Shorter nakajima zeros?, 20cm difference??? Options

[thierry laurent]

I'm still waiting for my issue but I've read on a French forum that the last copy of Model Aircraft Monthly (renamed Military Aircraft Monthly) has a article explaining that the last zeros built by Nakajima (A6M5 & 7...) used a differently shaped and shorter tail than the original Mitsubishi one. The difference would be more or less 20cm in length! I'm waiting for the mag to read this but saying I'm litteraly speechless would be an understatement...

[Wumm]

Hi Thierry,

You can follow a dedicated thread about this topic here on the J-Aircraft site http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=8088.0
started by the author of the magazine's article, Gaston Marty. It is an interesting theory, and one yet to be fully confirmed or refuted. I think some may initially be sceptical, due to his reputation as the "Fatal Flaw" man from Hyperscale and other Forums. Despite this, his claims deserve further scrutiny IMHO, and the J-Aircraft people will certainly be keeping score on this one...

S

[Kagemusha]

Sounds to me like the musings of someone with too much time on their hands, just like the one where someone else wrote the whole of Shakespeare's cannon and then let him put his name to it.

[ssculptor]

The rumor that the later model Zeros produced by Nakajima were 20 cm shorter is both correct and incorrect.
Yes, the aircraft were shorter, but not by 20 CM. The correct length modification was 200 cm.
Yes, it took place in the after part of the fuselage. To compensate for this shortness the engine nacell was extended 200 cm forward. Thus the aircraft kept its overall original length.
Early test flights showed this design to be flawed, so the wings, tail and cockpit were reversed and a pusher propeller substituted for the tractor type. This version flew very well and actually entered squadron use.
There was a decided advantage to this design as allied fighter pilots could never shoot any down because it was so hard to figure out if they were flying forward or backwards.
The war ended before these Super Zeros could have much impact on the aerial situation.
The two Japanese design-engineers responsible for this design escaped from Japan in the confusion of the occupation.
One made his way to the United States where he was hired by the Studebaker Corporation as an automobile designer. He was influential in the design of the 1950 Studebaker where the rear of the car looked like it was the front so people could not tell if it was coming or going.
The other designer surfaced in Italy where he designed the noted 1949 Gozoni-Bagward.
I have it on good authority that an After Market manufacturer is about to come out with a modification kit to convert Revell's, Hasegawa's and Tamiya's Zeros into this ingenious aircraft. The cost will be a modest $172.50 MSRP as the only parts from the original kit that will be utilized will be the pilot.
Stephen

[Rigor]

does anybody have pix's on this bird?

[Chris McMillin]

I like Stephen's take. Can you right an article!
Chris...

[Copperhead]

There is a lengthy discussion of this issue over on Modeling Madness. I can't tell you that there is anything useful there, but it is entertaining.

http://s3.zetaboards.com/readersforum/topic/7241985/1/

[ssculptor]

I like Stephen's take. Can you right an article!
Chris...

It would be fun to build one of these.
That tail wheel will be on a very looooooong stalk.
I can even make mechanical drawings of it.
All I have left in the stash, however, are built up Zeros.
Question: How can I remove the decals that have been on the model for the past 30 years?
Stephen

[KAGNEW]

Steven
someone beat you to yor model of modified Zero . looks good thou












but i'm still counting the rivots for you

[CharlesMetz]

My theory is that Gaston Marty is paid by The Onion.

Charles Metz

[thierry laurent]

Frankly, I don't know how to react. I'd like to have facts to support such a theory. Comparing pictures is not very serious to support such a claim. After having read comments from Jim Lansdale and other knowledgeable guys on j-aircraft, I'm suspicious to say the least...

However, all of us know examples of myths that have been destroyed by recent discoveries... Wait and see...

[LSP_Kevin]

I think having the name Gaston Marty attached to these claims does for their credibility roughly what that iceberg did for the Titanic...

Kev

[Lee White]

The rumor that the later model Zeros produced by Nakajima were 20 cm shorter is both correct and incorrect.
Yes, the aircraft were shorter, but not by 20 CM. The correct length modification was 200 cm.
Yes, it took place in the after part of the fuselage. To compensate for this shortness the engine nacell was extended 200 cm forward. Thus the aircraft kept its overall original length.
Early test flights showed this design to be flawed, so the wings, tail and cockpit were reversed and a pusher propeller substituted for the tractor type. This version flew very well and actually entered squadron use.
There was a decided advantage to this design as allied fighter pilots could never shoot any down because it was so hard to figure out if they were flying forward or backwards.
The war ended before these Super Zeros could have much impact on the aerial situation.
The two Japanese design-engineers responsible for this design escaped from Japan in the confusion of the occupation.
One made his way to the United States where he was hired by the Studebaker Corporation as an automobile designer. He was influential in the design of the 1950 Studebaker where the rear of the car looked like it was the front so people could not tell if it was coming or going.
The other designer surfaced in Italy where he designed the noted 1949 Gozoni-Bagward.
I have it on good authority that an After Market manufacturer is about to come out with a modification kit to convert Revell's, Hasegawa's and Tamiya's Zeros into this ingenious aircraft. The cost will be a modest $172.50 MSRP as the only parts from the original kit that will be utilized will be the pilot.
Stephen

Somebody please help me with my math- I thought that there was 100 cm in a meter- therefore, a 200cm plug taken out of the rear of a zero would be equal to 6'6" for us yanks- and a corresponding forward plug would make for one fugly zero.


edit- nevermind, i stopped and read Stephen's account more closely- I should read posts more closely before asking Q's!!

[TimC]

I'm no expert but I've studied the aircraft and my personal opinion is that the shorter tailed Nakajima built zero's is a load of bushwah.....(aka crap). I've read the j-aircraft.com thread and I'm not convinced. There's too many uknowns and assumptions and not nearly enough facts, supported by documentation and evidence. I can't even discern if it's the vertical tail the guy's talking about or the distance between frame 7 and the vertical tail or the stinger on the end of the tail....it's a load of crap.

Tim