Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" Page 3
 
Topics:
Japanese violet. True or False?
Akamatsu Sadaaki   
A6M2b Gray-Green color
A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (New)
A6M2B Zero  
CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944  
Rabaul A6M2 - 1944
Reisen drop tank production question
Zeke rear deck color
Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?  
Zero's vs Spitfires  
Zeroes Evaluated in Germany?
A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto (New)
A6M1 Revisited (New)
Another A6M2 Question (New)
ATAIU-SEA Rufe - previous unit? (New)
Zero's vs Spitfires pt 2 (New)
Nakajima A6M2-N (New)
Zero Radio Mast (New)
Zero Model 52 paint schemes (New)
 
Japanese violet. True or False?
Posted By: Chris Warren
Date: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 9:22 a.m.
 
Hello to the model building world!
We need some help on a certian color. I read that certain Rufe float planes in the Aleutian Islands were painted top side with a violet or lavender color. Is this a true color or was it faded primer? Anyone with information on this color or a close match (mixed or ready) will be greatly appreciated.
 
Re: Japanese violet. True or False?
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Japanese violet. True or False?>
Date: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 9:29 a.m.
 
In Response To: Japanese violet. True or False? (Chris Warren)
 
Ah, the famous purple Rufe strikes another victim!
Chris, the current understanding is that there never was a purple Rufe. It is possible that the primer is showing through a heavily weathered grey overcoat but that is purely speculation at this point.
 
The primer coat would be the almost the same colour as the hinomarus and the overcoat would be something like Polly Scale Concrete. I have never tried this combination to see what the effect would be.
 
Known correct colour schemes would be Polly Scale Concrete overall or else IJN green uppers over IJN grey lowers.
 
HTH
Have fun
Grant
Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Jim Obermeyer <slickobe@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 7:42 p.m.
 
Does anyone have a real photo of Ensign Akamatsu Sadaaki's Zeke52 (3D-126)? With nothing but artists’ illustrations to go by, the question of weathering comes up. This guy was such a character I'm really getting into this model.
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Kiyo
Date: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 11:33 p.m.
 
See this page. This web site is a great reference on Japanese aces, though it is not available in English.
http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/ha/zeke/hiaka.html
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 7:19 p.m.
 
Hi Jim,
Koku Fan Illustrated # 96 is an illustrated history of the 302 ku. It is entirely in Japanese except for the color foldout illustration of Yo D-126, which states it is an A6M5 ko flown by Akamatsu. The victory marks are for Hellcats on 16-17 February 1945. On page 118 is a b&w photo of the rear fuselage and tail of this plane but the man in front of it doesn't appear to be Akamatsu. Perhaps one of our Japanese members has this book and can translate the caption for you. The finish looks pretty fresh to me, no chips. It is a Nakajima-built plane. HTH.
 
Cheers!
Greg
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Kiyo
Date: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 3:02 a.m.
 
My friend says he had seen the photo of the zero in other publication quite some time before. It is likely that the photo was taken in the spring of 1945 when the actual operating fighters of 302 Ku were far below quorum. That means that particular plane was flown not only by Akamatsu but also by other pilots. Probably Akamatsu himself had to fly other planes that were "flyable".
Whatever the case it is great that this forum's collective intelligence proves to be so much informative to all our participants.
 
Ciao, Kiyo  
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 1:57 p.m.
 
Hello Kiyo,  
I think you are correct about Akamatsu-san having flown whatever aircraft was available when an air raid alert was called. Aircraft number 26 probably had its picture taken because the great success that Akamatsu had on 17-2-45 caused six victory blossoms to be painted on it. I am also going to make my Zero A6M5ko in these markings.
 
Cheers!
Greg  
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: James Holloway <fholl46282@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 12:08 a.m.
 
Sirs, I couldn't remember the name if that book. The man standing next to the plane is Akamatsu's Chief Mechanic Ito. James Holloway
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Elephtheriou George <elgeorge@otenet.gr>
Date: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 4:23 p.m.
 
To everybody,
you got me interesting on the subject. Nice thread! Unfortunately KF 96 is one of the books I'm looking for desperately. Nevertheless if anyone can drop me a scan of the page in question, we would love to translate what's written.
 
Domo,
George
 
Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Jim Obermeyer <slickobe@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 7:42 p.m.
 
Does anyone have a real photo of Ensign Akamatsu Sadaaki's Zeke52 (3D-126)? With nothing but artists’ illustrations to go by, the question of weathering comes up. This guy was such a character I'm really getting into this model.
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Kiyo
Date: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 11:33 p.m.
 
See this page. This web site is a great reference on Japanese aces, though it is not available in English.
http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/ha/zeke/hiaka.html
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 7:19 p.m.
 
Hi Jim,
Koku Fan Illustrated # 96 is an illustrated history of the 302 ku. It is entirely in Japanese except for the color foldout illustration of Yo D-126, which states it is an A6M5 ko flown by Akamatsu. The victory marks are for Hellcats on 16-17 February 1945. On page 118 is a b&w photo of the rear fuselage and tail of this plane but the man in front of it doesn't appear to be Akamatsu. Perhaps one of our Japanese members has this book and can translate the caption for you. The finish looks pretty fresh to me, no chips. It is a Nakajima-built plane. HTH.
 
Cheers!
Greg
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Kiyo
Date: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 3:02 a.m.
 
My friend says he had seen the photo of the zero in other publication quite some time before. It is likely that the photo was taken in the spring of 1945 when the actual operating fighters of 302 Ku were far below quorum. That means that particular plane was flown not only by Akamatsu but also by other pilots. Probably Akamatsu himself had to fly other planes that were "flyable".
Whatever the case it is great that this forum's collective intelligence proves to be so much informative to all our participants.
 
Ciao, Kiyo
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 1:57 p.m.
 
Hello Kiyo,
I think you are correct about Akamatsu-san having flown whatever aircraft was available when an air raid alert was called. Aircraft number 26 probably had its picture taken because the great success that Akamatsu had on 17-2-45 caused six victory blossoms to be painted on it. I am also going to make my Zero A6M5ko in these markings.
 
Cheers!
Greg
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: James Holloway <fholl46282@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 12:08 a.m.
 
Sirs, I couldn't remember the name if that book. The man standing next to the plane is Akamatsu's Chief Mechanic Ito. James Holloway
 
Re: Akamatsu Sadaaki
 
Posted By: Elephtheriou George <elgeorge@otenet.gr>
Date: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 4:23 p.m.
 
To everybody,
you got me interesting on the subject. Nice thread! Unfortunately KF 96 is one of the books I'm looking for desperately. Nevertheless if anyone can drop me a scan of the page in question, we would love to translate what's written.
 
Domo,
George
A6M2b Gray-Green color
Posted By: Richard Schaffer <mailto:planelover@smallbytes.net?subject=A6M2b Gray-Green color>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 6:31 p.m.
 
Could someone tell me the best paint mix to obtain the closest match to this color. I know that this color is now much debated but I do not have the AeroMaster Nakagima gray green interior paint which I understand is the closest commercial paint that has been made to date. Thank you for your attention and help on this matter.
 
Re: A6M2b Gray-Green color
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: A6M2b Gray-Green color>
Date: Wednesday, 28 February 2001, at 12:31 p.m.
 
In Response To: A6M2b Gray-Green color (Richard Schaffer)
 
Hello Richard,
FWIW, the mix of 50% Polly Scale USSR Topside Green and 50% Polly Scale Concrete gives a very close match for FS6350. Add white to get the scale effect for the scale you are working in.
 
The Polly Scale USSR Topside green by itself will match up to FS4201. Again add white for scale effect.
Polly Scale Concrete on its own is somewhat on the light side. It is definately lighter then a mix of 5 parts Topside Green and 5 parts Concrete which was then lighted with 3 parts white for scale effect. However, Concrete on its own may be acceptable for a 1/72 scale plane or for a weathered look.
 
Ryan
A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help
 
Posted By: Roachie <mailto:roachdas@dingoblue.net.au?subject=A6M2(a) Type 11 - 'grey' scheme help>
Date: Friday, 27 July 2001, at 1:15 a.m.
 
The perennial question! In researching the paint scheme for the Hasegawa kit I have commenced, including FAQs on J-Aircraft, I seem to have stumbled across the belief/fact that these early Zeros were painted a light grey-green? If this is the case, I am seeking a suitable Gunze Mix to achieve this colour. I have read about the Polly S Concrete and so on and these remain an option.
 
Do I also understand that the Type 11 (and indeed the Grey) scheme has been misinterpreted all this time?
 
Thanks to all
Roachie
 
Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help
 
Posted By: Joern Leckscheid <mailto:Joern.Leckscheid@t-online.de?subject=Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - 'grey' scheme help>
Date: Sunday, 29 July 2001, at 1:39 p.m.
 
In Response To: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Roachie)
 
Roachie,
An excellent Gunze Acrylics mix for "Hairyokushoku J 3", FS 16350 is 51% of H-70 and 49% of H 336. I´ve tried it myself and it looks excellent.
 
Regards from Germany,
Joern
 
Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help
 
Posted By: John Dillon <mailto:john.dillon@wachovia.com?subject=Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - 'grey' scheme help>
Date: Friday, 27 July 2001, at 6:23 a.m.
 
In Response To: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Roachie)
 
Roachie
Yep, research (done in many cases by contributors to this site) has pretty much confirmed that the light grey scheme you see in paintings, color profiles and box art is incorrect.
 
John
 
Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help
 
Posted By: Joey Stebanuk <mailto:stebanuk@sk.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - 'grey' scheme help>
Date: Thursday, 2 August 2001, at 2:17 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Joern Leckscheid)
 
Hi Joern,
Could that Gunze mix [H-70/H-336]also be used for the A6m2-N Rufe? H-336 is Hemp ,correct? Also, should any white be added to tone this color down for scale effect or just use as is ? Thanks Joern, your help would be much appreciated. Take care.
 
Joey
 
Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help
 
Posted By: Joern Leckscheid <mailto:Joern.Leckscheid@t-online.de?subject=Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - 'grey' scheme help>
Date: Friday, 3 August 2001, at 4:51 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Joey Stebanuk)
 
Hi Joey,
Nakajima used a slightly different version of "Hairyokushoku" on their products, and for early A6M´s manufactured by that company FS 14255 is usually the quoted shade.
I have a close mix for this one:
H 70 - 28 %, H 52 - 25 %, H 34 - 25 %, H 11 - 22 %.
The resulting colour is very close but not quite spot on, toy around with the proportions of H 34 and H 52 a bit if you´re in the mood.
Personally, I´m not a follower of the "toning down for scale effect" cult, I believe lighting of the model is more important, but this is just my personal opinion.
 
HTH,
Joern
 
Thanks Joern.Now regarding Jame's response?
 
Posted By: Joey Stebanuk <mailto:stebanuk@sk.sympatico.ca?subject=Thanks Joern.Now regarding Jame's response?>
Date: Saturday, 4 August 2001, at 2:04 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Joern Leckscheid)
 
Hi Joern,
Thanks for the response and paint mixture, much appreciated. Now regarding Mr.Lansdale's response do you happen to have a mixture for "ameiro"? as you seem to have great insight into color mixing.I've read about "ameiro" but there seems to be many different views on the actual color.This is very interesting and educational so I hope you don't mind me taking this a bit further. Thanks Joern and James . Hope to hear from you again. Take care.
 
Joey
 
Re: A6M2 Color Schemes
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M2 Color Schemes>
Date: Saturday, 4 August 2001, at 9:58 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Joern Leckscheid)
 
Hi Joern
You write: "Nakajima used a slightly different version of "Hairyokushoku" on their products, and for early A6M´s manufactured by that company FS 14255 is usually the quoted shade."
Since my original publication of Zero fighter schemes much research and forensic analyses has transpired. I have been able to add many new samples of Mitsubishi and Nakajima constructed A6M remains, both pristine and weathered. Perhaps, the most significant additions have been the contributions of Tom MATLOSZ, Greg SPRINGER and Ryan TOEWS.
Ryan TOEWS will shortly publish on this web site the results of his corroborative and followup research of many A6M2 remains at the Blayd Corporation.
This research has led to substantive evidence that:
 
1) Mitsubishi A6M Zero production aircraft, from the very start of manufacture and continuing until mid-1944 (and perhaps beyond), left the factory production line in an olive-gray color most like hairyokushoku (close to FS-x4201) overall or on the lower surfaces (for the two color variation camouflage scheme). Weathering soon rendered this finish more like FS-x6350, eventually going to an chalky-gray after years of exposure.
2) Nakajima production A6M2 Zeros left the factory line in a more brown shade of finish (I3) or almost identical to FS-x6160, which is often called "ameiro." This also weathered to a finish close to FS-x6350 and also turned chalky gray after many years of exposure.
 
IHTH
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: A6M2 Color Schemes
 
Posted By: Joern Leckscheid <mailto:Joern.Leckscheid@t-online.de?subject=Re: A6M2 Color Schemes>
Date: Saturday, 4 August 2001, at 1:46 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M2 Color Schemes (James F. Lansdale)
 
Hi Jim,
thanks for giving us an advanced glimpse at those fascinating new findings. I recall that you once quoted that a relic from a Ki-46 found at Clark Field was also matched to FS x4201. In the list provided by Owaki-san (am I really the only one who is sorely missing his input in this site?!?) this is identified as I 3. So am I right presuming that Mitsubishi applied this colour to planes manufactured for both services at their Nagoya plant?
Have relics from other Mistusbishi-build types surfaced that were also painted in this particular colour?
For those interested, a close mix for FS x4201 with Gunze paint is:
 
H 70 - 74 %, H 52 - 19 %, H 11 - 7 %.
I guess I´ll have to start working on a mix for FS FS-x6350 now...
 
Best regards,
Joern
 
Re: A6M2 Color Schemes
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M2 Color Schemes>
Date: Saturday, 4 August 2001, at 8:12 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M2 Color Schemes (Joern Leckscheid)
 
Joern
I have recorded color analyses for several Mitsubishi constructed aircraft relics including the Ki-46 Dinah and the F1M Pete. The color of hairyokushoku on these samples is nearly identical (close to FS-x4201/x6350). Therefore, it is probable that this was a standard Mitsubishi applied finish and color as provided by their paint supplier.
I cannot, at this time, speculate if this is a variation of so-called I3 or J3. I am almost certain that the Aichi and Nakajima finish/color close to FS-16160 is I3 and it is very probably the paint color labeled "ameiro" in YoKu Report No.0266.
 
IHTH
Jim Lansdale
 
A6M2B Zero
 
Posted By: Bill Misco <mailto:billmisc59@aol.com?subject=A6M2B Zero>
Date: Monday, 2 April 2001, at 5:04 p.m.
 
I'm starting work on an A6M2B and the kit instructions call for the interior to be painted "cockpit color Mitsubishi". Does anyone know what that color is, and if there is any available paint that would closely match it? Preferably Model Master. Also, do the early Zeros have shoulder harnesses,( single harness )? Or just the lap belts? Thanks.
 
Re: A6M2B Zero
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: A6M2B Zero>
Date: Tuesday, 3 April 2001, at 9:53 a.m.
 
In Response To: A6M2B Zero (Bill Misco)
 
Hello Bill,
The Zero had a lap belt and a single shoulder belt that went from behind the seat, over the left shoulder and to the right side of the seat. The lap and shoulder straps were not connected and each closed with a buckle instead of a quick release.
Ryan
 
Re: A6M2B Zero
 
Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: A6M2B Zero>
Date: Monday, 2 April 2001, at 10:23 p.m.
 
In Response To: A6M2B Zero (Bill Misco)
 
Hi Bill,
I was recently able to examine an artifact from an A6M2b which crashed during the Pearl Harbor attack. Testor's Model Master 'Medium Field Green' FS 34095 is the color of the interior.
 
Cheers!
Greg
 
Re: A6M2B Zero
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=Re: A6M2B Zero>
Date: Monday, 2 April 2001, at 8:44 p.m.
 
In Response To: A6M2B Zero (Bill Misco)
 
Hi Bill,
You would probably be pretty close with US Interior green. Mitsubishi green is a bit darker than it (depending on what you use for scale effect), maybe just add a bit of black to darken it.
 
Hope this helps.
Dave
 
CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944
 
Posted By: Dan Salamone <mailto:heroncreek@qwest.net?subject=CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944>
Date: Saturday, 17 March 2001, at 3:05 p.m.
 
Hello all,
I was wondering if anyone could shed light on how common it was for CV's in 1944 to carry fighter bomber Model 21's- and if there is specific information for certain ships such as Zuikaku.
 
Also if the tail code numbers were still in the 1xx series common for fighter types of if they were numbered as attack aircraft.
 
Thanks in advance,
Dan
 
Re: CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944
 
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Re: CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944>
Date: Sunday, 18 March 2001, at 3:24 a.m.
 
In Response To: CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944 (Dan Salamone)
 
Hello Dan,
As far as I know, Zero bombers were carrierd on rather "slow" or "small" carriers like Junyo, Hiyo, Chitose, Chiyoda, Zuiho, Ryuho...
Main reason was that D4Y1 needed strong wind and long flight deck to take off. Zero did not need long deck and high speed like D4Y.
According to "Kido Butai" by Fuchida and Okumiya (PHP Co.), Lt. Cdr. Okumiya (aviation staff officer of 2nd Carrier Division) asked Naval General Head Quarters (Tokyo) for brand new D4Y1 at least nine for Junyo and Hiyo.
But as you know, they could not train the bomber pilots at Tauitaui because of the threat of US submarines. So, Okumiya felt sorry for Lt. ABE, Zenji (Junyo Hiko-taicho of dive bombers). By the way, Zro bombers were called "Tokkoh-tai" (Special Attack Force). But this did not mean "suicidal force".
 
One more information...
It is said that tail codes of Zuikaku was "312-xxx" at the Battle of Marianas, not "601-xxx". "312" meant "3rd Fleet, 1st Carrier Division, 2nd ship".
I READ about it, but I did not SEE the example...
I saw B6N's picture with "312" tail code, but I am not sure when the picture was taken...
I would also like to know the precise information.
 
Thank you,
Katsuhiro
 
fighter bomber A6M2's
 
Posted By: Frank Chr. Berger <mailto:frank.chr.berger@web.de?subject=fighter bomber A6M2's>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 1:56 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944 (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
Hi,
this and the type 99 discussion brings me to a problem I brood over since some time.The bombs used at 19.th June by the Japanese planes! Since the Zero bombers were called "Tokkoh-tai" like you correctly mentioned and their mission wasn't suicidal,I'm not sure what bombs they carried on their attacks! With the background in mind that pilot and plane should be able to return,we have to think about the available fuel.Til now I've only seen pics of A6M5a with racks under the wings and the early style tank under their fuselage (taken in June).As far as I know the first pics of Zeros with "big" bombs under their belly were taken in October.(Kamikazes have no need for enough fuel for the return!). The drop tanks for the wings were only used with the later A6M5s.Could the Japanese hope to do any damage with 60kg bombs?Important for this is to explain the term "Special Attack Force"and their task in the attack.Although it's absolutely unjustified I claim that there are only two real logical explanations.One is that "special" simply mean improvised, since there was no adopted range of XXX-XXX codes for the A6M2 "fighter bombers" which should only have a guest performance until the shortcomings were overcome and better suited solutions would have been available (A6M7 Type 63,.). The other is that these "hybrid"-bombers which couldn't be seen as effective (too little loading,no sight,ill-trained crews) weapons should only split the defence of the TF to allow the Jills and Judys to score some hits.
 
What's your opinion ??
Frank
 
Zero Bombers on Carrier. *PIC*
 
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Zero Bombers on Carrier. *PIC*>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 10:01 a.m.
 
In Response To: fighter bomber A6M2's (Frank Chr. Berger)
 
Hi,
As I wrote on upper posting about this "Baku-sen" (Bakugeki Sento-ki = Bomber Fighter), this Zero bomber was just like the substitute for the brand new dive bomber (D4Y1 Suisei). Suisei needed long flight deck and strong wind.
Zero bomber (NOT usual type, of course!) carried ONE 250kg bomb. But Zero could not do that "DIVE" bombing (nearly 60 angle) like D3A and D4Y.
In 1944, before the official suicidal attack force was formed, skip bombing by Zero bomber was tested in the Phillipines.
As you wrote, A6M2 bomber (with one 250kg bomb) could not be equipped with detachable fuel tank, so this plane was rather hard to operate. (Sorce: "Kido Butai" by Fuchida and Okumiya)
Is my answer OK?
 
Thank you!!
Katsuhiro
 
Picture: "Kido Butai" by Fuchida and Okumiya (PHP) acrrier's name unknown...(Is there anyone who knows her name??)
 
Information needed
 
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Information needed>
Date: Tuesday, 20 March 2001, at 1:53 a.m.
 
In Response To: Zero Bombers on Carrier. *PIC* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
Hi all,
I was asked about those Zero bombers operated on carriers at Marianas by one of the people on this website.
I think they were hybrid of A6M2 model 21. Am I correct???
 
TIA,
Katsuhiro
 
Re: Information needed
 
Posted By: Joern Leckscheid <mailto:Joern.Leckscheid@t-online.de?subject=Re: Information needed>
Date: Tuesday, 20 March 2001, at 4:24 a.m.
 
In Response To:  (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
In all sources I´ve read these "improvised" dive-ombers are indeed said to be Model 21s, as these were manufactured until Feb. ´44 by Nakajima (Mitsubishi had phased out Model 22s in Aug. ´43) this seems a logical assumption.
 
Joern
 
Re: Zero Bombers on Carrier.
 
Posted By: Frank Chr. Berger <mailto:frank.chr.berger@web.de?subject=Re: Zero Bombers on Carrier.>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 3:05 p.m.
 
In Response To:  (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
Hi,
Thanks! But the facts aren't new to me ! I knew the pic. The limited range is the sole problem for me. A heavy loaden Zero without drop tank and most certainly with a pilot,who did not have the same experience (like a man like Sakai) on a long flight over water and the method of saving fuel while doing this. And I have doubts that this are bombs! The one on the right looks just like a old style tank. Size and shape (cover of connection between tank and fuselage).
 
Frank
 
Operation "A-go" Chiyoda!
 
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Operation 'A-go' Chiyoda!>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 12:49 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero Bombers on Carrier. *PIC* (Joern Leckscheid)
 
Thank you for the sentences, Joern!
Now I have got precise information!
"These are the Zeros on Chiyoda, June 19, Showa 19 (1944). After this ship and Chiyoda converted into carriers, they carried planes to Truk, Singapore and Saipan.
They joined 3rd Carrier Division in Feb. 1944 and went to Tauitaui in May 1944 to prepare for the Operation "A-go".
At first, each ship was supposed to carry twenty one Zeros and nine 97 Kankoh (B5N2).
At this Operation, Chiyoda carried Zeros, Rei-senbaku (= Bakusen = Zero Bombers) and 97 Kankoh. Chitose even carried brand new Tenzan Kankoh (B6N).
On June 19 and 20, planes from these two ships attacked "Teki Kido Butai" (enemy Task Force), but gave no damage to enemy and lost many planes. Chiyoda was bombed and got slight damage. Thirteen crew men were KIA."
 
Again I would like to thank Joern for the information!
 
Best regards,
Katsuhiro
Rabaul A6M2 - 1944
 
Posted By: Mike <mailto:mike_r_moser@hotmail.com?subject=Rabaul A6M2 - 1944>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 9:14 a.m.
 
First - sorry if the answer to my question is somewhere on j-aircraft.com and I missed it. This is my first visit and I must confess to being overwhelmed by the wealth of info that's here!
I'm looking for the paint scheme of A6M2's based on Rabaul around Feb. 1944. I'm not looking for a plane flown by a specific pilot or unit, although something based at the airfield at Lakunai on Rabaul would be ideal - that is if A6M2s where even at Lakunai in Feb. 1944.
If you know where I could find some pictures, I'd appreciate it greatly if you could let me know...
 
Thanks.
Mike
 
Try here (basic color info)
 
Posted By: Micah Bly <mailto:micahbly@visi.com?subject=Try here (basic color info)>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 11:11 a.m.
 
In Response To: Rabaul A6M2 - 1944 (Mike)
 
Mike,
I have no pictures (yet!), but if you want the basic paint schemes and colors, try the link below. It's a link to the Nakajima A6M2 factory scheme valid from about July 1943 to February 1944. That's probably your best bet for an A6M2 in 1944, I'm not sure how many Mitsubishi A6M2s would have been left (but maybe someone here knows) at that point.
If you need in-depth details and schemes, your best bet is Model Art 510 Paint and Camo of the IJN Fighters, if you can find it (it's all in Japanese though. hmm). The colors listed in it are not 100% accurate according to our experten here, but it has a lot of photos from various units. If you can read Japanese, it's a good resource.
 
HTH
Micah Bly
 
Nakajima A6M2, July 43 - Feb 44 Scheme
Reisen drop tank production question
 
Posted By: Dan Salamone <mailto:heroncreek@qwest.net?subject=Reisen drop tank production question>
Date: Wednesday, 28 March 2001, at 11:32 p.m.
 
Hello all,
Were the drop tanks built by Mitsubishi/Nakajima or were they built by another contractor? If by another contractor, I'm wondering if they would have been built to Mitsubishi or Nakajima color specs- or both?
Thanks in advance,
 
Dan
P.S. Do any drop tanks exist today (other than those still attached to display aircraft)?
 
Re: Reisen drop tank production question
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Reisen drop tank production question>
Date: Saturday, 31 March 2001, at 7:37 a.m.
 
In Response To: Reisen drop tank production question (Dan Salamone)
 
Dan
The JISWC research on Japanese aircraft issued their "Preliminary Report on Japanese Fighter Plane Production," 1 June 1943.
On page 6 of the report is contained the following statement regarding Mitsubishi A6M Zero drop tanks:
 
"Available plates indicate jettisonable fuel tanks are manufactured by three companies, Nippon Kentetsu Kogyo, Osaka Arminiyumu and Hiro (Naval Arsenal). We find a high production rate for this part but this can be attributed to the fact so many are lost."
 
Colors of the drop tanks have been reported as the same general finish as the overall color of the mainframe in various tech intelligence reports.
"The finish is particularly smooth and possesses a high gloss, and is a type similar to that employed for the finishing of the fabric and metal parts." ("Examination of Surface Finishes On the Type 0 S.S.F. 'Zeke,'" by Frank T. McCOY, ATIS Report, via Bob MIKESH, NASM).
 
This report, and others, make it clear that the color was probably a glossy version of paint in the FS-16350 to FS-16357 range depending on manufacturer and/or weathering.
 
IHTH
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Reisen drop tank production question
 
Posted By: rick dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Reisen drop tank production question>
Date: Thursday, 29 March 2001, at 6:12 p.m.
 
In Response To: Reisen drop tank production question (Dan Salamone)
 
Dan
The tanks were of two types dural and plywood. As I recall neither type was built by the prime contractors. I've got a reference to the manufacturer of the metal type somewhere but have been unable to find it. It's something mundane like Nippon Ironworks or some such.
 
Rick
Zeke rear deck color
 
Posted By: john shallman <mailto:johns@skila.com?subject=Zeke rear deck color>
Date: Monday, 12 March 2001, at 5:06 a.m.
 
Hopefully this question is relevant to this board. On a type 22 zero what was the color of the deck (and roll bar) behind the pilot? Was it the interior color or painted the external original j.n. grey - or the overpainted j.n. green. I can't seem to tell by photos I have and I thought I'd ask the experts.
 
Thanks in advance
 
Re: Zeke rear deck color
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zeke rear deck color>
Date: Monday, 12 March 2001, at 8:17 a.m.
 
In Response To: Zeke rear deck color (john shallman)
 
Hello John,
Both the front and rear cockpit deck are painted in the same blue-black color as the cowling.
 
Ryan
 
Re: Zeke rear deck color
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zeke rear deck color>
Date: Monday, 12 March 2001, at 5:26 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zeke rear deck color (Ryan Toews)
 
Ryan -
Is that true for Nakajima Zeroes as well or would it be gray-black for them?
 
TIA
- Grant
 
Re: Zeke rear deck color
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zeke rear deck color>
Date: Wednesday, 14 March 2001, at 10:44 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zeke rear deck color (Grant Goodale)
 
Hello Grant,
Gray-black for Nakajima, same as the cowling but possibly not as faded as the canopy could provide some protection from UV radiation.
 
Ryan
Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?
 
Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?>
Date: Saturday, 24 February 2001, at 12:27 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines? (Rob Graham)
 
Dear Rob,
You wrote:
>> This is the first I've read about the IJNAF ordering Nakajima to paint the white surrounds to distinguish their planes from Mitsubishi craft. This seems rather odd, as the stencils show it well enough. I'll buy into it, but this is NEWS to me. <<
This is a quote from Aero Detail #7 and it has been confirmed right here through the studies of Jim Lansdale and Ryan Toews...
>> In addition, I have seen photos of Mitsubishi Zeros with white surrounds, though I'd need to look back and verify their authenticity. I am pretty sure they were factory-painted Mitsubishi planes with white surrounds, though. <<
I think you did'nt fully understand what I wrote, perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. Of course many Mitsubishi Zeros were factory painted with white brim to fuselage Hinomaru (and by the way wing Hinomarus on the upper surface too) but it was AFTER June 1943 and the adoption of the two tone camouflage ! ... Mitsubishi Zeros leaving factory in the offensive "Hairyokushoku" scheme NEVER carried a fuselage Hinomaru white brim ... And all such Zeros (which included Model 21's, 32's and 22's but NOT 22 Ko's and later)didn't have such white brims as a factory marking. Another proof it was a peculiar marking for Nakajima birds is the fact that when the two tone camouflage went into use as a factory finish and the fuselage white brim was mandatory as a factory finish the IJNAF ordered Nakajima to use a different separation line between the two tones on the rear fuselage as a replacement of the immediate recognition feature once provided by the fuselage Hinomaru white brim... the only picture I know of an earlier Mitsubishi built Zero carrying what seems to be whitre brim to fuselage and wings Hinomarus (and they appeared to be of the thin variety) is an Model 32 of the 582nd Kokutai (code T2)in a dirty almost solid dk green field applied camouflage. So it might have been a unit level initiative (a rather odd one) or the pic tricks us into believing there were white brims and in fact it is the halo effect (re-inforced by the fact the lighter tone was glossy and the green paint matte) of a wider than necessary masking when the green paint was applied and this "brims" were in fact Hairyokushoku... (I believe this is the most probable).
 
>> Also, the A6M2-N spinner was probably the long type on later craft, as were factory 2-tone paint. I have documented some of these details and cited the photos and books.
 
 << Factory two tone scheme on A6M2-N might have been rather limited in number considering the prduction termination date of the bird (I have not the Mikesh's book at hand and on't remember exactly the mpnth of 1943 the lines were closed)... The fact remains many units repainted a solid Dk. green the uppersurface of their floatplanes, and this probably (at least partially) earlier than their landplane sable mates. In so doing they just followed the trend of other IJNAF flaotplanes camouflage despite their specific fighter role... I have seen many pics of Hairyokushoku (Nakajima version) A6M2-N's with long spinner and white brim to fuselage Hinomarus and I can safely say the adoption of the longer spinner (an indication it was the definitive variant of the plane) was earlier to June 1943 and in no case linked to the adoption of the two tone camouflage as a standard factory finish. I would rather believe that most of the planes were unit reconditionned after June 1943 to what would have been Nakajima standard factory finish including the separation line on the rear fuselage, but many earlier two tone birds had a rather odd and irregular separation line on the rear fuselage, clearly indicating a unit level paint job...
 
I hope it helps
François
 
Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?
 
Posted By: Rob Graham <mailto:reishikisenguy@aol.com?subject=Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?>
Date: Saturday, 24 February 2001, at 10:08 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines? (François P. WEILL)
 
François:
You wrote:
>>This is a quote from Aero Detail #7 and it has been confirmed right here through the studies of Jim Lansdale and Ryan Toews...
Wow. I must have missed the confirmation by Jim and Ryan. I figured the Aero Detail book was wrong, as it has some other inconsistencies.
I think we were in agreement on the other items, as you have explained it here.
 
Thanks,
--Rob
 
Re: Zero Hinomaru White Outlines
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Zero Hinomaru White Outlines>
Date: Sunday, 25 February 2001, at 7:18 a.m.
 
In Response To: (Rob Graham)
 
Whoa little dogies!!!
Rob/Francois
I have NEVER stated that Nakajima received orders to paint the fuselage hinomaru with a white outline in order to distinguish the Nakajima product from the Mitsubishi product!!!
We have two separate issues here.
1) Orders WERE given by Imperial GHQ (or "X" agency) to make the fuselage (and wing?) hinomaru more conspicuous with a white background around August 1942. The Nakajima factory began to apply this 75 mm outline to the A6M2 model 21 Zero fuselage hinomaru in compliance with the order at that time. It is apparent, from the photographic record, that Mitsubishi did not (I know not why!).
2) BECAUSE of this practice by Nakajima, it WAS POSSIBLE to distinguish the Nakajima product from the Mitsubishi product (particularly on the A6M2 model 21s in the overall hairyokushoku/g-p finish).
This practice was not meant to be a visual distinction (since the data stencil clearly provided the information as to manufacturer). It became a de facto recognition feature!!!
Wing hinomaru were not outlined at the factory level on Zeros by either manufacturer until the advent of the factory-applied two-color camouflage pattern.
 
IHTH
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?
 
Posted By: Rick Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?>
Date: Saturday, 24 February 2001, at 4:52 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines? (François P. WEILL)
 
Francois
First, I know little about hinomarus and brim. That's not my point. Your message seems to imply that model 22 ko followed in serial fashion from model 22. Don't believe that is true. Not sure whether you meant that. The mark II cannon (and aircraft equipped with it sometimes referred to as "ko") entered production with the last model 32s in Dec 42. A6M3 number 3305 was so equipped. Half the model 22s were so equipped until July 43 when all subsequent Mitsubishi A6Ms were so equipped.
There is both Japanese documentary evidence as well as Allied crashed aircraft report to confirm this.
I realize this was not the point of your post and may not even be inconsistent with your comments but thought I would pass it along.
 
Rick
Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Paul Micklos <mailto:Paulmicklos@prodigy.net?subject=Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Friday, 13 April 2001, at 9:56 p.m.
 
Hi Guys
Maybe some one can help me, im trying to do some research on the Zero's vs Spitfires, I know that the 202nd battled the spitefire also known as the 3rd air group, Does any one else know how many other squadrons that battled the spitefire and what number they where. Also does any one know the name of the Britsh squadron that battled the Japanese, I have heard of one squadron called the Grey Mouse i believe. Any help would be appriciated.
 
Thanks for your time.
Paul
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 4:31 p.m.
 
In Response To: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)
 
From Venturas: "Spitfire: The Anzacs"
NO81, Spitfire MkVIII flown by Fl.Lt. Alan Peart on March 17 1944.
On this day, Squadron Leader Whitemore and Peart was taking off to intercept four enemy a/c approaching to a satellite airfield named Broadway in Imphal Valley where 6 (5 servicable) NO81 SpitVIIs were sttioned. Bogeys happended to be 4 Oscars soon joined by 24 more.
Whitemore shotdown one before himself being shot down and killed whereas Peart shoot down 1 and survived. All four a/c on the ground was destroyed no more a/c were sent to Broadway as it is too exposed.
 
Nevertheless even outnumbered to 28 to 2 and caught while taking off, Spits downded 2 to 1 clearly shows how superior MkVIII was.
 
I hope this helps.
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Spitfires *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 4:10 p.m.
 
In Response To:  (Paul Micklos)
 
KW is the code for NO 615 squadron in India.
Below aircraft belongsd to No 452 RAAF took part in the defence of Darwin. Its code QY is yet to be applied.
Flt. Lt. Hall claimed one Zero and P.O. Goldsmith another one plus a Betty on March 15 1943. On June 30 1943 Hall shordown another Zero whuch did not see him coming and took no evasive action. On July 6 1943 He shoot down another Zero. He was already an experienced pilots claimed two kills in Europe.
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Grant Elliott <mailto:guzzi@space.net.au?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 8:13 a.m.
 
In Response To: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)
 
G'day Paul.
I believe the Aussie squadron was 457 Sqn. RAAF "Grey Nurse" named for a voracious coastal shark. They were part of the Churchill wing consisting of 54(RAF)Sqn, 79 sqn, 452(ex BoB) and 453 (who battled in Malaya and Java) and 457.
In the Arakan and Imphal campaigns there were 81, 136, 607 and 615 (RAF) Squadrons.
Late in the piece, I believe the Royal Navy got stuck in with Seafires as well.
I am willing to stand corrected for any omissions. Please appraise us of the results of your research.
All the best,
Grant
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Paul Micklos <mailto:Paulmicklos@prodigy.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 1:33 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Grant Elliott)
 
G'Day Grant
Well lucked out today, found a book called SpitFire the History by Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady, around 650 pages long, in it i found some pics of spites that flew in the Pacific, not a lot of info but a start none the least. I dont know how to post pics so i can tell you about them, first pic has a pair of Mk VIIIs of the sqdn RAAF, Nearest aircraft was A58-614 and Named Grey Moose, you can read Grey Moose on the aircraft. Second Pic i found in the book which should intrest you too is plane A58-497, RG-V, Grey Nurse, flown by W/Cdr R.H. Gibbes, 80th Fighter Wing. Finally i have several pic's labeled, Far East War zone, and it says a number of these Spitfires in the area named "Grey Goose", now things get interesting, This book i have has the Serial numbers of all known spits and some even say where they went, how they where shot down or destroyed and so on. My big problem is now to identify Japanese aircraft that flew against them. I have read in a few books the battle between them and the Spitefire but of no pilot that has actually laided claim to shooting down a spitefire. So the search continues. I will try and keep you up to date, if you still like after this post, LOL maybe i should just right this all down as i find more info and send it to J-aircraft.
 
Any way Thanks for the info
Paul
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Grant Elliott <mailto:guzzi@space.net.au?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 1:47 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)
 
G'day again Paul.
I appreciate your information stated differently, however if you can find a book named 'Spitfire Mustang and Kittyhawk in Australian Service' by Stewart Wilson you will find much clearer versions of those same photos where the stencil "Grey Nurse" is apparent.
Additionally, Geoffrey Pentland compiled and illustrated a book 'RAAF comouflage and markings 1939-45' which have even more photos which show this stencil quite clearly. There is a good shot of A58-614 from which a colour profile was made. I shall email this to you separately.
These two books are much more specific to the Pacific War and are worth a look if you can locate them. In fact with the state of our south seas lira try http://www.ausaviation.com.au/ for a bargain.
Grant
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires>
Date: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 3:38 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)
 
Hi Guys! I'll have to check which book it is, but I believe in Henry Sakaida's "Winged Samurai" there is a tally of Hiroyoshi Nishizawa's kills while he was with the Tainan wing, and there are several Spitfires listed there for 1942. I'll double check and get back to you, I don't have the book with me....
I have been told that when the Spit Pilots first got to the Pacific, they tried to dogfight with the Zeros and got severely hurt and soon learned to boom and Zoom! Anyone know anything more about that?
 
Cheers!
=Martin
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Grant Elliott <mailto:guzzi@space.net.au?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 8:13 a.m.
 
In Response To: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)
 
G'day Paul.
I believe the Aussie squadron was 457 Sqn. RAAF "Grey Nurse" named for a voracious coastal shark. They were part of the Churchill wing consisting of 54(RAF)Sqn, 79 sqn, 452(ex BoB) and 453 (who battled in Malaya and Java) and 457.
In the Arakan and Imphal campaigns there were 81, 136, 607 and 615 (RAF) Squadrons.
Late in the piece, I believe the Royal Navy got stuck in with Seafires as well.
I am willing to stand corrected for any omissions. Please appraise us of the results of your research.
All the best,
Grant
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Paul Micklos <mailto:Paulmicklos@prodigy.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 1:33 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Grant Elliott)
 
G'Day Grant
Well lucked out today, found a book called SpitFire the History by Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady, around 650 pages long, in it i found some pics of spites that flew in the Pacific, not a lot of info but a start none the least. I dont know how to post pics so i can tell you about them, first pic has a pair of Mk VIIIs of the sqdn RAAF, Nearest aircraft was A58-614 and Named Grey Moose, you can read Grey Moose on the aircraft. Second Pic i found in the book which should intrest you too is plane A58-497, RG-V, Grey Nurse, flown by W/Cdr R.H. Gibbes, 80th Fighter Wing. Finally i have several pic's labeled, Far East War zone, and it says a number of these Spitfires in the area named "Grey Goose", now things get interesting, This book i have has the Serial numbers of all known spits and some even say where they went, how they where shot down or destroyed and so on. My big problem is now to identify Japanese aircraft that flew against them. I have read in a few books the battle between them and the Spitefire but of no pilot that has actually laided claim to shooting down a spitefire. So the search continues. I will try and keep you up to date, if you still like after this post, LOL maybe i should just right this all down as i find more info and send it to J-aircraft.
 
Any way Thanks for the info
Paul
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Grant Elliott <mailto:guzzi@space.net.au?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 1:47 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)
 
G'day again Paul.
I appreciate your information stated differently, however if you can find a book named 'Spitfire Mustang and Kittyhawk in Australian Service' by Stewart Wilson you will find much clearer versions of those same photos where the stencil "Grey Nurse" is apparent.
Additionally, Geoffrey Pentland compiled and illustrated a book 'RAAF comouflage and markings 1939-45' which have even more photos which show this stencil quite clearly. There is a good shot of A58-614 from which a colour profile was made. I shall email this to you separately.
These two books are much more specific to the Pacific War and are worth a look if you can locate them. In fact with the state of our south seas lira try http://www.ausaviation.com.au/ for a bargain.
Grant
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 7:47 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires (Martin)
 
Hello Martin,
Nishizawa never met any Spitfires during his tour in 1942 until evacuated in November 1942. He was assigned to the 4th Ku out of Gasmata and was later absorbed into the Tainan Ku. He remained with that group until November 1942. after that, he was an instructor, then returned to the South Pacific. He was never with the 202 Ku or the 331 Ku which escorted the 705 Ku on bombing raids of Calcutta in November 1943.
 
To my knowledge, Spitfires didn't start to show up until 1943 in Australia or India, and the only two units that I'm aquainted with, were the 331st and 202 fg.
 
HTH, Al
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 3:20 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires (Allan Alsleben)
 
Hi! You may well be right, but I'll give you a source of information that I got my opinion from....:
"Winged Samurai: Saburo Sakai and the Zero Fighter Pilots". On Page 96 there is a list of Nishizawa's victory claims while with the 4th and Tainan Kokutais. there are many types of Fighters and Bombers listed, as you can imagine, but it says regarding Spitfires, that he claimed one Spitfire on3/24/1942 at Moresby, and he and five other Pilots shared in shooting down 3 Spits on 3/28/1942 over Moresby. Also, some folks have told me he didn't knock any Corsairs down, as he didn't serve in any units opposing F4U's. Again, I'm not too sure (respectfully disagreeing here...) If you turn to Imperial Japanese Navy Aces 1937 - 1945 on Page 39 and I quote: "It was inevitable that sooner or Later Nishizwa would test his skill against the gull-winged Corsair - arguably the best fighter on either side of the region. This contest occurred on 7 June 1943 over the russels. when 81 Zeros tangled with USMC and RNZAF fighters. Four Corsairs of VMF-112 wer lost in this action, although three of the Pilots were saved - Nishizawa's claims for this mission were one Corsair and one P-40 destroyed. For the rest of the summer of 1943 he fought daily battles with Corsairs and P-40's in the areas of Rendova and Vella La Vella, the former being his toughest opponant. Marines from VMF-121, 122, 123, 124 and 221 all traded fire with "The Devil" but failed to bring him down, resulting in Nishizawa being awarded a coveted ceremonial sword from Adm.Kusaka, CO of the 11th Air Fleet." end quote.
 
The book aslo says elswhere (inside fly leaf) that "...from June (1943) to August 21, CPO Nisizawa engaged in numerous fierce actions with F4U's over Rendova, Buin and Vella Lavella. During this period, the Ace participated in the destruction of 45 Corsairs, which were attributed to the unit rather than him, as per the JNAF GHQ directive prohibiting individual victory scores...."
 
Food for thought...fascinating stuff, this Nishizawa. Our friend Katuhiro has a great pic of Nishizawa with his Sword. Maybe if he reads this, he'll re-post it?
 
Cheers!
=Martin
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 8:26 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Martin)
 
Hello Martin,
The first Spitfire to be deployed in the New Guinea Area was at Manus in May of 1944 (#79 Sqn) and that was only briefly. They returned to Darwin in June. #54 Sqn was the first to see action, defending Darwin in January 1943, and that unit was hit hard by 202fg. The others, #452, #457 followed also in January and March the same year. These units never saw offensive action until December 1944 when they moved up to Pitoe Morotai to under take air support for the up coming actions in Borneo.
 
Now, as to meeting Spitfires in March 1942. It was not unusual for the Japanese to claim what they thought were Spitfires instead of P.40's. They didn't know what a P.40 was until the ones captured turned up. To them, the Curtiss was the P.36. The Japanese had profiles on most Allied aircraft. Updating the pilots as to newer aircraft took a long time for the Japanese.
The most common misidentification was the Ki 61, which was thought to be a Bf 109, until that was corrected. It was not uncommon for the VMF to jump on P.40's(Thought to be Ki 61) until the 13th AF devised a scheme for rapid ID. That was a white oblique stripe along the wings. This was used by the 44 FS then at Munda in September 1943. Misidentification of aircraft WAS commonplace on both sides of the fence.
 
Did Nishizawa bring down any F4U? The answer is yes! As to how many, I will not hazard a guess. But consider this, Nishizawa claim only what he thought he saw, according to the profiles he was aware of. While Nishizawa was surprised at the first F4U, it didn't bother him, it just took awhile longer to bring one down. 
Nothing surprises Nishizawa.
 
Lastly, the Japanese (IJA/IJN) never referred to USA aircraft by designation (P.40), but by manufacture ie: Bell instead of P.39, Curtiss instead of P.36 and so on. They also knew of all RAF aircraft, and those were correctly called by their collective names. The Germans did keep the Japanese updated on all current British aircraft.
 
I have a problem with publications when they attempt to keep a tally of aircraft types being brought down. Only intelligence, combined with monographs of units in the general area can determine what types were where. Rick Dunn and Larry deZeng have a treasure trove of information with regard to the above subject. I take publications with "A gain of salt" until verification is made.
 
Al
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 7:01 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Allan Alsleben)
 
I here you. IJN and fighter units places Nishizawa in Rabaul at the same time as VM 214 The Black Sheep and the Jolly Rogers. I would have to think that Nishizawa claimed more than a few Corsairs. He may be the IJN top Corsair killer. Tanimizu also claimed a good number as the latter war Air Group 343 pilots. As to Spitfires in the Pacific. I am going to have to do some serious research on this topic. I can't understand why the Brittish would wait so late to deploy there best fighter to the Pacific theatre. There is a book that I am now going to go find and buy that places a date on Zero and Spitfire combat.
 
Cruiser K
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Thursday, 19 April 2001, at 7:24 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Cruiser K)
 
I have been told by some that Nishizawa claimed more F4U's than any other Japanese Pilot. Others say it was Tanimizu. Two great Pilots. Regardless, I imagine that many Jolly Roger and Black Sheep F4U's and RNAZF F4U's fell before these two Aces...would be interesting to know how they coped with such a powerful plane as the Corsair...
Good to hear from you Cruiser!
 
Cheers!
=Martin
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Barry <mailto:berry@operamail.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Thursday, 19 April 2001, at 5:47 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Cruiser K)
 
I think you answered your own question here
'I can't understand why the Brittish would wait so late to deploy there best fighter to the Pacific theatre' - because the Spitfire was the best British fighter and the British (indeed Allied) priority was defeating Hitler, who was seen as a much greater threat than the Japanese (to the US and Britain, that is). The order of priority seems to have been Europe, then the Middle East (oil - both to keep it for the allies and deny it to the Germans - and the Suez Canal) and lastly the Pacific. The ONLY allied fighters over Port Moresby in the period mentioned were No. 75 Squadron RAAF's P40s. At that time the RAAF and RAF roundels were identical.
Cheers,
Barry
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Thursday, 19 April 2001, at 7:51 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Barry)
 
I understand all to well allied priority system in WWII.
I myself think it is rather silly not to deploy any of your best fighter units to the pacific theatre until 1943. If they had of deployed these units earlier however they would
have had the same faith early as there P-40's, Brewster Buffaloes, or whatever other obsolete fighter that went up prior. But they would also have a better mount to make adjustments with.
 
Cruiser K
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Saturday, 21 April 2001, at 9:48 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Cruiser K)
 
I agree Cruiser! And the reason why they'd have had the same results early on with these other "better" fighters, is because the Jocks in them would have tried to get into a turning/twisting contest with the Zero at under 300 mph! They too would have learned not to do that....
 
Cheers!
=Martin
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 9:14 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Allan Alsleben)
 
HI Allan! Well, let me say this..I tip my hat to you as you obviously know far more about Spits in the Pacific, my friend! What you say makes perfect sense. I do want to point out one thing though, the "tally sheet" in Winged Samurai of Nishizawa's while with the 4th and Tainan Wings claims P-40's as well as the Spits. I'm not surewhere the confusion is, but what you say makes sense, and I also realize that there are things that are difficult to explain almost 60 years later. Yet, because of meticulous research and the internet putting the world at our fingertips, so much more info is available now.
 
I like your comments on Nishizawa. Can you imagine what he may have thought about the F4U when first encountering it? One can almost hear him thinking: "What now?" or "What the h..is THAT?" Yet, adapt he did, and his peers commented like you did. Nothing scared him. Nothing. Not even the Hellcat which probably shot down more JNAF Pilots than any other make of plane. He was something. I wonder if he was in the Rabaul area when Pappy Boyington lead the Black Sheep Squadron. Pappy has said in interviews that he told his guys all the time not to "Mix it up" with the Zeros. And if you had no choice, keep your speed up over 350. He said that more than once while watching a "scrap" he'd yell into his mike at one of his boys to "get the H...out of there before you get the s.... kicked out of you!" In other words, someone started twisting and turning with a Zero and was getting into trouble.(he also commented once that the Black Sheep Squadron knew there were some great Aces among the JNAF wing(s) that they were up against. Fascinating stuff. In his last interview before he died, he said one of the biggest lies was that the Japanese were not good pilots. He said they were "the best combat pilots ever, especially the Imperial Navy Pilots. They were no joke! If you screwed up, you were dead" or something very very close to that. I think that's a verbatim quote. May be off a word or two. Well, with Nishizawa and Tanimizu (Iwamoto?) there, they must have been something. And Pilots like Nishizawa were the superstars, but there were plenty of "average" Zero Pilots that knew what the heck they were doing.....
 
Cheers!
P.S. It must also have come as a shock how much damage a Corsair could take and get it's pilot home. It's been claimed by some that only a P-47 could take more damage and keep going. That adds credibility to the claim that Zero Pilots had a nasty hapit of shooting up the cockpit area of Corsairs. They had to, as that thing could take a lot of damage, especially from rifle caliber guns. .
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Ryan Boerema <mailto:ryann1k2j@aol.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 10:57 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Martin)
 
Hi, Martin. Here's a theory. I believe during March 1942 there were only Australian fighter units in Port Moresby, 75th and 76th Squadrons, IIRC. They were flying P-40Es, yup, but with Australian/British markings (still had the red dot at center at this time). British markings: British planes (Spitfire). When the US units showed up (and I beleive some of the US P-40s claimed were actually P-39s -- I'd have to dig out my unit histories to compare dates again) the same conclusion: American markings: American planes (P-40s).
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 6:49 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Ryan Boerema)
 
I am sure that some American planes, and some Hurricanes were occasionaly mistaken for Spitfires. But I have read accounts of the early exchanges between Spitfires and Zeroes and the Zeroes taught the Brittish the same lesson they taught the Americans. Like Martin stated earlier the IJN pilot and his Zero may go down in history as the best Dogfighting combination ever. Boom and Zoom saves the day for the allies, a lot must be said for pilots and warplanes that force opponents into alternative strategies.
 
Cruiser K
 
Re: RAF in India
 
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: RAF in India>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 8:32 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Cruiser K)
 
Hello Cruiser,
Well, as far as the RAF were in the CBI, according to S.W. Kirby, the first Spitfire units were:
136, 607 and 617 Sqns sent to Chittagong in December 12th, 1943. These three squadrons were attached to the 224 Wing. I would hazard a guess that these three units were from the MTO. As to the what marks they were flying, probably Vc.
 
Both the U.S. and UK considered this area lastly..... the end of the line, very low priority.
The Royal Navy had just concluded a very disastrous affair in the Aegean (Operation Accolade) where they suffered heavy losses and pulled backed to Egypt. Shortly after that, they began to funnel units to India, as did the U.S. If I remember correctly, the U.S. sent three air groups to India during that time frame and Britain began to do the same. From the date noted above, it would increase dramaticly well into 1944.
 
It should also be noted, That there were no IJN air units in Burma at that time or any other time after November 1943. It was all strictly Japanese Army Air.
 
Re: RAF in India
 
Posted By: rick dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: RAF in India>
Date: Friday, 20 April 2001, at 5:28 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: RAF in India (Allan Alsleben)
 
Al
The official history of the RAAF says the first two Spitfire squadrons arrived in Bengal in early November 43. They were 607 and 615. No. 136 was also so equipped. An Aussie of 615 shot down a recon Ki 46 on 16 November. Spitfires were also scrambled from Chittagong during the Dec 5th Calcutta raid. They got one Army bomber with one loss. This all prior to Dec 12th.
 
Rick
 
Re: RAF in India
 
Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Re: RAF in India>
Date: Thursday, 19 April 2001, at 3:00 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: RAF in India (Allan Alsleben)
 
These units were ex-Hurricane units - and 617 should be 67, I suspect, without checking (617 is definitely wrong, being the Dam Busters....). So the pilots who introduced the Spitfire to India were pilots who had been fighting the Oscar and knew what was required, now they were given an aircraft capable of outclimbing and out-accelerating the Oscar. Not that the tropicalised Spit Vc was perfect, but it was good enough to reverse the balance of kills.
 
This was also linked to established Hurricane Ace (BoB and Burma) Frank Carey forming the Armament Training Camp at Armada Road, Calcutta, where the hard-earned tactical lessons were passed on to the newer pilots.
 
More importantly, the Vc was good enough to destroy any Dinah that attempted photoreconnaissance missions over Bengal. Blinding the IJAAF was more effective than winning or losing a few dogfights.
 
The later introduction of the Spitfire VIII was an ex-desert unit (81?) who arrived in theatre as the experienced experts who would show the hicks from the sticks how to do things.....it didn't help that they were initially equipped with the extended wingtips, which were fine at high altitudes but resulted in permanently distorted wings when they tried turning at low-level with them. After an initial blooding they went on to do well.
 
The Spit VIII was far superior to the Oscar, and to the Tojos that also participated in the Burma battles. The few Franks that appeared do not seem to have been noticed....but by 1945 the IJAAF had disappeared from the skies.
 
RAF in India, 615 and 81 *PIC*
 
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=RAF in India, 615 and 81 *PIC*>
Date: Friday, 20 April 2001, at 11:51 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: RAF in India (Graham Boak)
 
615 was an ex-Hurricane Squadron. Its code was KW.
No 81 served in Africa, in fact their Ace of Spades emblem was adopted after its fights with JG53. Its code were FL.
According to Venturas "Spitfire: The Anzacs" no Ki46s survived interception by Spitires over India. Profile comes from the same book.
Click on the link for all Spifire profiles I posted
 
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 3:07 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Ryan Boerema)
 
Another plausible idea. Makes sense! Thanks! either way, I think initially the British Pilots, having thwarted the mighty mighty Lufwaffe, went into the Pacific with a bit of a swagger and a cocky chip on their shoulders. And I don't mean that too harshly. Who wouldn't, in thier shoes! They'd stopped the LUFTWAFFE for pete's sake! They were really good Pilots, those British. And like the rest of Western Society, probably "poo pooed" the idea that the Japanese were any good. The Yanks are having a hard time with the Japanese? Let's show them how we British do it! The Spits jumped into combat and tried to dogfight with arguably the best dogfighting team of the war. A JNAF Pilot and his Zero! They got hurt. They got hurt bad. Boom and zoom became the rule of thumb. Amazing how that is only now starting to be acknowledged in Allied Pilots interviews and memoirs. I guess it lacks a little hollywood glory to admit that it was not wise to dogfight with he nimble Mitsubishi's, but thats the truth.
 
Cheers!
=Martin
 
Re: Pilot's memoirs
 
Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Re: Pilot's memoirs>
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 2:01 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Martin)
 
I think it was acknowledged quite some time ago: indeed it has been common knowledge for at least the time since I've been reading about it (i.e. since the mid fifties). When I was a young performance aerodynamicist (1974) I went to a lecture by AVM Sir Neil Cameron, who flew Hurricanes against the Oscars, and he was stressing this very point. He felt that the Hurricanes could hold their own against the Oscars providing they kept their speed up and didn't try to dogfight. I think it is fair to add that he probably wasn't aware, at the time, of the real exchange rate between the two types: but perhaps this just shows how few Hurricane pilots followed instructions. Though it should also be added that he flew in the later stages of the campaigns: there had been time to learn the lessons the hard way.
 
Re: Pilot's memoirs
 
Posted By: Mark Haselden <mailto:mark_rae@msn.com?subject=Re: Pilot's memoirs>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 3:14 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Pilot's memoirs (Graham Boak)
 
Geoff Fisken, one of the few Buffalo aces (6 confirmed over Malaya and Singapore) acknowledged that the only way to fight the Japanese aircraft was to use speed and, whenever possible, a height advantage. Commonwealth pilots in Singapore did recognise that any attempt get into a turning fight with a Zero or Oscar was going to end in severe problems (at least for the Commonwealth). However, pilots who kept their speed up were able to attack and get away from the Japanese fighters - even in the Buffalo!! Unfortunately, it seems that after the Singapore debacle, the experienced pilots were sent to different units and there was no conference on tactics as had been held in the UK post Battle of Britain until later in the war - and even then, Commonwealth pilots accustomed to the European/African theatres still came unstuck.
 
FWIW,
Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 3:39 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Martin)
 
Hi Allan! In reading my abouve post about Nishizawa and Spits, in the middle of my message, where I go into Nishizawa vs Corsairs, I said: " (respectfully disagreeing here)" I wasn't disagreeing with you, just the Gent who told me Nishizawa probably didn't oppose any F4U's. Just wanted to make that clear. Again, I'd like to say I state my opinions and things I've read and agree with. I could be wrong and welcome all opinions..regardless if they agree or disagree with me! Thanks for your postings!
 
Cheers!
=Martin
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Friday, 13 April 2001, at 11:43 p.m.
 
In Response To: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)
 
For some reason I believe Tainan Air Group also battled
Spitfires. I can't prove this. I saw it on the Japanese film based on the story of Sakai-san called Zero Pilots.
 
Sincerely,
Cruiser K
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Barry <mailto:berry@operamail.com?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 3:05 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Cruiser K)
 
Backtracking a little here, but I think it's most unlikely Saburo Sakai ever engaged spitfires. The Churchill wing did not go into action until long after Sakai was wounded, while I think all the early Pacific war RAF units in Malaya and NEI were equipped with Hurricanes (?). As for Nishizawa, where and when, and against which units?
Cheers,
Barry
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 4:06 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Barry)
 
Hi Barry! I answered this question minutes ago somewhere else, but will repeat myself here...and correct me if my source is wrong. But according to "Winged Samurai: Saburo Sakai and the Zero Fighter Pilots" Nishizawa shot down a Spitfire at or near Moresby on 3/24/1942, and he and 3 other Zero Pilots shot down 3 Spits on 3 28 1942 in the same area. Now there may not have been Spits BASED at Moresby. To my knowledge, that is, maybe there really were...but that does not mean they were not in the area or based a few days at Moresby...
 
Any way, what's your opinion?
 
Aloha
=Martin
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 9:40 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Barry)
 
Say Barry,
I did say I wasn't certain. It was based on a movie I saw. I also stated Tainan Air Group but not any specific dates. Nishizawa flew with Tainan until it was reorganized and turned into another airgroup he flew with that one and many others. Tainain engaged Brittish, Dutch, and Australian Airgroups early in the conflict. This is why the movie probably showed them as engaging Spits. (This quite possibly is dated as Jun-ichi Sasai's first aerial victory Feb. 3,1942)I didn't quite know when the first Spits were sent to the Pacific. I do know they were dominated when they tried to turn with the Zeroes in combat.
 
Cruiser K
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 9:40 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Barry)
 
Say Barry,
I did say I wasn't certain. It was based on a movie I saw. I also stated Tainan Air Group but not any specific dates. Nishizawa flew with Tainan until it was reorganized and turned into another airgroup he flew with that one and many others. Tainain engaged Brittish, Dutch, and Australian Airgroups early in the conflict. This is why the movie probably showed them as engaging Spits. (This quite possibly is dated as Jun-ichi Sasai's first aerial victory Feb. 3,1942)I didn't quite know when the first Spits were sent to the Pacific. I do know they were dominated when they tried to turn with the Zeroes in combat.
 
Cruiser K
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 11:03 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters (Graham Boak)
 
It maybe that the encounter you mentioned was in fact the one I have read about. The zeroes bested the spitfires and
Spitfire pilots were told not to engage zeroes using turning tacticts in combat. I am not going to discuss combat at the wars end where Spits could exceed over +420 mph and the best Zeroes could achive maybe only 360mph. This will also not be discussed because of pilot quality towards war end. Unless they were battling Air Group 343 with that 6:1 kill ratio it is irrelevant. What is more relevant to me is the earlier combat between the Zeroes and the Spits. Where the performance and pilot quality were more evenly matched. I have read in one such source that Zeroes bested the Spits in these engagements.
 
Cruiser K
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 11:37 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters (Cruiser K)
 
"...and it was on August 15, 1945, that the Seafires [NOTE: IIIs] of Nos. 887 and 894 Squadrons were engaged in the last combat of the war involving fighter aircraft. Twelve Japanese Zero fighters were intercepted and in the ensuing battle eight were shot down for the loss of one Seafire."
from AIRCRAFT IN PROFILE NO. 221, "Supermarine Seafires (Merlins)" (Len Bachelor)
AND another version
"Four days later [after 11 Aug 1945], in the Fleet Air Arm's final fighter combat of the war, eight of a formation of twelve Japanese fighters were shot down by Seafires of the 24th Naval Fighter Wing which was escorting an Avenger strike. A Seafire and an Avenger were lost, the gunner of the latter disposing of another Japanese fighter before ditching. At 0700 that day, 15 August 1945, all further strikes were cancelled, the Japanese having surrendered."
from BRITISH NAVAL AVIATION THE FLEET AIR ARM, 1917 - 1990 (Ray Sturtivant)
 
Aircraft were from HMS Indefatigable
Just for interest, first source says "Seafires had been credited with 39 confirmed enemy 'kills' in all theatres of operations," and "the highest scoring FAA Seafire pilot was Sub-Lieutenant R H Reynols of No. 894 Squadron with 3 1/2 enemy aircraft to his credit, two of these being destroyed on one day - on April 1, 1945."
 
Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters
 
Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 11:24 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters (Cruiser K)
 
Your comment about the tactics is basically correct, if simplified, and I suggest that you chase up Richard Dunn's earlier postings for more details.
However, my point about the 1945 encounter was that the Seafire III would have had a basically similar performance to that of the tropicalised Spitfire Vc over Darwin two years earlier: in fact little better overall than that of the lighter Battle of Britain Spitfire Mk1 of 1940, before the Zero ever entered service. (Though to be fair, the late war Seafire L.III had the low-altitude rated Merlin 45 which was more powerful at low-level. The armament was also improved.)
 
The IJN never encountered the later war Spifires, not even the Merlin 60 series aircraft at 408 mph, let alone the Griffon variants. The IJAAF did encounter the Mk.VIII, and came off the worse for it, but that is another story, and even then a fairly brief and limited one.
 
The point about the respective pilot quality is valid but could be overstated - the BPF's fighter pilots were generally fairly raw, as indeed were most of the Churchill Wing's pilots. Without knowing just which Zero unit was involved, it is impossible to be definitive.
 
Seafire III
 
Posted By: Deniz Kararacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Seafire III>
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 2:24 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters (Graham Boak)
 
Seafire MkIII had low altitude Merlins (45?) and four blade prop and without that draggy vokes filter. Infact its top speed was 348mph but this is deceiving because it could do it at 6000ft and its max sea level speed was a little over 330mph. Thus as far as I know this makes it the best low level bird of WWII excluding very late war a/c. It was certainly superior to any Zero at lower altitudes.
 
Down and Under, Spitfire MkVIIIs only met with Ki46s and with great success . If I remember right most Aussi Spit VIIIs ended up being scrapped after stored for replacements.
 
In India, Spit MkVIII completely dominated IJAAF.
 
Re: Seafire III
 
Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Re: Seafire III>
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 3:08 p.m.
 
In Response To: Seafire III (Deniz Kararacay)
 
Agreed, but...it was still an heavy (navalised) version of a heavy (Vc) version of what was not the finest fighter in the world at the time of its introduction in 1941. (This is granting that the 109F - if nothing else pre-190 - was somewhat, if not very, superior.) For 1945 this was not a good recipe. That it could outpace and outclimb the current US Navy fighters (though never outrange!) is little compliment to the Seafire but one hell of a comment on the USN fighters' true performance......with over 30% more power.
 
Even granting that the Zero was little improved since 1943, this is still a two year advantage over a Spit V!
Don't get me wrong - I like the Seafire, but let's keep it in proportion. Even the Mk.XV, had it not just missed the war, would have been two years behind its closest RAF equivalent, the Mk.XII. Yet Faireys were churning out Fireflies for over a year, which can only be described a terrible waste of a good Griffon. They would even have been better in Barracudas! Just imagine Griffon Seafires in the BPF.... (but never too far away from it!)
 
Re: Seafire III
 
Posted By: Deniz Kararacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Re: Seafire III>
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 4:11 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Seafire III (Graham Boak)
 
I agree with you about SpitV. 109F could outclimb and outdive it but perhaps they match evenly enough. Fw190 was much superior only when Luftwaffe was able fly them without burning the engine. I also think that Reginald Mitchell turned in his grave when Spitfire was fitted with Vokes filter. What a retro-step? A standard Spit V could easily fight with any Zero or Hayate version. Ki84 is another story superior to Spit MkVIII in climb and maneuverability but still only 15mph faster than a Spit V. and 20mph slower than a VIII.
 
The point about Seafire is it could only operate as CAP patrols over the Task Force (and very succesful in that) whereas American fighters could bring the fight to the enemy with their excellent range where no Seafire could go.
 
I beleive development of naval aircraft were under the responsibility of the Air ministry before the war. So it is understandable that no good British Naval Design appeared for the war despite having excellent engines.
 
Re: Seafire III
 
Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Myth!>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 12:02 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Seafire III (Deniz Kararacay)
 
Whilst the Air Ministry ran the FAA as part of the RAF, the aircraft provided were directly comparable to equivalent land-based types: Fury/Nimrod, Hart/Osprey, Swordfish/Vildebeeste or even more advanced: Skua. Once the Admiralty took over they lacked imagination and forced their own unrealistic desires: the comfortable Swordfish as the Albacore, the observer visibilty on the Barracuda, the two-seat fighter Fulmar..... Can you really believe that the Hurricane or Spitfire would have taken so long to get on a carrier deck if the Air Ministry were in control?
 
This last can partly be blamed on Richard Fairey, who refused to build a Sea Spitfire pre-war. Though what a Fairey Seafire would have looked like does not bear too much investigation.....
 
RN enthusiasts have blamed the Air Ministry to cover up the Admiralty's incompetence. The evidence suggests otherwise.
 
Re: Seafire III
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 10:49 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Seafire III (Deniz Kararacay)
 
Deniz:
UMR library has UP IN HARM'S WAY FLYING WITH THE FLEET AIR ARM (Cdr R M "Mike" Crosley) which deals mainly with Crosley's post war career (as a test pilot) BUT has interesting discussion and critique of prewar and wartime RN aircraft procurement policies. I have checked out right now but will have back in a week or so
Call number is UG 626.2 .C76 A3 1995
Note: Crosley flew Seafire L.IIIs with the British Pacific Fleet.
 
Re: 202 fg v #54 Sqn
 
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: 202 fg v #54 Sqn>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 10:27 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters (Graham Boak)
 
Hello Graham,
Perhaps it would be better to list those units that were in the Northern Territory.
#54 Sqn - January 1943 (Hit hard by 202fg)
#452 Sqn - January 1943
#457 Sqn - March 1943
 
These were the only units to see action with the 202fg. Out of India, there was the 331fg in November of 1943, but those probably ran into the RAF, not RAAF. As to the Seafire's, I don't recall any such intercepts, but then anything was possible if it were over Japan proper.
Of #452 and #457, they were later deployed on Morotai and were used in the ground support role and also played a part in the Borneo operations.
#79 Sqn was formed in New Guinea in April 1943 and was in the Admiralties after it's occupation, then later at Morotai in 1945.
These units had very little opportunity for air to air combat, and those that did, were against IJA aircraft.
Zeroes Evaluated in Germany?
 
(Ed. Note: this thread is very long on the General Board, but spins off very quickly into discussions about German aircraft, armament, senior commanders, use of European a/c in the Pacific, and so on. The actual question is answered in the following postings. I will continue to monitor the thread for further information on the topic at hand. GB)
 
Posted By: Martin <mgrant@hei.com>
Date: Tuesday, 7 August 2001, at 9:05 a.m.
 
Hi all!
We've talked at length in the past about the 109's sent to Japan to be evaluated by the Japanese. Japanese Pilots were not impressed. I was wondering if they in turn sent any Zeros or anything else to Germany for evaluation? Although the Luftwaffe didn't appear to put as much emphasis on maneuverability, I think they clearly would have been impressed with the range of the Zero, among other things. I doubt they'd have cared for it's light construction, however. Of course, therein lies the secret of its range....
 
Cheers!
=Martin
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi <hiryu@bigfoot.com>
Date: Tuesday, 7 August 2001, at 9:16 a.m.
 
As far as I know no Japanese fighters were sent to Germany, but they did show interest in the Alf and the Dinah. They also operated a Dave and possibly a Jake in Penang. Also, The Japanese pilots were not all that negative about the Bf109E, although the Fw190 received more enthusiasm.
 
Posted By: Dave Fleming <dave.fleming@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Thursday, 9 August 2001, at 7:49 a.m.
 
In Response To: Zeroes evaluated in Germany? (Martin)
 
AFAIK, 
Only one A6M was flown in Europe during or immediately after WW2. This was the as yet unidentified A6M5(?) flown from RNAS Abbotsinch, Glasgow by Eric Brown in 45/46. He was supposed to examine it, but took it up for a few circuits.
The aircraft was on a Carrier bound for the US, which was taking back one of the RN's Tigercats.
 
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <denizkaracay@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, 8 August 2001, at 9:31 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zeroes evaluated in Germany? (Andrew Monroe)
 
There are other a/c in this research part. I remember to see a photo of Japanese Fw190 in photo gallery.
Captured Tested a/c on J-aircraft.com
 
A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto
 
Posted By: kim yeo <mailto:kimleee4@bigpond.com.au?subject=A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto>
Date: Sunday, 10 June 2001, at 6:20 a.m.
 
I am searching for infomation about the A6M Zero.
1. Were starter motors only fitted to Aircraft Carrier based Zero's? How were land based Zero's started?
2.Re: Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
 
Can you tell from where did Yamamoto's Betty Bomber depart from on his last flight to inspect troops on Bouganville?
Also his escort of 6 Zero's where were they based?
Can you confirm these pilots as the escort
 
Sub Officer Hiroyoshi Nishizawa. Lt(J.G.) Tetsuzo Iwamoto.Ensign Shoichi Sugita. Lt(J.G.) Saburo Sakai. 2nd.Lt Hironichi Shinohara. W.O. Takeo Okumura. M.Sgt. Satoshi Anabuki. Capt.Mitsuyoshi Tarui. W.O. Toshio Ota.
 
I am trying to find the crash sites of the escort Zero's shot down by P38s of the 347th Wing out of Henderson Field,Guadalcanal.
Any idea's information or links would be appreciated
 
REGARDS:
KIM YEO
 
Re: A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto>
Date: Sunday, 10 June 2001, at 7:09 a.m.
 
In Response To: A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto (kim yeo)
 
Kim
You asked:
1) "Can you tell from where did Yamamoto's Betty Bomber depart from on his last flight to inspect troops on Bouganville?"
No.705 Kaigun Kokutai, Mitsubishi G4M1 Betty, s/n 2656, call [323], flown by KOTANI, Takeo, was based at Vunakanau, but had been flown into Rabaul East A/F (Lakunai) for use as a transport by Admiral YAMAMOTO and his staff.
2) "Also his escort of 6 Zero's where were they based?"
The six Mitsubishi A6M3 model 32 Hamps were attached to No.204 Kaigun Kokutai based at Lakunai (Rabaul East)
3) "Can you confirm the.. pilots as the escort"?
CPO HIDAKA, Yoshima (KIA 6/7/43)
Lt. MORIZAKI, Takeshi (KIA 6/16/43)
PO2 OKAZAKI, Yasuji (KIA 6/7/43)
FPO SUGITA, Shoichi (KIA 4/15/45)
FPO TSUJINOUE, Toyomitsu (KIA 7/1/43)
FPO YANAGIYA, Kenji (survived the war)
(Source: John T. WIBLE)
 
None of the escort Zeros from No.204 ku were shot down by the 347th FG pilots in spite of claims to the contrary. However, Ray HINE, an American pilot, was lost in his Lockheed P-38. It is possible some other unit stationed at Buin (Kahili or Kihili A/F) or on Ballale may have lost some Zeros, but this has not been established beyond all doubt.
 
IHTH
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto
 
Posted By: Emmanuel <mailto:aecastro1@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto>
Date: Sunday, 10 June 2001, at 5:43 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto (James F. Lansdale)
 
Hi,
I was wondering, do you know the markings of the six escort fighters who were with Admiral Yamamoto road to Bouganville?
Thank You Very Much,
Emmanuel
 
Re: A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto>
Date: Sunday, 10 June 2001, at 7:07 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto (Emmanuel)
 
204th Air Group Zeroes stationed at Rabaul carried unit markings T2 on the tail. They were Dark green over light
grey with unit markings in white. Yanagiya's plane is shown as an A6M3 Model 32 T2 169, and Sugita's plane is shown as T2 165 A6M3 Model 22.
 
Cruiser K
 
Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943 *PIC*
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943 *PIC*>
Date: Sunday, 10 June 2001, at 8:56 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M ZERO/ Isoroku Yamamoto (Cruiser K)
 
Hi Cruiser
There is some doubt about the [T2] code having been applied to YANAGIYA's bird [169] on 18 April 1943. See below for a photo of a Mitsubishi A6M3 model 32, very likely from No.204 ku, taking off for a mission on 17 April 1943 from Lakunai (Rabaul East A/F). The censor has removed the tail markings, but other photos from this time period only show the individual aircraft call number applied in white ... no unit code. A short time later, the aircraft were painted more darkly all over the top surfaces and the [T2] applied above the individual aircraft number on the tail. This field application was a soft mottled dark green over the factory applied hairyokushoku scheme.
 
IHTH 
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943
 
Posted By: James Holloway <mailto:fholl46282@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943>
Date: Monday, 11 June 2001, at 3:10 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943 *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
Sirs, there is a photo showing a lineup of 204 Zeroes showing the first two or three with two digits and a more 'sparse" cammo whilst further down the line you can see rhe planes with the T2-- codes. The caption says the two digit planes were hand me downs from other units. Instead of censored codes couldn't these be planes that haven't been repainted? There is also another photo that may be a close up of the planes with the T2 markings. It shows about a dozen planes, including Hagiri Matsuo"s T2-112, all with a yellow combat stripe, two planes with double stripes. Is this a Squadron destgnation? Nearly all photos of T2's seem to have this, including the often published T2 190. Most photos of this plane you can't see the stripe but I did find one that shows it. Thank you, James Holloway
 
Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943>
Date: Monday, 11 June 2001, at 9:09 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943 (James Holloway)
 
James
The photos you are speaking of were probably taken during May or June 1943 (i.e. long after the Y-Mission).
 
FWIW
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943
 
Posted By: James Holloway <mailto:fholl46282@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943>
Date: Wednesday, 13 June 2001, at 12:49 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943 (James F. Lansdale)
 
Dear Mr. Lansdale, 
Yes the photos were taken May, 43.An interesting note from this time period that within the 'Rabaul Air Forces" is that the veteran pilots tried to fly the model 21 when they could. I remember a debate as to which model Iwamoto Tetsuzo flew, maybe he had a preference for the 21 as well. To Cruiser K, I cant post photos on site, give me a couple of days I will try to post directly to you. 
 
Thanks, 
James Holloway
 
Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943>
Date: Sunday, 10 June 2001, at 9:23 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M3 From No.204 Ku, April 1943 *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
Thanks Jim,
I knew about the earlier camo scheme but I wasn't aware that it was in fact this earlier scheme that were on these Rabaul Zeroes at the time of the ill fated mission. I guess that does make since. Since I now recall a picture of the admiral waving to Zero pilots taking off with the light gray mottled green camo like in the picture you posted.
 
Cruiser K
A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Friday, 10 August 2001, at 7:02 a.m.
 
Hi guys,
I was doing some looking for a new interesting subject to start building and the A6M1 in 48th scale kind of got me interested. I know Rob was working on one of these at one point and we may have even discussed the changes needed, but I can't find them .
 
Anyway, what I can see needs to be changes (from a A6M2a from Hasegawa) according to the drawings in the Green Arrow Zero book are:
 
1) Scoop on top of the cowl needs to be added.
2) Two bladed prop, similar to a a Ki-43-I needs to be added.
3) Chin on the underside of the cowl needs to be removed.
4) Intake on underside in back of cowl needs to be changed in shape (made longer and less deep).
5) Change the shape of the rudder to be straight.
 
Anything else obvious that I'm missing?
 
-Dave
 
Re: A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By: Rob Graham <mailto:reishikisenguy@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Sunday, 12 August 2001, at 6:39 a.m.
 
In Response To: A6M1 Revisited (Dave Pluth)
 
Dave: 
Jim Long at AIR'TELL Publications & Research Service sent a package of A6M1 stuff to me that shows a lot.
 
1) Scoop on top of the cowl needs to be added. [I actually diagree with this feature, but I have no proof one way or another].
2) Two bladed prop, similar to a a Ki-43-I needs to be added. [I have considered using a Kingfisher prop hub with some Zero blades.]
3) Chin on the underside of the cowl needs to be removed. [Yup.]
4) Intake on underside in back of cowl needs to be changed in shape (made longer and less deep). [I look at the photos to judge this. I see plenty deep with an opening at the rear.]
5) Change the shape of the rudder to be straight. [I go more like the shape of the elevators, with a slight hook at the top, to provide for some counterweight.
 
Add to that, as Greg said, elevators down even with the prop's thrust line.Also, the fuselage is a little shorter in the aft area, a fin was added where the arrestor hook was to go, the pilot's seat was different, some other cockpit details were different, the angle of the leading edge of the vertical fin was different, the ailerons and flaps were different sizes, an access panel needs to be added to the wing tops aft of the 20mm cannons, the landing gear doors that cover the wheels were a little different, and that's all I can think of right now. Bear in mind that there was a number of mechanical changes inside the aircraft that were not as visible, and also the wind tunnel test models seen in "Eagles of Mitsubishi" aren't completely representative of the actual aircraft.
 
If you'd like, I'll list all of my sources so you can compare and see which ones seem more current and/or more reliable.
 
--Rob
 
Re: A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By: HiroyukiTakeuchi
Date: Sunday, 12 August 2001, at 3:21 a.m.
 
In Response To: A6M1 Revisited (Dave Pluth)
 
The current issue of the Maru Special carries some newly found photographs (and very crisp) of the first prototype M1 under contstruction. I haven't bought it yet, but I will send you scans when I do.
 
Re: A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By: Mike Goodwin <mailto:Mike.Goodwin@iname.com?subject=Re: A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Friday, 10 August 2001, at 1:32 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M1 Revisited *PIC* (Bill Sanborn)
 
The engine was a Zuisei instead of a Sakae. The main difference through the cowling is that the con-rods came together at the crank-case in a vee, rather than coming in radially.
 
Cheers,
Mike
 
Re: MORE A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By:  <mailto:reishikisenguy@aol.com?subject=Re: MORE A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Sunday, 12 August 2001, at 6:42 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M1 Revisited (Mike Goodwin)
 
I overlooked that, a rather obvious detail!
 
Also, on the cowl, note the panel lines will be different, as the hooks that hold the cowl down didn't have the Dzus fastener oval covers over them. This takes some looking...
 
--Rob
 
Re: A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By: Mike Goodwin <mailto:Mike.Goodwin@iname.com?subject=Re: A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Saturday, 11 August 2001, at 5:44 a.m.
 
In Response To:  (Dan Mackay)
 
I am afraid I know little about cockpit interiors!
 
The engine in the A6M1 is quoted as being a 780hp Zuisei 13. I don't know how accurate that power figure is (the Zuisei 13 was usually rated at 875hp), but this was the same unit as in the F1M2, and very similar to the Zuisei 11 in the E7K2 and the Zuisei 12 in the C5M1, if engine kits exist for these.
 
Cheers,
Mike
 
Re: A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By: Jim Long <mailto:james.i.long@worldnet.att.net?subject=Re: A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Saturday, 11 August 2001, at 6:27 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M1 Revisited (Dan Mackay)
 
Dave,
I can agree with the things that have been pointed out by everyone, except for your number 1 item: the external engine induction scoop. But I doubt if I could get anyone else to agree. The A6M1, as built, probably did not have an external scoop for the carburetor. Surviving engineering diagrams from a handling manual indicates that the airscoop was under the cowling - in the same manner as the one on the F1M2. Bob Mikesh embraced my idea and allowed me to write about this in his book on the Zero. See page 86 of the Warbirds book,"Zero." But I imagine that any model company that puts out a model of the A6M1 will have the external scoop. I think that configuration is based upon early drawings of the proposed A6M by Horikoshi. But I believe that the airscoop got reconfigured during the detailed designing and building of the prototype A6M. I tell you why. It doesn't make good sense to saddle your company's high-speed fighter with an external airscoop when your company's lower-speed observation biplane has an advanced hidden airscoop.
 
Jim Long
 
Re: A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By <mailto:reishikisenguy@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Sunday, 12 August 2001, at 7:21 a.m.
 
In Response To:  (Cruiser K)
 
"Cruiser:"
Regarding the part of your statement, "...more likely to go with the drawings..." If BETTER drawings show otherwise and have photos to back them up, would you allow THIS info to become your NEW guide?
 
Some of these drawings that are shown as sources also show the landing gear being more angled, like FW-190. I am not a believer at ALL of these drawings, but think they are sketches that aren't worth building off of. I have studied this aircraft and corresponded with Jim Long and Jim Lansdale on the subject.
 
I have seen copies of factory blueprints, photos of wind tunnel aircraft, etc, etc, etc... One wind tunnel test shows a long, deep, round scoop under the cowl that goes way up to the nose, but photos of the real plane's cowl don't; no scoop on top. One wind tunnel model shows what looks like a telescope-sight, but no scoop on top. The scoop on top of the cowl is just not there in any of these sources, which I deem more reliable than an artist's impression-turned myth-repeated until it became fact. If I see something more compelling than what I have already seen, I'll surely change my mind, but I see too many really good sources that show it wasn't there, er go, it won't be on my models.
 
I can provide a list of my sources. I will be ordering the book Hiroyuki spoke of in a recent post to add to my list of sources, and hopefully I'll see more definite information.
 
--Rob Graham
 
Re: A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Sunday, 12 August 2001, at 10:17 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M1 Revisited (Rob Graham)
 
Page 7 of A6M Zero in action also shows a 3D drawing of the cowl with airscoop on top, as does Mikesh's book shows the 3view drawing with the cowl with the airscoop on top. So I have to assume this to be factual. The only photo I have seen of the prototype has the cowling removed so I cant be 100% but until I see more proof as I stated earlier I would have to go with these drawings, Again the point you made does make sense why go with the top scoop when you have better design methods in house. Maybe it wasn't fixed until the 2nd or third prototype or the A6M2.
 
Cruiser K
 
Re: A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By: Dan Mackay <mailto:mackaydsh@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Tuesday, 14 August 2001, at 3:46 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M1 Revisited (Cruiser K)
 
To further confuse the top intake matter I have a borrowed copy of model art's book on the A6M2 model 11/21. It has line drawings of the prototype in its earlier days with the intake on top and later as a partial conversion to more of a model 11 standard with the intake remove, cowling and lower intake remaining the same, and revisions to the rear fuselage. But no photos to back it up.
 
Re: A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By: Jim Long <mailto:james.i.long@worldnet.att.net?subject=Re: A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Saturday, 11 August 2001, at 7:24 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M1 Revisited (Jim Long)
 
Dave, 
There are other technical differences between the A6M1 and the A6M2 that I didn't mention. Regarding your number 5 item, I should say that the shape of the vertical tail is substantially different. In the contemporary drawings the rudder is shown without an aerodynamic balance section, which I think is incorrect. A view of the shape of the A6M1 tail can be seen in a handling manual drawing of the war period in some old Koku-Fan monthly magazines. Koku-Fan published a batch of authentic drawings beginning in January 1974.
Your A6M1 should not have folding wing tips, either. And it should have the canopy framing and glazing that was common to the early A6M2s.
 
There is one other major difference between the A6M1 and the A6M2: the length of the ailerons and the flaps were different. A drawing of the A6M1 in the reference mentioned above shows that the division between the aileron and the flap was at wing station 12, instead of at wing station 11, as it was on the A6M2.
 
If I think of anything else, I'll write.
 
Regards,
Jim Long
 
Re: A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By: Rob Graham <mailto:reishikisenguy@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Sunday, 12 August 2001, at 9:33 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M1 Revisited (Jim Long)
 
Jim:
Nice to see you around in these parts! I hope I haven't been misleading, but I have seen NO photo with the carb scoop on top of the cowl. In Mikesh's Motorbooks Zero book (I don't have it handy, it's in the suitcase now), a drawing shows an A6M1 with a scoop on top. Our theories agree 100%; I contend that the blueprints shown in FAOTW (#5?) and other sources show what it most likely looked like.
 
Take care,
--Rob
 
Re: A6M1 Revisited
 
Posted By: DANIS Jean-Charles <mailto:jean-charles.danis@cfwb.be?subject=Re: A6M1 Revisited>
Date: Sunday, 12 August 2001, at 11:55 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M1 Revisited (Jim Long)
 
Hi all,
There is excellent information about the A6M1 Zero prototype in the Model Art book entitled "A6M Zero Modelling Guide" with drawings and photographs showing how to convert an A6M2 into the A6M1.
 
Regarding the GARTEX kit (Hi George !), it is the Hasegawa A6M2 with a new resin fuselage, cowl and some white metal parts like the propeller.
 
There's also a photograph of the contents of the box in the Model Art book listed above.
 
Regards, 
J.C. DANIS
 
Another A6M2 Question
 
Posted By: Tony Feredo <mailto:tferedo@yahoo.com?subject=Another A6M2 Question>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 9:08 a.m.
 
Hi Guys,
 
Another A6M2 Zero Question:
 
Is there any major difference as far as external appearance (besides the tailhook) between the Model 11 (used in China) and the Model 21. Any comments on this will be highly appreciated.
 
I would like to do an A6M2 Type 11 but since I cant find a 1/48 scale of the same type here Manila, I have decided to use an A6M2 Type 21 (Hasegawa or Tamiya) and modify what ever needs to be modified...
 
TIA
Tony
 
Re: Another A6M2 Question
 
Posted By: Amos H. Terrell <mailto:ATerrell@KScable.com?subject=Re: Another A6M2 Question>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 5:42 p.m.
 
In Response To: Another A6M2 Question (Tony Feredo)
 
Hi Tony;
Before you resort to "surgery" try to obtain a Hasegawa kit #09142 (JT42). It's a 1/48 kit for the A6M2a Type 11. Nice kit, very good fit. this has been a "Japanese market" only kit at times, although I was able to get one through Marco Polo.
 
Kit has decals for NAP 1/c Saburo Sakai and Lt. Minoru Suzuki in China.
 
If you choose to modify a type 21 kit, you also may have to fill some seems near the wing tips that represent the wing folds/covers on the carrier version.
 
Re: Another A6M2 Question
 
Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: Another A6M2 Question>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 5:01 p.m.
 
In Response To: Another A6M2 Question (Tony Feredo)
 
Hi Tony,
The 11's exhaust pipes are mounted one cowl flap higher on the cowlings of the first 34 aircraft built. The muzzles of the wing cannon are recessed in square openings and there is no radio direction loop antenna under the canopy behind the pilot.
 
Cheers!
Greg
 
Re: Another A6M2 Question
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=Re: Another A6M2 Question>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 11:10 a.m.
 
In Response To: Another A6M2 Question (Tony Feredo)
 
Tony,
The biggest difference is the spinner on the 21 is slightly bigger.
 
-Dave
ATAIU-SEA Rufe - previous unit?
 
Posted By: Mike Yeo <mailto:mikeyeo@bigpond.com?subject=ATAIU-SEA Rufe - previous unit?>
Date: Monday, 4 June 2001, at 3:45 a.m.
 
I was just wondering about the (rather) famous ATAIU-SEA Rufe photo which shows it on the ramp at Seletar, Singapore after the war. My references show no Rufe units in Singapore at the end of the war. Is it a gap in my knowledge, and there was a Rufe unit based in Singapore or was the aircraft brought there from somewhere else? Thanks
 
Mike
 
Re: ATAIU-SEA Rufe - previous unit?
 
Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: ATAIU-SEA Rufe - previous unit?>
Date: Monday, 4 June 2001, at 8:33 a.m.
 
In Response To: ATAIU-SEA Rufe - previous unit? (Mike Yeo)
 
Hello Mike,
Originally, there were no Rufe units at Singapore. Those aircraft were former 934 Ku (Ambon) after that unit disbanded and the aircraft sent to Surabaya. Then sent on to the 936 Ku. This augmented the other aircraft then in use by the 936 Ku. There is a very good article in AE #31 on those Rufe units and very accurate in detail.
 
Al
 
Zero's vs Spitfires pt2
 
Posted By: Paul Micklos <mailto:Paulmicklos@prodigy.net?subject=Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Friday, 13 April 2001, at 9:56 p.m.
 
Hi Guys
Maybe some one can help me, im trying to do some research on the Zero's vs Spitfires, I know that the 202nd battled the spitefire also known as the 3rd air group, Does any one else know how many other squadrons that battled the spitefire and what number they where. Also does any one know the name of the Britsh squadron that battled the Japanese, I have heard of one squadron called the Grey Mouse i believe. Any help would be appriciated.
 
Thanks for your time.
 
Zero's vs Clive Caldwell
 
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Zero's vs Clive Caldwell>
Date: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 8:15 a.m.
 
In Response To: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)
 
Famous desert ace Clive Caldwell got a Zero and a Kate on March 2 1943 and tw months later he destroyed two more (can anybody tell what kind of a/c? and date) and on June 30, 1943 he shot down another Zero for his final and 28.5 kill.
From "Allied Aces of WWII" by William N. Hess
 
Re: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell
 
Posted By: rick dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell>
Date: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:40 p.m.
 
In Response To: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell (Deniz Karacay)
 
Deniz
On March 2d no Kates were present though one was claimed as you report. The Spitfires clashed with A6M2s of 202 Ku. Caldwell claimed the Kate and one of the fighters. None were lost.
 
On May 2d he flew with 452 Squadron and again engaged fighters (A6Ms of 202). He claimed a HAP and a ZEKE. None were lost though seven were damaged.
I believe Caldwell's claim on the 30th may have been a bomber as six bombers but only two fighters were claimed that day. The bombers were type 1 attack bombers from 753 Ku and none were shotdown outright but one bomber crashed near its base. I'll double check and let you know later if this claim is for a fighter.
 
Rick
 
Re: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell
 
Posted By: rick dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell>
Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 3:59 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell (Deniz Karacay)
 
Deniz
Your comment reminded me that I have a copy of Price's Spit 5 book. It doesn't say much about Caldwell. But it does say his last (27th indivdual) victory was on August 17th 43 -- a 202 ku Ki 46. Says he claimed 8 victories at Darwin.
 
Rick
 
Nakajima A6M2-N
 
Posted By: Andrew Monroe <mailto:amonroe@spp.org?subject=Nakajima A6M2-N>
Date: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 6:14 p.m.
 
This may be a shot in the dark, but does anyone know what the tail marking and plane color of NAP3/C Yoshiichi Sasaki's Nakajima A6M2-N are? (by the way, what does NAP3/C mean?) He flew a Rufe in the Aleutians campaign and I would like to replicate his plane
TIA
Andrew
 
Re: Nakajima A6M2-N
 
Posted By: Andrew Monroe <mailto:amonroe@spp.org?subject=Re: Nakajima A6M2-N>
Date: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 7:30 a.m.
 
In Response To: Nakajima A6M2-N (Andrew Monroe)
 
Is there anyway I can research the tail markings of Yoshiichi Sasaki. Did the tail markings of the 452nd have the tail marking prefix of 52? Is there anyway someone might know Sasaki's marking with the 52 prefix. Also does anyone know if his plane was gray or green and if he had any special tail or fusalage markings
THX
Andrew
 
Re: Nakajima A6M2-N
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Nakajima A6M2-N>
Date: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 2:32 a.m.
 
In Response To: Nakajima A6M2-N (Andrew Monroe)
 
Hi Anderew! "Naval Air Pilot 3rd Class". An enlisted rank. Japanese Pilots were often enlisted, not all were Officer's like the US Pilots...
 
Cheers!
=Martin
 
Re: A6M2-N of 452 Ku (Shumushu Isle., Chishima Isl *PIC*
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M2-N of 452 Ku (Shumushu Isle., Chishima Isl *PIC*>
Date: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 6:24 a.m.
 
In Response To: A6M2-N of 452 Ku (Shumushu Isle., Chishima Isles.) *PIC* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
Thank you Uchida-san for re-posting this photograph. I have never seen it before. For another view of some of No.452 ku A6M2-N Rufes [M1-113] and [M1-119] after capture at Kiska, see below.
 
The two float planes of No.452 Kaugun Kokutai you posted carry the unit codes of [M1-107] and [M1-103]. The Japanese forces evacuated Kiska in late July 1943 and Attu had been re-occupied by the Allies earlier in May.
 
Is it certain that your photo of [M1-107] and [M1-103] was taken after a few Rufes were withdrawn to Chishima or could this photograph have been taken earlier in the Aleutians?
 
Jim Lansdale
 
452 Ku Officers
 
Posted By: Andrew Obluski <mailto:aoba41@yahoo.com?subject=452 Ku Officers>
Date: Thursday, 28 June 2001, at 12:04 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A6M2-N of 452 Ku (Shumushu Isle., Chishima Isl *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
I just would like to know if somebody knows the names of senior officers of 452 Ku stationed in the Aleutians. I have Capt Nobukichi Takahashi as CO of 452 Ku and Lt Kushichiro Yamada as hikotaicho of floatplane unit. Can you confirm it or add more names?
Zero Radio Mast
 
Posted By: Bill Aicklen <mailto:WFAicklen@aol.com?subject=Zero Radio Mast>
Date: Sunday, 5 August 2001, at 10:00 a.m.
 
I'm building the Tamiya A6M2 Model 21 at Pearl Harbor. Was the radio mast on the Zero wood or metal? If wood, was it natural color or painted the same as the fuselage color? Seems I saw some color reference that showed a wood color. Was I dreaming?
Thanks in advance for any help!
 
Bill Aicklen
 
Re: Zero Radio Mast
 
Posted By: Greg Springer
Date: Monday, 6 August 2001, at 7:16 a.m.
 
In Response To: Zero Radio Mast (Bill Aicklen)
 
Hi Bill,
The mast was made by laminating two pieces of wood. A channel was routed in one of the halves so the antenna lead could pass through the center of the mast. An insulator, probably made of Bakelite plastic, capped the top of the mast. Paint the mast the same color as the upper surface of the Zero and paint the tip black.
 
Cheers!
Greg
 
Re: Zero Radio Mast
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Sunday, 5 August 2001, at 10:12 p.m.
 
In Response To: Zero Radio Mast (Bill Aicklen)
 
It is made of wood, but painted. I have not seen any photographs of the mast showing natural wood surface.
 
Posted By: Martin
Date: Monday, 6 August 2001, at 3:03 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Zero Radio Mast (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
 
I think they were all wood, at least early in the war. I don't know of any changes, though there may well have been. Saburo Sakai said that the Zeros at Lae and Rabaul had wooden radio masts...
 
Cheers!
I just would like to know if somebody knows the names of senior officers of 452 Ku stationed in the Aleutians. I have Capt Nobukichi Takahashi as CO of 452 Ku and Lt Kushichiro Yamada as hikotaicho of floatplane unit. Can you confirm it or add more names?
Zero Model 52 paint schemes
Posted By: Dave Schemel <mailto:schemel@execpc.com?subject=Zero Model 52 paint schemes>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 5:47 a.m.
 
While attempting to talk myself out of the Tamiya Zero (or is it trying to convince myself to do it?), I looked through my meager Zero library. In the FAOW #9 on the late Zeros on page 92 it shows pictures of several Zeros on a USN carrier being brought to the USA. These aircraft appear to be camouflaged in similar schemes. I believe these planes are Model 52s (any comments?).
 
Does anyone have any information on these aircraft? What colors were used? Are the 2 colors made by applying fresh paint over the same badly faded paint? Any one have any more information about the schemes? Any history on these planes?
I apologize if this has been covered before.
 
Thanks---Dave
 
Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes
 
Posted By: John Dillon <mailto:john.dillon@wachovia.com?subject=Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 5:55 a.m.
 
In Response To: Zero Model 52 paint schemes (Dave Schemel)
 
Dave
I don't have that FAOW, but I seem to remember a discussion about those pictures and what appears to be a camoflage scheme is actually the contrast between areas that the U.S. sailors had cleaned on the aircraft and those that they did not (if my memory is wrong I'm sure someone else will correct me). Unfortunately the IJNAF didn't see fit to use the interesting camoflage and graphics that their Army counterparts did.
 
HTH
John
 
Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes
 
Posted By: Dave Schemel <mailto:schemel@execpc.com?subject=Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 8:43 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes (John Dillon)
 
John,
I am not afraid to admit my ignorance (some shout about my ignorance) but I don't understand why they would have choosen to have cleaned some areas on the airframes likee they did. Why clean them in a basic pattern from plane to plane but with no logical (to me anyway) pattern on an individual basis. For example this effect if it were created by a cleaning operation I would think would start at the tail and work forward or have straight lines. This pattern shows dark over much of the front fuselage and wing Hinomarus. All of the planes seem to have the areas around the Hinomarus dark. The planes look pretty darn scruffey in general.---
 
Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 12:30 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes (Dave Schemel)
 
Dave -
There were several photos on this site about a year ago that were close ups of the US sailors washing the Zeros. They did start from the front in the photos. They appeared to be washing up to the panel lines. I do not know about the wings. It is quite possible that some photos of multi-coloured Zeros were taken part way through the process.
I do not know if these photos are still around. You might try setting your preferences to 24 months and look at these message boards along with some of the archived boards. I hope that you have a high speed 'net connection (cable DSL, or better).
 
HTH
- Grant
 
Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes *PIC*
 
Posted By: Jim Eyerdom <mailto:jheyerdom@aol.com?subject=Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 22 August 2001, at 8:11 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes (Grant Goodale)
 
Grant,
One of the photos you referred to might be seen on page 189 of Model Art 510, the updated IJN fighter markings book.
Return to Navy Message Board Threads