WWII fighter comparison I Zero v P-40

[1979]

No

Than elaborate.

The Kate and Zero had the same engine just with different ratings

A accurate rating would be X hp at Y rpm at Z ft (which was not provided in your post) .

The Val used an engine 2" bigger in diameter and 25 lbs heavier to generate 120 more HP.The a argument that is is a bomber engine is a fail.

yeah bigger and larger than the sakae 21

The new Sakae was slightly heavier and somewhat longer due to the larger supercharger, which moved the center of gravity too far forward on the existing airframe. To correct for this the engine mountings were cut down by 20 cm (8 in), moving the engine back towards the cockpit. This had the side effect of reducing the size of the main fuel tank (located to the rear of the engine) from 518 L (137 US gal) to 470 L (120 US gal).

The engines I listed were from single engine carrier based aircraft. In fact the Kinsei engine on the Val also powered two Japanese fighters including the Ki-100 one of the best IJAAF fighters of the war.

Same name but completely different engine version, different year of manufacture (and technological advancement), different specifications. BIG diference.

Power ratings are not decided by engine size or physical limits and quality alone but by the tune put on the engine. Thus you can have 3 engines all from different company but all based on the exact same base (France, Romania, and Japan) and end up with different power levels as the engiens have different tunes for different missions.

I've quoted the difference between sakae 12 and 21 to show that they are . see above.

[zraver]

until 1942, after that the Zeros got the Sakae 21 engine, no.
It could still out dive it, but that was it.

You are wrong. The engine has every little to do with the planes agility or rate of roll that are reflections on the design of the body of the aircraft. The Zeroes equipped with the Sakae 21 were even less agile than the earleir versiosn although they werre faster in a dive and roll (still slower than the P-40.)

The Zero was designed as a naval aircraft ,intercepting B-17's and B-24's is the job of a ground based high altitude fighter.
the Japanese tried to develop such a fighter but failed because :
1 engine technology available
2 complexity of the design which meant low production numbers.
3 raids on Japanese factories.

None of the above have anything to do with lessons the japanese might or might have not learned flying over NANKING.

For an Island based Empire where the Pacific was the resposnability of the IJNAF, bomber interception was a naval fighter mission. This is reenforced by pre-war American theory on using heavy bombers in an anti-naval role. Nor was such theory without basis as B-17's and B-24's were used as an (ineffective) anti-shipping weapon from high altitude inclusding the Battle of Midway.

1. Engine technology was comparable to America's at almost every stage of the war. For example by 1943 as the new generation of fighters was enterign service the Japanese had 2000hp class radial engines (Homare). The Homare's problems were from a lack of technicians in the feild, not a lack of technology.

2. BS the Homare series saw over 8,700 engines produced which exceeds airframe production by 1100 units.

3. The strategic bombing camaign did not begin until october 44.

Japan's failure to create an air force (navy and army) reflects the lessons she learned in China and her ignoring the lessons demonstrated in Europe and American military thinking. She though that the low altitude dog fight was and would remain king and thus the side with the most nimble fighters flown by the most highly trained (in acrobatics) pilots would win. However this focus left them unable to work as a team, unable to fight high, and unable to compete in the speed arena. The focus on agility also cost them a huge number of pilots as they enhanced agility by using severe weight reduction which sacraficed armor and protective equipment.

These all combined to create a force that was exceptionally easy to beat once its weakensses were known. This was dmeonstrated forst in China where the AVG using "inferior" P-40's dominated the IJAAF. Later the USN would demonstrate the same mastery when the Wildcat would achieve a 6.9:1 win ratio over Japanese aircraft. (191 lost to 1,327 enemy destroyed).

From Aug42- Feb 43 over Guadalcanal the Japanese lost 83 fighters vs 51 US fighter pilots lost (not sure on airframes). The US was using the Wildcat for the most part.

[zraver]

Than elaborate.

The Romanian version of the engine you provided was rated at 960hp. The same engine in the zero is rated at 925 to 975hp depending on application. A version of the engine the 11 series used by the Kate at pearl harbor produced even more power.

A accurate rating would be X hp at Y rpm at Z ft (which was not provided in your post) .

Nor in yours, we are both using google-fu not technical manuals stop splitting hairs.

yeah bigger and larger than the sakae 21

Completey ignore an important fact like it was the fighter engine in the Ki-100 again and you get a vacation.

Same name but completely different engine version, different year of manufacture (and technological advancement), different specifications. BIG diference.

more like different hardware. The basisc architecture of the engine is the same. The point remaisn you claimed they were bomber engines, when in fact they are not type specific.

I've quoted the difference between sakae 12 and 21 to show that they are . see above.

Has zero to do with comparing apples to apples in idneitical engines produced in France, Romania and Japan.

I mod cars, its a hobby. My baby came stock with a 3.0 liter V6 with a Garret t25 turbo charger producing 205 crank HP. The short block on the car is still factory spec. However upgrading to a Turbonetics T3/T4 hybrid turbo, adding an intercooler, using bigger injectors from a 1975 mercedes, gutting the plenum and using a bigger exhaust all tied together with a non-digital crank magnet based stand alone management system has turned the motor into a 400hp at the wheels power plant. Less than 20lbs of extra weight and NO ultra modern technology and power more than doubles.

Its much the same with aircraft engines. Simply changing exterior components and the tune can add massive gains in horsepower. You can also change interior compents to affect things like compression, crank ratios etc to boost power without changing the size of the motor. Engine pwoer increase does not automatically mean radical changes.

[1979]

You are wrong. The engine has every little to do with the planes agility or rate of roll that are reflections on the design of the body of the aircraft. The Zeroes equipped with the Sakae 21 were even less agile than the earleir versiosn although they werre faster in a dive and roll (still slower than the P-40.)

If that were true a aircraft would turn the same way at 15000 ft as it does at 3000 ft.
It does not becase the available lift depends big time up there on engine thrust.

1. Engine technology was comparable to America's at almost every stage of the war. For example by 1943 as the new generation of fighters was enterign service the Japanese had 2000hp class radial engines (Homare). The Homare's problems were from a lack of technicians in the feild, not a lack of technology.
2. BS the Homare series saw over 8,700 engines produced which exceeds airframe production by 1100 units.

How many were mounted on fighter aircraft ? Fell free to compare that number with the number of Hellcats the US was fielding alone.

3. The strategic bombing camaign did not begin until october 44.

that is why I put it on the third place.

The focus on agility also cost them a huge number of pilots as they enhanced agility by using severe weight reduction which sacraficed armor and protective equipment.

The japanese could not ever produce as much aircraft as the US, their aircraft had to be simple, easy to manufacture/ maintain and dominate at least one aspect of the combat arena.
If they had settled on a well protected, well armed, with high speed and high ceiling design ,the japanese industry would turn out less aircraft than they historicly did.
Even with better training i'm not sure they could have handled the sheer numbers the US was able to throw at them.

[1979]

The Romanian version of the engine you provided was rated at 960hp. The same engine in the zero is rated at 925 to 975hp depending on application. A version of the engine the 11 series used by the Kate at pearl harbor produced even more power.
Nor in yours, we are both using google-fu not technical manuals stop splitting hairs.

I do not have the IAR-80A manual but the data posted on the link does.
Power output:
* 743 kW (996 hp) at 2,390 rpm for takeoff
* 821 kW (1,100 hp) at 2,390 rpm at 2,600 m (8,530 ft)

Completey ignore an important fact like it was the fighter engine in the Ki-100 again and you get a vacation.

I did aknowlege it. I also pointed out the fact the Kinsei extra power rating came with extra weight, volume and fuel consumption than a later version of the Zeros engine.

more like different hardware. The basisc architecture of the engine is the same. The point remaisn you claimed they were bomber engines, when in fact they are not type specific.

I was not sure what you original post meant so i'l go ahead and ask :
Are u saying the Zero would perform beter or worse with the kinsei engine ?

Has zero to do with comparing apples to apples in idneitical engines produced in France, Romania and Japan.
I mod cars, its a hobby. My baby came stock with a 3.0 liter V6 with a Garret t25 turbo charger producing 205 crank HP. The short block on the car is still factory spec. However upgrading to a Turbonetics T3/T4 hybrid turbo, adding an intercooler, using bigger injectors from a 1975 mercedes, gutting the plenum and using a bigger exhaust all tied together with a non-digital crank magnet based stand alone management system has turned the motor into a 400hp at the wheels power plant. Less than 20lbs of extra weight and NO ultra modern technology and power more than doubles.
Its much the same with aircraft engines. Simply changing exterior components and the tune can add massive gains in horsepower. You can also change interior compents to affect things like compression, crank ratios etc to boost power without changing the size of the motor. Engine pwoer increase does not automatically mean radical changes.

If you show me that car fuel consumption is the same now, as it was before the tunning i'l agree to that argument.

[zraver]

If that were true a aircraft would turn the same way at 15000 ft as it does at 3000 ft.
It does not becase the available lift depends big time up there on engine thrust.

WTF?

Lift depends as much on wing design. If it didnlt then all wings would be equal. The Zero was designed to perform aerobatis at low speeds.

How many were mounted on fighter aircraft ? Fell free to compare that number with the number of Hellcats the US was fielding alone.

Number produced has what to do with technology?

that is why I put it on the third place.

had no bearign at all as regards the beginning of the war.

The japanese could not ever produce as much aircraft as the US, their aircraft had to be simple, easy to manufacture/ maintain and dominate at least one aspect of the combat arena.

Source? Simple fact is Japan could build comparable aircraft, they did. Numbers are not technology. Nor would fewer but better planes have been an automatic failure. An 8000lb plane with 1 pilot that repalced 2 5000lbs planes and 2 pilots is a savings on resources and manpower. Japan could and did build large complex aircraft even before WWII.

If they had settled on a well protected, well armed, with high speed and high ceiling design ,the japanese industry would turn out less aircraft than they historicly did.
Even with better training i'm not sure they could have handled the sheer numbers the US was able to throw at them.

See above. Pilot training was not an issue throiugh 1943, they had the best in the world, the failure was in group tactics and doctrine coupled with flawed designs based on flawed lessons from China.

[zraver]

I was not sure what you original post meant so i'l go ahead and ask :
Are u saying the Zero would perform beter or worse with the kinsei engine ?

Neither, you claimed the Kinsei was a bomber engine, it was not as it was not type specific and used in both bombers and fighters.

If you show me that car fuel consumption is the same now, as it was before the tunning i'l agree to that argument.

No its not the same, if i keep my foot out of it, its better since the engine has to work less to produce previous power levels. The work on the intake and exhaust removed restrictions that caused wasted work and the standalone removed emissions restrictions.

Most well built engines have massive reserves of potential power (the max power anf engine can make and remain reliable) and some reserves of untapped power. Removing restrictions, changing tunes etc this is called freeing up power and taps into the reserve of unused power. Then you can add power with things like turbos, meth injection, NO2, superchargers etc. This taps into the potential power.

[1979]

WTF?
Lift depends as much on wing design. If it didnlt then all wings would be equal. The Zero was designed to perform aerobatis at low speeds.

It depends on wing design but a aircraft wing does not change between 3000 ft and 15000 ft .
The lift coefficient Cl is equal to the lift L divided by the quantity: density r times half the velocity V squared times the wing area A.
The Lift Coefficient

Zero wing area 241.5 ft², p-40 wing area 235.94 ft²,
density r times half the velocity V squared = dynamic pressure.
The only way the p-40 could achieve a higher lift coefficient is to increase the dynamic pressure over the wing area.

Source? Simple fact is Japan could build comparable aircraft, they did. Numbers are not technology. Nor would fewer but better planes have been an automatic failure. An 8000lb plane with 1 pilot that repalced 2 5000lbs planes and 2 pilots is a savings on resources and manpower. Japan could and did build large complex aircraft even before WWII.

Is it not common sense ? If japan could produce technological complex designs in large numbers, they would have.

[zraver]

It depends on wing design but a aircraft wing does not change between 3000 ft and 15000 ft .
The lift coefficient Cl is equal to the lift L divided by the quantity: density r times half the velocity V squared times the wing area A.
The Lift Coefficient

You forgot wing shape, drag, airelons etc. The Zero was built for low level, low speed agility agility in thicker air.

I suggest you read the review of the zero's performance by navy pilot Lt Cmdr Eddy T Sanders. He reports the aielons stiffening above 200knots and snap rolls to be physically impossible above 250knots. The Zero could also not execute negative G push overs quickly due to its carburated design (similar to the Spitfire). later comparisons between another captured Zero and a Wild Cat and Corsair also revealed that the Zero fell on its face above 19,000'.

Is it not common sense ? If japan could produce technological complex designs in large numbers, they would have.

No it is not common sense. Why didn't the Soviet Union or US build Tiger type tanks exclusively? They could have, they had the indiustry and technology. Instead they focused on a medium tank that reflected doctrine. Likewise Japanese fighters were built to doctrine. Likewise Japan could build modern western style fighters as she did with the Ki-61 which outflew a Lagg-3, a P-40E and a BF-109E-3 in mid 1942.

[1979]

Neither, you claimed the Kinsei was a bomber engine, it was not as it was not type specific and used in both bombers and fighters.

conceded.

You forgot wing shape, drag, airelons etc. The Zero was built for low level, low speed agility agility in thicker air.

To properly discus that, we would turn this into a p-40 vs a6m thread.
the drag equation is similar ;
the drag coefficient CD is equal to the drag D divided by the quantity: density r times half the velocity V squared times the wing area A.
due to the zero large wing area the drag was larger than in a p-40 even in the thicker air where the zero turned best, suggesting that the lift/drag ratio was higher in the Zero.

I suggest you read the review of the zero's performance by navy pilot Lt Cmdr Eddy T Sanders. He reports the aielons stiffening above 200knots and snap rolls to be physically impossible above 250knots. The Zero could also not execute negative G push overs quickly due to its carburated design (similar to the Spitfire). later comparisons between another captured Zero and a Wild Cat and Corsair also revealed that the Zero fell on its face above 19,000'.

Very probable, the Me 109g ailerons stiffened between 400 km/h - 480 km/h (222.2 to 266.6 knots) after that the pilot needed both hands on the stick to get any meaningful roll rate.
Not sure what " fell on its face " means probably that the rate of climb slowed to a halt.

[1979]

No it is not common sense. Why didn't the Soviet Union or US build Tiger type tanks exclusively? They could have, they had the indiustry and technology. Instead they focused on a medium tank that reflected doctrine. Likewise Japanese fighters were built to doctrine. Likewise Japan could build modern western style fighters as she did with the Ki-61 which outflew a Lagg-3, a P-40E and a BF-109E-3 in mid 1942.

I see, you argue that japanese doctrine was inflexible and they made the wrong choices when the situation in the field dictaded otherwise.

[zraver]

I see, you argue that japanese doctrine was inflexible and they made the wrong choices when the situation in the field dictaded otherwise.

No I argue that Japan made the wronmg choices when she committed to her last modernization cycle before the outbreak of war. She issued requirements for the A6M before the impact of fighters like the Me-109 and Spitfire, bombers like the B-17 or commanders like Galland was known. The A6M stacks up very well in comparison to the best fighters in combat when the design requirements were issued and even against the best then current designs in 1939.
The A6M completely outclassed the A5M, Boeing P-26, Polikarov I-16, Heinkel He-51, PLZ P.24 etc.

Its also not on paper inferior to the me-109B, Hurricane MkI, P-35, D. 513, LaGG-1

The problem is not that the technology was inferior, the problem is the lessons elarned. Japan missed some crucial clues about how the next war would be fought. In China and for much of the Spanish Civil war, air combat resembled WWI where it was knights of the air fighting free for all battles. These fights stressed agility and situational awareness. We both agree of the zero's low speed agility, look at the cockpit- is that the cockpit of a dog fighters? Also compare the armament and speed to the me-109 and Spitfire, it stacks up well for the period.

The clues she missed

The leading European designers had settled on heavily armed very fast fighters that could fly high where the modern bombers were by the time war broke out. The early Me-109 had been upgunned to match the Hurricane and Spitfire. This meant dive speed and roll rate became more important than slow speed agility.

Very fast fighters like the me-109 using the new 2 ship/4 ship tactics of Galland tore apart old 3 ship and disorganized foes at any height

The B-17 very heavy construction and high altitude combined with US doctrine to use the bomber in a naval role.

Japan completely missed the clues that the battle was heading high.

BTW do you concede the point about high altitude and high speed agility?

[1979]

BTW do you concede the point about high altitude and high speed agility?

define agility .

it certainly does not include rate of turn and turn radius as these two get worse as the speed increases.
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Bank Angle and G's
as far as rate of roll and dive speed is concern I concede.

The other things would be level speed and rate of climb, however I cannot answer that by removing the engine from the equation.

[zraver]

define agility .

it certainly does not include rate of turn and turn radius as these two get worse as the speed increases.

Yes it does, but that still does not mean it will affect each plane with the same amount of loss. The P-40 had much more effective high speed/high altitude aerilons than the Zero. Remember that pilot I told you about who evaluted the zero for the Navy. He said it they were useless above 250 KIAS in part becuase they were so big, and in part becuase the plane had very low wing loading (124pu) with a high aspect ratio (6.42). At high speed or in thin air the zero sucked.


The P-40 had a much higher wing loading (188pu), a different wing aspect ratio (5.9) and better aerilon design.

as far as rate of roll and dive speed is concern I concede.

thank you

The other things would be level speed and rate of climb, however I cannot answer that by removing the engine from the equation.

P-40 had 1 hp for each 207 pounds, top speed 362mph and a climb rate of 2200-2800fpm

The A6M had 1 hp for each 253lbs, top speed 330mph and a climb rate of 3,300fpm

The zero could outclimb the P-40, and turn inside it at low altitudes and low speeds. In other areanas the p-40 wins.

[1979]

The zero could outclimb the P-40, and turn inside it at low altitudes and low speeds.

The p-40 would not turn tighter at high altitudes and high speeds than the Zero , because it's wing (due too higher wing loading and lower lift coefficient) would stall at a lower bank angle than the Zero.
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Bank Angle and G's
That effectively means that even thou the p-40 with superior roll rate, could reach that bank angle quicker than than the A6m, it could not keep it in a level turn because of the reduced lift.