Performance difference between the A6M5a and A6M5b/c

The skin thickness of the A6M was generally 0.032" with some 0.025" (more then a little) and some 0.020".

Click to expand...

Thanks for the real life data, I'm speculating its perhaps a 0.025" +/- specification. The only reference I've found said that from March 1944 the A6M5a Zero got 0.2mm thicker wing skin this is ~0.008" extra which would bring it to 0.033" +/-, this was claimed to increase dive speed from 414 -> 460mph.

GregP said:

It looks like he was more concerned with maintenance and increased vulnerability than with performance, which was not mentioned other than the P-38 being of better high-altitude performance.

Click to expand...

I haven't read the attachment, but perhaps another concern was the cost of operating each aircraft.
As a pilot, you would want the hottest fighter you can get your hands on because you greatest concern is probably keeping your behind from getting shot up. As a commander, you want to be have as many aeroplanes as possible. Is one P-38 worth two P-40s?

The attached station diagram for the P-39 shows the skin thickness at various places and is probably typical of a US Fighter.

- Ivan.

actually the P-39 is not a good example. Part of the fuselage is doing double duty as part of the engine mount and the fuselage from the front of the engine to the propeller has to be more rigid than a conventional plane to hold the propshaft in line. It was estimated that the P-39 fuselage was about 50 lbs heavier than an equivalent airplane with the engine in nose.