Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" Page 1
 
Topics:
Report 0266
A6M Houkoku Markings
Historical Records
Crashed Enemy Aircraft Reports
Historical Records & Pearl Zero Markings
Zero Cockpit Colors
Mitsubishi 'cockpit color' on Type 22
Late Model Zero 21 Fuel Tanks
A6M Fuel Tank Selector Details
A6M3 Model 22 and 32
Re: US figures vs Japanese figures
US marked A6M3
Zero, Val, Etc Colors
Two Tone Zero
Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon
Zero stencil markings
Saipan Zeros
Melville Island Zero Color Profile *PIC*
Zero: to chip or not to chip ?
Zero Production Research
 
Report 0266
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <mailto:hall41@ix.netcom.com?subject=Report 0266>
Date: Monday, 11 September 2000, at 6:34 p.m.
 
Well, it was here a minute ago... a discussion of Report 0266 asking about the wording. It
seems to have gone into the Bermuda Triangle.
 
Mr. Owaki was kind enough to post a romanized Japanese rendering of a key sentence from that
report here about fourteen months ago. I will repeat it:
 
Genyo Reishiki Kansen yo toshoku ha J3 (haiiro) no yaya ameiro ga karitaru mo kotaku wo yurusu ten jikken toshoku to kotonareri. (This is written, not conversational Japanese.)
The "yo" after "kansen" I don't understand, and may actually have been "no".
What is "genyo" (currently in use) is the Type Zero Shipboard Fighter, not the "toshoku" (coating).
However, as a practical matter, it probably is an unimportant distinction.
The business about "ameiro" may have come from this passage, but the passage doesn't say the paint was "ameiro". It says it has somewhat of an ameiro tint. In other words, a warm gray as opposed to a cold one. The other difference is that the paint on the currently used Zero has a gloss (kotaku wo yusuru). In other words, the Japanese were experimenting with matte paints.
 
Re: What Else Is (or Isn't) in Report 0266?
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: What Else Is (or Isn't) in Report 0266?>
Date: Tuesday, 12 September 2000, at 4:15 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: What Else Is (or Isn't) in Report 0266? (Tom Hall)
 
Hi Tom
Nowhere in the report does the word "hairyokushoku" appear. All references in the report (at least six) are to the "presently used color of Zeros" (December 1941). All include the term "ameiro" ("caramel candy color" or "amber"). Most translators of these passages agree that the writer of the report was trying to describe a gray color shifted toward amber in hue. This verbal description is very much like what OWAKI-san posted as the Japanese Official Standards Color I 3 and which he referenced as being close to FS-34201.
 
The term "hairyokushoku" ("gray green" or "ash green") was the term used by the chief designer of the Type 0 Carrier Fighter, Jiro HORIKOSHI, to describe the color of the Zero.
 
I shall be posting excerpts from YO KU Report No.0266 later this week with translations by several Japanese translators. In the meantime, you may be able to get a copy of the original report in Japanese from our mutual friend and contributor in California, Azusa ONO, who sent me his version of the passages. I would appreciate your rendering of these descriptions.
 
Thank you for your observations and feedback.
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: What Else Is (or Isn't) in Report 0266?
 
Posted By: Nick Millman <mailto:nik.su@virgin.net?subject=Re: What Else Is (or Isn't) in Report 0266?>
Date: Tuesday, 12 September 2000, at 12:51 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: What Else Is (or Isn't) in Report 0266? (Tom Hall)
 
There is a very interesting contemporary Japanese color painting of a Zero, in naive style, in "With The Sea Eagles" - Koku-Fan Illustrated No109 (Winter 2000), page 51, which reflects very nicely those collective eyewitness reports of a "soft pale green", "smooth light gray, tinted with blue light green" etc. Perhaps someone could translate the painting's brief caption for the Board, revealing it's context/provenance for us? The color is very much like Xtracolor X354 Japanese WWII Navy Grey but a little greener!!
 
A6M Houkoku Markings
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca>
Date: Monday, 12 July 1999, at 12:52 p.m.
 
Examining various photos of Zeros it appears that two different forms of Houkoku markings were used. The more common, or at least more photographed, was the pattern seen on the A6M3's captured at Buna, with the number preceded by two ideograms. The other style, illustrated on page 44 of Aero Detail 7,Zero Fighter, and page 137 of Hata and Izawa, Japanese Naval Aces, has three ideograms in front of the presentation number and a fourth after it.
 
It has been established that Mitsubishi and Nakajima had differences in how they painted the Zeros they manufactured. Are these different patterns of Houkoku
markings another such a variation? (If so it would also mean that the illustration in Aero Detail 7, page 44, is incorrect in showing this pattern of marking on a
Mitsubishi built A6M2.)
 
In a similar vein, has anyone done an analysis of the sequence of Houkoku numbers to see if an approximate date can be determined for a specific number?
 
Ryan
 
Re: A6M Houkoku Markings
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <hall41@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Monday, 12 July 1999, at 7:22 p.m.
 
In Response To: A6M Houkoku Markings (Ryan Toews)
 
Dear Ryan,
Yes, I have heard that there are some people who track houkoku
numbers for Zeke. I believe Jim Long may be one.
 
Have you ever seen houkoku markings on the underside of a Zeke?
 
Re: A6M Houkoku Markings
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tuesday, 13 July 1999, at 9:44 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M Houkoku Markings (Tom Hall)
 
Hello Tom,
Thanks for the suggestion to speak to Jim Long. I have not seen any Houkoku markings on the underside of an A6M but I recall such did appear on the wings of at
least one A5M. My interest in these markings is an attempt to try to obtain some additional info on the Zeros with the Houkoku numbers 1033, 1045 and 1053.
These numbers appear in photos of the Diemert/Blayd Zeros taken when the planes were in Port Moresby prior to them being shipped to Canada. 1033 was a
Nakajima built aircraft with the serial number 3471 but info on the other planes is sadly lacking.
 
Ryan
 
Re: A6M Houkoku Markings
 
Posted By: Randy
Date: Tuesday, 13 July 1999, at 2:46 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M Houkoku Markings (Ryan Toews)
 
Dear Sir,
I just got an e-mail photo which may help the discussion. According to David Aiken this Zero 21 has a Houkoku on the wing bottom but it was inked on the photo,
not the actual plane. He says that by the time this Houkoku was given they were producing A6M5s. But I thought this photo was neat anyway.
 
Randy
 
Re: A6M Houkoku Markings
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <hall41@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wednesday, 14 July 1999, at 12:00 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M Houkoku Markings (Randy)
 
Thank you both. I saw a different photo, equally phony, numbered in the 1700s. I think pictures such as yours were made up as mementoes given to the donors. The Zeke in the souvenir picture didn't change, but the houkoku numbers did!
 
Re: A6M Houkoku Markings
 
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@Hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 14 July 1999, at 6:07 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M Houkoku Markings (Tom Hall)
 
Aloha Tom,
The aircraft in the Houkoku (pronounced HOU' koh-coo) 1700 range noted thus far are all Zeros: 1714, 1794, and 1798. Which one is the postcard you found?
 
There are postcards of Vals 521 through 526, too, all with the Houkoku number and presentation inked on the underwing in the postcard photo. Of these Houkoku
522 and Houkoku 525 were Vals used (probably) in the Pearl Harbor Attack. Houkoku 522 became AII-256 and Houkoku 525 became EII-206. It is very doubtful that these Vals had any Houkoku under the wings as seen on select A5Ms.
 
Incidentally, in the MODEL ART Special "Shinjuwan Gokekitai" (Pearl Harbor Units), Houkoku 532 (Zero AII-106) has a serial number cited that seems too high to
be included in the Pearl Harbor Attack.
 
Cheers,
David_Aiken
 
Re: A6M Houkoku Markings
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <hall41@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wednesday, 14 July 1999, at 7:17 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M Houkoku Markings (David_Aiken)
 
That's very interesting about AII-106. I didn't know that.
 
As I recall, what I saw was not a postcard. It was a display in a museum in Japan which showed how the war affected that town. Some people in town donated number 1716.
 
To go back to my question, though, apparently no one has seen the marking applied to the wing of a Zeke?
 
A6M2 Hokoku-532 (AII-106)
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 14 July 1999, at 8:10 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M Houkoku Markings (David_Aiken)
 
The A6M2 Zero from the KAGA [AII-106] rendered by Japanese artist and historian Shigeru NOHARA on pages 50-52 of Model Art Special No.378 is alleged to have participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, the artist has used his license to illustrate the serial number of the individual aircraft on the
manufacturer's data plate stencil of the fuselage. The serial shown (s/n 1052) does NOT conform to the Mitsubishi serialing system. Mitsubishi A6M2 model 21 c/n 52 should have had serial no. 552. This Zero would have been built around the end of October 1940 (0-10-2?). It is doubtful this aircraft would have been on the KAGA at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack.
 
On the other hand, assuming the construction date illustrated by NOHARA san to be correct (i.e. 1-9-10), a more likely serial number of 3322 or 4323 is possible.
 
Six Pearl Harbor A6M2 Zero fighter participants have been documented in CEARs located in the National Archives and MIS Reports at the NHRC. Included are
the following three examples :
 
Mitsubishi A6M2 Model 21s at Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941
s/n 3277 (c/n 277) constructed 1-7-26 (7/26/41) = B11-120
s/n 5289 (c/n 289) constructed 1-8-9 (8/9/41) = AI-154
s/n 5349 (c/n 349) constructed 1-10-4 (10/4/41) = B11-124
 
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: A6M2 Hokoku-532 (AII-106)
 
Posted By: Randy
Date: Wednesday, 14 July 1999, at 11:49 a.m.
 
In Response To: A6M2 Hokoku-532 (AII-106) (James F. Lansdale)
 
Dear Sir,
What is a CEAR or MIS? Please, for the record, cite this CEAR/MIS for AI-154.
Randy
 
Historical Records
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 14 July 1999, at 1:40 p.m.
 
In Response To: CEAR what? (Randy)
 
Randy
Historical records and documents are on file in three major repositories; The United States National Archives (NA) and Naval Historical Research Center (NHRC) in Washington D.C. and the USAF Historical Research Center at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. There are also related and important records at the National Air and Space Museum (NASM), Washington D.C. and the USAF Museum (USAFM), Dayton, Ohio. Within these groups of records are contained, along with unit diaries and mission reports, all records on enemy material in the form of Crashed Enemy Aircraft Reports (CEARs), Japanese Aircraft- Plates and Markings (JAP/M or "Tinnies," because of the attached metal pieces), and boxes of records from the various offices of the Military Intelligence Service (MIS).
 
CEARS are available in microfilm from USAF/HRC, Maxwell AFB, AL for a cost of approximately $30.00 per 16 mm reel (CEARs 4 - 64 available on Microfilm #A1292).
 
JAP/M are available (some) on microfilm #B1744, but the bulk of these are in 8 - 10 boxes in the National Archives and must be checked out after a special researcher permit is issued. Xerox copies may no longer be made of these items because the metal pieces are becoming detached and/or "walk off!"
 
MIS reports are a royal pain to catalogue. There is no rhyme or reason for their placement in boxes and one needs a great deal of time and luck to find the real gems of markings and code information. For example, the MIS Report on the Combined Fleet air unit code assignments was in three parts found in three separate boxes far removed from each other in numeric sequence on two floors.
 
There is no CEAR number for the report on AI-154. A copy of the report was found in a compilation entitled, "Japanese Aircraft Shot Down 7 December 1941." Page 1 of this document, dated 12/24/41, was for AI-154. The serial number given was 3277, however a photograph of this aircraft revealed its s/n to be 5289. It is, therefore, probable that when this early CEAR was compiled the serial numbers of two aircraft were transposed. Another MIS document in the National Archives has a more complete listing of these serials and it too states that AI-154 was s/n 5289. Good hunting!
 
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Historical Records
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <hall41@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wednesday, 14 July 1999, at 7:21 p.m.
 
In Response To: Historical Records (James F. Lansdale)
 
I thought CEARs per se began in 1943. No?
 
Crashed Enemy Aircraft Reports
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 1:42 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Historical Records (Tom Hall)
 
Tom
Inquiries regarding crashed enemy aircraft and analysis of enemy materiel began with the cleanup of crash remains at Pearl. The system, in the beginning at least, had little order and various branches of the military services were not coordinated. Remnants from the Pearl Harbor attack were examined by whatever service
recovered them and, hopefully, before someone took a piece for himself!!! The Navy did its thing and the Army did its own as well!!! Most of these early reports are NOT called Crashed Enemy Aircraft Reports (CEARs), but are usually in the format of Intelligence Reports with various titles and from different agencies. The best report I have seen is one compiled by the USAAF which incorporated material from a Naval source entitled "Aircraft Intelligence Report: Japanese Aircraft, August 1942," published by the Materiel Center, Experimental Engineering Section, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. It, along with a Naval analysis of crashed aircraft at Pearl Harbor, Ceylon, and Darwin have photos and analysis of these crashed remains. They can be considered the precursors to the later CEARs.
 
You are quite correct that CEARs, as such, were not systematically compiled and written until around April 1943. For example, the pro-forma report for CEAR No.4 on the Type 97 remains for Kate s/n 9611 was typed 5 June 1943! Later, these reports gave way to far more extensive reports which are veritable
analytical tomes which included aircraft production rates. These are entitled "Japanese Aircraft Makers Plates and Markings Reports," and derived their name from the thousands of JAM Plates, or "Tinnies" that had been recovered and attached to 5" x 7" cards bearing the same name. Other JAM-P/M cards have pieces of fabric attached or photographs of the crash remains and number in the thousands!!!
 
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Historical Records
 
Posted By: Randy
Date: Wednesday, 14 July 1999, at 5:56 p.m.
 
In Response To: Historical Records (James F. Lansdale)
 
Dear Sir,
Your great letter truly answered my deepest question on what CEAR and MIS and other initials are for this learner. My deepest appreciation. In your previous posting you said serial 3277 was on B11-120 and this recent post gives that serial in a document for AI-154. You further resolve this with a photo. May we see this photo? Say, why the difference in B11-124, B11-120 compared with AI-154? The Roman numbers on AI-154 rather than arabic numbers on B11-124?
Thank you,
Randy
 
Historical Records & Pearl Zero Markings
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 4:09 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Historical Records (Randy)
 
Randy
The Alpha-numeric coding system in use by the IJNAF unit at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor combined Roman letters with Arabic numerals. The three koku sentai involved in the attack were 1, 2, and 5 Sf coded A, B, and E respectively. The first CV in each sentai had its assigned aircraft marked with a Roman I and the second CV used the Roman II. As follows:
 
1 Sf AKAGI [AI-...]/KAGA [AII-...]
2 Sf SORYU [B1-...]/HIRYU [B11-..]
5 Sf SHOKAKU [EI-..]/ZUIKAKU [EII-...]
 
Close-up photos revealed that the Japanese did not consistently differentiate between the Roman I and the Arabic 1 when rendering the code on the tail surfaces, hence, the 2 Sf carriers should have been marked with Roman I but had the Arabic 1 in its place!!!
 
Several photos of the crash remains of AI-154 have been published in several publications. It had crashed at Fort Kamehameha. A good photo of the aircraft appears on page 27 of Warbird History publication "Zero"; by Robert C. MIKESH. This photo reveals that the data plate had been removed. The current owner of this stenciled data plate with s/n 5289 is California relic collector. I have analyzed its color and have several photos which I plan to use in a future publication. Several other excellent photos of the intact data plate, before it was removed from the aircraft and clearly showing the s/n 5289, are known. One is the property of
another historian who plans to use it for his publication on the Pearl Harbor attack. And another is within a USAAF intelligence report and will soon appear in an upcoming magazine article on captured Zeros.
 
Jim Lansdale
 
Zero Cockpit Colors
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Zero Cockpit Colors>
Date: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 1:46 p.m.
 
It is generally accepted that Mitsubishi and Nakajima built Zeros utilized different colors of paint in their cockpits. The following is an examination of the different existing evidence for this conclusion. The best evidence, of course, are original cockpit relics that can be linked to a specific aircraft serial number and thus also to a date of manufacture. Other relics that can be assigned a more generalized date are also included. Last of all are written references to cockpit color. Any comments or additions to this list will naturally be most welcome.
Mitsubishi
1. In the collection of the Nimitz Museum is a piece of a Zero (presumed to be a Mitsubishi built A6M2 built before June 1942) said to be taken from a crash site on Midway Island. Greg Springer assigned the paint a FS value of 4082.
2. Blayd has in their collection parts of the cockpit of A6M3 32 s/n 3285 (November 1942) that has paint with a FS value of between 4088 and 4098.
3. The A6M3 22 in the RNZAF Museum appears from photos of the interior to have been painted in a shade of green that would fall into the parameters of 4098/4151.
4. The NASM replicated traces of existing paint valued at 4151 on their A6M5 s/n 4340 (December 1943).
5. The Planes of Fame A6M5 s/n 4400 (December 1943) cockpit color has been described by Katsushi Owaki as having a Munsell value of 2.5GY4/2 which compares to FS 4102. It can only be assumed that this is either the original paint or a replication of the same.
Nakajima
1. A number of cockpit interior parts from the various A6M2 wrecks that date from October 1942 to March 1943 in the possession of Blayd all are finished in a paint with an original value of FS 4373. It should be noted that this value is one that applies to paint that has had the oxidized outer layer of paint removed.
2. An A6M5 captured on Saipan (thus manufactured between February and May 1944) and examined by Douglas Aircraft was described as having its cockpit interior painted "with a yellow-green primer similar in appearance to the zinc-chromate primer used in American airplanes." Zinc-chromate was either yellow (FS 3481) or green (FS 4227). The former could be a variation of FS4255 while the latter has similarities to FS 4373. The reference is most likely to the yellow shade of zinc-chromate as the green shade has no yellow in it at all. Possibly what was described was an oxidized variation of FS 4255.
3. The Imperial War Museum A6M5 s/n 196 (March 1944) had its cockpit finished with two applications of paint, according to an examination by Joe Picarella. Unfortunately, he compared the paint to the Pantone color system and the FS values are not always easily matchable. His study found an undercoat of Pantone 4495U which is somewhat more yellowish/green than FS 4255. Over this was an application of Pantone 581U which is roughly comparable to FS 4151. This second application of paint may possibly be a field modification.
4. Arashiyama Museum’s A6M7 s/n 82729 (April 1945) cockpit paint has been described by Katsushi Owaki as having a Munsell value of 2.5GY6/4 or FS 4258. Again note the similarity of this color and FS4255.
Conclusion
It would appear that Mitsubishi consistently used a dark olive green paint falling into the parameters of FS4088/4098/4102/4151 in the cockpits of the Zeros it built. AeroMaster Mitsubishi Interior Green is probably the best representative of this color although it could be augmented by the addition of some brown tinting. Early Nakajima built Zeros made use of a gray/green cockpit interior that is close to FS 4373. Gunze Sangyo 50 Lime Green is probably a good paint to use for a "scale effect" cockpit gray green but to match the original color mix 5 parts Model Master Acryl Pale Green, 4 parts Model Master Acryl RAF Sky Type S and 1 part Model Master Acryl Olive Drab. At some point, possibly with the change to the manufacture the A6M5 in early 1944, it appears that Nakajima switched to a cockpit interior color approximating FS 4255/4258. This may have been an attempt to standardize the color of paint used in the cockpits of Nakajima aircraft as a similar color can be found in the interior of the Nakajima Ki-43 in the collection of the EAA Museum. AeroMaster Nakajima Interior Gray/Green is very close to this color.
 
Re: Zero Cockpit Colors/Saipan Zero [8-07]
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Zero Cockpit Colors/Saipan Zero [8-07]>
Date: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 9:25 a.m.
 
In Response To: Zero Cockpit Colors (Ryan Toews)
 
Ryan
R. ANDERSON, of the Douglas Aircraft Company at El Segundo, in reporting on the analysis of a Nakajima-built A6M5 model 52 captured at Saipan wrote in February 1945:
"Interior metal surfaces of the cockpit enclosure and windshield are painted a matt black to prevent glare. All parts in the cockpit below the level of the enclosure tracks are finished with a yellow-green primer similar in appearance to the zinc-chromate primer used in American airplanes. The cockpit is the only interior area of the fuselage which has been treated with this type of protective finish. Numerous welded steel sheet and tube assemblies are located in the cockpit. None of these parts are protected by plating but are instead covered with a red-oxide primer and a black finish paint. In many places this paint has been chipped off with the result that the steel parts are badly rusted, locking (in certain assemblies) moving parts together."
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Zero Cockpit Colors
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zero Cockpit Colors>
Date: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 1:45 p.m.
 
In Response To: Zero Cockpit Colors (Ryan Toews)
 
Opps,
It seems like I got mixed up on one of my examples. The first Mitsubishi Zero cited is not from the Nimitz Museum and has not definitely been identified as a Mitsubishi built Zero at all and may indeed have come from a Nakajima Zero. More research is obviously needed here. Are there any other examples out there to add to the list?
 
Ryan
 
Re: Zero Cockpit Colors
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=Re: Zero Cockpit Colors>
Date: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 6:13 p.m.
 
In Response To: Zero Cockpit Colors (Ryan Toews)
 
Ryan,
Would it be ok if I posted this in the research section? For safe keeping.
-Dave
 
Re: Zero Cockpit Colors
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zero Cockpit Colors>
Date: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 6:24 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero Cockpit Colors (Dave Pluth)
 
Hello Dave,
Sounds like a good place for it to go. However, maybe if you wait a while some additional details may be posted by someone else and then the entire thread can be put into the research section.
 
Ryan
 
Mitsubishi 'cockpit color' on Type 22
 
Posted By: Slim <Slimgrape@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 11 October 1999, at 4:25 p.m.
 
Can someone give me an idea what this color is... I'm working on the 1/48 Hasagawa type 22a zero kit and I'm all fuzzy about this 'interior color' I understand there are Mitsubishi and Nakagima(?)versions?? My match doesn't have to be spot on as I'll be closing the canopy (I'm mainly concerned about what will be seen under the rear canopy on the rear deck, this is also painted interior color also, no?) From what I'm gathering from a few posts back Mitsubishi interior green is more of a dark gray with a hint of U.S. interior green. Am I on the right track folks...? Thanks in advance...
 
Re: Mitsubishi 'cockpit color' on Type 22
 
Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Monday, 11 October 1999, at 5:34 p.m.
 
In Response To: Mitsubishi 'cockpit color' on Type 22 (Slim)
 
Hi Slim
As A6M3 Model 32's and 22's were ALL produced by Mitsubishi, the right interior color will be Mitsubishi Navy Interior Green (similar to FS 36151 but darker) and not a gray tinted with USN interior green or the yellower lighter Nakajima green. Under the canopy and the windscreen it is the cowling color which was used.
 
Friendly.
François
 
Re: Mitsubishi 'cockpit color' on Type 22
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <hall41@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tuesday, 12 October 1999, at 7:49 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Mitsubishi 'cockpit color' on Type 22 (François P. WEILL)
 
Francois,
Don't you mean 4151?
 
I think Ryan Toews has found a slightly different color in the Model 22, but it may be for the control stick and some other parts. "Slim" will want to check the Navy message board back a few months for that posting to see if it's still there.
 
Then, just to be a contrarian, I want to add that there was at least one example of light gray-green paint behind the pilot's head. The photo appears in Shasinshuu Reisen, but I can't tell if it was a Model 32 or a 22; the wingtips are gone.
 
Re: Mitsubishi 'cockpit color' on Type 22
 
Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Tuesday, 12 October 1999, at 11:54 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Mitsubishi 'cockpit color' on Type 22 (Tom Hall)
 
Hi Tom,
I have tried to be simple with our friend and I agree with you some A6M3's might have been finished with light gray-green behind the pilot seat. the fact is most of them were finished in the cowling color (like Model 21's) . So unless the particular plane built is otherwise documented I think it is safe to use the cowling color...
 
It is very unfortunate that we are unable to know if it is a Model 32 or 22... As the existence of an apparently simplified painting scheme seems a possibility ... Do you know if the plane was factory finished with a dk. green upper surface or was still factory finished in plain gray-green (even if it sported a "makeshift" camouflage ???
 
I used 34151 indicating a mat finish just because at the scale we generally work in models the available 4151 shade is generally issued in its matt variant.
 
Concerning the details in the cockpit I fully agree with you ... It seems that "accessories" like throttle, stick and other such items were often painted on different shade of greens. I suppose this was due to the fact they were produced by different sub-contractors, which used their own colors... At the level of a model slight variations may be indicated by varying somewhat the mix. However the general coat of paint used was certainly the Mitsubishi Navy Interior Green... I think that if our friend models in 1/72nd scale it is doubtful if the slight variation in the green color used on some devices in the cockpit will be much useful to a better and more accurate look than the classical wash + highlights techniques ... 
Thanks however for your useful precisions, friendly.
François
 
Late Model Zero 21 Fuel Tanks
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Late Model Zero 21 Fuel Tanks>
Date: Friday, 14 July 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
 
Does anyone have any source that shows the rectangular lower instrument panel on the left side of the two seat A6M2 found in Rabaul harbor and now on display in Japan. The A6M2 originally had three instruments set in this panel, an air temperature gauge and two fuel tank level gauges - one for each wing. The Type 22 and subsequent models deleted the temperature gauge and added two more fuel gauges for the two outer wing tanks. My hypothesis is that the later Nakajima A6M2s adopted not only the larger ammo capacity of the Type 22 wing but possibly its added fuel capacity as well. Note the upper left hand corner photo in FAOW #55, page 8, that shows a round access panel on the aforementioned A6M2 in the same location as the fuel filler inlet on the Type 22. Furthermore, the adoption of these extra tanks would make sense as the later A6M2s functioning in the "Bakusen" role and would be unable to carry a drop tank. If in fact the Rabaul two seat Zero had fuel level gauges for two outer wing tanks it would help to substantiate this theory.
Ryan
 
A6M Fuel Tank Selector Details
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=A6M Fuel Tank Selector Details>
Date: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 11:03 a.m.
 
Hello all,
On page 38 of Robert Mikesh’s book "Zero Fighter", Zokeisha Publications, 1981, the key to the accompanying drawing of the cockpit of the A6M5 identifies items #10 and #11 respectively as "Wing tanks selector lever" and "Fuselage/wing tanks switching cock". I have been able to translate the characters on the placard illustrated as #11 as indicating the fuselage tank as the top setting and the drop tank as the left side setting but I am unsure of the lower or rear setting.
The characters on the second placard (#10) are partly translated as referring to the right wing tank, on the left side of the placard, and the left wing tank, on the right side of the placard. Somewhat confusing, but this is borne out elsewhere by the photos of the Koga Zero cockpit. However, each of the two selectors has a setting at the bottom of the placard that I am unsure of. I suspect that this character means something like "off" or "closed" but am not certain of this at all. Can anyone help in the translation of this character?
Ryan
 
Re: A6M Fuel Tank Selector Details
 
Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: A6M Fuel Tank Selector Details>
Date: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 6:20 p.m.
 
In Response To: A6M Fuel Tank Selector Details (Ryan Toews)
 
Hi Ryan,
I think it's radical #77 SHI, toh. 'Stop' Page 611 in your brand new Nelson.
Kampai!
Greg
 
A6M3 Model 22 and 32
 
Posted By: Tony Feredo <mailto:aferedo@ibahn.net?subject=A6M3 Model 22 and 32>
Date: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 2:04 a.m.
 
Hi Guys,
Between the Model 22 and 32, which had the better performance as far as climb rate, maneuverability and combat radius. Plus the capability to handle more armaments / bombs / ammunition storage or other external stores.
 
In addition, are there some testimonies of pilots who flew these planes and preferred "one over the other"
Salamat,
Tony
 
Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32>
Date: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 8:03 p.m.
 
In Response To: A6M3 Model 22 and 32 (Tony Feredo)
 
Regarding Model 22 and Model 32. The Model 32 was slightly faster and had a quicker rate of roll than the Model 22 due to the squared wingtip. However the Model 22 was probably a little more maneuverable due to the rounded wing tips. Diving speed was also slightly improved on the Model 32. I am not certain if either was better in the rate of Climb. And the range of both aircraft was probably the same. Keep in mind in these comparisons that the difference in performance in these planes was only fractional and overall all there performance would be pretty much equal. One thing is for certain Japanese pilots of that time probably preferred an A6M2 to both the Model 22 and 32 because the performance gains in speed and rate of roll did not compensate for the reduced range caused by a smaller fuselage tank due to a larger more fuel consuming engine. (Source H.P. Willmott A6M Zero).
 
Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 10:40 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32 (Cruiser K)
 
The Model 22 had a much improved range over the 32 because it fuel tanks were added to the outer wings, extending the range to about 2700 km.
 
Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32
 
Posted By: Cruiser K mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32
Date: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 11:55 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32 (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
Yes you are correct after posting this message I read that the Model 22 was actually produced after the Model 32 and that the restoration of wing tip to full length and addition of fuel tank improved range on the A6M3 Model 22 to astonishingly 100 miles more than the A6M2!! This is all new news to me. Making the A6M3 Model 22 the longest ranging Zero fighter of the war. (However this modification did come after the A6M3 Model 32 and the pilot attrition due to decreased range in battles, including Solomon Sea Battles.)
 
Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32
 
Posted By: Rick Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32>
Date: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 8:54 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32 (Cruiser K)
 
The Zero flight manual captured at Kwajalein has the Model 22 a couple knots faster than the Model 32. As to roll rate this is unclear. 32 had shorter wings but the 22 had an aileron augmentation device. Very few 32's had the long barrel mark II cannon while many of the 22's did. Arguably this weapon was the most important improvement between model 21 and model 52 (Sakae 21 notwithstanding).
As to climb I'd have to check the flight manual again. They were close but I don't recall which was ahead.
Of course you have to take the official Japanese figures with a grain of salt. Allied flight tests with the model 32(rebuilt from captured wrecks) actually got better results than the official Japanese figures in some instances.
 
Rick
 
Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32>
Date: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 7:36 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M3 Model 22 and 32 (Rick Dunn)
 
I think we all are in agreement here. I was well aware but didn't mention the MK II cannon upgrade on the Model 22 because I interpreted the original post as fight characteristics so I didn't include weapons systems uprades.Differences in rate of roll, climb rate, and maximum speed were minor, meaning performance of the two models were most nearly the same than different. Range of the Model 22 was far greater than the 32. Information on rate of roll from my original post came from the book Zero A6M by H.P. Willmott. (This book list a slight performance advantage for the Model 32 in speed, rate of roll and dive characteristics and credits its shorter clipped wing for the performance boost). It mentions the first experimental model of the A6M3 as being a full wing spanned version and that the wings were shortened after test pilots complained about stick forces on the greater wingspan. My interpretation of this is that this first test model with full wingspan and improved engine would have similar characteristics to the Model 22 because it restored the full wingspan. I would like to know how I can get my hands on the original Japanese spec data on these planes that you mentioned in your post because I believe it might possibly be a more reliable source.
 
Thanks sincerely,
Bobby Kline
 
Re: US figures vs Japanese figures
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 9:29 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: US figures vs Japanese figures (David_Aiken)
 
Yes. US test figures are usually about 10% better than Japanese figures regarding maximum speed, especially on IJA planes which used 87 octane fuel (IJN held 92 octane fuel). Use of American sparkplugs and lubrication oil also improved performance.
Often quoted example is the 689km/h (428mph) top speed of the captured Ki84 against the catalog figure of 624km/h (388mph). I have also read in some Japanese sources that during US tests the Ki83 recorded something like 760km/h (472mph). Does anyone have material to back this up?
 
Re: US figures vs Japanese figures
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: US figures vs Japanese figures>
Date: Thursday, 27 July 2000, at 5:07 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: US figures vs Japanese figures (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
 
Hi Hiryu
Official performance figures for Japanese aircraft, as published by the TAIU, were based on a combination of information derived from actual testing and intelligence reports. According to the TAIC Manual, as re-published by the Planes of Fame Publications (Ed MALONEY) p. 134, the maximum speed of the Ki-84 "Frank 1" was 422 m.p.h. at 2100'. It is possible that the your quoted 472 m.p.h. figure for the Ki-83 is a typo. On page 132, the figure given is 440 m.p.h. at 29,500'. With all the speculation as to why U.S. performance figures where usually higher than the Japanese figures, I would also like to suggest this may, in part, be due to the fact that U.S. tests were often conducted on aircraft stripped of camouflage paint and armament (weapons and/or ammunition). The weight thus saved would also improve performance to a greater degree than the increase in av fuel octane. In the cases cited where a performance figure was somewhat lower than the Japanese figures, ... well, that particular aircraft just could have been one of those "dogs!"
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: US figures vs Japanese figures
 
Posted By: rick dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: US figures vs Japanese figures>
Date: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 12:40 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: US figures vs Japanese figures (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
 
I'm not so sure about this. I don't know what fuel was used in the Australian tests of the A6M3. Certainly the Allies had avgas other than 100 octane available and they were trying to reproduce actual performance figures. Why would they use higher octane fuel? Need to check this. Also remember that the Saipan A6M5 from 261 Ku when tested in the U.S. had a maximum speed about 15 mph under the official Japanese numbers. Several things cause me to question the idea that better fuel and oil solve this discrepancy. The official figures for the A6M2 (275 knots =317 mph) are lower than the 327 mph for the Aleutian Zero. The 317 appears to be military power rather than overboost. We know the 327 was military power and not overboost. We also have reason to believe that A6M2 pilots operated on overboost for long periods of time (ten minutes). I admit I've changed the discussion from A6M3 to A6M2. But reconciling combat reports of Zero performance (both A6M2 and 3) and official numbers has been a pet project of mine for some time.
 
Re: US figures vs Japanese figures
 
Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mailto:mhoran@snet.net?subject=Re: US figures vs Japanese figures>
Date: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 4:41 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: US figures vs Japanese figures (rick dunn)
 
I would not at all make the assumption that any US military unit had any but 100 octane fuel available. I am not aware of any USA/USN aircraft in theatre that would not have been run on 100 octane fuel in service, even if the engine was not rated as such. The US military made virtually every decision on the acceptability and deployment of equipment on the ability to simplify the supply system. I would be startled to find any non-100 octane fuel being delivered to Australia. The use of higher octane fuel, resulting in higher cylinder temperatures would significantly reduce the life of an engine, but the average aircraft was lost or destroyed long before such considerations mattered.
 
US marked A6M3
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=US marked A6M3>
Date: Saturday, 8 July 2000, at 9:09 p.m.
 
Hi all,
I'm starting work on an A6M3 type 32 in US stars and bars markings. Can anyone give me a hint as to the overall color of this aircraft? A photo can be found on pg 229 of the Model Art Handbook of Japanese Aircraft 1910-1945.
Any help would be appreciated.
-Dave
 
Re: US marked A6M3
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: US marked A6M3>
Date: Sunday, 9 July 2000, at 5:50 a.m.
 
In Response To: US marked A6M3 (Dave Pluth)
 
Dave
The Mitsubishi A6M3 model 32 Hamp in question was reconstructed from several airframes and components captured at Buna, New Guinea 27 December 1942.
According to Technical Intelligence Report No.163 "Recovery and Reconstruction of Type 0 Mk 2 SSF Hap," HQAAFDOI, 16 September 1943, page 7:
"The outside appearance on the aircraft upon completion was very poor and a new finish was applied. A study was made of the original finish as to weight, color and texture, and a comparable paint of a lacquer type was selected and applied. A dove gray color was used for the fuselage, blue for the engine cowling and red for trimmings. The U.S. AAF 'Star' was painted on the airplane except for photographic purposes when the original Japanese markings were applied."
Since this aircraft had weathered greatly prior to capture, my assumption is that the AAF tried to duplicate the color of the aircraft at that time. This "dove gray" color would be most like a semi-gloss FS-x6357 or FS-x6360. The blue of the cowling was also the weathered version of the original blue-black. It would be a total guess on my part as to this color!
IHTH
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: US marked A6M3
 
Posted By: Bill Leyh <mailto:hawk81@pacbell.net?subject=Re: US marked A6M3>
Date: Sunday, 9 July 2000, at 10:06 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: US marked A6M3 (James F. Lansdale)
 
Jim,
Would you happen to have any of the Tech Intel reports written regarding the flight tests done on the Japanese fighters? Or possibly know where they could be obtained?
Regards,
Bill
 
Re: US marked A6M3
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=Re: US marked A6M3>
Date: Monday, 10 July 2000, at 7:31 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: US marked A6M3 (Bill Leyh)
 
Hi Bill,
Jim is right about the Planes of Fame book, it used to be available from Amazon and Zenith books. You might also be able to call Planes of Fame in Chino and just order one directly.
-Dave
 
Re: Japanese Aircraft Tech Intel Reports
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Japanese Aircraft Tech Intel Reports>
Date: Monday, 10 July 2000, at 5:55 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: US marked A6M3 (Bill Leyh)
 
Bill
Air Tell Publications (Jim LONG) has some Xerox copies available. Try Jim at (airtel@genie.idt.net). Also you may buy the Planes Of Fame publication (in print) "Japanese Aircraft Performance & Characteristics TAIC Manual" by Ed Maloney available from any large aviation book marketer.
Jim Lansdale
 
Zero, Val, Etc Colors
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 26 January 2000, at 3:32 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero Colors (Jim Eyerdom)
 
Jim
You write:
"I had thought that the Zeros from this period had their factory paint oversprayed with a lacquer to protect the surface from salt corrosion. Was this the case, or was the haiyrokushoku finish you have examined the only paint or lacquer applied directly over the red-brown primer?"
 
I have examined scores of relics from a good cross section of many different Japanese military aircraft. Of the pieces which have been preserved from severe weathering conditions, only one had a clear coat of "varnish" or other clear coat. This solitary piece was given to me by Charles DARBY. Either he or someone else had coated the piece after it had been collected to protect the paint.
 
The paints the Japanese used consisted of a clear binder in which a pigment had been dissolved to colorize it. In the intervening years weathering and/or chemical break down of the binder and/or pigments could have altered the paint from its original color. To answer your question, I would have to say that, based on my experience, the Japanese did not as a matter of course apply a clear coat to their wartime aircraft. Any gloss was due to the binder in which the pigment had been dissolved. The Japanese may have applied a clear coat to pre-war finishes but I have not examined any samples from Claudes or other pre-war aircraft.
 
A recent report on this Board by Stef KARVER did record that the pre-war Mitsubishi civil version of the Ki-15 recon airplane ("Kamikaze") on its good-will tour did sport an incredibly smooth coat of clear paint applied directly over the metal.
 
You also wrote: "How do the A6M haiyrokushoku colors compare with the paint samples found on Pearl Harbor era D3A relics?" I am awaiting some Val pieces from the Pearl Harbor attack in order to examine these. The Val pieces I have examined from other locations have been of three distinct finishes; dark green upper surfaces over aluminum paint, dark green upper surfaces over hairyokushoku, or dark green upper surfaces over gray-blue (late production Vals). The few pieces of Val with the hairyokushoku finish have been heavily weathered. The color shift in some cases is more like a color similar to FS-30277 (that is, more of a "tan" hue than a "gray-green"). In other cases the surface oxide coat appears distinctly light gray similar to what frequently occurs on severely oxidized hairyokushoku paint on Zero schemes. When I lightly buff these weathered pieces the color is distinctly more gray-green or "tan" than the traditional "light gray." I am awaiting the preserved samples of two Vals from the Pearl Harbor attack to confirm the hairyokushoku finish for the early war period.
I have been fortunate to have examined (and own) samples collected during December 1941 of one Kate and three different Zeros (HIRANO, IIDA, and NISHIKAICHI). ALL samples have a gloss hairyokushoku paint scheme. The Kate has been overcoated with a lusterless dark green and has no underlying primer coat. All three different Zero samples have the hairyokushoku applied over a red-brown primer coat.
 
One may NOT rely on color photography to get true color values of the pieces as they exist today. Refer to the photo of the NISHIKAICHI Zero (aka Niihau Zero) rudder fabric I posted on this Board last Saturday.
I hope this has been of help to you.
 
Jim Lansdale
 
Two Tone Zero
 
Posted By: Don Marsh <mailto:marsh44@fuse.net?subject=Love me two-tone baby! *PIC*>
Date: Saturday, 16 September 2000, at 8:15 a.m.
 
Hi All;
Just got hold of some great photos my friend Griff Murphey shot back in the early 70's. The details of this particular a/c as related by Mr Murphey are:
"Sekizen Shibiyama was the pilot who ditched this plane in Rabaul Harbor 11 November 1943. That was the second of two large air strikes (I think the other was on the 6th) on Rabaul where they were supposed to have lost some 80 a/c. It was raised in 1970, I shot it in 1972. The display had a photo of Shibiyama, Sakai, and two US Navy aces standing by the cockpit in 1970. The display was produced by the San Diego Air & Space Museum so I assume it was their bird, at least then."
(NOTE: This aircraft was painted when the camouflage scheme was dark-green over hairyokushoku. Sadly, this A6M5 model 52 acquired by the San Diego Air Museum was destroyed in a vandal fire several years ago. Today they have the old A6M7 s/n 23186 built by Nakajima which used to be at the Bradley Air Museum and on loan from NASM.)
Notice how well this shot (I have others) clearly shows off that 'two-tone style" fuselage. Despite being weathered down to the primer, the demarcation is clear and in the identical location as all the old photos of the early A6M2 model 21s in China. I believe this shows evidence of a different technique of applying the primer to the two halves of the a/c. In fact, based on this photo, I'm more convinced than ever that what we are seeing is the two major assemblies manufacture & painted separately then mated together into one aircraft. This may have resulted in the paint on the two halves to be from different batches and sprayed to different degrees of coverage over primer coats that vary due to separate applications. Notice how the top of the main wing is the same as the fuselage. This indicates to me that this effect wasn't caused by tied down tarps. Also if the alleged tarps were to protect the cockpit area, how does that explain that the weathering is worse in this area rather than better? The only thing I can't figure out is why this demarcation is slightly ahead of where the two halves join together.
No matter how you look at it, the evidence shown in this photo clearly indicates that the two halves were definitely treated differently; and probably during production.
-Don
 
Re: Love me two-tone baby!
 
Posted By: Ken Glass <mailto:ken.glass@eudoramail.com?subject=Re: Love me two-tone baby!>
Date: Saturday, 30 September 2000, at 12:29
 
Hi Don,
The Zero's rear fuselage in your color photo appears to be a shade of purple on my monitor. Another thought comes to mind, the reported sightings of 'mauve' colored Rufes in the Aleutians.
Perhaps there were two primers in use? A red brown and a more purple shade? Or perhaps the same paint was used on both front and rear fuselage assemblies, but the surface prep, or even the metal surface, differed between the forward and rear fuselage halves.
Ken Glass
 
Re: Love me two-tone baby!
 
Posted By: Don Marsh <mailto:marsh44@fuse.net?subject=Re: Love me two-tone baby!>
Date: Saturday, 30 September 2000, at 1:33 p.m.
Hi Ken;
You wrote: "The Zero's rear fuselage in your color photo appears to be a shade of purple on my monitor." That's just how your monitor is displaying the color. I have the original 35mm slides and the color is a very weathered, oxidized gray with the rust-red primer showing through.
As for the notion of different primers or surface prep, I think that's very likely and that's been my contention from the start too. I don't think it was a completely different color of primer, like a mauve or anything like that, as much as maybe different batches, slight differences due to various manufacturers, or even just more coats or better coverage from one half to the other.
Stay tuned, I'll be posting two more shots of the same a/c, but from varied angles, later today.
Don
Re: Love me two-tone baby!
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Love me two-tone baby!>
Date: Monday, 18 September 2000, at 2:34 p.m
Hello Don,
That is a great photo. Do any of the other shots you mentioned give any clue as to what the serial number or tail markings were? I can make out some remnants of the serial number stencil on the rear fuselage and I wonder if there may be more to be seen.
Ryan
 
Re: Love me two-tone baby!
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Love me two-tone baby!>
Date: Saturday, 16 September 2000, at 8:50 a.m.
 
Hi Don!
Fantastic photo!
I saw the same effect on a KKF photo of the 210 ku A6M5 that had been brought up from a lake in Japan prior to its being repainted. The darker primer demarcation was one whole fuselage frame in front of the one shown in your photo and on the wing along the line of flight at wing rib station No. 10 or No.11.
Is it possible that this area received a different number of paint layers at the factory due to the likelihood of heavier traffic and greater wear? If so, the weathering of the paint would also produce a different paint effect.
Please note the photo of the A6M2 [TORA-110] on page 113 of Thorpe's JNAF Cam/Markings of WW II. This Zero has the exact effect as your photo in two tone green which has either weathered differently or been repainted!!!
Neat!!!
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Love me two-tone baby!
 
Posted By: Don Marsh <mailto:marsh44@fuse.net?subject=Re: Love me two-tone baby!>
Date: Sunday, 17 September 2000, at 4:20 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Love me two-tone baby! (James F. Lansdale)
 
Hi Jim,
Thank you for drawing my attention to the A6M2 [TORA-110] page 113 of Thorpe's JNAF Cam/Markings. Once again an excellent example showing the factory application of paint (95% of the time) to this exact location.
You wrote: "Is it possible that this area received a different number of paint layers at the factory due to the likelihood of heavier traffic and greater wear?"
Interesting theory and plausible. But in an effort not to over engineer what was going on in these shots, I think it's probably just the expediency of variations in paint batches and layers of coats (primer & finish) to the construction of the two major sub assemblies. I wonder if maybe the rear fuselage wasn't primed & painted with a finishing coat while the cockpit area was left in primer until all the components and controls were installed. The fact that sometimes you see it, sometimes you don't would also be reflected in the random nature of such a shop process. One thing seems certain. There was probably a factory procedure or production reason for this anomaly.
To wrote: "A6M2 [TORA-110] ...has the exact effect as your photo in two tone green which has either weathered differently or been repainted!!!
It is a puzzlement! The difference in the sections of the TORA-110 is so dramatic that it almost looks like two different a/c were mated together! Could it be paint from two different supplier that was used, one holding up and the other not? Curious.
Also amazing is that in the three shots I have of the San Diego Air Museum's old (and no longer existent) Zero, the demarcation is less obvious depending on the variables (light, exposure, position, etc) the a/c was Shot from. Once again showing the limitations of photography and proving that the same a/c can appear quite different under differing circumstances.
Don
Re: Love me two-tone baby!
Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: Love me two-tone baby!>
Date: Saturday, 16 September 2000, at 12:14 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Love me two-tone baby! (James F. Lansdale)
 
Don and Jim,
Well, the color demarcation on the early Zeroes is one station to the rear of the assembly joint. The forward edges of the hinomarus touch the joint line and the demarcation passes through the center of them from 12 o'clock to 6. Jim's theory about different paint application may have merit because the boarding step is located to the rear of the assembly joint.
Cheers!
Greg
 
Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon
 
Posted By: Andrew Johnson <mailto:ajo@ceh.ac.uk?subject=Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon>
Date: Friday, 7 July 2000, at 9:29 a.m.
 
Here's one to muse over:
If you were defending Ceylon in an RAF Hurricane how would you evade destruction by an A6M2 assuming you were at the same altitude?
My understanding is that you could not out climb or out turn the Zero, so perhaps the only chance is to dive?
Any ideas?
Andrew
 
Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon
 
Posted By: John Acosta <mailto:xmdjna@cs.com?subject=Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon>
Date: Sunday, 9 July 2000, at 1:23 a.m.
 
In Response To: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon (Andrew Johnson)
 
Hi Andrew,
Check out Eric Shillings comments about AVG tactics at p-40.com. It seems the roll rate is very important as well! The link is below.
Regards,
John Acosta
p-40.com
 
Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon
 
Posted By: Amos Terrell <mailto:ATerrell@KScable.com?subject=Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon>
Date: Sunday, 9 July 2000, at 9:28 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon (John Acosta)
 
Roll rate is always extremely important in any aerial combat, to the extent that at least 30% or more of all WWII NACA aeronautical research was devoted to improved aileron design.
One pheromone not mentioned on the P-40 site discussion is that among equally skilled pilots, the usual opening maneuver is the head-on pass. Obviously, the man who can "stand on it" an turn 180 degrees the quickest has a decided edge.
Also I seem to recall Bob Johnson describing using a "high yo-yo", a kind of turning barrel roll, to effectively turn inside German fighters known to have a superior rate of turn to his P-47. Don't know if this type of maneuver would work for Hurricane vs Zero, as I believe power-to-weight ratio would be important to the successful outcome, but if all else fails ---
 
Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon
 
Posted By: Ryan Boerema <mailto:ryann1k2j@aol.com?subject=Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon>
Date: Saturday, 8 July 2000, at 10:24 p.m.
 
In Response To: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon (Andrew Johnson)
 
This from James F Lansdale's fascinating "Lt. William Thies & the KOGA Zero" a few entries below on this page:
"Though the early US aircraft were no match for the Zero, the discovery of its flight characteristics, the fact that at high speeds aileron control stiffened, such that the Zero could roll faster to the left than to the right, also in a push over to a dive the Zero's engine would cut out temporarily due to negative gravity's effect on its fuel system, were important revelations."
 
Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon
 
Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mailto:mhoran@snet.net?subject=Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon>
Date: Saturday, 8 July 2000, at 5:21 p.m.
 
In Response To: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon (Andrew Johnson)
 
This is not a direct answer to your question, but, ideally, you would NOT get caught alone - you would be in with your wingman or entire section, using teamwork. Next, while certainly the RAF did not use these tactics, if those teams used the USN section defensive tactics (a.k.a. the Thach Weave), they'd have a very good chance to come back.
Unfortunately, the for the Hurricane crews, when facing the three best opponents, the Finns (USSR), the Germans (RAF, and the Japanese (RAF), the side with the Hurricanes did not utilize tactics that emphasized teamwork, leading to very high losses.
 
Re: Hurricane vs Zero
 
Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Re: Hurricane vs Zero>
Date: Monday, 10 July 2000, at 3:26 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon (Mark E. Horan)
 
It is somewhat of an exaggeration to talk of heavy losses experienced by Hurricane units against all oppositions...this was certainly true at certain times but generally only after the aircraft had become obsolete, dragged down with tropical filters and when faced with superior trained opposition.
Against the Japanese in 1941, the main problem was that British tactics were based on the use of maneuver against a hit-and-run enemy: exactly the wrong tactics even without was a very strong average skill disadvantage. Even so, there were occasions where Hurricanes coped with Zeroes over Singapore and Oscars over Burma. Later in the Arakan campaign, the Hurricanes developed hit-and-run tactics to cope with the Oscars: they were never able to gain air superiority but did manage a rough equality.
I was lucky enough to be lectured by Air Vice Marshal Sir Neil Cameron on fighter tactics, with Hurricane vs Oscar as one of his prime examples (from personal experience!)
It is unfortunate, for the students of such things as ourselves, that the Hurricane and Spitfire rarely met the Oscar or Zero on terms of pilot equality: 880 sat in their Sea Hurricanes in the Indian Ocean: 607 saw the Calcutta raid pass just out of range of their Spitfires which had just been moved from the city (leaving some night-fighter Hurricanes with fixed ferry tanks): or in return, the raw Zero pilots who provided easy targets for the BPF Seafires in the last dogfight of the war. And Oscars vs Spitfire 8s over Imphal is as unfair as Tojos vs Buffaloes..... But fairness doesn't enter into it.
 
Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Friday, 7 July 2000, at 5:17 p.m.
 
In Response To: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon (Andrew Johnson)
 
Here's Major Yoshitsugu Aramaki 's impression of the Hurricane he tested. Although Major Aramaki is IJA personnel, the Ki43 was similar performance wise to the Zero so I think the impression may be considered similar as compared to the Zero as well. I think it supports what you suggest.
The characteristic points of the Hurricane were as follows.
1)If you attempt a tight turn, it stalls and the aircraft tends to flip over, slowing down turns. When you continue turning, the aircraft generates some vibration and loses altitude. If you are flying this plane against agile enemy, you should never attempt to dog fight on the horizontal plane.
2)The airframe is heavy and climbing performance is not good.
3)Acceleration in dive was ranked among the better
 
Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon
 
Posted By: Mark Haselden <mailto:mark_rae@msn.com?subject=Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon>
Date: Monday, 10 July 2000, at 2:23 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hurricane vs Zero over Ceylon (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
 
Why not get info straight from the horse's mouth? Terence Kelly was a Hurricane pilot with 258 Sqn who flew against the Japanese over Singapore and Palembang, Netherlands East Indies. He has written several books, arguably the best being "Hurricane Over the Jungle" which can be found at second-hand book dealers. I can vouch for its readability and for the author's efforts to paint an accurate historical picture while retaining the atmosphere of those frantic days. Highly recommended to anyone interested in the subject.
Regarding the "Navy O": "We were warned of a speed which matched our own and, difficult to believe, in fact hardly believed, a superior maneuverability. No one told us where the Navy O was inferior, which in many ways it was, because no one was in the mood to talk of cheerful things or even imagine there could be cheerful things to talk about. This was unfortunate. We were going to learn the hard way and in the process fritter away a golden opportunity. No one thought to tell us we had better firepower, a better ceiling and that a Hurricane could take punishment which reduced a Navy O to shreds; no one imagined there was a tactic which in the end four of us would use time and time again against equally large numbers as those met with in Singapore with negligible personal risk."
You'll have to read the rest of the book but I just happened across the preceding entry and thought it might prove a useful taster.
You may also find something of interest in "Hurricanes OVer Burma" by M C Cotton, another Hurricane pilot who flew with 17 Sqn over, funnily enough, Burma. It's another good read and has lots of detail, including the personal entries of Sqn Ldr Bunny Stone who commanded 17 Sqn at the time.
Hope this is of use/interest.
Cheers,
Mark
 
Zero stencil markings
 
Posted By: joe taylor <mailto:jtaylor@bhfs.bellhowell.com?subject=Zero stencil markings>
Date: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 11:34 a.m.
 
I am more familiar with allied and German planes which have many sometimes even extensive stencil markings. Please let me know how extensive these ancillary markings were on the Model 21 Zeros. The Hasegawa decal sheets do not have much by comparison to the planes I am used to building.
thanks,
joe.
 
Re: Zero stencil markings
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews<mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zero stencil markings>
Date: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
 
In Response To: Zero stencil markings (joe taylor)
 
Hello Joe,
Check the article I wrote on Zero secondary markings in the research section of this site. Note, however, the following changes and additions:
1. The data plate attached to the center strut attaching the middle landing gear cover to the landing gear strut was always located on the front of the strut.
2. The brass data plate brazed to the front of the landing gear strut was the same for both Nakajima and Mitsubishi made Zeros. The landing gear assemblies were all made by a sub-contractor by the name of Kayaba.
3. A brass data plate was also attached to the front of the lower landing gear.
4. A similar brass plate was attached to the right side of the tail landing gear strut.
5. The small circular panels which were used to allow light into the wing ammunition bays were not red in color but were made of clear glass.
6. The fuel inlet covers had a black alignment mark (about 3mm x 30mm in size) that was applied to the front edge of each cover, half on the red cover and half on the wing or fuselage skin. The cover release latches also had small dots on them as described in the last paragraph of the article. The wing tank covers had this latch located on the wing several inches to the rear of the cover, the fuselage tank cover had the latch in the middle of the panel.
7. Similar red alignment markings were applied to the back of the four fuselage access panel. See Photo 7 in the article.
8. The "tresle here" markings on the rear of the fuselage should have red lettering and above a black arrow.
9. The red aileron weight markings are written vertically within a rectangular border located between aileron ribs 13 and 14. Take a look at the left aileron in the lower photo on page 58 of FAOW 55 and the right aileron of Zero X-141 on page 45 of Mikesh's Motorbook volume on the Zero.
I hope this all will make some sense after you read the article.
Ryan
 
A6M2 and A6M3 Secondary Markings
 
Re: Zero stencil markings
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zero stencil markings>
Date: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:11 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero stencil markings (joe taylor)
 
Glad to be of help. I forgot to add that a light tan colored decal, 75 x 35 mm in size, was found on the front of each prop blade about 5/6th of the way from the outer end of the blade.
Ryan
 
Saipan Zeros
 
Posted By: Rick <mailto:Shank913@aol.com?subject=Saipan Zeros>
Date: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
 
My Brother in law is in the process of building a 1/32 scale zero representing a captured A6m5 from Saipan of the 261 N.A.G.. The aircraft tail number is 61-121. In the book, "Zero Fighter" By Robert Mekish, they are headed for evaluation to the U.S. by Aircraft carrier in June 1944. Eagle Strike Decal sheet number 32018 recommends the plane be painted in faded and fresh Nakajima green. According to his research Nakajima didn't begin building A6m5's until February 1944, so would it be more likely they were painted in Mitsubishi Green and touched up in Nakajima Green? Any more info on these aircraft would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
Re: Saipan Zeros/61-121 Colors & Markings
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Saipan Zeros/61-121 Colors & Markings>
Date: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 6:40 a.m.
 
In Response To: Saipan Zeros (Rick)
 
Rick
Nakajima-built A6M5 model 52 Zero, s/n 1303 [61-121] belonging to the 261 kokutai, is a well known and documented survivor from the hord captured on Saipan. It was the 303rd Nakajima-built A6M5 completed in March 1944 and captured in June. It is currently owned by World Jet Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, albeit in great disrepair.
Only one small sample of the original dark green upper surface color was recovered from a section of the rudder post. The upper surface color of this bird was a close match to FS-34077. Contemporary photographs of this particular Zero show it to have been painted in the standard Nakajima camouflage pattern. The fuselage hinomaru are outlined with a 75 mm white outline subsequently over-painted in a dark color (as are the upper wing hinomaru, but their outlines were only 50 mm). There is much speculation about the color of this overpainting. Some opine that it was black, others believe it was a darker green.
The tail markings were painted yellow FS-33538. This is evidenced by color film taken by the USMC at the time of capture (on Nakajima-built A6M5 [8-13]) and a piece of rudder fabric from Nakajima-built A6M5 [8-17] that I have examined. The colors on [8-17] are close to FS-33538 yellow numbers painted on a surface of FS-34077 dark green.
The original lower surface color for this particular Zero (s/n 1303) is not known, however I have a report for a sister ship, also captured at Saipan. This report by R. ANDERSON of the Douglas Aircraft Company at El Segundo, dated February 1945 is for Nakajima-built A6M5 model 52 captured on Saipan [8-07]. On page 13 of the report the colors are described as follows"
"The exterior surface of the airplane is finished with a light coat of lacquer paint. A dark green color is used on the upper surfaces of the fuselage, wings, and tail surfaces. For purposes of camouflage, a lighter shade of green is used on the lower areas of the airplane."
I own a piece of the lower wing from a Mitsubishi-built A6M5 captured at Saipan at the time. It is truly pristine, not having been subject to the weathering of older relics. Its color is in the FS-24201/26350 hairyokushoku range. I presume the color of the Nakajima built Zeros (at that time) were the same.
IHTH
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Saipan Zeros
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Saipan Zeros>
Date: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 12:30 p.m.
 
In Response To: Saipan Zeros (Rick)
 
Hello Rick,
The two tone green camouflage scheme is the result of the misinterpretation of the photos taken of the Saipan Zeros on the deck of the carrier taking these planes to the US. Before the photos were taken the accumulations of dust were washed off of the markings on the planes (Jim Lansdale has found a photo of several sailors washing one of the Zeros). A6M5 61-131 should be painted with a single shade of green on the upper surface. You might want to review Jim's article in the research section of this site for further details. Ryan
 
Re: Saipan Zeros
 
Posted By: RICK SHANK
Date: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Saipan Zeros (Ryan Toews)
 
Jim and Ryan, My Brother in law and myself would like to thank you for your help. He is an extremely talented modeler and perfectionist and this project was dead in the water pending this information. I'll post a picture of it when it's completed. If it's anywhere near as good as his 1/32 scale JACK ,you'll be impressed. THANKS AGAIN! RICK
 
Melville Island Zero Color Profile *PIC*
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Melville Island Zero Color Profile *PIC*>
Date: Sunday, 1 October 2000, at 10:51 a.m.
 
Another great profile by Don MARSH rendered for the Zero War Prize series.
For photos of the crash site and the pilot, see Garth O'Connell's excellent presentation on the link below the profile.
 
On the RAAF Museum site (http://raafmuseum.com.au/tour/artifact/b11.htm) appears the following account:
First Japanese Airman Captured in Australia
 
"During a Japanese raid on Darwin, one of the Zero fighter aircraft crash landed on Melville Island. The pilot Hajime Toyashima, suffered minor injuries and wandered into the bush where an Aboriginal, Matthias Ulungura, seized the Japanese pilot's pistol and captured him.
Matthias and his friends took their prisoner to an Australian army base. He was later interred at Cowra, New South Wales, where he was a ringleader in the infamous 1944 breakout in which 250 Japanese POWs were killed. Toyashima committed suicide after being wounded during the breakout. Matthias died in 1980."
Jim Lansdale
 
Melville Island Zero by Garth O'CONNELL
 
Re: Melville Island Zero Color Profile
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Melville Island Zero Color Profile>
Date: Sunday, 1 October 2000, at 7:44 p.m.
 
In Response To: Melville Island Zero Color Profile *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
Jim -
Nice stuff! It seems as though the blue fuselage bands do not go completely around the fuselage. Is that so or is there an error in the artwork ?
- Grant
 
Re: Melville Island Zero Color Profile
 
Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Melville Island Zero Color Profile>
Date: Monday, 2 October 2000, at 4:32 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Melville Island Zero Color Profile (Grant Goodale)
 
Hi Grant,
One of my bits of input in the "Shinjuwan no 101 Ki" (Pearl Harbor & 101 Aircraft) REPLICA article, Jan 1990, was the fact that the fuselage bands on a majority of Zeros did not go completely around the fuselage. Even the stripes on Tainan Kokutai Zeros were more of a chevron due to this! However, caution should be said before making any "blanket" statement, as the Koga Zero found in the Aleutians DID have its stripe completely around the fuselage.
Cheers,
David Aiken
 
Zero: to chip or not to chip ?
 
Posted By: AGHIS BARBEROPOULOS <mailto:barberopoulos@hotmail.com?subject=Zero: to chip or not to chip ?>
Date: Tuesday, 3 October 2000, at 12:12 a.m.
 
Hello everybody,
I am wondering about the validity of the zero profiles shown in Osprey Japanese Navy Aces. Extensive paint chipping is seen more or less for all types of Zeros, although the Zero is supposed to have factory applied primers and undercoats. Photographs that I have seen also show that Zeros were in much better condition compared to army aircraft. I am especially interested in the A6M5c flown by Tetsuzo Iwamoto.
Can anybody help with this ?
 
Re: Zero: to chip or not to chip ?
 
Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: Zero: to chip or not to chip ?>
Date: Tuesday, 3 October 2000, at 3:42 p.m.
 
In Response To: Zero: to chip or not to chip ? (AGHIS BARBEROPOULOS)
Aghis,
I think that the chipping on the profiles is way too much for the early war Zeroes. As you have seen from the pictures, even at the end of the war Zeroes held their paint pretty well. Don't chip too much. Chip in areas which would see a lot of wear like the left wing near the fuselage and the edge of the cockpit on the left side. Chip along panel lines. The cowling latches were chipped a lot around the edges but very small. Use white paint for tiny chips because it is easier to use and looks more realistic than silver.
 
Cheers!
Greg
 
Re: Zero: to chip or not to chip ?
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=Re: Zero: to chip or not to chip ?>
Date: Tuesday, 3 October 2000, at 5:59 a.m.
 
In Response To: Zero: to chip or not to chip ? (AGHIS BARBEROPOULOS)
 
Check the below article in the research section. It should help you a great deal.
 
Weathering Japanese Aircraft
 
Zero Production Research
 
Posted By: Rob Graham <mailto:reishikisenguy@aol.com?subject=Zero Production Research>
Date: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 9:02 p.m.
 
Hey, all:
I have spent literally weeks looking through photos and so on in a quest to nail down some facts, and it has been very intriguing to say the least. Well, arduous, as well.
Anyway, I am here to tell you I have pretty much rounded it out, and would like to open it up for everyone to see, and maybe we can get some more thoughts on it. It's JUST a theory, but I think it has merit. Let me know if you see any glaring omissions or inaccuracies (or "just plain poor writing") and I'll punch it up. When complete, it will go into the Zero Research section at this site.
Please try to post your thoughts here on the message board, but if you're not into public discussions, you may e-mail me and I will respond here, keeping your name anonymous.
Go here:
http://members.aol.com/reishikisenguy/zero_details_2.htm
Take care,
--Rob
 
Zero Production Research
 
Re: Zero Production Research
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zero Production Research>
Date: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 9:59 a.m.
 
In Response To: Zero Production Research (Rob Graham)
 
Hello Rob,
Several comments on your Zero article:
1. According to the Zero Handling Manual the outer wing tanks were first installed on A6M3 s/n 3344, the first Type 22. However, from Type 32 s/n 3191 onwards the wing tanks were increased in capacity to 220L from 210L.
2. Nakajima and Mitsubishi used different wheel well covers, even though the covers came from the same sub-contractor. Nakajima used a single sheet of aluminum reinforced by angle irons whereas Mitsubishi used a more complex double-layered cover. Mitsubishi made the switch to the Nakajima pattern at some point in the production of the Type 32 as both styles can be observed on these aircraft. Check part 4 of my article on the Blayd artifacts for examples of each type of cover.
3. It looks like Nakajima adopted a hinged flap that covered the spent shell ejection chute for the wing cannons on the A6M5. This was apparently dropped when the cannons ammo feed changed on the A6M5a.
4. The adoption of the Type 3 Radio called for a shorter antenna mast. This radio was first used when Mitsubishi began to build the A6M5 and it seems that Nakajima may have made the change soon afterwards on their late model Type 21s.
5. The adoption of the 100 round drum for the wing cannon seems to have only been done sometime in 1943. I have two pieces of evidence for this. The wing of A6M2 s/n 5459 (made December 1942) in the Blayd collection does not have provision for the larger bulged access panel needed to accommodate the larger drum. As well, the Nakajima built A6M2 in factory applied dark green top and gray bottom camouflage (post spring 43) on page 69 of FAOW 55 retains the smaller access panel associated with the 60 round drum.
Ryan
 
Re: Zero Production Research
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zero Production Research>
Date: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 12:06 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero Production Research (Ryan Toews)
 
Hello Rob,
Rereading Aero Detail 7 at lunch I came across photo 83 on page 22 which illustrates the problem of not double checking all of one's notes before writhing something. The late model Nakajima built A6M2 shown here has a hinged cover over the wing cannon expended shell chutes. It would appear that Nakajima brought in this modification earlier with the introduction of the 100 round magazine and carried it over into the A6M5.
Ryan
 
Re: Zero Production Research
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zero Production Research>
Date: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 12:06 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero Production Research (Ryan Toews)
 
Hello Rob,
Rereading Aero Detail 7 at lunch I came across photo 83 on page 22 which illustrates the problem of not double checking all of one's notes before writhing something. The late model Nakajima built A6M2 shown here has a hinged cover over the wing cannon expended shell chutes. It would appear that Nakajima brought in this modification earlier with the introduction of the 100 round magazine and carried it over into the A6M5.
Ryan
Return to Navy Message Board Threads