Let's Talk The Mitsubishi Zero

About the A7M; the Ki-84 had about a 20m/s climb rate, while the A7M had a 18m/s climb rate. The Ki-84 also had a better maximum speed. What source do you have that the A7M had 6 guns? Wikipedia claims it only had 4.

The point about carrier-based aircraft being a decisive advantage was meaningless after Midway. The total number of carrier-based aircraft the IJN could maintain at any time by that point was only 400, so the majority of aircraft would be carrier-based forces.

Regarding the A6M5, it had its first flight in August 1943. The Hellcat, amazingly, had its first flight in June 1942. Comparing an A6M5 to a F4F is not a fair comparison, since the F4F's primary competitors were the A6M2 and A6M3.

About being able to decide the terms of the engagement, as we've mentioned before, the F4Fs did climb slower than the Zeros, but the F4Fs had superior diving speed and high speed maneuverability up to the A6M5s. The F4Fs, in most conditions, should be able to evade Zeros if they lack sufficient altitude, and dive on Zeros if they have a sufficient altitude advantage, which, if they're cruising at 17000 ft vs 15000 ft, should be something they have.

Moreover, even if Zeros did force the F4Fs to fight on their terms, tactics like the Thach Weave and cooperative fighting—many Zeros lacked radios to enable fighter communications—canceled the Zero's advantage.

As to Saburo Sakai, he was the second-highest scoring Japanese fighter ace. 99% of American pilots would be outperformed by Sakai merely in terms of skill; even in an antiquated Zero he still managed to score kills against Hellcats, which, as we agree, are qualitatively superior to contemporary Zeros. It's not to the point where he can shoot down American fighters with a pencil sharpener, but the aspect of skill must count for a lot with Sakai.

Also, please note this; I could dig up the original source but it's apparently in a pay book somewhere. The article states that the Zero has phenomenal maneuverability up to 200 mph, but past 230 mph, the Hellcat has an advantage because the Zero's ailerons, even modified and improved, lock up. A similar advantage could be assumed for the F4F, although the F4F lacks the same high speed as the Hellcat. However, the F4F has superior wingloading to the Hellcat, so it's not a complete trade-off.

I seem to have lost my ability to edit, so let me clarify; that's information for the Model 52, the best model of the Zero. Even there, it still has the high speed controllability flaw.

Inst,

I think it is best if you check the dates. The XF6F-1 flew in June 1942 with the two stage supercharged 1600 HP engine. The XF6F-2 with the turbocharged 1700 HP engine came later and the XF6F-3 with the 2000 HP engine first flew in July 1942. the XF6F-3 became the accepted design and became the F6F-3 and the first production model is Oct 1942; with the first one being deployed in Feb 1943.

A6M5 numbers are more imprecise as the records have been destroyed prior to the surrender. What was believed is that the A6M5 prototype is complete in June 1943 and the deployment is from August. Now this might not be accurate as the only flying zero in the world right now no. 61-120 is a A6M5 and it's production date was in May 1943:

The reason why the XF6F-3 took so much longer to reach the front is because the hellcat is a new plane while the A6M5 is a new version of an existing plane. The factory needs to build most of the jigs after the acceptance test for a new fighter, while a modified fighter only needed a few new jigs.

Now it is fair if you take first prototype take off date, thats your call.

The F4F was manufactured to the end of the war, the F6F did not simply replace F4F production. Basically, GM built the F4F-4 as the FM1 and the F4F-8 became the FM2. The FM2 came at late (I think Oct) 1943; why is it not fair to compare it to the A6M5?

The argument is not that the zero did not become obsolete; I will sum up the reason why the Zero is legendary again:

1) extreme range of operation
2) at introduction, the only naval fighter that can compete with ground based fighter

For 1, no other ww2 single engine fighter have the 1900 mile range. hands down; even the long range P38 had a range of 1300 miles, or the Mosquito is only 1300 miles.

For 2, at introduction, no other naval fighter can match the performance of land based fighter. It is a feat of engineering unmatched by the Hellcat, Corsair, Sea Hurricane, Seafires, sea typhoon which all were worse than their land based counterparts. The ME109, FW190, Spitfire, P51, P47 of the same era (all 1942) will out climb, outdive if not out maneuver the navel fighters and have a higher service ceiling. i.e. all could dictate if a dogfight can happen or not.

The Hawker Hurricane Mk. I; Spitfire I, Typhoons, F190A, P47, P40, P39 (and the other hawks - tomahawks, kittyhawks) all had similar rate of climb or less than the A6M2, and their speed WEP is around 300-350 mph, which is where the zero comfortably sits. I think only the 109 have a better climb rate and a higher speed at 380 mph at ~1940

So you are right, the zero is unremarkable as a fighter, it is average of the block; but as a navel fighter, it is the first one to reach parity with land based fighters. It is not repeated with subsequent navel fighters with are all surpassed by their land based counterparts (until the age of the missile that is).

re. Reppu 6X20mm guns is the A7M3 version, wikipedia does state it too. but take it as a grain of salt.

Also, you are right that the Japanese didn't need a carrier fighter that much after midway, that is also a reason why the A7M.. design initiated in 1942 is not completed till the end of the war. While planes like the P51 was designed and prototype in less than 100 days; the latter have a emergency need.

We are mostly in agreement, but there are two points of disagreement. First, the Hellcat entered production earlier than the A6M5, so it would stand to reason that it reached the front in appreciable quantities at around the same time as the A6M5. Also, the Hellcat, to an extent, is a derivative of the F4F, given the similar fighter philosophies.

Second, the Zero is not unique in being able to stand up to land-based fighters; it too, is to some extents a tone-down of a land-based fighter. The Ki-43 was known as remarkably maneuverable, to the extent that Saburo Sakai said it was more maneuverable than the Zero, and similar enough that Allied pilots often called the Ki-43 the Army Zero.

I would also agree that the Zero's magnificent range was a huge advantage of the Zero, but against well-trained pilots who understand both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Zero, the Zero would be at a disadvantage if it were to get there. That's why I said that the range should have been more leveraged in obtaining a numerical superiority to offset its disadvantages; while a F4F could dive versus one Zero, against two, the second Zero would retain sufficient altitude that it could overtake the F4F and force it to dive to sea level and be destroyed.

I don't think that it matter that the Hellcat was a better fighter than the A6M5; The wildcat was slightly worse than the zero of the same era, but it didn't mean that it can't fight. So the important thing is that the A6M5 can still compete with the hellcat, although disadvantaged.

Now, I also won't go so far as calling the F6F a deriative of the F4F; there is lineage, but the wildcat had a completely different undercarriage that folds into the fuselage while the hellcat folded into the wings. This also means that structurally they are very different - given the size and weight gain.

Its one of those things, where do you draw a line? a very good example I like to use is soviet tanks, they are generally derivatives of the previous tanks, T34->T34M->T44->T54->T55->T62->T72->T90->T95 all are modifications of the previous tank, is the T90 actually a T34? In aircraft, is the A6M actually the same as the A5M? the A6M shares a lot of common design features as the A5M (especially Jiro Horikoshi designed both plane); does that count?

The KI43 thou, is a land based fighter it can't land on a carrier; thus it means nothing to the statement that the Zero is the first naval fighter that can compete with land based ones.

I mean, I am repeating myself, in aerial combat, height dictates the choice of engagement. Not every engagement will be the case that wildcat will meet the zero at an altitude that it can dive away. The zero will not necessary meet a wildcat in a situation where it can climb away. So even if a pilot understand the strength and weakness of an opponent zero, it does;t mean that it has the edge, the zero pilot can also understand the strength and weakness of the wildcat. What is certain is that the zero throughout its production till 1942-3 was able to fly higher than the wildcat and with that height can dictate if a battle ensures on favorable grounds.

To your argument that the Zero was the first naval fighter that could compete with land-based aviation, that's not exactly true. The F4F, for instance, was competitive with the P-40. The exact same rules apply; the P-40 had a lower critical altitude than the F4F, but was significantly faster.

Regarding height; two important facts. First, you're underplaying the effects of critical altitude vs service ceiling. An aircraft with a higher service ceiling, but a lower critical altitude, may not actually have an energy advantage over lower aircraft, because at higher altitudes it will lose speed. Second, if you're talking the A6M5, the A6M5 not only has a service ceiling advantage but also a critical altitude advantage over the F4F. Yet it doesn't matter, because the F6F reached serious production numbers in 1943.

Let's take this as an example:



In 1943, about 2500 F6Fs were built. Mitsubishi built about 747 A6M5s total, but Nakajima, which built a majority of A6M5s, only began production in November 1943. Hence we can probably assume that not more than 1000 A6M5s reached production and that A6M5 production could be seen as the Japanese equivalent of the F6F, and an inferior one.

Thats a flawed argument in the sense that the P40 was not a particularly good plane. Likewise, a P40 would suffer vis a vis a Ki43; just as Ki43 is a better plane than the F4F. Can the F4F fight a spitfire, ME109, FW190, P47, P51 on an equal footing? simply no for its entire existence; the zero in 1940-1941 can,

Production numbers doesn't matter in a question of a good design or not; Japanese industry was smaller than the USA and they made less planes overall. 6,000 panther tanks were built at the same unit cost as a M4 Sherman, is the sherman a better tank because 50,000 were built? American industry was much larger than axis industry.

As an engineer, the critical altitude is basically the altitude that a supercharger/turbocharger can maintain engine output as per sea level condition. Flight conditions are not exactly related to engine power, wing loading, thinner air meaning less drag and the list goes on.






These are air velocity and rate of climb charts for european and american fighters. Japanese ones are hard to find. Take the ME109E3 for example have a critical altitude of 6000 m. Max speed of the is actually at ~4100m according to the above chart. So no, critical altitude does not directly translate to performance. Ceiling and rate of climb however does translate to choice of engagement or not if both are higher than your enemies.

You are getting stuck into comparing plane to plane; the two points that made the zero legendary is:

1) extreme range of operation
2) at introduction, the only naval fighter that can compete with ground based fighter

What if the F6F-3 is better than the A6M5? can a F6F-3 compete FW190A4 on an equal footing? What about P51D? OR the P47D? all are 1942, all are significantly faster, had better climb and had higher ceilings. The F6F is only more maneuverable at low speeds.

i.e. the Zero at introduction, the only naval fighter that can compete with ground based fighter; the F6F at introduction, cannot compete with ground based fighter on a equal footing. And this is an engineering feat that had not been repeated until the age of the missile.

Range, I doubt you will disagree that the zero was tremendous at early war. the A6M3 onwards are decent, but not so great.