Author Topic: The Niki and possible answer to uberness? Real numbers.  (Read 1310 times)

funked

  • Guest
The Niki and possible answer to uberness? Real numbers.
« Reply #45 on: February 15, 2001, 11:57:00 AM »
PS Jim I didn't know you were an engineer and probably know more about this stuff than I do.  There are often some very cheesy interpretations of physics in this forum so I have become quite cynical in my reponses after long-term exposure to this.  

Offline C_R_Caldwell

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 40
The Niki and possible answer to uberness? Real numbers.
« Reply #46 on: February 15, 2001, 06:39:00 PM »
Jimdandy, as an engineer u have my respect, but where on earth did u get the idea that a Bearcat had a T2W ratio of approx 1:1? That 1 musta been a RATO assisted model ;-) ..

Whoever said the J2M could not reach the altitude of the B-29 was wrong.To say the addition of cannons wrecked performance & there4 required the installation of a blower is also a little silly.The J2M3 was able to climb to B-29 alt handily.Unfortunately, its top speed at that alt was only slightly greater than the B-29 itself, which is why the J2M5 was built (although in too small a number be4 the war ended), which brought a significant increase in performance thanks 2 a new turbo-supercharger.

Standard J2M3's or M5's did NOT use "Schrage Musik" type upward pointing fuselage cannon.If a small number were so modified, it was not because the J2M could not reach the required alt, but because attacking a Superfortress from below afforded a better element of suprise, and the weight of defensive fire from below was not as great as it would've been from a co- or higher alt. The problem with the J2M3 was not its ability 2 reach B-29 operational alt - its climb rate was excellent 4 a late-war Jap interceptor.Its problem was once up 2 alt, its speed was not sufficient (as I mentioned, this being the reason the J2M5 was introduced).

Btw, although there have been some disparaging statements made about the J2M's handling (including statements attributed 2 Japanese pilots!), a USAAF test-pilot who flew a J2M3 captured in an outlying suburb in the Philippine capital, Manila, described the Raiden as a joy to fly, & the best Japanese fighter he had yet flown (apparently he had flown most of them 2 that time).Its only real vice was that the ailerons became very heavy above 300mph IAS, which was made worse by the fact that the Raiden could pick up considerable speed in a dive & made a change of direction difficult at high speeds.He also complimented the Raiden's excellent rate of climb, which was according 2 him far superior 2 any of the then  operational US fighters.

So I guess 2 many Jap IJNAF pilots who'd flown Zekes & Shidens, the Raiden was a bit of a pig as far as handling was concerned.However 2 a US pilot used 2 far less maneuvrable fighters (though superior in performance), the J2M was a joy.

It has 2 be said, however, that IJNAF experten (again, another bloody Teutonic word 2 describe something Japanese ;-D ) used the Raiden 2 its fullest. Aces like Ensign Sadaaki Akamatsu taught the younger IJNAF pilots 2 use Boom'n'Zoom tactics that utilised the J2M's strengths, its high climb rate & excellent dive 2 the max.

In one famous encounter Akamatsu displayed his superior aerobatic abilities (and raw courage, when on April 19, 1945, the 34 yr old Raiden ace flew his J2M against a gaggle of USAAF 45th FS P-51Ds.He forced the Ponies down 2 low-alt & then dispatched 2, with a 3rd claimed as a probable.

[This message has been edited by C_R_Caldwell (edited 02-15-2001).]

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
The Niki and possible answer to uberness? Real numbers.
« Reply #47 on: February 15, 2001, 07:16:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by funked:
PS Jim I didn't know you were an engineer and probably know more about this stuff than I do.  There are often some very cheesy interpretations of physics in this forum so I have become quite cynical in my reponses after long-term exposure to this.    

Ya when funked gets too cylindrical..I take a slice off of him to settle him down.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
The Niki and possible answer to uberness? Real numbers.
« Reply #48 on: February 15, 2001, 07:36:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by C_R_Caldwell:
In one famous encounter Akamatsu displayed his superior aerobatic abilities (and raw courage, when on April 19, 1945, the 34 yr old Raiden ace flew his J2M against a gaggle of USAAF 45th FS P-51Ds.He forced the Ponies down 2 low-alt & then dispatched 2, with a 3rd claimed as a probable.

According to Carter and Mueller and Craven and Cates for 4/19/45:

Fighters from Iwo Jima carry out 106 effective strike sorties against Atsugi-Yokosuka area. 24 airplanes are claimed destroyed in the air and 14 on the ground. One P-51 is lost to ground fire and a second fails to return for reasons unknown. 8 P-51's from Iwo Jima bomb and strafe Futamiko. All return to base.

I don't know what P-51s Akamatsu supposedly tangled with, because these were the only P-51s operating independent of high altitude escort duty on that date.

Don't trust Japanese claims.

My regards,

Widewing

My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
The Niki and possible answer to uberness? Real numbers.
« Reply #49 on: February 15, 2001, 10:30:00 PM »
The J2M3 would be nice - maybe a bit slower than the N1K2-J, and with inferior armament, but it would climb at the same rate as the George - with only military power!  

PS: The J2M5 flew in May 1944 - before the B-29 appeared over Japan in June. Also it had a Mitsubishi MK4U-4 Kasei 26a engine with a mechanical supercharger, rated at 1820hp for takeoff, with military rating of 1510hp at 9185ft, 1400hp at 22,310ft, and 1310hp at 23,925ft. It was the fastest Raiden model, reaching 382mph at 22,300ft. 34 examples were made. This model might be nice as a possible Japanese perk plane.  

The J2M4 actually came after the J2M5 in August 1944, and it was the one with the Mitsubishi MK4R-C Kasei 23c engine with a turbocharger, rated at 1820hp for takeoff, with military rating of 1420hp at 30,185ft. Top speed was 362mph at 30,185ft. It had 4 cannon in the wing, and 2 fuselage mounted oblique-firing cannon behind the cockpit. Only 2 prototypes were completed.

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 02-15-2001).]

Offline Jimdandy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
The Niki and possible answer to uberness? Real numbers.
« Reply #50 on: February 15, 2001, 10:36:00 PM »
   
Quote
Originally posted by C_R_Caldwell:
Jimdandy, as an engineer u have my respect, but where on earth did u get the idea that a Bearcat had a T2W ratio of approx 1:1? That 1 musta been a RATO assisted model ;-) ..


Don't ever forget that engineers don't know everything. That has to be one of my BIGGEST pet peeves when someone says "Well your an engineer you should know that." LOL! God there is so much out there to know. I'm a Mechanical Engineer and yes someone in my profession could design propellers, internal combustion engines, irrigation canals, your chair, a nuclear power plant generally structural/civil/mechanical type of things. Even at that those are specialized fields. You can break structural, civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering into at least a dozen specialized fields for each. You learn all the basic design stuff in school and you might take some specific classes that lean toward your hoped for first job. After you get that first job your generally stuck in that field because now that's where you have experience. So you forget half of what you learned because you never use it any more. LOL. So you guys teach me stuff a lot of times. I had read some place in one of the posts the figures for what turns out to be a stripped down record setting F8F. My first love isn't planes it's cars so I don't have a great feel for the data. I just thought it was a bad bellybutton plane and didn't go any farther. Hell I work piping and pipe hangers, thrust, water hammer, friction factors, blah blah etc etc boring crap that pays me money to do what I like.      . So please don't wonder how I got the idea as if I should know because I'm an engineer. I never look at prop efficiencies and unless I have the desire to set down and pencil out the problem I'm not going to look that deeply into it. People that love things as a hobby can be just as expert as the experts at times. Hell those old pipe fitters know as much or more a lot of the time about pipe than I do. I guess what I'm saying is engineering is just a job like a pipe fitter, auto mechanics, or hairdresser. Each has the expertise in their field. BTW I was a diesel mechanic before I went to school to be an engineer so I can tell you for a fact just because someone is a mechanical engineer doesn't mean they know about cars. Engineers are the WORST people to have bring in there car. They always think they know more then the mechanic and 90% of the time there wrong LOL!. I know you were just ribbing me but I just hate that! LOL!    

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 02-15-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 02-15-2001).]