Jump to content

Japanese aircraft


Jester986

Recommended Posts

Japanese Army might very well had their own wind tunnels, they did not need to capture any. Nor would they find any in the Pacific. Closest facilities were in US and we know that Japanese did not manage to get there :)

Each company (Nakajima, Mitsubishi, Aichi, Kawasaki and Kawanishi) and each service (IJN and IJAAF) had their own facilities and testing grounds. I know that Navy and Mitsubishi had really fantastic testing grounds and wind tunnels and saw A6M, J2M and A7M wind tunnel tests (often not entire airframe but specific items were part of tests such as rudder controls, flaps, etc.). I have not seen however anything comparable for the Japanese Army and Nakajima especially. Not that it didnt exist, Nakajima was second largest manufacturer (or maybe first) of aircraft engines and aircraft. But Nakajima after the war (on Allies "request") was split into a couple companies and largest of those existing today is Subaru. However because of that substantial part of Nakajima records was destroyed or vanished. I know that records of Nakajima designed NN airfoils were lost as well. Today its possible to "reverse engineer" them with modern software and good enough manual / manufacturing drawings. Ki-84s wing was based on Nakajima NN-21 airfoil. I've someone using Ki-27 or Ki-43 drawings to produce NN-21 ordinates.

And thats just for Nakajima. Other companies and even scientific institutions experimented with various types of airfoils, including laminar flow airfoils and low drag airfoils.

 

Overall period of 1931 to 1945 of Japanese aviation industry is not very well explored, particularly in western historical publications. From my visits in Japanese museums and various questions asked about data I know that even Japanese arent giving much attention to collecting and preserving various precious documents. A lot of them are in private collections which is a shame, because they belong to museums and archives where proper care can be given to them.

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

P1Y Ginga was "inspired" by JU-88.

F-15E | F-14A/B

P-51D | P-47D | Mosquito FB Mk VI |Spitfire | Fw 190D | Fw 190A | Bf 109K |  WWII Assets Pack

Normandy 2 | The Channel | Sinai | Syria | PG | NTTR | South Atlantic 

F/A-18 | F-86 | F-16C | A-10C | FC-3 | CA | SC |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we now have the Ju-88 torpedo bomber, are there any close Japanese analogue to it that we could paint it up as?

 

EVrUdM.jpg

Japanese were actually experts on those kind of attacks.

 

Japanese Navy and later also Japanese Army medium bomber crews were trained in torpedo attacks. Aircraft that could do it would be G4M Better, at this stage of war (i.e. 1944) G4M2, mentioned by Saburo P1Y Ginga and my favorite Ki-67. I think what Saburo said is right, although Ju-88 served more as an impression for Ki-48 than P1Y, but still you could use schemes for latter one. Or try Ki-48 skins.

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or at least, I think it should be enough to make a FC3 level japanese plane. I think that many of us will settle with that.

 

 

that's what I thought when trying to make this one, the Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien Tony, but since I have no team to develop it I stop the idea.

53375650_KawasakiKi-61HienTony.thumb.png.e38ad781669fe81fdca204eeca48ec22.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The strong point of Japanese early war fighters like the Zero was their acceleration from low speeds to medium speeds; this is a result of a very light airframe and high lift wing design, but the cost was a relatively lower top speed. Wonderful for maneuverability and climb from right after takeoff to about 250-300 kts, and an excellent advantage when combating US fighters which were faster but took longer to achieve top speed (the P-40's acceleration was often considered 'exhilarating'by Hellcat pilots who got to fly it :().

 

Thus, a Corsair or Hellcat might be escaped or beaten if you got him low and slow with a series of sharp maneuvers; you get to choose whether to disengage because you will get to your top speed much sooner than he can, and be well on your way home before he can start to catch up--assuming he still has you in sight. A potential 400 knots is useless until you are there or nearly there.

 

American fighter doctrine in the Pacific and CBI was to get fast, get high and maintain that state or die and it was appreciably harder to score against the Japanese for most of the war than it was against the Axis in the ETO and Mediterranean--USAAF pilots who barely made it out of Java and New Guinea in one piece often did very well in the ETO (when they encountered the enemy).

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weight was directly corresponding to engine power. Zero was fairly large aircraft and it could've been a bit heavier (it got heavier during production) but without adequate engine it would make achieving prescribed by the Japanese Navy requirements impossible to achieve. So I think lower top speed was primarily limited by the engine power, though Horikoshi made a valid point as to show any other combat aircraft produced at a time that with engine power roughly equal to 800 - 820 HP could break the 500 km/h top speed. Previous generation of Japanese designs had speeds more in range of 400 - 450 km/h, so in comparison Zero wasnt as slow :)

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The power to weight ratio is quite important, but so also is drag versus lift; the Zero's top speed was limited because it was fairly draggy as a consequence of the high lift wing design. As I recall, drag increases exponentially with speed, so it takes a lot more engine power to increase your speed as your speed increases.

 

Compare the Mustang to the Spitfire Mk VIII/IX series; same basic engine/supercharger, very different aircraft. The Mustang is much heavier, but more streamlined for low drag which gives it a higher top speed and somewhat better fuel economy (most of its extra weight is dedicated to much more fuel and the necessary structural strength and protection to carry that fuel into combat). Its wing is designed for high speeds, while the Spit's wing is designed more for lift and maneuverability, making it a better knife fighter close in.

 

The Spit VII/IX series is significantly lighter and can out climb and out accelerate the Mustang as well, but cannot achieve the same top speed in level flight, due to its greater drag. The Zero just took this concept much further.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not correct. A6M was not draggy at all if you compare it to any other design with radial engine or even some with inline engines (early 109s like E come to mind). If it was, 800 HP engine would not permit it to cross 500 km/h requirement stipulated by the IJN. Jiro Horikoshi and entire Mitsubishi team put special attention to making design aerodynamically optimized, and that meant not only the wing design and selected airfoil but also propeller hub, cowling and canopy design.

 

The calculated drag coefficient (Cd0) based on flight results for A6M1 (so with Zuisei 13 engine, prototype) was 0.0200, while for A6M3 (with Sakae 21 engine) was 0.0215. I somewhere have Jiro Horikoshi memoirs, might find more in that over the weekend. For an aircraft with radial engine it's very good.

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That is not correct. A6M was not draggy at all if you compare it to any other design with radial engine...."

Yes, the Zero is not draggy at all. I, also, have to disagree with this statement. One of the reasons that the Zeke could get as much speed out of it's fairly low horsepower engine was it's low drag. Now, if you want to talk about a draggy airplane, lets talk the BF 109. Bulges everywhere. The late war 109's looked as though they had tumors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My emphasis was primarily on the drag of the wings; as I understand it, every wing is a compromise between speed (low drag) and lift/maneuverability (high drag), and the more lift/maneuverability you get, the more attendant drag.

 

I'm not calling the Zero draggy, I am simply pointing out that its top speed (as with every other aircraft) was limited by the engine's power versus the amount of drag the wings & airframe generated; the Zero could have been faster if it had a lower drag/higher speed wing, but that would have cost it the lift and maneuverability that the Japanese air forces prized.

 

The Zero would have needed a much more powerful engine to be significantly faster than it was.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, did you actually look into the airfoils used by Mitsubishi so you arrived at that conclusion or what is the exact basis of your conclusion ?

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that the Zero was designed to be a carrier borne fighter. Carrier aircraft tended to have thicker airfoils because they aid in lift. You need a wing with good lift capabilities to get off of small airfields and carrier decks.

Check out the thickness of the wing on the F6F Hellcat. It got off of the deck quickly and was very docile when coming aboard. The thickness cut down on the airplanes speed but made it a great ship borne airplane. Pilots just loved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is actually why I asked about that wing and airfoil design :)

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in case no one mentioned it rhe japanese were always behind in engine tech and design. Read the "wings of mitsubishi" if you want to know more. Or if literacy is a problem there is a nice anime about it.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Akagi has been sunk in 1942 and he said that they wanted to aim at (somewhere) 1944.

I would wait for real announcement ...

F-15E | F-14A/B

P-51D | P-47D | Mosquito FB Mk VI |Spitfire | Fw 190D | Fw 190A | Bf 109K |  WWII Assets Pack

Normandy 2 | The Channel | Sinai | Syria | PG | NTTR | South Atlantic 

F/A-18 | F-86 | F-16C | A-10C | FC-3 | CA | SC |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSI MAG Z790 Carbon, i9-13900k, NH-D15 cooler, 64 GB CL40 6000mhz RAM, MSI RTX4090, Yamaha 5.1 A/V Receiver, 4x 2TB Samsung 980 Pro NVMe, 1x 2TB Samsung 870 EVO SSD, Win 11 Pro, TM Warthog, Virpil WarBRD, MFG Crosswinds, 43" Samsung 4K TV, 21.5 Acer VT touchscreen, TrackIR, Varjo Aero, Wheel Stand Pro Super Warthog, Phanteks Enthoo Pro2 Full Tower Case, Seasonic GX-1200 ATX3 PSU, PointCTRL, Buttkicker 2, K-51 Helicopter Collective Control

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this interview

 

ED confirms the Next WWII aircraft after the Mosquito will be Japanese and they will include the Akagi.

 

I wouldn’t say he confirms, he say: we go east... Japan... Pacific... Essex class carrier and... Akagi.

I hope i am wrong but this is not a confirmation of a japanese aircraft. Essex class carrier will be the one provided with M3´s Corsair and the F4U might be the aircraft he is referring to... Again i hope i am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well mag3 showed a pretty detailed "ai" zero model they were working on which made me think it would be their next. But O was pretty sure when asked what the next WWII plane would be after the Mosquito he said "Japanese" but I'll have to go watch it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well mag3 showed a pretty detailed "ai" zero model they were working on which made me think it would be their next. But O was pretty sure when asked what the next WWII plane would be after the Mosquito he said "Japanese" but I'll have to go watch it again.
^This, is what I heard too. Maybe It's my own desire to see the Zero speaking, but hope they have the data and will to make it.

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...