davebender
1st Lieutenant
That depends on how fast the Jack was. If the published speed of 370mph is correct then it was surpassed by the 1941 Me-109F and hopelessly obsolete by 1944. But is that max speed correct?
J2M Raiden
- Thread starter Sagittario64
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The J2M had all features of a modern aircraft for the time. The difference in performance must be relevant for the machine start to make difference, above all in power. For the typical combat speeds of 450-500 km/h WWII aircraft had, the Japanese fighter with a roughly 2000 hp engine was competitive in theory.
BTW, here's some Japanese footage about the Ki-84 and the J2M:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCfKUOj9ojI
Last edited:
Here's the F6F-3 indicating 391 mph (close to 400)
Attachments
It's OK, but this speed was achieved at 8300 meters. I suppose one can't find any evidence of a single fight between Hellcats and japanese aircrafts at that altitude.
At the altitude there Raiden could achieve more than 400 miles per hour (about 5500 m.) Hellcat was 50 miles/hour slower according the documents attached to the topic.
Last edited:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Page 556, AHT by Dean, the F6F5 could touch 400 mph at 20000 feet with combat power. Linnekin, page 67, "80 Knots to Mach Two," "The F6F5 was a legitimate 400 mph airplane at altitude." "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" page 628, in a comparison between the F6F5, F4U1D and the Zeke 52, the top speed attained by the F6F5 was 409 mph at 21600 feet.
GregP, with respect to WW2 pilots, if they were fighting in the Pacific, how would they know whether or not intelligence about the Zeke transmitted to the US Military was ignored or not back in the States? How could Chennault know exactly what the performance of the Zeke was without capturing one and putting it through it's paces? If the AVG in the first six months of 1942, which is all they operated did not encounter Zeros, how did Chennault come by his info about the airplane? Page 535, Lundstrom, "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign," During the testing of the Aleutian Zero, in 1942, the Zero Project Commander, Frederick Trapnell made the following statement, "The general impression of the airplane is exactly as originally created by intelligence-including the performance."
GregP, with respect to WW2 pilots, if they were fighting in the Pacific, how would they know whether or not intelligence about the Zeke transmitted to the US Military was ignored or not back in the States? How could Chennault know exactly what the performance of the Zeke was without capturing one and putting it through it's paces? If the AVG in the first six months of 1942, which is all they operated did not encounter Zeros, how did Chennault come by his info about the airplane? Page 535, Lundstrom, "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign," During the testing of the Aleutian Zero, in 1942, the Zero Project Commander, Frederick Trapnell made the following statement, "The general impression of the airplane is exactly as originally created by intelligence-including the performance."
Last edited:
this are alla secondary sources, and when a secondary sources don't agree with a primary source i go to primary.
i seen too many times wrong info from secondary sources.
- Thread starter
- #29
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
Does it really matter the limits of their speeds? i cant really imagine 350+mph fights going on so much. the dewoitine d.520 wasnt a 400mph fighter, yet it could still compete in a dogfight with the p-38
The performance envelope is what's important here fellers, not the apex test figures. Look up Wright-Patterson flight records for 45-46 they tested all the Japanese and German captured types, and any Soviet aircraft they could get their hands on as it so happens but that was down at the back hangars with nods and tarps over them, not that anyone would take much more notice of anything other than the German jets and Doras, they did tons of flying in those.
The general consensus by Wright-Patterson was that all the late war Japanese aircraft, specifically J2M3, N1J2, Ki-44, Ki-84, Ki-100 and even Ki-61 all had surprisingly similar performance. Whilst they had limited altitude performance, they were all contemporary with or superior to Allied aircraft specifically the P-51D and P-47D based at Okinawa and Iwo Jima and F6F-4 and Sea Spitfire fighters at up to medium combat heights. At 3000 metres the combat report for a N1J2 runway attack at Okinawa was that local fighters on redirect could not even catch them at this height despite beginning the chase within eyeshot of the enemy formation.
The flight tests at Wright-Patterson not only confirmed this report of low-medium altitude superiority particularly of the N1J2 and Ki-84 types, but also states that the Japanese based Intelligence on these aircraft was understated due to shocking operating and maintenance conditions and general organisational disarray.
However, at altitudes exceeding 5500 metres all the Japanese aircraft were inferior to US-Allied contemporaries, except the J2M5 of which only dozens were ever built. Most Raidens were the J2M3 which has poor altitude performance as per all other Japanese fighters. They all run out of steam by 6000m, whilst US aircraft in the theatre pull strong at 7000m and upwards.
Now the important thing to consider here is that maximum level speed ratings describe altitude, not speed performance per se. Altitude. It says how much you can zoom climb or recover or what your cruise characteristics are like, how much your plane likes going upwards, stuff like that. The Ki-84 was faster than any Allied fighter at its design operational altitude, despite having a much lower maximum level speed rating, which again is a reflection of throttle heights moreso.
Think of it like pole racing versus altitude records. Set an altitude record and you have to fly fast just to stay up. Your IAS is actually very low, your TAS is very high. You seem to be going very slow, you just really go fast only because you're so high.
A pole racer accelerates with sheer grunt in thick air like butter off a hot knife. It will outdo the IAS of the altitude record plane easily, but it isn't likely to match its TAS.
Still, it is a faster plane. That's like a Ki-84 to a Mustang at 3000 metres. Although...the way I understand only the N1J2 and Ki-84 had advantage, the others were just contemporary, ie. highly competitive and dependent upon pilot skill alone against late war Allied fighters in the theatre. But again all tended to drop off performance capabilities above 5500m or thereabouts. Mustangs like to roam at 6-7000m normally, the P-47 is best above 6000m, etc. The F4U-4 is tremendous at all heights, but the F4U-1 gets sluggish low and slow. And combat over the islands ranged from ground height to 3500m typically.
The general consensus by Wright-Patterson was that all the late war Japanese aircraft, specifically J2M3, N1J2, Ki-44, Ki-84, Ki-100 and even Ki-61 all had surprisingly similar performance. Whilst they had limited altitude performance, they were all contemporary with or superior to Allied aircraft specifically the P-51D and P-47D based at Okinawa and Iwo Jima and F6F-4 and Sea Spitfire fighters at up to medium combat heights. At 3000 metres the combat report for a N1J2 runway attack at Okinawa was that local fighters on redirect could not even catch them at this height despite beginning the chase within eyeshot of the enemy formation.
The flight tests at Wright-Patterson not only confirmed this report of low-medium altitude superiority particularly of the N1J2 and Ki-84 types, but also states that the Japanese based Intelligence on these aircraft was understated due to shocking operating and maintenance conditions and general organisational disarray.
However, at altitudes exceeding 5500 metres all the Japanese aircraft were inferior to US-Allied contemporaries, except the J2M5 of which only dozens were ever built. Most Raidens were the J2M3 which has poor altitude performance as per all other Japanese fighters. They all run out of steam by 6000m, whilst US aircraft in the theatre pull strong at 7000m and upwards.
Now the important thing to consider here is that maximum level speed ratings describe altitude, not speed performance per se. Altitude. It says how much you can zoom climb or recover or what your cruise characteristics are like, how much your plane likes going upwards, stuff like that. The Ki-84 was faster than any Allied fighter at its design operational altitude, despite having a much lower maximum level speed rating, which again is a reflection of throttle heights moreso.
Think of it like pole racing versus altitude records. Set an altitude record and you have to fly fast just to stay up. Your IAS is actually very low, your TAS is very high. You seem to be going very slow, you just really go fast only because you're so high.
A pole racer accelerates with sheer grunt in thick air like butter off a hot knife. It will outdo the IAS of the altitude record plane easily, but it isn't likely to match its TAS.
Still, it is a faster plane. That's like a Ki-84 to a Mustang at 3000 metres. Although...the way I understand only the N1J2 and Ki-84 had advantage, the others were just contemporary, ie. highly competitive and dependent upon pilot skill alone against late war Allied fighters in the theatre. But again all tended to drop off performance capabilities above 5500m or thereabouts. Mustangs like to roam at 6-7000m normally, the P-47 is best above 6000m, etc. The F4U-4 is tremendous at all heights, but the F4U-1 gets sluggish low and slow. And combat over the islands ranged from ground height to 3500m typically.
Last edited:
Interview with a Soviet WWII pilot:
A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you constantly say that the basic Soviet fighters, the Yak and the Lavochkin, were equal to the German fighters in speed, although reference books contradict this. According to reference data, German aircraft always have superiority in speed. How do you explain this difference between reference data and practical data?
N.G. Reference data is obtained under ideal conditions, in "ideal" aircraft. Tactical and technical characteristics are always lower under actual use conditions.
A.S. Yes, but we also determine the tactical and technical characteristics of our aircraft in ideal conditions. So let's attempt to approach this phenomenon from another perspective. What kind of actual speed (by instrument) did German fighters attain in aerial combat?
N.G. The Bf-109E—from 450 to 500 kmh [270—300 mph]. The Bf-109F: 500—550 kmh [300—330 mph]. The Bf-109G was equal to the F in speed or perhaps just a bit faster. The superiority of the G over the F was in armament, not speed.
The FW-190 reached speeds of 470—550 kmh [280—330 mph]. All of these aircraft approached speeds 30 kph greater in a dive.
You know, we didn't pay particular attention to our instruments during an aerial engagement. It was obvious without looking that your own aircraft was lagging behind in speed or it wasn't. Therefore I can affirm that the Airacobra, Yak, and La [Lavochkin] were not surpassed by the German fighters in speed.
A.S. What can I say? Can we agree that the speeds you have indicated to me are somewhat lower than those listed in reference works?
N.G. What have we been talking about? You must understand that you have been making the same mistake as do all people who have no connection with combat aviation. You are confusing two concepts: maximum speed and combat speed. Maximum speed is attained under ideal conditions: horizontal flight, strict maintenance of altitude, calculated engine revolutions, and so on.
Combat speed is a range of maximum possible speeds that an aircraft can develop for the conduct of active maneuver aerial battle, and at which all forms of maneuver attendant to that battle can be executed.
When I speak to you about speed, I have in mind namely the combat speed at which I conducted battle. To me maximum speed is neither here nor there.
Part 4
I only understood this true/indicated speed stuff recentely. That's why I can catch Mustangs at low and medium altitude in the IL2 sim with the Fw 190 A without much problem, despite they being considerable faster in theory.
Last edited:
I like the sims like IL2 and FC2 for things like the general components of service conditions (I once made an IL2 Pacific mission in Wildcats for a realistic start-finish real time experience and let me say it was exhausting, hours of mission time with stressed out navigation issues using full realism settings... and thoroughly enjoyable, it depicts the scope of open ocean for hundreds of kilometres in all directions very well, carriers and island bases are needles in a haystack...man those guys were brave doing it on fumes to get the enemy).
Of course one must keep in mind these arcade-sims can only scratch the surface of genuine complex evolutionary diversity inherent to real world tactical operations. The watchword of the army remains, if it doesn't work, think army. No battleplan survives enemy contact. Etcetera. An Eagle pilot will be the first to say it's between pilots unless terrifically disadvantaged by equipment, that's very uncommon in any major conflaguration. A Fulcrum is dangerous, just troublesome to operate but among the best it's dangerous. This is because theoretical technologies work in sims and often don't work due to solar flares and whoknowswhat on the day when you depend on it.
Somehow, it's historically always been as soon as you depend on it. Delete guns and in the very next conflaguration the enemy are all gunfighters. The real world always works like that, sims need a lot of very process heavy development to approach it, I understand DCS isn't bad, but knock around a physics forum with Caltech engineers and they'll laugh at it.
Have to keep that part in mind with them, no genuine reference. More an emotional insight potential, a learning tool certainly in that sense.
I'll tell a funny story, really I take it with good humour and laugh at myself for past ignorance (I suspect one could do that for a lifetime yes?), part of my research for flight modelling the Ta152C and manual boost regulated Kittyhawk in IL2 was visiting a physics forum with the javascript engine all laid out to try to emulate real world flight test records and engine manuals into the game shell. I got laughed off the forum by someone like a resident Caltech engineer when he looked at it. Okay, makes me smile now, I learned something.
What I did wind up with say for the kittyhawk was something which I used weeks of trial and error, value adjustments by increment to emulate the "feel" rather loosely, and so that in game operational regimés matched best historical figures but that's where you start the compromises due to shell limitations. It did get celebrated by a virtual kittyhawk online squadron who all installed it and loved it. You really had to govern the throttle for your altitudes and watch the boost guage with it, and I restored all the military, take off and war emergency ratings and overboost, it was a bit of a monster under 5000 feet. Had a lot of character that plane.
That was what I was aiming for in the end. Translating reliable sources of the character of a plane in service conditions. I suspect that's what most of the other modellers would've arrived at, I'm no genius. So it's really about emotions and immersion, these sims, any comparative renditions are extremely argumentative.
Of course one must keep in mind these arcade-sims can only scratch the surface of genuine complex evolutionary diversity inherent to real world tactical operations. The watchword of the army remains, if it doesn't work, think army. No battleplan survives enemy contact. Etcetera. An Eagle pilot will be the first to say it's between pilots unless terrifically disadvantaged by equipment, that's very uncommon in any major conflaguration. A Fulcrum is dangerous, just troublesome to operate but among the best it's dangerous. This is because theoretical technologies work in sims and often don't work due to solar flares and whoknowswhat on the day when you depend on it.
Somehow, it's historically always been as soon as you depend on it. Delete guns and in the very next conflaguration the enemy are all gunfighters. The real world always works like that, sims need a lot of very process heavy development to approach it, I understand DCS isn't bad, but knock around a physics forum with Caltech engineers and they'll laugh at it.
Have to keep that part in mind with them, no genuine reference. More an emotional insight potential, a learning tool certainly in that sense.
I'll tell a funny story, really I take it with good humour and laugh at myself for past ignorance (I suspect one could do that for a lifetime yes?), part of my research for flight modelling the Ta152C and manual boost regulated Kittyhawk in IL2 was visiting a physics forum with the javascript engine all laid out to try to emulate real world flight test records and engine manuals into the game shell. I got laughed off the forum by someone like a resident Caltech engineer when he looked at it. Okay, makes me smile now, I learned something.
What I did wind up with say for the kittyhawk was something which I used weeks of trial and error, value adjustments by increment to emulate the "feel" rather loosely, and so that in game operational regimés matched best historical figures but that's where you start the compromises due to shell limitations. It did get celebrated by a virtual kittyhawk online squadron who all installed it and loved it. You really had to govern the throttle for your altitudes and watch the boost guage with it, and I restored all the military, take off and war emergency ratings and overboost, it was a bit of a monster under 5000 feet. Had a lot of character that plane.
That was what I was aiming for in the end. Translating reliable sources of the character of a plane in service conditions. I suspect that's what most of the other modellers would've arrived at, I'm no genius. So it's really about emotions and immersion, these sims, any comparative renditions are extremely argumentative.
Last edited:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
From the Williams site, USN tested a production model of the F6F5 and it clocked 391 MPH at 23100 feet with military power. Same site at same altitude clocked 330 knots with combat power which is slightly more than 400 MPH. If I remember correctly that plane had launch rails for ordnance on the wings.
330 kts is 380 mph.
The specimen that achieved 391 mph (# 58310) did have only starboard pylon installed.
The only source that declares F6F making true 400 mph was the manufacturer, and that is stated in US hundred thousand book.
I'm at loss why would the F6F-3/-5 be able to fly as fast as sleeker F4U-1/1D.
The P-47D was even more streamlined, it had on disposal a full 2000 HP MIL at 23000 ft, yet it was able just to beat 400 mph mark at that altitude. If the F6F wants to have 2000 HP, that means going down to some 18000 ft - to the ticker air that, in F6F's case, easily cancels out most of HPs gained for going in WER. Meaning, 380-390 mph both at 23kft and 18 kft.
The specimen that achieved 391 mph (# 58310) did have only starboard pylon installed.
The only source that declares F6F making true 400 mph was the manufacturer, and that is stated in US hundred thousand book.
I'm at loss why would the F6F-3/-5 be able to fly as fast as sleeker F4U-1/1D.
The P-47D was even more streamlined, it had on disposal a full 2000 HP MIL at 23000 ft, yet it was able just to beat 400 mph mark at that altitude. If the F6F wants to have 2000 HP, that means going down to some 18000 ft - to the ticker air that, in F6F's case, easily cancels out most of HPs gained for going in WER. Meaning, 380-390 mph both at 23kft and 18 kft.
Gentlemen,
Please check the following address:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf
You will find that the US Navy clocked at least one Hellcat at 400+ mph.
May God fly your wing always!
Eaqledad
Please check the following address:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf
You will find that the US Navy clocked at least one Hellcat at 400+ mph.
May God fly your wing always!
Eaqledad
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The F4U1D, according to Boone Guyton, had a Vmax of 425 MPH with combat power. In the comparison flight test between the Zero 52 and the F4U1D and F6F5, the Vmax of the F4U1D was 413 MPH TAS at 20400 feet while the Vmax of the F6F5 was 409 MPH TAS at 21600 feet. However the speed advantage the F4U1D had over the Zero 52 at lower altitudes was significantly greater than that of the F6F5. I think the disparity of the Vmaxs indicated by Guyton points up the fact that individual AC had different performance characteristics and loads and exterior conditions had a significant impact on Vmaxs.
Sorry for misreading a graph comparing knots to miles. Can never remember the factor to use when converting.
The link that eagledad so kindly posted is what I have been quoting from which I have in a book, "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes."
Sorry for misreading a graph comparing knots to miles. Can never remember the factor to use when converting.
The link that eagledad so kindly posted is what I have been quoting from which I have in a book, "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes."
Last edited:
Sorry I'm confused...it's been 20yrs since I had flight training or flew a plane. I thought Vmax was your maximum in a shallow dive. Maximum level speed tends to be lower, Vmax is more like partway to VNE. Modern jet fighter manufacturers rate Vmax in an altitude dip, there's guidelines, you can lose something like 2500 metres establishing Vmax or something like that. One of you guys should know, hence why I'm talking here.
Someone put me right?
Someone put me right?
You're correct. If you look up 'V' speeds there isn't a 'Vmax' but in aerodynamics I take it to be the same as Vne. You exceed that speed and the 'Wing Off' light might illuminate. I searched for a 'V' speed which represents maximum power speed in level flight. The only 'V' speed that compares to this is 'Vh' which represents maximum speed in level flight at maximum continuous power.
- Thread starter
- #40
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
People please. I understand the Hellcat trumps the J2M in combat and apparently in conversation popularity now. I know well enough about the Hellcat already. tnhe purpose of this thread was to get opinions on whether or not the J2M could be put up against planes other than its typical USA opponents
