Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: AHTbolt on October 11, 2011, 10:29:13 PM
-
very interesting bomber
Manufacturer Yokosuka Naval Air Technical Arsenal
Primary Role Horizontal Bomber
Maiden Flight 1 August 1943
The P1Y Ginga ("Galaxy") Navy Type 11 medium bombers were twin-engine land-based aircraft designed for the Japanese Navy as replacements for the G4M bombers. The design was complex, which caused problems with manufacturing and servicing on the front lines. 97 night fighter variants, P1Y2-S Kyokko ("Aurora") were also built, but many of them were reverted to the standard bomber configuration due to poor performance in that role. During the production life of the design, 1,002 were built by Nakajima Aircraft Company.
The Allied code name for the design was "Frances".
SPECIFICATIONS
P1Y1a Ginga
Machinery Two Nakajima HK9C Homare 12 radial engine rated at 1,825hp each
Armament 1x20mm nose Type 99 cannon, 1x13mm tail Type 2 machine gun, 1,000kg of bombs or 1x800kg torpedo
Span 9.99 m
Length 9.99 m
Height 4.30 m
Wing Area 55.00 mē
Weight, Empty 7,265 kg
Weight, Loaded 13,500 kg
Speed, Maximum 547 km/h
Service Ceiling 9,400 m
Range, Maximum 5,370 km
P1Y2-S Kyokko
Machinery Two Mitsubishi MK4T-A Kasei 25a radial engine rated at 1,850hp each
Armament 2x20mm nose Type 99 cannon, 1x20mm tail Type 2 cannon, 1,000kg of bombs or 1x800kg torpedo
Span 9.99 m
Length 9.99 m
Height 4.30 m
Wing Area 55.00 mē
Weight, Empty 7,265 kg
Weight, Loaded 13,500 kg
Speed, Maximum 547 km/h
Service Ceiling 9,400 m
Range, Maximum 5,370 km
(http://ww2db.com/images/air_p1y_5.jpg)
-
It is surprisingly small when you see pictures of it with something to use as scale. In AH it would probably be comparable to the Ki-67. Perhaps a bit faster, tougher and a bit better bomb load but less firepower.
-
You know, I've never heard of a vertical bomber... Or a diagonal bomber... :D
-
A "vertical or diagonal bomber" would be a dive bomber, silly.
-
Another note I just recalled. I am pretty sure it could carry larger bombs that the Ki-67 as well. I recall seeing loadout options for the P1Y1 of two 500kg bombs, and that would make it pretty useful for a Japanese bomber, being able to drop two hangars with a formation.
-
A "vertical or diagonal bomber" would be a dive bomber, silly.
i only fly parallelogram bombers :banana:
-
Just wanted to give this a bump to restart discussion, as it looks like an interesting addition to the bomber lineup and the stable of Japanese aircraft.
-
There are many aircraft that ought to be added first, but I would use this one for sure and with 1002 built it has enough to warrant inclusion.
-
There are many aircraft that ought to be added first, but I would use this one for sure and with 1002 built it has enough to warrant inclusion.
Agreed. There are many, many medium bombers from several countries that should be added, in my opinion. Our current bomber lineup is strong for the Americans, but not so much for the other countries.
-
If added, the P1Y1 would be my main hangar smasher. Currently none of the bombers I favor are really good at hangar smashing because they lack 1000lb class bombs.
-
Looks like a great addition. +1
-
Trying to figure out how the Ginga and Kyokko can weigh the same when the former has only one
20mm and one 12.7mm as opposed to three 20mm cannon for the Kyokko.
-
Would love for the Ginga to be added, be honestly I think the next Japanese Army bomber I would like to see would be the Ki-49.
We kind of need something between the Betty and Peggy....well year wise anyway.
But I still can't help but say yea....
+1 P1Y
-
Before you cite 1000 built, "oh it should be in" Karnak, you should look up its combat record. Very few used. They were building and stockpiling them for use as kamikaze against a homeland invasion, as they did with a number of types at the end of the war.
In actual conventional combat, its service record is skimpier than the Ta152. It was designed in 1940, didn't see its first flight til 1943, and didn't see any action until spring of 1945 (yes, last 6 months of the war).
About 500 of the total built were built before the Japanese Navy ever accepted delivery of any of them. It was wholly unreliable as an airplane and many of them sat because they were unacceptable for use. The Homare 12 engines were completely unusable, and almost NEVER developed full power during its use on this airframe. As a result, performance at altitude was far below what was expected. 100 airframes were modified to be a night-fighter fleet (its hypothetical top speed was impressive enough to warrant the effort) but almost all of the night fighters were so unsatisfactory that the guns were removed and they were restored to standard configuration and put back into the "bomber" role.
Even though they were intended as bombers, even some of their earliest combat encounters were kamikaze attacks by the P1Y.
As far as worthiness for inclusion into AH goes, it's a major "no"... The Ki-67 was actually based on this airframe, and saw much more service than this one did.
Just as an interesting link: Google book preview with some comments on the P1Y Ginga:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ma1teOqjMNQC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=p1y+ginga+combat&source=bl&ots=mrI4AhdTNv&sig=Q3z3efM9N6kaGy_qgdQ2YEk011g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lyT3Ub6fL8HayAHE6IBA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=p1y%20ginga%20combat&f=false
-
The book you are presenting in that link is contradicting you. :)
-
Just an interesting reference. What does it contradict? It wasn't accepted by the Navy until Oct-Dec 1944, didn't see service until Feb 1945 or so, and despite training crews for conventional means its claim to fame was homeland defense in the kamikaze role.
It was broken down most of the time due to complications with maintenance, and when it could fly it didn't perform nearly as well as the prototype flight tests did. 450+ were built before it was ever accepted at the end of 1944, and they sat around unused until then, with only one single experimental kokutai developing training tactics for the airframe. After that most of them were allocated to mainland defense and relatively few of those 1000 built saw actual combat.
As far as Aces High goes, this is one of the worst suggestions ever.
-
Gingas have no soul.
-
Gingas have no soul.
Dang as soon as I saw the header was gonna go with this.
-
Just an interesting reference. What does it contradict? It wasn't accepted by the Navy until Oct-Dec 1944, didn't see service until Feb 1945 or so, and despite training crews for conventional means its claim to fame was homeland defense in the kamikaze role.
I'm quoting from that text:
The first P1Y made its operational debut in August 1943 (...)
"The engines were changed, the defensife armament increased(...), but, contrary to what has been hitherto written about this aircraft, the Ginga soon saw combat." (...) "Thus, on 15 August 1943, Egusa was given the 521 Kokutai, the first complete unit of P1Y1's." (page 226)
A few pages later he's describing combat operations of the Ginga in 1944, includiding Egusa's Last Battle, the attack of the 521 Kokutai on TG 58.3 15 June 1944.
-
How is the Ki-67 based on it? The dimensions are completely different, the structures are completely different, the companies involved are completely different, the engineers are completely different.
Your rabidly anti-Japanese biases are showing again.
You have consistently said no to every single Japanese aircraft that people bring up unless it is prewar. You argue that the Japanese were all morons who had no idea how to get anything anywhere after it was built for every Japanese unit after about 1943.
Seeing as your blanket, default statement for anything Japanese is "no" makes it hard to take anything you say seriously. You even opposed the bloody B6N and D4Y. To match your level of opposition to Japanese aircraft in terms of German aircraft you'd have to absolutely deny the Ar234, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9, Me163, Me262 and Ta152. You have, as I recall, supported the G.55, something that has far less combat or numbers to its credit than almost any Japanese combat aircraft I can think of other than the Ki-102 and B7A2, both of which were built in larger quantities.
To call this the worst suggestion in AH history is beyond belief. You're unhinged when it comes to the subject of Japanese aircraft, and I don't know why.
EDIT:
And yes, as Lusche points out, your own link discredits every one of your claims.
-
As far as Aces High goes, this is one of the worst suggestions ever.
Are you sick? :headscratch: