August Model Aircraft Monthly: Major Zero variant discovery - Aircraft of World War II

Gaston · 08-02-2009, 02:30 AM

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

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...

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 · 08-02-2009, 07:21 AM

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 · 08-02-2009, 09:03 AM

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 · 08-02-2009, 10:54 AM

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

proton45 · 08-02-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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....

Lol....very true.

Gaston · 08-03-2009, 05:43 PM

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 · 08-22-2009, 10:09 AM

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 · 08-22-2009, 10:34 AM

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

vikingBerserker · 08-22-2009, 11:21 AM

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 · 08-22-2009, 11:23 AM

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 · 08-22-2009, 01:27 PM

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 · 08-22-2009, 02:18 PM

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 · 08-22-2009, 04:33 PM

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 · 08-22-2009, 05:20 PM

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 · 08-22-2009, 07:15 PM

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.

08-02-2009, 02:30 AM	#1
Gaston Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 4	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... 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; 10-16-2009 at 10:36 PM.

08-02-2009, 09:03 AM	#3
Wayne Little Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Adelaide Sth. Aust. Posts: 12,487	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.... __________________

08-02-2009, 10:54 AM	#4
vikingBerserker Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 3,722	All comes down to facts and data. I'm looking worward to the results. __________________ "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it" "Those who dwell in the past, condemn the future"

08-22-2009, 10:09 AM	#7
Wayne Little Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Adelaide Sth. Aust. Posts: 12,487	Boy...is this Gaston joker taking a pasting over on j-aircraft.com about the supposed short tail Nakajima and longer Mitsubishi built Zeroes..... __________________

08-22-2009, 10:34 AM	#8
Maximowitz Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London, England. Posts: 838	Yikes. That's the trouble Wayne, everyone's an expert... or experte! __________________

08-02-2009, 07:21 AM	#2
proton45 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 414	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.

08-03-2009, 05:43 PM	#6
Gaston Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 4	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

08-22-2009, 11:21 AM	#9
vikingBerserker Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 3,722	Cripes, he is basing some of his data on plastic model kits???? We have a saying at work, "And the stupid shall be punished" __________________ "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it" "Those who dwell in the past, condemn the future"

08-22-2009, 11:23 AM	#10
Catch22 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 4,293	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! __________________

08-22-2009, 01:27 PM	#11
Shinpachi Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Osaka Posts: 781	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. __________________

08-22-2009, 02:18 PM	#12
GrauGeist Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Redding, California Posts: 3,346	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 Gillis <

08-22-2009, 04:33 PM	#13
Airframes Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 9,030	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? __________________

08-22-2009, 05:20 PM	#14
jamierd Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Glenrothes Scotland Posts: 289	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 05:21 PM. Reason: bad spelling

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode