Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Ok. I screwed up the area, but I think the principle stands: it won't stop direct hits from .50 cals, but the point is to stop wide angle hits and long range pot shots
 
Spindash64 said:
Ok. I screwed up the area, but I think the principle stands: it won't stop direct hits from .50 cals, but the point is to stop wide angle hits and long range pot shots
Click to expand...
The idea that any police marksman can take down a criminal with no possibility of killing them is a myth. People have died from wounds to the feet and hands, and even a rifle bullet to the fet or hands can make flying a plane impossible. Any bullet in the body can kill or incapacitate because they can spliner and go anywhere. At the time there were a lot of very clever people with a lot of research data, much of which has been lost thinking day and night about these issues.
 
I know that. I don't expect the pilot to necessarily survive a blow to the torso or legs either. I just know that the head is particularly exposed, and particularly vulnerable to leaving you to die immediately.

you need to remember we're operating on a shoestring horsepower budget, here, AND we need to be able to convince the higher ups that this is a small enough increase in weight to be acceptable for the protection added. I do not have room or weight allocation for anything better on the A6M2 than an armored headrest.
 
Spindash64 said:
I do not have room or weight allocation for anything better on the A6M2 than an armored headrest.
Click to expand...
You don't need anything on the A6M2, You need it on the A6M3, first flown on 15 July 1941
entered production in April 1942. But they made a botch of that job and didn't restore the fuel capacity until Dec 1942 so they kept using the A6M2s for much of 1942 and early 1943.
7-8 months to add 100 liters of fuel? Or to add about 50-52 liters compared to the A6M2?
The improvements were coming to slow and to few at a time.
 
It was the -2 that fought at Coral Sea and Midway, and the main fighter available at Guadalcanal. The only chance the Japanese had in the war was with the -2
 
Spindash64 said:
It was the -2 that fought at Coral Sea and Midway, and the main fighter available at Guadalcanal. The only chance the Japanese had in the war was with the -2
Click to expand...
The -2 did OK at Coral Sea and Midway. A dessert plate size chunk of armor behind the head might have save 2-4 pilots (being generous).
The Grind was over/around Guadalcanal. Again a dessert plate size chunk of armor wasn't going to shift the balance of power.
If the Japanese had been making A6M3 of the type made in Dec 1942 in the spring of 1942 with somewhat better protection ( fire extinguishers or at least CO2 into the tanks to hold down the fumes) that may or may not have made the difference (better 20mm guns, more ammo, higher dive speed, etc).
 
Yes, but that requires a much larger nudge, and I don't see the A6M3 ever realistically being ready in time for Midway: it's not enough to just have it manufactured in spring of 42, you need to have it delivered to the Carriers, and you need time to train your pilots on the new aircraft.

And saving "2-4 pilots" is a lot more important for a country whose idea of "pilot training" involves physical abuse that makes POW camps look like luxury resorts: the aces they started the war with are basically the only aces they're going to keep
 
How do you start a war with aces?
 
Spindash64 said:
And saving "2-4 pilots" is a lot more important for a country whose idea of "pilot training" involves physical abuse that makes POW camps look like luxury resorts: the aces they started the war with are basically the only aces they're going to keep
Click to expand...
The number of pilots saved by a scrap of armor and making back to the carrier or land base without other damage to the aircraft are going to be minimal.
Volume of a human head is about two liters, the small head plate is going to protect from one direction only.
A5M2 has 518 liters of internal fuel and while a single hit may not take the aircraft out, it is possible for a single hit to cause enough fuel leakage to keep the plane from returning home.
There are other vulnerable parts of the aircraft, oil tank, control linkages, the rest of the pilots body (.50 cal through the torso?)
The engine? The inside of a single cylinder is about the size of the pilots head (skull)

The Pilots head is arguably the most important, it is also about the smallest target.
Is starting 1943 with 4 more experienced pilots than they did historically going to make any difference to the air-war in 1943?
 
That's kind of the idea, actually: BECAUSE it's a small target, a relatively small amount of armor by area can be used to protect it. And these improvements need to be given the "okay" by higher ups: anything more extensive than a simple armored headrest would likely be immediately rejected by the Japanese Navy, putting us back at square 1.

Self Sealing Fuel tanks? cuts into range, they won't approve it

Bullet resistant windscreen? Either takes too much time to put together, too much weight by their standards, or they'd have to do the only thing worse than surrendering to America: collaborate with the Army to see what THEY have put together for armored windscreens. That last one is even less likely than Man in the High Castle, although if a plan can be put together independently in reasonable time, they might allow it.

Engine Armor? Too heavy, they won't allow it.

Protecting control cables? This isn't a tank, chief, we don't have space on the carrier deck for a 30 ton monster. The US didn't go that far

Armored Seat? Starting to add an extra 80kg, that's too much weight

Did they eventually rescind? Yes, after eating crow sandwich.

And no, it's not going to win them the war. But that's because nothing short of the Divine Winds sinking every single American Ship at every harbor on earth simultaneously on December 7th, 1941, would give them a chance to WIN the war. It was a suicide mission going in, and even a good number of the Japanese knew it.

The best I can do for an impossible war is make sure one or two more men get to live to see the end of it
 
Spindash64 said:
On a differentish topic, and one I've probably said before in some form.... to improve the A6M2 with as few "factory" modifications as possible, I'd install a small, 10mm x 10cm x 10cm piece of hardened sheet steel behind the pilot's headrest.
Click to expand...
From the wiki on OTL A6M improvements that I feel could have been done right at the start of production, after seeing how air combat was being done over Europe in 1939-1940 as the A6M1 was being worked out
  • An early production A6M5 Zero with non-separated exhaust, with an A6M3 Model 22 in the background. A new exhaust system provided an increment of thrust by aiming the stacks aft and distributing them around the forward fuselage. The new exhaust system required "notched" cowl flaps and heat shields just aft of the stacks. (Note, however, that the handling manual translation states that the new style of exhaust commenced with number 3904. Whether this is correct, indicates retrofitting intentions, refers to the prototype but not to all subsequent planes, or is in error, is unclear.) From production number 4274, the wing fuel tanks received carbon dioxide fire extinguishers.[58][59]
  • A6M5a, Model 52甲 (Kō, 52a) – Starting at Mitsubishi number 4651, an armament change substituted the belt-fed Type 99-2 Mark 4 cannon, with 125 rounds per gun, in place of the drum-fed Type 99-2 Mark 3 cannon that carried 100 rounds per gun. Hence, the bulge in the underside of the wing for each cannon's ammunition drum was deleted and the ejection port for spent cartridge cases was moved. Thicker wing skinning was installed to permit higher diving speeds.[64]
  • A6M5b, Model 52乙 (Otsu, 52b) – Armament change: The 7.7 mm (.303 in) Type 97 gun (750 m/s (2,500 ft/s) muzzle velocity and 600 m (2,000 ft) range) in the right forward fuselage was replaced by a 13.2 mm Type 3 Browning-derived gun (790 m/s (2,600 ft/s) muzzle velocity and 900 m (3,000 ft) range, with a rate of fire of 800 rounds per minute) with 240 rounds. The larger weapon required an enlarged opening, creating a distinctive asymmetric appearance to the top of the cowling, and a revised gas outlet near the windscreen. In addition, each wing cannon received a fairing at the wing leading edge. A plate of armored glass 45 mm (1.8 in) thick was fitted to the windscreen. A larger propeller spinner was fitted, suggesting a change to the propeller.[65] The type of ventral drop tank was changed, it now had fins and was suspended on a slanted pipe. The first of this variant was completed in April 1944 and it was produced until October 1944.[66]
  • A6M5c, Model 52丙 (Hei, 52c) – Armament change: One 13.2 mm (.51 in) Type 3 machine gun was added in each wing outboard of the cannon, and the 7.7 mm gun on the left side of the cowl was deleted. Four racks for rockets or small bombs were installed outboard of the 13 mm gun in each wing. Engine change: Some sources state that the hei had a Sakae 31 engine[67] In addition, a 55 mm (2.2 in) thick piece of armored glass was installed at the headrest and an 8 mm (0.31 in) thick plate of armor was installed behind the seat. The mounting of the central 300 L (79 US gal) drop tank changed to a four-post design.[68] Wing skin was thickened further.
Now this all adds some weight, cutting into performance and range.
But is more survivable, and stronger wings also means better Roll response at speed.
 
Spindash64 said:
Self Sealing Fuel tanks? cuts into range, they won't approve it
Click to expand...
protected tanks does not equal sealing-sealing.

As shown above the From production number 4274, the wing fuel tanks received carbon dioxide fire extinguishers.

This was not new technology. US Brewster Buffaloes used the carbon dioxide fire extinguishers in 1941.
Early F4Us used carbon dioxide. However they were not fire extinguishers in the way we think of them.
They were purge systems. On going into combat (or combat area?) they used the CO2 to blow the fumes out of the tanks so the fuel was sitting in an inert atmosphere. Reduce the chance of a fire, did nothing for fuel leaks.
Russians used exhaust gases to do the same thing.
It was cheap, it was light, it was better than nothing.

To show how far behind the Japanese were, April 1942 sees the first Zeros built with two speed superchargers.
Sept 1940 sees the First Hurricanes with two two speed superchargers issued.
End of 1940 sees the first F4Fs issued with two stage superchargers.
Aug 1942 sees 4 squadrons of Spitfires with two stage superchargers over Dieppe.
Closer to home, the Ki-60 flew in March 1940 with a DB 601 engine with a variable speed supercharger.

Obviously they can't armor everything, but the engine occupies a space dozens of times the space of the pilots head. you could have scores of planes shot down without a single bullet hitting that small plate.
you want so save Japanese pilots?
Invest in a few rescue boats or a better air/sea rescue set up.
 
Was the Type 99-2 ready at this point? If so, then it seems like the natural choice, due to the much higher muzzle velocity, but if not, then it really wouldn't matter for the early zeroes. I do think you're on to something with these changes, though: none of them seem to require some form of "technological time travel", using either aerodynamic knowledge that wasn't available, or engine technology that wasn't reliable yet. I suppose if you tried to advertise it to the IJN as a "bomber destroyer" modification of the zero (toughened up to allow pilots to more aggressively engage formations of dive bombers and torpedo bombers to prevent successful attack runs on the fleet, due to less time needing to be spent avoiding the rear gunners), the IJN might accept these changes

I actually mentioned a swap to heavier machine guns WAY back in this thread (like a year ago), although I don't know if the 13.2mm machine gun was ready. I believe the Ho-103 was ready, however, and could be easily adapted to naval service. From what I can tell, a single heavy machine gun is worth at least twice as much in firepower as a rifle caliber machine gun, if not more (as 1 large gun requires less overall packaging space than 2 smaller ones, and each round has more room to carry either some form of explosive/incendiary, or just to be a heavier round with better odds of penetrating armor protection or other "hard" parts of a plane, like wing spars and engine blocks)
 
The A6M3 got the 100 round magazines for the 99-1 guns, the last of the long wing A6M3s got the higher velocity guns. But that wasn't until the summer of 1943.

The Japanese, it seems, didn't have a enough engineers and they kept taking short cuts and then having to redo things later.
The short wing A6M3 was an attempt to increase roll, get a couple of knts more speed and a bit higher diving speed.
The Long wing A6M3 got a 12 gallon tank in each each wing in addition to the standard wing tank and restored the range. It didn't turn quite as well as the A6M2 but depending on fuel state, turned better than the short wing A6M3. The long wing got an aileron balance tab to reduce stick forces that had been used on the A6M2 but not successfully. The later A6M3s also got cockpit controlled rudder tab. Basically a lot of what they got out of the short wing model had to done over again.

The A6M5 went back to the short wing, kept the extra fuel, and substituted rounded wing tips for the squared off wing tips. This meant redoing the ailerons and the landing flaps one more time, and redoing the aileron tabs to ground adjustable. Short wings allowed going back to the higher dive speeds of the short wing A6M3.
anybody getting dizzy yet?

And the A6M5 was a response to the fact that the J2M was running late.
 
Spindash64 said:
A war, yes. But not the war against the US
Click to expand...
The RAF pilots involved i the war in Europe didnt consider Malta a different war to the War in England, same for Africa and the far east. The Japanese dont call it th Sino Japanese war because they dont call themselves Japanese and dont normally converse in English. re you saying that no Japanese pilots became aces fighting against US forces?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
tomo pauk
What was it about the black crosses on the wings that made German aircraft the best?
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
9K
mikewint
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
S
How much faster is an aircraft with wooden surface?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register