FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The lack of armor and self-sealing tanks was a known issue. Pat hit the nail on the head - over 300 mph the Zero was a brick, compound that with SST and some armor and now you have a cinderblock!
How bad would a Euro-spec A6M Zero be?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
". . . cinderblock." 
The modifications I listed in post#14 wold increase the sing loading by ~1.1 lb/ft2, I can not see that such a small increase would effect the A6M enough to turn it into a cinderblock, even at high speed. As far as I am aware the A6M had no particular problem pulling out of a dive (at least I do not remember running across any accounts of A6Ms augering in due to the problem). I believe the only significant problem was rolling at high speed?
The modifications I listed in post#14 wold increase the sing loading by ~1.1 lb/ft2, I can not see that such a small increase would effect the A6M enough to turn it into a cinderblock, even at high speed. As far as I am aware the A6M had no particular problem pulling out of a dive (at least I do not remember running across any accounts of A6Ms augering in due to the problem). I believe the only significant problem was rolling at high speed?
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
". . . cinderblock."
The modifications I listed in post#14 wold increase the sing loading by less than 1 lb/ft2, I can not see that such a small increase would effect the A6M enough to turn it into a cinderblock, even at high speed. As far as I am aware the A6M had no particular problem pulling out of a dive (at least I do not remember running across any accounts of A6Ms augering in due to the problem). I believe the only significant problem was rolling at high speed?
It was duly noted in several pilot reports that the Zero's all-round maneuverability suffered at high speeds. Pulling out of a dive is one thing, trying to continually to bank and roll during combat is another. ANY extra weight is not going to help. The Zero's controls got heavy at all axis at higher speed.
From Mike Williams' file. report from November 1943.
And I did go back and look at some of your guesstimates. I think you're going to be off with regards to hardware and structural modifications needed for SSTs. the Spitfire carried about 60 pounds of armor plate, I think you're going to need more or increase the thickness of major structural components.
Talking about a European spec A6M so lets use it in Europe, if it was involved in the BoB even without armor SSFT it's still 30mph slower than the Spit MkII and Emil and the bounce from above was the preferred option and you could say perfected in that theater, for that type of fighting it needs to be at it's best over 250mph and be able to fight up too 30,000ft plus be able to absorb hits from AP and De Wilde .303's as well as 20mm FF/M's, none of which it could do, you could also argue that the Zero's myth was built around it's ability to defeat lower spec ''B'' rated fighters but over the channel in 1940-41 it's a whole different ball game.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Having the opportunity to see a Zero "up-close and personal" and also seeing (and working around a few) WW2 fighters I think "conservatively" to "Euro-spec" a Zero, using European design standards, hardware and construction practices, you're going to put at least 500 pounds on the airframe, and again I'm being conservative.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Although there has been a lot of reference to the A6M structure being below the Allied standards, I think it should be remembered that the A6M was designed as a carrier fighter and therefor fairly rugged (for its size), at least as rugged as the Spitfire and Bf109. It should also be noted that the A6M used the equivalent of modern 7076 aircraft aluminum (the Japanese developed it in 1939, and I believe the A6M was the first application) which is significantly stronger (Tensile +60 to 75%, Yield +120%, Shear +150%) than the 2017(T4) and 2024/Duraluminum series used by the Allies and Germans (my apologies to our Russian and Italian members for not including them but I do not have data on their nations aluminum alloys). So not only was the A6M a well engineered design, the lightness was due in part to the use of a much stronger structural material.
Also, although the A6M was not as fast as the Spitfire or Bf109, it had about the same service ceiling (over 30,000 ft, it just flew slower) and maintained its maneuver advantage (to at least 20,000 ft per the tests?). As to the high speed handling, I agree it would be ideal to improve the maneuverability. The A6M3 variant did significantly improve the roll rate at high speed, at least to the point that it could be rolled at VNE (I have never been able to find what the roll rate actually was for the A6M3 at high speeds).
Also, although the A6M was not as fast as the Spitfire or Bf109, it had about the same service ceiling (over 30,000 ft, it just flew slower) and maintained its maneuver advantage (to at least 20,000 ft per the tests?). As to the high speed handling, I agree it would be ideal to improve the maneuverability. The A6M3 variant did significantly improve the roll rate at high speed, at least to the point that it could be rolled at VNE (I have never been able to find what the roll rate actually was for the A6M3 at high speeds).
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The 7075 equivalent used on the Zero (if I recall) was used at the spars and major structural fittings (wing roots and landing gear). While you're showing it's strengths, depending on temper it's also more brittle. The rest of the aircraft used a 2024T equivalent and was thinner than seen in other fighters of the day. The Zero was built strong and light but only used beefier materials in areas that were significant.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Eight .303s (or 2x20s + 4x.303s) flying against them, I don't see the Zero being able to slug it out in Europe, with its limited cannon ammo and only 2 rifle-calibers to pick up the slack, against 8-gun fighters (or 2x20mm +4x .303), lacking basic protections.
The range would likely be reduced as well, having to stay at high-cruise for much of its mission. It would still have longer legs than the 109, I think.
Granted that the Zeros would be more maneuverable than anything they encountered in Europe, they would be on the low side of fast.
The range would likely be reduced as well, having to stay at high-cruise for much of its mission. It would still have longer legs than the 109, I think.
Granted that the Zeros would be more maneuverable than anything they encountered in Europe, they would be on the low side of fast.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Japanese 7076 was developed in 1939 and used in the A6M2 & A6M3, Japanese 7075 developed in 1942 and used from early-1943.
My understanding is the the embrittlement of 7000 series would not have affected the A6M series, as the airframes of the time did not last long enough in service for the time dependent embrittlement process to have an effect(?).
My understanding is the the embrittlement of 7000 series would not have affected the A6M series, as the airframes of the time did not last long enough in service for the time dependent embrittlement process to have an effect(?).
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Thumpalumpacus,
The 250 mph TAS/200 mph IAS max economic cruise (lean) of the A6M was about the same as for most ETO/MTO aircraft (Hurricane, Spitfire, Bf109, D.520, P-40, etc) in the early- to mid-war period. The combat cruise (max sustained rich ) was ~300 mph TAS/240 mph IAS at 15,000 ft. Again this is competitive with the European fighters (I think).
The 250 mph TAS/200 mph IAS max economic cruise (lean) of the A6M was about the same as for most ETO/MTO aircraft (Hurricane, Spitfire, Bf109, D.520, P-40, etc) in the early- to mid-war period. The combat cruise (max sustained rich ) was ~300 mph TAS/240 mph IAS at 15,000 ft. Again this is competitive with the European fighters (I think).
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That's why 7000 series components were only used in major structural components, but correct, most of these aircraft didn't last that long to have environmental or operational isses with embrittlement
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Adjust for the weight of at least 2 more guns and ammo. Our Euro-spec Zero gets heavier by the minute
- Thread starter
- #33
Admiral Beez
Major
The extra weight might keep it below 350 mph and more within its ideal envelope.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Exactly, they will need uparming to compete, and also uparmoring to survive. I'm not sure It can do that usefully without significantly more power. I think at some point you enter a weight-spiral.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It becomes a brick at 300 mph, the extra weight will greatly effect it's performance, especially in acceleration.
Allied pilots were instructed to stay above 250mph in a fight because the stiffening of the controls was a known issue.
As the RAF found out leaning into France 250mph is not fast enough nor flying at 15,000 into radar controlled airspace at any speed, the 30mph speed difference also means it can't run from the Euro fighters if the pilot decided to bail.
Both the Spit and 109 had armor proofed against the Zero's MG's and against splinters from it's 20mm shells, the Zero had none of that so to say it was as rugged is them would be a no.
And what envelope is that, the one were it's even slower than the Hurricane so it's bounced easier?
Bothe Spit MkII and higher dash Emils got more powerful engines but their performance didn't improve over the earlier models, it just compensated for the extra weight and drag of equipment warplanes required that was learned from actual combat experience.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
