# A6M5 Model 52 Zero



## GregP (Dec 2, 2013)

At the Planes of Fame Museum we currently have the world’s only Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Zero powered by the original Nakajima Sakae 21 engine and prop. It is actually the only zero of any type flying with the original power system, though I hear another is being restored with the Japanese engine, too. Unsure about the prop. It would be nice to double the population!

Our Zero was in Japan for 10 months to help commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first flight in Japan, and got back to the museum about 2 months ago. It has been sitting on its nose on a trailer since then with the rear fuselage removed. I was told it had been flying for some 30 years and needed some unspecified work before we put it back together.

Today I was asked by Steve Hinton to remove the rudder and elevators and remove the fabric in preparation for recovering them. I’m supposed to keep the fabric in one piece as display items. So, at minimum, the surfaces will be recovered. There is some more work to be done as well, and I hope I get to do some. I have some pics and will ask if it is OK to post a few. If so, I will. Should be all done and flying again for our airshow in May 2014 and probably well before that time.

Got the rudder fabric off today and I must say, the workmanship of the structure is pretty good. I had heard that and so wasn’t surprised and it came apart really easily. I anticipate the elevators will, too. When they are done, the ailerons will likely be next. Never thought I’d get to work on the Zero, but it is happening since the F-86 I’m working on is waiting for parts. Hopefully I get to do some meaningful work, but just removing the surfaces and fabric is fun for a guy in love with WWII airplanes. The trim tabs are operated by revolving U-joint tubes, but are controlled by cables. Interesting system!

Again, if pics are allowed, I’ll post some. If not, we will hopefully have some videos when it flies again.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## bob44 (Dec 3, 2013)

Yes, I would be interested in see pictures of this aircraft.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Dec 3, 2013)

Sounds like you had a good Monday. Hope Steve lets you post pictures. 


Wheels


----------



## CobberKane (Dec 3, 2013)

Sounds like a real labour of love, Greg. Good luck to you.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 3, 2013)

That is so cool!


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 3, 2013)

Ask very nicely!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## ColesAircraft (Dec 3, 2013)

Sounds like a neat project to be involved with!

I've been working with Legend Flyers on their A6M3 Model 32 restoration. Their rebuilding that aircraft, serial number 3148, to flying condition for Evergreen International - utilizing the original engine. But if precedent is any indicator, Evergreen will likely never actually fly this aircraft. But we'll see. It is substantially a 'new build' utilizing original parts. But I can testify to the fact that the attention to accuracy is extreme, and no expense has been spared when it comes to replacing all of the original equipment - down to instruments and correct gun sight. 

Legend Flyers just sent me a big box of original parts from this aircraft. I posted them in their own thread, but here they are anyway:
















- Ron C.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 3, 2013)

Greg -

Is the one you're working on #5357?

Rich


----------



## GregP (Dec 3, 2013)

Still actually not sure if it is OK, but here are a few pics:

1) Rudder Control Horn:





2) Here's the rudder on my workbench. The control horn is at the bottom:





3) Here's the rudder after the fabric has been removed:






The rudder balance has a pretty good amount of lead in it and I'd say it is about 15% overbalanced in weight, which is failry standard. I didn't weigh it, but have lifted balanced surfaces before and this is very typical of the balance weight.

I want to speak with Steve before posting any more details, but these don't give away too much ... it's only a rudder. Pics are allowed in the Museum and in Fighter Rebuilders, so there's no real issue. This is work and I'd feel better if Steve says it is OK, but he's not here right now. Hopefully this will continue.

Tomorrow I'll get a pic of the plane on the trailer that we shipped it to and from Japan on. We fabricated an engine mout that is really a shipping bracket and that will be clear tomorrow in the pic. Since I can, I'll also get a shot inside the coclpit ... the seat was removed for shipping, but you can see the gun charging handles, control stick, etc.

I have to remove the ailerons tomorrow and then remove the fabric. There is a small amount of work that beeds to be done, and new fabric on all the control surfaces is high on the list. The existing fabric is still good, but it has been flying more than 20 years on this fabric and it's getting on toward time anyway. Since it takes about 4 days to assemble or disassemble the Zero, we might as well do the work before reassembly after shipment home from Japan, and look at all the bits and pieces while we're at it. Sort of a super-detailed airframe inspection combined with some strictly unnecesary but prudent work. I have no idea of the extent of the work yet, but it obviously includes some new fabric since removal of the old fabric (in one piece) is on the agenda.

After looking closely at the rudder structure, I can SEE why it is so light. The ribs have ligntening holes on the rib and sides of the rib, and there is NO unnecessary structure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ColesAircraft (Dec 3, 2013)

Very cool!


----------



## GregP (Dec 3, 2013)

Thanks, Ron. 

Hi Rich. Ours is Zero 61-120. You can see it if you go to Planes of Fame website. It is an A6M5 Model 52 and was captured in the Phillipines in 1944.

It was tested there and back here in the USA and, after being tested, was allowed to be a squadron hack and the base commander's aircraft at NAS Anacostia. After a time it became unserviceable and Ed Maloney got it sometime thereafter. It was restored and has been in our collection since that time with the help of both Mitsubishi and Nakajima.

It has been to Japan now three times and has just returned from a 10-month stay there. The work being done now is so it can be flying well before our next airshow in May 2014. This coming Saturday (Dec 7), we will fly our Tora, Tora, Tora Val (really a Vultee BT-15), and taxi our Yokosuka D4Y3 "Judy." The Zero WAS on the card, but the Museum wants to take the time to do some touchup and rework on the Zero, and it was convenient as it was already as "apart" as it was ever going to get. Might as well take advantage of that.

If nothing else, it should get 20+ years of accumulated oil out of places that are tough to get really clean otherwise!

I'm biased toward radial fighters and the Zero is one of my two favorites, so it is rewarding for me to be able to work on it, if even in a minor way. As an added bonus, we are closing in on completing the trailing edges of our Bell YP-59A Airacomet (I'm not doing the training edge work, but it is my project when I volunteer at the museum), and it may well be on the fast track to getting airworthy soon, too. Double fun!


----------



## ColesAircraft (Dec 3, 2013)

Does PoF plan to retire this Zero when their other a/c is ready to fly?

Dan King will be speaking at your event on Saturday! I know everyone will enjoy that, as he's incredibly knowledgeable and a great guy! 



P.S.: I didn't mean to poke my photos into your thread uninvited, BTW. Just excited to share.


----------



## GregP (Dec 3, 2013)

Ron, your pics are quite welcome and I am very glad you got your parts. Must be nice!

I have been unclear. This aircraft IS our Zero. We only have one. It was shipped to Japan last year for an extended stay at a museum located at the site of the first flight in Japan and returned about 2 months ago. We haven't reassembled it yet becasue it needed some minor work and it was already apart. Maenwhile, we had other priorities and attended the last 3 airshows of the year. Now, the Zero is getting some attention and should be reassembled and flying again before next year's airshow in May.

So there is no second aircraft; this is it. And we have no plans to retire it. The mission of the Planes of Fame is to preserve and display in flight the historic planes of the past. We DO have some non-flying planes, but would fly them ALL occasiionally if we could. They don't fly often enough to wear out quickly, but fly often enough to remind people of what the sights and sounds of past aviation are all about.

We've been working on our Bell YP-59A since 1992 and our dream to fly it may well come to pass in 2014, too. Our Yak-3 is also about to get well again. All it needs is a water pump seal!

It's all good!


----------



## Wayne Little (Dec 4, 2013)

This IS Very Cool!


----------



## GregP (Dec 4, 2013)

Steve is still away, so I took a few pics I KNOW are OK to post.

1) Here is our Yokosuka D4Y3 "Judy" Dive Bomber / Recon plane from the front quarter. We will be starting it and taxiing it this Saturday and flying our "Tora, Tora, Tora" Val:





2) Here is the Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Zero front part on the shipping trailer in the sun:





3) Since it WAS on a trailer, I simply walked up and snapped a pic of the panel and cockpit from above ... so it's upside down, but you can easily turn it around:





These files are big, so I'll go t a second post now.


----------



## GregP (Dec 4, 2013)

Today we had a RARE treat. We have the only Mitsubishi J2M Raiden in the world and it has seen the light of day (out of the hangar) only 3 times in the 8+ years I have been a volunteer. Today happened to be wash day, so John Maloney trotted it out and removed the gear doors to wash and clean it. I took some pics. Here is one"

1) J2M Raiden from the shady side:





2) J2M Raiden from the sunny side:





3) The sun was about to set, so here is an image in the evening with the Raiden and the Judy in view:





4) We had a visitor for the last month or so. It is a privately-owned genuine TF-51 Mustang originally built by Temco in Texas. Since it is private, I must decline to identify the owner, but the plane is beautiful:





Next post.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 4, 2013)

1) I tried to snap about 10 pics of the Raiden panel, but the cockpit has slanted sides and no matter what I did, I got awful reflections ... and I don't have a large filter selection (like none), so here is the best of the 10 or so I tried to get:





2) Here is our Curtiss P-40N. It is the plane that straffed Tom Cruise in Valkyrie and also flew in Pearl Harbor and a lot of other movies:





3) Our Yak-3 is almost flyable again. We freshened up the cylinder banks and are now waiting for a shaft seal for the water pump:





4) I don't have a pic yet of our Tora, Tora, Tora Val (really a Vultee BT-15), but here is our REAL Aichi D3A Val that is in line for restoration when some projects get completed:





Next post.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 4, 2013)

Great pictures, thank you.


----------



## GregP (Dec 4, 2013)

1) Here is Steve Hinton's personal bird:





2) Here is a view looking into the bombardier's seat of our North American B-25 Mitchell:





3) Here is my volunteer priject. It is a Bell YP-59A (S/N 777):





4) Here is one of the two GE I-16 engines installed:





I also have pics of my work project. It is an F-86 Sabre. But I want to wait and ask Steve before posting like I want to wait to post more details of the Zero. He is away at this time, but will be back soon, and I WILL ask.

Meanwhile, these are a small sample of our planes. The Zero is flyable when it is put back together, the Yak is flyable when we get a shaft seal, Steve's P-51 flies frequently (twice today alone), the B-25 is a frequent flier, the Judy can start and taxi (controls work and has brakes that work), the Raiden is restorable, but I am not sure if it on the list yet. Maybe one more ...

5) Here is our Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon. We had a movie crew ask us to paint Isralei markings on one side and we did, but it will be in German Bf 109 colors when it flies again:





All for now.

Hey Shortround, You're very welcome.

If you know of any of our planes you want pics of let me know. Some I can get detailed pics of and some I can't ... depending on what is wanted. For instance, I can't crawl around inside the Raiden to get detailed interior pics (can ... but the museum will want compensation for it), but CAN get good outside pics. I CAN get good interior pics of out B-17, but just haven't as yet.

I can get inside the Corsair and get an interior cockpit pic if desired. Ours is the oldest Corsair flying and started life as a bird cage F4U-1. It was later upgraded to an F4U-1a and then to an F4U-1d. We are currently in the process of returning it to F4U-1a configuration while it remains flyable. I already made the wood radio antenna and Steve Hinton already attached it to the firewall. Next is the F4U-1a canopy ... we are waiting on the plexi panels from Aero Trader.

I'll get pics of our P-26 tomorrow. It is magnificent and flies only rarely ... about every 3 - 4 years or so, but Steve says it is VERY responsive and aerobatic, and accelerates quite well, as does our Seversky AT-12 Guardsman (a 2-seat version of the P-35). John Maloney days it flies exquisitely and climbs VERY well. When you see the AT-12 and the P-47G side by side, the family resemblence is obvious.

All in all a neat place to hang around ... and the people are just fantastic. Everyone is upbeat and Steve feels there is NOTHING that can't be done. He might be right.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 4, 2013)

GregP,
Excellent shots, thanks for sharing!
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 4, 2013)

What do they do with those large scale models hanging on the walls ?
Especially those 3 ( I think ) Sukhoi 25s ?


----------



## GregP (Dec 4, 2013)

We've been in a shooting war in the desert for the last 30 years or so, counting Desert Storm and the insuing conflicts. The first time the guys in Humvees with machine guns on the back see an enemy aircraft fly over the ridge shouldn't be the first time they see that. So they take 'em out to Yuma, Arizona and fly radio control models (not drones) painted orange. When they can HIT then orange drones, they start mixing in the American / Allied and enemy aircraft. They're NOT supposed to shoot the American / Allied aircraft and ARE supposed to shoot the enemy aircraft. If they get that wrong, you don't want HIM or HER on the machine gun!

The company that made these models went out of business and donated them. They are good dust collectors!


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 5, 2013)

Great stuff, Greg. Guess most of us envy you


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 5, 2013)

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## bob44 (Dec 5, 2013)

Great pictures Greg. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## GregP (Dec 5, 2013)

I was like a kid in a candy store when I first got there and started volunteering. After awhile, it fades a bit and when you do it 6 days a week it CAN feel like work, but I still feel like a kid in a candy store on Saturdays when I volunteer because there is NOTHING I absolutely HAVE to get done.

So I mostly try to get project work done, but take time to talk with the visitors and occasionally even give a tour. That can be fun nwhen the group is both interested and knowledgeable. That's when I will take tome to do a tour ... when I get someone excited to see the planes and asking questions. I still love to see the planes fly and occasionally get a ride in either one of ours or a friend's warbird (I have a friend who owns and regularly flies a P-51D). 

I marvel that these WWII birds fly so reliably. Yes, we have mechanical issues, but only rarely. Our Allisons, Merlins. Pratts,and Wrights are all quite reliable, as is our Nakajima Sakae 21 radial in the Zero. It hardly ever gives any trouble, similar to the American engines. I can see that long flights over water by either side were safer than I had expected even 10 years ago.

I have been attending, actually working, the Planes of Fame Airshow since 2006 and we average 30 - 35 WWII warbirds flying each day for 3 or 4 days. Usually Friday is mandatory practice and the airshow is Saturday and Sunday. Sometimes they have a second practice day on Thursday depending on the script. So that's 7 years of 90 - 110 warbird flights per year for a total of 630 - 770 sorties by a wide variety of warbirds. In that time we have had one aborted takeoff (a Tigercat), two radiator failues in our P-5A (a NEW radiator is under construction), and a couple of no starts or aborts before taxi, once due to a flat tire. Otherwise all warbirds flew on schedule including the ones used to airshow aerobatics.

So, if I win a lottery, I'll be getting a warbird to fly myself. Otherwise, the job and the volunteering is quite interesting and entertaining. If you live near a aviation museum and have the time on weekends, try being a volunteer. You never know what it may turn into.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## meatloaf109 (Dec 6, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Great stuff, Greg. Guess most of us envy you



You guess?!?!


----------



## meatloaf109 (Dec 6, 2013)

GregP said:


> I was like a kid in a candy store when I first got there and started volunteering. After awhile, it fades a bit and when you do it 6 days a week it CAN feel like work, but I still feel like a kid in a candy store on Saturdays when I volunteer because there is NOTHING I absolutely HAVE to get done.
> 
> So I mostly try to get project work done, but take time to talk with the visitors and occasionally even give a tour. That can be fun nwhen the group is both interested and knowledgeable. That's when I will take tome to do a tour ... when I get someone excited to see the planes and asking questions. I still love to see the planes fly and occasionally get a ride in either one of ours or a friend's warbird (I have a friend who owns and regularly flies a P-51D).
> 
> ...



Thank you for sharing your wonderful experiences. Please extend an assurance to the powers that be, that any photographs that you may take will be used by modelers that have the same love of these aircraft as the owners of the real ones do. 
More detail shots of landing gear and cockpits, if you can!!!
Thanks, again.
On behalf of all of us, 
Me.


----------



## GregP (Dec 6, 2013)

Hi Meatloaf,

Since you asked ...

John Maloney was doing some work on the Raiden today and opened the canopy. I got these shots:

1) Best panel shot:






2) Here is the right side of the cockpit:





3) Here is the left side of the cockpit:





4) Here is the seat and pilot's armor plate:





5) Here is the left gear well:





Please keep in mind that this plane IS restorable to flight status. The engine is also restorable (I checked with John Maloney). The panel covers that are missing are in our possession, but the cockpit was quite dusty at this time and I shot these before the cockpit was cleaned. We alreasy have 5 projects going and only so much hangar space. The Raiden may come to the top of the list at a later date, but this plane was runnable not all that many years ago.

The cockpit is now cleaner and the bottom was sanded and repainted today along with some sanding and repainting of the dark green paint. It looks pretty good right now, but no new poics ... I actually got these shots today, but before the cockpit was cleaned. I got lazy and didn't go back later. My bad.

Hope to see some of you at the museum sometime. Tomorrow we will fly the Tora, Tora, Tora Val and taxi the Judy. 

6) Here is the preliminary Judy startup. You can see the prop is turning!





All for now.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 6, 2013)

1) One more. If you are sitting in the pilot's seat looking forward, here is the view out:





The armor glass developed a crack at some point for some reason unknown.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Aozora (Dec 6, 2013)

Many thanks, excellent info Greg; I'm particularly interested in the J2M's cockpit - I take it all or most of the colours and details are original?


----------



## ColesAircraft (Dec 6, 2013)

I have a collection of about 50 cockpit shots of the Raiden (Jack) before and after the interior was repainted. I'll post more when I find them!


----------



## GregP (Dec 6, 2013)

Thanks Ron!

Actually I don't know if the colors in the cockpit are original but that is inline with museum policy. Ron;s shot of the rear fuselage is very nice. When I stuck my head in, it looked bigger than a King Air! I'd estimate you could fit 5 or 6 Japanese troops inside, but would be badly out of balance.

Also, the back of the spinner is an integral fan for forced cooling. Here is a shot:
1) Cooling fan:


----------



## GregP (Dec 6, 2013)

Could not find a high-quality 3-view of the Yokosuka D4Y3, so I drew this one:






Have others, but this one will be running tomorrow!


----------



## ColesAircraft (Dec 7, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Many thanks, excellent info Greg; I'm particularly interested in the J2M's cockpit - I take it all or most of the colours and details are original?



In 1988 the cockpit of the Raiden was spray painted gloss metallic green. I love Planes of Fame - but I never understood why this was done. In 1986 Steve Hinton let me into the cockpit (there's a cool story there, but I'd digress). At that time everything was still original, except that the wooden instrument panel had been painted black. Some parts were missing, but the overall color was the appropriate Mitsubishi mat 'bamboo' green, as were all crew areas of Mitsubishi-built aircraft of the period. As a late war machine, there was no Aotake (translucent blue/green primer) to be seen. That picture I posted shows how it looked in 1986, with the original interior color. 

- RC


----------



## ColesAircraft (Dec 7, 2013)

Here are a few more Raiden Photos:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ColesAircraft (Dec 7, 2013)

Zoukei Mura's 1/32 scale super-model kit of the J2M3 Raiden was released three weeks ago (not to toot my own horn, but I did the box art). They've also released their usual book of reference photographs, which is by far and away the best reference for this aircraft ever printed. The PoF aircraft shed most of its 'shedable' access panels and the cowing to reveal the a/c as never before. 

Highly recommended!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 7, 2013)

WTF is the red "X's" necessary for?


----------



## ColesAircraft (Dec 7, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> WTF is the red "X's" necessary for?



They are the wrong instruments - American ones that were put in for show.


----------



## GregP (Dec 7, 2013)

I don't think they were put in for show. I think they were put in for flight test in the USA and were there when the Planes of Fame got the aircraft.

We have the original Japanese interuments for the Zero, but American instruments are required for certification. When ATC gives you an altitude of 5,000 feet, they don't trust you to know it is 1,524 meters immediately. Foreign aircraft CAN fly here with metric instruments, but certified and licensed US aircraft must use the domestic system.

Back when the Raiden was flying, the rules were even MORE restrictive.

By the way, I have been asked not to post interior pics, so this will be the last until that changes. Sorry.

Not my decision ...


----------



## ColesAircraft (Dec 8, 2013)

(Above): Zoukei Mura's photo shoot. They got some great shots! I never thought the Raiden would be revealed to this extent.

This aircraft used to be completely original, but when she sat outdoors in a California park for several years she suffered from vandals and sustained both loss of equipment and superficial damage. When Ed Maloney bought it, he had several repairs made, including the wingtip lights (not original) and resurfacing the control surfaces. The cockpit had lost most of its instruments, throttle quadrant, and other items. Ed replaced most of the cockpit gauges over the years with Japanese ones. 

In 1986 the instrument panel still had a lot of empty holes. In 1988 they'd been filled with random US gauges along with the metallic green/gray repaint. 

I always wondered about the "no cockpit pictures" rule of PoF, as it's been around for decades. When I called in advance to ask permission to photograph the cockpit of the Raiden (mistake), I was told of that rule. But when I arrived at the museum I asked Steve H. directly and he had the whole thing opened up for me. Maybe he was just happy to see a young kid decked out in warbird-themed paraphernalia and a huge camera bag. But he was always good to me! 

- RC


----------



## GregP (Dec 8, 2013)

Steve is a great guy, as are all of the Museum Board members and staff (well, some are female, but you get the gist, good people).

The real issue is that people want to come in and get a complete photo shoot, and then go home and write articles for pay. None share the benefit with the museum, so we are basically giving people access to make money from it. There is no problem with pics outside the aircraft, and I can still do that easily. But special access shots, while OK for indiividuals to own, are not for public access. At least it is not as restrictive as some museums aorund the world where they won't let you take any pictures without special permission (read that as compensation).

So I can get exterior shots of our planes, but if I get into a cockpit and take some shots, they are not for public posting going forward. That being said, I CAN get shots of landing gear and gear doors, etc. from outside the planes. We have some rather rare aircraft like the Ryan FR-1 Fireball, Northrop N9M-B flying wing, the J2M Raiden, the Yokosuka D4Y-3 Judy, the J8M Shusui, a Horten Ho IV, He-162, Douglas D-228-2, Fieseler Storch, etc., so there are plenty of opportunities for good pics even if I am asked not to post interior pics. 

I fully understand their position and will comply with their wishes going forward, yet I can still get some great pics that ARE OK to post.


----------



## GregP (Dec 8, 2013)

Hey Meatloaf,

You asked for some shots of landing gear. Here are a few.

1) Raiden main gear closeup:





2) Raiden, both mains:





3) Raiden tailwheel"









4) Judy main gear"





5) And finally, here is the bomb we made (I didn't work on the bomb, but watched in interest) in the bomb bay of the Judy:





All for now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 9, 2013)

RC GregP,
Thanks to both of you guys for posting the pictures you have! Very cool to get a look at a Japanese hot rod!
V/R,
Biff


----------



## kettbo (Dec 10, 2013)

Awesome thread!!!! Great pics!!!! Sadly Everett, WA is 1.5 hrs N of me. A tad far for volunteer work


----------



## Aozora (Dec 10, 2013)

Ditto Biff Kettbo; thanks for the input Greg Coles.


----------



## Wayne Little (Dec 10, 2013)

What a super bunch of pics thanks Guys, got the ZM Raiden, a superb looking kit, Box art is smashing Ron, although the top right of my box top took a bit of transit damage to get to me slightly spoiling the delivery...


----------



## GregP (Dec 10, 2013)

Hi Ketbo,

You must live in Tacoma, Kent, or Renton ... depending on traffic and the time of day, huh?


----------



## GregP (Jan 31, 2014)

I was asked for an update in here, so ... here goes. You all saw the condition it was in, but it is being overhauled, so the condition gets worse-looking before it gets better. You have to strip the interior COMPLETELY and start from there. I managed to get a good shot that the public could get if they wanted, so I can post it here. Once the rear fuselage is off, you can get a very unusual shot from what ordinarily would be inside the rear fuselage, but you are standing outside since the rear fuselage is removed.






You have to turn it 90° to the left to get a good view, but you can do that, I'm sure. Once the stripping begins, the interior starts to look like this.






The light rust on the steel is because we cleaned it with high pressure steam and water and it is "flash rust." When we get it done, we wipe off the surface rust from the steel and use a rust-converter primer that turns the light rust remaining into a protective coating in which the corrosion has been halted. It works great.

Here is the Nakajima Sakae 21 enginer and Mitsubishi propeller (actually built by Sumitomo).






Can't see much because it is still wrapped in shrink wrap, but you get the idea. Probably time for next post due to pic size.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 31, 2014)

Getting to the YP-59A, we are closing in on final work before the plane goes into Fighter Rebuilders for final checkout before the flight test program. One of the guys (Alex) is reskinning the starboard aileron and here it is.






Many people aren't aware of it, but if you own a P-51 Mustang, you have to remove the propeller every 5 years and send it in to a prop shop for inspection of the splines. Here is a P-51 that came due. Nothing wrong with it ... just time to have the prop get a physical exam.






We own a P-51A (Allison powered version) and for the last 5 - 6 years have had nothing but problems ... all of which are centered in the radiator. EVERY time we (Fighter Rebuilders, not me) fixed it and flew it, it sprung another leak from somewhere else. When we DID fly it, we got maybe 3 - 4 circuits of the field done before the temp started to climb. We finally gave in, cried "Uncle" and decided to build another radiator for it ourselves. Here is where we are right now on it.






As you can see, the new radiator is coming along quite well and Miss Virginia SHOULD be back in the air soon, with a clean bill of health. The Allison runs sweet but DOES tend to overheat when you lose all the coolant!

all for now, - Greg


----------



## GregP (Jan 31, 2014)

Here's our D4Y3 Judy and J2M Raiden in the background.






We made the bomb from sheet metal and it very light.

Nothing to do with the Zero but here is our Seversky AT-12. It is a 2-seat version of the P-35 and was a fighter-trainer. This plane was flown by Clark Gable in the 1938 movie "Test Pilot."






According to John Maloney it flies great and climbs VERY well.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 31, 2014)

Excellent collection and pics!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 3, 2014)

GregP said:


> 2) Here is our Curtiss P-40N. It is the plane that straffed Tom Cruise in Valkyrie and also flew in Pearl Harbor and a lot of other movies:
> View attachment 249260
> 
> 
> ...



Just saw _Tora Tora Tora _on cable last week and was interested to see they actually made an attempt to modify a late model P-40 to make it appear to be P-40B flown by Taylor and Welch out of Haliewa field. Evidently that wasn't good enough for Hollywood as Michael Bay and Bruckheimer, substituted fictional pilots flying anachronistic aircraft out of Wheeler Field. 

When I was on active duty, some of our squadron's pilots participated in the making of Tora Tora Tora by flying the simulated IJN aircraft. Returning to the states aboard the Kitty Hawk (sometimes called by her crew the _Shi**y Kitty_, but a good ship nonetheless) were a replica VAL and KATE. I've always wondered where they ended up. I guess one such VAL is at PoF and there was another at VMAM in Virginia Beach. 


from: Tora! Tora! Tora! - The making of the movie - American Production

"_Air Operations for "Tora! Tora! Tora!" involved the most extensive use of op*erable aircraft ever employed in the making of a film and the Fox "air force" totaled more than seventy planes, ranging from types modified for Japanese military aircraft of World War II to Flying Fortresses, P-40's and PBY's.
The re-creation of a Japanese strike force for bombing, strafing and torpedo runs against Pearl Harbor posed a stag*gering problem. At first, it was hoped that authentic "Zeros," "Vals" and "Kates" could be found. Research and survey moved across the Pacific to the Solomons, the Yap group, and other far-flung islands. Some of these islands were by-passed by the U.S. fast carrier forces, and Japanese aircraft were known to exist on them. Still photographs revealed palm trees growing up through wings and other signs of deterioration.

The Fox survey team found it would take at least five authentic Japanese aircraft to make one, not counting the need for completely new engines. Further, harbors being non-existent on these islands, or at a distance from the rotting fields of aircraft, it would be necessary to lift each airframe by helicopter and then barge them either to Japan or the United States for rebuilding. The cost would have been prohibitive.

The decision was then made to modify existing airframes of AT-6 and BT-13 types. Steward-Davis, Inc., and Cal-Volair, both of Long Beach, Cali*fornia, began this work early August, 1968. In Japan, C. Itoh Company modified nineteen AT-6 aircraft, de*clared surplus by the United States Military Assistance and Advice Group, and made available to 20th Century-Fox.

The AT-6 was modified to duplicate the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M2, type 21; the BT-13 was modified to duplicate the Aichi 99 "Val" dive bomber, and the Nakajima 97 "Kate" torpedo bomber was made from a combination of BT-13 and AT-6 fuselages._"

Great Photos and narrative Greg. Its easy to envy your proximity to and work with the old birds.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 3, 2014)

Greg, this is just mind-boggling. That A6M cockpit is amazing. Not that you'd have permission to post them, but just fill me in, you're going off actual blueprints? I can't put a model plane together without a blueprint. 

Oldcrowcv63, my dad had those "Zekes" as SNJs. He's just Navy. AT6s, dressed-up, lol, who could tell?


----------



## GregP (Feb 3, 2014)

After you work on WWII aircraft long enough, you get to know how they go together. The Zero was in a sad state when restoration was started, but they toook pics when taking it apart, and everything went back togther when it came out. We also had the plane's original designer, Jiro Horikoshi, visit during the restoration and give some advice on what was authentic. 

The only accommodation made was to move the pilot's seat back about 6 inches. Our pilots were bigger than WWII Japanese pilots and their legs were very cramped. Now the cockpit fits better, but everyting in it is genuine except for a few American instruments. For those, the instruments were disassembled and painted to look like the original Japanese instruments. The guys who fly it know where the needles are supposed to be for rpm and manifold pressure. The altimeter is in feet, but everything else looks authentic.


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2014)

Maybe another update. Here is the interior of the Zero all clean and almost ready for primer.






Thought I might add a few unusual things. Here is a genuine rocket engine from a Mitsubishi J8M-1. We have the only complete airframe in the world and I have posted it here before, but never a pic of the rocket motor.






Here is a cutaway WWII US turbocharger.






All for now. Time for next post.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2014)

Here is a cutaway Pratt WHitney R-4360.






Here is a slightly elevated rear shot of a Bf 109E that was pulled from the bottom of a Russian lake, ready for restoration that has not yet been started.






Since that was German, here is a shot a complete BMW 003 E-1 turbojet that could be restored to running condition. Currently no plans to do that, but it could be done.






Last for this trip, here is a flyable replica Fokker DR-1 Triplane. This one has a radial in it and not a rotary.






All for this time. - Greg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 6, 2014)

what an unbelievably good thread. ive only just discovered it. man havent got the time right now to look in detail, but have "bookmarked" this thread by posting. ill be back a bit later on

Nice thread greg


----------



## davparlr (Feb 6, 2014)

GregP said:


> Since that was German, here is a shot a complete BMW 003 E-1 turbojet that could be restored to running condition. Currently no plans to do that, but it could be done.
> 
> View attachment 253544



Greg, I think you should rebuild it and put it in your He 162, get all your pilots together and ask them to raise their hands if they were willing to test fly it!


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2014)

Thanks Parsifal!

Hi Dave,

Unfortunately the sum total of pilots who want to fly it if it were restored is zero.

The wood wings were coming apart in WWII due to slave labor sabotage, and someone would have to build a new set of wings. Also, the BMW 003 doesn't exactly have the greatest reliability record in the world either. It is one thing to fly something under pressure of war and quite another to risk your life just for the sake of flying a WWII relic with not the greatest reputation to start with.

It might be possible to talk them into restoring it for static runable condition, but we are engaged actively right now in six volunteer projects and two for Fighter Rebuilders. They DID allow three of us to restore to runnable comdition a WWII pulsejet and it was featured in our airshow in 2009. When we get the Bell YP-59A out of the restoration hanger, the next might be the Aichi D3A Val, but that can change like a leaf in the wind. Last but not least, the decision on how to proceed next comes entirely from the Museum Board of Directors or from Steve Hinton, whichever says something first.

I have no trouble asking Steve for technical help if I need it but would hesitate to ask him to bump a project up in the priority list. He has a lot on his platter and the last thing he needs is 300 volunteers all wanting to go in different directions.

However, I'd love to see it made taxiable myself. I suppose we'll see, won't we? I personally have no track record making wood aircraft. The one guy who does restored the Northrop N9MB Flying Wing ... and he isn't interested in the He 162 at all. So I suppose the direction will be shown to us and we'll go there. But next time you are there, feel free to ask Steve about it. Maybe that would help.

I'm sure if someone showed up with some money for it, some consideration might be forthcoming. Left to our own resources the priority list is very probably already set. And we STILL have yet to start up the Bell YP-59 that has been ongoing since 1992! Soon now ...


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2014)

Here's a few more shots. A few years back I got a ride in our B-25 Mitchell. Here is the look back on takeoff from Chino as we lifted off from the top turret.







Here is the cockpit with John Maloney in left seat.






Here is turning final at Chino from the nose seat.






Next Post ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2014)

At Palm Springs Air Museum, here is the cockpit of their beautiful Grumman F8F Bearcat.






And here is a Luftwaffe forward field aircraft tug that has been restored and runs great!






And here is the cockpit of the Bell YP-59A Airacomet before disassembly.






The red lever on the right is actually a Snap-On ratchet that serves as the emergency gear extension handle ... takes a LOT of pumps by hand and I had to change hands 3 - 4 times to get the gear down and locked. Not for the weak of arm!

All for now.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 7, 2014)

I'm glad to see that Bearcat's had vanity mirrors for the pilots to check "their look" prior to getting out...


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 7, 2014)

GregP,
In post #56 the inside of the aircraft looks brand new bare metal. Is that also done with the high pressure steam / water? Also will the Auqa-109 be restored to flying condition?
Great pics by the way, keep bringing them on!
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2014)

The inside was cleaned with high pressure hot water and some paint stripper when things got a little too sticky. We tried not to use stripper unless it was necessary and then went to great lengths to make sure it was all cleaned out. We also had to replace a few pieces of sheet metal. Some of the structure was 0.025" Aluminum ... Very light, to say the least.

The Bf 109 that was pulled frrom the bottom of the lake will be restored to flying condition for the owner. The Daimler Benz was in good shape except for the nose case (Magnesium), and a new gear reduction unit is being designed by Ross Engineering. The rest of the DB is being overhauled, I think by Mike Nixon, but am not sure. This 109 is a bit down on the priority list, but will be addressed after a few other projects have been done.

Right now, Steve's crew is finishing up an F7F Tigercat for a private owner.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 8, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> I'm glad to see that Bearcat's had vanity mirrors for the pilots to check "their look" prior to getting out...



Mandatory equipment for Navy Pilots!


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 9, 2014)

Fantastic thread and info, Greg, loving the detailed shots of the Zero strip down. In Posts #49 and #56 you can see on the left of the fuselage wall one of the spring loaded pilot's hand holds with its mushroom head on the inside, so as not to damage floatation gear behind the seat. The proliferation of litening holes is obvious.

The J8M engine is a real cracker; having examined at close quarters the Walter HWK 109-509A motor from the Me 163 before, seeing that is gold. Thanks for posting. Have some well deserved bacon for that.

It has a slightly different configuration to the German built unit, but the essential components are the same. The red lines are hydrazine hydrate mixture fuel or C-Stoff and the yellow lines are the HTP or hydrogen peroxide (T Stoff). The part with the three red hexes on it is the propellant flow regulating valve with the fuel filter sticking up diagonally from it. Below it is the turbo pump. The big bowl with the fuel line to it is a steam generator and of course the thrust chamber is at the very aft of the motor with HTP line entering it and the fuel being pumped around the entire cone for cooling purposes.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 9, 2014)

I think I saw some of your kit there recently GregP, Planes TV, Legends in the Air.
Excellent stuff.


----------



## GregP (Feb 9, 2014)

Thanks guys. Since Nuuumannn likes the rocket engine, I'll get some more detailed pics next weekend or next time I am there. I have no difficulty getting detailed shots of the engine. Also interesting ... we have the original landing gear truck, too, along with a second Japanese J8M truck. The plane itself is hanging from the ceiling, so I can't really get decent shots, but maybe in the future I can getb a ladder and get a cockpit shot. Tome will tell.

The F7F Tigercat they are restoring for a private owner has been mated to the rear fuselage minus the vertical tail since it won't fit in the restoration shop with the vertical tail attached. It will go on last when everything else is done and it is wheeled out into the sunshine.

We're also starting to put the Yak-3 back together and it should be flying again next weekend or so.

Yesterday we had an event about the Reno Air Races, Winning Gold, and I'm working on a post about it. The board members who discussed it icnluded 5 Reno Gold winners, including the current US National Champion, and one of the chief aeronautical engineers behind the scenes who has been largely responsible for the ever-increasing speeds around the Reno course.

Meanwhile here is a Curtiss P-40C in beautiful polished Aluminum natural finish. It belongs to Stephen Gray of the UK and was restored in Rancho Cucamonga, California, where I live, by Matt Nightengale's shop. Matt is a Planes of Fame pilot on a regular basis.






Here is our Tora, Tora, Tora Val that still flies regularly. It started life as Vultee BT-13. This is a Museum aircraft.






And here is our Yak-3 with all the cowlings on, ready for flight. This plane belongs to Ed Maloney, our museum founder. It is Allison -powered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 9, 2014)

Great stuff!


----------



## Aozora (Feb 9, 2014)

Excellent thread. Now, How many rashers of bacon do you want?


----------



## GregP (Feb 9, 2014)

As much as I like bacon, I just wantred to share some of these pics. Here's one you won't see almost anywhere else. 






This is the cockpit of our Northrop N9M-B FLying Wing. If you don't see it from one of the Planes of Fame people, you won't see it at all since this is the only example in the world, and it still flies regularly.

Here is a closeup of the control yoke. This is the same yoke used in the XB-35 and YB-49.






That fact alone makes it worthy of inclusion as one of the good museum shots. I got these shots in 2007, when taking these was OK. 

Here's Skyraider Bob in April 2008 starting up his Skyraider at the Museum.






Here is the Palm Springs Air Museum's Bell P-63 that flies at our annual airshow most years.






All for now, - Greg


Somebody please delete those last two shots! I tried and failed. Thanks!


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 10, 2014)

> Since Nuuumannn likes the rock engine, I'll get some more detained pics next weekend or next time I am there. I have no difficulty getting detailed shouts of the engine. Also interesting ... we have the original landing gear truck, too, along woith a second Kapanese J8M truck. The plane itself is hangind from teh ceiling, so I can'r really get decent shots, but maybe in the future I can geta ladder and get a cockpit shot.



Gambatte Kudasai, Guregu San... 

That P-40C is goregous; they really look the business in polished metal and the Northrop pics are a real treat!


----------



## GregP (Feb 10, 2014)

Sorry about the bad typing ... I fixed it. I think this is due to poor toilet training as a kid ... it seems to follow me around if I don't proof read the posts ...


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2014)

Here is the WWII pulseejet we restored. This time I was one of 3 guys who got it running. In 2009 the Planes of Fame let us run it at the annual airshow.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTv7dfs_Mlc_

In this video we are pushing ny pickup truck down the runway. The guy driving (Bob Velker) accelerated to about 10 mph and then put the truck in neutral for the rest of the run. We got to about 35 mph and the thrust was about 900 pounds per our hydraulic thrust dial. The combined wieght of the truck, trailer, and engine stand was right about 10,000 pounds.


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2014)

Here is a very rare night run. We only did one.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4hBwCDRwK0_

Apparently the leak in the gasoline line was there all the time, but we never saw it during the day. Go figure ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2014)

Here is a video my friend Bob Velker took while I was sitting in the bed of my pickup about 8 feet in front of the pulsejet. We scared the crap out of the poor woman in the Cessna! The camera was about 20 feet in front of the truck before the zoom. I'm the guy in the pickup bed on the right and I am running the controller to start and stop the engine. Robin Scott is the guy on the ground and he moved it from idle to full power and watched the temperature gauge and stopped the run when we reached our arbitrary limit of 1,100°F.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-xlttsfWn4_

You can see the pulses. The sound can be heard for about 10 miles and the fire department from a few miles away showed up thinking a disaster had happened.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 11, 2014)

Great vids as per GregP.
I never realised almost the entire 'tube' ended up cherry-red at night....must have helped the NF force quite a bit in trying to counter the V1 air-launches.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 11, 2014)

I wouldn't think that the tailpipe would get that hot with the missile moving thru the air at about 400 mph.


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2014)

We are fairly sure it would get pretty hot, but I do not know if it would glow or not. I think so, but we've only had our engine up to about 35 mph behind my truck and we only ran it at night once. It glowed enough during the day that you can see it clearly.

One thing we did find out was thrust change with configuration change. Before we made the cowling the intrake was just square. In that configuration it made about 520 pound of thrust. When we added the cowling it went up to about 650 pounds. We thought that was probably due to the cowling smoothing out the airflow into the intake. It is the first time I watched metal spinning. That was interesting.

Once we got onto the runway and started moving, Robin said the thrust kept climbing with speed until it was around 880 - 900 lbs at our top speed, which Bob later told me was about 35 mph. We ran the engine for about 1 minute and 15 second and covered about 3,500 feet of the 5,000 foot runway. I think that at 380 - 400 mph or so, the general speed range of a V-1, the thrust would have peaked at something around 1,100 - 1,200 pounds. Of course, I have no way to check this estimate since we obviously will never fly it.

The engine test stand is now in a corner of one of our hangars and the fuel pump needs to be overhauiled. The Museum won't pay for that and we, the team who restored it, have put all the money into it we will, so the future is a bit uncertain as fas as more engine runs go. But the valves are in good shape ... and we have two sets of valves.

We limited the heat by monitoring temperature and further controlled heat by fitting only a 3.5 US gallon gas tank, so it can't run too long. Fuel burn at idle is 2.2 gallons per minute and at full power is 3.3 gallong per minute. So we feel the valves could run a long time before suffering catastrophic failure since we didn't let it get too hot and only ran it about a monute and some change per run.

Who knows? Maybe the museum will allow us to overhaul the fuel pump in the future. We all hope so. If nothing else, it was fun. You can hear it run for 10 miles!


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 11, 2014)

GregP,
I want to hang out with you guys!
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 11, 2014)

Dam, that's just fricken cool!


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2014)

Hi Biff,

You're welcome to come out any time. It's a LONG commute from Florida! ... but maybe you can make it to our airshow in early May. Check the events calendar at the Planes of Fame website. Love to see you there.

We don't yet know this year's theme yet, but you can rest assured we'll have 27 - 35 WWII planes in the air with at least one in an aerobatic display, probably by Steve Hinton and maybe another one doing some high energy maneuvers. too. We're working hard now to ensure our Zero is back flying by then.

C'mon out any time. Saturdays are better, but the museum is open every day.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 11, 2014)

GregP,

Thanks for the offer and if I'm ever able to get out there I will definately let you know! I have a few years to retire then will look at the airline thing so I will keep your offer in mind.

I watched a YouTube video the other day and the gentleman narrating it (last name of Barber), who was actively flying a Zero made some comments about the only plane that could come close to turning with a Zero was a F8F. Question: Was the F8F that maneuverable of an aircraft?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## davparlr (Feb 11, 2014)

Went to the airshow once and believe me it is the place to be if you love old military aircraft. I saw planes fly I thought I would never see. Also, I visited with Greg and he showed me around the museum and where they were doing all the work. I have been in the military aircraft business for about 35 years, both flying and building some of the most exciting aircraft at the time, and, still those experiences at Chino rank right up there at the top.


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2014)

Thanks for the kind words, Dave, and you're welcome back anytime. We'd like to see you again. The Mitsubishi zero is being overhauled, as you can see in this post, but you might want to come see it broken down and being overhauled. It's probably the only time you'll be able to do so.

At this time, I'm helping with recovering the control surfaces with fabric, just to have some exposure to the fabric process. I figured it would be like covering an RC aircraft and, except for rib-stitiching, it is very close to that. It seems you don;t want to cut the fabric envelope like you do with an RC aircraft. Other than that, it is VERY similar. I don't feel quite like a rookie at fabric since I put in 15+ years in RC building and flying ... but I AM a rookie at fabric.

As for the Bearcat, according to Steve Hinton, it is VERY maneuverable. He didn't contrast it directly with the Zero, but he owns a P-51D and his second aircraft, now in sort of a delayed overhaul status, is ... you guessed it, a Bearcat. I say delayed because the paying aircraft restorations always come first ... and they are finishing up a Tigercat at this time.

From his descriptions, the Bearcat is an A-ticket ride and soundly trounces most other piston fighters in a one-on-one situation. Not that one-on-ones happened all that often, but he really loves the Bearcat. That does not seem to detract from his love for almost all WWII fighters, though. He had good things to say about most fighters ...


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 11, 2014)

Those clips are awesome! Thanks for posting them for us.


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2014)

You're welcome.


----------



## GregP (Feb 13, 2014)

Here is the Bf 109 landing gear (Ha.1112). You can see the casting is the only thing that would have had to change to FIX it. Make the gear vertical and the issue would go away.







Here's how they align the gear.






You twist the shaft one way or the other to align it like a turnbuckle.

Here's the bottom right corner of the cockpit showing the gear bracket from the cockpit. It is a BITCH to get it installed. Probably easy when it is being built, but when the plane is fully assembled, you have to dive into the cockpit head first and your "friends" don't want to pull you out backwards ... they just laugh at you ...






On our YP-59A here is the sliding canopy we made in 2.5 years of volunteer Saturdays. I dare anyone to make it faster! And it has to FIT!






All for this one.


----------



## GregP (Feb 13, 2014)

Here is a piece of trailing edge we made from scratch for our North American O-47.






My partner on this was John Peterson. Good guy and a damned perfectionist (thankfully). We did it right after 3 attemps died abourning.

Here is where it goes.






Here is our design for the YP-59A canopy hold down.






We made it out of F7F Tigercat hold downs and some 20 hours on an end mill with aluminum stock.

All for now,


----------



## cimmex (Feb 13, 2014)

GregP said:


> Here is the Bf 109 landing gear (Ha.1112). You can see the casting is the only thing that would have had to change to FIX it. Make the gear vertical and the issue would go away.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it is not possible to make the legs straight vertical because the resulting track width would be around 110 cm instead of around 210cm with the original gear. I’m sure the construction engineers thought about that but finally decided to make the legs as they are as the better solution.
cimmex


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 13, 2014)

GregP,

Thanks for the shots, they are excellent! 

What happened to the original canopy / system (lost in space)? Also, is it just me or is the cockpit on the P-59 fairly short front to back? It looks like it would be crowed if he were wearing a parachute...

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GregP (Feb 13, 2014)

Hi Cimmex,

What I meant was for the casting (or forging) that holds the axle to be arranged so the wheel is vertical while the gear leg remains as-is, not really a change in alignment left and right. Of course, several things were tried including making a Bf 109 with inward-retracting gear. Here is a pic of it.






I think Willy Messerswchmitt was a very good designer and, if the fix were simple, he probably would have done it at some point. I am surmising it wasn't a simple fix. By the way, I found this shot on the internet, but it had no variant identification. I hope it isn't photoshopped!

Update: I I found it on the web identified as the Me-109 V31 with belly radiator and wide undercarriage as a test aircraft for the Me-309.

Hi Biff,

The cockpit might LOOK small, but it is plenty big enough, believe me. It is probably the angle. Maybe I'll get a shot this weekend with me or somebody else in the cockpit for scale. As for the original caopy, it is probably a skylight somewhere, we don't know, but it didn't arrive with the airframe. While it was a pain, we learned a lot making a new one!


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Feb 15, 2014)

GregP said:


> I was asked for an update in here, so ... here goes. You all saw the condition it was in, but it is being overhauled, so the condition gets worse-looking before it gets better. You have to strip the interior COMPLETELY and start from there. I managed to get a good shot that the public could get if they wanted, so I can post it here. Once the rear fuselage is off, you can get a very unusual shot from what ordinarily would be inside the rear fuselage, but you are standing outside since the rear fuselage is removed.
> 
> View attachment 253119
> 
> ...



Here are a few pictures I took in October 2012 of the Zero engine before it was shipped to Japan.
(Even though the engine is shrink wrapped in Greg's picture I don't think it's changed much since I took the pictures. 8) )
































Wheels


----------



## GregP (Feb 15, 2014)

Thanks Brian! Nice pics!

I have some somewhere, but can't find them just now. This should give the Japanese engine fan guys a good look at a Sakae 21 and Sumitomo propeller. It has been VERY reliable and almost bulletproof over the years. A great engine even if not among the higher horsepower units. 

Reliability is one of those things that is priceless.

I've always thought the engine stand should be about 6 inches taller ...

See you tomorrow at the volunteer meeting! 1 more weekend of fabric and it's back to sheet metal. If you weld up those Adel pliers tomorrow, I have a Vice Grip that is begging for modification ...


----------



## GregP (Feb 15, 2014)

Deleted a somehow duplicate post ... strange things in the edit mode ...

It happens I suppose.


----------



## razor1uk (Feb 15, 2014)

Some lovely rare shots of the Zero and other aeronautical parts Greg, much appreciated  , may the restorations continue to progress in such an environment of excellent efforts reflecting the skill and labour of semi-recreational love from those involved.

May I ask, not meaning to be thought of as rude..; 
What engine work was carried out upon the Sakai in Japan, and /or was part of the deal they can study it close up too, so to fill in some gaps of missing/damaged engine plans perhaps?


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 15, 2014)

What's interesting to me is what you can see in the background of your photos.

What that biplane with the 4 bladed propeller, in your last photo ?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 15, 2014)

If I may - it's the An-2 'Colt'?


----------



## GregP (Feb 16, 2014)

Correct, an AN-2. It flew in our airshow for YEARS, but was never in much demand, so it sort of went to pot and has been sold, but the buyer has yet to pick it up.

I wish I could tell you about the deal, but that was some 39 years ago and I don't know. Nakajima (Fuji Heavy Industries today) --- they sell you Subarus ... restored or helped restore two engines for us. One is this engine and the other is complete but in pieces. If it breaks at an airshow, we have to be able to fix it and fly it home. It is almost prohibitevly expensive to dismantle it and ship it home. We do that when it goes to Japan since THEY pay for it both ways. It takes 4 guys 4 days to dismantle OR reassemble it. Add the cost of a truck and things get expensive very quickly. Much better to fix it and fly it home.

Mitsubishi helped with the airframe, but I am not aware of the type of help ... might be parts and might be money ... or both, I can't say and the Museum isn't in the habit of handing out those details to anyone. It's what you call insider information. Have some nice shots from today and will get them posted tomorrow.

- Greg


----------



## GregP (Feb 16, 2014)

So, Nuuumannn liked the Mitsubishi J8M rocket engine shot, so I got some more plus some shots of the rocket engine from an Me 163. Here is the front part of the J8M engine:







Here it is from the other side:






And here it is from the rear quarter:






Next post.


----------



## GregP (Feb 16, 2014)

Here is an engine from a Messerschmitt Me 163:






Here is a front quarter shot:






Here is a front quarter view of our replica Heinkel He 100D:






It is a 100% full scale mockup made of wood.

Here is our Yak-3 with the cowling glong back together. The engine is an Allison and the propeller is from a DC-3. Flies absolutely great according to Steven Hinton Jr.






Next post.


----------



## GregP (Feb 16, 2014)

Not aviation, but maybe of interest. Here is a front view of our Sherman tank. It runs great. We installed new cylinders about 2 years ago and it is running like a top now that we replaced a broken gear.






The Sherman had several engines. Our has a Continental radial. Here it is from low in the rear of the tank.






If a Sherman was too big a tank for you (!), there were options. For light warfare, we had Stewart tanks. Here is a shot of our Stewart. Runs great!






Here is a shot of our 100% full scale Bachem Natter. It is a woodn mockup. I didn't realize I cut off the nose ...






Next post.


----------



## GregP (Feb 16, 2014)

It was mentioned above that the cockpit of our Bell Yp-59A looked cramped. Here is a shot with WheelsUpCavu (Brian) in the cockpit to add some scale.






Above somewhere I mentioned the Zero wing was a bit unusual. The skin are straight along mid-chord. Here is a shot looking down the starboard wing from tip to fuselage along the bototm skin. It looks very straight.






But you have to incorporate washout SOMEHOW, and here is a shot looking down the leading edge. Looks like it droops, but it is just the washout.






The trailing edge is straight but I cannot show that just now because the ailerons ... in fact ALL the control surfaces have been removed for recovering with fabric. Here are the ailerons about 85% along the way to being recovered.






Here are an elevator and Rudder about to be covered. The elevator has fabric tape on the bits that need it and the next step is to cut the fabric and attach it.






All for now, - Greg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 16, 2014)

What a cool place you work at, great shots!


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 16, 2014)

The aileron ribs look remade by timber instead of duralumin.　Is this correct?
Thanks for sharing your fantastic photos, Greg


----------



## GregP (Feb 16, 2014)

Hi Shinpachi!

The aileron is an aluminum structure that looks very similar to the elevator except longer and doesn't have adjustable trim tabs (they are fixed), with lead counterweights, covered in fabric.

All the control surfaces of a Mistubishi Zero are fabric-covered Aluminum units.

The reason the ribs look darker is because we added rib tape, and painted the rib tape with another 2 - 3 coats of poly seal. Jim Stuhler is completing the rib stiching on one of the ribs. When he finised, we sealed the trailing edge with tape, added more tape over the rib stiching, sealed it, and painted the entire thing with more sealer. Next comes primer, then paint. When completed the fabric will be stiff and stick to the surface like it was an integral part of it.

Since the Planes of Fame is an active flying museum, it IS a very cool place to volunteer. The peopl are down to earth and KNOW their stuff. We volunteers can't get sloppy work past them (and don't want to do so in any case).

As a side note, this year's arishow (first weekend in May) will be sponsored by Mooney Aircraft and we will have at least 3 B-17's there plus a lot of other WWII warbirds flying. I don't know yet which one will be the featured aerobatic plane. In the recent past we have had Bearcat, Mustang, Tigercat, P-38, Hawker Sea Fury, F-86, and others, but Steve Hiinton usually does a great job is SOME warbird.

We will also have an F-22 Raptor doing a demo and based at Chino for the show, the first time in years it has made any airshow on the West Coast. Looking forward to it, even though it a a lot of work to put on a good airshow.

If you get the chance, this is one of the top two or three airshows in the world, and definitely one to see in the USA. Last year, Chino was voted number two, right behind Duxford, in the best airshow poll among pilots who fly airshows. Our president, Steve Hinton, usually flies at Duxford, many times in one of Stephen Gray's warbirds. He is also the race starter at Reno every year and flies at Oshkosh most years, too.

If you get a chance, come see it. Planes start arriving Thursday. Friday is practice and is actually one of the best times to go ... the crowd is WAY smaller. All the vendors are there and it is a full airshow Saturday and Sunday.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 16, 2014)

Greg, I'm very jealous.


----------



## GregP (Feb 16, 2014)

Hi VikingBerserker,

Please don't be; come see the airshow instead. If I know you are coming, we can meet up and look around. Chino is one ultra-intersting airport around airshow day. Two museums and tons of warbirds all in one place.

If you come, let me know via PM and was can arrange to meet up and spend some time.

Take care. - Greg


----------



## Shinpachi (Feb 16, 2014)

Thank you Greg for your kind answer


----------



## Johnny .45 (Feb 16, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hey Meatloaf,
> 
> You asked for some shots of landing gear. Here are a few.
> 
> ...



That is interesting that they went with the (presumably) Navy-spec solid-rubber tailwheel on the J2M, even though it was never (to my knowledge) intended to be operated from a carrier.
As for the picture of the D4Y with the bomb, that surprises me; I thought that the D4Y had a fully enclosed bomb-bay. Perhaps that was only for the smaller 250kg bombs? (I assume from the size that this one is supposed to represent a "standard" 500kg bomb?). I guess carrying its bomb semi-recessed still causes less drag than having it hang directly below the fuselage; perhaps the bomb-bay doors were intended to reduce drag while it was flying without a weapon (it was commonly used for reconnaissance as well). That would be somewhat in line with the G4M1, which apparently wasn't given bomb doors that could open in flight. Thus, it was removed altogether before combat missions, and only used on patrols because it caused less drag than an open bomb bay (I still haven't read for sure whether the G4M2 ever got real bomb doors, but it did have a bulged bomb bay, so it would make sense).
Speaking of reconnaissance, I just found this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yokosuka_D4Y1_at_takeoff.jpg . What do people think of that bulge on the belly? It's supposedly taking off for a reconnaissance mission, and that doesn't look like a bomb to me. It almost looks like a semi-permanent bomb-bay fuel tank faired into the fuselage or something.


----------



## GregP (Feb 16, 2014)

The bulge on the belly is a weapon can't say which one from the wonderfully clear picture, but it is definitely something attached to the bomb shackle. The shackle swings down so as to clear the propeller arc before it releases the bomb.

We have one at the museum from our Judy and it is on display.

I'll get a pic next week.


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2014)

You all know we have a Yokosuka D4Y “Judy” dive bomber and recon aircraft. Here are a few shots you may never see unless you are local. Behind the instrument panel is an ammunition tray that holds the ammo for the two cowl-mount machine guns. The ammo sits in the tray and is belt-fed to the MG’s, and the expended shells hit a small chute and drop out the bottom of the aircraft. I took shots from both sides.

The pilot's legs go through the center, with each leg close to the shell ejector chute. The ammo is in the middle tray feeds upward from the center.











Here is the bomb trapeze that swings the bomb clear of the propeller arc.






Sorry ... I forgot to rotate that shot. All for now.


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2014)

Here is a side shot of the Merlin 224 that will go into our Hispano Ha.1112. As you can see, it is a single stage, two-speed unit.






Here is a closeup of the supercharger wheelcase.






Here is a V-1650-7 in a P-51 D Mustang. This particular engine is a well-built dash seven that is running transport heads. The transport heads were made robust for the expected transport boom after WWII. One such plane was the Canadair Northstar, which is basically a Douglas DC-4 with Merlins in it.






Here is a closeup of the rear of the engine. You can see the intercooler and the fact that there are two wheelcases, one behind the other, with the second one being of small diameter. The light in the hangar was such that I was unable to see the viewfinder, and I got just the wrong angle … the second wheelcase is almost hidden by a black hose. Damn! I suppose I can’t win them all. I was trying to show the difference between a single and two stage supercharger case. Maybe next time …






All for now.


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2014)

Somebody in here somewhere was making some comments about the slats on the Bf 109. Can't remember quite where, but ... here are some shots of our Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon with slats closed and slats open. They slide in either direction VERY easily and are completely unpowered.

Slats closed ...






And slats open ...






Steve Hinton had us move the hydraulic pump from the engine compartment to the rear fuselage. Here is where it is now, inside the hatch behind and below the cockpit. While I used to work on this project and still do on occasion if they need a hand, the "us" above doesn't mean "me." The guys doing most of it are George Orff and Bert Bruckmann.






And for those of you who like aircraft structures, here is a shot inside that hatch looking backward. Probably a useless shot, but somebody may find it interesting.






All for now ...


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2014)

Some of you may know we have the world’s last airframe for several planes. Among them is our Ryan FR-1 Fireball. Here is a front quarter view showing the jet air intakes in the wing root. With “one turning and one burning” it could climb at better than 5,000 feet per minute.






Here is a shot of the rear quarter showing the jet pipe exhaust.






Here is a shot of the starboard GE I-16 jet engine in our Bell YP-59A Airacomet.






In this configuration, it makes 1,600 pounds of thrust (hence, GE I-16), and in a later configuration made 2,000 pounds of thrust and became the GE J-31.

Here is a shot from about floor level of the right-hand engine (starboard) with cowling removed. Yes, the damned left tire is flat! We have to change it out this coming weekend. Bummer, but it happens.






The I-16 is a centrifugal flow engine (has a centrifugal compressor). Sorry, I didn't get a shot of the cutaway I-16 but will in the near future.

Here is a shot of a cutaway J-47 from an F-86 Sabre. It may not be obvious, but the fuel-air mixture flows around the red and yellow inner combustion chamber and it bleeds in through the holes. Hopefully this avoids blowing the fire out until a much higher airspeed.






All for now. - Greg


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

One very interesting anecdote we were favored with was last year when our Heinkel He-162 was the featured aircraft at our monthly event (first Saturday of the month, every month). Rather stupidly, I don't remember his name (but can find out) ... but we had a real He-162 pilot come in and give a talk.

Turns out this guy was an American citizen visiting Germany when the war broke out (remember, not with the USA until Dec 7, 1941). He was a pilot who was flying around Germany at the time and was "impressed" into Luftwaffe service and became a "delivery pilot" for Heinkel when war was declared on the UK. He was the guy who flew and delivered our He-162 to it's front line unit!

Later in the war, but not much later, he was delivering another He-162 and was shot down by a P-51 Mustang behind "emeny" lines, and was repatriated with the USA after surviving the crash landing. How strange is THAT?

He said the He-162 flew rather well if you were a seasoned pilot, but he would not recommend it for a low-time guy. We opened the plane and he got into the cockpit and was happy to make the re-acquaintence.

Not a story ... true! 

Edit: I was given a synopsis by another volunteer who said he was an American in Germany in WWII. This apparently isn't correct. See below. He was German, and was LATER an American citizen. That makes me wonder about the rest of the version I heard. Obviously he would not have had citizenship mpapers if he becamne a citizen later. I'll check on it and report, or get WheelUpCavu to give HIS synopsis.

-----------------------------------------------

We've also had two pilots come through the museum (and give a talk at a monthly event) who flew our Bell YP-59A Airacomet airframe! (ours is S/N 42-108777). We know of many who flew it, but not ALL the pilots who did so. So far, we've found two still alive and kicking who were willing to come see it and talk about it.

Edit: One of the pilots who flew our YP-59A is Vaugh E. Denning, author of "A Pilot, First, Last, and Always." I don't recall the name of the other one who came through, but I bought a copy of Vaughn's book, so it is on my shelf as a reference.

Just FYI.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 19, 2014)

I'm very, very surprised the Germans would let a American citizen fly a advanced Luftwaffe aircraft, "impressed," coerced, or drafted.
Once you're in a single seat aircraft, you can no longer plead coercion. By the time the He162 was flying America and Germany had been at war for quite a while.

I'm also surprised he wasn't prosecuted for aiding the enemy after the war, people have lost their citizenship for less.


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

As a delivery pilot, he wasn't given very much extra fuel. Other than that, he didn't address those issues much, but did say the Nazis were very dilligent about keeping tabs on people. By the time he was shot down, the Allies were advancing into Germany and the front lines simply weren't very far away. He was in the process of flying a new He-162 into Allied hands when he was shot down before he could land at an Allied airstrip.

The rest of his talk was about flying the planes. He knew that most Americans hadn't heard much firsthand about the German planes, so his talk was about flying the 109, 190, 162, and 262. He liked them all but felt the jets had too short an endurance to be worthwhile. For an attack fighter, he preferred the piston fighters.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 19, 2014)

Well, of course he was trying to fly that He162 to the allies.

After he was shot down and captured by them, what would you expect him to say ?


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

Considering he had his citizenship papers and a handwritten letter explaining the situation in his pocket when he was captured, I'd say he was defecting back home at first opportunity. He rapidly joined the ranks of Allied test pilots until the war ended.

Of course, there is another explanation, too. I gave him the benefit of the doubt because the USAAC did at the time. It might be as you seem to think ... might not be. After 80 years, I don't think it matters a great deal. He isn't likely to go steal prototypes and defect to Canada or Mexico. I'm 63 years old and I could run him down any day of the week if he was hobbling away with secrets.

But, you could be right, Tom. There are always at least two sides to a question like this, if not more.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 19, 2014)

Lovely pictures there, Greg. Would it be, by any chance, that you have any of the Mikulin's V-12s around, like AM-38 or AM-42?


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

Wish we did!

Unfortunately, I don't even know where one IS other than in Russia. There is one running in Moscow, but the supply of parts is unnelievably small and I'd bet it would be hard to keep it running if you had one. You MIGHT be able to use Hispano-Suiza parts, but I'm not sure about that.

I think the Russians have a running Klimov, too. They certainly have almost all the parts that are left!

We have Allisons, Merlins, lots of radials. We have an unrestored Mitsubishi MK4R-A "Kasei" 23a in our Mitsubishi Raiden (the one with the long prop shaft) and a couple of very corroded Mitsubishi MK4A-11 "Kasei" engines (short prop shaft) in the Betty. We have an Argus AS-10 V-8 in our Feisler Storch that is begging for restoration (I'd love to start on it ... but no go as yet), and one DB from the Messerschmitt Bf 109E that was pulled from a Russian lake. It is currently in restoration at Vintage V-12's to running condition for the owner. We also have a variety of early and 2nd gemeration jets engines including the running engines in our MiG's ... and ONE running Russian radial in an AN-2 Colt. It has sat for along time, but starts when we try it. Oh yeah, we have a DB in our Bf 109G-6 in Arizona, but it would need some work to run. and we don;t have a spare for it.

We have some older antiques that COULD be restored to running condition including a Liberty V-12 and maybe 8 - 10 older types including a couple of rotary engines, but there is no point in making them into runners since we do not intend to fly them. We are an aviation museum, not an engine museum. All our running engines are spares for operational aircraft.

Our Yak-3 has an Allison in it, as do all of the "new build" Yaks. The Fw 190F has a P&W R-2800 in it.

So ... I wish I could say yes, but unfortunately it is no.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Feb 19, 2014)

Harold Bauer:


> 84-year-old Harald Bauer of Atascadero, CA appears on the September 15 and September 22 editions of Hometown Heroes on KMJ. Bauer was raised in Germany, flew HE-162 jets for the Luftwaffe, and after being shot down on March 24, 1945, was rescued and nursed back to health by American forces. He served in U.S. intelligence, and later as an American reconnaissance pilot during the Korean War. Bauer is a longtime supporter of Estrella Warbirds museum in Paso Robles, and will be at the Warbirds Over Paso airshow there on September 29.
> 
> 
> Source:
> ...


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

Thanks Brian,

I figured you would add his name somewhere along the line.

Since the story I heard doesn't seem to jive with the writeup link above, and since YOU were there at his talk, maybe you'd give us all your synopisis of his story? I, for one, would appreciate a first-hand account of his talk instead of a second-hand synopsis.

When I first heard the story, I said much the same thing as above, like "how could we trust him?" The answer I got was what I said above and it just doesn't seem like it correlates with the link very well. I edited my post above to reflect this.

The real story is still quite astonishing to me since our He-162 actually WAS flown at least to the front line airfield. Many of the surviving German jets were captured at the factories, and I was not aware whether or not ours had seen action or even had been delivered. Now we at least know that part and a guy who flew it in the war.

That's pretty cool to me.

I wonder how much of this YOU have experienced at the museum.

I was told for 4 years by several people that our Zero was captured in the Phillippines before I found out it was actually captured at Asilito airfield in Saipan in June 1944 and shipped to the USA on the USS Copahee in July 1944. It was tested at Patuxent River and accumulated 190 flight hours there. At least we KNOW it was serial number 61-120 and it was the 2,357th Zero made and was delivered in May 1943. 

Likewise, I was originally informed the Betty was found on Yap Island until the real story surfaced. It surfaced when the guy who recovered it visited the museum. I saw him looking at it and wandered over to see if he had any questions! He had all the answers instead. He recovered it in 1991 along with the remains of the D4Y Judy we rebuilt from Babo Airfield in Indonesia! So it sat as a wreck for 46 years in salt air. No wonder it has both exfoliation and intergrannular corrosion! I had simply never asked Ed Maloney about it before because we were always talking about the planes we were working on instead.

I dind't know the story of the Raiden either, and had heard nothing. Abandonded after the war, it was found in a playground in Los Angeles by Ed Maloney and acquired by him! Go figure! He finds a rare Japanese fighter in a local playground but had to all the way to Guatemala to find the Boeing P-26 Peashooter! Stranger than fiction.

Our J8M rocket plane was the first aircraft acquired by Ed Maloney to strat the museum. They only built 7 and he managed to find one in 1950.

Hard to believe that was 63 years ago, but it was.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 19, 2014)

That video explains it much better.

He may not have been a US citizen when in Germany, he had the RIGHT to US citizenship because of his mother. But if she never registered his as a US citizen he wasn't until he could apply for it himself after age 18, or that's the way the law is now.

One of my nieces had the same situation, German husband, two children born in Germany, those children never became US citizens until she applied for their citizenship at the nearest US embassy .


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

One thing we seldom think about is what the laws were back then. Good point!

People back then would have a hard time adjusting to present day laws if the changes happened all at once. We have lost a LOT of "freedoms," haven't we?


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 3, 2014)

Before I start I wanted to say hello as this is my first post on this forum 



wheelsup_cavu said:


> Here are a few pictures I took in October 2012 of the Zero engine before it was shipped to Japan.
> (Even though the engine is shrink wrapped in Greg's picture I don't think it's changed much since I took the pictures. 8) )
> 
> View attachment 254152
> ...



That pictures are amazing but I have one question, has there ever been recorded in more or less good quality working Sakae engine ?
That would be amazing to hear it ...


----------



## GregP (Mar 3, 2014)

Hi Hiromachi and welcome to the forum. Here's just ONE video clip:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57oP007VtDI_

If you Google "Planes of Fame A6M5" or anything close to that, you should get many vidoes of our plane flying, taxiing, and running. There is a nice clip of it running while in Japan last time and and the second time as well. I'm sure I could dig up one from the first trip over in 1977 if I tried.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 3, 2014)

Ok, will do rest myself. Thank you very much Greg for your kindness


----------



## GregP (Mar 3, 2014)

You are welcome and, again, welcome to the forum.

Here is my drawing of the D4Y that we restored and have at the Museum. It is not flyable, but can be started and taxied around.


----------



## GregP (Mar 3, 2014)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6W9MBK1gJI_Hi Hiromachi,

Here is a video of Steve Hinton doing a cockpit tour:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6W9MBK1gJI_

Enjoy.


----------



## GregP (Mar 3, 2014)

And here is a flight from Chino Airport:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTAOEh4uY5Y_


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 4, 2014)

Amazing, truly amazing.

I also hope that one day the Raiden which you have shown at the very beginning will return to flyable condition


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2014)

Hi Hiromachi,

The Raiden is restorable but the museum has a policy of only flying aircraft for which we have a spare engine. We are not aware of any other Raiden model Homare engines around anywhere else in the world. It is a very unusual radial in that it has a LONG drivehaft, so there are no other engines that can be adapted to work due to no long driveshaft. If we could restore two engines, then it would be worth it.

I think the original engine can be restored, but we would not fly it without a spare engine, so we also might not restore it. Possibly they might fly it, but only at the Chino airport. This is primarily a question for the Museum board of directors ... and we are knee-deep in projects right now with several waiting in the wings. It may happen, but probably after I'm gone ...

Before you ask, we DO have a spare Nakajima Sakae 21 engine for the A6M5. It is complete but is in pieces. If the primary engine breaks, we HAVE spares and can fix it. Nakajima was very helpful when we restorted the A6M5, as was Mitsubishi, and we still have a good relationship with both of them as well as Sony Corporation. All have been helpful in the restoration of Japanese items of interest.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 4, 2014)

Maybe what cannont be restored in US, can be restored in Japan ?







> From Japan comes the exclusive news that last month a unique warbird restoration made its first flight. Former airline pilot Shigatsu B. made a succesfull 14-minute flight in a restored Nakajima Ki-44-II Hei, better known in the West as the "Tojo".


Aviation of Japan ??????: Ki-44 Restoration Flies Over Japan!


Anyway, I have to go. I will revisit the thread in a couple of hours. Time to work for now.
Hiro


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2014)

Thanks, Hiromachi. That is wonderful to see. I had not known it was even in the works!

Glad to see that happening in Japan. When we went there in the 1970's, there was nobody working on WWII resotrations to flight status.

We used to have a Ki-84 and it was sold to a museum in Japan, but they cut the wings off to transport it. Perhaps it is restorable to flight status ... we used to fly it. One prop blade was very slightly bent and it vibrated, but maybe a new prop copuld be fitted.

Goo luck with Japanese restorations!


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 4, 2014)

Please pay attention to the date April 1.
Welcome to the forum, Hiromachi


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2014)

Ha! Didn't notice that!

Appreciate that, but was not aware that Japan celebrated April Fools Day!

Great pic of a KI-44, though!


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 4, 2014)

Shinpachi said:


> Please pay attention to the date April 1.
> Welcome to the forum, Hiromachi



So it is a joke ... well, I would expect that in Europe or USA, didn't know that 1st April is also ... known as Fools Day in Japan, or at least on blog dedicated to Japanese Aviation.
Shame, for a few months I was living with hope to see fully restored Ki-44. Shoki is such a nice design. 





GregP said:


> Ha! Didn't notice that!
> 
> Appreciate that, but was not aware that Japan celebrated April Fools Day!
> 
> Great pic of a KI-44, though!



I have a nice collection based on Maru Mechanic and Famous Airplanes of the World, Ki-44 is one of the planes I hope to see in my life restored.
Seeing such thing once again would be something :






And well, Greg, I have somehow contact with younger people living in Japan due to my own job. Lately younger people became interested in some WWII warbirds or tanks, because of game development. Projects like War Thunder or World of Tanks made people more interested in their own history, after all everyone is proud of his country and want's to know something. I saw a few pictures of restored Japanese tank Type 95 Ha-Go, and hope that something will be also done with planes.


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2014)

Good joke on me Hiromachi,

At the Planes of Fame we have a Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Reisen (flyable but undergoing overhaul at this time), a Yokosuka D4Y-3 Suisei (static but can start and taxi), a genuine Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka (nobody wants to fly this one ...), a Mitsubishi J2M3 Raiden (restorable), a crashed Mistubishi G4M Bomber (Restorable), a full complement of Arisaka rifles, some genuine uniforms and helmets, a real Mitsubishi J8M1 Shusui (probably restorable, but I would not want to fly the original engine) together with the rocket engine, the landing gear trolley, wheels, and tires, a Jpanese torpedo (unknown type but I can find out) ... and we used to have a flyable Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate that is now in Japan in a museum.

Our founder, Ed Maloney (still alive and kicking) has done a lot to keep the Japanese heritage of WWII aircraft alive and well in the USA and, hopefully, in Japan. Every December we have a Japanese day and usually fly the A6M5 together with a presentation program on it. Sometimes it is the D4Y. Our grandfathers may have had a war, but our generation and younger didn't.

I'd really love to see a Ki-44 fly and would appreciate working on it to help. Ditto the German and Italian fighters, bombers, etc. One of ny favorites is a Fieseler Storch that is original ... but the Argus AS-10 needs to be overhauled to runnign condition. Not a fighter, but would be wonderful to see fly. Find a Macchi 202/205, Fiat G.55, or Regianne 2005 and we will be happy to restore it!

Perhaps you could come see it all sometime with Shinpachi. I'd love to show both you around and let you cut and rivet some aluminum together ... maybe you'd go back and restore something! Maybe a real Ki-44.

Best regards, - Greg


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 4, 2014)

> Good joke on me Hiromachi,


Well, I also didnt know it is a joke till Shinpachi posted the date. So I joked on you ... involuntarily. Now that is a nice intellectual combination.



> a flyable Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate that is now in Japan in a museum.


With a cut-off wings ... someoen should tell those guys from museum that one doesn't make such things on only flyable machine ...



> Perhaps you could come see it all sometime with Shinpachi. I'd love to show both you around and let you cut and rivet some aluminum together ... maybe you'd go back and restore something! Maybe a real Ki-44.


I would like to visit US, really. But for Poles there is still a Visa problem and to be honest trip for a student is quite expensive. But I hope I will visit US to see all those planes, maybe something more will be found and restored. And well, it is the only chance to see J8M, taste Texas BBQ and visit interesting places.



> Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka (nobody wants to fly this one ...)


If nobody wants I would take Okha for a ride, it would be the last one but unforgettable 


BTW. 
I have no idea if you knew, but Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum has very large parts of Aichi B7A Ryusei.
The National Air and Space Museum's Ryusei is believed to be the only remaining example in the world. The U.S. Navy recovered from the Japanese home islands and shipped it to the United States for evaluation. Unfortunately, nothing of the bomber's operational history is known. The Smithsonian Institution accepted the airplane in 1963 and placed it in storage. It awaits restoration at the Paul Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland. The B7A2 proved a useful resource during the restoration of another Aichi product, the M6A1 Seiran (see NASM collection). Lacking drawings and other information, the restoration staff used the GRACE on several occasions to investigate how Aichi built certain features. Some parts were also identical and, if missing or damaged on the Seiran, could be copied from the Ryusei.

So they used it to restore other plane and now is in terrible conditions :
















They also have Kikka as I remember, but from what I understood it is not going to be restored. At least they dont want :


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 4, 2014)

Thanks for your kind offer, Greg.
Please tell my best regards to Mr Ed Maloney.
He is one of the most historic US citizens who contributed research and study of Japanese aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2014)

Will do, Shinpachi. And thanks for the interesting infomation, Hiromachi.

The B7A would be a welcome addition to the Japanese WWII aircraft around the world, as would the Kikka. Unfortunately the NASM usually doesn't sell or trade their aircraft, and I can't think of a time when they sent out resotration to another group. There are strange requiremnents when you deal with a givernment. We had to jump through a lot of hoops to examine the cockpit canopy on the Bell P-59 at March Air Force Base when we were making the unit for our YP-59A. They have some very strange rules.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 4, 2014)

I suspect that, I tried to contact Smithsonian to get some data, only data about Ryusei. But well, they are not helpful, nor polite. That is sad, especially if they have a planes they dont even plane to restore in next decade or more, and someone else could do that ...

But well, that's how the world looks. In Poland we can't restore to flyable condition only existing PZL P.11c in Cracow. It has deeply damaged wing and they lack data.
But they have restored PZL P.37 Łoś. We just need to search for positives.


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 4, 2014)

Lots of lovely pics, info, history and Greg P's insights - thanks for the reply earlier, sorry for the long wait re-replying back.


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2014)

Hi Hiromachi,

About the wing ... they can do some forensic restoration. That is, drill out the rivets, separate the structure, measure the pieces and go from there to build a new one. That's what we had to do with our Yokosuka D4Y Judy dive bomber ... start with the pieces and use them for patterns. Most were in bad shape and had to be straightened and made flat to make a pattern.

I'd bet the P.11c CAN be restored with some effort and some skill. The D4Y we restored was in 4 pieces and the entire nose was missing when we got it. The cockpit was crushed flat and the belly was crushed flat. The tail was missing. We started with pieces and then used drawings to get probable measurements for the tail, and made a structure similar to German Heinkel structure from which the D4Y was developed.

There were no real plans for that, either.

If there is someone over in Poland who wants to pursue that, they can contact the Planes of Fame at Chino, California and speak with Steve Hinton or Ed Maloney. Perhaps something can be worked out, particularly if the restoration is to be static and not airworthy.

PZL is still in business, aren't they? As PZL-Meilec at least? Perhaps the P.11 plans were lost in the war?

From the pictures I see on the internet, the P.11c in the museum is in good enough shape to be assessed for internal structure type and configuration. Plans can be made from it. But if they are not going to fly it, perhaps it isn't worth the time, expense and risk? But they COULD restore it to runnable static condition so it could be started and taxied ... assuming the fuselage is strong enough to handle an engine run.

I have them but don't know where they are right now ... but I'll see if I can dig up some shots of the D4Y before and during restoration. The shape it was in when we started was quite bad. The P.11c is in MUCH better shape to start with.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 4, 2014)

> About the wing ... they can do some forensic restoration. That is, drill out the rivets, separate the structure, measure the pieces and go from there to build a new one. That's what we had to do with our Yokosuka D4Y Judy dive bomber ... start with the pieces and use them for patterns. Most were in bad shape and had to be straightened and made flat to make a pattern.



Nah they are too careful and ... lazy I think, or simply lack resources. It's a public museum. They dont want to try as they are afraid of loosing the only one existing. 



> PZL is still in business, aren't they? As PZL-Meilec at least? Perhaps the P.11 plans were lost in the war?


Yes, that is also the problem. A lot of materials have been lost or than just burnt by Germans through the War. 

And this is the result of long-way building of PZL-37. They used as many original parts as possible :

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ano4z1vwX7E_


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2014)

That's a nice aircraft! I'd love to see that one fly!

Best of luck with your projects.

We have a PZL TS-11 Iskra and it looks like a lot of fun to fly. We don;t fly it, but it was airworthy when we got it.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 4, 2014)

From what I remember this bomber was quite ... agile, if that can be said for a bomber. It had not only quite large control surfaces, but also flaps and slots. Control and stability were nice and there were a few examples when P-37 went into "turnfight" with Bf-110 or Bf-109.
Sounds more like legend, but still plane was quite advanced. The only problems it really had was lack of protection and quite bad defensive armament. 


Greg, is it possible if you could make more pictures on Raiden flaps ? I was quite interested how far they could be deployed, and not only for Take-off or Landing, but also Combat. 

That was another part, how truly maneuverable Raiden was ? For Zero pilots it was brick, but same was for Ki-44 when they were tested by Ki-27 pilots ... in reality Ki-44 still possessed decent turn time, in monograph about it I found data of turn time below 20 seconds.
Maybe Raiden also wasn't so bad ? Especially as Japanese put a lot of efforts to make effective flaps.


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2014)

I can certainly get pics of the flaps, and will ask if John Maloney knows the flap extension limits. I am not sure if we have a manual on it or not since it hasn't been restored.

I believe it was not very maneuverable when compared with the A6M5, as you said, but was fairly maneuverable when compared with Allied fighters. In my opinion the propeller blades are too short and suffer from aspect ratio issues. It would probably have benefitted from longer prop blades, but was flown with the propeller as designed by everyone who ever flew it.

I'd love to see it restored, too. In unrestored condition it looks pretty good as-is!


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 4, 2014)

Ohh, well it is obvious it is not close to Zero. Zero was turned to be maneuverable, I remember one of your posts when you said that J. Horikoshi helped in restoring A6M5 mod 52 or rather you had a discussion, he said it was build to being as agile as possible. 
So it is obvious for me that Zeros or Ki-43 are more maneuverable as obviously they were built in that purpose.

What I was interested is the comparison to Allied or Soviet planes. 



> In my opinion the propeller blades are too short and suffer from aspect ratio issues. It would probably have benefitted from longer prop blades, but was flown with the propeller as designed by everyone who ever flew it.



As I remember it was already complained the handling of the Raiden on the ground, by quick looking on it ... if the propeller would be bigger ... than landing gear would also have to be bigger. And we would have something like a N1K1-J Shiden. 
But only Jiro Horikoshi knows why did they choose this one instead of something else ...



> I'd love to see it restored, too. In unrestored condition it looks pretty good as-is!



I would love also, it is one of the more specific planes. Maybe not so beautiful as Ki-44 for me or Ki-27 (I'm rather Army branch fan) but very special 



> if we have a manual


If you would actually have it, would it be a pilots handbook with performance data or rather technical book with data for the mechanics ?

I have N1K2-J Handbook for Mechanics, which I hoped to help me with figuring the Shiden Kai performance but it had only technical data, like areas or placement of various equipment. As I know now, there is only one real Pilots Manual for N1K2-J, and it is in Shiden Kai museum. They keep it somehow very secret, no pictures allowed, even single data from it is for me unknown. 
Shame, I would visit museum but again, Japan is far from Europe.


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2014)

Actually I believe the essence of what J. Horikoshi said was that they wanted the performance of the most modern aircraft but only had a medium power engine to work with. He never expected more than about 1,100 HP from the Sakae engine. In order to get the required performance levels something had to be left out, and it was armor, self-sealing tanks, and the like ... in order to maintain performance levels.

Given his own preferences he would have desiogned these things in, but he did not have the luxury of 1,500 + HP engines from which to choose; he was told to use the Nakajima Sakae engine.

I think Curtiss-Wright did the same sort of thing with the CW-21. They had a small engine and wanted BIG performance, so they left out a lot of things ... and the aircraft was never really combat ready as a result. The A6M5 WAS, and that is a testament to Jiro Horikoshi's talent that he could make it work when others could not do so. I believe if he had updated the Zero design with a Homare or other similar much more poweful radial he could have either maintained performance and added in the formerly left-out items or could have improved performance and STILL left out armor, self-sealing tanks, etc ... but probably could not have both added in the items left out and still improved on performance simultaneously.

In the end, I think he did pretty well with 1,130 HP.


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2014)

Found an old video clip on the Caifornia Air Museum that became the Planes of Fame. In this clip you can see the Nakajima Ki-84 we used to own and fly. It is now in an air museum in Japan.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8waXqQoBri4_

Enjoy!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 5, 2014)

> Found an old video clip on the Caifornia Air Museum that became the Planes of Fame. In this clip you can see the Nakajima Ki-84 we used to own and fly. It is now in an air museum in Japan.



That is a nice finding. Thank you Greg 



> The A6M5 WAS, and that is a testament to Jiro Horikoshi's talent that he could make it work when others could not do so. I believe if he had updated the Zero design with a Homare or other similar much more poweful radial he could have either maintained performance and added in the formerly left-out items or could have improved performance and STILL left out armor, self-sealing tanks, etc ... but probably could not have both added in the items left out and still improved on performance simultaneously.



More powerful engine, especially like 18 cylinder would have to lead to a big design changes due to weight increase. But I was thinking of Kinsei 51, bigger than Sakae and had also higher fuel consumption but available quite early. 

Also the main problem is still there - high speed maneuvers. It was a major issue, and even N1K2-J had problem due to fabric covered control surfaces, that above certain speeds the roll rate would drastically drop, the elevator would not respond so quickly. Zero was known for this problems.
But than again, how in this case performed J2M3 Raiden ? It was supposed to be high speed plane though ...


----------



## GregP (Mar 5, 2014)

Well the J2M-5/6 was about a 370 mph aircraft at best height (407 mph WER) and the wing loading was down around 32.8 pounds per square foot (160.1 kg per square meter) at normal takeoff weight, so it might have been less maneuverable than the Zero, but was in the ballpark for a decently maneuverable aircraft anywhere else, at least given a reasonable airfoil ... which I am assuming it had but don't know for sure. It probably cruised between 200 and 300 mpoh and had an initial climb rate of 4,600 feet per minute (1.402 meters per minute), so it wasn't a slug in anybody's book. Range was short without drop tanks, but could stretch to 1,100 miles with drop tanks.

I've never seen whether that climb rate was normal or WER. The data are sketchy at best.

The performance seems like a slightly faster Hellcat, though the climb rate was at least 1/3 better, with better armament. Seems like a tough customer to me.

I don't know that there is a good writeup on high speed maneuverability anywhere in the world. With four 20 mm cannons in the later variants it hit hard and was among the best Japan had at intercepting the B-29. They just never had enough of them with only 621 built. The aircraft performance website has speed, climb, and range charts, but nothing on roll rate of general maneuverability, so we are left with speculation there. 

There is some mention of criticism of the visibility by the pilots but, having stuck my head in the cockpit, the visibility was pretty good for a radial engine aircraft. If there is one place where it might suffer, that would be the rear view in common with all planes lacking a bubble canopy. It might have been less than wonderful compared with the visibility in an A6M.

The effective aspect ratio was 5.8 (span squared divided by wing area), so it probably rolled rather well. With the wing loading it was probably a decent turner if the airfoil was good. I've never seen an airfoil for it in print but assume it was decent given the designer's history.

To me, if the engine issues were solved, it seems like a good interceptor, but of limited use on other missions due to short range on internal fuel alone.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 5, 2014)

> Well the J2M-5/6 was about a 370 mph aircraft at best height (407 mph WER) and the wing loading was down around 32.8 pounds per square foot (160.1 kg per square meter) at normal takeoff weight, so it might have been less maneuverable than the Zero, but was in the ballpark for a decently maneuverable aircraft anywhere else, at least given a reasonable airfoil ... which I am assuming it had but don't know for sure. It probably cruised between 200 and 300 mpoh and had an initial climb rate of 4,600 feet per minute (1.402 meters per minute), so it wasn't a slug in anybody's book.



TAIC gives for Jack-11 speed of 350 mph on SL and 407 mph on 17 400 feet altitude, climb rate at SL of 4600 feet per minute.

For Jack-21 it is speed of 359 mph on SL and 417 mph on 16 600 feet altitude, climb rate at SL of 4825 feet per minute.

Those are very nice numbers, especially if we keep in mind that Zeros were used in 70% of sorties, than such plane would be a very big surprise to any Hellcat or even Corsair.



> The effective aspect ratio was 5.8 (span squared divided by wing area), so it probably rolled rather well. With the wing loading it was probably a decent turner if the airfoil was good. I've never seen an airfoil for it in print but assume it was decent given the designer's history.



There was in the internet some fine comparison between Hellcat and J2M3 in case of maneuverability and other aspects, have you seen it maybe ?


----------



## GregP (Mar 5, 2014)

I saw that comparion somewhere, maybe from in here, but have lost the URL for it. If anyone has it, please post it again. Thanks! When I read it I was favorably impresed with the Raiden, though in a one-on-one with a Hellcat I think the better pilot would make the difference.

The structure of the A6M is a very GOOD one, but the materials are thin, meaning it can take much less battle damage before something critical fails. Some places the skin os .025"!

I have seen the internal structure of both the Hellcat and the J2M and am impressed with the J2M, but do not know the thickness of the metal. If it is heavyer gauge, then it well might take as much battle damage as a Hellcat and possibly more. If the skin is thin, it would be more like the A6M. Now that I'm curious about it, I'll take a few measurements on skin in the next couple of weeks and come back to this.

When we tested the J2M after the war, we found it to be some 25 mph faster than the TAIC numbers, but we were also using much better fuel than the Japanese were during the war. So maybe the TAIC numbers are pretty representative of wartime J2M's.

I have an Allied pdf report on it and it has favorable things to say, giving the Raiden good marks for stability, stalling characteristics, comfort, takeoff and landing qualities, good performance and great maneuver flaps. It gets knocked down for brakes and rudder braking action, heavy ailerons and lack of maneuverability at high speeds, short range, and low mechanical reliability.

To me, heavy ailerons and lack of maneuverability at high speeds are solvable, as is the mechanical reliability issue. Hevy ailerons CAN be solved. The time were the times, but disk brakes weren't very far away, and the brakes could also have been fixed, even if with better drum units. The Raiden wasn't the only potentially great fighter with bad brakes. The list is long and distinguished.

Given a bit of dedicated development, I think the Raiden could have been one of the very good ones from the war. As it is, it came close, but had enough teething problems to make it a late-bloomer. It was in protracted development at the same time the designer was working on the Reppu and other projects, too. Perhaps Mitsubishi should have let him finish the Raiden before adding other assignments, and Mitsubishi themselves should have made the Kasei engine reliable much quicker or should have used something else, even if it came from Nakajima. The war and the country were at stake and company self interest was not a thing that should have been tolerated. But that is hindsight from many years after the fact ... and we know all companies on both sides did much the same during the war, so perhaps that criticism is unwarranted.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 5, 2014)

View attachment F6F-5 vs J2M3-b_opt (1).pdf


Here it is. 



> When we tested the J2M after the war, we found it to be some 25 mph faster than the TAIC numbers, but we were also using much better fuel than the Japanese were during the war. So maybe the TAIC numbers are pretty representative of wartime J2M's.



Please tell me more about this. I was always so curious about US made tests. They are so mysterious in many cases, one got TAIC data but they are estimated in many cases, sometimes show higher than possible to obtain performance and sometimes are fairly proper.

So You have tested J2M3 mod 21 after war. Can you tell me more about that ? Not only performance but also feeling. That is something one can't get from books, how the plane really feels and handles in the air is unique thing ...



> I have an Allied pdf report on it and it has favorable things to say, giving the Raiden good marks for stability, stalling characteristics, comfort, takeoff and landing qualities, good performance and great maneuver flaps. It gets knocked down for brakes and rudder braking action, heavy ailerons and lack of maneuverability at high speeds, short range, and low mechanical reliability.



Could you be so kind and share it with me ? 



> The war and the country were at stake and company self interest was not a thing that should have been tolerated. But that is hindsight from many years after the fact ... and we know all companies on both sides did much the same during the war, so perhaps that criticism is unwarranted.



It was too old competition to be simply stopped. Even the production inside of companies was split between Army and Navy ...
Putting aside old differences would change a lot but I dont think it was possible ...


----------



## GregP (Mar 5, 2014)

First, thank you for the pdf! I appreciate it.

Here is a link to the AircraftPrformance tests of the Jam: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Jack-11-105A.pdf

I don't know where the my pdf file is on the web, but if you PM me your email, I'll send it along in an email attachment.

The J2M was a good aircraft with some flaws, so it pretty much is similar to a lot of other good aircraft also with flaws. 
I happen to like it, but turning it into a winner is another "what if." The king of the "what if" is the Ta-152, a great plane on paper that did almost nothing in the real world of war (8 - 10 victories against 2 - 4 losses). But on paper it was one of the very best. All the "what ifs" in the world can't change the real war record and in the real world, it is an interesting footnote ... sort of like the Raiden. But at least the Raiden made a mark against B-29's, though I have seen that written ... I have also never seen a list of supposed kills attributed to the Raiden. But, few other Japanese fighters could claim B-29's in any significant number; they couldn't catch them!


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 6, 2014)

I send you a PM, thank you very much Greg.


----------



## GregP (Mar 6, 2014)

Got it and will respond tomorrow morning ... it's late!


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 6, 2014)

Ok, no worries. I'm not going anywhere.

And it is ... early ... in Europe


----------



## GregP (Mar 7, 2014)

Hi Hiromachi,

Sent the file in email. Hope you got it. I intended to attach several and could only find one ... but time is on our side!

- Greg

Edit: We are starting to get visitors for the airshow. We have a razorback P-47 and we just got another one in for the show (another P-47G), plus two more F-86's, two more Mustangs, and the show is still 2 months away! I'll get some pics going forward.

The Tigercat under restoration is coming along well. Again, I'll get some pics next weekend.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 7, 2014)

Thank you very much. I got the email and I'm looking forward to see your findings Greg.

And can't wait to see more pictures.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2014)

Greg, I'm jealous! What kind of report are you talking about?


----------



## GregP (Mar 7, 2014)

It is an article in an aviation magazine about the J2M, and I don't know how to post a pdf from my PC to the forum.

If I did, I would do it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2014)

You might go to he 'Reply' button. Then, click the 'Go advanced' button. After the new window opens, scroll down a bit and you will se the 'Manage attachments' button; click it. The new window will open, and you will be asked to choose the file you want to upload.


----------



## GregP (Mar 7, 2014)

OK, here's a try at it ...

Well, I have never managed to get that button to do anything on my PC or anyone else's PC, and it didn't do anyting again when I tried it. Ah well ...


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2014)

What button of the 3 I've mentioned you did not found?


----------



## GregP (Mar 7, 2014)

Oh I found the "manage attachments" button a long time ago. But when I click it, nothing happens.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2014)

That's funny. What web browser do you use?


----------



## GregP (Mar 7, 2014)

I use IE9 becuase, for some reason, this Toshiba won't let me upgrade it poast there and I haven't yet bit the bulklet abd dug in to find out why. I suppose I need to do that soon.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2014)

I don't use IE for maybe 10 years, so I wouldn't know all of its intricaties. Have you tried the Firefox or Opera, those can be downloaded for free?


----------



## GregP (Mar 7, 2014)

OK here is a try using Google Chrome ...

Here is an article from Air International. I have some other files on the J2M but must FIND them before I can do anything with them.

Thanks, Tomo. Maybe I'll switch browsers ... seems like maybe it is indicated.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2014)

There you go


----------



## GregP (Mar 7, 2014)

The J2M Raiden does not seem to have much in the way of articles or test data surrounding it's testing after WWII, but we can share what we find hopefully. It seems like a pretty decent plane and certainly looks the part of a tough customer when you see it in person.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 7, 2014)

I would love to learn more about it. It's quite nice plane and very unusual.

When you will find more, it will be wonderful to see that materials


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 11, 2014)

Did you find anything more on Raiden Greg ? 


And besides, I watched whole Planes of Fame youtube channel and got really interested in one thing, on a videos P-38 looks quite maneuverable but still it is a twin engine plane, you know any of the guys in cockpit ? Could you please describe their feelings about plane ?


----------



## GregP (Mar 11, 2014)

First, yes, I know thw guys flying it (all of them).

The P-38 is VERY maneuverable but there was a snag when it went into combat in Europe in WWII. It had four things going against it.

1. There was very little training conducted on proper operation of the P-38 for ANY of the poilots who originally got to Europe. They were flying and operating it very wrongly. That took time to correct.

2. There was an issue with the intake manifolds that was masked by #3 below. It took about 4 months to fix once they knew to look for it. The fix was simple.

3. The P-38 was developed in the USA on American fuel. Thus it was jetted for American fuel. US fuels had about 2% aromatics in them in the aviation grade gasoline used. European fuels had about 20% aromatics in them, so the P-38's arrived jetted incorrectly for the fuel being used. This was a source of major confusion until someone about 9 months into it sent home a batch of European fuel and the issue showed up immediately on the test stand. There is nothing wrong with European fuel, but it was simply blended differently than ours. The British planes sent to the USA for evaluation weren't any happier running on US fuels than ours were running on European fuels. Once we KNEW, then the jetting could be altered and everyone was happy.

4. The cockpit heater was awful and pilots froze over Europe. The engines were simply too far away from the pilot and the air wasn't warm when it got to the cockpit. The fix as as simple as an electric heater, but it took a long time and the pilots over Europe weren't very happy about being so cold for so long.

Once the fuel and intake issues wre solved, the operational issues with the P-38 were solved. Right about then the P-51B was getting to Europe and there was simply no sense in maintaining two supply chains for fighters doing essentially the same job., and the vast majority of P-38's were released to the MTO and PTO theaters where they did VERY well. The top three USAAF pilots in the war flew the P-38, all in the PTO.

The biggest thing about the P-38 was the sheer number of things you had to do if you got bounced by enemy fighters.

You had to come up on the rpm for both engines, go to auto rich mixture for both engines, increase the throttle setting to combat, set the rpm and mixture for what you were doing, turn on the gunsight, drop tanks if you had them, and then fight. Many P-38's were shot down while the pilot was reconfiguring for combat and not reacting to being bounced.

Once the P-38 is configured for combat, it is nimble, maneuverable (if you are strong enough), and is a great gun platform.

The tactics evolved were to break away from the attack while dropping tanks and configuring for combat instead of trying to configure before reacting to the bounce. If the P-38's were the attackers, they were already properly configured and were not caught napping.

The guys who fly our P-38 are Steve Hinton, Kevin Eldridge, Chris Fahey, and Mike DeMarino. There might be another one but, if so, I can't think of him right now. All these guys love the P-38 and say it is a first class ride that is as maneuverable as any other fighter, but you have to muscle it around prior to the P-38J-25-LO. With the P-38J-25-LO, hydraulically boosted ailerons were fitted as was an electrically actuated dive recovery flap that ended the compressibility dive recovery issues. With that dive recovery flap, they could achieve 600 mph dive speeds and easily recover.

Lockheed manufactured 200 retrofit kits and sent them to Euope on a C-54 that was mistaken for an Fw 200 Condor and shot down by an RAF pilot. Talk about being in the wrong palce at the wrong time!

Ours is a P-38J-20-LO and has manual ailerons (armstrong assist, as we say) so it rolls as fast as you are strong. Our guys can really rack it around but are used to it. We are usually operating in the 180 - 350 mph range (180 - 280 mph most of the time) during an airshow and when they do fast breaks, it is usually at 250 mph and below. I'm sure it took some strength at 350+ mph to make it bank quickly. In the Horseman video above, Steve Hinton was using 3,000 rpm and 57 inches of Mercury at times after leaving formation, so he was putting out about 1,425 HP per side when he broke away from the two P-51's and went vertical.

According to these guys, the P-38's weakness mostly shows up when it gets bouced and must be reconfigured for combat quickly. If the P-38 initiates the attack, there is no disadvantage and the advantage of centerline armament comes directly into play.

They feel that while a Bf 109 or Fw 190 ambushing a P-38 might have an advantage, if the P-38 was ready for him or if the P-38 was doing the attacking, the advantage goes the other way. The Bf 109 was a good climbing fighter, but it wasn't going to out climb a P-38 enough to have any advantage if the P-38 is configured for combat. The turning circle with maneuvering flaps is VERY tight and it has enough power to maintain speed during high g turns. Prior to the P-38L-25-LO, diving was a good way to escape a P-38 as it could very quickly get to the critical Mach number.

However, if the enemy dived away, the P-38 did his job of chasing away the attackers of the bombers and could watch for the enemy to come back up and wait for a good bounce oportunity. All the former P-38 pilots who speak at the Museum's event days are still fond of it with the sole exception of one guy who flew it very early in Europe before the issues were fixed. He was cold, had backfiring issues, and had to have his engines changed at short intervals. He liked it when all as working but, early on, most weren't working too well.

Just for info, our Allisons have been generally reliable with some small exceptions. It's hard to blame the engine when it is operated too hot. If you aren't going to closely monitor the cylinder head temps, then the radiator door contol needs to be in atuo, not manual mode. Sometimes these things get learned the hard way. We've been operating this P-38 since 1988 (after restoration), so we now have 26 years of experience with it. Well ... not quite accurate. After restoration it was displayed at Palm Springs for 10 years and so we have 16 years experience plus the flgihts while it was at Palm Springs.

All in all, it is a complex aircaft but performs well. After the war it didn't fit into USAAF/USAF plans and was rapidly phased out ... but so were a lot of other planes. They were not dropped for cause, but rather in the general downsizing after WWII ended when everyone was moving to a non-war footing. Any single engine fighter is cheaper to operate than any twin fighter.

But if you are flying fighter operations over water, the big twin is a great comfort when one fan stops. The engine out characteristics of a P-38 are WAY better than for a P-51 or P-47! The Pacific Ocean is a big pond, so the P-38 was well suited to that location.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Balljoint (Mar 12, 2014)

GregP said:


> OK here is a try using Google Chrome ...
> 
> Here is an article from Air International. I have some other files on the J2M but must FIND them before I can do anything with them.
> 
> Thanks, Tomo. Maybe I'll switch browsers ... seems like maybe it is indicated.




The bit about the Raiden breaking up in flight probably was the result of the prop shaft extension. The increased distance between the prop and motor mounts allowed the movement at the prop to increase setting up an often fatal progressive gyroscopic whirling oscillation. This wasn’t fully recognized in general until the rather long turbo props engines had the same problem after the war.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 23, 2014)

Could you be so kind and tell me Greg if you have found anything in your materials since we have spoken last time about Raiden dimensions and control surfaces ? I'm still very curious about the sizes and deflections of ailerons, rudder and elevator. And general wing structure. 

After all Raiden being interceptor still possessed a lot maneuverability, so wing construction and control surfaces had to be designed very well but I failed to find any specific data, even in Japanese sources ...

Did you find anything Greg ?


Hiromachi


----------



## GregP (Mar 23, 2014)

The guys who are responsible for the Raiden start with John Maloney. I asked him if he knew and he said, "You have to be kidding me!" He laughed and said he knows a lot about the Raiden's structure and systems (having been inside it many times, even within the fiselage), but is completely uninterested in the control system limits unless it is to be restored for flight. Since he first saw the Raiden, he has restored more than 25 aircraft and says nobody cares much until and unless it is time to restore for flight. Until fight restoration, they keep the outside of teh aircraft clean and presentable for public viewing.

Steve Hinton is concerned with the flying aircraft, not the static ones. He knows a lot about the Raiden, but not anything about control deflections.

Now I could move the controls up and down and measure the limits, but there is no certainty they would move to the limits if everything were hooked up and adjusted for flight. All you';d get are the physical limits of surface deflection, which is no real indication of flight limit stops ... other than they have to be same or less.

As for the general structure, there is this:


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 23, 2014)

Oh, well, shame. Still it doesnt give data for size of ailerons or rudder. 
I tried to find manual for it in Japanese part of internet, or at least some specific data but Raiden is very hard to work on. I even found tests of two stage supercharger in Ha-115 II engine for Ki-43-III, but nothing about Raiden. 

Very mysterious machine.


And thank you Greg, at least you tried and I really appreciate that. It's always a pleasure to speak with you 

Hiro


----------



## GregP (Mar 23, 2014)

I'll measure the surfaces and get back.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 23, 2014)

I must say one thing, I am more than jealous that you can sy it like this : "I will measure it and get back", so many warbirds to see everyday. Hope one day I will be able to touch them myself ...


----------



## GregP (Mar 23, 2014)

Come and visit and we can measure together. Better yet, come on May 3 - 4 and watch them all fly in our airshow. If you were around the planes and loved them as I do ... and you too, apparently ... you'd probably be a volunteer, too. 

It is an accident of location mostly. I happen to live within a short distance of nine pretty good aviation museums. Planes of Fame, Yanks, March AFB, Edwards AFB, Lyons Museum, San Diego Air and Space Museum, the Midway, Palm Springs, and Castle AFB are all not too far away. The closest is Planes of Fame. Hence, I volunteer there. 

It makes staying away fairly hard to do. It also takes a lot of time but, since I live alone, I have the time.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 23, 2014)

For now it's not possible, both because Visa required to step on US soil and because flight to US is quite expensive. But one day ..


----------



## GregP (Mar 24, 2014)

Well, when you do come over, let me know!

I'd love to see the Polish aviation museums too but, as you said, there IS the expense.

Maybe in the future.

Take care, - Greg


----------



## GregP (Mar 27, 2014)

Hi Hiromachi,

OK, I went out to the museum and measured the control surfaces. If you Google a line drawing of the J2M, you can see how they look. I threw together a drawing below. The aileron is at the top left. The vertical line about 1/3 of the way from the right side of the aileron (at 30 inches) is where the 12-inch measurement just starts to taper down to the 8-inch length on the right side.

Measurements are in inches, but conversion is simple.

I see I rushed through it and left off two measurements. Ah well. The two arrows on the rudder trim tab are the horizontal measurements of the trim tab. It is 20 inches high, the top measures 2.25 inches and the bottom measures 6 inches.






If you look closely at a line drawing, the elevator is not quite a right angles to the centerline, but you can still get a very close estimate of the control surface areas by assuming it to be a right angle. The angle can't be more than a few degrees and the dogleg balance tab IS at right angles. On the elevator, the dogleg was not measured to 4 places ... it is 15/16 on an inch, which works out to 0.9375 in decimal inches. I measured the control surface opening, not from the hinge line.

I was 3/4 of the way home when I realized I had not measured the flaps! I'll get that Saturday ... slap me.

- Greg


----------



## GregP (Mar 27, 2014)

Here is the aileron:






Here is the elevator:






Here is the rudder:


----------



## GregP (Mar 27, 2014)

Here is the aileron at full up:






And here is the aileron at full down:






All for now.


----------



## kettbo (Mar 28, 2014)

Great thread! I'll have to get (back) down there sometime


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2014)

Hi Kettbo,

Any time, let me know and we can meet up.

I see you are in western Washington. My sister lives in Monroe and I get up around Seattle every once in awhile.

A few years back I went to the Stormbirds hangar and saw the new-build Me 262's at Payne Field. I also saw some tests on a 747 SP (short body) where they were doing minimum unstick speed tests dragging the tail bumper along the runway. I was having lunch on the balcony at the airport grill. At the time, they had a very pristine-looking de Havilland Comet on static display near the restaurant. It was great to see.

Loved looking at the heavily modified de Havilland Beavers at Kenmore Air Harbor at the north end of Lake Washington. They had ALL the mods, some even were turbine conversions.


----------



## kettbo (Mar 28, 2014)

I am south of Tacoma a tad, near McChord Field and Ft Lewis. We have the Boeing MUSEUM of FLIGHT at the South end of Seattle and of course Paul Allen's collection in Everett. My local Historical Miniatures Gamers will be there this SAT. I have commitments. Sometime back I mentioned I spent the prime of my life in SoCal; middle school-mid 20s in the SoBay, Carson Gardena Torrance. I have friends to see before we all get too old! Some out Chino way.
Let me know if you are coming up this way. Also some planes in Olympia and a neighbor is a bit of a historian.


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2014)

Cool, Kettbo, we'll have to get together sometime. 

I was going through some pics just now and found an older pic of the panel of a Spitfire Mk IX that we used to display. It is now "home" in Texas. You don't see too many of those, so I thought I'd post it here:


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 28, 2014)

Nice work Greg 
Thanks for sharing.


----------



## kettbo (Mar 28, 2014)

I used to get a lot of cool pics from brother Ed, volunteer at Cavanaugh near DFW


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 28, 2014)

Oh, sorry, I was busy in a last few days. This is just epic Greg. I am grateful that you did it.


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2014)

No problem and I can get the flap measurements tomorrow. All I have to do is REMEMBER to do it. Usually when I get there we start on the O-47 or YP-59A right away and sort of get fixated on the job at hand.

I can get some pics of the O-47 work, too. Might be of interest to someone. The technology is mid 1930's and the structure is very conventional. If you've never done any work on one though, you'd be surprised at how many pieces it takes to make a small bit of structure.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 28, 2014)

Well, I keep fingers crossed for that you wont forget  

O-47 ... ? What was that ? I seriously never seen anything about it ...


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2014)

The North American O-47 was a mid-1930's observation plane. Here is a pic:







We're restoring one. We used to HAVE one and a few years back an airline pilot landed it gear up, it caught fire and burned to the ground. So ... we're trying to get another one in the air, including some of the original structure of the one we used to have.

Note it has some windows under the mid wing and the visibility from it is is GREAT. It performed yeoman service around the USA running U-boat patrols. Had some success in the Caribbean and along the Atlantic coast during the war. Altogether a very pleasant-flying aircraft.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 29, 2014)

Any news on flaps Greg ?

Also I'm trying to estimate the angle ailerons/elevator can be deployed, will be quite hard but I have to try


----------



## GregP (Mar 29, 2014)

OK, here is a quick drawing of the flap. If you find any line drawing showing the flaps, you can estimate the angles close enough.






I got a pic above of the aileron travel limits (they are not connected to cables at this time) but didn't get pics of the elevator and rudder travel. I am not sure if they are hooked up with cables to this time but will look at THAT next time. Later this evening I can post a pic of the flap and the O-47, but Supercross is on right now and the racing takes precedence!

Go Ryan Vilopoto!

Measurements are inches again.


----------



## Hiromachi (Mar 30, 2014)

Very very nice, the more I'm seeing and reading about Raiden the more I became interested in A7M Reppu


----------

