J2M Raiden

[Sagittario64]

How would the J2M stack up against the German and English (among other European) fighters of WWII, as well as the Russia's fighters? Like the Hurricane, Spitfire, Tempest/Typhoon, MiG-3, LaGG-3, La-5, Yak-1/3/7/9, Bf.109, Fw.190, IAR.80, Dewoitine D.520, Italian 5-series, C.202, and the Mosquito(the heavily armed fighter variant).

 

[krieghund]

There is a combat comparison report between the F6F vs J2M3 here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/f6f-5-vs-j2m3-26637.html

 

[GregP]

The J2M is a very impressive aircraft. At the Planes of Fame, we have the last remaining example. It has some corrosion problems, and so would be a monumental effort, but it IS restorable to flying condition. The canopy area is large, unusual for Japanese types, and it is a very pleasing aircraft to look at, well proportioned and looks like it "flies right."

The pdf of the computer combat simulation makes me glad the Japanese didnlt produce them in large quantities. Thanks for the great comparison file!

 

[davebender]

First batch serial built J2M2 delivered December 1943. These would have been J2M2 Model 11. Max speed is listed as 370mph @ 19,360 feet. That doesn't seem very fast for a fighter aircraft powered by a 1,820hp engine. IMO Japan would be better served by reserving those powerful engines for the IJA Ki-84 and Ki-100 programs.

 

[krieghund]

First batch serial built J2M2 delivered December 1943. These would have been J2M2 Model 11. Max speed is listed as 370mph @ 19,360 feet. That doesn't seem very fast for a fighter aircraft powered by a 1,820hp engine. IMO Japan would be better served by reserving those powerful engines for the IJA Ki-84 and Ki-100 programs.

I have recently read in a IJN forum that the speeds quoted in captured Japanese documents were at the engine military rating and not at the WEP rating. Some TAIC reports put the J2M2 speeds above 400 mph but these have been debated numerous times in many online forums. However, if the forum discussion was right then that needs a new look at the Japanese aircraft performance.

I am working another angle using the aircraft rate of climb to calculate the CDo since the climb rates are not in dispute. Using the available horsepower verses quoted speed makes determining drag unreliable due to the controversy.

I have included copies of the TAIC and ATAD reports of the J2M series as evaluated by the allies.

 

[tomo pauk]

Krieghund, is the TAIC document available for dowload?

 

[krieghund]

Krieghund, is the TAIC document available for dowload?

Unfortunately no, only excerpts here and there, however it can be purchased here: Amazon.com: Japanese Aircraft Performance and Characteristics - TAIC Manual: Edward T. Maloney: Books but I got mine at a fraction of the price plus I recently acquired the ATAD booklet but it is an early version and my TAIC manual was updated by the original owner up thru May 1945

 

[tomo pauk]

Pretty big priced, but I reckon that's how it goes. Thanks anyway.

 

[krieghund]

Pretty big priced, but I reckon that's how it goes. Thanks anyway.

Found a site that sells copies (either paper or download PDF) Japanese Aircraft Performance Characteristics Manual for about $31

 

[tomo pauk]

Many thanks

 

[alejandro_]

I have included copies of the TAIC and ATAD reports of the J2M series as evaluated by the allies.

When writing articles on the Ki-61 Tony and N1K I had the same problem. Its hard to compare the performance with allied types because there aren't much data available. Also, TAIC and ATAD reports are not always clear. Its hard to know if they are calculations or data recorded from an actual test.

J2M3 had good performance, but as most Japanese late war fighters it has 2 main problems: it became available too late and there were always reliability issues. At the end of the day, 343 Kokutai -Genda's elite squadron- chose the N1K2-J Shiden Kai.

 

[vanir]

I heard something about the prop extension gear failing. Anyways about published figures, this occured right from the Zeros comparatively tested, it was specified by the DoD at the time that since a local fuel was being used, and tuning characteristics were unknown that the aircraft were restricted to a conservative military power setting for maximum performance testing. According to some Japanese enthusiasts doing the rounds at aviation sites the M21 Zero for example had about 300hp more on tap than published and that would mean several mph extra top speed at all heights, and possibly some underrated manoueuvring if that is even possible considering how highly it was rated on that score.

This held true with most of them, a combination of language and reluctance according to the New Zealand recovery team which went through the Solomons in 45 collecting up all the various models of abandoned fighters. Because so little could be ascertained about them, they actually had to disarm the plane, then put Japanese POWs in the cockpit just to ferry them home...with a heavily armed Corsair escort of course. One of the pilots of those escorts wrote an article I read about them.

Postwar, Wright-Patterson was given the job of evaluating Axis fighters from the Dora to the Ki-84 and specifically to comparatively test them against the P-51D Mustang (I think the reasoning was that they wanted to drop the P-51H from production and show the P-51D as having adequate performance in the immediate postwar environment, it was actually the P-47N which was presently the main USAF fighter).

First thing they recorded was performance greatly exceeding Japanese sourced military Intelligence on them. On all of them but especially the Ki-84 and N1K2-J, both those two they rated as superior to the P-51D at all heights up to 6000 metres, the Mustang was superior at that height. But at 5000 metres it couldn't even catch one.
I've no doubt the J2M has a similar story, but it's really the limited production M5 series that's the tough puppy. The M3 runs out of breath too quickly, at 5500 metres iirc.

 

[renrich]

Went back and reviewed the computer simulation comparison of the Jack and the F6F5. A few things jumped out at me which destroys a lot of credibility of that comparison. Firstly the writer repeats the old myth of the AVG fighting against Zekes which is not true. Secondly it repeats the myth that Chennault transmitted intelligence about the Zeke to the US Military and it was ignored. Not true. If you read Lundstrom, "The First Team" the USN was aware of the Zeke before the war began and long before it encountered any but of course had no details of it's performance. Thirdly the performance chart gives the F6F5 a Vmax of 386 mph at best altitude. The F6F5 was a genuine 400 mph fighter at best altitude.

 

[Vincenzo]

reinrich in WWII Aircraft Performance the are test and cards on F-6F5 and in none i can see a 400 mph speed

 

[GregP]

Chenault DID transmit information on the Zero to the US Military and it WAS ignored. The information was not about the existence of the Zero, but about the performance of the Zero.

The US Military simply refused to believe the performance level that was sent by Chenault, failed to pass it on to the active duty personnel, and it came as a great surprise to the uninformed when we encountered them in combat.

That comes from many AVG members who gave presentations at the Planes of Fame. We've had out share of WWII aviators giving talks out there and they ALL said Chenault told the US about the Zero and was not believed.

 

[davebender]

Not sure that to be a good comparison.

The F6F was designed for fleet air defense at medium and low altitude. The Jack was designed to intercept bombers at high altitude. Chances are small these aircraft would meet in combat. P-47 and P-51 escort fighters are probably more likely to encounter a J2M.

 

[tomo pauk]

F6F was carrying a hefty load of booth fuel ammo, plus a drop tank from day one - that would make it a good long range fighter; it's engine was featuring two-stage supercharger set - a sign of good high altitude capability.
Perhaps we could call F8F a fleet defender at medium and low altitudes?

 

[davebender]

Was the F6F ever used as an escort for long range bombers?

 

[tomo pauk]

A long-range fighter doesn't necessarily mean that plane's purpose was to strictly protect long range bombers; that's the task he may do.
If the Hellcat was to provide air superiority over Rabaul, for example, he was doing that to protect his 'own' bomber force, and there he may meet Raiden, IJN plane defending IJN base. Now if some planes are escorting the Libs bound to Sumatra oil fields, those are likely to encounter Ki-44s, the IJA planes.

A capability never exploited does not mean it was not present.

 

[Sagittario64]

well this is all pretty interesting guys but my original thought still remains: compared to the western european fighters, can the Jack compete?