Maneuverability vs Speed

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


yeah that has to be demoralizing to say the least! Hat's off to your uncle it took real courage to crew one of those Subs, and the odds were definitely against them.
 
I don't always have as much time to indulge in my many interests, and haven't gotten around to reading the old thread before today. And then just merely skimming it. it seem that the Zero pretty much get to represent japanese carrier vplanes in general. I never saw anything pointing to planes like the B5N having structural issues, and while weight sawing is always important, it may not be as heavily prioritized in bombers as in fighters. Of course a lighter bomber can carry more bombs, structure allowing.

I think it is clearly stated that the Zero was not catastrophically lightly built. In the US summary it is mentioned that it lacked protection (which again i don't see as part of the structure unless it's extremes as the Il-2). Time spent in manufacturing has been detrimental to the output, but again the care taken to make parts as light as possible without compromising their strenght has nothing to say about structure. The report said that the structure itself was sound. time spent in shawing off a few micro pounds on unique items may have coinsiderably lenghthened the time from specification to service. But again that is not structure.

Already then Greg noted that it was weak if it got damaged. i'm not sure if any manufacturers made equations on how much they needed to overbuild an airframe to make it more structurally sound after so and so many hits by 0,3's, 0,5's and 20 mm cannon. My guess is Grumman went by gut feeling.

I do know that the Hellcat was consciously overbuild. Quite simply meet the requirements and then add some. Such a design philosophy is perfectly sound if you have considerably more horsepower than your enemy, which at least compared to the Zero the Hellcat certainly had.

The dive limitations are often quoted, but that was not because the structure was weak, but because the skin of the wing was too thin. The thickness of that skin was raised on several occasions, gradually improving that aspect of performance. Now I might be convinced that the skin is part of the structure, like the planks of a klinker built wessel.

But even with that possible consession this does not tell us that the skin on the G4M was critically thin, or that the structure in some aspect was critically weak.

Returning to the Zero I fully agree that it got two things far too late. protection and a more powerful engine. But as i think Shortround remarked in a previous thread, the engine a few prototypes got in 1945 may not have been available in 1943, at least not at that power levels. And even then it would have had only about 3/4 the power that a Hellcat had. The Grumman could still afford to be 'overbuilt'.

As a thought experiment, had the IJNAF achieved a miracle and put the A7M into service in 1943, might we have been complaining that the Hellcat had too heavy a structure?
 
Some good points.
I don't think anybody planned for battle damage specifically but the US Navy requirements may have required over engineering compared to some other countries.
The USN didn't specify a max dive speed in the 30s.
The plane was expected to do a 'terminal speed' dive as part of it's acceptance. Basically take the plane up, do a vertical dive until the pane won't go any faster (Gravity equals Drag) and then pull out. This worked fairly well with biplanes where the drag rather limited the top speed.
Another requirement was the spin test. enter a spin and do 10 full rotations and then recover going one way, Then repeat going the other way.
The F4U was the last plane to either one. To hit max speed in an F4U they had to start at over 20,000ft to give room for the pull out but that was getting into transonic territory.

Likewise the Hight needed for a 10 turn spin and recovery with plane like the F4U was getting rather excusive.
Grumman may have been mindful of the landing gear problems with the Buffalo and the wing/landing gear problems with the P-36.

The results of some of these requirements may have involved a bit of overbuilding compared to a strict 8Gs plus 50% margin.
Requirements for loads at a certain amount of yaw are seldom published.

Some planes had structures that may have been more damage resistant in theory like 3 spar or more wings but that assumes that the wing was designed to not fail at a certain G load with Spar X broken at a certain point (nobody cared about the last foot of wing.) and not just hoping that the extra spars would hold until the plane got back to the ground, Single spar wing was goner with no hope. However the 3 spar wing in the Ki-43 didn't seem to offer much redundancy.

Part of the F6Fs weight was the result of putting 434lbs of guns and 720lbs worth of ammo in the wings
That is about the same as a Spitfire XI with a 500lb strapped underneath. Nobody expects the Spitfire to do 7-8 G pull outs with the bomb still attached.
 
Just Schmidt said:
As a thought experiment, had the IJNAF achieved a miracle and put the A7M into service in 1943, might we have been complaining that the Hellcat had too heavy a structure?
Click to expand...
Interesting point. Although the real problem with IJNAF aircraft by 1943 wasn't so much light structure and protection, but pilot training.
The F6F had mediocre performance by 1943-44 specs, but it still managed to handle higher performing (on paper) aircraft quite well, like the Ki-84 and N1K2
 
I don't think *any* manufacturers designed around that consideration, until, perhaps the advent of the A10 (?), so I think you're right. Any overbuilding was as a consequence of making the airframe strong enough to deal with repeated take offs and landings (even ham-fisted ones), hard manoeuvring, rutted landing fields in the time of grass strips, carrier landings, catapult launching etc - generally the tough conditions of military service even in peacetime. Mind you, 'toughness' was seen as a meritorious thing for an airframe to have in a combat scenario, as far back to WW1. because they'd been aware even then that some aircraft were inherently more vulnerable to fatal damage than others by dint of their construction.

Structural strength was surely governed by the limitations of their ability to calculate load and stress (or actively and dynamically test or model it) - ? - something even further limited by their initially shallow understanding of the new aluminium materials they were working with . WW2 after all, was still within the transition period between wood and metal - and performances (and therefore stresses airframes were subjected to) soared between 1935 and 1945. They were in largely uncharted waters, and working with without computer modelling.

All designs - even today - are a trade off for the structural engineers: The balance of available materials, strength, weight and the concerns of load and stress all had to be played off against each other. Obviously, the development of new 'miracle' materials could give an advantage, but for the rest of the time, I'm sure most 30s and 40s designers were left erring on the side of caution. Better to add as much strength as possible and yet meet the desired design specifications that go the other-way and build an aircraft that might suffer a structural failure.

It seems axiomatic to me that extreme design specifications are surely more likely to result in trade-offs. Light weight to maintain a combination of speed, climb and long range on limited engine power, may well be an example. Physics is physics, at the end of the day.

Peacetime optimal structural strength may of course be subjected to an entirely different set of practical parameters in actual war - and structural resilience to damage from projectiles was probably something that simply wasn't factored into structural design in the late 30s. Those that had it in abundance often had it by accident rather than intent- Ie The Wellingtons geodetic construction, or the Lancaster's strength in part stemming from the original specification for the Manchester to include stressing to allow a catapult launch.

Are there anecdotal examples you know of that praise the structural strength of Japanese aircraft encountered in combat by allied pilots? Aircraft that were deemed difficult to shoot down by their ability to absorb damage (which would indicate a strong reserve of structural strength) - ?

I believe the Kawanashi Emily might be an example and this appears to be backed up by William Green. But to drag this thread creep back onto topic, certain *not* an example of a manoeuvrable aircraft (though actually, phonemically fast for its class!)
 
re "Are there anecdotal examples you know of that praise the structural strength of Japanese aircraft encountered in combat by allied pilots? Aircraft that were deemed difficult to shoot down by their ability to absorb damage (which would indicate a strong reserve of structural strength) - ?"

I do not recall any anecdotal examples of the US pilots expressing concern or admiration re another fighter aircraft being able to take large amounts of damage or being particular rugged vs damage. As for the UK pilots, once they had the 20mm in service in numbers I do not recall any expressions of concern or admiration re ruggedness vs damage of the enemy fighters. But there would be no reason to, given that the .50 cal and 20mm were able to reach nearly all parts of the fighter aircraft they were facing.

The Japanese pilots did comment on the ruggedness of some of the US fighters, at least in the early- to mid-war - but by late-war that seems to have become uncommon. However, the Japanese pilots' comments seemed to be focused (mostly) on the effect of the US and UK armour and SSFT - not the inherent structural strength. Again, with the increasing use of the 12.7mm and 20mm, any greater structural ruggedness on the part of the US fighters would not be as apparent.
 
It's pretty hard to return to base with extensive battle damage, if you light up by the first bullet that hits you.

I unfortunately can't remeber where I found an example of one of the catastrophich torpedo attacks by G4M's where a few lucky ones did make it back to base, badly shot up. On that occasion I believe damage was solely from AA.

There is this video on an early raid in february 1942, unescorted against cap:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKjnaJiU08Y&t=536s
The action starts around 18:30, and ends at about 26:30 we actually see one going down.

The discussion of flammability vs structural strenght is brief, at 35:30. But watching through the attack, it is clear the bombers didn't disintegrate on first hit. One even managed to put out an engine fire. Two made it back with combat damage, though nothing is said about how extensive it was. But hey, for a structurally weak plane ANY combat damage is heavy damage, I suppose.
 
If the claims within discussions parallel to this one are correct, than malnourished pilots with less training and experience than their predecessors, flying outdated Ki-43s, could best the likes of the advanced P-47, which had higher top speeds and climb rates, among other advantages, or at least, what should have been advantages. My interest in the whole subject has declined. Whatever passion was there has largely dissipated. This wouldn't so easily have happened, had I not seen other evidence elsewhere of reports favoring the Ki-43 over the P-47 in dogfighting (likely under certain circumstances, such as low-speed and low-altitudes), and other conflicts (e.g. Spanish Civil War) where slower but highly manoeuvrable planes (CR.32) performed adequately against seemingly superior aircraft (I-16). The later success planes like the F6F achieved in combat with increasingly obsolete Japanese fighters may be undercut by extraneous factors such as inadequate pilot training, manufacturing and maintenance, and fuel among other reasons unrelated to the actual designs of such aircraft, and that's not to speak of overclaiming, which was generally committed by both sides. Given the initial struggles of planes such as the F4U, under more even circumstances... It's one thing to deliberately overestimate the opponent to ensure that one is not under-prepared, it's another to over-design with relatively little gain on paper. I mean, there must have been an abundance of manoeuvrable yet slow aircraft during WWI, and arguably as late as the German Invasion of Poland, that could have served as inspirations for some hypothetical Allied or German equivalent to the A6M/Ki-43.

Of course, performance can vary at altitude, as I have noted earlier, and there are other factors not necessarily related to the aerodynamics of an aircraft, such as visibility and armament, that can influence the outcomes of battles, but still, it looks rather embarrassing for such intricate warbirds. Then again, finding the wartime costs of Japanese aircraft on the English-speaking web is rather bothersome, so I'm not exactly certain of the actual magnitude of this particular embarrassment.

Back to Cold War era aircraft and spacecraft it is for me, if not further than that though I still have some lingering interest in WWII bomber aircraft, for whatever reason.

Edit: Really, the only reason why I have come back to this thread, if not the site at all, is that I was considering learning 3D modelling, starting with simple models of WWII aircraft for practice, but I'm losing interest and am struggling to think of anything else I actually want to model. The models I'm making for practice have been suffering in quality as a result, and I'm close to abandoning my latest unfinished model.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you might have a look at Shinpachi's 3D modeling threads.

His work is remarkable and I'm sure he would be able to share some knowledge on the subject.
 
GrauGeist said:
Perhaps you might have a look at Shinpachi's 3D modeling threads.

His work is remarkable and I'm sure he would be able to share some knowledge on the subject.
Click to expand...
I have seen his work, and they are indeed remarkable, with a high level of accuracy and detail. From what I have seen, he appears to be working with what appears to be a rather different 3D modelling program than the free program I have elected to use, Blender, or programs like 3D Max, which I tried briefly years ago. It is likely that there could be some similarities to build off of however.
MIflyer said:
Skyraider3D has website in The Netherlands where he does that, goes into extreme detail.
Click to expand...
He's a professional in every sense of the word. The tutorials I came across on his website concern texture mapping primarily, but could be useful down the line.

I haven't aimed for any remotely high standards at this stage, and am currently intent on making simplistic models that would suffice for early 3D computer games. I am particular to that aesthetic anyways.
 
JoblinTheGoblin said:
I haven't aimed for any remotely high standards at this stage, and am currently intent on making simplistic models that would suffice for early 3D computer games. I am particular to that aesthetic anyways.
Click to expand...
When I was building models for CFS3 (Microsoft Combat Simulator), I was using GMax and Turbosquid.

Between those two, I produced several high-end aircraft models.
 
GrauGeist said:
When I was building models for CFS3 (Microsoft Combat Simulator), I was using GMax and Turbosquid.

Between those two, I produced several high-end aircraft models.
Click to expand...
I have a Gmax installation sitting on my computer at this moment, but it's considered outdated for the game that I was planning on using it for, and I experienced some UI issues due to my laptop's relatively odd screen dimensions. Apparently, paid versions of 3D Studio Max—namely, 7 and 9—and Blender, are the primary programs of choice for the remaining communities of such old games, or at least, those I have maintained interest in. The Turbosquid website?

For me, at present the question of high-end models is an issue of both skill and dedication, if not talent as well. To add, virtually every schematic I've attempted to use as reference always has some form of misalignment or mismatch, or lack of adequate detail, which can affect accuracy while modelling, and certainly does so in my case. There isn't much of an issue in regards to the program of choice. I am also aiming for simplistic models as practice, to save time, and to perhaps aim for a similar aesthetic to such games of the early 2000s.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
The Zero's Maneuverability
18 19 20
Replies
391
Views
19K
Ivan1GFP
I
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
899
Shortround6
S
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register