The Zero's Maneuverability (1 Viewer)

Fantastic post and sadly, I could only offer one Bacon, or else you would have received a dozen.

Hey GregP,
re

GregP said:

In fact, the Museum's Zero has that trigger

Click to expand...

My apologies, but I am not sure if you mean the museum's A6M5 'Zero' had the trigger on the stick, or if it has the trigger on the throttle quadrant as in the image I posted.

If the trigger is on the stick is there any chance you can take photos of the museum Zero's stick and throttle quadrant and post them here when you get a chance?


Hey Ivan1GFP,
re

Ivan1GFP said:

It has also been mentioned that some pilots did not like this and had the trigger moved to the control stick though I have never seen a photograph or drawing of such an arrangement.

Click to expand...

I also have not been able to find any images online (or in a book) of an A6M with the trigger on the stick.

Nor have I been able to find any mention in Japanese sources of the pilots not liking the arrangement or any such change of trigger location being made.


At this point, I think it is worth mentioning that (if my information is correct) the A5M 'Claude', Ki-27 'Nate', Ki-43 'Oscar', Ki-44 'Tojo', Ki-61 'Tony', Ki-100, and N1K 'George', also had their gun triggers located on the throttle quadrant. The J7W prototypes also had the trigger on the throttle quadrant (I think based on the photos of the cockpit interior) - although since they were only prototypes there is no guarantee that it would have retained the arrangement for production airframes.

I do not know of any Japanese sources that complain about the trigger arrangement on any of these airframes either.

R Leonard in his triple bacon post #389 includes this very interesting comment on the location of the triggers.



Add that to the fact that, as already covered, later allied aircraft had their gunsight controls on the throttle maybe we should be considering this as another item where the Japanese had it right and we had it wrong?

Possibly. I must admit I am of 2 minds on the subject relative to safety.

When I think about the problem, as you say there is the problem of inadvertently squeezing the trigger - either in maneuvering flight or when landing hard on the carrier as examples. On the other hand, a simple trigger guard could be rigged such as those used on modern combat aircraft.

And, as has been mentioned in this thread, if there is a problem with stick force(s) during maneuvering flight - such that it requires 2 hands on the stick at the same time you are trying to fire - then the stick mounted trigger would seem to have an advantage.

Modern combat aircraft all(?) have boosted controls, and as a result the stick forces are manageable in all regimes (unless they are not supposed to be) so there is no problem under any normal maneuvering circumstances, but without a trigger guard there could still be inadvertent firing under other circumstances as you point out.

Interesting bit of trivia - (if my information is correct, though I have not found a source for a precise explanation of the workings) the Ki-43 [& Ki-44] had 2 buttons on top of its control stick - 1 button for deploying the combat maneuver flaps, and 1 button for retracting them.

[edit - added Ki-44]

ThomasP said:

Possibly. I must admit I am of 2 minds on the subject relative to safety.

When I think about the problem, as you say there is the problem of inadvertently squeezing the trigger - either in maneuvering flight or when landing hard on the carrier as examples. On the other hand, a simple trigger guard could be rigged such as those used on modern combat aircraft.

And, as has been mentioned in this thread, if there is a problem with stick force(s) during maneuvering flight - such that it requires 2 hands on the stick at the same time you are trying to fire - then the stick mounted trigger would seem to have an advantage.

Modern combat aircraft all(?) have boosted controls, and as a result the stick forces are manageable in all regimes (unless they are not supposed to be) so there is no problem under any normal maneuvering circumstances, but without a trigger guard there could still be inadvertent firing under other circumstances as you point out.

Interesting bit of trivia - (if my information is correct, though I have not found a source for a precise explanation of the workings) the Ki-43 had 2 buttons on top of its control stick - 1 button for deploying the 'butterfly' combat maneuver flaps, and 1 button for retracting them.

Click to expand...

My impression was that triggers on the throttle were not the standard Army approach.
As for accidental firing, a swing away cover or separate arming switch on the panel could prevent that.

I thought the IJA aircraft might be different as well, but when I checked on them I found the same ~arrangement as the IJN aircraft. Except for the Ki-43 [& Ki-44] the sticks are bare of any buttons/triggers, like the stick in the A6M. I could not find any detail explanation of the control stick arrangement for the Ki-84, and in the only images I ran across the throttle quadrant looks different in arrangement, and the stick appears to have several buttons on it (I think - the picture is not the best).

[edit - added Ki-44]

ThomasP said:

I thought the IJA aircraft might be different as well, but when I checked on them I found the same ~arrangement as the IJN aircraft. Except for the Ki-43 [& Ki-44] the sticks are bare of any buttons/triggers, like the stick in the A6M. I could not find any detail explanation of the control stick arrangement for the Ki-84, and in the only images I ran across the throttle quadrant looks different in arrangement, and the stick appears to have several buttons on it (I think - the picture is not the best).

[edit - added Ki-44]

Click to expand...

There might be some details about this in the reports on the Middletown Ki-84.
The reports are here but I am on my phone and have no PDF capability.

ThomasP said:

Modern combat aircraft all(?) have boosted controls, and as a result the stick forces are manageable in all regimes (unless they are not supposed to be)

Click to expand...

Almost all modern are fully powered (hydraulic) with electrical FBW and computer demand control with force feedback, often into a sidestick but some legacy with control column.

Eng

ThomasP said:

Hey GregP,
re


My apologies, but I am not sure if you mean the museum's A6M5 'Zero' had the trigger on the stick, or if it has the trigger on the throttle quadrant as in the image I posted.

If the trigger is on the stick is there any chance you can take photos of the museum Zero's stick and throttle quadrant and post them here when you get a chance?


Hey Ivan1GFP,
re


I also have not been able to find any images online (or in a book) of an A6M with the trigger on the stick.

Nor have I been able to find any mention in Japanese sources of the pilots not liking the arrangement or any such change of trigger location being made.


At this point, I think it is worth mentioning that (if my information is correct) the A5M 'Claude', Ki-27 'Nate', Ki-43 'Oscar', Ki-44 'Tojo', Ki-61 'Tony', Ki-100, and N1K 'George', also had their gun triggers located on the throttle quadrant. The J7W prototypes also had the trigger on the throttle quadrant (I think based on the photos of the cockpit interior) - although since they were only prototypes there is no guarantee that it would have retained the arrangement for production airframes.

I do not know of any Japanese sources that complain about the trigger arrangement on any of these airframes either.

Click to expand...

The Museum's Zero has the trigger on the throttle. I have pictures of it as I participated in the Major Overhaul about 8 years back.

However, I have been asked by the Museum not to post pictures of any of their cockpits, and I have always honored their wishes since I volunteer there and the airplanes belong to them.

The airplane was taken back to bare metal and EVERYTHING was looked at very hard except the engine, which is low-to-mid time in the TBO cycle and the propeller (same). The paint colors used matched the original Japanese colors when this airplane was captured in every detail. The only things actually replaced were the flight control wires and pulleys, some bearings including heim joint bushings, some sheet metal around the wheel wells, and some replacement cockpit metal. Original thicknesses were used. It is a magnificent airplane and still flies, though not too often. We have two engines for it and the intent is to control it's wear and tear.

Most people don't know it, but the wings are integral with the fuselage and do not come off. We have an engine mount with some bolt lugs on it and, when it is transported, we bolt if nose-down onto a trailer, with the rear fuselage, horizontal tails, and the engine on another bolt-down stand, all on one trailer. It is not a simple process, but thankfully has only been done when we shipped it to Japan twice for flying displays.

When I say 'we," I mean the guys at Fighter Rebuilders / Planes of Fame, not me. Yes, I helped a small bit with the overhaul, but I am not on the Zero flight or maintenance crew.

ThomasP said:

I thought the IJA aircraft might be different as well, but when I checked on them I found the same ~arrangement as the IJN aircraft. Except for the Ki-43 [& Ki-44] the sticks are bare of any buttons/triggers, like the stick in the A6M. I could not find any detail explanation of the control stick arrangement for the Ki-84, and in the only images I ran across the throttle quadrant looks different in arrangement, and the stick appears to have several buttons on it (I think - the picture is not the best).
[edit - added Ki-44]

Click to expand...

Ki-84 from Aero Detail book.
There is a pretty good photograph of the stick as well, but you probably have something that is good enough.

How it all began.....
The beginnings of a really bad day.

Engineman said:

There are various quotes about max/achieved rpm on the ground in some of the downloads in this topic. The one quoting 2000rpm as the max stationary on the ground would seem quite low against achieving T/O power rating, but you have to assume the testing team were using the max rpm selection? What did the Japanese manuals say?
Quotes of 2500 rpm or so in the climb, again was max rpm selected?
As regards the prop pitch being on the "low pitch stop" in the climb, there is no pitch indication, so you can't tell if it is on/off the blade low pitch limit or if the controller is actually modulating the blade pitch to achieve the selected rpm or the incorrectly set-up selected rpm?
The quote I see about the overspeeding is 3000rpm above 300mph in the post#38 by MiTasol, "A6M evaluation.pdf"

Eng

Click to expand...

Just adding some information from reviewing the manual.
The proper pitch range for the propeller on Model 21 (Type 0 Mk.I) is 25-45 degrees.
Maximum permissible engine speed is 3000 RPM
Maximum IAS is 340 Knots.