Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I believe aileron effectiveness was reduced after the A6M1 so not to twist up the lightly built wing. Stronger wings would alleviate thatBut Corky points out it is hard to see how the increased dive speed would do much good if the controls were still all but immovable above 240 kts.
I have heard that, too. Another thing mentioned by Corky was that when they first pulled it out of the hangar it was making "tin canning" type noises. The USN officer in charge of the Zero said that when it warmed up in the Sun those noises would go away.I believe aileron effectiveness was reduced after the A6M1 so not to twist up the lightly built wing.
I find all these comparisons pointless because the design of western aircraft was set to meet the different philosophies of western fighting, the RAF USAF could have made their version of the A6M but they considered that design approach wrong, and history shows that they were right.
It was simple, the A6M was made as light as possible allowing nimble handling and long range, to the detriment of pilot protection and aircraft survivability. The RAF USAF Luftwaffe aircraft design emphasised pilot protection, communication, airframe robustness with hitting power of their weapons as priority. Supermarine could have stripped the Spitfire likewise Grumman the Wildcat of all armor, self sealing tanks, bullet proof windscreen, radio, IFF equipment plus anything else that inhibits maneuverability and used the weight saving to carry more fuel but the BoB for instance would have not ended the way it did if they decided to follow that route.Was it so simple. Zero and Ki-43 designs put too much emphasies to lower speed manoeuvrability but look Grumman F8F Bearcat, light structure to allow excellent vertical manoeuvrability. And A6M's very long range single engine fighter with capacity to fight enemy fighters with equal terms, something e.g. the USAAF found to be an important asset.
I tried to find that story about two years ago Mitsubishi A6M Reisen balance tabs but I am still waiting for some Japanese reading expert to give me the details.
According to the original designer, Jiro Horikoshi, the weight was not "as light as possible." The weight was set by the power to weight ratio desired and the available horsepower anticipated from the engines that were envisioned for service. The Zero never had more than just under 1,200 hp and performed very well for a military aircraft of that power level. The Zero started life with 780 hp (Zuisei 13) and 1,000 was anticipated. They weren't far off as 940 *Sakae 12) 1,130 hp (Sakae 21 and 31) was the max used in the A6M series up until the A6M8. It's hard to credit the 1,560 hp A6M8 with anything since they only made and flew 2 prototypes that never saw combat.It was simple, the A6M was made as light as possible allowing nimble handling and long range, to the detriment of pilot protection and aircraft survivability. The RAF USAF Luftwaffe aircraft design emphasised pilot protection, communication, airframe robustness with hitting power of their weapons as priority. Supermarine could have stripped the Spitfire likewise Grumman the Wildcat of all armor, self sealing tanks, bullet proof windscreen, radio, IFF equipment plus anything else that inhibits maneuverability and used the weight saving to carry more fuel but the BoB for instance would have not ended the way it did if they decided to follow that route.
So having the overall weight dictated by only have a max of 1200hp didn't put emphasis on the aircraft to be as light as possible?Don't think the F8F was ever intended for escort.
According to the original designer, Jiro Horikoshi, the weight was not "as light as possible." The weight was set by the power to weight ratio desired and the available horsepower anticipated from the engines that were envisioned for service. The Zero never had more than just under 1,200 hp and performed very well for a military aircraft of that power level. The Zero started life with 780 hp (Zuisei 13) and 1,000 was anticipated. They weren't far off as 940 *Sakae 12) 1,130 hp (Sakae 21 and 31) was the max used in the A6M series up until the A6M8. It's hard to credit the 1,560 hp A6M8 with anything since they only made and flew 2 prototypes that never saw combat.
Which one of those lightweight fighters was in frontline service and where did they serve?, having no pilot armor or protection especially SS tanks didn't leave the pilot at risk?.Well, the US did build lightweight fighters that had little or no armor. We just did not produce them in large numbers. And that P-66 sure looks like a Zero.
However, as the article from Corky shows, building an airplane that was lightweight and did not use armor did not simply leave the pilots at risk. Such an approach also placed additional restrictions on the aircraft. The Zero was nimble but at speeds over 220 Kts it was almost a sitting duck, neither able to roll into a turn quickly nor flip into a climb or a dive.
View attachment 795357View attachment 795358View attachment 795359View attachment 795360
I hope you didn't think I said the Bearcat was used for escort. I meant quite the opposite.Don't think the F8F was ever intended for escort.
The Zero was nimble but at speeds over 220 Kts it was almost a sitting duck, neither able to roll into a turn quickly nor flip into a climb or a dive.
Which one of those lightweight fighters was in frontline service and where did they serve?, having no pilot armor or protection especially SS tanks didn't leave the pilot at risk?.
The RAAF test mentioned the controls were incredibly hard to move at high speed, when flying a Spitfire or P40 the rule was keep your speed up because the A6M then couldn't turn with you.What's your source for this if you don't mind?
Well, the US did build lightweight fighters that had little or no armor. We just did not produce them in large numbers. And that P-66 sure looks like a Zero.
However, as the article from Corky shows, building an airplane that was lightweight and did not use armor did not simply leave the pilots at risk. Such an approach also placed additional restrictions on the aircraft. The Zero was nimble but at speeds over 220 Kts it was almost a sitting duck, neither able to roll into a turn quickly nor flip into a climb or a dive.
View attachment 795357View attachment 795358View attachment 795359View attachment 795360