Mitsubishi Zero - selected as The 6 Most Lethal Aircraft in History

[Astroboy]

US technology specialized magazine - Popular Mechanics - announced
The 6 Most Lethal Aircraft in History
With the help of some aviation experts and warplane veterans, PM took a look back over the history of single-engine planes, fighters, bombers and attack helicopters. We picked six of the most lethal fliers of the past 100 years, based on their dominance during the years they flew.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4290914.html

No. 1: Fokker Eindecker
No. 2: A6M ZERO
No. 3: B-29 Superfortress
No. 4: 4. AC-130 Spectre/Spooky
No. 5: 5. A-10 Thunderbolt II
No. 6: 6. AH-64 Apache




I like the concept of ZERO - "Japanese manufacturers sacrificed everything—speed, self-sealing gas tanks and armor—to make the most maneuverable aircraft they possibly could." - Sounds like a hungry wolf.

 

[Mike Cash]

I like the concept of ZERO - "Japanese manufacturers sacrificed everythingﾂ―speed, self-sealing gas tanks and armorﾂ―to make the most maneuverable aircraft they possibly could." - Sounds like a hungry wolf.

Yeah, well the fact that you'll not be asked to go up in one and get your *** stomped by F6F Hellcats with self-sealing tanks, pilot armor, and superior firepower affords you the luxury of indulging in that bit of romantic fantasy.

The simple fact is that the Zero was largely obsolete by the middle of the war.

 

[JerseyBoy]

Any suicide bombers can be lethal..... It's really sad those Japanese men went for the doomed suicide missions with the zero airplanes. If I were one of them, I would be defected at a heart beat to the allied forces. I thought the Zero was like a tin can Toyota's in 60's in USA.

 

[Mike Cash]

You do realize that the Zero was a front-line fighter with a world class reputation prior to it being pressed into kamikaze service in the desperate closing period of the war? And that it was not the only aircraft used for that purpose?

One of the problems Japan had is that the Zero was such a stellar performer in actions prior to the U.S. entering the war and in the early days against U.S. fighters of pre-war design. They sort of bought into their own hype and rested on their laurels instead of vigorously developing improved aircraft. By the time it became obvious that the Zero was obsolete Japanese industry was so hard-pressed just to keep up with all military demand of all types that there wasn't much left over for R&D. Remember, the Zero was developed in an era when Japan was gaining actual combat experience with their aircraft and as such it benefited from lessons learned. It was also developed in an era when Japanese military might was expanding, the industrial sector could keep up with it, and there was sufficient breathing room and materials available to dedicate to improved aircraft development. The result was the Zero, which was a tip-top fighter for its time. That its time ended right in the middle of a shooting war and without the people in charge noticing it until it was too late is hardly the aircraft's fault, though. After all, the whole prosecution of the war was ill-advised to begin with and was in general going to hell in a hand basket by that time.

 

[Astroboy]

I think .... "Zero" concept is still alive in Mitsubishi...

Model Weight Engine Km/L Price

GM Hummer H3(M/T) 2.18mt 3,653cc 7.0Km JPY4,960 mil

Mitsubishi Pajero GR 2.09mt 2.972L 8.6Km JPY3,045 mil

Mitsubishi Pajero GR
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/pajero/grade/index.html

GM HUMMER H3(M/T)
Hummer Japan

 

[Taiko666]

US technology specialized magazine - Popular Mechanics - announced
The 6 Most Lethal Aircraft in History
With the help of some aviation experts and warplane veterans, PM took a look back over the history of single-engine planes, fighters, bombers and attack helicopters. We picked six of the most lethal fliers of the past 100 years, based on their dominance during the years they flew.

Surely this criterion is flawed. For example, the Spitfire and ME109f were both wonderful planes, but roughly similar in performace; so neither 'dominated' during the Battle of Britain. The Zero, while obviously an excellent machine, was up against obsolete opposition at the beginning of the Pacific War, before becoming the victim of the 'Marianas Turkey Shoot' when it too had become obsolete.

PS: There's a superb English ale (=real beer) called Spitfire, available even in Japan. One of its slogan reads "Spitfire. No Fokker Comes Close."

Check here for more wonderfully politically incorrect advertising of theirs. I'm sure I'll take some flak for posting this

 

[Astroboy]

Spitfire was excellent fighter aircraft, indeed. Unfortunately we didn't see it in the pacific during that times. Worse is that we cannot see Spirit of "Spitfire" today as the manufacturer - Supermarine - had gone long time ago.
Supermarine - Wikipedia

Although a bit offtopic, Hummer Brand is still at GM?
GM discusses sale of Hummer brand ....
BBC NEWS | Business | GM discusses sale of Hummer brand

 

[Mike Cash]

Spitfire was excellent fighter aircraft, indeed. Unfortunately we didn't see it in the pacific during that times.

If you're going to discuss history, it would help if you actually learned a little about it first.

Pacific Spitfires
List of Supermarine Spitfire Operators (See: Australia, New Zealand)

 

[Astroboy]

If you're going to discuss history, it would help if you actually learned a little about it first.
Pacific Spitfires
List of Supermarine Spitfire Operators (See: Australia, New Zealand)

Thank you very much for this. I am learning everyday!

 

[Matthew Ota]

Actually, in the earlier stages of the American involvement in the Pacific War, the Zero was superior to any Allied aircraft as far as maneuverability. The Americans captured a Zero in the Aleutians campaign and after evaluating it were able to design fighters that could exploit the weaknesses that they found in the Zero's design and or performance. Earlier in the war, two Zeroes were captured in Chinese territory.

 

[konki_d]

The parameters for comparison are so . . . so . . . so subjective!

There are, of course, many objective qualities that could be taken into consideration regarding the performance of the Zero-Sen fighter. Vertical climb rate, armament, range, mass . . . these are all factors that influence the overall flight characteristics of the aircraft.

But, then you quickly start running headlong into other factors that, while they may be objective fact in one regard or another, they must be applied to the argument subjectively. These "subjective facts" (to poorly coin a term) would include the average experience level of various pilots, learned tactics and strategies in battle, strategic resource management, and so on. The context of an engagement certainly is influenced by more factors than just the physical characteristics of the equipment involved.

Even within Japan, perception of the Zero-Sen fighter aircraft is a highly subjective and contentious issue! There are so many factors that form so many opinions, I am left to wonder if there could ever be an objective consensus about any attempt to "rank" the Zero-Sen's "deadliness".

However, I do think we can agree that the Zero-Sen was and is and iconic aircraft that played a significant role, for good and for bad, in the air conflicts of WWII. As with any machine (especially those scrutinized in hindsight), there are going to be good qualities and bad. And it is to that discussion which I think we can apply ourselves with vigor.

My own two yen? Well, there is a certain appearance to the Zero-Sen that is visually appealing, along with other aircraft of its age, such as the Mustang, the Spitfire, and the Messerschmitt Bf 109. If you have ever been to an airshow where one of these aircraft have flown, there is a certain powerful majesty that is easier to appreciate and viscerally more approachable, perhaps, than their jet powered descendants. For all its shortcomings in "safety" and "features", the Zero-Sen was a quick and maneuverable aircraft for its time.

I humbly think it would be a wonderful experience to fly one of these vintage craft in more peaceful times. Which leads me to wonder . . .

Anyone know what is like to fly one of these aircraft with the canopy open???

 

[Kappa]

I haven't read through the article yet, but I think konki's point is true of all such comparisons. Furthermore, that list is a strangely mixed bag: two fighters, a strategic bomber, and three sub-classes of attack aircraft. If lethality is the criterion I suspect the B-29 wins, hands down.

As for the Zero, I found Peattie's Sunburst to be very informative. It's a history of Japanese naval aviation, and it treats the A6M within that context. It seems that the extreme weight reduction was geared more toward stretching the range; not as "sexy" as the maneuverability it also granted but crucial if Japan was to secure the wide stretches of the Pacific. Indeed, the earliest models even dispensed with a radio. The pilots, especially within the three plane shoutai, were intensively trained to fight in a co-ordinated way without one.

It's a nice example of a machine that fit a particular situation beautifully, but for technical and institutional reasons could not be adapted as the situation changed.