Did Northrop and Vought Help Design the Zero

One thing that I find striking with the Zero is that the area of the stabilizer/elevator is so large in relation to the main wing (compare for example to the Spitfire and Mustang). This is also something that stands out when comparing it to the V-143.

And in most conditions of flight, there is very little need for any large angles on the elevator. So in climb and especially in high speed flight, you are dragging around a lot of extra tail area which creates unnecessary drag and slows you down.

The rule of thumb I know of when determining the stabilizer/elevator area, is to ensure that this has enough trim authority (basically translates to area) to be able to stall the plane in a controlled fashion (as in landing) when at maximum lift and in slow speed (as in flaps fully deployed and landing gear down) when at the maximum allowed forward center of gravity (CG) position. And given the Zero's agility and role as a fighter, I doubt that it was designed to carry external stores in extreme positions or was designed with a large degree of stability (forward CG) to begin with.

So my guess is that the large tail area was due to the want for an extra margins for carrier operations, in which case I would expect a larger risk of turbulence and unpredictable winds during landing and take-off. And given that some of the US carrier borne fighters also had rather large tails, I would guess this was why.

On the other hand, the Heinkel He112 which was designed as a land based fighter, also has an extremely large stabilizer/elevator in relation to the main wing so I'm wondering if anyone has any more information on this?

MIflyer said:

The Zero designer, Jiro Hiroshi, admitted that he copied the Zero MLG from the Vought V-143.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why there is the slightest controversy. Besides the main gear layout, the tailwheel, vertical and horizontal stab outlines, identical degree of dihedral, and even the windshield frame were obviously robbed from the Vought! The most telling feature is they both have a radial engine mounted in the nose!!

Undeniably, a blatant, cheap Japanese copy, showing their inability to have original ideas!

Now, let me show you how RJ Mitchell stole the key concepts from the Bf109 for his inferior F5/34 K5054 ...

I can't find any fault with Jiro Horikoshi's explanation in the 1956/1957 "Air Progress" magazine.

I only gave it a like because so much of the first page is missing and there is other material missing from the second page shown which obviously leads to further information.

The Junkers Mr. Horikoshi is referring to, the Metal Donkey (Blechesel), is the J.1 and can be seen here:

Here is Jiro Horikoshi's article as reproduced in the EAA Newsletter (Chapter 179). It is in 4 parts, continued from May'96 to Jul'96 to Aug'96 to Sep'96.