Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.

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

The FM-2 (Grumman version?) shows up sooner?
 
And in that statement we have another WW2 myth.

CV-17 Bunker Hill worked up with the F4U-1 equipped VF-17 and took it to the Pacific. Having arrived at San Diego a decision was taken to swap the squadron for one equipped with the F6F to simplify Pacific Fleet logistics for the forthcoming campaigns in the Central Pacific, since all the other carriers then present were F6F equipped,
 

F4Us were carrier capable in 1943.

So far as I know, there were only a couple of TBDs left after Midway, and they'd already ceased production.
 
I don't have a dog either way, that's what i read over the years. Bouncy gear, poor visibility, and above all a dangerous stall were the initial problems. How soon were all sorted? They were working on the various issues through 1943 aiui. But without the F6F ready they might as well equip the VF squadrons anyway despite the problems, which will eventually be sorted but probably there will be a higher mishap rate until they are.
 
Only 130 TBD were built with production lasting from 1937 to 1939, a year or so before the USN began looking for a new torpedo bomber.

There was a back up plan to the Grumman TBF Avenger which reportedly was in some ways a better aircraft.

Two weeks after Grumman got a contract for the XTBF, Vought got a contract for the XTBU-1 which first flew on 22 Dec 1941, 4 months after the XTBF. The problem was that Vought was mired in the problems associated with the development of the F4U-1 at the time. Eventually in Sept 1943 a contract for 1,100 production aircraft was placed with Consolidated. However it was Nov 1944 before Consolidated could begin production at their new Allentown Pa plant of what was now the TBY-2 Seawolf. The contract was terminated Aug / Sept 1945 after 180 had been produced, with the rest being cancelled.

No doubt, had the TBF turned out bad much more effort would have been applied to getting the TBU/TBY into service much sooner.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
F4Us were carrier capable in 1943.

So far as I know, there were only a couple of TBDs left after Midway, and they'd already ceased production.
Click to expand...
Most TBDs were indeed wiped out at Midway, but there were still a few tens left over either in Hawaii or continental US (whatever survived on the carriers and remaining spare aircraft, some came on Saratoga after the battle). Though no sane commander would ever send them in combat again after what happened.

Well if the TBF is delayed (as i recall the prototype actually crashed) i guess they might temporarily add another SBD squadron.
 
The F4U-1A with the raised cockpit and revised canopy entered production in Aug 1943 at Vought after 854 of the "birdcage" variety had been produced. Brewster followed in Nov from its 61st airframe and Goodyear in Dec from its 300th aircraft.

The stall strip for the wing was introduced by then as well.

The landing bounce problem was solved by the end of 1943.

The Corsair II (F4U-1A in the RN began to arrive with the squadrons working up in the USA in Aug 1943. The last two modifications could be retrofitted to aircraft already in service and I know that for the first FAA squadrons on Illustrious in the Indian Ocean, the cure for the bounce took a while to filter through.

From Dana Bell's "Aircraft Pictorial No 8 "F4U-1 Corsair Vol 2"

"In January 1944, the Chief of Naval Operations asked ComAirPac to reconsider the logistical problems, and equip at least four air groups with Corsairs. BuAer supported the recommendation, noting that the F6F was'better suited to operations by extremely inexperienced personnel', but that the Corsair was 'the better military ship as a day fighter'. "

ComAirPac's decision to simplify the logistics dates to 19 Aug 1943.
 
Just remembered. The other option would have been the SB2C when it finally entered service. It was tested as a TB using production aircraft #13 in Nov 1942. These continued until the end of Jan 1943. While the reports were positive about its flying characteristics as a TB its downfall proved to be the length of time it took to change from being a dive bomber to a torpedo bomber or back again - 3.5-6 and 5-7.5 hours respectively depending on whether or not the torpedo fairing was fitted! This was deemed to be too long. further tests in May 1943 concluded a complete redesign of the torpedo mounting was required, something which was eventually done.

Using the SB2C as a combined torpedo and dive bomber came up again in Nov 1944 and further tests took place in 1945 to finally clear it for use as a TB a role it undertook immediately postwar.

So by mid-1943 had there been a real need, the SB2C could have been in service as a TB.
 

That's probably the likeliest interim result. They were already reducing torpedo-bomber numbers in order to accommodate more fighters, too. By late 1942 the thinking was that dive-bombing would damage ships, if not sink them outright, and the torpedo-bombers would finish off the cripples.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they introduced a quick change kit to allow the SB2C to be fitted with a torpedo in about an hour or so.
 
Shortround6 said:
The 405mph might have been fudged just a little bit.
Who was timing it? How? what were the wind conditions?
Click to expand...
The USN accepted that test flight as being over 400mph, so you would have to dig up the Vought reports on that testing, if they exist. But that October flight is where the PR got to work on 'first over 400mph' claim. Ground speed? IAS? Navy didn't dispute Voughts claim, it seems.

For fuel, that's what I had for the XF4U-1 from memory. Was that normal fuel load, vs maximum possible?

All in all, still better than the F4F-3 that was flying in early 1940, with a lot more development possible.
 
There was a flight where they timed a Hawker Hurricane at 400mph point to point.

A Corsairs only chance of hitting 400mph was at over 20,000ft (airspeed at sea level was closer to 340-350mph) and at that height measuring the precise location/s was going to be just about impossible. Actual time of flight would have been just over 7 minutes so any error of location (exact location over runway?) is going to screw up the speed. Exact location form 4 miles up?

For all I know they did it at several thousand feet with a 50mph tail wind.

Most books say the XF4-1 had 273 gallons in the wing tanks. Not going to argue about 2 gallons.
However some of the performance specification or tests were done with 178 gal of fuel on board.
This was common both prewar and early war but gave unrealistic performance numbers or perhaps we could say gave average numbers vs worst case numbers.
The Navy numbers often had only 200rpg in the ammo boxes on the F4U-1.
Weights went from 11,142lbs to 12,656lb depend on fuel, oil and ammo for a 'clean' aircraft.
Some of the Navy's range/endurance figures also do not include starting, warm up, take-off and climb to desired altitude.
 

I was just exploring the scenario in which the TBF and F6F would not be ready as remarcably quickly as they were, rather than being complete failures. By 1943 even a problematic TBF would likely have been ready (so rendering the SB2C torpedo bomber mod unnecessary), but in the interim they would have been without a viable TB for say 6-12 months.
 
Anyway, to get back to japanese aircraft, the Ki-61 discussed earlier was so late again purely from IJAAFs fault, what on earth were they thinking to ask Kawasaki to design TWO separate aircraft powered by the exact same engine, just differing in wing size, one ostensibly as interceptor and the other as multipurpose fighter. Especially with the Ki-44 already flying.

Just focusing on (preferably) the Ki-61 would have perhaps saved 6-9 months in timing, which is a long time in WW2. Even better if they put the 1250HP Ha-112 radial on it from the start, they will avoid a lot of reliability and productivity issues at the price of about 20 kph in speed, but with better climb and turning performance. The Ki-100 was well liked by the pilots, it could have been ready as soon as the 1500HP Ha-112-II was available, that is 1943 for prototypes and early part of 1944 for production.
 
Part of the problem for the Ki-60/Ki-61 was the fact that the Japanese got the License for the DB 601A while the Germans were sticking DB 601N and E engines.
The 601N needed 96 octane fuel and probably wasn't going to work for the Japanese but the Germans were sticking the 601E engine which used 87 octane in the 109F-4 in beginning of 1942.
The Ki-60 did serve some purpose at it showed what NOT to do in some cases.
The two programs did not overlap 100% even though the start date was about the same.
Assuming a 9 month gain in timing is to assume that the Ki-61 would have been much closer to the finished product without the input from the Ki-60s.
We are also assuming that the Ha-112 was available in late 1942 or early 1943 at the power level wanted.
The Kinsei 50 series engines are not going to work.
 

That's a great question and the answer has to do with logistics. Essentially, the takeoff roll of the Ki-44 wasn't short enough to be used on hastily-constructed, frontline airbases. The biggest technological failing of the Japanese military was its inability to deploy heavy moving equipment to distant airfields. They were largely reliant on manual labor for building airbases, which meant their airstrips were shorter, rougher, and oftentimes their airbases lacked sufficient radar. In other words, their airfields lacked adequate defenses and early-warning systems. Furthermore, their most effective interceptors couldn't take off from their most vulnerable airbases.

Time, and time again, the Japanese army and navy got caught with their pants down as Allied heavy and medium bombers absolutely flattened loaded airfields. The various airbase destructions devastated Japanese aircraft, mechanics, facilities, and pilot rosters in the South Pacific. However, you'll notice that in areas such as China, where Japan possessed better airfields, they were able to deploy better interceptors and defenses and consequently didn't have the same losses as in the South Pacific.

So, in a longwinded way, the Ki-61's large winged, high-lift wing was designed to allow the interceptor to be deployed in such theaters as New Guinea and elsewhere. The Ki-44 could only be deployed in China, the Philippines, and the Japanese mainland due to its long takeoff roll.

Regarding the Kinsei 60-series, Ha-112-II, it was produced alongside the 1,300 HP Kinsei 50 series. It reached production in 1941 and could probably have been in an aircraft as early as 1943 according to Horikoshi. Although bombers and transport aircraft used the 50-series engine long before that period. It's likely that Horikoshi's estimate was based on having to redesign the Zero to incorporate a dimensionally larger engine. Had the Navy used the Kinsei from the very beginning, it's likely that the Kinsei 62 could have been used earlier.

According to what I've read from NAASM and on Wikipedia, the Ha-112-I (which is the Kinsei 50-series) reached series production in 1941, was initially used in bombers and transports. The fuel-injected Kinsei 62 was produced and developed at the same time as the Kinsei 50-series (or Ha-112-I), although it looks like the 50 was used in aircraft a year earlier than the 60-series. But more or less, it looks like a Ki-61 with a 1,300, MW50-injected radial was possible as early as 1941 as a prototype and 1942 as a frontline fighter.

One other thing worth mentioning is that the top-speed of Japanese aircraft might be 3.5% faster than Japanese numbers due to a discrepancy in how WEP numbers were reported by Japanese evaluation standards (great source here). I suspect that the reason the Japanese didn't record WEP values is because their manufacturing tolerances were worse compared to the Allies and so their engines constantly leaked oil. This is a major reason why the Imperial Japanese servies preferred radial engines as radials don't require the same tight manufacturing tolerances of in-line engines. But more or less, an engine that constantly leaks oil is not going to be able to maintain a WEP as long as an engine with better manufacturing standards. It's likely that the Japanese "overboost" was not as usable as WEP in an Allied fighter.
 
The 50 series engines were used on a lot of non fighter aircraft, like float planes and flying boats.

With a very, very high retrospectroscope factor a better option for the JAAF would have been a big wing Ki-44 to sort of match the Ki-61.
The JAAF wasted way too much time and effort on the Ki-43 after the initial victories.
 
The 1300HP Kinsei-50 (Ha-112-I) did not have MW injection, this only appearing on the 1500HP Ha-112-II (Kinsei-60).

The first IJAAF aircraft that flew with the 112-I in 1941 was apparently the Ki-71, but as per USSBS the first prototype engines appeared in 1940, though presumably the first flightworthy examples were only available in 1941.

The very first aircraft that flew with the 112-II engine was aiui the Ki-46-III prototype in March 1943, so i don't think the prototype engine appeared before 1942, certainly not flightworthy, despite what it's said. Perhaps the design started in 1941, or maybe the very first prototype engines appeared in 1941, but it took until 1943 to debug it suficiently for flight status? Again as per USSBS production started in second half of 1943.

So yeah in term of timing, you can have the Ki-61 flying with the 1300HP 112-I in 1941, production in 1942. Then the Ki-61-II with the 1500HP 112-II can fly spring/summer 1943, with production starting say late 1943/ early 1944.

A fairly similar timing can apply to the D4Y too.

As for the Zero, indeed the prototype A6M8 (probably called something else, like A6M6) COULD fly sometime in 1943 too, with production in 1944. At least a 1500HP Zero would cope a bit better with the F6F-3/5 and F4U-1.

This whole scenario supposes that Aichi and Kawasaki will build the Kinsei/Ha-112 instead of the inlines, and because the radial is easier to build, they will probably build more engines too, say 50% more?
 
I agree to that, if they used the big 19 sqm wing from the start, it will complement quite nicely an inline engined Ki-61 (but if they put a radial on the 61 that would be redundant, just stick with the 44 then). So perhaps the Ki-44 is sent to NG and the Ki-61 is kept for home defence where repair facilities and good mechanics for the finicky inlines are better available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Historic World War II aircraft hidden in plain sight
Replies
0
Views
585
GTX
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
450
CHen10
Time from 1st Aircraft to 1,000th Aircraft
Replies
15
Views
2K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
A
Aircraft Facing Themselves (and Their Relatives)
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Dimlee
S
Why airplanes were designed the way they were.
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
7K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register