Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 894
- Feb 16, 2013
I was under the impression that the Shoki would have at most four machine guns. Two synchronized Ho-103 in the fuselage, and one in each wing. Was there actually provision for six to be installed?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I was under the impression that the Shoki would have at most four machine guns. Two synchronized Ho-103 in the fuselage, and one in each wing. Was there actually provision for six to be installed?Technically the Ki-44 II has 6/50-cal and 2/40mm cannons
From what I've read, the KI-44 in it's various configurations never had more than two weapons in the cowl and one in each wing.I was under the impression that the Shoki would have at most four machine guns. Two synchronized Ho-103 in the fuselage, and one in each wing. Was there actually provision for six to be installed?
The US wasn't exactly immune to interservice rivalry, the Japanese were just a little more extreme.Is the IJN the only carrier force to specify a frontline fighter incapable of flying from its carriers? Why not make the Jack carrier capable or divert its resources to a carrier fighter? Since when is it the navy's job to intercept B-29s? That nation was messed up.
I was under the impression that the Shoki would have at most four machine guns. Two synchronized Ho-103 in the fuselage, and one in each wing. Was there actually provision for six to be installed?
You're not far off the mark, Greg - as I recall, the 40mm gave them a great deal of trouble, so they replaced them with the 12.7mm MG.I would think that 10 round of 40 mm would only be for a bomber interceptor and I would remove the 40s and replace with 20s and more ample ammo supply if I were in command.
I just went back through the majority of this thread and have a couple of questions for the knowledgable.
Early on there are comparisons made between the P47N and the J2M3. The speeds and climb rates that I saw were for a max loaded P47 and not one at about half gas over Japan. Does anyone have the charts for a no longer tanked but still with pylons at approx half fuel weight for a P47N? This conversation for a bit was just like the Mustang vs 109 chart comparison seen in other threads.
I only bring this up as a plane with 33% it's weight being fuel will have a big gain in climb rates once it's down to half fuel vice a plane that only has 150 gallons (10% of it's weight) at takeoff. When a Thunderbolt met a Jack over Japan, its weight would be much lower, and it's climb rate I would think much higher. Numbers are for example only.
Cheers,
Biff
Seems like it was a missed opportunity for a technology transfer, like the U Boat stuffed full of MG 151/20's for the Ki-61 program.Basically what the Japanese had was gun/rocket launcher that with 1/2 the velocity of the German MK 108, fired a bit slower, and a shell that had about 2/3rds of the explosive.
And the magazine held 10 rounds. weapon could empty the magazine in in about 1.25 seconds.
Only the Mustang or maybe the Tempest use so many aerodynamic refinements (although their superlative performance is partlye due to their turbo).
GregP The optional armament listed in the TAIC manual is confusing and, add to that confusion, it would make sense if an interceptor were well armed. However, 4x12.5mm was what the Japanese Army in 1940 considered to be well armed. At one point, they considered 2x12.5 and 2x7.8mm to be heavily armed as indicated by the Ki-61 and Ki-44-I.
In the J2M vs Ki-44 comparison, one thing worth pointing out is the time frame: These planes are products of the year in which they were designed and manufactured. And I gotta say it's slightly unfair to compare the J2M3 to the Ki-44-II as there is at least a year separating the two. The fairest comparison is to compare the Ki-44-II to the J2M1 as they are both produced in 1942. However, that comparison is when things get weird. Because while the J2M1 had an advanced airframe, its performance lagged behind that of the Ki-44-II although both have similar horsepowers, armaments, and armor protection. For whatever reason, the J2M1 weighs substantially more than the Ki-44-II, both in empty and gross weights. (Its gross weight is more comparable.)
And that potentially contributed to the performance gap bteween the two, despite the Raiden's use of an extension shaft, advanced streamlining, and a "laminar" airfoil. Only the Mustang or maybe the Tempest use so many aerodynamic refinements (although their superlative performance is partlye due to their turbo). The Ki-44, on the other hand, is a more conventional design, without much attention to detail. So you might think it would performance worse.
But in a head-to-head comparison between the two aircraft, its a bit surprising that the Ki-44-II cost less to make, performed better, and weighed less while offering the same armor protection and a similar armament.
But so while I appreciate the J2M1's advanced design, we've got to think that something is extremely wrong with the way the Japanese calculate VMAX on their aircraft. Because these two aircraft had approximately equal horsepower ratings at altitude and ended up with the Raiden (Mk.1) being substantially slower than the Ki-44-II. That doesn't make any sense to me. By the way, thanks for your head-to-head comparison between the two aircraft. It helped summarize the distinction between the two aircraft.
GregP,That's a problem with a LOT of WWII comparisons. The U.S.A. has a lot of data about their planes while some of the basic data about Axis aircraft are seemingly lifted from one website to the next, verbatim. And the lack of things like standard climb from SL to 10,000 and 20,000 feet or a standard metric number of meters makes comparisons difficult and/or almost impossible. If we DO get decent data in some area, then we seemingly fight over fuel quality, etc. I share your curiosity.
I have a P-47N POH and it says the empty weight is 10,998 lbs. and the useful load is anywhere from 2,824 lbs up to 10,200 lbs.
Max fuel internal is 550 US gal. with another 440 US gal. of external fuel possible. So, fuel can run from zero to 990 gallons. So, fuel can run from zero to 3,300 lbs. internally and up to 5,940 lbs if full internal and external fuel is carried. So ... no external and half internal fuel is 1,650 lbs. Pilot is 200 lbs.
It had eight 50-cal MG and COULD carry 500 rpg, but the usual load was 267 rpg.
Clean wing, with racks only, it came in at 16,400 lbs. That included full internal fuel. Since half fuel is 1,650 lbs, the same aircraft at half fuel, still with full ammunition is about 14,750 lbs. Figure we used a little oil and a bit of ammo, and we're looking at 14,300 - 14,500 lbs when about to head for home, assuming that is about when we have half internal fuel remaining.