This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 4:19 pm

Of course everyone knows that the highly successful A6M Zero was merely a stolen copy of a second-rate US design. Cough, couh.

What US types have been claimed to have sired the A6M?

P-43 Lancer
P-66 Vanguard
Seversky 2PA

What else?

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 4:29 pm

Hughes H-1

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 4:38 pm

Interesting idea for a thread. To take the idea in different directions....

The first RAF encounters with the formidable Fw 190 were dismissed by intelligence as being ex-French Curtiss P-36 Hawks. While I'm not sure if there was the usual claim that the Fw 190 was a copy of the P-36, the real irony was that the first flight of the civil-registered Fw 190 took place before the war in 1939 at a public airfield...

During the Spanish Civil War the Russian Polikarpovs (I-16 'Rata') were supposedly copies of the Boeing P-26 Peashooter, as the Tupolev SB-2s were supposed to be copies of something else - ('Martin B-10' IIRC). They had to be copies because in both cases they were significantly better than what they were copied from - or anything else 'we' had. It seems a perennial at the start of the war to be surprised that the other guys might just have the capability to build something better than you!

The rule 'don't believe your own PR' is hard to stick to.

Regards,

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 5:02 pm

The ones mentioned plus Vought V.143, maybe even Curtiss Hawk 75.

August

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 5:36 pm

T-6/SNJ/Harvard!

Oops wrong thread. :)

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 5:53 pm

Everyone knows like the UPF-7, and the N3N , the Zero was a copy of the Stearman.

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 7:45 pm

The Zero wasn't "copied" from anything. Its design lineage can be traced to the A5M. Structure, systems and configuration it has nothing in common with any of the aircraft listed. Sorry folks, this is all a myth.

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 7:49 pm

You have to admit the Mitsubishi A5M does look a lot like the Boeing P-26.
The YP-26s ff was 20 Mar 1932 and the A5M was 4 Feb 1935.
I'm not saying it was a copy...but someone would be foolish not to be inspired by an advanced aircraft from another country...then putting their own "spin" on the design because of local requirements and materials.

BTW: Bill Gunston has a couple of chapters about allied intel's wrong guesses about WWII planes in his excellent book...Plane Speaking.
Last edited by JBoyle on Thu May 27, 2010 8:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 7:52 pm

flyboyj wrote:The Zero wasn't "copied" from anything. Its design lineage can be traced to the A5M. Structure, systems and configuration it has nothing in common with any of the aircraft listed. Sorry folks, this is all a myth.



I think they know that, their comments are being made in jest...but it was a oft-told story during the war years (along with other negative sterotypes about Japan's military).

Having said that, the Japanese did use several license-built non-native aircraft in the war.
DC-2 & 3s, Bucker Jungmann, Lockheed 14s, NA -16s, even Beech 17s. And they learned a great deal from foreign aircraft purchased before the war..license built Shorts flying boats and the Douglas DC-4E to name two.
Again, nothing wrong with that. You'd be foolish not to learn things from established aircraft firms.

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 8:56 pm

flyboyj wrote:Sorry folks, this is all a myth.

We were there with that. The issue is that while it's a myth, similar junkdata is still being peddled as fact - see the 'American Zero engine' in the 'Dakota Zero in the News' thread here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36278

@JBoyle - Problem with those statements John is that people then ascribe virtues or significance to the borrowing or development of ideas. Any aircraft designer working in isolation is missing the richest resource of ideas and solutions out there. Certainly there were some designers who were working without external input, and were successful, but they were - and are - the rare exceptions. Most design evaluates peer products.

Regards,

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 9:45 pm

JDK wrote: @JBoyle - Problem with those statements John is that people then ascribe virtues or significance to the borrowing or development of ideas. Most design evaluates peer products.
Regards,


Of course they do...
That's why it's fun to come here...WE serious students of aviation history...know what you and I said is accurate...only nationalistic "fanboys" (I hate the term but it is useful) fall into the trap of believing country X's planes are junk.

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 9:59 pm

One of the urban legends I've heard involved the previously-mentioned Vought V.173. The prototype disappeared on a test flight over the Pacific after making a flyby for some military and industry brass. Some speculated that it landed on a Japanese carrier secretly lurking off the coast, and was "reverse engineered" into the Zero.

While I'm sure the Zero was influenced by foreign designs, the same could be said for any military aircraft of that era. Every country would look at was their allies and potential adversaries are doing, and incorporate any of their good ideas.

I also get tired of hearing the old song about how the Nakajima Kikka was Japanese copy of the Me-262. Other than the general layout, the two designs had nothing in common. The only Japanese combat aircraft I can think of that was "pirated" from an American design (not counting Japanese built versions of the DC-3 and Lockheed Lodestar) was the G5N "Liz" bomber, which was based on the failed DC-4E. Douglas sold the sole prototype to Japan after realizing it was a flop, and Nakajima used it as the basis for a bomber. Unfortunately (or forutnately for us) it had the same problems as the original design, and the half-dozen or so built ended up being used as long range transports.


SN

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 10:40 pm

JBoyle wrote:
flyboyj wrote:The Zero wasn't "copied" from anything. Its design lineage can be traced to the A5M. Structure, systems and configuration it has nothing in common with any of the aircraft listed. Sorry folks, this is all a myth.



I think they know that, their comments are being made in jest...but it was a oft-told story during the war years (along with other negative sterotypes about Japan's military).

Having said that, the Japanese did use several license-built non-native aircraft in the war.
DC-2 & 3s, Bucker Jungmann, Lockheed 14s, NA -16s, even Beech 17s. And they learned a great deal from foreign aircraft purchased before the war..license built Shorts flying boats and the Douglas DC-4E to name two.
Again, nothing wrong with that. You'd be foolish not to learn things from established aircraft firms.


Totally different anamial but agree with your point especially regarding the Japanese dealing with muti engine aircraft, what they learned, what they built under license, and what they actually copied.

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 10:47 pm

JBoyle wrote:but someone would be foolish not to be inspired by an advanced aircraft from another country...then putting their own "spin" on the design because of local requirements and materials.


I think that's about the extent that went into the Zero. Compare the way the Zero was put together (single spar wing, location of the MLG, flight controls and hydraulics) and it seems to somewhat stand out on its own.

Re: The A6M Zero was a copy of...

Thu May 27, 2010 11:03 pm

May I suggest reading "Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter" by Jiro Horikoshi, its chief designer. In my opinion, the Zero was not a copy of any design before it but certainly used concepts of other designs to meet its goals. However, the demands of the IJN were such that I doubt any allied/western naval air force would have come up with such a design at that time, with such a combination of good and bad points to western eyes. My 2 cents.

As an addition, you might find this reprint of a design analysis of the A6M3 of interest:
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/Zeke32.htm

Randy
Post a reply