How bad would a Euro-spec A6M Zero be?

The A6M5c/A6M7 were still fighters, but were adapted to the attack role much like the Fw190F/G was.

GrauGeist said:

The A6M5c/A6M7 were still fighters, but were adapted to the attack role much like the Fw190F/G was.

Click to expand...

The A6M7 was designed as an attack aircraft not a fighter and the A6M5c has a top speed of only 350mph in 1945, over Europe the A6M in any guise is a sitting duck.

PAT303 said:

The A6M7 was designed as an attack aircraft not a fighter and the A6M5c has a top speed of only 350mph in 1945, over Europe the A6M in any guise is a sitting duck.

Click to expand...

Changing the goal post?

Post #54

PAT303 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The A6M may very well have not worked in Europe like some people think, being in general about 1-2 years behind the Best European fighters.
But the armament, as noted above was changed several times, with the earliest and perhaps most significant upgrade with the A6M3 with the 99-2 cannon and the 66% increase in ammo capacity. It may have fired 1-2 shells less per second per gun than a Spitfire but it had about the same duration of fire as a Spitfire with belt fed cannon. The increase in velocity means defection shooting was easier and effective range increased over the early gun even if not as good as a Hispano. The gun fired slower than the German MG 151/20 but the shells were more destrucitve than the MG 151/20 shells if you don't include the mine shells (which often only made up 40% of the Germans belts anyway).

Hey ssnider,

The reason for (most of) the discrepancy between the 2 reports are the speeds and altitudes at which the tests for the range were flown.

In the TAIC Report No.38 (the one I posted) the flight was at 168mphIAS/205mphTAS at 13,123 ft, using optimum weak mixture cruise for maximum range (with DT) of 2298 miles, for a flight time of 11.2 hrs under these conditions.

The ranges in the TAIC No.102D graph on pg.1 were flown with Normal power (the maximum sustained rich mixture setting) at an unspecified altitude. Obviously the power setting and rich mixture would increase the fuel usage a lot and decrease the range by a lot.

The maximum range (with DT) in the TAIC No.102D chart at the bottom of pg.2 was flown at 143mphIAS/146mphTAS at 1,500 ft for a range of 1844 miles, with a flight time of 12.6 hrs. 143mphIAS at 1,500 ft would be 175mphTAS at 13,123 ft. If we figure the ~same fuel usage per hour at 143mphIAS/175mphTAS 13,123 ft we get 175mphTAS x 12.6 hrs = 2205 miles for the range.

I figure that one or the other test was off a bit either in measurement, or assumed best economic settings. Or possibly the range value in Report No.38 was calculated with no allowance for climb to altitude.

Since this gives only 98 miles difference in range I think we can assume the numbers are fairly consistent?

Shortround6 said:

But the armament, as noted above was changed several times

Click to expand...

Okay I stand corrected, they did get a better cannon and HMG but only one model that I know of got both, good forum this one.