Grummans versus Zeroes

Discussion in 'Stories' started by evangilder, Oct 19, 2004.

  1. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    I just read an amazing story. It's actually a quite from Saburo Sakai, one of the Japanese aces, who flew the Zero.

    I closed in from the best firing angle, approaching from the rear left of the Grumman [F4F Wildcat], the pilot appeared to realize that he could no longer win. He fled at full speed toward Lunga.
    I had full confidence in my ability to destroy the Grumman, and decided to finish off the enemy fighter with only my 7.7mm machine guns. I turned the 20mm cannon switch to the 'off' position, and closed in.

    For some strange reason, even after I had poured about five or six hundred rounds of ammunition into the Grumman, the airplane did not fall, but kept on flying. I thought this very odd - it had never happened before - and closed the distance between the two airplanes until I could almost reach out and touch the Grumman. To my surprise, the Grumman's rudder and tail were ripped to shreds, looking like an old torn piece of rag.


    Tells you 2 things; the 7.7mm machine gun is not an effective aircraft gun and the F4F was one tough little bird!
     
  2. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
  3. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    if it was the otherway round though, the 7.7mm going into the zero (yes i know the wildcat had .50cal) that proberly would have brought it down............
     
  4. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    You're right Lanc, the Zero was appropriately named. How much armor did it have to protect the pilot? ZERO
    How about the fuel tank protection? ZERO

    It sacrificed alot to keep the weight down and keep it fast and nimble. But one good burst through a wing, and BOOM!
     
  5. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    But it was a damn manoeverable plane.
     
  6. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    Yes, it was, which it needed to be. Otherwise it was just a pilot oven. In the early days, it did rule the pacific. If they had done some further development or upgrades earlier, it might have stayed a great plane. Unfortunately, it ended up a throwaway kamikaze like the rest.

    After having actually worked on one though (We have one that flies in our museum), I have alot of respect for those mechanics. That plane is a big pain to work on.
     
  7. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    wow i had assumed it was quite simple to work on....................
     
  8. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    Nope, not at all easy. We had removed the prop spinner and front cowling off the thing to do some engine work. It took three of us over an hour to put it all back together. The prop spinner is 2 pieces and only fits on one way. There are about 30 screws to hold on the spinner alone!

    The cowling is a split clamshell type design that has turnbuckle hook type fasteners that are a royal pain to tighten and get straight. Once they start to tighten , you get a reall small area for your wrench to tighten and spend alot of time removing the wrench and flipping it for the other angle.

    The other problem is some of those areas are really tight, which might be okay if you have small hands, but all of us had American ham fists. Alot of knuckle busting and swear words happened that day! But we did get it working and up.
     
  9. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    sounds fun, but i suppose the japs were considderably smaller and had specailly designed tools......................
     
  10. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    They were smaller. I am 5'8" and when I sit in the Zero and close the canopy, my head is in the arc of the canopy. I'd have to slouch down to fly it. I can't imagine that would be much fun.

    I don't know if they had special tools, especially for that cowling. There is very little room to clamp it down. Even less when it starts to close up. I did read that they were not real easy to build either because of the tight spaces.
     
  11. Nonskimmer

    Nonskimmer Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    8,848
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Naval Electronics Technician
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    American fighters were built tough! 8)
    The Zero could be thought of as the TIE fighter of WW2. :lol: (I like Star Wars, sorry) Built for maximum agility, like evanglider said, at the sacrifice of just about everything else!

    But I never knew they were such a bitch to work on. :shock:
     
  12. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    i guess that makes the american fighters the Y-Wing or B-wing then...............
     
  13. lesofprimus

    lesofprimus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,162
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Communications
    Location:
    Long Island Native in Mississippi
    Home Page:
    And the Fw-190D would be the X-wing....
     
  14. MP-Willow

    MP-Willow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    894
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    design, write, office work
    Location:
    Saco, MAINE!!!!
    Evenglider, I had thought that the A6Ms were hard to produce and have read that they were not great to work on, but the program was developed well. In the end the IJN just waited to long to put the upgrades and development of the Zero and its replacement.

    I really like the quote as to the rudder being all shot up. The USAAF planes all seemed to be stuborn and hard to kill, like the pilots. Grumman had a lot of that in there 'Cats. ;)
     
  15. saltlakespitfire

    saltlakespitfire New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    AS u said those grumman cats were tough little birds indeed. But I wonder why the Japanese did not upgrade the Zero. Even after Combat lessons they should have realised it needed self-sealing tanks.
     
  16. twoeagles

    twoeagles Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Aeronautical engineer and Navy Dad
    Location:
    Chambersburg
    My Dad flew Grumman's Cats from 1942 through the war, and a couple of
    things he told me: after the AAF lost a couple of P-47's to low level spins,
    Hellcats were forbidden to particpate in any more mock combat with them! He still gets a kick out of that.

    He was probably an average pilot with just 830 hours when he fought
    at Truk, and he will, to this day, tell you that the Hellcat saved his life on
    several occasions. He had three of them so shot up they were pushed over
    the edge of the flight deck, and yet he never received a scratch. He had
    3 confirmed and 5 probables, flying with VF-16 and Paul Buie. As is widely
    known, he said that anytime he had a Zero on his 6, he could easily evade
    by pushing over into a dive and then rolling - the Zero was not able to stay
    with the Cat and it's roll rate was especially reduced as airspeed increased.
    Most importantly, Dad says the Hellcat was easy to fly and the controls were
    beautifully balanced so that even an average pilot had confidence. He would
    take a Hellcat over the F4U any day.
     
  17. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    Wow! That's cool to have a dad participate in history like that. What a thrill it must be to listen to his stories. You must have been inspired. Didn't I read where you were a Navy pilot?

    As for the comment on the P-47, the P-47 pilot would be crazy to try to turn with an F6F, like an F4F would be crazy to turn with a zero. The P-47 pilot would be better served to use it 40mph+ airspeed advantage to come and go as he pleased, just as the Navy and Army planes did with the Zero. The F6F was a lot tougher bird than the Zero, however.

    I am sure most F6F pilots would agree. But then most F4U pilots would not.

    Grumman built great, tough aircraft that protected their pilots and gave them tools to, at first, overcome quantitative and experience disadvantage, and then to overwhelm the enemy and sweep it from the sky.
     
  18. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA

    Of all the combatants of WW2, the japanese probably had the worst "design" inertia of all.

    If you consider how much additional weight the self sealing tanks and cockpit armor would add to the airframe, coupled to an already low powered engine, then some of the design bureau's probably concluded "why bother". Go be a true samurai and fight with what you have"!
     
  19. saltlakespitfire

    saltlakespitfire New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Well then why not develope higher powered engines?
     
  20. twoeagles

    twoeagles Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Aeronautical engineer and Navy Dad
    Location:
    Chambersburg
    Here's my Dad in his Hellcat F6F-3 in 1944. He is 23 years old here.
     

    Attached Files:

Loading...

Share This Page