Nakjima Homare - what's the verdict? (2 Viewers)

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

On another forum, the fellow member posted the very interesting stuff about the Nakajima problems, that were also affecting the Homare. Link to the original doc, that can be easily translated in this day and age. Also some translations provided by him (apologies for the wall of text, but this is a far better account of the major production problems than anything that can be read from the Western sources or 'sources'):


From Shibuya Ryutaro, who was inspecting private factories from September 1943 to October 1944 (pg. 442) :

More comments from Shibuya: (ibid., pg. 446)

From Shibuya regarding the Homare crankcase (ibid, pg. 448):

From Kawamura Hiroyoshi, head of the steelmaking department at the IJN Air Technical Arsenal, there are two anecdotes about massive quality issues at Nakajima and the difficulties of manufacturing the Homare (ibid, pg. 443-445):

 
I had not really noticed that Francillon's book omitted sources since the figures HAVE sources, but the performance numbers and production numbers and appendicies do not. I appreciate you bringing that to our attention!

You mention TAIC and I have found the numbers in that source to be very wanting. No doubt it is becasue the numbers are estimates that were calculated using the best estimates they could get at the time. I doubt, for instance, that TAIC ever had, for instance, a Homare engine to analyze that was running as designed on fuel the Japanese used. I could be mistaken. Also, it is likely that wing areas, frontal areas, etc. were estimates, too, as were the efficiencies of propellers, etc.

Their work was good, but it was a "best guess" in its entirety. Better than nothing. I think of the TAIC report as the Wikipedia of WWII Japanese aircraft data. That is, the worst source other than no source. Since many people had no other source, sometimes other than observation in combat, the TAIC report was as good as it got at the time.

Again, I could be wrong, and it may well be mostly good data. I simply have no means to verify it either way. The Planes of Fame has an A6M5 Model 52 Zero, but the engine is being worked on right now, and it will never be available for maximum performance testing by an outside agency, so verifying any performance numbers is not really possible. I'd suspect the same for any other authentic Japanese WWII aircraft.

So, if they ever restored the Ki-100 in the UK and got it flying again, I doubt seriously it would ever be run at full military power levels long enough for a serious test program! If it were, I'd bet the data would not be publically available. Again, I could be mistaken and all that may yet come to pass. If so, color me surprised ...

Good post for generating thought. Cheers.
 
Hey Greg, thanks for the kind words.

Since writing that comment years ago, I've learned from this forum that Francillon probably used the data found in the 1950s "General View of Japanese Military Aircraft in The Pacific War" for the majority of his performance data. There are some odd performance numbers, such as the 416 MPH top speed for the Frank II, which was basically the late model Frank. But otherwise, Francillon's data is identical to that found in a General View.

A General View itself claims to have been derived from numerous sources, including the engineers, pilots, and groundcrew who built, designed, maintained, and flew the aircraft. However, some have claimed that General View is not a primary source and that their data is in part derived from US archives. Unfortunately, none of those claims have any citation at all. When I looked into the Japanese archival sources, it turned out that the final performance reports in General View were created during the occupation of Japan and that these reports were synthesized from data that the Japanese themselves had collected at the behest of the Allies.

Regarding the A6M5 at Planes of Fame, that is incredibly fascinating. If they have an original Sakae 31, and they haven't substantially modified the aircraft, an analyst could determine actual top speed, at all altitudes and power settings easily, without needing military horsepower.

For determining WEP top speed, the most important missing variable is the aerodynamic drag (or Zero Lift Drag Coefficient). That can be calculated using things like wing area, air density, altitude, horsepower and the corresponding true air speed. Once they have it, they can calculate the WEP top speed easily. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than any number available to us today.
 

Hello Gentlemen.

One interesting source of information is Steve Hinton's commentary as he flies the A6M5 being described. I presume this fellow knows quite a bit about the particular aircraft and its capabilities. One of the unusual things about this particular A6M5 is that it is equipped with a Sakae 31 instead of the more typical Sakae 21. One would think that the difference between the engines is just the MW50 injection and the IJN never really got that working well on the A6M even though the Army got it working well enough on basically the same engines on Hayabusa.
Typical quoted power for the Hayabusa was 1230 HP but their engine settings notably RPM were just slightly different. (First Data Point)
In Hinton's commentary, he claims to be using a fairly low manifold pressure for take-off that gave about 900 HP but that under emergency conditions the engine was capable of around 1200 HP. This seems pretty much in line with what we know about Hayabusa.
We also know that the maximum take-off power for Sakae 21 / 31 was 1130 HP, so this difference is probably the overboost.
What I don't know is what the equivalent manifold pressure would be.

Something I found in a book several months ago was a description of the overboost control on the Zero.
When not activated, a regulator limited boost to +25 CM and compensated for altitude. If the overboost was activated, theboost pressure limit was raised to +35 CM but with some degree of risk of engine damage if used excessively. From the limits described, this sounds like the A6M2 with the Sakae 12 engine.

Regarding the QC difficulties with the Homare engine, I suspect that it might have had something to do with key technicians or craftsmen being drafted for service in the army at the time. People talk about CMM and processes, but no matter how good the processes get, there is some reliance on the skill of individual workers. These key people may not show up in org charts, but when they go away, the shop falls apart.
 

Users who are viewing this thread