SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Cool!
March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
buffnut453
Captain
In fairness, if the A6M was operated by the Luftwaffe then it would have been fitted with armour plate much sooner than was the case in the Pacific. This has nothing to do with the relative merits of the aircraft. It's simply a reflection of Luftwaffe practices based on their experiences in the Spanish Civil War. I think it highly improbable that the Luftwaffe would operate ANY fighter in 1940 without at least some armour protection.
Since the 1940 timeframe deals with the very earliest of the A6Ms to enter service, I have to imagine that adding armour protection would negatively impact performance of the A6M. Alas, I'm not smart enough to know exactly what that would mean but I imagine it would impact operational range to some extent because the engine has to propel a greater mass and the wing loading will be higher. Manoeuverability would also be reduced because, again, the wing loading will have increased because of the extra weight.
Quite likely, Mark. The Zero was designed to a strict set of criteria, which was entirely different to Western designs. Basing the entire ethos of the aircraft on the specification the IJN produced meant that Horikoshi had to be tight with structural weight and that resulted in structural weakness in the wings of the first production batch of A6M-2s, which resulted in the loss of a couple of aircraft, but this was rectified relatively early by increasing the wing skin thickness and adding a strengthening strip laterally across the wing. Balance weights were added to the ailerons as well to counteract heavy forces on the controls. By the time the type went into action in China though, the strengthening had been added and the problem had been resolved, but initially, as mentioned earlier, restrictions on dive speeds were added.
Western aircraft design differed in that the aircraft were designed with all the accoutrements required or expected of a modern combat aircraft and a suitable powerplant added that could carry the lot. Different design philosophy, and yes, had the Luftwaffe operated the type it would have had issues in its initial A6M2 incarnation, but not in later versions with more powerful engines and strengthened wings - following the rectification of the wing issues the type never suffered structural weakness in service (despite claims to the contrary here and elsewhere). Despite the added weight and wing loading however, its range and good performance would still have been a useful addition to the German order of battle, still being able to out range the Bf 109 and provide bomber escort for the longest ranged LW raids against the UK.
This persistent claim that the Zero HAD to fly at 200 mph at 10,000 feet is a fallacy too, (why did it have to fly at that speed and height???), from bases in France it could have easily been able to provide extended coverage over the British Isles, I mean, you can see France from the Kent coast.
That is, had the Japanese possessed a time machine...
Western aircraft design differed in that the aircraft were designed with all the accoutrements required or expected of a modern combat aircraft and a suitable powerplant added that could carry the lot. Different design philosophy, and yes, had the Luftwaffe operated the type it would have had issues in its initial A6M2 incarnation, but not in later versions with more powerful engines and strengthened wings - following the rectification of the wing issues the type never suffered structural weakness in service (despite claims to the contrary here and elsewhere). Despite the added weight and wing loading however, its range and good performance would still have been a useful addition to the German order of battle, still being able to out range the Bf 109 and provide bomber escort for the longest ranged LW raids against the UK.
This persistent claim that the Zero HAD to fly at 200 mph at 10,000 feet is a fallacy too, (why did it have to fly at that speed and height???), from bases in France it could have easily been able to provide extended coverage over the British Isles, I mean, you can see France from the Kent coast.
That is, had the Japanese possessed a time machine...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
·
Adding to this discussion about the Zero and fitting armour, and lets face it, the armour wouldn't have been that much of an increase in weight. The earliest Bf 109E-3 variants that saw combat during the Battle of Britain had neither armour nor self sealing tanks, but later models were retrofitted with head rest and back armour, as well as the front glazed hardened panel, of which the head rest plate weighed 29 lbs and the back armour 59 lbs. This means the weight of these panels alone was 88 lbs. Not a huge amount to add to our Zero.
Let's consider weights and engine power output. The Zero, it's interesting to note was lighter in empty weight than the dimensionally smaller Bf 109, but had a higher MTOW than the Messerschmitt and in the A6M2 model equipped with the Sakai 21 engine (again, we'd need a time machine as this didn't happen until mid 1941), had a slightly higher power output (1,130 hp at height) than the Emil's DB 601 (1,175 hp on take off, 990 hp at height), although the A6M2 model 21's Sakae-12 was rated at 940 hp on take off and 950 hp at height.
Performance wise, the Bf 109E-3's maximum speed was 348 mph at around 15,000 ft, while the A6M2 model 21's was 331 mph at the similar altitude, the Emil's cruise speed was 210 mph and the A6M's was 207 mph, barely anything in it, although the Bf 109's maximum cruise was 300 mph, but I don't have a max cruise for the Zero. The Bf 109E-3's maximum range on internal fuel was 410 miles, whereas the Zero's was 1,160 miles - a yuuuuge difference. The Zero's service ceiling was 33,000 ft, whereas the Bf 109's was 34,000 ft. The E-3 was armed with two rifle calibre machine guns and two cannon, the same as the A6M2.
Bearing all this in mind, there's really not much in it performance wise with the exception of range and with added weight of armour plating to our Zero, I don't believe that more than 1,000 mile range is going to be affected as much as what we might wish to believe; it certainly would have still had a superior range than the Bf 109 and probably every other European fighter. The Fairey Fulmar which was bigger and far heavier than the Zero had an 800 mile range, and even with its range reduced to this for the sake or argument (I'm sure they're coming), the Zero would have still exceeded the amount of time the Bf 109 could spend on station by a large amount.
The figures used in this assessment come from wiki and other online sources, one of which was a magazine scan on a modelling website, which gave me the Emil 3's figures.
Let's consider weights and engine power output. The Zero, it's interesting to note was lighter in empty weight than the dimensionally smaller Bf 109, but had a higher MTOW than the Messerschmitt and in the A6M2 model equipped with the Sakai 21 engine (again, we'd need a time machine as this didn't happen until mid 1941), had a slightly higher power output (1,130 hp at height) than the Emil's DB 601 (1,175 hp on take off, 990 hp at height), although the A6M2 model 21's Sakae-12 was rated at 940 hp on take off and 950 hp at height.
Performance wise, the Bf 109E-3's maximum speed was 348 mph at around 15,000 ft, while the A6M2 model 21's was 331 mph at the similar altitude, the Emil's cruise speed was 210 mph and the A6M's was 207 mph, barely anything in it, although the Bf 109's maximum cruise was 300 mph, but I don't have a max cruise for the Zero. The Bf 109E-3's maximum range on internal fuel was 410 miles, whereas the Zero's was 1,160 miles - a yuuuuge difference. The Zero's service ceiling was 33,000 ft, whereas the Bf 109's was 34,000 ft. The E-3 was armed with two rifle calibre machine guns and two cannon, the same as the A6M2.
Bearing all this in mind, there's really not much in it performance wise with the exception of range and with added weight of armour plating to our Zero, I don't believe that more than 1,000 mile range is going to be affected as much as what we might wish to believe; it certainly would have still had a superior range than the Bf 109 and probably every other European fighter. The Fairey Fulmar which was bigger and far heavier than the Zero had an 800 mile range, and even with its range reduced to this for the sake or argument (I'm sure they're coming), the Zero would have still exceeded the amount of time the Bf 109 could spend on station by a large amount.
The figures used in this assessment come from wiki and other online sources, one of which was a magazine scan on a modelling website, which gave me the Emil 3's figures.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Even the He112B, which had a superior range to the Bf109, would have been hard-pressed to match at the A6M's range.
is the E-1 that armed only with four rifle calibre mg
Name one other aircraft that followed the A6M's design, just one.
So both RAF and Luftwaffe aircraft were fitted with protection from the factory and aircraft in service were retrofitted with field kits based on actual combat experience especially after France, not only that every nation not only fitted protection but continued to increase it as the war went on but according to you it was all done for no apparent reason?.
The aircraft that fought in WW2 from every nation except Japan where fitted self sealing tanks, pilot armor, armored windscreens which was detrimental to their performance, as for the A6M even it's seat had holes in it to reduce weight
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The A6M2 did have phenomenal range/endurance.
This came from 3 things.
The roughly 142 US gallons of internal fuel.
The 84-87 US gallon drop tank.
The ability to cruise at 180kts at very, very lean mixtures. Like 16.4 US gallons per hour (?) height not stated. Since this document was translated several times and metric units converted there may be an error?
In any case the same document says that at 190 kts the fuel burn jumps to 24 US gallons per minute. Which still puts the Zero way, way out in front of whatever is in 2nd place.
The actual utility of the this range to the Luftwaffe is somewhat in question.
Two of the 3 German bombers can only make limited to use of such range. The Zero can fly further than the Do 17 or Ju 88 A-1 can with anything approaching a full load of bombs.
Can the German pilots fly 300-400 miles over open water with the standard Luftwaffe training?
Can the Zero (even with German radios) fly either the over water or cross England missions using German navigation techniques/procedures?
According to Wiki (better source more than welcome)
" Communications equipment was the FuG 7 Funkgerät 7 (radio set) short-range radio apparatus, effective to ranges of 48–56 km (30–35 mi)."
Perhaps the Japanese radios were longer ranged but more problematic?
The Zero can certainly add to the Luftwaffe's ability to penetrate deeper into Britain, but it doesn't look like the wonder weapon some are making it out to be.
This came from 3 things.
The roughly 142 US gallons of internal fuel.
The 84-87 US gallon drop tank.
The ability to cruise at 180kts at very, very lean mixtures. Like 16.4 US gallons per hour (?) height not stated. Since this document was translated several times and metric units converted there may be an error?
In any case the same document says that at 190 kts the fuel burn jumps to 24 US gallons per minute. Which still puts the Zero way, way out in front of whatever is in 2nd place.
The actual utility of the this range to the Luftwaffe is somewhat in question.
Two of the 3 German bombers can only make limited to use of such range. The Zero can fly further than the Do 17 or Ju 88 A-1 can with anything approaching a full load of bombs.
Can the German pilots fly 300-400 miles over open water with the standard Luftwaffe training?
Can the Zero (even with German radios) fly either the over water or cross England missions using German navigation techniques/procedures?
According to Wiki (better source more than welcome)
" Communications equipment was the FuG 7 Funkgerät 7 (radio set) short-range radio apparatus, effective to ranges of 48–56 km (30–35 mi)."
Perhaps the Japanese radios were longer ranged but more problematic?
The Zero can certainly add to the Luftwaffe's ability to penetrate deeper into Britain, but it doesn't look like the wonder weapon some are making it out to be.
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Can someone please clarify which, if any, Zeros were operational in the time frame stipulated by this thread's subject title - "March until October of 1940"? Are there performance tests (or some other fairly reliable source) available showing the performance of operational Zeros in the "March until October of 1940" time frame? Any basic stats for this 1940 era Zero? Forget about Zeros, Spitfires or 109s from 1941, 42, 43, etc. as they are of little or no relevance to the thread's query. I don't see how to compare a 1940s Zero against Me 109 E's or Spitfire I's if we don't know the condition and performance of a 1940 era operational Zero. Thank you.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
It does not have to match the A6M's range.
The Bf109Es had around fifteen minutes of free chase time over London. Add fifteen minutes to the endurance of the Luftwaffe fighter and you have half an hour of free chase time over London. That is quite an improvement.
- Thread starter
- #355
Ask and you shall receive
Table, kindly translated and provided by
Shinpachi
, is attached. Basic points for the 1940 Zero: 533 km/h (288 kt) at 4550 m, endurance of almost 7 hours at 180 kt at 4000 m.
The 19th August the Zero fly the first mission over the China, w/o opposition meet, the 13th September they get the first air battle over China claiming 27 kill for no losses. the Zero were model 11 that is the same of model 21 w/o the folding wingtips
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Ask and you shall receive
Basic points for the 1940 Zero: 533 km/h (288 kt) at 4550 m, endurance of almost 7 hours at 180 kt at 4000 m.
Excellent, thank you! So, should we be looking at the Zero Model 11 "adopted" in July 1940? Any idea if they were operational in the period March - October 1940? Any idea how many were built in that time frame? 331 mph at 14,927' is good enough. Constant speed prop is nice. 950 HP at 13,780' is not great but in the ballpark. Climb is very competitive.
Last edited:
i repost from page 7
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 854
- Feb 16, 2013
Hurricane IIA and Spitfire IIA armament would be almost tailor made for engaging a Zero. 160 rounds per second, loaded with (50%?) Mark VI De Wilde incendiary ammunition hitting an unarmoured airframe stuffed full of fuel.
GregP
Major
For the first one: 831.5 mph / 371.683 m/s / 1337.951 km/h
For the second one: 770.63 mph / 344.486 m/s / 1240.052 km/h
Above assumes 3,000 rpm.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
