-
Mitsubishi
A5M
"Claude"
-
- Topics:
- A5M interior color? What do
YOU use?
- Claude
Interior Colors
- A5M4 Color opinion needed
- Red-tailed Mystery!
- A5M4 Kotobuki
41engine details
- A5M4 CLAUDE
- Claude's
- The Color of
Claude (New)
- Claude vs F4 at Taroa (New)
-
-
- Posted By: Rob Graham
mailto:reishikisenguy@aol.com?subject=A5M interior color?
What do YOU use?
- Date: Sunday, 9 July 2000, at 9:32 a.m.
-
- Hey, all:
- I KNOW this has been asked before, recall
it was not known, but am curious if it was ever discussed
enough to decide if it was silver, aotake, Mitsubishi
interior green, or what?? What would YOU use?
- --Rob
-
- Re: A5M interior color? What do
YOU use?
-
- Posted By: Dave Pluth
mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=Re: A5M interior
color? What do YOU use?
- Date: Monday, 10 July 2000, at 7:25 a.m.
-
- In Response To: A5M interior color? What
do YOU use? (Rob Graham)
-
- Rob,
- Mitsubishi interior green.
- -Dave
-
- Re: A5M interior color? What do
YOU use?
-
- Posted By: Rob Graham
<mailto:reishikisenguy@aol.com?subject=Re: A5M
interior color? What do YOU use?>
- Date: Monday, 10 July 2000, at 6:30 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A5M interior color?
What do YOU use? (Dave Pluth)
-
- Dave:
- Thanks! Is this the Aero Master color?
- --Rob
-
- Re: A5M interior color? What do
YOU use?
-
- Posted By: Dave Pluth
<mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=Re: A5M interior
color? What do YOU use?>
- Date: Monday, 10 July 2000, at 9:18 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A5M interior color?
What do YOU use? (Rob Graham)
-
- Hi Rob,
- Yup. Get it while you can! Otherwise, US
interior green with some black added will do.
- -Dave
-
-
- Posted By: Mark Gran
<mailto:Dogfight65@aol.com?subject=Claude Interior Colors>
Date: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 2:38 p.m.
-
- Question for ya'll out there.
Does anyone have any good info on the interior colors of the A5M2a Claude. I
was just able to pick up a Fine Molds 48th scale kit of this bird and want
to do her some justice. Also what would be the inside cover of the engine
cowel.
- Looking forward to hearing back from
someone (hopefully).
Thanks,
Mark
-
- Re: Claude Interior Colors
-
- Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
Claude Interior Colors>
Date: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 6:07 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Claude Interior
Colors (Mark Gran)
-
- Mark
- This might stir up a hornets nest
but I will go out on a limb and suggest that the interior should be
Mitsubishi Interior Green. For some good info about this, go to the item
entitled "Still Struggling with Interior Colors" in the General
section of the FAQs on this site.
- As for the interior of the cowl, it
probably was aotake when shipped from the factory but I have always
approached my cowl interiors as being grimy black since radial engines tend
to be very messy in operation.
- FWIW
- Grant
-
- Re: Claude Interior Colors
-
- Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re:
Claude Interior Colors>
Date: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 12:28 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Claude Interior
Colors (Grant Goodale)
-
- Hi Grant and Mark,
- Grant, I fully agree with you as far
as the cockpit color is concerned...
- Before things really turn wrong for
the Japanese at the end of the conflict, each manufacturer used
systematically its own interior color in the "living quarters" of
planes. It seems to have been a practice that began when the fabric cover
disappeared from the cockpit area (I have read that before the general
practice was a "clear varnish" on fabric interior giving a strange
color through the transparence of the fabric depending on the external
finish)...
- But I totally disagree with you when
it goes to engine cowling interiors. As soon as the use of the so-called
antiglare colors (blue black for Mitsubishi, gray black for other
manufacturers) came into effect, at least for radial engined planes, it
seems that this color was carried into the interior of the cowling, so
Aotake which was certainly used as an undercoat was no more visible, even in
new planes.
- More precisely, on an A5M2 (all
variants) which was liable to be in "peacetime" livery or field
camouflaged in Kumogata (excepts it seems the latest variant - A5M2 Model
2-2 late)it is almost certain that the blue black was ever present inside
the cowling, even when Kumogata was carried over the exterior.
- Anyway the practice of carrying the
external antiglare color inside the cowling has been demonstrated on
existing Zeros both Mitsubishi and Nakajima built ...
- Hope it helps.
- François
-
-
- Posted By: Jan Hajicek <HajJan@Post.cz>
- Date: Saturday, 4 September 1999, at 8:43 a.m.
-
- Hi to all,
- I'm currently working on Fujimi's Claude A5M4 with tail code W-102.
- The problem is when I started to research the color of the plane I
realized:
-
- 1) Fujimi´s instruction state that the color is to be gold mixed with
radome tan.
- 2) In Henry Sakaida´s IJNAF Aces color plate is this plane, I think it
was Matsuo Hagiri´s, showed and it is, in my opinion IJNAF light grey. also
there's a photo of W-103 with group of pilots in front of it and the color
seems to be light grey or NMF.
- 3) I've been looking at photos of carrier based A5M4 in FAOW#(27?) on
Claude over and over again and all I found is that the color of them seems
to be light grey or more possible NMF (planes seems to be glossy).
-
- I think that light grey color in B&W photo could look the same, NMF
could look glossy light grey and if the Gold&Tan color could possibly
look like darker grey.
- Also most of painted Japanese aircrafts had chipped paint or were totally
weathered but photos of claude didn't look like this and that's why I think
that they were in NMF or maybe Light grey.
-
- But I can be wrong, so if anybody has any suggestion I'll be really glad
to read it.
-
- Jan
-
- Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed
-
- Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
- Date: Saturday, 4 September 1999, at 2:08 p.m.
-
- In Response To: A5M4 Color opinion needed
(Jan Hajicek)
-
- Hi Jan,
- Here we go again !!!
-
- Some month ago, we have developed here the subject.
-
- David AIKEN sent me (and to some others) a copy of a color slide of an
A5M4 Model 4. This slide was greatly altered in color. I have tried to
"clean" it as far as I can using a general correction process
through Photoshop (I mean I didn't try to get a particular zone balanced).
The result clearly let see a tan color on the fuselage despite the fact the
propeller hub was clearly NMF...
-
- All well exposed black and white photos, including one depicting both
Zeros and Claudes Model 4 on the same base, under the same lighting
conditions, clearly
- demonstrate the Gray green applied on Zeros was a different shade.
-
- B&W photos of Claudes clearly make you see that at least three
different finishes were used on these birds of which only one was specially
and constantly applied
- to Model 4's:
-
- One NMF finish concerning all planes from the first operational types but
camouflaged ones which is definitely a NMF finish because the different
shades of metal
- following the panels are clearly discernible. This applies to A5M1 Model
1, A5M2 Model 2-1 early and late, A5M2 Model 2-2 both early and late (these
ones
- being exactly similar in external shape to the Model 4's).
-
- A camouflage finish of Kumogata (cloud like) aspect of dk. green and brown
on the upper surface, the under surface remaining NMF (applies to Model 1
and
- Model 2-1 both early and late).
-
- One finish applying only to Model 4: This one looks like a metallic finish
of high gloss aspect when new (the panels are all of the same shade). From
the B&W
- documents, it is impossible to tell whether it was a silver paint
application or any other metallic color.
-
- However, following the close examination of David Aiken slide and some
witnesses of unfortunately undetermined origin, speaking of
"golden" Claudes from the
- "Genda Circus"; I'm inclined to think that a high gloss amber
coat relatively translucent (like the Aotake varnish but not pigmented) was
applied to Model 4's as a
- corrosion control coat. This giving the plane a metallic tan appearance
specific to Model 4's.
-
- I have recently discovered that a B 26 airframe, used in France as a
technical training airframe by the mechanics of Air France before being
stocked and now
- restored for the French Musée de l'air was protected from corrosion by
such a golden tan mix !!! ...
-
- Remember also that prior the modern resin varnishes, the so-called clear
coats were in fact neatly amber in the tin and had a marked tendency to
yellow with age
-
- Unfortunately there is no positive proof yet of the "varnish on
NMF" practice on Claude Model 4's...
-
- However, what could be ruled out immediately is NMF (all panels are the
same shade) and the Zero gray-green finish which is markedly darker and
different even
- on the B&W documents. The only alternative to the metallic tan being
silver paint ...
-
- I hope it helps.
-
- François P. WEILL
-
- Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed
-
- Posted By: Bill Sanborn <bsanborn@psedd.com>
- Date: Tuesday, 7 September 1999, at 11:45 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed (François P.
WEILL)
-
- Hello Francois,
- I know a lot of the conventional wisdom says that the underside of cloud
camoed A5M2s was NMF, but IMHO I'm not so sure. Here is an excerpt from my
July
- 23 post. It will give some of my warped logic.
-
- >>I'm getting ready to paint my 1/72 Fujimi A5M2a. I'm planning on
doing 4-122 with the cloud pattern green/brown. [I began to research the
scheme and here is
- some of my thought processes or that lead to my conclusion]
-
- 1) In FAOW #27 (new series) there is a profile on page 70 and a supporting
photo on p.31 of a aluminum or NMF A5M2a with a red tail also coded 4-122.
Is this the same 4-122 that sports the camo pattern on p.70 and profiled on
page 4 in FAOW 27?
-
- 2) If so, which scheme came first? My guess is the red tail. Herein I
thought it would be really cool to have the plane camoed with the red from
the earlier paint
- scheme still present on the bottom. However,....
-
- 3) If the red tail was first, was the red on the tail stripped off or
painted over? (For those of you who do not have access to the photos in
question, the photo on
- page 70 clearly shows that the tail cone is light in color and not red or
camo.)
-
- 4) (Here comes the real thrust of all this) What is the real under-side
color of the camo 4-122? Is it NMF? Painted aluminum, or grey (Why grey?
read on)
-
- The Fujimi instructions state "silver (H8, if I recall
correctly)" which I take to be NMF or painted aluminum. Then I started
thinking, dangerous in itself, the earlier red tail 4-122 would imply an NMF
underside, but the photo on page 70 shows the red on the tail is gone. Did
they strip off the paint? if so problem solved! The bottom would be NMF.
-
- However, if I was camoing a plane I would probably just paint out the red
rather than taking the time to strip it. So is underside NMF with the red
painted out in
- aluminum? Or.....
-
- If you look at the spats in the photo on page 70 and compare it to the
photo on page 31, it looks to me that the spats seem a little too uniform in
color (disregarding
- the oil drips). It may imply that these are painted. If painted, is the
underside painted aluminum or grey. The grey comes from the profile on page
4. In it the plane's
- underside is grey. (in fact all the green/brown camoed planes in these
profiles have a grey underside. This is not a color shift due to printing as
there are NMF
- profiles and A/C parts, i.e. props, on the same page with grey bottoms.)
The bottoms were intentionally grey.<<
-
- After reviewing this with several members of my local club, we all
concluded that the plane had a painted lower surface. I decided to go with
the gray. This is partly
- due to the profile and a second photo of 4-122 (sorry, but I don't have
the FAOW in front of me for the reference) from the front quarter in which
the lower
- hionmaru appears to be outlined as in the profile. This implies painted to
me that the under side is probably gray. So right or wrong it will be gray.
-
- BTW, the Fujimi A5M2 and the line drawing in the FAOW of the A5M2 have the
pitot tube on the port (left) wing when it should be on the starboard
(right) wing,
- as with the other variants. The quarter view mentioned above clearly shows
the absence of the pitot on the left wing, so unless this photo was reversed
or the plane
- had no airspeed indicator, the pitot should be on the other wing.
-
- Sorry about the length,
- Bill
-
- Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed
-
- Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
- Date: Wednesday, 8 September 1999, at 5:21 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed (Bill Sanborn)
-
- Hi Bill ,
- Bill I have studied a lot of 96 Kansen photos but only looking to photos
which are not ever of the best quality without taking into account what is
known through
- other sources may become very disappointing and misleading.
-
- I agree the uncamouflaged red tailed aspect to be the original finish of
96 Kansen. However despite the similar code, it should be difficult to prove
the particular
- plane in red tail become the same 4-122 under camouflage paint (it could
be in fact an entirely different 4-122). But this is a minor point.
-
- Let’s now examine in details photos of uncamouflaged Model 1 and Model
2-1. You must take into account the fact that on the contrary to the purely
American
- way to maintain a highly polished aluminum surface on NMF planes akin to
chrome finish, most air forces (and civilian companies) let this surface
oxidized
- superficially which results in a somewhat mat and grayish surface. In the
process on planes that were not built with such exotic metals or alloy or
anodized parts like
- in the early jet age, the differences in shade between the different
panels tend to blend into an almost uniform aspect. However looking at Model
Art # 272 photos of 96 Kansens, we have at least two photos that clearly
demonstrate the NMF finish. One is a model 1 seen in flight by its underside
where the spar revetment appears definitely darker than the rest of the
finish and a model 2-1 visibly well used on which you can see each panel and
rivets, something you are perfectly unable to see on a similar photo of a
Model 4, just under it, which clearly bears the disputed 96 Kansen late
scheme. It has been also clearly established by photos and research,
including samples of actual planes that the heavyweights in uncamouflaged or
Kumogata scheme remained with an unpainted undersurface, which, exposed on
the contrary to the flakes on the Kumogata scheme, once protected by the
paint seems to be painted with a gray or gray-green color instead of being
NMF to a point early researcher made the confusion (Beuschel i.e.).
-
- It is true that recovered early instructions for uncamouflaged IJNAF
planes specified aluminum dope. But they concerned mainly fabric covered
planes at that time
- and even those remained clearly in unpainted metal where the fabric was
not used and aluminum panels took place. From many photographic evidences,
all metallic
- planes from Type 96 and 97 years are evidently let in NMF despite the
instructions, the only parts remaining silver doped being the fabric covered
flying surfaces.
- The only exceptions being all metallic seaplanes (Type 97 Flying boat for
example) which remained silver painted I assume for a better corrosion
control. It is only
- with Aichi Type 99 dive bombers and 96 Kansen Model 4 that an interim
painted finish which is under debate as far as Model 4 are concerned
re-appeared (Type
- 99 are clearly silver painted and we have material evidence of it, but
they look much more mat than the Model 4’s) just before being superseded
by the much
- controversial gloss gray-green offensive finish...
-
- Now comes the red tail question... As it was also used on heavyweight
bombers and these machines were proven by material evidence NMF underside
the same
- red tail problem is applicable...
-
- Despite this fact they were without doubt NMF under... So ...
-
- We also know that the Kumogata scheme was not applied at factory level.
Historically speaking we also know the camouflage was applied when it was
discovered
- the Chinese resistance was stiffer than expected and the CAF was able to
bomb the bases. So this camouflage was done by the unit mechanics under the
pressure of war operations.
- You can expect in that circumstances that this purely defensive camouflage
was applied as faster as possible under primitive conditions (and one photo
of the very
- 4-122 in Model Art # 272 even includes in a distance an uncamouflaged
aircraft of the same unit) and whenever possible.
-
- You’ll certainly agree with me that it is much easier to paint in these
conditions the upper surface only, than to cover the under surface with a
coat of paint of doubtful defensive value. The red tail (which in fact
included the fuselage tail) is much more easy to treat than you seem to
think: the metallic part of the plane concerned was simply treated with one
of the powerful paint remover that were (and probably still are) common
place in the aviation industry. The fabric covered surfaces, already a
painted surface being simply coated once again with paint: camouflage on the
upper surface, silver dope elsewhere.
-
- By the way both because the time consumed in polishing the NMF under
surface and the lack of tactical interest in having shiny under surface in
combat environment you can bet at no risk that the thin surface oxidation
that is fast to appear on aluminum surfaces exposed to the air was certainly
present giving on B&W documents the painted on impression that mislead
many other people on heavy bombers.
-
- That’s why I have to disagree with your conclusions
-
- Friendly.
- François
-
- Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed
-
- Posted By: Bill Sanborn <bsanborn@psedd.com>
- Date: Thursday, 9 September 1999, at 2:04 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed (François P.
WEILL)
-
- Hello Francois,
- Good to have you back! How was your vacation?
-
- Concerning the your last post on the color schemes of the A5M2a, much of
what you posted is compelling and much of it I agree with as well! However,
if I have
- learned one thing about Japanese aircraft from this board, it is that the
generalizing that can be done for most military aircraft of the period is
not as applicable to
- Japanese aircraft and can get you into trouble! What is proven about one
aircraft does not necessarily transfer to others, same manufacturer or not,
and may vary
- from different planes in the same unit. As Jim so frequently expounds, the
proof is in hard evidence. As far as I know there are no relics from a cloud
camouflaged
- Type 96, so everything is speculation based on eyewitness accounts and
photographic interpretations.
-
- I guess my point is that the possibility of the gray exists. All Cloud
camo Claudes may not have been the same. Some may have been painted while
others left NMF.
- There are examples of shipboard cloud camoed planes that had a gray
underside (at least I don’t believe there is any controversy that these
were gray). These are
- the float planes (Dave, Alf, etc.). Agreed, these planes required the
corrosion protection and let’s not get into a chicken/egg discussion as to
which planes camo
- came first (unless it shows a flaw in my logic). These aircraft coexisted.
The A5M’s, as well as their maintenance crews, were most likely carrier
(or ship) based at
- some point. So, it stands to reason that the experience for the camo
pattern painting was transferred. They may have painted these planes the
same way. The
- bomber maintenance crews, on the other hand, were most likely not ship
based and would not have had this experience. (Granted, my knowledge of JNAF
- organization is pretty slim.) All of this is speculation, but no more so
than the speculation of stripped red paint.
-
- Perusing the references late last night, something struck me (before my
wife’s thrown book) in the photos of 4-122. On the rear, fuselage where
the ID plate is
- located is a light colored box. This is probably where the serial number
was masked during the painting (see the photo on page 143 of MA510 for a
close-up of a
- similar painted-out/masked ID block on an A5M4). No matter which aspect or
printing of the photos of 4-122 I look at this block contrasts the underside
color
- directly below it and on the tail cone. If the block is the masked serial
number than its background should be NMF, than the underside color is
probably not NMF,
- oxidized or not, as the two should have oxidized equally. This is also
evidenced by the A5M4 on the MA510, P.143 photo. The underside color is
definitely
- different as the masked block and underside colors are in contact. This
machine also appears to have a cloud camouflage.
-
- Nohara, in MA510, p.128 indicates that 4-122 had a D2 (green) and H2
(brown) upper camo pattern and a J3 underside. However, he does place a
question mark by the J3. I cannot read Japanese so I have missed his exact
intent of the comment. (any help with this caption and related info from
MA510 would be appreciated from the Japanese literate, TIA) So, the
possibility also appears to exist with him, as well.
-
- Overall, I am not saying that the underside was gray, but rather that the
possibility exists that it was gray. I don’t think we will ever get
conclusive evidence from the
- photos as all evidence is circumstantial.
-
- Best regards,
- Bill
-
- Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed
-
- Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
- Date: Friday, 10 September 1999, at 6:24 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed (Bill Sanborn)
-
- Hi Bill,
- You Wrote :
-
- >Hello Francois,
- >Good to have you back! How was your vacation?
-
- Fine thank you Bill
-
- >Concerning the your last post on the color schemes of the A5M2a, much
of what you posted is compelling and >much of it I agree with as well!
However, if I have learned one thing about Japanese aircraft from this
board, it is >that the generalizing that can be done for most military
aircraft of the period is not as applicable to Japanese >aircraft and can
get you into trouble! What is proven about one aircraft does not necessarily
transfer to others, same >manufacturer or not, and may vary from
different planes in the same unit. As Jim so frequently expounds, the proof
>is in hard evidence. As far as I know there are no relics from a cloud
camouflaged Type 96, so everything is >speculation based on eyewitness
accounts and photographic interpretations.
-
- Well Bill, Though I must agree to the fact that generalization might be
perilous for Pacific wartime aircraft camouflage (though it seems to be even
truer for Army
- planes than for Navy ones), I’m much more confident for the pre-Pacific
war period that the military establishment of Japan (like any other in the
world) was issuing
- regulations to be strictly observed and that the circumstances permitted
them to be relatively well complied with. We had a discussion face to face
Jim and I in late
- July in Paris. We agreed that ONLY HARD (material) EVIDENCES are
SCIENTIFICALLY receivable as evidences. However, the modeler, who must
complete a kit as something “as accurate as it might be” but has no hard
evidence on everything he needs to do so must use the “best educated
guess” he can or stop modeling ! ... So he must resort on logic and to the
examination of current practices where they are known for sure to produce
what is not an exact duplication of the real thing at reduced scale (the
inaccessible dream of the modeler) but what could be considered as the most
believable reproduction he can considering what documents are available (do
you know exactly how 4-122 looked the other side of in plan view ?). In fact
it is “believability” vs. total accuracy ...
-
- >I guess my point is that the possibility of the gray exists. All Cloud
camo Claudes may not have been the same. >Some may have been painted
while others left
- NMF.
-
- True, but there are no convincing photographic evidence of that and every
piece of knowledge we have available and logic tend to consider this is not
the most
- believable situation...
-
- >There are examples of shipboard cloud camoed planes that had a gray
underside (at least I don’t believe there is >any controversy that
these were gray).
-
- From what sources is based this affirmation? Though Some Type 97 Model 3
Torpedo bombers most probably did use the same colors as what I call a last
thought camouflage during Pearl Harbor on some carriers, it was not the same
pattern and if David Aiken sent me a pic of a Kate underside proving the use
of some kind of undersurface color (also directly applied on NMF without
primer) this was not related to these planes and nothing indicates that all
“Hawaiian Operation” Kates were so painted underside (and even painted
there at all)
-
- >These are the float planes (Dave, Alf, etc.).
-
- Again from what sources do you take this information ? True they were
painted underside but silver, not gray, unless you rely on some color
profiles of dubious
- historical value. Beside those camouflaged floatplanes were temporarily
detached from their mother ships to shore base during the China War ...
-
- >Agreed, these planes required the corrosion protection and let’s not
get into a chicken/egg discussion as to which >planes camo came first
(unless it shows a flaw in my logic)...
-
- It seems to have been E8N floatplanes but nothing’s sure here ...
-
- >These aircraft coexisted. The A5M’s, as well as their maintenance
crews, were most likely carrier (or ship) based at >some point. So, it
stands to reason that the
- experience for the camo pattern painting was transferred. They may
>have painted >these planes the same way. The bomber maintenance
crews, on the other hand, were most likely not >ship based and would not
have had this experience. (Granted, my knowledge of JNAF organization is
pretty slim.) >All of this is speculation, but no more so than the
speculation of stripped red paint.
-
- Not all, We have few images of camouflaged 96 Kansen coming directly from
a carrier (though I have located at least one source) on the contrary to
dive bombers
- and torpedo-level bombers planes. Most of the 96 Kansen Model 2-1 were
from shore based Kokutai and based on roughly equipped ex-Chinese
airfields...
- Maintenance crews were as far as I know part of the Ku. Itself and many
might have never sailed on a ship ...
-
- By the way, during the early part of 1942 stripping the red tail paint
(and most probably repainting on fabric covered flying surfaces) was common
place on 96
- Kansen Model 4’s still engaged in war operations (many photographic
evidences here).
-
- >Perusing the references late last night, something struck me (before
my wife’s thrown book) in the photos of 4-122. >On the rear, fuselage
where the ID plate is
- located is a light colored box. This is probably where the serial number
>was masked during the painting (see the photo on page 143 of MA510 for a
close-up of a
- similar painted-
- >out/masked ID block on an A5M4). No matter which aspect or printing of
the photos of 4-122 I look at this block >contrasts the underside color
directly below it and on the tail cone. If the block is the masked serial
number than its >background should be NMF, than the underside color is
probably not NMF, oxidized or not, as the two should have >oxidized
equally. This is also evidenced by the A5M4 on the MA510, P.143 photo. The
underside color is >definitely different as the
- masked block and underside colors are in contact. This machine also
appears to have a >cloud camouflage.
-
- It is a constant Mitsubishi practice that lasted into the Zero production
to the end of the war (though in the Zero case it was on the gray-green) to
let the id. plate on
- a single color background (on the contrary to Nakajima produced birds). I
have compared last night on MA 272 (I have not yet secured MA 510) the gray
- rendition of this plate (on B&W photo) to the gray rendition of the
fuselage tail cone of 4-122. Considering their relative placement from the
light source there is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE that could be extracted that
proves without doubt the rectangular zone behind the data is finished an
other way than the underside of the plane (remember that the main
differences in shade on a B&W photo result from light contrasts not from
surface colors). This proves or disproves NOTHING at all....
-
- >Nohara, in MA510, p.128 indicates that 4-122 had a D2 (green) and H2
(brown) upper camo pattern and a J3 >underside.
-
- Sorry Bill but after being an enthusiast Nohara’s theories supporter,
the last year on this board has convinced me that he can err like any other
researcher...
-
- > However, he does place a question mark by the J3.
-
- I still think the most probable option is that NMF was retained underside
as nothing to this days proves any interest of IJNAF for any kind of ground
to sky
- camouflage before the Zero inaugurated a totally new approach of purely
offensive camouflage. We may even legitimately consider that camouflage
itself was
- considered a liability to be dispensed with as soon as possible as IJNAF
authorities reverted to their “peacetime” high visibility finish as soon
as air supremacy
- became a reality at least on newer planes (but the heavies). I am up to a
point that I consider IJNAF authorities to have no theory on camouflage but
one on
- defensive purpose on the ground or during low altitude operations (or
escape) over land until the offensive camo of the Zero was developed. It is
also important to
- notice that a sea camouflage was “panic developed” only during the
early stages of the Pacific War (the Zero fighters excluded) and not
generalized to all models and codified for all planes before at least June
1943. In this context I see no reason why the 96 Kansen or any other planes
during the China War should have received an undersurface camo at all.
Notice also that except for the B5N’s the gray green (of all variations it
could have been) used on undersurfaces was originally the original all over
offensive color and that only the upper surface was altered to provide a sea
camouflage but - as hard evidences are concerned - on a Type 99 dive bomber
quoted by Jim as using silver paint there. As many of these planes were used
on the reserve force in their pre-war red tailed + silver paint finish, and
considering many planes from the reserve were dispatched to the Solomons
front in a hurry during the period this plane was shot down, I will guess
almost without risk its upper surface (in green from hard evidences) was the
only part of the plane reconditioned to make it go to war as a replacement.
A demonstration that even in 1942 the attention to undersurface aspect was
still considered a minor preoccupation...
-
- >I cannot read Japanese so I have missed his exact >intent of the
comment. (any help with this caption and related >info from MA510 would
be appreciated from
- the Japanese literate, TIA) So, the possibility also appears to exist
>with him, as well.
-
- Unfortunately I can’t be much of a help here
-
- >Overall, I am not saying that the underside was gray, but rather that
the possibility exists that it was gray. I don’t >think we will ever
get conclusive evidence from
- the photos as all evidence is circumstantial.
-
- I agree on both these affirmations but still think the most probable
option is “weathered” NMF...
-
- Friendly.
-
- François
-
- Late Model A5M4 Color Schemes: A Hypothesis?
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
- Date: Saturday, 11 September 1999, at 7:21 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed (François P.
WEILL)
-
- Francois
- You write:
-
- "By the way, during the early part of 1942 stripping the red tail
paint (and most probably repainting on fabric covered flying surfaces) was
common place on 96
- Kansen Model 4’s still engaged in war operations (many photographic
evidences here)."
-
- Well, I do not wish to stir controversy, but according to Mitsubishi
production records the A5M4 continued to be produced at the plant alongside
the A6M2
- production (as follows):
-
- 1940
-
- Ja 20/1 (first number is A5M4 production, second number is A6M2
production)
- Fe 19/1
- Ma 17/1
- Ap 14/1
- My 14/4
- Ju 14/3
- Jl 14/9
- Au 6/8
- Se 5/9
- Oc 11/19
- No 9/23
- De 10/19
-
- Total A5M4 production for 1940 = 153; Total A6M2 = 98
-
- This fact originally lead me to question the reason for Mitsubishi to
continue painting the aluminum paint on the Claude while painting the Zeros
in gray-green.
-
- I would also like to propose that the factory and/or field application of
the red tails to Claudes stopped at during this time period as well. We do
not see any
- evidence that there were red-tailed Zeros. So, I must respectfully
disagree with you that the red tails were "stripped" off the late
production Claudes. I do not believe
- they were ever applied!
-
- It was this reasoning which led me down the path with the possibility that
late model Claudes may also have been painted gray green like the Zeros. I
just cannot
- fathom the Mitsubishi factory running simultaneous production lines and
painting the two types of aircraft in a different scheme!
-
- Jim Lansdale
-
- Re: Late Model A5M4 Color Schemes: A Hypothesis?
-
- Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
- Date: Sunday, 12 September 1999, at 7:05 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Late Model A5M4 Color Schemes: A Hypothesis? (James F.
Lansdale)
-
- Hello Jim,
- You wrote in two different messages:
-
- >>This fact originally lead me to question the reason for Mitsubishi
to continue painting the aluminum paint on the Claude while painting the
Zeros in gray-green.
- I would also like to propose that the factory and/or field application of
the red tails to Claudes stopped at during this time period as well. We do
not see any
- evidence that there were red-tailed Zeros. So, I must respectfully
disagree with you that the red tails were "stripped" off the late
production Claudes. I do not believe they were ever applied!
- It was this reasoning which led me down the path with the possibility that
late model Claudes may also have been painted gray green like the Zeros. I
just cannot
- fathom the Mitsubishi factory running simultaneous production lines and
painting the two types of aircraft in a different scheme! <<
-
- Jim, I reviewed the Zero production figures of Mitsubishi in Mikesh’s
book last night.
-
- The first Model 21’s were produced during November 1940.
-
- As we have ample photo evidences (despite we still don’t know for sure
the colors) that most (if not all) Model 11’s were two toned, it is
legitimate to consider that their scheme was not the definitive one of gray
green all over but that these aircraft were most probably used as camouflage
test beds. Beside, the Model 11’s were produced in very limited number and
this Model is more akin a pre-series than a mass production. As the Zero
fighter was the first aircraft in the IJNAF to bear the new “offensive”
camouflage which (with all color variant related to manufacturer and even
aircraft type) was to become an IJNAF early Pacific war standard, we cannot
expect Mitsubishi to order large quantity of the new finish BEFORE IT WAS
OFFICIALLY DEFINED AND STANDARDIZED. On the contrary the Claude line, which
was to close only one month after the first Model 21’s with the new
standard finish was to begin to be mass produced, things were yet in a mass
production procedure and the finish used (whatever it was in fact) was a
standard for the manufacturer and ample quantities of this finish ordered
before were certainly at hand and available. So it is entirely logical in my
opinion that Mitsubishi produced the last Claudes in the finish they
originally began to proceed with since the Model 4 entered production.
-
- We must face the fact that not a single photographic evidence exists that
any Claude used as a combatant aircraft was finished the same way the Zero
was. On the
- contrary, a photo exists of late Claudes and Reisens staying under the
same light conditions on the same apron, the Claudes being WITHOUT red
tails, that clearly
- demonstrates the finishes were different. I think we cannot do otherwise
than admit a kind of interim finish was carried by Claudes between the NMF
or
- camouflaged period and the new gray green finish was applied on Zeros.
Another kind of interim finish was carried by Type 99 Dive bombers which
despite being all metal aircraft clearly appear as silver painted (but not
so glossy as the Claudes) on photos. Earlier, all metal planes (Type 97
Torpedo planes or heavies, early
- Claude models) were clearly not painted at all when not camouflaged (but
the red tail if carried). My opinion is that from Model 99 on and before the
new gray
- green became a standard, a corrosion control problem led the IJNAF
authorities to order the all metal plane to receive some kind of corrosion
protective coat.
- Concerning the Claudes, I think from what I have seen on David’s slide
after applying global corrections with Photoshop that the most probable
color of this finish
- was a light golden tan with some metallic aspect, though the silver paint
(of a glossy variant) is still a possibility. I still believe that the most
probable way to apply
- such a golden metallic tan finish is the use of a translucent amber
varnish and applying translucent varnish for corrosion control was still a
common Japanese practice
- (though in that case using blue or green pigments FOR CONTROL PURPOSE)
which has a name: Aotake. Notice also that the old Model Art 272 translation
I
- have spoke about inconvenience of silver paint as not controlling
perfectly the corrosion process because it contained aluminum particles
itself...
-
- Concerning red tails you will see my commentaries further in the text
-
- >>David
- You write:
- "the first presentation of aircraft from the factory without the red
tail was at Haneda Airport on 21 March 1941."
- This is very interesting that the Mitsubishi factory may still have been
producing Claudes in 1941, but this is unlikely. According to the Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries,
- Ltd., Corporation Report No. 1, as compiled by the USSBS, page 124, the
last 10 A5M Claudes were produced by Mitsubishi during December 1940.
- If both of the previous statements are facts, than Francois is correct!
The Japanese officials must have taken some Claudes from one of the units,
stripped the red
- paint off the tails, and made presentation aircraft out of them. Then sent
one to the Akagi and reapplied the red tail! << ...
-
- I have noticed a strange correspondence in the delays between the
following facts:
- Last 96 Kansen produced: Dec 1940, mentioned Haikoku ceremony March 1941
- First Nakajima built Zero 21: Dec. 1941, first of these planes seen in
front line units: spring 1942.
-
- It seems that about three months elapsed between an airframe is produced
and the time it reaches the units (when the usual pipeline is used and no
“operational tests
- carried of course).
-
- Concerning the red tails, I think there was not a single date to proceed
with their elimination.
-
- Not a single plane from the first fleet carriers carried them (but - may
be remnants - on some Kates rudder and fins under the codes tat might
account for the specific color of the fin on some otherwise green upper
surface painted planes). On the contrary, the reserve force, including the
third carrier division (this one having an horizontal red stripes on both
fuselage sides) seems to have carried the red tails even up to Doolittle
raid... You once told me the Ryujo Claudes operating over the Philippines in
Dec 1941 were depicted on a painting as carrying them... And all Model 99
planes operating over China until the withdrawal of the IJNAF from this
theatre in 1941 seems to have carried them but the very late deliveries (in
gray green). On the contrary, a photo of a pranged Claude in the Marshalls
in 1942 clearly shows the absence of red tail (despite the finish is clearly
not the gray-green). Would it be surprising that from the time it was
determined that aircraft destined to operate as first line combatants were
to be dispensed of red tails and those in reserve should keep it the earlier
procedure of applying the red tail in the factory should have been discarded
as it was not known to which kind of units the newly produced plane was
destined to ?
-
- Finally I think both red tail removal AND red tail not applied existed.
When a plane carrying the factory applied red tail went to a front line
unit, this red tail was
- removed. When a plane from a batch factory produced without red tail went
to a second line unit, the red tail was painted (even when they went to a
first fleet carrier unit as it was already known they were to be replaced by
Zero fighters), when they went directly to a first line unit, the code was
directly painted on the factory finish
- ...
-
- The real problem is to determine the date red tail became an option and
the date it was definitively eliminated...
-
- François
-
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
- Date: Sunday, 12 September 1999, at 8:23 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Late Model A5M4 Color Schemes: A Hypothesis? (François
P. WEILL)
-
- Thank you Francois for your input and feedback.
-
- I suppose the best we can say is:
-
- 1)Red tails existed on IJN aircraft from the mid 1930's until the mid-1941
as an official practice.
-
- 2)Some units continued to have (apply) red tails until early 1942.
-
- 3)We have no direct evidence that the red tails were applied at the
factory (or do we?).
-
- 4)Zeros never carried red tails as an official marking.
-
- Now, what we need are copies of any official orders documenting the exact
dates instituting these practices. We know from other documentary evidence
that there
- was often a gap in time before an official order (probably verbal) was
given and the formal adoption of the practice by the Kaigun Koku Honbu and
its publication in the Nairei Teiyo (Manual of Military Secret Orders).
-
- I have several editions of the translated Nairei Teiyo. However, I have
yet to find this important information regarding red tails. I do know when
the official orders
- were given to increase or decrease the official size (measured in aircraft
per tai) of the various types of hikotai beginning with the year 1936. I
have also found the
- date of the joint Rikugun-Kaigun agreement abolishing the hinomaru on the
fuselage of army planes (but not the date the orders were given to reapply
the hinomaru
- on army planes!). These documents are not complete.
-
- Oh well, continued digging in the various archives may yield the
information we need!
-
- Jim Lansdale
-
- Re: Red-tailed Mystery!
-
- Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
- Date: Wednesday, 15 September 1999, at 8:37 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Red-tailed Mystery! (James F. Lansdale)
-
- Hello Jim,
- Sorry for being a bit late to answer...
-
- I agree with your summary and your wishes except point 3.
-
- I have a picture of a 96 Kansen Model 4 sporting no unit ID, no Aikoku
markings but a red tail which is really brand new from what could be seen on
the picture...
-
- So I suspect that red tail application by the factory as a standard
marking was a current practice until it was discarded at an unknown date
because red tails were no more standard markings for all units, those units
still using them becoming reponsible for their application (and those units
no more using them being responsible for their elimination whenever they
still have older red tailed planes in inventory by the way)...
-
- Unfortunately we have but very few of the markings and camouflage
instructions still available (in contrast with those of the USN or the
USAAF)for consultation.
-
- However I do not despair of seeing some surface one day from an old pile
of files recollected by the US, British or Australian authorities stocked in
some remote
- locker and long forgotten (and perhaps never studied at all)... Or from
some private collection here or there including Japan ...
-
- At least we can hope for that I think :)))
-
- Friendly.
-
- François
-
- Re: Red tails vs no red tails
-
- Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
- Date: Saturday, 11 September 1999, at 10:44 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Late Model A5M4 Color Schemes: A Hypothesis? (James F.
Lansdale)
-
- Aloha All,
- In the 18 June 1998 posting (on this website) titled "Hokoku
presentation aircraft", it was stated that the first presentation of
aircraft from the factory without the red
- tail was at Haneda Airport on 21 March 1941. See the famous shot of Hokoku
#378, in Thorpe & Model Art, taken that day. One of these
"presented" aircraft,
- Hokoku #422, was noted in that post, as later serving on the AKAGI in the
summer of 1941 WITH a red tail. This shows application in the "squadron
level" in the
- summer of 1941.
-
- Of interest, the first "presentation" of a Zero was Hokoku #433
on 8 Nov 1941 at Haneda Airport.
- Cheers,
- David_Aiken
-
- Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed
-
- Posted By: Bill Sanborn <bsanborn@psedd.com>
- Date: Friday, 10 September 1999, at 10:56 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A5M4 Color opinion needed (François P.
WEILL)
-
- Thanks for the lively discussion, You've given me lots to consider. True
modelling is art and although we strive for accuracy, there is always a
degree of interpretation to every model built.
-
- Cheers,
- Bill
-
- PS, I'll see if I can scan those MA510 photos and send them to you.
-
-
- Posted By: B Boudoin
<mailto:tribee@excite.com?subject=A5M4 Kotobuki 41engine details>
Date: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 8:26 a.m.
-
- Does anyone have the specific
details on the Nakajima Kotobuki 41 and Kotobuki 2-KAI-3? I would like to
learn number of cylinders, total displacement, any supercharger info if
applicable, and prop diameter?
Thank you for the help.
BB
-
- Re: A5M4 Kotobuki
41engine details
-
- Posted By: Jim Broshot
<mailto:jbroshot@socket.net?subject=Re: A5M4 Kotobuki 41engine details>
Date: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
-
- In Response To: A5M4 Kotobuki 41engine
details (B Boudoin)
-
- (A5M2-Otsu) "Power Plant: One
Nakajima Kotobuki [Congratulation] 3 nine-cylinder radial air-cooled
engine rated at 640hp for take-off and 690hp at 10,655ft (3250m) or (A5M4)
Kotobuki 41 or 41 KAI rated at 710hp for take-off and 785hp at 9,845ft
(3000m), driving three-bladed SS-22 two-pitch (ground adjustable)
propeller of 9.78ft (2.98m) diam."
from "The Zero Percursor - Mitsubishi's A5M" in AIR ENTHUSIAST
NINETEEN.
-
- Re: A5M4 Kotobuki 41engine
details
-
- Posted By: Mike Goodwin
<mailto:Mike.Goodwin@iname.com?subject=Re: A5M4 Kotobuki 41engine
details>
Date: Saturday, 9 September 2000, at 4:35 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: A5M4 Kotobuki
41engine details (B Boudoin)
-
- Aireview's Japanese Navy Aircraft
in the Pacific War has a table of aero engine statistics, but does not
cover the Kotobuki.
- Aireview's Japanese Army Aircraft
of the Pacific War has a similar table, including the Ha-1, which I
believe was the IJAAF version of the Kotobuki.
- Details given there are:
- Bore * Stroke: 146mm * 160mm
Swept Volume: 24.1 litres
Rated Power: 710hp
- These might be figures for a later
model Kotobuki.
- Cheers,
- Mike
-
-
- Posted By: Bob/Texas <bletr@msn.com>
- Date: Saturday, 10 March 2001, at 10:53
p.m.
-
- I would like to know if there is any other
paint scheme for the A5M4 CLAUDE than that transparent gold one shown in
most profiles that I have seen? Did it ever use the tan and dark green
wave pattern like the A5M2?
-
- Re: A5M4 CLAUDE
-
- Posted By: François P.WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
- Date: Monday, 12 March 2001, at 1:06 a.m.
-
- In Response To: A5M4 CLAUDE (Bob/Texas)
-
- Dear Bob,
- The "golden look" of the Model
4's is to this date speculative, it might have been a high gloss aluminum
paint too, though I believe the varnished bare metal is entirely possible
(and probably more likely) too.
- As far as combat units are concerned, the
only variation of the finish of Model 4"s that is recorded by
available material is the disappearance of the red tail probably from
early spring 1942 on when the aircraft were actually engaged in combat.
Although second line units might well have kept theirs longer...
- Later, when some Model 4's were used by
training units at home, it seems some were repainted following the current
scheme used by fighters after June 1943, though the actual undersurface
color is unsure, Model Art 510 authors go for the usual gray-green (in
that case which one ?) and personally I think more probable the
undersurfaces remained what they were before the application of
uppersurface dark. green.
- The Kumogata scheme you refer to, seems to
have been discarded for use on fighter planes (and much other types
excepts transports and heavy bombers) from sometimes in 1939 in China
(though a lot of planes already painted so remained in the scheme later
and even at the beginning of the Pacific war, but this mainly concerned
fabric covered oldies for obvious reason I won't detail their).
- The last Claude version to have been
painted in Kumogata scheme seems to have been the Model 2-2 early variants
(those with enclosed cockpits). Later Model 2-2's (externally similar to
Model 4's)seems to have reverted to the original bare metal scheme with
red tail of the "peacetime livery". Model 4's on the contrary
looks clearly different with no discernible different panel shades and a
high gloss (when new) aspect. Interestingly enough when the Aichi D3A1
were introduced almost at the same time in frontline service, on the
contrary to their bare metal prototype, they were clearly covered by some
kind of aluminum dope (though semi-matte on the pictures like the
contemporary finish of metallic flying boats)with red tails. I think some
kind of protective anti-corrosion finish has been required by the IJNAF
(most probably in mid or late 1939) following the apparition of
intergranular corrosion problems on shipboard bare metal planes, despite
the use of Alclad treatment... As the finish was different for D3A1's and
Model 4's, I think the respective manufacturers used some stop gap
makeshift solution of a different nature. As Aichi was already producing
floatplanes during this period, I think they just used the already
available dope, while Mitsubishi resorted to another "off the
shelves" trick.
- If the use of varnish is confirmed by hard
evidence one day on Model 4's I won't be surprised if we discover a thick
application of the same base once used for Aotake internal anti-corrosion
finish which was at hand available in quantity and a proven anti-corrosion
mean (remember that Aotake was a varnish as clear as the knowledge of the
time will allow which was simply colored by pigments in green or blue for
application control purpose and as prone to yellow as other so-called
clear varnishes of the time).