IJN_A6M2_21

IJN_A6M2_21 2024-11-09

No permission to download
Overview History Discussion
No, the A6M Type 0 Carrier Fighter is not my favourite warbird.
I don't actually have a favourite. There are things to like about all of them and things to hate as well.
I believe that there are too many other contemporary fighters that will beat it in a fight, but it has a certain character about it that defies explanation. It has an elegance and it isn't one of performance.
I also believe there are many mis characterizations of the aircraft based on partial or incorrect information. I myself was a victim of this when I released the first version of my A6M2 back in 2013. Since then, I have accumulated much more information that gives very different views. That is one of the reasons I intend to do a re-release of the A6M2 with updates soon.

As an example of a misconception, The roll rate of the A6M series is supposed to be fairly poor according to various sources. Its controls get much stiffer above 250 Knots IAS and there have been comments that the stick feels like it is set in concrete.
Now, if you look for you-tube videos, and modern pilot reports, you will find that the A6M series actually has a pretty good roll rate though it does get lower as airspeed increases. At 250 Knots, its roll rate is actually pretty similar to that of the Hawker Hurricane at its BEST so how bad is that really??? Check out these videos with a stopwatch and you will see what I mean.

- Ivan.
 
I like them all but the Zero was a plane I learned about as a child and for some reason I was fascinated with it. Another among my favorites and probably many others is the P-51 and the B-17 but once again they were among the first aircraft I learned.
 
When I was a kid, I borrowed a lot of books from the library and many were filled with superlatives about each and every warplane. None were lies, but after a while, (a long while), I learned to ignore the descriptive text which was basically advertising and tried to learn more about each of the major aircraft in depth. That started a large amount of book accumulations. These days I am much more selective about what I buy.
I also found after a while that the best information was from documents you didn't need to pay for. Books are usually secondary sources anyway unless they are reprints of aircraft manuals.

Do you have a copy of the book "Eagles of Mitsubishi" by a fellow named Jiro Horikoshi? That is most certainly NOT a secondary source.

- Ivan.
 
Another very good book is one by Robert Mikesh.
I found out a few years back that an acquaintance of mine is his son, so I asked if he would ask his dad to sign my copy of his book.
He did. I also bought an extra signed copy at the time.
I guess you already figured out that I have lots of references on the A6M series of aircraft.

- Ivan.
 
I take it you have a ready supply of engines stashed somewhere?
It would be really nice if they were type certified as well.
 
Ivan said:
When I was a kid, I borrowed a lot of books from the library and many were filled with superlatives about each and every warplane. None were lies, but after a while, (a long while), I learned to ignore the descriptive text which was basically advertising and tried to learn more about each of the major aircraft in depth. That started a large amount of book accumulations. These days I am much more selective about what I buy.
I also found after a while that the best information was from documents you didn't need to pay for. Books are usually secondary sources anyway unless they are reprints of aircraft manuals.

Do you have a copy of the book "Eagles of Mitsubishi" by a fellow named Jiro Horikoshi? That is most certainly NOT a secondary source.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

It's been my observation that if one went to the Library, pulled from the shelves ten different books on 'WW2 Fighters', chose an Aircraft like the one in question and opened each book to that Aircraft's page, you would invariably find ten different sets of Performance figures. One would be left scratching their head wondering which one of those sets would be the correct one to follow...

As an aside... I have a friend who swears by the F4U Corsair because it's his Airplane of choice in IL-2. He is so much of a Corsair fan that he tries to make comparisons of the Corsair to other Allied or Axis Aircraft; Corsair vs. P-47. Corsair vs. ME-109. Corsair vs. "Frank". Corsair vs. Mustang and so forth. In every comparison he quotes books that say this or that, and justifies why the Corsair is better regardless of outside factors such as the Theater of Operations, Weather Conditions in each Theater, fighting Doctrine, etc.

If you're planning to create the 'definitive' A6M2 for CFS2 or for FS2004 count me in as an enthusiastic Supporter. All that I request is that you:

Make a Visual Model with the Centerline Belly Tank

A Paint Scheme in the colors of Hiroyoshi Nishizawa's airplane (yes, I'm aware that his plane was an A6M3 " Hamp"). :)

OIP.jpeg
 
Hello ViperPilot2,
Actually, I am not planning on building a A6M2 or anything else for CFS2.
I just got into the discussion because of the subject matter. I am about to revisit a CFS1 A6M2 I released back in 2013. My information and references have substantially improved since that release and I have programmed about 6 new gauges for the panel. The visual model is also slightly improved, but not to a great extent.
No, I am sorry, but it will not carry a 330 Liter drop tank. No resources for that without a lot of shenanigans for a CFS1 aircraft model.

- Ivan.
 
The blueprints for the A6M Zero aircraft, particularly for its engine, are a fascinating topic. It’s been noted that Mitsubishi has assisted in restoring some of these legendary planes by providing copies of the original blueprints. However, no production machinery from that era is believed to exist today, making large-scale reproduction of the A6M a monumental task. It would require tremendous funding to design and build new equipment capable of manufacturing these aircraft in any significant numbers. Frankly, unless the A6M somehow became a preferred mode of transportation for daily commutes, such an endeavor seems highly unlikely.

Regarding the engines, Nakajima Aircraft Company was responsible for producing them, much to Mitsubishi’s chagrin, as they had hoped to use their own designs instead of relying on a rival manufacturer. Nakajima itself ceased to exist after the war, with several companies, including Subaru, eventually spinning off from its remnants. While the original blueprints for the engines may no longer exist, there might still be enough surviving engines to reverse-engineer accurate reproductions.

For those working on simulations, such as the Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator series, creating a flight model for the A6M Zero that is accurate to the smallest detail presents a unique challenge. Even with thorough research, there will always be slight discrepancies—similar to how two identical cars off the production line can yield slightly different performance results. For a project like this, studying the methodology of the "1% team" could be invaluable. Their spreadsheets and data-driven adjustments provide a solid foundation, but fine-tuning will always be necessary to achieve a balanced model.

One notable aspect of their approach is the use of a .dll file that simulates critical engine failure. In their version, the aircraft "explodes" if the engine overheats or if it's pushed beyond its design limits. While this is a dramatic representation, it could be reconfigured to simulate a less catastrophic failure, such as a simple engine shutdown. Similarly, pushing the aircraft outside its operational envelope also results in an explosion in the simulation, which may not fully align with real-world scenarios.

Another common complaint is that AI struggles to handle certain 1%aircraft, including the A6M. While this is a valid concern, it’s worth noting that AI can handle many of the stock CFS1 and CFS2 non-player aircraft files quite effectively. If it can manage those, it’s likely capable of flying most designs with some adjustments. No simulation is ever perfect, whether it's the planes, the AI, or the game itself. The goal is to strive for a balance between authenticity and functionality, understanding that absolute perfection is unattainable. Now on to America. I think I know what America is all about. True Freedom see below.

postimg.cc

America the Beautiful — Postimages

postimg.cc postimg.cc
 
Hello Deathwind.
Happy Thanksgiving.

Regarding post #70, I would have to disagree with nearly all of your statements.
In the modern world, there is no great demand for an aircraft such as the A6M. I figure it is a Billionaire's play thing.
There isn't the demand for several hundred of them.
I believe you don't understand that the engine is the greatest limiting factor and the piece that requires the greatest industrial infrastructure to produce. Engines tend to be that way which is why we have new production A6M3 flying with R-1830s and FW 190s flying with Shvetsov radials. Note that the reproduction Yak-3 are flying with V-1710 engines.

Nakajima didn't really go away. They became Fuji.

As for the idea of recreating flight models for desktop simulators, there are some physical limitations such as stick force that we simply cannot deal with. There are a lot more details that a desktop simulator cannot do.
As for the 1% system, there isn't anything particularly special about that idea. It just chooses WHERE to fit the performance curves to match the numbers on the actual aircraft. The problem is that in intermediate altitudes, it is often quite a bit off, but that part is hard to avoid when you are working with a simulator engine that is designed to handle single speed superchargers.

AI may struggle with 1% aircraft, but it also struggles with even some stock aircraft. It has always had problems with my FW 190A even though a human pilot generally has no issues. When AI flies my FW 190A, it just rolls back and forth rather quickly until it crashes. I believe I know why.

As an example of industrial limitations, look at the building of the last British battleship, the HMS Vanguard.
The building of a new battleship hull that was bigger than anything previously produced by the British did not cause great problems. The machinery was not a great problem.
The biggest issue was the main guns. There simply was no production capacity to create new ones, so they ended up using WW1 gun tubes which had been intended for other vessels. Those were easy to produce when many ships used them. They were impossible to produce when the production line had been shut down for a couple decades.

- Ivan.
 
Happy Thanksgiving! 🦃🍁

So yeah, in the modern world, there’s no real demand for something like the A6M. It’s basically a billionaire’s toy at this point. To actually make these in any significant numbers, you'd need tremendous funding just to design and build new equipment capable of manufacturing them. Honestly, unless the A6M somehow became the next trendy way to commute, it’s not going to happen.

The biggest challenge isn’t even the airframe—it’s the engine. That’s the part that requires the most industrial infrastructure to produce. Engines are just like that, which is why we’ve got “new” A6M3s flying with R-1830s and FW 190s running Shvetsov radials. Even reproduction Yak-3s are flying with V-1710s.

But let’s be real here. It’s not that we couldn’t reverse-engineer these engines and crank out near-clones if we really wanted to. If the Soviets could copy an entire B-29, we damn sure could copy a 1940s-era radial engine ourselves. The reason we don’t is that there aren’t enough originals in running condition to justify the cost. It’s just cheaper to stick in whatever works. The cost of rebuilding a Zero is already sky-high, and let’s face it—most of these planes just sit in museums anyway. So why bother?

Oh, and Nakajima didn’t just vanish after the war—they became Fuji Heavy Industries. Sure, Fuji came along in 1953, but Nakajima split into other companies too, like Subaru.

Now about sims and AI: I get that some of the stock aircraft have issues. But if you’ve ever modded the non-player planes to make them flyable, you’d probably wonder how they managed to fly them in real life. Even humans struggle to keep some of those birds in the air. That’s why most people don’t go crazy trying to make them ultra-realistic—it’s about making them behave better in missions and campaigns, especially because of how the AI handles them. It’s more about balance than absolute realism.
 
Hello Deathwind,
You actually don't need quite as much heavy equipment to fabricate an airframe such as for a A6M as you might imagine. If you are going into series production, you do. If you are only making quantity 20 or so, it isn't quite as bad because it is cheaper and easier to just machine most of the pieces individually. Think of what a repair shop would have to do as in the case of repairing Koga's A6M2. They had to fabricate quite a few new pieces for replacements, machine a new replacement piece to splice to the original mainspar, etc. They were doing it for quantity 1 aircraft.

As for the Soviets copying an entire B-29, I do not believe they copied the engines. They used their own equivalent power plants and I really doubt that the resulting aircraft had the same performance capability as the original. Turbosupercharger technology was in serious development at the time and most countries other than the USA had problems with materials that would stand the heat.
Besides, the funding for this development was from the Government and we know that they have much deeper pockets.
One other thing about the Soviet Union of the 1940s is that they had some serious overcapacity in engineering and production. That is why they came up with so many different variations in so many fields. Japan as an example had a serious scarcity in quality engineering and manufacturing. This is not to say that some Japanese designers were not great, but the depth was not there.

So, as I stated before, Airframe = Not that difficult. Engine = Very difficult. If you work on an engine rebuild, you will get an idea of how much infrastructure just a common automotive engine really needs.

Now, I was hinting at this earlier. Making AI only aircraft flyable is not a real good demonstration of whether the simulator is really capable of realistic results. That is because AI doesn't fly the same way that human players do. I believe that control modulation has nearly no effect on AI flying and has a great effect on how humans view things.
A human tries a certain control input, (say an aileron deflection for a roll). If the effect is not enough, the human adjusts or if it is too much, the human backs off. There is some time to observe the effect of the initial control input.
The AI on the other hand seems to use full control deflection in just about all cases and uses duration of that input to be the modulation. This works well if the control effectiveness is within a certain range and the resulting effect gives enough time for the AI to respond appropriately. In the case of my FW 190A, it had HUGE control effect on the ailerons and used the modulation curve to control how much was used. Of course AI didn't know how to do that, so it was using full deflection one way, finding it was too much and then reversing controls, finding that was too much and doing that back and forth until crashing.
There are also some stock aircraft that have relatively low control effectiveness, so the AI waits too long expecting a standard response and crashing when it gets into a situation that should have been avoided by knowing the aircraft is basically a torpedo.
So just because a non-player flyable aircraft flies like garbage is no real indication of how well or poorly the real ones flew. Nor is how well or poorly the player flyable aircraft perform.
Many of the parameters in the Air files are entirely unrealistic but no one actually complains because people don't really know what they are looking at.

- Ivan.
 
Shvetsov ASh-73 Radial Aircraft Engine (1947–1957)

The Shvetsov ASh-73 was an 18-cylinder, air-cooled, radial aircraft engine produced in the Soviet Union between 1947 and 1957. This engine served as the primary powerplant for the Tupolev Tu-4, an unlicensed, reverse-engineered copy of the American Boeing B-29 Superfortress.

Design and Development​

The origins of the ASh-73 trace back to 1938, when a specification called for the development of an 18-cylinder, twin-row engine as an evolution of the Shvetsov M-25—a licensed Soviet production of the Wright R-1820-F3 Cyclone engine. The development progressed through several intermediate models, including the M-70, M-71, and M-72, all of which encountered significant engineering challenges before culminating in the successful ASh-73 design.

Contrary to some misconceptions, the ASh-73 was not a direct copy of the American Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone, although both engines shared a common lineage through their Cyclone roots. Instead, the ASh-73 was an indigenous development designed to meet a similar specification. Some components of the ASh-73 were interchangeable with those of the R-3350, due to their shared ancestry and parallel design goals.

Initial development of the ASh-73 faced several hurdles, particularly with its progenitor, the M-70, which suffered from issues such as cracks in the master connecting rod, failures in the centrifugal supercharger's impeller, and burnt exhaust valves. The subsequent M-71, developed in 1939, overcame some of these issues but was delayed by World War II and never entered production due to limited manufacturing capacity. The M-72, an upgraded version of the M-71, was similarly sidelined as the ASh-73 became the focus of development.

Specifications and Features​

First prototyped in 1945, the ASh-73 entered production in 1947. Early models lacked turbochargers, weighed approximately 1,330 kg (2,930 lb), and produced 2,400 horsepower (1,800 kW) during takeoff. The ASh-73TK variant introduced two TK-19 turbochargers and an intercooler—direct adaptations of American R-3350 components. Over its production run, the engine underwent multiple upgrades, including:

  • Strengthening of the crankshaft, connecting rods, and pistons.
  • Improvements to the accessory drive, reduction gearing, and exhaust valve seating.
  • Lightening of pistons and enhancements to ignition systems.
The final production displacement of the ASh-73 was 58.122 liters (3,546.8 cubic inches), slightly larger than the R-3350’s 54.86 liters (3,347.9 cubic inches).

Advanced Variants​

Several experimental versions of the ASh-73 were developed:

  • The ASh-82TKF, a boosted model producing 2,720 hp (2,030 kW), which was bench-tested but not produced.
  • The ASh-73TKFN, equipped with fuel injection and rated at 2,800 hp (2,100 kW), also remained a prototype.
  • A turbo-compound version with a power-recovery turbine was conceived in 1949, but no further details are available.

Production and Legacy​

The ASh-73 was produced primarily at Factory No. 19, starting in 1947, with additional production at Factory No. 36 in Rybinsk. Manufacturing continued until 1953 at Factory No. 19 and until 1957 at Factory No. 36, with a total of 14,310 engines built. Many of these engines were exported to the People's Republic of China in the 1950s to support their fleet of Tu-4 bombers.

The Shvetsov ASh-73 remains a testament to the Soviet Union’s ability to adapt and advance aeronautical engineering, creating a powerplant that met the demands of post-war aviation.

Key Differences Between the ASh-73 and R-3350​

  1. Development History:
    • The R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone was an entirely American design by Wright Aeronautical, first developed in 1937. It was a cutting-edge engine with significant challenges early in its development, particularly with overheating and reliability. By the time of the B-29’s deployment, those issues had largely been resolved, and it became a highly successful engine.
    • The ASh-73, on the other hand, was a Soviet design evolved from earlier Shvetsov engines such as the M-25 (a licensed Wright R-1820). While it was not a copy of the R-3350, it was developed to meet similar specifications and shared some features due to its Cyclone heritage.
  2. Design Characteristics:
    • Both engines are 18-cylinder, twin-row, air-cooled radial engines.
    • The R-3350 had a displacement of 54.86 liters (3,347.9 cubic inches), while the ASh-73 was slightly larger, with a displacement of 58.122 liters (3,546.8 cubic inches).
    • The ASh-73 used components inspired by American designs but was independently developed to suit Soviet manufacturing techniques and requirements.
  3. Turbocharging:
    • The R-3350 on the B-29 featured advanced turbosupercharging to maintain power at high altitudes, which was critical for strategic bombing missions.
    • The ASh-73TK also included twin turbochargers and an intercooler, which were heavily inspired by the American R-3350 system. However, these components were direct adaptations rather than original designs.
  4. Applications:
    • The R-3350 was primarily used in the B-29 and later aircraft like the Lockheed Constellation and Douglas DC-7.
    • The ASh-73 was designed specifically for the Tupolev Tu-4, the Soviet reverse-engineered version of the B-29, but it also saw use in other Soviet designs.
  5. Production Methods:
    • The ASh-73 reflects Soviet industrial priorities, favoring ruggedness and simplicity for mass production over cutting-edge performance. In contrast, the R-3350 represents the U.S. approach to maximizing performance through more advanced and intricate engineering.

Yes, the United States certainly has the ability to reverse-engineer the engines used in the Japanese A6M Zero series of aircraft, and here’s why:

Technical Capability​

The A6M Zero’s engines, primarily the Nakajima Sakae series, were advanced for their time but are relatively simple by modern engineering standards. These engines were air-cooled, radial designs, featuring technologies that are well understood today. Modern manufacturing processes, such as precision CNC machining, advanced metallurgy, and 3D scanning, would make it feasible to recreate the components to exact specifications.
Furthermore, the United States has historically demonstrated the ability to reverse-engineer complex foreign technology, such as the Soviet MiG-25 "Foxbat" and even complete systems like the Soviet Buran space shuttle. Given these examples, reverse-engineering a WWII-era radial engine would not present a significant challenge to contemporary engineers.

Historical Precedent​

During WWII, the U.S. examined and analyzed captured Japanese equipment extensively. The Zero itself was studied in detail after a mostly intact example crash-landed on Akutan Island in Alaska in 1942. Engineers used this captured plane to understand its strengths and weaknesses, which informed tactical and technical countermeasures. If reverse-engineering the Sakae engine had been deemed strategically important at the time, it could have been done.

Modern Challenges​

While technically feasible, reverse-engineering a Zero engine today might face practical challenges:
  1. Lack of Original Blueprints: Without the original manufacturing data, recreating certain aspects of the engine (like exact tolerances or material compositions) would require extensive analysis of surviving engines.
  2. Material Obsolescence: Some of the materials used in the original engines may no longer be available or are no longer produced in the same way. Modern substitutes would likely be used, potentially altering performance slightly.
  3. Economic Feasibility: The effort to reverse-engineer and produce a small number of replica engines for historical aircraft would be extremely costly relative to the benefits, which is why many restored Zeros use substitute engines, like the Pratt & Whitney R-1830.

Conclusion​

The United States has both the technical expertise and industrial capability to reverse-engineer the A6M Zero’s engines if desired. However, given the engine's relatively simple design by modern standards and the high cost of such an effort, the primary motivation for doing so would be for historical accuracy or specific restoration projects rather than for any practical application.
 
Hello Deathwind,
Your comments about reverse engineering the Sakae engine show a serious lack of understanding of its value even in the world of 1942.
The Japanese Navy wrote a set of specifications for a carrier fighter that were ambitious. The problem as I mentioned earlier was that there really wasn't the depth of engineering and engine designs and choices available to companies attempting to meet these specifications. That is why Nakajima bowed out of the competition.
There were basically three engine choices:
The Mitsubishi Zuisei
The Mitsubishi Kinsei which was less developed
The Nakajima Sakae
Mitsubishi chose to develop their fighter around the Zuisei engine because of weight concerns and meeting the range requirement.
Eventually at the Navy's insistence, the Sakae was substituted for a notable power increase with a minimal weight increase, but it was a competitor's engine, but so went history.
The lack of horsepower for these engines and the extreme range, performance and maneuverability requirements forced some serious design compromises to the design which proved to be a limit to the design's growth potential later in life. It carried a light armament and no armour not because those items were not known in Japan, but because it would not have been possible to meet performance requirements with those items.
The A6M Type Zero was not particularly weak structurally but had very light sections of materials and very little structural redundancy which is why it came apart so easily under gunfire. Extra armour in later versions was not going to fix a problem of structural strength. Because of this lack of structural strength, its limiting dive speed was VERY low, 340 Knots IAS (391 MPH).
This is in an era when American fighters often were tested to terminal dive speeds which were generally about 100 MPH faster.
This is the environment of 1940.

Now about reverse engineering the Sakae:
It was a nicely manufactured engine but had relatively little supercharging and fairly low horsepower.
This low horsepower (about 900 to 950 HP) was the limiting factor on the design weight of the A6M.
Assuming that these engines were produced in the United States, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THEM?
In 1942, they were too low powered to be useful for fighters. The current R-1830-76 and -86 were much higher powered and highly supercharged with intercoolers and had better altitude capability. Even THEY were getting to be too small for modern fighters of the time. Note that this is about when the Corsair and Hellcat were coming into service.
This might have made a good toy but was not useful for the war effort.

Note that later in the war when range was less of a requirement, the Kinsei was again considered as a powerplant for the A6M8 fighter. By that time, the engine had seen some serious development and was a lot more competitive than it had been back in 1940.

- Ivan.
 
Your comments about reverse engineering the Sakae engine show a serious lack of understanding of its value even in the world of 1942.

Oh Really?


The United States had superior aircraft engines during World War II, and even the Wildcat's engine outperformed the Nakajima Sakae 21 in terms of reliability and power. When testing captured Japanese engines, U.S. engineers often overhauled them to pristine condition before conducting evaluations. This was essential because worn or poorly maintained engines would not accurately reflect their true performance capabilities. However, even when tested in optimal condition, the Sakae 21 wasn’t particularly groundbreaking compared to the robust engines powering American planes.

While the U.S. had the ability to reverse-engineer the Sakae engine—or even replicate the entire Zero—there was no practical need to do so. By the time captured Zeros were studied, the Hellcat was already in development, promising vastly superior performance. This made imitation unnecessary.

Japanese aircraft like the Zero were designed for lightweight agility and dogfighting superiority, emphasizing speed and maneuverability over durability. To achieve this, the design sacrificed critical survivability features like armor protection and self-sealing fuel tanks. As a result, Japanese planes were highly vulnerable to damage in combat. The Japanese strategy relied heavily on skilled pilots focused on personal glory, contrasting with the American approach, which emphasized teamwork and the development of aircraft that could sustain damage and bring pilots home.

The Wildcat, despite being slower and less maneuverable than the Zero, held its own due to its better armor, protection, and team-based tactics. Wildcat pilots worked together effectively, using strategies like the Thach Weave to counter the Zero's advantages. This teamwork, combined with the Wildcat's durability, eliminated the need to replace it with a Zero-like design.

As for engines, the Sakae 21 served its purpose for the Zero, but it lacked the power and versatility of U.S. designs. The United States faced greater challenges with liquid-cooled engines like the Allison V-1710, which struggled at high altitudes compared to German and British designs. This initially limited the performance of the P-51 Mustang, relegating it to low-altitude roles like ground attack. The game changed when the Mustang was equipped with the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, transforming it into a premier fighter with long range and high-altitude capability, ideal for escorting B-17s and B-24s on bombing missions over Europe.

Today, only one airworthy Zero, an A6M5, is powered by an original Sakae 21 engine. While several Sakae engines are preserved in museums, most surviving Zeros are static displays or have been restored with alternative engines.

In summary, while the Sakae engine and the Zero were remarkable for their purpose, American aircraft and engines ultimately proved more versatile and robust. The U.S. approach of teamwork, innovation, and durability ensured that its aircraft could adapt to a wider range of missions and survive the harsh realities of combat.
 
Hello Deathwind,
I stand by my earlier comment.
In your current post you have just entirely reversed your position from your prior post. You are basically arguing against yourself and much of it appears lifted out of a book or off a Wikipedia page.

Do you think the Japanese Army and Navy really wanted lightweight, lightly armed, and lightly constructed, and generally slow fighters?
I don't.
I believe it was a limitation they had to live with because of the engineering limitations of the country. Again we come to the idea of engineering depth. Look at both the Japanese Army and Navy's follow-on designs. None of them actually followed the same lightweight concept as from Ki 43 and A6M.
Note that the Japanese Navy never got a replacement for their 1940 model Carrier Fighter. All they ever got was a few incremental improvements and not everyone saw the changes as improvements.

The initial F4F-3 Wildcat didn't have any armour either, but was a much more robust design. Armour really isn't the important thing for the most part. It is strength of construction. The load factors were no higher, but there were more redundant structures and surplus strength so the aircraft would not come apart when damaged. The same can be said for the N1K2-J Shiden-KAI. It had not a bit of armour but had a reputation for being pretty tough.

As for tactics, the "Thach Weave" worked pretty well in a 2v1 or 2v2 fight but what really happened in a many versus many fight?
This one is a lot harder to find and is entirely non-intuitive.

Now what was this about reverse engineering a A6M2 fighter or a Sakae engine?

- Ivan.
 
Do you think the Japanese Army and Navy genuinely wanted lightweight, lightly armed, lightly constructed, and generally slow fighters? Let’s set the record straight: they weren’t that slow. It’s no secret that Japan prioritized lightweight, maneuverable aircraft optimized for dogfighting. These design choices reflected their focus on range and agility, qualities critical to their combat philosophy. It wasn’t until they began suffering significant losses—both in pilots and planes—that they reconsidered this approach.

The A6M Zero was a prime example of this design philosophy. To make the aircraft even lighter and stronger, the Japanese employed a revolutionary material: "extra super duralumin." This special aluminum alloy, developed by Sumitomo Metal Industries, was crucial in creating a strong yet lightweight airframe that enabled the Zero’s exceptional maneuverability. To truly understand planes like the Zero or the Oscar, you first need to understand the Japanese mindset. Their approach to aircraft design emphasized range and maneuverability, which explains their reliance on lightweight construction. Even the Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" bomber followed this principle, trading survivability for impressive range.

I haven’t reversed myself on this. If it seems like my point hasn’t landed, perhaps I’m just not being understood. But I stand by what I’ve said.

This isn’t an argument—it’s a discussion, and I’ve approached it with politeness and respect, as I hope others will do the same. I’ve praised others more often than I’ve been praised myself, wouldn’t you agree?

Now, on the topic of reverse engineering: Could the United States have reverse-engineered the Zero or its Nakajima Sakae engine? Absolutely. We had the technical expertise to do so, and if there had been a pressing need, we would have. However, we didn’t pursue it because the Zero didn’t align with what we wanted to build. By the time Zeros were captured and studied, we had already developed superior aircraft, such as the F6F Hellcat, which rendered any imitation unnecessary.

The situation remains the same today. There’s no significant demand for reproducing Zero engines. Museums often use mock engines because display aircraft don’t require a functioning powerplant—they only need to appear authentic. Restorers who fly these planes rarely opt to replicate the original Sakae engine due to the prohibitive cost. Even if a perfect clone were made, it wouldn’t be considered original, so the effort isn’t worth it.

The Japanese design philosophy was unique. They aimed to build aircraft that matched their doctrine, focusing on range and agility rather than durability. This isn’t a flaw—it’s just a different way of thinking. And while I’m not here to argue, I’ll say this: My opinions, like anyone’s, deserve respect. I haven’t insulted anyone’s intelligence, and I only ask the same courtesy in return. That’s fair, isn’t it?
 
Hello Deathwind,
My apologies for offending.
I believe you are incorrect. I believe you need to read "Eagles of Mitsubishi" which describes some of the design limitations that Jiro Horikoshi faced when deciding how to build what became the A6M. He had not a lot of engine choices and the only one with the power level and expected future development potential was not going to offer the necessary range. It is a worthy read.
As for SLOW, the Ki-43 Hayabusa is the Army Type 1 Fighter. That means it was the Model of 1941. For a 1941 aircraft, 308 MPH is VERY slow and two .303 caliber MG as its entire armament is reminiscent of the Sopwith Camel from the Great War.

In Mikesh's book some discussions are described about the design requirements for the new 12-Shi fighter (A6M). Not everyone was onboard with the idea of preferring maneuverability over speed and straight line performance. Genda was a proponent of maneuverability. Shibata was the proponent of straight line performance. Genda got his way and the Type Zero fighter was doomed.

I don't believe that the Japanese set out with the intention of building lightweight, flimsy, slow fighters with mediocre armament at best. They were constrained to do so because as Horikoshi stated, any additional feature was a knot off the top speed or a few miles off the range and those qualities could not be compromised and still meet the requirements. Japan really had two types of engines, Fighter engines and Bomber engines. The bomber engines had power, but they had too much frontal area for a single engine fighter. The available selection of fighter engines was very limited and all were relatively low powered which meant the resulting aircraft had to be light.

- Ivan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top