The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Could any version of A6M reach 360mph in level flight?A6M could dogfight at low to medium airspeeds but its structure wasn't built to withstand high speed manoeuvers.
Light structural weight has been the prime consideration in designing the Hamp — now officially designated the Zeke 32— which was developed from the Jap's workhorse Zero fighter.
Nothing has been spared to keep weight down, neither excessive manhours to manufacture complex units, nor increasing maintenance difficulties for ground crews. Lightening holes, for example, are used prolifically— even in the pilot's seat—and diameters as small as half an inch are found throughout the craft. Outstanding of the weight saving measures is complete elimination of protective armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. It all results in a plane that is extremely vulnerable despite good maneuverability at medium speeds.
This weight-saving design would indicate that the craft is flimsily built but such is not the case, for its strength compares favorably with many American-built planes.
I'm missing why that's a contradiction. I've never heard of any problems with these in terms of taking to carrier ops. It's not like these were made of balsa wood.The info on the Zero is that it is very lightly built to dogfight but it also has to be rugged enough for carrier operations.
That is certainly a contradiction [...].
We couldn't make a decent torpedo, squad machinegun or 20mm cannon either yet we built the atomic bomb.If the Japanese could make light carrier aircraft then why couldnt the Americans
If the Japanese could make light carrier aircraft then why couldnt the Americans who made a big fuss of their robustness.
I see the point that a lightweight, low speed, good slow speed agaility who make a safe carrier aircraft.
P-51 and Me-262 are exceptions to the rule but they entered service in large numbers only when WWII was almost over.
June 1942. Even if design work begins during July 1942 the war would be over before it enters operational service.
F4F, F6F and A6M were designed to pre-war specifications. Unless the war drags on for 10 years chances are most of your military hardware will be designed during peacetime, without benefit of recent wartime experience.
P-51 and Me-262 are exceptions to the rule but they entered service in large numbers only when WWII was almost over.
Irrespective of when the designs of aircraft like the F4F and F6F were initiated, I have heard of zero (pun intended) evidence that the US ever seriously consisdered adopting the design philosophy behind the A6M2 or Ki-43, where light weight was the first, second and third priority. Of course, all fightesr will be made as light as possible within the design parameters, but in the US those parameters included provision for things like armour, survival gear, self sealing tanks and the like.
The Nakajima Sakae engine the A6M2 used produced about 950 hp, modest even for 1940. To get the required performance from his fighter Hirokoshi produced the lightest aircraft with the lowest wingloading possible. As well as giving the zero its exceptional agility and renowned tendancy to disintegrate when hit, this greatly limited its development potential. The zero could never have taken the progressive upgrades in power seen with many allied designs, even accounting for the airframe modifications those aircraft underwent.
Regarding the Zeros performance in the first year or so of the Pacific war, it's worth remembering that this excellent fighter was flown by some of the most expert pilots in the world genrally against against inexperienced opponents flying inferior equipment. If I could pose a hypothetical scenario, how would the zero have gone against equally excellent fighters flown by pilots who knew how to use their machines against tighter turning opposition - the Luftwaffe in their Bf109F for example?