Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Darren, sometimes "good" is a good thing.
Not sure where you are getting all your objections, but the only ones that seen true to me are engine and landing gear problems.
It had two 20 mm cannons and two 30-cal MG, which is effective enough considering the number of Allied aircraft shot down by that exact combination, which is ... like ... almost all of them.
Then some source is very wrong. 138 mph is about 119 knots and that is Lockheed T-33 speeds for landing, not Radien speeds. Ditto the rest. What you are saying just isn't right.
The J2M-3 (most-produced: 435 built) hit 370 mph and had a 360° turn time of 18 seconds (speed not specified), which is right in there with a Yak-3, widely regarded as the best turner in modern WWII fighters. The J2M-1 (8 built) turned in 16 sec and the J2M-2 (141 built) turned in 17 seconds. A Hellcat could not match 18 seconds and neither could a Mustang. Really. A Messerschmitt Bf 109G was 22.6 - 22.8 sec. A Mustang I was 23 sec.
Just throwing this out there.
Sometimes stalling speed, landing speed and approach speed get confused or badly translated. Stalling speed especially is affected by weight but so are the other two.
P-40D/E had an approach speed of 90mph at 8400lbs even though stall speed was in the 70s.
Throw in a bad translation that confuses mph with knots and we get 166,6kph and turn that back to MPH and we get an approach speed of 103 mph
Or just bad proof reading/typo.
Now enter the designer who wants a prop to generate more cooling flow near its hub and dissipate more horsepower outside the cowl diameter without increasing blade count or overall diameter. ..........................It's become a stiff board with a hinge at one end, concentrating the bending action at the root and creating a huge metal fatigue issue.
Hi DarrenW,
A red X is not a negative, it means "I disagree." Agreement and disagreement are the basis of discussion.
There weren't many WWII carrier planes with a landing speed of 81 mph. Most were slower.
I have not posted any "flame attempts" or said anything about you personally. The specs on the J2M I can find simply don't match what you've posted and I have the rather unique opportunity to see one live anytime I want to. Perhaps that makes a difference to me, but the J2M-3 seems like a pretty good fighter from all I can find, and that is backed up by a Planes of Fame Museum member from Japan.
I have no dog in this hunt. I just like the Raiden and you don't seem to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with either opinion.
Let's try a calculation. A basic wings-level stall speed should be about: Vs = 17.2 * square root (W / (CLmax * sigma * S)), where Vs = stall speed in knots, W = weight, CL max = max lift coefficient, sigma = altitude density ratio, and S = wing area (sq ft). Let's try sea level, 7,077 lbs combat weight, 215.8 sq ft wing area, sigma = 1 at sea level ... and I'll go with CL max = 1.5 for a decent WWII fighter wing average. It could be better. Calculated stall speed without flaps using the above formula is 80.4 knots TAS, making the flaps down stall speed of 81 mph in the specs look pretty darned close. And, it's a far cry from 138 mph. Let's say the flaps aren't very good and drop the stall speed by only 5 knots. That puts it at 75.4 knots or 86.7 mph. Considering I don't have the real CL max, I'd believe the 81 mph any day. If the real CL max goes to something like 1.65, the flaps-up stall speed calculates to 76.7 knots. The real number SHOULD be somewhere around 1.45 - 1.65, I can't say where it actually falls.
The J2M is rather widely regarded as a pretty good fighter when it was operating correctly.
We don't have to agree on the Raiden. There is only one left, and it isn't flying at this time. So, we just disagree on its merits. No biggie. Cheers to you.
Several sources: I can find the wing area at: Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Jack) Info or any number of websites. Try: Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Thunderbolt) 'Jack' , too, for number produced and Mitsubishi J2M Raiden - Specifications - Technical Data / Description, too. I also have a book, "Japanese Aircraft Performance and Characteristics," written by Ed Maloney, founder of the Planes of Fame. His quoted specs come straight from TAIC. I have other books, but they say the same things.
Cheers again.
Besides a better than average climb rate at medium altitudes, what was so "impressive" about it's performance? The J2M was the least favored of the late-war Japanese fighters, with many pilots commenting that it lacked the handling and maneuverability to successfully dogfight with a Mustang or Hellcat. They also disliked the very high landing speed (138 mph) and poor forward visibility. Pilots had to be proficient at dead sticking the plane as engines seized so often. When given the choice some even reverted back to the older but trusty Zero. Only a seasoned pilot like the eccentric Sadaaki Akamatsu had any words of praise for it.
Just throwing this out there.
Sometimes stalling speed, landing speed and approach speed get confused or badly translated. Stalling speed especially is affected by weight but so are the other two.
.......
Or just bad proof reading/typo.
Hello DarrenW,
The problem with some of these pilot opinions is that they may be the result of the "Culture" of how they were trained.
If you have the book about Mitsubishi Zero by Robert Mikesh (Motorbooks), it gives a pretty good account of some discussion that went into the design requirements for the A6M:
Two very experienced fighter pilots had vastly differing views on requirements for speed versus maneuverability.
Genda preferred Maneuverability.
Shibata preferred Speed and argued that pilot training could compensate for shortcomings in maneuverability.
Genda won the argument and we know how short the effective life span of the resulting A6M design was as a result.
By the end of the war, Shibata was proven correct, but there were probably still quite a few pilots left who had the same opinion as Genda did.
When compared to the A6M or Ki 43 in a low speed fight, nothing else is going to be that close.
Keep in mind that the Japanese also had the opportunity to test the Me 109E and the FW 190A and didn't like either one.
How would these same Japanese pilots have liked the Corsair, Yak-3, or La-5FN? Does it mean that those were inferior fighters to the A6M or just that the pilots doing the evaluations were not accustomed to the style of fighting that those aeroplanes required?
- Ivan.
Cheers DarrenW. It's all good.
I'm not hung up on stall speed. It is just tough to wrap my head around a 7,000 pound fighter supposed to have a landing speed higher than a B-26 Marauder.
I surely wich we had more voluminous information about Japanese warbirds. Alas, we seem to have to make due with a few bits of information that vary among sources, sometimes rather widely. I like the late-war Japanese fighters including the Ki-84, J2M, N1K, and Ki-100. I could include the Ki-44, too. They aren't collectively especially fast but climbed well and were enough to give most Allied fighters a run for their money.
Of these, the Raiden would seem to have the most quality issues.
True, but it's no coincidence that the IJNAF ultimately chose the Shiden/Shiden-Kai series as their primary interceptor-fighter. In that decision the opinions of front-line pilots/ground crews were relied heavily upon, probably just as much as the technical side of the equation. My sources conclude that pilots continually complained about it's lack of performance, which only got worse as weight increased with the addition of both heavier armor and armament.
I believe the choice of the N1K2-J over J2M was for different reasons...
The bottom line was that NEITHER aircraft was reliable in service though both had great potential if everything was working correctly which usually was not the case.