J2M Raiden vs. F8F Bearcat

[CORSNING]

Mitsubishi J2M3 vs. Hawker Tempest II

By popular Glider request. (No whacks given because it is only slightly
off topic.)
Before I begin it should be said that the F8F-1 in the comparison above
did not become operational until 21 May 1945. It would have taken about
three to four months to bring it up to combat status overseas (Aug./Sep. 1945).
The Tempest II became operational with No.54 Squadron in November 1945.
The J2M3 Raiden was flown in combat for the first time on September 1944,
one full year earlier than either. So... for the first year of combat the J2M3
wins.

J2M3 model 21 vs. (Tempest II)

Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / mph / fpm
S.L. 359 / 4835 (417 / 4685)
1,000 374 / 4940 (425 / 4195)
2,000 380 / 4650 (425 / 4180)
3,000 382 / 4270 (439 / 3960)
4,000 403 / 4320 (449 / 3475)
5,000 415 / 4350 (449 / 2995)
6,000 410 / 3760 (447 / 2515)
7,000 404 / 3160 (443 / 2035)
8,000 394 / 2440 (435 / 1550)
9,000 383 / 1850 (422 / 1070)
Maximum Speed: 417 mph./5,061 m. (449 mph./3,581 m.)
Maximum Climb Rate: 4990 fpm./1,311 m. (4685 fpm./S.L.)
From these numbers, at no time could the Tempest match the Raiden in
gaining altitude. However, the Tempest could easily gain distance and altitude
by climbing at a more shallow angle at a higher speed.
The Tempest could out accelerate and outdistance the Raiden at all altitudes
up to its absolute ceiling. (IMO).
Service Ceiling: 37,200 ft. (36,130 ft.)
Combat Weight: 7,320 lb. (11,510 ft.)
Maximum Engine Power: 1,940 hp./4,400 ft. (2,650 hp./S.L.).
Wing Loading: 33.92 (37.90) lb./sq. ft.
Power Loading: 3.773 (4.343) lb./hp.
In maneuvering combat the Raiden had a distinct advantage considering its
wing loading and combat flaps.
Armament 4 x 20 mm. vs. (4 x 20 mm.) dead even.
Of course the above performance figures hinge entirely on good fuel (92-100)
and good engine performance of the Raiden's Kasei 23.
Range: 1,300 ml. maximum external (1,700 ml. maximum external).

What? Nobody likes this post. I'm disappointed. I spent years putting this
information together. Well don't that beat all.

Still love you guys, Jeff.

 

[drgondog]

Greg, Neil, Corsning - the XP-51G data was from Chilton Memoirs and the MP was 90" IIRC, more than the Performance Estimate cited by Neil and Mike in the NAA Performance Report. The Performance estimate cited was for 20# boost for 1850 HP (at close to 80"MP) in level flight and 1710 HP in climb. .

The XP-51F, also cited by Chilton, but at less than combat load, for 7500 fpm was for 1650-3 at 90". Loaded weight of the F was which was 7340 pounds, for both the 491mpg top speed and 7500fpm ROC - which was 1705 over empty weight. It also had 180 gallon capacity for fuel - but only 105 gallons of fuel so it was light - similar in config of an F8F-1 or -2 in CAP role.

O'Leary quotes segments of Chilton memoirs in the Lightweights section of Building the P-51 Mustang.

I have been presented with a lot of data not presented before by a gentleman that will be co-author in my next book. I will present much of this in a sub chapter.

 

[CORSNING]

You are the Man Bill. I am looking forward to your book.
Please hurry, I'm old and want to read it before I die.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Molders in a 109E vs Nishizawa in an A6M3. Now that would be interesting! my money would be on Nishizawa, hands down.

That would be a 1939 aircraft opposing a late 1941, early 1942 aircraft. Perhaps a 109F-4 would be a better contemporary to the A6M3

 

[wuzak]

I call "OFF TOPIC!"

Sorry Greg but you need a whack on the @$$ for that.

Looks like a case of cross-threading.

 

[GregP]

Sign me up for a copy, Bill!

 

[GregP]

Hi Jeff,

Yes, is IS off-topic, but I didn't bring it up. YOU did.

We'll have to disagree about the F-35 but, as stated, I hope it is you who are correct about it since we're likely to be flying them. The Hornet is a very good dogfighter, which is what a WVR fight will be once everyone sees each other up close and personal. BVR, I'd take the F-35. It's just that a BVR combat has never been approved as far as I know that makes me wonder why we'd even bother to develop a BVR aircraft. If the politicians won't let you use it, why develop the capability? At consoderable expense, I might add.

Cheers.

 

[CORSNING]

Uh, Greg you are aware that I am an advocate of the F-22 not the F-35...?

 

[CORSNING]

Ok, back on topic. I would just like to take this time to inform everyone
that performance information I have posted and will post in the future
was totally inspired by wwiiaircraftperformance. Mr. Mike Williams and
Mr. Neil Stirling put together THE absolute best site for raw actual WW2
aircraft information. Then there is ww2aircraft.net, what I would consider
THE best site to kick around a topic and get great information in response.
There are also great other sites out there that are posting great informative
information.

In case anyone asked how that whole paragraph is back on topic, think
wwiiaircraftperformance. Thank you Mike and Neil.

, Jeff

 

[GregP]

Altogether a really great website. Their data are wonderful. I have always wondered where they fing the data, but will NOT bug them about it. These guys have and are performing a great service for the community of people interested in the WWII and slightly-later/earlier eras.

A heartfelt "well done" to both and anyone who helps them. These are the data we need for meaningful analyses of relative performances of the aircraft of the time.

Naturally, we crave more. But you can't DO that if you don't have a place to start your interest in performance data percolating.

 

[grampi]

Greg, Neil, Corsning - the XP-51G data was from Chilton Memoirs and the MP was 90" IIRC, more than the Performance Estimate cited by Neil and Mike in the NAA Performance Report. The Performance estimate cited was for 20# boost for 1850 HP (at close to 80"MP) in level flight and 1710 HP in climb. .

The XP-51F, also cited by Chilton, but at less than combat load, for 7500 fpm was for 1650-3 at 90". Loaded weight of the F was which was 7340 pounds, for both the 491mpg top speed and 7500fpm ROC - which was 1705 over empty weight. It also had 180 gallon capacity for fuel - but only 105 gallons of fuel so it was light - similar in config of an F8F-1 or -2 in CAP role.

O'Leary quotes segments of Chilton memoirs in the Lightweights section of Building the P-51 Mustang.

I have been presented with a lot of data not presented before by a gentleman that will be co-author in my next book. I will present much of this in a sub chapter.

I always get the "G" and "F" P-51 models mixed up. One had a 5 bladed prop, and the other a 3 blader, which was which? At any rate, people make such a big deal about the Bearcat's performance when there were other fighters of the time that would clearly outperform it, such as these two versions of the Mustang...I believe there were also variants of the Spitfire that would outperform it as well, and quite a few more that were clearly superior at high altitudes, as neither version of the Bearcat were good performers at high altitudes...

 

[Laurelix97]

A7M2 is equivalent to the F8F-1 bearcat. However the Korean Era F8F-1B with greater engine setting (2800hp) was superior. (Obviously cuz it's version from 2-3 years in future)

A7M2 at 4720kg load (full fuel tanks) could do 628km/h at 5560m at military power and 6:07 to 6000m at military power. At WEP power the speed increased to over 650km/h and climb to 6000m was roughly 5:30. Armed with 4x 20mm cannons and it retained the turn capability of A6M3. Whilst the A6M's had bad diving characteristics, A7M dove just as well as corsair and hellcat. A7M2's 2200hp engine was supercharged and could fight at 10,000m altitude. Unlike A6M2/3 it had armour, self sealing tanks and automatic fire extinguishers.

 

[tomo pauk]

A7M2 is equivalent to the F8F-1 bearcat. However the Korean Era F8F-1B with greater engine setting (2800hp) was superior. (Obviously cuz it's version from 2-3 years in future)

A7M was comparable to the F4U with regards to the size, and to the F6F wrt performance. Even an early Bearcat will out-perform it by a wide margin.

A7M2 at 4720kg load (full fuel tanks) could do 628km/h at 5560m at military power and 6:07 to 6000m at military power. At WEP power the speed increased to over 650km/h and climb to 6000m was roughly 5:30. Armed with 4x 20mm cannons and it retained the turn capability of A6M3. Whilst the A6M's had bad diving characteristics, A7M dove just as well as corsair and hellcat. A7M2's 2200hp engine was supercharged and could fight at 10,000m altitude. Unlike A6M2/3 it had armour, self sealing tanks and automatic fire extinguishers.

Everybody's engines were supercharged in ww2, at least the ones above 500 HP, and any decent fighter could've fought at 10000 m in 1941. I'll politely ask for source for the 650 km/h speed figure for the A7M2.

 

[*SkyChimp*]

A7M2 at 4720kg load (full fuel tanks) could do 628km/h at 5560m at military power and 6:07 to 6000m at military power. At WEP power the speed increased to over 650km/h and climb to 6000m was roughly 5:30. Armed with 4x 20mm cannons and it retained the turn capability of A6M3. Whilst the A6M's had bad diving characteristics, A7M dove just as well as corsair and hellcat. A7M2's 2200hp engine was supercharged and could fight at 10,000m altitude. Unlike A6M2/3 it had armour, self sealing tanks and automatic fire extinguishers.

Everybody's engines were supercharged in ww2, at least the ones above 500 HP, and any decent fighter could've fought at 10000 m in 1941. I'll politely ask for source for the 650 km/h speed figure for the A7M2.

The source doesn't exist. The 650km/h figure isn't for the A7M2. It's for the never-built A7M3-J.
Top speed for the A7M2 was 390 mph at 21,655 ft. 7 prototypes and service-trials aircraft were built, and 1 production aircraft. (2 A7M1 prototypes were built.)

Source: Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War (Rene Francillon)

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello Gentlemen,

I am somewhat surprised that no one so far has mentioned the issue with the Break Off wingtips of the Bearcats and how they might be a limiting factor in long term service use. This is covered in pretty good detail in Corkey Meyer's Flight Journal.
The possibility of just one wingtip breaking off and resulting in asymmetric lift might prove to be a serious tactical limitation.

Regarding the armament on J2M Raiden, I believe the reality may not have been as good as it looked. I do not believe it was equal in performance to 4 x 20 mm on Allied aeroplanes such as Tempest. The Raiden's guns were two long barrel Type 99-II and two short barrel Type 99-I cannon with quite different and inferior ballistics compared to Tempest's guns.

Attached is a scan of a flight evaluation of Raiden from an old magazine article.

- Ivan.

 

[*SkyChimp*]

I am somewhat surprised that no one so far has mentioned the issue with the Break Off wingtips of the Bearcats and how they might be a limiting factor in long term service use.

Is there any evidence that wing-tips broke on aircraft in service use? I know there were demostrations of the breaking tip, but I've yet to see an account of one breaking on an aircraft in service. It's my understanding that the tip-feature was removed in 1949 - the last year the Bearcat was produced - and wasn't removed because it was problematic in flight, but rather because on one aircraft the explosive in the wing tip detonated unexpectedly on the ground and killed a sailor.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Is there any evidence that wing-tips broke on aircraft in service use? I know there were demostrations of the breaking tip, but I've yet to see an account of one breaking on an aircraft in service. It's my understanding that the tip-feature was removed in 1949 - the last year the Bearcat was produced - and wasn't removed because it was problematic in flight, but rather because on one aircraft the explosive in the wing tip detonated unexpectedly on the ground and killed a sailor.

One of the Blue Angel crashed and died down in Florida as a result of one wing tip breaking off during maneuvers.
This happened at low altitude and there was no room to recover. What is interesting is that this was confirmed by a fellow in another forum who was there when the accident happened.
I don't know if this counts as "service use", but certainly wasn't to test the detachable wing tip.
I found Corky Meyer's article shortly after writing this and apparently there were accidents in service use.

For those that don't know, the problem with one wing tip breaking off and resulting in asymmetrical lift was recognized as a problem.
The "solution" was to install explosives on both wing tips with a sensor to blow the opposite wing tip if one should detach via excessive G load.
The problem as SkyChimp described was that a wing tip charge exploded unexpectedly on the ground and killed a sailor.

I don't know if there ever was a proper solution because this was such an integral part of the design. The structure could be made lighter because it did not need to take the stress of a full length wing under heavy aerodynamic load. I suppose it makes more sense for me to try to find the source I am using rather than trying to write a summary.

Here is a link to a reprint of Corky Meyer's description along with some other cool stuff.
Some Days You Should Stay in Bed - Flight Journal

- Ivan.

 

[swampyankee]

According to this, the breakaway wingtips were not included in the -2 production aircraft.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

According to this, the breakaway wingtips were not included in the -2 production aircraft.

Hello swampyankee,
It is clear what the intended design for the wing was from Corky Meyer's description.
If the break away feature was removed, then the structure would need some serious redesign or reinforcement to make it capable of taking proper loads with the wing tips in place. The alternative would be a wing that had a much lower than average load limit and safety margin.
I know there is more literature on the subject but hesitate to quote from very vague memory, but I do not believe the issue was ever satisfactorily resolved.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello Gentlemen,
The basic premise of this discussion was a J2M Raiden versus F8F Bearcat.
I interpret this to mean F8F-1 even though no version of the Bearcat ever made it into combat in WW2.

In the interest of fairness, I would like to point out that the design load at which the Bearcat would shed its wing tips was 9G.
For WW2, this was pretty much beyond the expected limits of fighter combat, but toward the end of the war, American pilots began wearing G-suits which allowed them to tolerate this level of acceleration without blacking out. Other fighters such as the P-51 were also noted as suffering damage by over zealous pilots, so the Bearcat was probably good enough under "normal" circumstances.
Note that the service accident described by Corky Meyer was in recovering from a dive bombing run in Korea.
I have also read a description that the wing joint would fatigue in use and eventually fail at a lower G load and that as a result there were restrictions on flight envelope.

- Ivan.