Did Northrop and Vought Help Design the Zero

[R Leonard]

Notice the apparent Bureau Number is ZERO-2

ZERO-2?

 

[special ed]

Look at the inscription on the rudder. The fin is marked TAIC 1. Since it is now a USN acft (back then), someone may have given it a BuNo, officially or UNofficially. The standard type placement location is rudder while fin is for BuNo. Did someone paint it for fun?

 

[R Leonard]

Look at the inscription on the rudder. The fin is marked TAIC 1. Since it is now a USN acft (back then), someone may have given it a BuNo, officially or UNofficially. The standard type placement location is rudder while fin is for BuNo. Did someone paint it for fun?

The B/N the USN used for this aircraft was 4593, right off the data plate, see below, and below that some pilot's log entries from September 1944 showing that the bureau number, note the 14th, 18th, and 19th. Gent was director of VF training at ComFAirWest and a F4F ace . . . I suspect he knew what he was doing.

It was TAIC 1 because it was the first aircraft captured

 

[special ed]

Understand all that, however, why the ZERO-2 marking on the rudder? And why, by 1944, wasn't the Bureau Number marked on the plane? Inquiring minds are curious. It seems the pilot would have to know the B.N. by memory and obviously a person doing most of the flying would know it, but someone walking by would not. I am not trying to argue, but only question how markings were chosen for this bird. Model builders like this stuff and years back I had to defend my model's markings. I can remember a judge who to this day (if still alive) who would not believe photos presented.

 

[R Leonard]

Understand all that, however, why the ZERO-2 marking on the rudder? And why, by 1944, wasn't the Bureau Number marked on the plane? Inquiring minds are curious. It seems the pilot would have to know the B.N. by memory and obviously a person doing most of the flying would know it, but someone walking by would not. I am not trying to argue, but only question how markings were chosen for this bird. Model builders like this stuff and years back I had to defend my model's markings. I can remember a judge who to this day (if still alive) who would not believe photos presented.

It was Zero 2 because that was the model type the Intel types thought. USN tail markings also included type . . . sometimes hard to see, but nonetheless there.

You might note for 14 September remarks "Test Mitsubishi Type 2"

 

[MiTasol]

Makes sense.
A6M1 = Zero 1
A6M2 = Zero 2

 

[Admiral Beez]

What have you got against the Dutch Pilots?

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zcUs5X9glCc&pp=ygUJVGhlIGR1dGNo

 

[R Leonard]

Understand all that, however, why the ZERO-2 marking on the rudder? And why, by 1944, wasn't the Bureau Number marked on the plane? Inquiring minds are curious. It seems the pilot would have to know the B.N. by memory and obviously a person doing most of the flying would know it, but someone walking by would not. I am not trying to argue, but only question how markings were chosen for this bird. Model builders like this stuff and years back I had to defend my model's markings. I can remember a judge who to this day (if still alive) who would not believe photos presented.

And my father's translation of the data plate (I don't even pretend to read or speak Japanese)
1st line: Place of manufacture, Mitsubishi, Nagoya
2nd line: Type 1 carrier fighter design 2
3rd line: Model A6M2
4th line: Motor Nakajima
5th line: Manufacturer serial # 4395
6th line: Net Weight 1715.0 kgs
7th line: Load Weight 650.3 kgs
8th line: Total Weight 2365.3 Kgs
9th line: Completed date 2-2-19 (19 Feb 1942)
10th line: Inspector "Na Ko"

 

[Admiral Beez]

With four .303 mgs and retractable undercarriage, the Koolhoven FK58 isn't that bad against the Ki-27 and Ki-43 it would encounter over the DEI. The FK58 has about the same horsepower, empty and loaded weight as the A6M. It'll do okay over the DEI.

It's interesting how the mgs are in pods under wings instead of within the wings.

 

[Shortround6]

Koolhoven FK58

Using what for engine?
The H-S 14AA was pretty much garbage right out of the box.
The G-R 14N was pretty much French only, They didn't have enough to go around for the air frames that France had (after they decided that they didn't want to use the H-S 14AA)
There was talk about using the Bristol Taurus but The British didn't want to export them, Which was fortunate for any expected recipients in 1939-40 because the engine was months if not years away from being a satisfactory service engines, this leaves............

The............

Mighty..............

Awe inspiring...............

Fearsome...................


Bristol Mercury!!!

Congratulations!!!

You have managed to build a retractable landing gear Fokker D XXI only larger and heavier.

 

[BiffF15]

With four .303 mgs and retractable undercarriage, the Koolhoven FK58 isn't that bad against the Ki-27 and Ki-43 it would encounter over the DEI. The FK58 has about the same horsepower, empty and loaded weight as the A6M. It'll do okay over the DEI.

It's interesting how the mgs are in pods under wings instead of within the wings.

View attachment 761815

It would be an interesting concept if the pods could be detached and a new fully serviced/loaded replacement installed in minutes. Just a gas and go quick turn.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Or, alternatively, Jiro Horikoshi was just a great aircraft designer..Personally, I find this sort of nationalistic racism reprehensible in this day and age.

Agreed. We're falling into the same trap today with China, where a prevailing POV in the West is that these yellow men of Asia can't make any competitive kit, and if it is, it must be a knockoff of our stuff.

It's too bad Horikoshi didn't live into his 90s - I was only eleven when he died in 1982, aged 78. Had he lived into his 90s, perhaps we'd have more interviews in the early 2000s. At aged 98, he'd probably watch aghast at the awful 2001 Ben Affleck movie Pearl Harbour. Those low level scenes with his A6M, akin the Death Star trench run would have been hard to watch. Hopefully he got to see his A6M portrayed (replicas again) in the science fiction Final Countdown and of course Tora Tora, both film I enjoyed.

 

[GrauGeist]

Most of us (at least the vast majority of Americans I know), appreciate Japanese and South Korean manufactured goods.

And the same group also considers Chinese manufactured goods cheap and poorly made with the exception of items the Chinese have made that exactly copies other manufacturer's items.

Example, the Chinese made Polaris engine or the Norinco version of the Colt 1911A - both of which were not licensed but cannot be prosecuted because of "most favored nation" agreements.

This has zero to do with racism.

 

[buffnut453]

Most of us (at least the vast majority of Americans I know), appreciate Japanese and South Korean manufactured goods.

And yet there are multiple articles trying to convince the readers that the Zero was based on/copied from/relied on US designs for its success. These articles never articulate the actual technologies that Japan is supposed to have stolen/copied. I'm completely at a loss to comprehend why anyone could believe that an unsuccessful US design, like the V-143 or the P-66, could possible have influenced a design like the Zero that was among the best airframes designed in WW2. About the only area where the Zero was inferior to western designs was in the adoption of armour protection...and that had as much to do with IJN intransigence than it did any flaws within the actual design of the Zero airframe.

And the same group also considers Chinese manufactured goods cheap and poorly made with the exception of items the Chinese have made that exactly copies other manufacturer's items.

So Huawei, ZTE, DJI etc are simply copying western designs? I very much doubt that to be true. China has been investing heavily in technology for years. There are key military technologies where China has a significant advantage. This article provides some insights:

China leads high-tech research in 80% of critical fields: report

Aggressive investment puts country far ahead of U.S., Europe, Japan

asia.nikkei.com

 

[buffnut453]

It would be an interesting concept if the pods could be detached and a new fully serviced/loaded replacement installed in minutes. Just a gas and go quick turn.

The pods seem too small to include all the ammo they'd need on operations. The FK58's mainplane was of wooden construction so, presumably, the ammo was stored internally within the box spars of the wing?

 

[GrauGeist]

And yet there are multiple articles trying to convince the readers that the Zero was based on/copied from/relied on US designs for its success. These articles never articulate the actual technologies that Japan is supposed to have stolen/copied. I'm completely at a loss to comprehend why anyone could believe that an unsuccessful US design, like the V-143 or the P-66, could possible have influenced a design like the Zero that was among the best airframes designed in WW2. About the only area where the Zero was inferior to western designs was in the adoption of armour protection...and that had as much to do with IJN intransigence than it did any flaws within the actual design of the Zero airframe.

This is the time-worn tradition of endlessly regurgitating old nuggets. It's eaaier to "borrow" from previous material in order to publish a book, make a YT video or use as filler for a click-bait website than it is to actually do research.
So this sort of thing will (unfortunately) rear it's head frequently.

This forum has a thread dedicated to this very issue - busting myths.

As far as Chinese illegally copying patented products, it's not hard to research. Start with Chinese Rotax, Chinese Polaris RZR and so on.
Plenty of material to see in that regard.

 

[buffnut453]

This is the time-worn tradition of endlessly regurgitating old nuggets. It's eaaier to "borrow" from previous material in order to publish a book, make a YT video or use as filler for a click-bait website than it is to actually do research.
So this sort of thing will (unfortunately) rear it's head frequently.

This forum has a thread dedicated to this very issue - busting myths.

As far as Chinese illegally copying patented products, it's not hard to research. Start with Chinese Rotax, Chinese Polaris RZR and so on.
Plenty of material to see in that regard.

I agree that there's much repackaging of old articles/material for YT content. I do find it frustrating when similar nonsense is spouted on this forum. We ought to know better.

I'm not saying the Chinese don't copy western designs. However, to view all Chinese tech as knock-offs of western equipment is myopic.

The US military has a healthy respect for China's military equipment. While it's generally accepted that the US is superior in the close-in fight, China has invested heavily in integrating systems so they can engage at extremely long range. Part of the reason for these investments is the simple truth that the Chinese military lacks combat experience. Thus, they seek to win the fight at long range before those more tactical combat limitations become important. Chinese long-range systems are better than western equipment….so they definitely aren't copies.

 

[MiTasol]

With four .303 mgs and retractable undercarriage, the Koolhoven FK58 isn't that bad against the Ki-27 and Ki-43 it would encounter over the DEI. The FK58 has about the same horsepower, empty and loaded weight as the A6M. It'll do okay over the DEI.

It's interesting how the mgs are in pods under wings instead of within the wings.

View attachment 761815

Cutting holes in spars reduces strength in a big way that must be compensated for with other structure - MAYBE the FK58 design team felt the loss of performance from the gun pods was more than compensated for in structural rigidity.

 

[MiTasol]

This is the time-worn tradition of endlessly regurgitating old nuggets. It's eaaier to "borrow" from previous material in order to publish a book, make a YT video or use as filler for a click-bait website than it is to actually do research.
So this sort of thing will (unfortunately) rear it's head frequently.

This forum has a thread dedicated to this very issue - busting myths.

As far as Chinese illegally copying patented products, it's not hard to research. Start with Chinese Rotax, Chinese Polaris RZR and so on.
Plenty of material to see in that regard.

And in tooling - Woodpecker products

 

[Admiral Beez]

This forum has a thread dedicated to this very issue - busting myths.

When I was in high school my girlfriend was made in China. There were significant unique and proprietary qualities versus the western models.