soc.history.war.world-war-ii

On Mar 14, 2:16 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote:
> wrote in message
>
> news:1d73a343-b19e-4dae-b915-0488aa195574@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 1, 3:56 am, "Tero P. Mustalahti" wrote:
> >> YMC wrote:
> >> > Apparently the Luftwaffe were interested in Japan's Mitsubishi Ki-46-II
> >> > Type
> >> > 100 "Dinah" recce plane. Did they express serious interest in other
> >> > aircraft? Especially, in light of the successes at Pearl Harbor and
> >> > Kuantan
> >> > (sinking of Prince of Wales and Repluse).
>
> >> The Ki-46 was an exceptional recce plane, but I can not think of any
> >> other Japanese aircraft, which would have been similarly superior to
> >> German developed ones. Th A6M did have an impressive range, but it was
> >> not at all suited to German fighter tactics.
>
> > SNIP stuff about soviet fighters
>
> >> As for bombers, the Japanese medium bombers were even more vulnerable to
> >> interception than the standard German medium bombers. Their additional
> >> range might have been handy in the Eastern Front and perhaps in the Med,
> >> but without long range escorts their usefulness would have been rather
> >> limited. SNIP stuff about manufacturing long range japanese fighters and
> >> bombers.
>
> > The Germans would have benefited from Japanese technology,
> > unfortunately their geographic separation made exchanges difficult.
>
> Communications were going quite well until the Germans started a war
> then started a war with the country between Germany and Japan.

Typical distraction.

The point is that the US and UK tended to make up for each others
weaknesses.

The British shared the Magnetron with the US the Japanese didn't share
their earlier invention of their successfully multi cavity magnetron
with the Germans.

The US shared its shock hardened radio proximity fuze to the British
who never succeded in developing a unit of their own. The German DID
succeed in developing and
testing (about 1000 rounds ) an Rhinmetall Borsig electronic
electrostatic proximity fuze at the very end of 1944 but never got
into production.

The UK shared and US shared their code breaking technology.

If the Germans could hope into a Fw 200 or Ju 290 and fly to Tokyo in
less than a day the way the US and UK could communicate via a DC-4/
C-54 the Germans and Japanese wpuld in all likelyhood have covered for
each other weakness in several important areas. The Japanese
synthetic fuel plants failed for lack of experience and the failure to
built test pilot plants.


>
> > The Japanese had developed laminar flow wing profiles, this was (I
> > believe) all their own work and owed nothing to Eastman Jacobs at the
> > USA's NACA that lead to the P-51 and I believe was complete by 1940.
> >From about 1942 onwards the technology is incorporated into several
> > Japanese aircraft. Many of these aircraft still had the exceptional
> > range of Japanese aircraft (about twice that of US medium bombers and
> > 1.5 times that of the Germans) but now combined with armoring and
> > self sealing fuel tanks.
>
> I like this, twice the range if US medium bombers huh?
>
> Ah yes, of course, the US mediums were relatively short ranged for
> their size, like 1,100 miles for the B-26 and 1,350 miles for the B-25
> compared to the Japanese. Having more of a brief to be survivable.

A Betty G4M3 with armor & self sealing tanks managed 2200lbs of bombs
at 2200 miles range WITH bomb load. That's close enough to twice the
range.

An Betty G4M2 with the laminar wings but with only CO2 fire
suppression and partial self sealing tanks could manage 3700 miles
with load.

>
> The C6N mentioned below had a range in internal fuel of around
> 1,900 miles, the G4M without fuel protection had a range of 3,750
> miles, which dropped to 2,700 miles when the protection was added.
> The G4M came in at about two thirds the weight of the B-25 or
> B-26.

The G4M3, the "Betty" with the laminar flow wing with full armor
protection, self sealing fuel tanks and a power driven rear turret had
a range of 2200 miles with 2200lbs of bombs.

A B-25 or B-26 couldn't fly that even without a bomb load. The Betty
did this with inferior 87 (or 92 octane 'navy' fuel). A sign of
aerodynamic and or structural superiority.

The US had laminar flow wings but not aboard the B-25/B-26.

>
> Your standard Ju-88A-4 came in about the same weight as the
> US types (compared with the much lighter Japanese types) with a
> standard range of 1,100 miles and a maximum range of 1,700 miles,
> using external fuel. The He111H came in at about the same weight
> bracket and had a standard range of 1,200 miles. The Do217E-2
> again in the same weight bracket, did 1,430 miles on internal fuel and
> 1,740 miles with drop tanks.

The Do 217 was doing both of the above quoted ranges with its FULL
bomb load which presumably is the internal load of 2500kg later
3000kg (5500lb to 6600lb) rather than the combined internal-external
load.

A B-26B or B-26C at 37000lbs MTOW could do maybe 1600 miles with
2000lbs. No reserves.
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/B-26/B-26RangeChart.pdf

The later enlarged wing models B-26B-10 or B-26C-6 maybe 3000lbs for
1100 miles.

The Do 217 is offering a better payload vs range compromise on that
basic data. I have no range charts but I also do know it is possible
to place fuel tanks into the bomb bay; something which was done when
carrying a guided missile under the wing stations.

The Do 217E-2 at 320mph was of course somewhat faster than the later
B-26/B-25 which became fat with age while the Do 217M-1 at 347mph was
very much faster albeit at a small expense in range over the Do-217E.
Had the 1750hp DB603A which did this with 87 octane fuel been replaced
with the DB603E which added more power and war emergency power the
speed might be 10% higher ie 380mph, with the DB603L even more perhaps
400mph. A DB603N using allied equivalent 100/130 even more. The
engine was underdeveloped as the good fuel and effort went into the Me
109's engines first.

http://www.fockewulf190.net/uk/fockewu/equipuk/db603u.htm
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:cHQ9dsecG7IJ:www.axiomdigital.com/db603.htm+db603+power&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/do335/do335_3.html

The Ju 88A-4 is rather an older plane with older engines. A Ju 188A
with a pair of BMW 801's is a more appropriate comparison though both
types suffered from a tiny bomb bay that forced external carriage.
Nevertheless its weight lifting versus range capacity seems to be
higher and it could do things such as dive bomb and it is said it was
the only ww2 aircraft that was able to carry two torpedoes.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Junkers%20Ju%20188.htm
Range: (Ju 188A and E) 1550 miles (2480 km) with a 3,300 lbs (1500 kg)
bombload or 1,209 miles (1945 km) with a 6,614 lbs (3000 kg) bombload
(maximum loadout).

Carrying external fuel is intrinsic to the philosophy that Dornier and
Junkers designs were following: a streamlined tear drop shaped crew
compartment for crew efficiency, morale and armoring with a narrow
boom like tail to give a dragon fly type streamlining. Internal
capacity for fuel carriage is reduced but the loss can easily be
compensated for by drop tanks which can be disposed of for extra speed
when its important.

I make no claim about any superiority for the German bombers they were
built to a different philosophy and soldiered beyond their intended
replacement date due to failures in engine development and remote
control turret production: they seem more economical philosophy in
flight crew, higher speed and higher bomb load at the expense of
defensive armament.

The Japanese aerodynamics and engines however do seem to be better
albeit they suffered from considerably inferior fuel.

>
> So it will be interesting to see which German types have ranges
> around 33% better than the American types before things like
> external fuel and bomb bay fuel tanks are counted.
>
> The RAAF history lists the B-26B as having a 1,800 mile
> range with zero bomb load, the B-25 mark II at 1,975 miles.

Carrying a load the German bombers seem to be a little better with
load. Notwithstanding that the US bombers could carry internal ferry
tanks and the German ones could carry drop tanks and bomb partial bomb
bay fuel tanks to adapt to mission requirements.

>
> > The Germans had built laminar flow profiles but didn't like their
> > stability characteristics and nothing seems to have come of it; don't
> > know what came of the research (probably the talent was focused on the
> > supersonic stuff and it is known that Prandl's report on the P-51
> > correctly indicated that the wing wasn't laminar in service due to
> > dirt etc) but it is documented in "a history of aeronautical research
> > in Germany" which is even on Google books. (German ww2 work was
> > apparently focused on active boundary layer suction and they were
> > trying to develop porous membranes)
>
> > The Japaneses passive laminar wings however seemed to have been very
> > successful:
>
> > G4M2 Betty from 1942 onwards had laminar flow wings and later models
> > incorporated Armour.
>
> The G4M2 was the laminar flow wing version, prototype flew
> in November 1942. Production initiated in July 1943 and
> deliveries began in November.

These also incorporated a CO2 fire suppression system and limited self
sealing.


>
> So "from 1942" means a prototype was flying by the end of the year
> with combat service in 1944.
>
> The armoured version was the G4M3, dropping wing fuel tanks
> from 1,428 to 988 imperial gallons. Limited production began
> in October 1944. Some 60 delivered by August 1945.

I think the kamikaze carriers adds a few extra maybe up to 40
aircraft.

>
> > C6N Saiun, Nakajima 'Myrt'
> > The need for a high-speed carrier based reconnaissance aircraft
> > was unique and reflected the increasing Allied air superiority.
>
> Actually in mid 1942 it was realised using the standard attack
> bombers as scouts was not as effective as a dedicated reconnaissance
> capability.
>
> > The C6N was an advanced design, with a small laminar flow-wing
> > with extensive flaps and slats. The operational need disappeared
> > when the carriers were sunk, and some C6N's were converted to
> > night fighters. 463 built.
>
> The slats and flaps were to meet the low speed requirements, landing
> speed of 70 knots.
>
> The fuel was carried in the wings, four protected and two unprotected
> tanks giving a total capacity of 299.2 imperial gallons.
>
> > Type: C6N1
> > Function: reconnaissance
> > Year: 1944 Crew: 3 Engines: 1 * 1460kW Nakajima Homare 21
> > Speed: 610km/h Ceiling: 10500m Range: 5310km
> > Armament: 1*mg7.92mm
>
> Engine problems meant only 19 prototypes and pre production types
> had been built between March 1943 and April 1944.
>
> Finally fitted with a reliable and more powerful engine it possessed a
> range of around 3,300 miles with a 160.6 imperial gallon drop tank.
> Normal range was 1,900 miles.
>
> The trouble with the C6N was similar to most Japanese aircraft,
> light construction, its empty weight was 6,500 pounds, for a three
> man aircraft, the Fw190A-8 came in at 7,650 pounds. This is
> despite the C6N being 2 metres longer and with 2 metres more
> wingspan.

Appropriate for a reconnaissance aircraft. Checkout the weights of a
PRU spitfire.

>
> > N1K2-J Shiden Kai (Violet Lightning Modified) and its laminar flow
> > wings. Considered among the finest fighters of the war.
>
> The "2" version was redesigned to overcome the undercarriage
> problems that had plagued the "1" version. It was considered
> good by the allied opponents, the trouble is it came into production
> in 1944 with a top speed of 370 mph at 18,375 feet. Which meant
> the allied 1944 land based fighters had the speed to disengage when
> required. The N1K2 closely matched the Hellcat in terms of top
> speed, maneuverability and flight envelope.

The book "Genda's Blade" gives the more believable figure of 407mph
for the N1K2 some other sources 417mph.

Consider the Armies Ki 84, which used the same series of Homare
engines as .the NIK2J Shinden Kai. It is often erroneously credited
with a top speed of only 380mph. This speed claim appears to come
from an early aircraft with undeveloped engines not running water
methanol WEP. Where its comes from doesn't matter as much as the fact
that its wrong.

With individual recoil nozzles added for about 12mph extra speed early
Ki 84's managed 396mph. Between about 8000ft and 20000ft it was
faster than a P-51D.

As the engine developed speed went up to 426mph, though it seems to
have dropped back down to 416 mph in the Ki 84 1c which was heavier
due to the use of wood and steel as an aluminum substitute.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html

The Japanese Army did this with 87 octane fuel the Navy fuel was a tad
better. Post war Ki 84's did fly over 426mph using allied 100/130
fuel. I doubt the Americans tampered with the supercharger gear change
and pressure regulation settings to exploit the fuel because the US
performance chart still list the Ki 84 as a 426 mph aircraft on 92
octane with WEP.

The Homare engine had quite possibly the highest power to frontal area
ratio of any twin row air cooled radial. In other words it produced
less drag.

Luftwaffe fighters suffered similarly from promulgation of bad
technical history which seems to sometimes come from allied
triumphalism that dismisses the possibility that the Japanese copy
cats could do anything clever and original. Thus a Fw 190A-8 is
represented as a 404mph or 408mph machine (borrowing A-4 or A-6 data)
instead of a 428mph machine while the Fw 190d-9 often is referred to
as a 420mph machine instead of the 438mph it could do with C3 fuel or
MW-50.

The violet lightning seemed to have no problem matching with the
allied fighters in terms of speed and Genda found no problems cutting
of a P-51. A Hellcat being regarded as easy.

Its laminar flow wing gave a good high speed role, low wing loading
and unique clever powered automatic maneuvering flaps that activated
with high g maneuvers let it easily out turn the allied fighters.

Sakai says very disparaging things about Genda and the N12KJ but since
Sakai tended to be a bit left winged and spiritual and Genda right
wing while Sakai claimed "Genda could barely fly" indicates that his
statements need to be taken with a grain of salt.


>
> > Ki.93, Rikugun
> > The Ki.93 was first designed as a twin-engined long-range
> > fighter, but emphasis later shifted to a multi-role fighter-bomber.
> > The Ki. 93 looked very promising, with its laminar-flow wing,
> > powerful engines, sleek fuselage, extensive armour and 57mm gun.
> > But it was flown only once before an accident and bombing halted testing.
>
> Basically the first flight was in April 1945.
>
> > Type: Ki.93
> > Function: fighter-bomber
> > Year: 1945 Crew: 2 Engines: 2 * 1970hp Mitsubishi Ha-214
> > Speed: 624km/h Ceiling: 12050m Range: 2000km
> > Armament: 1*g57mm 2*g20mm 1*mg12.7mm
>
> So top speed of 388 mph using twin 2,400 HP engines.

>
> Meantime the Grumman Tigercat was in production, with a pair of
> 2,100 HP engines and top speeds of between 445 and 460 mph,
> depending on whether it was a single or twin seater and carried
> radar.

The Ki 83 by the designer of the Dinah, an equivalent to the tigercat
was doing 438mph with 87 octane fuel and did 470mph when fed on the
same grade of fuel as the tigercat.

The point was that the Japanese were deploying laminar flow wings.
The ki 93 is probably misrepresented again due to the tendency to
publish the military power rated speed rather than the war emergency
power speed. Companies testing new aircraft with new engines tend to
be very careful about risking a burned up engine in the early days of
testing.



>
> I like the way the Japanese type is really promising.

What does sarcasm taste like when you eat your own?

>
> > J2M Raiden - Imperial Japanese Navy fighter that was intended to
> > replace the A6M Zero but was constantly delayed for technical
> > problems. Emphasis was on speed and protection over manuverability,
> > had armor, self sealing tanks, laminar flow wings, and carried 4 x
> > 20mm cannons.
>
> First flight was in March 1942, problems meant only 14 aircraft, including
> three prototypes were delivered by March 1943. Another 141 by
> March 1944. Top speed of between 362 and 382 mph depending on
> version.
>
> > "The Tripartite Pact of 27 September 1940 for military and technical
> > cooperation between Germany, Italy, and Japan required reciprocal
> > exchanges of raw materials, equipment, and personnel.
>
> (snip).
>
> Seehttp://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw54.htm
> where the snipped text comes from.
>
> By the way read the Magic decrypts of the conversations between
> Japan and the Japanese embassy in Germany. One of the obstacles
> to co-operation between Germany and Japan was the price the
> Germans wanted for various technology.

Which probably reflected transport costs or a desire to get rubber or
far eastern chromium.

>
> > The biggest area the Germans lost out on was the Japanese multi cavity
> > magnetron which was independently developed and built by Dr Shigeru
> > Nakajima in Japan and actually about 1 year ahead of Randall and Boots
> > work in the UK. They had the type 22 10cm surface search radars in
> > service on by 1942 initially about 100 were produced but the super-
> > regenerative receivers required skilled personnel so they were only
> > deployed in larger ships.
>
> http://www.star-games.com/exhibits/japaneseradar/japaneseradar.html
>
> The type 22 has the 10 cm wavelength, sets in service in early 1942.
>
> The web site gives the list of ships and the month of fitting.

Over 100 of the early type were manufactured. It had twin horn
antennas and a receiver that required skilled maintenance.

Later the set was improved with a better receiver and German based
auto calibration circuit and the double horn was replaced with a
single horn antenna. About 300 of the later were produced.

>
> > Ironically it wasn't until 1944 that
> > incorporation of the German Rehbok auto calibration and a super
> > heterodyne circuit that they set could be widely deployed on subs and
> > destroyers, some 300 of the upgraded type 22 were produced.
>
> Ah yes, somehow the Germans winning the day had to appear.

Dr Shigeru Nakajima using his own words himself states:

" 18.1.3. Development Of Microwave Radars For Various Warships And For
Land Base Usage.

The Japan Radio Company developed a 10cm surface oetection radar for
warships using a 10cm water-cooled magnetron (M312) which was a
modified M3 developed in 1939, and designed a receiver unit called the
superregenerative system using magnetron M60 for the local
oscillator. The manufacture of the prototype of this
radar system was completed in October1941,(Figs.18.9& 18.10). The No.
22 radar (wavelength = l0cm)
had a capability of detecting surface targets at a distance of 35km
and proved the importance of 10cm radar, but it
had no capability of detecting an aircraft as the antenna was designed
for horizontal rotation only. The navy
staffs considered air defence to be more important and for this
purpose only the meter wavelength was necessary. Further, we had no
information that microwave radars were being used by England, the USA
and Germany. There were further very strong opinions that Japan should
extend its efforts in developing a meter wavelength radar as we were
short of engineers and materials. However, there were some naval
captains who insisted on the development of microwave radar, and we,
the radar engineers, had confidence that the principle of radar is the
usage of microwaves. Therefore, we did not stop our research although
there were many criticisms. During this time of confusion within
Japan, 100 sets of type No.22 radars were produced and it was decided
to install these radars on board frigates and other small warships.

In October 1942 in the battle of Guadalcanal, shells hit the Japanese
warships during the black night, surprising the naval staffs who were
then compelled to reconsider the usage of microwave radar. And in
spring 1943, It was decided that microwave radars should be installed
onboard all kinds of warships.


Fig. 18.13 Water-proof, pressure-proof antenna of 10cm radar for a
submarine
Fig. 18.14 Transmitter, receiver and indicator of 10cm radar No. 22
installed inside a submarine

Another reason for the delay in the adoption of microwave radar by
the military, is that, we, the engineers also had some responsibility.
We adopted the usage of the super-regeneration type receiver which
required qualified personnel to tune the receiver for high
sensitivity. For unqualified personnel receiver tuning was a very
complicated matter. In 1943 we made a modification and started to use
the self-heterodyne system, and from September 1944 we changed to the
super-heterodyne system. Together with the usage of the Rehbock
system, for which technical information was supplied by the German
Government, we were able to have the receiver in tune at all times,
and it could be used by even unqualified personnel.
Under these difficulties 2nd painful efforts, the l0 cm microwave
radar No 22 was completed and installed on warships and submarines as
surface detection radar. A total of 300 sets were produced and used in
various battles. Fig.18.13. shows an antenna of the 10cm wave-length
radar installed on a submarine. This was an original design of a 2-
horn antenna, later modified to a single horn antenna by using
elliptical transformation waveguide,Fig.18.14.

It was also surprising to learn that the US Navy had a radar having an
approximate 10cm wavelength. It was also noted that by installing a
radar on board a submarine, an enemy warship could be detected by
having only the receiver of the radar in an operating condition at
all times. "

>
> Wonder which reference this comes from?

"Radar to 1945" edited by Russell Bruns published by the British
Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE) now known as the IET. Every
article is written by the British, American, German and Japanese
engineers who designed the equipment or headed the teams. No
'historians' to add shit.

>
> > The Japanese never deployed PPI sets but note that the Royal Navy only
> > had PPI centimetric radar from mid 1943 onwards.
>
> By the way here is where the need for the Germans to be first comes
> in, the RAF had PPI in service in 1940. Using the one built criteria.

So both the Germans and British had experimental PPI (Panorama Sets)
in 1940.

The Japanese and Germans had between them covered all the bases in
radar.

>
> http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz_03.html#m1
>
> So the RN, which deployed such displays later, is used as the
> "British entry" it looks better for the axis powers.

The typical British radar myth includes the myth that only the British
had or invented radar and that PPI sets were around at the begining of
the war. The point is that the Japanese were not at all behined in
late 1942 or early 1943 since not even the RN had PPI, they used a-
scopes.


>
> > The Germans had PPI
> > by 1940 on a single GEMA 'panorama' but it wasn't deployed till late
> > 1943 with the sets only becoming common by mid 1944 since the antenna
> > needed to be so large with the large wavelengths in use.
>
> Not to mention the shock of discovering how the H2S set worked.
>
> > Another
> > irony is the Japanese struggling to build Wurzburg copies in 1945 even
> > as the Germans were just getting their own microwave sets in service.
>
> The irony is the need for the Germans to be proved better could not
> be resisted.

The Wurzburgs were indeed excellent due to a high quality modular
design and performance. Getting anti-jamming provision into them at
a fast enough rate to counter the masses of allied jamers proved
difficult but the basic set had virtues.


> The Wurzburgs arrived in Singapore on 31 August 1943
> along with blueprints. The Japanese called their version the Ta-Chi 24
> Mobil Anti-Aircraft Radar. They had other radars and it is not that
> surprising it took until 1945 to set up a production line given the limits
> of the Japanese electronic industry. See their aircraft radio fit outs
> for example.

The wavelenths were too long for AAA aiming just ranging,