BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
Yes. It's been hinted more than once (many times in fact) that the He 70 influenced the wing design of the D3A, or example.
Did Northrop and Vought Help Design the Zero
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
buffnut453
Captain
Or, conversely, the fact that the Me109 prototype was powered by a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine. Does that imply that Willi Messerschmitt "stole" or "borrowed" British technology to implement the Me109? Of course not.
However, we're supposed to believe that Jiro Horikoshi could design a lightweight fighter aircraft with phenomenal range, heavier armament that any other contemporary fighter, unparalleled agility, and competitively high speed but he couldn't design a retractable undercarriage without the V-143?
The Japanese clearly benefitted from access to constant-speed propeller technology. However, DC-3s were flying all over the world with those propellers, and indeed were licence-built in Japan.
To suggest the entirety of the A6M's performance advantage was down to the constant-speed prop and retractable undercarriage is laughable.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Heinkel aircraft built for, sold to or licensed, by Japan:
HD23
HD25
HD26
HD28
HD56
He66
He70
He72
He100
He111 (proposed)
He112
He116
He118
He119
So there was a bit more involvement than other German manufacturers.
HD23
HD25
HD26
HD28
HD56
He66
He70
He72
He100
He111 (proposed)
He112
He116
He118
He119
So there was a bit more involvement than other German manufacturers.
buffnut453
Captain
Just a few other things to bear in mind. Here are the comparative dimensions for (in order) the V-143 and A6M2:
Length: 26 ft / 29ft 8 11/16in
Wingspan: 33ft 6in / 39ft 4 7/16in
Empty Weight: 3,940 lb / 3,704 lb
Gross Weight: 4,370 lb / 6,164 lb
Armament: 2x 30cal machine guns / 2x 20mm cannon and 2x 7.7mm machine guns
Max Speed: 292 mph / 331 mph
Service Ceiling: 30,600 ft / 32,810 ft
Range: 808 miles / 1930 miles
The A6M was 3 feet longer with a wingspan that was 6 feet wider. It had a lower empty weight but a much higher gross weight. It could fly faster, further and higher than the V-143. An engineer knows that changing any of the above parameters will impact all the others. And yet, somehow, the V-143 (which was refused for service by the USAAC) is supposed to have had a big impact on the design of the Zero? I just don't buy it.
Length: 26 ft / 29ft 8 11/16in
Wingspan: 33ft 6in / 39ft 4 7/16in
Empty Weight: 3,940 lb / 3,704 lb
Gross Weight: 4,370 lb / 6,164 lb
Armament: 2x 30cal machine guns / 2x 20mm cannon and 2x 7.7mm machine guns
Max Speed: 292 mph / 331 mph
Service Ceiling: 30,600 ft / 32,810 ft
Range: 808 miles / 1930 miles
The A6M was 3 feet longer with a wingspan that was 6 feet wider. It had a lower empty weight but a much higher gross weight. It could fly faster, further and higher than the V-143. An engineer knows that changing any of the above parameters will impact all the others. And yet, somehow, the V-143 (which was refused for service by the USAAC) is supposed to have had a big impact on the design of the Zero? I just don't buy it.
buffnut453
Captain
The Mitsubishi G3M bomber had engine cooling flaps and it first flew in 1935.
Bottom line is that if you want a radial-engined monoplane fighter, there are only so many options available from a design perspective...at least until the far more powerful radial engines come online in late-ish 1940 (in the US at least).
Hmmm. Its not very impressive if someone throws out a defensive line disparaging others along the lines of 'not being engineers' - and then singularly fails to provide conclusive engineering expertise or argument to back their initial claim. Aside from sounding really patronising, what does it actually prove, when its clear that the rest of the logic behind the argument is pretty... well, thin, to put it mildly?
Here's another aircraft which some folks have tried to claim influenced the design of the Zero. And far more close to the appearance of the Zero, too. But - news flash - mid to late 30's low winged monoplane fighter designs with radial engines were hardly unique to uncle Sam, were they?
We could start listing all of the contemporary Italian and French low wing radial engined fighter aircraft with retractable undercarriage and claiming they 'helped' design the Zero too, peut-être? Without that western influence, CLEARLY they would have been made out of bamboo and rice-paper
militarymatters.online
Here's another aircraft which some folks have tried to claim influenced the design of the Zero. And far more close to the appearance of the Zero, too. But - news flash - mid to late 30's low winged monoplane fighter designs with radial engines were hardly unique to uncle Sam, were they?
We could start listing all of the contemporary Italian and French low wing radial engined fighter aircraft with retractable undercarriage and claiming they 'helped' design the Zero too, peut-être? Without that western influence, CLEARLY they would have been made out of bamboo and rice-paper
The Gloster F.5/34: Inspiration for the Mitsubishi A6M Zero? - Forgotten Aircraft - Military Matters
The Gloster F.5/34 is one of many intriguing “what-if” fighter aircraft that aviation historians and enthusiasts still discuss today. First flying in 1936, the initial prototype was modelled as a monoplane development of Gloster’s Gladiator biplane fighter, which was just then about to enter...
militarymatters.online
ww2restorer
Airman 1st Class
- 239
- May 28, 2011
All aircraft are designed by America, other countries then copy all their work (I have a bridge to sell you also)
(Pssst - wanna buy some slightly pre-used designs for a jet engine, Canberra or Harrier? Might have some key components for a nuclear Device and some Enigma messages too!)
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Just to be clear, I don't think Horikoshi had to borrow anything. I think it's possible that the landing gear and licensed prop were expedients so that he and his team could focus on the other matters that made the Zero what it was and meet what were very stringent design standards -- but I'm certain they could and would have come up with their own had that been the more favorable course for their design process. Essentially, not reinventing the wheel in order to satisfy hindsightists they wouldn't know about anyway. It was a practical decision, in my view, not any technical limitations.
I'm certainly not in the camp of "Zero is a copy", as I hope my initial post here in this thread made clear.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Every nation used what was the day's standard where possible.
It wasn't unusual for one country to use another's tech if something wasn't available domestically.
As mentioned earlier, the Bf109 prototype used a RR Kestral and even the Bf109V21used a P&W R-1830 radial.
And speaking of the Bf109, it used a version of Handley Page leading edge slats, too.
It wasn't unusual for one country to use another's tech if something wasn't available domestically.
As mentioned earlier, the Bf109 prototype used a RR Kestral and even the Bf109V21used a P&W R-1830 radial.
And speaking of the Bf109, it used a version of Handley Page leading edge slats, too.
buffnut453
Captain
Great examples. We don't have articles written about how the Bf109 was developed from British technology. However, it seems to be fair game to suggest that the Japanese developed the A6M from American technology. That's why I made the claim about racism. And again, not directing that against M MIflyer but at the article he cited which claims the V-143 provided a "vital technology transfer" for the A6M. I do hope we can put a stake through the heart of this particular ridiculous myth.
wingnuts
Airman 1st Class
I remember back in the 1960s when Japanese motorcycles and cars were appearing, people laughed at the "rice burners", they were not laughing for very long.
GregP
Major
The other one I've heard a lot is that the Zero copied a lot from the Hughes H-1 racer despite that fact that Howard Hughes was well known for being secretive and never really showed the details of the H-1 to anyone outside a small group of Hughes employees and workers.
Note, it has all the requisite parts of a small, radial-powered retractable low-wing monoplane, pretty much like all other small, radial-powered retractable low-wing monoplanes.
Howard Hughes no doubt stole the ideas from the drawing boards at Mitsubishi ...
Note, it has all the requisite parts of a small, radial-powered retractable low-wing monoplane, pretty much like all other small, radial-powered retractable low-wing monoplanes.
Howard Hughes no doubt stole the ideas from the drawing boards at Mitsubishi ...
Shortround6
Major General
Gustav Lachmann was the first person we know of to "invent" the leading edge slat, in 1917-18. He was recovering from an airplane crash and trying to of how to prevent the stall and wing over. The German patent office wouldn't give him a patent so he went to England.
Handley Page (or employees) had developed a version of the leading slat independently. Rather than fight each other in court they became partners. In the English speaking world it is the Handley Page Slat. Lachmann made a tidy sum off the royalties (indeed the Handley Page company made a large part of their money in the 1920s by licensing the Slat) and and went to work for Handley Page as a designer and is responsible for several designs including the Hampton.
By the time Willy and boys use the slat it was being used all over the world and Gustav and Freddy were making steady trips to the bank to deposit the checks.
Shortround6
Major General
Yep, I can see the Zero, if we ignore the near lack of forward vision, the non adjustable engine cowl and the wooden wing. and using the tires for the springs/shock absorbers in the landing gear
Messerschmitt licensed the slat patent in exchange for HP getting a license to a Mess. single spar wing patent.
I thought it was a landing gear locking mechanism that was copied, not the whole gear. Regardless, people tend to focus on that and not the NACA airfoils the Zero used - which were much more important than some overall minor details. Of course just about everyone was using NACA foils at the time....
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
Of course the Zero was a copy of all the above. After all these planes all sported the single seat, single engine, retractable landing gear, monoplane construction . . . must have been a copy. Everyone knew (knows) the Japanese could only make cheap toys and china sets, how could Mitsubishi or any other company possibly have the smarts to build a decent airplane.
GregP
Major
I've said this in here before, but I was involved in the overhaul of the A6M-5 Zero at the Planes of Fame about 7 years ago or so. I still have the pics of the bare parts and assemblies (that I was asked not to publish). The workmanship is as good as any other WWII aircraft I have seen up close and personal. It isn't outstanding in workmanship, but also isn't shabby. The rivets are well-driven and the metal is well-formed.
Last edited:
