Mitsubishi A6M5 Zero

>>34510038
天皇陛下万歳!!

Light frame coupled with a (relatively) strong engine and generous wings, a classic turn fighter with a powerful armament to boot. Outclassed many common US airframes from the same period. Forced the US pilots to learn to dogfight in true team fashion, as they kept losing the 1-on-1s.

>>34510038

>M5

Swan song of the Zero, already eclipsed by new Allied fighters by the time it was introduced. Came too late and was produced far too long without a viable successor.

A6M2 model 21 best Zero.

File: 34.jpg (132KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1024x768px

>>34510038
Zero a shit bring on the Raiden

File: How_to_into_Thatch_Weave.jpg (53KB, 529x666px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 529x666px

>>34510247

>>34510419
>not Ki-84

It was great until the Allies realized it wasn't that great.

>>34510038
>classic look
>long rage as fuck
>maneuverable as fuck
>okay speed
>underwhelming guns
>no protection

Would've been better if they could take the time to really train the pilots. Even from the start a really stark number of Japanese aviators were certified for open ocean navigation.

Probably the best WWI fighter in a WWII setting

>>34510038
Great plane for its time and very well built (fit and finish not ruggedness). There wasn't much development room for the airframe though due to how constrained its proposed operational criteria was when designed.

The later N1K would have been an adequate counter to the Hellcat but Japanese aircraft development during the war was woefully slow compared to other factions.

>>34510554
>Army aircraft
The zero and the raiden were navy aircraft. Suggesting an ki-84 as an alternative is like suggesting a hellcat or mustang.

Besides, the N1K2 was better.

File: Ki-84 Oscars shigeokoike.jpg (457KB, 1600x812px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 1600x812px

>>34511244
>N1K2 was better.
Don't speak to me or any of my derivative designs ever again!

>>34510038
Are there a lot of Zero's on the civilian market? How much do they cost?

File: Zero mod11.jpg (68KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1280x960px

>>34510038
Reasonably good in terms of what it was designed for, but it was filled with flaws that were symptomatic of Japanese aviation industry of the time. Personally, I think it's interesting in that it was designed for range rather than maneuverability to the point of stupidity like the IJA preferred. This probably contributed to it being more effective than the Ki-43 of the IJA.

It was designed to be a long-range escort fighter for IJN bombers striking deep into China, and the design reflected that. Low weight, high-aspect ratio wings, and low power engine (originally it was designed with a 740 hp engine, although production variants brought it closer to the 1,000 hp-class engines of contemporaries) gave it an unparalleled range, but they created some critical failures both unique to the fighter and endemic to Japanese aircraft of the war.

The A6M lacked any significant armor or even self-sealing fuel tanks to save weight, and its armament was deceptively poor. Although it did have heavier armament than contemporary IJA fighters (two wing mounted cannon plus the synchronized machineguns while IJA fighters generally carried just two rifle-caliber machineguns), the armament still proved inadequate at times. The cannons didn't have enough ammunition, and two rifle caliber machineguns would prove themselves inadequate very quickly. It also suffered from agility issues unique to the design. While the low wing loading of the Zero may have helped with agility in some areas, it had a poor roll rate that was easy for enemy pilots to take advantage of.

Overall it was an engineering marvel at the time it was built, but it definitely showed the limitations of Japanese engineering.

>>34511426
probably not. One of the stipulations of the surrender was that aircraft had to be destroyed. Also, very few people wanted to risk using foreign aircraft that probably weren't all that well maintained due to chronic material shortages during the war, especially considering that the technical guides would all be in Japanese and might not be very accurate. The Indonesians used some Japanese aircraft after the war and there was probably some of that going in in China for their civil war, but most were destroyed.

>>34511497
>It was designed to be a long-range escort fighter for IJN bombers striking deep into China,
I was under the impression that it was designed to be a carrier borne replacement for the A5M fighter and that Japanese carrier doctrine saw long range as essential to getting the first strike in before the opponent.

File: d14f3bd81f2738f5da4d1c04c24b114c.jpg (166KB, 736x837px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 736x837px

Beautiful plane that was very good at what it did but had some serious drawbacks due to its design- which American pilots learned and exploited.
Perhaps if Japan sent its veteran pilots back home to train more pilot, the Zero could have stayed on top for a little bit longer.

>>34511548
Most likely both. At the time the A6M was designed, the IJN was busy with the war in China and needed an escort fighter capable of following its bombers to targets deep in China from coastal bases, so that was definitely a major contributor to the specification. But you're right - "regular" IJN doctrine was also important to the design.

>>34510038
Best American-designed plane until 1943 or so.

>>34511815

What?

>>34511949
He's referring to the Howard Hughes' claim (never substantiated) that Jiro Horikoshi stole his design.

File: IMG_4785.jpg (229KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1024x678px

>>34510038
That's a nice plane OP
It would be a shame if someone where to, oh I don't know, shoot it down?

>>34514767
>where

>>34514786
I have fat American fingers

File: A6M.jpg (435KB, 3002x2400px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 3002x2400px

>>34510038
Main reason for being so weak fighter is the poor engine and not getting proper upgrades.
To carry armor, better weaponry and stronger structure for faster diving, a plane first needs a more powerful engine.
Ki-43, Ki-44 and Ki-61 all received decent engine upgrades to ~1500hp keeping them competitive a while longer. Also don't forget how much Spitfire and Bf 109 evolved during their long lifes.
For A6M an upgrade to Mitsubishi Kinsei (1300hp by then and 1500 a year later) was actually proposed, but navy refused. Only in 1945 they decided to make the A6M8 with all the upgrades, when the old engine run out of production, but war ended.
But of course a stronger engine consumes more fuel, self sealed tanks are smaller than unsealed and everything just adds more weight, so at the end A6M8 would have had much shorter range than all the preceding variants.
Either navy feared that an engine change would stall the production or the range just wasn't acceptable or both.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (211KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1920x1080px

Fucking hot

File: HIRYUb.jpg (60KB, 1005x547px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1005x547px

A E S T H E T I C

>>34514767
Jesus Christ, Corsairs just get me in a way no other WWII fighter does.

>>34510047
same

>>34510038
>Honest thoughts?
Outclassed due to Japan's inability to rapidly industrialise during the war.

>>34511426
There is a grand total of ONE which still flies on it's original power, SN: 5357

There are 3-4 other flying Zeroes, all using American engines, one of which is a replica.

>>34511561
>Perhaps if Japan sent its veteran pilots back home to train more pilot, the Zero could have stayed on top for a little bit longer
They did do that, the majority of Japanese aces were either dead or teaching pilots at the end of the war.

The only American bird the Zero outclassed in combat was the Wildcat, it was torn absolutely to shit by the more powerful fighters.

Best fighter jet of all time. Could easily solo 1 v 1 any modern US air superiority fighter.

>>34515946
>The only American bird the Zero outclassed in combat was the Wildcat
It's debatable. The Wildcat is roughly equal or even superior than the Zero. The Americans just didn't know at first how to fight in it. In comparison, the P-40s even held its own against Nates and Oscars which were more maneuverable than the Zero.

>BANZAI
>NOT THE ARIZONA
>KEEP YOUR HEADS DOWN
>KAMIKAZI INCOMING!
>SUICIDE BOMBERS AFT!

>>34510038
The zero in general, or the M5 specifically?
>The former:
Unquestionably one of the best fighters of the early-war period. It's design benefited immensely from Japanese military aviation cutting it's teeth in mid-30s China, teaching them several important lessons that would take other powers significantly longer to learn, most notably that rifle caliber machine-guns are horrendous armament without the supplementation of 20mm cannons, and that radios are essential for effective squadron tactics.
>The Latter:
Keeping in mind that the M5 model didn't see the light of day until 1943, the old Zero was really starting to show it's age. While Wildcats were the mainstays of the USN during the decisive actions of 1942, by the next year Hellcats began filling American carrier's hangars, and were easily the Zero's equal, at the point in time when the Japanese could afford fighting on equal terms the least. It's at this point that the designs uncompromising pursuit of range, and the compromises implied there, most notably in survivability, really began to show through, especially when compared to it's now-contemporaries.

>>34515315
The Japanese, especially before the war kicked off against America, were huge on the idea of maximizing the range of their carrier-borne aircraft. It's the reason they never adopted self-sealing fuel tanks, despite the technology being readily available, and the weight tradeoffs involved being minimal. The rubber liner took up volume that could be used for fuel, and would thus decrease the effective range by a dozen or so miles, and was thus considered impossible to mount.

>>34517259
The Hellcat being the Zero's equal is an understatement though. The Hellcat is superior is in every way except range and low speed maneuverability. Later models only improved speed and maneuverability a tad bit but still weren't enough to even match the Hellcat. Later generations of other Japanese aircraft however, proved adequate to match those of the Allied arsenal during that time.

>>34510038
better than f-35

>>34515315
>Either navy feared that an engine change would stall the production or the range just wasn't acceptable or both.

Both of those.

Jiro Horikoshi in his autobiography talks about how few aircraft engineers Japan had, and that this meant just about every project was severely understaffed. Mitsubishi taking on more and more projects as the war progressed only made this worse. Fighters like the J2M and A7M basically got the good engineers, draftsmen, ect and the zero improvements got whoever was leftover. Germany had the same problem but not quite as bad.

>>34517259

Unfortunately the IJN learned that maneuverability was key and more or less said fuck speed. The IJA learned that speed was key in a fighter. By the second half of the war IJA aircraft were pretty comparable to allied ac in most ways, whereas the IJN was still shackled to prewar ideas.

>>34516160
>The Wildcat is roughly equal or even superior than the Zero.
It definitely wasn't. One on one the zero could out-everything the F4F, especially the F4F-4 with the extra guns. The wildcat's saving grace was the plane's durability and the superior accuracy and teamwork of the pilots.

>P-40s even held its own against Nates and Oscars
Again, one on one a P-40 would have a really hard time against a Ki-43. The only reason the Flying Tigers did as well as they did was because Chennault was a literal wizard who got bullied for suggesting maybe pilots ought to work together instead of playing at knights in a joust.

>>34510038
For it's time, the best carrier fighter in the world.
But was rapidly beaten by newer Allied designers, the failure of Japanese engineers to substantially increase its speed being its downfall.

>>34519909
>failure of Japanese engineers to substantially increase its speed being its downfall.
That's not really a failure of the engineers, that's because the factories were insufficiently protected against bombing raids and earthquakes.

>>34519906
>One on one the zero could out-everything the F4F, especially the F4F-4 with the extra guns.

Stop buying into memes

Performance of an aircraft varies greatly with speed and altitude. Wildcat had a superior rate of roll at all speeds and alts, along with superior dive. At speeds approaching 300mph their maneuverability was similar, with the wildcat being notably superior over 330 or so. This is why american pilots were advised to only engage the zero at speeds in excess of 300mph

>>34519916

No, it absolutely comes back to Japan having too much to do with too few engineers, draftsmen and even skilled labor for fabricating prototypes.

This manpower shortage severely delayed improvements to the zero. Factories being bombed out only exacerbated this. As metals became scarce it started becoming necessary to redesign parts of the zero with cheaper alloys, which in turn requires engineering manpower, which is already tasked with improvements.

>>34511138
Yeah, no, monoplane fighters didn't really take off until the 30s

>>34519945
https://youtu.be/H9l8CsKP0SY?t=13m50s

>>34519965
>>34519945
Just in case you're viewing that inline and don't see the timecode, skip to 13:50.

>>34519965

Yeah, a lot of this is garbage

>each american report showed different top speeds

Different temps and altitude density will do that. The speed figures werent correct to standard STP.

The guy also says that at 300+ the zero gets sluggish fast. Which is exactly what I said.

>>34520006
>a lot of this is garbage
>specifically cites all his sources
Literally pick only one.

You can also see Thach's quotes after Midway at ~22:55.

>>34520006
>Standard STP

That's like saying Automatic ATM Machine.

>>34520024

fugg I need to sleep

>>34520019

Yeah, and I'm familiar with all those sources and arguments. Both aircraft were fairly evenly matched all in all, with the zero have a significant maneuverability advantage below 300mph. Pilots with early/pre war training often engaged in dogfights at lower speeds and were decimated as a result. Once the flaws of the zero were known then they stopped doing that and the kill ratio roughly equal.

>>34520057
>the kill ratio roughly equal.
Well now that's just not true either. Wildcats had a 6.9:1 kill:loss through the war.

>>34520063
How may aircraft did the B5N shoot down?

>>34520069
I honestly couldn't tell you, but I'd be interested to learn.

>>34520083
None or next to none obviously, its a torpedo bomber.
6.9 to 1 refers to all kills by the F4F, >>34520057
was talking about A6Ms only.

>>34520091
You don't have to be in a fighter or even fly the plane to be an ace, much less get a kill.

>>34510038
Zero calories and all that Japanese taste?!?!

>>34520103

Yeah, and lots of the wildcat kills are slow torp or dive bombers, and even liason aircraft.

In terms of zero vs f4f combat, the zero definitly had a better kill ratio early one. But by late 42 things have changed quite a bit, and at guadacanal coral sea losses are pretty similar with engagements basically going back and forth in terms of kill ratio that was around 1.

>>34519749

You do know that doctrine is extremely important when employing a weapon. That's why once the Zero's deficiencies became known it's efficiency fell sharply.

It was a lightweight fighter with extremely long range and fucking huge ailerons that gave it good maneuverability at low speeds.

Those ailerons were more affected by high speeds due to their size. That's why new tactics killed the zero.

File: Bf 109 & Me 262.jpg (898KB, 1800x1198px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 1800x1198px

It looks very beautiful.

>>34519956
Can you read between the lines
>>34519906
One-on-one it definitely goes who gets the jump on the other first. At the very least when a Wildcat is jumped on, it has a probability to survive, unlike the Zero.

>>34520141
>Those ailerons were more affected by high speeds due to their size.

Most aircraft have roughly comparable sized ailerons in terms of area.

What is different is aspect ratio of the aileron, or what percent of the trailing edge is taken up by them. The zero had problems with all of its control surfaces stiffening at speed to the point where its vne was 400 or so mph. This was more of an issue related to balancing the control surfaces, which the zero did but was meant for a low speed of control effectiveness.

The zero also had a terrible radio that was made worse by the engines unshielded spark plugs, to the point where it was virtually worthless. They had to make do with hand signals and wing rocking. This severely limited the effectiveness of group tactics.

Lastly, the battle of Guadacanal started before the data from the alaska zero had been disseminated and before the 'thatch weave' was being taught, but the f4f did well for itself.