Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
a competitive engine vs the F8F means a while new engine for the Raiden at which point comparison becomes very difficult.I wonder how the Raiden would have fared against the Bearcat if given the right fuel and a competitve engine as it seemed to have similar mission profile and similar dimensions.
J2M Raiden had so many development and teething problems (*) that in June 1944 it was ordered to stop production and focus on Kawanishi N1K1-J Shiden. The Raiden was to be produced in small numbers until A7M became operational. The first B-29 raids reversed the decision, as the Raiden was one of the few Japanese aircraft capable of reaching and fighting at that altitude.
It was the first Japanese aircraft to be designed taking into account armor protection and self-sealing fuel tanks. Even if these were not up to American standards, it was better than previous Japanese models.
US evaluation noted heavy aileron and lack of manoeuvrability at high speeds. In any case, the F8F have some clear advantages (speed, climb rate [also range?]).
Any comparison with US aircraft is hard because by 1944 Japanese fighters were underperforming. Teenagers were involved in the manufacturing, and the fuel was of poor quality. When the Ki-84 was tested in the US the maintenance crews/pilots were able to obtain much better performance.
(*) Including oscillation issues that were never found/corrected.
And what is it with the japanese engines? They are often rated with high horse power, rivalling those of allied and german descent. Yet the planes never seemed to live up to that. Is that just the potential power of those engines. With the proper fuel they should have been real monsters.
And what is it with the japanese engines? They are often rated with high horse power, rivalling those of allied and german descent. Yet the planes never seemed to live up to that. Is that just the potential power of those engines. With the proper fuel they should have been real monsters.
Probably available fuel, poor quality due to war, and few wind tunnel tests.
Not sure their airfoil research was up to snuff during the late-war bombing attacks, once the B-39s got started dropping stuff. I doub tif they ever discovered partial liminar flow beofre the war ended and were no doubt baffled by the extra speed of late-war Allied planes. Take a P-51 and use a normal 1941 airfoil with no Merrideth effect radiator, and you'd have a very average fighter. Possibly an average Japanese fighter that jusy didn't turn very well with respect to other Japanese figthters.
The Ki-84 am close, but the Ki-61/100, J2M, N1K2, etc. didn't seem to be bad, just mostly not aerodynamically advanced.
...
Though this is a trivia -
IJN ace fighter pilot Sadaaki Akamatsu (1910-1980) taught his students how to fight the P-51s and the F6Fs with their low-powered J2Ms, or A6Ms.
So such a big plane is quite an anachronism. I can hardly imagine how it can fight a bearcat on anything other than a slow turning dogfights.
The Ki-84 am close, but the Ki-61/100, J2M, N1K2, etc. didn't seem to be bad, just mostly not aerodynamically advanced.
Take a P-51 and use a normal 1941 airfoil with no Merrideth effect radiator, and you'd have a very average fighter.
What's the thing with the A7M Reppu? It is a very large fighter with dimensions slightly surpassing that of the Hellcat.
At the end of the war fighter designs tend to become lighter to achive peak performances as engine power allows. So such a big plane is quite an anachronism. I can hardly imagine how it can fight a bearcat on anything other than a slow turning dogfights.
For some period of time, about a decade or so, our museum had a Ki-84 Hayate in flyable condition. It vibrated, too, and they traced this to slightly bent propeller. Since there were no replacements anywhere in the world to be had, they just flew it at reduced power levels until interest in it dried up completely and they sold it to a museum in Japan, where it still lives today.
From what I remember the Bearcats held the climb to height record for a prop driven aircraft for many years. Add to that the lack of ace pilots in Japan and the high quality of US naval aces like David McCampbell just to name one of many, we'll that about says it all. I remember reading about a naval aviator who flew Bearcats out of Pensacola, they used to mix it up with the local AF boys who were flying Mustangs. The Navy had no problem defeating the AF in every acm envelope, sort of like the Hornet against the F-35. For my own amusement, Molders in a 109E vs Nishizawa in an A6M3. Now that would be interesting! my money would be on Nishizawa, hands down.I wonder how the Raiden would have fared against the Bearcat if given the right fuel and a competitve engine as it seemed to have similar mission profile and similar dimensions.
I've never read a report on the Raiden that cited any structural difficulties. In fact, about the only serious negative I have read is the occasional unreliability of the engine. It could have used a better propeller, too. By better, I mean a bit bigger.
Attached a pdf below.
From what I remember the Bearcats held the climb to height record for a prop driven aircraft for many years. Add to that the lack of ace pilots in Japan and the high quality of US naval aces like David McCampbell just to name one of many, we'll that about says it all. I remember reading about a naval aviator who flew Bearcats out of Pensacola, they used to mix it up with the local AF boys who were flying Mustangs. The Navy had no problem defeating the AF in every acm envelope, sort of like the Hornet against the F-35. For my own amusement, Molders in a 109E vs Nishizawa in an A6M3. Now that would be interesting! my money would be on Nishizawa, hands down.