders and gave 2450 hp at 2800 rpm for take off and at 2700 rpm gave military powers of 2350 hp at 1100 m and 2200 hp at 4400 m. The problem is trying to imagine what an aircraft built to something like the Zero specification with a Ha-41 would have looked like. A comparison of the Ki 84 and the A7M1 suggests that it wouldn't have had the Ki 44's performance.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Miss identification was commonplace. The americans tended to call all japanese fighters zeros, and the japanese called the p40 spitfires. The ki 61 was labelled as both an me 109 and a macci before the type was properly identified.
When you are flying combat, it must be difficult to make a decent id. Combat reports are notorious for innaccuracies about lots of details

In the beginning of the war many combatant aircraft were misidentified, you're painting every situation with a broad brush.

 

[tomo pauk]

The IJN could have used a more powerful engine.

The obvious alternative was the Kinsei that was used in A6M8. A contemporary of the A6M2 would have used the Kinsei 44, also used in the D3A1, giving 1070 hp at 4200 m at 2500 rpm. The A6M3 equivalent would have used the Kinsei 51 like the D3A2 giving perhaps 1200 hp at 3000 m at 2500 rpm (1300 hp for take off at 2600 rpm). The A6M5 equivalent would have been the A6M8. We can calculate the performance of all those imaginary versions from the A6M8 but note that the A6M8 had thicker skinning that the A6M2 to give a 400 knot dive speed, a heavier armament and even had some armour (armoured windscreen and an 8mm seat). The Kinsei 62 of the A6M8 gave 1340 hp at 2100 m and 1190hp at 5800 m. I am guessing that those imaginary fighters would be a little tougher and faster diving and very slightly faster but would climb and turn slower and would have significantly less range. Of course, they might alternatively have had the A6M2 wings with lower dive speeds.

The next step up would use the Nakajima Ha 41 giving 1260 hp at 3700 m at 2450 rpm. Unfortunately, the Ha-41 may have been up to a year behind the Sakae and Kinsei as the Ki 44 was running a year behind the Zero with its prototype first flying in August 1940 (the earlier Ha-5 gave 1160 hp at 3700 m at 2450 rpm and would have been available). Also the Ha 41 was 1,260 mm in diameter (the Sakae was 1,150 mm and the Kinsei 1,218 mm). This series of engines wasn't either Nakajima's or Japan's first priority for development. The Ha 109 of the Ki 44 II gave 1520 hp at 2650 rpm for take off and military powers at 2600 rpm of 1440 hp at 2100 m and 1320 hp at 5200 m but there was never a version with water/methanol injection. We may be able to guess at the ultimate potential by looking at the Ha 44-12 of 1945 which used 18 rather than 14 cylinders and gave 2450 hp at 2800 rpm for take off and at 2700 rpm gave military powers of 2350 hp at 1100 m and 2200 hp at 4400 m. The problem is trying to imagine what an aircraft built to something like the Zero specification with a Ha-41 would have looked like. A comparison of the Ki 84 and the A7M1 suggests that it wouldn't have had the Ki 44's performance.

Interesting post.
Another thing to consider is the IJN's 'love affair' with floatplane fighters. They squandered the limited resources to the 'Rex' (here), too.
Re. bolded part - much of Shoki's speed was the consequence of the plane's smallish wing,.

 

[cherry blossom]

...snip...
Re. bolded part - much of Shoki's speed was the consequence of the plane's smallish wing,.

Agreed, although I dont know how efficient it was. The A7M wing had much more area than a Ki 84 wing, which was one reason that the A7M1 was slower than a Ki 84 with the same engine.

...snip...
Another thing to consider is the IJN's 'love affair' with floatplane fighters. They squandered the limited resources to the 'Rex' (here), too.
....

That opens up the question of how a 1942 version of the N1K2-J with a Mitsubishi Kasei would have performed as an example if the IJN had chosen to use the biggest engine that was in production at the start of the Pacific War and which powered the G4M.

It is not hard to find the power of a 1941-2 Kasei, which weighed about 720 kg. An early Kasei, Ha 32-11, gave 1530 hp at 2450 rpm for take off and at 2350 rpm gave military powers of 1480 hp at 2200 m and 1380 hp at 4100 m. Perhaps the Ha 32-13 version with the extension shaft for the J2M might be more relevant as it had a supercharger optimised for higher altitude but I don't know if the higher weight of 770 kg and the lower military rpm were due to the extension shaft. That model gave 1460 hp for take off with military powers of 1420 hp at 2000 m and 1300 hp at 6000 m.

Unfortunately, we don't have generally agreed data on the actual performance of the N1K2-J or its Homare 21 engine, so we cannot simply calculate a speed with a cube root. We might believe Nakajima that the heavier, 830 kg, but narrower Homare gave 1900 hp at 2000 m and 1700 hp at 6400 m but Mitsubishi would tell you that the A7M1 engine only gave about 1300 hp at altitude.

Something like a Kasei powered N1K2-J would have had a higher landing speed than any Zero or a A7M2 Reppu but might possibly have been able to operate from carriers. It would surely have had a lower speed than 312 kt at 6,000 m quoted for the J2M1 Raiden with a smaller wing (20 m² versus 23.5 m²) at Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Thunderbolt). However, it might still have been at least as fast as an A6M2 or even an A6M3 and would have speeded up significantly when using later Kasei engines with water methanol injection.

 

[tomo pauk]

Cherry B, some questions:

I am guessing that those imaginary fighters would be a little tougher and faster diving and very slightly faster but would climb and turn slower and would have significantly less range.

Why should we assume that up-engined Zeros would've featured lower RoC than historical ones?

Something like a Kasei powered N1K2-J would have had a higher landing speed than any Zero or a A7M2 Reppu but might possibly have been able to operate from carriers. It would surely have had a lower speed than 312 kt at 6,000 m quoted for the J2M1 Raiden with a smaller wing (20 m² versus 23.5 m²) at Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Thunderbolt). However, it might still have been at least as fast as an A6M2 or even an A6M3 and would have speeded up significantly when using later Kasei engines with water methanol injection.

Equivalent of the Seafire, but with longer range maybe? The 'Rex' was rather light, 6067 lbs, while having 2 cannons aboard, and range (1000+ miles, internal fuel only?) was useful.

 

[cherry blossom]

Why should we assume that up-engined Zeros would've featured lower RoC than historical ones.

I was being illogical by comparing a A6M8 refitted with a lower powered Kinsei with a A6M2. The extra weight of the Kinsei is a factor but I was assuming that the A6M2 equivalent also had stronger wings, heavier armament, some armour and self sealing fuel tanks. We can see the consequences of those additions by looking at Zero Facts and Figures, where we see that the A6M2 climbed to 5000 m in 5min 55sec while the A6M5c took 5min 50sec. Thus the extra weight almost exactly compensated for the extra power. The A6M8 although still heavier was the fastest climbing variant reaching 6,000 m in 6min 50sec compared to 7min 27sec for the A6M2, 7min 19sec for the A6M3 and 7min 1sec for the A6M5a. (note that the fastest climbing Sakae model is the A6M5a which is about 600 lbs lighter than the A6M5c empty).

My only excuse is that we can calculate the performance of my imaginary aircraft using the A6M8 data.

 

[tomo pauk]

No need for excuses, I appreciate your posts. We all know that, for example, Spitfires climbed better with every new series of engines mounted, despite increased weights.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Geez, do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you guys?

Well maybe yes.

I sometimes think this forum is a place to come when one has an urge to be misunderstood…

I think I understood what you were trying to say…

 

[nuuumannn]

SR6, I think you are taking nitpicking to a new level (the J2M Raiden was not designed as a carrier fighter; not the same as the Zero) - and, yes Chris, I forgot the smiley emoticon! As for hindsight, yep, that's why I wrote my paragraph - it's about hindsight, but I think my comment still stands about attempting to compare the two aircraft of a similar level; both are so very different in almost every way.

Here you go, Chris This is because I've just got back from taking a close look at the RNZAF Museum's newly restored P-40 yesterday, which looks fantastic and I can't stop smiling.

 

[DVH]

Abolutely its a broad brush, but certainly not limited to the early years, nor every situation.
Friendly fire incidents were and still are common. Thats mis identification. This happened in all fronts throughout the war. For example, ive read how american pilots ignored luftwaffe aircraft and attacked. Russians during the later years. But even this account is. By its nature unreliable.
My point is that most of the cases put in this thread are based on testament of battle from over 70 yeras ago. Those statements were flawed even at the time, for example, kill counts were wildly innaccurate. In the heat of the moment, its all very unreliable. Add the huge time gap and even with documents to back a case, its far from solid.

 

[N4521U]

Oh geez, it's so easy................ Corsair wins!

 

[nuuumannn]

Oh geez, it's so easy................ Corsair wins!

20 pages and you sum it up in one sentence! Brilliant!

 

[proton45]

IDK...except for the fact they both saw action in the pacific, its kind of a weird comparison. The A6M entered combat status in 1940, and was largely designed to combat the fighters found in the Pacific at the time...that and extended range. The F4U entered combat in 1942 and was designed to combat fighters...like the A6M and KI-43.

 

[Shortround6]

While the F4U didn't enter service until 1942 ir was NOT designed to combat the A6M and Ki-43. It was designed in 1938-39 and first flew in 1940.

 

[proton45]

While the F4U didn't enter service until 1942 ir was NOT designed to combat the A6M and Ki-43. It was designed in 1938-39 and first flew in 1940.

well its true that development plans where originally set down in 1939...however the F4U was designed to meet fighters that met the specification's of fighters like the A6M Ki-43. To be more accurately stated.

Edit...I dont really think that the point I was raising is altered. Had an engine (that met the spec, set down in 1940) been available, the A7M (the "zero's" replacement) would have been an interesting opponent to debate, but alas...it never came to be.

 

[DVH]

Its tempting to say corsair, thats easy. Faster, better armed, better armament, more advanced. Design etc.
But despite all that, i cant imagine the corsair out turning, manouvering an a6m. Its a bigger, heavier aircraft.
Does this mean that combat wise theres a winner? Thats down to tactics.
Straight on turning dogfight, maybe zero, but the corsair would probably absorb fire, zero definately not.
Pilot skills also a factor
All that said, the more effective combatant, corsair.