Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
I think you're looking at more than 100 lbs.Even if we add another 100 lbs for strengthening of various load bearing structure members, it will only add than another .4 lb/ft2 to the wing loading.
Well let's lock in what model we're talking about. Spitfire MK I or MK II, BF109E, A6M2 with the Mk 3 cannon? I think the Zero had good armament for the Pacific but in Europe it could use at least 2 more MGs (more weight from the guns, ammo and structural modifications required). And no additional HP?Armament would not make too big a difference I think, particularly once it had the higher MV belt-fed 20mm (100 rpg), since 1-2x 20mm and a couple of rifle caliber MGs are more than capable of taking down a fighter. (The Spitfire II/VA and B had either 8x .303 cal MG or 2x 20mm (60-round drum-fed) and 4x .303 cal, then received 120-round belt-fed mods. The Bf109Es had either 1 or 2x20mm (60-round drum-fed) and 2x7.92mm. The Bf109F had 1x15mm or 20mm and 2x 7.92mm. The Fw190 is another story.)
I agree, the lack of a more powerful engine seriously limits what can be done to upgrade the Zero.
The ability to add armour and SSFT to the A6M2 has been pointed out above, eliminating that advantage of the Spitfire and Bf109
couple of rifle caliber MGs are more than capable of taking down a fighter
The A6M2 was never fitted with only 2x rifle caliber MGs.
The Type 99 Mk I 20mm were approximately equivalent to German 20mm MG/FF (the Japanese 20mm was also based on the Oerlikon FF design).
Are you thinking of the armament on the Ki-43 'Oscar'? The Ki-43 started out with 2x 7.7mm MG and eventually graduated to 2x 12.7mm MG in its mid-war production models.
The casing was reduced in length from 100mm down to 80mm with a corresponding lowering of power to save weight and because the A6M's wing structure could not handle the larger case's recoil.
That never happened, and A6M's wing was able to withstand the larger's case recoil.
If the Zero is progressively uncontrollable over 300 mph, its envelope is slower than a Hurricane. With armour, ssft and a radio the Zero will better survive being bounced, which can happen to any fighter with an enemy diving from behind. The Hurricane is a good aircraft, not an term of disparagement.And what envelope is that, the one were it's even slower than the Hurricane so it's bounced easier?
Everything I have read about the A6M centered around weight savings and the structural strength of the plane which considering it ended the war with basically the same guns it started with makes sense.
If they could get the A6M8 into play by early 1942 how does it compare against the best possible Spitfires over Darwin.In essence I think the "Euro-spec" Zero can be found inn the A6M8, but it came 5 years late.
Clearly the Zero had a much greater range than the RAF and German fighters which gives it considerable strategic advantages, that no other air force had and shouldn't be forgotten.