User talk:150.195.208.65

April 2025

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Don't add your own analysis following the unreferenced quote. Binksternet (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out. I understand the importance of accuracy and citing reliable sources in article contributions.

I will review my edits to ensure they are based on credible sources and do not include original research or personal interpretations. If needed, I will make corrections accordingly.

Below are the sources I used:

Of the plane's anti-spin tendency, Dr. Horigoshi says as follows:

Concerning spin, the vertical wind tunnel tests at the Naval Technology Establishment proved that the original Zero fighter design did have the tendency of getting into a flat spin from which it could not possibly recover. To rectify this, some assessments were made to the tail configuration; that was the backing away of the position of the vertical tailplane and bringing upwards the position of the horizontal tailplane, thus enhancing the directional stability of the aircraft at a greater angle of attack.

When said in technical jargon, there seems to have been nothing so extraordinary, but had one taken a second thought and tried to envisage from the above-mentioned description what might have been the original tail configuration in respect to the fuselage, one would have seen a certain configuration, the shape of which nearly superimposes that of the Gloster F.5/34 made in 1937.

For had we forwarded the vertical plane of the present-day remaining Zero's tail, the relation of the vertical tailplane closer to that of Gloster's tailplane configuration, and likewise the lowering of the horizontal tailplane spread out alongside the aft fuselage, we would have come one step or more closer to the extraordinary tailplane position realized on the 1937 Gloster Experimental.

The only prominent difference, even assessed thus far, is that sausage-like configuration. But had that contraption been a hidden container in which an anti-flat spin parachute was concealed, which would open automatically as in the case of another British military aircraft, the Blackburn Skua, the story would have taken an altogether different picture. This possibility, I had already suggested in my Osaka University deliberation. When taken in this shade, what seems to have been Dr. Horigoshi's meticulous description takes on an entirely different hue. Why did the Zero's prototype or the first model put into the wind tunnel tests develop an unrecoverable flat spin? Is it not because Horigoshi had gotten inspiration from the configuration of the Gloster Experimental but gave no second thought to the blimp-like part, and only came to slenderize the original tail part, resulting in the flat spin?

— Jiro, Anzai (1987-12-30). "Gloster F.5/34 and A6M Zero Fighter : Enigma of Jiro Horigoshi and his design roots" (PDF). Faculty of Letters review, Otemon Gakuin University. 29: 77–83. ISSN 0389-8695. Retrieved 2025-04-17.

Given this information, does my below edit align with reliable sources, or does it include original research or novel interpretation?

• Dr. Horigoshi states that early wind tunnel tests showed the Zero fighter had an irrecoverable flat spin tendency. To address this, modifications were made to the tail section, improving stability at high angles of attack.
• The original Zero’s tail configuration may have resembled the 1937 Gloster F.5/34. Had the vertical tailplane been moved forward and the horizontal tailplane lowered, it might have been even closer to the Gloster Experimental's design.
• It’s possible that the prototype’s flat spin issue arose from design inspiration taken from the Gloster Experimental, without considering the aircraft’s "blimp-like" section, leading to an unintended aerodynamic flaw.

I am committed to following content guidelines and appreciate any clarification you can provide. 150.195.208.65 (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

---