Talk:Mitsubishi A6M Zero

Is the Swedish FFVS J 22 a comparible aircraft

Introduced in 1943 to the swedish air force the FFVS J 22 seems to be in the same class as the Zero.

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)

Most produced combat aircraft?

The article states that, at just under eleven thousand, the Zero was the most produced combat aircraft of the war. Under what criteria? I can think of at least a half dozen other types that were built in larger numbers than that without even looking it up. Mark Sublette Mark Sublette (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably meant in JAPAN, not the entire list of combatants.50.111.9.165 (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wing bulges

"The two 20 mm wing cannon were upgraded from the Type 99 Mark l to the Type 99 Mark II,[41] which required a bulge in the sheet metal of the wing below each cannon. The wings also included larger ammunition boxes and thus allowing 100 rounds per cannon. " The bulges were to accommodate the larger ammo drums (not boxes), not the Mk II cannon per se. The longer cannons just protruded further from the leading edges. The switch from 60 to 100 round drums required the bulge. The Type 52 introduced 125 round boxes and belt feed, so the bulges were deleted, as it says later in the variants section.

Idumea47b (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I see I have already brought this up so there is no need to repeat myself. But to be clear, the A6M3 Model 32 did not use the Type 99 Mk II. There are plenty of photos easily found showing the aircraft, none of which show the distintive long barrels of the MkII protruding from the leading edge. It used the short barreled Type 99 with a larger ammo drum.

I also don't understand the claim about the "smaller ailerons". The wings were squared off at exactly the same place as the wing tip assembly began, the ailerons don't go past this line in any of the marks, so shortening the wings to this point has no effect on the size of the flight surfaces.

Regarding the shorter range, it makes it sound like they simply traded 6.8mph for 620 miles of range, which seems silly. But it was more than that, the increased power was available across a wider altitude range, so it was faster in general and with better climb rate and didn't suffer so much power loss at high altitude. But similar to the Hurricane MkII, the relatively small increase in power results in a significantly higher fuel consumption, combined with smaller tankage, which gives a much shorter endurance. Idumea47b (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)