Japanese Zero an American Design?
Beth Fisher
Zero was based on an American design which the Allies rejected.
Does anyone know if this is true, and if so who the designer was?
cubdriver
>Does anyone know if this is true, and if so who the designer was?
No, it isn't true, except to the extent that all airplanes are based
on ideas proven in earlier airplanes.
The designer in question was probably Jack Northrop, though when it
comes to conspiracy theories (well, copying a design is not exactly a
conspiracy, but you know what I mean) folks can make something out of
almost anything. The early Northrops and most especially the Gamma
were designs that predicted the way the industry was going. The
Japanese eagerly shopped around for such forward-looking aircraft,
bought samples of them, and took them home for inspection.
But the truth of the matter is that the Zero was a home-built product,
owing more to the Mitsubishi A5M "Claude" than to any other aircraft.
The Japanese navy issued the requirements; Mitsubishi tried to meet
them, and for the most part did, though in the end it took an engine
meant for the Japanese army (the Nakajima Sakae 12) to make it come
out right.
A very good book on this subject is Robert Mikesh, Zero: Combat &
Development of Japan's Legendary A6M Zero Fighter (Motorbooks 1994).
As to why a Zero is called a Zero, see http://www.danford.net/zero.htm
All the best - Dan Ford
see "Nothing New About Death" at http://www.danford.net
and the message board at http://www.delphi.com/annals/
MakinKid
>I thought I saw a Discovery channel program a few years ago that claimed the
>Zero was based on an American design which the Allies rejected.
>
>Does anyone know if this is true, and if so who the designer was?
>
It's not true. Mitsubishi's chief design engineer and thus "father" of the
Zero was Jiro Horikoshi. He has written a book, Eagles of Mitsubishi and
co-authored another, Zero!, with Masatake Okumiya.
You might also want to read Shigeru Nohara's Mitsubishi A6M Zero Fighter,
Nozawa and Iwata's Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft, Vol. 1, Mitsubishi, Yohei
Kawakami, Overview of Japanese naval Aeronautical Engineering, Vol. 2., Shoji
Abe, Combat Record of the Zero-sen, Akira Yoshimura, Type Zero Fighter Plane,
Hata and Isawa's Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II.
There are plenty more books on the development of the Zero, but these should
get you started.
Makin
Dudley Henriques
>
> I thought I saw a Discovery channel program a few years ago that claimed the
> Zero was based on an American design which the Allies rejected.
>
> Does anyone know if this is true, and if so who the designer was?
According to members of the IFPF, Jiro Horikoshi would be the man mostly
responsible for the design and development of the zero.
DH
--
"There comes a moment in life when one learns the real meaning of
things. To a fighter pilot that moment comes when the guy at six o'clock
has the range, the angle off, the closure rate, and a Ps advantage".
"Guns and Energy Maneuverability"
Dudley Henriques, President [1971-1985]
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Gatt
>
> on ideas proven in earlier airplanes.
>
> The designer in question was probably Jack Northrop, though when it
> comes to conspiracy theories (well, copying a design is not exactly a
I've also heard that Howard Hughes designed it, tried to sell it to the US
and ended up going to Japan because we didn't want it. No idea if this is
true.
Chris Gattman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,'
but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies." -Mike Royko
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gatt
> > I thought I saw a Discovery channel program a few years ago that claimed the
> > Zero was based on an American design which the Allies rejected.
> >
>
> responsible for the design and development of the zero.
The Japanese will probably tell you they designed the 4x4 too with the
early Land Cruiser. :>
Benson1171
>The designer in question was probably Jack Northrop,
Most who charge the Zero was a copy cite the Vought 143, a design rejected by
the US military, which Vought sold off to Japan to recover some of its costs.
Jiro Horikoshi, the lead designer of the Zero, before his death in 1982 in a
newspaper interview was asked yet again if the design was a copy. He said
sarcastically that yes, it was a copy of the Junkers Blechesel.
Del Benson
Dudley Henriques
>
> > >
> > > I thought I saw a Discovery channel program a few years ago that claimed the
> > > Zero was based on an American design which the Allies rejected.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know if this is true, and if so who the designer was?
> >
> > According to members of the IFPF, Jiro Horikoshi would be the man mostly
> > responsible for the design and development of the zero.
>
> The Japanese will probably tell you they designed the 4x4 too with the
> early Land Cruiser. :>
Mr. Gattman,
I'll leave the origin of the 4x4 to you.
The simple truth about the zero is that according to authorities both
American and Japanese, the designer of the aircraft was Jiro Horikoshi.
There are a hundred other claims about the origin of the airplane. It is
not even certain about Horikoshi.
DH
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,'
> but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies." -Mike Royko
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
David Lednicer
> I thought I saw a Discovery channel program a few years ago that claimed the
> Zero was based on an American design which the Allies rejected.
>
> Does anyone know if this is true, and if so who the designer was?
Yes, some western aircraft were sold to Japan before the war and
examined there as examples of aircraft construction. However, the story
of the Zero being a US design is total BS - the aircraft was designed by
a team led by Jiro Horikoshi at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. See his
book: "Eagles of Mitsubishi" for the full story.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: da...@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090
Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299
MakinKid
> He said
>sarcastically that yes, it was a copy of the Junkers Blechesel.
Is that the same as the Junkers D.1? If so, Horikoshi must have meant that as
an all-metal low-wing monoplane the Zero could trace its origin to the first
such airplane, which IIRC, was the Junkers D.1, designed by Hugo J.
Makin
Steve Hix
<bafi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I thought I saw a Discovery channel program a few years ago that claimed the
> Zero was based on an American design which the Allies rejected.
>
> Does anyone know if this is true, and if so who the designer was?
False. It came out of wartime propaganda.
Horikoshi Jiro (sp?) and his team did the design on their
own, accepting input from IJN pilots, which is why it
sacrificed things like pilot armor and self-sealing fuel
tanks to get better climb and turning ability.
Propaganda reports had everyone from Howard Hughes (H1
racer) to Curtiss and on as being the model that the
Mitsubishi team copied to come up with the Zero.
Steve Hix
Gatt <ga...@europa.com> wrote:
> > >Does anyone know if this is true, and if so who the designer was?
> >
> > No, it isn't true, except to the extent that all airplanes are based
> > on ideas proven in earlier airplanes.
> >
> > The designer in question was probably Jack Northrop, though when it
> > comes to conspiracy theories (well, copying a design is not exactly a
>
> I've also heard that Howard Hughes designed it, tried to sell it to the US
> and ended up going to Japan because we didn't want it. No idea if this is
> true.
Not true.
will
Beth Fisher wrote in message <7m31ca$7vi$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>I thought I saw a Discovery channel program a few years ago that claimed
the
>Zero was based on an American design which the Allies rejected.
>
In May of 1937 the Imperial Navy submitted specifications to Mitsubishi and
Nakajima.
Nakajima dropped out after a few months leaving Mitsubishi. Jiro Horikoshi
was in charge of the development at Mitsubishi. The first model, the A6M1,
flew April 1, 1939. The test pilot was Katsuzo Shima.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Steve Hix <se...@macol.net> wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.990708...@thetics.europa.com>,
>Gatt <ga...@europa.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > on ideas proven in earlier airplanes.
>> >
>> > The designer in question was probably Jack Northrop, though when it
>> > comes to conspiracy theories (well, copying a design is not exactly a
>>
>> I've also heard that Howard Hughes designed it, tried to sell it to the US
>> and ended up going to Japan because we didn't want it. No idea if this is
>> true.
>
>Not true.
between the Hughes Racer and the Zero? At least one book mused over the idea.
However, for anyone who actually knows about the engineering of the time,
the Zero was simply a logical extention of design though that was in vouge.
Arguments of it being "meerly a copy" have more to do with persistant
racism than honest engineering history.
MakinKid
>I wonder if someone might have been drawing too close a connection
>between the Hughes Racer and the Zero? At least one book mused over the idea.
I've seen the design of the FW 190 also claimed to be a copy of the Hughes
racer.
>However, for anyone who actually knows about the engineering of the time,
>the Zero was simply a logical extention of design thought that was in vouge.
Agree. Ditto for the FW 190. All the aircraft designers of that era had
basically the same materials, roughly the same powerplant output, and the same
design skills from which to create their products. They all designed aircraft
to meet government contract requirements that were sometimes quit nutty. Some
individual companies were better organized, had a superior "culture" and
employed somewhat more skilled personnnel. Some companies were lucky to have a
design genius or two on staff. Some nations were better able to support the
design of advanced aircraft by having developed an advanced industrial
infrastructure.
Reading how a specific aircraft came to be, including the individual persons
whose imput was crucial to the final result, can be quite fascinating. It's
too bad that more of the aircraft designers didn't write their memoirs.
Makin
Dudley Henriques
which is why it
> sacrificed things like pilot armor and self-sealing fuel
> tanks to get better climb and turning ability.
An interesting aside to the zero mystique is the fact that through the
years, stories about the amazing dog fighting ability of this airplane
have literally become legend.
As a guy who has spent some time in the ACM environment, I have always
been amused by how these "legends" can become distorted through time.
For some reason, there has been vast attention given through the years
to the zero's roll rate. "Never turn with a zero" was the doctrine of
the day; and well said I might add, as in any turning engagement, both
energy and airspeed will eventually bleed into the left side of the
envelope, and that was NOT the place to be when engaged with a zero.
Although roll rate is an important factor when profiling the abilities
of a fighter, it is by no means the ultimate factor. The zero actually
had a rather poor roll rate [260mph about 35deg,per sec.] and on the
right side of the envelope it had severe aileron problems over 250 mph.
Why then, all the mystique about the zero's fantastic dog fighting
abilities?
Wing loading! It was as simple as that! A heavy wing loaded fighter can
turn with a light wing loaded fighter as long as the airspeeds are high
enough that g is limited by man [physiological factors] and not aircraft
design [wing loading] As airspeed decreases where man can sustain more g
than the airplane can deliver, the lighter wing loaded aircraft will
have a lessor radius of turn. The zero simply was light wing loaded and
in the left side of it's flight envelope, could generate a very tight
turn radius.
Hence,"Never turn with a zero".
Actually, our pilots did quite well against the Japanese fighter by
engaging at higher airspeeds, a fact that sometimes goes unnoticed by
historians.
DH
--
Dudley Henriques, Past President [1971-1985]
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
MakinKid
>An interesting aside to the zero mystique is the fact that through the
>years, stories about the amazing dog fighting ability of this airplane
>have literally become legend.
>
I think part of this stems from the fact that the early years of WW2 saw the
transition from WW1-evolved dogfighting techniques involving fighters optimized
for maneuver, and IIRC Spanish Civil War-evolved boom-and-zoom tactics
involving fighters optimized for energy maintenance.
The Luftwaffe's BnZ tactics (Yo-yo-ing) served it well against British maneuver
fighters like the earlier marque Spitfires and even, apparently the P-38, but
were of little value against the P-47.
When the USAAF (and I believe the USMC with the F4U) adopted BnZ tactics
against the Japanese maneuver fighters, it had similar success. The USN, with
its reliance on the successful Thach Weave, seems to be a somewhat different
case.
I would be interested to learn more details of the development of BnZ tactics.
I've seen references indicating that the Soviets used it in the Spanish Civil
War and against the Japanese in the Manchurian border clashes, and that the
Germans adopted it from the Soviets during the SCW. But I've also seen some
comments indicating that French Air Force units equipped with the SPAD were
using BnZ during WW1. Were not the French and Soviets somewhat close during
the interwar years? Could the Soviets have been taught the tactic by the
French?
Makin
Dudley Henriques
Fighter tactics at the beginning of WW2 were for the most part a mess.
The subject can be discussed from any number of directions, each one
taking volumes to explain.
Tactics are closely related to aircraft performance and after a general
discussion, tend to branch into individual aircraft performance
capabilities. For this reason it is very hard to have a "normal"
discussion on tactics.
There is a strong separation point however, and that is the development
of the energy maneuverability concept by Boyd ,Christie, and in part by
Rutowski. This concept changed forever the way we view aircraft
performance, and thus tactics.
In the area you were discussing, the Germans used a form of fighting
wing formation tactics at the beginning of the war that was head and
shoulders above the tight formation, regrouping tactics employed by the
Brits. The RAF learned fast and changed their view.
Chennault, controversial as he was, was a brilliant tactician who
advocated speed and re-perch as doctrine. His pilots were very
successful.
"Loose Deuce" gave us sweeping yo yo lead changes and switch
capabilities.
You could go on with this forever............
humm...@yahoo.com
"Beth Fisher" <bafi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
claimed the
> Zero was based on an American design which the Allies rejected.
>
>
>
Was it the first all metal (aluminum) fighter ?
I played around on one as a kid growing up on the island of Moen, in
the Truk lagoon, Micronesia in 1976 - it was over grown with vines and
other vegitation (abondoned) but from what I can remember it was still
in perfect shape (the fuselage and wings anyway).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Cub driver
>I would be interested to learn more details of the development of BnZ tactics.
>I've seen references indicating that the Soviets used it in the Spanish Civil
>War and against the Japanese in the Manchurian border clashes, and that the
The Russians had several hundred pilots fighting the Japanese in China
in 1938. Claire Chennault, in addition to being an air adviser to the
Chinese, also served (like most American airmen in China) as a
volunteer agent for the U.S. military. As an ex-Army pilot, he filed
his reports to the Adjutant General in Washington. One of these
reports told how the Polikarpov I-16 pilots learned to dive away from
the nimble A5M "Claude", then zoom back to altitude and attack from
above. (See "Flying Tigers" p. 31.) To read his report, which is in
the Air Force historical center at Maxwell Field, it appears that the
Russians developed the tactic on the spot in response to the
impossibility of otherwise getting the A5M off their tail.
Chennault had earlier proposed a similar tactic for fighter pilots
trying to attack faster bombers, so he would have been especially
quick to notice when the Russians applied it against fighters.
C.C. Jordan
>bevnsag wrote:
>
>>I wonder if someone might have been drawing too close a connection
>>between the Hughes Racer and the Zero? At least one book mused over the idea.
>
>I've seen the design of the FW 190 also claimed to be a copy of the Hughes
>racer.
Many have said that this similarity between the H-1 and the FW-190
could not be an accident, Kelly Johnson and Dutch Kindelburger among
them. One look at photos of the two aircraft and the resemblance becomes
apparent. While it is certainly true that Kurt Tank did not "copy" the Hughes
H-1, there can be little doubt that the little racer influenced Tank and his
his chief designer (R. Blaser) considerably, as well as many other designers.
The H-1 was a benchmark airplane. It did 353 mph with just 720 hp in 1935!
I'm not talking about copying designs. My point is that benchmark aircraft
such as the Hughes H-1 (designed by Richard Palmer) had an strong and lasting
influence on many subsequent designs. The FW-190 included.
As to other influences. The Vought V-143 likely inspired the A6M's landing gear
design. Vought sold the V-143 (developed from the Vought V-141, which was
itself a development of the Northrop 3A) to the Japanese Navy in late 1937
or early 1938.
When seen in planform, the wing resembles yet another Japanese fighter,
the Nakajima Ki-43-I Hayabusa. Is there an influence? Possibly. The Northrop
3A, Vought V-141 and V-143 all pre-date the Hayabusa by 1 to 3 years depending
on which one looks at.
First flights
Northrop 3A: July 1935
Vought V-141: June 1936
Vought V-143: June 1937
Nakajima Ki-43 December 1938
Dimensions:
V-143:
Span 33' 6"
Length 26" 0"
Weight
(empty) 3,490 lbs
Max. bhp 825
Max Speed 292mph @ 11,500 ft.
Wing loading
@ max weight 23.37 lbs/square ft.
Ki43-I:
Span 37' 6"
Length 28' 11.7"
Weight
(empty) 3,505 lbs
Max bhp 990
Max Speed 304 mph @ 16,400 ft.
Wing loading
@ max weight 24.44 lbs/square ft.
Remarkably similar. Was this simply chance, or did the little
Vought fighter carry more influence than the Japanese will admit?
Ironically the USAAC rejected the one fighter that could out-maneuver
the Hayabusa and threw their weight behind the Seversky SEV-1XP,
later to evolve into the P-35 with its terribly designed and speed robbing
landing gear.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet Magazine
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
Honor and remember the WWII veterans.
MakinKid
>You could go on with this forever............
Please do.
Makin
MakinKid
>When seen in planform, the wing resembles yet another Japanese fighter,
>the Nakajima Ki-43-I Hayabusa. Is there an influence? Possibly. The Northrop
>3A, Vought V-141 and V-143 all pre-date the Hayabusa by 1 to 3 years
>depending
>on which one looks at.
>Was this simply chance, or did the little
>Vought fighter carry more influence than the Japanese will admit?
>
The Ki-43 was a development of the Ki-27 and the similarities of the two
aircraft (and the Ki-44 to the Ki-43, for that matter) are fairly obvious. The
lead designer was of the Ki-43 was Hideo Itokawa while Tei Koyama was the lead
designer on both the Ki-27 and Ki-44 projects. Itokawa was one of the most
respected aircraft designers in Japan, and it was his design efforts which
helped Nakajima seize dominance in military aviation from Kawasaki.
Nakajima began developing low-wing monoplanes in response to a JAAF
specification issued in 1934. Nakajima had built, under license, a version of
the Gloster Gambet biplane fighter for the Japanese Navy in 1928. Not
satisfied with the performance of this aircraft, Nakajima turned to monoplane
designs and its first, the Ki-11, was influenced by the Boeing P-26, probably
adversely so, because the Boeing design, with its externally wire bracing, was
far from state of the art. Nakajima went on to design the Ki-12 and, as a
totally independent venture, the more advanced PE. This evolved into the
Ki-27, which first flew in 1936. The Ki-27 fairly quickly evolved, in response
to advancing JAAF specification requirements, into the Ki-43, which looks very
much like a stretched fuselage, retractable gear version of the Ki-27, which it
basically was. I don't see the resemblance to the chunky Vought 143 (nee
Nothrup 3A), which, if anything, looks like what it pretty much was, an
embryonic F4U. In any case, the Vought suffered from spin recovery problems,
which is why, at least in part, the Army didn't buy it.
Makin
Benson1171
>When seen in planform, the wing resembles yet another Japanese fighter,
>the Nakajima Ki-43-I Hayabusa. Is there an influence? Possibly. The Northrop
>3A, Vought V-141 and V-143 all pre-date the Hayabusa by 1 to 3 years
The evolution of the Nakajima fighters has been pretty well documented. They
were as indigenous as anybody else's fighters, and weren't copies of anything.
Jack Nothrup made some half-assed comment after Pearl Harbor that the Zero was
nothing more than a Japanese version of his 3A that the US Army had been too
obtuse to buy. The comment was basically sour grapes from an irrascible genius
who got pissed whenever the world refused to acknowledge his greatness by
buying large quantities of his airplane designs. Remember it was old Jack who
kept alive the conspiracy story about his flying wing being better than the
B-36 or even B-47 but dirty politics kept it from being adopted by the Air
Force.
The world was full of first class fighter plane designers in the 1935-1940 time
frame. Give the Japanese their due. They had some too.
Del Benson
Darcey
fighter. This airplane was designed in by Dr. Jiro Horikoshi who initiated the
concept in 1937. Aircraft design is always based upon state of the art and
aerodynamic understanding at the time of design inception. When the airplane
was designed you will find its concept was not different from what other
countries were developing at the same time. Aircraft design influences aircraft
design and it's not unusual for different countries to follow somewhat the same
road. Aviation is an industry, aviation is a trade, aviation has its
communicative devises through parallels and industry discovery and triumph. If
it works for one design those design parameters will be seized upon by
contemporary designers and often made even better. The difference with the Zero
and all Japanese aircraft until late in the war was the design criterion was
always based upon absolute maneuverability at the sacrifice of pilot safety
(armor protection) which had terrible consequences for the Japanese.
The wives tail that you are referring to - based upon an American design which
was rejected - is and continues to be based on the Vultee Aircraft Companies
P-66 Vanguard, a kind of, sort of, look alike but in reality a very different
airplane altogether. This tale is also based upon US military thinking at the
time when it was believed that Japan was a third rate power, unable to design
anything original which continued until the end of the first year of the war.
It was a form of racism but we didn't know that word in those days. We just
thought they didn't have the capability to build such an airplane that,
incidentally, had enormous range.
Was the Zero (Zeke) an American design. Nope. Not in the least. And don't
ever let anyone tell you different. By the way, Zeke was the code name given
the Zero although to us it was always the Zero. Our Japanese aircraft coding
system assigned male hillbilly names to fighters and female hillbilly names to
their bombers.
Whats your interest in aircraft history?
Cheers, Ron
wal...@oneimage.com
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.990708...@thetics.europa.com>,>Gatt <ga...@europa.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > on ideas proven in earlier airplanes.
try reading some air history books - the libraries have plenty of them. Jiro
Horishiki (sp?) designed the Zero to specific requirements which would NOT
have been accepted by our own Army and Navy. The extreme lightweight construction
of the Zero should be evidence enough that it was not a copy of any country's
designs. Compare the Zero's specs against everything else designed at the same
time and you'll get your eyes watered.
- Just because the Zero reminds you of the Hughes racer, the P64, P66, etc, does
not mean it was copied from them! Might as well say the FW190 was copied from the Zero!
Walt BJ ftr plt ret
MakinKid
>One of these
>reports told how the Polikarpov I-16 pilots learned to dive away from
>the nimble A5M "Claude",
Surely you mean the Ki-27 Nate? I know the Japanese Naval air arm engaged the
Chinese but understood that the border clashes at Nomonhan were an all JAAF
show. The Soviets, IIRC, fielded two fighter regiments, one equipped with the
I-15 and one with the I-16, plus a bomber and a recon unit. They faced the JAAF
2nd Air Force, equipped with the Ki-27. As a result of the air clashes, the
Soviets admitted losing 207 aircraft in combat while the Japanese acknowledged
the loss of 162.
The Japanese Navy sent the 3rd Air Fleet (Kaga, Ryujo, Hosho) to conduct
operations in the Canton-Shanghai area at the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese
conflict in 1937. The IJN air arm also operated over Nanking and made some
strikes into central China. Their fighter units were equipped with the A5M (in
part)and battled mostly Curtiss Hawk 75s (also Gloster Gladiators and
"Deboachins". I can find no reference to the Japanese Naval Air Force clashing
with the Soviet Air Force.
>See "Flying Tigers" p. 31.)
This source says the I-16 arrived in China in 1938. That year the 2nd Carrier
Division (Ryujo, Soryu) spent a total of 20 days supporting combat operations
in south China. The Kaga spent that year based out of Taiwan, making patrols
into the South China Sea and launching combat strikes on fewer than half a
dozen occasions. In 1938 nine of Kaga's A5Ms were briefly based in Nanking
(March 3 through April 4).
In Dec. 1937 Hosho was taken out of active service and spent the next 3 years
in dry dock.
The 12th Air Group equipped with the A5M late in 1937 and was bsed at Nanking
after the city's capture. It participated in attacks on Nanchang and Hankow
but converted to a ground attack unit in March.
the 12th Air Group was also based at Nanking and engaged in strikes on Hankow
and Nanchang. After Hankow fell i the fall of 1938, the 12th moved base to
there and spent the next two years there basically doing nothing, until
reequipped with the A6M, whereupon it began attacks on Chungking.
The 13th Air Group was deployed to Shanghai after its capture in 1937 and
participated in attacks on Nanking; when Nanking fell it moved to that city and
commenced attacks on Hankow, converting to a ground attack unit in March, 1938.
The 14th Air Group was organized in April 1938 and operated from bases near
Macao. It operated over Kweilin and Liuchow.
The 15th Air Group was organized in June 1938 and sent to operate in south
China. It was disbanded in Dec. of the same year.
And that's about it. The Japanese Naval air arm conducted operations mostly in
south China and report engaging lots of Hawk 75s, some Gloster Glads, a P-26 or
two and some other odds and sods, but no I-16s (doesn't mean they didn't, of
course).
Where did the Russians (or wheover) operate I-16s in China, and when did they
engage A5Ms?
Makin
C.C. Jordan
>Jordan wrote:
>>When seen in planform, the wing resembles yet another Japanese fighter,
>>the Nakajima Ki-43-I Hayabusa. Is there an influence? Possibly. The Northrop
>>3A, Vought V-141 and V-143 all pre-date the Hayabusa by 1 to 3 years
>>depending
>>on which one looks at.
><snip>
>>Was this simply chance, or did the little
>>Vought fighter carry more influence than the Japanese will admit?
>>
>
>The Ki-43 was a development of the Ki-27 and the similarities of the two
>aircraft (and the Ki-44 to the Ki-43, for that matter) are fairly obvious.
[snip]
>Nakajima went on to design the Ki-12 and, as a
>totally independent venture, the more advanced PE. This evolved into the
>Ki-27, which first flew in 1936. The Ki-27 fairly quickly evolved, in response
>to advancing JAAF specification requirements, into the Ki-43, which looks very
>much like a stretched fuselage, retractable gear version of the Ki-27, which it
>basically was.
Thanks for the brief outline of Nakajima fighter development. As usual you are
quite thorough. However, I have a copy of Green and Swanborough too. So, I
am aware of the development of the Nakajima fighter line.
I think that you've missed my point, which I will more clearly define a bit
further into this post.
>I don't see the resemblance to the chunky Vought 143 (nee
>Nothrup 3A), which, if anything, looks like what it pretty much was, an
>embryonic F4U.
The V-143 was not especially chunky. With its lengthened fuselage it
had the same span/length ratio as the Ki-43 of 1.29/1. While the Vought V-143
was a failure, it had one of the most advanced retractable landing gear designs
extent. Its Corsair like appearance is more a result of grafting the tail of a
Vindicator onto the existing airframe.
This entire exercise was to demonstrate that no designer remains uninfluenced
by other existing designs.
Just as the Chevy Camaro was influenced by the Ford Mustang. The Japanese
had the V-143 in hand before the Ki-43 was designed. Therefore, it is not
unreasonable to wonder if the Nakajima designers examined the Vought prior
to beginning their work on a new fighter. Just as the Horikochi team was
influenced with the retractable landing gear of the V-143, would not Itokawa
make note of features worthy of investigating or incorporating into the Ki-43?
A typical example of this influence is Mitchell's Spitfire of 1936, adopting the
basic wing planform of the Seversky aircraft. Even Hawker adopted a wing
not unlike the Seversky/Republic fighters for the Tempest (what a difference
a wing can make). Someone else's good ideas will filter into new designs,
always. Aircraft such as the Hughes H-1 probably influenced more designers
than any other aircraft of the 1930's. Even the little Vought owed much to
Palmer and Hughes.
MakinKid
>it is not
>unreasonable to wonder if the Nakajima designers examined the Vought prior
>to beginning their work on a new fighter.
No, it's not. But does *proof* exist that they did?
Horikoshi has acknowledged modeling the Zero's landing gear after that of the
Vought. And Tokyo Instrument Co. was convicted in a postwar lawsuit of copying
patented Sperry instrument technology.
Considering how often the Japanese have been accused of copying western
technolgy, it's only wise to go slowly in this area.
Basically all you are saying is that, to you, the Vought and the Ki-43 look
somewhat similar, the Japanese had an example of the Vought to examine during
the time frame when the Ki-43 was being developed, therefore maybe they were
influenced by it.
Maybe they were.
But maybe they weren't.
Until evidence is adduced showing they were, assertions that they were is just
bar talk.
Incidentally, Mitsubishi bought two NA-16s in 1937; how come nobody ever claims
the Zero was based on these babies? Could it be that North American had no
beef with Mitsubishi because the Japanese company negotiated manufacturing
rights to the airplane and actually built it through a subsidiary, paying
royalties to North American (some paid after the war)? Or could it be that
North American, with its T-6, B-25 and P-51 was doing well enough without
making false claims, whereas, as has been stated in this thread, J. Northrup
was not having much luck getting government contracts and wanted to get some
attention by claiming the Zero was his design.
The Japanese Navy purchased 20 2PA-B3 and used them in combat in the
Sino-Japanese war. Yet nobody claims these as antecedents to the Zero. Maybe
that's because Seversky-Republic became successful enough not to need false
publicity.
Makin
Benson1171
>>>When seen in planform, the wing resembles yet another Japanese fighter,
>>>the Nakajima Ki-43-I Hayabusa. Is there an influence? Possibly.
I've always found it interesting that the Ki-43 armament of one .30 and one .50
was like that of the P-36. Coincidence?
I corresponded with Richard Bueschell before his death, he being one of the
handful of Westerners with knowledge of the WW2 era Japanese aircraft industry,
trying to find out if he knew more than he wrote in his slim volumes on various
Japanese warplane types. But he didn't and he acknowledged that some of the
things he wrote were wrong. I believe he had begun a major revised work on the
subject but gave it up when told there was no publisher interest in the
subject, so he just arranged to have his old books reissued. A lot is not
known about Japan's industrial development. And much thought is colored by
racist or ethnocentric thought. After all how could a nation of gardeners and
houseboys kick the western powers clear out of Asia so fast if they didn't copy
us?
Ive spent several vacations in Japan in recent years visiting aviation history
sites. I have acquired a lot of Japanese books on various Japanese warplanes.
Most are beautifully printed. But unfortunately they are IN JAPANESE so when I
look at them I feel like the dog in the Bacobits dogfood commercial. I'm
slowly getting them translated by some Japanese friends. I'll ask if they can
find out if the Vought had any influence on the design of the Oscar.
By the way I stumbled upon a website devoted to the Ki-43 maintained by
somebody in Sweden but I failed to bookmark it and cant find it again. Anybody
have the URL? The person who maintains it might have all the answers.
Also there is a flying Ki-43 in New Zealand. I plan to go down to see it this
year. They've got an I-16 too.
Del Benson
Dudley Henriques
Anyone with a genuine interest in fighter aviation is welcome to drop in
for some hangar flying anytime...
C.C. Jordan
>Jordan wrote:
>
>>it is not
>>unreasonable to wonder if the Nakajima designers examined the Vought prior
>>to beginning their work on a new fighter.
>
>No, it's not. But does *proof* exist that they did?
Proof? One must define the question before seeking "proof." I am raising valid
questions based upon known facts.
>Horikoshi has acknowledged modeling the Zero's landing gear after that of the
>Vought. And Tokyo Instrument Co. was convicted in a postwar lawsuit of copying
>patented Sperry instrument technology.
>Considering how often the Japanese have been accused of copying western
>technolgy, it's only wise to go slowly in this area.
Consider how often the Japanese have been guilty. Over 1,700 U.S. Patent
violations in the 1970's alone. I know of one quite personally, because I hold
the Patent. Japan has been the number one industrial thief for 70 years, only
now being rivaled by the Chinese. Smoke/fire comes to mind.
>
>Basically all you are saying is that, to you, the Vought and the Ki-43 look
>somewhat similar, the Japanese had an example of the Vought to examine during
>the time frame when the Ki-43 was being developed, therefore maybe they were
>influenced by it.
They are more alike then a simple resemblance. Go back and look again at the
data I posted earlier. They are VERY MUCH alike. That is why the question of
influence has arisen.
>Maybe they were.
>But maybe they weren't.
>Until evidence is adduced showing they were, assertions that they were is just
>bar talk.
Rather unusual "bar talk", don't you think?
Obviously there is little likelyhood of finding any "evidence" when all the
designers involved are long dead. What we have here is valid speculation.
Speculation based upon great similarity, opportunity and motive. I'm afraid
that you are locked into black and white, unwilling to accept that grey can
exist. Upon hearing speculation that grey may actually exist, you dismiss
it as "bar talk." I'm not trying to establish false facts here, I'm merely
pointing out that there is reason to question that these two very similar
designs are a result of coincidence.
>
>Incidentally, Mitsubishi bought two NA-16s in 1937; how come nobody ever claims
>the Zero was based on these babies? Could it be that North American had no
>beef with Mitsubishi because the Japanese company negotiated manufacturing
>rights to the airplane and actually built it through a subsidiary, paying
>royalties to North American (some paid after the war)? Or could it be that
>North American, with its T-6, B-25 and P-51 was doing well enough without
>making false claims, whereas, as has been stated in this thread,
It might be that there is nothing about the Zero that remotely resembles the
NA-16.
> J. Northrup
>was not having much luck getting government contracts and wanted to get some
>attention by claiming the Zero was his design.
Northrop didn't claim that the Zero was his design, did he? He claimed that they
used the Northrop plane as the basis for the Zero design. Just like Ford might
claim that the Mustang was the basis for the Camaro design, which it was.
Northrop was largely wrong except for the landing gear.
>
>The Japanese Navy purchased 20 2PA-B3 and used them in combat in the
>Sino-Japanese war. Yet nobody claims these as antecedents to the Zero. Maybe
>that's because Seversky-Republic became successful enough not to need false
>publicity.
>
To begin, I doubt that an obsolete two seat, dual control aircraft based upon
the P-35 would be an inspiration to the Japanese. Moreover, selling those 20
"Convoy Fighters" was supposed to be a secret. Therefore, Alex Seversky would
not be pounding his chest about it.
Here's the crux of the issue: The Japanese had access to a fighter for an entire
year before the first flight of a design that in a great many respects,
resembles that earlier fighter. To question whether the V-143 influenced the
Ki-43 is valid.
Cub driver
>The wives tail that you are referring to - based upon an American design which
>was rejected - is and continues to be based on the Vultee Aircraft Companies
>P-66 Vanguard, a kind of, sort of, look alike but in reality a very different
>airplane altogether. This tale is also based upon US military thinking at the
Ah, is *that* the Vultee in question? Well, we would probably have
been in luck if Mitsubishi had indeed copied it.
As I recall, this is the wooden (okay, part-wood) fighter that Vultee
built for Sweden. When Norway was overrun by Germany, the U.S.
embargoed the planes for fear they'd fall into German hands. That
stuck the U.S. Army with them (which is why such an early a/c got such
a high P number).
Just as the Navy had a tendency to slough off bad fighters onto the
Marines, the Army at that time was sloughing off bad fighters onto the
Chinese. The Vultees were given to China to equip the 3rd American
Volunteer Group (the AVG Flying Tigers were the 1st) which was to have
gone to Asia in January or February 1942 with all fromer USN pilots.
The planes actually got to Rangoon during the Japanese bombing, and
were diverted to India, where at least some of them were assembled and
I think at least one of them actually got to China. There was an
article in Ex CBI Roundup some years ago by a mech in the 14th AF who
recalled the "mystery plane."
When the planes seemed likely to come into his hands, Claire Chennault
worked out a scheme whereby they'd be flown by Chinese pilots.
Not Zero material, I suspect, given the agility with which air forces
passed the plane along to the next guy.
Cub driver
>>reports told how the Polikarpov I-16 pilots learned to dive away from
>>the nimble A5M "Claude",
>
>Surely you mean the Ki-27 Nate? I know the Japanese Naval air arm engaged the
>Chinese but understood that the border clashes at Nomonhan were an all JAAF
>show. The Soviets, IIRC, fielded two fighter regiments, one equipped with the
The Russians rotated about 500 fighter pilots through China for about
one-year tours in 1938, 1939, and to some extent in 1940, though
sometime in there they brought them home for fear of Germany. This was
in China proper and had nothing to do with the border war at Nomonhan
in 1939.
They first met the A5M. The Ki-27 was introduced a bit later, though
still in 1938 as I recall. (The army started out in China with a
Kawasaki biplane.) Basically, the Japanese navy fought inland and
upriver from Shanghai, while the army fought south from Manchuria
around Beijing. It was mostly a navy show from 1937 to 1941, when the
navy moved out of China to get ready for the big breakout in December.
The Russians also provided planes for the Chinese Air Force, but
Russian pilots did most of the fighting. Claire Chennault and other
airmen in China filed regular and extensive reports to various U.S.
authorities on the quantity, quality, and tactics of the Russians. You
will read about fighting Russians in Saburo Sakai's autobiography, and
some comments on them in Chennault's.
Cub driver
>specification issued in 1934. Nakajima had built, under license, a version of
>the Gloster Gambet biplane fighter for the Japanese Navy in 1928. Not
One of the curious aspects of the Japanese air forces is that when the
army and navy decided after WWI to develop a combat capability in the
air, the army went to France and the navy went to Britain. First they
hired foreign instructors and bought foreign airplanes. Then they
built the airplanes under license. Then they built similar airplanes
on their own, and finally (some would argue) they built better
airplanes. (Indeed, planes like the Zero and the Hayabusa were so
uniquely Japanese that they had tremendous flaws which were revealed
only in combat with the P-40 and the F4F.)
Yet even when the a/c industry went indigenous, the foreign influences
remained. All through WWII, the throttle in Japanese army a/c was
opened by pulling it toward the pilot, French fashion, while in
Japanese navy a/c it was pushed to the firewall, British fashion.
Yama
> A typical example of this influence is Mitchell's Spitfire of
> 1936, adopting the
> basic wing planform of the Seversky aircraft. Even Hawker adopted
> a wing
> not unlike the Seversky/Republic fighters for the Tempest (what a
> difference
> a wing can make).
Seversky/Republic claim is new to me - sometimes it's claimed that
Mitchell copied tail and elliptic wing design from Heinkel He-70.
While it is known that He-70 certainly had influence to Supermarine
design, having built models from both planes, wing profiles are
considerably different.
Yama
> I would be interested to learn more details of the development of
> BnZ tactics.
> I've seen references indicating that the Soviets used it in the
> Spanish Civil
> War and against the Japanese in the Manchurian border clashes, and
> that the
> Germans adopted it from the Soviets during the SCW. But I've also
> seen some
> comments indicating that French Air Force units equipped with the
> SPAD were
> using BnZ during WW1. Were not the French and Soviets somewhat
> close during
> the interwar years? Could the Soviets have been taught the tactic
> by the
> French?
Individual Soviet pilots in all likeliness used different sorts
ofBnZ tactics during Spanish Civil War and Russo-Japanese conflict,
but overall Russians do not seem to have been very creative in area
of tactics in '30s, despite having one of the strongest air forces
in the world. Soviets considered that large formations and complex
co-operation between fast (I-16) and maneuverable (I-15x) was way to
go. Needless to say this doctrine proved to be quite wrong.
When I-16's suffered some losses against Nationalistic Fiat CR.32's,
when they were drawn in to a maneuvering combat, Soviet brass
concluded that there was still need for a biplane fighter and this
led to I-153.
AFAIK BnZ-type tactics were used in WWI from time to time, with
planes which were less that suitable to dogfight with others.
Albatros comes to mind. Between the wars there was little
opportunity to air combat, and it seems parade formations became
more important.
C.C. Jordan
Alexander Seversky filed a Patent application for a design with his
eliptical wing in 1927. Long before the He-70 was designed. Seversky
was a genius of sorts and like Sikorski, having arrived in America, he elected
to remain. Only Seversky was sent here by the Czarist government. When
the communist revolution appeared to be succeeding, Seversky stayed
in the U.S.
The efficiency of Seversky's wing was well known by 1934 and widely
employed. The Reggiane 2000 series is the most obvious knock-off,
being a blatant copy of the P-35/EP-106.
Emmanuel Gustin
adopting
> the basic wing planform of the Seversky aircraft.
In the case of the Spitfire, the adoption of the elliptic wing platform
happened at a fairly late stage of design, mainly to have enough
depth at the outboard section to install guns. The elliptical platform
was the theoretical optimum, and despite its high amnufacturing cost
it was found on a number of 1930s designs (Heinkel He 70, for example).
That aside, the typical Seversky platfrom was semi-elliptical, with a
straight leading edge, and the Spitfire platform was nearly elliptical,
with a curved leading edge. The Spitfire's wing section was also quite
unusual.
A more credible claim is the Reggiane Re.2000 adopted the basic
layout and wing platform of the Seversky designs.
> Even Hawker adopted a wing not unlike the Seversky/Republic fighters
> for the Tempest (what a difference a wing can make).
Sir Sidney Camm is claimed to have grumbled that the RAF only
wanted fighters that looked at least superficially like a Spitfire.
Sour grapes, probably: Mitchell had at least got it right the second
time, and Camm had been wrong twice...
> always. Aircraft such as the Hughes H-1 probably influenced more
> designers than any other aircraft of the 1930's.
The H-1 was typical of the great perfectionist Hughes, and certainly
a great design. On the other hand it set records in 1935 and 1937.
The Dewoitine D.500 (with fixed landing gear) made its first flight
in 1932, and the Polikarpov I-16 in 1933. 1935 also saw the appearance
of the P-36, Bf 109, MS.405, and Hurricane. The H-1 was a
contemporary, not a precursor, of the first generation of low-wing
monoplane fighters with rectractable landing gear.
--
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
Military Aircraft Database: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/
(Delete NoSpam. from my address. If you can't reach me, your host
may be on our spam filter list. Check http://www.uia.ac.be/cc/spam.html.)
Benson1171
>The H-1 was typical of the great perfectionist Hughes, and certainly
>a great design. On the other hand it set records in 1935 and 1937.
>The Dewoitine D.500 (with fixed landing gear) made its first flight
>in 1932, and the Polikarpov I-16 in 1933. 1935 also saw the appearance
>of the P-36, Bf 109, MS.405, and Hurricane. The H-1 was a
>contemporary, not a precursor, of the first generation of low-wing
>monoplane fighters with rectractable landing gear.
I think you are right that there was a lot of ferment going on with aircraft
development in the 1930s, with development proceding very rapidly. I'm glad
you pointed out that the H-1 was a contemporary not a precursor of the other
great designs of the era. There was a lot of parallel evolution going on at
the time, with the aircraft of each nation gradually differentiating themselves
based on the requirements of their military.
I saw the H-1 at the Smithsonian a few years ago. I don't think it looks much
like the FW 190. When summer comes to New Zealand I'm going down there to look
at a Ki-43. Maybe someone from New Zealand is on this board and can tell us
what they think of it and any foreign influences that may have gone into its
design.
Del Benson
Benson1171
>One of the curious aspects of the Japanese air forces is that when the
>army and navy decided after WWI to develop a combat capability in the
>air, the army went to France and the navy went to Britain.
this is interesting. I know that Herbert Smith of Sopwith (England) was hired
as chief designer for Mitsubishi and that Richard Vogt of Blohm und Voss
(Germany) was hired as chief engineer by Kawasaki but did any French designers
work for Japanese airplane companies?
I know that some JAAF pilots served with the French Air Force during WW1 and
that the French trained the JAAF after the war and had a large military advisor
contingent in Japan. The JAAF's first fighter was the SPAD S.13C-1 and
Nakajima built the Nieuport 24C-1 under license and I think Mitsubishi built
the Sopwith Pup under license as well.
I don't see this as evidence of copycatting. It seems similar to what America
was doing around the same time. One big difference was that the foreigners in
Japan all eventually went home while the foreigners in America generally took
up US citizenship (Im thinking particularly of Sikorsky, Seversky and Berliner
but there were also Egtvedt and Loughead) That's always been a big advantage
of America of course. Attract the bright foreign talent, fix him up with a big
salary and a stacked American girl and he stays put ;-}
Del Benson
C.C. Jordan
<gustin...@uia.ua.ac.be> wrote:
>> always. Aircraft such as the Hughes H-1 probably influenced more
>> designers than any other aircraft of the 1930's.
>
>The H-1 was typical of the great perfectionist Hughes, and certainly
>a great design. On the other hand it set records in 1935 and 1937.
>The Dewoitine D.500 (with fixed landing gear) made its first flight
>in 1932, and the Polikarpov I-16 in 1933. 1935 also saw the appearance
>of the P-36, Bf 109, MS.405, and Hurricane. The H-1 was a
>contemporary, not a precursor, of the first generation of low-wing
>monoplane fighters with rectractable landing gear.
The H-1 design was on paper in early 1934. There is no way that one can
place the D.500 or the I-16 in the same class as the H-1. let me also add
that the I-16 made its maiden flight flight in 1933 by a mere 14 hours. It
took off at 10:00 hours on the 31st of December, 1933. It barely could do
270 mph. The D.500 barely 220 mph. These were not benchmark aircraft,
but simply evolutionary. The H-1 was notably faster than the prototype
Spitfire of 1936. The P-36 was not especially fast, the Bf-109 needed the
DB 601 to really shine, the MS.405 was built using old technology (and
was a dog anyway) as did the Hurricane to a lesser extent. Once again,
the H-1 was an order of magnitude faster than any of the above. The little
Hughes set a new standard of speed, range and aerodynamic efficiency
that was far in advance of anything else flying in 1935. That's what sets it
above the rest. However, technology was advancing at a blurring pace
and the advantages of the H-1 would be short lived.
The H-1 was not a precurser of the retractable gear fighters of the mid
1930's. It was a precurser of the fighters of the 1940's.
wal...@oneimage.com
>>From: "Emmanuel Gustin">
>>snip:
An elliptical wing is the most efficient wing but is obviously a
problem in manufacture. Straight leading and trailing edges of a tapered
wing are nearly as efficient and a whoe lot easier to make and to
repair. The Psifire was unique in that the main wing sapr was actually
five separate rectangular tubes one inside the other. I suppose it had
a benefit but I don't see how the difficulty in making it was outweighed
by any mechanical benefit.
Aircraft design has always been a global research affair to see what's
new that might work for you . . . hard to say in a lot of cases who got the
idea first. Genrally not even worth arguing about, becuase soemtimes a patent
doesn't really prove who was first anyway.
Emmanuel Gustin
> that one can place the D.500 or the I-16 in the same class
> as the H-1.
True enough: The H-1 was an expensive sports aircraft, the
I-16 and D.500 were fighter prototypes. Although numerous
attempts were made to convert fast racing aircraft into fighters,
and long-range record-setting aircraft into bombers, these
were always unsuccessful, AFAIK. The requirements are too
different. Pure performance is not enough for a combat aircraft.
It is true that the air forces of the 1930s were generally too
conservative, and this showed in the design of the fighters of
the time.
> The H-1 was not a precurser of the retractable gear fighters of the mid
> 1930's. It was a precurser of the fighters of the 1940's.
The H-1 was very advanced in concept and implementation,
with excellent streamlining. But on the other hand it was a
light, small aircraft, far removed from the powerful fighters
of the 1940s. It was the best 1930s racing aircraft that a
lot of money and inventiveness could build, but conceptually
it had more in common with the Caudron C.714 than with the
Fw 190. The Fw 190 was a battlefield work-horse.
Kurt Plummer
Emamanuel,
I agree with everything said up to your 'Pure Performance' statement.
IMO, wartime experience showed that the Mosquito was more successful than the
Ju-88 and a large percentage of it's capability derived from /ditching/ the
armor, gun-emplacements and gondola'd bomb aiming stations (with crew) for a
smaller, sleeker, design.
I think it has more to do with volume allocation within a given baseline
mission requirement (which may admittedly be more 'bulbous' than a 20 pylon
lap bird) than specific sizing.
There are probably hard minimum limits but these may also be fairly small,
comparing say the Me-163 and the 263; the latter with a conventional gear and
I believe bigger fuel tank/cruise chamber combination gave you almost 20
minutes of endurance and would have been a 'killer' of more than it's pilots.
To bring it back on-topic, I think the Zero suffered less in it's
'lightweight' nature than from the allocated percentage performance points
split between range/combat endurance/
speed/agility-at-speed/maneuverability.
The first and last were prime movers while it's been 'proven' here a couple
times by P-40 drivers that the middle two suffered immensely. I'm not even
sure that armor or additional guns, earlier on, would have made a difference
had the airframe been able to support the weight without losing it's overwater
legs. But certainly powered agility in the 360-380mph range WOULD have.
Would I trade 200lbs of armor for 20mph of speed and 2-5K altitude performance
over an enemy in the fighter mission? Probably, depending on the skills of my
cohorts and my proximity exposure to 'other threats' (surface).
Would I trade that armor for 40mph of speed and 10K altitude performance
capability? You betcha, without a doubt or hesitation or condition.
Also, though control harmonies and lightness at speed plus limiter Mach are
important, engines seem to matter more than anything. Another interesting
aircraft to compare with the concept of 'lightweight xx' being the XP-77 with
both the intended and eventuated powerplants...
KP
Yama
>
> The H-1 design was on paper in early 1934. There is no way that one can
> that the I-16 made its maiden flight flight in 1933 by a mere 14 hours. It
> took off at 10:00 hours on the 31st of December, 1933. It barely could do
> 270 mph. The D.500 barely 220 mph. These were not benchmark aircraft,
> but simply evolutionary.
I-16 was 'evolutionary' perhaps structurally, but it's concept and
aerodynamics were certainly revolutionary: first cantilever,
retractable landing gear fighter without external struts.
> The H-1 was notably faster than the prototype
> Spitfire of 1936. The P-36 was not especially fast, the Bf-109 needed the
> DB 601 to really shine, the MS.405 was built using old technology (and
> was a dog anyway) as did the Hurricane to a lesser extent. Once again,
> the H-1 was an order of magnitude faster than any of the above. The little
> Hughes set a new standard of speed, range and aerodynamic efficiency
> that was far in advance of anything else flying in 1935. That's what sets it
> above the rest. However, technology was advancing at a blurring pace
> and the advantages of the H-1 would be short lived.
While racing planes certainly inspired fighter design of the late
'30s, specialized racing machine can hardly be compared to
operational fighters. I believe record-breaking versions of Bf 109,
He 100 and Me-209 were faster than H-1, as was the Speed Spitfire.
Emmanuel Gustin
news:37896D66...@earthlink.net...
> I agree with everything said up to your 'Pure Performance' statement.
Depends how you see it. Yes, the Mosquito successfully operated
without any defensive armament. But it was still designed to haul
1000lb of bombs, soon increased to 2000lb or even 4000lb;
fighter-bomber versions carried four 20mm cannon and four 7.7mm
machineguns, in addition to rockets or bombs; nightfighters still
carried radar and four 20mm cannon.
The designers of the Mosquito felt that defensive armament was not
worth its weight, bulk and drag; but they were very well aware that
they were designing a combat aircraft. BTW at least some Mosquitos
carried armour, and bomber versions had a transparant nose with a
bomb-aiming position.
> There are probably hard minimum limits but these may also be fairly small,
> comparing say the Me-163 and the 263; the latter with a conventional gear
and
> I believe bigger fuel tank/cruise chamber combination gave you almost 20
> minutes of endurance and would have been a 'killer' of more than it's
pilots.
Maybe. 20 minutes still isn't very much. Successfull attacks on the bomber
formations had to be well-organized and planned; the small fuel capacity of
the Me 263 did not leave enough time for that.
> To bring it back on-topic, I think the Zero suffered less in it's
> 'lightweight' nature than from the allocated percentage performance points
> split between range/combat
endurance/speed/agility-at-speed/maneuverability.
Yes and no. Hirokoshi wrote that he could have met the same
requirements by using a more powerful engine; he did not do it
because he felt that the IJN's pilots would dislike the heavier fighter
that this would produce. This was a marketing decision, not a
technical one. But a heavier fighter might have been much more
adaptable to increases in armour and armament.
On the other hand, the design priorities were wrong. Hirokoshi
tried to get over the debate about the requirements --- speed vs.
manoeuverability --- in the IJN by meeting the demands of *both*
sides; but nobody bothered to mention sturdiness and development
potential.
Cub driver
>Yes and no. Hirokoshi wrote that he could have met the same
>requirements by using a more powerful engine; he did not do it
>because he felt that the IJN's pilots would dislike the heavier fighter
>that this would produce. This was a marketing decision, not a
>technical one. But a heavier fighter might have been much more
>adaptable to increases in armour and armament.
>
>On the other hand, the design priorities were wrong. Hirokoshi
>tried to get over the debate about the requirements --- speed vs.
>manoeuverability --- in the IJN by meeting the demands of *both*
>sides; but nobody bothered to mention sturdiness and development
>potential.
It is always a pleasure to read your posts, Emmanuel, both for the
information they contain and the clarity with which it is presented.
I think you're giving too much latitude to Mitsubishi. Hirokoski
didn't have any latitude--he *had* to meet the Navy requirements,
which basically were for a long-ranged modern fighter with the
dogfighting ability of a biplane.
I suspect even the weight was ordained for him. The first couple of
Zeros didn't make the cut because their engine wasn't good enough.
Happily, Nakajima had developed the Sakae 12 for the "Army's Zero,"
the Ki-43 Hayabusa, and that was the engine that powered the Zero as
accepted for Navy service.
Reverting to an earlier post about the comparative sluggishness of the
Zero due to its roll rate, this is I think a fantasy perpetuated by
one P-40 pilot who never met a Zero (or any other Japanese fighter) in
combat. The U.S. Marine, Navy, and Army pilots who fought the Zero in
the first six months of the war certainly thought it was an agile
plane, as did the British and Dutch colonial air forces.
The Japanese Army, by the way, rejected the Hayabusa (thus freeing up
that Sakae 12 engine) because it was too sluggish. (Again, the
requirements were essentially that it had to dogfight like a biplane.)
Later, after combat flaps were added, the Hayabusa (it is said) could
actually turn inside a Zero, and it went into production in time for
about 50 copies to be available for the invasion of Malaya in December
1941.
All the best - Dan Ford
see "Nothing New About Death" at http://www.danford.net
and the message board at http://www.delphi.com/annals/
(Brewster Buffalo, Flying Tigers, Japan at War, other stuff)
Emmanuel Gustin
news:3789cc9e...@news.nh.ultranet.com...
> I think you're giving too much latitude to Mitsubishi. Hirokoski
> didn't have any latitude--he *had* to meet the Navy requirements,
> which basically were for a long-ranged modern fighter with the
> dogfighting ability of a biplane.
You should check Hirokoshi's book --- I remember the title
as "Mitsubishi Eagles." In it he discusses how he calculated
the two options, a heavy and and a light one, that would meet
the Navy's requirements. He then discussed them with Mitsubishi's
directors, and they agreed that the light design was more likely
to be looked on favourably by IJN pilots. It was thought that these
men would not accept a too large difference in size and weight
between the A5M and A6M.
He also describes an interesting debate between IJN officers,
stimulated by questions from his team, about the most desirable
characteristics. Genda argued that manoeuverability was the most
important factor in combat. Another, equally respected officer
(whose name I don't remember) disagreed and pleaded for speed
and climb --- arguing that the IJN's excellent pilots would be able
to out-manoeuver the enemy anyway. The armament of the new
fighter was also a source of disagreement; some IJN officers
wanted to delete the cannon.
Requirements were important, but they were not written in stone.
The IJN's own hestitations and doubts were a source of concern
for the design team, because it was not really that clear what the
Navy really wanted.
> Reverting to an earlier post about the comparative sluggishness of the
> Zero due to its roll rate, this is I think a fantasy perpetuated by
No, the poor roll rate at high speeds of the A6M is well documented,
also by people who have flown the aircraft. The Ki.43 may have
shared the same problem.
Many early WWII fighters had this problem, mainly because the
wings were not strong enough and the ailerons overly large and
poorly balanced. (Supermarine actually considered a low high-speed
roll rate a plus, because this reduced the risk of overstressing the
airframe! Only later did combat reports convince them otherwise.)
> combat. The U.S. Marine, Navy, and Army pilots who fought the Zero in
> the first six months of the war certainly thought it was an agile
> plane, as did the British and Dutch colonial air forces.
Depends on tactics. The A6M was excellently suited for a low-speed
close-in turning dogfight. With a light airframe, it also climbed very well.
But at higher speeds, the Allied fighters were often more manoeuverable,
and they had far superior characteristics in a dive. A quick roll and a
dive became the standard evasive maneuvre in the USN and USMC,
because the A6M could not follow.
--
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
Ken Sykes
airflow displacement (downwash). I suppose it fits an ideal coupling
of the wing with the airflow the wing generates.
Just a WAG
Tallyho!
AK
WebW...@twcny.rr.com wrote:
>
> Rather than slither over to the Library myself, what is the advantages
> in an elliptical wing design?
>
> Is the advantage real? How big an effect over what ranges of operating
> conditions?
>
> On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 13:17:10 GMT, Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com (C.C.
> Jordan) (C.C. Jordan) wrote:
>
> ::On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:03:23 +0300, Yama <tj...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
> ::
> ::>C.C. Jordan wrote:
> ::>
> ::>> Mitchell's Spitfire of 1936, adopting the
> ::>> basic wing planform of the Seversky aircraft.
> ::>> Even Hawker adopted a wing not unlike the
> ::>> Seversky/Republic fighters for the Tempest (what a
> ::>> difference a wing can make).
> ::>
> ::>Seversky/Republic claim is new to me - sometimes it's claimed that
> ::>Mitchell copied tail and elliptic wing design from Heinkel He-70.
> ::>While it is known that He-70 certainly had influence to Supermarine
> ::>design, having built models from both planes, wing profiles are
> ::>considerably different.
> ::
> ::Alexander Seversky filed a Patent application for a design with his
> ::eliptical wing in 1927. Long before the He-70 was designed. Seversky
> ::was a genius of sorts and like Sikorski, having arrived in America, he elected
> ::to remain. Only Seversky was sent here by the Czarist government. When
> ::the communist revolution appeared to be succeeding, Seversky stayed
> ::in the U.S.
> ::
> ::The efficiency of Seversky's wing was well known by 1934 and widely
> ::employed. The Reggiane 2000 series is the most obvious knock-off,
> ::being a blatant copy of the P-35/EP-106.
> ::
> ::My regards,
Benson1171
>The A6M was excellently suited for a low-speed
>close-in turning dogfight. With a light airframe, it also climbed very well.
>But at higher speeds, the Allied fighters were often more manoeuverable,
This was demonstrated in the Dec. 26 Cape Glouster fight mentioned in the Maj.
Cragg thread. The 8th had three squadrons in the air, one equipped with
P-38Hs, one with P-47Ds and one with P-40Ns. The P-38s and P-47s were high and
mid cover and the P-40s were low cover. The Japanese came over at 24 to 27,000
feet and tangled with the P-38s and P-47s, managing to shoot several of them
down while not suffering too severely themselves. But the fight saw a lot of
Japanese fighters moving fast for the lower atmosphere so when they got to
12,000 feet where the P-40s were they had a lot of speed. The Japanese
fighters suddenly found themselves in high speed turning contests with P-40s
and got outturned, paying for it with the loss of 13 Zeros in a short sharp
fight during which they were not able to down any of their opponents. The
Zeros must have tried to roll and turn to avoid the Warhawks but were going too
fast and the P-40s could stay with them. Apparently the P-40s were even
turning _inside_ some of the Zeros.
Del Benson
Al Bowers
cubd...@eudoralmail.com (cubdriver) writes:
> >Does anyone know if this is true, and if so who the designer was?
> The designer in question was probably Jack Northrop, though when it
> comes to conspiracy theories (well, copying a design is not exactly a
> conspiracy, but you know what I mean) folks can make something out of
> almost anything.
The Northrop V-143 and V-156 are usually cited in discussions of the
Zero being an American "design". It should be noted the Northrop -143
and -156 were both intended as lightweight export fighters. There was
no "skulduggery" in their sale. Unlike the F-20, Northrop was allowed
to sell their products to non-hostile states.
> As to why a Zero is called a Zero, see http://www.danford.net/zero.htm
This always cracks me up. I've read several pieces of fiction where
writers are completely oblivious of how the Japanese do things. the
Japanese will not reuse the "Zero" number/name on a current plane (at
least until 2040 AD). At least _SOMEONE_ pays attention...
Al Bowers
C.C. Jordan
>Reverting to an earlier post about the comparative sluggishness of the
>Zero due to its roll rate, this is I think a fantasy perpetuated by
>one P-40 pilot who never met a Zero (or any other Japanese fighter) in
>combat. The U.S. Marine, Navy, and Army pilots who fought the Zero in
>the first six months of the war certainly thought it was an agile
>plane, as did the British and Dutch colonial air forces.
In fairness to that "P-40 pilot", he is backed up by RN Capt. Erik Brown.
Brown writes about the stiffening ailerons of the Zero being a big advantage
for the Allied fighters.
Of all the fighters in WWII, three stand out as having very high roll rates.
The FW-190, P-40 and P-47 were at the top of the list (with the Focke
Wulf at the top or damn close to the top). Brown points out that due to the
slow roll rate of the zero at speed, Average rolling fighters such the F6F and
Spitfire could easily pull enough lead to get in a killing shot before the
Zero's turn rate became a factor. This allowed a fighter, such as the P-40,
to maintain this lead through the first 90 to 120 degrees of the turn. Brown
clearly points to this as one of the best methods for killing the Zero.
After turning 90 degrees, the pursuing fighter simply rolls wings level, unloads
and leaves. Meanwhile the Zero has scrubbed off quite a bit of speed and cannot
hope to catch up after he completes his turn (to reverse his turn would only
widen the gap).
By the way, Brown logged time in both the P-40 and a captured Zero.
My regards
C.C. Jordan
>C.C. Jordan wrote:
>>
>> The H-1 design was on paper in early 1934. There is no way that one can
>> place the D.500 or the I-16 in the same class as the H-1. let me also add
>> that the I-16 made its maiden flight flight in 1933 by a mere 14 hours. It
>> took off at 10:00 hours on the 31st of December, 1933. It barely could do
>> 270 mph. The D.500 barely 220 mph. These were not benchmark aircraft,
>> but simply evolutionary.
>
>I-16 was 'evolutionary' perhaps structurally, but it's concept and
>aerodynamics were certainly revolutionary: first cantilever,
>retractable landing gear fighter without external struts.
Almost, but not quite. The Lockheed YP-24 was the "first cantilever,
retractable landing gear fighter without external struts." The I-16 was the
first **single seat** fighter with these attributes.
>
>> The H-1 was notably faster than the prototype
>> Spitfire of 1936. The P-36 was not especially fast, the Bf-109 needed the
>> DB 601 to really shine, the MS.405 was built using old technology (and
>> was a dog anyway) as did the Hurricane to a lesser extent. Once again,
>> the H-1 was an order of magnitude faster than any of the above. The little
>> Hughes set a new standard of speed, range and aerodynamic efficiency
>> that was far in advance of anything else flying in 1935. That's what sets it
>> above the rest. However, technology was advancing at a blurring pace
>> and the advantages of the H-1 would be short lived.
>
>While racing planes certainly inspired fighter design of the late
>'30s, specialized racing machine can hardly be compared to
>operational fighters. I believe record-breaking versions of Bf 109,
>He 100 and Me-209 were faster than H-1, as was the Speed Spitfire.
The H-1 was not truly a racer. It was designed to break speed and
endurance records. Remember that the Seversky SEV-1XP was also
a racer and record breaker in the mid 1930's. As to the others you mention,
they came along 3 to 4 years after the H-1 established its record speed
run in 1935. The H-1 was without peer until 1938. Had Hughes decided to
install a P&W R-1830 with 1,100 hp, the H-1 would have been even faster.
As it was he got by with a smallish engine and limited power.
My regards,
John Campbell
>
> C.C. Jordan wrote:
> >
> > The H-1 design was on paper in early 1934.
<snip>
> While racing planes certainly inspired fighter design of the late
> '30s, specialized racing machine can hardly be compared to
> operational fighters. I believe record-breaking versions of Bf 109,
> He 100 and Me-209 were faster than H-1, as was the Speed Spitfire.
These aircraft were later with much more power which more than
compensated for the mostly extra size. In the case of the Me 209
(Me 109R) it was the minimum size that could be built around a much
more powerful motor (2000, 2300 hp ?). IIRC the British had doubts
about the record speed of the Me 109R calculating that the Bf109
would need ~ 4000hp for 470mph on the deck and not realizing that
they were different designs.
The other point about copying of designs is that ANY designer who
dosn't pay attention to what other people are doing and incorporate
any relevant advance whether in structure or aerodynamics is not
doing a good job.
Regards
JC
David Lednicer
designers needed depth outboard for the outboard retracting landing gear
and the four guns in each wing, but they wanted to use a low thickness
to chord ration airfoil. The answer to these conflicting requirements
was to have lots of chord inboard, which led to the elliptical planform.
BTW - Roberto Longhi designed the Re 2000. The airplane might have
looked a lot like a P-35, but it was very inovative - it was the first
aircraft with integral wing fuel tanks (what we call wet wings today).
Longhi was an American citizen lured to Italy before WWII.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: da...@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090
Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299
dmb...@my-deja.com
David Lednicer <da...@amiwest.com> wrote:
> The real reason that the Spitfire used an elliptical wing was that the
> designers needed depth outboard for the outboard retracting landing
gear
> and the four guns in each wing, but they wanted to use a low thickness
> to chord ration airfoil. The answer to these conflicting requirements
> was to have lots of chord inboard, which led to the elliptical
planform.
>
Are you sure you mean inboard, here?
> BTW - Roberto Longhi designed the Re 2000. The airplane might have
> looked a lot like a P-35, but it was very inovative - it was the first
> aircraft with integral wing fuel tanks (what we call wet wings today).
> Longhi was an American citizen lured to Italy before WWII.
>
One could argue that Coanda's plane had an integral wing tank, but
no matter.
When was the Re 2000 operational? I ask, because the wing
leading edge in certain marks of PR Spitfires was also wet.
David
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Ross Roscoe Dillon
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:31:08 GMT, WebW...@twcny.rr.com wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:47:57 +0100, David Lednicer <da...@amiwest.com>
>(David Lednicer) wrote:
>
>::The real reason that the Spitfire used an elliptical wing was that the
>::designers needed depth outboard for the outboard retracting landing gear
>::and the four guns in each wing, but they wanted to use a low thickness
>::to chord ration airfoil. The answer to these conflicting requirements
>::was to have lots of chord inboard, which led to the elliptical planform.
>
>I'm led to guess that the ellipse is the wing cross section (chord) not
>the top-view, which, on the Spitfire, had a vaguely-ellipse-like
>outline. Yes?
>
>Brian / WebWalkr *at* twcny.rr.com
Roscoe
USAF Flight Tester
(B-1, B-2, T-38, T-37, C-5, QF-106, F-16, F-5...)
------
If replying by email, please remove _no_spam_ from address
Caius Marius
>The real reason that the Spitfire used an elliptical wing was that the
>designers needed depth outboard for the outboard retracting landing gear
>and the four guns in each wing, but they wanted to use a low thickness
>to chord ration airfoil. The answer to these conflicting requirements
>was to have lots of chord inboard, which led to the elliptical planform.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the stall characteristics of an elliptical
wing. That one's on the private pilot test.
John - N8086N
Big brother is watching. Disable cookies in your web browser.
-------------------------------------------
Wise man says "Never use a bank with the initials F. U."
-------------------------------------------
Are you interested in a professional society or
guild for programmers? Want to fight section 1706?
See www.programmersguild.org
Newsgroup: us.issues.occupations.computer-programmers
EMail Address:
_m-i-a-n-o_@_c_o_l_o_s_s_e_u_m_b_u_i_l_d_e_r_s._c_o_m_
Dudley Henriques
>
> Reverting to an earlier post about the comparative sluggishness of the
> Zero due to its roll rate, this is I think a fantasy perpetuated by
> one P-40 pilot who never met a Zero (or any other Japanese fighter) in
> combat.
I beg to differ with you! That information came from Japanese members of
the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship who have flown the airplane
in combat.
DH
--
Dudley Henriques, Past President [1971-1985]
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Erik Shilling
Kurt Plummer
> Zero, but how to use high Roll Rate, and Speed was the answer to
> fighting the Zero successfully.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik Shilling
Hello Mr. Shilling,
Quite the grilling!;)
Did you ever get a chance to fly the F8F or the lighter of the Mustangs?
I'd be interested in your views on the best way to tackle any of the later
war Japanese fighters including the 52 Zero or the Hayate or K-61/100 with
these aircraft.
If not Mr. Henriques do you have a Fellows pilot amongst your number who
would be willing to make a comparitive performance discourse?
Uhhhhm, somewhere in here somebody said that the P-40/47/FW-190(A
presumeably) were the best-rollers. How about the boosted P-38 or was that
more a matter of dps at Mach .xx?
Thanks, Kurt Plummer
Dudley Henriques
>
> If not Mr. Henriques do you have a Fellows pilot amongst your number who
> would be willing to make a comparitive performance discourse?
>
Kurt,
I'm sure that Erik can comment better than me about the P40. I can tell
you that the P40's roll rate was about triple that of the zero.
I have flown the F8F and the P51 Mustang. Both airplanes have superior
roll rates as compared to the zero all through the envelope, but
especially on the right side. There is an area above which the zero
can't be rolled at all, according to the pilots I know who have flown
the airplane.
As to ACM: It is important to realize that what made the zero formidable
during a fight was NOT it's roll rate but rather it's low wing loading,
which gave the airplane a very tight turn radius on the left side of
it's flight envelope where CLmax [lift limits] are the deciding factor.
Roll delta is important in a fighter, but not prime in considering
performance capability. It was the wing loading advantage that caused
fighter pilots who engaged the zero to quickly realize the danger
involved by following the Japanese fighter into a turn.
In discussing ACM there is a tendency to try and pin down an absolute
answer to a specific question. As an instructor in ACM, I can tell you
this is a wrong approach. On any given day, the engagement can very well
be settled by the difference between the cockpits. There are certain
things you can study. You can know your airplane well and where you
should put it and avoid putting it in the fight. You can study the 1-1
until you memorize the HM and Ps diagrams. You can have a mental
solution to almost any conceivable situation you will encounter. Then,
when it happens, it is a constantly changing dynamic. ACM almost always
denigrates into a tactical improvisation scenario where you have to make
a decision instantly to go one way or another in a fraction of a second.
It all looks great on paper, but in the air, it will be the guy who
knows and sticks to sound BASICS that comes home in one piece.
As for the zero question: All the aircraft you mentioned had higher wing
loadings than the zero.
Engagement with the zero at any aspect angle forward of the 3-9 line
could be a real problem for a higher wing loaded fighter without an
initial offset. The zero could, and often did, use the vertical plane to
generate an even tighter radius of turn.
Behind the 3-9 line, most of the pilots I have talked to agree that the
best bet for the shooter was a high side high rate of closure medium
angle off pass. If the zero remained unaware, the shot was taken as
range dropped to guns. If the zero hard turned away from the attack,[and
sometimes they did believe it or not] the tracking solution was solved.
If the zero hard turned into the attack[ which was the likely case to
deal with] the shooter made the decision based on closure rate and
range. If the range and Vc dictated a shot before 90 degrees of turn was
reached, the shooter could stay in the plane of turn that long and
accept the high angle off snap shot that this situation offered. If too
far out, the general opinion was that it was better to dive on through
and extend for disengagement.
I'm sure Erik will have some first hand comment that can possibly
enhance what I have told you.
Erik Shilling
Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
> I wonder if we will get a response from Ford?
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik Shilling
Isn't the J3 Cub REALLY a Japanese design???????????????
Kurt Plummer
Gentlemen,
Thanks very much, I will save your comments and the data table.
/However/; it still doesn't give me an idea of the /comparitive/
performances of later models or specifically designed 'Zero Killers'.
Sigh, I didn't want to do this because I know it's a mash of the
impossible to prove and the likely 'wrong to begin with' but...
Having played a couple simulators with the Zero facing off against the
51H and the F-8F1b (X4 20mm?) as well as the F-2G Corsair I've
'discovered' some things I'm hoping somebody could help me work through.
1. BnZ and energy play is a cast iron /bitch/ when there is an
artificial representation of how long the enemy takes to run-into lead
over the longnose (most Ami fighters).
I also always knew when I'd 'found' an ace because no matter how many
people were (inevitably) stuck in the horizontal fight; the 1-2 'smart
Zero' (and other) fighters played up into my belly side as soon as I
headed downhill which is a /scarey thing/ to say the least (them coming
up past your wingtip or tail just as you think they'll never popup from
under the nose).
2. Though in level flight it was perfectly docile, the roll rate on the
F-8F was so high that I couldn't control it, nearly always 'pulling'
into a pro-roll skidding turn that could nearly bend the plane around
right angles. No rudder 'coordination' possible. If I tried any
change-of-horizon-index shennanigans /too slow/ it snapped -against- the
turn and flipped me on my back which was again, 'fun' when people where
shooting at you. Indeed roll-alone bled speed -very badly-.
3. Because of this and the fact that despite heavier wingloading, I had
a hard time getting above 380 with a 'useful' (+5-7K @ 360) bottom out
height into the massive wagon wheels that always ended up being how ACM
developed.
Instead, I found it was -easier- to 'curl' down in a couple of spirals
that put me at an offset position from the whole mess so I could then
'work my way in' behind my particular victim as I saw him lead-by.
4. For whatever reason, if I did this he rarely went vertical and I
could stay latched long enough bleed him easily into the 180-220 range
where I could -still- outroll him (nothing but a very high speed corsair
outrolled the Bearcat in that game) and more importantly, his maneuvers
were so sluggish, across-screen such that he didn't usually have the
energy to make the kinds of 'second to second' pitch-bunt moves to avoid
an easier (IMO) kill.
This sounds like a pure-rate turn advantage in what you call the heart
of the Zero's envelope to me...!
The only problem being of course the Guy-Behind-U-2 secondary threat,
but I too had wingman and again, as long as I could see the enemy's #2
across the circle, I could work to time the pitch-point cut off on the
leader and then roll into #2 so drastically that I typically dropped out
of the fight plane altogether.
5. Now For The Zero.
I always wondered what the big deal is about this crates supposed
'maneuverability' or lack. I could see well enough (uhhhh, around all
the framing;) over-nose and usually point the nose at what my eyes liked
with a roll that was 'stable but loose' depending on how high I was and
how fast I was going. Good (heavy and sloppy but predictable) enough
for nice lead-pulling anyway.
Instead it was the damn torque induced yaw that set my teeth on edge. I
could /never/ get a coordinated turn out of the thing and on fast-moving
targets, the guns seemed to harmonize very badly, fairly far out (with
only 60 rounds, no 'let him fly into it' margin...) so hitting a
deflection shot on another fighter was Very Hard.
Even in level flight, 'fully trimmed' got me about a 1.5-2` compass
change every 2-3 seconds, something which could be mildly bettered
(every 10-12 seconds) by backing off about 15% on the throttle. I
/think/ this is purely the 'light airframe effect' but the important
thing was in combat, where every ounce of power wasn't enough, no matter
how much boot was planted through the floorboards _any_ rolling maneuver
took this effect up to 5-6 dps of sideslip that made (even sitting
still!) the screen-appearance seem like the plane was right on the edge
of spinning off.
Most of my fighter kills came collision-point-blank at the top reversal
side of a loop (which couldn't even be started much below 240 if you
wanted to go far) and indeed, against a bomber, the -vertical- was the
only way to play because you couldn't keep up with the target let alone
out of its turret cones, any other way. This in everything from Hainan
Type 21's to errr, 32-Hamps I think it was over the Solomons and the 52
over Okinawa and Japan.
Yet for such a 'lightly loaded' plane (no inertia to hold the energy,
right?) it sure didn't seem to rub with lost airspeed as the nose came
back above the horizon as much as the bearcat did on the down-round side
of a vertical play up to 370mph.
I don't know the G-effect, didn't have any indication but I would think
the wings would peel and your airspeed go to 'zero' here, but they
didn't.
Anyway, with all one hears about how the Japanese were 'masters of
graceful movement but couldn't unconventionalize (vector skid,
rudder-over roll and so on) worth a darn' in their set piece ACM tactics
against Allied fliers (who themselves are so often lauded as using
energy tactics where little such maneuver should be possible or needed),
I find it interesting that my, very unreal, limited, experiences were
just the opposite of what one would expect from too 'angles' designed
direct competitors: Zero=vertical, F-8F=horizontal.
6. The P-51 I just didn't like to be honest. Oh you could stay alive
if you ran far enough from a high enough intial cruise but it had a very
sluggish roll rate errr, onset (? it was jerky-hesitant to start and
then wouldn't stop crisply anway) at high speed and while this improved
to a pretty good standard by about 270, it's turn rate never got better
above or below about 320. Furthermore it took /forever/ to get to that
speed, once you bled off. Which was rapid. I think the turbo wasn't
factored or something.
_Any_ Japanese plane could turn inside it and unless you had speed they
could match your vertical moves +20` of climb angle and /catch you/
before you bunted down for want of energy (except the Hayate which
strangely enough didn't like to sustain climb at more than about 10-15`
above the horizon for me, even from a diving zoom-entry).
7. The Corsair was decent about all axes if underpowered and sluggish
in nose-pointing. You had to bring it in high-bounce advantaged or grit
your teeth and 'climb thru' the enemy to win consistently in it. Until
the 2G... hoo babay. Rolls like a dream, runs up and down like rocket,
holds energy with some pretty extreme stick yanking and was 'honest' if
not exceptional in it's rated turn and pitch, all across the
speed/altitude chart, left or right.
Any IJNAAF'er who made the terrible mistake of running that sudden
'pitchup and roll-into' half or complete loop nonsense (Ki-43 or 61 more
often) got -ate- as I topped out over him and then let him show ME belly
on the downside.
With all that power in the vertical, the enemy tended to pull-pack into
collision sometimes, not realizing how close I was and horizontal
overshoots were very easy.
Uhmm, it DID have a little more tendency to 'fall out' of the turn if
you banked beyond 40` for too long but I assume it was funny-lift off
the bent wing because throttle movement didn't seem to matter as much as
initial (aggressive) roll-sets followed by 'creep' as you tried to match
an enemy tightening up (torque change in the F-8F could exacerbate even
a stabilized roll index all the way into stall too, while once in combat
I rarely touched the throttle on the Zero).
The only thing 'really wrong' was the six .50's which never seemed to do
enough damage for the numeric weight of shell thrown out, (same for the
P-51 so that may be wrong modeling again). I wish they'd used something
like a U4b model for that...
SO. Like I said, is there /any/ F-8F jock who did post war evals
against captured Zeros or a lightweight P-51 pilot with similar
experience? I would like to know how far off my evaluations were and
what I could do better. I'd even be more pleased to hear how to employ
the A-6M a bit more adroitly if there are any former Imperial drivers
lurking out there?...
Many Thanks- KP
Dudley Henriques
>
War and Peace snipped.....
Kurt,
I think you might be better off addressing these questions to a flight
simulator group.
DH
Maury Markowitz
> > I'm sure that Erik can comment better than me about the P40. I
> >can tell you that the P40's roll rate was about triple that of the
> >zero. I have flown the F8F and the P51 Mustang. Both airplanes
> >have superior roll rates as compared to the zero all through the
> >envelope,
Depends on the model of the Zero. The 52's and other clipped wing ones
could outroll the 51 at lower speeds IIRC. Ranking off the Zero - the time
the 22 takes to make a single 360 degree turn - the P-40B would have made
about 270 - 275 degrees. Not bad compared to other planes, but certainly not
"better". Compare with the Spit 1 which could get about 300 degrees. The
51B's were in the 240 range and the D's a little less. Of course the speed
for this turn rate is much lower on the Zero as well, the Zero's turn circle
fit inside the 40's.
Simply put the Zero 2x's were the best sustained turners of the war, with
the possible exception of the Nate, which I've never seen numbers for. The
52's for instance were closer to the 300 range. They also had the best or
close to the best corner turn rates, as you'd expect of course.
Sadly I don't have any numbers for g-capture for any of these planes, which
is the important number during the early stages of the fight.
> > but especially on the right side. There is an area above
> >which the zero can't be rolled at all, according to the pilots I
> >know who have flown the airplane.
Over 350mph the early ones couldn't do much of anything. You could outturn
them in a 190 if you wanted too, just keep them going downhill.
> Most often overlooked is the fact that above 220 IAS, the P-40
> could turn just as tight as the Zero, its only limiting factor
> would be the "Gs" the pilot could withstand. Not the airplane.
Instantaneous turn sure - but by that measure the 190 was a great turner! I
think what people think of when they compare this number is sustained turn
and in that measure the Zero was indeed better than the 40.
> Normally at or below 4 G's an experience pilot will not black out.
> nor will pulling 6 G's for a few seconds, but without a G suite
> sustaining 6 G's or more will. As a matter of fact I have pulled
> 10 G's for only a second or two, and I personally don't know if I
> have ever become unconscious.
You pull something like 20 jumping off a stool. Length of exposure is
indeed vital to the problem.
If you had become unconscious you'd know it in these cases, mostly due to
the pre-blackout phases which are obvious if you know what to look for or see
them in retrospect. It's kinda like the time I had hypoxuia and didn't know
it until a year later when someone described what it's like and I thought
"hey...". I knew _something_ happened though, just not what.
> Therefore at or above 220 IAS, the Zero did not have a turning
> advantage over the P-40. This means that the P-40 could turn in
> just as small a circle as the Zero, regardless of how light the
> Zero's wing loading happened to be.
_Instantaneous_ turn.
> This depends upon the stage of the combat.
As is true of manuverability in general. The Germans considered it
important only for defensive situations. Then again diving head first at a
bomber doesn't need that much manuverability!
> The first sentence is correct, but the vertical plane is what many
> of us called "yo yoing,"
Are you sure this is what they were talking about? I assume he was talking
about doing a pure vertical manuver at low speeds where most other fighters
couldn't follow. The Zeke's "over the top" speed was very low (I think only
the Spit and Hurry got even close) so they can grab manuver room above the
fight in situations where other planes couldn't.
Not that it's that useful as an entry manuver though, in that case the
heavier plane is likely to have much better e retension and if the entry is a
HO then they can easily zoom past the Zeke and put it at the defensive.
> Because at the top of the yo yo
Ahh, I take that back.
Mau
Erik Shilling
<ch1...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>Erik Shilling wrote:
>
>> In <37936BCB...@bellatlantic.net> Dudley Henriques
>> <dhe...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>> >
>> Kurt Plummer wrote:
>>
HI Kurt:
I'm afraid that some of your present day lingo is over my head. One
comment that attracted y attention was about the throttle.
The minute we saw the enemy we went to Meto power and never touched the
throttle after that except to go to WEP if necessary.
Regards,
Erik Shilling
Erik Shilling
Markowitz) writes:
>
> Depends on the model of the Zero. The 52's and other clipped wing
ones>could outroll the 51 at lower speeds IIRC. Ranking off the Zero -
the time>the 22 takes to make a single 360 degree turn - the P-40B
would have made>about 270 - 275 degrees. Not bad compared to other
planes, but certainly not
>"better".
Maury please explain how two airplanes such as the Zero, P-40, P-47 or
P-51 flying at 300 mph, can possibly turn in a smaller circle than the
other. (Unless one of the Pilots is able to withstand higher "Gs" than
the other?
Regards,
Erik Shilling
Steve Hix
<dhe...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Erik Shilling wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder if we will get a response from Ford?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik Shilling
>
> Isn't the J3 Cub REALLY a Japanese design???????????????
Hey, Taylor did much better with his next design...
Steve Hix
jc...@nospam.corplink.com.au wrote:
> Steve Hix wrote:
> >
>
> > Hey, Taylor did much better with his next design...
>
> Didn't think the Auster was that good, I bought a
> Cessna which was more rugged and cost less to operate,
> less ground staff, less parts, less logistics to support
> at the end of a long supply route. That can be very
> helpful for civilians as well as AVG.
The Cessna wasn't a Cub or T-cart, either one.
John Campbell
>
> Hey, Taylor did much better with his next design...
Didn't think the Auster was that good, I bought a
Cessna which was more rugged and cost less to operate,
less ground staff, less parts, less logistics to support
at the end of a long supply route. That can be very
helpful for civilians as well as AVG.
Regards
JC
John Campbell
>
> Maury please explain how two airplanes such as the Zero, P-40, P-47 or
> P-51 flying at 300 mph, can possibly turn in a smaller circle than the
> other. (Unless one of the Pilots is able to withstand higher "Gs" than
> the other?
I'm always slightly dubious about comparison figures such have been
quoted
in this thread (are the speeds, pilots etc the same) but I think from
late
1942 increasing numbers of Allied pilots did have G suits of varying
effectiveness. Aviation medical texts are often vague as to who and
where,
auto/biogs not mention it and I didn't know/ask the question of the ones
I knew.
Maybe thats the answer.
Regards
JC
Maury Markowitz
> Erik Shilling wrote:
>
> > Maury please explain how two airplanes such as the Zero, P-40, P-47 or
> > P-51 flying at 300 mph, can possibly turn in a smaller circle than the
> > other. (Unless one of the Pilots is able to withstand higher "Gs" than
> > the other?
My newsreader seems to be eating articles again, I didn't get Erik's post.
Who said anything about 300mph? I was talking _sustained_turn_. Sustained
turn is at whatever speed your plane sustains at. For the Zero that's
smaller, and thus it fits inside. It's not like I'm playing fast and loose
with the numbers or anything. I clearly spelled out the difference when I was
talking sustained vs. instantaneous.
Maury
Dudley Henriques
> > > but especially on the right side. There is an area above
> > >which the zero can't be rolled at all, according to the pilots I
> > >know who have flown the airplane.
>Maury Markowitz wrote:
> Over 350mph the early ones couldn't do much of anything. You could outturn
> them in a 190 if you wanted too, just keep them going downhill.
This is an interesting addition Maury. 350 mph IS the right side of the
zero's envelope. You not only repeat exactly what was said, but use an
analogy with an FW190 which I believe Kurt Tank was thinking about
designing about the time the early zero was flying combat.....and
exactly when would you have these two airplanes together in the same
fight to compare anyway?
>
> > Most often overlooked is the fact that above 220 IAS, the P-40
> > could turn just as tight as the Zero, its only limiting factor
> > would be the "Gs" the pilot could withstand. Not the airplane.
>
> Instantaneous turn sure - but by that measure the 190 was a great turner! I
> think what people think of when they compare this number is sustained turn
> and in that measure the Zero was indeed better than the 40.
Totally incorrect!
The factors that create both instantaneous AND sustained corner
speeds[Vc and Vcsus] are not found at higher airspeed above both
corners. At these speeds, g is limited only by man, and the light wing
loaded fighter loses it's advantage. Erik is correct, and I am correct
as well. The P40 and the Zero are matched at the higher speed ranges and
radial g will be determined by each pilot's ability to withstand it.
Dudley Henriques
>
> Sustained
> turn is at whatever speed your plane sustains at.
Sustained corner velocity [Vcsus] is the speed at which a maximum
sustained rate of turn can be achieved FOR A GIVEN POWER SETTING. G load
is maximum attainable without an accompanying loss of airspeed/ and or/
altitude.
Instantaneous corner velocity [Vc] is the minimum speed at which maximum
placard g can be attained. Minimum turn radius and maximum turn rate are
achieved by combining corner velocity with maximum available g.
At least that's the way it was when I was teaching it.
PosterBoy
Maury Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
news:FF72s...@T-FCN.Net...
> In <3794CF...@nospam.corplink.com.au> John Campbell wrote:
> > Erik Shilling wrote:
> >
> > > Maury please explain how two airplanes such as the Zero, P-40, P-47 or
> > > P-51 flying at 300 mph, can possibly turn in a smaller circle than the
> > > other. (Unless one of the Pilots is able to withstand higher "Gs" than
> > > the other?
>
> My newsreader seems to be eating articles again, I didn't get Erik's
post.
>
> Who said anything about 300mph? I was talking _sustained_turn_.
> turn is at whatever speed your plane sustains at. For the Zero that's
> smaller, and thus it fits inside. It's not like I'm playing fast and
loose
> with the numbers or anything. I clearly spelled out the difference when I
was
> talking sustained vs. instantaneous.
Maury...
I've figured out what the other pilots posting on this topic were
flying.
Was your combat time in the P-40 (I just assume that it was not the 190
or the Zero) or other?
Thanks.
John Campbell
>
> In article <3794C8...@nospam.corplink.com.au>,
> jc...@nospam.corplink.com.au wrote:
>
Refering to the Auster a Taylorcraft built under license
in UK originally mainly for AOP
Regards
JC
Cub driver
>> Reverting to an earlier post about the comparative sluggishness of the
>> Zero due to its roll rate, this is I think a fantasy perpetuated by
>> one P-40 pilot who never met a Zero (or any other Japanese fighter) in
>> combat.
>
>the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship who have flown the airplane
>in combat.
They said that the Zero was less maneuverable than American fighters?
If so, this is information of great historical importance, overturning
60 years of assumptions about the A6M, and I hope you will be able to
have these interviews published. I have a page on my website about
Japan at War, and any such material would be welcome there.
When I get a chance, I'll post some quotes by American pilots about
the Zero.
All the best - Dan Ford
see "Nothing New About Death" at http://www.danford.net
and the message board at http://www.delphi.com/annals/
(Brewster Buffalo, Flying Tigers, Japan at War, other stuff)
Dudley Henriques
>
> >> Reverting to an earlier post about the comparative sluggishness of the
> >> Zero due to its roll rate, this is I think a fantasy perpetuated by
> >> one P-40 pilot who never met a Zero (or any other Japanese fighter) in
> >> combat.
> >
> >I beg to differ with you! That information came from Japanese members of
> >the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship who have flown the airplane
> >in combat.
>
> They said that the Zero was less maneuverable than American fighters?
> If so, this is information of great historical importance, overturning
> 60 years of assumptions about the A6M, and I hope you will be able to
> have these interviews published. I have a page on my website about
> Japan at War, and any such material would be welcome there.
>
> When I get a chance, I'll post some quotes by American pilots about
> the Zero.
Dan, take some friendly advice! Don't get into an acm discussion with
me, you're overmatched! As usual, you are twisting something that
someone said and making it appear to fit what you want to convey. I have
never seen someone so insidiously adept at what you do.
No one said that American fighters were more maneuverable than the zero.
What they said was that the zero had severe roll problems above 300 mph.
That factor was used by pilots fighting the zero. They also said that
the zero had superior turn capability on the lift limit [left side] of
it's envelope, and could be engaged at higher speeds, where g was
limited by man.
Dan, I have been witness to your twisting and retelling of just about
anything and everything connected with the Flying Tigers. We reviewed
your book and found it to be filled with trash supplied by those who
would discredit this fine organization.
Your post causing this response from me is typical of the thing you do
so well. You have totally misquoted something to suit your point and as
a result, you have forced me to respond in this manner.
I hope the above clears up your misquote and sets the record straight.
DH
Michael Houghton
In article <37959bf1...@news.nh.ultranet.com>,
Cub driver <cubd...@eudoralmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Reverting to an earlier post about the comparative sluggishness of the
>>> Zero due to its roll rate, this is I think a fantasy perpetuated by
>>> one P-40 pilot who never met a Zero (or any other Japanese fighter) in
>>> combat.
>>
>>I beg to differ with you! That information came from Japanese members of
>>the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship who have flown the airplane
>>in combat.
>
>They said that the Zero was less maneuverable than American fighters?
>If so, this is information of great historical importance, overturning
>60 years of assumptions about the A6M, and I hope you will be able to
>have these interviews published. I have a page on my website about
>Japan at War, and any such material would be welcome there.
>
Well, from what I understand about the relative merits of the Zero vs., say,
a P-40, the A6M had a strong advantage in some parts of the envelope,
but was weaker in other parts. To simply say "X is more manevuerable than Y"
is of little value. YOu need to qualify that with the conditions under
which the statement is true.
This is especially important if you are betting your life on the outcome
of the contest.
The smart thing to do is to know your weaknesses and strengths and to
avoid an engagement when you are weak. "Don't try to dogfight with a Zero"
expresses that. "Make a high speed pass and dive away" is another facet.
Figuring this out is not that difficult. I learned some of this stuff from
reading books in grade school.
yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
her...@radix.net | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/
Benson1171
P-39, there are plenty of accounts of those airplanes outturning (turning
inside the radius) Zeros and even Oscars if you comb through the various
fighter group histories. But only under specific conditions. The Japanese
fighter was invariably descending so its speed was high. This was because the
Japanesse were usually attacking American bombers. Then the American fighter
escort of P-40s (sometimes P-39s) forced the Japanese to break off but their
roll rates at the speeds they were flying at were poor and their turn radius
seems to have been wide (maybe this was because of stiffened controls at higher
speeds?) and the American fighters were able to turn with or even inside them.
The typical Japanese response appears to have been to pull up into a vertical
maneuver, this allowing them to among other things scrub off their speed and
regain their maneuverability. In the meantime Japanese high cover would have
dived on the American fighter escorts. This seems to have been the most
dangerous time for the American fighters who occupied with protecting the
bombers were sometimes fatally bounced. When P-38s arrived one of their first
jobs seems to have been to fly high cover for the P-40s thus protecting them
from the high bounce.
Del Benson
Maury Markowitz
> Sustained corner velocity [Vcsus] is the speed at which a maximum
> sustained rate of turn can be achieved FOR A GIVEN POWER SETTING. G load
> is maximum attainable without an accompanying loss of airspeed/ and or/
> altitude.
Hmm, this is the first time I've heard anyone call this "sustained corner",
but OK. The reason I think I haven't heard this is that I've always seen
"corner speed" refer to a place on the performance chart where there is a
distinct discontinuity that is a corner, that being the structural or pilot
limits. Sustained turn speed is typically far below this corner - although
not so today, the F-16 with the GE can generate corner speed (pilot limit) at
sea level until it runs out of fuel.
> Instantaneous corner velocity [Vc] is the minimum speed at which maximum
> placard g can be attained.
I've got a slightly different definition. Mine is that corner velocity is
the speed which gives the best instant turn rate without breaking the plane
_or_ the pilot. The only real difference that I see is that it includes the
pilot, and does not not require "minimum" (although maybe it should). I
suppose it's possible to have a "double peak" profile where the plane had two
specific areas where it could generate large amounts of g, in this case
selecting the lower speed doesn't seem to be required.
More specifically I have heard corner called the maximum speed where you
can _not_ reach limits. I suppose in most planes this is the same speed, so
I guess it really doesn't make a difference.
Most planes of the time -those without boosted controls- grew stiff at high
speed, and couldn't generate the g at low speed. I suppose it's possible
that there were planes that couldn't generate structural limits at any speed,
but I don't know of any - although the Zero might be one.
All that considered, the Zero had a _much_ better sustained turn rate than
the P-40B (or any model that I am aware of for that matter). It also had a
better instantaneous turn rate - although at a much lower speed than the
P-40. Thus to say that the P-40 had a better turn rate without offering
specific qualifiers is inaccurate.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> This is an interesting addition Maury. 350 mph IS the right side of the
> zero's envelope. You not only repeat exactly what was said
I don't see your point here.
The FW-190 was a pig in turning terms. My point was that practically any
plane, even this one, could outturn the plane at or above this speed. Yet
this in no way reflects on the _general_ nature of the two planes.
For instance a F-4 can outturn a F-16 over Mach 2 (because it can get
there). Nevertheless the F-16 is in general a much better turning plane. No
one would ever claim that the F-4 was a better turning plane than the F-16.
Yet a similar claim is sorta being made here.
> analogy with an FW190 which I believe Kurt Tank was thinking about
> designing about the time the early zero was flying combat.
The 190 started prototype construction in 1938 and completed in late spring
1939. The Zero's first prototype was completed on March 16, 1939. The 190
first flew on June 1, the Zero on April 1. They were contemporaries. Again,
I fail to see a point here even if you were right.
> exactly when would you have these two airplanes together in the same
> fight to compare anyway?
What does that have to do with anyting?
But fine, the Zero and F4U met many times in combat. Would you claim the
F4U was a better turning plane than the Zero because it showed a similar
ability over 350mhp?
What's going on with this nit picking anyway?
> > think what people think of when they compare this number is sustained turn
> > and in that measure the Zero was indeed better than the 40.
>
> Totally incorrect!
Totally incorrect? Here is what I said "sustained turn and in that measure
the Zero was indeed better than the 40". Are you claiming that the P-40 had
a better sustained turn rate than the Zero?
> The factors that create both instantaneous AND sustained corner
> speeds[Vc and Vcsus] are not found at higher airspeed above both
> corners.
Well duh, that's why they have names.
> At these speeds, g is limited only by man and the light wing
> loaded fighter loses it's advantage.
Losing it's advantage, and being at a disadvantage are two radically
different things.
> Erik is correct, and I am correct as well.
About what?
Maury
Tarver Engineering
Maury Markowitz wrote in message ...
>In <3795245B...@bellatlantic.net> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> This is an interesting addition Maury. 350 mph IS the right side of the
>> zero's envelope. You not only repeat exactly what was said
<snip>
>> Erik is correct, and I am correct as well.
>
> About what?
Everything.
John
Dudley Henriques
and go home...or go fly your little flight simulator....or better yet,
go learn what you are trying so hard to talk about.
DH
--
Dudley Henriques
one time.
and if you choose to answer this, I'm informing you ahead of time that I
will NOT respond.
nop...@my-deja.com
humm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In article <7m31ca$7vi$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Beth Fisher" <bafi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I thought I saw a Discovery channel program a few years ago that
> claimed the
> > Zero was based on an American design which the Allies rejected.
> >
> > Does anyone know if this is true, and if so who the designer was?
> >
> >
>
> Was it the first all metal (aluminum) fighter ?
>
> I played around on one as a kid growing up on the island of Moen, in
> the Truk lagoon, Micronesia in 1976 - it was over grown with vines and
> other vegitation (abondoned) but from what I can remember it was still
> in perfect shape (the fuselage and wings anyway).
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
The plane you played on wasn't a Zero. It is a Nakajima Myrt.
Although there are a few Zero wrecks around the lagoon, the plane on
Moen (now called Weno) is a Myrt. There are only 3 still known to exist
in the world and that is one of them. We bought the plane in 1965, but
still haven't been able to move it, Trukese (Chuukese) politics being
what they are.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Maury Markowitz
> seems to have been wide (maybe this was because of stiffened controls at
> higher speeds?)
Indeed. This problem was well known to the designers. In what I consider
to be a fatal mistake, they gave up trying to fix it. The big problem
occured when they introduced servo tabs to the ailerons in order to maintain
control over 350mph. Sure enough this worked very well and the plane
maintained good control authority well above this speed in extended dives.
Then they started crashing. Investigations showed the problem to be
aileron flutter at high speed. They tried to solve this even on the very
early models (the original 2's, not even the 21's), but it was never wholly
cured, notably combined with weakness in the outer wings. So they just
stopped doing it. On the Model 32's they actually removed the tabs (long
with the folding wing tips) which masked the problem of roll by having
shorting wings. I don't think they re-introduced it on the 52's.
Thus the Zero joins only one other plane I know that can fly level and be
"compressed", the other plane being the Bf-109K (and late model G's of
course). While the Spit had similar problems early on they were wholely
cured by the time of the 9's and 14's.
Maury
Steve Hix
jc...@nospam.corplink.com.au wrote:
I know...but he made comparison to a Cessna that he
bought. Which still isn't a cub.
I'd probably gone for a Cessna over an Auster or T-craft,
had I been given the choice.
On the other hand, the most fun I've had flying was
an Aeronca 7AC...
rin...@my-deja.com
maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
> In <19990721134756...@ng-cs1.aol.com> Benson1171 wrote:
> > seems to have been wide (maybe this was because of stiffened
controls at
> > higher speeds?)
>
> Indeed. This problem was well known to the designers. In what I
consider
> to be a fatal mistake, they gave up trying to fix it. The big problem
> occured when they introduced servo tabs to the ailerons in order to
maintain
> control over 350mph. Sure enough this worked very well and the plane
> maintained good control authority well above this speed in extended
dives.
>
> Then they started crashing. Investigations showed the problem to be
> aileron flutter at high speed. They tried to solve this even on the
very
> early models (the original 2's, not even the 21's), but it was never
wholly
> cured, notably combined with weakness in the outer wings. So they
just
> stopped doing it. On the Model 32's they actually removed the tabs
(long
> with the folding wing tips) which masked the problem of roll by having
> shorting wings. I don't think they re-introduced it on the 52's.
I think the 52s (at least from the a model on) did get thicker wing
skinning to improve the dive speed.
To the extent that this improved the torsional rigidity of the wing,
there should have been some improvement in the roll performance at high
speeds (there would have been less of a tendency for aileron motion to
twist the wing in the opposing direction). Also, the rounded wing tips
of the 52 might have helped a little. Of course, by this time, the
level of training and experience of the average Japanese pilot had
seriously deteriorated.
Robert Inkol
>
> Thus the Zero joins only one other plane I know that can fly level
and be
> "compressed", the other plane being the Bf-109K (and late model G's of
> course). While the Spit had similar problems early on they were
wholely
> cured by the time of the 9's and 14's.
>
> Maury
>
>
PosterBoy
Cub driver <cubd...@eudoralmail.com> wrote in message
news:37959bf1...@news.nh.ultranet.com...
>
> >> Reverting to an earlier post about the comparative sluggishness of the
> >> Zero due to its roll rate, this is I think a fantasy perpetuated by
> >> one P-40 pilot who never met a Zero (or any other Japanese fighter) in
> >> combat.
> >
> >I beg to differ with you! That information came from Japanese members of
> >the International Fighter Pilots Fellowship who have flown the airplane
> >in combat.
>
> They said that the Zero was less maneuverable than American fighters?
> If so, this is information of great historical importance, overturning
> 60 years of assumptions about the A6M, and I hope you will be able to
> have these interviews published. I have a page on my website about
> Japan at War, and any such material would be welcome there.
>
> the Zero.
>
>
> see "Nothing New About Death" at http://www.danford.net
> and the message board at http://www.delphi.com/annals/
> (Brewster Buffalo, Flying Tigers, Japan at War, other stuff)
Dan...
You have taken the narrow focus of the "roll rate" comparison discussion
and expanded it to a general "maneuverability" debate, apparently just to
get in a dig at someone?
That is beneath you, IMO.
Cheers.
Dudley Henriques
>
> In <3795245B...@bellatlantic.net> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > This is an interesting addition Maury. 350 mph IS the right side of the
> > zero's envelope. You not only repeat exactly what was said
>
The point here Maury, is that you are repeating what was said, replacing
your own words as an "add on" which in effect says the same thing;
designed to give the impression that the person who made the remark in
the first place needs YOU to make what he or she said, correct......
>
> The FW-190 was a pig in turning terms. My point was that practically any
> plane, even this one, could outturn the plane at or above this speed. Yet
> this in no way reflects on the _general_ nature of the two planes.
Maury, you have got to go see the "turning psychiatrist" He's around the
"corner"....
>
> For instance a F-4 can outturn a F-16 over Mach 2 (because it can get
> there). Nevertheless the F-16 is in general a much better turning plane. No
> one would ever claim that the F-4 was a better turning plane than the F-16.
> Yet a similar claim is sorta being made here.
Yeah Maury! Mach 2 is exactly where I would go to have a "turning"
engagement. Where the hell do you dream up this stuff? What kind of
comic books do you read anyway?
> >
> > Totally incorrect!
>
> Totally incorrect? Here is what I said "sustained turn and in that measure
> the Zero was indeed better than the 40". Are you claiming that the P-40 had
> a better sustained turn rate than the Zero?
Now listen very carefully Maury and I'll explain it to you once more.
Tune your little ears this way and cup your little hands around them so
that you can hear me....can you hear me Maury?
The zero had a smaller turning radius in the left side[CLlimit] of it's
envelope due to it's low wing loading. As speed increased to where g was
limited by man, the zero could be matched by a higher wing loaded
fighter. The limiting factor here was the pilot's ability to withstand
generated radial g. Over 300 mph, the zero had severe aileron problems
that could be factored against it by an attacking fighter.
Do you get that Maury? Is that plain enough? If not, PLEASE get someone
else to explain it to you. I'm getting tired of teaching someone who
obviously doesn't want to be taught.
>
> > The factors that create both instantaneous AND sustained corner
> > speeds[Vc and Vcsus] are not found at higher airspeed above both
> > corners.
>
> Well duh, that's why they have names.
Maury, I think it's time for me to bail out on this thing....I simply
don't want to have any more to do with you. This stuff of yours is crap,
and you have an attitude to boot. Do me a favor and post under someone
else from now on or expect to be picked apart not only by me, but other
pilots as well.
Regards,
Kurt Plummer
> In <379463C3...@earthlink.net> Kurt Plummer
> <ch1...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >
> >Erik Shilling wrote:
> >
> >> In <37936BCB...@bellatlantic.net> Dudley Henriques
> >> <dhe...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
> >> >
> >> Kurt Plummer wrote:
> >>
>
> HI Kurt:
>
> I'm afraid that some of your present day lingo is over my head. One
> comment that attracted y attention was about the throttle.
>
> The minute we saw the enemy we went to Meto power and never touched the
> throttle after that except to go to WEP if necessary.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik Shilling
Hey Erik,
Sorry about that.
In every (AOTP sim) American plane after the Hellcat, I flew if you
/didn't/ play the throttle, either in close angles or BnZ combat you were
hosed. Combat Flap opti-speed limitations on where the nose pointed
initial versus how fast you were carried around the circle in the former
and zoom overshoots and excessive bottoming out control hardening in the
latter. Surprisingly, the Hayabusa was another game plane that required
delicate throttle handling (more for roll-torque effect as I recall)
The Wildcat, Type 21, P-39, early-38 and the _P-40_ were 'prequel'
exceptions to this in that there simply wasn't enough power to waste
running up and down the RPM guage and the Hayate, again, suffered some
power problems so I didn't monkey with it very much.
It may be that I got away with more than I should have too as the throttle
was basically a numbered 1-9 with warboost * system and engine oil overheat
limiter. No cowl flaps, turbo settings or what have you and pretty
simplistic torque...
Given how few aces seem to really /run/ their engines to dictate their
performances (Marseille comes to mind) I've often wondered how much of a
missed advantage this is.
KP
Cub driver
>> >> Reverting to an earlier post about the comparative sluggishness of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> Zero due to its roll rate, this is I think a fantasy perpetuated by
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> one P-40 pilot who never met a Zero (or any other Japanese fighter) in
>> >> combat.
>> >
> You have taken the narrow focus of the "roll rate" comparison discussion
>and expanded it to a general "maneuverability" debate, apparently just to
It wasn't I who expanded the discussion. I said that those who claim
that the Zero wasn't maneuverable, because its ailerons stiffened at
higher speeds, are perpetuating a myth. And so they are.
Emmanuel Gustin
news:37969804...@bellatlantic.net...
> don't want to have any more to do with you. This stuff of yours is crap,
> and you have an attitude to boot.
[Rubbing my eyes, checking twice, pinching myself to see
whether I am awake]
_Maury_ has an attitude?
Dudley, you should study some psychology. Your barbed-wire
personality makes it rather difficult for people to accept what
you say. How did you ever become president of whatever
association? Where the other candidates even more tactless?
That aside, I don't really see where this discussion is heading.
If it is another attempt to prove that the P-40 was more
manoeuverable than the A6M, then it seems rather futile to me.
Yes, at high speed the P-40 had a much better roll rate, and
the g-forces equalized the turning circle. But WWII fighters were
not able to maintain high speeds for long in a dogfight: They
did not have the power-to-weight ratios of modern combat
aircraft (The A6M had a better ratio than the P-40 and than most
Allied fighters, BTW, because it was so lightly constructed.) and
any P-40 pilot who was unwise enough to attempt dogfighting with
an A6M would soon enough have found himself in a part of the
envelope where the Japanese fighter was unquestionably superior.
Same for the Ki.43.
Proper tactics dictated short engagements of a hit-and-run nature.
High-speed roll rate and turning circle where important in such
engagements, as the attacked fighter began evasive maneuvers
and the attacker tried to follow long enough to get in a burst of
gunfire. But the crucial factors were speed and climb, because
these enabled a fighter to position itself for an attack and get
away afterwards. And of course ruggedness and firepower.
Pure manoeuverability was not the best asset of the Allied fighters.
--
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
Fighter Guns Page: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/
(Delete NoSpam. from my address. If you can't reach me, your host
may be on our spam filter list. Check http://www.uia.ac.be/cc/spam.html.)
Dudley Henriques
>
>
> It wasn't I who expanded the discussion. I said that those who claim
> that the Zero wasn't maneuverable, because its ailerons stiffened at
> higher speeds, are perpetuating a myth. And so they are.
Apparently you Dan, are the only one that I know of anyway, who believes
the zero wasn't maneuverable. Perhaps if you would stop trying to
re-phrase everything that people say to make it appear as something
else, you wouldn't get these kinds of responses. It's you who create
these "'misunderstandings". The poster was correct.
All the best - Dudley Henriques
Maury Markowitz
> Maury, for the love of heaven, give it up...take your little toy trucks
> and go home...or go fly your little flight simulator....or better yet,
> go learn what you are trying so hard to talk about.
Thank you for your constructing addition to this thread.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> Maury, I don't think I've ever seen so much bull crap in one place at
> one time.
I note you fail to point out any examples of this "bull crap"
> and if you choose to answer this, I'm informing you ahead of time that I
> will NOT respond.
Be still my beating heart!
Maury