Yamato logic for single-engined, single seat fighter

[Admiral Beez]

What would a Japanese single seat, single engined fighter for introduction in 1941 look like if the logic behind the battleship Yamato had been applied? That of vastly superior firepower and protection while maintaining equal speed (until the Iowas) over the competition, on the assumption that you'll be fighting against a numerically superior foe. For starters we'd need Japan to be working on a >2,000 hp engine, with high octane fuel to match, in the 1930s.

 

[SaparotRob]

A P-47M with really cool tail markings?

 

[Frog]

It would have given a Korusea or a Herukyatto.

 

[cammerjeff]

A P-47M with really cool tail markings?

I would make it a P-47N for the longer range, the IJN seemed to like long range planes.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I would make it a P-47N for the longer range, the IJN seemed to like long range planes.

I was thinking more of a IJAAF aircraft. The navy says, we're going to plan a super battleship. The air force says, oh yeah, we're building a super single-seat, single-engine fighter.

Notice I'm steering us away from multi-engine, multi-seat Zerstörers. Those are off the table.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was thinking more of a IJAAF aircraft. The navy says, we're going to plan a super battleship. The air force says, oh yeah, we're building a super single-seat, single-engine fighter.

View attachment 850584

Notice I'm steering us away from multi-engine, multi-seat Zerstörers. Those are off the table.

Unless you've got a much better engine, you're not gonna haul that much freight that fast. Start there, with your powerplant in a single-engined plane.

 

[Glider]

I have to agree. A P47 type aircraft with a BMW 801 engine (which is the best engine I can think of in 1941) would be an appalling fighter. You would be better off in the Zero.

A naval style Mustang would be a better idea. It has speed, range, firepower and payload, but it doesn't have altitude performance which isn't nearly as important in a naval fighter.

 

[GrauGeist]

The problem here, is that Japan was behind the curve in regards to their engines (certainly not aircraft design) and it wasn't until mid-war, that they started to bring more powerful engines into the mix.

In regards to the P-47 comment: the N1K1-J would have been a contemporary (as well as the KI-100, but that's Army, so doesn't count).

 

[TM06]

If we're going off into the deep end here, the Ki-87-II project is functionally what this line of thought would lead to. The Ki-87 and/or the Ki-94-II both match the requirements generally speaking.

 

[KLS&C 85]

The problem is the Japanese mindset of honorable aerial combat when it came to fighter plane design. The Japanese believed in the classic high G turning dogfight. The Zero fighter was built to what they believed aerial combat would look like. When our tactics evolved into the dive, attack and dive away, the Japanese airman were, those that survived, dumb founded as to how to respond. Not dog fighting the Zero was not considered honorable.
It was that honorable means of aerial combat that prevented the Japanese until it was too late from designing better aircraft.
The Japanese like us still believed there would be a great Jutland type battleship vs battleship naval battle to decide the Pacific War. The Japanese screwed that up sinking and damaging our battleships at Pearl Harbor. Now the great battle couldn't happen.
The Pacific War for the most part became an air and island hopping war. Something neither side saw coming. Only two battleship on battleship battles happened. The Japanese lost both.

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

The Japanese (Navy, at least) were quite interested in the He 100 design historically, so that could be a potential avenue towards this "super-plane" design. Weight and sufficient firepower will, however, be an issue.

Think an earlier Ki-64.

The Japanese design philosophy of nimble, manoeuvrable fighter aircraft was slowly beginning to change, at least with the Army, whose pilots had faced off against the fast Soviet I-16 fighter over the skies of China, and over Khalkin Gol. Admittedly, I don't have the source on hand right now that mentions this. Apparently, at least some pilots were actually beginning to favour faster aircraft after having encountered the I-16, though the majority opinion had yet to shift significantly. Certain changes in China could have potentially hastened it.

 

[EwenS]

The Japanese like us still believed there would be a great Jutland type battleship vs battleship naval battle to decide the Pacific War. The Japanese screwed that up sinking and damaging our battleships at Pearl Harbor. Now the great battle couldn't happen.

Well yes and no.

Sure a lot of damage was done to the US battlefleet at PH amongst the 8 battleships present. But by April 1942 the USN was able to field in the Pacific Colorado (missed PH due to refit), Pennsylvania, Tennessee & Maryland (all repaired), and the 3 New Mexicos transferred from the Atlantic. Total 7.

To face an IJN battlefleet of Yamato (whose true size and gun calibre were unknown to the USN), 2 x Nagato, 2 x Ise, and 2 x Fuso. Total 7 ships. The IJN did not intend to use The 4 x Kongo class battlecruisers as part of their battleline.

But for this to happen both sides would have needed much greater logistical support. The USN in early 1942 couldn't support the carriers and the battleships in the South Pacific. So the battleships spent their time patrolling off the West Coast.

The Pacific War for the most part became an air and island hopping war. Something neither side saw coming. Only two battleship on battleship battles happened. The Japanese lost both.

The USN prewar plans acknowledged there would have to be an island hopping campaign simply to advance from Hawaii through the Japanese mandated islands of the Central Pacific to relieve the Philippines. What they didn't do was to address the logistical support structure to allow that to happen. That had to await war breaking out and it proved to be a much greater effort than was envisaged pre-war.

Equally IJN plans revolved around attriting the USN Pacific Fleet as it crossed the Pacific to reach the location of the "Decisive Battle". So they planned to use their subs, and island based bombers as well as destroyers supported by cruisers all with the "Long Lance" torpedoes and backed up by the 4 x Kongos, to attack the US fleet as it transitted the Pacific.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The problem here, is that Japan was behind the curve in regards to their engines…

Well yes, that's our turning point I'm suggesting. Japan was behind the curve on battleships too, with two Nagatos and a fleet of 1920's 14-inch ships soon to be outclassed by what will become the KGV, North Carolina, SoDak, Richelieu, Littorio and Bismarck classes. This forced pre-war Japan to throw money, resources and talent to produce a battleship that vastly outclassed them all.

Meanwhile, Japan's 1930s intel service reports that Pratt & Whitney's R-2800 Double Wasp (soon to run in 1937) and Bristol's Centaurus (first run 1938) will be >2,000 hp capable, able to power large and powerful fighters against Japan. Following the IJN's idea, the 1930's IJAAF wants a super fighter like the IJN's planned super battleship. So, they'll get to work on a suitable >2,000 hp engine and airframe. They'll also need high octane fuel to power it.

The problem is the Japanese mindset of honorable aerial combat when it came to fighter plane design. The Japanese believed in the classic high G turning dogfight.

The Japanese will adapt given the tech and capabilities available. And of course, given the hp, you can dogfight in an equivalent to a 6 ton P-47. The Jug wasn't just a dash and shoot fighter, but could twist and turn as needed. What our IJAAF pilots do get is 400+ mph in 1940, long range, heavy armament and (unusual for Japan) large ammunition capacity, with armour, high rate of climb and acceleration, while still able to maintain the high G turns they like.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JL35aF_LKIc&pp=ygUUUC00NyBtYW5vaXZlcmF2aWxvdHk%3D

 

[bf109xxl]

The Japanese design philosophy of nimble, manoeuvrable fighter aircraft was slowly beginning to change, at least with the Army, whose pilots had faced off against the fast Soviet I-16 fighter over the skies of China, and over Khalkin Gol. Admittedly, I don't have the source on hand right now that mentions this. Apparently, at least some pilots were actually beginning to favour faster aircraft after having encountered the I-16, though the majority opinion had yet to shift significantly. Certain changes in China could have potentially hastened it.

Actually, according to Soviet reports, the Ki.27 was superior to the I-16 in almost everything except maximum speed (the difference, however, can be considered as negligible) and dive duration - the Ki.27 's engine could overcool. The Soviets, by the way, were greatly surprised that the Ki.27 was almost as fast as the I-16, which had a more powerful engine. Soviet pilots noted the insufficient strength of the Ki.27 airframe - they observed cases of wing breaking off during dive recovery in air battles.
It is not clear how the Japanese could conclude that speed was more important, if there was no significant difference in it. I guess, exactly stability and maneuverability were considered more important, which resulted in the appearance of the Ki.43 and the A6M.

 

[Shortround6]

Well yes, that's our turning point I'm suggesting. Japan was behind the curve on battleships too, with two Nagatos and a fleet of 1920's 14-inch ships soon to be outclassed by what will become the KGV, North Carolina, SoDak, Richelieu, Littorio and Bismarck classes. This forced pre-war Japan to throw money, resources and talent to produce a battleship that vastly outclassed them all.

This is a 'what if' but this is twisting history a bit. The 14in ships were WW I unless you are considering them 1920s due the refits/rebuilds, but everybody did that to greater or lesser extent. Also kind of skips over the Tosa and Amagi class ships as Japanese thinking and goals. These were roughly 40,000 ton ships with 10 16in guns and speeds of 26-30kts (the faster ships had thinner armor) and show that the navy wanted ships that could outmatch most other nations. Only the US really had any hope of building ships to match the Japanese. British had bigger ships on paper but no money. France and Italy had no money and no ability to build either 40,000 ton ships or 16in guns in the 1920s or 1930s. Japan was not worried about anybody but the US and Britain in the 1930s.

Meanwhile, Japan's 1930s intel service reports that Pratt & Whitney's R-2800 Double Wasp (soon to run in 1937) and Bristol's Centaurus (first run 1938) will be >2,000 hp capable, able to power large and powerful fighters against Japan.

In 1937 P&W was planning on a 1650hp engine. They had originally planned on a 2600cu in engine but at that time they didn't know about the Wright R-2600. When they found out they enlarged their engine to the 2800cu in displacement. No sense in being 2nd to the market with a 2600 cu in engine.
In 1937-38 a 2000hp fighter engine was something of a pipe dream (Napier was dreaming of it with the Sabre). Part of it was fuel. The US was getting better fuel than anybody else and was bumping their fuel to 91 octane. Everybody knew that 100 octane was coming but they didn't know when and they didn't really know what the exact befits would be. People knew that rich mixture could give a bit more power but nobody knew how much (it varied from engine to engine).
There were reasons why the US B-19 (and a few other experimental planes ) used 2000hp Wright R-3350 engines in 1939-41. You could not get 2000hp out of a 2800 cu in radial using the gasoline of 1939-40 and the bearing materials available. The 2000hp Wright R-3350 engines of 1939-40 used 100 octane (100/100) and ran at 2400rpm and had two speed superchargers. They also weighed 2450lbs.
engines in the B-29s weighed about 200lbs more, in spite of using single speed superchargers (they now used turbos), they ran at 2600rpm, used 100/130 fuel and because of the turbos, used a lower gear ratio on the supercharger that used a bit less power to turn.
Where was Japan going to get the high octane fuel? They were importing just about all of their aviation fuel from the US for the war in China.
How do you make 100 octane fuel from the Dutch East Indies oil? Can you just use lead or do you need extra refining (breaking the oil into aromatic compounds that have to be blended back into gasoline) steps.

Airplanes and ships are different, you can expect a ship to last years and even sometimes, it you are lucky, for a ship to survive several combats. See some of the German Battlecruisers of WW I. Maybe you have really bad luck and run the ship aground but battleships are pretty durable and long lasting.

Fighters are rather different, they are expendable and not just in combat damage. While peace time wastage is no where near what war time is, even in peace time, it an air force is training a lot, you are going to break/wreck planes. WW II training wrecks would cause months of congressional hearings today. Can the Japanese afford to build fighters 2-3times the size (weight) of the ones they used and crash 20-30% of them not in combat?

 

[SaparotRob]

I would make it a P-47N for the longer range, the IJN seemed to like long range planes.

I thought I should handicap the IJAAF a skosh, technology-wise.

 

[Howard Gibson]

What would a Japanese single seat, single engined fighter for introduction in 1941 look like if the logic behind the battleship Yamato had been applied? That of vastly superior firepower and protection while maintaining equal speed (until the Iowas) over the competition, on the assumption that you'll be fighting against a numerically superior foe. For starters we'd need Japan to be working on a >2,000 hp engine, with high octane fuel to match, in the 1930s.

A good part of the logic behind the Yamato class battleships was that they would fight stuff that fit through the Panama canal. The ships were make fairly short in length, to made them harder for other battleships to hit. These are not limitations behind fighter aircraft.

We criticise the Japanese for building delicate aircraft, but they did not have large numbers of big, reliable engines. The A6M5 Zeros did 350mph on 28_litre radial engines. That is quite an accomplishment. Hellcats and Corsairs used 46_litre engines, which allowed them to carry much more armour and protection, and still go faster.

Take the case that the Nakajima Homare is available and reliable in 1941, and they have 100/130_octane fuel. The Homare's performance with water methanol injection was equivalent to 130_octane. They get to design the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate "Frank" Frank and the Kawanishi N1K "George" earlier in the war. What do they do with the extra power? Do they load on more armour? More firepower? Do they back off the armour for extra performance? The P47 did not comply with Japanese fighter doctrine.

If you don't have 2000hp, you have to make compromises.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If you don't have 2000hp, you have to make compromises.

Yes, that's the very foundation of the thread. Japan pursues a 2000hp engine.

 

[Shortround6]

We criticise the Japanese for building delicate aircraft, but they did not have large numbers of big, reliable engines.

Perhaps we should say 'well balanced" aircraft. At least after the first few hundred?
The US tended to overbuild, Which worked out well when they got shot up, or least better than being underbuilt. On the other had perhaps fewer of them would have gotten shot up if they were a few hundred pounds lighter

. Hellcats and Corsairs used 46_litre engines, which allowed them to carry much more armour and protection, and still go faster.

You forgot that the US fighters carried a lot more armament weight. An awful lot more. Please note I am not making any judgement as to effectiveness, just amount of weight.
And 46 liter engines need more fuel, which needs more wing/fuselage volume and needs heavier landing gear and needs...............................................................

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, that's the very foundation of the thread. Japan pursues a 2000hp engine.

There's going to be a budget issue here.