The Zero's Maneuverability (2 Viewers)

[PAT303]

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 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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I was asking more about the remarks about vertical maneuver, and looking for a link I could read for myself.

 

[cherry blossom]

I suspect that the poor manoeuvrability of the A6M at high speed was more because it was designed to be easy to land on a carrier than because of its light weight philosophy. Did the Ki-43 Hayabusa have the same problem with rolling at high speed? My problem is that I don't understand if the A6M's aileron balance tabs returned when the wing was strengthened and if not, why not.

The A6M was probably the easiest of the WW2 fighters to land. Its planned sucessor the A7M Reppu had a very large wing (about the same as a Hellcat but larger than an F4U or a P-47) and low wing loading which against prioritised landing on a carrier over high speed. In peace time or in a conflict like the war with China, landing accidents must have been the most serious threat and that seems to have influenced policy. The A6M was anyway superior in some ways to its contemporary the Fairey Fulmar.

 

[marathag]

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?.

Hawk 75 aka P-36 did well in 1939-40 against the Luftwaffe over France, and later over Finland

 

[MIflyer]

What's your source for this if you don't mind?

As I said, the Corky Myer article as well as the USN reports of the tests on the Koga Zero.

Which one of those lightweight fighters was in frontline service and where did they serve?,

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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

As I said, the Corky Myer article as well as the USN reports of the tests on the Koga Zero.

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?

 

[Shortround6]

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.

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 "protection" gets a lot of the blame. The American planes were built to higher strength standards to begin with. This did allow them to stand up to more damage (mostly).
1930s Navy planes had unlimited dive speed for instance. To be accepted the plane (fighter or dive bomber) had to sustain a "terminal veleocity dive" Plane was dived to a speed where the force of drag equaled the force of gravity and the plane would not go any faster. This got rather hard with low drag mono-planes and the F4U was either the first or one of the first that did not have to do this (they calculated how up they would have to start and how much room they would need to pull out and things started getting a little dicey).
And nobody wants to blame the sacred cow of American armament. The .50 cal machine gun. When you stick 2-3 times the weight of guns/ammo one 6000-7000lb plane that you do in another something (or several somethings) in the performance takes a hit.

As for the P-66 looking like an A6M all I can say is that you must think the Hurricane looks like the Mustang.

Sure.
P-66 and A6M, both low wing mono planes with retracting gear, both radials with transparent canopies, Better than close enough for CGI/AI work
Hurricane and Mustang, both mono planes with retracting gear, both have pointy noses and transparent canopies. Better than close enough for CGI/AI work