Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero (oz6925)

 

Do you have a photo you'd like to submit for this page? Then email admin@outerzone.co.uk

User comments

WS of A6M2-21 & M2 N also M3-22 is 12m (39.37ft) So in 1/16 or .75 in / ft. scale model WS is 29.53 in. not 27.0 as shown. But note that WS/Len rato of plan is wrong. Wing is out of scale.
anon - 11/12/2015
Hi Steve, This observation with respect to wingspan and scale has had me thinking. I too come to the same conclusions and yet the span is listed as 27" in the FSI plan catalogue. The plan references: 1: Zero Fighter - Robert C. Mikesh 2: A6M Zero in Action, Aircraft No 59 Squadron 3: Zero Fighter - Martin Caidin 4: Japanese A/C of the Pacific War - Rene J Francillon It is possible that Bill Galloway made a mistake. I'd be interested if anyone could shed some light on this.
anon - 16/12/2015
See also the Outerzone plan for Mitsubishi A6M2 by Bob Peck, which has the same problem. The fuselage depicts the A6M2, but the shorter wingspan is perhaps correct for an A6M5; a later version designed to improve speed and rate of roll.
GuyC - 12/07/2017
As a scale modeler, I don't like to get involved in measurement and shape arguments, but here goes. I knew Bill Galloway. He was a member of the now defunct Louisiana Scale Squadron. He was meticulous in his scale work and as I have a large reference library, he would ask at meetings if anyone had info on a particular aircraft, and use my as well as other sources. I remember he was concerned over a lack of accurate data on the Nate, as an example. Therefore, if there is a conflict of span vs fuse vs flying quality, there was a reason. As an aside, once at a club meeting, people were discussing their military service, and it came out when he arrived in France after Normandy, He was armed with an M-1 rifle which weighs 9 1/2 pounds. He was 5 foot 5 inches tall and weighed 135 pounds, so as soon as he could, He dropped the rifle and picked up an M-1 carbine.
EdShearer - 13/07/2017
What a fascinating comment from EdShearer about the life of this designer! One possible explanation for the difference in scale wingspan might lie in the fact that the full size A6M2 has highly tapered wings. The higher wing loading present at the tips of such designs make them prone to tip-stalling, which would be unsatisfactory in a rubber powered model. Perhaps the designer chose the slightly shorter span of the A6M5 with its broader chord for this reason (see also the A6M2 by Bob Peck has the same A6M5 wing layout). Either way, I'm sticking to the plan as drawn.
Gcolman - 22/06/2019
Add a comment