|
| |||||||
| Modelling Books and Magazines Post the useful ones that you have read or seen. |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
08-22-2009, 07:43 PM
| #16 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,062
| So, is this the pic this chap is basing his theory on? Even a very rudimentary examination, with a rough measurement of the image on the screen, shows that these aircraft appear to be identical, in length at least, from the rear of their canopies to the base of the fin. The angles are certainly not all 'square' to each other, and the lightning might give an impression of differences, but as far as I can make out, 'those babies be the same they be' !
__________________  |
|         |
|
08-22-2009, 08:47 PM
| #17 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 414
| Not only that but the two on the left are both Nakajima's...(maybe all?) |
| |
|
08-22-2009, 08:55 PM
| #18 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Adelaide Sth. Aust.
Posts: 12,511
| "MAM" letter: Nakajima Model 52 Zero tail: 8" shorter. "'MAM' letter: Nakajima Model 52 Zero Was 8" Shorter" by Gaston MARTY Terry here are the 2 threads about this subject, have a read and tell me what you think. The first one is the original thread pushed to the archives section and the second is a continuation.....
__________________  |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 04:31 AM
| #19 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,062
| Hmm. Lost interest in our contibutors hollow arguments ! I will very publicly admit, that my knowledge of Japanese aircraft of WW2 is not great, but the thought of such drastic changes, by any manufacturer, in any country, in time of war, and especially in the circumstances prevailing at this particular time, just does not make sense. Apart from the very strong and supported counter arguments put forward by the 'opposition' to our 'friend, which are logical, factual and more than convincing, such a drastic change, in the very critical dimensions concerned, to a high performance aircraft of this nature, would, by their very nature, cause a very distinct change in handling characteristics. Such change is something that does not just 'happen' - it requires planning, modelling, almost certainly wind tunnel or similar testing, and then, of course, flight testing of a modified prototype or protypes. Even as an emergency measure, this would take months at least. The required changes to tooling and production, materials requisition and actual financial budgeting would be a very unwelcome burden at any time, let alone the actual time period and war situation involved here. And for two separate factories to produce two distinctly different versions of the same design just does not make economic, production or operational sense! Granted, a number of 'Western' aircraft were produced at different plants, and some, if not all of these had differences. But these differences were minor detail changes - a different place for a switch or battery, a slight change to a canopy etc etc, none of which made a marked impact on operations or servicing, and only very small differences, if any, in actual flying characteristics. It may well be that our contributor has discovered something that has lain unknown for 65 years or so, and if so, then I'd be interested to see the outcome of his research - given this outcome had tangible evidence and proof, and not supposition of course. But somehow I feel that this started as a hunch, an is ending as a flight of fantasy, possibly through no fault of our 'friend', although he does appear to have missed large tracts of information readily, and rapidly provided by others, and also does not seem to be that well informed regarding the history and locations mentioned in the various tracts, not to mention what appears to be a penchant for quoting semi-technical jargon that isn't even presented or spelled correctly. Radiuses? Is that similar to radii? Smell it? I think I might be standing in it!!
__________________ |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 09:00 AM
| #20 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Adelaide Sth. Aust.
Posts: 12,511
| Terry,.....Well, he has pulled his head in and said "It looks like I was wrong" stating, Quote " will still carry through with my photo analysis expert, but it looks like I was the victim of treacherous photos...Sorry to anyone I might have mislead..." treacherous photos.......my first reaction....what a crock of sh!t! 
__________________ |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 10:19 AM
| #21 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London, England.
Posts: 839
| Treacherous photos. Evil things took to misguide poor unfortunates in ground breaking theories. I however have definitive photographic proof that the Bf 109 was actually a Bf 110 with one less engine. Now where did I put it....
__________________  |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 10:44 AM
| #22 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Carolina
Posts: 3,760
  |  MaxEloquently put Terry.
__________________ "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it" "Those who dwell in the past, condemn the future"  |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 10:55 AM
| #23 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Glenrothes Scotland
Posts: 291
| I am a chef and no photo expert or aircraft expert either but i saw that obvious flaw in his "expert photo analysis" straight off |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 12:13 PM
| #24 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Redding, California
Posts: 3,347
| Oh man...not more treacherous photos! Stop the madness! Well in all honesty, it would be great to uncover something like that, but on a high profile aircraft like the Zero, you would have to look long and hard to discover something new after all these years. I could see it if it were a significant aircraft with little or no remaining airframes like a Do335 or a KI-201, etc. Then the theory (hypothesis?) might be a little more accepted from the community as long as there were tangible evidence. Radiuses & Radii - these are the thingys that keep the engine cool, right? Radius for inline and Radii for the round ones? Am I right, anyone?
__________________  "Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future." - Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome > I Support Doug Gillis < Last edited by GrauGeist; 08-23-2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason: caught a few typos and kilt them... |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 01:15 PM
| #25 |
| Junior Member Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4
| That first aircraft in the line-up is #5357, of which I have examined a close-up 1944-era photo of its fin. There is a broad shallow dimple there below the 6, and a similar dimple is visible today. http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/j...g?t=1250917641 http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/PaulO...o/pa080073.jpg This would prove the tail was never changed after capture, something the Saipan line-up photo had utterly convinced me of... Unfortunately, since today's #5357 Zero, judging from the new Tamiya kit that is measured from it, has the "long" tail, this means the Saipan line-up of 1944 photo is deceptive as to the shortness of the first aircraft's tail. The differences in viewing angle appear small to me, but it seems that logically the tails are indeed all identical... I'm really sorry to have mislead anybody with this, but this was apparently supported by many other photos that were equally deceptive, and showed no real sign of the "fishbowl" effect... There was also the context of the MacArthur blueprint destruction order... I will have these other photos examined further by an image analyst, because I am mystified that the Zero's appearance is so capricious compared to any other WWII aircraft I have ever examined. At least know that the Mitsubishi "long tail" drawing I made is still about as accurate as a profile gets, and very slightly more so than the Tamiya kit itself... Much better than the Tamiya instruction profiles at any rate! Oh well... Note that some Zero restaurers in Manitoba did point out some minor Mitsubishi/Nakajima discrepancies, of a nature yet unknown... On the plus side ( if there is one!), I DID find out, measuring 109s in 2 museums, that the Me-109E had wingroots 40 mm thinner than later F/G/K models, which may account for some of the fuselage shallowness I perceive in most 109 kits... The Hasegawas being 49" deep vs 51" actual (an error equal to 14" on the lenght). I have more luck figuring out the 109 from photos, apparently... I'll try to understand, with the help of an image analysis expert, how these Zero photos proved so much more deceptive than for the others WWII types, and for so long... So that this won't happen again! Sorry again if I mislead anyone... Gaston |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 01:25 PM
| #26 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London, England.
Posts: 839
| No worries mate.. who knows what you might find? There's plenty of mysteries to be solved where WWII aircraft are concerned.
__________________ |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 01:56 PM
| #27 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 414
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 02:18 PM
| #28 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,062
| I'm not at all surprised in the difference in the wing root measurements of the Bf109E compared to the 'F' and later models - it was a totally different wing! And so was the empennage! BTW, part of my job, in the military and in my civilian career, was photographic analysis and interpretation....
__________________ |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 03:21 PM
| #29 |
| IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO   Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,050
| All very interesting, just a question - do we have documented evidence of MacArthur ordering blueprints destroyed at the end of the war? Additionally, you design aircraft with blueprints, you build aircraft with tooling. I would also think that interchangeability would have been a nightmare on this. Common production line aircraft have interchangeability problems, I could imagine aircraft coming from another manufacturer.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  |
|
| |
|
08-23-2009, 09:23 PM
| #30 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 414
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
