Mark's Workbench: turning Japanese, I really think so! Tamiya Mitsubishi A6M2b Zero

[2996 Victor]

Hi there,

 

well, here I am starting a third workbench thread! However, being something of a dilettante and changing my priorities at least as often as my socks, I thought it might be an idea to revise my idea so that each is devoted to a particular type.

 

So this will be my first Japanese thread, and where better to start than with Mitsubishi's legendary A6M Type 0?

 

This is Tamiya's 1/72 scale kit of the A6M2b Model 21 from their Warbird Collection, which depicts the type that saw action over Pearl Harbour and which built for itself a mystique bordering on invincibility among the Allied Air Forces. It will also have the honour to be the first Tamiya kit that I've built 🤯 I know, I can't believe it either! Obligatory box and sprue shots:

http://

http://

 

Some small progress so far today, which is limited to the start of the assembly of the cockpit area. I've drilled through the lightening holes in the back of the pilot's seat (which are presumably there to allow the lightning to pass through?), carefully scraped and sanded the seat back, and then softened the edges of the holes with a wash of MEK. I've also used MEK to assemble the four parts so far put together.

http://

http://

 

I know Tamiya has a reputation for shake-the-box kits, but having never before built one (Yes, really! 🤯) I have to say how impressed I am with the quality of fit, the degree of detail provided, and the thought that has gone into the breakdown of the kit's parts and the instructions! I'm glad I've got a few more in the stash, and I'll be ordering some more as well!

 

So there we are! Its going to be almost OOB, but I'll probably substitute a set of Yahu etched belts in place of the kit decals, and I may also use a Yahu IP, depending on the colour.....Because, of course, the colour of Zeros both inside and out is the subject of much debate! I haven't yet decided whether this model will be finished as a Mitsubishi- or a Nakajima-built aircraft: a Mitsubishi-built example would be easier when it comes to painting, but I have a hankering to try my hand at the elusive aotake finish for the wheel-wells etc! I need to decide which way I'm going with that aspect of the build, as interior colours were also different according to manufacturer, and then I need to get some paint!

 

Cheers for now!

 

Mark

 

For information on the thorny subject of Zero colours, one can do no better than consult @Nick Millman and visit his Aviation of Japan blog. And for anyone interested in the colouring of early Zeros, Nick's guide to Painting the Early Zero-Sen is an absolute must!

[opus999]

On 10/4/2020 at 8:27 AM, 2996 Victor said:

I know Tamiya has a reputation for shake-the-box kits

My first Tamiya was just a couple of months ago: a 1/72 Bf-109E-3.  It was probably one of the most effortless builds I've ever done and the detail was very impressive.  It made the Hasegawa Bf-109E-3 I did a little later seem shoddy by comparison! (although it was a pretty good kit too).

 

That cockpit looks nicely detailed too!  No Hobby Boss here! 🤣  It will be fun to see this one develop!

[2996 Victor]

6 hours ago, opus999 said:

My first Tamiya was just a couple of months ago: a 1/72 Bf-109E-3.  It was probably one of the most effortless builds I've ever done and the detail was very impressive.  It made the Hasegawa Bf-109E-3 I did a little later seem shoddy by comparison! (although it was a pretty good kit too).

 

That cockpit looks nicely detailed too!  No Hobby Boss here! 🤣  It will be fun to see this one develop!

Hi @opus999,

Thanks for your kind words! I've managed to move things along a bit since my first post, but haven't been able to get any photos as yet.

So the cockpit tub is a bit more complete, and the forward bulkhead/IP/gun butts are assembled.

I've also painted the tub assembly, bulkhead and the insides of the fuselage halves, which I'm rather pleased with.

Hopefully, I'll be able to get some photos soon!

I'm amazed by how well it fits together and how well it's detailed - it's a revelation. In fact, the the only aftermarket parts I'm going to use are some Yahu etched belts.

Cheers,

Mark

[stevehnz]

On 10/5/2020 at 4:27 AM, 2996 Victor said:

I've drilled through the lightening holes in the back of the pilot's seat (which are presumably there to allow the lightning to pass through?)

   I like it. I like what you're doing with this too.

Steve.

[2996 Victor]

13 minutes ago, stevehnz said:

   I like it. I like what you're doing with this too.

Steve.

Thanks, Steve, that's very kind of you!

It's looks like being a decent morning, so I might bring the bits into the conservatory where the light's better, and get some snaps!

Cheers,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

As promised, here are a few photographs showing where I got to with the Tamiya A6M2b last weekend.

 

Cockpit tub:

http://

 

Forward bulkhead with IP and cowling gun butts:

http://

 

Cockpit sidewalls:

http://

http://

 

And the fuselage halves:

http://

 

As I mentioned in post #1, Zero colours are a bit of a minefield, and at the end of the day its up to the modeller to choose what he or she thinks is the "best fit". I've made extensive use of Nick Millman's Aviation of Japan site, and particulary his paper entitled Painting the Early Zero-Sen, to help me decide on the colours I would use. But even then, it's taken a convoluted route to arrive at my choices!

 

For the cockpit colours, I've settled on Mr Color #58 for Mitsubishi-built aircraft, and I'll use Mr Color #320 in due course for Nakajima-built aircraft. Things like radios etc were supplied ready-finished by the sub-contractors and were often a slightly different shade of green, for which I'll use Mr Color #303.

 

How did I arrive at these choices? Well, Nick's paper on PTEZS has of course colour renderings of these (and many other Zero paints), but the colours the human eye sees vary from person to person. Add to that, the screen on which one views the colours will affect and distort their rendering and if you print a copy then that will be subject to the vagaries of the printer concerned! The best option I could come up with was to take a trip to my LMS in Chesterfield and gather up some likely-looking paints. These were then painted onto a primed piece of plastikard in reasonably sized swatches, and once dry were given a coat of matt clear. I then photographed the swatches, and once the photograph was downloaded I could compare the digital images of my swatches with those in PETZS, and hence make my choice. Now I realise that this is still subject to the vagaries of lighting when I took my photograph, but not having an FS or Munsell colour-deck, I could think of no other way to reasonably compare the paint samples I had to the digital rendering in Nick's paper. FWIW, here is my test piece:

http://

 

The cockpit green was sprayed over Stynylrez grey primer and then masked when dry, while the Aotake coating was created like this: the Stynylrez grey was overcoated with Vallejo gloss black surface primer, and then coloured with Vallejo White Aluminium 77.706. When this was dry, I mixed my Aotake colour from 40% Mr Color #93 Clear Blue, 10% Tamiya X-5 Green, and 50% Mr Color Leveling Thinner, and airbrushed this over the Vallejo White Aluminium in light coats, building up the density until I was happy with how it looked. Thankfully, given the mish-mash of different makes of paint (although all acrylic), I've had no problems  The shade of my Aotake is a bit more visible depending on the prevailing light, but its definitely "thin blue over aluminium" as it should be, rather than "metallic blue", so I'm quite pleased with the result!

 

Next jobs are to detail paint the cockpit tub, apply the IP decal and Yahu seat belts, and then give it a dirty wash.

 

Cheers for now!

 

Mark

[2996 Victor]

As a somewhat bizarre aside, while looking at the Aviation of Japan site I came across this post on Gloster's Zero from earlier this year. With my interest well and truly piqued, I read on and discovered the fascinating story of Lord Sempill. Needless to say, I had to order one of these (and to heck with eating this week!). I've never built a resin kit before so it should be interesting......

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[alt-92]

Ah yes... the copy story. 
as a counterpoint to that:

 

Incidentally, the other video is also worth viewing.

 

 

[2996 Victor]

1 hour ago, alt-92 said:

Ah yes... the copy story. 
as a counterpoint to that:

 

Incidentally, the other video is also worth viewing.

 

 

 

Hi @alt-92,

 

many thanks for those links - I've had a brief look at them and they look incredibly interesting. Unfortunately, I'm "working" at the moment, so a proper viewing will have to wait!

 

Personally, I don't set much, if any, store by the copy theory. That the Mitsubishi design was a far more accomplished aircraft can be in no doubt - if the Gloster F.5/34 had been that good, it would presumably have been ordered into production. I just find the external similarities between the Mitsubishi A6M and the Gloster F.5/34, and the role played by Lord Sempill, to be very interesting.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[Graham Boak]

The actual similarities aren't that close, just like most low wing radial-engined monoplanes.  Look at PZL P.50, or Curtiss P-36, or a long list of others.  It just makes a change from seeing it described as a copy of a US type, or was it another US type, or yet another...  Did you know the Spitfire was a copy of the He.70?

[2996 Victor]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The actual similarities aren't that close, just like most low wing radial-engined monoplanes.  Look at PZL P.50, or Curtiss P-36, or a long list of others.  It just makes a change from seeing it described as a copy of a US type, or was it another US type, or yet another...  Did you know the Spitfire was a copy of the He.70?

I think its their proportions that make them look quite similar, particularly in respect of the cockpit canopy which of course was quite unusual for it's time, although I'd also say there's more than a smidgeon of Blackburn Skua in the Gloster F.5/34.....  

 

I was watching the Spitfire documentary that was shown recently on BBC4, which had an interesting snippet about how R J Mitchell may have arrived at the design of the Spitfire's elliptical wing.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[Graham Boak]

I haven't seen that episode yet.  To get the outer guns inside the wing envelope, after the instructions to go to eight rather than four.  But Beverley Shenstone had spent some time in Germany, so some influence can't be ruled out.  But no more than that.

 

I was told many years ago that the RAE were so impressed with the elliptical wing that they ordered Hawker to design one for the Tempest.  Camm wasn't impressed.  As my university lecturer put it, the important thing is to get elliptical loading, but this is obtainable from simpler designs with a parallel centre-section and tapered outer wings.  Just like, hmm, Hurricane and Typhoon.   (Which were too thick, but that's another story.) 

[alt-92]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

To get the outer guns inside the wing envelope, after the instructions to go to eight rather than four.  But Beverley Shenstone had spent some time in Germany, so some influence can't be ruled out.  But no more than that.

He had contact with Prandtl, and there were plenty of exchanges of information with NACA (there are several documents describing Prandtl's work). 
So the wing design principles could be said to be shared with the He.70 - calling the Spit a copy of might be a bit of a stretch  

 

Same goes for some Japanese designs.

Several designers were trained by Junkers in the 20s, so it's not surprising to see certain design principles (G3M) featured - it's what those draughtsmen were used to work with...

[2996 Victor]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I haven't seen that episode yet.  To get the outer guns inside the wing envelope, after the instructions to go to eight rather than four.  But Beverley Shenstone had spent some time in Germany, so some influence can't be ruled out.  But no more than that.

 

I was told many years ago that the RAE were so impressed with the elliptical wing that they ordered Hawker to design one for the Tempest.  Camm wasn't impressed.  As my university lecturer put it, the important thing is to get elliptical loading, but this is obtainable from simpler designs with a parallel centre-section and tapered outer wings.  Just like, hmm, Hurricane and Typhoon.   (Which were too thick, but that's another story.) 

Hi Graham,

 

Its an interesting programme, and Beverley Shenstone's involvement with the design of the Spitfire is mentioned, along with his time in Germany. Also mentioned was, I think, Ludwig Prandtl who in the years immediately following the First World War published designs for elliptical plan wings based on developments in German aviation design during the War.

 

Interesting, though, about the importance of elliptical loading not being affected by a non-elliptical plan form. I'd say Sydney Camm got the best of both worlds with the Tempest wing. I do think Camm has to an extent been forgotten outside of aviation circles, as his designs haven't been accorded the mythical status of the Spitfire. Don't get me wrong, the Spitfire is a beautiful bird, and it was instrumental in staving off invasion in 1940 and in subsequently taking the fight to the enemy. But it wasn't the be-all-and-end-all that mythology would have us believe. For me, the rugged beauty of the Hurricane and the brutal stance on the Tiffie and Tempest are every bit as inspiring.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[2996 Victor]

7 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

He had contact with Prandtl, and there were plenty of exchanges of information with NACA (there are several documents describing Prandtl's work). 
So the wing design principles could be said to be shared with the He.70 - calling the Spit a copy of might be a bit of a stretch  

 

Same goes for some Japanese designs.

Several designers were trained by Junkers in the 20s, so it's not surprising to see certain design principles (G3M) featured - it's what those draughtsmen were used to work with...

 

I can't remember where I read or heard it, but someone recently said that individual design teams arriving at designs having a similar appearance is all the more likely when those teams have equivalent access to current thinking or principles: if different people put similar numbers into the same equations, they get similar answers. So those Junkers-trained designers, for instance, would be bound to employ the latest thinking at Junkers.

 

The "Mitsubishi Zero being a copy of the Gloster F.5/34" theory is, I think, debunked by this and the two designs are, I feel, parallel productions by design teams producing aircraft to similar specifications using the then current thinking in design principles.

 

Or I could be talking utter rubbish, which is actually quite a common occurrence.....

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[2996 Victor]

Having waited all week for some time at my work table to crack on with the interior details of the Zero, I've been unable make any real progress thanks to my eyes having a bad day

 

Not sure why, but even with the lights on and the magnifier, I couldn't really see properly what I was trying to paint.

 

I think perhaps I need some new glasses, but perhaps a better magnifier might be the answer. Any suggestions for good ones would be welcomed!

 

Hopefully tomorrow will be better, and I'll be able to at least get something done that's worthwhile.

 

Cheers for now!

 

Mark

[Graham Boak]

There was a fairly long thread on different options a few months back, so it is probably worth your while trying to find it.  As expected, different people prefer different approaches, from the fairly heavy headband with detachable lens pairs and light to simpler spectacle frames with similar exchangeable lens pairs. However as a first and much cheaper step Boots (and the internet) sell conventional spectacle frames with a range of magnifications.  The  other advantage of these is the larger lens rather than "looking though a window".

 

I don't know your prescription, but as a guide I use +1 for normal vision, +3 for reading and most modelling with +4 for close work.   I have a decent large headband but prefer the cheaper spectacle-type mount for close work.  I might flash out another tenner for a pair of +4 from Boots, but find this strength too restrictive away from close work and don't object to the small window effect when I'm only looking at tiny things anyway.

[2996 Victor]

4 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

There was a fairly long thread on different options a few months back, so it is probably worth your while trying to find it.  As expected, different people prefer different approaches, from the fairly heavy headband with detachable lens pairs and light to simpler spectacle frames with similar exchangeable lens pairs. However as a first and much cheaper step Boots (and the internet) sell conventional spectacle frames with a range of magnifications.  The  other advantage of these is the larger lens rather than "looking though a window".

 

I don't know your prescription, but as a guide I use +1 for normal vision, +3 for reading and most modelling with +4 for close work.   I have a decent large headband but prefer the cheaper spectacle-type mount for close work.  I might flash out another tenner for a pair of +4 from Boots, but find this strength too restrictive away from close work and don't object to the small window effect when I'm only looking at tiny things anyway.

Hi Graham,

 

Many thanks for your post, that's extremely helpful and I'll see (!) if I can find the thread in question.

 

I can't remember my prescription offhand, and I think its probably time I had another test, but the Boots "ready-made" range sounds like a good option and not expensive to at least try out.

 

I'm not sure about the headband type, although I do wonder if I need more light. My work table faces outward into a bay window, and in good weather it's ideal. But in the evening and on bad weather days, I'm sat with the overhead light behind me, so I cast a shadow, while my anglepoise lamp isn't really bright enough or close enough.

 

Food for thought!

 

Many thanks once again and kind regards,

 

Mark

[Graham Boak]

I would strongly recommend more light.  You can get very strong LED lights from Hobbycraft - my wife has a tall one for her crochet work in the lounge - I have a flexible light on a ledge above my worktop and another shorter one with two moveable arms clamped to the edge.  Obviously your choice will depend upon just where you can place them.  Before this I had the single overhead light in the room changed to two, one on each side, so that there was no shadow being cast directly onto the work.   I had an anglepoise with a lit lens for close work, but found it cumbersome and in the way.

 

But if you are having any trouble with your eyes, by all means go have them re-tested.  As soon as you can.

[2996 Victor]

30 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I would strongly recommend more light.  You can get very strong LED lights from Hobbycraft - my wife has a tall one for her crochet work in the lounge - I have a flexible light on a ledge above my worktop and another shorter one with two moveable arms clamped to the edge.  Obviously your choice will depend upon just where you can place them.  Before this I had the single overhead light in the room changed to two, one on each side, so that there was no shadow being cast directly onto the work.   I had an anglepoise with a lit lens for close work, but found it cumbersome and in the way.

 

But if you are having any trouble with your eyes, by all means go have them re-tested.  As soon as you can.

Thanks, Graham!

 

Sound advice. I don't generally have a problem with my eyes per se, but they've been feeling tired recently - I do a lot of screen work in my day job and my sight is progressively lengthening.

 

Extra light sounds like a good plan! I've got a Hobbycraft fairly nearby, so a little trip out may be necessary!

 

Kind regards,

 

Mark

[AdrianMF]

The Planet Models kit will be much better than the Magna. The Magna one In my stash is like “short run resin”. While you are on a Gloster kick, you should take a look at the F.9/37. I cannot be held responsible for any purchases that may arise as a consequence!

 

Regards,

Adrian

[2996 Victor]

10 hours ago, AdrianMF said:

The Planet Models kit will be much better than the Magna. The Magna one In my stash is like “short run resin”. While you are on a Gloster kick, you should take a look at the F.9/37. I cannot be held responsible for any purchases that may arise as a consequence!

 

Regards,

Adrian

Hi Adrian,

 

many thanks! Yes, I did see a few others that looked quite interesting in the Planet range, including the F.9/37, but the need to be sensible, at least in part, restrained me! I do have a hankering for their Martin-Baker MB.2, though....must resist, must resist.....

 

Kind regards,

 

Mark

[2996 Victor]

Hello everyone!

 

After last weekend's being a complete waste thanks to the onset of a migraine, this weekend I actually managed to complete the details for cockpit on the Tamiya Zero

 

This involved fitting a small console I'd omitted to the upper starboard side and doing the detail painting I couldn't do last weekend as I couldn't focus on it. Those details are incredibly crisp but incredibly tiny!

 

I also got the instrument face decals onto the IP, and they seem to have settled down really well. Which is nice! I had given the IP assembly a dusting of clear gloss first, and used plenty of MicroSol, too.

 

My last task for today was a dirty wash of Humbrol weathering powders mixed with water (plus a speck of washing up liquid to reduce surface tension), brushed over the side walls, IP assembly and cockpit tub. I'll give these a brush with a stiff-ish paintbrush to hopefully remove any tide marks from the wash before I seal them with a coat of clear matt.

 

I also added a set of Yahu etched belts to the seat. Although I gave these a light coat of paint, I think my efforts to pick out the buckles were probably a bit naff, as my eyes were getting tired and the natural daylight was failing by then. I've a feeling I may need to revisit them before assembling the cockpit to the fuselage.

 

I'll try to get a photo or two after the clear matt stage. Hopefully it'll look alright under the microscope of a photograph, it looks fine to the naked eye.....I think!

 

Cheers for now,

 

Mark

 

PS the Planet Models Gloster F.5/34bkit arrived but I haven't managed to open it yet!

 

[2996 Victor]

This morning I took ten minutes out to give the cockpit components a dusting of clear matt, and later to take a couple of photos. I'm actually quite pleased, as they stand up to photographic magnification moderately well

 

Here are the cockpit tub assembly and forward bulkhead/IP assembly:

http://

http://

 

And here are the fuselage halves:

http://

http://

 

I think I managed the detail painting pretty well in the end although the harness definitely needs going over again, as I thought it might. Also, the wash is actually much more subtle in reality than it looks in the photographs. Hopefully I'll be able to re-do the harness and assemble the cockpit and fuselage soon, and actually make a bit of real progress!

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[2996 Victor]

Small progress at the weekend, with the seatbelt harness re-touched as I mentioned above - I definitely think it looks a bit better now, and in future I'd paint the buckles first and then do the webbing! This minor triumph was closely followed by the fitting of the cockpit tub and the closing-up of the fuselage  It also occurred to me that the lower fuselage could (theoretically) be seen through the open frame behind the pilot's seat, and that I hadn't aotake'd it at the same time as the rear fuselage halves, so that was remedied as well.

 

A few obligatory photographs:

http://

http://

http://

http://

 

Without wishing to appear too smug, I'm really rather pleased with this as it stands! The only minor fly in the ointment is a small amount of Plastic Goo Ooze at the very top of the rudder hinge, but it should be easily sorted out when the time comes. I think I'm going to leave the fuselage seams alone until I've primed the whole model and then see just how much tidying they need - certainly very little, and I don't want to cause a problem at this stage by over-scraping and sanding the joints.

 

[I should perhaps mention that Zero progress (that's progress on the Zero) has been hindered slightly by the arrival of a Tamiya 1/72 Kawanishi N1K1 Shiden, picked up on eBay for a song as it was part-built (i.e. barely started), which I've been building alongside the Zero. I'll probably refrain from posting the Shiden build photos I've taken so far until the Zero is finished, so as to not add even more confusion to my already muddled thread(s)!]

 

Cheers for now,

 

Mark