Let's Talk The Mitsubishi Zero

Yet, as I've mentioned before, the Zero's large ailerons result in its aerodynamic controls locking up at high speeds. So even if it were slightly faster (345 vs 338 is less than 2% faster than the Hellcat), it wouldn't be able to exploit the energy advantage due to control lock-up.

And as also mentioned before, the Zero's high-speed limitations created problems. If the Zero initiated a battle at a lower altitude, it could not outdive its more agile Allied counterparts and would get swatted. If it initiated a battle at a higher altitude, provided that its opponent had sufficient altitude to dive away, it couldn't launch a killing blow.

===

So here, in the previous discussion with MirageIII, we go on to discuss theoretical vs practical concerns. I pull out the Flying Tigers, he mentions that the Ki-43 was not the Zero (while more maneuverable, the Ki-43 didn't have the same heavy armament, but Saburo Sakai mentions that the Zero's 20mms weren't that useful due to low bullet velocity and ammunition storage), counters with the Solomon Islands, I counter with pilot skill arguments (do we really need to reprise the higher level of training and experience IJA/N Air Corps pilots entered the American phase of the war with?), he counters with blah blah blah.

Is there any particular section you'd like to discuss or add to?

I am only commenting on the zero's performance, your discussion with mirageIII is between yourself.

The fact is simple, you need a Hellcat to compete on a level footing with the zero as a naval fighter. The hellcat was first used in combat in September 1943. That is 3 years post introduction for the Zero at July 2010. 3 years in wartime is a lot; to illustrate, the Germans went from the Panzer II to the Tiger 1 in around 3 years. Thus this is why the zero was legendary; just like the T34, it is legendary not because late war tanks can beat it easily, but that when it was introduced, it was the best tank on the battlefield.

your statement is true, if the opponent of the zero is at the same level at high altitude and it could dive away, the zero cannot land a killing blow. the same is also true that if the opponent is behind the zero at low altitude, the zero can just as easily climb away. if it is a pure 1 v 1, the zero can easily let the wildcat/hellcat dive away and catch up slowly from a further dive - they will eventually hit the deck anyways and there will be no more height to dive. heck, the zero can wait till the wildcat/hellcat run out of fuel and crash. But war is not fought 1v1, but between MICs.

Also, dive speeds are not that simple, the A6M5c is able to dive at around 460 mph, the A6M3 was around 410 mph. The F6F-3 not to exceed dive speed of the same era of the A6M5c is 415 knots, or 477 mph. As you have argued previously, that is only a 4% difference. Its not a whole lot. What is true is that the opponent fighters have a faster acceleration when diving.

In either case, the Zero can't really maneuver at high speeds, while the Hellcat, the Wildcat, and Mustang can. You're also not doing an apples-to-apples comparison; the A6M5 is a highly improved variant that appeared mid-war. The start-of-war the Model 21 Zero lacked supercharged engines, and thus had a critical altitude of 4500 meters. The P-51 had about the same critical altitude, but was significantly faster, while the F4F had about the same speed, but had a critical altitude of 5200 meters or 6000 meters depending on F4F-3 vs F4F-4. This meant that a F4F, vs the Model 21s, could expect to start at a higher altitude and thus have an advantage, while the P-51 would enter the fight with more energy.

The Model 32s and 22s, on the other hand, do have supercharged engines and do away with this disadvantage, but they didn't enter service before autumn 1942.

Actually, I do think that I am doing an apples to apples comparison, The wildcats were early war comparisons and hellcats were mid wall comparisons.

I do not like to compare the land based fighter to naval fighters as their design limitations are very different and that while they did engage in combat, it is mainly land based fighters vs land based fighters.

Here, lets pit it in a table for the navy acceptance dates where they flew for their first missions:

A6M1 Sept 1939
A6M2-M11 July 1940
A6M2-M21 Sept 1941
A6M3-M32 Apr 1942
A6M5-M52 Aug 1943

F2A-1 Apr 1939
F4F-3 Dec 1940 (first model to enter service)
F4F-4 / FM1 May 1942
FM2 early 1943
F6F-3 Feb 1943 (first model to enter service)
F6F-5 1944
F4U-1 Dec 1942 (only deployed on US carriers by late 1944 due to landing issues)

We can agree that the F2A series was completely smoked by the A6M1, A6M2-M11 as the dutch and British buffaloes found; so 1939-1940 is dominated by the zero

How does the A6M2-M11/M21 fare against the F4F-3? The early F4F-3 had gun issues, and due to two stage supercharger shortage had to use a single stage one that robbed it of its performance. i.e. max speed of 306 mph from 330 mph of the F4F-3 i.e. ~10% slower than the A6M2-M21 at 332 mph. The service ceiling fell from 39000 ft to 31000 ft; i.e. less than the 33000 ft of the A6M2-M21. Therefore needless to say, the F4F-3/F4F-3A might be able to outdive a zero, a F4F-3A that the US can actually produce at that time would likely find that the zero is above him; and he could only dive away. The M21 did strengthen the aircraft for a diving fight, not as good as an american bird, but not as fragile as a M11 in a dive. Pearl harbor happened in Dec 1941; meaning you have a teething wildcat vs a zero with it's teething problems fixed. thus for 1942 and the better part of 1943; I would consider the zero still better.

The F4F-4 onwards for the wildcat fixed a lot of the teething issues and got 2 more guns, the wings folded, the two stage supercharger and the gun jamming issue. Sevice ceiling went down (or up) to 34000 ft due to the additional weight. Now the zero got 10% more power (that increased air speed to 338 mph) in the A6M3-M32 with clipped wings and reduced ailerons for better control in a dive, reinforced body for a faster dive. It also received a 2 speed supercharger (note not 2 stage) At this time, the wildcat and zero would be quite evenly matched.

Then you have the the hellcat that completely outclasses the zero in early 1943; the most numerous series of the zero A6M-M52 was built incorporating, armor, self sealing tanks, thicker skin, smaller wing (higher wing loading, less drag, less slow speed maneuverability and more high speed control). So, the zero haven't stagnated, but the hellcat is a better bird. Even though it is now inferior, it is still competitive unlike the F2A vs the A6M1. case in point is that Sakai's zero managed to evade 15 hellcats in a dogfight in Apr 1944. Yes, Sakai is an ACE, but 1944 american fliers are no push over either. e.g. the zero is still competitive.

Now 1944-5; we should really be looking at the A7M vs the F6F-5; or even the F8F. But the war is over and we will never know how those will perform in combat with a good pilot behind the stick.

Lest we forget that is is not just american naval fighters out there:

The ME 109T, Reggiane Re.2001 OR Serie II, Fairey Fulmar; Gloster Sea Gladiator and Hawaker Sea Hurricane would likely be easy prey for the zero of the era.The Hawker Sea Fury and Supermarine Seafire should give a good fight, but most likely found wanting.

Thus in reality, the Zero fighter dominated naval air combat for around 3 years out of 6 years of war.

You're looking at it wrong. Service ceiling isn't the same as critical altitude; aircraft cruise at critical altitude because above that height engine power begins to trail off. This means that if an F4F meets a A6M2, the F4F should either be higher, or the A6M2's bleeding engine efficiency and thus energy from its high altitude.

A6M3 is also a better example; although from what I've read production didn't really kick off until Q4 1942. It is probably peer or near-peer to the F4F (did the reduced ailerons really make all that much of a difference?), but around that time period F4Us should have begun to hit service.

Another thing to consider is that after Midway, Japan's carrier fleet was mostly toast, so around that time aircraft like the A6M became mostly land-based fighters, distinguished mainly by their long range. There, I would not rate the A7M highly, since IIRC it was outclassed by its contemporaries. The Ki-84, on the other hand, was arguably one of the best fighters of the war, hampered only by poor materials and inferior aviation fuel.

That said, the A6M3 does have a higher critical altitude than the F4Fs, but the A6M3s were built in an extremely limited number and more were built as A6M Type 22s, which only came into service around December 1942.

A7M, also, barely made service, with only 10 built. If you're going to point to that as an example of late-war Japanese aircraft, you might as well pick out the J7W Shinden, which was never built, but had a radical canard set-up and a theoretical speed of 469 MPH.

re. service ceiling vs critical altitude, I disagree with your assessment that critical altitude is more important. e.g. Mig 15 had a higher service ceiling than the F86; the Mig 15 dictates if a dog fight happens at all or not. The same is true for a A6M2 vs a F4F; what if the engine is less efficient? the plane is lighter so it can fly higher; the mainstay F4F-3A can only fly to 30000 ft, the A6M2 can do 33000 ft.

Re. A6M3 introduction date, it varies according to source. This site claim the first serial production with serial number 3000 is completed in June 1942 . Also around 800 examples are built (A6M3 and A6M3a)

If your intent is to discuss the quality of the aircraft, then the battle of midway, losing the war, and limited production does not matter at all. My statement was that the Zero is legendary because it was the most capable navel fighter in existence from 1939-1942; it does not contractidict with what you said, the F4F-4 that solved the gun jamming and lack of suitable supercharger etx was introduced in mid 1942; and at that stage the aircraft is only on par with the zero in terms of effectiveness.

Also re fleet carriers; midway lost 4 fleet carriers for the Japanese, and yes most zero are launched from air bases (compounded by the fact that a lot of them were used for kamikaze). the battle fleet still had: Shokaku, Zuikaku, Junyo and Hiyo as fleet carriers, and half a dozen light carriers. It is not like the Japanese fleet nolonger had an air arm. It is just that in the same time, the Americans completed ~10 fleet carriers with air wings.

I still disagree.

Two things; the later A6M5s were much better planes than the initial A6M2s. The improved armor and smaller ailerons covered for much of the deficits of the A6M2s, but did not completely compensate for the initial deficits of the airframe.

Comparing A6M5s against F4Fs is as much nonsense as comparing A6M2s against Hellcats; the generation gap results in a large performance difference.

Second, you're misunderstanding service ceiling vs critical altitude. If two fighter groups were to encounter each other unexpectedly, they'd do so at critical altitudes, not service ceilings. Where service ceiling comes into play is that the aircraft with the higher service ceiling and/or climb rate would then attempt to climb to obtain an altitude advantage on its opponent. Moreover, the A6M2s had a service ceiling a couple of thousand feet lower than the F4Fs, and with both a lower critical altitude and a lower service ceiling their climb rate advantage would level out past their critical altitude.


====

Basically, those who count the Zero's extreme low-speed maneuverability as one of its strengths is like someone who claimed that IJA troops were superior because of having a Katana, when the era was long past the sword and Arisakas mattered more.

Against a Zero, you simply never want to get into the low-speed maneuverability area, just as an unarmored modern soldier never wants to fight katana vs rapier; a highly-trained duelist may have an advantage, but the average soldier with a katana will win against a soldier with a modern rapier.

Instead, the main advantages of the Zero Model 21 lie in its excellent range and its climb rate. Both these advantages are situational; however. If the opponent has a decent early-warning net, giving them the 10 minutes needed to hit 20,000 feet, after which the Zero's climb advantage dissipates due to the lack of superchargers. Here, the Zero loses its advantages.

Also, in the case of the A7M, the production argument is much stronger than it first appears. I would argue, to begin with, that the A7M was outmoded and surpassed by Ki-84s, but moreover, only 10, exactly 10, A7Ms were built. The A7M does not represent a good example of late-stage Japanese production.

Why are you lumping the whole series of the wildcat as one aircraft? The F4F-3, F4F-4/FM1, FM2 spans 3-4 years of development. So what is wrong comparing a A6M5 to a F4F-4? they are introduced within months of each other.

No one is arguing maneuverability as the definitive quality of the zero, reread my arguments, maneuverability is only a byproduct of light design. No need to argue over that. The fact is, a F4F or F6F cannot dictate the terms of engagement with the zero until ~1944; while the zero dictated the terms of engagement from 1939-1942. Corsairs introduced in 1942 were not carrier ready until 1944 either.

Also, No one is saying that the A7M is definitive of the Japanese fighter range; it is only in prototype stage. But you are comparing late war F6F to A6Ms. If you believe Sakai who flew the plane felt that it was competitive with every american fighter he faced. I have no idea how the Ki84 surpassed it? the ki84 definitely couldn't land on a carrier. The A7M is a 2250 HP enginned aircraft with 6X 20mm cannons, or 6X 30mm cannon. The Ki84 and the A7M is something very different for very different roles.