March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

Peter Gunn · Jan 27, 2022

Geez guys, do I have to point out the obvious? All these dead electrons over second rate clunkers, you might as well compare them to coal burning freight trains.

Best fighter March to October 1940?

Simple.

P-51 - First flight October 1940, I mean yeesh, how can you forget the plane that sank four carriers at Midway, dominated the Slot, knocked Hitler for six and dropped two atomic bombs.

Man, sometimes I worry about you guys and your grasp of aviation history.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot to mention first to break the sound barrier as well, my bad.

tomo pauk · Jan 27, 2022

SaparotRob said:
I'm having a tough time phrasing this.
Could the A6M1 be operated effectively as an ETO fighter, not using what worked over the empty Pacific? Climb to 20-25k and cruise up there to the objective and still have adequate fuel for escort/loiter/combat/return over the same distances as the Spits and 'Schmidts did?

The A6M1 was the prototype, with 800 HP Zuisei engine and 518 L of fuel, no drop tank. That is 118L more than Bf 109E, for a less thirsty engine. So the A6M1 will certainly have much better range than the BoB best mounts. Top speed abut 310 mph.
Spitfire had 382L on disposal, Hurricane a bit more.

By July 1940, the A6M2 was formally adopted by IJN. It was powered by 950 HP Sakae, could do 330 mph, and had the drop tank. It was supposed to have endurance of just a tad less than 7 hours at 4 km altitude at 180 kt (~200 mph). Total fuel was 850+ liters.

tl;dr: the A6M1 will be longer-ranged than either of the BoB fighters, bar the Bf 110 or a drop-tank outfitted Bf 109E. The A6M2 will be much longer ranged than any BoB fighter, bar the Bf 110 with the belly tank.

SaparotRob · Jan 27, 2022

GrauGeist said:
And then some.

The A6M's combat radius (take off, fly to objective, fight, then return to base) was longer than the Bf109's one-way max. range (without drop tank).

That's what I thought.

SaparotRob · Jan 27, 2022

tomo pauk said:
The A6M1 was the prototype, with 800 HP Zuisei engine and 518 L of fuel, no drop tank. That is 118L more than Bf 109E, for a less thirsty engine. So the A6M1 will certainly have much better range than the BoB best mounts. Top speed abut 310 mph.
Spitfire had 382L on disposal, Hurricane a bit more.

By July 1940, the A6M2 was formally adopted by IJN. It was powered by 950 HP Sakae, could do 330 mph, and had the drop tank. It was supposed to have endurance of just a tad less than 7 hours at 4 km altitude at 180 kt (~200 mph). Total fuel was 850+ liters.

tl;dr: the A6M1 will be longer-ranged than either of the BoB fighters, bar the Bf 110 or a drop-tank outfitted Bf 109E. The A6M2 will be much longer ranged than any BoB fighter, bar the Bf 110 with the belly tank.

I figured the -1, not the -2 would've been "available" for BoB.

Greg Boeser · Jan 27, 2022

Peter Gunn said:
Geez guys, do I have to point out the obvious? All these dead electrons over second rate clunkers, you might as well compare them to coal burning freight trains.

Best fighter March to October 1940?

Simple.

P-51 - First flight October 1940, I mean yeesh, how can you forget the plane that sank four carriers at Midway, dominated the Slot, knocked Hitler for six and dropped two atomic bombs.

Man, sometimes I worry about you guys and your grasp of aviation history.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot to mention first to break the sound barrier as well, my bad.

You forgot sent first man into space. FACT!

SaparotRob · Jan 27, 2022

Greg Boeser said:
You forgot sent first man into space. FACT!

Wasn't that Apache named "Ironman I"?

special ed · Jan 27, 2022

Ralph Cramden sent the first woman into space.

Thumpalumpacus · Jan 27, 2022

tomo pauk said:
The A6M1 was the prototype, with 800 HP Zuisei engine and 518 L of fuel, no drop tank. That is 118L more than Bf 109E, for a less thirsty engine. So the A6M1 will certainly have much better range than the BoB best mounts. Top speed abut 310 mph.
Spitfire had 382L on disposal, Hurricane a bit more.

By July 1940, the A6M2 was formally adopted by IJN. It was powered by 950 HP Sakae, could do 330 mph, and had the drop tank. It was supposed to have endurance of just a tad less than 7 hours at 4 km altitude at 180 kt (~200 mph). Total fuel was 850+ liters.

tl;dr: the A6M1 will be longer-ranged than either of the BoB fighters, bar the Bf 110 or a drop-tank outfitted Bf 109E. The A6M2 will be much longer ranged than any BoB fighter, bar the Bf 110 with the belly tank.

Hard to imagine any fighter pilot being thrilled by the thought of stooging around over NW Europe at 13k alt at 200 mph.

tomo pauk · Jan 27, 2022

Thumpalumpacus said:
Hard to imagine any fighter pilot being thrilled by the thought of stooging around over NW Europe at 13k alt at 200 mph.

I was expecting 'thank you for the data', or 'what is the source', or 'any information on fast cruise endurance', or perhaps an 'Informative' rating for the post.
Alas.

Thumpalumpacus · Jan 27, 2022

tomo pauk said:
I was expecting 'thank you for the data', or 'what is the source', or 'any information on fast cruise endurance', or perhaps an 'Informative' rating for the post.
Alas.

I do appreciate the info, don't get me wrong. But if that's the flight regime, hypothetical ETO results from the Zero would likely be different than historical PTO results due to different operational environments.

I hope you didn't take my reply as criticism.

tomo pauk · Jan 27, 2022

Thumpalumpacus said:
I do appreciate the info, don't get me wrong. But if that's the flight regime, hypothetical ETO results from the Zero would likely be different than historical PTO results due to different operational environments.

I hope you didn't take my reply as criticism.

No problems.

That flight regime is the one I have a source for the data. The hypothetical Zero of the BoB will cruise faster.

Thumpalumpacus · Jan 27, 2022

tomo pauk said:
No problems.

That flight regime is the one I have a source for the data. The hypothetical Zero of the BoB will cruise faster.

That makes sense, given the shorter ranges involved. I suppose I was thinking more of penetrating German airspace where the ranges from UK to German targets tend to be longer and requiring more-economical cruising.

GrauGeist · Jan 27, 2022

PAT303 said:
or into combat without a parachute

Japanese pilots wore parachutes...

Clayton Magnet · Jan 27, 2022

In October 1940, I think an A6M2 entering German airspace could be relatively competitive, about with Hurricane performance, but better horizontal maneuverability and range. Do the defending Germans get lured into a low speed turning fight? Probably not, based on the preceding year of evidence.
However, by 1941-42, the Germans would be responding with Bf 109 F's, Bf 109G's and Fw 190A's. The A6M2 didn't really improve during that time. Obviously the thread is in respect to 1940, but the A6M2 also wasn't really available for that time frame

On paper anyway. But the Japanese also tended to ignore preconceived expectations as to their capabilities

Howard Gibson · Jan 27, 2022

PAT303 said:
Again proof is in the pudding, no allied aircraft followed the A6M's design philosophy, none, the A6M finished the war the same way it started because it was a design dead end, as for escort duties the A6M could fly deeper into the UK or deeper into Europe going the other way which does nothing more than bring it into range of more fighter groups as well as giving the defenders more time to intercept it, flying into the chain home network against brand new Spits in 1940 or radar directed FW190's over France in '41 is very different to flying over Darwin against inexperienced pilots in clapped out MkV's or Wildcats in the Pacific.

The problem with the Mitsubishi A6M5 in 1943 was that it had a 28litre engine putting out 1100HP. The new US Navy aircraft had 46litres, putting out over 2000HP. The Americans some of their horsepower pushing armour around. If you armour the Zero, you get performance even more inferior to what you got without amour.

The A6M5 did ~~300mph~~ 350mph with an 1100HP radial engine. That was a phenomenal accomplishment, but look up the speeds of the Hellcats, Corsairs, and P-38 Lightnings.

The Basket · Jan 27, 2022

Zero had range because it was a naval fighter.
Oscar had far less range. About par for everything else.

So had the Japanese built the Zero as a IJA fighter it wouldn't have been a Zero.

Speed and performance was the key. Not range. Naval fighters need to be longer ranged due to water/airframe interface being a disadvantage.

Clayton Magnet · Jan 27, 2022

Land based Zero's looked exactly like Zero's. It's interesting that the Japanese Army's main fighter was slower than the Naval Zero

GrauGeist · Jan 27, 2022

The KI-43-II was comparable to the A6M2 Model 21: in speed, range, rate of climb and service ceiling.

The only area where the Zero was beter than the Hayabusa, was armament.

The Basket · Jan 28, 2022

All land based Zero was still naval Zero.

All Japanese fighters were called Zero and all Japanese rifles called Arisaka.

It's a name so might as well use it on everything.

PAT303 · Jan 28, 2022

tomo pauk said:
4 km altitude at 180 kt (~200 mph). Total fuel was 850+ liters.

Have fun flying either way across the channel doing 200mph at 13,000ft with 850 litres in unprotected tanks in 1940-41.

March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

2nd Lieutenant

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

2nd Lieutenant

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Staff Sergeant

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads