The Zero's Maneuverability

[Admiral Beez]

So, if we flip the script on the A6M, what was WW2's most sluggish, least maneuverable single-engine, prop-powered, single-seat monoplane fighter with retractable gear? For starters, we're looking for fighters with the combination of low power-to-weight ratio (weight / horsepower) and high wing loading (weight / wing area).

For example, let's consider the Wikpedia stats for the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406.
Power-to-weight: 5,600 lb (gross) / 860 hp = 6.51
Wing loading: 5,600 lb (gross) / 170 sq ft = 32.94

And here's the A6M Zero.
Power-to-weight: 6,164 lb (gross) / 950 hp = 6.48
Wing loading: 6,164 lb (gross) / 242 sq ft = 25.47

So, while the MS.406 has essentially the same power-to-weight ratio as the A6M, the former has significantly higher wing loading. This would make the MS.406 a much less agile aircraft.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wirraway?

 

[SaparotRob]

F2A-3? Its even got squinky landing gear.

 

[PStickney]

F2A-3? Its even got squinky landing gear.

The F2A's handling and basic maneuverability were actually quite good. The controls were pushrod operated, and not affected by cable stretch, and didn't heavy up quite so much at speed. What it didn't have was the size to take on all the stuff that combat experience was showing to be important - More guns, Armor Plate, high capacity self-sealing tanks, that sort of thing. If they'd put effort into reducing drag, it would have helped.
The biggest problem with the Buffalo vs the Zero was the same one that plagued everyone in the early part of the War - detecting an incoming raid early enough that you could scramble the fighters, get them formed up, and get them up to Altitude, Speed, and Position to engage, before the Zeros or Oscars fell on them like a box of rocks. Under those conditions, nobody comes out well - the initiative is all on the raider's side.

 

[SaparotRob]

The F2A's handling and basic maneuverability were actually quite good. The controls were pushrod operated, and not affected by cable stretch, and didn't heavy up quite so much at speed. What it didn't have was the size to take on all the stuff that combat experience was showing to be important - More guns, Armor Plate, high capacity self-sealing tanks, that sort of thing. If they'd put effort into reducing drag, it would have helped.
The biggest problem with the Buffalo vs the Zero was the same one that plagued everyone in the early part of the War - detecting an incoming raid early enough that you could scramble the fighters, get them formed up, and get them up to Altitude, Speed, and Position to engage, before the Zeros or Oscars fell on them like a box of rocks. Under those conditions, nobody comes out well - the initiative is all on the raider's side.

Wouldn't that be the lighter F2A-1?

 

[RCAFson]

So, if we flip the script on the A6M, what was WW2's most sluggish, least maneuverable single-engine, prop-powered, single-seat monoplane fighter with retractable gear? For starters, we're looking for fighters with the combination of low power-to-weight ratio (weight / horsepower) and high wing loading (weight / wing area).

For example, let's consider the Wikpedia stats for the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406.
Power-to-weight: 5,600 lb (gross) / 860 hp = 6.51
Wing loading: 5,600 lb (gross) / 170 sq ft = 32.94

And here's the A6M Zero.
Power-to-weight: 6,164 lb (gross) / 950 hp = 6.48
Wing loading: 6,164 lb (gross) / 242 sq ft = 25.47

So, while the MS.406 has essentially the same power-to-weight ratio as the A6M, the former has significantly higher wing loading. This would make the MS.406 a much less agile aircraft.

The above figures for the A6M2-21 are incorrect because they include a 72IG DT!

The F4F-4:

7975lb:
Power-to-weight: 7975lb (full load, no external loads) 1200hp = 6.65/TO or 7.3 at Vmax (~19k ft) at Military Power.
Wing loading: 7975 lb / 260 sq ft = 30.7

A6M2-21
Power-to-weight: 5313 lb (full load, no external loads) / 940 hp (TO) = 5.5
Wing loading: 5313 lb / 242 sq ft = 22

 

[Admiral Beez]

The above figures for the A6M2-21 are incorrect because they include a 72IG DT!

I thought it was a bit heavy. I still think I'm looking at the right variables of power-to-weight and wing loading.

 

[muskeg13]

So, if we flip the script on the A6M, what was WW2's most sluggish, least maneuverable single-engine, prop-powered, single-seat monoplane fighter with retractable gear? For starters, we're looking for fighters with the combination of low power-to-weight ratio (weight / horsepower) and high wing loading (weight / wing area).

For example, let's consider the Wikpedia stats for the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406.
Power-to-weight: 5,600 lb (gross) / 860 hp = 6.51
Wing loading: 5,600 lb (gross) / 170 sq ft = 32.94

And here's the A6M Zero.
Power-to-weight: 6,164 lb (gross) / 950 hp = 6.48
Wing loading: 6,164 lb (gross) / 242 sq ft = 25.47

So, while the MS.406 has essentially the same power-to-weight ratio as the A6M, the former has significantly higher wing loading. This would make the MS.406 a much less agile aircraft.

The P-35s still in service in the Phillipines.

Seversky P-35 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SaparotRob]

I forgot who posted it. Someone said, as a kid, he thought the name was pronounced "Sever Sky" rather than Seversky. I can't get it out of head when I see these planes and call them that myself.

 

[GrauGeist]

P-36A:
Gross weight: 5,650 lbs.
Engine output: 1,200 hp.
Power to Weight ratio: .186 hp/lb.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

.212 hp/lb by your numbers.

 

[SaparotRob]

.3qb67x@e. by my numbers.

 

[GrauGeist]

.212 hp/lb by your numbers.

The power to Weight ratio was listed as 0.186 hp/lb for the P-36A, armed, fueled at standard takeoff weight with the P&W R-1830-17 according to the tables in "Curtiss Fighter Aircraft, photographic history, 1917 - 1948" Dean/Hagedorn
ISBN 9780764325809

 

[PStickney]

Wouldn't that be the lighter F2A-1?

Well, the F2A-1 with 20% more power. Which is fine if you're on the offensive - once the Other Guy starts shooting back, then you've got problems.

 

[SaparotRob]

I had been responding to The Admiral's comment regarding underpowered, sluggish, least maneuverable airplanes. I think it was "Pappy" Boyington who said of the early Buffalo that it could turn inside a phone booth. Of the F2A-3, after the Battle of Midway, there was the anecdote of just shooting the pilots on the ground and saving gas. That's why I brought up the -3.
I'm sure buffnut453 would have better info.

 

[PStickney]

I had been responding to The Admiral's comment regarding underpowered, sluggish, least maneuverable airplanes. I think it was "Pappy" Boyington who said of the early Buffalo that it could turn inside a phone booth. Of the F2A-3, after the Battle of Midway, there was the anecdote of just shooting the pilots on the ground and saving gas. That's why I brought up the -3.
I'm sure buffnut453 would have better info.

If you look at the actions of the Marine Wildcats at Midway, they didn't do any better - Getting hit on, or just after the initial climbout means that you're low energy, and therefore low options. Target selection - concentrating on the bombers, was also a factor, so was inexperience - Most of the fighter pilots were brand new, and get in very little training after being deployed to Midway.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Sorry, but the question was about "Japanese air strikes on Siberian airfields". Were there any?

(I read my first book about Khalkin-Gol/Nomohnah over 50 years ago. But thank you for your recommendations.)

Been looking though the older books trying to find where Siberia came from, there were definitely airstrikes on a number of Red Air Force bases. Japan's War by Edwin P Hoyt has on 22 June 1939 the Red Air force counter attacked inflicting significant losses despite losing around a third of its aircraft. On 27 June a reinforced IJAAF struck Red Air Force airbases, "real escalation of the war, into Siberia", Tokyo found out about it afterwards. At least some of the Japanese commanders had ideas of cutting the trans Siberia rail line.

 

[Shortround6]

The Brewster Buffalo was several different planes.
It went from 3720-3750lbs empty on the early ones to 4760lbs on the F2A-3.
Normal gross with 110gal of fuel went from 5050lbs to just over 6500lbs.
British planes in Malaya were about 6100lbs.
All weights are for 110 US gallons of fuel. Going into combat with more fuel just makes things worse.
US fighters often did not carry full ammo on training flights.

Then you have the 3 engines. Forget the take-off power, it is somewhat deceptive.
The early engines gave 750-800hp at 15-16,000ft, depends on what rpm limit the pilots used on the engine, 2100rpm or 2200rpm. Military power was not a term used uses in 1939 or much of 1940.
The middle engine (many export fighters) was rated at 800hp at 17,100ft in high gear military power, if it was running correctly. The 1100hp for take-off didn't matter unless the Buffaloes were trimming the rubber tree tops.
The last engines used in the F2A-2 & -3 gave 1000hp at 14200ft if the pilot used the take-off rpm. If not the pilot got 900hp at 14-15,000ft. At 17,000ft the engine was good for 30-40hp less. The Power gain at altitude never matched the weight gain.

 

[Dimlee]

Been looking though the older books trying to find where Siberia came from, there were definitely airstrikes on a number of Red Air Force bases. Japan's War by Edwin P Hoyt has on 22 June 1939 the Red Air force counter attacked inflicting significant losses despite losing around a third of its aircraft. On 27 June a reinforced IJAAF struck Red Air Force airbases, "real escalation of the war, into Siberia", Tokyo found out about it afterwards. At least some of the Japanese commanders had ideas of cutting the trans Siberia rail line.

Thank you. The 27th June attack was against the VVS bases inside Mongolia, as I remember. Probably, the authors used "Siberia" as a general term for anything north of China.