PDA

View Full Version : Zero - less or more durable than the 109?



Recon_609IAP
02-29-2004, 02:59 PM
I was under the impression the zero was less durable than the 109 - in FB, maybe I'm wrong, but I find it very easy to cripple the 109 vs the zero.

Thoughts?

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

Recon_609IAP
02-29-2004, 02:59 PM
I was under the impression the zero was less durable than the 109 - in FB, maybe I'm wrong, but I find it very easy to cripple the 109 vs the zero.

Thoughts?

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

Recon_609IAP
02-29-2004, 03:03 PM
"Formations just wouldn't work because we usually were greatly outnumbered and the Japs were good fighting pilots in good, but flimsy, airplanes. Fortunately, we were flying strongly built ships that gave us a lot of protection."

http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/tiger2.htm

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

Chuck_Older
02-29-2004, 03:13 PM
Historically, the type 0 fighter was lightly constructed to save weight. Japanese pilots routinely even removed their radios (which didn't work most of the time) and cut off the wooden radio masts. Sakai was one who did this. The Japanese doctrine of the time was- 'we shoot. we are not targets ourselves.'

*****************************
Did anyone prophesize these people? Only Travis. Come in Travis! ~ Clash

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 03:22 PM
I thought it was going to be made of toothpicks from all i've read. It doesn't seem any more fragile than any other plane.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-29-2004, 03:23 PM
I think the difference is that the 109 won't explode when you shoot at it. The Zero's frequently will simply explode into a million pieces when you hit them with concentrated firepower (or a Russian ShVAK armed fighter).

The 109 isn't very tough...but it will more likely loose a wing than just blow right up. It also seems to depend on where you hit the 109...they can take some punishment sometimes...other times not.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Steaky_361st
02-29-2004, 03:41 PM
If youre goin for a Zeke aim for the fuel tank in the wing root. Once the tank is on fire it explodes after a few seconds. Basically the Zero is weak in the wings...just make sure you have yur convergence set right http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS this is my 100th Post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


-----------------------------------------------
Steaks
Cpt 375thFS
"And you thought the meat last night was tough..."

JG7_Rall
02-29-2004, 05:45 PM
Tails come off both planes easily as well...

But I do find it much easier to down a Zero than a Messerschmitt...

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg

clint-ruin
02-29-2004, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Tails come off both planes easily as well...

But I do find it much easier to down a Zero than a Messerschmitt...

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surprising but true - the 109 is actually a pretty durable plane. The "glass jaw" is something that affects all of the inline engined planes, whether it's a Yak-3 or a P-51 or a P-40. It's also possible to survive more than one 37mm T9 hit in one as well, provided the shot lands just aft of the cockpit, but in those cases a pilot kill from the blast/fragments is quite likely.

From what I've read the chief weakness of the A6Mx was the wings - lack of seperation between the fuel tanks and the main braces of the wings caused them to 'explode' out when pierced by shells due to the non-compressability of the liquid. And I don't imagine APIs would make it any happier than straight APs :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Chuck_Older
02-29-2004, 07:10 PM
If I recall correctly, the Zero has a one piece wing that is an integral part of the fuselage. I can't quite remember where I read that...but if true, that would be a reason they seem to collapse if you break a wing in FB. Can anybody confirm or deny that construction principle? I want to say I read it in Warbirds Worldwide, but God alone knows where all my back issues are.

*****************************
Did anyone prophesize these people? Only Travis. Come in Travis! ~ Clash

ElAurens
02-29-2004, 07:23 PM
The A6M series wing root was integral with the fuselage, there was no main spar. This was done to save weight, so that the IJN's performance specifications could be met with a 1100HP engine...

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Chuck_Older
02-29-2004, 07:34 PM
Thank you. Sometimes it's nice to know I haven't killed all the brain cells. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
Did anyone prophesize these people? Only Travis. Come in Travis! ~ Clash

WUAF_Badsight
02-29-2004, 10:07 PM
Zeros blow up

BF hardly EVER blow up

also Zeros loose their tails easy