PDA

View Full Version : Gotta ask bout them wings



BlakJakOfSpades
09-26-2004, 12:51 AM
anyone know why most if not all of the japanese planes have that yellow leading edge on the wings? Seems to kind of spoil some of their camoflage, as does a giant yellow nose on a 109e but i thought that was a macho thing. newho, sorry if its really obvious or somethin

BlakJakOfSpades
09-26-2004, 12:51 AM
anyone know why most if not all of the japanese planes have that yellow leading edge on the wings? Seems to kind of spoil some of their camoflage, as does a giant yellow nose on a 109e but i thought that was a macho thing. newho, sorry if its really obvious or somethin

Waldo.Pepper
09-26-2004, 01:05 AM
Friendly recognition device. So yes it did spoil the camo.

GoToAway
09-26-2004, 03:03 AM
I don't know about the Japanese, but the European Axis powers used yellow for the same reason that the Allies painted black and white stripes on their aircraft for the Normandy invasion - identification. Before radar and IFF everything had to be IDed visually, and it kind of sucked to lose your planes to friendly pilots because they couldn't tell if they were shooting a friendly or not. Bright, distinctive markings helped with this.

I don't think that the Japanese had that problem as much, though. Their roundel was much more visible than, say, the iron cross or the British roundel.

Ruy Horta
09-26-2004, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlakJakOfSpades:
anyone know why most if not all of the japanese planes have that yellow leading edge on the wings? Seems to kind of spoil some of their camoflage, as does a giant yellow nose on a 109e but i thought that was a macho thing. newho, sorry if its really obvious or somethin <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quick identification in the AIR.

The green camouflage is intended to facilitate hiding the a/c on the ground. Here's a something I put together on the early development of German camouflage and markings in WW2, which helps explain this issue.

Jagdwaffe Single Engine Schemes 1938-1940 (http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/jgscheme01.htm)

The same reasoning was at work with the Japanese quick ID markings.

BlakJakOfSpades
09-26-2004, 11:12 AM
makes sense, so how about those g-6 skins in the game where they have invasion stripes? did the germans at one time paint invasion stripes on their planes?

horseback
09-26-2004, 01:13 PM
Yellow inner wing leading edge markings on Imperial Japanese Army & Navy planes was for ID from headon aspect, where fuselage and wing insignia are a little hard to see. Allied fighters in the Southwest Pacific used white leading edges and/or vertical fuselage/tail stripes for quick ID of friendlies.

RAF in Europe used the outer wing leading edges for their yellow "distemper" markings for the same reason. P-47s and P-51s initially used white stripes on nose and tail surfaces (the ponies also had wing stripes) to keep trigger happy bomber gunners from shooting at them.

cheers

horseback

Chuck_Older
09-26-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlakJakOfSpades:
makes sense, so how about those g-6 skins in the game where they have invasion stripes? did the germans at one time paint invasion stripes on their planes? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are some wacky skins in there, like the MiG-3 "taxi".

actionhank1786
09-26-2004, 10:21 PM
Haha look at the Il-2 for wacky. That psychadelic skin? it's nuts.
But as for the Japanese markings, wouldnt the Yellow stripe down the front of the wing leave it difficult to ID the plane from any direction but head on? The Germans had the entire nose and tail section sometimes painted Yellow, but the Japanese always seemed to just paint the leading wing edge Yellow.

Jason Bourne
09-27-2004, 06:21 PM
duh action, its becuase the Japanese planes are always TnBing, so you will always see the leading edge quickly.

VW-IceFire
09-27-2004, 08:21 PM
Well you could easily ID them with the giant red hinomaru on the wings and fuselage. IDing a Japanese plane would be fairly easy from the top or side...so its just the front that was a little sketchy...obviously the yellow helps there.

In the Pacific, everyone is flying (mostly) radial engined planes so one looks like another. Somewhat like the European theater really...where everyone had in-line engines with a few exceptions.

Jason Bourne
09-27-2004, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the Pacific, everyone is flying (mostly) radial engined planes so one looks like another. Somewhat like the European theater really...where everyone had in-line engines with a few exceptions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm, last i checked, which was a month ago, most engines in the ETO were either: Vs (109, -38, -51, Hurries) (also the M-105 russian engine), Radials(-190, -47), and H block engines (typhoon, possibly tempest)

with a 10 minute check, i couldnt come up with any plane that really fought that used a Inline engine, If you do find any thing, please tell me. (not sarcastic, i would like to know this now that you mention it)

Jason Bourne
09-30-2004, 08:30 AM
bump, any one find any more info on engine choices in ETO?

jimmie_T
09-30-2004, 08:46 AM
No, the yellow leading edge on the wings is not an ID according to Sabro Sakai. In one of his book which was titled how to fly zero (and I don't think there's an English translation of this book), he says many people say it is an ID but in fact it is wrong. It is a warning maker for ground personel. The 20mmm when fired or went off accidentally, created a size of 2 meter heart-shaped blast and anyone within that area's could have his eardrum ruptured, therefore caution, if what he states was indeed correct.

horseback
09-30-2004, 02:13 PM
So why did they put it on unarmed Dinahs (Ki-46) or Ki-43 Oscars which lacked wing armament?

cheers

horseback

VW-IceFire
09-30-2004, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the Pacific, everyone is flying (mostly) radial engined planes so one looks like another. Somewhat like the European theater really...where everyone had in-line engines with a few exceptions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm, last i checked, which was a month ago, most engines in the ETO were either: Vs (109, -38, -51, Hurries) (also the M-105 russian engine), Radials(-190, -47), and H block engines (typhoon, possibly tempest)

with a 10 minute check, i couldnt come up with any plane that really fought that used a Inline engine, If you do find any thing, please tell me. (not sarcastic, i would like to know this now that you mention it) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In-line is the liquid cooled engines. The allisons, the merlins, the daimler benz, etc.

Radial engines weren't considered to be high performance which is why the 109, Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest, Mustang, Lightning, Warhawk, Yak, and others were all liquid cooled (in-line engines I've heard them called alot).

The FW190 sort of broke the mold for using a radial air cooled engine as did the P-47. On aircraft carriers, performance was second to relaibility because of distances over water so virtually all carrier aircraft had radial engines. Both Japanese and American. Even Japanese army units used radial engines except for the Ki-61.

By the end of the war you did see some radial engines starting to show up in land based fighters with the worries over performance having disappeared. For example the La-5, the Tempest Mark II, and others.

Maybe a vocabulary thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Is inline not the correct term to use?

BlakJakOfSpades
09-30-2004, 08:01 PM
inline sounds right, maybe its technically different from a "v" type engine but i group them together in my world v-12 = inline engine

munnst
10-01-2004, 07:26 AM
The British replaced the Red/White/Yellow roundal with a White/Blue roundal for ops in South East Asia and the Pacific to prevent friendly aircraft mistaking them for Japenese.

The yellow high vis stripe could be for ground crew safety. Keep outboard when engine running, keep clear of guns etc.

I doubt the yellow stripe would be an aid to recognition. By the time you could see the stripe it would probably be too late.

munnst
10-01-2004, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the Pacific, everyone is flying (mostly) radial engined planes so one looks like another. Somewhat like the European theater really...where everyone had in-line engines with a few exceptions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm, last i checked, which was a month ago, most engines in the ETO were either: Vs (109, -38, -51, Hurries) (also the M-105 russian engine), Radials(-190, -47), and H block engines (typhoon, possibly tempest)

with a 10 minute check, i couldnt come up with any plane that really fought that used a Inline engine, If you do find any thing, please tell me. (not sarcastic, i would like to know this now that you mention it) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In-line is the liquid cooled engines. The allisons, the merlins, the daimler benz, etc.

Radial engines weren't considered to be high performance which is why the 109, Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest, Mustang, Lightning, Warhawk, Yak, and others were all liquid cooled (in-line engines I've heard them called alot).

The FW190 sort of broke the mold for using a radial air cooled engine as did the P-47. On aircraft carriers, performance was second to relaibility because of distances over water so virtually all carrier aircraft had radial engines. Both Japanese and American. Even Japanese army units used radial engines except for the Ki-61.

By the end of the war you did see some radial engines starting to show up in land based fighters with the worries over performance having disappeared. For example the La-5, the Tempest Mark II, and others.

Maybe a vocabulary thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Is inline not the correct term to use? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The choice of inline over radial is probably due to technical constraints (1939-1940) or enviroment.

1939 - 40 Radial technology was behind inline at the start of the war so inline was more numerous. I believe it's also easier to produce.

To say a radial is not a high performance engine is not rearly true. The high end radials (P47, Sea Fury, Tempest) produced as many or more horses then many inline engines. The Corsair, Hellcat, Wildcat, Avenger all use radials. The Russians used them to good effect as did the Germans FW190 etc.

The inline engine in the Typhoon is a 24 cylinder sleeve valve engine. It's basically two 12 cylinder inlines mounted transverse (back to back) and instead of valves the sleeves turn for port open close etc.

The radial has one advantage over inline in that it is easier to cool so is a good choice for hot climates like the Pacific. It is also more rugged and less brone to failure due to damage of itself or ancillery systems. It's technically possible for a radial to continue running with several cylinders not producing power or missing as was the case during B17, B24 ops.

Jason Bourne
10-01-2004, 08:32 AM
hmmm, I have done some searching, and it seems that people connect inline with liquid colled online, however this is not exactly true.

inline: All of the cylinders, if looking down the crank, directly behind the first one, ex. the Volvo Car engines are inline. also known as a straight engine.

V: similar, but looking down the crank, the pistons and connecting rods look like they form the letter V

Radial: pistons arranged in a curiclar fashion around the crank. ie. P47, and many of the WWI fighters had radials.

Flat engins: looks like to inline engins, connected together at the crank, and facing away from each other, this is the same as a 180 degree angle b/w the V pistons

H: to flats on top of another, then connected to the same crank.

So, M-105 IS NOT a Inline engine. it is a water cooled V engine. hope this helps.

Chuck_Older
10-01-2004, 09:37 AM
Well, sorta kinda.

"Inline" is used (at least by me) because I'm sick of typing "liquid cooled". Technically speaking, there were liquid cooled radials, not in anything in FB, I think, but they existed.

In automotive parlance, "inline" and "straight" are interchangable terms, ie: straight eight

As far as WWI aircraft engines go, many were rotary, not radial- the crankshaft was stationary and the crankcase revolved!

When I type "inline" folks here know I mean "the one which doesn't look like a big circle", and that's good enough for me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

jeroen_R90S
10-02-2004, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
...

Flat engins: looks like to inline engins, connected together at the crank, and facing away from each other, this is the same as a 180 degree angle b/w the V pistons
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check my avatar with crashing BMW R90S superbike racer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Also know as boxer engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I also saw a Jumo 2-stroke diesel engine in Brussels once, but forgot to make piccies, of course :S

It was a 12 cylinder vertical boxer engine, but with 2 crankshafts, one at the top, and one at the bottom. The pistons were moving towards each other. Very interesting and curious. IIRC it came of a Ju-86.

Jeroen

VW-IceFire
10-02-2004, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by munnst:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the Pacific, everyone is flying (mostly) radial engined planes so one looks like another. Somewhat like the European theater really...where everyone had in-line engines with a few exceptions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm, last i checked, which was a month ago, most engines in the ETO were either: Vs (109, -38, -51, Hurries) (also the M-105 russian engine), Radials(-190, -47), and H block engines (typhoon, possibly tempest)

with a 10 minute check, i couldnt come up with any plane that really fought that used a Inline engine, If you do find any thing, please tell me. (not sarcastic, i would like to know this now that you mention it) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In-line is the liquid cooled engines. The allisons, the merlins, the daimler benz, etc.

Radial engines weren't considered to be high performance which is why the 109, Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest, Mustang, Lightning, Warhawk, Yak, and others were all liquid cooled (in-line engines I've heard them called alot).

The FW190 sort of broke the mold for using a radial air cooled engine as did the P-47. On aircraft carriers, performance was second to relaibility because of distances over water so virtually all carrier aircraft had radial engines. Both Japanese and American. Even Japanese army units used radial engines except for the Ki-61.

By the end of the war you did see some radial engines starting to show up in land based fighters with the worries over performance having disappeared. For example the La-5, the Tempest Mark II, and others.

Maybe a vocabulary thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Is inline not the correct term to use? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The choice of inline over radial is probably due to technical constraints (1939-1940) or enviroment.

1939 - 40 Radial technology was behind inline at the start of the war so inline was more numerous. I believe it's also easier to produce.

To say a radial is not a high performance engine is not rearly true. The high end radials (P47, Sea Fury, Tempest) produced as many or more horses then many inline engines. The Corsair, Hellcat, Wildcat, Avenger all use radials. The Russians used them to good effect as did the Germans FW190 etc.

The inline engine in the Typhoon is a 24 cylinder sleeve valve engine. It's basically two 12 cylinder inlines mounted transverse (back to back) and instead of valves the sleeves turn for port open close etc.

The radial has one advantage over inline in that it is easier to cool so is a good choice for hot climates like the Pacific. It is also more rugged and less brone to failure due to damage of itself or ancillery systems. It's technically possible for a radial to continue running with several cylinders not producing power or missing as was the case during B17, B24 ops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't say that inlines were more powerful than radials...this was the general feeling of the avaiation producers at the time.

One of the reasons the Ki-61 ended up with an inline engine instead of a radial (breaking with all tradition) was based on combat reports coming to them from Europe suggesting the inline engines were achiving more.

Certainly the Tempest II was ever bit as good as the Tempest V and quite a bit more reliable as I understand it as well.

I guess there's less clear cut lines about liquid cooled/radial/inline and the terminology to use http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif