Zero - specific questions

[N-6]

I need information regarding the A6M3 Model 22a Zero (with improved
long-barrel cannons), which I have not been able to find elsewhere.

* What was the month/year that this specific model (22a) of the Zero
became operational? I need to know whether it entered service before
or after 1942.

* Did the Model 22a operate extensively off of carriers, or was it
primarily a land-based fighter, like the A6M3 Model 32?

* How many Model 22a's were built (specifically the 22a version, not
the total number of Model 22's)?

* I have read one source that said that the A6M3 Model 22 was the
longest-ranged of all the Zero variants. Is this correct?

[Erik Pfeister]

"N-6" <wrote in message > I need information regarding the A6M3 Model 22a
Zero (with improved
> long-barrel cannons), which I have not been able to find elsewhere.
>
> * What was the month/year that this specific model (22a) of the Zero

> became operational?

July 1941

I need to know whether it entered service before
> or after 1942.

Yes
>
> * Did the Model 22a operate extensively off of carriers, or was it
> primarily a land-based fighter, like the A6M3 Model 32?

Nakajima built and delivered over 400 to the Navy
>
> * How many Model 22a's were built (specifically the 22a version, not
> the total number of Model 22's)?
>
> * I have read one source that said that the A6M3 Model 22 was the
> longest-ranged of all the Zero variants. Is this correct?

[Cub Driver]

The best source on the Zero's development that I have found is Robert
Mikesh, Zero: Japan's Legendary Fighter. You can get it at Historic
Aviation: http://tinyurl.com/uobs

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[N-6]

"Erik Pfeister" > wrote in message >...
> "N-6" <wrote in message > I need information regarding the A6M3 Model 22a
> Zero (with improved
> > long-barrel cannons), which I have not been able to find elsewhere.
> >
> > * What was the month/year that this specific model (22a) of the Zero
>
> > became operational?
>
> July 1941

This cannot be correct... I believe you have mistaken which Zero
variant I was asking about (the A6M3 Model 22a). The first Model 22's
weren't built until "towards the end of 1942" (Stewart Wilson,
Aircraft of WWII). I want to know if the development of the Model
22--the 22a--entered service before the end of '42.


>
> I need to know whether it entered service before
> > or after 1942.
>
> Yes
> >
> > * Did the Model 22a operate extensively off of carriers, or was it
> > primarily a land-based fighter, like the A6M3 Model 32?
>
> Nakajima built and delivered over 400 to the Navy
> >
> > * How many Model 22a's were built (specifically the 22a version, not
> > the total number of Model 22's)?
> >
> > * I have read one source that said that the A6M3 Model 22 was the
> > longest-ranged of all the Zero variants. Is this correct?

[Cub Driver]

On 12 Nov 2003 11:43:44 -0800, (N-6)
wrote:

>This cannot be correct... I believe you have mistaken which Zero
>variant I was asking about (the A6M3 Model 22a)

Production began in December 1942. Note that production of the 22
followed that of the 32, because Mitsubishi was reverting to the
airframe of the 21 while retaining the more powerful engine of the 32.

(The name is really Two Two, not Twenty-two, with the first number
refering to airframe modifications and the second to the engine.)

I don't know where "a" (otsu?) comes into this.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[N-6]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> On 12 Nov 2003 11:43:44 -0800, (N-6)
> wrote:
>
> >This cannot be correct... I believe you have mistaken which Zero
> >variant I was asking about (the A6M3 Model 22a)
>
> Production began in December 1942. Note that production of the 22
> followed that of the 32, because Mitsubishi was reverting to the
> airframe of the 21 while retaining the more powerful engine of the 32.

Not only did the 22 revert back to the folding wingtips/original
wingspan of the A6M2-21, it added extra fuel tanks in the wings to
cure the A6M3-32's inadequate range characteristics.

> (The name is really Two Two, not Twenty-two, with the first number
> refering to airframe modifications and the second to the engine.)
>
> I don't know where "a" (otsu?) comes into this.

The aircraft was known as the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 22A
when long-barreled 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 Mk 3 cannon were installed
(Joe Baugher).

Thanks for the info on the book. I will look into it...

> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put CUB in subject line)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>The aircraft was known as the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 22A
>when long-barreled 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 Mk 3 cannon were installed
>(Joe Baugher).

What puzzles me about the designation is that Japanese doesn't use the
alphabet. Must be a translation of something else.

Also, the "A" doesn't make any sense where it's situated. What does it
modify, the first 2 or the second?

I notice that in the translation of Hata & Izawa's Japanese Naval
Aces, there is a reference to Zero Model 52 Type C, which strikes me
as more logical. (Again, "C" would be a translation of some other
term.)

Baugher's narratives on Japanese aircraft often don't track Japanese
accounts.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

>>The aircraft was known as the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 22A
>>when long-barreled 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 Mk 3 cannon were installed
>>(Joe Baugher).
>
> What puzzles me about the designation is that Japanese doesn't use the
> alphabet. Must be a translation of something else.

Yes, in English we often use a,b,c etc. for ordinal counting. As you
probably know, the Kou, Otsu, Hei, Tei, etc 1-set ordinal counting is
from the old Chinese counting method (koyomi), in which two
characters, one going through a cycle of 10, the other through a cycle
of 12, were used to describe the year and by the same method also the
day. A total cycle of years therefore was 120, days also 120 (thus
three or more occurrences of the same koyomi day in one solat
year). Therefore substitute a,b,c,d etc as quite adequate. For ships,
you can find the same attributes in the Kaibokan (escorts): Types Kou,
Otsu, Hei, etc.

> Also, the "A" doesn't make any sense where it's situated. What does it
> modify, the first 2 or the second?

Good question, as far as I know it means a minor modification, so
neither of the digits are modified: it refers in aircraft basically to
armament and other equipment changes.

> I notice that in the translation of Hata & Izawa's Japanese Naval
> Aces, there is a reference to Zero Model 52 Type C, which strikes me
> as more logical. (Again, "C" would be a translation of some other
> term.)

C corresponds to Hei (i.e., Third)

> Baugher's narratives on Japanese aircraft often don't track Japanese
> accounts.

Mmm, I don't blame him, given the prodigious output on that website,
it is only natural that the most common and not necessarily best
references were used!

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Cub Driver]

>> Also, the "A" doesn't make any sense where it's situated. What does it
>> modify, the first 2 or the second?
>
>Good question, as far as I know it means a minor modification, so
>neither of the digits are modified: it refers in aircraft basically to
>armament and other equipment changes.

That's exactly what it meant in the case of the A6M5 Model C --
something to do with the cannon.

So definitely it can't be hung onto the 22, as in 22A. Since the
second 2 refers to the engine, it would logically be 2A2. But I think
it would properly be rendered A6M2 Model A. '

Since the engine remained the same after the Sakae replaced the
Nakajima radial that powered the original Zero (21), the navy
evidently ignored the engine and appended only the airframe
modification to the "short" designation, thus: A6M2, A6M5, etc.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

>>> Also, the "A" doesn't make any sense where it's situated. What does it
>>> modify, the first 2 or the second?
>>
>>Good question, as far as I know it means a minor modification, so
>>neither of the digits are modified: it refers in aircraft basically to
>>armament and other equipment changes.
>
> That's exactly what it meant in the case of the A6M5 Model C --
> something to do with the cannon.

Hi Dan, good to discuss things with you that I know *something* about
- in history I am no match for you! I did not notice the confusing
point which you refer to here, and which was also visible in the
previous post, had I but paid attention:

In Japanese, only one digit is used for the main aircraft type
designation, i.e., A6M1, A6M2, A6M3, A6M5, A6M8. Whoever decided to
do a double digit in english deserves a garotte :-) Not that I knew
this until reading Japanese either, but in English too several works
talk about the Model 11, Model 21, Model 22, Model 32, Model 52
etc. This sub-designation is attached _after_ the previous aircraft
designation, and _following_ this is another sub-designation in the
Kou, Otsu, Hei, Tei numbering.

Therefore, taking the example of the A6M5 version with 2 x 20mm Type 5
cannon, 3 x 13mm MGs and provision for 4 50 lb bombs and drop tank, it
is called in Japanese (leaving out the long Rei-shiki Sentouki
specifications):

A6M5 52-gata Hei (`-gata' <- from stand-alone `kata')

or in English:

A6M5 Model 52 c

And you are quite correct in stating that it is not pronounced as
`52', but as `5',`2'.

> So definitely it can't be hung onto the 22, as in 22A. Since the
> second 2 refers to the engine, it would logically be 2A2. But I think
> it would properly be rendered A6M2 Model A. '

Going back to this question, which I am now guessing at partly since I
lost the original post somewhere:

Japanese: A6M2 22-gata Kou
English : A6M2 Model 22 a

> Since the engine remained the same after the Sakae replaced the
> Nakajima radial that powered the original Zero (21), the navy
> evidently ignored the engine and appended only the airframe
> modification to the "short" designation, thus: A6M2, A6M5, etc.

If I interpret my own post correctly, the `X' in A6MX is related to
some official design milestone (I don't know), and the Model YZ
designation refers to changes in the airframe and engine
respectively. I do not think it is correct to say the A6M2, A6M5
etc. are `short' versions of the designation, because the airframe and
engine mods are given in the model designation which _follows_ the
design name. Perhaps, and I am guessing here too, the A6MX is separate
from the model designation, since it refers to some official specs
form the Navy Ministry being met. The Model number (and sub-variant
a,b,c, etc.) is sufficient to describe the aircraft, but the A6MX is
not.

When you are reading your varied references for your impressive
pulbications I presume you have come across the above already, so I am
a little mystified why you did not know this already: I suppose
oversight, it is confusing :-) Still, I do not mean to insult you
here, and in fact would like to ask you if you know what the `X' in
A6MX refers to! I thought it was to do with the Mitsubishi design
milestone requested by the Naval Ministry, meeting the required
specs. And that the following model designation was changes made by
Mitsubishi in response to needs but without the Navy drawing up new
specs officially. Or something like that....

As a closure, Japanese aco****s mostly do not use the A6MX designation
at all, they refer to the Type (shiki) and plane type (fighter,
bomber, attack ,etc.), and Model (kata) and subvariant (a,b,c), as in:

Rei-sen-5-2-gata-kou

Much more compact in Japanese (6 characters), it is likely in my mind
that the A6M52a is a short-cut some of the pioneering authors found in
English to keep all the information that the Japanese version has, but
without making a long phrase out of it. But the information is
equivalent, not identical. Hence the confusion, I suspect.

Best regards,
Gernot
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:51:37 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
wrote:

>Japanese: A6M2 22-gata Kou
>English : A6M2 Model 22 a

And we must never forget that this is the SHORT system!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:51:37 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
> wrote:
>
>>Japanese: A6M2 22-gata Kou
>>English : A6M2 Model 22 a
>
> And we must never forget that this is the SHORT system!

Well, I erred in this respect. In the latter part of my post, I gave
the proper Japanese truncated designation:

Rei-sen-2-2-gata-kou

this is a truncated form of:

Rei-shiki kan-jou sen-tou-ki 2-2-gata kou

(Japanese books don't use the A6M designation)

the above would be in english:

Type 0 carrier fighter Model 2-2-a

(The manufacturer doesn't enter into it)

Does this gel with your understanding of the long form?

BTW, in the short form, the Val is referred to as the 99-kanbaku (Type
99 carrier bomber) the Kate as the 97-kankou (Type 97 carrier
attack plane), similar to the 0-sen (Type 0 fighter) except that
`kan' is left off here.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Cub Driver]

>Rei-sen-2-2-gata-kou
>
>this is a truncated form of:
>
>Rei-shiki kan-jou sen-tou-ki 2-2-gata kou
>
>(Japanese books don't use the A6M designation)

I wish they would! The Type 97, Type 99, Type 0 etc usage are
bewildering.
>
>the above would be in english:
>
>Type 0 carrier fighter Model 2-2-a
>
>(The manufacturer doesn't enter into it)
>
>Does this gel with your understanding of the long form?

Yes, that's as I understand it. The same model in the short form would
(I bleieve) be A6M2 Model A.
>
>BTW, in the short form, the Val is referred to as the 99-kanbaku (Type
> 99 carrier bomber) the Kate as the 97-kankou (Type 97 carrier
> attack plane), similar to the 0-sen (Type 0 fighter) except that
> `kan' is left off here.

Well, I think of that as the *long* form :)

For comic relief:

American pilots called the Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally" bomber the Flying
Zippo for its propensity to burst into flame when hit by incendiary
bullets. Using the long form, the Japanese army air crew had a very
similar name for it: Type 97 Lighter.

(I am even now reading a book about the air war in Burma from the
Japanese perspective www.warbirdforum.com/rangoon1.htm and I just
about fall asleep hearing how the Type 97 Fighters escorted the Type
97 Light Bombers while the Type 97 Heavy Bombers flew on ahead.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

>>Rei-sen-2-2-gata-kou
>>
>>this is a truncated form of:
>>
>>Rei-shiki kan-jou sen-tou-ki 2-2-gata kou
>>
>>(Japanese books don't use the A6M designation)
>
> I wish they would! The Type 97, Type 99, Type 0 etc usage are
> bewildering.

Hi Dan, are you still awake :-) ?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the
Japanese to adopt a Western and incorrect form of their prized
aircraft designation system <grin>. I really believe it comes down to
crappy translation if you get bored. There is no reason to make long
names in English as you describe below: it is simpler in English,
without the benefit of Kanji, to write alphanumerical design codes
than to give the descriptive terms the Japanese used with the benefit
of Kanji. On the other hand, why make the Japanese use some design
numbers which they know is not the designation of the plane!

>>the above would be in english:
>>
>>Type 0 carrier fighter Model 2-2-a
>>
>>(The manufacturer doesn't enter into it)
>>
>>Does this gel with your understanding of the long form?
>
> Yes, that's as I understand it. The same model in the short form would
> (I bleieve) be A6M2 Model A.

This is where we differ in our understanding. You are mixing the
design name (A6M2) with the aircraft designation (truncated to Model
A), whereas the Japanese short form is 0-F-2-2-Kou (0=Rei; F=Sen)
i.e.,Reisen22kou. But I agree with you, in the interests of
`established' practice in reference to Japanese aircraft designations,
with the requisite explanation that we are mixing the design name and
the aircraft designation in order to make up our own short form, it is
easier to use A6MX. In that case I would say it is better though to
say A6M model (or Mk.) 22a, since the A6M corresponds conceptually to
the Japanese Rei-sen, and says everything we need to know about the
plane type including the manufacturer (OK, in code) which the Japanese
version doesn't contain, while the actual plane model is given by the
22a designation.

>>BTW, in the short form, the Val is referred to as the 99-kanbaku
>>(Type 99 carrier bomber) the Kate as the 97-kankou (Type 97 carrier
>>attack plane), similar to the 0-sen (Type 0 fighter) except that
>>`kan' is left off here.
>
> Well, I think of that as the *long* form :)

Ahhhh :-) In Japanese, there is no calling of the plane by the A6M,
D3Y, B5N etc design designation, so their short form is the truncated
form of their long form (what could be more logical), while in english
the short form and the long form are quite different beasts, with the
short form derived from the design name and mixed with the aircraft
designation.

> For comic relief:
>
> American pilots called the Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally" bomber the Flying
> Zippo for its propensity to burst into flame when hit by incendiary
> bullets. Using the long form, the Japanese army air crew had a very
> similar name for it: Type 97 Lighter.

Obviously the Air War over Burma could be shortened by several tens of
pages by the enforced use of simplified aircraft designations! As for
the Sally, it was the Mitsubishi 97-shiki juu-baku-geki-ki (heavy
bomber). The Ki-21, the Army's design code, also was not used as a
name for the actual aircraft. Instead, the long form would be
shortened to 97-juu-baku. In English, I should think it jolly well
recommended (as you believe too) to say instead Ki-21 for all that,
and add part of the plane designation after that (model number).

But to my question: I am at a loss to understand why
`Lighter'. Initially I thought it might be a translation error (from
`light bomber') but since the Sally is a heavy bomber, am I to
understand the Japanese Army pilots referred to their plane as a
cigarette lighter? And as an aside, was the Type 1 land attack bomber
(Betty) not known too as a lighter by happy Allied pilots?

BTW, The imperial system of counting, where the year 1 is something
like 660 BC for the mythical emperor Jimmu, was instituted by those
criminials from the Choshu and Satsuma who instigated the Meiji
Restoration. Obviously it fell from use post-BM2, so it is quite an
strange to modern Japanese, not only antiquated but associated with
something quite un-Japanese to them (namely the brain-washed military
dictatorship period). So referring to aircraft as Type 97, etc., is
meaningless for most modern Japanese too, not only for us
Westerners. It might in fact be better to use design names instead
(Ki-21, or A6M, etc.)

Best regards,
Gernot
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:29:36 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
wrote:

>I don't know about you, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the
>Japanese to adopt a Western and incorrect form of their prized
>aircraft designation system <grin>

But it was a Japanese system! And I suspect they adopted it because
they couldn't understand their own.

While the navy's short system was indeed copied from the USN, the
army's was unique, just a kitai (airframe) number, very simply and
impossible to mistake one airplane for another.

(Can you imagine the tower on a Japanese base, saying that a flight of
Type 97 Heavy Bombers escorted by a flight of Type 97 Fighters is
coming in, followed by a flight of Type 97 Light Bombers?)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:29:36 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
wrote:

>I really believe it comes down to
>crappy translation if you get bored.

Actually, I'm reading the Japanese, or more actually taking notes
while my translator gamely wades through the text.

Japanese writers shouldn't bet on there being a Martin Caidin out
there to make their stuff interesting to foreigners.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:29:36 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
> wrote:
>
>>I really believe it comes down to
>>crappy translation if you get bored.
>
> Actually, I'm reading the Japanese, or more actually taking notes
> while my translator gamely wades through the text.
>
> Japanese writers shouldn't bet on there being a Martin Caidin out
> there to make their stuff interesting to foreigners.

Good luck :-)

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:29:36 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
> wrote:
>
>>I don't know about you, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the
>>Japanese to adopt a Western and incorrect form of their prized
>>aircraft designation system <grin>
>
> But it was a Japanese system! And I suspect they adopted it because
> they couldn't understand their own.

I certainly take your point, but I still think we are looking at two
different things here:

1. aircraft design specs, via some ministry specification: the Navy
chose something that looked like the USN coding system, but this
applied to the design as a whole. The Army used a kitai number,
also unambiguous, as you point out.

2. Actual plane designation, based on the system that the plane was
first produced/designed in the nefarious imperial year system, and
airplane type. Woe behold if the Navy decided to order two of the
same aircraft type in the same year :-)

These two systems are not exclusive, since to any design spec can be
added the aircraft description, (e.g., SBD-3 Dauntless carrier-based
scout bomber, or G4M1 model 1 Type 1 land attack plane).

> (Can you imagine the tower on a Japanese base, saying that a flight of
> Type 97 Heavy Bombers escorted by a flight of Type 97 Fighters is
> coming in, followed by a flight of Type 97 Light Bombers?)

I don't know what they would say! I must see if I can find a picture
of something like this <grin>.

But Dan, have you seen any Japanese books that use the design names
for aircraft (A6M, Ki-67, etc.). I haven't, except that sometimes they
are given once when aircraft specs are shown, since the designation is
part of the specs. Strangely, it is on plastic model boxes where the
Ki number and Navy design names are most often visible, perhaps due to
space limitations!

Cheers, Gernot
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:21:27 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
> wrote:
>
>>But Dan, have you seen any Japanese books that use the design names
>>for aircraft (A6M, Ki-67, etc.).

Now it gets interesting :-)

> Actually, I have, but usually something like this: Type 44, referring
> to a Ki-44 Shoki.

As in '44-shiki'? This doesn't make sense AFAIK,
http://yashico.cool.ne.jp/html/Ki44_CFS2.html
shows the designation as Army Type 2 single seat fighter.

> I've also seen Type LO, referring to the Japan-built Lockheed Electra.
> That was so usual, in fact, that I don't know its kitai number.

Again, what is `Type'? I suppose individual authors might have their
own formats also to write long names in simpler Roman letters but
abbreviated. Recalling, "ME" is often used for Messerschmitt Bf109,
and "FW" for Fw190. Nicknames were also common for Allied planes or
their derivatives in Japan, there is a propensity to shorten and
sometimes combine foreign words in Japanese to make a new Japanese
word. Maker was often used to denote the plane. Trying to think of an
example: The USN fighters were universally referred to as "Grumman" -
after 1943 this was synonymous with "Hellcat" which was also used. The
P-38 was simply "Lockheed", the B-29 I think was the "Boeing".

> Interesting that western writers would deal with Japanese aircraft in
> a style unfamiliar to the Japanese reader. What do they do when they
> translate US and UK books back into Japanese? Is Renee Francillon's
> book available in translation?

Good question. Short answer, I don't know. Francillon's book is not
available. Despite the debt Western readers owe him, in Japan there is
no shortage of books on these subjects, so translations are not really
an issue. For ships, the Anatomy of a Ship series by Janusz Skulski is
translated, often with corrections (Takao, Fuso, Yamato) to the
original english version. I do not see any A6M type designations
there.

Look, I've just finished moving, and got my books sort of unpacked
last night. I took out a couple of plane related books, one of which
is on the Pete and Claude. So I'll post what the general layout of the
names is tomorrow.

Cheers, till soon,
Gernot
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Cub Driver]

>> Actually, I have, but usually something like this: Type 44, referring
>> to a Ki-44 Shoki.
>
>As in '44-shiki'? This doesn't make sense AFAIK,

No, Nakajima Ki-44. The Japanese name is Shoki, I think meaning
Dragon. Allied pilots called it Tojo. Aka Type 1 Fighter (I assume it
was 1941: it was in prototype service that December).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>> I've also seen Type LO, referring to the Japan-built Lockheed Electra.
>> That was so usual, in fact, that I don't know its kitai number.
>
>Again, what is `Type'?

I see that it is officially known as Kawasaki Ki-56.

Ogawa refers to it as the "Army/Civil Lockheed 14GW3 Super Electra
Transport Plane."

Now, there's a mouthful for the pilot coming in on one engine and a
prayer: "Army/Civil Lockheed 14GW3 Super Electra Transport Plane
declaring an emergency."

The "Type LO" designation appears in the semi-official history of the
air war in Burma, 1941-42.

Incidentally, Ogawa's description of the Douglas DC2/3 is the Navy
Type Zero Transport Plane -- or L2D2 / L2D3. So there's a Japanese
source that uses the Navy short designations as well as the army kitai
numbers.

****************

To revert to the Ki-44 Shoki, I see that it is indeed the Army Type 2
Fighter, so it was officially adopted in 1942 even though it was in
service the previous year.

The improved model is known as the Army Type 2-2 Otsu Fighter, or the
Ki-44-II Otsu.

Ogawa's enclopedia is neat (for a monolingual Yankee) because every
heading is also Englished.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

> I see that it is officially known as Kawasaki Ki-56.
>
> Ogawa refers to it as the "Army/Civil Lockheed 14GW3 Super Electra
> Transport Plane."
>
> The "Type LO" designation appears in the semi-official history of the
> air war in Burma, 1941-42.
>
> Incidentally, Ogawa's description of the Douglas DC2/3 is the Navy
> Type Zero Transport Plane -- or L2D2 / L2D3. So there's a Japanese
> source that uses the Navy short designations as well as the army kitai
> numbers.

Thanks, although I am still confused what `Type' is translated
from. Since regarding the Type 44 it was `ki-44', I cannot imagine LO
having any Japanese suffix or prefix. Maybe they call it LO
transport-aircraft or something like that?

> To revert to the Ki-44 Shoki, I see that it is indeed the Army Type 2
> Fighter, so it was officially adopted in 1942 even though it was in
> service the previous year.

Yes, this is a strange point, to add to all the other strange things
regarding JAAF aviation :-)

> The improved model is known as the Army Type 2-2 Otsu Fighter, or the
> Ki-44-II Otsu.

In english it makes more sense to translate Otsu as `b', since it is
not a name but an ordinal numeral/letter.

> Ogawa's enclopedia is neat (for a monolingual Yankee) because every
> heading is also Englished.

Very interesting, I have not seen this encyclopaedia here in Japan, do
you know when it was published/printed?

Regarding aircraft desginations, you know in Japanese there are all
manner of ways of writing `Mark', or `Model': -gata, -go are two of
these. `Shiki' is reserved for the year designation of the aircraft
and generally translated as `Type'. The `model' designations changed
too, over time.

I have in front of me the Mechanism of Military Aircraft No.16
(Kojinsha, by the `Maru' magazine editorial staff), on the Claude and
Pete. The Japanese subtitle says (all in Japanese characters)
"9-6-kan-sen / rei-kan", while the English subtitle is "Type 96
Carrier Fighter / Type 0 Observation Seaplane"

Inside, despite 155 pages, the A5M label appears only once in a
chapter subtitle in brackets in the English translation, and in the
descriptions of the various marks on pages 112-115 in the subheadings
in brackets after the Japanese mark name.

This is how they go, for the Claude:

96-shiki 1-go kanjosentoki kai (A5M1a) [`kai' means `improved']
96-shiki 1-go kanjosentoki (A5M1)
96-shiki 2-go 1-gata kanjosentoki (A5M2a)
96-shiki 2-go 2-gata kanjosentoki (A5M2b)
96-shiki 4-go kanjosentoki (A5M4)
2-shiki renshuyo-sentoki (A5M4-K) [type 2 trainer (for) fighter]

Regarding the Pete, The F1M label is also only used in the two pages
of drawings of different marks, and another two pages of color
profiles, in the same way as described for the Claude (in brackets
after the Japanese designation).

So we have:

Mitsubishi 10-shi kansokuki (F1M1) [experimental type 10 observation
plane, `shi' from `shisaku' meaning experimental. This is the
prototype]

0-shiki kansokuki 11-gata (F1M2)

2-bladed, 3-bladed props, new canopy and other changes were made
without a change to the designation, as far as this book goes. But in
places they affix `shoki' (early version) or `koki' (late version) to
the above designation, where late seems to mean 3-bladed and new
canopy.

Lastly, the trainer version:

(informally) 0-shiki renshuyo-kansokuki (F1M2-K)

==

To conclude, Japanese seem to use `0k' (my writing of the 2 characters
`rei' and `kan' [for `kansokuki']), whereas in English it is shorter
to use Pete, or F1M. The Claude or A5M is written in Japanese as
`96ks' (4 characters 9,6,`kan'[for 'kanjo']`sen' for `sentoki']). The
peculiarities of a kanji-based written language make such designations
natural, whereas quite unthinkable in English!

Best regards,
Gernot
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Bill Shatzer]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Cub Driver wrote:


> No, Nakajima Ki-44. The Japanese name is Shoki, I think meaning
> Dragon.

My book translates it as "Demon".

But, being completely illiterate in Japanese, I'd certainly not claim
my translator is necessarily better than yours.


Cheers and all,

[Cub Driver]

>> No, Nakajima Ki-44. The Japanese name is Shoki, I think meaning
>> Dragon.
>
>My book translates it as "Demon".

Yes, Bill, I think that's correct. Sorry!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Very interesting, I have not seen this encyclopaedia here in Japan, do
>you know when it was published/printed?

Ogawa, Toshihiko. <i>Nihon hikoki daizukan</i> (Encyclopedia of

Japanese Aircraft). Tokyo: Kodansha, 1980.

Drawings and thumbnail sketches of just about every aircraft in
service, including such one-offs as the Taylor J-2 Cub :)

>Regarding aircraft desginations, you know in Japanese there are all
>manner of ways of writing `Mark', or `Model': -gata, -go are two of
>these. `Shiki' is reserved for the year designation of the aircraft
>and generally translated as `Type'. The `model' designations changed
>too, over time.

Alas, my (Japanese) translator is long gone, so I can't go back and
find out what "Type 44" (for Ki-44) or "Type LO" was translated from.
But I suspect it must have been "gata" -- since "shiki" evidently
means something very specific, and "go" was well known to me in
operations such as "ichi-go" and "ketsu-go".



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>To conclude, Japanese seem to use `0k' (my writing of the 2 characters
>`rei' and `kan' [for `kansokuki']), whereas in English it is shorter
>to use Pete, or F1M. The Claude or A5M is written in Japanese as
>`96ks' (4 characters 9,6,`kan'[for 'kanjo']`sen' for `sentoki']). The
>peculiarities of a kanji-based written language make such designations
>natural, whereas quite unthinkable in English!

There are a few writers who use these terms in English. John Lundstrom
does it to a certain extent, and a while ago there was a book about
the Midway attacks (or was it Wake Island?) that did it to excess. I
remember complaining about it in a review.

Yes, here it is: Robert Cressman: A Magnificent Fight: The Battle for
Wake Island --

************

The defense of Wake is an old story, but Cressman uses
Japanese accounts to freshen and inform the telling. He can get
carried away with nomenclature (writing "a <i>shotai</i> of three
<i>kansen</i>" when "a flight of three Zeros" would be easier and
no less accurate) but in battle after battle he identifies the
pilots in opposing aircraft, and confirms or denies 54-year-old
victory claims.

************

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Bill Shatzer > writes:

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Cub Driver wrote:
>
>
>> No, Nakajima Ki-44. The Japanese name is Shoki, I think meaning
>> Dragon.

`’¾á’ñÄ' in Japanese (if you have Japanese character support in
Emacs...)

http://www.scollabo.com/history/index.html gives a history of Shoki, a
demon queller (not a dragon or a demon itself), popular in Japan since
the mythology came over from China.....where else!

Since coming to Japan I have forgotten the English spelling and
pronounciation of Chinese places, not to mention that there have been
official changes to the romanized spellings, so I will stick to the
Japanese pronounciation and take the romanization from that!

The 6th emperor of the Tang dynasty, Genso, had a dream while he was
ill with a fever. In this dream two minor demons appeared and stole
the flute and perfume bag of his beloved, Yokihi. He cried out for
someone to help, and in response to his cries a fearsome figure
appeared, a huge bearded man with a cleft helmet, leather boots and a
thonged belt. He strode up and promptly ate the two demons. The
emperor looked at the terrifying figure and asked for his credentials
:-) To which replied the man, that he was Shoki, from Shunan mountain
(in Seian province [maybe Xian in english?]). He had failed to pass
one of the difficult exams (kakyo) to be a mandarin, and determined to
die due to the embarassment. However, hearing the emperor's heart
rending cries for help, he had come.

The emperor awoke from his dream, and found his fever also
miraculously gone. In gratitude he pronounced Shoki the protector from
demons and diseases. For this Shoki is still revered in Chine, Japan,
also in Korea and Vietnam where the story spread to.

Unfortunately the story of Genso and Yokihi does not end happily. Due
to his love for her, the emperor elevated her family to the position
of mandarins (needless to say, they did not pass any tests!). This
caused widespread unhappiness, leading to the Anshi no ran (Anshi
civil war) lasting from 755-763. Genso and Yohiki attempted to flee
the capital, but were apprehended and killed....

Probably someone with more knowledge on Chinese history (i.e. not
zero!) can correct my explanation.

> My book translates it as "Demon".

See above.

> But, being completely illiterate in Japanese, I'd certainly not claim
> my translator is necessarily better than yours.

:-) I am semi-literate in Japanese and would still not claim such a
thing.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

>>Very interesting, I have not seen this encyclopaedia here in Japan, do
>>you know when it was published/printed?
>
> Ogawa, Toshihiko. <i>Nihon hikoki daizukan</i> (Encyclopedia of
>
> Japanese Aircraft). Tokyo: Kodansha, 1980.
>
> Drawings and thumbnail sketches of just about every aircraft in
> service, including such one-offs as the Taylor J-2 Cub :)

Gee! I will see if this is available in Kinokuniya or Maruzen in
Osaka. Sounds like a very handy pocket reference instead of piles of
books, each on a specific plane. I often need to look up just simple
things, especially when I am at work an playing on usenet :-)

> Alas, my (Japanese) translator is long gone, so I can't go back and
> find out what "Type 44" (for Ki-44) or "Type LO" was translated from.

Ah, skip that one then....

> But I suspect it must have been "gata" -- since "shiki" evidently
> means something very specific, and "go" was well known to me in
> operations such as "ichi-go" and "ketsu-go".

Bwa-ha-haaa! Sorry...! Sure there are operations, which take hte same
character `go' (I assume you mean Ten-cihi-go, though I don't know
what operation ketsu-go is, care to enlighte me?). But as different
characters and different meanings with same romanization we have:

ichigo: strawberry :-)

ketsugo: determination

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

>>To conclude, Japanese seem to use `0k' (my writing of the 2 characters
>
> There are a few writers who use these terms in English. John Lundstrom
> does it to a certain extent, and a while ago there was a book about
> the Midway attacks (or was it Wake Island?) that did it to excess. I
> remember complaining about it in a review.
>
> Yes, here it is: Robert Cressman: A Magnificent Fight: The Battle for

Great of him to write such a work, historically useful. As for using
romanization to write japanese words, _big_ problem :-)
(strawberry...!) I agree with you to use an english word (Zero) or
equivalent code (A6M). Unless you put Japanese characters into the
book, and how that will really please people :-)
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:12:45 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
wrote:

> ketsu-go

That was the defense of Kyushu and perhaps Honshu from the foreign
devils in 1945-1946.

www.warbirdforum.com/invasion.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:12:45 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
> wrote:
>
>> ketsu-go
>
> That was the defense of Kyushu and perhaps Honshu from the foreign
> devils in 1945-1946.
>
> www.warbirdforum.com/invasion.htm

Thanks! Since ketsu is also the colloqiual word for anus, I guess
there was some in-joke about puckering....

Cheers, Gernot
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan