Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Oh, let's not look at ETO fantasy ops. But we can definitely consider changes in PTO.We're talking, what, around 1,000 lbs of additional weight? I imagine it'd have an impact on time-to-climb and immediate climb, range, and turn as well. I'm not knowledgeable enough to give specific numbers.
I don't know that it'd be bad, but I suspect it would make it less and not more feasible for any hypothetical ETO ops. It would reduce the plane's strong-points of maneuverability and range while reducing performance, which was already average outside of those two parameters.
Oh, let's not look at ETO fantasy ops. But we can definitely consider changes in PTO.
Of the three; armour, self sealing tanks, and working radios (the OEM units were removed due to failure and to save weight), which would be most useful?PTO only, I don't think those changes would really hamper (pun intended) the Zero against F4Fs; the performance margin was enough to absorb them. F4F pilots would likely still have to team up and weave. They could perhaps gain a little in relative performance, but I don't think the mods you're suggesting would make the Zero unsuitable in PTO.
Hopefully someone with engineering/aerospace knowledge can put numbers to your suggestions. I can't.
Of the three; armour, self sealing tanks, and working radios (the OEM units were removed due to failure and to save weight), which would be most useful?
Great post. On Armour, the IJN's brothers in the IJAF got armour for their fighters in the Kawasaki Ki-61 and the late-war Ki-84.3. Armor. I don't think those guys would have gone for it.
What we actually know is that the A6M3 was superior to a tropicalized Spit V with Merlin 46 limited to 9lbs boost when all the tests were done below the Merlin 46's FTH.We know that the A6M3 was superior in almost every way to the Spit V
More so if the Darwin Zeros had the Spitfire V's armoured cockpit, radio and self sealing tanks.A6M2 vs Spit V with a Merlin 45 running 12-15lbs boost will certainly be different.
Very informative, thanks. You bring up a good point on structural strength. If we're adding weight we'll need to also strengthen the undercarriage and much of weight bearing structure.In addition to the above weight increases you would probably have to strengthen the underlying metal structure of the fuel tanks.
What we actually know is that the A6M3 was superior to a tropicalized Spit V with Merlin 46 limited to 9lbs boost when all the tests were done below the Merlin 46's FTH.
A6M2 vs a Spitfire II using 12lbs boost lower altitudes might be a bit different. A6M2 vs Spit V with a Merlin 45 running 12-15lbs boost will certainly be different.
The A6M3 had a TOGW of ~5500 lbs and according to the US, Australian, and UK tests, it was still ridiculously more maneuverable than the Allied fighters at low-medium speeds so I figure the same mods could be done to the A6M3 with little loss in combat effectiveness.