The Power Zero

The Supermarine Spitfire, the Messerschmitt Bf-109, and the Mitsubishi A6M Zero, were contemporary WW2 fighters, introduced roughly around the same period. All three enjoyed successes at their early careers, but while the Spitfire and Bf-109 remained competitive throughout the war, the A6M was left behind and was unable to compete with later Allied aircraft in the Pacific.

The lag in development led to appalling losses after the Allies abandoned low-speed combat in favour of high speed attacks. The Zero was unable to run to pursue, or to escape. Initially the kill:loss ratio was 12:1, that now was reversed!

It is untrue to say that the A6M Zero did not undergo any further development. The war had begun with the A6M2. The A6M3 shortened the wings by removing the folding wingtips and made the engine cowl smaller and more aerodynamic, and improved the Sakae 21 engine by adding a two-stage supercharger for better performance at higher altitude. These modifications improved the fighter’s ability to roll and dive and increased the maximum speed from 313 to 330 mph, without replacing the engine.

The next model, the A6M5 gave the engine individual exhaust stacks that provided extra thrust, and thicker wing skinning to allow faster diving speed without tearing the wing, increasing the speed to 350mph (diving speed now exceeded 450mph), but otherwise it simply formalized the ad-hoc modifications of the A6M3.

The improvement in performance between A6M2 and A6M3 were significant, while the A6m5 model was a more incremental improvement.

Unfortunately for the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Force, the newer Allied aircraft far outpaced the A6M5 in late 1943. An over-emphasis on low-speed turning combat and range had led to neglect in protection and engine power, and above all, high-speed maneuvers.

Could the Zero have been modified further to keep it at least competitive?

Tracing the further development of its contemporaries, the Spitfire and the Bf-109, we find that:

  1. Engine power for British and German fighters kept increasing. Engine development continued as the Rolls-Royce Merlin and Daimler Benz DB-601/605 were tweaked to higher power, exceeding 1500hp and eventually 2000hp. Power increased in leaps and bounds for the Bf-109: while it had been originally designed around a 700hp engine with its high performance gained from exceptional aerodynamics, the late war Bf-109K had a Daimler-Benz DB-605 engine roaring away at 2000hp.
  2. Both aircraft began the war emphasizing low speed turning combat, just like the A6M. Despite having top speed of over 300 mph, most early war turning dogfights took place at only 150-200 mph. The Spitfire’s large elliptical wings reduced the tendency to stall when turning steeply at low speed. The Bf-109 had smaller wings which made slow speed turns more prone to stalling, but it had a trick up its sleeve: automatic leading edge slats that popped out and enabled turning at high angles. But later in the war, ever-increasing engine power and the change to high-speed tactics made these low-speed features superfluous. The Zero relied on its large wing area like the Spitfire, and its very light weight, to excel at turning at low speed.

The ability of the Spitfire and Bf-109 to evolve kept them competitive.

What more could have been done to keep the Zero more competitive, if not a war-winner then at least not cannon fodder? It needed to make the transition from low speed turning combat to high speed fighting.

For a start, it needed a new engine. The Sakae-21 engine built by Nakajima was extremely reliable, but low-powered at 1100hp. The Zero had originally been designed for the Mitsubishi Kinsei engine which started with equal power with the Sakae, but later mark Kinsei-62 had been successfully tweaked to 1500hp by 1943.

The Kinsei-powered Zero was an aircraft that almost came into being, except for interference by Navy officers. The designers at Mitsubishi had been overruled at the Zero’s introduction in 1940 and ordered to fit the fighter with the inferior Zuisei engine, then with rival Nakajima’s Sakae. The Navy also overruled the now-tweaked 1500hp Kinsei-62 for the A6M5 upgrade in 1943 due to the necessity of retooling the aircraft factories to produce a different engine mount; pilots would pay very dearly for the stubbornness of the Navy admirals.

A more powerful engine would give the Zero pilot more options for pursuit and escape, and more extreme vertical maneuvers which the Zero already excelled at in addition to its low speed maneuverability. Had the Zero been equipped with the Kinsei in 1940 as intended by its designer, the upgrade would have involved tweaking its engine rather than outright replacement involving redesigning its engine mounts, cowl and plumbing.

The reduction in wing size was a step in the right direction, improving the roll performance and increasing its speed. There was still one very large handicap: at high speed, the ailerons became unusable.  The pressure exerted by the airstream on the ailerons was too much for human muscle to overcome; controls were operated directly by the pilot with cables or rods connected directly to the control stick and rudder pedals. Very few  aircraft had power assisted controls. The Zero’s large ailerons gave it excellent turning characteristics at low speed but were impossible to operate at high speed. At high speed, the Zero could loop up or dive but was unable to roll sideways: rolling was the prelude to turning. It made the fighter too predictable in high speed combat.

Jiro Horikoshi, the Zero’s designer, had originally installed servo tabs on the ailerons to assist high speed roll. A servo tab is a small flap hinged to the trailing edge of the aileron. It requires less force to operate against the high speed airstream due to its small size, and it uses the force generated by the airstream to help move the aileron in the opposite direction the tab is moved. This did indeed free up the ailerons at high speed, but it encouraged the Zero pilots to make extremely aggressive high speed turns that overstressed the wings. Horikoshi was forced to remove them.

The Zero would need strengthened wings as well as servo tabs in order to perform high speed roll and turn. In the meantime, pilots would have to change their style of flying, making the famously steep turns only at low speed, and to roll and make shallower turns at high speed.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The Power Zero

  1. I concur.
    It Makes acceptance of the Tony’s German based engine all the more remarkable. Too bad it was reduced in weight instead of beafed up like the Germans did to avoid it’s faults.
    The A6M8 finally got the radial the Zero needed years earlier but the show was over. Those admirals must have given Jiro gray hair. Their hoped for methonal water injected A6M6 was abandoned in failure.
    Even the Oscar Ki 43-IIIa was pushing 360 mph while the A6M7 was strugling at 330 mph or so in 1945! True, both were too slow, but the tables had been turned on the Zero by the lowly slow poke Oscar, which had numerous Tony, Tojo, and Frank team mates for more speed. The Tojo was the reliable one. (Also Nakajima fighers all had pilot armor 11 months before the Zero did).
    The faster team mate option for the Zero was the Jack and George. Both were unreliable unfortunately. The Sam was more than late. At least it had a code name. The Ki 100 didn’t but it saw combat much to it’s credit.
    If only the tough but unreliable Ki 61 had tried that radial engine years earlier, it could have been a reliable fighter mid-war when the A6M5 became obsolete. Mass production could have been better utilized. Also, it’s speed would have been more at home in 1943. Can you imagine 5,000 Ki 100s?

  2. I think it was around the same time the Soviets fitted a big radial on the LaGG 3 and got a much better La-5. I also recall the Japanese Navy had a dive bomber using inline but it was troublesome, so they replaced the engine with Kinsei radial.

    So the Ki-100 was very much a missed opportunity, as was the Power Zero.

    The Navy interfered too much with Mitsubishi design, hobbling the Zero and Reppu, the Army was too lax with Kawasaki and let them muddle with a faulty engine too long.

  3. Kawasaki could’ve followed the more reliable path of the Fiat Tifone version of the DB 605 with slider bearings instead of ball bearings. That engine powered the Italian Series 5 fighters like the Macchi C.205 Veltro, High altitude Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario and Fiat G.55 Centauro. The Ki 61 deserved to be their equal. The latter 2 had a motor-cannon firing through the spinner like the Bf 109. Why not the Tony? These 2 improvements could’ve made a big difference.

    The Ki 61-II could’ve had 5x20mm Ho-5 cannons instead of 2 or 4. The Centauro G.55-II had 5x20mm Mausers and it didn’t face B-29s like the Tony did!
    Even the Ki 61-Ic Kai could’ve had 3x20mm Ho-5 cannons and cut the weight of the ineffective cowl guns and their interruptor gear to compensate for the added cannon. These were the fastest 20mm cannons of WW2 at 750-950 r/m! The cowl guns would not be missed.

    Or it could have a 30mm hub-cannon like the Bf 109G/K. The Japanese 30mm Ho-155-II cannon was better than the 30mm MK108 cannon. It had over double the range and about equal the rate of fire of the MK108. The MK108 was light but the Ho-155-II was lighter! Besides the MK108 was unreliable.

    A 37mm Ho-204 was also available at the same time as the Ki 61-II. It was the fastest 37mm cannon of WW2 and had stand-off firing range! The B-29 could be hit before the Tony came in range of it’s return fire! that’s a game-changer!
    It would be like a Japanese Yak-9T but with altitude and a much faster 400 r/m 37mm cannon
    .
    But alas, the Tony never had a hub-cannon! All the Yaks had something firing through the spinner, so did all MiGs, LaGGs, Cobras, Sagttarios, Centauros and Ta 152s! That’s a good portion of all WW2 fighters and they didn’t face B-29s in WW2. So why not the Tony? It could make the IJA Ki 61 as hard-hitting as a twin engine heavy fighter. It was the only inline Japanese fighter, so only it could have this advantage. The IJN D4Y2-S Judy would be another option as a night fighter but otherwise was a bomber design.
    Another missed opportunity for Japan!

  4. I forgot to add the 36,000 Bf 109s to the list since most had hub-cannons, but everyone knows that.

    Can you imagine the sexy bubble-top Ki 61-III with a straight copy of the DB 605D engine ala Bf 109K, and 3x20mm Ho-5 cannons in the hub and wings for minimal weight yet effective firepower for dogfighting!
    A CAP of these would cover the B-29 interceptors; Ki 61-IIIs with stand-off 37mm Ho-204 cannons.
    They all look alike. So, a US fighter may think he has a heavier interceptor and SURPRISE!

  5. The Ki 61 with a 30mm hub-cannon is the best firepower for least gun weight.
    118kg of guns was less than any production cannon armed Tony and yet 5.096kg WoF/s; 634 GP/s.
    If the reduced M/V of the Ho-5 is too short range for a motor-cannon at 600m late-war, use this 30mm Ho-155-II at only 44kg instead. Keep the faster 20mm Ho-5 cannons in the wings since convergence is within 600m anyway. This would’ve been a great dogfighter and still intercept B-29s if needed with 900m range vs 910m. The Bf 109 Gustav had a 30mm with only 365-400m range!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s