# zero vs. 109



## grwhyte (May 1, 2007)

I ask the experts out there if there was ever a time when German pilots flew the Japonese Zero As well as vise versa? If so has there been any documented comments from either side.


----------



## Glider (May 1, 2007)

I know that the Japanese flew the 109 and that at least one E version was given to Japan before the attack on Pearl Harbour. If I recall correctly, the Japanese didn't like the lack of agility compared to their own fighters.


----------



## grwhyte (May 2, 2007)

Thank you Glider. Is there any review of the Japonese aircraft from the Germans.


----------



## Micdrow (May 3, 2007)

As far as I know there was no tests done by the germans on japanese aircraft.

The Japanese did test a few German aircraft.

The Bf-109 was a Bf-109E-3. They also flew a few Bf-108's and I believe a Junkers Ju-87B. Not 100% on the last one though


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 4, 2007)

Perhaps the Germans should have listened. They never got to make a good Carrier Force.


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2007)

Perhaps the Japs, in particular the JAAF, should have paid attention to the Me109's protection, speed and dive. There is no doubt that even a 109E would have had the same superiority over the Hurricanes, P39 and P40's the Japs faced as well as being far better for attacking bombers.


----------



## renrich (May 4, 2007)

The range of the european type fighters would have been a limiting factor in the Pacific war. Even in the CBI airfields were not as prevelant as in Europe. If I remember correctly it is only 800 miles from London to Warsaw. It is hard for me to remember that distances in Europe are not nearly as great as here in the US. One can drive 800 miles north from Brownsville, Texas and still be in Texas.


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2007)

renrich said:


> The range of the european type fighters would have been a limiting factor in the Pacific war. Even in the CBI airfields were not as prevelant as in Europe.



True to a degree, but remember the JAAF were replacing the Ki 27 which didn't have a great range.


----------



## Negative Creep (May 4, 2007)

Didn't the Allies believe the Hein (Tony) was a licence built `09?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2007)

It was based off of the Bf 109 but not completely. The only part that was liscensed built was the engine which was a liscensed built DB-601.


----------



## johnbr (May 5, 2007)

I read somewhere that Japan also had a me 109g and a fw190.


----------



## Njaco (May 10, 2007)

from:
Me

Bf109E-7, Japan, 1941 Five Bf109s were sent to Japan, sans armament, for evaluation. While in Japan they received the standard Japanese hinomarus and yellow wing leading edges, as well as white numerals on the rudder. A red band outlined in white is around the rear fuselage. Study of the Bf109 in Japan led to the design of the formidable Ki-61 Hein.


----------



## Njaco (May 10, 2007)

There was also a bomber that Germany was making available to Japan but as several countries wouldn't allow them to fly over, it became too far to fly and was abandoned. I just came across this and that quickly can't remember the model. I love getting old. I think it was either a He 277 or Ju 290 or something similar.


----------



## Njaco (May 10, 2007)

sorry for so many quick posts but;
Non-Luftwaffe Focke-Wulf 190s
A single FW 190 A-5 was supplied to Japan for evaluation in 1943. Although the type was not put into production by the Japanese, it received the Allied code-name 'Fred'.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2007)

Njaco said:


> There was also a bomber that Germany was making available to Japan but as several countries wouldn't allow them to fly over, it became too far to fly and was abandoned. I just came across this and that quickly can't remember the model. I love getting old. I think it was either a He 277 or Ju 290 or something similar.



Neither the He 277 or Ju 290 were being designed as bombers for Japan. You might be confused with the mythical flights that the Ju 290 might have taken to Japan. The Germans wanted to fly the aircraft (it had the range to do so) to Japan for trade purposes and bring back needed suplies to Germany and vice versa. 

It is possible that one took a flight to Manchuria but evidence now shows that it never happened.


----------



## Glider (May 11, 2007)

I digress a little but it shouldn't be fogotten that of all planes the Japanese used the BR20. 
They sure picked them


----------



## Njaco (May 11, 2007)

You are most certaintly correct, Adler but there was some sort of four-engined bomber that was going to be shipped to Japan. I just read this last week and hell if I can remember where. When I find it......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2007)

Probably a Ju 290 but it was never shipped.


----------



## Maharg (May 13, 2007)

Thanks Njaco, great link M8.


----------



## Marcel (May 13, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It was based off of the Bf 109 but not completely. The only part that was liscensed built was the engine which was a liscensed built DB-601.



I somwhere read (dunno where) that it was inspired by the He100. If you look at the two aircraft together, you'll see some similarity.


----------



## Njaco (May 15, 2007)

The Ki-61 Hein was built around the engine. Japan recieved a license to build the DB 601A, designated Ha-40 and in anticipation of this developed the airframe based upon this engine. Actually Kawasaki was ordered to build two aircraft for the engine. The Ki-60 was a failure. Similarities to the Bf 109abound. Early tests included a mock combat with a captured P-40 ad a Bf 109E. Apparenty proved superior to both planes and production immediately ordered.

Now from Aero Series 12 Heinkel He 100:

"On October 30, 1939, a Soviet commission headed by Col. Gussewand and Col. Shevtshanko to inspect (at Marienehe) and perhaps purchase the He 100. A member of this team was Alxander Yakoulew who spent much of his time inspecting the plane carefully. The Soviets purchased 3 He 100D-1s, which served in the USSR for design studies which led to the developements of the YAK-3 and YAK-9. A Japanese commission arrived right on the heels of the Soviet commission, thus making negotiations with either a little difficult to arrange. This commission was headed by Navy Capt. Wada and Capt. Kikuoka. The Japanese purchased the 3 He 100D-0 models and the export designation was AX-He-1. One can see the direct development of this to the Ki-61."

Others were sold to Hungary but there were no production models from any foreign country, just design.


----------



## Njaco (May 16, 2007)

I think I found it Adler and yer right. from "Warplanes of the Luftwaffe" by David Donald:

"....the sitution was further worsened by the withdrawl of three aircraft (Ju 290A-5s) for special transport duties. They were stripped of armour and armament at Funsterwald and fitted with additional fuel tanks. So configured they left Odessa and Mielec for a non-stop flight to Manchuria with special cargo for the Japanese, before returning to Lielec with strategic materils that were in short supply in Germany."

Another source I have says there were 3 such flights.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 21, 2007)

It would be interesting a dog-fight between an A6M Zero and a Bf-109E of the same time say. I really do reckon that in pilots of the same skill, the contest in a dog-fight would be close as the A6M Zero would have the manevourability but the Bf-109E would have the advantage of being able to make significant hits owing to its armament as well as having the armour to survive very well.


----------



## Glider (May 21, 2007)

It should be remembered that by the time the Zero was in service in decent numbers the equivalent would be the 109F not E. 

There is little doubt in my mind that the 109 would be to much for the Zero.


----------



## Micdrow (May 21, 2007)

Glider said:


> There is little doubt in my mind that the 109 would be to much for the Zero.



Normally I stay out of debates like this as I am a huge Bf-109 fan. But to say the 109 would be to much for the zero. I wouldn't go that far. The Australian's and the British had a ton of losses in the pacific fighting the zero with spitfires.

Maneuverability and range alone goes to the Zero. Just for the shear fun of it they could stay just out of range and wait till they run out of gas and then smoke them landing or crashing.

Armor goes to the Bf-109 hands down. Speed goes to a Bf-109E-3 at around 348 mph depending on source and a A6M3B or model 21 goes at around 331 mph. Difference of around 17 mph. At which time both came out around the same time.

Fire power I would rate to be pretty much even. Both had cannon and machine gun's. Although in the long run I would go with the Bf-109 machine guns.

Basically under rating an enemy especially one with world wide respect such as the zero should never be treated lightly. Both the zero and the Bf-109 were well respected by the pilots that flew against them. To treat them any other way is to invite a very quick death in combat as many allied pilots found out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2007)

Just remember, the Zero lost all that wonderful agility around 300 mph.


----------



## Glider (May 22, 2007)

Micdrow said:


> Normally I stay out of debates like this as I am a huge Bf-109 fan. But to say the 109 would be to much for the zero. I wouldn't go that far. The Australian's and the British had a ton of losses in the pacific fighting the zero with spitfires.
> 
> Maneuverability and range alone goes to the Zero. Just for the shear fun of it they could stay just out of range and wait till they run out of gas and then smoke them landing or crashing.
> 
> ...



Its interesting, as I am not normally a big fan of the 109 particually the later models but here I would definately go for the 109, even the E although the F was I believe the closest timeline wise. It should be remembered that at Pearl Harbour the IJN were still equipping some units with the Zero with only around 450 in service whilst at the end of 1941, the 109F was in widespread use.

The 109 had the option of leaving the battle at any time using its superior dive speed plus had better cannons and more ammunition. There can be no doubt that the 109 was better protected.

The 109F was also a lot faster than the Zero Model 21 and its lighter weapons compared to the 109E would ahve been more than sufficient to deal with the lightly built zero.


----------



## Micdrow (May 22, 2007)

I would agree with you on that Glider. I differently would take the Bf-109. The Japanese did test fly a few Bf-109E's but did not like them. They thought they where to heavy. But then again if you look at most Japanese planes they go for maneuverability and range. Differently a difference in campaigns.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 22, 2007)

I just threw that onto this topic as an interesting side diversion that was staying within the terms of the topic. I chose the 109E because I thought it was at the same time that the Zero was starting to be deployed operationally. Yes I do tend to think the Bf-109E would beat the Zero but it would require a great deal of effort to win...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 23, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Yes I do tend to think the Bf-109E would beat the Zero but it would require a great deal of effort to win...


Stay above 300 mph, it's that simple...


----------



## R Leonard (May 23, 2007)

All the A6M pilot would have to do is stay out of the 109's sights and wait for it to run out of gas


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 23, 2007)

R Leonard said:


> All the A6M pilot would have to do is stay out of the 109's sights and wait for it to run out of gas


----------



## Njaco (May 23, 2007)

Of course, a Bf 109 with a single .22 could probably take out the Zero.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 27, 2007)

Too true, just an interesting hypothetical that I threw up as a comparison between the design philosophies of the Germans and the Japanese. I was just interested in what people thought.


----------



## RATHED (May 28, 2007)

Negative Creep said:


> Didn't the Allies believe the Hein (Tony) was a licence built `09?



I might be wrong, but I read somewhere that the allies believed the Hein was based on the Italian Folgores, hence the nickname "Tony". 

BTW, the me-109E provided to japan was sent by long range sub, crated. Together it also went a big ( 600?) load og MG 151/20. Most of those were used in the first batchs of the Hein.


----------



## Njaco (May 28, 2007)

> ...load og MG 151/20...



Hey, alright. Another "og" veteran! Always hate when the "f" key goes on vacation. Drives me nuts.


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2007)

I think that in the late 1940 to 1943 period the outcome of a 109 versus A6M would probably depend on the skill of the pilot. In the Pacific, the Allied forces only really gained ascendency over the Zero when the P38, Corsair and Hellcat came on the scene. Even then, if the Zero was piloted by an experienced pilot the issue was in doubt. In a 1V1 fight a well flown Zero could almost always evade the other A/Cs runs. He did not have the option to disengage whenever he desired like the higher performance A/C had but one moment of carelessness could get the Zero's advesary in serious trouble.


----------



## Njaco (May 29, 2007)

Just watched a PBS special last night on the air battle between Sakai and "Pug" Stephenson (I think that was his name) over Guadalcanal. I was surprised that (1) the armour on the hellcat kept it flying even after 200 rounds and (2) those rounds were of rifle caliber for the guns of the Zero. With that I think I would go with Leonard's suggestion and fly cirlces around the 109 until the needle hit "E".


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 9, 2007)

There was all sorts of aircraft, weaponry and technology traffic between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan before and during the war. As you all point out, the Tony was designed/inspired from the BF-109. 

Japan towards the latter part of the war did have a few ME-262 and an ME-163. There was momentum to produce these in numbers to intercept the B-29. The first flight of the Japanese version of the ME-262 took place at Imperial Japanese Air Field Kizarazu (now a JGSDF helicopter base), which is right across the bay from Yokosuka Imperial Japanese Naval Shipyard, eight days before the war officially ended in the Pacific. There are some of the opinion that had these and a few other high altitude interceptors been pressed into service a year earlier, the war in the Pacific may have carried on beyond 1945, since speed and a hellacious nose cannon were the strengths of this particular airframe. Yes, this is all arguable when one throws in all of the other variables into the mix.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2007)

The Japanese "versions" of the Me 262 and the Me 163 were inspired but completely built on there own. Hense the slightly different look and design. Examples here are some pics of the German and Japanese versions of them to see the difference in the designs.

Specifically look at the tail of the Me 262 compared to the Kikka and then the cockpit and nose of the Me 163 compared to the J8 M.


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 10, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Japanese "versions" of the Me 262 and the Me 163 were inspired but completely built on there own. Hense the slightly different look and design. Examples here are some pics of the German and Japanese versions of them to see the difference in the designs.
> 
> Specifically look at the tail of the Me 262 compared to the Kikka and then the cockpit and nose of the Me 163 compared to the J8 M.



I should have clarified that Japanese variants of ME-262 and -163 were designed and built from versions of the -262 and -163 that were sent to Japan. Just like the present day JASDF F-2, which from the outside looks like an F16, but is built from designs and technology sharing between Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and GD. I got a chance to look at an F-2 during a weekend cross-country a few years ago up to Misawa AB for some ACM with the USAF Viper drivers. I akin the F-2 and F-16 to the FA-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. The F-2 has a 25% larger wing area and is a little taller in the tailplane and has a wider intake.

Thanks for the pics.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2007)

I don't know about the Japanese version of the Me163 but I do have some information on the design of their Jet aircraft.

Japan started designing their twin engined jet under the auspices of Captain Tokiyasa Tanegashima and this was initially a Japanese only project. Later Commander Eiicha Iwaya arrived from Germany in a submarine with some technical information on the 262 and this was incorporated into the work that was underway.

The Japanese didn't have (as far as I am aware) examples of the Me262 or full designs/plans to go from. As a result the differences between the planes were quite significant and also the performance.


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 11, 2007)

If you get a chance to go to Japan, go to Kizarazu. They have some info on the Imperial Japanese jet aircraft from that era, since Kizarazu was the site that the Kikka made its maiden flight. It is there that you can find info on it, as well as info on other aircraft from that time.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2007)

I am afraid that should I go to Japan I can promise my wife wouldn't let me go anywhere near an aircraft until at least some of the normal highspots are seen first.

The article I have is written by Lt Cdr Susumu Takaoka the test pilot for the first flight. Its interesting reading, in particular the warnings he was given before the flight.
a) Delay in engine response after moving the throttle (normal in a jet)
b) Tendancy of the engine to flame out at less than 6000 rev (which meant he had to land 20mph faster than it was designed to)
c) Heavy fuel consumption ( not unusual in an early jet)
d) Inadaquate landing gear brakes (Scary when you realise that the landing gear was from a Zero and they were barely adaquate then, plus match it to the additional landing speed in (b))
e) The RATO gear had been angled by mistake and might cause a nose down attitude on take off (now thats scary)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2007)

Glider said:


> I don't know about the Japanese version of the Me163 but I do have some information on the design of their Jet aircraft.
> 
> Japan started designing their twin engined jet under the auspices of Captain Tokiyasa Tanegashima and this was initially a Japanese only project. Later Commander Eiicha Iwaya arrived from Germany in a submarine with some technical information on the 262 and this was incorporated into the work that was underway.
> 
> The Japanese didn't have (as far as I am aware) examples of the Me262 or full designs/plans to go from. As a result the differences between the planes were quite significant and also the performance.



That is correct. I am not sure about the Japanese Comet but the 262 was a Japanese design with help from the Germans but they did not have an example of it.


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 11, 2007)

Glider said:


> I am afraid that should I go to Japan I can promise my wife wouldn't let me go anywhere near an aircraft until at least some of the normal highspots are seen first.
> 
> The article I have is written by Lt Cdr Susumu Takaoka the test pilot for the first flight. Its interesting reading, in particular the warnings he was given before the flight.
> a) Delay in engine response after moving the throttle (normal in a jet)
> ...



All pretty typical stuff during the early days of jet powered flight, but we all had to start somewhere. I'm just totally amazed by those guys who were on the outer ragged edge of the envelope back in the day, and it's to guys like LCDR Takaoka and others that we have things like NATOPS and pocket checklists/EPs/emergency question of the day. All written in blood by someone before me, God bless them all.

On a lighter note, warning D is a hoot! On the ground, I find myself having to explain to guys that whenever one increases the power output of any moving object, in this case, turbo/supercharging, the braking capacity must also be increased in proportion to the power increase.


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is correct. I am not sure about the Japanese Comet but the 262 was a Japanese design with help from the Germans but they did not have an example of it.



Whether they had one or not, just the fact that the Japanese did produce a jet similar to the -262 was an accomplishment. This is something I could have asked Saburo Sakai. He was a guest of ours during one of our "dining in" dinners when I was a member of VFA-192 back in 1997. If you don't know who he is, check him out. Unfortunately, he passed away in 2000. Besides being a stick with natural ability, he was a warrior who had compassion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2007)

That I agree with.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 13, 2007)

Interestingly I knew of the Kikka as the Japanese version of the Me-262 was called, but I did not know of a Japanese version of the Me-163 Comet. Anyone know whether it had a service name and number in Japan?


----------



## otftch (Jun 13, 2007)

The japanese tested a few other German aircraft before and durring WW II.

He-100D-0 AXHe1 three tested
He-118 V4 DXHe1 one tested
He 72 KXHe1 one tested
He 112 A7He1 twelve actually used
Bu-131 KXBu1 twenty one aircraft which 
were developed into the K9W Kyushu
Do-N type 87 unknown number

The Japanese version of the Comet was J8M Shushi (swinging Sword)


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 13, 2007)

I haven't been able to confirm it, but I read that the Japanese Imperial Army received two FW-190 for testing.


----------



## otftch (Jun 13, 2007)

I know for sure of one.They used it to develop the Ki-100 a radial engine version of the Ki-61 Tony.The 190 was never used operationally.My imformation also shows an Me 109 and a 210 or 410 for test purposes only.They also had a bunch of US aircraft
Ed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Interestingly I knew of the Kikka as the Japanese version of the Me-262 was called, but I did not know of a Japanese version of the Me-163 Comet. Anyone know whether it had a service name and number in Japan?



Mitsubishi J8 M Shusui


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2007)

otftch said:


> I know for sure of one.They used it to develop the Ki-100 a radial engine version of the Ki-61 Tony.The 190 was never used operationally.My imformation also shows an Me 109 and a 210 or 410 for test purposes only.They also had a bunch of US aircraft
> Ed




Japan had 2 Bf 109E-3's, one Bf 109E-7 and one Bf 109G 

They also test the following aircraft from the Luftwaffe:


Arado Ar 196 
Bücker Bü 131B Jungmann 
Dornier Do 15 Wal 
Heinkel He 70 Blitz 
Heinkel He 118 
Heinkel He 50A 
Heinkel He 112B V12 / B-1 
Heinkel He 100D 
Heinkel He 116A 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3
Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-5 
Junkers F.6 
Junkers F.13 
Junkers Ju 86Z-2 
Junkers Ju 87A-1 
Junkers Ju 160 
Messerschmitt Bf 108 
Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3
Messershcmitt Bf 109E-7
Messerschmitt Bf 109G-? 
Messerschmitt Me 210A-2


----------



## Njaco (Jun 13, 2007)

I was curious if there was cooperation between Japan and Germany for the "Oka" and Bachem "Natter" suicide flying bombs. Both seem to have been developed about the same time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2007)

Njaco said:


> I was curious if there was cooperation between Japan and Germany for the "Oka" and Bachem "Natter" suicide flying bombs. Both seem to have been developed about the same time.


The Ohka was a home grown Japanese project...

_*"Conceived by Ensign Mitsuo Ohta of the 405th Kokutai, and aided by students of the Aeronautical Research Institute at the University of Tokyo, Ohta submitted his plans to the Yokisuka research facility. The Imperial Japanese Navy decided the idea had merit and Yokosuka engineers of the First Naval Air Technical Bureau (Kugisho) created formal blueprints for what was to be the MXY7. The only variant which saw service was the Model 11, and was powered by three Type 4 Mark 1 Model 20 rockets. 150 were built at Yokosuka, and another 600 were built at the Kasumigaura Naval Air Arsenal."*_


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 13, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Ohka was a home grown Japanese project...
> 
> _*"Conceived by Ensign Mitsuo Ohta of the 405th Kokutai, and aided by students of the Aeronautical Research Institute at the University of Tokyo, Ohta submitted his plans to the Yokisuka research facility. The Imperial Japanese Navy decided the idea had merit and Yokosuka engineers of the First Naval Air Technical Bureau (Kugisho) created formal blueprints for what was to be the MXY7. The only variant which saw service was the Model 11, and was powered by three Type 4 Mark 1 Model 20 rockets. 150 were built at Yokosuka, and another 600 were built at the Kasumigaura Naval Air Arsenal."*_



I actually saw a copy of one in Sasebo, Japan when I was a kid. I used to walk by this fenced in area that was part of the MSDF section of Fleet Activities, Sasebo (1970-73). Anyway, it looked like an elongated bomb with stubby wings, a little cockpit and really looked unairworthy. I had no idea what it was at the time until I was much older and saw a "Baka" bomb in a book of strange aircraft. "Ohka"... take out the "k" and spell it in reverse and you get "Aho", which is Japanese slang from Kansai area for "fool".


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 13, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Japan had 2 Bf 109E-3's, one Bf 109E-7 and one Bf 109G
> 
> They also test the following aircraft from the Luftwaffe:
> 
> ...



Wow! Much appreciated for the 411.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2007)

Hornet_Driver said:


> I actually saw a copy of one in Sasebo, Japan when I was a kid. I used to walk by this fenced in area that was part of the MSDF section of Fleet Activities, Sasebo (1970-73). Anyway, it looked like an elongated bomb with stubby wings, a little cockpit and really looked unairworthy. I had no idea what it was at the time until I was much older and saw a "Baka" bomb in a book of strange aircraft. "Ohka"... take out the "k" and spell it in reverse and you get "Aho", which is Japanese slang from Kansai area for "fool".


Interesting...

I seen one in a museum as well, I think Wright Pat. I built a model of one as a kid - had a 30" wingspan and was powered by a rocket engine. It flew pretty well until a put a "c" engine in the thing and its wings got ripped off.


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 13, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Interesting...
> 
> I seen one in a museum as well, I think Wright Pat. I built a model of one as a kid - had a 30" wingspan and was powered by a rocket engine. It flew pretty well until a put a "c" engine in the thing and its wings got ripped off.



Back in the day as a kid in Japan, WW2 had only ended 25 years ago, and Sasebo, which was the second most important Japanese Imperial Navy installation, was still filled with some relics of that conflict, but not quite in the open. I really don't know what that Ohka thing served as in 1970. I'm sure it wasn't armed. Maybe it was a reminder to the MSDF of all of the idiotic things (the Ohka was not a thing of genius; one way missions aren't heroic when you don't have a choice) that had occurred less than a quarter century ago ("how can you know where you are going unless you know where you came from?" kinda thought going here). In the housing area where I lived, the hill was littered with observation posts, tunnels and all kinds of reminders of a time in the not so distant past.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2007)

Very cool.

Never saw much of the mainland, spent time at Kadena....


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 13, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Very cool.
> 
> Never saw much of the mainland, spent time at Kadena....



I did a lot of weekend cross-country hops to Kadena. Didn't get out too much from the base. Fly out of Atsugi on Friday, up to Misawa, across to Osan, down to Kadena, stop for gas at Iwakuni and back on Sunday afternoon.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2007)

Very cool - all your flying this weekend in a Hornet?


----------



## otftch (Jun 13, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Japan had 2 Bf 109E-3's, one Bf 109E-7 and one Bf 109G
> 
> They also test the following aircraft from the Luftwaffe:
> 
> ...



I only posted those that I knew for sure.Do you have photos of these.Are you using Japanese or German records ?I know a few German aircraft never arrived in Japan.
Ed


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 13, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Very cool - all your flying this weekend in a Hornet?



This weekend? No, I'm afraid not, but would love to be back in the cockpit. I'm attached to a major staff here in the Middle East, so no flying for me 

In CVW-5, the best ranges are out of the local area (Kanto Plain), so it's either up to Hamamatsu/Misawa in Northern Japan, Osan and the Korean ranges, over to Kadena and over the Sea of Japan. For live ordnance, we went to Guam (can't carry live ordnance/live rounds over Japan), and that's the SOP. NAF Atsugi, where CVW-5 is based, is really small. FCLP practice has become restricted due to noise abatement, so it's down to Iwo Jima, and even that's not really a favorable location because there's no divert field. Iwo Jima is like being on the carrier- one runway and nowhere else to go if we have a bingo.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2007)

Very cool.........

Well tonight I got my night landings in a 172...


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Very cool.........
> 
> Well tonight I got my night landings in a 172...



Nice! Good luck!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2007)

otftch said:


> I only posted those that I knew for sure.Do you have photos of these.Are you using Japanese or German records ?I know a few German aircraft never arrived in Japan.
> Ed



Actually I got my info from a few German books that I have.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2007)

Hornet_Driver said:


> Nice! Good luck!


Thanks!

I actually have Jet time - L-29 and more recently flew a Jet Provost. I'm waiting to get my type rating in the L-29, need a few more hours and a lot more money.


----------



## net_sailor (Jun 15, 2007)

Somebody was looking for pix of Japanese Emils?
http://airwar.hihome.com/gwp/bf109/part2/gwp-bf109e-7-japan.jpg
[EDIT]
more pictures on this site:
Me


----------



## otftch (Jun 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually I got my info from a few German books that I have.



I know the Germans sent a 163 to Japan by submarine.Actually two subs.The one with the plane parts was lost but the plans and engine made it.If you have any photos would you please post them.If you check the modelling section and my web page you can see I'm very interested in modelling these aircraft.Thanks,
Ed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2007)

Possibly I can not confirm nor deny that the Japanese recieved a 163.


----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jun 15, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I actually have Jet time - L-29 and more recently flew a Jet Provost. I'm waiting to get my type rating in the L-29, need a few more hours and a lot more money.



Nice! I would like to get back into a simpler airframe some day that can really show you what you are made of as a pilot. Newer combat aircraft with advanced navigation/communication, command/control, weps management suites, flight controls are great, but these airframes can make ones aviation skills atrophy, which is not a good thing [emergency procedures; flying the ball (yes, approach pass off to tower ALS; I still don't trust it!). It's like driving a bus sometimes, and I can see in the not-too-distant future UCAVs taking over. This is why I am so interested in the Flug Werk FW-190 A8/N.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 17, 2007)

Well, we know that the Japanese at least got plans as there is a Japanese plane that looks very similar to a Me-163 that was pictured in another thread. Worth a look at it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2007)

Hornet_Driver said:


> Nice! I would like to get back into a simpler airframe some day that can really show you what you are made of as a pilot. Newer combat aircraft with advanced navigation/communication, command/control, weps management suites, flight controls are great, but these airframes can make ones aviation skills atrophy, which is not a good thing [emergency procedures; flying the ball (yes, approach pass off to tower ALS; I still don't trust it!). It's like driving a bus sometimes, and I can see in the not-too-distant future UCAVs taking over. This is why I am so interested in the Flug Werk FW-190 A8/N.


You're not the only active military flyer I heard that from. I know a lot of guys who have gotten out of the military and look to fly civilian jets just because of why you described. It just takes a lot of money or being in the right place at the right time...


----------



## Glider (Jun 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You're not the only active military flyer I heard that from. I know a lot of guys who have gotten out of the military and look to fly civilian jets just because of why you described. It just takes a lot of money or being in the right place at the right time...



We had a number of commercial pilots in our Gliding Club and when I was in the Navy a number of fast jet pilots both of whom preferred the basic approach to flying.

As an aside the only people who had problems were trainee helicopter pilots who were eventually banned from flying gliders until they qualified. Partly this was due to the time it took up, partly due to it impacting their learning due to the visual cues being different and to be honest, partly because some of them were real know it alls who had to be taught a lesson and we were happy to do without.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)




----------



## Hornet_Driver (Jul 8, 2007)

Hornet_Driver said:


> If you get a chance to go to Japan, go to Kizarazu. They have some info on the Imperial Japanese jet aircraft from that era, since Kizarazu was the site that the Kikka made its maiden flight. It is there that you can find info on it, as well as info on other aircraft from that time.



The Satsuki and Matsu were the names of two IJM submarines that left Keil bound for Japan. What was onboard the Satsuki is unknown. The Satsuki was sunk enroute to Japan. The Matsu made it back with plans on the ME20 turbojet engine. Just pictures and plans. On Aug 07, 1945, the IJM made its first flight of the ME-262 inspired jet called the Kikka (Orange Mandarin Blossom).

The Japanese really did not have much in the way of jet-powered flight to go by with the exception of those plans and pictures. The rest was from their own ingenuity. At the end of the war in the Pacific, the American Tactical Air Intelligence (TAI) scoured the Japanese countryside for secret weapons being developed. In total, over 12,000 aircraft frames were found. Aircraft that could have turned the tide of the battle in the Pacific had the war stretched on into 1946, and US intel had no idea that these aircraft were being designed and built. On the ground? No.... the Japanese were building the aircraft to be launched from mountain air fields from INSIDE mountains. Jets that were being built to take out the B-29, task force killers and they were even experimenting with rocketry, etc. Did you know that the Japanese were the first to sink a submarine using a gyrocopter? It happened in 1944. They were called KA-1, and they were launched from freighters with flight decks. Anyway, just wanted to put more info out here.


----------

