Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Surely the most menacing-looking twin, alongside the He 219. Both with their cockpit glazing reminding of insect compound eyes.
Here's a Ki-96 I drew recently.
View attachment 756913
Don't have rivet lines or most panel lines and likely won't since there aren't any Ki-96s around to look at, but it's what I could find.
It's a contender for certain. What about the P-63 for menacing twin?Surely the most menacing-looking twin, alongside this He 219. Both with their cockpit glazing reminding of insect compound eyes.
Sorry, never liked the sprawling bulkiness of the P-61.
I wonder what a twin engined IJN fighter would have looked like. My guess, a mini Ki-96.Thanks GrauGeist. Actually, I forgot that I did a Ki-83 awhile back when I was looking at Japanese Twins.
They had many twin-engined heavy fighter types.I wonder what a twin engined IJN fighter would have looked like. My guess, a mini Ki-96.
It's odd to me that these would be IJN aircraft. Shouldn't they be IJAAS?They had many twin-engined heavy fighter types.
Most were two-seaters like the KI-45, KI-83, KI-46 (Type 100 Air Defense Fighter) and KI-102.
I'd want an IJN twin carrier fighter to be in-line powered for the least drag, like a DH Sea Hornet. But the IJN lacks the engines, so we're more likely radial powered. The Tigercat was quick enough.Having problems with my phone, so I missed the Navy part.
I did list the J5N1 and as it happened, the Navy was slow to come to the conclusion that they needed to consider land-based fighter types before 1942/43 and the loss of most of their fleet carriers occurred.
Hi Greg,The source I heard said it was an oil return line not drilled from the nosecase through to the main crankcase.
The story was that this pilot had formerly been an A & P and, when the Ki-61 had engine trouble in Georgia or Alabama, he removed the engine, disassembled it, and found no oil return line that normally is drilled through the interface between the nosecase and the main crankcase.
I have no way of checking the information since I have no access to a WWII Atsuta engine. It remains a story that I heard but is unsubstantiated, and very likely to remain so. Any Atsuta display is likely owned by a museum or entity who won't like their engine disassembled, inspected, and reassembled by someone who is not a recognized warbird engine expert.
For two and half years I worked at an engine shop that overhauls Allisons and the odd Merlin, but that doesn't qualify me to claim I'm an expert. All it means is I'm more familiar with V-12 aircraft engine internals than someone who has never taken one apart.
So, take it with a grain of salt. But, there is SOME reason why the Atsuta never was developed into a reliable engine when the DB it was derived from was WAS reliable. Many of the stories I have read about Atsuta troubles mention oil issues, so ... the story above is one explanation from someone purportedly both a pilot and a mechanic, who got interested enough to pull a failed engine and look at it. Most US-based WWII Japanese airplanes that ran into issues were just scrapped without further ado.
The Mitsubishi J2M Raiden at the Planes of Fame was rescued by Ed Maloney from a playground where kids were climbing all over it after having mechanical issues while in service here in the U.S.A.. Granted, it never got returned to flying status. But that's more due to no parts for an engine with no U.S. equivalent than to anything else. The airframe is restorable. Not sure the actual engine is without some serious overhaul absent any parts to support same.