Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How close is the P&W Zero to the Sakae powered one? I believe I read that most flying Zeros have the 1830. Are the modifications to the airframe drastic? How badly(?) does the engine swap affect the handling of the plane?From operational experience with a A6M5 Model 52, the engine and propeller match up just fine.
The engine basically runs like a P&W R-1830.
The propeller is a licensed copy of a Hamilton-Standard unit built by Sumitomo for Mitsubishi and everything operates well.
Our Zero has no trouble climbing quite nicely on the original engine and propeller. I think the one in the test was definitely underperforming.
Post #10 in this thread is by GregP.
I tried a search on AGM evaluation and found pretty much nothing.
Can you confirm the source?
The comment about pitch stop was in the report.
No idea how testers were trying to run the engine.
Manual says +250 mm and 2550 RPM for Takeoff.
There is no mention about ground running that I can recall seeing in the translated copy that I have. Not to say the original may not have had something but I believe that was unlikely.Yes, that should have been #38, "A6M Evaluationpdf. Not sure how I messed that up!
My question about the Japanese manuals is, what rpm/manifold pressure should be achieved on stationary ground test?
If the test that only achieved 2000 rpm for a prop set to 25 degrees low pitch and should have made something like 2550 rpm, then the engine was low on power or the prop controller was miss-set/faulty.
Eng
Just for context: In many flight tests, the specification is a maximum of 60 pounds of force on the stick. A real pilot may be able to apply more but that was how the aeroplane was tested.I spoke with Steve Hinton about our A6M5 Model 52 Zero today and it's flying characteristics in general. His information is quite different from the stuff we read in here.
What he said, almost word for word, is that the controls on the Zero are always heavy. They get heavier above 200 knots, but even at 350 knots (yes, he has gone that fast in it) the controls, while heavier than at lower speeds, remain effective. If you can pull hard enough it will reach its flight limits.
Also basing the performance of an aircraft on a gauge of a captured aircraft, which changed hands dozens of time before ending up in a museum is sketchy as hell.
The Smithsonian's A6M5 has no clear chain of custody, so the cockpit gauges cannot be confirmed as authentic. During restoration, they even found a USN flashlight entombed in the port wing - unless there is a clear confirmation that the cockpit and all of it's contents are confirmed by providence, it's eye candy and has zero gravity in performance confirmation.