Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Explains a lot about Midway. No voice communication between the carriers and their CAP or within the CAP. Couldn't shield their radios from ignition interference. Bad on them.Interesting, the IJN pilots were ripping the radios out of their Zeros because the radio was rubbish.
Hi Contrails 16.
I have seen films of it, but never the actual aircraft. That particular aircraft had a very slightly bent propeller blade and could not fly at full power due to vibration, but there was no chance of getting a new propeller.
At the time, there was absolutely no interest in a flying Japanese fighter at U.S. airshows, so it was eventually sold to a Japanese museum. It was transferred to the Arashiyama Museum in Kyoto in 1973 for display. With unsupervised access allowed to the aircraft, parts were stolen from the Ki-84, and coupled with the years of neglect it could no longer fly. Following the museum's closure in 1991, the aircraft was transferred to the Tokko Heiwa Kinen-kan Museum, Kagoshima Prefecture, where it still is displayed to this day. When they came to get it, they cut the wings off with a chain saw (!) and re-assembled it with non-flyable repairs. It is the only surviving Ki-84.
I wonder if the radar was affected by those same atmospheric conditions? Park said that most radar intercepts were against clouds or a flock of birds.
Wow, that pacifism kinda is a double-edged sword I guess. It sucks that they did that. Have they done this to other historic warplanes that you know of ?The Japanese who purchased it. They likely knew it was going to be static and wanted to ensure it never flew again.
In fact, it COULD fly again ... but it would take a new wing spar in addition to the restoration needed. The museum is in a downtown area, so it is nowhere NEAR an airport.
That's awesomeNot that I know of. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
A friend of mine back in the 1990s in Arizona purchased a MiG-15 UTI from the Chinese People Air Museum outside of Beijing, They cut out about a 1-foot section of wiring harness about every 4 feet. For the aircraft to operate, it had to be completely rewired. They also reversed every other check valve in the hydraulic system and it took a couple of weeks of head scratching to get that worked out. When we connected a hydraulic pressure source to it and tried to operate it. All the controls were frozen in place. Some basic troubleshooting made that easier after we found the first one that was reversed. After that, it was easy.
After the experience, I would never purchase anything of significance from China. They actively sabotaged the aircraft, but did not cut the wing spars. Conversely, they left the cannons armed and we had to call ATF to get them to come over and make everything legal. ATF was not happy and was about as friendly as China was. They cut the guns up into 7 pieces! We had to weld them back together and put them back in place for weight and balance purposes. Without the cannons, the aircraft wanted to rock back onto the tail. I suppose they thought we wanted to fly the aircraft armed! If that were actually the case, why would we have called them in the first place? Seems like a good way to go to jail!
When I say, "we," I mean my friend. I was an interested observer only. Deere Valley Airport was and likely remains a hotbed of warbirds. I helped get the MiG airworthy, but never owned any part of it. I DID get to taxi it once. Interesting as it had no steering. You steer it with the brakes and the nosewheel casters freely. I think many early jets operate that way and some tricycle gear pistons, too. The P-38 and F7F have castering nosewheels and steer with brakes and/or power changes.
If you go to Deere Valley Airport, you can see CJ-6s, PZL TS-11s, MiGs (15 / 17), some AT-6s, used to be a couple of operating F-104s, a couple of A-3s, and 1 or 2 T-33 / CT-133s, coupled with other exotics, mostly aerobats. I've seen Yak-50s and 52s there along with the odd Su-29 / 29 / 31 and some interesting, rare planes like a CW-22 or 23, can't recall which now.
Both books I've read on early Navy combat, "The First Team" and "The First Team and the Quadalcanal Campaign", indicated that US Navy communications was a problem, often significantly, especially when enemy force reports do not make it back to Command.I believe it was a combination.
Poor shielding on the engine ignition system and not the best radio.
I would note however that a number of aircraft had radio problems and the First P-47s to go into service in Europe did so with British radios (the American ones were pulled out and British ones installed) after a several weeks of trying to get the US radios to work properly.
I believe the P-80/T-33 needed to be steered with the brakes and had a castering nose wheel, which, according to one of my friends, could get cocked.When I say, "we," I mean my friend. I was an interested observer only. Deere Valley Airport was and likely remains a hotbed of warbirds. I helped get the MiG airworthy, but never owned any part of it. I DID get to taxi it once. Interesting as it had no steering. You steer it with the brakes and the nosewheel casters freely. I think many early jets operate that way and some tricycle gear pistons, too. The P-38 and F7F have castering nosewheels and steer with brakes and/or power changes.
I DID get to taxi it once. Interesting as it had no steering. You steer it with the brakes and the nosewheel casters freely. I think many early jets operate that way and some tricycle gear pistons, too. The P-38 and F7F have castering nosewheels and steer with brakes and/or power changes.
This video, from Greg's Aircraft and Automobiles, goes into a lot of the theory of aircraft maneuverability. I didn't watch it like I was studying for a test, but what I took from it was that an aircraft's sustained turn rate is largely determined by its excess power., and on this basis the P-47 rates well for turning ability at high altitude because it keeps its power to higher altitude than most fighters. Similarly, at low altitude it was not great. I don't know whether the Zero had enough excess power to get anywhere near the 6g range on a sustained basis. As far as momentary G forces, like pulling out of a dive, I don't know how they weigh or rate momentary versus sustained "G" forces.
This video, from Greg's Aircraft and Automobiles, goes into a lot of the theory of aircraft maneuverability. I didn't watch it like I was studying for a test, but what I took from it was that an aircraft's sustained turn rate is largely determined by its excess power., and on this basis the P-47 rates well for turning ability at high altitude because it keeps its power to higher altitude than most fighters. Similarly, at low altitude it was not great. I don't know whether the Zero had enough excess power to get anywhere near the 6g range on a sustained basis. As far as momentary G forces, like pulling out of a dive, I don't know how they weigh or rate momentary versus sustained "G" forces.
Wow, that pacifism kinda is a double-edged sword I guess. It sucks that they did that. Have they done this to other historic warplanes that you know of ?