Jump to content

Talk:Mitsubishi A6M Zero/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Images

Felix C-- I deleted a picture and then found out that you had just added it. It strongly resembles another image on the site (which I think you added as well) and didn't see the need for two similar images. Kablammo 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Chinese Zeros

Anonymous user 71.146.141.240 has added a substantial paragraph on the alleged manufacture and use of the Zero by Chinese Nationalist and Communist forces in the late 1940s. I don't claim to be an expert, but I've never once heard or seen any such thing from any other source. I suspect that the entire paragraph is deliberate misinformation and should be deleted until external sources are cited. In particular, the initial claim that the Chinese built 300,000 such Zeros (which would make it the most manufactured aircraft in history by a factor of 10 over its closest rival Ilyushin_Il-2!) casts doubt on anything written by this contributor. I've deleted all such content. -- Paul Richter 05:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Zeros

The deleted paragraph concerning the production of A6Ms in China and their large-scale combat use in Thailand and China was completely absurd; there was no truth in it at all. According to the RTAF Museum in Bangkok, the Thais did use a few Zeros postwar but they vanished within a few years as spare parts ran out. There was no civil war in Thailand of the type described during the post-war years. I suppose it is possible that a few left-behind A6Ms got used by Nationalists and Communists (Janes Fighting Ships lists quite a few ex-Japanese warships surviving until the early 1960s so its possible some old aircraft hung on as well) but the idea that the type actually went into large-scale production is ridiculous. I suspect the author was trolling.

Stuart Slade 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Surviving Zeros

Here (http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Chino2004/Sampler/index.html) it says that there is only one surviving Zero with it's original Sakae engine in flyable condition. The others were Pratt & Whitney powered (not original) at this particular show. I think its notable to mention this only surviving Zero. Zchris87v 06:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

More on the "Chinese" A6M

The bit about the A6M and China re-appeared (or a section thereof) claiming that both the PRC and RoC used their A6Ms until 1956. I deleted it. As far as I know captured Japanese aircraft were used by China immediately postwar but they were replaced by the time China was taken over by the Communists. Other Japanese aircraft were used by the Thais (Ki-27s and Ki-43s) and briefly by the French in Indochina (Ki-43s and E-13As) but they all vanished from service within a few months.

Stuart Slade 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment

I do not know much about the details of WWII-era technology... As far as I can tell, this article says everything that needs to be said. It has an infobox, it talks about the development of the various variant models, and it has pictures. LordAmeth 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Et seq.?

2 things. Since when do Nakajima's A4N & Mitsubishi's A5M belong in the same sequence? And where are contemporary Bf-109, I-16, P-38, & F4U? Trekphiler 08:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The designation sequence is that applied by the user (in this case the Imperial Navy), not the manufacturer. Similarly, Army aircraft follow the "Ki-" sequence where the Nakajima Ki-44 is followed by the Kawasaki Ki-45.
I think "Comparable aircraft" should mean more than just being contemporary; in this case it should be limited to single-engined light fighters with roughly the same performance. So the P-38 and much more powerful F4U wouldn't be included, nor the weaker I-16. As for those already listed, I don't think the XP-77, which is in a class of its own, is comparable either. -- Paul Richter 09:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Korean zeros

In paragraph three: "Recently the North Korean Air Force bought 16 Zeros to be used for ground attack." True or vandalism? Buyo 01:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Idiocy.

Only a moron would credit the idea.Mark Lincoln 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming

American pilots often misused, or were confused by, US code names, but "Tojo" was the code for the Japanese Army Airforce's "Ki-44" fighter "Shoki," a totally different aircraft--although both were low-winged monoplanes with radial engines. Incidentally, the JAAF's "Oscar" (Ki-43 Hayabusa) often was misidentified as a "Zero," more understandably than with the Shoki, since the Ki-43 was very similar in silhouette and flight characteristics (albeit less well-armed.) Sometimes the Ki-43 is referred to in US pilot biographies as an "Army Zero," a non sequiter as the Zero was a naval aircraft. For example, USMC ace "Pappy" Boyington refers to "Army" Zeroes and "Navy" Zeroes in his biography, and asserts that the "Tojo" is a "souped-up version of the Zero." As long as "Pappy" was able to shoot them down in droves, it clearly didn't matter if he got the model numbers right or not!! I think the non-viability of the Zero as a combat aircraft in the latter part of WW2 has been overstated, given that when Saburo Sakai returned to combat in 1945 in a Zero he scored very effectively against Hellcats and Mustangs, despite being blind in one eye. Even as late as 1945, too, there were still a lot of allied pilots flying P-40's and F4f Wildcats. And even the later aircraft could usually not dogfight with a Zero or an Oscar. IMHO it wasn't until the F8F Bearcat was introduced that the US had a fighter that TRULY was superior in most ways to the Zero, and the Bearcat didn't see combat in WW2. In the hands of a skilled pilot, the Zero was still a menace even in 1945. It still surpassed, for example, the FM-2 Wildcat and the P40N. [John P. Strang Tue. 6:48 pm PST July 20]

You're presuming the objective is dogfight. Boelke & Chennault both demo, the idea is to kill him before he knows he's been fired on, not get in a fight with him. For that, F4Us, P-38s, & P-47s were perfect: hi speed & heavy firepower, as well as the ability to climb or dive away at will. The only reason "the Zero was still a menace" was because only masters were left alive.
On a separate ish, let me note, first A6M ace, 13 Sept 1940, was F/Sgt Yamashita Koshiro. Trekphiler 03:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You're both right. The Zeke was chosen for Kamikaze attacks as it had the best chance of getting through. It could still outmaneuver the Hellcat. And the way for Corsairs and Hellcats to fight it was not to dogfight, but use the strengths of their planes to get the drop on the Zeke. Kablammo 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO it wasn't until the F8F Bearcat was introduced that the US had a fighter that TRULY was superior in most ways to the Zero, "

There are plenty of dead Japanese pilots who might disagree.

The amazing agile motions of the Zero were deliberately reduced as airspeed increased. It was a structural trade-off, as was the decision to sacrifice armor and self-sealing tanks were given up for range.

I am not disparaging Hirikoshi's work. I am pointing out that once American pilots achieved the same number of combat hours as Japanese they were more than able to use the supposedly 'inferior" F4F to advantage. By the time the F6F and F4U were available the situation was reversed.

An American pilot was far more likely to achieve some 300 hours than a Japanese.Mark Lincoln 00:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No Bearcat ever fought a Zero. The first F8Fs were aboard a carrier enroute to the Pacific theater when the war ended. ----

Divergence of trajectories

Recent addition of the image showing divergence of 20mm shells vs 7.7mm bullets begs the question: is there a Wiki article that contains discussion about the general Japanese fighter pilot practice of shooting off a stream of 7.7mm rounds to check range before opening up with the 20mm for the kill? Several US pilots have written that this practice often allowed for avoidance of the 20mm entirely, as they were warned ahead of time by the 7.7mm tracers or by hearing some of the 7.7mm rounds hit home.

The divergence image doesn't show the slower speed of the 20mm round. With a slower speed and different trajectory, it's hard to believe that Japanese pilots were taught to use the smaller round as a measurement tool prior to the big round--the two rounds had nearly nothing in common. Binksternet 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I drew the image, to answer your question I don't think I've seen anything on Wikipedia about the practice of ranging with the 7.7s. Understanding that some pilots might have, Saburo Sakai said they never did as standard procedure.

Interviewer: Did you bracket the enemy first with MG, then fire your 20mm cannon when he was in range?
Saburo Sakai: No, no no that was never true.

I was thinking of animating bullets to illustrate differences in velocity between the two. Fast or slow though, hitting a target with guns that don't converge is bound to be tricky unless the range is extremely close (which has it's own perils). I wonder if P-38 pilots did anything similar with their .50cal/12.7mm and 20mm combo? Anynobody 00:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how Sakai couldn't have been aware of the observed Japanese practice over Rabaul and environs... At any rate, there were many different skill levels of pilots in the theater and there were regional variations that stemmed from influential local instruction. P-38 pilots were no different: some registered hits with 50 cal before firing the 20 mm, some didn't. Others fired all their guns all the time. There was even a group of Pacific P-38 jockeys that decided to get rid of ALL of their tracer rounds after concluding that fast Japanese reactions to nearby tracer fire were cheating them out of aerial victories. The tactic worked for them, their group included some of the top scorers. Binksternet 01:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
One reason why P-38 pilots could be more casual about which ammo they used is that either choice was pretty damn effective. Not true for the Zeke. Binksternet 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
As you said each pilot has their own methods and tricks; I think Sakai meant that they didn't train pilots to do it and he didn't either. (I think I remember another interview with him where he expressed annoyance at the differing calibers and their ballistic tendencies.)
I haven't heard what you mention about P-38 pilots nixing tracers from their ammo, though have read some about Dick Bong and Thomas McGuire (not only the top P-38 scorers but of all American aviators still to this day.) Describing how they used the Lightning's speed for hit and run attacks. Anynobody 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If I may... the difference in speed between the 7.7mm and 20mm bursts shows clearly on the image: it is the divergence itself. Regardless of their masses, all rounds would fall at the same rate (neglecting air friction which is probably low on the vertical axis, given the speed of the fall). So if the 20mm rounds are lower than the 7.7mm at the left of the image, it must be because they have had more time to fall, which entails that they take longer to cross to the left of the image. Rama (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Most famous model?

I don't know much about the Japanese airplanes of WW2... anyways. Which colors were mostly used for the A6M Zero? I suppose that the picture shown first in the article should be of the most common color variation. Ran4 (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shouldn't this article follow Japanese aircraft convention of having the company name infront of the naval designation like every other Japanese fighter aircraft article? I don't see why there is an article for the Mitsubishi A5M and Mitsubishi A7M but the Mitsubishi A6M is a redirect. Another thing is the use of the nickname 'Zero' which was never official. Indeed Rei-sen and Zero-sen were popular nicknames by the pilots but popularity is not a cause for a main article title. A-10 Warthog redirects to A-10 Thunderbolt II, the official, but far less commonly used name. As we all know, the A6M had no official designation, but following Japanese aircraft article conventions for example, the Mitsubishi J8M was officially named 'Shūsui' yet the article is only 'Mitsubishi J8M' regardless. Semi-Lobster (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zero replicas?

Are there any companies currently producing replicas of the Zero, but with better motors and equipment?

Or is the plane's design unsafe by modern standards? 216.99.219.204 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Long Range Fighters

It appears, according to TV's military/history channels; that the A6M Zero was conducting combat sorties from Rabaul to Guadalcanal in 1942, round trip. This equates to flying a distance from Great Britain to Italy (round trip?) if these missions had been performed in the ETO (European Theater of Operations). If this is true, then the P51 Mustang began flying long range missions nearly two years after the A6M had already performed such flights.

Both the P51 and the A6M had similiar maximum ranges, using external fuel tanks; approximately 1,600 miles for both aircraft.

It should be stated that the A6M was also a carrier aircraft, especially designed for aircraft carrier operations; having folding wing tips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.156.2 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article has been actively edited by a number of editors, and should not have been renamed without first establishing consensus here.

I oppose the rename, as the former name was fine, was not amibigous, adequately describes the aircraft, and had been in long use. Kablammo (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I, too, oppose the name change, and prefer the former A6M Zero or perhaps a new version, Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As there was no consensus to change, it should be moved back to the status quo ante.
One problem with adding manufacturers to aircraft names is presented by virtually identical types which were built by more than one manufacturer. "Less is more"-- let's not add names unless needed. Kablammo (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
And so moved, and restored to former name. It appears from the talk page of the editor making the move that at least one other editor also objected to the change. Kablammo (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
There's also a lenghty discussion about the editor's undiscussed moves on WT:AIR, where the consensus is agains most of these moves.
Mitsubishi was the prime designer/contractor, AFAIK, so there should be no problem there. Mitsubishi A6M Zero would be fully acceptable under the new naming conventions being considered by WP:AIR,which wouldallow the manufacturer/designation/name (m/d/n) format for all eligible articles, especially those on US military aircraft. If the new convention is accepted, I'll propose moving this article after that. The current name, A6M Zero is fine for now. - BilCat (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking about the Corsair-- F4U and FG. Adding Chance-Vought to the F4U article would not be needed, especially where the FG (quite properly) redirects there. Kablammo (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Frankly it's not quite clear to why should a Japanese airplane be called by its American nickname. IMO the proper name of this article should be just Mitsubishi A6M.  Dr. Loosmark  17:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First US shoot-down

From the article, "The first American pilot known to be shot down by a Zero was Lt. George Whiteman on December 7 1941." The first American. So what? -- Taku

So what?


The truth was that the Japanese pilots had more experience.Mark Lincoln 00:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually so what, this has no relevance to the article. Maybe the battle but not here. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to Mitsubishi A6M Zero, and after reading the discussion above and the discussion below. Also the numerous alternate names used in the article itself as well as the names from the previous moves from this name and the aircraft naming guideline. I also was influenced by the large number of inbound links to this name and while less conclusive, the consistency of this name with that used by similar Mitsubishi aircraft. There did not appear to be any opposition to a move, the discussion was over a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A6M Zero → Mitsubishi A6M — That should be the proper name of the article similarly to Nakajima B5N and Aichi D3A.  Dr. Loosmark  12:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question on Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga

A question has arisen on the Zero and IJN Kaga, now at FAC:

Was the Zero carrier-qualified on Kaga in 1940? See discussion at the end of Talk:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Kaga#Update.

Any assistance would be appreciated. Kablammo (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hughes H-1

Should it be mentioned that Howard Hughes believed that the Zero was derived from his H-1 Racer?74.121.138.53 15:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hughes thought many things. Got a credible source to cite? - Emt147 Burninate! 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The allegation that the Zero was copied from the H-1 has been around ever since the Zero appeared, and is still contentious. I think it should be addressed in the article, though. -- Paul Richter 07:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jiro Hirokish would - did - have a big laugh at the suggestion that either the H-1 or the Vought 173 was the prototype of the Zero.

It is very revealing of Americans in 1942 that they simply could not admit that 'squint eyed-can copy only' Japanese could design an airplane.Mark Lincoln 00:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it seems close to the H1 see: Hughes H1 http://www.airminded.net/h1/h1.html Zero http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html Pictures of H1 by Japanese http://www.wrightools.com/hughes/proctor.htm Arydberg (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Horikoshi discusses (and dismisses) the "copy-cat" theories in Eagles of Mitsubishi--Phyllis1753 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

T-7178 Aluminium alloy

1. As far as I can discover, 7178 alloy (with 6.8% zinc) was first introduced in 1951 and seems unlikely to have been used in Zeros. Also T-7178 doesn't appear to be a meaningful name for a 7000 series alloy, whereas (for example) 7178-T6 is.

2. The alloy used in the Zero's construction is closer to 7075 alloy (originally 75S, 5.5% zinc), as used in the Boeing B-29. This was developed later in the war from 76S by Alcoa in the US, originally used in aircraft propellors; it suffered from stress-corrosion-cracking, which was overcome by adding small amounts of chromium.

3. I have added the link to 7075 aluminium alloy, and a ref to a journal published by Sumitomo Metal Industries, who originally developed it in 1936. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorProphet (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Defense industry difficulties

I removed a bit about the general difficulties faced by defense industry manufacturers who must balance the need to make sales with the need to predict strategic relations among nations. I don't think this bit is at all appropriate to the article about the Zero. However, the Zero can be used as an example at the article about defense contractors. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's a good way to look at it. But I think there should be some small one sentence here that links to that discussion. I'll see about changing this. — ¾-10 18:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the whole Eugene Wilson section can be removed it appears to be mainly one mans speculation and is really given undue weight in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree that the whole section gives way, way, way too much prominence to the theory that the Zero was in some way a copy of the Vought V-143 (or any other American aircraft). This theory has been long discredited - the A6M was an original design and no-one in there right mind would choose to use the awful Vought, which had already been rejected by the USAAC as the basis of a modern fighter.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Wilson was comparing his biplane, the V-142, with the monoplane Zero (!). I just don't see how he can say that the one was the spitting image of the other. He also says that the Zero copied elements from Northrop. How could the Zero be a spitting image of the Chance-Vought V-142 if it has Northrop-style wheel wells? He's reaching. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Presumably he means the Vought V-143, an improved version of the V-141, which in-turn was based on the Northrop 3A fighter, the design of which Wilson had purchased from Northrop (against the advice of his engineers), and which had been rejected as unairworthy. The V-143 was the aircraft that was (fully legally) sold to Japan in 1937.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm generally on board with you guys at this point. I do think that the mention of Eugene Wilson's allegations (citing Fernandez 1983) should be kept (because it's relevant to the topic of the development of the Zero [or the alleged development storyline]), *but* the paragraph should now end with the discrediting of it, if anyone is able to write a sentence exlaining it. I wasn't aware that it was discredited, but that's only because I'm no expert on the topic. As for the general discussion of the inherent problems of a for-profit arms industry, I have moved the discussion of that topic to that article (after beginning to write it in the defense contractor article and then realizing that it was forked from the arms industry article. Thanks, everyone, for the good faith all around. Later, — ¾-10 20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Still dont think any of it is notable enough to the Zero to be mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wing and fuselage constructed in one piece?

This assertion is triggering a big "Hmmm" with me. I don't have my sources handy, but my recollection is that the wing and fuselage were in fact separate constructions. However, the wing was built as a single unit that was also the main fuel tank, and the top of the wing was the floor of the cockpit. This was sufficient to give structural strength. --Yaush (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jim Rearden writes on page 22 of Cracking the Zero Mystery that "the wing was integral to the center section of the fuselage, thus doing away with the heavy fittings needed for attaching wings to fuselage. The fuselage separated behind the trailing edge of the wing where two fuselage rings bolted together, making it possible to easily get at the cockpit for repairs."
I don't know if Rearden is contradicted by other sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Aeroelastic problems of the Zero

The decreasing roll performance of the Zero as indicated airspeed increases, is often described in terms of " stiffening " of the controls. This is the way it seemed to pilots. In fact there is ample reason to believe that the primary cause was that, due to the low torsional stiffness of the light weight wing stucture,as speed increases, aileron displacement twists the opposite sides of the wing to produce a rolling moment in opposition to that produced by the ailerons themselves. This phenomenon known as reversal of aileron control- associated with it is an aileron reversal speed at which displacement of the ailerons produces no rolling moment at all. Tests of torsional stiffness of zero wings conducted during World War II verified that substantial reductions in roll effectiveness would occur in the zero as 300 miles an hour indicated airspeed was approached. This low stiffness should not be confused with low strength. The Zero strength under manuevering flight loads ( g's) equalled or exceeded that of Allied fighters.

The designer of the Zero, jiro Horikoshi, in his book, " Eagles of Mitsubishi ' and other writings and interviews, never explicitly refered to the aileron reversal problem. However, in his book, Horikoshi recounts catastrophic accidents that were after exhaustive investigation to be attributable to wing-torsion, aileron, tab flutter. Among the parameters leading to low flutter speeds is low torsinal wing stiffness.'Hirokoshi in his book dismissed the P-40 as inferior to the Zero in every way except for dive speed. In fact the P-40 had much higher speed than the Zero in level flight at low altitude, and, of course in roll and maneuvering at high speeds. The Zero could outmaneuver the P-40 and other U.S. fighters only if they could be lured into engaging at lower speeds favorable to the Zero. Of course when first faced with the Zero, most Allied pilots didn't know these things,Although the Flying Tigers from the begining adopted no-low speed dogfight tactics. However, the flutter speed at which the Zero wing destructed was about 360 miles per hour, the level flight high speed of the P-40

To deal with the flutter problem,in mid 1941, the Japanese stiffened the wing of the Zero some and placarded the manximum dive speed to about 400 miles an hour. By contrast thr P-40 terminal dive velocity exceeded 480 miles per hour — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diogenes10 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Finding refs for the content contributed by 24.28.29.194

I just want to note here that although the content recently contributed by 24.28.29.194 had to be removed, at least for now, because it makes too many non-general-knowledge, specific claims to go unreferenced, several of its themes jibe with what I have heard on TV about the naval aircraft development arc of the Pacific war. So 24.28.29.194, what I'd like to say by way of encouragement is that if you can work on citing sources with inline citations, your content has real promise. Don't take the reversion personally; lack of refs is really the only limiting factor. — ¾-10 01:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Folding wings

I removed the recent change by an anon that the folding wings were necessary because JN policy was to store planes below decks. The reason for the removal was that this, I think, should be self evident; the need to take planes below decks is common to almost all aircraft carriers since that is where maintenance is performed. —Morven 03:46, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I have often inspected a Zero operated by the CAF.

Where did the wings fold?Mark Lincoln 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

At the end. In fact in Model 32 of the Reisen or Zero-Sen these were eliminated, giving this variant its square wingtips compared with the other variants. Dirk P Broer (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the wing tips had to fold in order to fit the carriers' elevators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.102.234 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed adding of an external link to this article.

Introduction:

I recently added an external link to several Wikipedia articles on WW II fighter aircraft. I felt that would be OK, as there were external links on each of the pages.

The links I added, were soon deleted and I also received what was to me, harsh responses to my posting them. The responses included identifying the posts as inappropriate, spamming, advertising, using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" for advertising and promotion, disruptive editing. I was threatened with blacklisting, and finally I was blocked, which I appealed and the block was lifted.

I did use what could be considered "clumsy" language in my post, and I did not use a summary statement at the time of posting. That certainly could give rise to an objection about the posting. But, as the external link is only to photo arrays of WW II fighters, which are freely available for downloading and unrestricted use, I figured that if there was any problem, a discussion on the articles talk page could be used to resolve the situation.

When I discovered that the posts had been deleted, I reposted them with a brief explanation included in the posting, which I assumed could be read and edited as needed by whomever deleted the initial post. The response was not pleasant.

Since then, I have been looking into any trying to better understand how Wikipedia works, and how to work better with it.

Propposed addition:

So, I still would like to add an external link to this article, and others as well. And the following is being provided as rationale for that.

I believe that the link as added, was and is as legitimate an external link, as any of the other external links in the articles, which appear to not having been pre-justified or pre-approved, prior to their addition. This is not meant to be argumentative, but only presenting the situation as I see it.

Some of the external links in some of the articles on aircraft, have commercial advertisements.

The link I provide, and its sub links to other photo arrays of WWII aircraft, have no advertisements.

And all of my airplane photos and my airplane videos were taken by me or put into video form by me, and all are donated to and in the public domain. They can be used freely by anyone and however they wish to use them, and without any payment or attribution to me.

A few of the photos in the arrays are from the US Airforce museum and are in the public domain, and those photos are noted as such.

I think that leeway is provided in the informational material on external links which allows for common sense exceptions to external link rules, where they conflict with the purpose of providing expanded and enhanced information, such as my photo arrays and videos that can benefit Wikipedia users.

As to the exact wording of the proposed external link, here is wording that I think is better than that of my first clumsy attempt. It is included in (( )) so that it will show as text here rather than as a link. I am open to using most any discriptive wording or title.

((http://www.pointshooting.com/1aflyby.htm Photos and short videos of WWII fighters.))

Here is the link using Wikipedia format:

And here is draft summary language to be included with each posting:

"/* External links */ The photos and videos are mine but donated to the public domain and anyone can download/use them however they wish to. A few photos may be from the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force and in the public domain, and they are noted as such."

More background info:

Here is additional info on this matter. I also will add this presentation, to my talk page for discussion purposes.

I like airplanes, and in particular WW II fighters.

I also am lucky to live by Paine Field in WA,. where Paul Allen's Flying Heritage, and the Historic Flight Foundation are located.

Over the past few years, I have been able to take photos and videos of their aircraft collections, as well as other planes on the ground and when flying.

Those who do not live close to an airport or an aircraft collection museum, or can not visit one for some reason, do not have the opportunity to see the planes up close and personal, and also hear the noise they make when starting up, taking off, and making fly-bys, as well as seeing them making fly-bys.

The photos and videos available via the link, provide that virtual experience. They also are factual and expand and enhance the Wikipedia articles about them and their history which are in text form.

Now, there are small photos in Wikipedia articles, and they are nice. But, being small, they can not provide close up details of the subject plane, nor can they convey the up close and personal feeling that comes with viewing larger photos which show close ups of the props, rivets, distinctive plane markings, cockpit interiors, and the like.

The photo arrays and videos give the viewer, the virtual opportunity to visit historic aircraft collections, as well as seeing actual WWII aircplanes on the "flight line" and in the air.

As to the possible issue of web traffic and advertising, my web site hits average 2 million or so a year, so it is a high traffic private platform that is not in need of added hits via Wikipedia visitors who may run across the extrnal link while reading an aircraft article.

Actually, the reverse is much more likely to be the case.

As a gesture of good will and kindness, I will be adding links on my photo array pages to the Wikipedia articles on like airplanes as a benefit to visitors to my site, who most than likely are visiting my site for a reason other than an interest in WWII fighters, but who may have an interest in them and their history.

Whether or not an external link is accepted, I plan to add the links. I have done on the photo array page on the Zero.

One combination and centralized link page.

Wikipedia pages on aircraft have links to Wikipedia pages of other planes that are closely related. .

The proposed external link above will give a visitor a similar benefit. The link is to a photo-array-index-page on which there are small photos of WWI and WWII planes that can be clicked on to take one to the photo array of that plane. The aircraft name is imprinted on the photos.

There also is a text listing on the "index page" of available videos by aircraft type which can be clicked on to access the videos.

..............

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter, and for putting up folks like me who don't know how to proceed in this complex-to-me venue. 5shot (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose addition - A number of problems with you adding links, they appear to be to your own website, this is a no-no on wikipedia. And the website has to add value to an article, I am afraid links to a page of photos doesnt really add anything that you cant find on a google search. I could list loads of guidelines and stuff but basically it is not a good idea for you to add external links to this site. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - While I appreciate the efforts and offer of 5shot to make these links accessible through the Wiki, the fact that personal websites fall outside of the accepted source parameters should be the prevailing condition, IMHO. Mark Sublette (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you MilborneOne and Mark for you inputs. I was unaware of the prohibition re: personal websites and will look into it. As I stated above, "I believe that the link as added, was and is as legitimate an external link, as any of the other external links in the articles, which appear to not having been pre-justified or pre-approved, prior to their addition."

Since editing is open to all individual "web civilians" who are both persons and may also have personal web sites, I fail to see why one is and one may be outside of an accepted source parameter.

The wikipedia commons is a fine source of fine photos, but they are individual snaps, and though I have not made a study of them, they most likey are not in the photo data base as a linked to array that presents a "walk-around" view of aircraft as an external link on another aircraft site advertises its display, or present short video fly-ys of the aircraft.

The photos and videos on the link are pictoral facts about the subject. No more no less.

Seeing one of these planes up close and personal, is a totally different experience than just reading about them and seeing small pics of them.

The array photos and fly-by videos of them are just a step ahead of the text and small pics, but they do provide the reader observer with a new experience that would be unable to be their's unless they could travel/pay for costs associated with a visit to where they could see them.

What they do do is they provide added factual and unbiased information on the subject/s which I think is in line with Wikipedia's core rationale.

Again, thanks for your comments. I will add them and this reply to: my talk page as an extra source for inputs. 5shot (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The following appeared in my talk page, and I am adding it and my response here, as it pertains to this talk subject and can serve to extend the discussion to, and in a wider audience.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Focke-Wulf Fw 190, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as seen in Fieseler Fi 156, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet,

I think that we have a difference of opinion about the external link I provided, which you considered to be spam and removed.

Wikipedia normally does not provide photo arrays or videos which can give virtual life to the subject at hand such an airplane. And that is particularly the case with historic planes, some of which are one of a kind.Also, Also, the photos provided in wikipedia are small and do not provide the details that are available via photo arrays.

Most Wikipedia articles on WWII planes do have a "section" on several closely related planes which identifies them and provides links to them.

The external link I provided works in much the same way. It is a photo array of the aircraft which includes the aircraft that is the subject of the article, as well as links to photo arrays of several other closely related planes, such as is the case with the ME-109, P-47, P-51, Spitfire, and Hawker Hurricane. It also contains a listing-with-links of short videos of the various aircraft which show start-ups and fly-bys of the aircraft.

It could be broken up into smaller "packages" of links, but some articles may not have unanimity in terms of which aircraft are considered to be closely related. And some of the videos may have aircraft in them that show more than one airplane.

So, it makes sense to me to include the external link in "combo" form, and in the airplane articles that are about one of the planes in it, which also may have a photo array or video on one or more of the planes identified as being closely related to it.

None of the photo arrays have advertisements, and most all of the videos end with a thank you note to "Paul Allen and me". Paul Allen has the Flying Heritage Foundation, and "me" is me but is not named

Some of the current Wikipedia external links are to commercial sites that have advertisements, or they are to other sites which have advertisements.

I plan to add all of the photos and videos to the commons, but that will take a big effort over time.

I also don't know of a mechanism whereby photo arrays and videos can be linked together as arrays in the commons. Perhaps there is a way to do that.

On the Zero's article page, there is a link to some photos of the Zero, and perhaps that can be a starting place for me.

In the interim, just adding the combo external link to aircraft pages will make the photo arrays and videos available now to those who have an interest in these historic aircraft. 5shot (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 5shot (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

As said above by Milborne One and Mark Sublette, these links add little to the article and are of extremely limited value.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to add links they must be to the specific page relevant to that type, and the page must have sufficient content that it adds more to the article than similar images already hosted on wikimedia. A handful of low resolution shots of airshow circuit aircraft is insufficient. The pages must have content that cannot be kept on wiki - either extensive walkaround coverage (such as 40 or more close ups for a single aircraft - multiple shots covering the cockpit, wheel wells, external details such as antennas, stencils etc) or extensive historic content to which you own the copyright (ie not public domain, nor images to which others own the copyright) but which you do not wish to add to wikimedia and put into the public domain. Similar higher resolution images (and videos) lacking compression artifacts can be found via google or youtube for anyone interested. I wouldn't upload them to the commons at that size as it would be a wasted effort.

If you wish to upload images (at their original size), the tools will allow you to do it very quickly. The syntax to create a gallery on a page is simple, however they are best avoided as room usually exists throughout the article for images for such common, well known types as these, and multiple images of a single example are usually avoided in galleries as well unless there is a reason for it (better a link to the commons category than a large galley of shots of a single example) such as is linked by this code {{Commons|Mitsubishi A6M Zero}} which is already on the A6M page.NiD.29 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Surviving Zero not in Hiroshima

I've changed the location from Hiroshima to Kure - there's a Zero that went into Lake Biwa on a training flight in 1945 in splendid condition there (Yamato Museum), but as far as I'm aware there is no Zero in Hiroshima city itself. Kure's distinct enough from Hiroshima that I reckon a minor alteration is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.178.111 (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Zero's non-superiority

Sakai:thinking its more noble to use a sword than a gun is stupid when you have a gun and the other guy doesn't. The two "Type 99 cannon suffered from lower muzzle velocity (1970 ft/s) and rate of fire (520 rounds/min)," per wiki which also explains divergence somewhat. In theory the 20mm cannon would do more damage per round that struck, but with lower rate of fire you'd get fewer hits. And there is 60 rounds per cannon. Energy is mv2 so 2/3 muzzle velocity is 45% of the energy per hit. The two 30 caliber guns (or 7.62 mm standard) have a higher velocity (2,375 ft/s), and 500 rounds per gun. The effective range of the cannon was half that of the Type 97 machine gun. American planes had 12.7mm (50 caliber) M2 Browning machine gun, times four times 450 rounds per gun (newer planes carrying more rounds) firing minimum 750 rounds per minute each, muzzle velocity about 2900 feet per second (300 mph airplane is doing about 450 feet per second). Japanese pilots often failed to lead their target when making an oblique shot. Note also the aileron information. Whether the ailerons were purposely derated to avoid tearing the plane apart at high G forces or an artifact of the trim tabs used, the dogfighting ability to turn inside of Allied aircraft disappeared at higher speeds. Likewise the equating performance of a Zero on patrol duty with a Kamikaze carrying a 1000 pound bomb is incorrect. Shjacks45 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


With all due respect sir, you are missing a vital point. The muzzle energy of a machine gun must be sufficient to propel the bullet to the target and also to cause the bullet to do damage when it gets there. A cannon fires exploding shells. The damage to a thinskinned aircraft from a 20mm grenade is almost exclusively from the detonation. A 5g load of TNT (eq to that of a japanese HE-I) would yield ~20 kJ plus muzzle energy of 25560 (projectile weight 71g V0 600 m/s). Muzzle energy for a .50BMG is roughly 18kJ. But even this does not take into account that the .50BMG is inert and wil only punch a hole straight through te target while the 20mm round will blow a hole in an aircraft fuselage a foot across. [David] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.164.222 (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Zero was a much superior dog fighter to any allied plane. It could maintain a higher true airspeed while doing tight manoeuvres, even better than the Spitfire, which it encountered a few times in SE Asia. I believe that early in WW2 US pilots were under standing orders not engage Zeros in dog fights. Dog fighting was a phenomenon of WW1 and little of it occurred in WW2. During the Battle of Britain it was quickly learnt that 'hit and run' was the most effective tactic; see the Basil Spence interview about BoB fighter tactics. The point was proven when a single Fw-190 downed 7 Spitfires in one day. The Fw-190 was fast, but the weight and thin wings made useless as a dog fighter. Thus, the zero was a menace, but only to those who tried to tried to turn around. Bluey Truscott did a film interview describing how to evade a Zero, when flying a P-40. He notes the P-40s superior weight allowed it to outrun a zero, when in a shallow dive. 220.244.76.70 (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed dubious statement

I removed the following. The rate of role at 160mph would be more like 500° per second!

At 160 mph (260 km/h) the A6M2 had a roll rate of 56° per second. Because of wing flexibility, roll effectiveness dropped to near zero at about 483 km/h (300 mph) indicated airspeed.
I think I recall seeing these figures in Mike Spick's Allied Fighter Aces: The Air Combat Tactics and Techniques of World War II, but I don't have a copy on hand to verify this. (I'm not the author of the original statement.) I don't see anything unreasonable about the figure. A roll rate of 500 degrees per second would be nearly a revolution and a half per second, not reasonable in a piston monoplane of the era -- you'd be hard-pressed to do it in anything but a biplane. --Yaush (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is the article name still "Mitsubishi A6M Zero"?

The word "Zero" is an allied nickname, and as such was not part of the official aircraft designation. There have been numerous posts regarding this issue dating back to 2008. Shouldn't this have been changed ages ago?

Ranbi2Delta (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Ranbi2Delta

"Zero" was the Japanese nickname. The airplane was named "Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter" in the Japanese language. They called it "Type 0" (Type Zero) because it was first produced during a year that ended with zero. Japanese people called it "Rei-sen" and "Zero-sen". It was only after learning the Japanese name that Americans called it "Zero". Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Fourth airworthy Zero?

Can anyone confirm this please and determine its model? More photos here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:5shot/Zero Wolcott (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found some info on it. Wolcott (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Type 97 machine gun" page linked to is the wrong gun.

In the armaments section, it correctly states that the A6M is armed with two "Type 97 machine guns". The Zero is armed with two Imperial Japanese NAVY "Type 97" fixed, belt fed machine guns, which are derived from the Vickers. However, the page it links to is for the Japanese ARMY "Type 97 machine gun", which is a magazine fed light machine gun used by Japanese infantry. The two share nothing in common, not even the same cartridge, even though they are both nominally 7.7mm. The Japanese Navy and Army didn't cooperate at all in weapons. Since in the very first paragraph of that page someone has kindly stated that the gun being described is "not to be confused with the 'Type 97 machine gun' arming certain Imperial Japanese Navy fighters such as the A6M Zero'", I don't see why the article links to that page at all. It just confuses people who don't understand how complex Japanese designation system were. That said, I'm concerned that there isn't a page for the correct gun at all. Or the page "Type 97 machine gun" ought to cover both types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the current link to Type 97 machine gun, which redirects to Type 97 light machine gun, is unhelpful. Type 97 machine gun should be some sort of disambiguation page, pointing to the army light machine gun and the navy fixed gun (which is redlinked as the Type 97 aircraft machine gun in the lmg article). The navy gun could either be covered in a stand-alone article (if sufficient information could be found) or in the main Vickers machine gun article, where it isn't mentioned at all.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
And the "Type 97 light machine gun" isn't really a light machine gun, but a dedicated gun designed for use in tanks!Nigel Ish (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the page didn't exist when I wrote that comment, but I discover now that there IS a page covering the Type 97 aircraft machine gun. Therefore I am going to switch the link to the correct page, if no-one has any objections. .45Colt 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

Info on stats for A6M5 variants

I was reading the info on the A6M5 and I was wondering about the tittle "Kou", should it say "Ko", or just "Kou"? I have seen some sites and games that say something like "A6M5"Ko"", not "Kou". I also noticed that the 13.2 machine gun was first added on the "Hei" model but according to the Information about the A6M5 Otsu from Warthunder[[1]]'s website, it was added to the "Otsu" Model first, not the "Hei". The reason I pointed out their information is because they don't rely on Wikipedia's information for the stats and info on their content. They look for historically accurate info from reliable sources for their info. There for I would like some one to clean up the info on the A6M5 section as well as adding reliable sources to the same section. Thanks in advance. 76.0.99.169 (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mitsubishi A6M Zero/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Find some references to put inline and it will be almost ready for a review. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 15:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Operation History

This section is an opinion piece rather than an informational one. It is full of sweeping, conclusory statements mostly tending to the idea that the Zero was vastly superior to Allied naval aircraft before 1943. This statement is not substantiated in satisfactory way; history of the Pacific War in 1942 speaks against the Zero's vast superiority, as the Imperial Japanese Navy sustained a higher aircraft casualty in every major battle it fought against the US Navy; and most importantly, it has the quality of a blog article and does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. I will delete all poorly supported (and counterfactual/ counterintuitive) statements about the Zero's superiority in one week barring objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensiveneko (talk • contribs) 00:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not going anywhere without the widely acknowledged consensus of some colleagues. More than sufficient sources are given in the lede, aswell as allied impressions on actual founded trials, to remove your entire cn warring. PresleyLT (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You and I must be reading two completely different articles. There is nothing in the article that I read that comes close to "sufficient sources." See, e.g., the sentence "They were astounded by the Zero's superiority[.]" This supposed astonishment is substantiated by a completely unrelated quotation describing Zero fighters' tactics. In some cases, the 'impressions' are simply irrelevant, e.g. the long section on American pilots' dissatisfaction with the F4F Wildcat. This is an article on the A6M Zero, not the F4F Wildcat.

In the Allied Opinions section, the quotation describing the Zero's build is simply unattributed. Is this what you mean when you speak of "sufficient sources" or "allied impressions"?

Not to mention some of these "sufficient sources" come from video game manuals (Thompson with Smith) or from an unsourced article from a gun blog (Chuck Hawks). Unless someone can justify these frankly embarrassing and unacceptable "sufficient sources," or provided proper sources, I will remove all opinion sentences that are not solidly attributed. Moreover, I will also add in the article that the Imperial Japanese Navy suffered far heavier aircraft losses than the Allied navies despite the A6M Zero's reputation as a fine fighter.

Pensiveneko (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sufficient sources - Parshall & Tully's Shattered Sword, for instance. Sure, the Hawks blog should be replaced, but that does not mean that the point it is currently supporting is incorrect. I would strongly caution that you don't go removing information here (or elsewhere) without first seeking consensus on the talk page.
You seem to be conflating battles with technical superiority - and also seem to be operating under the false impression that "vastly superior" equates to "free from faults". There are many reasons why the Zero, though technologically superior to every Allied aircraft available in 1942, was still shot down in large numbers. The article already makes clear that American pilots developed tactics to combat the capabilities of the Zero and exploit its weaknesses. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


The article as it stands claims that the Zero, despite its lackluster record in actual combat, was technologically superior, because a video game manual and a gun blog said so. You then state that there are plenty of sources to substantiate this superiority. Then let's add them in (although "Shattered Sword" is definitely not one of them). Until these sources are added in, the claim based on video game manuals must be stricken from these pages. Pensiveneko (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Article revisions

What the double-a-hockeysticks is going on with this article? It now needs a complete rewrite that has a consistent style of referencing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The mess goes back over a year [2], to where an editor started a major re-write involving a lot of Japanese references in an unclear reference style. References really should be consistent, and have sufficient detail, either in the citation or a bibliography section that they can be verified - some of the references don't give this detail and are not useful. In addition, the article uses forums as references, which is unacceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
"Aero Detail 7, Dai Nippon Kaiga KK 1993" appears to be "Nohara, Shigeru. Aero Detail 7: Mitsubishi A6M Zero Fighter. Tokyo: Dai-Nippon Kaiga Co. Ltd, 1993. ISBN 4-499-22608-2."
"Famous Airplanes of the World 9, 1993" and variations (possibly including FAOTW?) appears to volume 7 of the Second run of the Japanese aviation magazine "Famous Airplanes of the World" - see here - we need proper bibliographic details of this
I'm unsure about "CINCPAC-CINCPOA Bulletin No. 67-45" - possibly some sort of US intelligence report - not sure we should be making large scale use of it in 2015
"Sekai no Kessaku Ki" also appears to be "Famous Airplanes of the World" although we probably need this confirmed by the editor who originally added
I have no idea about ""Reisen Mushimegane", Fumetsu no Reisen, Maru, 2007 - we definitely need more details of this before we can use it - book, magazine, TV programme - this could be anything.
Again, no idea about "Mechanic of World Aircraft Vol.5" - again more detail is needed to use this
" Zero Fighter, Robert C. Mikesh, Zokeisha-Crown, 1981" - appears to be this on Worldcat
There is also at least one "Id." - which I think means Ibid - (which of course we shouldn't be using in a wikipedia article where text may change or be moved or added to).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The basics is that we need the following for all reference sources:

Author (Name, Last name, first name). Title of work (in italics). Place (of publishing): Publisher information, Date (of publication). (optional ISBN or ISSN listing). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Per your request Bzuk, I have stopped editing the article. I have read Nigel Ish's request. I also read a briefly displayed distress signal at the top of the article, no longer visible today, to the effect that the footnote style was inconsistent. I fixed some of that today.

Please note that in October 2014, an editor requested by means of the tag "citation needed" in the text that I should add several footnotes. No one complained at the time about lack of bibliography or footnote style -- just not enough footnotes. I wonder why it has taken thirteen months to get back to me on lack of biblio and bad footnotes. By the way Bzuk, a calm, simple request such as, "Kabocha, thanks for your addition. We need you to add some bibliography now, please," would have gotten me to repair it quickly and with no loss of good will.

As to the above, "::"Sekai no Kessaku Ki" also appears to be "Famous Airplanes of the World" although we probably need this confirmed by the editor who originally added [it]." Yes, that's correct; Sekai no Kessaku Ki and Famous Airplanes of the World are one and the same. The title "Famous Airplanes of the World" is not an exact translation of the Japanese title, but it is close. As it happens, regarding the volume number, I do know the difference between a seven and a nine. I cited nine (9) and provided the date; both are key to not confusing the different printings.

"::I have no idea about ""Reisen Mushimegane", Fumetsu no Reisen, Maru, 2007 - we definitely need more details of this before we can use it - book, magazine, TV programme - this could be anything." Maru is the title of various series of softbound books. I will see if there is an ISBN number and get back to you.

"::Again, no idea about "Mechanic of World Aircraft Vol.5" - again more detail is needed to use this[.]" Mechanic of World Aircraft [sic] is the not-very-good-English title that publisher Koujinsha put on a set of encyclopaedia about WWII airplanes in the 1990s. These volumes are hard bound. Except for volume five, which is what I am citing, the other volumes reprint and combine two or three issues of the softbound Maru Mechanic into hard bound volumes. The ISBN number is 4-7698-0635-3, followed by CO372.

I added the biblio for Mikesh's book maybe seven hours ago.

I believe the remaining "Id." is at footnote 43. Since I have been asked to "stop", I will not attempt to revise it.

Is there anything else? Kabocha (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)KabochaKabocha (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Kabocha here again: Regarding "Reisen Mushimegane", Fumetsu no Reisen, Maru, 2007, "Reisen Mushimegane" is the name of the article. Sorry, I don't have the name of the writer. "Fumetsu no Reisen" is the name of the magazine. It is a special edition or "extra" under the "Maru" title, published by Koujinsha (Kōjinsha) in Tokyo in 2007. It is nominally a December 2007 issue. It has two ISBN numbers: ISBN-10: 4769813732 and ISBN-13: 978-4769813736. It's still for sale on Japanese Amazon. This is all that I can tell you about it for now; December is my busiest month. Kabocha (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)kabochaKabocha (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

For future referencing, always use the ISBN -13 code as ISBN-10 has been supplanted since 2007; whenever there are two ISBNs given, and one is the 978- code, always use that. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Kabocha here again: I must correct myself; you already have the name of the author of "Reisen Mushimegane" (Magnifying Glass Zero Fighter). I gave it to you over a year ago. It is Bunzo Komine.

Mr. Ish, you make an excellent point regarding Wikipedia's ban on "Id.", "Ibid." and "ditto". I am sorry for using "Id." and causing someone else to tidy up after me. Please know that "Id." is used in both legal and scholarly writing elsewhere. This according to the Wikipedia entry on "Id."

It was my understanding from Wikipedia's policy statement that Wikipedia ostensibly prefers substance over form, and that in order to encourage contributions, it tells prospective contributors in so many polite, if rather vague, words not to obsess over the exact form of footnotes and citations. I applaud anyone who has volunteered to polish up footnotes and bibliography for the occasional contributor, like me. That includes you, Bzuk. Still, I would ask this: Should a Wikipedia editor complain out loud for not receiving the exact form of citations that you wanted and causing you extra work? The tone of your complaint is one of a person feeling put upon, maybe even overwhelmed. If that is in fact the way you feel about your volunteer work, it is a sign of burnout and you may want to consider taking a vacation from it. In any case, my citations were good enough for you to find a couple of the books on your own, even though the subject of Japanese WWII airplanes is apparently outside your area of expertise.

Should Wikipedia have trashed several hours of my work last week, which I contributed to this article in good faith as additional and corrective material to the section about the variants of the Zero? That contribution was redacted within minutes of my pressing the "save" button. Not a word of thanks for my time, nor any explanation as to why it would not be displayed. Seed also Ticket#2015112910015202. At that moment, no one from Wikipedia had listed for me any action items for me to fix. To me, it appears to have been an attempt to strong-arm me into giving more detail about bibliography items that had not even been enumerated.

Yes, indeed, Bzuk, the section on variants does need to be rewritten, but not just because of faulty citation format. It needs a rewrite because it contains more than a few inaccuracies. It also has many sentences that are not footnoted, which tells me that Wikipedia has a double standard with regard to attribution. Someone unknown to me required me to add footnotes to my October 2014 contribution on variants of the airplane, and I did so without complaint. Nevertheless, other contributors were permitted to post material to the same section without any attribution, and a great deal of the section on the variants, including the graphic that starts it (a flow chart scanned directly from a Japanese publication, quite possibly in violation of copyright) has no attribution. I take this differential treatment to be the result of different editors applying different standards, without adequate supervision and training.

I have over forty (40) years of experience gathering information about Japanese WWII airplanes. I also read Japanese. (By "read" I do not mean taking three minutes to decode two kanji. I mean reading sentences and paragraphs with comprehension.) I was in a position to help you a great deal with this article. Bzuk apparently assumes that I would help Wikipedia again and requests that I supply ISBN numbers in the future.

What future? Insofar as I have not received any thanks for my October 2014 contribution, nor any explanation as to why it took Wikipedia over a year to tell me that it needed me to clarify some bibliography items, nor any explanation as to why it trashed my November 2015 contributions, and has falsely accused me of not reading the to-do list above, I cannot think of a reason why I should contribute another minute of my time to Wikipedia. Can you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabocha (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Kabocha (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)kabochaKabocha (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wilcox 1942 a reliable source?

This caught my eye because the claim that the wing and fuselage were built as one piece seems inconsistent with what I've read in postwar scholarly sources. How much should we trust a 1942 article in a popular magazine? --Yaush (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be correct as other sources show that the wing was assembled in one-piece and included the fuselage sections. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A6M3 and the Type 99-2

The section on the A6M3 Type 32 says that "it switched to the Type 99 Mk2 with belt feed instead of the 60 round drum". I am quite sure this is wrong. The A6M3 switched from the Type 99-1 with 60-round drum to the Type 99-1 with a larger 100 round drum. Later variants got the belt-fed Type 99-1, and then the Type 99-2. For starters, why on earth would switching from a bulky drum-feed to a belt feed require a large bulge on the wing which didn't exist before? Second, there is a photograph of an A6M3 directly above that paragraph, and as can be clearly see, the muzzles of the cannon do not protrude from the leading edge, they are flush with it, like in the A6M2. If the well known A6M5 required long cannon barrels extending ahead of the leading edge to accommodate the 50% longer Type 99-2, how did they manage to squeeze it into the Model 32 without any part of the gun itself showing? Also, I know it's not a acceptable reference, but the page on the Type 99 agrees, saying 

 "The limited ammunition capacity was an important disadvantage. The Type 99 Mark 1 Fixed Model 3 could be equipped with a 100-round drum, but the size of the drum was itself a problem in fighter installations, although the Model 3 guns were installed on the initial production versions of the A6M3. A more practical solution was provided by the Type 99 Mark 1 Fixed Model 4, which featured a Kawamura-developed belt feed mechanism."

(as you can see here it also refers to the reason they installed the bulge under the wing of the M3, to fit the larger drum) AFAIK there was never a belt-fed, nor a Mark-2 cannon installed in the Model 32. Of course I'll have to go and find an actual reference, but I think this page was correct previously, and someone went and "fixed" it, either using a reference that doesn't actually say what they are citing it as saying, or a mistaken author. I know it said something about 100 round drums, because I remember trying to mentally calculate how much larger a 100rd drum would have to be than a 60.

64.223.92.214 (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

is vs was

This plane exists in an historical context and it sounds more intuitively correct to me to write "The Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" was a long-range fighter aircraft" rather than "is" a long range fighter aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phersh (talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The normal convention is if the aircraft still exists then we use "is" as in this case. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Concur, per WP:MOSTENSE. The current wording, The Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" is a long-range fighter aircraft formerly manufactured by Mitsubishi Aircraft Company, a part of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy from 1940 to 1945, is also correct per WP:LEAD. Please note that WP:MOSTENSE wasn't the Aircraft Project's preference, but is a Wikipedia-wide guideline that has been forced on us. - BilCat (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

citation source 31

check source 31, when I clicked the link it gave me a 404 error, just a heads up for citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiyu9028 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Now fixed - thanks for pointing it out.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Internal contradiction in article

The lead says "The A6M was usually referred to by its pilots as the Reisen..." but in the section entitled Name it says "In Japan, it was unofficially referred to as both Rei-sen and Zero-sen; Japanese pilots most commonly called it Zero-sen..." So which is it? Can we get a confirmation on one or the other name as the most commonly used and update the article so the two sentences reflect that? Cadar (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero/Archive_1&oldid=1264569504"