August Model Aircraft Monthly: Major Zero variant discovery

[Gaston]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hello everyone: This letter about the short -tail Zero was an error on my part due to a photo that was altered long after being taken, which I realized only AFTER a more original version of the photo was brought to my attention...

Unlike what were the arguments made to me about this mysterious short-tail Zero, this error in photo interpretation had nothing to do with lens distortion at the moment the photo was taken: These distortions are almost always detectable, with a "bulbous" look or a "vitrified" look that is almost always very obvious...

It is a case of REPRODUCTION error, but such errors tend to be on one ENTIRE axis, not selective in the area affected: It is what makes this example of altered reproduction so unusual: It affected the tail only, and in a very discrete manner...

This is due here to the gradual curvature of a book's binding which made the transition from distorted to undistorted invisible: As it got more extreme towards the book's binding, you can see the image was cropped to "conceal" the effect... No lens effect whatsoever here, and the front end matches all other photos perfectly...



The original unaltered photo matches other photos and the new Tamiya model kit quite well, and shows that, despite what was said about lens distortion, an unaltered photo that is not obviously distorted is quite reliable... Without tampering!

Original photo:



http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...creprages_.jpg

Mysteriously "altered" tail version (matches forward of rear of canopy, NOT behind):



http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/Na...A6M7-M63-4.jpg


Sorry to anyone I might have mislead with my "short-tail" Zero theory...

Fortunately such peculiar image alterations are not common...

Gaston

P.S Note that my measurements off four actual Zeroes show the Tamiya kit 1" too long in the tail between the canopy rear and the rudder hinge: 138 inches instead of the correct 137", or a small .5 mm in 1/48th. The 1/48th Tamiya kit also has the root of the leading edge of the fin 2 inches too far forward, slanting it too much by 1mm at the root. The ailerons are also far too narrow in chord, 1mm plus, and the nose deck side profile is also too short by 1-2 mm.

The canopy is the only accurate one in 1/48th, and the kit is still overall by very far the best Zero in 1/48th scale... The discussion below pre-dates this edit of this original post....

G.

[proton45]

It seems like the next step in your research would be trying to contact a living person (military mechanic) who worked on Zero's during the war. It seems that they would know how interchangeable the two manufacturing's where... I have read accounts of A6M's being cannibalized together in an effort to keep 'em flying, but I have never heard of a difference in the manufacturing of the same mark and models...their are differences between the A6M2 and A6M5 (ect), and some cannibalization "may" have been done between models (A6M3 parts on a 5) and this could blur what is seen in pictures...good luck with this.

[Wayne Little]

Reading about this in other forums.....some seem to think this is a pile of steaming brown stuff....I guess we will see in due course....

[vikingBerserker]

All comes down to facts and data. I'm looking worward to the results.

[proton45]

Reading about this in other forums.....some seem to think this is a pile of steaming brown stuff....I guess we will see in due course....

Lol....very true.

[Gaston]

It will be confirmed soon.

Furthermore the picture is extremely eloquent as to what is going on...

I'll also re-iterate the quoted context of the 1945 MacArthur blueprint destruction order, and the fact that convincing "substitute" numbered blueprints were offered (this deception specifically for the case of the Zero, alone among all the other Japanese aircraft designs) by the Japanese for the Americans to destroy, as related in a recent publication. This publication I have unfortunately been unable to track down after a casual read several years ago...

Gaston

[Wayne Little]

Boy...is this Gaston joker taking a pasting over on j-aircraft.com about the supposed short tail Nakajima and longer Mitsubishi built Zeroes.....

[Maximowitz]

Yikes. That's the trouble Wayne, everyone's an expert... or experte!

[vikingBerserker]

Cripes, he is basing some of his data on plastic model kits????

We have a saying at work, "And the stupid shall be punished"

[Catch22]

Yikes, went and found it to read. His "evidence" is pretty weak. Having said that, I'm no expert on Japanese aircraft, Hell, ANY aircraft!

[Shinpachi]

Very interesting discovery, Gaston.

As long as I know frankly, I haven't ever heard of such length difference between Mitsubishi and Nakajima.
Any of our experts who checked and measured a dozen of survived Zeros haven't pointed out such
discrepancy of the length before.

Very interesting again and I can't wait for reading the issue...
Can I order a copy from Japan too?
Thanks.

[GrauGeist]

Just a thought...but isn't it possible that the aircraft pictured weren't parked perfctly parrallel?

In other words, the three aircraft were parked on the ramp, but if they weren't perfectly square to one another, then the photo would show subtle differences in one (or more) of the aircraft by virtue of perspective.

And I seriously doubt that the aircraft were perfectly aligned when that photo was taken.

[Airframes]

I haven't seen any of these photos, but there is a very, very simple way of finding out! Just use scaling, an everyday feature of photo-interpretation, particularly military recce photos. Find an object or fitting on the subject, in this case the aircraft, that is of a known and given size, say, for example, the length of the canopy rail, and use that to 'scale' measure the other dimensions required. Piece of p**s!! Works even if you have to allow for angles etc.
I don't wish to denigrate this chap, but it does seem rather odd that there should be two aircraft, of the same type but from different factories, with exceptionally differing dimensions! An inch/cemtimetre here and there is possible, perhaps, but nothing significant surely?

[jamierd]

if you look at the photo Gaston has put in the link its plainly obvious that the 3 aircraft are not parked parralel to each other the first aircraft is clearly parked at a completely different angle to the last 2 the light reflecting off the canopys should be enough to point that out to any one seriously studying the picture surely ?

[GrauGeist]

This the image they were referring to:

And jamierd's remarks about the lighting on the canopies is a good point. It emphasizes the varying angles of the aircraft there on the ramp.

The middle aircraft does "seem" to have slightly different vert-stab dimensions...but I wasn't there, and I didn't take the photo, so I'm not sure what to think, really.