ADS NOT DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED USERS.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

August Model Aircraft Monthly: Major Zero variant discovery

Modelling Books and Magazines Discuss August Model Aircraft Monthly: Major Zero variant discovery in the Modeling forums; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello everyone: This letter about the short -tail Zero was an error on my part due to a photo ...

  1. #1
    Banned Gaston's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    125
    Country
    Canada

    August Model Aircraft Monthly: Major Zero variant discovery

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


    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.
    Last edited by Gaston; 10-25-2010 at 01:33 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member proton45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    665
    Country
    United States
    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Wayne Little's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Adelaide Sth. Aust.
    Posts
    35,925
    Country
    Australia
    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....

  4. #4
    Senior Member vikingBerserker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    17,283
    Country
    United States
    All comes down to facts and data. I'm looking worward to the results.

  5. #5
    Senior Member proton45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    665
    Country
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Little View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Banned Gaston's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    125
    Country
    Canada
    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

  7. #7
    Senior Member Wayne Little's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Adelaide Sth. Aust.
    Posts
    35,925
    Country
    Australia
    Boy...is this Gaston joker taking a pasting over on j-aircraft.com about the supposed short tail Nakajima and longer Mitsubishi built Zeroes.....

  8. #8
    Senior Member Maximowitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    London, England.
    Posts
    1,925
    Country
    England
    Yikes. That's the trouble Wayne, everyone's an expert... or experte!


    Maj. Dietrich Puttfarken II./KG 51

  9. #9
    Senior Member vikingBerserker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    17,283
    Country
    United States
    Cripes, he is basing some of his data on plastic model kits????

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

  10. #10
    Senior Member Catch22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    7,325
    Country
    Canada
    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!

  11. #11
    Senior Member Shinpachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Osaka
    Posts
    3,393
    Country
    Japan
    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.

  12. #12
    Senior Member GrauGeist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    6,789
    Country
    United States
    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.

    "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 Gilliss <

  13. #13
    Benevolens Magister Airframes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    33,801
    Country
    United Kingdom
    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?

  14. #14
    Senior Member jamierd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Glenrothes Scotland
    Posts
    559
    Country
    United Kingdom

    zero line up

    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 ?
    Last edited by jamierd; 08-22-2009 at 04:21 PM. Reason: bad spelling

  15. #15
    Senior Member GrauGeist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    6,789
    Country
    United States
    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.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails August Model Aircraft Monthly: Major Zero variant discovery-a6m5_aslitolineup_c.jpg  

    "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 Gilliss <

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86