Aichi M6A "Mountain Haze"
 
Topics:
Serian Interior Colors
Aichi Seiran colors (New)
Serious Seiran questions! (New)
 
Serian Interior Colors
 
Posted By: Mark Gran <Dogfight65@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 9 February 2001, at 2:07 p.m.
 
Since we're on the topic of Japanese float planes, can anyone out there enlighten me to the interior colors of the Aichi Serian? Couldn't see any solid interior shots on the NASM site.
 
Re: Serian Interior Colors
 
Posted By: Jeff McGuire <jmcguire@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Friday, 9 February 2001, at 8:58 p.m.
 
In Response To: Serian Interior Colors (Mark Gran)
 
To the best of my knowledge it is the same yellowish green that is applied on alot of the other aircraft. In my estimation it is best described as a yellow-leaning interior green. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong. You should check out the walk around section of this site, if memory serves, there is a Seiran featured there.
 
Re: Serian Interior Colors
 
Posted By: Claus Krüger <cdk59@msn.com>
Date: Saturday, 10 February 2001, at 6:01 a.m.
 
In Response To: Serian Interior Colors (Mark Gran)
 
The old Monogram Seiran Close Up gives a Munsell Notation 10Y4/4 for the cockpit.The IPMS Cross Color Referrence say this is Thorpe N.5 Light Olive Green (Bamboo),FS 34098 but a bit lighter and more yellow.
 
Re: Serian Interior Colors *PIC*
 
Posted By: Mike Swinburne <a4_kahu@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 10 February 2001, at 7:29 a.m.
 
In Response To: Serian Interior Colors (Mark Gran)
 
THe interior is a dark green, look at Tim Hortmans pic below (mine are too blurry to see) notice the sidewalls are darker green with a hint of blue.
 
http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/other/m6a1-7.jpg
Aichi Seiran colors
 
Posted By: John Adelmann <mailto:jadelmann2@home.com?subject=Aichi Seiran colors>
Date: Tuesday, 24 July 2001, at 2:33 p.m.
 
I am doing a layout for a future issue of FineScale Modeler magazine's Great Scale Modeling portfolio section, and I want to be as accurate as possible with the Warbird colors for an Aichi Seiran floatplane.
1. I am building the Tamiya 1/48 scale bird, and was rather surprised to see the instructions call out for an RLM gray for the interior!!! If that's correct, can I assume it's RLM 66, like our favorite Me-109s and Fw-190s?
2. The Tamiya instructions also call out for IJN Dark Green and IJN Light Grey for the Seiran. After scrolling through all the J-Plane information about colors, I am still not sure what to use. I prefer ModelMaster paints, and there seems to be no corresponding charts for this paint.
Can someone gimme some "hep"?
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
 
John Adelmann
 
Re: Aichi Seiran colors
 
Posted By: Andrew Johnson <mailto:ajo@ceh.ac.uk?subject=Re: Aichi Seiran colors>
Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 4:04 a.m.
 
In Response To: Aichi Seiran colors (John Adelmann)
 
Hi John
I too am doing the Tamiya Seiran. I am using the Seiran walk around photos on this site as my painting guide. Interior looks like a series of different greens and blu-greys. There is always the danger that these were carefully painted by the new american owners, but I'm not sure.
 
Andrew
 
Re: Aichi Seiran colors
 
Posted By: Tim Hortman <mailto:thortman@epix.net?subject=Re: Aichi Seiran colors>
Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 8:30 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Aichi Seiran colors (Andrew Johnson)
 
Anderw, et al,
The interior of the Seiran at Garber is for the most part still in the Original WWII colors. If the restoration team re-painted anything, you can bet that it is as close to the original color as possible. The interior was not repainted just after the war, and they left as much of the interior original as they could. (I think you can see this in the walkaround photos)
FYI: One of of my visits, the restroation team was painting the propeller. The "paint guy" had 5 different color patches he had mixed. There was much debate as to which was the one they were going to use. It was quickly narrowed down to a few (which honestly looked the same to me) and then the one they would use was chosen.
They take the restoration of an aircrat very seriously, and don't just pick a "green" because "that is what they used" like some other restoration/repair shops.
Put some trust in the restored photos of the M6A1 at Garber. I believe it is the closest thing you will get until someone comes up with that set of WWII color photos.
 
Just my .02
Tim

Serious Seiran questions!

 
Posted By: Andrew Johnson <mailto:ajo@ceh.ac.uk?subject=Serious Seiran questions!>
Date: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 4:07 a.m.
 
I have been inspired by the photo of the restored Seiran on the message board to go out and buy my own Tamiya kit! I wonder if anyone else has? Try as I might I cannot find any photos of completed Tamiya Seirans on the web, surely there must be some out there?
I am still confused as to whether the Seirans' were due to be catapulted from the I-400 submarines without their floats? The box art appears to show floats magically being run out from their own wells, a bit like an old 'Thunderbirds' episode! If floats were only present on training versions then the decals provided by Tamiya are inoppropriate?
 
Thanks
Andrew Johnson
 
Re: Serious Seiran questions!
 
Posted By: Chris Allred <mailto:allredchris@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Serious Seiran questions!>
Date: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 10:13 a.m.
 
In Response To: Serious Seiran questions! (Andrew Johnson)
 
Andrew, The Serian didn't need to have floats to be catapulted off the sub(the weight would reduce the bomb load. The floats were stored in seperate "Tubes"(both port and Starboard)and brought out when needed.
I've built a Serian as it was stored and there is a photo of her on this site, I'm also building a section of the I-400. Both will be at nationals.
I could go on and on but, if you have any more questions feel free. Banzai Chris Allred
 
Re: More Serious Seiran questions!
 
Posted By: Andrew Johnson <mailto:ajo@ceh.ac.uk?subject=Re: More Serious Seiran questions!>
Date: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 10:18 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Serious Seiran questions! (Chris Allred)
 
Dear Chris
This leaves me a little puzzled. Why take the floats on the submarine if they did not intend to use them? Would I be right in then thinking that the Seiran with floats could not have taken off from the water or be catapulted into the air carrying the 800 kg bomb?
Is there any chance you could jpeg and post your Seiran to j-aircraft or me? Would love to see it.
 
Thanks
Andrew
 
Re: More Serious Seiran questions!
 
Posted By: Bill Leyh <mailto:hawk81@pacbell.net?subject=Re: More Serious Seiran questions!>
Date: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 4:41 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: More Serious Seiran questions! (Andrew Johnson)
 
Andrew,
The floats were carried for training flights. In the actual attack, the Seiran would have been launched without floats.
 
HTH,
Bill
 
Re: More Serious Seiran questions!
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 7:26 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: More Serious Seiran questions! (Bill Leyh)
 
The plane/subamrine were designed so that it could carry out conventional missions but the two missions planned for the weapon system were both Kamikaze missions.
Since the attacks both did not take place, training flights were the only flights they made.
These training flights were more or less training for the submarine crew so that they could assemble, launch and recover the plane asap.
The landplane version M6A1-K was used to train pilots for the attack flights since they would be flying the Seirans in a floatless configuration in the attack.
 
Re: More Serious Seiran question 2s!
 
Posted By: Andrew Johnson <mailto:ajo@ceh.ac.uk?subject=Re: More Serious Seiran question 2s!>
Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 2:00 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: More Serious Seiran questions! (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
 
Thanks Chris, Bill, Hiroyki
I think I'm getting there. When the I-400 boats sailed off on their mission with their Seirans' they had a few training days on the cruise whereby they could launch and recover their aircraft. So the submarines had cranes to recover their planes?
 
More questions:
The Garber Seiran seems to have a large reflector gunsight for the pilot, but am I right in thinking the aircraft had no forward facing guns? Why the gunsight?
The Seiran was powered by a Japanese copy of the DB-605, wasn't this engine a big failure in the 2nd generation Ki-61? Did Aichi succeed where Kawasaki failed, or are we talking about different engines?
 
Thanks for all your help
Andrew
 
PS Do any interviews survive from any Seiran pilots? Was any allied technical intelligance put together on the Seiran?
 
Re: More Serious Seiran question 2s!
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Monday, 4 June 2001, at 11:07 p.m.
 
In Response To:  (Andrew Johnson)
 
Actually many weeks of training took place before they sailed off to attack. It took the sub crew something like half an hour to assemble and launch the aircraft in the beginning. By the time they sailed off, they could do it in a few minutes.
 
Mr. Takahashi, a former Seiran pilot on the I400 is still alive and well in Tokyo. He's writing an serial autobio on Maru Monthly now.
 
I-400 link
 
Posted By: Bill Sanborn <mailto:bsanborn@psemc.com?subject=I-400 link>
Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 8:47 p.m.
 
In Response To:  (Andrew Johnson)
 
Andrew,
Thought you might find this interesting.
 
Bill
I-400 Link
 
Re: More Serious Seiran question 2s!
 
Posted By: Mike Goodwin <mailto:Mike.Goodwin@iname.com?subject=Re: More Serious Seiran question 2s!>
Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 2:56 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: More Serious Seiran question 2s! (Chris Allred)
 
The Aichi DB601 copies were generally thought to be less reliable than the Kawasaki ones. Kawasaki's original Ha-40 was actually fairly robust, the later Ha-140 was the one with problems.
 
After having tried the Atsuta in the D4Y1, I believe that the IJNAF would rather have forgotten about it. But it was needed in the M6A because the thrustline was then lower, meaning that the propeller could be mounted low enough to fit in the submarine. I believe that the Atsuta engineers for the M6A mission were the cream of those from D4Y1 operations, who were necessary to get the maximum possible number running for the operations.
 
Cheers,
Mike
 
Re: More Serious Seiran question 2s!
 
Posted By: Bill Leyh <mailto:hawk81@pacbell.net?subject=Re: More Serious Seiran question 2s!>
Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 6:08 a.m.
 
In Response To:  (Andrew Johnson)
 
Andrew,
My only reference for the Atsuta says it was a license-built version of the DB601A. I'd be VERY interested to know the answer to your question about Aichi vs. Kawasaki engines though!
 
As for the reflector sight, it probably was used for bomb aiming.
 
Regards,
Bill
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Monday, 4 June 2001, at 11:01 p.m.
In Response To: Re: More Serious Seiran question 2s! (Bill Leyh)
 
IJN and IJA both bought licences for the DB601 separately and paid Germany twice what would have been necessary in precious foreign currency. Then they separately assigned not Nakajima or Mitsubishi who catered for both services, but Aichi and Kawasaki who catered exclusively for IJN and IJA resectively, to licence build them separately.
There were no interaction between Aichi and Kawasaki in modifying the design to suit Japanese production. One of the main problems in licence building the DB601 was the fuel injector which Bosch refused to sell. I don't remember which was which but if memory serves me correctly, Aichi went ahead and made a dead copy of the Bosch injector and Kawasaki had Mitsubishi modify the injection device developed for the Ha112II.
 
The Ha140 is not a licence built version of the DB605, but a Japanese development of the Ha40 using similar methodology (increased boost pressure and rpm).
 
Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140>
Date: Tuesday, 5 June 2001, at 5:43 p.m.
 
In Response To: Atsuta & Ha40/140 (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
 
Hiroyuki
You are right Mitsubishi built the fuel injector for Kawasaki. They had problems with it because of the high pressures involved. Something a post-war US technical report based on knowledgeable Japaneses says "was never really solved."
 
Rick
 
Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140
 
Posted By: Bill Leyh <mailto:hawk81@pacbell.net?subject=Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140>
Date: Monday, 4 June 2001, at 11:38 p.m.
 
In Response To: Atsuta & Ha40/140 (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
 
Thank you, Hiroyuki! That's very interesting. Price gouging seems to have been a common practice in the international arms markets. Curtiss did the same to the French with the Hawk75.
 
Wasn't the crankshaft the most frequent failure item in the Sanshikisen Ha-40 installation?
I saw a documentary a while ago in which a mechanic who worked on the Black 6 Bf-109 restoration in England related a conversation with a Rolls-Royce engineer concerning the Daimler Benz engine who said "For heaven's sake, don't damage the crankshaft. We couldn't make another with the tooling we have today." The English mechanic was apparently very impressed with how close the tolerances were in the engine.
 
Do you know any of the specifics of the problems with the cooling system in the sanshikisen?
 
Regards,
Bill
 
Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Tuesday, 5 June 2001, at 12:04 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140 (Bill Leyh)
 
As far as I know the main cause of the problem was in crankshaft material and metallurgy. Japan did not have the nickel needed to make the prper alloy, nor did it have the techniques in metallurgy to mass produce satisfacotry products with nickel-less material.
 
Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140
 
Posted By: Bill Leyh <mailto:hawk81@pacbell.net?subject=Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140>
Date: Tuesday, 5 June 2001, at 12:21 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140 (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
 
Interesting! That's the first I've ever heard of a nickel shortage impacting Japan's materials engineering. The Ha-40 is the only engine I know of that suffered from this problem. Do you have any idea why only this engine was so affected?
 
Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Tuesday, 5 June 2001, at 12:36 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140 (Bill Leyh)
 
The long crankshaft required for the in-line engine demanded more precision and strength than that of radials. The BMW based Ha9 V12 were also never reliable.
 
Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140
 
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Re: Atsuta & Ha40/140>
Date: Thursday, 7 June 2001, at 7:44 p.m.
 
In Response To:  (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
 
Hello,
Thank you and others for the information about Japanese engines. I follow the threads with keen interest.
I beleive it was you who also said Japanese delegation found it Junkers Jumo more suitable for Japanese production methods but rejected for some reason.
Did they ever show interest in BMW801, DB603 or Jumo213?. They imported Me210 with 410 standards thus having DB603s, a FW190.
Also is the refusal of Bosch to sell injectors due to production needs of Germany or they just don't want to give the technology (which sounds unlikely to me)
 
Thanks in advance
Deniz
Return to Navy Message Board