Japanese Zero

I was told about this web site after this project was already pretty far along. I'm to the point now where I need to figure out this stuff soon. Once that back piece is in I don't want to take it off. I could, but would rather not. Hopefully what was done was acurate. We didn't have blueprints so we had to settle for a brief meeting with a real seat, and some measurements for build reference. The owner was kind enough to remove the seat from the Zero so we could get some dimensions. Nice guy.
Original blueprints would be awesome! I looked at what appeared to be a CAD drawing of the seat that Spinpachi made. Although it was close, it wasn't shaped the same as the seat I looked at. Which I know is correct and authentic. I realize things could have been added or subtracted from different variations of the plane. So I'm hoping to see a blueprint (as mentioned Spinpachi has) that will show the things missing from the seat I looked at. ...Does such a blueprint exist?

Lets see if I can post a picture?

Hey it worked! That's a picure of the seat back, looking from the back. A picture of the original seat, green in photo, and the copy we are doing. Notice the horizontal cross brace is not in yet. I need to know what went on that brace, in between the seven and single hole. And it looks like it was riveted in with nine, not eight rivets. As I stated earlier.

Hi Bent metal, are you certain there was anything that was fitted to that cross brace? Was it not a structural part of the seat? There are a lot of lightening holes in the seat, so might it be for strength? I've sat in the cockpit of a Zero (see my thread here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/wa...carrier-fighter-detail-39255.html#post1078364) but at the time I didn't take a look behind it. I do know that the seat back folded forwards to enable access to the aft compartment, which held floatation devices, hydraulic reservoir, DF receiver, oxy bottles etc. There was no external door and through the rear of the cockpit was the only access to this area, so it's likely that what ever was mounted to the back of the seat, if anything in practise, would have been so as not to obstruct access to this area.

Well, I don't know. But there is an empty spot on that brace that is otherwise filled with lightening holes in a plane that was known for everything being as light as possible. I would think that if they were not to have anything in this area that they would have continued the existing holes all the way across. Probably should have belled them too, which they didn't. Looking at the original seat there are three rows of three, what look like (now filled but still visable) rivet holes. Consistant with the over-all look and rivet pattern of the rest of the seat. That is to say they look to be spaced properly. So I'm assuming there was something there. But I could be wrong. Also, if you look at the seat closely, they used avery bit of space. There are no other "blank" areas. There are either brackets, and where there are no brackets, they added a belled hole. Except for this one two inch by four inch space, off to one side of the seat. hmmm, had to of been something there, riveted to the seat. I think?

There was an engine starter handle, bent metal.

How cool is that?

I would have never guessed that this was where that was stored, great info, Shinpachi!!

Well, that's settled it. Like Dave said, Shinpachi. Having seen the whole thing in Shinpachi's drawing, it's plainly evident what you are talking about, Bent metal. Good luck with your work; it sounds fascinating and look forward to more results. Post more pictures, too. I for one would like to see more.

Ejection seats were in most cases standard on German prototypes undergoing tests. Hans-Joachim Pancherz ejected from a Ju 290 undergoing dive and flutter tests.

The Heinkel company remained in charge of ejection seat development throughout the war. The rocket sled they developed to test them was shipped from Rostok on the Baltic coast to the USA post war where it showed up in numerous movies.

Production types which had ejection seats were the He 219, He 162 and arguably Dornier Do 335. The Ta 154 would have had an ejection seats.

Most of these seats used a bottle of compressed air (Do 335, He 219) but this was somewhat heavy and due to potential air leakage required periodic checks and possible refills. The He 162 received a pyrotechnic seat, which solved a weight and maintenance problem.

These seats were not very automated. One would have to manually eject the canopy perhaps with assistance of pyrotechnics. You would then have to put your feet in stirrups, then put both hands on armrests to relieve the weight on your spine from at least the weight of your arms and fire the seat. On the Do 335 one should also fire explosive bolts to detach the propeller blades and upper vertical fin to help achieve clearance. (When belly landing one could detach the lower vertical fin)

In modern seats straps pull your feat into the stirrups a second before ejection. In the British method one pulls a blind over the face both to relieve arm weight somewhat but also to force the spine into correct alignment. There is still argument over whether the blind method or the arm rest method is better.

Weight is one reason the compressed air types didn't become standard on the Fw 190 despite the complaint of the test pilots, like the P-51 slipstream tended to push the pilot into his seat. The Fw 190 featured explosive ejection to ensure that at least the canopy came of in a high speed slipstream. The Me 109 canopy hinged but in event of an emergency detached.

I suspect the lightweight pyrotechnical type used on the He 162 would have made it onto most other Luftwaffe aircraft. The He 162 and Do 335 needed ejection seats due to their engine configuration. The He 219 had a tricycle landing gear and so the propellers were actually behind the crew cabin; hence without ejection seats one would have to feather the props first.

Luftwaffe pilots tended to roll their aircraft upside down and fall out. Alternatively they would unbuckle, sit on the canopy and kick the joystick; this would buck them forward and up clear of the tail fin. Don't know who tried that first but hats of too him.


Given the high skill level of Japanese naval pilots and the amount of time invested in training them they would have done well to invest heavily in search and rescue, parachutes etc.

I believe there were a range of psychological reasons for not investing in parachutes: some motivational, some not wanting to suffer in the ocean perhaps.

Thank you Spinachi! I'd like to get a little further into this detail. The blueprint you posted is a little confusing. But I think I understand most of it. It is, of course backwards, or looking at the back through the front. Knowing that, I made some circles to point out some areas of question.
The red circle is a "what is this, what does it look like?" I don't know what these are.
The blue circle is "something missing here." I do know what these are and have them already.
The blue with red circle is this drawing is missing a braket that has a bracket on it. I have one of these but not the other.

Koopernic said:

I believe there were a range of psychological reasons for not investing in parachutes: some motivational, some not wanting to suffer in the ocean perhaps.

Click to expand...

From Saburo Sakai "Samurari" (Martin Caidin)

"In 1942, none of our fighter planes carried pilot armor, nor did the Zeros have self-sealing fuel tanks, as did the American planes. As the enemy pilots soon discovered, a burst of their 50-caliber bullets into the fuel tanks of a Zero caused it to explode violently in flames. Despite this, in those days not one of our pilots flew with parachutes. This has been misinterpreted in the West as proof that our leaders were disdainful of our lives, that all Japanese pilots were expendable and regarded as pawns rather than human beings. This was far from the truth. Every man was assigned a parachute; the decision to fly without them was our own and not the result of orders from higher headquarters. Actually, we were urged, although not ordered, to wear the parachutes in combat. At some fields the base commander insisted that chutes be worn, and those men had no choice but to place the bulky packs in their planes. Often, however, they never fastened the straps, and used the chutes only as seat cushions.

We had little use for these parachutes, for the only purpose they served for us was to hamstring our cockpit movements in a battle. It was difficult to move our arms and legs when encumbered by chute straps. There was another, and equally compelling, reason for not carrying the chutes into combat. The majority of our battles were fought with enemy fighters over their own fields. It was out of the question to bail out over enemy territory, for such a move meant a willingness to be captured, and nowhere in the Japanese military code or in the traditional Bushido (Samurai code) could one find the distasteful words "Prisoner of War." There were no prisoners. A man who did not return from combat was dead. No fighter pilot of any courage would ever permit himself to be captured by the enemy. It was completely unthinkable ..."

Notice the nine holes on the bracket. On the blank area. It must have had some kind of mounting bracket there for the starter switch. That's what I need, what did that bracket look like? I don't need the whole assembly, just the bracket that mounted there. And the one up top with the red and blue circle together.

This is the upper tubing clip I don't have. Any more info on this?

The early version of A6Ms Zero fighter seat came from A5M Claude. There was an oil injection pump handle on the top-right of the seat for the A5Ms but was omitted for the A6Ms as no need.

Awesome Spinpachi !!! Are these drawings with some of your own interpretation? Notice one of the pictures I posted earlier had one of those brackets pictured. In the picture is both my copy and the original (in green). Where it shows the leather strap riveted to this bracket in your picture, the original and our copy show a small wire deally where it looked like a strap would attach. I assumed because it was so small that it was a canvas type, not leather strap? Your drawing does solve another mystery for me as well!!! That original wire deally is shaped like a triangle, couldn't figure out why. Now I see, the triangle tips the strap just enough to make it line up with the other attachment point. Presumably with a similar end and wire deally? ...What do you think?

Do you have dimensions on those coat hanger lookin' things? I'm diggin' those. I need to make some. Do you have the details on the bracket that would be the upper left end of the strap without anything covering it?
Anything I can help you with?

Those two triangular shaped "ring" devices (one on each side) were the anchors for the pilot's lap belt.

GregP said:

There's another aspect of bailing out, and that is the direction the propeller turns.

You should always bail out in the direction the prop blades are turning to get you away from the horizontal tail.

Click to expand...

That would be item 5 in the P-51 Bail out procedure

This is the upper tubing clip I don't have. Any more info on this?

Click to expand...

Great resource Shinpachi. If I were to hazard a guess - and that's what this is, based on logic, it could be a simple single 'C' shaped piece of metal with some elasticity, which holds the bracket in place, but also allows it to be removed with enough force. Such brackets are commonplace for the storage of items in aviation.

nuuumannn said:

Great resource Shinpachi. If I were to hazard a guess - and that's what this is, based on logic, it could be a simple single 'C' shaped piece of metal with some elasticity, which holds the bracket in place, but also allows it to be removed with enough force. Such brackets are commonplace for the storage of items in aviation.

Click to expand...

I think your right. Like a spring clip. We will probably leave this off. Just because it would be a sharp item sticking out for no reason. Just something for someone to cut themselves on.