Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

[nuuumannn]

Where was the Zero's successor? These later IJAAF aircraft had powerful engines, sufficient to cancel out the additional weight of armour and self sealing fuel tanks.

As early as 1940, the navy considered a replacement for the Zero and this was 16-Shi specification. Almost immediately it ran into difficulty as falling on Mitsubishi, whose dsign staff were overworked at the time, headway was not made and was withdrawn, but re-instated by the navy in April 1942. To this renewed spec, 17-Shi, the A7M was built. Again, the reason behind the delay in building the first Reppu was shifting wartime priorities and demands made on Mitsubishi by naval staff, for other work. Sounds awfully familiar. Also, in March 1945, Mitsubishi's Nagoya factory was bombed out and the A7M mock-up and thousands of drawings were lost.

Variants of the Zero were progressively upgraded, as we know, and the naval staff responded belatedly to Mitsubishi's repeated requests to improve the Zero's performance with new engines and modifications and it was the disappointing performance of the A6M5c and '6c that forced the navy to do as Mitsubishi rcommended and fit the Kinsei engine, which Mitsubishi had preferred for the Zero from the outset, but the navy insisted on the Sakai. This new became the A6M8, which first appeared in April 1945 and the Kinsei was a 1,560hp engine, modifications such as improved fire extinguishing systems and self-sealing tanks were added and the nose machine guns removed. It was hoped that this aircraft could successfully take on the Hellcat, but they never met in combat as no A6M8 was completed before the end of the war owing to the chaotic state of the manufacturing industry in the last year of the war.

In hindsight, the biggest hindrance to plans to replace the Zero appeared to be the Imperial Japanese Navy staff. By the time they acquiesced to the manufacturer's requests, it was too late.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Once Mrs Shillings Orifice was fitted to the Spitfire - well before Pearl Harbor - it could do negative G manouvres without the engine stalling so why do you say it could not bunt?

He didn't say it couldn't bunt; he said the 109 could accelerate sharply away from the Zero in a power dive, but the Spit Vc couldn't. This has nothing to do with any feminine orifice, and everything to do with size, wing loading, power loading and drag. Read carefully the descriptions of the comparative trials. The Spit could only just barely pull away from the Zero in a dive, leaving it the chance for a good solid burst before the Spit gets out of range. The 109 is a comparatively "denser" machine, smaller with less frontal area/drag for its weight and power, thus faster power dive acceleration.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Shortround6]

The only thing precluding Spitfire from being designed as a long range fighter was then-current RAF doctrine

It wasn't just doctrine.
As mentioned other places/threads it was a combination of things. The Fixed pitch prop might or might not be considered doctrine (or just standard engineering practice?)
The Spitfire didn't even get a two pitch prop for several years after it was designed.
Between the Prop and the small airfields there was only so much you could do with a fighter plane in 1936-38 as far as range goes.

Granted the 109 in 1938 was no ball of fire (most of them used Jumo 210 engines in 1938) and the French were building MS 406s (with Dw 520s being developed)

The Fairey Battle had an operational radius of about 400 miles ( 5 hours at around 200 mph, 2 hours out, 2 hours back, 1 hour for combat/reserve) which handley exceeds any reasonable
endurance for a 1937-38 Spitfire (fixed Pitch prop) let alone what the multi-engine bombers could do. Compromising your interceptors so you can have an escort fighter that can only escort part way to the targets seems a bit wasteful.

The British certainly screwed up by deciding that since the single engine escort fighter was difficult to impossible in 1936-39, there was no need to re-evaluate things in 1940-41 when they had constant speed props and 100 octane fuel (better power to weight ratio of the powerplant) and were building larger airfields. At this point you might be correct is saying it was "doctrine" because the technical features needed had shown up. BUt some of these technical features were not in existence in 1936-37 or at least used by the British.

Aircraft structure and streamlining was also changing by the year. Later aircraft had lighter structure for a given aircraft weight, often masked because the entire plane was larger/heavier.

The Spit was sort of an outlier when it came to streamlining/low drag. Better than many of it's contemporaries even if not as a good as the Mustang.
But if somebody took a look at the Hurricane it's ability to operate as an escort fighter is highly suspect.

Remember that the Germans thought you needed two engines for a long range fighter at the time as did the Italians. The Japanese Army had the Ki-45 so perhaps they weren't sure of the Ki-43? Russians had several twin engine fighters in the works.

The Spit might have been able to be modified into a long range fighter in 1940-41 but that is not the same as being being designed to be one in 1936.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Firstly, if this was a fatal flaw, surely if he got hit, his aircraft would have exploded, yes?

No! Nothing in war is that cut-and-dried. Cut-and-dried thinking loses wars. The greater the portion of an aircraft's mass is unprotected flammables, the greater the likelihood of an explosion under gunfire. Too many of these instances will lead to unacceptable attrition.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[nuuumannn]

The greater the portion of an aircraft's mass is unprotected flammables, the greater the likelihood of an explosion under gunfire. Too many of these instances will lead to unacceptable attrition.

As you said, not everything was as cut-and-dried. Zeroes returned from combat sorties completely shot up, yet didn't explode. That's the point I was making - that early Zeroes didn't have self-protection measures was a flaw exposed by experience by the US Navy in the Pacific (let's not forget US Army AF, RAAF, RNZAF Dutch AF etc), but it wasn't necessarily fatal. Up to the time the Japanese encountered experienced pilots and better flown aircraft, it had not been an issue and enabled the aircraft to achieve amazing performance because of the weight saving. Besides, in 1944, Zeroes were being fitted with self-sealing tanks and armour plating. The fact so many were shot down from then on was down to several things, better US aircraft and more of them, better trained pilots being the most important ones.

 

[Elvis]

….all these points you guys bring up has me wondering how the BoB would've turned out, if the Luftwaffe had augmented their 109's with Zero's...hmmm...

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Up to the time the Japanese encountered experienced pilots and better flown aircraft, it had not been an issue and enabled the aircraft to achieve amazing performance because of the weight saving.

Almost exactly what I said in post #291 upthread.

 

[nuuumannn]

Hm, yup. See Wes, I look at it this way - I absolutely cringe when I hear blatantly dismissive statements, such as "it was a copy of the Hughes Racer", or "it was completely over-rated" or "it had a fatal flaw in that it had no self-protection". These are largely inaccurate assessments and are almost predominantly made by Americans and have been generated from myths perpetuated since the end of the war. They completely belie the fact that the Zero was an outstanding design, full of modern innovations in 1939 and between then and 1942 was undoubtedly one of the world's best fighters in service. That it was overtaken by more modern and powerful designs is in hindsight obvious and was at the time inevitable, so such dissmissive statements do nothing to acknowledge the genius behind the aircraft.

take a look through this thread that I posted a number of years ago.

Mitsubishi A6M3 Type '0' Carrier Fighter in detail

Next, n case I get accused of displaying far too much bias in my praise of the aircraft, read through this; this is a wartime US analysis of the Zero and is where I got a lot of the information I presented in my thread above:

Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (Hamp - Mitsubishi A6M3)

 

[michael rauls]

….all these points you guys bring up has me wondering how the BoB would've turned out, if the Luftwaffe had augmented their 109's with Zero's...hmmm...

I think it would have made things an awful lot tuffer for the RAF.

 

[Kevin J]

I think it would have made things an awful lot tuffer for the RAF.

The He 112 would have made it tougher as it had longer range. So wasn't it great that the Germans never planned for an air war over the South coast of England, whilst us Brits had our radar system best concentrated in the South because we had expected our next war to be with the French. In the last 1000 years most of our wars have been with the French.

 

[slaterat]

According to wiki only 98 Zeros were built in 1940. Although the long range of the Zero would of been beneficial in the BoB, I don't believe it would change any outcomes. In the first year of the war in the Pacific the Zero almost always had the advantage of surprise , numbers and altitude. This would not be the case in any BoB scenario. The Zero would be up against a concentrated force of 1000, non tropicalized, radar directed, Spitfire I and IIs and Hurricane I and IIs. Everything lacking in the Pacific would be in place. Spotters, intelligence, AAA, spare parts, aircraft repairs, ample supplies of Dixon/Dewilde ammo, fuel, coolant ect.

 

[michael rauls]

According to wiki only 98 Zeros were built in 1940. Although the long range of the Zero would of been beneficial in the BoB, I don't believe it would change any outcomes. In the first year of the war in the Pacific the Zero almost always had the advantage of surprise , numbers and altitude. This would not be the case in any BoB scenario. The Zero would be up against a concentrated force of 1000, non tropicalized, radar directed, Spitfire I and IIs and Hurricane I and IIs. Everything lacking in the Pacific would be in place. Spotters, intelligence, AAA, spare parts, aircraft repairs, ample supplies of Dixon/Dewilde ammo, fuel, coolant ect.

In dont think it would likely change the ultimate outcome either but do think it would make for a tuffer slog. Not so much because of any performance atributes of the A6m but because of its endurance.

 

[MiTasol]

There was not many planes in 1939 that had armour or self sealing tanks, but it was very quickly added on the production line after the war started and all in service planes, Spitfire/Hurricane/Me109 had it retrofitted. There is a good write up about the fitting of armour to the Me109 in JG 26's diaries after their loses in the battle of France.

I had suspected that but I have never seen it in any historic document so where can I find the JG 26 diaries.

 

[tomo pauk]

Shattered Sword.

Nope.
Japannese attack aircraft operating from cariers were refueled and rearmed under the deck because it was how it was done by the IJ Navy - as stated in the Shattered Sword.

The He 112 would have made it tougher as it had longer range. So wasn't it great that the Germans never planned for an air war over the South coast of England, whilst us Brits had our radar system best concentrated in the South because we had expected our next war to be with the French. In the last 1000 years most of our wars have been with the French.

What was the range of the He 112? How much of fuel it carried?

 

[tomo pauk]

It wasn't just doctrine.
As mentioned other places/threads it was a combination of things. The Fixed pitch prop might or might not be considered doctrine (or just standard engineering practice?)
The Spitfire didn't even get a two pitch prop for several years after it was designed.
Between the Prop and the small airfields there was only so much you could do with a fighter plane in 1936-38 as far as range goes.

Granted the 109 in 1938 was no ball of fire (most of them used Jumo 210 engines in 1938) and the French were building MS 406s (with Dw 520s being developed)

The Fairey Battle had an operational radius of about 400 miles ( 5 hours at around 200 mph, 2 hours out, 2 hours back, 1 hour for combat/reserve) which handley exceeds any reasonable
endurance for a 1937-38 Spitfire (fixed Pitch prop) let alone what the multi-engine bombers could do. Compromising your interceptors so you can have an escort fighter that can only escort part way to the targets seems a bit wasteful.

Fairey Battle flew with 2-pitch prop from day 1, so it does not take a degree in rocket science to have 2-pitch prop included in design of the Spitfire.

Remember that the Germans thought you needed two engines for a long range fighter at the time as did the Italians. The Japanese Army had the Ki-45 so perhaps they weren't sure of the Ki-43? Russians had several twin engine fighters in the works.

The Spit might have been able to be modified into a long range fighter in 1940-41 but that is not the same as being being designed to be one in 1936.

Americans certainly didn't think that one needs two engines when long range was needed, nor the Japanese Navy.
Russian 2-engined fighters were not trying to be especially long ranged, but to out-perform and out-gun the 1-engined fighters.
And as above and before - people at Supermarine have had all the technological ingredients to design Spitfire as a long range fighter from day one (same with people at Hawker for the Hurricane), like excellent engine, drop tank technology, big enough airframes (especially the big wing choosen) and 2-pitch prop. That the AM/RAF didn't asked/needed/wanted for such a fighter is alltogether something else.

 

[stona]

What was the range of the He 112? How much of fuel it carried?

Less than the Bf 109 with the DB 601. I can't find the figures.

The He 112 was crap and the Germans were correct not to proceed with it.

 

[Kevin J]

Nope.
Japannese attack aircraft operating from cariers were refueled and rearmed under the deck because it was how it was done by the IJ Navy - as stated in the Shattered Sword.



What was the range of the He 112? How much of fuel it carried?

Have a look on wikepedia.

 

[Kevin J]

Less than the Bf 109 with the DB 601. I can't find the figures.

The He 112 was crap and the Germans were correct not to proceed with it.

Not according to Wikipedia.

 

[tomo pauk]

Have a look on wikepedia.

In other words: you don't know, and wan't to send me into wild goose chase instead.

 

[PAT303]

Nope.
Japannese attack aircraft operating from cariers were refueled and rearmed under the deck because it was how it was done by the IJ Navy - as stated in the Shattered Sword.

It was done that way by the navy to keep the decks clear for the rearming of CAP fighters, as stated in Shattered Sword.