J7W1 Shinden Pusher Fighter

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Found this one, among others ...



Always liked it, but I did see that the only pilot who flew it (twice) said it had severe vibration, probably driveshaft or propeller. it would have required some development, but that's nothing unusual in aircraft development from any era.
 
GregP said:
...Always liked it, but I did see that the only pilot who flew it (twice) said it had severe vibration, probably driveshaft or propeller. it would have required some development, but that's nothing unusual in aircraft development from any era.
Click to expand...
A little known fact, Greg, that on the it's first trial run, the Shinden suffered a prop-strike and the test had to be aborted. The prop was replaced and it went on to be flown afterwards, but I have always wondered if that had caused the shaft to warp from it's centerline, causing that vibration.

Also, not sure if anyone's aware of it or not, but there is actually vintage footage of the J7W being tested and flown. The video is poor quality, but it's awesome to see!

 
I was under the impression that the prop could be jettisoned for bailout. Maybe an ejection seat? Not sure a lot of definitive data exists.

That feature (jettison the props) is incorporated on the Northrop N9M-B Flying Wing.
 
buffnut453 said:
That, sir, gets you a bacon!
Click to expand...
Thanks!
That is a real treat to see such a rare aircraft in action, isn't it?

buffnut453 said:
It was a surprisingly large and tall beast, wasn't it? A pilot might get a nose bleed just climbing into the cockpit!
Click to expand...
It was definately a tall one, but so was the Yokosuka R2Y and the Do335, too.
 
If you look closely you can see the bent tips on the video around the 1:30 mark.
 
jmcalli2 said:
Can't help but wonder if the XP-55 influenced this.
Click to expand...
Not likely.
Many nations had been working on pusher-types for quite some time and there would be a similarity in evolution due to the constraints of flight properties.
The U.S. also had the Vultee XP-54, Northrop XP-56, Douglas XB-42, etc.
Germany had the Goppingen Go-9, Henschel P.75, Messerschmitt Me509 and so on.
There was also the Miles M.35, Saab 21, Ambrosini SS.4, Fokker F.XXV and the list goes on...
 
I believe NASM does have the rest of the aircraft. I will pursue that information. It is noted on the web that this aircraft was powered by an Mitsubishi Ha 43 Model 11 (Ha 211 Ru).

I recently helped prepare the NASM Mitsubishi Ha 42 Model 14 (Ha 214 Ru) for loan to Japan for museum display. These two engines appear to be very similar and I assume we would not loan an engine if it was part of an aircraft. I also came across an image on the web of the Shinden in storage at Garber, and the rear part of the fuselage is in the image, but appears to be without engine.
 
After the prop ground strike, little wheels were installed at the bottom of the wing mounted rudders. I have read that these came from the flying concept demonstrator, though I don't know if I believe that.

Also, I have seen a picture of the rear view of a shiden without prop (and possibly engine) off in an overgrown field. Possibly this picture was taken sometime after the war in Japan. Does anyone know any additional information?
 
Kyusyu Aircraft aka Watanabe Ironworks destroyed the airframes as well as drawings when the war was over.
Allied forces ordered Watanabe to restore one of them as well as drawings.
Propeller hub was designed to explode itself when bail out was necessary but I don't think the restored one has any explosives.
The J7W1 was designed so that it could mount a jet engine in the future as the J7W2.
 
Last edited:
I've checked out the Shinden and its complete (its got some corrosion), but the Betty is only the forward fuselage (and engines?). The Shinden would have suffered the same problems as the Ascender in that it would have been stable enough in level flight but very likely awkward if not scary in maneuvering flight. To prevent this the level of stability needed would likely not be desirable for a WW2 combat aircraft. The rear prop does make for good speed, though, the Do335 demonstrating 48mph more speed on the rear prop than the front, and that rear prop was smaller.
 
The USAF had a problem with the O-2 in that the rear engine provided considerably more thrust than the front engine, but it was much less obvious when the rear engine quit. They had to add additional alarms to let the pilot knew when the rear engine quit, to prevent him from getting into trouble by doing some maneuvers with the rear engine dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
571
spicmart
S
A
Empire fighter program?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MiTasol
B
63 Fighter Squadron plane
Replies
4
Views
476
Snautzer01
R
A look at German fighter Ace kill claims
24 25 26
Replies
506
Views
24K
Juha3
J
Menu
Log in
Register