True. They did design new aircraft to replace it - Ki-84 etc - but most were land based planes and not carrier capable (correct me if I am wrong).
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
True. They did design new aircraft to replace it - Ki-84 etc - but most were land based planes and not carrier capable (correct me if I am wrong).
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Did not the Allison engine have reliability issues even in the Pacific? Actually the A6M8c with the 1350 hp Kinsei 62 engine was considered the finest performing Zero though still 55 mph slower than the F4U1D. This was the engine the Zero designers wanted in the first place but teething problems prevented it from being used.
drgondog
Major
Richard - the only reliability problems I am aware of were over Europe/High Altitude/Very cold conditions in Winter 1943-1944 for the P-38
The problems with the heaviness of the controls over 275 mph and the alterated CG could be solved, it would interrupt production however.
And yes, in the end it would be better to design a new fighter - which they did.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Probably a result of the problems in Europe but at the Fighter Conference in 1944, the pilots were asked their choice of engines as far as inspiring confidence, 79% voted for R2800, 17% voted for Merlin, 1% voted for V-1710
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The control surfaces would of had to be redesigned, more than likely making them smaller. That probably would of taken away some of its maneuverability. That coupled with more armor and self sealing tanks again would of removed much of it maneuverability. Having the opportunity to see several Zeros up close and personal, there wasn't much more you could do with this design that would of greatly affected its performance and at best probably gotten a few more MPH out of her...
Ther are actually better ways to lighten the control forces, using entirely metal elevators is one.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You would still have to modify the spar the hinges are located on. A metal control surface balanced will help but it will carry more load to the structure - heavier structure, more weight, especially back in that day....
Agreed, but the Zero was already so light that the little extra weight gained from this would mean nothing.
The Zero's biggest problem was the low dive speed limit.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
The Zeros biggest problem was no self sealing fuel tanks and no armor plating...
Do you believe that? Please explain. I was responsible for weight and balances on aircraft and even the little bit of extra weight is noticible on an aircraft.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
A re-design of the aft wing spar to support say all metal ailerons was a bit more than "a little extra weight." Even the metal surface itself was going to add weight.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Bingo...
FBJ see's what I am getting at. I think we had a discussion a while back (ofcourse it was a bit different) about modifying a B-25 for carrier landings and how it was a lot more than just adding a tail hook and ofcourse that was all going to add weight, and what does weight do.....
Funny how some people think that working and modding an aircraft is like doing a 2005 Honda...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Bingo!!!FBJ see's what I am getting at. I think we had a discussion a while back (ofcourse it was a bit different) about modifying a B-25 for carrier landings and how it was a lot more than just adding a tail hook and ofcourse that was all going to add weight, and what does weight do.....
Funny how some people think that working and modding an aircraft is like doing a 2005 Honda...
- Thread starter
- #196
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
FBJ see's what I am getting at. I think we had a discussion a while back (ofcourse it was a bit different) about modifying a B-25 for carrier landings and how it was a lot more than just adding a tail hook and ofcourse that was all going to add weight, and what does weight do.....
Funny how some people think that working and modding an aircraft is like doing a 2005 Honda...
Not long ago I saw a website where they had deisgned a carrier for B-25 capability(?) after what had been talked about by USN at the time and it was, well, HUGE!!
I'm desperately trying to find the website, but no luck so far...
drgondog
Major
Dead on.
The whole land to naval/carrier ops conversion of airframes is also complicated by the carrier landing G requirement. As I recall, the Navy Std for max design load on airframe load bearing structure (gear, main spars if main gear out on wing instead of fuse, etc) for carrier landing was multiples of land based design (I never was involved in USN design) - always a significant weight increase.. that's why the Navy version of F-111 was such a failure, performance wise, from spec.
That doesn't have anything to do with Zero, but putting a bigger engine usually means much more torque - stiffer load carrying structure back to airframe, stronger bulkhead and stiffeners to distribute the new laods, Bigger rudder, stronger rudder attach, maybe longer fuse to get the cg back and the list goes on, and on...
Regards,
Bill
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
A lot easier to take a high performance carrier plane and adapt for land based use than the other way around. I can't think of a single a/c not originally designed for carrier use that was ever successfully adapted for use on a carrier but can think of several that went the other way. The Seafire was a stopgap measure but was not robust enough for extended carrier duty.
Negative Creep
Staff Sergeant
Ok, so they weren't ideal for carrier operations, but Seafires still performed well in CAP duties
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Bingo! Saying that you're going to put a bigger engine on a naval fighter or configure a land based aircraft as a carrier bird involves a lot of work. The seemingly most minor modifications will turn into major issues when applied to what was described above....
