This is in the present tense, are they still trying to squeeze the last few MPH out of the P-39?
Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
20 more kts IAS and it'll put an F-35 on its back begging for mercy, by god.
My understanding is contrary to this; Horikoshi favoured the Kinsei, but it was the navy's insistence that power loading not exceed 5.5lb per hp so the Zuisei was fitted. Horikoshi's fears were surrounding the low power output of the Zuisei. It was the navy's insistence on fitting the Sakai.
Yes, but the J2M was built to an entirely different specification, in that it was designed to augment the A6M as the navy's land based interceptor. The A6M was designed to fulfil an extremely demanding specification, which even Mitsubishi's rivals decided they could not do, so the philosophy behind the A6M was stringent and in fulfilling the spec, Horikoshi managed to create a brilliant design that exceeded even the navy's expectations. The other consideration behind the A6M was that its development was relatively trouble free, apart from vibration in the first two prototypes, which was cured by installing a three-bladed propeller and then in the third prototype a different engine.
Uniquely, armour and self sealing tanks was retrofitted to models of the A6M, then removed again (!). In the Model 52b, armoured glass and a CO2 fire extinguishing system was installed and in the 52c armour plating behind the pilot and hardened glass in the fairing behind his head, as well as water meth injection for the Sakai, although the designers wanted a more powerful engine but were refused by the navy. In the Model 53c, the self sealing tanks were removed.
cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 504
- Apr 23, 2007
Its not really my statement. I was quoting Akira Yoshimura's Zero Fighter and I don't know where he found it. Has anyone read Horikoshi Jiro's "Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter", which was translated into English in 1992? I would guess that might be the best source for Horikoshi's thinking in early 1938. It seems plausible that Horikoshi in 1938 was not planning an aircraft with the A6M8's fuselage, still less the slimmer Ki-100 design. Thus a 1938 Kinsei proposal would have been heavier than a late 1942 proposal after the Kinsei 60 series became available and designs such as the Fw 190 had been reported.
Now, you could be right of course because as I mentioned, the information I have is what I've read and have a couiple of sources saying the same, but digging a little deeper I have found a few sources stating what you have read. Sourcing Horikoshi himself is probably the best, as you state. One book I have read states that the navy selected the Sakai because neither Mitsubishi engine were sufficiently reliable at the time.
As for the aircraft's design and predicting what will eventuate, obviously the navy issued the type's replacement spec in 1941 as 16-Shi, which was not progressed with, but 17-Shi, which Horikoshi produced the A7M was issued in 1942, which all demonstrates that the A6M was not to have remained in service for as long as it did.
Just to add to this, I found yet another reference, albeit a not entirely reliable one, the Squadron/Signal for the A6M that states that Horikoshi originally wanted to choose the Kinsei, but it was too heavy and settled for the Zuisei because it was lighter... Needless to say its academic anyway since the IJN determined that the Sakai should power in-service aircraft...
Hi
'Eagles of Mitsubishi, The Story of the Zero Fighter' by Jiro Horikoshi (translated by Shojiro Shido and Harold N Wantiez), Orbis 1982, has the following:
However, the book does make a few claims that are improbable, for example on page 131 he claims that the Zero downed 17 Spitfires over Colombo in 1942, where there were no Spitfires at the time!
Mike
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Is it possible that they mistook Hurricanes for Spitfires?
Hi
Probably not as they claimed even more Hurricanes. FAA Fulmars were there so they may have confused that type with the Fulmar, even if it looked nothing like it. He is probably just repeating stories he heard at the time. There were about 50 Hurricanes plus 2 sqns of FAA Fulmars available I believe. The text is below:
Mike
Excellent Mike, just what we needed. It certainly confirms both of our statements, that he favoured the bigger Kinsei but ultimately chose the Zuisei because of its lightness, as per the Squadron Signal A6M.
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
Certainly as many USAAF pilots claimed to shoot down Me109s in the first months of the Pacific war when all the Japanese were operating were radial engined fighters
cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 504
- Apr 23, 2007
It seems clear that Horikoshi Jiro's choice of the Zuisei was driven by weight. However, there is still a small puzzle as the A6M8 prototypes were derived from two A6M5c airframes and seem to weigh almost exactly the same as the A6M5c as Joe Baugher at Mitsubishi A6M Zero and Jim Broshot at Zero Facts and Figures both have the A6M5c with 4,751lb empty and 6,945lb loaded while the A6M8 model 64 has 4,740lb (empty) and 6,945lb (loaded). Thus the loss of a 13.2 mm machine gun seems to balance the heavier engine.
The problem may perhaps be the range as the A6M5c is quoted as having a maximum range 1314 miles at a cruising speed of 230 mph (is that with the 330 litres drop tank?) whilst the A6M8's range is not given but it carried exactly the same 610 litres of internal fuel. According to Wikipedia, the Ki-100 carried 595 litres and its range was 1,400 km (870 mi, 760 nmi) on internal fuel only which must be close to the range of the slightly slower A6M8. It may be worth pointing out that the Ki-100 had self sealing tanks but they were omitted from the A6M5c and the A6M8 prototypes. The A6M6c had self sealing tanks and its range is given as only 956miles at 230mph.
The problem may perhaps be the range as the A6M5c is quoted as having a maximum range 1314 miles at a cruising speed of 230 mph (is that with the 330 litres drop tank?) whilst the A6M8's range is not given but it carried exactly the same 610 litres of internal fuel. According to Wikipedia, the Ki-100 carried 595 litres and its range was 1,400 km (870 mi, 760 nmi) on internal fuel only which must be close to the range of the slightly slower A6M8. It may be worth pointing out that the Ki-100 had self sealing tanks but they were omitted from the A6M5c and the A6M8 prototypes. The A6M6c had self sealing tanks and its range is given as only 956miles at 230mph.
So a 38 to 1 success ratio in one engagement?, find that hard to believe.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
buffnut453
Captain
The text in post #1570.
The text is nonsense because there weren't any Spitfires in Colombo at that time, as has been pointed out up-thread. The IJNAF pilots were also significantly over-claiming.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Been doing a little research on this and agree this 21 to 1 is BS. No doubt it was a one-sided battle.
I have been looking for that article for years. It is the only article I have ever read that mentions the Zeros getting lost and failing to rtb. Printed a copy this time.
Here's another good account of the battle.
Wawny
Airman
Thank you for that document. I missed the notification that would have come with this, so my apologies for the late response. I've read some of it and will thoroughly digest it shortly.
I have included, for your interest, a personal note to whom I am not sure, with my deciphering. I must correct my initial quote of 9 degree bend in the tail - it was 15. Lucky it was still attached!!
Thank you again
