The Zero's Maneuverability (3 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Mitsubishi was busy building other planes. Like the G4M Betty to replace the G3M.
Mitsubishi had also built over 500 F1M2 float planes before production was transferred to 21st naval air arsenal.

Mitsubishi may have been busy building army aircraft.

A lot of times a number of companies submitted plans on paper and only a few planes were selected to be built as prototypes and then a final selection would be made.
Sometimes the selection was only out of the paper proposals.

A lot of western books on Japanese Aircraft skip over the late 1930s prototypes. Only planes that actually fought in WW II for the Japanese, no matter how outdated are included.
There was a Mitsubishi D3M design entered in competition with Aichi (D3A) and Nakajima (D3N) for the dive bomber but Mitsubishi withdrew, Nakajima built two prototypes but they were not selected.
 
I wonder what Jiro Horikoshi would have come up with if we changed the IJNAS' specification to include armour and self sealing tanks, full folding wings and larger ammunition capacity, powered by the same Nakajima Sakae, offset by "reasonable" allowances on endurance, speed, rate of climb and agility.
 
Last edited:
Given the USAAF and USN, RAF and FAA, LW etc. did not require armour and self sealing tanks at that stage why would the Japanese have required them.

The Japanese did require INTERNAL floatation systems though, unlike the USN where they were external and nobody seemed to do a risk analysis of what will happen if they deploy in flight.
 
Last edited:

In the middle of the war he was tasked with designing the Jack, with an emphasis on speed and climb as a bomber-interceptor rather than a dogfighter. It was less-nimble in Japanese eyes, but still could outturn USN fighters. The design spec called for, and the design got, rudimentary armor and rubber-lined fuel tanks. It had a short range, from my understanding, but carried an armament of 2x12.7mm MGs plus 2x20mm cannon, or 4x20mm cannon, depending on variant. Healthy climb too. Shorter range.

No folding wings -- although used by the IJN, it was designed to operate from shore. Speed was in the low 400s? I don't know what engine it used. I do know that it wasn't widely-built.
 

Nakajima's B5N Kate was simply better plane than Mitsubishi's B5M, Aichi won the dive-bomber contract beating Nakajima's entry. Mitsu gave up early and didn't even bother to built a prototype. On the other hand Nakajima thought the fighter requirements unachievable and pulled out of the competition.
 
MiTasol said:
I think the only people starting to think in that direction were the Germans as a result of the Spanish civil war.
Click to expand...
We're looking at the IJNAS' new fighter, for which the A6M doesn't first fly until spring 1939, and not enter service until summer of 1940. Maybe the first variants don't have as much protection as those introduced in 1941-42 when self sealing tanks and especially armour are becoming more commonplace, but I don't think it's extraordinary for the IJNAS to specify such for their new naval fighter.
 
Shortround6 said:
British planes in Malaya were about 6100lbs.
Click to expand...

That is rather interesting, as by my calculations the highly successful Model 239 with Finnish "1941" modifications (pilot's seat armour, fourth .50 cal, larger tailwheel, structural reinforcing, etc.*) in the 110 gal fuel and 9 gal oil configuration with the maximum amount of ammo (which seems to be 1,300 rounds all four guns combined) weighed about 5,735 lb. The Model 239's R-1820-G5 direct-drive engine was rated at 1,000 hp 5 minutes at a time (WEP), 950 hp at TO, 850 hp at SL-to-6,000 ft and 750 hp at 15,200 ft, but engine wear and replacement parts from captured Russian Shvetsov engines decreased performance from the factory ratings.

*Incidentally, America's Hundred Thousand, while a great source, completely forgets the Finns made any of these weight-increasing modifications!
 
Last edited:
Glider said:
I believe that the first RAF aircraft that had armour as part of the initial design as opposed to an add on, was the Whirlwind. If so then some people at least in the UK were considering armour from 1936/7.
Click to expand...
Hi
The book 'Knights of the Skies - Armour Protection for British Fighting Aeroplanes' by Michael C Fox, covers British discussion on armour protection for aircraft undertaking particular tasks quite well. Indeed page 114 has details of armour protection for the Westland Wapiti to protect the pilot/observer and other parts against ground fire when undertaking air policing duties dating to 1928. In the lead up to war in the late 1930s the discussion on the subject in the Air Fighting Committee meetings on armouring bombers and fighters increases. Trials are undertaking by firing at a Hawker Hart, fitted with armour plate, on early 1938 (p.149), Blenheim between 1st March and 28th July 1938 (p.174) and firing against Hurricanes with armour November 1938 (p184). So many experiments that AVM Tedder (then Director General of Research and Development) complained and wanted aircraft in service fitted by 1st January 1939. Initially air defence fighters were only fitted with frontal protection against the return fire from bombers, but with the later decision to send fighters to France meant they needed rear armour as well in August 1939 (pp.218-219).
The 'Zero' first flew on 1 April 1939, so it was designed and developed during the period of European discussion and use (Spanish Civil War lessons), presumably the Japanese did engage Soviet fighters fitted with armour in their 'border clashes' during 1938? The question then is did the Japanese make a conscious decision not to fit armour to their aircraft in the time leading up to 1941? So are unlike the European nations at the time who were already heading that way?

Mike
 
I find it interesting as WWI aircraft were starting to get armor towards the end of the war, types like the Sopwith Salamander were armored for ground attack duties, but it all seemed to be forgotten until late in the Spanish Civil War.
I don't know if it was a cost issue, or a degraded performance issue, but I am always amazed by how quickly we forget hard earned lessons
 
I was surprised to learn that at the start of the Pacific war, many Allied aircraft still didn't have armor installed. 67 Sqn in Burma had not installed armor in their Buffalos weeks after the Japanese offensive began. USN carrier aircraft had to be fitted with improvised armor before the Feb 1942 Marshall Islands raid. My guess it was a peacetime expediant to lessen wear and tear on the airframes.
 
Hi
You may find this of interest then:

Mike
 
One of the first armored aircraft purposely designed, was the Junkers J.I, introduced in 1917.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Similar threads

Regarding the true combat performance of the P-38 (and other advanced US fighters) in the PTO from 1942-44
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
12K
beers
Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not?
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
3K
PAT303
P
A
Would any other designs like the Arado E.583, the Blohm & Voss P 215 or the Lippisch P.13a have been better than the Horten Ho 229?
Replies
1
Views
1K
bada
B
M
Alternate Approach to the P-38 Compressibility Problem
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
SaparotRob
A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
4K
Airborne2001
A
Menu
Log in
Register