Why could they not produce there own. They could have liscence built it.
Saburo Sakai Zero vs Bf-109
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well this would have been late '43 early '44 yeah?? by this time the japaneese were starting to feel the strain, they had few carriers left and widespread introduction of a powerful type such as this would not only have been had to introduce to manufacture, but not easy for new pilots to master either..............
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually the 190 is easier to fly than the 109 (I'm told), and I think it would be easier than the zero.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
Wouldn't matter. If you've no production capacity, then you aren't going to produce. Having a couple of examples of the aircraft and a complete set of plans and specs would do you no good. You'd need a location, all the necessary machinery to produce the airplane, the engines, the whole ball of wax and especially trained skilled people. So here you are in a country that has to import everything (remember you went to war to secure raw materials) and you suddenly feel the need to produce an aircraft with which you've no experience? And everyday your stream of supply of raw materials gets smaller and smaller. Also remember that Japanese aircraft production wasn't like walking into a Grumman plant and everything you need is there. Japanese production was a jobber's paradise. Very small facilities manufacturing a specific part and sending it to another facility to be connected to another part to be sent to another facility . . . and finally an airplane. Precisely the situation that led the strategic bombing folks to consider an entire city as a target, the piece works operations were all over, not just in manufacturing areas but in residential as well. And where are the people to build the plane, errr, put the parts together, going to come from when you've got all you skilled labor working day and night on the production you need right damn now. I'd also suggest there would be a certain amount of chauvinism raising its head "We don't need their stinkin' airplanes". No, wouldn't matter how good the 190 would be compared to the A6M. They couldn't, reinforced with a wouldn't, put it into production.
Rich
Rich
Rich
Rich
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
R Leonard said:
LOGISTICS, LOGISTICS, LOGISTICS - right on the money!
- Thread starter
- #46
Fw-190?
Well, I think Japanese had technology to produce superior fighters to their rivals.
Just look at the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate, which was proven by US as superior to P-38 and even P-51.
By that, Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate can surely be the plane that can beat any plane from Axis or Allies, Fw-190, Spitfire.....
Well, I think Japanese had technology to produce superior fighters to their rivals.
Just look at the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate, which was proven by US as superior to P-38 and even P-51.
By that, Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate can surely be the plane that can beat any plane from Axis or Allies, Fw-190, Spitfire.....
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Advanced FW-190 feature:
"The engine was controlled by an ingenious, advanced Kommandogerat-a sort of electronic brain box that greatly relieved the pilot's responsibility to control airscrew pitch (rpm), fuel mixture and engine boost (throttle) in combat. In addition, the engine's two-speed supercharger shifted automatically at about 21,000 feet, and control of the important oil-cooler flaps was automatic, thus relieving the pilot of two more major cockpit duties. The pilot needed only to keep his hand on the throttle and his eye on his assailant. In the heat of combat, it was very easy for an Allied fighter pilot to forget to move one or both of the other two required controls if he needed immediate full power to beat his opponent."
In todays world this is called FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control).
"The engine was controlled by an ingenious, advanced Kommandogerat-a sort of electronic brain box that greatly relieved the pilot's responsibility to control airscrew pitch (rpm), fuel mixture and engine boost (throttle) in combat. In addition, the engine's two-speed supercharger shifted automatically at about 21,000 feet, and control of the important oil-cooler flaps was automatic, thus relieving the pilot of two more major cockpit duties. The pilot needed only to keep his hand on the throttle and his eye on his assailant. In the heat of combat, it was very easy for an Allied fighter pilot to forget to move one or both of the other two required controls if he needed immediate full power to beat his opponent."
In todays world this is called FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control).
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
Hold on Rich. There was thousands of backyard sheds being used in the USA to produce a/c bits and pieces, as well as other war related parts. Yes, even some stuff for the A-bomb.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The Ki-84 is a damn good plane, but I don´t think it could match a Fw-190 D or even a Bf-109 K under normal circumstances with the shortcomings in quality of airframe and engine, under which the good design suffered badly.
The US test plane also had some improved US tools and higher grade fuel, which made the plane an even better contender in these airplane evaluations.
The US test plane also had some improved US tools and higher grade fuel, which made the plane an even better contender in these airplane evaluations.
- Thread starter
- #50
Explain how the 190 which was the best axis fighter built would not outmatch a Ki-84?
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
As I told:Under the circumstances of it´s production. Of all the Ki-84 only the preseriel planes of subtype Ki-84-I have been of careful production quality. Most serial planes suffered badly from bad engine tools and wrong metals in vital airframe positions. Even the finish wasn´t that careful.
While it is true that both, Bf-109 K-4 and Fw-190 D-9 suffered in quality also, both have been much more reliable in field operations (in case of Fw-190 D-9 in such a high desgree that a few planes have been overtaken from soviet airforces in the very last weeks of war for regular service).
The next point includes tactics: I generally agree that the Ki-84-I could outturn both planes at low speeds, but this wouldn´t take into effect at dogfight situations of late war stage. Bouncings, climbs and energy management, that´s what counts. In the vital terms of speed, acceleration and climb abilities the Bf-109 K-4 clearly beats the Ki-84. It also has an advantage in more powerful armement (esspecially if the MK-108 is replaced by a single high velocity MK-103). The Fw-190 has a generally roll advantage over and outturns the Ki-84 at high speeds (only beyond 275 mp/h). The Ki-84 has a better (lower) wingload and a better powerload than the Fw-190 D-9, but it lacked much in terms of max speed. It´s not all, the Fw-design is also much more rugged, providing excellent engine and pilot protection and it outdives the Ki-84. Plus, it´s comparable armement (slightly advantage thanks to better mine round fuzes). I don´t take the 30mm Ho-105 into comparement, because this gun has too much recoil energy for such a light airframe as would have the 4 20 mm wing mounted guns of the Ki-84-II, thus it would reduce the performance of the Ki-84 further against fighters. The Ki-84 tested by the US is (it has to be underlined) only an airframe test. That´s why it was that good. Just take japanese lower grade fuel and remove the US engine tools and the plane turns out to be not that impressive. Remember it´s max speed figure at favourable altitude (392 mp/h for Ki-84-I and 416 mp/h for the heavier Ki-84-II).
While it is true that both, Bf-109 K-4 and Fw-190 D-9 suffered in quality also, both have been much more reliable in field operations (in case of Fw-190 D-9 in such a high desgree that a few planes have been overtaken from soviet airforces in the very last weeks of war for regular service).
The next point includes tactics: I generally agree that the Ki-84-I could outturn both planes at low speeds, but this wouldn´t take into effect at dogfight situations of late war stage. Bouncings, climbs and energy management, that´s what counts. In the vital terms of speed, acceleration and climb abilities the Bf-109 K-4 clearly beats the Ki-84. It also has an advantage in more powerful armement (esspecially if the MK-108 is replaced by a single high velocity MK-103). The Fw-190 has a generally roll advantage over and outturns the Ki-84 at high speeds (only beyond 275 mp/h). The Ki-84 has a better (lower) wingload and a better powerload than the Fw-190 D-9, but it lacked much in terms of max speed. It´s not all, the Fw-design is also much more rugged, providing excellent engine and pilot protection and it outdives the Ki-84. Plus, it´s comparable armement (slightly advantage thanks to better mine round fuzes). I don´t take the 30mm Ho-105 into comparement, because this gun has too much recoil energy for such a light airframe as would have the 4 20 mm wing mounted guns of the Ki-84-II, thus it would reduce the performance of the Ki-84 further against fighters. The Ki-84 tested by the US is (it has to be underlined) only an airframe test. That´s why it was that good. Just take japanese lower grade fuel and remove the US engine tools and the plane turns out to be not that impressive. Remember it´s max speed figure at favourable altitude (392 mp/h for Ki-84-I and 416 mp/h for the heavier Ki-84-II).
- Thread starter
- #53
Japan suffered from shortage of resources in the late WWII, and all major factories were bombared by B-29. Ki-84 project therefore was surffered from lack of testing and lack of adaquate materials. I meant some K-84 even made up woods, and steels. Japan was in more desperate stage than in Germany. So, I dont see why Ki-84 is inferior plane to Fw-190, but it was merely a plane that came out too late, and appeared at wrong time. I meant even the famous Flying Tiger, who equiped P-51, had trouble to intercept Ki-84 in China. Americans would said: "Its Frank, forget it!" to describe how fast the newest Japanese fighter was that ijt was simply nonsense to go after it. Even under such desperate stage, with shortage of high quqlity engine fuels and metals, Ki-84 still demonstrated its unsurpassed air superiority, Ki-84 was undoubtedly the best Japanese plane in WWII.
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
delcyros,
the MK103 would not fit in the 109.
the MK103 would not fit in the 109.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
You can say all the nice things you want about the Ki-84 (IMO the sweetest looking of all the Japanese fighters). The Ki-84, though, since the thrust of the threat is the A6M, was an Army fighter, not a carrier based fighter (and for that matter, I should have raised the lack of carrier capability with the question of the 190 as well). So, anyway, they bring one back and tweek it up and run it through some tests against the like of the P-51 and it comes out looking pretty good. Okay, fine. But by the end of the war, the Japanese still didn't have enough experienced pilots to go around and to fly the Ki-84 you really had to know what you were doing. Further, against USN VF types anyway, I'd also point out that the Ki-84 fared no better than any other Japanese fighter and perhaps worse; F6Fs were credited 114 Ki-84s to 12 losses and F4Us were credited with 28 victories for 4 losses. Hardly what one would call a world beater. You have to be careful to remember the reality of their situation. Would haves and could haves don't count. After all, had the war lasted, the F8F *would have* come on line and *could have* handled the Ki-84 even more effectively than did the F6F and the F4U.
Oh most certainly, didn't mean to imply it wasn't.
Regards,
Rich
Oh most certainly, didn't mean to imply it wasn't.
Regards,
Rich
Glider
Captain
The Ki84 was an excellent aircraft and had it been supplied in sufficient numbers {and quality) been a problem for anyone. Can I ask why no one seems to rate the Shiden N1K2 which was better armed and had a clear advantage in combat over all USN fighters in particular the Hellcat.
A
Anonymous
Guest
FLYBOYJ said:
US pilots who flew in both theaters consistantly reported that the Japanese were the more dangerous foe.
The Thatch weave worked because the weaknesses of the Zero were figured out by the USA. This same tactic probably would have worked had it been the Bf109E as an opponent in the same tactical conditions - it was not that much tougher and had almost identical weaponry to the A6M2 Zero.
=S=
Lunatic
A
Anonymous
Guest
evangilder said:
The Bf109E was not a tough fighter - the Spitfire was significantly tougher. The Zero was only a little less tough, but it also turned better at the BoB combat speeds.
=S=
Lunatic
A
Anonymous
Guest
wmaxt said:
This is not true. The Japanese flew as pairs and did cover their wingmen. The problem was that when facing the Wildcat they had to score a tremendous number of hits to down it, but one quick burst from the Wildcats guns could down a Zero. The same would have been true of the Bf109E. The Wildcat was a very much tougher plane than the Bf109 or Spitfire.
[/quote]German tactics were much better but were handicapped by their choices of equipment the bf-109s were to fuel limitted and the bf-110 was not quite compettitive with it's competition.
The Zero with self sealing tanks and a little armor would have helped a lot.[/quote]
Well, German tactics were different, but they also failed on the offense so who can say that they were "better"?
A Zero with self sealing tanks and armor would not have been a Zero. The engine only made about 1000 HP and adding that weight would seriously detract from performance. Look at the A6M5, which had these features (well, fire resistant tanks anyway), and a more powerful engine, but the cost in terms of manuverability was singificant.
What the Japanese lacked in 1943 was a competitive engine that was reliable. Without that, they could not build competitive aircraft.
=S=
Lunatic
A
Anonymous
Guest
R Leonard said:
Umm.. the Bf109 could have been made suitable for Carrier ops, in fact I think there was a version intended for that German CV that never got finished. However, I think the liquid cooled engines were really not suitable for over water operations - they were too suceptable to cooling system damage or failures.
But...there was the IJA too. As for the Japanese not being interested... what do you think inspired the Ki61 Hien ("Tony")? They built the DB-601A engine for it under license, and they imported a Bf109E. It appears the Tony was inspired by the 109 and perhaps also one of those Italian fighters.
R Leonard said:
Hmm.. lets compare the A6M2 to the Bf109E...
Notes: According to the Boscomb Down "Messershmidt 10 Fighter Brief Handling Trials" (AAEE Ref: S.4487 - http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/axisair.htm) the 109E controls were good to 250 mph after which they became very stiff very abruptly. According to the S. Farnham report (ENEMY AIRCRAFT - Messerschmitt Me 109 - same url) manuverability was extremely poor above 300 mph (perhaps TAS) and turning circule at 1200 feet was 885 feet.
So, in respose to your Luftwaffe's "sharp questions":
1) Where's the pilot armor?
The Bf109E didn't have great pilot armor either. It could be argued the superior manuverability of the Zero provides more protection than a very thin sheet of armor immeadiately behind the pilot. And such minimal armor could have been added to the Zero w/o major penalty.
2) Where's the self sealing fuel tanks?
Hmmm... did the 109E have self-sealing fuel tanks? Even from recieving fire from .303's I've seen footage of them leaking fuel. If it did, they wern't very effective - German SS tanks were not that good.
3) Where's the ignition dampening for the radio?
Easily rectified. Admittedly the Japanese didn't put enough value on radios - stupidity of the high command.
4) What do you mean only 60 rounds of 20mm?
LOL - the 109E had the same ammo load for its 20mm!
The A6M, then, was faster and more maneuverable than most of the biplane fighters in service anywhere in the world. That it was also a fine monoplane fighter all by itself was just an added benefit. There were, though, planes under development at the time the A6M entered combat that were going to be faster and perform better than the A6M, the XF4U come to mind. Further, the A6M design was such that improved variants were only able to achieve marginal improvement and always at a cost to the one or more of the A6Ms other feature, for example, the A6M3 was a little faster than the A6M2, but only had, what, 75% of the A6M2's range and was less maneuverable. Later editions, better engines, more armament, more ammunition, more armor, same problems, reduced range, reduced maneuverability. I have a source who flew both the A6M2 and the A6M5 who says the A6M2 was much more responsive than the A6M5, though he thinks both were sweet to fly. The A6M, for the most part, only marginally outclassed it start of the war adversaries. Most of it's advantage came from a couple of factors; at the micro level, the advantage was allied fighter pilots getting sucked into low speed turning contests that they were sure to lose, and at the macro level there was the ability of the Kuido Butai to put a lot of fighters in the air and simply overwhelm the local opposition by weight of numbers.[/quote]
Your ammunition arguments are void as pointed out above. As for speed, the 109E was only slightly faster than the A6M2. All your arguments against the Zero can also be made against the 109E, except the radio - which is really a non-issue since the Germans could easily have rectified this with no performance penalty.
The big difference is the range - the Zero had 3x the 109E's range w/o a drop tank, and 5x the range with one.
R Leonard said:
Well, I'd agree with some of that. But also you have to consider that the F4F was simply a very very tough plane to shoot down. 109E's would have had a hard time with it too.
Whether or not the Germans would have been "happy" with it is not the issue - pilots fly the planes they are given. With the Zero, they would have been able to successfully complete their mission - to escort the bombers to their targets and defend them from the enemy. With the 109E, they simply could not.
=S=
Lunatic
