Opinions On This Article I Found About The Zero

Mike Williams · Jul 20, 2020

Juha3 said:
In Fs and Gs the problem was that the highly aromatic German fuel began to dissolve self-sealing material if the tank stayed filled a longer time. Maybe the reaction was faster in the hotter climate in Africa. Finns noticed the dissolving phenomenon after the war and replaced the s-s tanks by light metal ones in their 109s.

That's interesting, thanks for sharing. I have read that owing to sweating of the "bag" tanks on 109s the fuel tends to lose its anti-knock qualities after standing in the tanks for about a week and must be emptied out. The old B4 fuel can then be used as A3 fuel. Perhaps the tropicalized 109s were equipped with non self-sealing metal tanks for that reason? Other, later Crashed Enemy Aircraft reports I have occasionally note 109's equipped with self-sealing tanks. I haven't yet discerned a pattern yet as to why some had self sealing tanks while others didn't.

Juha3 · Jul 20, 2020

Mike Williams said:
That's interesting, thanks for sharing. I have read that owing to sweating of the "bag" tanks on 109s the fuel tends to lose its anti-knock qualities after standing in the tanks for about a week and must be emptied out. The old B4 fuel can then be used as A3 fuel. Perhaps the tropicalized 109s were equipped with non self-sealing metal tanks for that reason? Other, later Crashed Enemy Aircraft reports I have occasionally note 109's equipped with self-sealing tanks. I haven't yet discerned a pattern yet as to why some had self sealing tanks while others didn't.

It was just the phenomenon you mentioned, the highly aromatic fuel dissolved (if that is the right word) material from the s-s material and ruined the anti-knocking properties of the high octane fuel. That was probably harmful to the tank itself in the long run. Many chemical processes are intensified by heat, so it is entirely possible that the situation was worse in Africa. And after the war in Finland flying was much less intensively that during 1944 and Germans were not building 109Gs for long peacetime service so probably ageing worsened the situation of 109Gs in Finland in late 40s and early 50s and maybe Finns kept some 109Gs topped-up in reserve in case of that something untoward happened suddenly and when nothing happened fuel was spoiled and tanks damaged.
I have not hear that 109 Trops had light metal tanks. Maybe in Africa the LW worked like the FiAF in 1942-43, in fighter units officers and regular NCOs got most of flight assignments and reservist complained bitterly that they got next to nothing air time, some of them demanded transfer to bomber and coastal squadrons in order to get combat missions, a few even asked to transfer to infantry in order to get into combat, that latter was more a protest than a realistic option. So maybe also in Africa some 109s usually used by those low in pecking order stood long times on ground but were topped-up in case of a sudden need and result was fuel contamination and as a solution Germans installed metal tanks to those rarely used 109s as an unauthorized field modification.

R Leonard · Jul 20, 2020

Local high aromatic fuel started dissolving the SS tanks in the VF-42 F4F-3's aboard USS Yorktown in the early spring of 1942, clogging the fuel lines and causing the loss of a couple of F4Fs before one managed to get back aboard before dropping into the ocean and they could diagnose the problem. A shipment of new tanks of a different consistency solved the problem.

slaterat · Jul 20, 2020

Juha3 said:
I would not be so shocked by the position of the 109 fuel tank, IMHO it was safer for the pilot than those of Hurricane and Spit.

I suppose it depends on what situation you are in . You have to store your fuel somewhere . I would be prone to think that a front tank would be more vulnerable to return fire from bombers while a rear tank would be more vulnerable to fighter attacks.

Later Hurricane Mk 1s and Mk 2s got improved protection for the reserve fuel tank, being equipped with an external self sealing layer as well as an extension of the bullet resistant firewall. Mk 2s also got a piece of armour plate in front of the glycol header tank.

Elmas · Jul 21, 2020

A P-38 erroneously landed not far from the place where I live, was captured intact and used by Regia Aeronautica for some interceptions over central Italy. But german fuel succeded where B-24 gunners did not, and after two or three missions P-38 had to be grounded.

Juha3 · Jul 21, 2020

slaterat said:
I suppose it depends on what situation you are in . You have to store your fuel somewhere . I would be prone to think that a front tank would be more vulnerable to return fire from bombers while a rear tank would be more vulnerable to fighter attacks.

Later Hurricane Mk 1s and Mk 2s got improved protection for the reserve fuel tank, being equipped with an external self sealing layer as well as an extension of the bullet resistant firewall. Mk 2s also got a piece of armour plate in front of the glycol header tank.

Yes, IMHO it was difficult to develop really combat effective fighter or bomber glider.
The fact that the most dangerous enemies tended to master deflection shooting and usually aimed at engine and /or cockpit made things a little complicated. I still tended to think that a fuselage tank behind the pilot was the best option but it is complicated and depended on many variables.

davparlr · Oct 17, 2020

I started to be interested the the performance of the Zero in comparison to the equivalent European aircraft. Since the Zero was introduce in mid 1940, the Battle of Britain planes, Spitfire Mark I and Bf 109E would provide contemporary comparisons. This is what I determined considering that good data on these early aircraft are not as good a later version (all the Zero data can be confusing).
1) The Zero is reasonably similar in airspeed to the two European fighters (the Spitfire seems some 25 mph faster than the Zero at 20k but only 9 mph at 25k?)
2) The Zero is generally clearly superior in climb to the Spitfire and the Bf-109 (below 10k the 109 is close to the Zero)
3) Traditionally, the Zero would out turn both easily at all altitudes at lower speeds.
4) All aircraft have similar ceilings
5) Armament for the Zero seems adequate to deal with other aircraft.
6) Endurance and range for the Zero was impressive.

My question is, assuming all disconnects magically fixed, like testing, production delays, etc., what would the impact on the BoB if the Germans were flying the A6M11 instead of the Bf 109. Would the Zeros ability to out dogfight the Spitfire and to loiter and to attack them when they had to land for fuel, and to fly anywhere in England straffing airfields and whatnot and maybe fly around the radar picket line cause significant problems for the Brits? Would the Brits lose a lot of aircraft since they would not have any experience in fighting the Zero and it would take a learning curve to deal with it?

As far a self sealing fuel tanks and aircraft armor is concerned, according to Americas Hundred Thousand, US was only upgrading/delivering its F4F-3 with these features in the Spring of '42. As for the Europeans, it seems to me that, for the BoB, it was a mishmash of configurations with some aircraft having some level of protection, some not. I don't know about the Hurricane.

RCAFson · Oct 17, 2020

davparlr said:
I started to be interested the the performance of the Zero in comparison to the equivalent European aircraft. Since the Zero was introduce in mid 1940, the Battle of Britain planes, Spitfire Mark I and Bf 109E would provide contemporary comparisons. This is what I determined considering that good data on these early aircraft are not as good a later version (all the Zero data can be confusing).
1) The Zero is reasonably similar in airspeed to the two European fighters (the Spitfire seems some 25 mph faster than the Zero at 20k but only 9 mph at 25k?)
2) The Zero is generally clearly superior in climb to the Spitfire and the Bf-109 (below 10k the 109 is close to the Zero)
3) Traditionally, the Zero would out turn both easily at all altitudes at lower speeds.
4) All aircraft have similar ceilings
5) Armament for the Zero seems adequate to deal with other aircraft.
6) Endurance and range for the Zero was impressive.

My question is, assuming all disconnects magically fixed, like testing, production delays, etc., what would the impact on the BoB if the Germans were flying the A6M11 instead of the Bf 109. Would the Zeros ability to out dogfight the Spitfire and to loiter and to attack them when they had to land for fuel, and to fly anywhere in England straffing airfields and whatnot and maybe fly around the radar picket line cause significant problems for the Brits? Would the Brits lose a lot of aircraft since they would not have any experience in fighting the Zero and it would take a learning curve to deal with it?

As far a self sealing fuel tanks and aircraft armor is concerned, according to Americas Hundred Thousand, US was only upgrading/delivering its F4F-3 with these features in the Spring of '42. As for the Europeans, it seems to me that, for the BoB, it was a mishmash of configurations with some aircraft having some level of protection, some not. I don't know about the Hurricane.

The A6M1 with Sakae 12 engine didn't complete it's acceptance trials until July 1940. It's a bit of a stretch to have it ready to participate in the BoB. The A6M achieved it's impressive range by adopting a suicidally low cruise speed and the use of a large drop tank. With the higher cruise speeds needed for combat in the ETO and and weight of the DT, the Zero's range would be somewhat less and it would need to release the DT when engaged in combat. The RAF fighter's performance using overboost would allow them to climb with the Zero under about 15k ft.

PAT303 · Oct 17, 2020

RCAFson said:
The A6M achieved it's impressive range by adopting a suicidally low cruise speed and the use of a large drop tank

When flying across the pacific A6M's would cruise as slow as 130mph, over Europe that's not conductive to life.

PAT303 · Oct 17, 2020

davparlr said:
I started to be interested the the performance of the Zero in comparison to the equivalent European aircraft. Since the Zero was introduce in mid 1940, the Battle of Britain planes, Spitfire Mark I and Bf 109E would provide contemporary comparisons. This is what I determined considering that good data on these early aircraft are not as good a later version (all the Zero data can be confusing).
1) The Zero is reasonably similar in airspeed to the two European fighters (the Spitfire seems some 25 mph faster than the Zero at 20k but only 9 mph at 25k?)
2) The Zero is generally clearly superior in climb to the Spitfire and the Bf-109 (below 10k the 109 is close to the Zero)
3) Traditionally, the Zero would out turn both easily at all altitudes at lower speeds.
4) All aircraft have similar ceilings
5) Armament for the Zero seems adequate to deal with other aircraft.
6) Endurance and range for the Zero was impressive.

My question is, assuming all disconnects magically fixed, like testing, production delays, etc., what would the impact on the BoB if the Germans were flying the A6M11 instead of the Bf 109. Would the Zeros ability to out dogfight the Spitfire and to loiter and to attack them when they had to land for fuel, and to fly anywhere in England straffing airfields and whatnot and maybe fly around the radar picket line cause significant problems for the Brits? Would the Brits lose a lot of aircraft since they would not have any experience in fighting the Zero and it would take a learning curve to deal with it?

Lots of flaws in this argument, A6M's had only 9 sec's of cannon ammunition, their primary weapon and the Spit, hurri and 109 had armor and SS tanks that were impervious to RCMG fire so loitering over England with 9 sec's of ammo is pointless, the A6M's rate of climb is offset to a degree by radar and the Spit has an impressive climbing turn, the A6M is only maneuverable below 200mph, above the controls are heavy, over 300 they lock up, the Spit and 109 have higher effective ceilings, both can fight over 30,000ft, the A6M and Hurri cannot and as for range, flying into the one of the best, if not the best integrated air defense systems below 150mph in an unarmored unprotected fighter that is full of high octane fuel and drop tank against 8 gun fighters with very effective incendiary ammunition or 20mm cannon's with mine shells is not a recipe for success.

SaparotRob · Oct 17, 2020

PAT303 said:
When flying across the pacific A6M's would cruise as slow as 130mph, over Europe that's not conductive to life.

That's true but the BoB Zeros wouldn't be flying over vast stretches of ocean.
Operating over the Channel or from Norway, how would the A6M compare to the BF-109? The A6M would be flying against anti aircraft artillery, radar, barrage balloons, the Home Guard, all that good Dowding System stuff. Would the Zero be competitive?

ThomasP · Oct 17, 2020

The A6M2 with DT (and I assume the A6M1 also) would have a range of ~1200 miles at 250 mph TAS/200 IAS (max economic cruise) at 15,000 ft, with enough fuel for 20 minutes of combat (max power) and 30 minutes reserve (at best economic cruise).

Shortround6 · Oct 17, 2020

RCAFson said:
The A6M1 with Sakae 12 engine didn't complete it's acceptance trials until July 1940.

The Spitfire II entered service in AUg of 1940 and the first Hurricane IIs entered service in Sept of 1940.

The Zero was a remarkable plane but it was a bit later in timing than the 109, Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 (re-engined P-36)

Granted it took months to re-equip the squadrons with newer aircraft but it would have taken months to get the Zero into service in large numbers and lets not forget, the Zero of Aug-Sept 1940 was NOT the Zero of Dec 1941.

Change in production to Zero, starting in May of 1941 was.
1. increase the thickness of the outer wing skin.
2. Install longitudinal stringers to increase torsional Strength
3. Add external balance weights to ailerons, pending introduction of modified internal balance weights.

This was to solve a wing flutter problem and until modified with at least the external aileron balance weights the early production planes were redlined at 250kts and were not supposed to exceed 5 Gs for dive pullouts.

It is doubtful if any of the early aircraft ever left the home Islands.

ThomasP · Oct 17, 2020

Hey Shortround6,

I have read in anecdotal statements that the A6M1 was used in very small numbers in China, but I have never seen anything official/authoritative. If true, would these airframes have had the modifications you mention above?

Shortround6 · Oct 17, 2020

Depends on when they were used in China. The book that gives the above information does say that they were first used in China in Aug of 1940 so no, they would have been unmodified.

However, the Zero was undergoing a series of modifications all during early production and the other modification done in May of 1941 was to stop fitting aileron trim tabs (which had been fitted at the request of the navy and were not part of the initial design) that had started to be fitted from aircraft #127 to improve roll rate at high speed. It was thought that the trim tabs contributed to the overstressing of the wing and allowed flutter at lower speeds.

The trim tabs came back on the Mitsubishi built model 22 and the Nakajima built model 21 in early 1943. (not sure if there is a typo in there someplace.)

PAT303 · Oct 17, 2020

SaparotRob said:
That's true but the BoB Zeros wouldn't be flying over vast stretches of ocean.

The discussion is about the A6M ranging across England or loitering over airfields, it can't do it using the techniques developed in the Pacific theater. The situation A6M's will experience in the BoB are very different to the one over Darwin, the Mk11 Spit is faster with sweeter handling and is harder climbing and with better guns and ammunition than the MkV's we got here, the 8 .303's are the perfect Armament for hunting Zero's.

SaparotRob · Oct 17, 2020

I was wondering in this "what if" (post #127) would the Zero been able to out-range the BF-109? Perhaps equal the coverage of the BF-110? That kind of thing.
Attacking an alerted UK with its integrated air defense system would be quite different than what the Zero faced in reality.

ThomasP · Oct 17, 2020

Hey SparotRob,

re:". . .would the Zero been able to out-range the BF-109? . . ."

See my post#132 above.

FLYBOYJ · Oct 17, 2020

While we focus on the technical attributes, advantages and disadvantages of the Zero hypothetically being used in the BoB, any thought of how the aircraft would be flown? Tactics?

ThomasP · Oct 17, 2020

Hey Shortround6,

Thanks for the info.

Opinions On This Article I Found About The Zero

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Staff Sergeant

Senior Airman

Staff Sergeant

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Senior Master Sergeant

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads