Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

[Admiral Beez]

Or you could look at it as two highly touted fighters that evolved to a great extent in their lifetimes vs one who didn't didn't change all that much.

Contrary to the IJN, the IJAF, like the RAF and Luftwaffe kept updating their fighter fleet. Though unlike the Spitfire, the IJAF replaced instead of evolved its fighters. Could the Oscar, or Zero for that matter have been continuously evolved? Was there the available space and stretch in the designs?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Contrary to the IJN, the IJAF, like the RAF and Luftwaffe kept updating their fighter fleet. Though unlike the Spitfire, the IJAF replaced instead of evolved its fighters. Could the Oscar, or Zero for that matter have been continuously evolved? Was there the available space and stretch in the designs?

ISTM that if you opt for the light weight approach you're limiting the stretchability of your design unless you're willing and able to constantly re-engineer your design and revamp your production lines.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

To many non-aviationists, our discussions are, at best, boring and, at worst, pointless, inane drivel.

In the model railroad world, which I also inhabit, people like us are called "rivet counters".
Cheers,
Wes

 

[tomo pauk]

Contrary to the IJN, the IJAF, like the RAF and Luftwaffe kept updating their fighter fleet. Though unlike the Spitfire, the IJAF replaced instead of evolved its fighters. Could the Oscar, or Zero for that matter have been continuously evolved? Was there the available space and stretch in the designs?

They certainly could. The A6M8 received the Kinsei in 1945 in form of two prototypes - there is no reason IMO that they could not do it much earier (limited by actual availability of the engines, of course). Installation of a better engine meant that performance figures were restored back to 360 mph despite the improvement in firepower and protection (the Zero 52c went down to 335 mph because of that).
Or, install the Ha-41 or Ha-109 on either aircraft. Water injection in time, not too late.
The Ki-43 could've used another pair of HMGs installed in the wing.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The Ki-43 could've used another pair of HMGs installed in the wings.

At what cost in performance?

 

[tomo pauk]

At what cost in performance?

I don't know exactly, but the protruding barrels of two 20mm cannon was judged by RAE to cost 6.25 mph on Spitfires.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I don't know exactly, but the protruding barrels of two 20mm cannon was judged by RAE to cost 6.25 mph on Spitfires.

Two HMGs probably wouldn't protrude that much, but what about their weight, along with ammunition, mounting brackets, feed and charging systems and structural reinforcement, all in a super lightweight fighter whose stock in trade is eye-watering agility?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[tomo pauk]

Two HMGs probably wouldn't protrude that much, but what about their weight, along with ammunition, mounting brackets, feed and charging systems and structural reinforcement, all in a super lightweight fighter whose stock in trade is eye-watering agility?
Cheers,
Wes

Super lightweights will loose the air war where performance, firepower and protection were deciding factors (= most of ww2). There is a reason why I've suggested that Ki-43 (and Zero) receive either Kinsei, or Ha-41/109 engine in the 1t place.

 

[Shortround6]

It wasn't all fighter vs fighter combat. According to one book the tactic worked out by the Japanese to counter the B-24 Liberator was multiple aircraft attacking from the front in succession and then circling around and repeating the firing passes on the same target aircraft in the formation.

Two low powered 12.7mm guns with 250rpg are a lousy armament for bomber interception. Yes /he Ki-43 did shoot down allied bombers but the poor armament ment that you needed more fighters to shoot down relatively few bombers.

Heck, even a 7.7 in each wing would have been an improvement in firepower.

The Ki -43 used a 3 spar wing? Perhaps there wasn't enough room in the wing?

The Japanese screwed up with the Ki-44. It should have had a big wing, sort of an intermediate between the Ki-43 and the Ki-84 or Ki-84 lite if you prefer.

 

[Admiral Beez]

With an empty weight of 3,704 lbs, can we agree that the Zero was the best WW2 fighter under 2 short tons?

The under 4,000 lb. (empty) family would include the Koolhoven F.K.58, Fokker D.XXI, Heinkel He 100, Curtiss-Wright CW-21, Caudron C.714, Ambrosini SAI.207, Polikarpov I-16, Dewoitine D.500, Gloster Gladiator and Fiat CR.42. Of these, the Caudron, Koolhoven and Gladiator (and Sea Gladiator, the FAA's last <2 ton fighter) could have faced the Zero if deployed to SEA in 1940-41, whilst the Fokker did fight the Zero over DEI. None of these other lightweight fighters can match the Zero. Certainly the US' attempt was rubbish.

Let's put Hermes and some fighter into Force Z. In a close dogfight, does the Sea Gladiator have a chance? It's more agile than the Zero, and with four guns has the firepower to damage the Zero.

 

[pinsog]

That is correct, but somebody mentioned "boosting" them with a servo tab, a relatively simple solution and one Horikoshi Jiro would surely have adopted if it didn't have drawbacks. I was speculating about possible drawbacks.
If you're not familiar, a servo tab is a small hinged trailing edge tab similar to a trim tab that uses the energy of the relative wind to help deflect a control surface into a high energy slip stream. The drawback to having a "boosted" aileron like this is that it applies exponentially greater loads to its attach fittings and supporting structure. Torsional rigidity is one of the most difficult parameters to achieve in wing design while minimizing weight.
Cheers,
Wes

Thank you for the explanation. The Zero might also have had a problem with structural failure if it were able to deflect its ailerons enough at high speed. Do you have an opinion on that?

 

[pinsog]

With an empty weight of 3,704 lbs, can we agree that the Zero was the best WW2 fighter under 2 short tons?

The under 4,000 lb. (empty) family would include the Koolhoven F.K.58, Fokker D.XXI, Heinkel He 100, Curtiss-Wright CW-21, Caudron C.714, Ambrosini SAI.207, Polikarpov I-16, Dewoitine D.500, Gloster Gladiator and Fiat CR.42. Of these, the Caudron, Koolhoven and Gladiator (and Sea Gladiator, the FAA's last <2 ton fighter) could have faced the Zero if deployed to SEA in 1940-41, whilst the Fokker did fight the Zero over DEI. None of these other lightweight fighters can match the Zero. Certainly the US' attempt was rubbish.

Let's put Hermes and some fighter into Force Z. In a close dogfight, does the Sea Gladiator have a chance? It's more agile than the Zero, and with four guns has the firepower to damage the Zero.

Anything can shoot down anything if it's in range. The problem with a Gladiator vs a Zero is the Zero pilot should be smart enough to boom and zoom and not try a close in turning dogfight. Also, I believe Force Z when attacked was out of range of the Zero so the real question would be whether a Gladiator had enough speed and firepower to stop, shootdown or disrupt the 2 engine bombers that attacked Force Z. Any fighter is probably better than no fighter at all, but I would not want to be in a Gladiator attacking a bomber with defensive guns and 4 303's aren't the best 2 engine bomber killing armament out there either, but I do look forward to hearing others opinion on this as well.

 

[buffnut453]

Anything can shoot down anything if it's in range. The problem with a Gladiator vs a Zero is the Zero pilot should be smart enough to boom and zoom and not try a close in turning dogfight. Also, I believe Force Z when attacked was out of range of the Zero so the real question would be whether a Gladiator had enough speed and firepower to stop, shootdown or disrupt the 2 engine bombers that attacked Force Z. Any fighter is probably better than no fighter at all, but I would not want to be in a Gladiator attacking a bomber with defensive guns and 4 303's aren't the best 2 engine bomber killing armament out there either, but I do look forward to hearing others opinion on this as well.

I suspect the Gladiator would be outpaced by the Japanese bombers. The Buffalos had enough problems catching the fast Japanese bombers. For the Gladiators, the proposition is probably a non-starter.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Thank you for the explanation. The Zero might also have had a problem with structural failure if it were able to deflect its ailerons enough at high speed. Do you have an opinion on that?

That's probably why Horikoshi didn't go that route. Remember, when he was designing the Zero 300 MPH was (at least in Asia) considered REAL FAST, and the I16 was state of the art. It probably wasn't til circa Battle of Midway that the high speed roll rate deficiency became recognized at MHI as a serious problem, and adding a servo tab would require redesigning and strengthening the wing structure, adding weight, and disrupting production to incorporate the changes. With the benefit of hindsight that appears a missed opportunity, but you and I weren't there to give advice.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The problem with a Gladiator vs a Zero is the Zero pilot should be smart enough to boom and zoom and not try a close in turning dogfight.

True enough, but would they? Doctrine and training and fighter pilot culture can be hard to shake off for young guns full of swagger and mythology about their mount and it's invincibility in a knife fight.
Traditional oriental cultures, and Japanese in particular, tended to reward conventional thinking and discourage individual innovation, especially under pressure. "Respect your Sensei and his lessons!"
The Sakai Saburos and Nichizawa Hirioshis who survived their early battles developed enough experience, prestige, and confidence to think outside the box they were raised in and become a little more flexible in their tactics.
Anyway, that's the way I see it, and my family has had a little more exposure to Japanese culture than most.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[tomo pauk]

The Japanese screwed up with the Ki-44. It should have had a big wing, sort of an intermediate between the Ki-43 and the Ki-84 or Ki-84 lite if you prefer.

Install the Ha 41 (and later the Ha 109) on the Ki 43 and you don't need to design the Ki 44 in the 1st place?

 

[pinsog]

True enough, but would they? Doctrine and training and fighter pilot culture can be hard to shake off for young guns full of swagger and mythology about their mount and it's invincibility in a knife fight.
Traditional oriental cultures, and Japanese in particular, tended to reward conventional thinking and discourage individual innovation, especially under pressure. "Respect your Sensei and his lessons!"
The Sakai Saburos and Nichizawa Hirioshis who survived their early battles developed enough experience, prestige, and confidence to think outside the box they were raised in and become a little more flexible in their tactics.
Anyway, that's the way I see it, and my family has had a little more exposure to Japanese culture than most.
Cheers,
Wes

I believe they would. I read the Zeros wanting to close in dogfight is actually a myth and against early war fighters they tended to boom and zoom, the marines at Guadalcanal were amazed that the Zero's at Guadalcanal didn't just park on their tail and stay there but instead they dove, shot and climbed away.

 

[pinsog]

That's probably why Horikoshi didn't go that route. Remember, when he was designing the Zero 300 MPH was (at least in Asia) considered REAL FAST, and the I16 was state of the art. It probably wasn't til circa Battle of Midway that the high speed roll rate deficiency became recognized at MHI as a serious problem, and adding a servo tab would require redesigning and strengthening the wing structure, adding weight, and disrupting production to incorporate the changes. With the benefit of hindsight that appears a missed opportunity, but you and I weren't there to give advice.
Cheers,
Wes

I agree with all of that. In fact, in my opinion, the major fault of the Zero wasn't necessarily lack of armor or self sealing tanks, I think it's main problem was lack of high speed roll. It was the only way an early war allied fighter could disengage unless his buddy chased the Zero off. In a dive past 300 mph or so any allied fighter could roll and evade the Zero. Also, in a 300+ mph dive the Zero could not roll to evade a fighter behind him. That's a real problem that was exploited, especially by the high roll rate P40 which aside from a higher top speed down low, didn't have a lot of cards to play.

 

[Shortround6]

Install the Ha 41 (and later the Ha 109) on the Ki 43 and you don't need to design the Ki 44 in the 1st place?

depends if you can get a decent gun in the wing of Ki-43 and IF you can get the dive speed of the Ki-43 up with the bigger engine.

 

[tomo pauk]

depends if you can get a decent gun in the wing of Ki-43 and IF you can get the dive speed of the Ki-43 up with the bigger engine.

I know that it does not prove much, but other people did it with bigger guns and smaller wings. Soviets stuffed the Shvak cannon in the tiny wings of the I-16, Spanish installed the big HS 404 in the wings of their Buchons. MK 108 within the outer wing of the Fw 190.
What was the limit of Ki 43's dive speed?