Airfix 1/72 Mistubishi A6M Zero

[Eric Mc]

One I had been working on before Christmas but which I only completed recently. The new Airfix Zero is a lovely litle model and great value for money -

[SlipStream77]

Very nice job Eric, that canopy masking must have been rather time consuming!

[Eric Mc]

It certainly was - especially with my eyesight.

One of the reasons I'm now building another Hawker Tempest is because it has a blown, bubble canopy.

[Tyre Smoke]

Excellent work sir!

Question about the full sized version if I may.......

Obviously a carrier based aircraft, why just have the wing tips fold up? Surely if you are going to reduce the strength of the wing structure then you might as well fold them closer to the fuselage? Folding the wing tip isn't for space saving surely?

[Elderly]

I don't think that many (740?) A6 M2 Model 21's were made.
The folding tip (20" each) was for carrier stowage, but the A6 M3
in order to simplify production just 'clipped' the wingspan
by 40".

[Eric Mc]

Having the wing tips fold allowed them to use the standard Japanese carrier deck elevators.

[Brigand]

Another good offering from you Eric.

The fuselage looks thinner and longer than I remember a Zero's being, but then again it was probably fifteen years ago that I last built one! (Which may have been an Airfix one as well, if memory serves)

[Eric Mc]

It's pretty much spot on dimension wise.

There was a debate about the true dimensions of Zeros in a magazine a while ago and it does seem that some of the model makers in days gone by made their models rather short and dumpy. I think all the newer kits are correct.

[Tyre Smoke]

Why didn't they make the wingspan 40cm less? Surely the structural rigidity benefits would outweigh the relative drop in lift?

Sorry, to hijack the thread. The model looks great Eric, I used to love doing model kits, just wouldn't have the patience to do it now! Therapeutic though.

[Eric Mc]

Tyre Smoke said:

Why didn't they make the wingspan 40cm less? Surely the structural rigidity benefits would outweigh the relative drop in lift?

That's exactly what they did with later versions.

The philosphy behind the Zero was lightness - which gave good range and manoeuverability. I assume the designers came up with what they thought was the optimum wingspan when creating the initial design. They then added the folding option to facilitate carrier storage, parking and lift requirements.

Actual combat experience showed that manoeuverability - particularly rate of roll - actually IMPROVED with a shorter wing. Also, range became less of an issue as the war came closer to the Japanese mainland.

[Elderly]

Eric Mc said:

That's exactly what they did with later versions.

.....
Also, range became less of an issue as the war came closer to the Japanese mainland.

And in the even later versions (early in 1942) fuel tanks were installed
in the wings, and the full span and folding wingtips were reinstated.