Log in

View Full Version : Mitsubishi A6M Zero


Miloch
June 19th 16, 03:37 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero

The Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" is a long-range fighter aircraft, manufactured by
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy from
1940 to 1945. The A6M was designated as the Mitsubishi Navy Type 0 Carrier
Fighter (零式艦上戦闘機
rei-shiki-kanjō-sentōki?), or the Mitsubishi A6M Rei-sen. The A6M was
usually referred to by its pilots as the "Reisen" (zero fighter), "0" being the
last digit of the Imperial year 2600 (1940) when it entered service with the
Imperial Navy. The official Allied reporting name was "Zeke", although the use
of the name "Zero" was later commonly adopted by the Allies as well.

When it was introduced early in World War II, the Zero was considered the most
capable carrier-based fighter in the world, combining excellent maneuverability
and very long range.[1] The Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service ("IJNAS") also
frequently used the type as a land-based fighter.

In early combat operations, the Zero gained a legendary reputation as a
dogfighter,[2] achieving the outstanding kill ratio of 12 to 1,[3] but by
mid-1942 a combination of new tactics and the introduction of better equipment
enabled the Allied pilots to engage the Zero on generally equal terms.[4] By
1943, inherent design weaknesses and the failure to develop more powerful
aircraft engines meant that the Zero became less effective against newer enemy
fighters, which possessed greater firepower, armor, and speed, and approached
the Zero's maneuverability. Although the Mitsubishi A6M was outdated by 1944,
design delays and production difficulties of newer Japanese aircraft types meant
that it continued to serve in a front line role until the end of the war. During
the final year of the War in the Pacific, the Zero was also adapted for use in
kamikaze operations.[5] During the course of the war, Japan produced more Zeros
than any other model of combat aircraft.


The Mitsubishi A5M fighter was just entering service in early 1937, when the
Imperial Japanese Navy started looking for its eventual replacement. In May,
they issued specification 12-Shi for a new carrier-based fighter, sending it to
Nakajima and Mitsubishi. Both firms started preliminary design work while they
awaited more definitive requirements to be handed over in a few months.

Based on the experiences of the A5M in China, the Imperial Japanese Navy sent
out updated requirements in October calling for a speed of 600 km/h (370 mph)
and a climb to 3,000 m (9,800 ft) in 3.5 min. With drop tanks, they wanted an
endurance of two hours at normal power, or six to eight hours at economical
cruising speed. Armament was to consist of two 20 mm cannons, two 7.7 mm (.303
in) machine guns and two 30 kg (66 lb) or 60 kg (130 lb) bombs. A complete radio
set was to be mounted in all aircraft, along with a radio direction finder for
long-range navigation. The maneuverability was to be at least equal to that of
the A5M, while the wingspan had to be less than 12 m (39 ft) to allow for use on
an aircraft carrier. All this was to be achieved with available engines, a
significant design limitation.

Nakajima's team considered the new requirements unachievable and pulled out of
the competition in January. Mitsubishi's chief designer, Jiro Horikoshi, thought
that the requirements could be met, but only if the aircraft could be made as
light as possible. Every possible weight-saving measure was incorporated into
the design. Most of the aircraft was built of a new top-secret aluminium alloy
developed by Sumitomo Metal Industries in 1936. Called Extra Super Duralumin
(ESD), it was lighter, stronger and more ductile than other alloys (e.g. 24S
alloy) used at the time, but was prone to corrosive attack, which made it
brittle.[7] This detrimental effect was countered with an anti-corrosion coating
applied after fabrication. No armor was provided for the pilot, engine or other
critical points of the aircraft, and self-sealing fuel tanks, which were
becoming common at the time, were not used. This made the Zero lighter, more
maneuverable, and the longest range single engine fighter of World War II, which
made it capable of searching out an enemy hundreds of kilometres (miles) away,
bringing them to battle, then returning to its base or aircraft carrier.
However, that tradeoff in weight and construction also made it prone to catching
fire and exploding when struck by enemy rounds.[8]

With its low-wing cantilever monoplane layout, retractable, wide-set
conventional landing gear and enclosed cockpit, the Zero was one of the most
modern aircraft in the world at the time of its introduction. It had a fairly
high-lift, low-speed wing with a very low wing loading. This, combined with its
light weight, resulted in a very low stalling speed of well below 60 kn (110
km/h; 69 mph). This was the main reason for its phenomenal maneuverability,
allowing it to out-turn any Allied fighter of the time. Early models were fitted
with servo tabs on the ailerons after pilots complained control forces became
too heavy at speeds above 300 kilometres per hour (190 mph). They were
discontinued on later models after it was found that the lightened control
forces were causing pilots to overstress the wings during vigorous maneuvers.[9]

It has been claimed that the Zero's design showed clear influence from American
fighter aircraft and components exported to Japan in the 1930s, and in
particular the Vought V-143 fighter. Chance Vought had sold the prototype for
this aircraft and its plans to Japan in 1937. Eugene Wilson, President of
Vought, claimed that when shown a captured Zero in 1943, he found that "There on
the floor was the Vought V 142 [sic] or just the spitting image of it,
Japanese-made," while the "power-plant installation was distinctly Chance
Vought, the wheel stowage into the wing roots came from Northrop, and the
Japanese designers had even copied the Navy inspection stamp from Pratt &
Whitney type parts."[10] While the sale of the V-143 was fully legal,[10][11]
Wilson later acknowledged the conflicts of interest that can arise whenever
military technology is exported.[10] Counterclaims maintain that there was no
significant relationship between the V-143 (which was an unsuccessful design
that had been rejected by the U.S. Army Air Corps and several export customers)
and the Zero, with only a superficial similarity in layout. Allegations about
the Zero being a copy have been mostly discredited.


General characteristics

Crew: one
Length: 9.06 m (29 ft 8 in)
Wingspan: 12.0 m (39 ft 4 in)
Height: 3.05 m (10 ft 0 in)
Wing area: 22.44 m² (241.5 ft²)
Empty weight: 1,680 kg (3,704 lb)
Loaded weight: 2,796 kg (6,164 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Nakajima Sakae 12 radial engine, 709 kW (950 hp)
Aspect ratio: 6.4

Performance

Never exceed speed: 660 km/h (356 kn, 410 mph)
Maximum speed: 534 km/h (287 kn, 332 mph) at 4,550 m (14,930 ft)
Range: 3,104 km (1,675 nmi, 1,929 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,810 ft)
Rate of climb: 15.7 m/s (3,100 ft/min)
Wing loading: 107.4 kg/m² (22.0 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 294 W/kg (0.18 hp/lb)

Armament

Guns:

2× 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Type 97 aircraft machine guns in the engine cowling, with
500 rounds per gun.
2× 20 mm Type 99-1 cannon in the wings, with 60 rounds per gun.
Bombs:
2× 60 kg (132 lb) bombs or
1× fixed 250 kg (551 lb) bomb for kamikaze attacks




*

Bob (not my real pseudonym)[_2_]
June 20th 16, 11:42 AM
A6M3 Type 22 owned by the Flying Heritage Collection at PAE. Uses a
Wright R-1820 engine since the Sakai is temporarily out of
production...

john szalay
June 20th 16, 03:32 PM
"Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in
:

>
> A6M3 Type 22 owned by the Flying Heritage Collection at PAE. Uses a
> Wright R-1820 engine since the Sakai is temporarily out of
> production...
>
> begin 644 A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection PAE
> 6-29-13 082.jpg
>
> Attachment decoded: A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection
> PAE 6-29-13 082.jpg `
> end
>
> begin 644 A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection PAE
> 6-29-13 108.jpg
>
> Attachment decoded: A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection
> PAE 6-29-13 108.jpg `
> end

since we have corsair and Zero as current topics a news item..


==============================

NTSB Identification: CEN16CA126A
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, March 15, 2016 in Midland, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/03/2016
Aircraft: NAKAJIMA A6M2 MODEL 21, registration: N8280K
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

NTSB Identification: CEN16CA126B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, March 15, 2016 in Midland, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/03/2016
Aircraft: GOODYEAR FG1D, registration: N209TW
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.


The six-ship formation of vintage World War II airplanes had completed
their run-ups on the taxiway and were preparing for departure. A
departure clearance was received from air traffic control and the six-
ship formation proceeded to the runway for takeoff. The Goodyear
"Corsair" airplane was sixth in formation and trailing the Nakajima
"Zero" airplane. These tailwheel airplanes required the pilots to taxi in
an S-turn pattern due to the limited forward visibility. As the Corsair
pilot proceeded with the S-turn taxi to the runway, the Corsair overtook
the Zero and collided with its tail. The Zero spun right about 270
degrees and came to rest. The Corsair stopped quickly and its propeller
impacted the taxiway. The Zero sustained substantial damage to the
empennage and the Corsair sustained minor damage. The pilots conducted an
accident debrief and determined that a lack of "vigilance" was to blame.
Both pilots reported there were no pre-impact mechanical failures or
malfunctions with the airframes or engines that would have precluded
normal operation.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
of this accident as follows:
The Goodyear pilot did not see and avoid the Nakajima ahead on the
taxiway.

Bob (not my real pseudonym)[_2_]
June 22nd 16, 07:21 AM
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:32:21 -0500, john Szalay <john.szalayatatt.net>
wrote:

>"Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in
:
>
>>
>> A6M3 Type 22 owned by the Flying Heritage Collection at PAE. Uses a
>> Wright R-1820 engine since the Sakai is temporarily out of
>> production...
>>
>> begin 644 A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection PAE
>> 6-29-13 082.jpg
>>
>> Attachment decoded: A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection
>> PAE 6-29-13 082.jpg `
>> end
>>
>> begin 644 A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection PAE
>> 6-29-13 108.jpg
>>
>> Attachment decoded: A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection
>> PAE 6-29-13 108.jpg `
>> end
>
>since we have corsair and Zero as current topics a news item..
>
>
>==============================
>
>NTSB Identification: CEN16CA126A
>14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
>Accident occurred Tuesday, March 15, 2016 in Midland, TX
>Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/03/2016
>Aircraft: NAKAJIMA A6M2 MODEL 21, registration: N8280K
>Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
>
>NTSB Identification: CEN16CA126B
>14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
>Accident occurred Tuesday, March 15, 2016 in Midland, TX
>Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/03/2016
>Aircraft: GOODYEAR FG1D, registration: N209TW
>Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
>
>
>The six-ship formation of vintage World War II airplanes had completed
>their run-ups on the taxiway and were preparing for departure. A
>departure clearance was received from air traffic control and the six-
>ship formation proceeded to the runway for takeoff. The Goodyear
>"Corsair" airplane was sixth in formation and trailing the Nakajima
>"Zero" airplane. These tailwheel airplanes required the pilots to taxi in
>an S-turn pattern due to the limited forward visibility. As the Corsair
>pilot proceeded with the S-turn taxi to the runway, the Corsair overtook
>the Zero and collided with its tail. The Zero spun right about 270
>degrees and came to rest. The Corsair stopped quickly and its propeller
>impacted the taxiway. The Zero sustained substantial damage to the
>empennage and the Corsair sustained minor damage. The pilots conducted an
>accident debrief and determined that a lack of "vigilance" was to blame.
>Both pilots reported there were no pre-impact mechanical failures or
>malfunctions with the airframes or engines that would have precluded
>normal operation.
>
>
>The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
>of this accident as follows:
>The Goodyear pilot did not see and avoid the Nakajima ahead on the
>taxiway.

Ouch.

I thought the A6M was a Mitsubishi design - is the 'Nakajima' an
error, or did they build 'Zekes' under license?

Savageduck[_3_]
June 22nd 16, 07:44 AM
On 2016-06-22 06:21:06 +0000, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
> said:

> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:32:21 -0500, john Szalay <john.szalayatatt.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> A6M3 Type 22 owned by the Flying Heritage Collection at PAE. Uses a
>>> Wright R-1820 engine since the Sakai is temporarily out of
>>> production...
>>>
>>> begin 644 A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection PAE
>>> 6-29-13 082.jpg
>>>
>>> Attachment decoded: A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection
>>> PAE 6-29-13 082.jpg `
>>> end
>>>
>>> begin 644 A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection PAE
>>> 6-29-13 108.jpg
>>>
>>> Attachment decoded: A6M3 Type 22 N3852 Flying Heritage Collection
>>> PAE 6-29-13 108.jpg `
>>> end
>>
>> since we have corsair and Zero as current topics a news item..
>>
>>
>> ==============================
>>
>> NTSB Identification: CEN16CA126A
>> 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
>> Accident occurred Tuesday, March 15, 2016 in Midland, TX
>> Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/03/2016
>> Aircraft: NAKAJIMA A6M2 MODEL 21, registration: N8280K
>> Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
>>
>> NTSB Identification: CEN16CA126B
>> 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
>> Accident occurred Tuesday, March 15, 2016 in Midland, TX
>> Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/03/2016
>> Aircraft: GOODYEAR FG1D, registration: N209TW
>> Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
>>
>>
>> The six-ship formation of vintage World War II airplanes had completed
>> their run-ups on the taxiway and were preparing for departure. A
>> departure clearance was received from air traffic control and the six-
>> ship formation proceeded to the runway for takeoff. The Goodyear
>> "Corsair" airplane was sixth in formation and trailing the Nakajima
>> "Zero" airplane. These tailwheel airplanes required the pilots to taxi in
>> an S-turn pattern due to the limited forward visibility. As the Corsair
>> pilot proceeded with the S-turn taxi to the runway, the Corsair overtook
>> the Zero and collided with its tail. The Zero spun right about 270
>> degrees and came to rest. The Corsair stopped quickly and its propeller
>> impacted the taxiway. The Zero sustained substantial damage to the
>> empennage and the Corsair sustained minor damage. The pilots conducted an
>> accident debrief and determined that a lack of "vigilance" was to blame.
>> Both pilots reported there were no pre-impact mechanical failures or
>> malfunctions with the airframes or engines that would have precluded
>> normal operation.
>>
>>
>> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
>> of this accident as follows:
>> The Goodyear pilot did not see and avoid the Nakajima ahead on the
>> taxiway.
>
> Ouch.
>
> I thought the A6M was a Mitsubishi design - is the 'Nakajima' an
> error, or did they build 'Zekes' under license?

"Oscar" is not going to be happy to hear that.
....but "Zeke" used a Nakajima Sakae engine.

The interesting thing is, the Mitsubishi and Nakajima plants built
A6M's and Hitachi built a trainer variant.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Google