Author Topic: What would the J2M Raiden be like in AH? (Read 5987 times)

Bombardy · « **on:** May 09, 2006, 10:52:25 PM »

I'm interested how the J2m variants (J2M3 or even the J2M5) might compare to other large radial aircraft in the MA if we ever get it.....let's take a look at a few specifications to compare

Power to weight ratio: (dry weight/max HP)
P47D - 3.9lbs per HP
J2M3 - 3.4lbs per HP
La7 - 3.1lbs per HP

All other things being equal, the J2M should be able to accelerate quite nicely, not quite as well as the La7, but should be better than the JUG

Wing Loading (empty weight/sq ft)
P47D - 33.3lbs/sqft
J2M3 - 28.97lbs/sqft
La7 - 30.86lbs/sqft

the J2M seems to get the nod here, a lower wing loading would lend itself to better handling and turn capability

Climb Performance
P47D - 3,120 ft/min
J2M3 - 3,838 ft/min
La7 - 3,608 ft/min

Well, now this is interesting, the J2M bests the la7 in climb, no real surprise there since the wingloading is lower with a very close power to weight ratio

Was is a bad plane? was it a good plane? here's some subjective information.......

In February of 1945, an American technical intelligence team discovered a single Raiden abandoned among the trees alongside the Dewey Boulevard on the outskirts of Manila. It was disassembled and transferred to Clark Field, where it was repaired by the Technical Air Intelligence Command (TAIC) and test flown. A senior test pilot attached to TAIC rated the Raiden as being the best Japanese fighter he had flown, offering a good performance, good stability, good stalling characteristics, and good takeoff and landing qualities. It had a steep climbing angle and a rapid climb rate. Handling and control were good, but the ailerons became rather heavy at speeds above 325 mph. Stalling characteristics were exceptional. Even though there was relatively little stall warning, the recovery from the stall was extremely rapid, with very little altitude being lost. There was no tendency to spin, the aircraft being exceptionally stable. The maneuvering flaps were rated as being very effective. On the negative side, the brakes and rudder brake action were poor, the ailerons were heavy which made the maneuverability fall off at high speeds, the mechanical reliability was poor, and the range was short.

Hades55 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 10, 2006, 10:35:12 AM »

http://www.flyaceshigh.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94319&highlight=raiden

Krusty · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2006, 10:46:59 AM »

HAHAHAHA!!! 5 made! 4 prototypes and 1 production unit! Never flown, never distributed!!! LMAO!!!

P.S. there's NO way in hell they got 2x20mm in that fuselage. The cowling and the engine/prop shaft take up all the room.

At MOST it's a 4x20mm plane.

Fly the N1k2. It's the same UFO. And we already have it in-game.

EDIT: Comparing it to the P47 and La7 is a joke. Rather, you ought to compare it to the zero, the hellcat, and (especially) the N1K2. I believe it would compare very closely to the N1K2 in all areas.

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2006, 12:39:54 PM »

People seem to be confusing the A7M2 Reppu "Sam" with the J2M3 "Raiden "Jack". The Raiden definately saw service, though not in huge numbers whereas the Reppu was screwed by the IJN and Mitsubishi brass overruling Horikoshi's choice of powerplant and then switching back after the Homare proved to be inadequate just as Horikoshi said it would be.

The J2M3 entered service in 1943 as I recall. Maybe '44.

Grendel · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2006, 01:10:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
HAHAHAHA!!! 5 made! 4 prototypes and 1 production unit! Never flown, never distributed!!! LMAO!!!

P.S. there's NO way in hell they got 2x20mm in that fuselage. The cowling and the engine/prop shaft take up all the room.

It would help if you at least knew what you are talking about. Right now, you seem to be in a wrong thread?

The first J2M1 prototype flew 20.03.1942, with 3 prototypes built.

155 J2M2 series production aircraft were built and distributed.

J2M3, J2M4, J2M5 and J2M6 were built and flown, with M3 and M5 in series production.

Did you just make up those numbers? That's not a way to contribute to a discussion, you know.

And yes, they did fit 2 x 20 mm cannons to the fuselage.

Sikboy · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2006, 04:26:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
People seem to be confusing the A7M2 Reppu "Sam" with the J2M3 "Raiden "Jack". The Raiden definately saw service, though not in huge numbers whereas the Reppu was screwed by the IJN and Mitsubishi brass overruling Horikoshi's choice of powerplant and then switching back after the Homare proved to be inadequate just as Horikoshi said it would be.

The J2M3 entered service in 1943 as I recall. Maybe '44.

Yeah, that was a very wierd shift. I had plans to sub the n1k2 for the A7M in the CAP event. If the Japanese would have won enough frames they would have had Ki-67s and N1Ks launching off carriers lol. It would have dovetailed nicely with the Stukas and 109s the Germans were using heh (though obviously later in the war).

I never did test the Ki-67 for CV though. We always had land bases for them.

As for the J2M3, I really wanted one of those for the CAP event, to give the IJN something a bit better for the midwar period. The J2M and the Ki-44 (even with an anemic gun package) would have been very welcome in that event. Though to be honest, what we needed most was a mid-war IJN strike plane with better survivability than the Val or Kate. Hmmm.

-Sik

Jester · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2006, 05:14:09 PM »

From what I have read on the "JACK" - it was more of an Interceptor than a Fighter.

It had a very high climb rate, fairly fast but only average turn rate. Better armored than the A6M5 Zeke & KI-61 KAI IIRC. It would make a good Bomber Interceptor with the 4x 20mm cannons and do ok in a AH dogfight with a skilled pilot.

While it would be nice to have - the GEORGE & FRANK we already have are better planes.

!

Sikboy · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2006, 05:34:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jester
From what I have read on the "JACK" - it was more of an Interceptor than a Fighter.

It had a very high climb rate, fairly fast but only average turn rate. Better armored than the A6M5 Zeke & KI-61 KAI IIRC. It would make a good Bomber Interceptor with the 4x 20mm cannons and do ok in a AH dogfight with a skilled pilot.

While it would be nice to have - the GEORGE & FRANK we already have are better planes.

!

That's how I see it shaking out as well. In the MA, Novelty would be the real reason to fly one. But in Events (where I lived) it would be nice to have something beefier than the Zeke for the mid-war. Right now all we have is the Ki-61, which while a fine fighter for the period is something of a bobsled when it comes to energy. The Jack would fill in a pretty major gap in the IJN planeset IMHO.

-Sik

Krusty · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2006, 07:00:32 PM »

Did I quote the wrong plane? Whatever

Still, lol! only 5 made! (of that other plane)

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #9 on:** May 14, 2006, 04:05:40 AM »

Another case of the Japanese putting the emphasis on the wrong thing: Turning and climb rate.

With as many mistakes the U.S. made during WW2, its amazing that the focus for fighter planes was always on speed, range, durability and firepower.

SgtPappy · « **Reply #10 on:** May 14, 2006, 01:16:25 PM »

which make me wonder Shrimp... does that Raiden stand any chance against the Hellcat or Corsair? just wondering. I wasnt even sure of any J2M facts until I read this thread! However, I hear that the Raiden's handles like a truck at low speed.. I might be talking about something else, but one thing is for sure - that Japanese planes became more unreliable near the end of the war, and could easily be beaten by their U.S. contemporaries.

Which makes me wonder (ha sorry if I'm being annoying asking frequent unrelated questions but you people seem so seasoned with knowledge of planes I may need to pry some off you): would something like a Hellcat, which has a speed of 66mph less than an F4U-4 be able to stand a chance against such a fast, quick- climbing/diving plane?

Karnak · « **Reply #11 on:** May 14, 2006, 03:37:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Another case of the Japanese putting the emphasis on the wrong thing: Turning and climb rate.

With as many mistakes the U.S. made during WW2, its amazing that the focus for fighter planes was always on speed, range, durability and firepower.

Um, the emphasis on the J2M3 was climb and speed. So much so that many Japanese pilots really disliked it.

It was not designed as a long range escort or strike aircraft. It was designed as a short range interceptor like the Bf109 or Spitfire.

As to its handling, the only note I have seen said that in post war trials the American test pilot liked it a lot.

icemaw · « **Reply #12 on:** May 14, 2006, 10:57:49 PM »

if you ever get to chino they have a very nice static display of this aircraft.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #13 on:** May 15, 2006, 02:02:55 AM »

The J2M3s top speed was 380mph. This was at a time when nearly all of U.S. planes were doing over 400mph (with the exception of the F6F and P40).

Karnak · « **Reply #14 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:19:32 AM »

The Japanese had fuel quaity issues. The fact that it did not go over 400mph in Japanese service does not mean the aircraft was not intended to be as fast as they could make it.

Read up a bit on it and the development behind it before making pronouncements about what the design goals of the aircraft were.