Japan’s worst single-engine radial-powered fighter of WW2?

[SaparotRob]

I think notGreg is biased. He owns one. I've seen it. It's nice.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not the Corsair, which beat the F6F into service by a few months? I think even birdcage Corsairs were better than Zeroes. What am I missing? Honest question, not prodding.

I think you're spitting hairs a little here, perhaps he doesn't know that the Corsair entered service slightly ahead of the Hellcat. Greg says "around the date when the Hellcat arrived" which could easily also include the Corsair's arrival. It can be both the Corsair and Hellcat and still be accurate below.

The A6M was the best fighter in the Pacific world from its inception until somewhere around the date when the Hellcat arrived.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think you're spitting hairs a little here, perhaps he doesn't know that the Corsair entered service slightly ahead of the Hellcat. Greg says "around the date when the Hellcat arrived" which could easily also include the Corsair's arrival. It can be both the Corsair and Hellcat and still be accurate below.

He did say specifically in a subsequent post "until the Hellcat arrived", hence my question.

I personally think (for whatever that's worth!) that an F4U1 was at very least the equal of the Zero in a fighting space, given pilots of equal capability. Different strengths and weaknesses, to be sure. But the Corsair flew out ahead of the Hellcat, is my point, and could more than hold its own.

 

[HayateFan]

I'd go with the J2M Raiden. Nice, if portly, looking plane. Reading the history of it tho', it seemed it was designed for similar reasons as the Ki-44, but had more problems. Three times as many Ki-44 were built, and while there was some praise for some of the J2M's traits, it strikes me as a machine that only managed some success because the desperation of the times, not because of the design.

 

[SwirlGypsobelum]

I don't consider the Ki-27 to be a WWII fighter. The Boeing P-26 was flown in very early WWII by the USA and I don't consider IT to be a WWII fighter, either despite it actually being in the war. If I had to include the Ki-27, I'd pick it as the worst.

To me, the worst of the rest was the Ki-43 Hayabusa. It flew beautifully and was exceptionally maneuverable. But, it had very light armament until it's last version (only 2 built), no armor at first, and no self-sealing tanks. So, the vast majority of Ki-43s ... probably over 95% of them ... that served were of the under-armed and under-armored variety. This did not stop them from being effective at first, but DID mean they weren't as good as later radial fighters, including the J2M Raiden, which was one of the very few Japanese fighters that stood a chance of intercepting a B-29.

The fact that they made few of them and that a decent percent of the ones they made didn't really perform up to snuff does not detract from the ones that DID perform well. The ones that performed well validated the design as a good one.

But, hey, opinions differ and I suppose one of the approximately 21 other fighters, all but one of which were powered by radials, COULD be worse. I think the Japanese did a pretty good job with fighters, given the engines and war situation they had to work with. They might not have been up to the task of being fighters in the ETO, but they DID manage to embarrass the Spitfires that showed up in the Pacific around Darwin, and the Spitfire is usually in the running for "best fighter of the war" in most people's book. So, how bad could Japanese fighters have been? Answer is, "Not bad, all things considered!"

Ho-103 used some fancy bullets called 'Ma-102', the bullet contained 2g of high-explosive(not in TNT equivalent measure, about the effect of 3.8g TNT)
It was possible to use a layer of thin air as a fully functional delayed fuse, like British 20mm ammunition. The gun itself was quite capable for shooting down some single engine fighters, that was the reason they kept .50cals in their fuselage. In contrast, M2 launched bullets sealing 16000j of kinetic energy, was for piercing fuel tanks. The proof of philosophy is that, IJA referred Ho-103 as cannons, not a machinegun but cannons.
In the normal use of Ho-103, the belt was consisted of two different fuseless HEI ammunition with armor piercing tracer round. Everyone talks about Ho-103 lacking muzzle velocity, the bad way of synchronization. I accept the later one but if it's a decent explosive thrower, then I don't care.

Homare engine had a lot of cooling fins, it was enough for its own. The real problem was the low quality sheeted metal, fuel, lack of proper maintenance(They just died).
Late model of Homare engine used a different method to cast the cylinder-coverage.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'd go with the J2M Raiden. Nice, if portly, looking plane. Reading the history of it tho', it seemed it was designed for similar reasons as the Ki-44, but had more problems. Three times as many Ki-44 were built, and while there was some praise for some of the J2M's traits, it strikes me as a machine that only managed some success because the desperation of the times, not because of the design.

I agree. Of course had someone thought of putting a gun on the Nakajima Ki-115 it might have been the top contender.

 

[Conslaw]

To me the worst was the A7M. It was always so "just around the corner", it should have been called "commercial nuclear fusion".

 

[DarrenW]

Not the Corsair, which beat the F6F into service by a few months? I think even birdcage Corsairs were better than Zeroes. What am I missing? Honest question, not prodding.

I believe that Greg understands this fact very well. Its quite apparent that both the F4U and P-38 could 'handle' an A6M when the correct tactics were employed (aka "boom-n-zoom") but it wasn't until the introduction of the F6F that the Zero's dominance quickly faded away. A lot of this had to do with the way the US Navy deployed the Hellcat from the very beginning of it's service debut. It was at the tip of the spear during the island hopping campaign so it was able to see considerable more action against the A6M than either of the other two American fighters. According to US Naval records it destroyed nearly three times as many Zeros as did the F4U, which was mostly due to the very different missions of the two aircraft. Up until early 1945 the F4U was primarily flown by the Marines from land bases and was involved in rear area operations against targets that had been previously worked over by carrier forces. So it should come as no surprise that it would have encountered the A6M on far fewer sorties than the F6F. This gave the F6F more opportunity to engage and shoot down Zeros and bring it's dominance in the theater to a sudden end.This in my opinion makes Greg's statement correct without discounting the overall superiority of planes like the F4U had over the A6M, which were chronologically in theater months before the F6F arrived on the scene.

 

[msxyz]

Homare engine had a lot of cooling fins, it was enough for its own. The real problem was the low quality sheeted metal, fuel, lack of proper maintenance(They just died).
Late model of Homare engine used a different method to cast the cylinder-coverage.

Cylinder head temperature was around 300+° deg, while radials of the day usually operated at around 240°-260°. With the oils available at the time (either organic, like castor, or petroleum based) I've doubts these temperatures were healthy for them.

In addition to that, it's true that Japan was facing shortages of certain metals which are essential for an engine. For example, the bearings used an alloy which is called 'Babbit metal', a mix of lead, tin and copper. Due to shortages of lead and tin, Nakajima engineers had to resort to another alloy which was less performing and that caused too much friction at the speeds the Homare was supposed to run.

The high temperature of the head was a known problem being worked on. The engine was simply too small for the kind of power it developed, and since a large portion of heat produced by the burning of gasoline must be removed by the coolant fluid (in this case, air), the surface at disposal was equally small. Early Homares used cast heads where the fins are casted along with the rest of the head. Nakajima then devised a way to increase the number of fins (thus the cooling area) by making the fins from stamped sheet metal and developing a novel method to attach them to the head casting. For comparison, in the States late war engines heads were cast as a thick lump of alloy and then the individual fins were milled by a dedicated machine.

 

[GregP]

Hi Thumpalumpacus.

The first Corsairs were limited to land-based operations and, though better than the Zero, didn't make much of an impact due to being limited to runways. There just aren't a lot of runways in the Pacific Ocean. Technically, though, you are correct. Practically, the F6F showed up on carriers and met the A6M head on, wherever it was encountered. Corsair deployment on carriers by the U.S.A. was delayed until late 1944. Meanwhile, the Hellcat was on carriers from the start of its combat deployment.

Still, I concede the point. Good call.

Cheers.

 

[Timppa]

I'd go with the J2M Raiden. Nice, if portly, looking plane. Reading the history of it tho', it seemed it was designed for similar reasons as the Ki-44, but had more problems. Three times as many Ki-44 were built, and while there was some praise for some of the J2M's traits, it strikes me as a machine that only managed some success because the desperation of the times, not because of the design.

Statistically J2M fared best against Navy planes
USN Against:
J2M (Jack): 49-13
Ki84 (Frank): 144-16
N1K2 (George): 35-0

 

[GregP]

Where did you get the data?

 

[Conslaw]

Statistically J2M fared best against Navy planes
USN Against:
J2M (Jack): 49-13
Ki84 (Frank): 144-16
N1K2 (George): 35-0

I know there is no set of numbers that people couldn't quibble with, but I would still be interested to see what the same source says about the ratio for the A6M Zeke, especially over the same time period.

 

[Timppa]

Where did you get the data?

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/histories/naval-aviation/aviation-monographs/nasc.pdf

Table 28

 

[K5083]

So, going by table 28, Wildcat wins all the prizes. 183 for 7. 26 to 1. 87 for 2 against A6M alone. That's 1944-5. But even earlier F4F established a positive claim/loss over A6M. About 3:1 from memory.
Quote from the notes to table 28:

The phenomenal FM leads all fighters during this period,with a 26-to-1 ratio over Japsingle-engine fighters,only 2 losses sustained in destroying 87 Zekes, and only two losses indowning 194 bombers and miscellaneous types

 

[SaparotRob]

Go Grumman! Even if it's a General Motors product.

 

[Conslaw]

To put things into perspective regarding the FM2 in 1945, the FM2s, flying off the escort carriers, were almost exclusively defending against kamikaze raids, flying against the least experienced adversaries. They did not fly the fighter sweeps over Japan-proper, where the newer fighters were concentrated as well as the instructor-pilots. But it also shows that to be useful, a plane doesn't have to be the absolute best sometimes, it just has to be good enough and in the right place at the right time.

 

[K5083]

To put things into perspective regarding the FM2 in 1945, the FM2s, flying off the escort carriers, were almost exclusively defending against kamikaze raids, flying against the least experienced adversaries. They did not fly the fighter sweeps over Japan-proper, where the newer fighters were concentrated as well as the instructor-pilots. But it also shows that to be useful, a plane doesn't have to be the absolute best sometimes, it just has to be good enough and in the right place at the right time.

You are right about FM-2, but you can only play the team that shows up.

Also from the ever-fascinating table 28, Japanese fighters in order of loss/kill ratio. Lower numbers are of course better.

Jack 3.76
Frank 9
Zeke 12.31
Oscar 15.48
Tony 22
Tojo 24.6
Nate 71
George 35 losses no kills*

Jack is the only one to look anything like respectable on these numbers. Even next-down Frank is scarce]y better than Oscar. If you had taken a period before Nov 44 it would have been all Zekes all the time and we wouldn't learn much.




*Plainly this is failure to recognise the type. Isn't it?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hi Thumpalumpacus.

The first Corsairs were limited to land-based operations and, though better than the Zero, didn't make much of an impact due to being limited to runways. There just aren't a lot of runways in the Pacific Ocean. Technically, though, you are correct. Practically, the F6F showed up on carriers and met the A6M head on, wherever it was encountered. Corsair deployment on carriers by the U.S.A. was delayed until late 1944. Meanwhile, the Hellcat was on carriers from the start of its combat deployment.

Still, I concede the point. Good call.

Cheers.

I don't disagree with what you've written here, but I did not see that carrier-basing was a qualification for the plane and didn't have that in my consideration.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

To put things into perspective regarding the FM2 in 1945, the FM2s, flying off the escort carriers, were almost exclusively defending against kamikaze raids, flying against the least experienced adversaries. They did not fly the fighter sweeps over Japan-proper, where the newer fighters were concentrated as well as the instructor-pilots. But it also shows that to be useful, a plane doesn't have to be the absolute best sometimes, it just has to be good enough and in the right place at the right time.

Two guys are out hiking in the woods one Saturday afternoon when they spot a grizzly bear, clearly irate and aggressive.

One hiker takes off his boots, takes off his backpack, and starts donning some track-shoes fetched from the 'pack.

"What are you putting those on for? You're still not gonna outrun the bear," his buddy points out.

He replies: "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you."

I'll grab my coat. Check, barkeep!