Mitsubishi G4M 'Betty'

[stealth]

This aircraft I say is more fighter then bomber including how many guns it has. Just think of it like a Me110,just Japanese
Type
Seven-crew long-range bomber.
Powerplant
Two 1,825-hp(1261-kW) Mitsubishi MK42 Kasei 25 radial piston engines.
Performance
Maximum speed 292 mph(470km/h) at 16,895 ft (5150m); service ceiling 30,250 ft (9220m); maximum range 2,694 miles (4335 km)
Weights
Empty 18,049 lb (8350 kg); maximum take-off 27,558 lb (125000 kg)
Dimensions
Wingspan 82 ft 1/4 in (25.00m); length 63 ft 113/4 in (19.50m); height 19ft 81/4 in (6.00m); wing area 841.01 sq ft (78.13 m2)
Armament
Four 20-mm cannon and two 7.7-mm (0.303-in) machine-guns plus on 1,764-lb (800-kg) torpedo or 2,205 lb (1000 kg) of bombs.

[whipster22]

good link http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/mitsg4m.html 

[EDO43]

+1 with the option for a Bakka bomb

[Saxman]

+1 with the option for a Bakka bomb

WTFH is it with people and wanting to be able to ram into things for score?

[whipster22]

their are no good ankles to hump

[stealth]

What do you think of this thing. I think it's to heavily armed to even come to the game. All planes have a weakness though,what's this planes weakness?

[Motherland]

This aircraft I say is more fighter then bomber including how many guns it has. Just think of it like a Me110,just Japanese

Except that the G4M didn't have any fixed forward firing guns...

[Krusty]

Oh, silly Motherland! You forget who typed that! As if he actually knows what he's talking about? 

[Karnak]

What do you think of this thing. I think it's to heavily armed to even come to the game. All planes have a weakness though,what's this planes weakness?

It was called the "Honorable one shot lighter" for a reason.

[AirFlyer]

What do you think of this thing. I think it's to heavily armed to even come to the game. All planes have a weakness though,what's this planes weakness?

Like Karnak said, it has armor just like an A6M, and by that I mean virtually none. Secondly, the armament you posted was of an extremely late war model that we almost certainly wouldn't see. The model we would see when/if we get it would either have 4x 7.7mm and 1x 20mm or 4x 7.7mm and 2x 20mm.

On the other hand, it's actually a good request and the bomber would fill a nice hole in the Japanese Bomber plane set.

[Karnak]

A6M had more armor, in a way.  At least the A6M's wing skin isn't also the fuel tank.

[Saxman]

You got to admit, the thought of the sight of massed formations of Bettys silhouetted against a clear blue sky trailing sheets of golden flame hundreds of feet long certainly sounds picturesque.

[Karnak]

The sad thing about it is, Mitsubishi told the Imperial Navy that they couldn't make an effective bomber with the demanded range on only two engines.  The Navy repeatedly denied Mitsubishi's request to go to a four engined design which would have allowed greater payload, armor and self sealing tanks while meeting the Navy's range requirement, but the Navy denied them each time.  The customer got what the customer demanded and I doubt Avro, Junkers, Boeing or Tupolev could have done better given the customer demands.

[Motherland]

Why did the IJN want a twin engined aircraft? Supply concerns?

[Karnak]

Why did the IJN want a twin engined aircraft? Supply concerns?

I am not sure, but I expect it was concern over lack of experience operating four engined aircraft.  It might also have been a cost issue.

Whatever it was, they were wrong and Mitsubishi was right.

EDIT:

The Navy's requirements for the A6M and G4M were so steep that Nakajima didn't even try for the contracts.  Mitsubishi may have been the only option, but even then the A6M1 failed to meet the Navy's speed requirements.