zero vs. 109

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

The Ki-61 Hein was built around the engine. Japan recieved a license to build the DB 601A, designated Ha-40 and in anticipation of this developed the airframe based upon this engine. Actually Kawasaki was ordered to build two aircraft for the engine. The Ki-60 was a failure. Similarities to the Bf 109abound. Early tests included a mock combat with a captured P-40 ad a Bf 109E. Apparenty proved superior to both planes and production immediately ordered.

Now from Aero Series 12 Heinkel He 100:

"On October 30, 1939, a Soviet commission headed by Col. Gussewand and Col. Shevtshanko to inspect (at Marienehe) and perhaps purchase the He 100. A member of this team was Alxander Yakoulew who spent much of his time inspecting the plane carefully. The Soviets purchased 3 He 100D-1s, which served in the USSR for design studies which led to the developements of the YAK-3 and YAK-9. A Japanese commission arrived right on the heels of the Soviet commission, thus making negotiations with either a little difficult to arrange. This commission was headed by Navy Capt. Wada and Capt. Kikuoka. The Japanese purchased the 3 He 100D-0 models and the export designation was AX-He-1. One can see the direct development of this to the Ki-61."

Others were sold to Hungary but there were no production models from any foreign country, just design.
 
I think I found it Adler and yer right. from "Warplanes of the Luftwaffe" by David Donald:

"....the sitution was further worsened by the withdrawl of three aircraft (Ju 290A-5s) for special transport duties. They were stripped of armour and armament at Funsterwald and fitted with additional fuel tanks. So configured they left Odessa and Mielec for a non-stop flight to Manchuria with special cargo for the Japanese, before returning to Lielec with strategic materils that were in short supply in Germany."

Another source I have says there were 3 such flights.
 
It would be interesting a dog-fight between an A6M Zero and a Bf-109E of the same time say. I really do reckon that in pilots of the same skill, the contest in a dog-fight would be close as the A6M Zero would have the manevourability but the Bf-109E would have the advantage of being able to make significant hits owing to its armament as well as having the armour to survive very well.
 
It should be remembered that by the time the Zero was in service in decent numbers the equivalent would be the 109F not E.

There is little doubt in my mind that the 109 would be to much for the Zero.
 
Glider said:
There is little doubt in my mind that the 109 would be to much for the Zero.
Click to expand...

Normally I stay out of debates like this as I am a huge Bf-109 fan. But to say the 109 would be to much for the zero. I wouldn't go that far. The Australian's and the British had a ton of losses in the pacific fighting the zero with spitfires.

Maneuverability and range alone goes to the Zero. Just for the shear fun of it they could stay just out of range and wait till they run out of gas and then smoke them landing or crashing.

Armor goes to the Bf-109 hands down. Speed goes to a Bf-109E-3 at around 348 mph depending on source and a A6M3B or model 21 goes at around 331 mph. Difference of around 17 mph. At which time both came out around the same time.

Fire power I would rate to be pretty much even. Both had cannon and machine gun's. Although in the long run I would go with the Bf-109 machine guns.

Basically under rating an enemy especially one with world wide respect such as the zero should never be treated lightly. Both the zero and the Bf-109 were well respected by the pilots that flew against them. To treat them any other way is to invite a very quick death in combat as many allied pilots found out.
 

Its interesting, as I am not normally a big fan of the 109 particually the later models but here I would definately go for the 109, even the E although the F was I believe the closest timeline wise. It should be remembered that at Pearl Harbour the IJN were still equipping some units with the Zero with only around 450 in service whilst at the end of 1941, the 109F was in widespread use.

The 109 had the option of leaving the battle at any time using its superior dive speed plus had better cannons and more ammunition. There can be no doubt that the 109 was better protected.

The 109F was also a lot faster than the Zero Model 21 and its lighter weapons compared to the 109E would ahve been more than sufficient to deal with the lightly built zero.
 
I would agree with you on that Glider. I differently would take the Bf-109. The Japanese did test fly a few Bf-109E's but did not like them. They thought they where to heavy. But then again if you look at most Japanese planes they go for maneuverability and range. Differently a difference in campaigns.
 
I just threw that onto this topic as an interesting side diversion that was staying within the terms of the topic. I chose the 109E because I thought it was at the same time that the Zero was starting to be deployed operationally. Yes I do tend to think the Bf-109E would beat the Zero but it would require a great deal of effort to win...
 
Too true, just an interesting hypothetical that I threw up as a comparison between the design philosophies of the Germans and the Japanese. I was just interested in what people thought.
 
Negative Creep said:
Didn't the Allies believe the Hein (Tony) was a licence built `09?
Click to expand...

I might be wrong, but I read somewhere that the allies believed the Hein was based on the Italian Folgores, hence the nickname "Tony".

BTW, the me-109E provided to japan was sent by long range sub, crated. Together it also went a big ( 600?) load og MG 151/20. Most of those were used in the first batchs of the Hein.
 
I think that in the late 1940 to 1943 period the outcome of a 109 versus A6M would probably depend on the skill of the pilot. In the Pacific, the Allied forces only really gained ascendency over the Zero when the P38, Corsair and Hellcat came on the scene. Even then, if the Zero was piloted by an experienced pilot the issue was in doubt. In a 1V1 fight a well flown Zero could almost always evade the other A/Cs runs. He did not have the option to disengage whenever he desired like the higher performance A/C had but one moment of carelessness could get the Zero's advesary in serious trouble.
 
Just watched a PBS special last night on the air battle between Sakai and "Pug" Stephenson (I think that was his name) over Guadalcanal. I was surprised that (1) the armour on the hellcat kept it flying even after 200 rounds and (2) those rounds were of rifle caliber for the guns of the Zero. With that I think I would go with Leonard's suggestion and fly cirlces around the 109 until the needle hit "E".
 
There was all sorts of aircraft, weaponry and technology traffic between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan before and during the war. As you all point out, the Tony was designed/inspired from the BF-109.

Japan towards the latter part of the war did have a few ME-262 and an ME-163. There was momentum to produce these in numbers to intercept the B-29. The first flight of the Japanese version of the ME-262 took place at Imperial Japanese Air Field Kizarazu (now a JGSDF helicopter base), which is right across the bay from Yokosuka Imperial Japanese Naval Shipyard, eight days before the war officially ended in the Pacific. There are some of the opinion that had these and a few other high altitude interceptors been pressed into service a year earlier, the war in the Pacific may have carried on beyond 1945, since speed and a hellacious nose cannon were the strengths of this particular airframe. Yes, this is all arguable when one throws in all of the other variables into the mix.
 
The Japanese "versions" of the Me 262 and the Me 163 were inspired but completely built on there own. Hense the slightly different look and design. Examples here are some pics of the German and Japanese versions of them to see the difference in the designs.

Specifically look at the tail of the Me 262 compared to the Kikka and then the cockpit and nose of the Me 163 compared to the J8 M.
 

Attachments

  • 262.JPG
    18.2 KB · Views: 86
  • kikka.JPG
    16.9 KB · Views: 120
  • 163.JPG
    19.2 KB · Views: 102
  • j8m.JPG
    12.5 KB · Views: 123
  • j8m2.JPG
    23.4 KB · Views: 109
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A6m 1:1 Static Display
Replies
8
Views
906
nuuumannn
T
ZG 26 Me-109Ds
Replies
0
Views
989
TigerSun142
T
mix of ammo Zero
Replies
0
Views
2K
Grummanf6f
S
Bf-109 hand crank starter
Replies
14
Views
24K
DOUGRD
Menu
Log in
Register