Mitsubishi A6M Zero, an interesting fact few people know
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 дек 2017
- The tail of the A6M Zero is fairly unique among WW2 fighters. In this video I'll explain why the designers chose to use this configurations, and why it works.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplanesandautomobiles...
Please consider supporting this channel on Patreon: / gregsairplanesandautom... 
Авто/Мото
There is actually a special maneuver called Hineri Komi where the A6M pitched up in a turn fight and use the rudder to cut inside the turning circle. The rudder response at high AoA seems to have made such a maneuver possible. Thanks for the well explained information. Without this, I don't think I would have gotten the full picture as to why that maneuver was mostly unique to the A6M.
Here is a visualization of this maneuver
ruclips.net/video/1t9cr1frFw4/видео.html&ab_channel=KingsandGenerals
My uncle Richard is 97 years old. He flew TBF's and during the last few months of the war the Navy transitioned him into Corsairs because they ran out of targets for the Avengers where he was. He and his crew had to bail out of one TBF and crashed landed another on their carrier that was almost shot in two. To this very day Zeros trigger him and the stories start coming. Thanks Uncle Richard...
record his stories
Thanks uncle Richard!
record his stories on storycorps
triggered
Bless his heart.
This is the 1st video of yours I have watched. I found it very interesting and informative. That being said, the real reason I decided to leave a comment, is the comment section itself. I must say that this seems to be the most intelligent, knowledgeable, respectful and courteous group of comments I have ever seen on a RUclips video. Very refreshing to see. To everyone, keep up the good work!
Well don't watch the one comparing the P-40 with the P-51, I think it is - it started a near war over which country built better planes and the relative merits of each -
DistinctOgre, you're right on both counts; very informative video and no derogatory and insulting remarks in the comments section. How refreshing!!! 👍😁
A little bit of trivia, since the comments are well-behaved. My father-in-law was to be a Kamikazi pilot but was too ill to fly on 'his' day. (A bit like someone too sick on his day in the electric chair, so, postponed.) He's still alive. 95. His turn didn't come again. My father flew RAF Spits and Mohawks against the Japanese. Fl Lt.
Wow.
James Wood I would like to talk to you my father a kiwi flew P36 Mowhawks in burma no 4 / 5 squadron later Hurricanes with 136 squad out of Red Road Calcutta
That's as good as people a couple of generations back saying that they had relatives on both sides of the US Civil War. Your in-law did dodge a bullet, but he wasn't alone. Many "special attack" missions were scrubbed because of mechanical failure (common in IJ aircraft by 1945), bad weather and obviously illness. As events developed far fewer than half of men prepared for special attack perished. When it was clear that the Kamikaze effort was not going to be decisive on Okinawa, IJ officers decided to stop the attempt and save up men and planes for an US attack on Kyushu. (A nasty thought - US fighters would have had to hit them within minutes of take-off, and the targets were going to be LSTs and troop ships, not armored warships.) Naturally hundred more men and planes were prepared after May 1945 also and most survived the war - more than the men sent to contest allied bombing attacks.
My father flew mohawks and hurricanes RAF sqdns 4 , 5 and 136 what squads your father ? Dad was a kiwi joined RAF in 1940 joined 611 sqdn in 1941 call sign Pinnochio before transfer to Burma /India. while on 136 his aircraft had nose art goose stepping wood pecker on his hurricane when flying off Red Road strip with 136 sqdn call sign Slogon moenui3 @gmail,com
@@jimw4674 Hi Jim..sorry, I have adblocker installed, so I don't receive replies in my in-box. I've just come back and seen your reply. My Dad was born in England, but joined the RNZAF in NZ. Apparently, (according to him), poms living in NZ automatically fly for the RAF. He threw his log book out in the '70s, but I retrieved it. Trained in Halifax, Canada. Dec '42, 155 Squadron, Calcutta. (Mohawk IV. Q for Queenie.) Jan '44 (Spitfire VIII). Then, Aug '44 (Hurricane II B), in Eastleigh, East Africa. Dec '44, cadged lifts on Catalina (E Africa.), Liberator, Dakota, Lodestar (Adelaide.), to arrive back in NZ Jan '45. On the carpet for doing this lol. He said he met Bader, and spent an uncomfortable 2 hrs in a staff car with Vera Lynn, who ignored him, as he was a Flt Lieutenant, not a Private (or equivalent.) One can only wonder how true the stories are! As I age, I realize how incredible their experiences were, and how humdrum life was after the war for them. Pickled in alcohol, war memories, a carping wife, awful kids. Died at 72 in '87. The 50's and 60's were tough. Cheers, from a Kiwi.
The fact it can still turn tight when the stabs is moved forward is just amazing
Interview him before he passes. His service should never be forgotten.
Rarely mentioned much, but the IJN and IJA not only suffered with unreplaceable pilot/aircrew losses, both services also had a severe shortage of experienced ground crews--mechanics, armorers, and the like. By early 1944, hundreds of their best mechanics were stranded in bypassed stations like Rabaul and Truk. Surviving pilots were flown back to the home islands in transports, but mechanics ended up as starving and poorly trained foot soldiers. All this at the time the Army and Navy were struggling to bring online the next generation of aircraft, which were more complex than ever. Japan was losing the war on many different levels. They were totally unequipped to fight a long war of attrition. See "Combined Fleet Decoded" by John Prados. An outstanding work.
The biggest cause of that is while Japan had rapidly industrialized, most citizens really weren't there yet. Things like automotive mechanics or even the use of mechanized farm tractors were a rarity. Whereas the US had about 2 generations that were well versed with basic mechanics. Just from fixing their own cars and tractors. Pretty much any soldier or sailor had a good basic understanding of combustion engines and intro mechanics. It made it much easier to train literally anybody up much much faster. They all understood engines. They just had to be taught new and bigger engines.
@@andrewtaylor940 Yes, I've heard that before. Makes perfect sense. Even industrialized countries like Germany and Britain didn't have the rate of car ownership that the US had, and it was a sort of passage rite that teen aged guys got themselves a used clunker, fixed it up and kept it running. Sometimes hidden or not well known cultural aspects can have a major impact. Thanks for your input.
A little-known fact is that the Japanese in 1943 invented a new aluminum alloy that was 30% stronger than anything before. It is now called 7075 and is used in our AR15 M16 M4 rifles.
Strong but much less elastic and more prone to fatigue cracking.
what aircraft was it used in, if any?
I heard that it was used in wing spars but I dont know if this is true.
7075 aluminium alloy is an aluminium alloy, with zinc as the primary alloying element. It is strong, with a strength comparable to many steels, and has good fatigue strength and average machinability. It has lower resistance to corrosion than many other aluminium alloys, but has significantly better corrosion resistance than the 2000 alloys. Its relatively high cost limits its use.
7075 aluminium alloy's composition roughly includes 5.6-6.1% zinc, 2.1-2.5% magnesium, 1.2-1.6% copper, and less than a half percent of silicon, iron, manganese, titanium, chromium, and other metals. It is produced in many tempers, some of which are 7075-0, 7075-T6, 7075-T651.
The first 7075 was developed in secret by a Japanese company, Sumitomo Metal, in 1943.
7075 series is ubiquitous in commercial airlines. Of small planes, Mooney has 7075 spar, and only failure was into a helpless fellow fling into a thunderstorm.
Always remember Ben Affleck advice in Pearl Harbor: The Zeros are faster and our P-40s are more maneuverable. Facepalm.
I was so sad when I first saw that scene. But I shouldn't have been surprised.
In the very opening scenes of the battle, the camera is moving backwards through a gaggle of Japanese dive bombers at more or less the same speed as it's moving back through the landscape. Those planes are wobbling at the spot, perhaps even flying backwards. The easiest fix would have been to move the camera forward instead, and then comp in the planes as they were. The fact that nobody apparently thought of that made me already hate the movie.
I don't watch those movies with virtual reality airplanes. I just can't.
@@fjp3305 amen
From here to eternity is the film to watch. Midway. Flying tigers. Stuff without ben Affleck.
@@nastybastardatlive Don´t forget Tora, Tora, Tora!
Good analysis, good explanation and proves the designers' emphasis on agility.
Good sum up on the relative unimportance of maneuverability in WW2 aircraft. Early warning systems like that of the Flying Tigers and Henderson field on Guadalcanal gave them time to get altitude and defeat the Japanese with zoom and boom tactics and avoid turning contests.
Brilliant channel....so much information I didn't know even after 45 years being a WWII aircraft fanatic...I'm 56 now...Big thanks for all the WWII aviation vids...Simply wonderful!
Enhanced rudder effectiveness at high angles of attack is certainly very useful for naval aircraft that have to land on carriers, such as the Mitsubishi Zero. Nakajima's follow-ups to the Ki. 43 Oscar, such as the Ki. 44 Tojo and Ki. 84 Frank also had the horizontal stabilizers located forward of the rudder. I remember reading that in the KI. 44's case, the author stated that it was to improve directional stability. The Ki. 43's predecessor, the Ki. 27 Nate, on the other hand, looked very different with a rather leaf-shaped narrow chord horizontal stabilizer at the very end of the fuselage. Back to the subject of naval aircraft, I suppose the F4U Corsair's design addressed the problem of rudder effectiveness with its unique looking tail, somewhat reminiscent of the Blackburn Skua; one could either say that the vertical empennage was moved forward up the fuselage or that the horizontal empennage was moved backward towards what could almost be described as a fuselage extension.
I find this stuff very fascinating. I appreciate your take on these subjects and look forward to more of your work. I wonder if you have any thoughts or ideas on this question: Is it possible that the drag-inducing humped airfoil shape of the fuselages of the Italian Fiat G.50 and Macchi C.200 fighters conferred any lift benefit along the lines of a "lifting body?" And if so, is there some way to quantify that? In general, to what degree to fuselage shapes have any effect, if at all, on lift?
I need to clarify, the author's claim was that the Ki. 44's tail configuration with the vertical empennage placed aft of the horizontal empennage was to improve directional stability. The way I wrote it made it look like I thought the horizontal empennage is responsible for directional stability, which is not the case.
Hi Michael. Extra points for mentioning the Blackburn Skua, that's an obscure reference. I don't have data on the lifting body effect on the Italian planes, I'll have to look into that. My feeling is that it wouldn't be much. For comparison, the Shorts Skyvan, which has a lifting body fuselage, get about 30% of it's lift from the fuselage, and it's designers clearly were not too concerned about drag. It's probably a real effect in several WW2 fighters, but I can't quantify it at this time
Thanks for your reply. The literature states that the hump was to improve forward visibility. I doubt there was much consideration of any aerodynamic effect other than the drag penalty. During the late '30s considerable thought was beginning to be paid to the benefits of streamlining and eliminating drag but theories like the area rule (Germany, 1943) and lifting bodies (1960s) were indeed, after the fact. I'm just very curious about how older designs can be analyzed by modern methods. Back in those times, aeronautical design was also an art; designers discovered a lot of things by accident and trial and error, and it often started with a simple hand sketch and prototyping process, and then a lot of very brave people risked their lives to see these designs to their fruition. That's a big part of the fascination of this subject for me. They're all very interesting people and heroes in my book (even the bad guys who were working for the wrong side).
The FIAT G.50 was the least successful fighter of WW2 with the highest loss to kill ratio for any fighter. It had a top level flight airspeed of 267 MPH (the same as the CR.42 bi-plane it was replacing). It was underpowered with a 660 HP engine. I closely suspects that bribes and corruption were the sole reason the considerably better and vastly faster Re.2000 was rejected by the Regia Aeronautica in favour of the G.50. Two squadrons of G.50's, flying from Belgium, were lost over the North Sea during the Battle of Britain due to heavy rain on one occasion.
The FIAT G.50 would make for an interesting future video. Originally it was intended to carry a vertically stowed 100 Kg. / 220 Pound bomb mounted in an internal bomb bay behind the pilot. However on testing the feeble 660 HP engine couldn't lift the G.50 off of the ground so the bomb bay was forever left empty.
By comparison the P-35 lookalike Re.2000 had a top level flight airspeed of 330 MPH, could carry external bombs and had a fully enclosed cockpit. It was accepted in trails by the RAF in early 1940 but Italy declared war in June 1940, so the deal fell through. The Re.2000 served with some success with the Royal Hungarian Airforce on the Russian front. Meanwhile Regia Aeronautica pilots had to suffer a fighter that should never have been accepted into service in the first place.
heck, i'm pretty sure most engineers tried to AVOID having any part of the plane except the wings and horizontal tail produce lift, to reduce induced drag
"Greetings, this is Greg".....my favorite words to hear in RUclips!!
That and, "Let's have a quick review". Always a great presentation.
This was recommended, and liked this video, short and informative! Thanks! First video I’ve seen on this channel.
Thanks for answering a question that has been lingering in my mind from the first time I saw a picture of this beautiful Japanese airplane, over fifty years ago.
Interesting as I didn't know at all about this anomaly! For your curiosity the Zero altrough an excellent fighter had a big drawback: the faster it went the harder was to move the ailerons and rudder rendering it extremely unmaneuverable at high speeds, often blocking the ailerons and the rudder in a dive and popping the rivets. The following variants was fitted with thicker panels, fitting at last armour protection was provided for the pilot, engine or other critical points of the aircraft, and perhaps more importantly self-sealing fuel tanks which many historians consider it the main cause of loss of so many irreplaceable pilots. Among other drawbacks was the inability to install a more powerful engine. Very good job and looking forward to see new videos from you👍👍👍
Mitshubishi A7M shiden, even better at dog fights, 2000 hp, beautiful beast, but it was too late
Great vid, I wondered about that design feature.
As usual, superb stuff. Thanks for lending us your expertise.
You expanded so good everyone can understand this nice job
The P-51 Mustang had a similar empanage with the horizontal stab ahead of the vertical stab. However the Mustangs rudder was full length extending below the horizontal stab.
Ok, based on the other comments... I’ll tell a short story too. I began my career as a contractor at NASA Langley Research Center, which is attached to Langley Air Force Base. I worked on a new design to a wind tunnel in the early 1990’s. During that experience, I heard and old story about the other wind tunnels they had there during the second World War. The story was that the American’s had managed to capture a Zero. And at at first they parked it at the end of a runway and let it sit there for a while. Then they covered it for a few days. And then one night, in the dark... they replaced it with another plane that sort of looked like it under the cover. Meanwhile they took the actual plane into a wind tunnel to do tests on it. During those tests, they found that at very high speeds the Zero could not regain control very well. So they sent out the word to all US Airmen that if they saw Zero’s coming their way, they were to start climbing ASAP. Engage the enemy at the highest altitude they could... if you got a Zero on your tail, DIVE at full speed. The Zero would give chase, at some point they were to pull out of the dive and the Zero pilot would realize that they had a problem.. because once they hit a certain speed, control was a full blown job for that pilot. By the time they could get their plane back under control, the US pilot would be behind them and it was all but over at that point. Basically, they found the design flaw of the Zero.
I may be incorrect, but I think the aileron control was very stiff at high speeds and it was hard to turn the zero under high speed conditions, so that it could be out turned at high-speed. I think that is the situation.
Great 2 1/2 minute video! A crucial design feature we might otherwise miss, and exactly how it helps! Top marks to your video channel! :)
You always do a good job of explaining how airplanes work.
Thanks for posting this video! I have a large original aluminum panel from an A6M3. It's from the port horizontal stabilizer, lower side. Stenciled on it are the original Mitsubishi markings and the factory serial number.
Thanks, that's very cool.
If you think the A6Ms horizontal stabilizers is set forward, take a look at the Ki-44.
You're right! The Ki44 is an interesting plane, but I feel if I made this video about the Ki44, nobody would have watched it, plus the Zero did this first.
Ki-84 reporting
Julian Cate I was thinking the same thing! The Ki-44 needs a video in its own right. It was one of the few Japanese fighters that didn't have the emphasis on maneuverability and more like American fighters.
Ki-44 video, when?
Also, love your stuff to tiny mechanical bits!
The Ki-44 Shōki aka "Tojo" was a tiny plane even for Japanese standards but it had a relatively huge engine so didnʻt handle so great but straight line performance was pretty amazing like a hot rod from what my dad told me when I was a kid. Dad was a WWII Pacific theater veteran serving in the southwest Pacific theater. HE knew many of the land based Marine pilots stationed on the small island airstrips. He spoke to one Corsair pilot who told him he really got spooked in his first dogfight with a Ki-44. His Corsair had no problem outrunning and out gunning the Zeros he came across but his first encounter with the Ki-44 he tried to outrun the little plane but when he looked back it was still on his tail at full throttle. According to Dad his Marine pilot friend had to finally resort to using his water injection several times to finally gain any distance and lose the hot rod Ki-44 on his tail. The Ki-44 was one of the few Japanese fighters that could reach the speeds and altitude to be a threat to the B-29s in Japanese air space.
One of my favorite WW2 aircrafts, and i always wondered why that tail design was unique to the zero, now i know. Thank you for the info.
Greg, I'd noticed this design difference but hadn't understood or, thank to your well presented commentary, appreciated the implications of this design feature of the "Zero". Thanks for the video.
I never heard the horizontal and vertical stabilizers called "stabs" before. Since they're at the rear of the plane, they're stabs in the back!
..just an abbreviated 'short' form of stabiliser/stabilizer, and can also be used for the short form of stabilator too - the all moving tailplane normally found on fast military combat jets.
Typically 'stabs' when used without any axial plane indication i.e; horizontal or vertical, it implies a/the horizontal tailplane & their control surfaces.
Hi Greg, keep up the great work with these videos, and the elegant explanations and exposes of various aircraft, their features and other attributes, and the laying to rest of any number of urban myths that have been perpetuated for many decades. With respect to the forward location of the horizontal stabilizer of the A6M, a number of other Japanese aircraft exhibited this feature. The Ki 84 Hayate was one, and an even more noticeable example was the Ki44 Shoki. Both of these were Army aircraft, of course. Other IJN aircraft that showed this feature were the B6N Tenzan, the C6N Sauin, and to some extent, the planned successor to the A6M, the J2M Raiden.
I've only just seen this video, so please the delay in "getting on the same page".
Not much to add but what a beast of a channel! Bravo
Great stuff. Subscribed! Keep them coming!
It is a shame that so few A6M Zeros survive. The efforts of a few heroic individuals have returned a few to the air
If you take a look at modern aerobatic aeroplanes, like the Extra 300, you will find the same design. I also think the Zero was able to perform a hammerhead turn and other maneuvers most other WW2 could not do.
Excellent! The Feiseler Storch also has this attribute and was good at performing flat turns at very low airspeeds.
I do appreciate the aircraft design engineering information.
That's right. RAF uber-ace Johnny Johnson (40 kills) when talking about the early Spits said that by and large you didn't win a WWII dogfight in a turn fight. (It happened of course - everything did.) The qualities needed varied by the air force involved, but nobody scorned speed. And in 1941/42 the Zero was pretty fast up to about 15,000 ft.
The Zero was a elegant plane and did it's job - a carrier based attack plane escort - splendidly in the first year of the war. Its failure had nothing to do with the design. The IJ air war was always hampered by the lack of depth of the Japanese industrial base. Big double banked radial engines that like the PW2800 required very good machine tools with extremely delicate tolerances. The Japanese couldn't match that level of complexity. (There were similar factors outside of the engine.) They couldn't even do a good job of copying the ME-109E even when provided with an engine. (Think Tony here.) Jiro Horikoshi and the Mitsubishi design team were working on what later became the "Jack" before Pearl Harbor. They were hoping to replace the Zero by early 1943. On paper many of the second generation Japanese fighters were fine aircraft, but none had the operational reliability expected by the Americans, all were hangar queens (few spare parts, not the greatest groundcrew) and none were produced in numbers large enough to challenge the US Hellcat, Corsair, P-38, P-47 and then, in early 1945, the P-51. In any case, they were still building Zeros on VJ Day - at least they flew. And if they could no longer compete in combat, there was always suicide - something that shocked us.
Dear Eric Bergerud, comments like yours should win some kind of meaningful and prestigious award. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bergerud, I'm want you to know I've enjoyed your books, so I'm particularly pleased to see you contributing to these discussions.
In Greg Boyington's autobiography he states that he was at low altitude and could not outrun attacking Tony's - they were faster than his Corsair and shot him and his wingman down.
Eric Bergerud The Ha-40 was just as good as the DB601 in the 109. I have no idea how you heard otherwise. The issues it had initially came from poor sand filters on the Ki-61 and unfamiliarity with many ground crews on how liquid cooled engines worked (since many never worked on the ki-10).
Second Gen Japanese planes were actually pretty reliable but poor maintenance due to a lack of trained mechanics meant poor serviceability in later years.
Still building zeros in 1945 isnt bad. The M5 zero was very competative (I personally rate it even) with the F6F3 hellcat. The F6F5 hellcat was superior but not overly so. In addition to that, there were a good amount of FM2 Wildcats still serving on smaller carriers that the M5 zero was superior to. Also worth noting is that to cut production to zeros would mean a severe drop in aircraft production until the next variant is brought up to speed. Ideally you never want to change weapon production in a war. I dont want to compare naval and land based since the land based planes is nearly always better.
If you want the details please ask your library to track down a copy of my "Touched with Fire: Air War in the South Pacific 1942-43." The basic point I tried to make - that Japanese industrial technique was very poor when compared to the US, UK or Germany - and that this weakness crippled their attempt to produce a robust generation of 2nd generation aircraft stands. Mitsubisihi planned a replacement for the Zero in early 43 (what was later the "Jack") and had their top design team on the job before Pearl Harbor. But operational reliability was always miserable so the Zero soldiered on. This was repeated several times in both services. The extra problems of poor pilots, oil shortage, parts shortage etc were there regardless. As they were for Germany, but the Germans were able to deploy improved models of their major fighters throughout the war - and they stayed in the air. There was no Japanese equivalent of the FW-109D. As far as the Tony went, we mulched them over NG in 1943 - they couldn't face well flown P-38s. Nor could the A6M5s stand against well flown Hellcats much less Corsairs. Yes there were some good IJ pilots. Yes some 2nd generation IJ planes had some good missions. But anecdotes meant little in an industrial scale war. But overall, the air war in 1944-45 was a military mugging with the US suffering more non-combat than combat losses. (Arguably the Japanese did too - they just lost more of everything.)
Very interesting and never even noticed how those "wings in the back" were positioned differently. What I always noticed that it was one of those aircraft with an elliptical wing. The Zero was certainly respected by US pilots! Like you stated, at some point fairly early on, the fighter that the US produced possessed capabilities that overmatched the Zero's. The fact that the Hellcat looked a lot like the Wildcat but was actually MUCH better probably got some Zero pilots into trouble. It had no armor and it seemed clear that Japan, like other nations, had their capabilities it was leaning towards. Pilot protection was not one of them. Another amazing thing was its range. A long-range aircraft combined with carriers was a dangerous weapon and 7 December 1941 was proof of that.
Interesting! Thanks for the short and to the point video.
Great subject ! I think the Zero deserves a full video from your perspective :)
The Jake was also forward to allow for short take off.
The Corsair had the opposite of this; it's rudder was well ahead of the elevators.
Same with the Mosquito too, I think
@@tylerhoop5312 I was about to make the same remark.
This was partly to offset the horrific torque produced by the 2000 P&W R-2800 and 13' arc propeller. The vertical fin was also offset 5º to help counteract the torque.
@@scottmurphy650 The 5 degree offset doesn't counteract the "torque", it counteracts the "P" factor of the propeller, where the descending blade on the right side puts out more thrust than the ascending blade on the left side due to high angle of attack. The torque of the engine causes ROLL, not YAW.
What a great set of comments without an argument. It would be fantastic if the rest of RUclips behaved the same way. I think I learnt something from every comment. Thank you all.
thanks Greg awesomely done as usual
Hey Greg! I'm a big fan of your channel. I recommend it to whoever is also interested in planes and engines and stuff like that. The educational videos coupled with your sultry narration are very entertaining to watch. This channels content is extremely underrated. Keep trudging on making videos. I'm sure your channel you will soon get much more subscribers.
Thanks.
Weirdly enough (and in a lesser measure), the Tempest had the same kind of tail set up. IIRC it was also known as having great rudder authority. The P-51 is also similar, I guess.
On the other hand it gets kinda weird when you look at the tail of a Corsair.
The Hawker Tempest "funny tail" came to mind for me too.
@@andreasnilsson2304 The not so funny part was that it would go its own way! leaving 3/4 of the aircraft to carry on without it!
The F104 was the ultimate example of the hit and run philosophy
Why have more wing than you absolutely need if you arent planning to go any direction but straight at them
Who knew? Greg, thank you for pointing out the anomaly and offering the explanation.
Thank you, learned something completely new about an aircraft i had already read up quite a bit on, that's not very common nowadays.
The F4U Corsair has the rudder set way forward of the horizontal stab and I've wondered why that was, probably for the same reason.
I remember another one of this dudes videos mentioned that, and he said it was probably for structural reasons. There isn't enough material at the very tip where it is so skinny to not break if the rudder was that far back.
@@lobsterbark it is a both simpler a reason/explaination and also is just as true too with regards the material specifications of rear spar of the fin/rudder post assembly's torsional requirements.
And then the other CV thing often forgotten, the height of max safe hanger clearance. Hence why usually carrier based prop' planes fins and rudders can appear to be taller & broader (long in fore & aft length) looking than land based prop aircrafts, which normally have, and had back then, a longer take-off distance available and higher landing & stall speeds than CV birds required.
Sorry for the wall of text, I most likely got some aspects and things wrong, I am just going off the top of my head wooden Mk.1 brain-power ;)
It could be said, the Corsair could've or would've had a 'deeper' larger rear fusalage of its tailend general diameter if it was an earlier design born with some less well devloped older materials engineering, construction & production maufacuring and design methods used on, in and during earlier US & Chance-Vought aircraft.
Yup! Exactly right
It is popular culture these days to overlook the lightly armored philosophy of the zero design, but it was a factor. Hang two 500 lb. bombs under the wings, then see how it turns. Allied aircraft had some degree of armor, and it was heavy.
When the allied pilots were taught what to do and what not to do, the zero became an easy kill. Even light damage could kill the pilot while the plane was still flyable. Ground attack in a zero was also much more dangerous than in Any of the allied aircraft.
Wow - i thought i knew a lot about ww2 aircraft - but i keep learning
Appreciated your brevity.
Great video, Greg! I had never thought about this. I do have a question though: what was the purpose of an essentially opposite configuration on the F4U?
I think it's done for structural reasons, but I have never read anything definitive.
It was also do agile because it was so light. They decided to leave out armor plates and self sealing fuel tanks The allies had armor surrounding the pilot.
Brilliant ! Thanks Greg .
Great video, and another good test question! I would love to see a video on the Hawker Tempest engine!
I do want to cover that engine. I'm not sure if I'll do it in one video, or as a part of a series on the late war/post war piston tech that was just starting to take shape before the jets ended it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles A series would be most welcome, especially if it included a video on the Hawker Sea Fury.
Hi Greg, I enjoy your videos very much. I have always wanted to know more about Japanese engines. So Little is out there about them. Funny to think a Subaru Outback is a descendant of Nakajima. Or Mitsubishi etc. would love to know more about them. I have all the Merlin books I think. Need to know some new useless information lol.
I'll get into the Japanese engines at some point, however a lot of them are essentially copies of western designs.
I know that in another video Greg states that the main goal of Japan's military was to field extremely maneuverable aircraft which is why they had lightweight aircraft. I believe another major concern was having the need for aircraft with excellent range because of the battlefield they were expected to operate in - widely dispersed Pacific Islands, and also because of their chronic shortage of oil. I believe they actually specified a smaller engine than what was available for the Zero because of these "needs". The Zero had wing skins that were of varying thickness to keep the weight down and early versions of the Zero reportedly would start shedding their wing skins in dives over 400 mph.
Fascinating. Thank you.
Those old planes look great.👋great job
Now take a look at the F/A-18 Hornet and see the same thing, but the other way: rudders way ahead of the horizontal stabs. The reason is much the same, though -- keeping the rudders in clearer air at high AOA.
They also tilted the rudder outboard for a similar reason. This gives the F18 good rudder control at very high aoa.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles wasn't the tilt for the rudder assisting in pulling?
The FW 187 had a forward set stabilizer too. Great aircraft which showed clear potential over the BF 110 where it counted. Politics for you
Different reasons, I don't think they planned on doing spins in the FW187, good observation though, that's a rare plane!
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles apparently it could keep up with the earlier 109 variants, though I doubt it could out turn them
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles you're getting confused with the FW-189 Uhu, the FW-187 was smaller but similar to an Me-110, only a handful were built.
Seem to recall Goering or someone hat personal grievences with the head of FW
Danke für die kompakte und verständliche Erklärung!
You're welcome.
I saved this video and others from Greg on my Wings/Aviation 3 playlist. That playlist is of mostly current/new Aircraft and Weapons. Greg is very good at making videos. Greg, the SBD..... hint. Dive Flaps.
Made a model of the zero very stable platform.
Flew beautifully like a trainer
Hey Greg and Co .. very interesting piece on the location of the Zero's horizontal tailplane. However there is a definite candidate for an even more exagerated example of this from WWII .. the Nakajima Ki-44 "Shoki/Demon" Check it out ! Keep up the great work.
Love the vids. Subbed for sure!
We still are very few who know it, but sure we are some few more now. Much obliged, dear Greg.
The Zero was very agile at low speeds, but had very heavy ailerons at high speeds. The poor Zero was a one-act pony. It burned real good too. P.S. Greg, your videos are all very interesting!
Correction: one-trick pony.
I believe that the Zero could outmaneuver any American plane in the 180 to 200 mph range, but if the American pilot could keep his speed above 280 mph, he could outmaneuver the Zero. It was said that with partial deployment of their Fowler flaps and use of differential throttle, the P-38 could dogfight the Zero in the 180 mph range, but P-38 pilots were told to keep their speed up because at higher speed they had the advantage.
Well one of the this was that control lines on the zero were made to stretch to dampen heavy control input at higher speeds (partially to prevent overstressing the aircraft, partially to make it so that if the pilot pulled back the stick X far, at most speeds it would produce about the same rator of attitude change). Thus above 250-300mph they would have even higher stick forces than comparable fighters, and often simply couldn't pull as tight of turns as planes like the P40 and Wildcat could at those higher speeds.
it wasn't quite as one act as its reputation gave it. heck, i'd imagine that as a civilian aircraft, it would be safer than pretty much anything on the market. The lack of armor and self sealing tanks were the real killer for it, but to be fair, there was at least some logic behind, even if ultimately flawed.
Jim H. I think some spring tab ailerons would have helped with this, like on the Bf 109G.
Reminiscent of the 1935 Hughes racer that broke the speed record between Los Angeles and Newark.
Howard Hughes and I agree with you.
Very interesting, I learned a lot.
Thanks Greg, makes sense.
Mooney aircraft have a similar design philosophy.
Some literature suggests that Mitsubishi engineers were influenced by the Howard Hughes racer for their Zero empennage design . Any truth in this ?
I do think that's true, but with one caveat. Almost every single airplane in WW2 was influenced by some previous airplane, so this isn't unique to the Zero, or the Japanese.
Very informative, thanks!
Very interesting and insightful!
Now that was something I did not know. I'm now going to start looking for this on all aircraft.
You will see it on others from time to time, but usually to a lesser degree and on aircraft that came out after the Zero.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles how about GA aircraft?
Do not know if you read comments on an older video, but here goes; the P 51, a much newer construction had the same tail plane setup. Enjoy your videos. As a just retired pilot after 44 years flying I really do enjoy and learn new things. John Boyd was an enjoyable revisit from the past...
I do read comments from older videos. The comment stream I get doesn't discriminate from new to old videos, only new to old comments (more or less).
Thank You for the educational video.
Always Interesting!
I used to go and visit a forlorn Zero. Sitting behind tiny museum in downtown Atlanta. It had been captured at the beginning of the war and was used to learn the Zero's weaknesses. Tried to talk my Father into buying it - to no avail. I read that a Japanese businessman bought it.
TY Greg!
To improve the maneuverability below countermeasures were also taken for Zero.
1) Wing Roll-down:
To avoid "wing tip stall," her wings were rolled down 2.5 degrees from the "inner aileron area" until the wing-tip, which cannot be seen with your eyes.
2) Lowering Rigidity of Control Cables:
The higher the velocity is, the "ailerons, elevators, and rudders" are the more responsive in the same angle. So Mr. Horikoshi (Chief Designer Zero) lowered the rigidity of her control cables to result in lowering the angles in the higher velocities.
I sincerely appreciate engineers' efforts for Zero that time.
I really enjoy this channel!JA
Loved the video.
Hi Greg. Very interesting stuff. I’d live a video at some stage detailing the mistakes that both American and commonwealth pilots (RAF and RAAF mainly) made against the zero in 1942 and when it was exactly that they worked out the effective counter to this. I know that flight testing a captured zero confirmed it’s aileron problems at high speed, it’s lack of armour and firepower and the extreme vulnerability of its fuel tanks, but it also seems likely that pilots had already worked out most of theses from actual combat experience before then.
Speaking of horizontal stabilizer, Mitsubishi J2M (designed by Horikoshi Jiro, same designer as A6M). Also to an extent this feature is present on Kawanishi N1K2-J series, Nakajima Ki-44 and Ki-84, many other Japanese aircraft.
Also, that dogfighting in WW2 was "obsolete" is a misconception, since hit-and-run only works if fighter can "run", however when speeds become comparable, it becomes evident, that planes will be forced into dogfight. After introduction of more advanced fighters by the Empire of Japan, such as N1K2-J, J2M, Ki-84 et al, US air force once again started taking casualties from units, that were equipped with those.
Problem was different - dogfighting requires skill, while hit-and-run requires just to be able to hold a plane on course flying in close-to-straight line and shoot only at those who happen to be on that course. After heavy casualties in New Guinea campaign, Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service had strong lack of experienced professionals, who had found their end there. Surviving ones however, managed to survive till end of the war, flying same A6M Reisen (aka Zero) and prevailing against so-called superior US fighters. For example, Iwamoto Tetsuzo survived the war, being credited with 80 confirmed kills (and 122 more unconfirmed). Nishizawa Hiroyoshi - also undefeated: he was shot down while riding a cargo plane as passenger. There are many more.
Very interesting, thanks!
Really neat point I have never heard expounded on - thanks. The Zero's problem against the P-40 - if the P-40 was properly flown (example - Claire Chennaut's Flying Tigers) was that Saburo Saki stated that if you attempted to dive it at 350 knots plus, the wings came off. And of course, the too close fitted wing tanks (without self sealing) ruptured when struck by a projectile - too precisely fitted into the wing!
P40 vs. Zero, I'll take the P40. A lot of accounts by the AVG mention the Zero, but records have shown that these were cases of mistaken identity. We now know that the AVG never fought a Zero, they were confusing the Zero with the Ki43, which is completely understandable as they look remarkably alike.
The P-51 and Corsair are two examples of extremes in relation to the Zero. The Mustang's stabs were even further forward than the Zero. The Corsair, the opposite of this. The P-26, a design just prior to the Zero, had its stabs forward of the verticle which in turn was quite small. I find it interesting that Messerschmidt tended to place his stabs "on the vertical", rather than the fuselage. German WW2 designs often had the trim for the stabilizers work to adjust the entire assembly instead of using tabs. This was precariously close to the "moving tail" of the F-86, which was a unique advantage of the 86 over the MiG-15. I am quite happy that German engineers didn't quite connect those dots during that war. I also find it interesting that the B-26 is similar to the Corsair configuration.
Greg, I have to thank you for taking me down this road. In my latter years I haven't spent much time chasing tails, and am reminded how much sleep can be lost doing so!
I read once that the one fighter that could best a Zero in a high speed turn was the P40. Apparently Curtis designed an incredibly strong wing/fuselage construction for the P40 that enabled it to perform tight turns at almost full speed, something even the Zero could not do.
That's true at high speeds, although as speed drops in a turn fight, and if at a constant altitude, then things will quickly favor the Zero. However a P-40 pilot who knows what he is doing is more than a match for a Zero, just don't ever slow down in the P-40.
Great video. Pete 🇬🇧
Ingenious design.
Great content
Nice job!
The Japanese carried out a lot of research and experimentation in aeronautics from 1910 onwards, but little is known about it. Aircraft was one way they could link communication in Manchuria, Korea and their spaced Pacific islands domain. Their aircraft designs were categorized into two groups, land types and ocean going types. And they produced some amazing aircraft. During the war, one of their twin engine Mitsubishi design performed so well that the Germans took licence to built it in Germany.! The Japanese were also at the forefront of turbojet engine development and were the second nation after Germany to fly a jet aircraft, the Nakajima Kikka.
for your information, we are the last to fly a jet fighter.
I was stationed at Tachikawa base, tokyo in 1977, it was a R&D base during the war and the Zero was designed using the wind tunnel there. The USAF had turned the building into the base theator, strangest building inside, when I was there, the underground facilities were still there but locked up, tails of underground railroad and storage with aircraft abounded, and later I heard they commissioned ex military to go underground to disable boobytraps. Beautiful base Tachikawa, it is now for the most part a park. 1956 Comm Gp, I was a 307 tech controller, Drake ASC, Asaka.
Best channel about aviation and WWII fighters on RUclips! I love your videos and the skill to explain you have.
I don't know where to ask for it, so I do it here: I think it would be interesting to see something about Russian fighters. They had some very good ones (La-5/7, Yak3-9 for example), do you think you can ever prepare a video about them?
I just covered the Soviet ASh-82FN engine as used in the LA5FN. The video isn't too popular so I don't know if I am going to do more Soviet stuff or not.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I bet if you'll speak about the Lavockin and Yakovlev series it'll popular. ;)
I used to watch movies in that wind tunnel in the 1960's at Tachikawa, it was a huge concrete open interior building. They could easily have put a four engine bomber inside. I lived next door to the Zero factory. It was completely rusted but intact along the old Nambu train line.
great video, I never even saw that, thanks