The early Spitfires Hurricanes and 109's didn't have armor either but they absolutely did once the shooting started and long before the A6M entered the war.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The early P-36 and P-40 aircraft were totally lacking in both armour and self sealing tanks so they were no better than the A6M at that time. They were first fitted to P-36 and P-40 aircraft ordered for Britain and France. I suspect the first P-38s and 39s may have also lacked those items although the British and French demands and experience were starting to penetrate the US design philosophies by the time Pearl Harbor happened.
The British Tomahawks had fairly light seat armour which was heavier on the D/E aircraft and heavier again as the models progressed. Likewise their frontal protection grew with each model except that they removed the coolant tank armour on the D and subsequent aircraft.
As for the P-66 looking like an A6M all I can say is that you must think the Hurricane looks like the Mustang.
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.
Hawk 75 aka P-36 did well in 1939-40 against the Luftwaffe over France, and later over FinlandWhich 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?.
As I said, the Corky Myer article as well as the USN reports of the tests on the Koga Zero.What's your source for this if you don't mind?
Ahhhh, you missed the point entirely. They WERE NOT in frontline service BECAUSE they did not have armor, self sealing tanks, etc. The AVG was going to have some CW-21's but they ran into a mountain along the way, which reduced their combat effectiveness considerably. Countries like Thailand, China, and Argentina adopted some lightweight fighters, including the export fixed gear version of the Hawk 75, but had little choice.Which one of those lightweight fighters was in frontline service and where did they serve?,
As I said, the Corky Myer article as well as the USN reports of the tests on the Koga Zero.
As a general rule of the thumb US fighters that have a letter designation of "C" or lower (like P-39C) were judged NOT combat capable at some point in 1940 or early 1941. This made figuring out which planes were combat capable (or capable of over seas deployment) much easier as the people doing the counting didn't have to refer back to spec sheets all the time for each type of aircraft. However this didn't last long. By 1942 all of the older fighters had been transferred to flight schools or ground schools or shipped off to Panama. And the the newer planes (P-47 & P-51) were pretty much combat capable (not P-47Bs) right from the start.The early P-36 and P-40 aircraft were totally lacking in both armour and self sealing tanks so they were no better than the A6M at that time. They were first fitted to P-36 and P-40 aircraft ordered for Britain and France. I suspect the first P-38s and 39s may have also lacked those items although the British and French demands and experience were starting to penetrate the US design philosophies by the time Pearl Harbor happened.
Sure.As for the P-66 looking like an A6M all I can say is that you must think the Hurricane looks like the Mustang.
You can climb or dive without using the elevator by adding or removing power. Most light aircraft do it that way. But you cannot do a loop or dive onto a target without using a LOT of elevator. And if the elevator is "frozen in concrete" you ain't doing that.Couldn't it climb or dive without "flipping into it"?
Hawk 75 aka P-36 did well in 1939-40 against the Luftwaffe over France, and later over Finland
The Hawk 75 and indeed all American fighter aircraft of the time with the possible exception of the Mustang Mk I seemed to have very good aileron control, at least as the RAF rated them. They were considered to be better than the Spitfire and Hurricane and since they were built stronger they could use those controls to full effect. What Corky's article points out is that maneuverability was limited by structural strength. Now the Zero had HUGE ailerons, comparable in size relative to the wing to light aircraft, including my Ercoupe. Those ailerons gave it a lot of capability but also meant you could break something, especially at higher speeds.The American planes were built to higher strength standards to begin with.
The American planes were built to higher strength standards to begin with. This did allow them to stand up to more damage (mostly).
You can climb or dive without using the elevator by adding or removing power. Most light aircraft do it that way. But you cannot do a loop or dive onto a target without using a LOT of elevator. And if the elevator is "frozen in concrete" you ain't doing that.
Now, as I understand it, the Zero was designed so that if the pilot tried to exert too much force the controls stretched to keep him from breaking the structure. And I have only read of one Japanese fighter breaking up in a dive and that was an Oscar fighting with P-51A over Burma, so the Zero did not seem to come apart very easily.
Same thing was found over Australia, the A6M's could easily loop over the top of the Spit V's we had but the MkV's used here used low boost Merlin 46's which did flatter the A6M's performance.This is what doesn't make sense to me. You report that he thought "Its best climb speed was 20 kts lower than the Hellcat and he was amazed that he could not only pull a tight loop but actually gain altitude in the process, even when starting the loop at only 120 kts. With a 120 kt entry speed the Zero could end the loop 1200 ft higher than it started. A Wildcat has a minimum loop entry speed off 160 kts and would lose several hundred feet by the end of the loop", but then you write "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". Couldn't it climb or dive without "flipping into it"? And wouldn't that allow it to use its apparently excellent vertical performance?
I call BS on that to be honest, I haven't found a single instance of a Spitfire bending its fuselage from dogfighting in any theatre of combat in any actual combat let alone a training one.Do not forget that in the RAAF combat trials between a Spitfire and a captured A6M it was the Spitfire that suffered structural damage - not the supposedly flimsy A6M.
There was a post about the stretchy control cables. I'm going nuts trying to remember the thread.
I call BS on that to be honest, I haven't found a single instance of a Spitfire bending its fuselage from dogfighting in any theatre of combat in any actual combat let alone a training one.
Spitfires didn't suffer this damage in actual combat with A6M's so having it happen in a mock dog fight is highly doubtful, still calling it BS.Here is the report on the mock combat flight and separately I have the report on damage to the Spitfire from Flt Lt Wawn but I cannot find it at present. His son or grandson was on this forum recently so may have a copy as I think my copy came from him. I will keep looking for mine. And the damage was not fuselage but tailplane from memory.
Also attached is the pilots late war public comment on the Spit vs Hap and another RAAF report on the type