What would the J2M Raiden be like in AH?

[AquaShrimp]

The design called for an aircraft capable of 373mph, landing at speeds not greater than 81mph, and not taking more than 985 ft to takeoff fully loaded. Different version of the aircraft (prototypes included) were flying from March 1942 right up to the end of the war.  

The speed called for in the design is about the same as the P-40Es, and slower than that of P-38Fs.

So if on paper you say that you are building a high speed interceptor, but in reality you build a plane slower than its contemporaries, and one that becomes very sluggish at moderate speeds (320+), what have you really designed?

[Karnak]

Once again, look to the realities the Japanese were working under.  373 was very fast for a Japanese fighter of that day.  The wing loading on the J2M was very high by Japanese standards.

You cannot compare the Japanese situation to the American situation and expect them to be even.

If the high command had called for a 400+mph fighter, no Japanese firm could have delived it.

Even the Ki-84 seems to have never reached 400mph in Japanese service.  When tested in the US it reached 420mph due to the fuel difference.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp

 what have you really designed?

A Japanese High Speed interceptor.

-Sik

[republic]

Raiden would be a nice addition.

Edit:  Oops, dug this up but I didn't realize it wasn't in the "Wishlist" forum

[storch]

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.

yup it was a late 1943 fighter and effective though suffering from reliabilty issues

[Karnak]

Old thread, but I'll add that top speed in level flight isn't everything.  The J2M was designed for high speed and could operate effectively at higher speeds, something that most Japanese fighters have a lot of trouble with.  Using the high climb rate and then diving it would be a very nasty oponent, something that F6Fs would have a hell of a time diving away from, thereby removing the standard US tactic for escaping Japanese fighters.

[AquaShrimp]

Years ago, I used to chat with an old B-29 bombardier on a newsgroup.  He said the fighter he most frequently encountered were J2M Jacks.  I believe he said that while all Japanese planes had trouble intercepting the B-29s at high altitude, the Jack was the one that was most capable.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Years ago, I used to chat with an old B-29 bombardier on a newsgroup.  He said the fighter he most frequently encountered were J2M Jacks.  I believe he said that while all Japanese planes had trouble intercepting the B-29s at high altitude, the Jack was the one that was most capable.

I recall reading that the J2M had been withdrawn from service at one point in 1944 as the IJN was going to standardize on the N1K as their land based fighter, but it was put back into production and service because it could actually combat the B-29s, something the N1K couldn't do.

[1K3]

J2M3, Ki-61s, ki-84s, and Ki-44s are deemed un-maneuverable by Japanese standards.  But when these planes were tested by Americans they were amazed that Japanese designers were able to balance speed, maneuverability, firepower, and durability.  Good for us and bad for them that they did not produce these planes in greater numbers to replace the A6Ms.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by 1K3
J2M3, Ki-61s, ki-84s, and Ki-44s are deemed un-maneuverable by Japanese standards.  But when these planes were tested by Americans they were amazed that Japanese designers were able to balance speed, maneuverability, firepower, and durability.  Good for us and bad for them that they did not produce these planes in greater numbers to replace the A6Ms.

Really wouldn't have mattered.  U.S planes were faster and performed better at altitude across the board.  Given the tactics used by the U.S., the marginal performance improvement relative to the U.S. planes coupled with their lack of trained pilots would have resulted in the same brutal last 2 years for IJA pilots.

[Squire]

What Karnak said, J2M3 was built for speed and climb, as for 20mm in the fuselage, well, the inline engined Ki-61 has them, so its hardly that surprising.

It was a bomber interceptor, in AH, it would likely be something of a hanger queen, being that the N1K2 has a lower wing loading and also climbs fast. Both the Ki-84 and N1K2 are better vs fighters than a J2M3 Raiden.

From what I have read, many IJN pilots didnt like it, as it could not manuever as well with US escort fighters.

[Debonair]

i wonder how the japanese would have done if they'd taught their kamikaze pilots to do the old reliable 4x20mm HO instead of bashing their plane into a boat

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Debonair
i wonder how the japanese would have done if they'd taught their kamikaze pilots to do the old reliable 4x20mm HO instead of bashing their plane into a boat

Well, its kinda like a HO, without pulling the trigger.

[1K3]

judging by the looks, J2M3 must be the most aerodynamic radial-powered piston engine fighter that saw action.

[Krusty]

It had a shaft between the prop and the engine to get that shape.

The problem is that shaft was very unreliable, what with vibration of the engine and of the prop, and the poor shaft caught between the two. I've heard it failed a high % of the time. Another case of Japanese WW2 aircraft not living up to potential because it broke before it got to the fight. In AH it would not see these problems, but still it wasn't perfect. I'm indifferent to this one. We have more pressing needs, but I don't entirely dislike it.