Material of the Zero fuselage
- Thread starter Jenisch
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
evangilder
"Shooter"
I have worked on a couple and don't recall seeing any bamboo in one.
baclightning
Airman
- 17
- May 12, 2011
The Zero was all metal. It had fabric-covered control surfaces, but aside from that was metal. It should be noted that much of the metal structure was made of Extra Super Duralumin, an advanced alloy that was lighter and stronger than other alloys, and top secret at the time.
The designer of the Zero, Jiro Horikoshi, wrote an excellent book, Eagles of Mitsubishi, about how he designed the Zero, and the obstacles he had to overcome in reaching the seemingly impossible design goals he was given.
http://www.amazon.com/Eagles-Mitsubishi-Story-Zero-Fighter/dp/0295971681
The designer of the Zero, Jiro Horikoshi, wrote an excellent book, Eagles of Mitsubishi, about how he designed the Zero, and the obstacles he had to overcome in reaching the seemingly impossible design goals he was given.
http://www.amazon.com/Eagles-Mitsubishi-Story-Zero-Fighter/dp/0295971681
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
proton45
Senior Airman
I remember seeing a TV show once that talked about bamboo being used in the canopy framing or the runners (or something like that). I dont know if that's true...but maybe your friend saw that show.
- Thread starter
- #5
Warbird Information Exchange • View topic - Another REAL A6M Zero to return to flight at Duxford?
If there was any bamboo it must have rotted away.
If there was any bamboo it must have rotted away.
GregP
Major
As far as I know, the only wood in the Zero is the hoop for the wingtips. Everything else of a structural variety is metal. Of course, there is rubber hose,. hose clamps, etc. ... but you get the idea. The chief culript in its fragility was the use of .032" Aluminum skin where the western powers used .040" or even .050" or even heavier.
When everything is intact, the Zero is as strong as any western fighter. Once it gets battle damage it gets fragile, and the lack of self-sealing tanks and armor add to the perception of fragility.
When everything is intact, the Zero is as strong as any western fighter. Once it gets battle damage it gets fragile, and the lack of self-sealing tanks and armor add to the perception of fragility.
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
from "Design Analysis of the Zeke 32"
"Skin. on both fore and aft fuselage sections is of lighter alloy than is customarily used on occidental planes, that on the fore fuselage being .048 gage on the lower portion and .035 near the top, and .018 for all the aft section. It is flush riveted throughout, with all fore-and-aft joints being lapped, others butted. Also throughout Hamp, small rivets are used, few being larger than 1/8-in., some being only 1/32-in. Despite the rivet sizes, there is no evidence on the craft studied to indicate a lack of strength, nor were there any indications of sloppy workmanship."
"Skin. on both fore and aft fuselage sections is of lighter alloy than is customarily used on occidental planes, that on the fore fuselage being .048 gage on the lower portion and .035 near the top, and .018 for all the aft section. It is flush riveted throughout, with all fore-and-aft joints being lapped, others butted. Also throughout Hamp, small rivets are used, few being larger than 1/8-in., some being only 1/32-in. Despite the rivet sizes, there is no evidence on the craft studied to indicate a lack of strength, nor were there any indications of sloppy workmanship."
This could have been a top secret.
How did your friend know that?
There were life size dummy zeros and bombers made of wood or bamboo to cheat US air attackers on the ground.
I think that this was a myth that got it's start from American fighter pilots. The Zero was designed on the premise that fighter planes should be very light and nimble. That was what proved to be effective for the Japanese in China in the 1930's. Japan had no high powered engine program to rely on, so they built the Zero to be light and very manouverable given the engine power they had available. To save weight, they omitted armor and self sealing fuel tanks. As a result the Zero was easily set aflame when hit. Allied pilots made claims that to ignite that easily, the plane must be made of bamboo. I think in part it was a lot of people trying to deny that a country with limited industrial "know-how" could have built something that advanced for the time. Certainly they must have cut corners somewhere, like using bamboo. A Japanes pilot was supposed to have said that he could tell whether wreckage on the ocean was an American plane or Japanese. If American, it had an oil slick, if Japanese it had a sheet of flame from the gasoline.
GregP
Major
Hi Vincenzo,
I believe your quote about the skin thickness comes from the Hamp Design Analysis report, which you clearly identify as a model 32. In that model, there are also some small 3-ply wood backing reinforcements along the lower canopy frame rail, along with the wingtip hoops, but no wood in the canopy frames themselves.
Our Zero is an A6M5 Model 52, and I believe the .035" Aluminum turned into .032" Aluminim ... I could be wrong. There is still some .048" and also some .018" in the tail cone. In our Zero, I believe it is all metal, with even the wingtip hoops not being wood. To be sure, I'll check next time I am there and Steve Hinton is around.
I love the general lines and looks of the Zero and think it is one of the best-looking WWII fighters ever made. Of course, that is just a personal opinion, and other opinions may vary and very probably do. Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.
I believe your quote about the skin thickness comes from the Hamp Design Analysis report, which you clearly identify as a model 32. In that model, there are also some small 3-ply wood backing reinforcements along the lower canopy frame rail, along with the wingtip hoops, but no wood in the canopy frames themselves.
Our Zero is an A6M5 Model 52, and I believe the .035" Aluminum turned into .032" Aluminim ... I could be wrong. There is still some .048" and also some .018" in the tail cone. In our Zero, I believe it is all metal, with even the wingtip hoops not being wood. To be sure, I'll check next time I am there and Steve Hinton is around.
I love the general lines and looks of the Zero and think it is one of the best-looking WWII fighters ever made. Of course, that is just a personal opinion, and other opinions may vary and very probably do. Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.
baclightning
Airman
- 17
- May 12, 2011
No argument there. It's a gorgeous looking aircraft!
The way they zipped around it wouldn't surprise me if they were made of balsa wood. But yeah, they traded strength and protection for speed and maneuverability. Overall, these were pretty impressive aircraft. Those cowling guns synched with the prop was in and of itself an innovation that baffled us for quite some time, from what I understand. Also how that light aircraft was able to absorb the shock from the those 20mm cannons on the wings without ripping the aircraft apart was pretty darn impressive.
Guns firing through the prop was nothing unusual, aircraft had been doing that since WW1.
Right on!! imagine what would have happened if the Kinsei was installed from the beginning and the Kinsei 62 installed in late 1942.
Pretty impressive aircraft....remarkable if one considers that it was designed from a country just emerging from an agrarian culture to industrial one. it is often said it was a copy of a western one.....Ok, which one designed as a carrier fighter could fly at 340+ on 950HP, out maneuver any land based aircraft oh and yeah, fly over 1100 miles on 138 gals internal, 1900+ with external, haven't been able to find that aircraft yet!
Shortround6
Major General
As has been said, the cowl guns were old hat, getting guns that work out in the wings without a pilot to beat on them or yank the charging handle a dozen times per belt was the real trick
One reason the British switched from the Vickers gun to the Browning, the VIckers could not be relied upon to keep firing without "attention".
the 20mm guns may recoil a lot less than you think. the gun "fired" as the heavy bolt/bolt carrier was still moving forward. the recoil had to first stop the forward motion of the bolt before it could blow it backwards against the main spring. the trunnion load ( force transmitted to the aircraft structure) was actually rather low and spread out over time rather than being a sharp blow.
