Hellooo.. A6M2 and A6M3 on Main Page.

[Ack-Ack]

Do you have the weight schedule at hand for both of these fighters? If the answer in no, then I'd be pretty hesitant in making claims about what weight consists of. Take-off weight is a much better indicator what the plane weighs operationally. Does the empty weight include armament for example? Different companies/countries had different policies on wheather or not certain items were listed in the empty weight.


Lost from wing tips? A6M5 didn't gain any wing tips at any stage. Do you realize that A6M5 actually has the same wing span of 11 meters as the A6M3? The slightly smaller wing area of the A6M5 (compared to A6M3) comes from the rounded wing tips.

Didn't the A6M5b Type 52b have the same wings at the A6M3 Model 22?

ack-ack

[Wmaker]

Didn't the A6M5b Type 52b have the same wings at the A6M3 Model 22?

Nope.

[Ack-Ack]

Nope.

Which wings did it have?  Thought the Model 52 had the same wings that were used on the Model 22 which were taken from the A6M2 Model 21, except the wings were a little thicker (to allow for higher diving speeds) and the wing tips were non-folding?  Or am I getting consfused by the "non-folding" part when it may actually mean that the folding wing tips were removed like on the Model 32 but instead of being squared off, were rounded?

ack-ack

[Wmaker]

Which wings did it have?  Thought the Model 52 had the same wings that were used on the Model 22 which were taken from the A6M2 Model 21, except the wings were a little thicker (to allow for higher diving speeds) and the wing tips were non-folding?

It had it's own wings. The wings themselves weren't any thicker...that actually wouldn't be good for diving speeds. They were made out of thicker gauge sheet metal to handle the stress loadings better. This is nothing special in it sself same thing happened to many aircraft like the 109s for example.

Or am I getting consfused by the "non-folding" part when it may actually mean that the folding wing tips were removed like on the Model 32 but instead of being squared off, were rounded?

This is basically what happened. The airfoil stayed the same and the aspect ratio remained the same. Basically the same basic wing structure with thicker skin panels and rounded off non-folding wingtips. The difference is clearly seen in AH where A6M2 has the same span as the Modell 22 had. The A6M5's wings look clearly 'stubbier', it almost gives the optical illusion that the aspect ratio has changed while it really isn't.

[321BAR]

Which wings did it have?  Thought the Model 52 had the same wings that were used on the Model 22 which were taken from the A6M2 Model 21, except the wings were a little thicker (to allow for higher diving speeds) and the wing tips were non-folding?  Or am I getting consfused by the "non-folding" part when it may actually mean that the folding wing tips were removed like on the Model 32 but instead of being squared off, were rounded?

ack-ack

52 means wing change/model number 5 and engine change/model number 2. it was the fifth A6M wing design and had the A6M3's engine with very few modifications enginewise once the A6M5s were introduced. over the A6M3 the 5 had moved stuff around inside to make more room for fuel, add another 20 rounds per Type 99 cannon, etc. Overall the 5 and 3 are somewhat similar in design, different in performance (due to the better design of the 5). Simple in explanation

[Ack-Ack]

This is basically what happened. The airfoil stayed the same and the aspect ratio remained the same. Basically the same basic wing structure with thicker skin panels and rounded off non-folding wingtips. The difference is clearly seen in AH where A6M2 has the same span as the Modell 22 had. The A6M5's wings look clearly 'stubbier', it almost gives the optical illusion that the aspect ratio has changed while it really isn't.

Thanks for clearing it up.

ack-ack

[Krusty]

WMaker, you're mis-reading what I typed, I think. Regardless, you don't need weight loadout breakdowns to know that the major change with the Model 32 was the new engine and its mounting frame, which necessitated removing/downsizing one of the fuel tanks. This means a lot less internal fuel. It was a major problem with pilots and it cost the Japanese a lot of planes until they added more tankage to make up for it on the Model 22.

Which means the dry weights are the better to compare. When you compare the P-47N with the P-47M you might come to the conclusion that the P-47M is massively superior in every way. Well, that is only true when both craft are loaded to the max. You load the plane with more gas out to a similar setting and the gigantic gap between the 2 planes becomes a much smaller one.

On paper the P-47N climbs worse than the D40. In reality as long as you're not taking 100% internal fuel the N will outclimb the D40.

So you can't compare the Model 52 max weight to the Model 32 max weight with such different gas tankage. They were much closer than you give them credit for.

AckAck: The clipped wings were originally to save on production time. The end result was faster roll rate, something the Zero lacked. Pilots liked this. When they did the Model 52 they kept that shorter span but redesigned it to be rounded. In the end the 52 has shorter wings than the 21, although at a glance follows the same shape.

[Wmaker]

WMaker, you're mis-reading what I typed, I think. Regardless, you don't need weight loadout breakdowns to know...

A6M3 had 100 litres less internal fuel capacity than A6M5. 100 liters of fuel weighs ~160lbs.

[Krusty]

A6M3 had 100 litres less internal fuel capacity than A6M5. 100 liters of fuel weighs ~160lbs.

Hrm... Good point. However, max loaded weight would also account for more ammo, heavier caliber ammo... That's an interesting point to ponder. I'm going to do a little web searching to see if I can find a weight breakdown like I've seen on some other planes. Don't know if I'll find it or not, but worth a shot.

[Krusty]

Interestingly enough, I was about to give up hope when I ran across a weight chart for the A6M3 on ww2aircraft.net forums.

Only problem is.... er... well... I don't read Kangi (or whatever the term is for Japanese writing).

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/schematics/extremely-detailed-zero-schematics-13714-8.html#post775276

I've saved it for myself, but unless we have any fluent speakers....? then I'm out of ideas. It was the only source I could find online that (supposedly -- remember I can't read it) breaks down the weights by items.