Jump to content

1:72 AZ Model Nakajima Kikka


Recommended Posts

Next up is the AZ Model kit of the Nakajima Kikka in 1:72 scale (I never learn). I've had this kit for a while and it's a typical AZ short run kit - in other words, it needs some help in the detail department along with some tender loving care. I'm too old for the latter, but I was lucky enough to find a photoetch detail set from NH Detail (who I've never heard of) on a business trip to Sofia, Bulgaria. And that was a long time ago. But who knows - I may be able to make something respectable out of it.

 

Here is Der Boxentoppen:

 

Der Boxentoppen

 

Boy, the folks at AZ certainly have a wild imagination - of course I won't be making any "what if" version. Nope, I'll be doing the one and only Kikka that managed to fly - prototype number 1. It made a grand total of one flight and one aborted rocket-assisted takeoff. Somewhere along the line I managed to procure the decal sheet (and canopy) from the old MPM Kikka kit. Although this sheet includes tail codes, photos of the prototype do not show any - just the hinomarus.

 

Here the two(!) sprues:

 

IMG_6789

 

IMG_6790

 

Not many parts as you can see. Surface detail is not excessive but it is restrained. However, AZ have a nasty habit of putting those ejection towers right where you don't want them - in this case in the main gear bays. To remove them I also removed all detail in the bay. However, there wasn't much of that to begin with so I can add it back in. And I was quite happy to see that the wings have the small bit of gull wing to them. That would not have been easy to fix if they had left it out.

 

Here is the NH Detail set along with the decal sheets from both AZ and MPM:

 

IMG_6791

 

I will be relying heavily on this reference book:

 

Untitled-5

 

I've actually been reading it, and not just looking at the pictures (a habit I reserve for some other magazines). The first thing I learned is that the Kikka never received an official designation. The "J9N" that you often see was someone's guess at what it should be, and a good guess it was as it follows the scheme used by the Imperial Japanese Navy, but no designation other than Kikka was official before the war ended. Kikka is actually not the correct word either (it should be Kitsuka), but Kikka does a good job of making it easy for us westerners to pronounce it. Essentially, the aircraft's name is "Wild Orange Blossom" and since it may have been intended for Kamikaze missions, I guess it makes sense next to the more well-known "Cherry Blossom." 

 

The Kikka has a passing resemblance to the Me 262 but was a smaller aircraft. The Kikka was powered by two Ishikawajima Ne-20 axial flow turbojets based on the German BMW 003, and first flew on August 7, 1945, the day after the Hiroshima bombing. The flight lasted for 20 minutes and the aircraft performed well. The second flight with RATO was aborted and the aircraft ended up in a drainage ditch. The war ended before it could be repaired or any of the other prototypes under construction could be completed. None of the prototypes brought back to the US were ever flown. An incomplete Kikka is on display at the NASM Udvar-Hazy Museum.

 

Anyway, I've started removing the ejection towers and getting the photoetch bits ready for the cockpit. More photos to follow soon (I hope!).

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, giemme said:

Was this really  a thing? Cor, you never stop learning in this world, do you?

 

Yeah, I'm always amazed when I see some aircraft that I've never heard of before (which happens often). My understanding of the Kikka story is that representatives of the IJN witnessed early test flights of the Me 262 and an agreement was made to license build it. Japan never received the plans; however they were able to "reverse engineer" the BMW 003 engine by studying photos and drawings made by the IJN representatives. Or something like that.

 

The provenance of the surviving airframe at Udvar-Hazy is not known. It may have been an airframe built for load testing - the engine nacelles are considerably undersized. I thought it looked quite strange when I first saw it, especially when compared to photos of the real thing. According to Wikipedia, the NASM has a second Kikka in storage that was patched together from several prototypes brought back from Japan.

 

Anyways, I hope this is a fun project. I need one.

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitsubishi were doing the Japanese "copy" of the Me262.  The Kikka was an independent design as a dedicated attack aircraft not a fighter - though I've not seen how it carried bombs nor what kind.  It was considerably smaller with smaller engines.  As were the BMW003 smaller than the Jumo 004.

Edited by Graham Boak
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

and since it may have been intended for Kamikaze missions, I guess it makes sense next to the more well-known "Cherry Blossom." 

That always seemed to me a bit suspect ;) Considering the amount of effort & expense taken in building both the J8M and this, throwing these away in suicide attacks when you have other, low-cost (relatively speaking) alternatives such as time-expired aircraft and the much cheaper Ohka or Ki-115 doesn't sit well with me. 
 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the faster Kikka would stand a chance of getting through the fighters and flak where Ki.115 or other piston-engined aircraft - especially clapped out biplane trainers - would not.  The problem with the Ohka is that it had to be carried too close to the targets by very vulnerable bombers.  I agree that the Kikka was not intended for suicide mission but it isn't a foolish idea, in context.  The J8M however was definitely a point defence interceptor, and totally unsuitable for anything else.

 

I'd be careful about the common "blossom" part of the name: because we make a connection in the English does not necessarily mean that it carries quite the same connotation in the original.  I remember discovering that the training biplanes were known as "red dragonflies", and jumping to the conclusion that this meant that the orange colouring tended towards red rather than yellow.  Red was part of the name of the local dragonflies simply to distinguish the species from other dragonflies - it was the general appearance rather than the colour that was being referred to.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, time for some fun with photoetch. And you thought PE stood for physical education.    :drunk:

 

First, a quick fold-up of the seat and a comparison to what comes with the kit.

 

IMG_6792

 

After I took the photo I realised that I forgot a piece that goes on the seat. You can see it in the photo below. The NH Detail set has all sorts of little greeblies and levers. Whether I have them all in the right place is up for debate, but it seems pretty close to the photos in the book. NH also provide a new floor for the cockpit, rudder pedals, more levers, and additional supports for the seat.

 

IMG_6804

 

I will be painting the cockpit in the same IJN green as used on the exterior because that is what the author states in the book. And it certainly looks that way from the photos; it's a very dark green. Please don't turn this thread into a discussion about the colours used for anything Japanese in WWII - that can be discussed in separate threads in the appropriate forum. Let's just watch me mangle the model.    :)

 

Luckily there is a lot of room up front for weight. She will need it!

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 21
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

So, time for some fun with photoetch

 

I’m minded to think that you mean that literally and not ironically, Bill.  Difficult tho’ I find that to believe… probably cos of my own etch aversion ;)

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fritag said:

I’m minded to think that you mean that literally and not ironically, Bill.  Difficult tho’ I find that to believe… probably cos of my own etch aversion ;)

 

I don't mind playing with photoetch. It's like modeller's origami. Although I tried to make the seat fold into a swan, it still looks like a seat.     :drunk:

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Haha 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is so interesting that I pressed the follow button before I read the initial post! You may proceed at my convenience!

 

Anticipatory of Mars 👽

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Volant said:

I have a soft spot for (slightly) obscure Japanese aircraft.

 

Obscure is good. It's what attracted wifey to me.     :think:

 

4 hours ago, Martian said:

This one is so interesting that I pressed the follow button before I read the initial post! You may proceed at my convenience!

 

Ah good! Welcome aboard - this means we can expect all sorts of off-topic chatter far more interesting than the model.      :)

 

2 hours ago, roginoz said:

I don't think we need to go anywhere near the Martian convenience.............

 

Well, he's the only Martian I know, and it's kind of hard to avoid him. Especially with all those tentacles.    😬

 

Speaking of tentacles, my youngest daughter not only has a 12 foot tall skeleton in her front yard dressed up like St. Patrick, she also has an actual preserved and varnished octopus on the wall in her living room, right next to a Death's Head moth, a leech, several spiders, a vampire bat (posed with mouth open so you can see its teeth), and a bookcase shaped like a coffin. I got her some weird looking bug encased in amber for her birthday in case she wants to suck out some dino DNA. But we're a normal family - really, we are. Of course, she named her son Dexter after that TV show...

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

Well, he's the only Martian I know, and it's kind of hard to avoid him.

Me? I am a shrinking violet me as almost nobody will attest to.

 

Unobtrusive of Mars 👽

  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hook said:

You can put a Su-9 next to it as well.  :)

 

A Fishpot? Oh, you mean the other Su-9. Finding that old MPM kit is a bit difficult these days. But if I do find one, I'll buy it.    :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovely work so far!

Will you use a metal primer on PE or regular primer (or no primer at all)? We can all agree that seeing one's paint job flake away from PE is a royal PITA.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, cpoud117 said:

Will you use a metal primer on PE or regular primer (or no primer at all)?

 

I haven't had that issue unless I'm bending the PE after I've painted it. Since I bend it first, I've never used any metal primer.

 

12 hours ago, Hamden said:

Another interesting Navy Bird project, a type I never heard of so will follow along as well

 

Yeah, it is perhaps an obscure type, probably because the prototype only made one flight and there was no reason to continue development after the war. I've read that the Monogram volume on the Kikka contains virtually every known period photo of the Kikka. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I can say that it has a lot of photos that you don't see elsewhere. I just wish they were better quality.

 

11 hours ago, giemme said:

PE additions to the cockpit make a great deal of difference!

 

Agreed. If I don't cut open the canopy, which is supplied as a one-piece unit, none of it will be seen!     :doh:

 

*****

 

So, quick question. I've read on-line that Japanese fighters only had lap belts - not a full harness as with other nations' aircraft. If this is true, did it continue throughout the entire conflict? The cockpit photos in my reference book do not even show a seat! The PE set from NH Detail includes only lap belts - but the injected seat in the kit has both lap and shoulder belts. I'm confused...as usual.     😕

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an interesting looking build. I find my Putnam book of Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War so useful for telling me stuff about otherwise obscure Japanese aircraft. Glad to see Martian waving his tentacles (well I hope they are tentacles!) around. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Robin-42 said:

For what it’s worth, the FineMolds 1/48 instructions show shoulder harnesses.

 

Thanks. I just remembered that I have the Eduard PE set of IJN seat belts, so I pulled that out of my stash. It includes belts for Mitsubishi, Nakajima, and Kawanishi. The latter has a single shoulder belt (like my car I guess), Mitsubishi is shown with a single shoulder denoted as "end of the war", and Nakajima is shown without any shoulder belt at all. Aye, aye, aye.

 

I had a look at the Fine Molds instruction sheet, and the seat belts are from a generic detail set sold separately. The instructions for those belts are separate from the kit instructions. So I guess I have my choice of what to do! I think I'll go with only the lap belts just so I can get into a heated debate with some judge at the next contest.    :)

 

I wonder if the nose ballast (nut and bolt) is included with the Fine Molds kit? I like it.

 

6 hours ago, Mr T said:

That is an interesting looking build. I find my Putnam book of Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War so useful for telling me stuff about otherwise obscure Japanese aircraft. Glad to see Martian waving his tentacles (well I hope they are tentacles!) around. 

 

I'll have a look for that book as I do not have it. With regard to the Martian fellow, I'm pretty sure they're tentacles but there are a whole lot of them. It's how he builds so many models at the same time.   :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8It was orginly published in 1970, a new edition in 1979 and my copy is a reprint from 1987, which I bought around that time. 

The full title is 'Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War' authored by Rene J Francillon and publish by Putnam. Conway Martime Press took over the Putnam imprint and I do not know if it was reprinted after 87. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...