Zero - specific questions

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

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

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

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

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 somewhe

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

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

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