2016 Autumn Special The Zero

[Daithi O Buitigh]

Ohh dear - I really have to take the editor to task over the comments right at the beginning og the mag where he stated "...the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy Air Services had the Zero..."

The 'Reisen' (Rei Sentokai - Zero Fighter) was ONLY used by the Navy in their naval air fleets (the fact that some were landbased doesn't alter the fact that all pilots and ground crews were naval personnnel).

The Army flew the Nakajima Ki43 'Hayabusa' (Peregrine Falcon, code-named 'Oscar'. The Hayabusa did have similarities to the Zero and allied piliots did get confused over which was which at times but it wasn't the same aircraft.

Profile Publications do cover both (A6M2 - issue 129 and Ki43 - issue 46).

[kevin b]

I too thought "Oh dear" when I saw that. I wondered for a moment if Boris Johnson had been moonlighting.

Question. Who edits the editor ? He's going to need a big shovel to dig himself out of that one !

Unfortunately there are many people around who think the Japanese only flew Zeros. Mind you, they also think that the British only flew Spitfires and the Germans Messerschmitt's.

Apart from that I really enjoyed the Graham Ashby show.

(That was witticism, not sarcasm)

kevinb    RCME appreciation society.

Oh, and BRING BACK BERTIE. 

Edited By kevin b on 10/10/2016 22:32:19

[zz]

Should get the Autumn special in a week or so.

Errors in aircraft identification has a long history.

US pilots at the Battle of the Coral Sea, reported having engaged Messerschmitt 109 aircraft.

A RAAF Wirraway crew claimed a Zero shot down in Dec 1942, but research confirmed it as an Oscar.

The USAAF in New Guinea were responsible for several shoot downs of Allied aircraft, hence the white tail requirement for single engine aircraft in that theatre, 1943.

The list goes on.

[Martian]

Anyone going to build one

[Daithi O Buitigh]

Kooka - I'm not disputing the fact that mistakes were made in identification (that was common) but that the 'ead 'itter claimed that the Zero was used by the Army (when it wasn't). It's like claiming that the Grumman F4A Wildcat was used by both the US Navy and Army Air Corps or that the Fairey Battle was used by both the RAF and the Fleet Air Arm.

But there's a thought - maybe we can have an Oscar sometime down the line (just as a change)

Edited By Daithi O Buitigh on 11/10/2016 12:48:31

[Trevor Crook]

Well, I've modelled the A6M before and never appreciated the Navy-only status, but you are right, of course. I think we can forgive Graham though - you can't be an expert on all aircraft.

I had the .25 powered Pilot kit many years ago and it flew very well. Will I be building this one? No, it's a bit big for my liking. Whilst I agree that bigger models fly better, I prefer to assemble scale models, with retracts, flaps, ailerons etc on the bench and transport to the field assembled and tested. It's a fag messing around at the patch. A 1.4m warbird fits in my hatchback a treat, but over 60" won't.

I've got one of Tony's early free plan designs, the Typhoon, but only because it was originally printed at 90% in the mag. so it was built to that size. Comes out at 56" and flies beautifully on an inexpensive 4s setup - see pic below.

So at the risk of being flamed, can I request that Tony produces a slightly smaller design next time, about the size of the popular FMS foamies? An Airacobra would be interesting, not a particularly successful full-size but interesting and attractive and not over-done commercially.