Zero or hero? The main fighter of the Japanese fleet

184

Lightning in the sky cuts the darkness. Move boldly!

Touching the ground destroyed the Slayer's secrets. Among the wreckage were a Bendinx chassis and a Hamilton Standard propeller, Palmer tires, aviation guns "Oerlikon-FF" and copies of machine guns "Vickers" ...

The Americans did not look further. Another fake, which is a pity to waste time.



No one paid attention to the airframe materials. And he did not attach importance to the fact that wherever possible, the details were drilled to reduce take-off weight.

The experience of military operations in China remained unclaimed. Stereotypes did not allow to study the enemy in advance.

"Linen biplanes will meet you"...


"Reisen" broke them with such force that they remembered forever.

Now a real hunt has unfolded for the wreckage. But over and over again, downed cars carried secrets to the seabed.

Expeditions to the Aleutian Islands were equipped three times. Until one of the deserted beaches noticed the inverted "Reisen" ("Zero") of the A6M2 modification, which became the key to unraveling many secrets of the aircraft designer Jiro Horikoshi.

The free retelling has probably already caused a storm of indignation among everyone who knows story Japanese fighter.

Everything was different.

Enemy technology fell into American hands on the first day of the war. When nine Reisens were shot down over Pearl Harbor. Analysis of the fragments revealed the reason for the excellent flight performance.


They have frames, ribs and, in general, all structural elements drilled!

The longer they looked, the stronger was the amazement. They were dealing with an apparently odd enemy.

Drilling out parts no longer seemed like a chore compared to thousands of countersunk head rivets. The Japanese did not hesitate to spend time on this method of fastening parts, in order to ensure the perfect smoothness of the skin.

Hard work as a consequence of progressive schizophrenia. Or, if you please, following the national tradition to bring all the lines, down to the last stroke, to perfection.

Zero or hero? The main fighter of the Japanese fleet
Pilot's seat

The implementation of the idea of ​​a superlight fighter required more significant arguments.

This is a complete integration of the power set of the wing and fuselage. In which the root part of the wing was integral with the central part of the fuselage and the cockpit.

And aluminum alloy from the Sumimoto company, which surpassed all known analogues in strength.


Thus, hundreds of kilograms of take-off weight were saved. And the integration of the wing added rigidity to the entire structure. It remained to implement the plan in terms of mass production.

The Japanese were not embarrassed by the number of work shifts that went into the manufacture of each such unit. The main difficulties of production were associated with the eternal shortage of materials, fuel and raw materials.

The Americans gave Reisen a well-deserved rating - uilt like a fine watch, like a Swiss watch.

It is surprising that with all the intricacies of the design, the volume of production of Mitsubishi A6M fighters amounted to 11 thousand units. Which is decent even by the standards of World War II.

Acquaintance with the Reisen device was a very entertaining affair, but devoid of practical meaning. No one, following the example of the Japanese, was going to lighten the planes like that.


Reisen, Wilcat and Hellcat fighter power pack

The Yankees continued to overlap the skin, almost two layers. Waiting for the aviation industry to introduce 2000-horsepower fighters capable of out-flying any Zero. Such as the famous "Corsair". The winner of the competition for a carrier-based fighter from 1938, a little late for the start of the war. The operational readiness of the first squadron of carrier-based F4U-1s was announced in December 1944.

In 1942, they had to fight, using the crumbs of the advantages that the clumsy F4F Wild Cat had. At that time - the main fighter of the US Navy.

Then it was time for the Akutan Zero, which, after repairs, was able to take to the air. So it became known about the two Achilles heels of the fighter.

The low specific load on the wing was not expected to be a boon at high flight speeds. Piloting "Zero" at high speed concealed a lot of inconvenience.

But the most valuable discovery was the archaic fuel system of the engine. Which could lose performance in a steep dive. This should be used in combat. On horizontal turns, Reisen was invincible.

Miracles ended when rolling out the gates of the shops


The combat units received a practical combat aircraft that met all the points of the "impossible" technical assignment of 1938.

Two hours in combat mode and six hours when flying at cruising speed. Cannon weapons. bombs. Oxygen equipment for high altitudes. Mounts for hanging tanks. Speed ​​not less than 500 km/h and maneuverability at the level of biplanes of the 30s.

Japanese pilots are often portrayed as fanatical suicides. Not even guessing what things were hidden under the Reisen's skin. For example, inflatable balloons and an air supply system are a tribute to the maritime vocation of a fighter. He tried to be useful to the end. Even with a forced landing on the water.

The wingspan of the Reisen could not exceed 12 meters. This was the size limit for the lifts of aircraft carriers. The carrier-based fighter required a stable chassis without fail. And its design had to endure the presence of a landing hook, games with folding wingtips and other tricks of carrier-based aviation.


One of the mysteries and features of the Reisen is the position of the horizontal stabilizer. The only case of this among all serial fighters of the Second World War.

All conditions were achieved without mockery of those who operated the "Reisen" and prepared it for sorties.

Excellent visibility: forward - thanks to the short engine hood; and back - thanks to a drop-shaped lantern. No one held the fighter by the tail while taxiing (like the legends of the Spitfire).

The combat units did not know anything about overheating engines or "surprises" during the landing. In contrast to the Messerschmitts and Spitfires, where the narrow gauge of the main landing gear led to so many accidents and problems.

This is to how concise the Japanese supercar turned out.

Everything complicated was made simple. And the traces of the incredible efforts of the creators were forever sealed in cold metal. The employees of the aviation units should not have known about these difficulties.

The only thing that Reisen did not tolerate was rough walking on the wing. Which could have caused the artfully assembled skin to warp. By pressing the lever, the steps leading to the cockpit were extended from the fuselage.

Where it made sense, the designers did not hesitate to use proven foreign solutions. Therefore, “among the wreckage lay a Hamilton Standard propeller, Palmer tires, Sperry and Pioneer aircraft instruments.

Armament was also licensed.

The Japanese were not satisfied with the ammunition load of the Swiss Oerlikon-FF air cannons (the Messerschmitt-109 of modification “E” had similar weapons). By the beginning of 1941, Japanese fighters acquired increased ammunition - 100 instead of the previous 60 shells per barrel.

And the "Reisen" did not have body armor.

The two-ton aircraft was suddenly frightened by the presence of 20 kg of armored back


The initial rejection of any means of increasing survivability was the result of the same Japanese schizophrenia.

Opinions of people who polished rivets. In an effort to lighten the plane, they crossed the boundaries of reason and were carried away by frankly useless methods.

By the middle of the war, everything returned to its place.

Barely noticeably heavier "Reisen" remained a master of air combat. A complete set of protective measures, characteristic of other fighters of the era. Armored glass windshield, 8 mm pilot's seat back and protected tanks with carbon dioxide fire extinguishing system.

Like any star-powered fighter, the Reisen had superior survivability over aircraft whose engines had a vulnerable water-cooled jacket. Air-cooled motors remained operational even in cases of shot through cylinders.

The 14-cylinder star "Nakajima-Sakae" itself, with a diameter of more than a meter, served as an additional "shield" for the cockpit.

Only one mention of an air-cooled engine logically refutes statements about the insignificant survivability of the Reisen.

It is not possible to assess the negative consequences due to the lack of armored backs (and especially protected tanks).

In the real conditions of 1941-1942, the Reisen confidently seized air supremacy. When the protective equipment was returned to its place, this did not affect the position of Japanese aviation in any way.

The protracted war opened the way for new heroes. "Kavanishi Shiden" ("Purple Lightning"), "Hellket", "Corsair". More powerful. Faster. But none of them showed such an impressive superiority over their peers, as the "Reisen" did in its time.

The main advantage of "Zero" - he had time for his war


To a war in which the quality of manufacture and the combat characteristics of individual aircraft mattered on the scale of large operations.

By December 1941, Reisen fighters were equipped with the air wings of six aircraft carriers sent on a raid on Hawaii. Others froze on airfields in Taiwan, ready to take off and unleash wing-cannon fire on American positions in the Philippines.


They have fulfilled all their roles. Taking off from dusty airfields and rocking decks of aircraft carriers. Air combat, interception, long-range escort, sorties to attack ground targets.

Ancient samurai swords had one-sided blades, and this was truly double-edged weapon.

All the military glory of the Japanese remained forever associated with the Reisen (Zero) era. Together with the memory of the allies of their desperate situation at the beginning of the war.

The main drawback of the "Reisen" was the prolonged agony in the role of the main fighter fleet. The Americans who came to their senses got three whole years to "get even" with him on all counts. For all the insults caused and the awkward situation of 1941-1942.

It is worth noting that a similar fate befell many types of combat aircraft of the Axis countries.

Zero had enough reason to become a legend even at the beginning of his military career. And everything else in that story didn't matter. The most advanced fighter of 1941-1942.
184 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +27
    29 January 2022 05: 19
    On horizontal turns, Reisen was invincible.

    - I-16 was also invincible on the horizontals.
    We can say that the dive of a fighter for an attack was almost their main maneuver in the European theater of operations. The I-16 could dive painlessly at maximum engine speed, accelerating more than 500 km/h. However, during a dive, the Reisen tore off the super-lightweight skin. Therefore, what was easily done by the I-16 was inaccessible to the Reisen. Needless to say, no one associates the I-16 with the concept of "super-duper fighter"?
    "Reisen" plane "Clear Sky", a plane for suicide bombers. The only advantage is a large practical range - 3050 km. The eerie image of Reisen is extremely romanticized by godlike Americans. They need something to justify their defeats of the initial period.
    1. +11
      29 January 2022 11: 28
      Quote: Old electrician
      . The creepy image of Reisen is extremely romanticized by godlike Americans. They need something to justify their defeats of the initial period.

      Undoubtedly, the Americans are looking for an excuse in the superiority of the Zero, but they also forget to say about the training of Japanese pilots that the Japanese had at the beginning of the hostilities at the beginning of the Pacific hostilities, such as Saburo Sakai and Masatake Okumiya.
    2. -37
      29 January 2022 11: 33
      Stop lying and praising the "brilliant" product of the blockhead Polikarpov. If he dived to 500 km/h, then this is a negligible speed for such a maneuver. Due to unimportant aerodynamics, the I-16 accelerated poorly, starting at a speed of 300-350 km/h. / hour, why did it have to collapse at a dive speed of 550 km / hour? And yes, any WWII fighter was destroyed during a dive, including the Mustang and Me-500 and Airpocobra.
      1. +15
        29 January 2022 15: 35
        Something got mixed up here ... As far as I read, the Zero had restrictions on overloads during aerobatics due to the insufficient strength of the lightweight design. And about the I-16 - it was operated from 1934 to 1944! 10 years! In those years, this is a whole era in the development of aviation. And in capable hands, even in 1944, he was not a "whipping boy."
        1. -29
          29 January 2022 16: 51
          The I-16 has always been and remained an unsuccessful aircraft. Thanks to Polikarpov, hundreds of Soviet pilots went to the cemetery. An assessment of this type has long been given and it makes no sense to analyze it here. The main reason for the destruction of the structure is flutter.
          1. +4
            30 January 2022 09: 21
            Quote from Elturisto:
            The main reason for the destruction of the structure is flutter.

            Polikarpov does not in any way pull on the advertising title "King of Fighters", the I-16 was difficult to pilot and had a lot of shortcomings. However, cases of destruction of the I-16 in the air are unknown. If you know about them, please share.
            The Soviet Air Force encountered flutter in the early 30s. Theoretically, the occurrence of flutter was described by E.P. Grossman and M.V. Keldysh. A number of experiments were carried out, a number of theoretical studies were made, practical methods were developed to eliminate vibration at any flight speed. The main result of the work carried out in the USSR in 1934-1941 was the elimination of the danger of wing flutter and buffeting (destructive tail vibrations). Based on Keldysh's research, aircraft designers got rid of the flutter, and the lives of many pilots were saved. Not a single case of flutter of Soviet aircraft (including the I-16) in 1941-1945 is known.
            1. -2
              30 January 2022 09: 34
              That's what we are talking about, the design features of the I-16 - the short tail section of the fuselage - the cause of longitudinal instability in flight, had a fairly large cross section, which gave the entire structure additional strength, on the other hand, the I-16 could not accelerate significantly more than 450 km / h. The combination of these factors made the I-16 supposedly more resistant to flutter.
              1. +5
                30 January 2022 11: 18
                Quote from Elturisto:
                I-16 and could not accelerate significantly more than 450 km / h.

                Such a statement defies the laws of physics. I-16 type 29 had a horizontal flight speed of 462 km/h, in a dive it accelerated to more than 500 km/h. How much more I can't say. Further acceleration was hampered by the I-16's blunt nose and short fuselage. Therefore, during the war, the pilots took the I-16 into a dive at maximum engine speeds. Read their memoirs.
                Quote from Elturisto:
                That's what we are talking about, the design features of the I-16 - the short tail section of the fuselage - the reason for the longitudinal instability in flight, had a fairly large cross section, which gave the whole structure an additional
                strength…
                The combination of these factors made the I-16 supposedly more resistant to flutter.

                The factors you listed have nothing to do with the cause of the flutter at all. The reason for the flutter is the mismatch between the center of rigidity of the wing and its center of mass and the insufficient rigidity of the wing structure. So, for example, in the Tu-22 (not to be confused with the Tu-22M2 and Tu-22M3), anti-flutter "blanks" of 90 kg each were installed at the ends of the wing. The length of the fuselage does not affect the anti-flutter properties of the aircraft. The I-16 never had a problem with flutter.
                There is such a thing as the focus of the wing. The focus of the wing is the conditional point of application of the lifting force of the wing.
                There is also such a thing as the mean aerodynamic chord of the wing (MAC).
                Longitudinal stability is the ability of an aircraft to maintain and restore a given longitudinal balance.
                When the focus is located behind the center of gravity of the aircraft, a random increase in the angle of attack leads to the appearance of a stabilizing moment (dive), under the influence of which the additional angle of attack Da that arose during the disturbance decreases and the aircraft tends to return to its original mode. In this case, the aircraft is longitudinally statically stable in terms of overload.
                If the center of gravity of the aircraft is ahead of the focus, then such an aircraft is statically unstable and it is impossible to fly on it.
                The balance, in which the center of gravity of the aircraft coincides with the focus of the aircraft, is called neutral or critical. With the use of automation, such an aircraft can fly, but not without it.
                The difference between the neutral centering (focus) and the actual centering is called the centering margin or the longitudinal static stability margin for overload. The margin of longitudinal static stability for overload is measured as a percentage of SAH. No one has ever measured the longitudinal static stability margin for overload by the length of the fuselage.
                The "king of fighters" Polikarpov believed that the lower the stability margin, the more maneuverable the aircraft. This is not entirely true, but due to the small margin of stability of the I-16, not all pilots could fly. However, the aircraft was longitudinally statically stable. By the way, the Aerocobra had a similar problem with a small margin of longitudinal stability. She fell into a tailspin from the slightest sneeze.
                The short length of the I-16 fuselage, combined with a blunt forehead, created additional frontal resistance for it and did not allow this aircraft to accelerate. Well, Polikarpov did not know how to build fighters.
                1. -7
                  30 January 2022 12: 01
                  I won’t argue about the fdatter and the wing. The length of the tail section of the fuselage affects the distance to the center of mass of the aircraft and the correspondence to the size of the shoulder, and as a result, at the moment of force, there is no need to cling to words. Regarding Polikarpov, I agree 100%. This character is - not just an unsuccessful designer, but a criminal. Through the fault of which a large number of Soviet pilots, including Chkalov, died.
                  1. +2
                    30 January 2022 13: 09
                    To you about Foma, and you are all about Yeryoma. The longitudinal stability margin is determined as a percentage of the SAH, and not the length of the fuselage. There is no other way to measure longitudinal stability other than %CAH.
                    The length of the tail section of the fuselage affects the distance to the center of mass of the aircraft and the compliance with the size of the shoulder and, as a result, the moment of force

                    - it's all blah blah blah, not related to the subject of conversation. With the same fuselage length, the aircraft can be both stable and unstable. Everything is determined by alignment, i.e. aircraft mass distribution during design and loading. Compare:
                    The length of the I-16 type 29 (its latest modification) is 6.13 m.
                    The latest and most massive modification of the Aerocobra was the P-39Q ("Model 26E"). Its length is 9.21 m.
                    Despite the fact that the Airacobra is three meters longer than the I-16, it had almost the same low stability margin. When emptying the ammo boxes, its centering shifted further back, and it became even more difficult to pilot it. American pilots generally refused to fly on it. Thanks three times to the Hero of the Soviet Union A.I. Pokryshkin, who made her an advertisement. If not for him, then the word "Aerocobra" in aviation would be a curse word.
                    What affects the length of the fuselage is the required tail area. Obviously, with a shorter fuselage, this area should be larger. By the way, the large tail area is another reason why the I-16 slowed down when diving.
                    In general, if you are so interested in this topic, then click in the search engine "Dynamics and aerodynamics". There are many such books and textbooks. Read, the book is a source of knowledge. And vice versa. Wikipedia is a source of unpredictable misinformation.
                    1. -7
                      30 January 2022 15: 47
                      Well, it started ... you’ll already go down from the pulpit, it’s clear that the Airacobra is an atypical aircraft with a central location of the control system. If you installed a control system in the nose in the same glider, then everything would change. the alleged superiority of the I-16 over the Zero. Regarding the Airacobra, there is no need to throw in - this aircraft received positive ratings not only from Pokryshkin, but also from other Soviet aces. By and large, all your argumentation is demagogy and empty juggling with special terms, which in themselves are not always explain the essence of physical processes.
                      1. +1
                        31 January 2022 04: 04
                        If in the same glider to install SU in the nose, then everything would change.

                        - If my grandmother had one ... If Polikarpov was an aircraft designer, then with the same engine as the I-16, such a fighter could be made!
                        About the brilliant reviews of the "Aircobra" from other pilots. Konstantin Vasilyevich Sukhov, the squadron is fighting:
                        Iskrin sits, drumming his fingers on the table:
                        - I caught up with the "thin" one, attacked. It can be seen that he hit the engine: at first he smoked. I look, "Messer" began to slide. I give another turn. Past! I jump, and his screw barely rotates. I turned around, looking with my eyes, where is “my” Fritz. And he is already on the ground, on his belly lies near Slavyanskaya. Already people are running to him. The pilot bounced off the plane. But where will he run? .. There was no time to think, guess. I went with a set to the Krasnoarmeyskaya area to my group. Looking for ours. Suddenly I notice: two Me-109-Gs from the top behind - from the direction of the sun - are attacking me. The distance is two hundred meters. And I have a small height - eight hundred meters. Sharply, with a set, I turn around on them: there is nothing to be “embarrassed” about! At this moment, the leading "Messer" gave the turn. I hear it hit the tail. My fighter was thrown, spun from wing to wing. Although he was tied, he “hit” his head on the side in the cockpit several times. I feel like I'm falling! He removed the gas, tried to level the car, but she seemed to be furious, she did not obey in any way. He gave full throttle - the engine roared, the plane rushed forward, turned up its nose, but immediately went into a left flat tailspin. The ground began to move quickly. Pulled the emergency door reset lever. I was pulled out of the cab, but something was holding me back: I didn’t unfasten my seat belts! .. As soon as I opened the lock, I was immediately pulled out of the cab. And then he felt a strong blow to his leg. Yes, I think I forgot the advice. It was necessary to pick up the legs, how to gather into a ball! .. After all, they taught: so that the stabilizer does not catch on ... But what now? The pain is hellish, it darkened in the eyes. Consciousness clouded, but I remember everything. Instinctively, a hand reached out to his chest, tore at the ring. There was a pop, and the parachute opened. I was immediately thrown up, swayed several times. Soon I felt a blow: the earth! A strong wind knocked me down, the swollen white dome pulled me along. In a fever, feeling no pain, he got up, tightened the lines and extinguished the parachute, ran three or four steps, but a sharp pain in his leg forced him to fall. He lay down on his side, unfastened the straps, waiting for something. A soldier galloped on horseback. “Well, are you alive, pilot?” he asks. “Something is wrong with my leg, it hurts a lot,” I answer him. — “Be patient. Now the car should come for you ... "

                        The main charm of the "Aerocobra" is that, due to the small margin of stability, it would fall into a flat tailspin with any piloting errors. Another charm was that it was impossible to get the Airacobra out of a flat spin. The third charm was the car's cab door. During an emergency exit of the plane, the pilot was hit by a stabilizer on his legs, and if he was lucky, he became a cripple. Jumping out of the Airacobra with a parachute was a deadly circus act. Otherwise, a beautiful marquise ...
                        Konstantin Vasilyevich Sukhov (1923-2003) - squadron commander of the 16th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment, 9th Guards Fighter Aviation Division, 6th Guards Fighter Aviation Corps (16th GvIAP), 2nd Air Army, 1st Ukrainian front. The hero of the USSR. The 16th GvIAP was commanded by the famous ace A.I. Pokryshkin.
                      2. +2
                        21 February 2022 05: 23
                        The Aerocobra had many advantages. Among them - an all-metal glider (it was stronger, lighter and did NOT get wet in the rain), excellent radio (much superior in quality to Soviet ones), excellent visibility during taxiing, takeoff and landing thanks to the front landing gear (thanks to it, the plane did not cower), powerful weapons, good maneuverability and speed (including diving).
                        Yes, there were piloting features, so they tried to put experienced pilots at the helm, capable of revealing the full potential of the aircraft.
                        In general, the entire Nazi war was kept on the eastern front by no more than half of the fighters, which definitely made life easier for ours.
                  2. 0
                    2 February 2022 16: 34
                    You might think that you think that the planes designed by Polikarpov were approved without alternative and accepted for construction. Who signed the conclusion on the State Tests of the I-16?
                2. -1
                  2 February 2022 16: 23
                  They knew about aerodynamics then and they blew the planes in pipes. It seems to me that the "lobast" of Polikarpov's fighters was due to some kind of actual compromise at that time.
      2. +4
        29 January 2022 17: 15
        Without compensatory (anti-g) suits, a trained pilot is able to withstand 7-8g for a short time. Only at the end of the war did the Americans begin to use the first samples of such suits. A fighter aircraft must have greater strength than a pilot. Therefore, the construction norm for most fighters of the Second World War was the maximum overload of 7g or more.
        In this case, it is not about that at all. At high speeds, the "Zero" torn off the skin with a high-speed pressure during a straight dive, and not at all due to large overloads when withdrawing from it. Therefore, it was necessary to dive on it with extreme caution. I-16, with all its disadvantages, did not have such shortcomings. To what speed it could be dispersed in a dive, I do not know. It is only known that for 500 km / h. The fact that the I-16 is not at all the king of the air during the Second World War does not require any evidence.
        As an illustration of the destruction of the aircraft by high-speed pressure, we can give the following example. On the Yak-1 aircraft produced in November 1942 - April 1943, there were several cases of tearing off the skin from the wing in the air. In fairness, it should be noted that this also happened on the machines of other design bureaus that had a wooden structure (moreover, they had much more such disruptions than the Yak-1). A wooden two-spar wing with plywood sheathing of 10-12 layers of veneer glued with casein glue - strips mostly 200x10 cm in size, impregnated with a composition that prevents cracking and warping, was technologically complex, with long exposure times during drying and therefore with a long manufacturing cycle. It required highly skilled workers and the strictest observance of the technological process. Dust gets into the glue - local non-adhesives are obtained, it is cold in the workshop - the glue coagulates.
        As for the invincibility of an aircraft that is invincible on horizontal turns, I will give an example. Until the end of the war, five pilots of the Red Army chalked up jet Me-262s. The first such account was opened three times by Hero of the Soviet Union I.N. Kozhedub on La-7. Soviet aces came to the conclusion that attacks were especially successful during turns of a jet aircraft, climbing and descending. The Americans on the Mustangs also shot down jet messers. Since they are incomparable liars, it is impossible to say exactly how much.
        Compare indicators. The maximum speed of the La-7 in level flight is 680 km/h. The maximum speed of the Me-262 is 855 km / h. Those. jet messers were shot down only due to the advantages of more maneuverable aircraft in the vertical plane.
        Zero is a project of one parameter - an outstanding flight range to the detriment of all other indicators. While Zero had no competitors in the Pacific Theater of Operations, he was invincible like Johnny the cowboy from the joke. As soon as the Americans increased the range of their fighters due to more powerful engines and a large take-off mass, Zero came to a halt. Just one example. The American Lightning fighter in the attack aircraft version had a permissible bomb load of up to 1800 kg, and, for example, the Soviet Pe-2 bomber had 600 kg. Low-maneuverable unarmored Zero such American irons thrashed for a sweet soul. If we compare the Zero A6M2, which was launched in 1943, and the Yak-1, which was launched in 1940, then Zero simply would not have had a chance in air combat.
        1. +4
          29 January 2022 20: 55
          for example, the Soviet Pe-2 bomber has 600 kg.

          In overload took a ton. Although, of course, "it will not be enough" - (from the cartoon "Last Year's Snow Was Falling")
        2. -1
          30 January 2022 09: 43
          Any design is a compromise. One of the main requirements for the Zero was the range and mass + size. It is understandable that the reconstruction of aircraft carriers was very expensive and reduced the size of the air group. Therefore, in the war in the Pacific, there was simply no alternative to Zero, at least until the commissioning of new aircraft carriers. Therefore, Japanese designers were forced to sacrifice some important properties - protection, margin of safety. And the Japanese turned out well.
          And the fact that the Japanese were defeated is understandable - the quantitative superiority of the Americans was overwhelming. In addition, advanced radar detection tools made it possible to determine the number, speed, altitude and bearing of Japanese strike air groups at a great distance. Accordingly, American fighters occupied advantageous positions for an attack, and the outfit of forces was strengthened by replenishing the air patrol with additional aircraft.
        3. +1
          31 January 2022 15: 54
          In a horizontal battle, Reisen will do any modification to any Lightning. The Americans were successful only thanks to well-placed early warning and high-quality radio communications, with the help of which they imposed a vertical battle on the Japanese, in which the Reisens turned out to be losers.

          By the way, the second American ace died something like this: in 1945 he decided to twist turns on the Lightning against Hayabusa. Hayabusa returned home, the American did not
      3. Alf
        +7
        29 January 2022 21: 13
        Quote: ElTuristo
        Due to unimportant aerodynamics, the I-16 accelerated poorly, starting from a speed of 300-350 km / h.

        With the M-62 and M-63 engines, Ishak accelerated faster than the ME-109E.
      4. +2
        31 January 2022 15: 49
        I-16 is an aircraft of the first half of the thirties with a large diameter air vent, h.p. extremely high parasitic resistance. Compare Ishak with the R-35 Seversky or Buffalo (which, by the way, are younger and all-metal) and tell us about the acceleration characteristics
        1. Alf
          0
          31 January 2022 19: 23
          Quote: Ol Willy
          Compare Ishak with R-35 Seversky or Buffalo

          And what do you mean by that? Prove that Hawk or Buffalo were faster.
          1. 0
            1 February 2022 07: 44
            They weren't, that's the point.
          2. 0
            1 February 2022 08: 19
            Donkey is a typical representative of the first generation monoplane fighter, which is often characterized by a peculiar layout aka puzatik: in most cases already low-wing, but with a short fuselage, small relative dimensions, using an air-cooled engine, etc. In the USA, it is the ancestor of the R-26, Buffalo, Wildcat, R-35 and Lancer types; in Japan Ki-27 and A5M; in France MS 406/410; Dutch Fokker DXXI; Fiat G50 and Re2000, and so on. In fact, this is a transitional generation from biplanes to monoplanes, since it largely repeats the layout of the biplanes of the previous generation of fighters - the naval biplanes Grumman, Hawk III, Fiat CR42, I-15 and I-153 and so on. Only the appearance of such eroplanes as the Bf109, Hurricane and Spitfire gave rise to the second generation of monoplanes and their further development, but - by the beginning of the thirties it was still far away - the future Spitfire and Hurricane had extremely grotesque forms, and future German eroplanes were only in projects when their dads Bf108 and He70 flew.

            Of the characteristic problems of the Ishachka, there was only its mixed design (so much wood was archaic already in the 1930s), and the balancing finally went only on later modifications, the early Ishachki were much more pleasant to drive. It is not Polikarpov's fault that the USSR could not mass-produce all-metal fighters
      5. 0
        7 February 2022 13: 22
        Quote: ElTuristo
        Stop lying and praising the "brilliant" product of the blockhead Polikarpov. If he dived to 500 km/h, then this is a negligible speed for such a maneuver. Due to unimportant aerodynamics, the I-16 accelerated poorly, starting at a speed of 300-350 km/h. / hour, why did it have to collapse at a dive speed of 550 km / hour? And yes, any WWII fighter was destroyed during a dive, including the Mustang and Me-500 and Airpocobra.

        Sir, if you consider Polikarpov an idiot, then you are a narrow-minded person. The main problem of our aviation is the difficulty with engines. Put a Messer or Spitfire engine on the donkey and see what happens. 11 thousand aircraft produced on the Eastern Front is a lost war, which happened to Japan
    3. +5
      29 January 2022 15: 09
      Raizen is a samurai sword in the world of fighters
      Fast easy uncompromising. Good way to die. So he left quickly. Pilots somehow quickly ended.
      My favorite fighter vv2.
    4. +9
      29 January 2022 18: 04
      Quote: Old electrician
      The I-16 could dive painlessly at maximum engine speed, accelerating more than 500 km/h. However, during a dive, the Reisen tore off the super-lightweight skin.

      What a bad example. The Me-109 in a dive accelerated to 950 km / h, if I'm not mistaken. The I-16 had a fabric tail covering and could not even show this close. However, he outnumbered everyone on the horizontal. As the Germans sadly wrote, this "rat" always had time to turn around and open fire.
      1. +10
        29 January 2022 20: 53
        The Me-109 in a dive accelerated to 950 km / h, if I'm not mistaken.

        You are wrong. Local supersonic zones on such a subsonic profile as the Me-109 drag the car into a dive, the latter for both the aircraft and the pilot. More than 650-700 km / h on a dive will not work, unless, of course, you need to take the plane out of it later.
        1. 0
          30 January 2022 21: 01
          Quote: Aviator_
          More than 650-700 km / h on a dive will not work

          I believe that you are mistaken, and strongly. Me-109G horizontal speed - 650 km / h. The racing version showed 750 km / h. Well, in a dive:
          1. +2
            30 January 2022 21: 39
            I deal with profiles quite professionally, so "memoirs of German and English pilots" are not a decree for me. Local supersonic zones, especially on a relatively thick elliptical wing, will lead to a dive.
            1. 0
              31 January 2022 21: 41
              Quote: Aviator_
              "memoirs of German and English pilots" is not a decree for me. Local supersonic zones, especially on a relatively thick elliptical wing, will lead to a dive.

              Are you too categorical? The maximum speed of 700-750 km / h is indicated in the performance characteristics of a considerable number of WWII aircraft from various countries and manufacturers .. In your opinion, they all lied to a single ??

              And straight wing jets, from Me-262 to A-10 Thunderbolt II, have a maximum speed of 850 km / h, which, according to you, is completely impossible ..

              I suspect you are wrong.
              1. 0
                31 January 2022 22: 05
                There is a concept of a thin wing and a thick one. There is a straight (elliptical, trapezoidal) and swept. On a thin one, you can reach 750 km / h, but no more. The Me-262 was swept. And about the straight thin one - there was an F-104, which went for M = 2 on a very thin trapezoidal one. True, it had disgusting takeoff and landing characteristics, for which it received the name "flying coffin". In any case, there was no 950 km / h on a dive (if it was not the last one).
                1. 0
                  1 February 2022 00: 07
                  Quote: Aviator_
                  The Me-262 was swept.

                  The wing of the Me-163 was swept - 26 degrees and even that is not enough. The Me-262 has only 15 degrees, this is insignificant in terms of the effect on the M number.

                  The problems you indicated with dragging into a dive became dangerous at speeds of about 850-900, the number 906 indicated as a test result for the Me-109 is similar to the truth. It is unlikely that the Messer was well controlled at the same time, but the chances of getting out of the dive were high.
            2. 0
              7 February 2022 16: 09
              Quote: Aviator_
              Local supersonic zones, especially on a relatively thick elliptical wing, will lead to a dive.

              Oh. On the Me-262, because of this, a bunch of pilots turned their necks.
          2. +1
            31 January 2022 05: 00
            About Messer's speed of 906 km/h.
            The speed of sound (it depends on the air temperature) is approximately 331 m/s or 1191,6 km/h. The ratio of the speed of an aircraft to the speed of sound is called the M number. At speeds above about 750 km/h (0,6 M), local shocks begin to occur. This is especially true for aircraft of the Second World War with a straight wing. Due to local shocks, the plane begins to shake, the propeller and wings become a brake, and drag increases sharply. It's called the sound barrier. Therefore, it is extremely problematic to disperse a propeller-driven aircraft in a dive, even at least up to 800 km / h.
            Why did Messer allegedly “fly” at a speed of 906 km/h?
            On all planes, without exception, there is such a thing called the "Air Pressure Receiver" (APD). In flight, speed is measured by the airspeed indicator as the difference between the oncoming airflow and the static air pressure at that altitude. When local shocks occur, the HPH begins to lie with terrible force - the pressure in it no longer corresponds to the flight speed. Therefore, supersonic aircraft have PVDs of a different design, and at such speeds they use not a speed indicator, but an M number indicator. It works according to a different calculation formula, not the same as that of a speed indicator. Taking into account the fact that Messer's speed indicator lied with godless force, only Allah knows his real speed in those experiments. There was either no indication of the number M on Messer, or for advertising purposes they kept silent about his testimony. Because 906 km / h is cool.
            Your advertising slogan in favor of Messer is well known, and has also been exposed for a long time. By the way, the Americans, on the same principle, almost overcame the speed of sound on a screw fighter and outdid the Germans.
            1. 0
              1 February 2022 08: 26
              Yes, I did not even think about the correctness of measuring the speed of these "records" in a dive. Respect! Get used to the fact that everything is measured as it should.
    5. +1
      31 January 2022 15: 44
      Reisens falling apart in flight are from American agitprop. Reisen's problem was that at speeds above ~400 km/h, the effectiveness of the ailerons fell, as a result of which the aircraft lost a lot of maneuverability. Wildcat did not have such a problem, which was used by American pilots
    6. -2
      11 March 2022 17: 07
      Reisen was completely better than the i-16, this is an aircraft of a different generation and for completely different purposes. Compare the comparable - for example, i-16 and he-51 or the Japanese fighter of that period A4N. it’s hard for me to understand why the USSR delayed so much with the change of generations of aircraft, but in fact the zero should be compared with the lagg, yak-1 and mig-1 (3), and not i-16.
      As for the advantages of zero, I will only say one thing. it had similar maneuverability to the i-16, but it did not sacrifice stability, as well as about 40 other advantages that simply related to the operation of the next generation of machines. One start of the engine is worth something.
  2. +22
    29 January 2022 05: 23
    already read ... you can, after all, Oleg, when you want ... plus.
    1. +5
      29 January 2022 11: 31
      Quote: Aerodrome
      already read ... you can, after all, Oleg, when you want ... plus.

      I agree, great article by the author.
  3. +20
    29 January 2022 05: 59
    Well, here it must be said that Zero proved himself in a very short period of time under very specific conditions.
    1. The Japanese were underestimated in principle and at first put up against them the second grade of the Air Force.
    2. Japanese pilots were at first much more experienced than their opponents, who also often fought on outdated equipment. But the same Wildcat in the hands of an experienced pilot successfully resisted them.
    3. In their victorious battles, the Zeros usually had both a numerical and tactical advantage.
    But as soon as new machines like the Hellcat went to the front, and in superior numbers, and many well-trained American pilots appeared, while the Japanese aces were knocked out and there was no change for them - Zero's time was over.
    1. +12
      29 January 2022 06: 58
      I fully agree with you on all points. Nothing to add. good

      1. +14
        29 January 2022 08: 47
        Zero in the role of anti-ship ammunition - was an off-design way to use a fighter, in no way related to its design features, strengths or weaknesses. This task was filled with everything that could rise into the air

        The Yankees in their articles and monographs deliberately focus on the "Zero" in the role of kamikaze, because they do not want to remember how air battles took place in 1942. And what were the real advantages of this destroyer
      2. +7
        29 January 2022 12: 32
        Zero could defeat any aircraft in a dog dump at the end of the war. But the Americans simply did not get involved in battles on turns. And having a clear advantage in horizontal speed, dive speed and rate of climb, they dictated their terms.
        I saw archival footage of the Mariana turkey hunt. Hellcats simply fall from above on the enemy, pouring fire on him, dive out of the battle, gain height again and repeat the maneuver. What remains for the poor Japanese? Just dodge...
        1. +9
          29 January 2022 14: 11
          "What remains for the poor Japanese?"
          I don’t rank the Japanese among the poor, given their atrocities against everyone who fell into their power in that war, they will be worse than the Nazis, those animals are still ... they are dear to them ..
        2. +3
          29 January 2022 16: 17
          Quote: Sahalinets
          Zero could defeat any aircraft in a dog dump at the end of the war. But the Americans simply did not get involved in battles on turns. And having a clear advantage in horizontal speed, dive speed and rate of climb, they dictated their terms.
          I saw archival footage of the Mariana turkey hunt. Hellcats simply fall from above on the enemy, pouring fire on him, dive out of the battle, gain height again and repeat the maneuver. What remains for the poor Japanese? Just dodge...

          Comparing zero and hellcat is like a Zhiguli and a Ferrari. In addition to patriotism with eyes and ears closed, there is not a single indicator by which this comparison is even possible
    2. -3
      29 January 2022 11: 40
      In order to ensure numerical superiority, it was necessary to ensure technical readiness, the appropriate range for operations in remote theater operations, ease of piloting, including for take-off and landing operations, and so on. But who filled up the quantity is the Americans. As for the qualitative superiority of the Americans over Zero, that is, there is reason to doubt it. The Americans are very good at advertising, which is confirmed by the promoted Corsair, which was brought to real combat readiness for 6 years :).
    3. +3
      29 January 2022 18: 12
      Quote: Sahalinets
      The Japanese were underestimated in principle and at first put up against them the second grade of the Air Force.

      Come on! And what was considered the first grade among the Yankees at that time? Wildcat trash, the fact that he is at least somehow moving in the hands of an experienced pilot speaks in favor of the pilot, but not the aircraft.

      Helkat, at best, only equalized the technical level of the machines. The aforementioned Corsair did not become the main aircraft until the end of the war. And after that it was considered very dangerous to work from aircraft carriers.

      The Americans benefited from the quality of mass pilot training. The Japanese lost all their aces near Midway and did not have time to make up for the losses. The Americans, slowly but stubbornly, trained thousands of good pilots of easily outperforming Japanese "newbies" even on Helkats.
      1. 0
        29 January 2022 21: 56
        What's wrong with a Wildcat that served until the end of the war?
        1. 0
          30 January 2022 21: 14
          Quote: Maxim G
          What's wrong with a Wildcat that served until the end of the war?

          So what's so good about it? Weight 3600 kg, one ton more than Zero, speed 513 is also less than Zero (530-560). He held the bullet better, but he could not argue with the Japanese neither in speed nor in maneuver.
          1. 0
            31 January 2022 04: 10
            Horizontal no, vertical yes. And most importantly, the heavier Hellcat and Birkat divorced from it.
    4. -2
      11 March 2022 17: 17
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Japanese pilots were at first much more experienced than their opponents, who also often fought on outdated vehicles.

      P-40, P-42, Hurricanes, etc. - Most of the machines were built at the same time as the Zero.
      Pilots - yes, the best ones rarely served on the periphery, but even the worst had a solid touch, i.e. far from newbies.
      Quote: Sahalinets
      the same wildcat

      no, if you look at the picture of the battles. He didn't make it.
      Quote: Sahalinets
      . In their victorious battles, the Zeros usually had both a numerical and tactical advantage.

      Sakai says that the enemy usually had the advantage in numbers, often by several times, but they often had an advantage in height, using the machine's unique lightness and flight time.
      Quote: Sahalinets
      The Japanese were underestimated in principle and at first put up against them the second grade of the Air Force
      in 39-40, when the zeros were already at war, the allies had nothing better. Pathetic units of spitfires and experimental vehicles in the USA - that's all.

      you just have to understand that the Japanese were able to make the car surprisingly on time with the performance characteristics they needed, that was the main advantage.
  4. +12
    29 January 2022 06: 05
    The initial rejection of any means of increasing survivability was the result of the same Japanese schizophrenia.

    Yes, this is not schizophrenia, but simply "nowhere to go." With a lobasty motor of only 900 horses, you won’t swing much. And a small load on the wing is not from a good life, but from a simple one - this is deck aircraft.
    1. +11
      29 January 2022 08: 30
      Yes, this is not schizophrenia, but simply "nowhere to go"

      The Zero's lightweight design is the result of a new alloy and wing-to-fuselage integration that saves hundreds of kilograms of weight.

      The rest of the fuss was of little use, redundant and controversial decisions. As practice has shown, the appearance of protective equipment had almost no effect on maneuverability. Too small % of aircraft takeoff weight
      With a lobasty motor of only 900 horses

      "Sakae" was a modest star, dry weight 600 kg, hundreds of kg lighter than other air vents (ASh-82, BMW-801 - more than a ton). The tabular diameter of Sakae was slightly smaller, but due to the relatively small displacement, Sakae was less demanding on cooling the second row of cylinders (+ the Japanese had studied this moment and brought it to perfection). As a result, the "lobed" Zero received a narrower hood and a smaller transverse size of the fuselage, in comparison with other fighters with "stars"

      ps / even early Sakae had more than 900 power
      And a small load on the wing is not from a good life, but from a simple one - this is a carrier-based aircraft.

      Come on
      There is his opponent Wildcat, the wing is almost the same area (24 sq. M), the takeoff weight is greater per ton

      In the era of piston aviation, landing speeds were low enough that this could somehow prevent landing on a ship. In fact, any of the WWII fighters could be landed on the deck if such a task was set (SeaHurricane or seared Spitfire (Seafire) as an example)
      1. -8
        29 January 2022 10: 16
        Sakae was less demanding on the cooling of the second row of cylinders (+ the Japanese have carefully studied this moment and brought it to perfection)

        To all supporters of the technological excellence of Zero - I always cite the Yak-3 as an example.
        They had an engine of almost the same power (1200hp for the Yak-3 and for the A6M5 Zero). Only the Yak-3 had a top speed of 640 km/h, and the A6M5 only 570 km/h. It is the engine that sets the maximum capabilities of the aircraft, the Japanese relied on the maximum flight range, and ours on speed.
        1. +14
          29 January 2022 10: 23
          Zero, first flight - 1939
          Yak-3, - 1943
          the Japanese made a bet on the maximum flight range

          For all qualities at once

          For 1939-40, the speed qualities of the Zero were worthy
          1. +3
            29 January 2022 11: 53
            Quote: Santa Fe
            For 1939-40, the speed qualities of the Zero were worthy

            According to Saburo Sakai:
            In terms of its flight qualities, the P-36 Curtiss was significantly inferior to our fighters. The Zeros were faster, outperformed them in maneuverability, armament, and were faster in turn and rate of climb. But the Zero's design did not allow it to dive at high speed, and my hastily opened fire allowed the P-36 to get 200 yards off. I couldn't get close to him.
        2. +5
          29 January 2022 11: 38
          Quote: lucul
          the Japanese relied on the maximum flight range, and ours on speed.

          The range and time spent in the air is the main thing for Japan's naval aviation in the Pacific theater of operations. According to Saburo Sakai, he could stay in the air for up to 11 hours (not every pilot could fly that much).
          1. +1
            31 January 2022 16: 02
            In 1942 Reisen flew from Rabaul to Guadalcanal and back. Few could repeat something like that at the time.
        3. +2
          29 January 2022 22: 42
          They had almost the same engine power (1200hp for the Yak-3 and for the A6M5 Zero). Only the Yak-3 had a maximum speed of 640 km/h, and the A6M5 only 570 km/h.

          The air resistance of air and liquid-cooled motors is different, the Yak-3 with an air vent of such power would hardly have had a speed greater than Zero.
          And this is very easy to see on the example of La-5 and LaGG-3, where the second one was obtained by remotorizing the first one.
          La-5: empty weight 2800, takeoff weight 3200, engine power 1700, speed 580.
          LaGG-3 arr. 1943: empty weight 2480, takeoff weight 2990, engine power 1100, speed 590.

      2. +14
        29 January 2022 10: 17
        and integration of the wing with the fuselage,

        Again, not from a good life, but "nowhere to go." Any damage to the wing console (very common damage) - and throw the whole plane out. (Well, you can unscrew the tail section of the fuselage - there are only 80 bolts laughing , maybe it will fit where) The one-piece wing was even reproached by ours. So at least we threw out the wing, but the fuselage with the engine remained.
        What, Willie couldn't lighten his "Messer" like that? Might not go for it. But the console changed easily, even without adaptations and props. And the dry weight of the glider is no more than a "Japanese".
        The designer justifies one thing - the military parameters were set without options. And there are 3 engines to choose from, but in reality there is only one. And so it turned out to be "on the verge of a foul" without any margin for modernization. And for the time when a couple of years, and the car is outdated, this is a death sentence for the design. One day butterfly. Won back 2 years, would be replaced, but there is nothing. And they continued to squeeze the impossible out of the "dead cat".
        1. +4
          29 January 2022 11: 46
          Quote: dauria
          Again, not from a good life, but "nowhere to go." Any damage to the wing console (very common damage) - and throw the whole plane out



          In shipboard conditions, such a fighter is very maintainable.
          Aluminum alloys of piece parts are soldered with patches made of aluminum, steel, copper - in a ship's electric furnace, in a protective atmosphere. Available and electric welding in an inert atmosphere.
          Damaged parts of the skin are removed by drilling out the rivets and replaced with those cut from the sheet. It is possible in some cases to glue aluminum alloy.
          Moreover, the load on the wing is low and the patches will almost certainly not be torn off.
      3. +1
        29 January 2022 16: 21
        The opinion that the superiority of zero over the Americans is a myth has almost as many supporters as opponents. There are practically no successes of zero in the hands of "land" pilots. So the skill of the pilots of the aircraft carrier aviation at the beginning of the war made this aircraft (without modern means of protection) legendary
        1. +4
          29 January 2022 18: 18
          Quote: Niko
          There are practically no successes of zero in the hands of "land" pilots.

          Uh .. Is it okay that Zero was supplied only to naval aviation? Where did you manage to find the "land" pilots of Zero? laughing
          1. -1
            29 January 2022 22: 32
            My comment was not absolutely accurate, but correct and understandable. I compared carrier-based aircraft and "non-carrier-based" aircraft. Calling it "land" may not be entirely correct, but if there is no desire to find fault with the details, everyone familiar with the subject of discussion is absolutely understandable, familiar, and justified idea., and not invented by me. As I wrote: the success of Japan's aircraft carrier aviation, and ONLY against the US NON-AIR-CARRIED, there is no reason to attribute these "successes" to the advantage of technology
      4. -2
        11 March 2022 17: 40
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The rest of the fuss

        well, don’t tell me what it costs only special optimization for flights at cruising speed to increase the range. Zero has a lot of quite useful "fuss"
  5. +8
    29 January 2022 06: 45
    Good, balanced article. "Zero" is the aircraft about which you can write multi-volume monographs, considering various modifications and memoirs of the pilots who fought on it. Oleg was able to briefly mention the main milestones of creation.
  6. +1
    29 January 2022 07: 54
    Great article. Respect to the author. 11 thousand, a very impressive figure. To fight, at least on an equal footing, having similar characteristics, the car could also fight Helkets and Corsairs. The reason for the defeat is the small human resource of Japan. Lack of trained pilots. And of course in the strategic aviation of the impudent Saxons. A war of attrition, with enormous losses, but won. And the USSR helped. With the Kwantung gang, the Americans would have been fooling around for another year.
    1. +9
      29 January 2022 08: 59
      I doubt very much that the Americans would have been confused by the Kwantung Army. Cut off from the metropolis and let them die of hunger.
      1. +2
        29 January 2022 09: 03
        Maybe you are right. It was rather our "headache".
      2. +10
        29 January 2022 12: 40
        Quote: Shlepa
        Cut off from the metropolis and let them die of hunger.
        Yeah, from hunger, in China ... If anyone died of hunger, then the Chinese, but not the Kwantung army.
        1. +2
          29 January 2022 22: 55
          No, let's not take everything literally. Fuel, ammunition, spare parts, lubricants. Cut off supply lines like Truk and Rabaul and let them sit idle.
      3. +3
        30 January 2022 12: 00
        Yes, they would have thrown a vigorous loaf at her and that’s it, capitulation
  7. +18
    29 January 2022 08: 05
    Dear, glad to see everyone again. I read the comments, everyone's opinion is interesting
    1. +2
      29 January 2022 11: 40
      Quote: Santa Fe
      Dear, glad to see everyone again. I read the comments, everyone's opinion is interesting

      We are also happy, write more.
    2. +3
      29 January 2022 12: 44
      Quote: Santa Fe
      interested in everyone's opinion
      Interesting and artistic. More technical details, mentions of important events in which Zero participated (Pearl Harbor, Midway), a comparative plate with the characteristics of Zero and his main opponents for 41 and 44 years would also not hurt. But this is so, nitpicking already.
    3. +1
      29 January 2022 18: 25
      Thanks Oleg! article as a whole turned out. Write more! good
    4. +2
      30 January 2022 12: 02
      deepest respect! and you can also talk about ship armor, an interesting topic
  8. +7
    29 January 2022 08: 22
    I thought again the article was from our great reprinter, but no. Photos are signed, so 100% not Roma wrote. I liked reading it ... If you wish, you can find spots in the sun. Well, a lot of different things have been written about Zero, well, another well-written article with its own, and not rewritten with errors and blunders, opinion. I like it.

  9. +2
    29 January 2022 08: 52
    The wildcat has a positive loss balance against zero. Although the zero is generally better.
    The material from which was made zero-aluminum alloyed with zinc, magnesium and copper. Since the middle of the war, the Americans have been producing an analogue -7075. The Soviet post-war counterpart is v95. Much stronger than duralumin.
    1. 0
      31 January 2022 16: 04
      It's a matter of tactics, by the time of the head-on collision between Reisen and Wildket, the Americans managed to develop effective counter-tactics
  10. +5
    29 January 2022 09: 00
    Good article.
    The engine was developed on the basis of the Gnome-Ron 14K, while the diameter was reduced from 1306mm to 1144mm, i.e. the frontal area was almost comparable to the frontal area of ​​a liquid-cooled engine with a radiator. For comparison, our M-88 with the same power had a diameter of 1306 mm and M-63 (at the donkey) - 1370 mm.
    1. -1
      29 January 2022 11: 50
      Curious information. Whoever did not use the GR 14 star as a sample and in finished form - France, Germany and in the form of a license - the USSR, Italy, Japan - apparently there was a really outstanding design. It is not clear why the Germans used the potential of the French so little in the aviation field - and D.520 and Bloch-155 were, in general, worthy machines that were mass-produced.
      1. +2
        29 January 2022 12: 11
        Quote: ElTuristo
        Who only star GR 14 did not use

        One of the first two-row stars was, of course, used, but in the case of the Japanese, this is most likely the "stove" from which they began to dance further. Even if they simply reduced the piston stroke, then this is a completely different motor (like the M-82). In any case, bringing it to such compact dimensions is a very great achievement of that time. For example, our M-56 (MGM) Urmina, with close dimensions (diameter 1130mm), was inferior in power (850hp nom / 1000 hp up) and was never brought to mind in the period 1936-1940
        1. -1
          29 January 2022 12: 54
          Maybe from the stove. Only the piston stroke is not the only sign of the technical and structural relationship of the structures - there may be a lot in common - cylinder fins, ignition, bearing design, lubrication system and much more.
        2. -7
          29 January 2022 13: 02
          And what did Urmin develop in general? In my opinion, another "designer" is an adventurer like Sylvansky, Taubin, Kalinin.
          1. +2
            29 January 2022 13: 21
            Just everything else changes - and fins and bearings and ignition and boost, from modification to modification. even the crankcase and crankshaft can be reinforced or lightened.
            Quote: ElTuristo
            And what did Urmin develop in general?

            Urmin Evgeny Vasilievich (1900-1981) - Soviet designer of aircraft engines. Member of the Civil War (military commissar in Kronstadt). He graduated from the Air Force Academy of the Red Army named after Professor N. E. Zhukovsky (1928; now VVIA). In 1930-40 he worked at TsIAM, in 1940-46 he was the chief designer at aircraft engine plants in Zaporozhye (where he developed the M-89, M-90) and Moscow (here, modifications of the M-11 increased power were created). In the subsequent period, again at CIAM and teaching. He was awarded the Orders of Lenin, the Red Banner, 2 Orders of the Red Star, medals.
            1. -6
              29 January 2022 13: 26
              In engineering, there is no such term as led - this is from the newspeak of modern "efficient" blockheads. In order to be a leader like Klimov or Shvetsov, you need to create something. M-88 and M-89 are licensed Gnome-Ron. The M-90, like other developments, was never mass-produced, and therefore Urmina cannot be attributed to the leading ones.
              1. +3
                29 January 2022 13: 31
                Klimov led the Hispano-Suiza direction, Shvetsov - Wright-Cyclone. Of the purely Soviet developments, only Mikulin M-34 was introduced into a large series (low-powered M-11 type and small-scale M-15, M-26 and diesel types, I just don't mention)
                1. -14
                  29 January 2022 13: 38
                  Klimov did not lead any directions. He led the work on the development of the basic design of the IS and his team coped with the task successfully. It’s not even worth talking about the M-82, you can say that all star-shaped engines came from the first rotary GN. Are you a fan of Solonin or yourself in person? There was a hint of anti-Sovietism and an old moth-eaten lampserdak.
  11. +3
    29 January 2022 09: 42
    I believe that the Spitfire V in 1942 was better than the zero, and the victories of 1941-1942 were won to a greater extent by the excellent training of the pilots of the Japanese Navy
    1. +9
      29 January 2022 09: 49
      It is better. But this didn’t help the British over Darwin in 1943, although they had additional advantages in the form of battles over their airfields, plus the Yaps were tied down by bomber escort and they had to fly 700 miles from Timor. And then pull back.
      The result was a resounding defeat for the Britons. Although they had exactly fives and veterans of the African campaign were sitting in the cockpits.
      Zero kryptonite for spitfire. Everything that sleeps does perfectly, zero does excellently.
      Yes, sleep has a chance - to start doing what sleep does badly - dive and maneuver at maximum speed. Zero makes it even worse. But before that, you need to think about it. The British apparently did not bother to instruct their pilots in this regard.
      1. -2
        29 January 2022 10: 06
        Zero kryptonite for spitfire. Everything that sleeps does perfectly, zero does excellently.

        The Spitfire was better than the Zero. Having first collided with each other in the sky, the Spitfire pilots expectedly tried to outwit the enemy, after they failed (Zero had a lower specific wing load), the Spitfire pilots began to work on the passes (boom-zoom), and Zero immediately began lose fights.
        But the Japanese were right about one thing - they were the first to massively use super-light alloys (and insanely expensive ones) in airplanes.
        1. +2
          29 January 2022 10: 12
          The Spitfire was better than the Zero.

          What did I write?
          It is better.

          Naturally, if we are talking only about air battles. Only Zero is also a deck carrier and has a huge flight range, which allows him to be used as an escort fighter. And it is also more reliable in operation (the vent against liquid cooling is asleep in the tropics), its guns do not fail when the condensate freezes at high altitude, and it easily takes off and lands from any airfields due to the normal chassis gauge.
          For the first time colliding with each other in the sky,

          1943 Is this the first time?
          The British were generally losing the air war in Southeast Asia sometime before the second half of 1943.
          Threat From memory, the fracture coincided with the appearance of the eighth sleep on the theater of operations .. Here there was simply nothing to oppose Zero.
          1. -3
            29 January 2022 10: 28
            And it is also more reliable in operation, its guns do not fail when the condensate freezes at high altitude, and it easily takes off and lands from any airfields due to the normal chassis gauge.

            These are all nuances.
            The potential of Mitchell's design turned out to be such that he easily survived the entire war, improving from the Spifire Mk.1 to the Spitfire Mk.22. Only the Mustang was able to compete with him in the potential of the design.
            And Zero, Zero was no longer controlled when it reached 500 km / h, and had a roll rate at the level of a bomber.
            The British were generally losing the air war in Southeast Asia sometime before the second half of 1943.

            Well, the training of a Japanese pilot - as much as 7 years, this probably means something)))
            1. +4
              29 January 2022 10: 39
              These are all nuances.

              The nuances are like in that obscene anecdote with Vasily Ivanovich and Petka. Angles in the role of Petka throughout the first half of the war.
              The potential of the design laid down by Mitchell

              Sleeping is Merlin. Mitchell was lucky to have a Rolls-Royce in Britain. Spit's full potential is Merlin from episode 60. Everything.
              Horikoshi was unlucky and there was no Pratt Whitney in Japan
              Zero's potential was left undiscovered for reasons beyond Horikoshi's control. Zero's heir was supposed to be Sam, who never got a start in life due to strategically unfavorable conditions in the second half of the war.
              1. -5
                29 January 2022 10: 45
                Zero's potential was left undiscovered for reasons beyond Horikoshi's control.

                Hmm ....
                We look at the Yak-3 and A6M5 Zero, both of them had an engine with a capacity of 1200 hp, only the Yak-3 accelerated to 640 km / h, and the A6M5 only to 570 km / h. So what is the potential of Zero not revealed if the designer himself designed it at a speed of no more than 600 km / h? )))
                1. +6
                  29 January 2022 10: 58
                  We're watching.
                  Zero is primarily a deck aircraft with a reinforced structure compared to army aircraft, a landing hook and a wing folding mechanism. And he is fundamentally important low stall speed.
                  Carrier-based aircraft, by definition, are weaker than land-based counterparts. A competitive decker is a marker of an outstanding aircraft. There are only two of them in the entire war - Zero and Corsair
                  On the A6M5, the efficiency of the ailerons at high speeds has been increased. Sam was designed for even greater speeds.
                  A selective comparison amused. You can also compare with La-5 and see that Zero with M-82FN had a chance to be at least as good. Subject to sharpening on a land theater, it would most likely be better.
                  1. -3
                    29 January 2022 11: 08
                    A selective comparison amused.

                    Hmm ...
                    Well, here's an A6M5 engine power of 1150 hp, a maximum speed of 565 km / h. Experimental A6M8 with increased engine power up to 1350hp, maximum speed - 570km/h. That is, the extra 200hp gave an increase in speed of only 5km / h. So what is the potential of Zero and could not be revealed, if, for example, for the Yak, an increase in engine power of 200 hp could increase the maximum speed from 560 km / h to 640 km / h? )))
                    1. +4
                      29 January 2022 11: 37
                      Yeah, with comparable power, the fluid engine potentially gives noticeably better aerodynamics.
                      Let's fill the Zero with half a tank to equalize the amount of fuel, throw out the hook and the folding mechanism (on the A6M5). Everything will be somewhat different.
                      And it was not possible to bring the water-methanol system to Zero. This is again about the importance of the motor and the untapped potential.
                      This is not to mention the fact that the Yak-9 did not show such agility. And La-5 was superior precisely due to the power of the engine.
                      Everything revolves around the tabular 640 km from the Yak-3.
                      If we compare it with it, then a certain spherical vacuum Zero with DB 601 adapted for land use.
                      Of course, the Yak-3 is generally better. But he has nothing to do in the Pacific Ocean.
                      1. -2
                        29 January 2022 12: 45
                        Let's fill the Zero with half a tank to equalize the amount of fuel, throw out the hook and the folding mechanism (on the A6M5). Everything will be somewhat different.

                        You do not understand the essence - in all cases, Zero is lighter than Yak)))
                        The weight of the empty A6M5 is 1894kg, the weight of the empty Yak-3 is 2123kg.
                        Yeah, with comparable power, the fluid engine potentially gives noticeably better aerodynamics.

                        Potentially yes, but in fact
                        LAGG-3-34 with an M-105PF engine (water-cooled) with a power of 1210 hp developed a maximum speed of 560 km / h. And the first La5, with an M-82 engine (air-cooled) and a power of 1330 hp, developed a maximum speed already at 580 km / h.
                      2. +1
                        29 January 2022 15: 47
                        The case with LaG just shows the benefit of the liquid. A non-optimal aircraft immediately demonstrates decent horizontal speed.
                        Especially for lovers of maximum tabular speeds.
                        Spitfire 5 speed 605 km on Merlin 55 with 1585 hp
                        Seafire 3 with the same engine 578 km. Here it is the price of deck-based
                        Zero mod A6M5 with its 560 km obtained on a star lesser power looks good
                      3. 0
                        29 January 2022 16: 06
                        Especially for lovers of maximum tabular speeds.

                        Well ....
                        Zero's low speed is precisely because of the "big" wings. It is the wing that creates the greatest aerodynamic drag in an aircraft. A large wing is necessary for long range flight (like a glider) and low landing speed.
                        To achieve the highest speed of the aircraft, the wing only interferes.)))
                        And all aircraft designers are trying to find a balance here.
                      4. +2
                        29 January 2022 16: 14
                        I remind you once again that the zero deck
                        It is simply impossible to reduce the wing area to 15 m2 as on the Yak-3. Yapi was reduced, but radical steps were ordered to them. 21.5 m2 on the A6m5 looks like a necessary compromise.
                        The person continues to cite a land plane with a liquid-cooled engine as an example) It is clear that he is in a different concept
                      5. +7
                        29 January 2022 14: 05
                        Yeah, with comparable power, the fluid engine potentially gives noticeably better aerodynamics.

                        Everyone was waiting for it to sound. And then somehow it is incorrect to compare a lobed star with a v-shaped liquid, operating only with comparable power hi
                2. AUL
                  +2
                  29 January 2022 12: 58
                  Quote: lucul
                  We look at the Yak-3 and A6M5 Zero, both of them had an engine with a capacity of 1200 km / h

                  What a strange power they have! laughing
                  1. +1
                    29 January 2022 13: 04
                    What a strange power they have!

                    I fixed it right away - do you still have it displayed like that? )))
                    1. AUL
                      +2
                      29 January 2022 13: 06
                      I went to the store, but the post was open! hi
                3. 0
                  31 January 2022 16: 09
                  Umm, the Nippon bosses demanded more agility at the expense of speed. That is why the Japanese started a war with Reisen, Hayabusa and the remaining Ki-27s, and units like Hayate or Raiden came much later
            2. +1
              29 January 2022 12: 02
              Quote: lucul
              Well, the training of a Japanese pilot - already 7 years, it probably means something

              All this was until 1942, and then, like everywhere else, "takeoff-landing-battle", those who survived became fighters.
            3. 0
              29 January 2022 16: 46
              Are there any statistics on which flight a Japanese fighter pilot died? 7 years of training for a pilot of that time is somehow a bit too much for a future big war. It seems that war forces us to win not due to individual training - not jousting tournaments - but due to proven technical solutions, tactics of using equipment and people. And training people before the battle is the minimum necessary. In battles, whoever can will learn.
          2. 0
            29 January 2022 11: 14
            Quote: Engineer
            1943 Is this the first time?
            The British were generally losing the air war in Southeast Asia sometime before the second half of 1943.

            And who was their main enemy in the air - the fleet or the army?
            1. +1
              29 January 2022 11: 19
              The army, of course, met sporadically with naval aviation, otherwise it would most likely be even sadder.
          3. 0
            29 January 2022 12: 09
            Quote: Engineer
            it is more reliable in operation (the vent against liquid cooling is asleep in the tropics), its guns do not fail when condensate freezes at high altitude
            How is that? Where does the condensation in Spitfire guns come from? On the Zero, the guns also stood in the wing, and how did the star-shaped engine prevent freezing, it is not clear where the condensate came from?
            1. +2
              29 January 2022 12: 13
              Read more carefully, please. I have not written anywhere that the best reliability of Zero guns is related to the engine.
              It's just that during the fighting on Darwin, the failure of the guns at the sleepers was a very typical thing. Zero had no such problems or were minimal. Apparently the matter is in the design of the guns themselves. The old "British Hispanic" problems and all that.
              PS
              it is not clear where the condensate came from

              From the subequatorial heat and humidity, climb 5-6 km in five or six minutes. Will there be condensation and will it freeze?
              1. -2
                29 January 2022 12: 54
                Quote: Engineer
                Read more carefully, please. I have not written anywhere that the best reliability of Zero guns is related to the engine.

                I carefully read your nonsense.
                And it is also more reliable in operation (the vent against liquid cooling is asleep in the tropics), its guns do not fail when the condensate freezes at high altitude
                Is that what you wrote? The unreliability of the Hispano-Suiza guns that were installed on the Spitfire was pointed out for a very long time, especially with improper care. Condensation is not only in the tropics, when you raise your plane in the summer heat either in the sands of the Sahara, or in the bend of the Don there, that condensate does not work? Oh, yes, not in such quantities, in the tropics, then in liters ... And moreover, only on Spitfires ...
                1. +3
                  29 January 2022 13: 06
                  You have some kind of inadequate reaction)
                  Condensation formed and was a problem. In the equatorial climate, this problem is likely to be exacerbated, because the humidity is higher. Sleep had problems with that. This has been documented in the literature. And specifically in the battles for Darwin. There were no zeros or they were to a lesser extent. Because in the literature about Zero, I don’t remember mentioning this as a problem. That's all.
                  Therefore, I concluded that Zero weapons are more reliable.
                  Threat Did you realize that I didn’t write about the connection between the type of engine and the reliability of guns?)
                  ZZY It's funny that at first you have condensation
                  it is not clear where the condensate came from?

                  And then there is a change of shoes, it turns out that it always forms
                  .
                  Condensation is not only in the tropics, when you raise your plane in the summer heat either in the sands of the Sahara, or in the bend of the Don there, that condensate does not work?
                  1. -1
                    29 January 2022 17: 02
                    Quote: Engineer
                    And then there is a change of shoes, it turns out that it always forms

                    Condensation forms everywhere, even with a small temperature difference. Every student knows this. And at the expense of changing shoes ... You first delve into what you write, and then try to shine with knowledge here. Well, or a change. I have a quite adequate reaction to pearls like
                    Quote: Engineer
                    In the equatorial climate, this problem is likely to be exacerbated, because the humidity is higher. Sleep had problems with that. This has been documented in the literature.

                    If you read it so it turns out that the sleep had problems with high humidity, by the way, the literature says that in a humid climate, due to improper maintenance of aircraft guns, weapon failures in flight very often occurred. And it's not just your frozen condensate. Condensation forms primarily on external surfaces, but internal and strangely moving (rubbing) parts that were lubricated with a lubricant not intended for work in such conditions ... And this lubricant often lost its properties at a height with a sharp increase, and corresponding to a sharp drop in temperature. After the service was brought back to normal, a lubricant was delivered that did not lose its properties in a wider temperature range (from - to +), everything returned to normal. But I won't load you, let's keep up the good work
                    Quote: Engineer
                    And it is also more reliable in operation (the vent against liquid cooling is asleep in the tropics), its guns do not fail when the condensate freezes at high altitude ....
                    8 points... good
                    1. +1
                      29 January 2022 17: 34
                      Condensation forms where the temperature drops below the dew point. Every student knows this.
                      Therefore, it is also formed inside the wing of a WWII aircraft.
                      Humidity directly affects the amount of condensate.
                      The site http://darwinspitfires.com/ is currently unavailable, so I cannot double-check the reason for the failure of the British guns over Darwin.
                      Peter Ingman writes that cannon-powered Spitfires were eventually fitted with engine-gas heated cannons, which should solve the problem of both lubrication and condensate. But the cannon heating tubes of the Australian sleepers over Darwin were aluminum and therefore cracked from vibrations, and some aircraft did not have such a system at all.
                      As for Zero, Ingman said 'no nigggling technical issues' about him (it is clear that we are talking about the 43rd). I'm not going to balk and insist on a condensate version, especially since I wrote from memory. Always ready to admit a mistake. But the best reliability of the Zero weapons is indicated in the literature.
                      In all your messages, there is zero useful information, why then such pathos?)
        2. +1
          29 January 2022 11: 53
          Why are you writing about something that you have no idea about? What is the high cost in alloying elements? There was no high cost in the production of alloys.
      2. +4
        29 January 2022 11: 01
        Quote: Engineer
        But this didn’t help the British over Darwin in 1943, although they had additional advantages in the form of battles over their airfields, plus the Yaps were tied down by bomber escort and they had to fly 700 miles from Timor.

        So the Australians are evil Pinocchio to themselves - it's spring of 1943, the performance characteristics of the "Zero" have long been known, and they are on the "fives" climbing into close air combat with him. smile
        1. 0
          29 January 2022 11: 07
          The thought was that even on Sleep 5 without special tactics against Zero you are dead.
          It's not even Australians, but the British in general. They are a bit tight with learning in war conditions.
          1. +2
            29 January 2022 14: 54
            Quote: Engineer
            The thought was that even on Sleep 5 without special tactics against Zero you are dead.

            Even with special tactics, it was bad to fight on the Spits against the Zeros: given the fact that the Spits had to take a train over Japanese bombers and escorts and intercept them over the sea, even with boom-zoom after 10 minutes battle had to monitor the remaining fuel.
            The situation was complicated by the fact that the Australian "Spits" did not have PTB.
            Quote: Engineer
            It's not even Australians, but the British in general. They are a bit tight with learning in war conditions.

            It was not a matter of learning, but of changing the theater of operations. The Spit pilots got all the experience over North Africa and Europe, and there the main tactics of the IA was dogfight. So the old experience not only did not help, but interfered with the pilots.
            1. +2
              29 January 2022 15: 33
              Even with special tactics, it was bad to fight on the Spits against the Zeros: given the fact that the Spits had to take a train over Japanese bombers and escorts and intercept them over the sea, even with boom-zoom after 10 minutes battle had to monitor the remaining fuel.

              And who is arguing? Again we come to the fact that Zero is kryptonite for sleeping. And how weapons failed, how sleepers fell into the sea due to lack of fuel, how damaged planes fought during landings. And the zeros spent 2.5 hours in the air, kicked the enemy’s ass while being connected by escort tasks and flew back 2.5 hours with minimal incidents and accidents.
              It was not a matter of learning, but of changing the theater of operations.

              It is in learning. The units were transferred to the new theater. Scouts and command should immediately distribute a memo with the performance characteristics of the enemy and methods of fighting. Instead, the Australians only began to move when they captured a couple of zeros and experienced a culture-militaristic shock in training battles.
            2. Alf
              0
              29 January 2022 21: 29
              Quote: Alexey RA
              The situation was complicated by the fact that the Australian "Spits" did not have PTB.

              How is it known?
              1. +1
                30 January 2022 00: 01
                Quote: Alf
                How is it known?

                On the ww2aircraft.net forum, in the topic "Spitfires over Darwin", they wrote that the constant shortage of spare parts and consumables was the scourge of the Australian Spitfires. And the absence of the PTB played a significant role in the failure of the battle on May 2. At the same time, they referred to the book "Darwin Spitfires, the real battle for Australia".
                In the same book it was written that when repulsing the raid on July 6, only a few "Spits" carried PTBs.
                In "Spitfire VC vs A6M2 / 3 Zero-sen: Darwin 1943", this sortie was even more categorical: an approaching group of enemy aircraft was detected at 10:37, and a few minutes later 33 Spit took off (again without PTB - replacement of spent tanks has not yet arrived).
                The incoming raid was detected at 1037 hrs, and minutes later 33 Spitfires were airborne (albeit again without belly tanks – replacement stock had still not still arrived).
                1. Alf
                  0
                  30 January 2022 22: 09
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Quote: Alf
                  How is it known?

                  On the ww2aircraft.net forum, in the topic "Spitfires over Darwin", they wrote that the constant shortage of spare parts and consumables was the scourge of the Australian Spitfires. And the absence of the PTB played a significant role in the failure of the battle on May 2. At the same time, they referred to the book "Darwin Spitfires, the real battle for Australia".
                  In the same book it was written that when repulsing the raid on July 6, only a few "Spits" carried PTBs.
                  In "Spitfire VC vs A6M2 / 3 Zero-sen: Darwin 1943", this sortie was even more categorical: an approaching group of enemy aircraft was detected at 10:37, and a few minutes later 33 Spit took off (again without PTB - replacement of spent tanks has not yet arrived).
                  The incoming raid was detected at 1037 hrs, and minutes later 33 Spitfires were airborne (albeit again without belly tanks – replacement stock had still not still arrived).

                  Thanks, didn't know. I thought you mean that Spitov-5 did not have a PTB constructively.
  12. +3
    29 January 2022 11: 01
    The article, of course, is a plus. Previously, I did not read / did not focus on the technological features of Zero. Interesting. Probably, yes, Zero is an example of Japanese production culture. Such a version of a superweapon. He played his role, unlike, say, Yamato, aircraft-carrying submarines, kamikaze, biological weapons. On the other hand, Japan had no chance in confronting the United States - there was too much difference in scientific, technical, production potential, material and human resources. And Yamamoto considered the war with the United States futile. So Zero was defeated. Although, probably, it's too late for the most type of highly developed country in the world.
  13. +2
    29 January 2022 11: 04
    WW2 was fought not horizontally, but vertically. A fighter that was destroyed from one bullet is the death of a pilot, especially over the sea. Planes can still be riveted, but pilots. It was the pilots who captured the sky in 1941-1942, but when they were knocked out, the Japanese miracle disappeared.
    1. 0
      29 January 2022 11: 24
      WW2 was fought not horizontally, but vertically

      And this is the correct answer. The time of biplanes has passed - and Zero was based on the concept of a biplane.)))
  14. +1
    29 January 2022 12: 04
    Zero was indeed a very good aircraft, but it was not the most perfect. The case when the aircraft is outstanding and those who believe that its reputation is a convenient explanation for the success of the Japanese are partly right. At the beginning of the war, Zero simply had no serious opponents, with the exception of USAAF fighters (despite all their "low altitude" and short range). American carrier-based aircraft also fought in Europe, without gaining much success. Spitfire is a ridiculous, very mediocre fighter with an artificially created reputation (ask yourself where in general, in which theater it was successful). And it turns out that in 1941-1943 the most serious enemy of the Zero was the P-39 and P-40
    1. +5
      29 January 2022 12: 17
      The most serious was the plain Wildcat. He is Zero by and large and broke according to the results of 1942. More precisely, he ground the best of the best from Kidō Butai
      For example, the R-39 in the 42nd year was on the TO of the theater in homeopathic quantities - on the same Guadalcanal one incomplete squadron
      1. +2
        29 January 2022 12: 27
        Yes, there were few P-39s, which is why I am writing that there were no worthy opponents. Wildcat - on request yes
        1. +1
          29 January 2022 21: 11
          P-39 - a worthy opponent of Zero? This largely depended on the skill of the pilots and tactics of use. I hope you read it? - https://airpages.ru/us/p39_3.shtml
          1. +1
            29 January 2022 23: 26
            Zero had better opponents than the P-39 and P-40 at that time. The P-39 was not suitable for the Pacific Ocean due to its short range, but where it was used (mainly New Guinea, Solomon Islands), it was used quite successfully. The wildcats claimed more. But how to check the real number of those shot down at the same Midway, when aircraft carriers were lost. That is, most of the lost "Zero" could "shoot down" the SBD, drowning their ships. Yes, there are official Japanese. reports on Midway, there are somehow, probably, the losses are divided by reasons, but how true is this? (applies to all subsequent battles of aircraft carriers) Skill and tactics, of course, are important.
    2. Alf
      +1
      29 January 2022 21: 30
      Quote: Force Multiplier
      American carrier-based aircraft also fought in Europe, without gaining much success.

      So they did not encounter an air enemy in Europe.
      1. +1
        29 January 2022 23: 02
        Because they were prudently preferred to be used in Norway and against the garrisons of the islands in the Aegean Sea. There were exceptions, in fact, in Europe / the Atlantic there were applications of Wildcats and Hellcats (both USN and British), but in general these aircraft proved to be mediocre
        1. Alf
          0
          29 January 2022 23: 08
          Quote: Force Multiplier
          Because they were prudently preferred to be used in Norway and against the garrisons of the islands in the Aegean Sea. There were exceptions, in fact, in Europe / the Atlantic there were applications of Wildcats and Hellcats (both USN and British), but in general these aircraft proved to be mediocre

          You have an interesting rating system - the plane did not encounter the enemy, so it showed itself mediocre. request But the Wild Cats coped with the bombers quite successfully.
          1. +1
            29 January 2022 23: 41
            The question is why didn't he come across? How did you manage? And it turns out upon closer examination that they kept them in the second line away from sin. Where did they sometimes shoot down single reconnaissance and torpedo bombers (they also have other victims, but very few for such a massive aircraft) If possible, an example of a successful wildcat bomber raid interception in Europe?
            1. Alf
              0
              30 January 2022 22: 12
              Quote: Force Multiplier
              If possible, an example of a successful Wildcat bomber raid interception in Europe?

              https://airpages.ru/us/f4fbp.shtml
              1. 0
                31 January 2022 00: 31
                There is no such example. Because it didn't exist at all. I mentioned scouts and torpedo bombers. Moreover, in the text there is a mistake on a mistake. Pedestal - 884 Sqn flew Fulmars, not Wildcats. Claimed 11.11.1942/84/XNUMX SMXNUMX is a Hudson shot down by mistake
    3. Alf
      +2
      29 January 2022 21: 33
      Quote: Force Multiplier
      Spitfire is a ridiculous, very mediocre fighter with an artificially created reputation (ask yourself where in general, in which theater of operations it was successful)

      Western Europe. Before the advent of the FV-190, the Spit-2,5 fought quite successfully with the Me-109. After the appearance, the position was corrected by the Nine.
      1. 0
        29 January 2022 22: 32
        Western Europe.
        And in the USSR, the used "Spitas" did not show themselves.
        And served in air defense units.
        They are sent to different battle heights.
        Like in the West they fought from 5 km and above. There "Spits" felt good.
        And in the East, the fighting took place at an altitude of up to 4 km. And "Spits" were equal among others.
        1. Alf
          +1
          29 January 2022 22: 38
          Quote: hohol95
          And in the USSR, the used "Spitas" did not show themselves.

          Especially if you remember that Spit-5 was delivered to the USSR in the spring of 43, when it was already outdated, and the enemy improved qualitatively - Me-109G and FV-190.
          1. +2
            29 January 2022 23: 10
            In 1941, the "Spits" were needed by the British themselves.
            And the Bolsheviks were sent "Kharitonov".
            And the "Zero" was also let down by weapons.
            2 guns, but with a low rate of fire. 2 machine guns, but again not very fast-firing.
            They were late with the re-equipment with 13,2 mm machine guns. Yes, and those were in Japanese "original"!
            1. Alf
              +1
              29 January 2022 23: 18
              Quote: hohol95
              And the Bolsheviks were sent "Kharitonov".

              As they say, For a good man and Hurricane is not a pity.
              1. +1
                29 January 2022 23: 45
                It’s good that the Defiants didn’t offer ...
                1. Alf
                  +1
                  30 January 2022 22: 13
                  Quote: hohol95
                  It’s good that the Defiants didn’t offer ...

                  They didn’t have time, the Messers let them go to non-ferrous metals before ... laughing
      2. +2
        29 January 2022 23: 13
        With 109 E with difficulty, due to numerical superiority. With 109 F and 190 they didn’t pull at all, even IX. It can be seen from the ratio of applications and real losses. The Germans began to suffer more or less tangible losses only after the appearance of the Americans. Paradoxically, the B-17 turned out to be a more serious adversary for them than the Spitfire IX
        1. Alf
          0
          29 January 2022 23: 21
          Quote: Force Multiplier
          Paradoxically, the B-17 turned out to be a more serious adversary for them than the Spitfire IX

          Compare a strategist bomber with a fighter ... well, there are not even words.
          Quote: Force Multiplier
          190 did not pull at all,

          The wave was pulled, the 190 surpassed the Nine in roll speed and dive speed.
          1. +2
            29 January 2022 23: 47
            Look at the loss statistics. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true. The "Fighter" was so useless that even the bomber was a more dangerous opponent for the 190.
            You quoted me inaccurately, I write that IX did not draw against 109 or against 190.
            1. Alf
              0
              30 January 2022 22: 16
              Quote: Force Multiplier
              You quoted me inaccurately, I write that IX did not draw against 109 or against 190.

              Quoted correctly. The Mk-9 pulled well against both 109s and 190s, although the Fokkers were a tougher nut to crack for them due to their high dive speed, higher rate of climb in the initial climb and higher roll rate.
              1. 0
                31 January 2022 01: 21
                These are all general arguments from "books about airplanes". Let's see the real results. 17.08.1942/4/159. Rouen. 985 Spitfire claims - three lost (BS634, BR120, BR190) and one seriously damaged (BS24.08.1942). German losses - one FW 4. 2/2/122. The claims of the Germans are 136 + 198 probable (contrary to what is written in the literature, the Germans had claims for probable and damaged ones). Losses 202 Spitfires shot down (BS3, BS1) two landed on their own territory (BS4, BS16.09.1942). The Germans have no losses (the British declared 9-170-26.09.1942). 15.10.1942/285/02.11.42. A battle where only 622s took part against German fighters. One (BS113) is lost, the Germans have no losses. We will skip the epic case of the loss of an entire squadron of nines on September 601, 190, we only compare the results of the battles. 04.12.1942/450/132 Spitfire (BS536) was lost, the Germans had no losses. 277. Lost two (BR317, BSXNUMX) heavily damaged one (BRXNUMX). The Germans lost one FW XNUMX. XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX - five nines were lost (BSXNUMX, BSXNUMX, BSXNUMX, BSXNUMX, BSXNUMX). The Germans had one FW crashed during landing, we will assume that as a result of combat damage.
                The results are clear. I missed several battles (Dieppe, for example) where it is difficult to say who shot down whom and many different types of aircraft participated, but even there the balance of losses is always in favor of the Germans. It’s just that the British don’t have their own Corned beef and Timin, who seem to come out from different poles, but blow on the same tune. But they have a ministry of truth, replicating fairy tales about the magnificent nine
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. -1
      2 February 2022 17: 27
      There was another little-known airplane - http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/cw21.html
      ... Here it is appropriate to quote the words of Eric Schilling - the above-mentioned pilot from the Flying Tigers air group: "I flew the CW-21, an aircraft developed by Curtiss-Wright in 1938; his weight was 3150 pounds (1429 kg). The aircraft outperformed the Zero by 10 mph in speed, 2500 fpm in rate of climb, 100 fpm in peak, and the turn radius was also smaller than the Zero's. Why didn't the military buy it? It's just kind of stupid.
  15. +3
    29 January 2022 12: 09
    Thanks to the author for the article.
    Let me summarize.
    Historical knowledge should teach future generations to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors.
    So here is Zero-an example of how the American and British racists underestimated the mental and moral qualities of the Asians, as well as their willingness to fight for resources through armed struggle, even in the face of an obvious inequality of forces.
    For this, Great Britain and America washed themselves with blood in full.
    And what lessons can Russia draw from all this?
    But some opponents cannot be underestimated, and these are mainly the PRC and Turkey.
    And what do we see? - these countries are pumped up with military and nuclear technologies, as well as raw materials and access to our market, in the interests of enriching a narrow circle of people and damaging the national security of the Russian Federation.
    1. +1
      29 January 2022 22: 45
      Quote: ElTuristo
      Thanks to the author for the article.
      Let me summarize.
      Historical knowledge should teach future generations to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors.
      So here is Zero-an example of how the American and British racists underestimated the mental and moral qualities of the Asians, as well as their willingness to fight for resources through armed struggle, even in the face of an obvious inequality of forces.
      For this, Great Britain and America washed themselves with blood in full.
      And what lessons can Russia draw from all this?
      But some opponents cannot be underestimated, and these are mainly the PRC and Turkey.
      And what do we see? - these countries are pumped up with military and nuclear technologies, as well as raw materials and access to our market, in the interests of enriching a narrow circle of people and damaging the national security of the Russian Federation.

      exactly!!!! nothing to add!!!
  16. +4
    29 January 2022 13: 04
    One of the mysteries and features of the Reisen is the position of the horizontal stabilizer.
    To be honest, I did not understand what the "mystery" of this provision is. There is no canonical position of the elevator relative to the rudder.

    Then the Gloster F.5 / 34 is even more mysterious.

    By the way, this photo is not the "original" A6M3 Zero, but a modern replica, which has only a factory nameplate from the original.
    1. +5
      29 January 2022 13: 23
      There is no canonical position of the elevator relative to the rudder

      All fighters of that time - the stabilizer and elevator are in the tail of the aircraft, as far as the design allows

      Just like in your photo of Gloucester. Another example is when the position of the Yak's elevator limits the rudder.


      Zero is the only fighter where the elevator position was not limited by anything, but it was installed well ahead of the vertical stabilizer

      I came across a version that this is the know-how of the Japanese, who were the first to pay attention to the effect of shading the elevator. And not ashamed to spend time studying this problem, suggesting a way to eliminate it. For even more agility
      1. +3
        29 January 2022 13: 42
        All fighters of that time - the stabilizer and elevator are in the tail of the aircraft, as far as the design allows

        You're wrong. The shoulder of the horizontal and vertical tail is not determined at all by the "as far as the design allows" parameter. And the shading of the vertical tail can be reduced by placing the horizontal tail either behind or in front of the vertical. Or you can ignore it altogether. Each of these options has its own advantages and disadvantages, in which there is nothing mysterious.
        1. +1
          29 January 2022 14: 04
          Shading of the horizontal tail wing

          Further. Of all the examples of serial WWII fighters
          Zero is the only one where the creators deliberately went to reduce the leverage of GO. For the purpose... I have seen a version with wing shading and an attempt to solve this problem that worried the Japanese
          1. +3
            29 January 2022 14: 50
            Shading by the wing of the horizontal tail...
            Zero is the only one where the creators deliberately went to reduce the leverage of GO. With the aim of…

            AND? For what purpose? First about Rudders and Elevators. The shading of the Vertical Tail with the Horizontal Tail worsens the recovery of the aircraft from a tailspin, and with rear center of gravity, it can generally make it impossible (P-39). The shading of the Horizontal by the Vertical Plumage, in the Aerodynamics of subsonic aircraft, is not taken into account, due to its insignificance.
            Now about shading by the GO wing. A decrease in the GO shoulder leads to an INCREASE in losses for balancing the aircraft. The greater, the greater the flight speed and the smaller the shoulder. Accordingly, the smaller the shoulder, the less useful engine power can be used, for example, to increase speed. In addition, no matter how the GO is located relative to the wing, it still works in the bevel of the flow behind the wing.
            But the point, again, is not this, but that it is not necessary to produce myths and at least not to support the existing ones.
            One author of "Zero" has a super plane, another one sucks. Those. complete disregard for diamat, and the author's preference is visible to the naked eye. Alas.
            1. +1
              29 January 2022 23: 40
              GO shoulder reduction

              What we see in the example of the Japanese Zero - can be called a deliberate reduction in the leverage of GO?
              the smaller the lever, the less useful engine power can be used

              That is, a decrease in the GO shoulder worsens the characteristics
              the point, again, is not this, but the fact that it is not necessary to produce myths and at least not support the existing ones.

              Zero has an unusual moment with the location of the GO. Its creators wanted to solve some important problem, at the cost of increasing balancing losses.

              Maybe you know the answer? Or you can only speak in general terms that give a scientific sound but do not reveal the essence of the issue

              It is not necessary to attribute myth-making to the author. He deliberately used the most streamlined language in the article and did not jump to conclusions. Zero stands out from all the unusual location of civil defense, the question is why
              1. +1
                30 January 2022 04: 33
                Zero has an unusual moment with the location of the GO. Its creators wanted to solve some important problem, at the cost of increasing balancing losses.

                Maybe you know the answer?

                It is absolutely incomprehensible to me how, fighting for every kilogram of weight, moreover, in a radically impractical way of integrating the center section with the fuselage (at least you say so), the designers deliberately went to increase the balancing losses, and therefore to incomplete use, and so not a very powerful motor. I don’t see any logic here and, accordingly, the answer too.
          2. +4
            29 January 2022 19: 20
            I read somewhere that this position of the stabilizer was found empirically to improve directional stability when firing from wing cannons. For the same reason, the stabilizer was moved forward on the Ki-84. Like Japanese school...
    2. The comment was deleted.
  17. +6
    29 January 2022 16: 08
    Everyone laughs at stupid Stalin, who did not believe his intelligence agents. Why doesn't anyone laugh at stupid Roosevelt, who didn't trust his spies? TTX "zero", assistant to the naval attache in Tokyo, "cap three" Stephen Jericho, copied from the tablet, at some cultural event. Then, his information was confirmed in China. But, Stalin - and Roosevelt is smart)))
    1. 0
      31 January 2022 16: 15
      It's not just about planes, it's about pilots. Until December 1941, reports came only about Japanese army pilots from China, and not the most positive ones. And in December 1941, sea fliers from Kido Butai entered the business and away we go ...

      Reisens in China fought a little ...
      1. 0
        31 January 2022 18: 28
        Naval aviation also had fun in China "be healthy." Both base and carrier-based air groups.
  18. +1
    29 January 2022 17: 12
    Oleg decided to repeat himself. Gunpowder in the buttocks, ugh in the powder flasks, is it over?
  19. +4
    29 January 2022 22: 17
    in my opinion, a couch pilot: zero, like katana, is promoted by yaps and amers who need to justify their losses. what did other armies take from zero and katana?
    i16 is an epoch, albeit a previous me109. if I'm not mistaken, his descendants are mig3 and la5, an analogue of i185. our motors were not enough and there was no aluminum of our own, it seems.
    katana is not a checker, did any army take anything from a katana?
    Polikarpov is not like that to them ... did they themselves develop something like this nearby?
    1. +2
      29 January 2022 23: 54
      zero like katana

      Speaking honestly,

      That katana is just a symbol. The expansion of Japanese culture and a large number of surviving examples gave the katana wide popularity. As a weapon, this sword is questionable. What examples of fights with Europeans demonstrated, in which katanas were shown not in the best way

      It turned out that the katanas were completely unable to cope with the Toledo armor, while the Spanish rapiers easily pierced the joints in the Japanese armor.

      The Zero fighter, on the other hand, was significantly superior to Western-style fighters.
      1. 0
        30 January 2022 09: 06
        I wonder if there were fights between zero and i16? maybe in china? or zero did not go there?
        1. +2
          30 January 2022 10: 39
          In China, the I-16 type 10 first met the Zero in the fall of 1940, they got it hard - https://airpages.ru/ru/i16_10.shtml, http://army.lv/ru/i-16/primenenie /507/260 . They were considered obsolete and by the fall of 1942 they were replaced with exotics such as P-43A and P-66.
          1. Alf
            +1
            30 January 2022 22: 21
            Quote: Oleg812spb
            In China, the I-16 type 10 first met the Zero in the fall of 1940, they got it hard - https://airpages.ru/ru/i16_10.shtml, http://army.lv/ru/i-16/primenenie /507/260 . They were considered obsolete and by the fall of 1942 they were replaced with exotics such as P-43A and P-66.

            True, only if you do not recall the frankly low level of training of Chinese pilots. And if you remember the battle path of the Vanguards, in which none of the six who flew out returned, and only one, maximum two, out of 8. Yes, and Lancers were not particularly noted in China.
            1. -1
              2 February 2022 16: 40
              Therefore, I called these aircraft exotic, which the Americans, having already built pilot batches, used only as experimental and training ones. And at an opportunity, they sold this "non-standard" to the Chinese as combat ones, because they themselves needed real combat aircraft and the capacities for their production.
      2. Alf
        0
        30 January 2022 22: 17
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The Zero fighter, on the other hand, was significantly superior to Western-style fighters.

        What generation?
  20. 0
    30 January 2022 08: 32
    No one held the fighter while taxiing by the tail (like the legends of the Spitfire)

    Yak also had the disease
  21. 0
    30 January 2022 16: 11
    so yes, on a dive, any WWII fighter was destroyed, including the Mustang and the Me-109 and the Airpocobra.

    The Mustan (due to excellent aerodynamics) was one of the aircraft that could catch up with the Fw-190 in a dive. And the Fokker accelerated to almost 1000 km / h at its peak.
  22. 0
    30 January 2022 16: 19
    All fighters of that time - the stabilizer and elevator are in the tail of the aircraft, as far as the design allows

    The arrangement of aerodynamic surfaces and controls is not a tribute to fashion, canons or the desire of anyone. All this is the result of calculations and blowing models in a wind tunnel.
  23. +1
    30 January 2022 16: 54
    There are practically no successes of zero in the hands of "land" pilots.

    Given the practically open enmity between the Imperial Army and the Navy in those years in Japan, in principle, the Nolik could not fall into the hands of army pilots. Even cannon armament (advancing with a terrible creak) was put on army fighters fundamentally different, despite copies of Oerlikons that had proven themselves well on the Zero.
    1. Alf
      +1
      30 January 2022 22: 26
      Quote: andrey-ivanov
      Given the practically open enmity between the Imperial Army and the Navy in those years in Japan, in principle, the Nolik could not fall into the hands of army pilots.

      good
      The Navy developed submachine guns, the army developed submarines ... Insanity.
    2. 0
      31 January 2022 16: 16
      Hayabusa was called "Army Zero", eroplanes are very similar in appearance ...
  24. 0
    30 January 2022 17: 28
    The wind gets stronger. Hayako Miyazaki. about the Creator of Zero, and about Zero.
  25. 0
    5 February 2022 20: 21
    Oleg as always! An excellent syllable and controversial conclusions. Super article.
  26. 0
    7 February 2022 16: 10
    Quote: Aviator_
    In any case, there was no 950 km / h on a dive (if it was not the last one).

    EMNIP, on the Me-262 there was a ban on exceeding the speed of 900 km / h, just because of the stall in a dive.