Material of the Zero fuselage

VBF-13 · Jul 18, 2012

Short, maybe it's just we didn't expect those cowling guns. At any rate, what advantage would you see those giving that aircraft? I'd think primarily they'd be advantageous for close-range bursts.

proton45 · Jul 18, 2012

VBF-13 said:
Short, maybe it's just we didn't expect those cowling guns. At any rate, what advantage would you see those giving that aircraft? I'd think primarily they'd be advantageous for close-range bursts.

I've read that they where use (sometimes) for determining range (angle)....then the 20mm where used to close the deal. Also I've read that they where used (alot) for ground attack. I think that these where (sort of) pilots choice, for use of the cowl guns.

tyrodtom · Jul 18, 2012

I don't see why you're thinking cowling guns were in any way unusual. Most fighters up till that time had cowling guns all the way back to WW1, wings guns were a more modern inovation, but the Zero hardly broke new ground there either.

Shortround6 · Jul 18, 2012

VBF-13 said:
Short, maybe it's just we didn't expect those cowling guns. At any rate, what advantage would you see those giving that aircraft? I'd think primarily they'd be advantageous for close-range bursts.

As has been noted MOST fighters up until WW II had cowl guns or guns mounted on/in the fuselage sides, for the US this includes ALL biplane fighter since WW I, Curtiss and Boeing. The P-26, Consolidated P-30, Seversky P-35, Curtiss P-36, Early Curtiss P-40s, P-39s, P-38s with guns in the nose? Republic P-43s. First US Army fighter WITHOUT cowl guns was the P-40D/E.

VBF-13 · Jul 18, 2012

proton45 said:
I've read that they where use (sometimes) for determining range (angle)....then the 20mm where used to close the deal. Also I've read that they where used (alot) for ground attack. I think that these where (sort of) pilots choice, for use of the cowl guns.

Thanks, I didn't think of that.

VBF-13 · Jul 18, 2012

tyrodtom said:
I don't see why you're thinking cowling guns were in any way unusual. Most fighters up till that time had cowling guns all the way back to WW1, wings guns were a more modern inovation, but the Zero hardly broke new ground there either.

Shortround6 said:
As has been noted MOST fighters up until WW II had cowl guns or guns mounted on/in the fuselage sides, for the US this includes ALL biplane fighter since WW I, Curtiss and Boeing. The P-26, Consolidated P-30, Seversky P-35, Curtiss P-36, Early Curtiss P-40s, P-39s, P-38s with guns in the nose? Republic P-43s. First US Army fighter WITHOUT cowl guns was the P-40D/E.

Let the record reflect, I concede the point. I think the baffling aspect rather related to the cannons on that paper-weight aircraft. But as proton45 pointed out, there was a dual-use for that aircraft, and the land-use is where those cowling guns most plausibly figured in. That makes sense.

tyrodtom · Jul 18, 2012

The Zero was a light fighter, yes. But paper-weight no.
The A6M2- model , 950 hp, empty weight 3704-3770, depends on where you look.
Me 109D, 960 hp, empty weight 3600 lb , that's a pretty good equivilent, since that's before self sealing tanks and armor also, but with the heavier weight of a liquid cooled engine.

Of course the Me 109 was also considered a light fighter also.

But what was outstanding about the Zero, it combined good armament, good speed, outstanding range, very good rate of climb and very good manuvering into a light fighter.

VBF-13 · Jul 18, 2012

That Mess 109 was no fluke, either, and could also "turn on a dime," as I know you know. Thanks, and I agree.

GregP · Jul 18, 2012

From my perspective, as someone who talks with several modern pilots of our Zero (A6M5 Model 52), I can say this. The relatively slow roll could easily have been cured by goling from fabric ailerons to metal, with 10 - 15% more chord, and some better gearing to provide 5° more deflection in both directions, and possibly a longer control stick. That would have added only token weight and would have addressed the slow rolling right away.

Of course, WE could have fixed the slow rolling of the Hellcat, too ... and never did due to production priorities. So perhaps I shouldn't "thow stones." Acually I was just commenting, not criticizing.

Material of the Zero fuselage

More options

VBF-13

Staff Sergeant

proton45

Senior Airman

tyrodtom

Senior Master Sergeant

Shortround6

Major General

VBF-13

Staff Sergeant

VBF-13

Staff Sergeant

tyrodtom

Senior Master Sergeant

VBF-13

Staff Sergeant

GregP

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads