Quote:
Originally Posted by Mblake1981
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Mitsubishi Zero A6M5 Cockpit
"Built with no armor, just guns and engine"
The power to weight ratio favored it early on.
|
(off-topic, but more interesting to me than the actual topic)
Wasn't "Jane's WW2 Fighters" mostly European-centric? Would make sense for it lacking the Pacific stuff then.
The lack of cockpit armor and self-sealing tanks were part of weight reduction relating to their inferior engine technology. The Zero had to make do with ~950 HP Sakae engines when their opposition like the USN's F4F had upwards of 1200 HP. Even by war's end, Japan's best radials like the Homare were only getting a little past 2000 HP, maybe 2200 or so with methanol, while some of the best American fighter-usable radials of the same era were able to push out 2700+ HP. Japan produced few inlines at all, the tighter clearances and tolerances required by such engines did not suit their industry as well, and those they did produce were mostly license-built models a few years behind the tech curve. The Army's Ki-61 fighter (a nice rugged model that did have good armor and protection) didn't get into service until mid 1943 but had performance about the same as a 1941-era P-40.
The Japanese Navy's A6M "zero" was the most-produced and best-known Japanese WW2-era fighter, but the Japanese Army's Ki-43 was much more successful, shooting down far more Allied a/c in spite of barely half as many Ki-43's being built as zeros. The Japanese Army and Navy both fielded complete land-based air forces, using mostly separate designs, a rather inefficient situation for a nation with already-limited production facilities.