Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.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?
It wasn't just doctrine.The only thing precluding Spitfire from being designed as a long range fighter was then-current RAF doctrine
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.Firstly, if this was a fatal flaw, surely if he got hit, his aircraft would have exploded, yes?
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.
Almost exactly what I said in post #291 upthread.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.
I think it would have made things an awful lot tuffer for the RAF.….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...
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.I think it would have made things an awful lot tuffer for the RAF.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What was the range of the He 112? How much of fuel it carried?
Have a look on wikepedia.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?
Not according to Wikipedia.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.
Have a look on wikepedia.
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.