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!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
". . . 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?
True, but some people feel that the main(?) problem with the A6M was the lack of armour and SSFT, making it more susceptible to being shot down for less damage received, leading to the loss of valuable skilled pilots. You are not going to solve the speed problem by adding armour and SSFT, but since the A6M was as fast/faster than the F4F, grossly outranged the F4F, and easily out-climbed and out-maneuvered the F4F, the added protection would eliminate the only significant advantage the F4F had.
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.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.
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(?).
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 extra weight might keep it below 350 mph and more within its ideal envelope.The Zero could outturn anything below 180mph but allied pilots learnt that early on, if they stayed out of low speed turning fights the Zero lost that advantage, trouble for the Zero is if it got into a high speed fight it's controls stiffened over 300mph and locked up over 350 so just adding armor and SSFT is not going to improve it's all round fighting ability.
Adjust for the weight of at least 2 more guns and ammo. Our Euro-spec Zero gets heavier by the minute
It becomes a brick at 300 mph, the extra weight will greatly effect it's performance, especially in acceleration.The extra weight might keep it below 350 mph and more within its ideal envelope.
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?
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).
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.
The extra weight might keep it below 350 mph and more within its ideal envelope.
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.