Last Friday, 13, I posted the "Half-and-half China Zeros, The "Third Way"" on our Facebook page and there was a heated debate in the comments. Allow me to recap and evaluate the various hypotheses regarding these Zeros, some put forward by the commentators. A big shout-out to our friend Shawn Lydic whose passion, knowledge and dedication I’m sure we all respect and appreciate even if we don’t always agree on everything.
So, in Friday’s post I mentioned that reasons that have been put forward at various times for the “half-and-half Zeros” include experiments with colors and the application of primer on the front section only. Although entirely plausible, these hypotheses rely on no material evidence to corroborate these claims. They are only attempts to explain a phenomenon (“it could be this or that or something else”). There are no relics, official manufacturer reports, veteran memoirs or other evidence to confirm either of the two explanations. It doesn't mean they are not valid, it's just that they are only conjectures.
The other hypothesis was put forward by Asano-san and was supported by Shawn Lydic in Friday’s comments. The suggestion is that the repeated shielding of the aircraft's most delicate areas, such as the cockpit and the engine, with tarpaulins led to an uneven fading of the color across the other top surfaces. Unlike the previously mentioned explanations, this hypothesis relies on photographic material that may or may not prove its validity. Asano-san clearly explained that the same photos in different publications with less contrast, suggest that the fading was not excessive as has been depicted in artwork and that the lines between the two different “shades” are not “sharp edged and perfect”.
The "tarpaulin proposal" has several advantages but also presents numerous challenges. To begin with, as you can see in the attached photos
various kinds of tarpaulin were used by the IJNAF to protect the aircraft, which means we would expect to see Zeros with a variety of fading patterns. Not to mention that many other IJNAF aircraft types were protected by tarpaulins but do not show any paint differences. Another strong argument is that no Zeros on other fronts show this different pattern. Half-and-half Zeros could be found only in China. Although we can’t exclude completely the fact that such aircraft may have existed, there is simply no photographic evidence to support this claim.
But note the port wingtip of this Zero. Why the difference? Is it a replacement part or something else is going on here?
I would also like to put forward the fact that aircraft carrier based Zeros also used tarps to protect them from the elements
but, again, we have no photos of half-and-half carrier based Zeros. We don’t even have half-and-half later type Zeros or even half-and-half green-top Zeros during the last years of the war when we know the paint quality had degraded and tarps were still in use. In other words, the locality and the limited range of the phenomenon suggest that it is not a naturally occurring and widespread one.
On top of that, photos included in Sakai Saburo's "Ozora no Samurai - The photo story of Japan's greatest living Zero fighter" show clear demarkation and sharp edges.
Shawn mentioned in some of his comments that the pilot and ground crew members when they got in contact with these areas they naturally buffeted the paint and therefore we see this contrast between the buffeted and un-buffeted areas. Although again plausible, this suggestion cannot be supported by the fact that almost the whole inner half of the wing looks to be darker than the rest (see again top photo) and Shawn very strongly explained that the ground crews did not step on these areas. In other words, we would expect only the front edge of the wing to have been buffeted. Also, the area behind the canopy is also suspicious since crews rarely touched it. In any case, if this was a common occurrence, we would expect to see more Zero photos with buffeted areas around the cockpit, which is not the case.
One of my all time favorite Zero photos. One that gives and keeps on giving. Why the rear of "R3-116" look like that? Compare it with "R3-132" in the background.
Another explanation that Shawn mentioned in a comment is that perhaps the rear part of the fuselage was a replacement from a different aircraft. Again, this suggestion cannot be thrown out of the window without further consideration since indeed the demarcation line between the front and rear “fading” falls exactly on the part where the front and rear fuselage could be separated for transportation etc. But, unfortunately, this suggestion cannot account for the color differences on the wing areas since the wing could not be separated on the demarcation line.
Is "3-176" a half-and-half Zero? Comparing it with the top photo, it looks like it could be one. Note the demarcation lines. Why is the fuselage line in different position than the other half-and-half Zeros?
On Friday, I put forward another hypothesis that was relayed to me by a Japanese researcher, that the front of these Zeros was a testbed for some short of anti-slippery application, either something in the paint or a top coat. Regrettably some commentators rushed to fixate on the “top coat” wording and completely or partially dismissed this suggestion. Some suggested that if there was a “top coat” it would have been already found on the surviving relics. First of all, I’m not sure if anyone has ever checked their “surviving relics” to see if the paint had any anti-slippery properties and second, AFAIK unfortunately no relics have survived of these half-and-half Zeros based in China; so I fail to understand what relics they refer to. Furthermore, I can’t even imagine how poor our Japanese aviation history would be if we relied exclusively on relics. But I guess that’s just me.
Contrary to this rather negative approach, Jacek Makarewicz, posted the following more constructive comment, which made this suggestion even more plausible:
“The anti-skid layer is definitely the most logical justification for the Zero's two-tone color scheme. But only in combination with the type of exhaust manifold used. In early versions of the A6M, exhaust gases were directed OVER the wing, and because the engine “spat oil,” the area around the wings near the fuselage and the sides of the fuselage near the cockpit were “more than slippery,” which was dangerous for the pilot and maintenance personnel. Therefore, paint with an “anti-slip additive” was used in these areas. The exhaust was quickly redesigned and the exhaust gases were directed UNDER the wing, thus cleverly solving the problem and completely removing the “anti-slip additive” from use.”
I would also like to add that contrary to what was relayed to me, an official adaptation of such an “anti-slippery” coat or addition to the paint to cover the whole of the aircraft, would make areas not in need of such properties covered with such paint, like the wing under surfaces or the tail of the aircraft. And the whole exercise would end up being a waste of resources.
In conclusion, the "anti-slippery suggestion" is the only one that has the potential to receive some official confirmation and perhaps become a theory (in the scientific sense) IF we ever see an article by Wataki-san explaining in great detail exactly who said what or perhaps some other kind of evidence that would support this claim. (and, yes, in case you didn't get it, this is a call for him or other Japanese researchers to share with us their knowledge) For the moment, for me, it is just another hypothesis like all the previous ones and I leave it to our readers to judge if “someone is pulling someone's chain” (as someone exclaimed in the comments) or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment