A look ahead to the Pacific

[ZachariasX]

 

 

dive speeds in excess of 330 kts were design requirements and subsequently were confirmed in testing of the airframe.

The Zero? 600 km/h as dive speed? You have a report of someone conveniently flying the Zeke at that speed?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OaS4HT63ZE

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Except for the fact that most of the guys flying Zeros died during ww2 and few of memoirs of pilots who survived but were not translated to English there is little evidence of anything in regard to Zero. But thankfully technical publications such as Maru Mechanics, Gakken Pictorial Series or even widely known Bunrin Do series do the job for the most part. Rest is in archives, unless it was destroyed by Americans in 1950s and 1960s. 

 

Dive limit for A6M2 is depends on a factor whether it was provided with balance tabs or not, with the latter having higher dive permission.

But to get into specifics. The "Type Zero Carrier Fighter Manual" prepared by Leading Airmen Nakazato in October 1943 gives numbers to all Zero models developed up to that date, giving a speed limit for model 22 and model 21 of 340 kts indicated ( ~630 km/h). It is not specified in this document (which is of general nature) for which variant of A6M2 model 21 it refers - with or without balance tabs. But further details come from Jiro Horikoshi book "Eagles of the Mitsubishi", on page 112: "The next day, the morning of 17 April (1941), first flying the Zero without balance tabs, Lieutenant Shimokawa dove from 3,800 meters altitude at an angle of about 50 degrees and started to pull up when he reached a speed of about 640 km/h, leveling off at 1,200 meters altitude. He paid special attention to the wing outer skin but observed only small wrinkles. He had already flown the Zero in performance contest held between Navy and Army fighters in January of the same year (1941) and was confident of the Zero's structural integrity, since he had previously achieved a speed of 680 km/k (365+ kts)." 

 

Lt. Shimokawa died that day, when he carried trials with a Zero equipped with balance tabs: "He next took up the other Zero fitted with aileron tab balances which had been built about the same time as Lieutenant Nikaido's, and climbed into the sky while being observed by many people on the ground. The first test was diving from about 4,000 meters at an angle of about 50 degrees, gradually pulling the nose up at about 2,000 meters and returning to level flight at about 1,500 meters. This test was completed safely. Lieutenant Shimokawa had been instructed by his superior, Lieutenant Commander Yoshitomi, prior to flight, "If you notice any wrinkles, stop the test immediately." During the second test he dove again from about 4,000 meters at an angle of about 60 degrees. When it seemed he was starting to pull up at about 1,500 meters, a large white fragment, which looked like a sheet of paper, flew off from the left wing followed by a black object. Thehn, after the airplane turned its nose to the left in a diving attitude, it rolled over twice and went down into the sea. Lieutenant Shimokawa did not bail out but went down with the airplane." 

 

"As a remedy, the thickness of the outer wing skin was increased; the torsional strength was also increased by connecting stiffeners, known as longitudinal stringers; and, finally, a mass balance was added to the opposite side of the balance tab. The maximum dive speed of the aircraft was also temporarily reduced to 670 km/h." 

Similar number is indicated in a different book: "The Zero Fighter" by Masastake Okumiya and Jiro Horikoshi, which on page 176 gives following explenation: "Positive corrective measures emerged from all of these experiments; torsional rigidity was to be improved by increasing the thickness of the outer skin of the wings; aileron mass-balance was to be strengthened (structure); and the aeroplane's critical speed was to be set at an indicated airspeed of 414 m.p.h. ( 666 km/h)"

This is further supported by a few tests, one of which was carried in 1943 to investigate the incident in which one of the IJN Zuikaku A6M3's  damaged its aileron hinge in midst of combat maneuvers. Test was carried by Yokosuka Ku which had a special flight test group doing service for Naval Aviation Technology Center. In the subsequent tests pullouts at maximum G's were tested, with airframes exceeding speeds of 320 kts (8.6 G). 

 

 

Keep in mind Zach that I did not say its convenient or easy. Those are speeds approaching Vne, so airframe shaking was experienced and lots of strength and coordination was required to maintain steady dive. 

Edited November 4, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

From the technical perspective, I wonder if the developers will make any additions to the game engine to accommodate the A6M2's somewhat unique failure modes. Problems with skin integrity are often mentioned, but currently BoX does not feature any mechanism of this sort. 

 

I think that simulating deformation of the skin would greatly enhance realism. The existing model in BoX would allow the Zero to dive until the wings snap off. This 'all or nothing' approach leaves much to be desired when it comes to more fragile aircraft. 

Edited November 4, 2017 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[Willy__]

From the technical perspective, I wonder if the developers will make any additions to the game engine to accommodate the A6M2's somewhat unique failure modes. Problems with skin integrity are often mentioned, but currently BoX does not feature any mechanism of this sort.    I think that simulating deformation of the skin would greatly enhance realism. The existing model in BoX would allow the Zero to dive until the wings snap off. This 'all or nothing' approach leaves much to be desired when it comes to more fragile aircraft. 

 

 

I doubt it will be modeled. It will simply repeat the situation we have today with russians reaching 750kph when they couldnt IRL. In fact, Han stated that ALL planes have some sort of "leeway" in terms of Vne, even the german ones, making everyplane faster than it should be. Looking at that perspective, I doubt it will be different on the pacific.

Edited November 4, 2017 by 3./JG15_Staiger

[ZachariasX]

[...snipp...]

 

Keep in mind Zach that I did not say its convenient or easy. Those are speeds approaching Vne, so airframe shaking was experienced and lots of strength and coordination was required to maintain steady dive.

 

Thnx for that. I know it is tedious looking up these passages. I appreciate. I don't have as much hard info on that more exotic bird as on others.

 

As we can see, even good ole 109 can be controversioal, but the Zeke is certainly gonna be interesting. Just judging from the fact that designer actually conceived a fast airplane, that everyone takes as sort of an Extra 300 of its time.

 

But I guess I will source the books you quoted from.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I doubt it will be modeled. It will simply repeat the situation we have today with russians reaching 750kph when they couldnt IRL. In fact, Han stated that ALL planes have some sort of "leeway" in terms of Vne, even the german ones, making everyplane faster than it should be. Looking at that perspective, I doubt it will be different on the pacific.

 

 

I don't want to get false hope, but the skill of Il-2 developers has surprised me several times. Several technical aspects of their products are already the best in the industry. After seeing what they accomplished recently with mirrors and landscape visibility distance, I remain optimistic that they will continue to add advanced technology once we get to the Pacific. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

From the technical perspective, I wonder if the developers will make any additions to the game engine to accommodate the A6M2's somewhat unique failure modes. Problems with skin integrity are often mentioned, but currently BoX does not feature any mechanism of this sort. 

I'd hardly call it a "feature"   

But skin tearing, particularly on areas such as ammunition covers or other access hatches was not uncommon for pretty much all aircraft. 

 

In the specific situation indicated above it was the consequence of a separation of aileron, which separated after over-stressed balance tab separated during the dive. It sort of resembles the thing that happened to a Galloping Ghost during Reno Air Race (except for Galloping Ghost it was elevator trim tab on left elevator) and consequence was pretty similar.

 

 

 

Thnx for that. I know it is tedious looking up these passages. I appreciate. I don't have as much hard info on that more exotic bird as on others.

No worries, its my passion to which I dedicate time after work so I have most of this books at hand. 

 

 

 

As we can see, even good ole 109 can be controversioal, but the Zeke is certainly gonna be interesting.

We seem to be running on controversies. Ekhem, Focke Wulf was a controversy since it was announced years ago   

As for the books, Eagles of the Mitsubishi is easy to find but not cheap. The other one poses a problem since there were a dozen of books titled "The Zero Fighter", this particular one was published in 1956 by Cassel London Publishing and is long out of print. 

[Lusekofte]

 

 

If they wont do anything with it, can't imagine pacific which will be full of aaa guns on ships. It's going to be slaughter..

 

I am sure you read and seen docu´s , it was a slaughter. Are you saying they should make it inaccurate as a sim? 

[Willy__]

 

 

I am sure you read and seen docu´s , it was a slaughter. Are you saying they should make it inaccurate as a sim? 

 

It is inaccurate currently. Someone posted on the forums that it was needed roughly 900 rounds for the russian AAA to get a hit IRL, meanwhile, ingame if you are not porpoising like a madman you are luck to live the first 50. The problem we face right now is that AAA (and gunners aswell) are way too accurate, like aimbots with laser guided aim.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Staiger is right, furthermore its for both gunners and AA. Single 12.7 mm gun in the back of a Pe-2 causes disputes. I dont want to think what B-25 filled with Brownings would cause. 

 

Speaking strictly of Midway the number of aircraft downed by AA was small. Neither tactics, nor technical aspects helped at that time and both Japanese and American AA output was comparable in its ineffectiveness. Frankly, on both sides there are accounts of pilots being hit by a friendly fire. Reminds me sort of this:

 

That doesnt mean it wasnt rough. It was scary and deadly, but actual effectiveness was limited. If not for Zeros and Wildcats, actual losses would be greater. 

[Rjel]

This was a pretty interesting training film. Imagine landing a Corsair on a small escort carrier? There is a segment where they used simple animations to demonstrate what the landing signals are telling the pilot. If I remember correctly, Aces of the Pacific used a similar animated image. It wasn't realistic, but was a very useful system that worked well.

 

[Stig]

AAA is considerably more accurate than in real life; but then again, player accuracy with guns, bombs, rockets is also considerably better than in real life.

[ZachariasX]

"Und sie schauten gegen den Himmel und fürchteten sich." - (inofficial) motto oft he Swiss Ground Based Air Defence.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

It is inaccurate currently. Someone posted on the forums that it was needed roughly 900 rounds for the russian AAA to get a hit IRL, meanwhile, ingame if you are not porpoising like a madman you are luck to live the first 50. The problem we face right now is that AAA (and gunners aswell) are way too accurate, like aimbots with laser guided aim.

 

Well currently we can not have that many objects in game, so other means is needed to simulate 900 AA. I find it very odd that 2 airplanes , should be able to sink a carrier every time they attempt to do so.  

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Staiger is right, furthermore its for both gunners and AA. Single 12.7 mm gun in the back of a Pe-2 causes disputes. I dont want to think what B-25 filled with Brownings would cause. 

 

Yes and if you want human bomber pilots the need for a fair chance is a necessity, but that is a point not taken by exclusive fighter pilots. Like it or not , making a combat flight simulator that people actually would fly is to simulate historical battles. And we all knows there is no historical conduct by the community itself. You do not see fighters protecting bombers, you do not see a mass attack on targets. Mostly you see loners that want a easy kill, or a easy target to blow up. If not they get frustrated and come to this forum and complain about it.

I fly bombers, and I salute strong AA and defence of bombers, if that would stop, we might aswell just start coop or dogfightservers.  You will not see any live pilots on, not only that those flying bombers will not , change to fighters, they ditch the game and move on 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It's a marked difference between our means of control - whereas I control my fighter using stick and pedals to resemble actual controls, gunners are controlled with mouse which makes aiming far easier and provides unparalleled accuracy on a relatively stable platform. Though it still requires skill and actual human is behind the gun, my actual and real complain refers to Ai gunners. And that is a different thing. 

To further counter your argument it should be said, that while rarely escort for bomberd is provided (I've seen it frequently on TAW and Finnish Server though), neither bombers cooperate. It's a rare thing to spot a formation of more than 3 bombers. Most common sight is a single bomber flying over enemy airfield. Expectation that lone bomber will survive by means of single gunner so all the advantages are provided to make it "fair" is unnatural equally. 

I've been flying on a Finnish server in Pe-2 a number of times, while being escorted by a bunch of fighters and thats the only time I felt actually protected. Bombers, unless flying in numbers and tight formation, should not pose a great threat to attacking fighter. 

 

This game above all should encourage teamwork and communication between pilots. If you fly alone you do it wrong. 

 

But this is an argument for a different thread. Lets stick to a Pacific.

Edited November 5, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[ZachariasX]

 

 

I find it very odd that 2 airplanes , should be able to sink a carrier every time they attempt to do so.

Well, that is roughly what it took for the Japanese carriers at Midway. Well, speaking of the bombers that actually hit something.

[sniperton]

Right, it belongs to a different thread, but I think the crucial point is here:

 

And I agree with the common view that currently AA(A) is too accurate (and gunners lock on far too quick e.g. a fast pass at an angle where the aircraft can't be seen approaching), and I would love it if it both couldn't see through smoke/clouds (& trees).

 

It's premature to discuss AAA gunner aiming accuracy until the spotting is made more realistic. I mean a human has to acquire the target first, then, when sight is lost, reacquire it again. Once the AI is "capable" of realistically lose sight of a moving target, its aiming accuracy will also be much closer to reality without adjusting its aiming accuracy.

Add to that the AI always knows who's friend or foe, even from distances where visual identification for humans is almost impossible without icons. Basically the AI plays with object icons on, no matter what difficulty you had set.

Edited November 5, 2017 by sniperton

[Yogiflight]

 

 

Add to that the AI always knows who's friend or foe, even from distances where visual identification for humans is almost impossible without icons. Basically the AI plays with object icons on, no matter what difficulty you had set.

Another strange thing is, that AI stops shooting at an enemy aircraft, as soon as the game tells him, this aircraft is so seriously damaged, that it won't be able to make it back to its airfield. The AI will simply turn away and not care for the damaged aircraft anymore, no matter how capable of fighting it still is.

[xvii-Dietrich]

I fly bombers, and I salute strong AA and defence of bombers, if that would stop, we might aswell just start coop or dogfightservers.  You will not see any live pilots on, not only that those flying bombers will not , change to fighters, they ditch the game and move on

 

^ This.

 

Every fighter-upgrade (better speed, more guns, bigger calibre, cannons, etc.) and every bomber nerf (reduced gunner accuracy, lowered damage-tolerance) is just driving away human bomber pilots. It is a challenge to fly level-bombers as it is, due to the complexity of the aircraft, the formations needed, the longer flight times, the lack of a mode-1 autopilot, lack of nav-aids, inability to map all bomb-sight controls to keys, and limited visibility of ground targets. If it is made even harder by making them defenceless, then indeed you will simply see them "ditch the game and move on".

 

The Pacific may not see high-alt level bombers for some time, with a preference shown for dive-bombers and torpedo bombers. Any discussion on the Pacific, however, will need to bear in mind a more comprehensive picture of the air war, otherwise the scope will remain very limited and the game play quite ahistorical.

 

 

 

 

It's a rare thing to spot a formation of more than 3 bombers. Most common sight is a single bomber flying over enemy airfield. Expectation that lone bomber will survive by means of single gunner so all the advantages are provided to make it "fair" is unnatural equally. 

I've been flying on a Finnish server in Pe-2 a number of times, while being escorted by a bunch of fighters and thats the only time I felt actually protected. Bombers, unless flying in numbers and tight formation, should not pose a great threat to attacking fighter. 

 

This game above all should encourage teamwork and communication between pilots. If you fly alone you do it wrong.

I agree it is rare these days to see 3+ bombers. I wistfully recall the days when we had 20+ human bombers in formation.

 

For reasons already mentioned, it is a massive challenge to put together a bomber formation. Add to that the challenge of attracting fighter cover. And then the complexity of forming the raid.

 

However, the current scoring system rewards the wrong things to encourage this sort of game play. Perhaps it is something that might change with the Pacific theatre?

 

Alternatively, you need to put in a better incentives.

 

For example:

 

AI gunner accuracy is proportional to the number of AI guns trained on the target.

 

Put together a big enough bomber group, and you become invincible... unless there are overwhelming numbers of fighters to saturate the defences.

 

 

 

 

But this is an argument for a different thread. Lets stick to a Pacific.

If you move it off to a "let's talk about bombers" topic... it just gets ignored. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, that is roughly what it took for the Japanese carriers at Midway. Well, speaking of the bombers that actually hit something.

To be fair none of the dive bombers sunk any of the the Japanese aircraft carriers. They were all seriously damaged and turned into burning wreckage but remained afloat  Same could be said about Yorktown. USS Hornet during battle of Santa Cruz took a serious beating but still remained afloat. 

[sniperton]

Yep, but from this point on we're speaking about the different damage control and repair capabilities of the two Navies. Seems that USN vessels were better built and the USN repair crew was more capable in saving (or even resurrecting) a severely damaged ship.

[56RAF_Roblex]

Here is a great bit of footage of the USS Yorktown being dived bombed with several hits.  At 3:45 a near miss lifts the whole carrier so far that a fighter is shaken over the side   

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaWYiOHGinU

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, possibly two Japanese carriers could be towed and repaired if not for the situation they ended up. That's what Yamamoto hoped for but was denied with such a battle result. Yorktown could also be towed and repaired if not for the IJN submarine. 

But to be honest we're also speaking of different loads being delivered since SBD's carried 1,000 pound bombs whereas D3A1s carried 250 kg ones, sometimes also with addition of two 60 kg bombs under wings to suppress the AA fire. In terms of actual built quality none of this ships is really comparable since Akagi was a converted battlecruiser and Kaga was a converted battleship, both designed and built in 1920s. IJN Soryu and slightly larger (as well as improved) Hiryu were more modern, but also a smaller units. U.S.S. Yorktown , Enterprise and Hornet were both more modern than Akagi and Kaga, as well as larger than Hiryu and Soryu. Damage control was superior as well for the american side. There are a lot of factors to consider with the ship development for the next expansion.  

 

@up That's some great footage Roblex. You can clearly see 1.1 inch guns, the famous "Chicago Pianos". 

Edited November 5, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[ShamrockOneFive]

Was the 1000lb centerline bomb the standard loadout at Midway? I thought they typically carried much smaller bombs.

[Dakpilot]

It is inaccurate currently. Someone posted on the forums that it was needed roughly 900 rounds for the russian AAA to get a hit IRL, meanwhile, ingame if you are not porpoising like a madman you are luck to live the first 50. The problem we face right now is that AAA (and gunners aswell) are way too accurate, like aimbots with laser guided aim.

The quote of 900 rounds needed to get a hit is not really accurate, the quote is

 

"Crews of the 37 mm AD guns shot down 14,657 Axis planes.[4] The mean quantity of 37 mm

ammunition to shoot down one enemy plane was 905 rounds"

 

This is not quite the same thing taken as an individual occurance of accuracy other than to say X amount of aircraft were shot down during the war and X amount of ammunition was used during the war

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Willy__]

Statistically speaking its correct, so I still stand by the quote that roughly 900 rounds of aaa was need to hit/down a plane.

[Dakpilot]

Statistically speaking its correct, so I still stand by the quote that roughly 900 rounds of aaa was need to hit/down a plane.

Oh dear... Statistically speaking

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

*edit* it clearly says 'shoot down' , nothing about 'hit' that would change the goalposts again, the figure is nothing more than a vague but interesting statistic plucked from Wikipedia it has pretty much zero relevance or context

Edited November 5, 2017 by Dakpilot

[sinned]

I have a question.

 

Why do zero, val, kite and some other US ww2 planes have black paint on their cowlings?

 

I read that zero had blue black.

 

Black attracts light=heat. Heat is generally not good for engine.

Subject planes didnt have radars on their noses.

 

So why are the cowlings paint black?

 

Thank you.

 

Also, why some zeros are painted white instead of blue (carrier operated)?

 

If zero and vals are painted white, why were kites painted green(carrier operated)?

[Stig]

I seriously doubt that 37mm AD guns shot down anywhere near 14,657 Axis planes  So it's probably not a statistic that's of much use to anyone    

[Willy__]

I seriously doubt that 37mm AD guns shot down anywhere near 14,657 Axis planes  So it's probably not a statistic that's of much use to anyone 

 

If that indeed is correct.... then I was wrong, maybe 900 rounds was a bit short    

 

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by 3./JG15_Staiger

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Based on the Japanese study later quoted in one of the reports of U.S. Naval Technical Mission to Japan a number of a 150 rounds per plane at less than 8000 meters range and 3000 meters height for a 127 mm gun is accepted. For Type 96 25 mm gun at less than 2000 meters range and less than 1000 meters height a figure of 1500 rounds per plane is quoted. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

I have a question.

 

Why do zero, val, kite and some other US ww2 planes have black paint on their cowlings?

 

I read that zero had blue black.

 

Black attracts light=heat. Heat is generally not good for engine.

Subject planes didnt have radars on their noses.

 

So why are the cowlings paint black?

 

Thank you.

 

Also, why some zeros are painted white instead of blue (carrier operated)?

 

If zero and vals are painted white, why were kites painted green(carrier operated)?

 

The black cowling paint is for anti-glare measures. It was supposed to be a matte finish so as it prevent too much sun glare from blinding the pilot.

 

Not sure on the why for Japanese Naval aircraft at the start of the war. The light colours were highly visible though that may have been the point. In mid-1943 they started with the dark green for all aircraft because apparently the Navy bureau tests showed this to be the best camo for flying over jungle and over water. Keeping in mind that the Japanese Navy operated its own land bases (and had its own medium bomber force) as well as carriers so they needed something useful in a variety of circumstances. The 1941 B4N Kate's being painted green I don't know. Many D3A Val's were also painted green as the war went on.

 

Dark green on blue plus atmospheric haze would be difficult to spot.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I have a question.

 

Why do zero, val, kite and some other US ww2 planes have black paint on their cowlings?

 

I read that zero had blue black.

 

Black attracts light=heat. Heat is generally not good for engine.

Subject planes didnt have radars on their noses.

 

So why are the cowlings paint black?

 

Thank you.

 

Also, why some zeros are painted white instead of blue (carrier operated)?

 

If zero and vals are painted white, why were kites painted green(carrier operated)?

 

Don't know about the green paint in Japanese carrier planes, but I think the black upper cowling is so the pilot doesn't get much reflection from the sun, you can see some post ww2 planes with them as well.

 

These don't have radars either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

btw blue Zeros? The ones I knew so far are either white, green, some mid war with green and white patches, and last some of the late war with unpainted and green patches.

Edited November 5, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I hope that the Pacific will attract large human-controlled bomber formations. The presence of heavily-defended high-value targets (carriers) should encourage such behaviour. Perhaps sufficient incentives will finally exist.

[xvii-Dietrich]

Why do zero, val, kite and some other US ww2 planes have black paint on their cowlings?

I read that zero had blue black.

 

Black attracts light=heat. Heat is generally not good for engine.

 

Ignoring the issues of reflections, camoflage, cleanliness, squadron/national markings... I first want to clear up the issue on the physics of light-on-black.

 

Black does not "attract" light or radiated heat as such. It absorbs it. Because energy is conserved, anything that is not reflected or refracted by an object (which on a perfectly black surface means everything) must be kept in the object... as heat. If light is shone at a black object, then it will absorb that light and, as a result, the object heats up. A black brick in the sun will be hotter than a white one.

 

But, in the same way a black object absorbs light, it also transmits it back again (reciprocity). Thus, a black object gives off any heat it has better than a white/silver one. So, for optimal transmission or absorption of heat, black is better.

 

If an object is already hot (e.g. an engine), then you actually want it black to radiate the energy out as efficiently as possible. A black engine will run cooler than a white one of equivalent capacity, etc..

 

 

 

That said, the cowling is not normally connected to the engine in a thermally efficient way. So, from an aircraft perspective, it comes down to markings, camouflage, glare, etc..

 

The top surface of the cowlings were often painted black to reduce glare into the pilots face. E.g. this Noorduyn Norseman

 

 

Cowlings of radial engines often became oil-splattered, so they were originally painted black to hide the grime. This became an "aircraft fashion". The cowling is also detached during servicing of such engines, again a reason for separate colouring.

 

 

Some physics references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(electromagnetism)

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Hehe... typical. While writing this up, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard beat me to it with the same explanation on the glare.

Edited November 5, 2017 by xvii-Dietrich

[BlitzPig_EL]

BTW, the IJN aircraft were not white, they were a very light beige, sometimes called butterscotch, that would fade to a lighter color over time, but they were never white.  Note the contrast with the white bands on the tail and fuselage.

 

 

A6M2 at the NMUSAF, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio.

Edited November 5, 2017 by BlitzPig_EL

[Feathered_IV]

That is correct El. I believe the Japanese name for the colour was Ameiro. The supposedly white zeros were a post war error in photo interpretation.

 

I also recall reading that the habit of painting the cowlings black was the continuation of a pre-war habit that developed due to early engines being prone to throwing oil. The blue black colour used us actually quite shiny rather than matt.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

http://www.warbirdsnews.com/warbird-articles/interviews/tale-fighter-ron-cole.html

 

Here is given both internal and external painting, with a close Federal Standard color.