-
- Posted By: Rodrigo Santos <mailto:ferrari.rodrigo@uol.com.br?subject=A6M3
type 32 Zero - - - HELP>
Date: Wednesday, 14 November 2001, at 6:50 a.m.
-
- Guys, I´m building the Hasegawa A6M3 type 32 Zero
and intend to do the "Q-122" gray Zero, of the 2nd Flying
Group. The thing is, I had no luck
- finding pics of this plane. I need some info: Did it
had the IFF aerials and mast? What about the wheel well color? The
instructions call for Aotake, but that seems odd to me.
-
- What about the "gray" tone? Tom Cleaver
said it was something like the RLM 02. But I think that´s not very
clear. Maybe RLM 02 with some white on it. Anyone with info on that?
-
- Re: A6M3 type 32 Zero s/n 3035 Color
*PIC*
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
A6M3 type 32 Zero s/n 3035 Color *PIC*>
Date: Thursday, 15 November 2001, at 4:57 a.m.
-
- In Response To: A6M3 type 32 Zero - - - HELP (Rodrigo
Santos)
-
- Rodrigo
- Mitsubishi A6M3 model 32, Hamp, s/n 3030, [Q-102/Ho
Koku-872], was attached to the No. 2 Kokutai. Below appears a section
of port fuselage skin on a relic recovered from a sister Hamp, (s/n
3035), from the same unit. The gray-green, hairyokushoku
(FS-16350/24201) color appears around the red fuselage stripe and
black [Ho Koku-877]. The slightly "khaki" color tone is due
to the variations in color quality inherent in the scanner and monitor
rendition and in reality appears more like "RLM Grau 02.".
- Incidentely, the tail numerals on this unit were red
outlined in white, as shown by color photography taken at the time.
-
- HTH
- Jim Lansdale
- Credit: Larry Hickey/IRPC, Boulder, CO.
-
- Re: A6M3 Model 32 Hamps & s/n 3028 Colors
*PIC*
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
A6M3 Model 32 Hamps & s/n 3028 Colors *PIC*>
Date: Friday, 16 November 2001, at 5:40 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A6M3 type 32 Zero s/n 3035 Color
(Ed DeKiep)
-
-
- Posted By: Michael Swinburne <mailto:a4_kahu@hotmail.com?subject=A6M5
primer - fabric>
Date: Sunday, 23 September 2001, at 5:38 p.m.
-
- Can anyone tell me definitely what color was used as
a primer on the fabric of A6M5's?
- thanks a lot guys.
Mike Swinburne
-
- Re: A6M5 primer - fabric
-
- Posted By: Ryah Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
A6M5 primer - fabric>
Date: Monday, 24 September 2001, at 1:56 p.m.
-
- In Response To: A6M5 primer - fabric (Michael
Swinburne)
-
- Hello Micheal,
- The only observation I can add to Francois' comments
is to quote from the engineering report by Douglas Aircraft on one of
the Nakajima A6M5s captured at Saipan.
- "It is belived that the application procedure
[of dope] was as follows:
- (a) Two brushed coats of clear dope, cover tapes
being applied with the second coat.
(b) One sprayed coat of medium wet red oxide dope.
(c) One sprayed very heavy coat of light gray dope.
(d) One sprayed very thin coat of aluminized dope.
(e) One sprayed coat of medium wet dark green dope."
- Underneath the fabric the metal stucture of the
component in question had "a light gray [or white] synthetic type
primer ... brush coated on the areas of the control surface frames in
contact with the fabric."
-
- Ryan
-
- Re: A6M5 primer - fabric
-
- Posted By: Michael Swinburne <mailto:a4_kahu@hotmail.com?subject=Re:
A6M5 primer - fabric>
Date: Monday, 24 September 2001, at 4:25 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A6M5 primer - fabric
(Ryah Toews)
-
- I take it the dark green was left as the camo then
with the grey or aluminum being underside or camo over those?
-
- Re: A6M5 primer - fabric
-
- Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re:
A6M5 primer - fabric>
Date: Monday, 24 September 2001, at 2:25 a.m.
-
- In Response To: A6M5 primer - fabric (Michael
Swinburne)
-
- Hi Mike,
- "Definitely" would be an inadequate word in
the present example and there are two main reasons for that. May be
Jim Lansdale or Ryan Toews have the correct answer, at least for
samples they examined. But I would not say all A6M5's were similarly
finished on that point unless I have a definite evidence.
- The first reason why is that at least two
manufacturers produced them and I see no reason the primer color used
by both would have been absolutely the same in color when the
camouflage green and the undersurface color used was on the contrary
different according to each manufacturer. The difference might have
been small but unless the same sub-contractor was used as a source it
is highly unlikely the color used was exactly the same. But anyway,
the primer used under fabric seem to have been the classical red to
red brown one.
-
- The second reason concerns the fact external primer
was discarded on the metal parts sometimes during the production of
this variant. It is likely the very early and early Model 52's (all
Mitsubishi built) were treated the same way older variants were (until
the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944). For those aircraft the red
to red brown primer was most probably used as what I saw on a Betty 11
fabric sample Jim was kind enough to send to me. After that period, as
primer application was deleted from the production sequence on
metallic parts, unless we have some sample of fabric at hand, it is
difficult to tell if the classical and mandatory application of many
coats of tension varnish before the final coating in camouflage colors
was done was still completed by a coat of red to red brown primer.
- Now if your question is related to modeling and the
effect of weathering on a Model 52, let me emphasize the fact it is
highly improbale (at least on a plane still in service and not a hulk
remaining outside for years if not decades) any part of an eventual
priming on fabric surface should be visible. First because even the
tension varnish (generally many clear coats) acted as a primer in
helping the camouflage paint to adhere firmly (on the contrary to
metal parts when unprimed), then because changing the fabric on
control surfaces was part of regular maintainance... Don't let the
weathered aspect of many fabric covered control surfaces as the ones
of US B17 in OD 41 color fools you ! Pigment deterioration might have
been faster on those planes painted with a highly instable color than
on the metallic surfaces because the formula of the base was
different, it didn't affect the protective qualities of it. It is
absolutely mandatory a fabric finish protects the fabric from becoming
loose and stays waterproof to avoid the fabric sagging badly. Any
"mechanical" deterioration of the finish will forbid the
control surface to act properly and definitely affects the flying
qualities. So to say it will be promptly removed and replaced. Both
dark greens in common use on Zero Model 52's (Mitsubishi and Nakajima
variants) seem to have been made with very stable pigments and
considering the fact they were properly primed (even without the use
of red primer) by the many coats of tension varnish they probably kept
ther original aspect longer than any metallic part on unprimed
aircraft, beside the fact the fabric was periodically renewed. So your
question relates more to historical and technical curiosity than
modeling proper...
-
- Hope it helps
- François
-
- Re: A6M5 primer - fabric
-
- Posted By: jackson <mailto:fincherI@aol.com?subject=Re:
A6M5 primer - fabric>
Date: Monday, 24 September 2001, at 7:22 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A6M5 primer - fabric (François
P. WEILL)
-
- From a modeling standpoint would it be appropriate to
paint fabric surfaces a different shade then the rest of the airframe?
I've alway painted them a slightly lighter shade on aircraft, reading
your excellent post I now wonder if I might have this ass backwards
and a darker shade may be the way to go.
-
- cheers
- Jackson
-
- Re: A6M5 primer - fabric
-
- Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re:
A6M5 primer - fabric>
Date: Tuesday, 25 September 2001, at 4:38 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A6M5 primer - fabric
(jackson)
-
- Hi Jackson,
- First and foremost, I totally agree with Jim about
Nakajima built Model 21's fabric (FS 26314 instead of being FS 16160
as the rest of the airframe excepts the cowling in gray-black). So it
means the fabric was lighter and somewhat different in color too.
- As far as post June 1943 standard is concerned, I
have no information about the continuous use of a subcontractor by
Nakajima using such a different lighter shade which anyway would have
been confined to the undersurface of the ailerons as far as something
visible on an operational plane is concerned (the uppersurfaces and
the rudder being overpainted in solid green anyway.
-
- I suppose (but there is no evidence I know for sure
about that) for a while the undersurface color used on production
aircraft was still the original Hairyokushoku color from each
manufacturer and the primer application was still part of the standard
painting process, on metallic parts at least.
- On Mitsubishi made planes when sometimes late in 1943
and surely from Jan. 1944 (samples available) the primer application
was deleted, this translated by a somewhat more matte aspect of the
undersurface paint the color switching from 14201 range to 24201 when
new. But on Nakajima planes, the change was more drastic (and the date
of the deletion of primer is even less known) from 16160 glossy paint
to matte gray 36309. From this time on, I doubt the color of the
aileron undersurfaces was different from the rest of the undersurface
color. May be Jim knows more than me about this point...
- Now you must understand the paint alterations could
be broadly divided in two kinds:
- The first one being mechanical: friction and
abrasion. You have a good example of this process when you consider
the effects of the pilot and mechanics feet on paint and another one
is given by the effect of unprimed surface inducing extensive peeling.
- The second one is more insiduous and of chemical
nature.
-
- When exposed to sun rays chemical reaction is induced
in the paint pigments by the energy received. On relatively stable
pigments it translates in time by a "desaturation" of the
color which becomes somewhat lighter. But on relatively instable
colors the different pigments used do not react to the action of sun
at the same rate and this bleaching is completed by the appearance of
a color unbalance (some pigments are destroyed faster than others).
Exactly what happens so frequently with Olive Drab 41. So the color
lightens but also changes in hue!! ... Another kind of chemical
alteration could be induced by the use of incompatible substances in
the paint... Sometimes a formula is more prone to fading than another
(exactly what happens with the specially formulated base for fabric
surfaces used on OD 41 painted USAAF planes) and the bleaching and
change of color is faster and more complete. With the IJN green paints
it doesn't seem the paint pigments were particularly instable. So the
hue was preserved even if becoming somewhat lighter than when first
applied and the same formula seems to have been used for metallic
surfaces and fabric covered ones. So it is doubtful the color of
fabric covered surfaces became different at least during the span of
time the aircraft were used in actual service. As a modeler, I won't
use a different shade of green whether lighter (as you did) or darker
(unless I have a photographic evidence of a new fabric covered
replacement part used on a specific aircraft). The real interesting
point has been emphasized by Jim and it concerns the eventual use of
26314 coated fabric on Nakajima built planes after the switch to 36309
color on Nakajima built Zero metallic undersurfaces.
-
- Friendly.
- François
-
- Re: A6M5 primer - fabric
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
A6M5 primer - fabric>
Date: Monday, 24 September 2001, at 10:07 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A6M5 primer - fabric
(jackson)
-
- Jackson
- It has been frequently noted during the color
analysis of existing relics that the fabric surfaces of the A6M Zeros
in the overall gray-green (hairyokushoku/ameiro) finish did not alway
have a final coat of paint applied to the gray layer on units supplied
by the sub-contractor. A lighter gray finish would be appropriate to
such fabric control surfaces for many Zeros (N.B. This was more
frequently found on the Nakajima constructed A6M2s). This effect may
be noted in many monochrome photos.
-
- IHTH
- Jim Lansdale
-
-
- Posted By: Frank Kreuk <mailto:p.kreuk@chello.nl?subject=A6M5
spinner>
Date: Monday, 15 October 2001, at 8:14 a.m.
-
- I'm biulding a Revell 1/32 A6M5 zero-sen and the
instruction calls for a aluminium colored spinner but I have looked on
the web and here and I found: red/brownish,white,black,aluminium
spinners so I don't know wich color to take.
- Any help would be appreciated!
- It's a:
A6M5 type 52 Zero-sen
Serial: 653-117 1 (serial of the plane)
653th Navy flyers group based on the carrier Zuikaku
Okt 1944 operation Sho
-
- Re: A6M5 spinner
-
- Posted By: christian <mailto:lemoissc@aol.com?subject=Re:
A6M5 spinner>
Date: Tuesday, 16 October 2001, at 1:09 a.m.
-
- In Response To: A6M5 spinner (Frank
Kreuk)
-
- red/brownish spinners are for mitsubishi factory
aluminium spinners are for nakajima factory
-
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=China
Zeros>
Date: Sunday, 4 November 2001, at 6:39 a.m.
-
- Nick
- The earliest I can place Zeros in Hong Kong is 14
January 1944. This per Japanese Monograph No. 116. These were a
detachment of 254 Air about ten strong. These were probably in combat
on Feb 10th near Kiukang on the Yangtze River (probably operating from
a forward base). Two of eight P-51As were shot down that day. This was
probably first Zero versus Mustang combat. On the 11th I can pretty
well confirm they were in action over Hong Kong against 12 B-25s and
20 P-40s both US and Chinese. Four P-40s were shot down (two each US
and Chinese). A message from the Hong Kong detachment of 254 says two
of its eight Zeros were lost.
-
- Doubtful that any Zeros were at Hong Kong in late 43.
Many US raids on Hong Kong were not intercepted. The JAAF was
generally in force at Canton not too far away.
-
- There were Zeros on Hainan prior to the oficial
activation of 254 on 1October 43. On May 4, 1943 the first B-24 raid
on Samah in southern Hainan encountered no interception. On July 3d
two P-40s on reconnaissance over Hainan were chased off by six
"Zeros" that probably really were Zeros. On July 27th a B-24
raid over Hainan was intercepted: "Our crews who were in combat
at Ichang report that the Jap pilots at Samah Bay were better flyers
and better gunners than those at Ichang."
-
- There is no evidence JAAF was active over Hainan at
this time. Mono. No. 76 mentions that the Navy had a small air force
of fighters and training aircraft at Hainan and Hong Kong.
-
- What does all this mean? Sometime after May 1943 a
small Zero detachment was formed on Hainan (possibly reporting
directly to the Hainan Guard District or its small attached air
group). By July 43 this unit was engaged in operations. If this is so,
then it is possible this unit or part of it deployed to Hong Hong on
ocassion to provide convoy cover or escort a VIP (things which 254
later did).
- Some facts and a bit of speculation. Perhaps someone
can help fill in some details.
-
- Rick
-
- Re: China Zeros
-
- Posted By: Larry <mailto:Hldeziv@aol.com?subject=Re:
China Zeros>
Date: Sunday, 4 November 2001, at 8:57 a.m.
-
- In Response To: (richard dunn)
-
- Rick and Nick -
- (Sounds like a 1930's vaudeville team).....
The Hong Kong Zeros might have come from:
Sanya Kôkûtai
(FPO Designation: I-88)
also as: Sama Kôkûtai
- Samah Kôkûtai
-
- Formed (activated) 1 Oct 1943 at Sanya NAS (today
Yaxian) at the southern tip of Hainan Island in the South China Sea as
a training air group to provide elementary flight training for fighter
pilots. Equipped with Mitsubishi A6M Type 0 carrier fighters (ZEKE).
Initial setting up procedures commenced on 20 Apr 43. Assigned to 14th
Combined Air Group (14 Rengô Kôkûtai) and administratively under
Hainan Naval Guard District and Sasebo Naval District.
- I know this Ku was active along the South China coast
until it was disbanded on 1 June 1944 and its assets incorporated into
254 Ku.
- If this doesn't work for you, then elements of 901 Ku
may. It became operational in Dec 43 as a convoy escort and
anti-submarine patrol Ku for the Singapore-Kyushu route and had a few
Zeros and well as many other types. By summer 1944 it had quite a few
Zeros.
-
- HTH
(Larry)
-
- Re: China Zeros
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
China Zeros>
Date: Sunday, 4 November 2001, at 9:51 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: China Zeros (Larry)
-
- Larry
- I have my doubts.
- There were training air groups set up at both Sanya
and Hoihow, the Sanya and Haikow Air Groups respectively. Each had an
in intial strength of thirty Zeros but I don't think they were
actually up and running on 1 October 43 much less earlier. They
engaged in operations over south China in the Spring of 44 but there
is no indication that they did so earlier. Some US combat reports from
Hainan indicate sightings of Japanese aircraft that make no attempt to
intercept. Most likely they were from these training formations. In my
opinion these units are unlikely candidates to be flying combat
missions over Hainan (much less Hong Kong) in the Summer and Fall of
1943.
-
- I thought 901 Air was the unit created as a
specialist anti-submarine group in 1943. It did not expand its role
(and incidentally absorb the remnants of 254 Air) until late in 44. Do
you have info that it was operational in south China at this time? Was
it equipped with other than ASW aircraft (or training aircraft) during
1943?
- I tend to believe an as yet unidentified unit was
operating Zeros from Hainan in the Summer of 1943 prior to the
activation of 254 Air. I certainly cannot prove it at this point.
- Rick
-
- Re: China Zeros
-
- Posted By: Larry <mailto:Hldeziv@aol.com?subject=Re:
China Zeros>
Date: Sunday, 4 November 2001, at 11:10 a.m.
-
- In Response To: (richard dunn)
-
- Rick -
- Here's the blurb on Haikow (Hoihow) Ku which slipped
my mind a couple of hours ago:
- Haikow Kôkûtai
(FPO Designation: I-87)
- also as: Kaikô Kôkûtai
Haihow Kôkûtai
Haikou Kôkûtai
Hoihow Kôkûtai
- Formed (activated) 1 October 1943 as a training air
group based at Haikou at the north end of Hainan Island in the South
China Sea off the coast of southern China. Initial setting up
procedures commenced on 20 April 1943. The type of aircraft allocated
to the Kôkûtai is unknown, but it was intended to equip the group
with a mixed complement of both land attack bombers and fighters.
Assigned to Hainan Naval Guard District. On 5 April 1944 the group’s
instructors together with those from the Sanya Kôkûtai, which was
also based on Hainan Is., flew a fighter-bomber strike on the U.S.
14th AAF airfield at Nanning in South China. During the raid,
defending U.S. fighters claimed 9 JAAF Ki-44 TOJOs, but perhaps this
was a misidentification for JNAF A6M ZEKEs. The Kôkûtai was
disbanded on 1
-
- May 1944.
- Now to your first comment. There's one variable that
you left out of your analysis. Both groups began "setting
up" in spring 1943 and I believe we would find that the first
cadre and instructor personnel began trickling in shortly thereafter,
as well as a few of the initial aircraft assigned under the prescribed
allowance. The first students probably didn't follow until around the
1 October date. I believe it is entirely possible that the 3 and 27
July 1943 Zero activity that you referred to could well have been
instructor personnel from Sanya or Haikow.
-
- As to 901 Kokutai:
- 10-15 Dec 43: on formation at Tateyama the group was
organized in two components - one with G3M NELL bombers and the other
with 32 H6K MAVIS and H8K EMILY flying boats . Formation was in
response to rapidly increasing shipping losses to Allied submarines,
and its primary mission was to safeguard the vital shipping route
between Singapore and Japan along which flowed the raw materials and
commodities upon which the Japanese war machine and people were
dependent. Initial allowance was specified as 48 NELLs and 32 MAVIS
and EMILYs.
- Dec 43 – 15 Jun 44: Kôkûtai HQ at Tateyama NAS
with detachments at:
- Ômura/SW Kyûshû (12 Jan 44 – 15 Jun 44)
- Koroku/W Formosa (13 Jan 44 – 15 Jun 44)
- Tôkô/SW Formosa (14 Jan 44 – 15 Jun 44)
- Manila/Philippines (Mar 44 – Apr 44)
- Iwo Jima/Volcano Islands (Mar 44 – 13 Apr 44 and
Jun 44)
- Saipan/Marianas (Mar 44 – Apr 44)
- Saigon/French Indochina (13 Apr 44 – 1 Jun 44)
-
- The above has elements in southwestern Formosa as
early as mid-January 1944, but as you stated, there's no mention of
A6Ms. However, I do recall seeing something on this in some of the
scattered ATIS documents that were cranked out in that 1945-49 period
in Tokyo. It seems there was some discussion of 901's Heinz 57
collection of aircraft right from the start (Dec 43) that did include
some Zeros. Unfortunately, I did not make note of it. You know how
that goes when you are trawling your way through primary documentation
- you can't write down everything. But to answer your question, no, I
can't prove it. But I think 901 should have its door left open as a
"possibility."
- (Larry)
-
- Re: China Zeros
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
China Zeros>
Date: Sunday, 4 November 2001, at 12:54 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: China Zeros (Larry)
-
- Larry
- Absent some real evidence, I'm not sure this
discussion is going to get us very far.
- There is an intercept that indicates (in August) that
only slow progress was being made in organizing these air groups. On
the other hand, on 31st August photo recon did show 3 large aircraft
at each base and 6 and 8 small aircraft at Hoihow and Samah,
respectively. Chinese intelligence identified Navy bombers as arriving
on Hainan.
-
- On April 6th, 1944, crash evidence revealed that the
aircraft attacking Nanning had been Zero 21s and "Mark 2"
Zeros. Further, captured documents revealed the bases of origin well
as the fact that Navy aircraft were involved.
- Your theory about instructors arriving early doesn't
ring true to me. In mid-1943 experienced instructors were in very
short supply and could hardly be spared to wait for new air groups to
be formed and students to arrive.
- Here are a few additional facts though I'm not sure
they shed much light. These units' T/Os were in a bit of turmoil.As of
their activation date (1 Oct) Samah had a T/O of three squadrons of
land attack a/c. Haikou had 1 squadron bombers and 2 squadrons
fighters. A T/O change on 1nov 43 deleted 30 land attack and added 30
fighters to Samah. On 1 Dec Haikou's bomber T/O was increased to 60
a/c. These numbers include both first line and reserve. They also
changed a number of times in succeeding months.
-
- When Samah closed down it transferred its 37th Flight
Training Class personnel to Air Groups 12 and 13. None were fighter
pilots. They included 40 bomber pilots, 26 carrier attack pilots, and
21 land attack pilots. These units were in turmoil almost from the
start and were also subject to having their bases bombed and straffed.
Not sure this adds much to identifying the Hainan fighter unit but
kind of interesting.
-
- Rick
-
- Re: China Zeros
-
- Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Sunday, 4 November 2001, at 1:18 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: China Zeros (richard
dunn)
-
- A good discussion.
- Also Air Group 256. Established at Lung Hwa airfield,
Shanghai, on 1 February 1944, as part of the China Area Fleet. (This
was the airfield featured in the movie "Empire of the Sun").
It's main duties were air defence of Shanghai region and advanced
training. Apparently contributed aircraft to the Phillipines campaign?
-
- Equipped with both Model 52 and 21 Zero fighters with
tail designation 256 (one Model 21 example: 256-125). In October 1944
three Model 21 Zeros were detached to Hong Kong.
-
- By April 2 1945 one Raiden (Jack) was also on
strength at Lung Hwa. Piloted by Lt Masatake Hayasaki, it was shot
down over the airfield on that day by Lt E J Bollen of 75 FS, 23 FG in
a Mustang. Hayasaki bailed out but was KIA.
-
-
- Posted By: Mike Connelley <mailto:msc@ifa.hawaii.edu?subject=Purple
rufe question>
Date: Saturday, 13 October 2001, at 12:37 a.m.
-
- Howdy:
- I know this has ben asked before since it's in pt.3
of the FAQ, but I cannot access it for some reason so I'll just have
to ask it again.
- So, what's the deal with this purple Rufe thingie I
hear about? Did it exist or not? If so, what color was it and are
there any pics? If not, how did this idea come about? I have a 1/32
A6M2 and the idea of a conversion has crossed my mind.
-
- Cheers
Mike Connelley
-
- Re: Purple rufe question *PIC*
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
Purple rufe question *PIC*>
Date: Saturday, 13 October 2001, at 8:09 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Purple rufe question (Mike
Connelley)
-
- Mike
- The "Purple Rufe" myth started, I think,
with a 1945 color illustration in John STROUD's "Japanese
Aircraft." It was kept alive by such a reference in the IPMS
Color Guide to Japanese aircraft camouflage in the early 60's.
-
- In 1966, Rene FRANCILLON made the myth a
"fact," which still haunts modellers today, by publishing
the color view (see below) rendered by P. Endsleigh CASTLE in Profile
Publications No.129.
-
- Perhaps weathering of the original finish down to the
red primer coat of the Rufe gave this illusion of "purple"
paint on old relics or wreckage?
-
- HTH
- Jim Lansdale
-
- Re: Purple rufe question
-
- Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Re:
Purple rufe question>
Date: Monday, 15 October 2001, at 3:00 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Purple rufe question *PIC* (James
F. Lansdale)
-
- This would be a camouflage as effective as a black
cat on snow.
- Could too much sun and salt do this to a regular
paint?
-
- Re: Purple rufe question
-
- Posted By: Mark L. Shannon <mailto:Shingend@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re:
Purple rufe question>
Date: Tuesday, 16 October 2001, at 6:40 a.m.
-
- In Response To: (Deniz Karacay)
-
- There is some use for a mauve/purple camouflage.
First, as the song says, "Purple Mountains' Majesty" comes
from the view of distant mountains, as things tend to seem grey-violet
in view. The Germans used a lot of violet tones, using a rather bright
purple in WWI as part of the camouflage for a while.
- Second, purple-reddish tones are a very effective
camouflage under conditions of fog and twilight. As these are common
conditions in the Aleutians, it was probably viewed as a 'not
illogical' camouflage conclusion when the sunken Rufes were recovered
and studied.
- I still think the only reason that the purple Rufe
reports occurred was that it was described on airframes that had been
pulled out of several months' soaking in Attu harbor (or which ever
island). The surface greyish layers were worn down to translucent, and
the primer underneath showed through to give a purple/pink cast. This
same effect has been visible on the Nimitz Museum's Val wreckage,
where the airframe looks pinkish-mauve, but there are remnant rings of
grey at points like rivet heads.
-
- .Mark.
-
- Mountbatten Pink
-
- Posted By: Graham Boak >
Date: Wednesday, 17 October 2001, at 10:44 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Purple rufe question (Mark L.
Shannon)
-
- Experts in optics will tell you that red objects are
the last to remain visible as twilight falls - the Purkinje effect
(spelling?).
- However, when commanding a convoy escort Lord Louis
Mountbatten was so impressed by the way one particular liner was
difficult to see in such conditions that the insisted on the adoption
of a similar shade for units under his command - it was known as
Mountbatten Pink, but tended to the lavender in shade. Once he moved
on to higher things it disappeared from RN use PDQ.
-
- So the value of Purple for the Rufes in Aleutian
conditions should best be described as "debatable". I agree
that your other suggestion is much more likely.
-
- Re: Purple rufe question
-
- Posted By: Brooks A Rowlett <mailto:brooksindy@yahoo.com?subject=Re:
Purple rufe question>
Date: Sunday, 14 October 2001, at 4:02 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Purple rufe question *PIC* (James
F. Lansdale)
-
- I believe you will find that it was a submerged wreck
pulled from Attu that led to the mistake.
-
- Re: IPMS "Purple Rufe" Question
*PIC*
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
IPMS 'Purple Rufe' Question *PIC*>
Date: Sunday, 14 October 2001, at 6:51 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Purple rufe question (Brooks A
Rowlett)
-
- Brooks
- In 1964, Charles ("Chuck") J. GRAHAM, with
the help of his old college roommate, George VROOMAN, produced the
IPMS "Color Guide For Japanese Aircraft: 1941-45." Chuck
used paints mixed at his home to make color chips of colors thought to
be applied on Japanese aircraft. Few were based on relic analysis or
actual samples. Orders for the Color Guide were taken by Jay MILLER
and the monies were collected for the Dallas Chapter, IPMS under
president
-
- Jim SAGE.
- Below is the first published drawing of the
"Purple Rufe" and a scan of an actual chip (N 9) from the
Color Guide. This Color Guide was utilized by Rene FRANCILLON in his
missive on Japanese aircraft with no verification as to authenticity
from, or credit to, Chuck.
- Chuck wrote Jim LONG the following:
- "I personally mixed all the colors. I used a
Higgin's ink product that was really more of a tempera paint than an
ink, but it worked well with an airbrush....
- (The purple) 'N 9,' (was) not from a color sample.
This is one of the most intriguing colors and it is based only on
written descriptions in Koku-Fan and a couple of other sources refer
to it as 'wisteria.' As nearly as I could ever determine, it was used
only in the Aleutians, if at all." *(Letter: GRAHAM/LONG, 11
December 1995)
-
- FWIW
- Jim Lansdale
- Credit: "IPMS Color Guide For Japanese Aircraft:
1941-45," Charles J. Graham, 1964, p.4
-
- Re: IPMS "Purple Rufe" Question
-
- Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
IPMS 'Purple Rufe' Question>
Date: Sunday, 14 October 2001, at 8:20 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: IPMS "Purple Rufe"
Question *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
-
- Jim -
- Having had a wysteria vine in my back yard, its
colour is very pale. I really think that this legend of the undead
comes from a red brown primed Rufe that has been overcoated with the
standard (?) grey. The extreme weathering conditions in the Aleutians
may have caused this effect. I vow that I am going to spray some paint
chips to see what the effect is. I will then send these chips to my
future son-in-law in Anchorage to see if the Alaskan light has any
effect.
-
-
- Posted By: George of the Jungle <mailto:bishopspg@hotmail.com?subject='Rufe'
Rage!>
Date: Sunday, 28 October 2001, at 7:59 a.m.
-
- The floatplane version of the A6M2 "Reisen"
(aka "zero") was certainly a curiousity. Did their floats
alter the combat perfomance of these planes? Still, what I need to
know was whether this plane could have held their own in aerial combat
against the ff. planes:
- 1.) Wildcats
- 2.) P-38s
- 3.) Brewster Buffalos (with the Dutch East Indies
Colonial AF)
- 4.) Hellcats
- 5.) RAAF Boomerangs
- 6.)Kingfishers
- A6M2 designer Horikoshi must have been chagrined to
see his prized aiframe design added with those ridiculous floats!
Could the pilots jettison those floats! He he he! Still, I'd rather
been in a "Rufe" than a "Jake".
- George, George of the Jungle!
-
- Re: "Rufe" Rage!
-
- Posted By: Micah Bly <mailto:yak@targetrabaul.com?subject=Re:
'Rufe' Rage!>
Date: Sunday, 28 October 2001, at 11:30 p.m.
-
- In Response To: "Rufe" Rage! (George of the
Jungle)
-
- Just to add to what Allan and Nick said below, I can
tell you then when we took our A6M2 Flight Model, and added the drag
and extra weight associated with the floats (there are some other
changes too, of course), it definitely lost some of it's 'oomph'.
How's that for a technical description? :)
- top speed, climb rate, energy retention all suffer
because of the floats. OTOH, it still flies pretty balanced, although
I admit I haven't spent that much time flying and fighting with the
Rufe yet. But yes, the floats affect the flight characteristics in a
big way. You really have to respect the pilots who were having success
in these planes. When Target Rabaul comes out next year, download it
and check it out for yourself. Then go and try and shoot down an F4U
or B17 with it. yikes!
-
- Micah Bly
-
- Re: "Rufe" Rage! And others too!
-
- Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re:
'Rufe' Rage! And others too!>
Date: Sunday, 28 October 2001, at 9:03 a.m.
-
- In Response To: "Rufe" Rage! (George of the
Jungle)
-
- Hello George,
- The answer to your question is as follows, they were
very active over Taberfane (Aru Island) in the Banda Sea, credited
with 6 Beaufighters and a Dutch Mitchell. Over Kiska, they notched up
a couple of B.17's, and B.25, couple of P.38's, and a couple of
P.40's. Airacobra's were encountered, but no recorded losses. In the
Solomons, they were very active during September 1942, but after that,
it diminished somewhat. Over Faisi (1943), they were very active,
claiming a couple of B.17's, P.40's, P.39's and an F4U. In 1944, they
helped defend Truk, bringing down a F6F from VF 10 during the raid
there on February 17, 1944. The also defended the Empire in 1945 from
Lake Biwa and Sasebo, but no recorded victories. They were also active
from Sabang (Sumatra) during the British Carrier raids in April 1944
with no recorded victories or losses.
-
- This type of aircraft was used mainly for defense
purposes, not offensively. They were very successful, and successfully
used where ever they were deployed. Convoy escort and Anti-Submarine
warfare was also included with results.
-
- Yokohama Kokutai is said to have brought down 2
B.17's over or around Tulagi in July 1942. These claims, however, are
not verified. One B.17 was rammed in August of 1942.
-
- The pilots that flew the "Rufe" and the
"Pete" were considered very brave, probably more so than
those that flew the vaulted Zero. Ramming aircraft in 1942 took a lot
of nerve and it took an experienced fighter pilot to bring any of
these float types down. The records and exploits of the airmen are
fast becoming well known for their deeds.
-
- The record of those that flew the "Pete's"
were very active, bringing down the Dutch Martin's and Dornier's, a
P.35, a P.40, and a couple of PBY's, not to mention 2 CW 22's over the
north coast of Java on March 1st 1942.
-
- Japanese Float type aircraft were never passive, and
extremely aggressive wherever found, whether they were tender based or
shore based. I trust this answers your question.
-
- FWIW - Allan
-
- Re: "Rufe" Rage! And others too!
-
- Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Sunday, 28 October 2001, at 1:53 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: "Rufe" Rage! And others
too! (Allan Alsleben)
-
- Rufe and Rex fans look for Yasuho Izawa's excellent
and balanced English language summary of Japanese fighter floatplane
operations, "The Fighting Floatplanes of the Japanese Imperial
Navy", in Air Enthusiast 31 (ISSN 0143-5450) 1986.
- This essential 12-page piece includes the
identification and confirmation of numerous floatplane
"kills".
- Rufe aces CPO Eitoku Matsunaga and PO1/c Kiyomi
Katsuki are also included in Henry Sakaida's "Imperial Japanese
Navy Aces 1937-45" (ISBN 1 855327279), Osprey 1998.
-
-
- Posted By: Derek Brown <mailto:dbrown303@aol.com?subject=Zero
Interior Paint : How Far Foreward?>
Date: Sunday, 4 November 2001, at 10:51 p.m.
-
- Hello All (New subscriber, first time posting)
- I am trying to help some people with an A6M3 Zero
project and would like to get your opinions on how far forward the
interior paint was applied in the Zero cockpit. It appears from other
restoration projects that the interior color carries to either the
rear side of the firewall or to the fuel tank.
- Any thoughts? In reviewing the ATAIU A6M2 that looks
to be the most un-restored example around - it appears the interior
paint carries at least to the fuel tank. It also appears consistent
that the interior paint carries aft to the roll-over bulkhead just
behind the pilot's seat.
-
- It appears the owners will utilize Mr. Lansdale's
effort with regards to painting the aircraft the Hai-ryokushoku color.
-
- In reviewing Zero restoration examples around the
world - it appears the wheel well / gear cover / flap colors vary
considerably. San Diego's A6M7 has interior green, a restored A6M3
with Aotake, Chino's A6M5 has flaps interior green, wheel wells and
gear covers in underside color, Australian War Memorial Zero has flaps
interior green, wheel wells and gear covers in underside color, etc.
-
- Your insights most appreciated. My apologies if this
has been covered before on this newsgroup. If so, please contact me
off-line at dbrown303@aol.com.
- Also, if there are any Japanese Zero instruments for
sale, I'd appreciate hearing from you as well.
-
- Regards,
- Derek
-
- Re: Zero Interior Paint : How Far
Foreward?
-
- Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
Zero Interior Paint : How Far Foreward?>
Date: Monday, 5 November 2001, at 9:21 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Zero Interior Paint : How Far
Foreward? (Derek Brown)
-
- Hello Derek,
- From what I can tell from the Blayd remains,including
A6M3 #@ s/n 3285, the cockpit was painted in several stages.
- Under everything was a undercoat of aotake which was
initially applied to most of the parts before assembly. Additional
coats were then applied as the pieces were fitted togther on the
assempbly line.
-
- A coat of the interior paint, in the case of
Mitsubishi this would be in the vicinity of FS24098, was then applied
to the upper fuselage before it was attached to the wings. This
application seems to have also been applied to the area forward of the
instrument panel but I cannot say how thorough the application of the
paint was. Likewise the cockpit floor was painted before the fuselage
was fastened down. Behind the seat the interior
paint seems only to have been applied to the forward side of station
5. The cockpit deck was black both in fron and behind the cockpit as
was the interior of the canopy framing.
-
- The interior of the flaps were left in aotake. The
same is true for the wheel wells. All the wheel well covers were
painted overall in the plane's exterior color. This exterior color
also extended, in the case of Mitsubshi, to the folding linkage of the
small inner cresent shaped covers. Oddly enough, although all covers
for both manufactureres were built by the sub-contractor
"Kayaba", Nakajima Zeros had the small inner cresent door
and folding linkage painted in aotake. However, bear in mind in both
cases all steel parts were painted black.
-
- Re: Zero Interior Paint : How Far
Foreward?
-
- Posted By: Derek Brown <mailto:dbrown303@aol.com?subject=Re:
Zero Interior Paint : How Far Foreward?>
Date: Monday, 5 November 2001, at 3:02 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Zero Interior Paint : How Far
Foreward? (Ryan Toews)
-
- Thanks Ryan!
- A bit of interior color info - upon examination of
the interior panels that had been untouched (not restored or
repainted), it appears that instead of an undercoat of Aotake
underneath the interior green paint, the interior of the this Zero had
a black paint applied as an undercoat prior to the interior green
being applied. As the painted areas were slightly scraped (using a
piece of interior paneling that was relatively protected and located
just above the floor on the starboard side wall), pea size areas of
interior green would flake away leaving the black undercoat. It
appears to be a gloss black . This was also observed on a portion of
the aft end (facing the pilot) of the fuel cell, although I cannot
tell from the cell whether the entire unit was painted or only the
back side.
- Anyone hear of the practice of painting a black
undercoat prior to the interior green color being applied?
-
- Thanks again,
- Derek
-
- Re: Zero Interior Paint : How Far
Foreward?
-
- Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
Zero Interior Paint : How Far Foreward?>
Date: Thursday, 8 November 2001, at 8:00 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Zero Interior Paint : How Far
Foreward? (Derek Brown)
-
- Hello Derek,
- The use of black paint as an undercoat is very
interesting indeed. When I had the opportunity this summer of of
showing Jim Lansdale what I was doing with the Blayd collection he
spotted patches of sprayed black paint used in conjunction with the
aotake in the wheel well of A6M3 32 s/n 3285. Your finding of similar
paint indicates that this may not have been an uncommon practice.
- One possibility that comes to mind is that this may
be overspray from a steel part that was nearby (all steel parts were
primed in red and then painted black) but this does not seem to fit
with the locations of the black paint you described.
- I have a pile of aluminum borrowed from Blayd that I
have to return next week and I'll take a closer look at the black
paint I found then.
-
- Ryan
-
- Re: Zero Interior Paint : How Far
Foreward?
-
- Posted By: joe taylor <mailto:jtaylor@bhfs.bellhowell.com?subject=Re:
Zero Interior Paint : How Far Foreward?>
Date: Monday, 5 November 2001, at 9:39 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Zero Interior Paint : How Far
Foreward? (Ryan Toews)
-
- Ryan, were the interior of the gear covers the
exterior color also??
-
- thanks,
- joe.
-
- Re: Zero Interior Paint : How Far
Foreward?
-
- Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
Zero Interior Paint : How Far Foreward?>
Date: Monday, 5 November 2001, at 10:09 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Zero Interior Paint : How Far
Foreward? (joe taylor)
-
- Hello Joe,
- Yes, on Mitsubishi built A6M2s and A6M3s both the
interior and exterior of all the gear doors were painted in the
exterior color of the plane. Nakajima built A6M2s, and at least early
A6M5s, had the three outer gear covers painted in the planes exterior
color on both the exterior and interior sides. Nakajima A6M2s (I'm not
sure about A6M5s), however, had the interior side of the small
crescent shaped covers finished in aotake.
- FWIW, the small rectangular wooden bumper on the
inner side of these crescent shaped doors was made of plywood in the
case of the Mitsubushi door and of solid wood on the Nakajima doors I
examined. It may be important to know this now with the new big Tamiya
Zero on the market :)
-
- Ryan
-
-
- Posted By: Michael Swinburne <mailto:a4_kahu@hotmail.com?subject=The
ongoing quest for Zero markings>
Date: Saturday, 29 September 2001, at 10:17 p.m.
-
- Are there any pictures of British-captured A6M5 Zero
(tail number BI-05) other than it in flight with a captured model 22
or 32? I am also trying to find out if the ATAIU SEA and roundels were
hand painted or sprayed, and if these ATAIU SEA marking would have
been on the lower or upper wings too. PLease email any info or pics
(if youre nice enough :-P ) to me at a4_kahu@hotmail.com
-
- Thanks a lot guys.
Mike Swinburne
-
- Re: The ongoing quest for Zero markings
-
- Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
The ongoing quest for Zero markings>
Date: Monday, 1 October 2001, at 8:56 p.m.
-
- In Response To: The ongoing quest for Zero markings
(Michael Swinburne)
-
- Hello Mike,
- Aero Detail 7 has several pictures of this plane,(s/n
196) which is now in the Imperial War Museum. Photo #66 on page 19
shows the white edge of the roundel and it would appear that it was
applied with a brush. The same seems to hold true for the white
lettered ATAIU SEA.
- Other color details can be found in a report by
Guiseppe Picarella which states that the under surface was close to FS
4201 and the cockpit was near to FS 4255. The RAF Dark Earth paint now
present on much of the outer surface was added when the plane arrived
in Britain.
- Incidently, the Zero photographed flying next to the
Type 52 is a Type 21 retrofitted with the long barrelled 20mm cannon .
- Ryan
-
- Re: The ongoing quest for Zero markings
-
- Posted By: Michael Swinburne <mailto:a4_kahu@hotmail.com?subject=Re:
The ongoing quest for Zero markings>
Date: Monday, 1 October 2001, at 9:42 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: The ongoing quest for Zero
markings (Ryan Toews)
-
- But the aircraft was still green over grey when flown
at the time of those pics, tho right? Are there any pis or info
relating to markings on the upper or lower wings? I have a feeling
that ATAIU SEA would have been on the bottom or something. Do you
think you could scan me some of these pics please?
- Thanks a lot!
Mike
-
- Re: The ongoing quest for Zero markings
-
- Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
The ongoing quest for Zero markings>
Date: Tuesday, 2 October 2001, at 8:13 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: The ongoing quest for Zero
markings (Michael Swinburne)
-
- Hello Micheal,
- Picarella definitely states that the Dark Earth was
applied in Britain, so I wold go with dark green upper surfaces and
hairyokushoku on the underside. If Nakajima did switch to a gray
underside paint it was sometime after this particular A6M5 was
manufactured.
- Ryan
-
- Re: The ongoing quest for Zero markings
-
- Posted By: Mike Yeo <mailto:mikeyeo@bigpond.com?subject=Re:
The ongoing quest for Zero markings>
Date: Tuesday, 2 October 2001, at 7:21 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: The ongoing quest for Zero
markings (Michael Swinburne)
-
- Mike,
- The Australian War Memorial has a couple of photos of
this aircraft. It clearly shows no letters on the upper wings, just
roundels. I'm not too sure about the lower wings, but I'm pretty sure
there aren't any too.
-
- Smoking Gun: Zero Performance/Specs Known 12/7/41
*PIC*
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Smoking
Gun: Zero Performance/Specs Known 12/7/41 *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 21 November 2001, at 2:39 p.m.
-
- Historians have long suspected that the performance
and specifications for the vaunted Mitsubishi A6M2 Type Zero carrier
fighter were known by U.S. Military Intelligence Service prior to the
attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941. One theory proposed is that
Claire Lee CHENNAULT had forwarded such information to military
intelligence authorities long before the Pearl Harbor attack. To date,
no documentation has been found connecting CHENNAULT to such a report,
although this may have happened.
-
- Major General Robert L. PETIT (USAF Ret.), provided
this writer many documents related to his service career and copies of
DOD declassified material related to the Pearl Harbor attack located
in the Hickam Air Force Base archives. Some of this material was
accessed during General PETIT's tenure as Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Hickam AFB, Hawaii in
1971. Among these documents was one entitled:
- "Japanese Army and Naval Air Forces,"
Prepared by the Intelligence Division, Office of the Chief of the Air
Corps, War Department.
- Within the above stated document was a section,
entitled, "Performance Characteristics of Japanese
Aircraft." The document relating to the Mitsubishi A6M2 Type Zero
performance and characteristics follows, in its entirety, below.
Please read carefully.
-
- Two items I found of particular interest are that in
the section entitled, "No. on Hand; 200" and that the date
this information had been obtained from the "Birtish (sic) Air
Ministry" was on "5-20-41." By May 1941 Mitsubish had
actually produced approximately 220 Zeros!
- Also note, ironically, that this material was only
compiled for use on "12/7/41" and that, even on that date,
the Zero was thought to be "incapable of short turns."
- I do not know if the document below is the proverbial
"smoking gun" related to what the U.S. MIS knew or should
have known about Japanese naval air power, but I suspect it is very
close to being so!
-
- Enjoy FWIW!
- Jim Lansdale
-
- Re: Smoking Gun: Zero Performance/Specs Known 12/7
-
- Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Sunday, 25 November 2001, at 5:50 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Smoking Gun: Zero Performance/Specs
Known 12/7/41 *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
-
- The confusion around Chennault's role in warning the
US military authorities about the Zero originates from his detailed
evaluation of the Type 97 "Nate" as referred to by Rick. In
his biography "Way of a Fighter" (1949) Chennault relates
that a Type 97 was captured intact by the Chinese in 1939 and brought
to Chengtu where he flew it "through extensive service and combat
tests" in comparison with the P-36, Gladiator and I-16. Chennault
compiled a "thick dossier" on this aircraft, complete with
photographs, and turned this over to military intelligence at the War
Department in 1939. Although he received a letter of acknowledgement,
by 1940 this dossier was missing from the War Department files.
-
- Interestingly Chennault identifies the Nate as the
forerunner of the Oscar and relates how AVG pilots found it more
troublesome than the Zero because of it's "astonishing rate of
climb and incredibly short turning radius". Chennault had once
reported to the USA from China that the Type 97 "climbs like a
sky rocket and maneuvers like a squirrel". This respect for the
"obsolete" Nate was shared by RAF pilots who encountered it
over Burma (refer to Hemingway, Kenneth, Wings Over Burma, Quality
Press London, 1944 and Sutton, Barry, Jungle Pilot, Macmillan & co
London, 1946):
-
- "Many times since I have thought I would have
liked to cram the man who wrote that article into the cockpit of my
Hurricane as I twisted and turned, trying to dodge the front end of
those slippery little 97's clawing themselves round incredibly tight
corners at a couple of hundred miles an hour."
-
- Chennault also refers to bringing back to the USA
"data" on the Zero in the fall of 1940. The Zeros had first
appeared over China in August 1940 but the first Zero wreckage was not
examined by the Chinese until May 1941. I believe this original
"data" was largely in the form of personal notes about it's
assessed performance and was delivered verbally at several venues.
Chennault met with the Army's chief of staff General George C Marshall
twice during this period and evidently briefed him about the Zero. In
a conference two days after they had met Marshall spoke of a "new
fast pursuit plane which has just appeared in the hands of Japan and
has grounded all the Chinese Air Force". Marshall's use of words
suggests the belief that this aircraft may not have been Japanese in
origin or rather the disbelief that it was! This was more than a year
before Pearl Harbor.
-
- It is my humble belief that Chennault's comprehensive
Nate "dossier" and briefly assessed Zero "data"
have become one and the same in Flying Tigers lore.
- However, at Toungoo, Burma, in September 1941
Chennault was able to hand out to fledgling AVG pilots mimeographed
data sheets on the Zero which contained "drawings, specifications
and performance data" (after which there were a few
resignations). This is reported both by Chennault in "Way of a
Fighter" and by Hotz who edited Chennault's manuscript (Hotz,
Robert B, With General Chennault; the story of the Flying Tigers,
Coward-McCann Inc New York, 1943). On 15 October 1941 Air Vice-Marshal
Pulford of the RAF Far East Command stated at a press conference:
- "Japan's best fighter is the 'Navy 0'. It is on
a par with our Buffalo, certainly not much faster". (Shores, Cull
& Izawa, Bloody Shambles Vol1, Grub Street, London, 1992)
-
- Although possibly apocryphal, RAF confidence in the
Buffalo (shared at first by AVG pilots who complained that the RAF had
better aircraft than they had) was shaken when it was easily bested in
mock dogfights by a P-40 Tomahawk. It is very difficult now to judge
how much of the contemporary confidence expressed in the Buffalo was
for propaganda purposes rather than genuinely and personally held, but
there was a growing demand for Hurricane reinforcements for the Far
East in the months prior to Pearl Harbor. Their failure to appear was
largely due to Hitler's attack on Russia in the summer of 1941,
prompting Churchill to promise Stalin 200 Hurricanes, and the demands
of the Middle East theatre, rather than any arrogant belief that the
Buffalo squadrons were sufficient to beat the Japanese. When
Hurricanes did appear, albeit in numbers too small to turn the tables,
the effect on the Japanese moving down through Malaya was dramatic:
-
- "Until then our mobile corps had been advancing
on the paved roads in broad daylight taking no precautions against
enemy raids. While the Hurricanes were flying even single cars moved
off the road into the cover of the jungle, and all convoys had to move
off the road and get out of sight at the first alarm" (Tsuji,
Colonel Masanobu, Singapore: the Japanese Version, St Martin's Press,
New York 1960)
-
- Re: Smoking Gun: Zero Performance/Specs Known 12/7
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
Smoking Gun: Zero Performance/Specs Known 12/7>
Date: Wednesday, 21 November 2001, at 2:49 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Smoking Gun: Zero Performance/Specs
Known 12/7/41 *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
-
- Jim
- This 'smoking gun' has been sitting unclassified in
the National Archives for years. There are also some cable reports
which indicate the US got its information via the British air attache
in Chungking. Chennault very clearly talks about his dossiers on the
I-97 and Zero in 'Way of a Fighter' but he was not the only source of
US intel info.
-
- Rick
-
- Re: Smoking Gun
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
Smoking Gun>
Date: Wednesday, 21 November 2001, at 3:55 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Smoking Gun (James F. Lansdale)
-
- Jim
- While I'm certain I've seen the specific documents
you displayed, a quick search of my notes comes up with a slightly
different version. It is 'Office of Chief of the Air Corps, Wash DC,
Aircraft Intelligence report, Japanese Aircraft, Dec. 1941, Prepared
by the Material Division, Experimental Engineering Section, Wright
Field, Dayton, Ohio WF-12-19-41-54.'
-
- Says max speed is 345 mph and climb 'considered
better than P-40', 75 rounds for wing 20mm (vice 22mm) etc.
- Comments say: "Tactics -- Has been highly
successful against old Russian I-15's. Have bombed airports...It is
believed that the wing cannons weaken the wings and thus restrict the
dive. Although it cannot turn quickly, it is rated better than the
P-40 in range and climb. However, P-40 is better in dive and
speed."
- Apparently there was more than one smoking gun
published by December 1941!
-
- My notes don't have the RG cite for this. I suspect
it's in the RG 165 material. Haven't found any notes on your specific
report but I recall the reference to 22mm guns. I may come up with
more specifics later.
-
- Somewhere also I have a report from the British MA in
Chungking giving specific Chinese air and ground losses in 1941. They
are very similar to Japanese claims.
-
- Rick
-
- Re: Performance -- sifting through myth
-
- Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re:
Performance -- sifting through myth>
Date: Friday, 30 November 2001, at 1:13 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Performance -- sifting through myth
(richard dunn)
-
- Hello Rick,
- Nice analysis... However one
point about the Buffalo seems to be particularly forgotten here when
it goes to what the Finns did with it:
- Buffalo engine was poorly cooled due to the cowling
design. It means it couldn't get its maximum performances for too long
even in temperate climates, let alone the relatively high temperatures
to be expected from low to medium altitude in the Far East (where the
action was in fact)... The Finns, in the the sub-Arctic climate they
fought in were able to get the maximum output during a much longer
time frame, an important asset in combat. It might explain for a part
their stunning success with the "Flying Barrel".
-
- As to the Buffalo in general, what is to be pointed
out IMHO is the fact its design was obviously plagued by obsolescence
when it entered service. It was neatly part of a transitional
generation from the late biplane era and the monoplane fighter
triumph. This was true also but to a lesser extent for the Wildcat and
even lesser for the Hurricane (essentially for the British plane
because of the extensive use of fabric covered surfaces, but less with
the Mk II as it has been corrected since main production Mk I). The P
40 was mainly handicapped by the Alison engine which was never a
winner when altitude increased, though it performed well at low
altitude (see the Mustang story, a plane only getting its full
potentialities with the use of RR Merlin engines) but the P 40 was a
truly modern plane (even the P 36 was, see the Mohawks IV story in RAF
hands in India). The Zero was truly a modern plane (and only paid the
price in term of structural weakness and armor to comply with the
required exceptional range). Aerodynamically speaking, even the less
proficient newbie in aviation history will certainly point out the
Buffalo was the poorest design of them all.
-
- I really see no reason to re-assess permanently the
inferiority of the Brewster design. Of course tactical situation,
pilot abilities are factors as decisive as the the built in
capabilities of an aircraft (examples are abundant in History) but
when you consider the average IJNAF fighter pilot was probably the
most proficient naval pilot in the world at the beginning of the
conflict, it becomes obvious, as long as its plane could reach the
target and fight, even had its adversaries be of the same level (and
it was generally a far cry from that) the edge was given to him by the
qualities of his mount.
- See for example the Flying Tiger story. True, they
get some successes against IJAAF fighters at a time the other outfits
hardly had a chance. Mainly because they flew a plane which properly
handled (both by proficient pilots and with tactics emphasizing the
qualities of their mount and minimizing the ones of their adversaries
mount) could cope with planes which were partly obsolescent, like the
Ki 27 Otsu or light and fragile like the Ki 43-I Hayabusa, even when
the number was in their disfavor. But we mustn't forget too the IJAAF
average pilot was less proficient than the average "Tiger"
and less proficient than the average IJNAF pilot of the time. I
personally seriously doubt they would have faired so well against
IJNAF Zero equipped Kokutais...
-
- Now, the Brewster as a ground attack aircraft... The
idea seems to have surfaced for a while as witnessed by an
experimental plane (I think a F2A-3 airframe) fitted with two 20 mm
cannons in the wings. The poor beast was a sure looser in terms of
performances and the idea was dropped (incidentally it marked the end
of a Brewster aircraft design for operational use in WW 2, thereafter,
Brewster factory only built alien designs as far as combat aircraft
were concerned).
- Now see the Hurricane story, even concentrating on
the part of this story in the Far East... As late as 1944 the
Hurricane proved itself a potent and prominent ground attack aircraft,
provided the skies around were cleaned from enemy air opposition (Imphal
campaign i.e.). The Hurricane could carry two 250 lbs bombs and still
retain two (the outboard cannons were often removed) to four (nominal
armament) 20 mm cannons in the wings and still be usable. On other
fronts it carried two 40 mm cannons for tank bursting duties and
thereafter up to 8 "unrifled projectiles" (air to ground
rockets). The nominal armament of the Hurricane II b variant (the most
numerous one during the early stage of the Far Eastern campaign) was
12 x .303 machine guns, which was reduced to 8 to lighten the plane
when facing the nimble Japanese planes. This was an awesome firepower
when compared to the Japanese armament and though less potent than the
II c with four 20 mm cannon in ground attack role, it was something to
be accounted for. The Buffalo never carried such a potent armament
(and it was unthinkable it could have done so). I agree with you when
you say the tactical situation permitted the Hurricane to use its full
ground attack potential in later stages, when air superiority made it
virtually immune from enemy air opposition. But whatsoever, even had
the allies been the masters of the sky which implies they had the men,
the tactic AND THE MACHINES (i.e. a modern fighter)to do so, I doubt
the Brewster Buffalo should have been really useful at all. The
Buffalo was a second to third ranking kind of aircraft, deemed
sufficient to oppose these "myopic badly trained and flying
inferior copies of foreign aircraft pilots" the Japanese air
service men and machines where officially considered to be by the
British. The fact the last US units flying it were Marine units is
very illustrative of the way the Brewster fighter was considered by
Navy brasses as it was in no way unusual to relegate obsolescent types
to the Marines when the Fleet relinquished them or even didn't accept
them on their carriers. See the SBD-1, the last Vought Vindicators to
operate in frontline or even what variant of the Wildcat the Marines
operated early in the war... It is a great piece of (black) humor to
consider even the very potent Corsair, deemed unsuitable for carrier
operation by the Navy, illustrated itself in Marines'hands (being also
relegated there) before being "debounced" (something the
Brits did much earlier)and accepted on Fleet carriers...
-
- In fact the US authorities were perfectly aware of
the Brewster shortcomings and were all too pleased to oblige their
allies with them ! ... There is not a single doubt the plane was an
inferior one. To try to assess exactly to what extent is IMHO very
difficult and almost useless, just because a fair comparative study
should imply a perfect equality of the other factors (i.e.: pilot
proficiency, level of tactical abilities, sheer force of number). The
only thing I think fair and safe to say is the Buffalo was not a total
piece of crap as it was sometimes depicted but this doesn't justify
its choice by the British purchasing commission nor the Dutch East
Indies air service. The real myopia was the allies privilege during
this time frame...
-
- Friendly.
- François
-
- Re: Performance -- sifting through myth
-
- Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Sunday, 25 November 2001, at 10:54 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Performance -- sifting through myth
(richard dunn)
-
- Rick,
I agree with you about the Buffalo getting a bad rap. Some RAF pilots
who flew the type had the same view (Bingham-Walllis of 67 Sqn for
one).
- One of the problems that contributed to it's poor
reputation was it's unserviceability and maintenance was a continuous
struggle. Spot welds would break on the box section undercarriage,
rivets were discovered in the fuel lines, fuel pumps and carburettors.
Big end bearings cracked and deposited white metal in the scavenge
filters. At Singapore the synchronising gear proved troublesome and
when the fault could not be identified the fuselage guns were removed.
This fault was finally solved by 67 Sqn in Burma although slow burning
rounds in the fuselage guns still caused the odd bullet hole in
propellor blade roots.
-
- An alternative view of the Buffalo is attributed to
Kapitan Pieter Tideman of the Dutch LVA in Bloody Shambles (Vol 1 page
65) where it's durability under fire is extolled.
-
- The Hurricane was a superb gun platform and whether
or not it was actually more effective as a ground attack aircraft than
the Buffalo (I think it was) the Japanese certainly respected it's
firepower. On the other hand the 67 Sqn Buffalo strafe of Girikham
airfield in Thailand is seldom referred to these days.
- As we're moving off-topic here perhaps some more
interesting discussion on the Buffalo at the General page?
-
- Regards
Nick
-
- Re: Smoking Gun: Zero Performance/Specs Known 12/7
(Nick Millman)
-
- Date: Sunday, 25 November 2001, at 8:03 a.m.
- In Response To: Re: Smoking Gun: Zero
Performance/Specs Known 12/7 (Nick Millman)
-
- Nick and others
- Jim's original comments have certainly generated a
variety of responses.
- I'm one who thinks the Buffalo got a bad rap. In
Malaya and Burma it's pilots were initially surprised by the
performance of the Japanese fighters. Two of the four Buffalo
squadrons were a bit thin on pilot experience. Thereafter the
psychological effects of the early set backs might color a pilot's
opinion of his aircraft.
- According to Shores et al, Bloody Shambles, vol II
the Buffalo and Hurricane were test flown in Burma. "The
Buffalo's performance at 20,000 feet and above was actually found to
be superior, whilst at 16,000 feet the two aircraft seemed evenly
matched. Below that level the Hurricane undoubtedly had the
edge." (p.256). No mention of what model Hurricane (believe most
but not all in Burma were IIB's).
-
- This is quite different from what Air Vice Marshall
D.F. Stevenson wrote in his oficial "despatch" on the Burma
campaign dated August 1942. He briefly mentions that 67 Sq had about
16 Buffalos when he arrived and then does not even mention them in
discussing comparative performance of Japanese and Allied fighters. He
rates the Hurricane "definitely superior" above 20,000 feet.
In context it is clear this means superior to both Japanese and Allied
fighters. He rates the P-40 comparable to the Hurricane at medium
altitude and then states that most fighting took place below 19,000
feet. He seems to be making the case that if only he'd gotten the
Hurricanes he asked for, he would have taken the Japanese to the
cleaners!
-
- So according to the "official" version the
Zero was "slightly inferior" to the Hurricane and P-40 at
medium heights.
- Back to the Buffalo. I tend to doubt that the
Hurricane was a much more effective ground attack aircraft than the
Buffalo (implied in Tsuji's comment). What changed later in the
campaign was not just the arrival of Hurricanes but the tactical
situation. Japanese columns were closer to RAF bases in Singapore,
thus more effective missions could be flown. Early in the campaign the
RAF had been denied most of its up country bases.
-
- This leads to another comment. Speed, turning circle,
climb, weight of fire are all important. However, early in the Pacific
war the Japanese fighters gained a large tactical advantage from their
superiority in range! Under differing tactical situations the
importance of one performance characteristic takes on greater or
lesser importance. Japanese fighters were where they were needed. This
was not always the case with Allied fighters.
-
- The Finns did very well with the Buffalo (but then
they did well with almost anything that flew!). The Marines were badly
handled at Midway (those flying F4Fs somewhat less so than those
flying F2As) but it is not clear a Squadron entirely equipped with
F4F-3s would have done significantly better.
- Incidentally, in his report Stevenson cites 315 mph
as the Zero's maximum speed (same as in the July 1941 intelligence
report) and clearly thinks his pilots were fighting Zeros as well as
the slower '01s' and '97s'. He does recognize that range gave the
Japanese an important tactical advantage.
- Amazing how bad information from sixty years ago can
continue to impact our anaysis today.
-
- Rick
-
- Re: Smoking Gun
-
- Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Friday, 23 November 2001, at 4:03 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Smoking Gun (richard
dunn)
-
- Yes, the source was British diplomatic officials in
China. There are several published post war references to these
reports. The information stemmed from Chinese examination of downed
Zeros. I believe the "Chennault Connection" is AVG
mythology, wishful thinking and misinterpretation of the later
"Neumann" Zero capture. If my references were not still
packed up post-house move I would provide the corroborative evidence.
-
- Ironically the British seemed to know much more about
the Zero prior to the outbreak of war and RAF pilots in Malaya,
Singapore, NEI and Burma identified it (and Oscars!) as the "Navy
Nought" almost from Day One.
-
- I have a nice Observer's recognition picture of the
"Navy Type-00" from 1942 with some quaint and curious
descriptive text which I will be happy to post once the book comes to
light!
-
- Re: Smoking Gun: Zero Performance/Specs Known 12/7
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
Smoking Gun: Zero Performance/Specs Known 12/7>
Date: Wednesday, 21 November 2001, at 2:49 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Smoking Gun: Zero Performance/Specs
Known 12/7/41 *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
-
- Jim
- This 'smoking gun' has been sitting unclassified in
the National Archives for years. There are also some cable reports
which indicate the US got its information via the British air attache
in Chungking. Chennault very clearly talks about his dossiers on the
I-97 and Zero in 'Way of a Fighter' but he was not the only source of
US intel info.
-
- Rick
-
- Re: Smoking Gun
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
Smoking Gun>
Date: Wednesday, 21 November 2001, at 3:55 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Smoking Gun (James F. Lansdale)
-
- Jim
- While I'm certain I've seen the specific documents
you displayed, a quick search of my notes comes up with a slightly
different version. It is 'Office of Chief of the Air Corps, Wash DC,
Aircraft Intelligence report, Japanese Aircraft, Dec. 1941, Prepared
by the Material Division, Experimental Engineering Section, Wright
Field, Dayton, Ohio WF-12-19-41-54.'
-
- Says max speed is 345 mph and climb 'considered
better than P-40', 75 rounds for wing 20mm (vice 22mm) etc.
- Comments say: "Tactics -- Has been highly
successful against old Russian I-15's. Have bombed airports...It is
believed that the wing cannons weaken the wings and thus restrict the
dive. Although it cannot turn quickly, it is rated better than the
P-40 in range and climb. However, P-40 is better in dive and
speed."
- Apparently there was more than one smoking gun
published by December 1941!
- My notes don't have the RG cite for this. I suspect
it's in the RG 165 material. Haven't found any notes on your specific
report but I recall the reference to 22mm guns. I may come up with
more specifics later.
-
- Somewhere also I have a report from the British MA in
Chungking giving specific Chinese air and ground losses in 1941. They
are very similar to Japanese claims.
- Rick
-
- Re: Smoking Gun
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
Smoking Gun>
Date: Wednesday, 21 November 2001, at 3:55 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Smoking Gun (James F. Lansdale)
-
- Jim
- While I'm certain I've seen the specific documents
you displayed, a quick search of my notes comes up with a slightly
different version. It is 'Office of Chief of the Air Corps, Wash DC,
Aircraft Intelligence report, Japanese Aircraft, Dec. 1941, Prepared
by the Material Division, Experimental Engineering Section, Wright
Field, Dayton, Ohio WF-12-19-41-54.'
-
- Says max speed is 345 mph and climb 'considered
better than P-40', 75 rounds for wing 20mm (vice 22mm) etc.
- Comments say: "Tactics -- Has been highly
successful against old Russian I-15's. Have bombed airports...It is
believed that the wing cannons weaken the wings and thus restrict the
dive. Although it cannot turn quickly, it is rated better than the
P-40 in range and climb. However, P-40 is better in dive and
speed."
- Apparently there was more than one smoking gun
published by December 1941!
- My notes don't have the RG cite for this. I suspect
it's in the RG 165 material. Haven't found any notes on your specific
report but I recall the reference to 22mm guns. I may come up with
more specifics later.
-
- Somewhere also I have a report from the British MA in
Chungking giving specific Chinese air and ground losses in 1941. They
are very similar to Japanese claims.
-
- Rick
-
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Zero
Intel pre-Dec 7th>
Date: Friday, 23 November 2001, at 6:55 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Smoking Gun (Nick
Millman)
-
- Nick, Jim
- In "Dispatch on the Far East", June 25,
1942, Air Chief Marshall, Sir Robert Brooke-Popham (C-in-C Far East,17
Oct 1940-27 Dec 1941) there is an Appendix "O" which
contains a 3 July 1941 test report on the Buffalo compared to the Zero
intelligence report.
-
- It says inter alia: rate of climb to 13,000' Zero 4.3
min, Buffalo 6.1 min; Speed at 10,000' Zero 315 mph, Buffalo approx.
270 mph; Speed at 20,000' Zero 295 mph, Buffalo 292 mph.
-
- It also contains a statement concerning the Buffalo
that actual experience in Malaya showed that 292 mph could not be
obtained.
- Despite these indications that the Japanese could
field a fighter superior to the Buffalo, there were no high level
requests for better fighters prior to Decemeber 7th.
- Interesting that the Buffalo test figures are
actually low compared to its official figures. The Zero intel report
figures are fairly close to official Japanese numbers (317 mph at
16,400) but do not reflect the reality that Japanese fighter pilots
often operated in an overboost engine condition in combat. In which
case the figures in the US reports (345 mph) are closer.
-
- Rick
-
- Re: Zero Intel pre-Dec 7th
-
- Posted By: Mark Haselden <mailto:mark_rae@email.msn.com?subject=Re:
Zero Intel pre-Dec 7th>
Date: Friday, 23 November 2001, at 2:24 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Zero Intel pre-Dec 7th (richard
dunn)
-
- Rick,
- From what I have seen of surviving combat reports
from Malaya and Burma, certainly the IJAAF fighters were deemed to be
slower than the Buffalo. Accounts from pilots who flew Buffalos over
Singapore indicate that they soon learned not to "stay and mix
it" with the Japanese fighters which, to me at least, indicates
that they were able to depart from the fight at a higher speed, almost
certainly in a dive. Most reporting seems to indicate that the
controls of the early Zero and Hayabusa became very heavy at high
speeds, and hence Japanese pilots preferred slower speed, turning
combat to high-speed dive and zoom tactics. What is the source of your
info about the Japanese conducting combats in overboost (which eats
engines rapidly) and thereby achieving 345mph? It seems to contradict
everything I've read on the subject.
-
- Yours aye,
Mark
-
- Re: Zero Intel pre-Dec 7th
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
Zero Intel pre-Dec 7th>
Date: Friday, 23 November 2001, at 3:40 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Zero Intel pre-Dec 7th (Mark
Haselden)
-
- Mark
- In Sakai's "Samurai" there are repeated
references to use of overboost. Moreover, many Allied combat reports
indicate Zeros could overtake or stay with P-40's and P-39's at low
and medium altitudes. On April 10th 1942 S/L John Jackson of RAAF 75
Sq was shot down when unable to outrun Zeros at sea level. Three
months later RAAF Kittyhawks were chased away from Buna by Zeros. In
50 miles they could not open any distance on the Zeros. This could not
be done at the "official" operating speeds of the Zero.
Combat reports also mention white smoke coming from Zeros whereupon
they broke off otherwise close combats.
- The Zero's overboost was actually regulated so that
overboost was not "overboosted". This is not necessarily the
same as "going through the stops" in an Allied fighter.
-
- This is not one of those things you can necessarily
"look up" in a book but requires integrating diverse info.
- Short answer to a serious question.
-
- The Buffalo in Malaya but seldom encountered a
"real" Zero. There were only about twenty operational with
the 22d Air Flotilla's ad hoc fighter unit. They were actually
ecountering Ki 43s and Ki 27s and possibly early Ki 44s. The whole
point about Malaya and the Zero is not actual combat but pre-war
intelligence.
-
- Rick
-
- Re: Zero Intel pre-Dec 7th
-
- Posted By: Gordon Clarke <mailto:gordonc@adf-serials.com?subject=Re:
Zero Intel pre-Dec 7th>
Date: Wednesday, 5 December 2001, at 5:57 a.m.
-
- In Response To: (richard dunn)
-
- Rick,
- There were only about twenty operational with the 22d
Air > Flotilla's ad hoc fighter unit.
- Do u mean the 22nd Koku Sentai here? If so,
Francillon lists 25 A6M2 Zekes in the Special Detachment as well as 92
Zekes in Tainan Kokutai and 92 Zekes in the Third Kokutai of the 23rd
Koku Sentai.
-
- So I would imagine the Buffalos had a good chance of
encountering Zekes in the Malayan skies, unless 23rd KS didn't take
part in the action at all.
- Looking through the claims of 453 Sqn RAAF for that
period there is very little in the way of claims for destroyed Zekes
(only one that I can see), only one probable destroyed and at least 3
damaged. So they didn't encounter them in the numbers they did with
the IJA a/c and they didn't have the
success over the Zeke as they did with the Army a/c. They
were actually ecountering Ki 43s and Ki 27s and possibly early Ki 44s.
-
- They certainly appear to be the major a/c
encountered. They (the Buffalo pilots) make reference to fighting a/c
like Me-109s, but the only a/c that I can think of like that was the
Ki-61 Tony which wasn't introduced into combat until the next year. I
have April 43 as being that date. So unless I have the date wrong for
the Tony, would anyone care to make an informed guess as to which a/c
the pilots were referring to?
-
- Thanks...Gordon
-
- Re: Smoking Gun
-
- Posted By: Larry <mailto:Hldeziv@aol.com?subject=Re:
Smoking Gun>
Date: Friday, 23 November 2001, at 6:52 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Smoking Gun (Nick
Millman)
-
- According to a recently published scholarly work by
the highly respected British university professor, Fulbright scholar
and Director of the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies in the U.K.,
Richard J. Aldrich, "Intelligence and the War Against Japan"
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000), it is stated on page 63 in reference to
the "Zero fighter": "Detailed information of its
startling performance was obtained [by Far East Combined Bureau (FECB)
in Singapore - HLD] from China in May [1941 - HLD] and again in
September 1941." Aldrich maintains that not all of this detailed
information was disseminated by FECB to London and that that which was
was met by disbelief. Even the senior RAF officers in Singapore
refused to believe it and, accordingly, "did not pass it on to
their pilots."
- Worth noting in the above is that there were two
reports on Zero specs in British hands prior to 7(8) December, but not
all of it was passed along as it should have been. It seems like this
adds an additional "twist" to the puzzle.
-
- (Larry)
-
- Re: Smoking Gun
-
- Posted By: John Lundstrom <mailto:jl@mpm.edu?subject=Re:
Smoking Gun>
Date: Saturday, 24 November 2001, at 11:23 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Smoking Gun (Larry)
-
- One USN officer who believed it was Lieut. John S.
("Jimmy") Thach, the CO of VF-3 on the Saratoga. After
seeing the description of the Zero (top speed 345-380 mph, cruise of
210 to 250 mph, and an armament of two 20-mm cannons and two 7.7-mm
machine guns) published in the US Fleet Air Tactical Unit Intelligence
Bulletin of 22 Sept. 1941, he devised his "Beam Defense"
tactics later called the "Thach Weave." See my book The
First Team, 477-85. The gun's been smoking a long time.
-
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Zero
War Prize: Tales of Two Zeros (Part 2) *PIC*>
Date: Sunday, 21 October 2001, at 9:54 a.m.
-
- The crew of Zero 4573, Tainan ku [V-179] has not been
positively identified, however, preliminary analysis is pointing to
the strong possibility this aircraft was lost during late September
1942 and may have been flown by WO TAKASUKA, Toraichi from No.3 ku.
TAKASUKA was lost 27 September 1942 over Guadalcanal, according to
HATA/IZAWA p.379.
- Don MARSH has presented us with a superb view of
Mitsubishi A6M2 model 21 Zero, s/n 4573, [V-179] from Tainan Ku,
September 1942. Yellow paint was found on fragments from the fuselage
and serve as the basis for the yellow stripe in the style of Tainan ku.
(N.B. The radio antenna may have been cut-off (Tainan ku practice) at
the canopy line or remained whole (No.3 ku practice). This detail is
not known for certain.
-
- Re: Zero War Prize: The "Guadalcanal-SAKAI
Zero" *PIC*
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
Zero War Prize: The 'Guadalcanal-SAKAI Zero' *PIC*>
Date: Monday, 22 October 2001, at 4:04 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Zero War Prize: Tales of Two
Zeros (Part 2) (Martin)
-
- Hi Martin
- You ask, " (Is) this ... the famous
'Guadalcanal' Zero that was found with crew remains? Are there any
actual pics of the a/c?"
- Zero s/n 4573 [V-179] is not the same Mitsubishi A6M2
model 21 Zero to which you refer. I have seen film clips taken at the
time of the recovery of the other "Guadalcanal" or
"SAKAI Zero" [V-103]. It was found near Honiara, (on the
outer perimeter of the old Henderson Field) in 1993 by Patrick M.
MURPHY. This Zero has previously been featured on this MB.
- It allegedly had been flown by Saburo SAKAI as
[V-103] and its s/n was 3647. [V-103] was lost on a mission to
Guadalcanal while flown by another pilot. Dr. Minoru KAWAMOTO arranged
for the recovered crew remains to be sent to Japan, but they have yet
to be identified.
- It is my understanding that SAKAI-san was presented
with fragments from this crash site by Dr. KAWAMOTO and other
fragments recovered from the same crash site have turned-up from time
to time. At least two pieces have been subjected to paint analysis.
The engine and most of the airframe fragments were placed in a cargo
container in Honiara. However, it is also my understanding, that the
main tail components, as well as other significant parts, have
"mysteriously" vanished.
- While portions of the story regarding the fate of the
recovered relics from [V-103] is hearsay, much of this account has
been confirmed. I am sure the "missing" pieces will
eventually find their way to the surface in some museum or private
collection!
-
- Re: Zero War Prize: The "Guadalcanal-SAKAI
Zero"
-
- Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Re:
Zero War Prize: The 'Guadalcanal-SAKAI Zero'>
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2001, at 9:50 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Zero War Prize: The
"Guadalcanal-SAKAI Zero" *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
-
- Jim Lansdale-san.
- I read in "Tatakau Zero-sen" that Saburo
Sakai was piloted V-138 ,when he got injured at Guadalcanal. There is
a photo that Saboro Sakai walking from V-138.
- But Saburo Sakai wrote in his "Saigo no Zero-sen".
He remember piloted V-103 ,when he got injured at Guadalcanal.
- Do you know which is right.
-
- Re:Sakai Zero [V-138]? *PIC*
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:Sakai
Zero [V-138]? *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2001, at 7:48 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Zero War Prize: The
"Guadalcanal-SAKAI Zero" (Masahiro Washio)
-
- Washio-san
- You wrote, "I read in 'Tatakau Zero-sen' that
Saburo Sakai ... piloted V-138 ,when he got injured at Guadalcanal.
There is a photo (showing) Saburo Sakai walking from V-138."
-
- I scanned the photo from "Tatakau Zero Sen"
on page 51 showing SAKAI-san walking away from the Tainan Kokutai
flight line on 7 August 1942. I do not know what the caption says.
However, as you will see in the photo close-up below, Mitsubishi A6M2
model 21 [V-138] has two tail stripes applied above and below the call
numbers. Usually these stripes would indicate a Hiko Chutaicho or
Buntaicho. I believe SAKAI-san was a Shotaicho and his Zero would
probably have carried only one stripe on the tail.
-
- It is likely the Zero shown was assigned to the
Tainan Ku, No.3 Hiko chutai/buntaicho or it may even have been the
Zero assigned to Lt. SASAI. Maybe someone else will share some
insights into this matter.
-
- FWIW
- Jim Lansdale
-
- Re:Sakai Zero [V-138]?
-
- Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Re:Sakai
Zero [V-138]?>
Date: Friday, 26 October 2001, at 3:41 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re:Sakai Zero [V-138]? *PIC* (James
F. Lansdale)
-
- Thanks to you two gentlemen for these fascinating
comments.
- I can only add that the one stripe/two stripe
argument probably differentiates between the aircraft allocated to
those pilots,and possibly that normally flown: it does not help as to
the aircraft flown on a particular day. Aircraft go sick: pilots will
use whatever is available. Presumably if Sakai's normal aircraft was
unserviceable on the day he would have preferred an aircraft with some
kind of leader's markings to one without.
- So V-138 cannot be ruled out on the grounds of having
the "wrong" markings. I agree that a photograph showing both
the damaged cockpit and the tail number would confirm matters.
-
- Re:Sakai Zero [V-138]?
-
- Posted By: James Holloway <mailto:bobwimple@aol.com?subject=Re:Sakai
Zero [V-138]?>
Date: Friday, 26 October 2001, at 11:27 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re:Sakai Zero [V-138]? (Graham
Boak)
-
- Sirs, Sakai san showed me a Japanese magazine that
had a photo that showed him still in the cockpit. It was grainy and a
bit blurred, but he pointed out that his pilot's helmet that was
bunched up on his head because the scarf was tucked under it. He said
the caption was in error as it said he was taking off for the
Guadlecanal mission when he had actually just landed. The photographer
had jumped onto the wing and shot thru the canopy, unfortunately, the
photo cut off the forward portion of the canopy, so we made a drawing
of the damage as well as he could remember it. So, there are probably
many more photos of the incident and I'll bet there is one out there
of the plane as well. Sincerely, James Holloway
-
- Re:Sakai Zero [V-138]?
-
- Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Re:Sakai
Zero [V-138]?>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2001, at 4:47 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re:Sakai Zero [V-138]? *PIC* (James
F. Lansdale)
-
- Jim Lansdale-san.
- I am surprised that you have Japanese Book.
- Yoji Watanabe wrote it from the viewpoint of
conviction. Sakai piloted V-138 Zero model 21.
- I doubted it, too. It can't be proved in that
photograph. But one Japanese BBS member wrote: Yoji Watanabe has much
more photos ,taken at the same time.
-
- Re: Zero War Prize: The "Guadalcanal-SAKAI
Zero"
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
Zero War Prize: The 'Guadalcanal-SAKAI Zero'>
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2001, at 10:49 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Zero War Prize: The
"Guadalcanal-SAKAI Zero" (Masahiro Washio)
-
- Washio-San
- SAKAI-San listed many Zeros in his log book. I do not
know for certain which Zero he flew on 7 August 1942. One of his
records lists [V-128]. I have also seen the photo of [V-138] behind
him the day he was wounded, but I am not certain that was the Zero he
flew that day. [V-138] could be another Zero on the Tainan Ku
flight-line at Lakunai Field. Sometimes captions are not accurate.
What we need is a photo of this aircraft which would show the damage
to the canopy.
-
- HTH
- Jim Lansdale
-
-
- Posted By: Bill Aicklen <mailto:WFAicklen@aol.com?subject=Zero
Wheel Well Color>
Date: Wednesday, 5 September 2001, at 8:51 p.m.
-
- What would the color have been for the interior wheel
wells and flaps on a A6M2 Zero at Pearl Harbour?
-
- Re: Zero Wheel Well Color
-
- Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re:
Zero Wheel Well Color>
Date: Thursday, 6 September 2001, at 6:14 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Zero Wheel Well Color (Bill
Aicklen)
-
- Hi Bill,
- I was waiting for Ryan Toews to answer but I guess
I'll save him the trouble. All Zeros at PH were Mitsubishi-built.
Therefore the wheel wells and inner surfaces of the flaps are dark
green translucent aotake color. I reproduce this by spraying a base
coat of aluminum. I then take an unmixed bottle of Modelmaster
'British Green Metallic' and pour the green portion off of the metal
pigment in the bottom. Thin this and spray it on the aluminum in very
light coats until you are satisfied with the shade. The inner surfaces
of both the inboard and outboard landing gear doors are the same
gray-green-khaki as the overall color of the airframe. IHTH!
-
- Cheers!
- Greg
-
-
- Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Mitsubishi
Zero Cockpit Deck Color>
Date: Monday, 19 November 2001, at 1:42 p.m.
-
- Hello All,
- It has been established for some time now that the
cockpit deck color on the Zeros painted overall in Hairyokushoku was
black. However, there is a degree of uncertainty if this practice was
continued on Zeros that were camouflaged at the factory with dark
green paint on their upper surfaces. It would appear, according to the
A6M5 pictured in the upper photo on page 70 of MA 510, that Nakajima
continued the practice of black painted cockpit decks. The Nakajima
built A6M5 in the IWM seems to back up this conclusion.
-
- But what Mitsubishi did is somewhat problematic. The
A6M3 22 in the RNZAF Museum appears to have its cockpit decking
painted black, but the photos I have seen are not of good enough
quality to establish this with certainty. Furthermore, in his book on
cockpit interiors, Robert Mikesh states on page 127 "Interior
decking matched the exterior green when camouflage was applied by the
manufacturer." The NASM's Mitsubishi built A6M5 has been painted
to follow this practice, but has anyone come across any other evidence
that demonstrates if this in fact was the case with Mitsubishi built
Zeros?
-
- Ryan
-
- Re: Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color
-
- Posted By: Derek Brown <mailto:dbrown303@aol.com?subject=Re:
Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color>
Date: Tuesday, 20 November 2001, at 5:07 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color
(Ryan Toews)
-
- On the Mitsubishi A6M3 being restored here, you can
clearly see the black color that was protected from fading and
sunlight by the canopy. The rear canopy section has been removed
during the restoration and the black decking color clearly shows where
the canopy section was. They obviously painted the deck prior to
installing the canopy.
-
- DB
-
- Re: Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color
-
- Posted By: joe taylor <mailto:jtaylor@bhfs.bellhowell.com?subject=Re:
Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color>
Date: Tuesday, 20 November 2001, at 7:42 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color
(Ryan Toews)
-
- Ryan, with the respect to the Mitsubishi built Zero's
in overall Hairyokushoku, was the cockpit deck "black" or
the cowling Blue-Black????
- thanks,
-
- joe.
-
- Re: Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color
-
- Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color>
Date: Tuesday, 20 November 2001, at 7:56 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck
Color (joe taylor)
-
- Hello Joe,
- I do not know if this has ever been confirmed on way
or the other. As far as I know, it has simply been assumed that the
color was Mitsubishi blue-black. An arguement could be made for either
option.
-
- Ryan
-
- Re: Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color
-
- Posted By: Don Marsh <mailto:marsh44@fuse.net?subject=Re:
Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color>
Date: Monday, 19 November 2001, at 2:35 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color
(Ryan Toews)
-
- Hi Ryan
- Sorry I can't comment on Mitsubishi, but I have two
color photos of Nakajima built A6M5's in the field; one a/c 601-? and
the other "Yo"D-135 at Atsugi, and both clearly have black
cockpit decking.
-
- Good luck on your quest.
- -Don
-
- Re: Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color
-
- Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck Color>
Date: Monday, 19 November 2001, at 3:35 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Mitsubishi Zero Cockpit Deck
Color (Don Marsh)
-
- Thanks Don,
- I was fairly sure about the Nakajima use of black,
but I have a nagging uncertainty about Mitsubishi. Although the NASM
Zero was incorrectly painted in a Nakajima scheme there still was some
solid research done as to paint details. And the conclusion they came
up with was it had the decking in the same color as the exterior. Now,
I understand that the paint had been stripped from the plane when it
was examined by the Army, but I doubt all the paint was removed and
the remnants that were found were held to be green. But it would be
nice to get other evidence to support this.
- Ryan
-
- Posted By: Daniel Alfonsea <mailto:alfonsea@terra.es?subject=Guadalcanal Zero Colours and Markings>
Date: Friday, 16 August 2002, at 5:47 a.m.
-
- Hello,
- This question is related to the one I have posted on Zero Tail Details.
What Zero squadrons would have flown in missions (and lost planes) over Guadalcanal? What colours and markings would these have sported - specially in the tail?
-
- Thanks,
- Dani
-
- Re: Guadalcanal Zero Colours and Markings
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <>
Date: Friday, 16 August 2002, at 6:38 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Guadalcanal Zero Colours and Markings (Daniel Alfonsea)
-
- Dani
- There were several IJNAF Kokutai which flew missions over Guadalcanal from August 1942 on to late 1943. The early missions were flown by the land-based, Tainan Ku (later No.251 Ku), No. 6 Ku (later No.204 Ku) and No.2 Ku (later No.582 Ku); various carrier-borne units flying from carriers and/or land bases; and, in 1943 several other numbered Kokutai.
-
- There were several camouflage schemes and A6M models used, plus a huge range of command and tactical markings, as well as a variety of unit tail codes.
- A good starting point would be for you to be more specific by time period and model of Zero.
- A good source of information would be Famous Aircraft of the World series, Nos.55 and 56.
-
- HTH
- Jim Lansdale
-
-
- Posted By: Edgar <mailto:spifire@mail4u.co.nz?subject=Natural
metal finish on Zero's......>
Date: Thursday, 11 July 2002, at 4:32 a.m.
-
- Hi all, was there ever a time in the Zero's
history, that the a/c flew in natural metal? Home defence?
thanks for your help.
- Edgar.
-
- Re: Natural metal finish on Zero's......
-
- Posted By: Dave Pluth <mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=Re:
Natural metal finish on Zero's......>
Date: Thursday, 11 July 2002, at 5:25 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Natural metal finish
on Zero's...... (Edgar)
-
- Edgar,
- Most that were captured by the US were flown in
a Natural Metal scheme.
- -Dave
-
- Posted By: michele marsan <mailto:m.marsan@tiscali.it?subject=rufe
in french service>
Date: Wednesday, 4 September 2002, at 12:07 a.m.
-
- And what about Rufes in French
aeroNavale markings???? Apart the ATAIU craft, painted with british or
french insignias, some sources report about three or four Rufes from a
cruiser servicing with Flotille 8S, French aeronavale in Indochina ,
1946. AS I am preparing a feature for a big british modeling magazine,
I am seeking furhter informations. Help me!
-
- Re: rufe in french service
-
- Posted By: John MacGregor
<mailto:JohnMacG6@hotmail.com?subject=Re: rufe in french
service>
Date: Wednesday, 4 September 2002, at 12:38 p.m.
-
- In Response To: rufe in french service (michele
marsan)
-
- get the french magazine 'Avions' #77,
August 1999. (Try www.avionsbateaux.com) It has an article on Japanese
Navy a/c in French service in Indo-China. it includes details on the
one - repeat one - A6M2-N used by the French (the 'ATAIU' example). It
actually flew several times in French markings before crashing.
Several E13As were used by the French Navy at this time, you may be
mistaking these for Rufes.
-
- Re: rufe in french service
-
- Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@agboak.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Re:
rufe in french service>
Date: Wednesday, 4 September 2002, at 3:03 a.m.
-
- In Response To: rufe in french service (michele
marsan)
-
- Contact Avions magazine, who carried an
article on this subject a year or two back.
-
- Re: rufe in french service
-
- Posted By: William Knoth
<mailto:baronred4@cs.com?subject=Re: rufe in french service>
Date: Wednesday, 4 September 2002, at 8:52 a.m.
-
- In Response To: (Graham Boak)
-
- You can find them in Arco-Aircam No.18
Mit.A6M1/2/-2N Zero-Sen Pub. 1970 (profile & Photo of french Rufe)
-
- Posted By: Tom Drysdale <mailto:drysdale4@sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
rufe in french service>
- Date: Wednesday, 4 September 2002, at
9:35 a.m.
- In Response To: rufe in french service (michele
marsan)
-
- There is a nice picture of one at this
address and a little description. Cool markings to say the least.