Zero, Zeke, and Rufe

[Daryl J.]

Turkey got some Zero 52c's after WW-II which were painted in tan/brown/green over sand camouflage.   I'm just sure of it.  Unless they were overall sand colored.  They served alongside their Hellcat F6F's if memory serves.   

(Knob Creek, neat)
Daryl J.

[Tophe]

Do you know the Mitsubishi A8M1 Twin-Zero? The source picture seems to have disappeared from http://www.geocities.co.jp/Colosseum/2610/twinzero.html but I may look for it on my hard drive if one is interested. A drawing of it was in one of my (free) books too.

[Pablo1965]

This is a very interesting thread over a very nice plane, thanks to share your ideas about it.

[Cliffy B]

Question gents, why was the wing fold for the Zero so close the to the wingtip?  It shortened the wing by only a few feet it doesn't seem like it really mattered.  Is there any reason why the wing couldn't of been split down the middle?  Immediately outboard of the wing guns and inboard of the flaps?  Just wondering guys.

-Mike

[Pablo1965]

Question gents, why was the wing fold for the Zero so close the to the wingtip?  It shortened the wing by only a few feet it doesn't seem like it really mattered.  Is there any reason why the wing couldn't of been split down the middle?  Immediately outboard of the wing guns and inboard of the flaps?  Just wondering guys.
-Mike

I think you mean why the wing haven't a folding place like the grumman planes, in the center of the wing. Ah! the idea to turn the wing up and back is a great idea of Grumman and only of grumman, other bend his wing up or back....but he have that idea, and the wing of the Zero is too simple structurally and his materials are too light. Sorry, in case I don't understant your question.

[Cliffy B]

Grumman style or normal hinge doesn't matter.  Question is why did only about two feet of each wing tip fold versus maybe half of the wing or all of wing?  Was the wing structurally unsound to fold in any other place?  Could it have been strengthened in order to fold further inboard?

[ReccePhreak]

Since Tamiya is issuing a new-tool Zero, why not whiff it before it's released rather than listen to the other D.G.'s bash it prior to release:

The US begins immediate economic recovery plans for Japan and soon has the Zero back in production in a decent facility albeit in limited form.   With the economies of continued war going forward, the US Navy and Marine Corps wanted an inexpensive, reliable aircraft useful for P.R. missions.   The armored seat and better engine of the Zero 52 fit the bill and soon there were some in service with the USMC.   

Overall GSB but retaining a blacker shaded cowling.  USMC markings.    Fuel tanks under the wings oversized and outfitted with camera equipment in a half fuel/half recon arrangement similar to the Yugoslavian F-84 Plank-wing tip tanks.   Armament either eliminated altogether or one cannon per wing depending on individual aircraft.   Piloted by S. Koreans in order to minimize social wounds caused by the war with Japan.

That should be a little beauty of a kit yes?


Daryl J.

A long time ago, while researching photo-recce aircraft, I came across a mention of the Japanese using Zeros in the PR role. I never wrote anything down about where I saw the mention, but nobody on J-Aircraft.com or anywhere else can verify my claim. I STILL want to do a PR Zero, maybe I will use your proposal? 

Larry

[Maverick]

Mike, according to Wiki, the Model 21 had the folding tips to facilitate carrier stowage in comparison to the Model 11, that being said, they were deleted on the later models to simplify production (and I assume there was a change in carrier lift sizing).  I also think that Pablo has a valid point regarding the complexity of the Zero's structure.

HTH,

Regards,

Mav

[Daryl J.]

I STILL want to do a PR Zero, maybe I will use your proposal? 

Do it!   

[sequoiaranger]

>Question is why did only about two feet of each wing tip fold versus maybe half of the wing or all of wing?  Was the wing structurally unsound to fold in any other place?  Could it have been strengthened in order to fold further inboard?<

The simple answer is that the two feet or so of the wingtips was all the Zero "needed" to fit well in the IJN carrier elevators. The wings of other planes that fold somewhere near the middle have to be heavily reinforced, and that takes WEIGHT of material. The Zero wing could NOT fold anywhere else, as the wing spar structure was not built to be interrupted. Remember that the early Zeros did not even have any RADIOS or pilot armor because they did not want to suffer the performance penalty of the extra weight. The later Zero 32's and 52's just did away with the wingtips so they didn't need to fold. Remember that the carrier-based US Dauntless and the IJN "Judy" dive bomber did not have folding wings, either. Grumman's ingenious folding method meant that TWO aircraft could theoretically be put on an elevator, but in practice that didn't happen very often.

[sequoiaranger]

GTX--"Great find - who's going to be the first to make it?"

I guess that would be me!

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,32270.0.html

I don't think I will make mine a carrier plane with folding wings, tailhook, etc. My "backstory" will have some for carrier trials, but a general dislike (mostly by administrators and mechanics, not pilots) and abandonment of the carrier version. My version will be a cast-off, fixed-wing, Thai land-based version. Below is my dry-fitted mock-up, completion date sometime in May:

[Tophe]

  Wonderful!

[Cliffy B]

Question about the "twin-engined Zero"; was it just a cartoon design or does it have some root in reality?  I'm trying to Google it but striking out.

[sequoiaranger]

...that I know of. Just a clever idea, a la Grumman's XF5F. Twin-engined aircraft wouldn't do well on a carrier (especially the medium-small carriers the Japanese were building/converting), and if you make the twin-engined aircraft "small" you have twice the "thirst" for gas with little extra room to put it. A larger twin (Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu/Nakajima J1N1 "Gekko") can't manuver well, etc. A long-distance single-engined fighter (droptank-equipped Mustang is prime example) is really the way to go.

I finished my "Twin-engined Zero" a while back, but it would "spoil" the Japanese image to put the Thai aircraft photo here (unless it is DEMANDED). Just mentally add Hinomarus and prop spinners to the pic a few posts ago.

But, here is a link to the build thread of the "Misago"; Post # 88 has the backstory, Post #80 has good pics, including a "comp" pic next to an actual single-engined Zero!

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?topic=32270.new;topicseen#new

[Cliffy B]

I didn't think so but I wanted to check to be sure.  It is cool looking despite its impracticality

Given the wholesale destruction of paperwork at the end of the war you have to wonder if it may have been