Kamikaze: Ever had a chance of success?

[Civettone]

Apparently the standard Ohka was easy to fly. This does not mean a pulsejet version would also be, but it is a good indication.

However, the Fi 103R was difficult to fly. This seems to indicate that the Ohka but maybe not the Baika had the advantage here.

To conclude, an Ohka aircraft, easy to fly, with a speed of well over 600 kmh at low level, a range of 200+ km and a warhead of 800 kg, though probably reduced fir fuel, would have been an extremely dangerous opponent. Flown by pilots who would be able to steer their aircraft, without any need for a non-existing trim, led by a couple of experienced pilots, large formations of pulsejet Ohkas would be able - just like ordinary kamikazes - to locate a large invasion fleet, avoid fighter intercetion, enter a shallow dive toward the US ships and - providing a small target at high speed - have a larger chance of sinking these ships.

Kris

 

[tyrodtom]

You seem to think absence of the ability to trim a aircraft is a advantage.
What it means is as the aircraft increases speed, goes from a glider to a powered aircraft and undergoes trim differences ( and all aircraft do, some more than others) the pilot can only use brute strength to overcome them.

And assuming the Ohka is easy to fly ??? On what proof ? How many pilots flew a operational Ohka, under power, and lived to tell how well it handled?
How many Ohkas hit a target ?

 

[parsifal]

How many Ohkas hit a target ?

I dont think we will ever know the answer to that.However, from the end of October through to the end of the Okinawa campaign, the IJN produced the following statistics

Japanese Naval Planes Used from Oct. 1944 to the end of the Okinawa Campaign1
(including Escorts)

Sortied 2,314
Returned 1,086
Expended 1,228

Not included in the the totals are Japanese Army planes used as Kamikazes and Escorts. In the US Strategic Bombing Survey report, there is an estimate of 2,550 Kamikaze sorties being flown from all services. This number apparently does not include Escorts. Some 475 of these Kamikazes, or 18.6 percent, were effective in securing hits or damaging near misses (the difficulty with the IJAAF stats is that not all their aircraft were expended on ships). It is not clear if these totals include strikes on British vessels, but I suspect that they do not.

The confirmed hits by the Kamikazes were 288 ships, of which 47 were sunk. Many others remained afloat but never returned to service. wsome of these non-returnees were due to the end of the war, but some would never have returned under any circumstances (Ive seen some reports that say as many as an additioanl 100 ships suffered un-repairable damage).

More USN ships were sunk or damaged than during the entire precedeing combat in the pacific, Pearl Harbour included. By any standardsd the suicide attacks were effective, there just was no hope of them inflicting enough damage to stop the American advances. but they were successful in getting one concession out of the Allies in the surrender terms.

 

[swampyankee]

Stable enough to be flown by an experienced test pilot.


There you're wrong. Trim tabs stabilize an aircraft in to a desired attitude without the need for the pilot to constantly apply a control force. If a "short-term disturbance" is causing you to gain or loose +/- 500 from a planned cruising altitude, you bet you're gonna use them and they do react quickly (I don't know if you're a pilot of not). I've flown straight tailed Cessna 150s and 172s with mechanical flaps and I have made both types of aircraft land quite safely with just the use of trim (also adjusting power when on final). Jumping up a bit, I've also flown several jets, trim tabs work almost immediately and some are electrically driven. There have been countless reports of aircraft losing elevator control and they were safely landed using elevator trim and careful power management.

BTW - If I'm not mistaken I believe that FAR Part 23 single engine aircraft have to demonstrate emergency landings without elevators to receive a type certificate.

In a faster moving aircraft or jet, you are continually trimming the aircraft when "flying by hand."

"Short term disturbance" is something on the order of seconds, not much greater than the human reaction time; as you said trim tabs are for trimming, not immediate control. As for trim tabs' control authority, I believe that the aircraft's regular control surfaces have to have sufficient authority to override the trim tabs, at least from my reading of 23.667.

Overall, though, I'd consider it unlikely that the V-1 was not stable, at least against small disturbances, although it may have had flight characteristics, such as non-linear stick forces (10 lbf stick force = 1.2 g; 2 lb stick force = 10g) or bad control harmonization (heavy, unresponsive ailerons and very light stick forces) that would make it difficult to fly.

I'm a recovering aeronautical engineer; starting with ground test work (ALF502, then helicopter structures) and later aerodynamics (I did some work on the Cypher and RSRA, more on propellers). For medical reasons -- I get migraines -- I was told that it was unlikely I could get a medical certificate, so I never pursued a license.

 

[GregP]

The Okha may or may not be easy to fly. I've never seen a pilot report on it ...

I seriously doubt a pulsejet unit was viable. We have a runnable WWII pulsejet (Google Chino pulsejet ... ) and you can hear the thing for 10 miles. The main thing you notice is the vibration. It would likely cause damage to an airframe not specifically designed to cope with the vibration.

The V-1 was designed with that in mind but I don't know if the Ohka was ...

The V-1, for a piloted plane, did NOT have enough vertrical tail or rudder for maneuvering. It had just enough to stay more or less straight when upset by nothing more than normal air conditions.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"Short term disturbance" is something on the order of seconds, not much greater than the human reaction time; as you said trim tabs are for trimming, not immediate control. As for trim tabs' control authority, I believe that the aircraft's regular control surfaces have to have sufficient authority to override the trim tabs, at least from my reading of 23.667

. They do, but there is always a tendency to over correct, so for example, as you're flying through turbulent air you are continually trimming if it's desired to maintain a specific altitude and heading. In a matter of seconds you could be +/- 300 feet, putting this into perspective when one flies IFR you must maintain +/- 100'.

Overall, though, I'd consider it unlikely that the V-1 was not stable, at least against small disturbances, although it may have had flight characteristics, such as non-linear stick forces (10 lbf stick force = 1.2 g; 2 lb stick force = 10g) or bad control harmonization (heavy, unresponsive ailerons and very light stick forces) that would make it difficult to fly.

Is this power on or off???? At full power all those characteristics change for the reasons given. Without trim the aircraft will have to be designed to fly nose heavy without power as there is a tendency for an aircraft to pitch up at full power.

I'm a recovering aeronautical engineer; starting with ground test work (ALF502, then helicopter structures) and later aerodynamics (I did some work on the Cypher and RSRA, more on propellers). For medical reasons -- I get migraines -- I was told that it was unlikely I could get a medical certificate, so I never pursued a license.

Very cool! Too bad about the migraines!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Apparently the standard Ohka was easy to fly.

You seem to think absence of the ability to trim a aircraft is a advantage.
What it means is as the aircraft increases speed, goes from a glider to a powered aircraft and undergoes trim differences ( and all aircraft do, some more than others) the pilot can only use brute strength to overcome them.

This is spot on - What I think what a few folks are missing here is when you apply power to an aircraft there is a tendency for the nose to immediately pitch up, so you counter that with elevator trim. Depending what type of aircraft, how much HP or thrust the aircraft has and how much arm strength the pilot has will determine how much pitch control (input) is needed and how quick. I instruct in GA aircraft, I had a female student a couple of years ago who just about stalled us on a go-around; when she applied full power the yoke came back at her so quick she didn't have the strength to hold it with one hand and trim with the other.

I've flown C182RGs and C210s and if I was slow applying trim on a go around it would be like doing vertical bench press - good for the biceps but a bit nerve racking!


It would seem to me that both the Okha and the Fi 103R would have to be designed to be nose heavy in a power off configuration to compensate for the thrust of their engines. I only know of one aircraft that actually pitches down when applying power and that's the recip or prop driven BD-5.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How many Ohkas hit a target ?

From Wiki...

The Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka was used mostly against American ships invading Okinawa, and if launched from its mothership, could be extremely effective due to its high speed in the dive. In the first two attempts to ship the Ohkas to Leyte Gulf through aircraft carriers, the carriers Shinano and Unryu were sunk by the US submarines USS Archer-Fish and USS Redfish.

Attacks intensified in April 1945. On 1 April 1945, six "Bettys" attacked the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. At least one made a successful attack, with its Ohka thought to hit one of the 406 mm (16 in) turrets on the battleship West Virginia, causing moderate damage. Postwar analysis indicated that no hits were recorded and that a near-miss took place. The transports Alpine, Achernar, and Tyrrell were also hit by kamikaze aircraft, but it is unclear whether any of these were Ohkas from the other "Bettys". None of the "Bettys" returned.

The American military quickly realized the danger and concentrated on extending their "defensive rings" outward to intercept the "Betty"/Ohka combination aircraft before the suicide mission could be launched.[14] On 12 April 1945, nine "Bettys" attacked the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. The destroyer Mannert L. Abele was hit, broke in two, and sank, witnessed by LSMR-189 CO James M. Stewart. Jeffers destroyed an Ohka with AA fire 45 m (50 yd) from the ship, but the resulting explosion was still powerful enough to cause extensive damage, forcing Jeffers to withdraw. The destroyer Stanly was attacked by two Ohkas. One struck just above the waterline just behind the ship's bow, with the charge punching completely through the other side of the hull before splashing into the sea and detonating like a depth charge, causing little damage to the ship, and the other Ohka narrowly missed (likely due to the pilot being killed by anti-aircraft fire) and crashed into the sea, knocking off the Stanly's ensign in the process. One Betty returned. On 14 April 1945, seven "Bettys" attacked the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. None returned. None of the Ohkas appeared to have been launched. Two days later, six "Bettys" attacked the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. Two returned, but no Ohkas hit their targets. Later, on 28 April 1945, four "Bettys" attacked the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa at night. One returned. No hits were recorded.

May 1945 saw another series of attacks. On 4 May 1945, seven "Bettys" attacked the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. One Ohka hit the bridge of a minesweeper, Shea, causing extensive damage and casualties. Gayety was also damaged by a near-miss by an Ohka. One "Betty" returned. On 11 May 1945, four "Bettys" attacked the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. The destroyer Hugh W. Hadley was hit and suffered extensive damage and flooding. The vessel was judged beyond repair. On 25 May 1945, 11 "Bettys" attacked the US Fleet off Okinawa. Bad weather forced most of the aircraft to turn back, and none of the others scored hits.

On 22 June 1945, six "Bettys" attacked the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. Two returned, but no hits were scored. Postwar analysis concluded that the Ohka's impact was negligible with no US Navy capital ships actually hit during their attacks due to an extremely effective set of defensive tactics that were employed.

 

[tyrodtom]

The V1 had to be a very stable aircraft, it had NO ailerons. All it had was a rudder and elevator for control.
That how some were brought down just by tilting them.

I know the Ohka had a very short flight test program, but I've never found any write ups of the conclusions.
I have read Blossoms in the Wind, and other books about the Special Attack Corps, and remember the Ohka pilots in particular got a very abbreviated flight training program.

The Ohka for all it's potential was the most unsuccessful of all the special attack methods. A lot of that lack of success can be blamed on the delivery method, but there also seemed to be problems after they were launched.
What was the cause of those problems ? A hard to control aircraft ? Or pilots faced with problems they weren't trained to meet ?

 

[tyrodtom]

The proposed jet powered version had a level speed of 345mph, and a range of about 150miles.
So until it went into it's terminal dive it was fast, but not so fast it couldn't be intercepted, or tracked by flak.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The V1 had to be a very stable aircraft, it had NO ailerons. All it had was a rudder and elevator for control.
That how some were brought down just by tilting them.

Remember, it was guided by an autopilot, If there was enough lift and thrust it could have been a barn door and it would have flown straight and level

I know the Ohka had a very short flight test program, but I've never found any write ups of the conclusions. I have read Blossoms in the Wind, and other books about the Special Attack Corps, and remember the Ohka pilots in particular got a very abbreviated flight training program.

The Ohka for all it's potential was the most unsuccessful of all the special attack methods. A lot of that lack of success can be blamed on the delivery method, but there also seemed to be problems after they were launched.

What was the cause of those problems ? A hard to control aircraft ? Or pilots faced with problems they weren't trained to meet ?

All the above plus some pretty stiff opposition...

 

[VBF-13]

If there was enough lift and thrust it could have been a barn door and it would have flown straight and level.

You boys are way over my head. This is about the only thing I understood in the last three pages.

 

[Civettone]

You seem to think absence of the ability to trim a aircraft is a advantage.
What it means is as the aircraft increases speed, goes from a glider to a powered aircraft and undergoes trim differences ( and all aircraft do, some more than others) the pilot can only use brute strength to overcome them.

And assuming the Ohka is easy to fly ??? On what proof ? How many pilots flew a operational Ohka, under power, and lived to tell how well it handled?
How many Ohkas hit a target ?

Yokosuka test pilot claimed it was. But I guess you pilots know better ...
For you there is NO way possible that a pilot with limited training can fly this aircraft straight and put into a shallow dive toward an aircraft carrier. And I do not think there is anything I can say which will change your mind

Kris

 

[Civettone]

I seriously doubt a pulsejet unit was viable. We have a runnable WWII pulsejet (Google Chino pulsejet ... ) and you can hear the thing for 10 miles. The main thing you notice is the vibration. It would likely cause damage to an airframe not specifically designed to cope with the vibration.

So what if they can hear it 2 minutes before it impacts?
And you may be right about the vibration, but you might be wrong. There is no way in knowing if the Ohka could have handled the vibration. But I think we can agree that modifications to counter this were possible.

The V-1, for a piloted plane, did NOT have enough vertrical tail or rudder for maneuvering. It had just enough to stay more or less straight when upset by nothing more than normal air conditions.

So how did it land during training? Fly straight from one air field to the next? The Fi 103Re had ailerons added...

The Kawanishi Baika would probably have been a copy of the Reichenberg and be fully capable of all these things.
Kris

 

[tyrodtom]

Yokosuka test pilot claimed it was. But I guess you pilots know better ...
For you there is NO way possible that a pilot with limited training can fly this aircraft straight and put into a shallow dive toward an aircraft carrier. And I do not think there is anything I can say which will change your mind

Kris

Not very impressive when you only say that as a parting shot.
If you have any access to a Yokosuka test pilot's report, by all means let's see it.

To me any aircraft that in it's terminal dive is going over 800 feet per second, would not be easy for a beginning pilot to handle, even if it handled perfect.
It'd give a whole new meaning to the phrase that I sometimes would hear. "You're getting behind the aircraft"

 

[Civettone]

I do not like to be questioned on my integrity. Or are we going to question every one for their sources now? Do you see me questioning your experience as a pilot? No, I assume you are honest in your intentions.

Anyway, I got it from a Japanese website, which I ran through google translate. It seems it is taken from this book:
Thunder Gods: The Kamikaze Pilots Tell Their Stories
by Hatsuho Naito

Does anyone have this book?
Kris

 

[tyrodtom]

I wasn't questioning you integrity, I was wondering why you would withhold that till the last.

I have read Blossoms in the Wind, and some others. In Blossoms it has a chapter on the Ohka flight training.

According to Blossoms in the Wind, the Ohka flight training program experienced heavy loses, and that's just with the glider.
But all military flight training programs experienced loses.
What a test pilot may consider good enough flight characteristics may not translate to a easy handling aircraft for a neophyte.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yokosuka test pilot claimed it was. But I guess you pilots know better ...

Not tooting my own horn - I've flown over 1000mph. I've dove an aircraft in excess of 450 knots; These were in aircraft designed and built a lot better than the Okha...

Based on MY experience, putting a low time pilot in an Okha and expecting them to hit a naval target at 500 knots while getting shot at is a gamble only a desperate combatant would undertake and it is not an effective weapon platform.

BTW, I'm also a flight instructor so I have "a little" experience on how a low time pilot flies...

 

[swampyankee]

From my very brief experience as a low-time pilot (I found I could not pass the medical, so I stopped taking lessons), the way low-time pilots fly tends to be "very badly."

 

[fastmongrel]

At 10 miles and 10,000 ft even a flat top is going to be a speck on the ocean and very hard to accurately aim at. Light the rockets and that speck is getting close very fast, start your attack dive even a bit off course, fail to take account of the carrier doing 30 knots or even just fail to anticipate the change in trim when the power kicks in and in a few seconds a novice can be way off line. That novice now only has a few seconds to correct the aim, as a novice myself I have enough trouble hitting a 2500 ft long runway which luckily for me doesnt move or throw supersonic metal at me and I am only doing 60mph not 500mph.