Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They can't, the engine isn't quite ready yet.If they could get the A6M8 into play by early 1942 how does it compare against the best possible Spitfires over Darwin.
And I also think engines were changed because of the factory being bombed if I recall. When this model of the zero was first developed it also had engine heating issues as well.They can't, the engine isn't quite ready yet.
While they didn't stick the engine into the A6M8 until 1945 the engine was ready earlier, It was used in the D4Y3 starting in May of 1944 and might have been used a bit earlier?
But not 1942. Lower powered versions were used.
This is where you get it wrong: it haven't ended the war with 'basically the same guns it started [with]'.
The Type 99-2 was more powerful, heavier and bigger than the 99-1. It fired more powerful ammunition, it carried much more rounds. The 13mm HMGs installed were not the 7.7mm guns.
They can't, the engine isn't quite ready yet.
While they didn't stick the engine into the A6M8 until 1945 the engine was ready earlier, It was used in the D4Y3 starting in May of 1944 and might have been used a bit earlier?
It's all too little too late, the Japanese boxed themselves into a corner with the design, personally I don't understand why they didn't recognise the need for continual development of newer fighters, like the Germans they were arrogant I guess and thought everyone would give in, the BoB should have taught them that was not the case and given them a glimpse of future airfighting.
The Japanese used a copy of the German 13mm MG 131 as a flexible gun out the back of a few aircraft. A bit less powerful than the .5 Vickers.the ''upgraded'' 13mm guns were the equivalent of the medium velocity .5 Vickers the RAF tested back in the late 1930's and deemed to be not worth the effort
the Spitfire Tempest Typhoon and most likely the P47 P51 had by 1944 armor proofed against the MG151/Type 99-2 AP rounds
The A6M2 had 1x 38 USgal fuselage tank (that weighed 22 lbs), plus 2x 51 USgal wing tank (that weighed 24 lbs each) for a total fuel load of 141 USgal. The tanks were non-SS and were welded aluminum with anti-slosh baffles. They were not integral to the structure (ie they were not a "wet wing" type) and they were designed to be replaceable.
The most common type of SSFT used on UK aircraft (Hurricane, Spitfire, Mosquito, Lancaster to name a few) for most of the war, was the CIMA type (manufactured by FPT and others). It was a .5" thick multi-ply laminate applied over the outside of a metal tank, weighing about .96 lbs/ft2.
The A6M2 fuel tanks were approximately the following size (I looked for accurate dimensions but did not find any, so I approximated from the cut-aways and blueprints I did find.)
The 38.0 USgal tank was about 1.36' x 1.5' x 2.5' which equals a volume of 5.1 ft^3 and a wall square footage of 21.8 ft^2
Each 51.5 USgal tank was about 1.00' x 2.2' x 3.2' which equals a volume of 6.9 ft^3 and a wall square footage of 24.9 ft^2
NOTE that 1 ft^3 = 7.48 USgal by volume
1 x 38.0 USgal 21.8 ft2 x .5" x .96 = 10.5 lbs added weight
1 x 51.5 USgal 24.9 ft2 x .5" x .96 = 12.0 lbs added weight
1 x 51.5 USgal 24.9 ft2 x .5" x .96 = 12.0 lbs added weight
The .5" thickness would also reduce the dimensions of the metal structure and the volume of the tank by an amount proportionate to the square footage of the tank walls, so:
1 x 38.0 USgal = 5.1 ft3 - 21.8 ft2 x .5" x 12"^2 / 12"^3 = 0.91 ft^3 yielding a reduction in volume of 6.8 USgal
1 x 51.5 USgal = 6.9 ft3 - 24.9 ft2 x .5" x 12"^2 / 12"^3 = 1.04 ft^3 yielding a reduction in volume of 7.8 USgal
1 x 51.5 USgal = 6.9 ft3 - 24.9 ft2 x .5" x 12"^2 / 12"^3 = 1.04 ft^3 yielding a reduction in volume of 7.8 USgal
The increase in weight due to the SSFT materials would be about 34.5 lbs and the decrease in fuel load would be 22.4 USgal.
Fitting the same amount of armor as the 1941 Spitfire carried would add about 150 lbs.
Adding a more capable radio such as the TR.1133 would add another 30 lbs or so.
Increase in weight due to the SSFT, armour, and radio, would be 34.5 + 150 + 30 = 215 lbs.
Decrease in weight due to reduction in fuel load would be 22.4 USgal x 6 lb/gal = 135 lbs.
Net change in TOGW would be 215 - 135 = +80 lbs.
So the increased TOGW would be 5335 + 215 - 135 = 5415 lbs, while the wing loading at combat weight would only increase by about .9 lb/ft^2.
Decrease in range would be significant, at a bit over 22.4 / 141 = 16% or about 200 miles, leaving a range of 1000 miles at 250 mph TAS/200 IAS (max economic cruise at 15,000 ft), with enough fuel for 20 minutes of combat (max power) and 30 minutes reserve (at best economic cruise).
In addition to the above weight increases you would probably have to strengthen the underlying metal structure of the fuel tanks. I do not know how much weight this would add to the above calculations, but I doubt it would be more than 50-60 lbs (That is just a guestimate on my part, as I am not familiar with the structure required to withstand the forces imposed on the tank by the impact and penetration of the projectiles).
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.
(I am doing this late at night so let me know if I made any errors.)
edit: The above 1000 mile range is predicated on the maximum range not being limited by the internal fuel load. The fuel load at TOGW would be 141 - 22.4 = 118.6 USgal internal plus the normal 87 USgal DT, for a total fuel load of 118.6 + 87 = ~205 USgal.
Did other radial fighters of 1940-41 have SSFT and cockpit armour? Maybe the latter, but not the former? Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect SSFT on anyone in 1940-41? This P-36 below has armour for the pilot's back.I agree, the lack of a more powerful engine seriously limits what can be done to upgrade the Zero.
The Japanese used a copy of the German 13mm MG 131 as a flexible gun out the back of a few aircraft. A bit less powerful than the .5 Vickers.
HOWEVER, the Zero used a copy of the big Browning chambered for the Hotchkiss 13.2mm X 99mm round. You take the US .50 cal round (12.7mm) and neck it up to 13.2mm.
And no, nobody was carrying armor "proofed" against such 20mm projectiles.
Hey PAT303,
The 7.7mm Type 97 carried by all A6M models was a detail modified version of the Vickers E .303 cal. The projectiles were (I think) pretty much the same as the UK .303 cal. MV was 2440 ft/sec and ROF was 900 rpm.
The 13mm Type 3 carried by the later A6M5 was an adaptation of the Browning .30/.50 cal design. Although it said 13mm in its name it actually fired the modern 13.2mm Hotchkiss type projectiles (similar to those used by the Italians, including the HE round) with a MV of 2600 ft/sec and ROF of 800 rpm.
As far as I know the A6M never carried an actual .5"/.50 cal MG or 13mm MG.
In 1945 it had guns the European fighters had in 1941-42, the ''upgraded'' 13mm guns were the equivalent of the medium velocity .5 Vickers the RAF tested back in the late 1930's and deemed to be not worth the effort, the Spitfire Tempest Typhoon and most likely the P47 P51 had by 1944 armor proofed against the MG151/Type 99-2 AP rounds yet the A6M didn't have armor proofed against any of the Allied in service ammunition like M8 API and SAPI's would just cut right through it, from what I can find out no A6M variant went much over 350mph which is pretty useless when every single plane you will be facing can do 440-450mph and have 500mph+ all with good pilot control. A Euro spec A6M, it's not happening.
It doesn't matter what engine type.Did other radial fighters of 1940-41 have SSFT and cockpit armour?
Heavens.... would it be as bad as the Buffalo?
Top marks on the in-house design and for its time the Nakajima Sakae, but the Zero is a hodgepodge of foreign tech. British and US-origin machine guns, Swiss/German-origin cannons and US-origin propeller.... and yet they relied on domestic design, manufacture and shielding of its radio. Just buy some German radios FFS. Though a German radio will need some mods before it can serve a naval fighter like the Zero.The 7.7mm Type 97 carried by all A6M models was a detail modified version of the Vickers E .303 cal. The projectiles were (I think) pretty much the same as the UK .303 cal. MV was 2440 ft/sec and ROF was 900 rpm.
The 13mm Type 3 carried by the later A6M5 was an adaptation of the Browning .30/.50 cal design. Although it said 13mm in its name it actually fired the modern 13.2mm Hotchkiss type projectiles (similar to those used by the Italians, including the HE round) with a MV of 2600 ft/sec and ROF of 800 rpm.
As far as I know the A6M never carried an actual .5"/.50 cal MG or 13mm MG.
So instead of saying 'I was wrong' for the claim that Zero's guns at the end of the war were basically the same as when it was introduced, you prefer to move the goal post.
Not the 1st time someone tried to do it on this forum.
Well from what I could find only the A6M5c was up gunned so out of all the variants of the Zero fighter just one model that came out 6 months before the war ended had heavier armament than what it started with and so good was it most ended up being used as Kamikazes because it could carry a bomb, so yes I was wrong, happy now.
BTW the A6M7