windhund116
Senior Airman
- 360
- Jul 3, 2017
Certain versions of the J2M had four 20mm cannons, right? This made it as potent as the Kawanishi N1K Shiden. I'd imagine those 20mm cannons would make those planes more lethal against the B-29s.
Jack vs. Tojo - Which was better? Why?
- Thread starter Conslaw
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
The USAAF in China certainly echoes your conclusion. When the first production aircraft began arriving in theater in early 1943 they gave the 23rd Fighter Group a nasty shock. The Ki-44 had a higher ceiling, better acceleration, a potent armament, excellent roll rate, and could stay with a P-40 in a dive.
TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
Tojo? Jack? I'll take a Bearcat, please.
How about a Hellcat?
The Ki-44 seems to have been a reliable plane, deploying them to North East New Guinea in 1943-44 when the air bases were under heavy attack would have been a good use for them. Even if the landing strip needed was longer than Ki-43 they did fly bombers there so must have had some long strips available.
TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
Before bearcats, I'll be happy with a hellcat.
GregP
Major
Though a very good choice, it would be tough to choose a Bearcat if you were in the IJN or IJA.
You would likely be stuck with a Japanese aircraft. If that were to actually be the case, which would you choose?
You would likely be stuck with a Japanese aircraft. If that were to actually be the case, which would you choose?
cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 510
- Apr 23, 2007
I thought that it was quite interesting to imagine a Bearcat powered by the J2M's Kasei engine Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190. It seems surprisingly simple to guess the performance because the Kasei's maximum power is quite close to the normal rating of the R-2800-30W. Thus F8F-2 Bearcat's maximum speed at normal rating, 363 knots (418 mph) at 22,000 ft, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf, is probably close to what a Kasei powered Bearcat could achieve. It is harder to guess what a J2M5 could actually do and even harder to guess what a R-2800C powered Raiden could manage.
GregP
Major
They'd love to put an R-2800 of adequate outline in the Planes of Fame J2M-3, but there are no R-2800s with an extension shaft. It's OK to re-engine something like a Yak-3 / 9 because an Allison fits nicely and is available ... at least more available than a Mikulin or Kilmov, AND it doesn't look much different from a stock unit.
But putting an R-2800 in the J2M-3 would considerably alter its lines, making it a non-starter for a restoration to flight status project.
But putting an R-2800 in the J2M-3 would considerably alter its lines, making it a non-starter for a restoration to flight status project.
Absolutely... The Ki-44 was flying in China in 1941; and could have been in service even earlier if IJA hadn't put so much attention on the Ki-43... The Raiden was a very sound design; if it had been given priority over all Homare-engined fighters (except the Ki-84), it could have been in service by the end of 1943 (and begun replacing the Ki-44)--- just in time to give the B-29 fits... In my opinion, the Japanese would have saved themselves a lot of grief if they just focussed all their warplane engine attention on the Kinsei and Kasei (and their 18-cylinder derivatives) and quickly phased out all the rest (and not started on the Homare) before they started the war!
GregP
Major
I never flew the airplane so all I have is my source material to go by. Much of what is in these books are eyewitness testimonials which were given to the respective author. If any of the material is incorrect than it can most likely be traced back to a Japanese pilot or ground crew member.
If you're saying it had a landing speed similar to a WWII carrier aircraft then who am I to disagree with you...but feel free to throw another red X my way if it makes you feel any better.
What does THAT mean? If I do give a red X, all it means is "I disagree." Doesn't mean you're evil or anything. Really.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
For Ki-44s in Malaya and Burma, Shores' Bloody Shambles.
For Ki-44s vs 23rd FG in 1943, Molesworth's Sharks over China.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Thanks, I thought I had all of Molesworth's books I didn't know that one though, I'll look for it.
Which volume of "Bloody Shambles" ?
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Volumes 1 and 2
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
You might want to look at Osprey's Ki-44 "Tojo" Aces of World War Two by Millman.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
My pick would in fact be the Ki-44, simply because it was built and deployed in much greater numbers. So it actually had some impact on the war.
I'm not sure how much of a game-changer it was though, and I'm confused on a couple of points.
Somebody said the Ki-44 lacked armor and SS tanks? I thought it did have armor?
The main fault seems to be that it was somewhat lightly armed, and didn't turn that well which can't have been popular with Japanese pilots. Is there any sense what Japanese pilots thought of it?
Considering how long it was in production, they didn't make that many. Only a dribble in 1942, a bit better but still rather few in 1943 and 44.
Why is the J2M so short and stubby? It looks almost like a souped up I-16 (or an I-180). I thought such a short fuselage had been abandoned as a design feature by the middle of the war. I thought it tended to make aircraft unstable. Am I wrong about that? Is there some advantage to the short length other than weight savings (which I think would be marginal...?) Carrier storage?
I'm not sure how much of a game-changer it was though, and I'm confused on a couple of points.
Somebody said the Ki-44 lacked armor and SS tanks? I thought it did have armor?
The main fault seems to be that it was somewhat lightly armed, and didn't turn that well which can't have been popular with Japanese pilots. Is there any sense what Japanese pilots thought of it?
Considering how long it was in production, they didn't make that many. Only a dribble in 1942, a bit better but still rather few in 1943 and 44.
Why is the J2M so short and stubby? It looks almost like a souped up I-16 (or an I-180). I thought such a short fuselage had been abandoned as a design feature by the middle of the war. I thought it tended to make aircraft unstable. Am I wrong about that? Is there some advantage to the short length other than weight savings (which I think would be marginal...?) Carrier storage?
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Greg we discussed all of this over a year and half ago. I accepted your explanation then and was only having a bit of fun during what I felt at the time seemed to be a building of emotion over the comments I made about the Jack.
To recap my opinion of the J2M, it's actual performance wasn't close to what we see in TAIC reports. No surprise there, as this is true of practically ever Japanese aircraft evaluated by the center. This is due to the overall acceptance of the most favorable (i.e. inflated) values concerning properties such as aerodynamic drag, prop efficiency, thrust augmentation, and engine performance used for the CALCULATED performance figures.
I'd look for a ten percent reduction in performance as a ballpark figure, which would put the maximum speed of a factory fresh aircraft in good condition pretty darn near to what the JNAF achieved during ACTUAL flight testing of the aircraft during the war.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Raiden was designed to be a fast climbing, high altitude interceptor.
It never saw carrier ops.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
So why so short
It was 32 feet 8 inches in length which isn't amazingly short.
It was just very wide because it had a very large diameter Mitsubishi Kasei engine normally considered a "Bomber Engine" buried deep in the fuselage.
The variant of the Seafire in the same photograph is about 2.5 feet shorter.
- Ivan.
https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpr...en_in_the_philippines_taic_in_flight_1945.jpg
It was just very wide because it had a very large diameter Mitsubishi Kasei engine normally considered a "Bomber Engine" buried deep in the fuselage.
The variant of the Seafire in the same photograph is about 2.5 feet shorter.
- Ivan.
https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpr...en_in_the_philippines_taic_in_flight_1945.jpg
