The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Rossco · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2010 6:31 pm

Japan wasn,t the only country.Have seen Dunlop tyres on Me109,s.I think a lot of cross polinisation happened between aircraft designers.Has anyone noticed the tailplane of a Spitfire is similar shape to a Heinkel product?

Garth · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2010 6:46 pm

brucev wrote:

mustangdriver wrote:

My favorite story of this kind of stuff is the one that the Japanese were copying a C-47/DC-3 that had been damaged on another mission, and patched. When they copied it, they copied the patch as well.

i've heard (read maybe) this story regarding the TU4, anyone know if its true in that instance?

I believe it's true - but would have to go digging out references to find the citations. But I recall that they came from highly reliable sources.

The situation in that case actually makes sense. Stalin ordered Tupolev to make an exact copy of the B-29 (allowing an exception for using Soviet engines). The engineers were so scared sh*tless from all the purges that they interpreted the directive literally ... replicated battle damage repair patches, dings, etc present on the three interred B-29s that they were reverse engineering from.

Garth · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2010 6:48 pm

IIRC there was a story about how the F8F was, if not a copy, heavily influenced by the reverse engineering of one or more captured Fw-190s.

Except that the dates for the Allies (and specifically Grumman test pilots and engineers) getting their hands on a Fw-190 and its engineering specs don't match up with the Bearcat's development timeline.

flyboyj · **Joined:** Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:01 pm **Posts:** 157

Garth wrote:

IIRC there was a story about how the F8F was, if not a copy, heavily influenced by the reverse engineering of one or more captured Fw-190s.

Except that the dates for the Allies (and specifically Grumman test pilots and engineers) getting their hands on a Fw-190 and its engineering specs don't match up with the Bearcat's development timeline.

Very true

The F6F was on the drawing board in early 1941. Grumman received a contract for the aircraft in the spring of 41. The first -190s rolled off the assembly line at the same time Grumman was awarded the contract. Although the first F6F was yet to be built, much of the initial engineering was completed and the prototype was well under construction while the first 190s were being built. The first F6F was flown in June 1942. That would have meant that either the British covertly gave the US captured 190 airframes prior to Pearl Harbor, or a captured airframe was attained in early 1942.

As far as I know, the British got their first captured Fw 190 in June 1942, the same month the F6F was first flown. The US Navy didn't evaluate an Fw 190 until 1944.

John Dupre · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2010 9:16 pm

Corky Meyer former Grumman test pilot and later VP has written that Grumman Chief designer (Bob Hall?) was so impressed by flying a captured FW 190 in England that he was determined to do as good or better in his next design for the Navy, the F8F. This belies the myth that the F8F was designed specifically to counter Japanese kamikazes. Similarly the F6F was not influenced by any knowledge of the Zero and especially not by the example recovered from the Aleutians since the Hellcat design was complete and if it hadn't already flown by the time of the Aleutian recovery did so shortly afterward.

Another claim that Meyer makes is that when he flew a captured Zero he found that the engine seemed to be a copy of a Pratt and Whitney design right down to the name plate which had "Dependable Engines" in English with the Pratt & Whitney eagle. Supposedly the Japanese makers name was in Japanese characters. I have never been able to confirm what a Nakajima nameplate looked like. I know from the Air Museum restoration that the original Sakae engines while very similar to P&W are dimensionally different using Japans version of the metric system.

gregv · **Posted:** Sat May 29, 2010 1:32 am

warbird1 wrote:

Randy Wilson wrote:

May I suggest reading "Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter" by Jiro Horikoshi, its chief designer.

Yes, excellent, excellent book. I first read it 25+ years ago, after it came out. It's very hard to find an inexpensive hardcover edition since it's out of print. BTW, it is printed in English, I believe translated by the University of Washington. The latter reprint softcover editions are pretty readily available though and not too expensive. The book is superb, as it gives insight into exactly what Horikoshi was thinking about and why he designed some of the things the way he did on the Zero. It's tremendously insightful and highly recommended.

Just picked up a 1981 hardcover copy for under 7 CAN$ on Alibris, and there's another one there at the same price, as well as others:

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork ... ting*title

Can't wait to read this book, I've never heard of it! Strange as I've been Zero fan for eons...

cheers

greg v.

airnutz · **Posted:** Sat May 29, 2010 1:03 pm

JDK wrote:

How about a period piece on the topic?

This is from the British publication The Aeroplane of 1938. Apart from the ramblings of the editor, C.G.Grey, it was a respected periodical of the time, and alternative to Flight which is still going. (The modern magazine Aeroplane is a separate publication.)

Apologies for the poor quality.

Another photo has the caption: "A RUSSIAN BOMBER - A photograph from Spain of a Russian bomber evidently a copy of the American Martin bomber. It has liquid cooled motors with nose radiators. The reproduction is from the German monthly Luftwehr."

Quote:

Apart from the general layout, conventional for the time, I can't see any way the Martin B.10 could be confused with the Tupolev Tu 2; but the assumption was the USSR couldn't come up with an original design, so this square peg of the Tu-2 was forced into the round hole of the B.10 in western publications.

I think he was suggesting the B-10's sexy sister the Model 167..or Maryland, which there is a
bit of resemblance James.

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Sun May 30, 2010 12:28 am

i'm reading a book published recently on last ditch / late war japanese experimental aircraft. some aircraft never went beyond mock up stage, some never made it beyond blue prints. but i find it interesting with the japanese fixation of the p- 39 airacobra fuselage lines / technology. there are more proposed prototypes in that basic configuration than any other experimental birds in the entire book. the book is "JAPANESE SECRET PROJECTS" EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT OF THE IJA AND IJN 1939 -1945. there are some noted examples in the book that are dead ringers for a p -39......... other examples of japanese rip offs were mainly attributed to pre -war
license contracts to build the japanese tabby / c-47 / or the lockheed lodestar / type lo in civilian form but later adapted to military use.

kawasaki ki -64 - ija
kawasaki ki - 88

JDK · **Posted:** Sun May 30, 2010 1:22 am

Thanks Airnutz, you might be right, but it's less likely as this in 1938 and the Martin 167 (- later Maryland) only flew in 1939. But whichever Martin we chose, they and the Russian type have nothing in common except being conventional types for the era.

Dave Homewood · **Posted:** Sun May 30, 2010 1:47 am

Dave Homewood wrote:

A mate of mine has an amazing book that he got in from Japan. It has a photo of every single aircraft type that the Japanese used in WWII in their Army and Navy, and there are hundreds of different ones. Many of them are ripped off designs, including things like the Tiger Moth, Fox Moth, C-47, Hudsons, and lots of other reconisable western types they built themselves. it's a pity a few of them don't still exist now to fill some gaps, I'm sure they built their own Short Empires, didn't they?
I will try to find out the name and author of the book, if I can.

I got a reply from my mate who says the book I mentioned is this one here:
http://www.hlj.com/product/MDA327

He says "I’ve never seen any author’s accredited for the book."

I reckon many of you here would find this book fascinating, as I was mindboggled by it.

airnutz · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:42 pm

JDK wrote:

Thanks Airnutz, you might be right, but it's less likely as this in 1938 and the Martin 167 (- later Maryland) only flew in 1939. But whichever Martin we chose, they and the Russian type have nothing in common except being conventional types for the era.

Ooops to both of us! I missed the 1938 reference and you ID'd the photo as a TU-2 which
actually came later than the 167. The photo is of a Tupolev SB, sometimes referred to as
SB-2. I agree the writer was likely comparing the SB to the B-10, but to call it a copy is just
wrong! :lol:

Similarly to compare the P-26 to the A5M could only be do so in comparing basic
planform. The A5M was the more advanced aircraft over P-26 with its externally-braced wings
etc., IMO.

I've read the A5M and P-26 met in combat over China, but I don't recall how they did against
each other...some more reading to find! :wink:

Warbird Information Exchange

The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Who is online