# Material of the Zero fuselage



## Jenisch (Jul 11, 2012)

I did a beat with a friend that the fuselage of the Zero was all metal. He told me it was partially bamboo.

So, who was correct?


----------



## evangilder (Jul 11, 2012)

I have worked on a couple and don't recall seeing any bamboo in one.


----------



## baclightning (Jul 11, 2012)

The Zero was all metal. It had fabric-covered control surfaces, but aside from that was metal. It should be noted that much of the metal structure was made of Extra Super Duralumin, an advanced alloy that was lighter and stronger than other alloys, and top secret at the time.

The designer of the Zero, Jiro Horikoshi, wrote an excellent book, _Eagles of Mitsubishi_, about how he designed the Zero, and the obstacles he had to overcome in reaching the seemingly impossible design goals he was given.

http://www.amazon.com/Eagles-Mitsubishi-Story-Zero-Fighter/dp/0295971681


----------



## proton45 (Jul 11, 2012)

I remember seeing a TV show once that talked about bamboo being used in the canopy framing or the runners (or something like that). I dont know if that's true...but maybe your friend saw that show.


----------



## Jenisch (Jul 11, 2012)

If there was something in the canopy it doesn't matter, he was talking about the fuselage construction. I knew this was a myth!

I just need a reliable source to show him. Some people in my flight school and myself and gonna have a beer paid!


----------



## Rick65 (Jul 11, 2012)

Warbird Information Exchange • View topic - Another REAL A6M Zero to return to flight at Duxford?
If there was any bamboo it must have rotted away.


----------



## GregP (Jul 11, 2012)

As far as I know, the only wood in the Zero is the hoop for the wingtips. Everything else of a structural variety is metal. Of course, there is rubber hose,. hose clamps, etc. ... but you get the idea. The chief culript in its fragility was the use of .032" Aluminum skin where the western powers used .040" or even .050" or even heavier.

When everything is intact, the Zero is as strong as any western fighter. Once it gets battle damage it gets fragile, and the lack of self-sealing tanks and armor add to the perception of fragility.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 12, 2012)

GregP said:


> As far as I know, the only wood in the Zero is the hoop for the wingtips. Everything else of a structural variety is metal. Of course, tehre is rubber hose,. hose clapms, etc. ... but you het the idea. The chief culript in its fragility was the use of .032" Aluminum skin where the western powers used .040" or even .050" or even heavier/
> 
> When everything is intact, the Zero is as strong as any western fighter. Once it gets battle damage it gets fragile, and the lack of self-sealing tanks and armor add to the perception of fragility.




And he should know. All he has to do is go into the hanger an look!


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 12, 2012)

from "Design Analysis of the Zeke 32"
"Skin. on both fore and aft fuselage sections is of lighter alloy than is customarily used on occidental planes, that on the fore fuselage being .048 gage on the lower portion and .035 near the top, and .018 for all the aft section. It is flush riveted throughout, with all fore-and-aft joints being lapped, others butted. Also throughout Hamp, small rivets are used, few being larger than 1/8-in., some being only 1/32-in. Despite the rivet sizes, there is no evidence on the craft studied to indicate a lack of strength, nor were there any indications of sloppy workmanship."


----------



## Shinpachi (Jul 12, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> I did a beat with a friend that the fuselage of the Zero was all metal. He told me it was partially bamboo.
> 
> So, who was correct?



This could have been a top secret.
How did your friend know that?

There were life size dummy zeros and bombers made of wood or bamboo to cheat US air attackers on the ground.


----------



## boeing299 (Jul 13, 2012)

I think that this was a myth that got it's start from American fighter pilots. The Zero was designed on the premise that fighter planes should be very light and nimble. That was what proved to be effective for the Japanese in China in the 1930's. Japan had no high powered engine program to rely on, so they built the Zero to be light and very manouverable given the engine power they had available. To save weight, they omitted armor and self sealing fuel tanks. As a result the Zero was easily set aflame when hit. Allied pilots made claims that to ignite that easily, the plane must be made of bamboo. I think in part it was a lot of people trying to deny that a country with limited industrial "know-how" could have built something that advanced for the time. Certainly they must have cut corners somewhere, like using bamboo. A Japanes pilot was supposed to have said that he could tell whether wreckage on the ocean was an American plane or Japanese. If American, it had an oil slick, if Japanese it had a sheet of flame from the gasoline.


----------



## GregP (Jul 15, 2012)

Hi Vincenzo,

I believe your quote about the skin thickness comes from the Hamp Design Analysis report, which you clearly identify as a model 32. In that model, there are also some small 3-ply wood backing reinforcements along the lower canopy frame rail, along with the wingtip hoops, but no wood in the canopy frames themselves.

Our Zero is an A6M5 Model 52, and I believe the .035" Aluminum turned into .032" Aluminim ... I could be wrong. There is still some .048" and also some .018" in the tail cone. In our Zero, I believe it is all metal, with even the wingtip hoops not being wood. To be sure, I'll check next time I am there and Steve Hinton is around.

I love the general lines and looks of the Zero and think it is one of the best-looking WWII fighters ever made. Of course, that is just a personal opinion, and other opinions may vary and very probably do. Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## baclightning (Jul 15, 2012)

GregP said:


> I love the general lines and looks of the Zero and think it is one of the best-looking WWII fighters ever made. Of course, that is just a personal opinion, and other opinions may vary and very probably do. Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.



No argument there. It's a gorgeous looking aircraft!


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 17, 2012)

The way they zipped around it wouldn't surprise me if they were made of balsa wood. But yeah, they traded strength and protection for speed and maneuverability. Overall, these were pretty impressive aircraft. Those cowling guns synched with the prop was in and of itself an innovation that baffled us for quite some time, from what I understand. Also how that light aircraft was able to absorb the shock from the those 20mm cannons on the wings without ripping the aircraft apart was pretty darn impressive.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 17, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> The way they zipped around it wouldn't surprise me if they were made of balsa wood. But yeah, they traded strength and protection for speed and maneuverability. Overall, these were pretty impressive aircraft. Those cowling guns synched with the prop was in and of itself an innovation that baffled us for quite some time, from what I understand. Also how that light aircraft was able to absorb the shock from the those 20mm cannons on the wings without ripping the aircraft apart was pretty darn impressive.


Guns firing through the prop was nothing unusual, aircraft had been doing that since WW1.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 17, 2012)

The bi-plane machine guns mounted in front of the cockpits on the nose did synch with the two-blade props.


----------



## krieghund (Jul 17, 2012)

GregP said:


> Hi Vincenzo,
> 
> I believe your quote about the skin thickness comes from the Hamp Design Analysis report, which you clearly identify as a model 32. In that model, there are also some small 3-ply wood backing reinforcements along the lower canopy frame rail, along with the wingtip hoops, but no wood in the canopy frames themselves.
> 
> ...



Right on!! imagine what would have happened if the Kinsei was installed from the beginning and the Kinsei 62 installed in late 1942.

Pretty impressive aircraft....remarkable if one considers that it was designed from a country just emerging from an agrarian culture to industrial one. it is often said it was a copy of a western one.....Ok, which one designed as a carrier fighter could fly at 340+ on 950HP, out maneuver any land based aircraft oh and yeah, fly over 1100 miles on 138 gals internal, 1900+ with external, haven't been able to find that aircraft yet!


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 17, 2012)

Some WW1 aircraft had 4 bladed props, such as a SE 5, and the Zero was far from the first aircraft with a 3 bladed prop, and guns that had a interuptor gear, or sychronizer mechanism to enabled it to fire through it.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 17, 2012)

So the rounds were actually geared to fire with the turn of the prop once the trigger was pressed?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> The way they zipped around it wouldn't surprise me if they were made of balsa wood. But yeah, they traded strength and protection for speed and maneuverability. Overall, these were pretty impressive aircraft. Those cowling guns synched with the prop was in and of itself an innovation that baffled us for quite some time, from what I understand. Also how that light aircraft was able to absorb the shock from the those 20mm cannons on the wings without ripping the aircraft apart was pretty darn impressive.



As has been said, the cowl guns were old hat, getting guns that work out in the wings without a pilot to beat on them or yank the charging handle a dozen times per belt was the real trick 

One reason the British switched from the Vickers gun to the Browning, the VIckers could not be relied upon to keep firing without "attention".

the 20mm guns may recoil a lot less than you think. the gun "fired" as the heavy bolt/bolt carrier was still moving forward. the recoil had to first stop the forward motion of the bolt before it could blow it backwards against the main spring. the trunnion load ( force transmitted to the aircraft structure) was actually rather low and spread out over time rather than being a sharp blow.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 18, 2012)

Short, maybe it's just we didn't expect those cowling guns. At any rate, what advantage would you see those giving that aircraft? I'd think primarily they'd be advantageous for close-range bursts.


----------



## proton45 (Jul 18, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> Short, maybe it's just we didn't expect those cowling guns. At any rate, what advantage would you see those giving that aircraft? I'd think primarily they'd be advantageous for close-range bursts.



I've read that they where use (sometimes) for determining range (angle)....then the 20mm where used to close the deal. Also I've read that they where used (alot) for ground attack. I think that these where (sort of) pilots choice, for use of the cowl guns.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 18, 2012)

I don't see why you're thinking cowling guns were in any way unusual. Most fighters up till that time had cowling guns all the way back to WW1, wings guns were a more modern inovation, but the Zero hardly broke new ground there either.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> Short, maybe it's just we didn't expect those cowling guns. At any rate, what advantage would you see those giving that aircraft? I'd think primarily they'd be advantageous for close-range bursts.



As has been noted _MOST_ fighters up until WW II had cowl guns or guns mounted on/in the fuselage sides, for the US this includes _ALL_ biplane fighter since WW I, Curtiss and Boeing. The P-26, Consolidated P-30, Seversky P-35, Curtiss P-36, Early Curtiss P-40s, P-39s, P-38s with guns in the nose? Republic P-43s. First US Army fighter _WITHOUT_ cowl guns was the P-40D/E.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 18, 2012)

proton45 said:


> I've read that they where use (sometimes) for determining range (angle)....then the 20mm where used to close the deal. Also I've read that they where used (alot) for ground attack. I think that these where (sort of) pilots choice, for use of the cowl guns.


Thanks, I didn't think of that.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 18, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> I don't see why you're thinking cowling guns were in any way unusual. Most fighters up till that time had cowling guns all the way back to WW1, wings guns were a more modern inovation, but the Zero hardly broke new ground there either.





Shortround6 said:


> As has been noted _MOST_ fighters up until WW II had cowl guns or guns mounted on/in the fuselage sides, for the US this includes _ALL_ biplane fighter since WW I, Curtiss and Boeing. The P-26, Consolidated P-30, Seversky P-35, Curtiss P-36, Early Curtiss P-40s, P-39s, P-38s with guns in the nose? Republic P-43s. First US Army fighter _WITHOUT_ cowl guns was the P-40D/E.


Let the record reflect, I concede the point. I think the baffling aspect rather related to the cannons on that paper-weight aircraft. But as proton45 pointed out, there was a dual-use for that aircraft, and the land-use is where those cowling guns most plausibly figured in. That makes sense.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 18, 2012)

The Zero was a light fighter, yes. But paper-weight no. 
The A6M2- model , 950 hp, empty weight 3704-3770, depends on where you look.
Me 109D, 960 hp, empty weight 3600 lb , that's a pretty good equivilent, since that's before self sealing tanks and armor also, but with the heavier weight of a liquid cooled engine.

Of course the Me 109 was also considered a light fighter also.

But what was outstanding about the Zero, it combined good armament, good speed, outstanding range, very good rate of climb and very good manuvering into a light fighter.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 18, 2012)

That Mess 109 was no fluke, either, and could also "turn on a dime," as I know you know. Thanks, and I agree.


----------



## GregP (Jul 18, 2012)

From my perspective, as someone who talks with several modern pilots of our Zero (A6M5 Model 52), I can say this. The relatively slow roll could easily have been cured by goling from fabric ailerons to metal, with 10 - 15% more chord, and some better gearing to provide 5° more deflection in both directions, and possibly a longer control stick. That would have added only token weight and would have addressed the slow rolling right away.

Of course, WE could have fixed the slow rolling of the Hellcat, too ... and never did due to production priorities. So perhaps I shouldn't "thow stones." Acually I was just commenting, not criticizing.


----------

