PDA

View Full Version : Help on George



FWdreamer
04-20-2004, 09:23 AM
S!
Gentlemen i was hoping any of you out there have some links or anything on specifics to the "George"(sorry i do not know the actual Japanese designation for it) I will be joining up on a IJN squad when this fine game comes out and wanted to know what the IJN's next evolution was after the zero. I read somewhere that the "George" was this next step.

So any help on info and year of release, numberes produced would be great.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
FWdreamer

FWdreamer
04-20-2004, 09:23 AM
S!
Gentlemen i was hoping any of you out there have some links or anything on specifics to the "George"(sorry i do not know the actual Japanese designation for it) I will be joining up on a IJN squad when this fine game comes out and wanted to know what the IJN's next evolution was after the zero. I read somewhere that the "George" was this next step.

So any help on info and year of release, numberes produced would be great.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
FWdreamer

GK.
04-20-2004, 09:46 AM
Check these forums there has been extensive discussion already concerning the N1K1-J Shiden/Shiden-kai (George) including production numbers and performance specs. I am also looking forward to flying this plane.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

GK.
04-20-2004, 09:51 AM
"The N1K1-J was first encountered by American forces in combat over Formosa and the Philippines. It was assigned the Allied code name George. It quickly established itself as one of the toughest and most troublesome Japanese fighters yet to be met in combat. It was a truly exceptional combat aircraft in the hands of an experienced pilot. It proved itself superior to most US shipboard fighters that it encountered, and many experienced Shiden pilots regarded the previously-formidable Grumman F6F Hellcat as a particularly easy "kill".
"

"Following the fall of the Philippines to US forces, the Shiden was met in large numbers during the invasion of Okinawa. A Japanese military communique reported an engagement in which a unit of 34 Shidens met a force of 70 Allied fighters, destroying 20 of them against a loss of only twelve of their number. Shidens also equipped the 343rd Kokutai the First Air Fleet based at Tinian, and were later based at Shikoku in Japan in defense of the home islands during the spring of 1945.


The Shiden Kai was to become perhaps the best all-round fighter to be operational in the Pacific theatre. It was fast, powerful, and maneuverable, and was well-armed and armored. In the hands of an experienced pilot, the Shiden-Kai was the equal of any Allied fighter, even the later models of the P-51 Mustang which began to appear over Japan in the spring of 1945. In one notable action, on February 16 1945 over Yokohama, Warrant Officer Kinsuke Muto of the 343rd Kokutai in an N1K2-J single-handedly battled a dozen F6F Hellcats. He shot down four of them before the rest were forced to break off combat and return to their carrier. However, against the B-29, the N1K2-J was less successful, since its climbing speed was insufficient and the power of the Homare 21 engine fell off rather rapidly at higher altitudes.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

GK.
04-20-2004, 09:55 AM
The N1K2-J shared with the Ki.84 the ability to be an "ace-maker," with performance such that an average pilot in a Shiden-Kai was the equal of any Allied fighter he met, including the P-51D Mustang. In June 1945, Warrant Officer Kinsuke Muto - a pilot of exceptional skill - was jumped by 12 F6F Hellcats. He succeeded in shooting down four before the others broke to escape back to their carrier and he successfully landed his damaged Shiden-Kai back at Yokosuka airfield. Although the airplane was outstanding in fighter vs. fighter combat, it was a disappointment in the one category that was really needed: high altitude interception against the B-29s. the N1K2-J suffered poor climb above 22,000 feet due to loss of engine power above that altitude.

more info:
In March 1945, Captain Minoru Genda, one of the outstanding Japanese Naval officers of the war - he was the man who planned the Pearl Harbor attack - formed the 343rd Air Group, the only IJNAF organization to be completely mounted on the N1K2-J Shiden-Kai. The unit was known as "The Squadron of Experts" because it had the highest concentration of aces of any unit in the Japanese Navy.

On March 19, 1945, the group experienced their baptism of fire when Task Force 58 struck the Japanese naval base at Kure. Genda scrambled all three squadrons of the 343rd; first contact came when VBF-17 F6Fs from the "Bunker Hill" ran into flights from 407th and 701st squadrons. In a vicious dogfight, six Hellcats and six N1K2-Js went down; the battles continued, with the 343rd offering the only defense of the base. According to the group's records for that day, the three squadrons of the 343rd claimed 53 Hellcats and Corsairs, and four Helldivers, for a loss of 13. Chief Petty Officer Katsue Kato - one of the greatest Japanese aces of the war - scored nine of this total. Given that, at this stage of the war, the American pilots did not have the level of training their predecessors who had fought in 1942-44 had, such an outcome against pilots as experienced as those of the 343rd, mounted in an airplane like the Shiden-Kai, is not really that surprising. Had the IJNAF been able to re-equip with the Shiden-Kai in the numbers planned, the air battles over Japan in 1945 might have been very different, though the outcome of the war was no longer in doubt.

One of the outstanding pilots of the 343rd was Lt. Naoshi Kanno, the top-scoring Naval Academy graduate of the war. Kanno first saw combat in the N1K1-J Shiden with the original 343rd Air Group during the invasion of the Marianas in June 1944. Flying from the island of Yap, he shot down several B-24 Liberators using the head-on attack method. He was credited with 30 kills total in the summer of 1944. When the group was reorganized by Genda, Kanno was given command of the 301st Squadron. In the battle of March 19, the 301st initially took on Corsairs of VMF-123; Kanno was among the 13 shot down when he was hit by a Corsair from VBF-10, though he parachuted safely. Under Kanno's command, the 301st suffered the highest casualties of any unit in the 343rd, though it also had the highest score. Kanno himself was credited with 13 more victories while flying the N1K2-J, before being killed attacking B-24s over Yaku Island on August 1, 1945.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

GK.
04-20-2004, 10:01 AM
and this is courtesy of roy horta:
I do not have Classic's latest work on the Shiden, but the generally acceptable work of Francillon states:

9 N1K1-J prototypes
998 N1K1-J production aircraft
8 N1K2-J prototypes
393 N1K2-J production aircraft (incl. a number of N1K2-K)
2 N1K3-J prototypes
2 N1K4-J prototypes
1 N1K4-A prototypes

22 N1K2-J production aircraft produced at various plants.

--------
1435 a/c

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

FWdreamer
04-20-2004, 10:04 AM
S!
Thanks GK, i actually looked on to past pages here and found the other posts you were talking about. Thanks for all this info! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

FWdreamer

GK.
04-20-2004, 10:08 AM
yes I am a fan of the fw190 and I fly it in il2:fb. It seems like the george has similiar firepower to the fw( 4 * 20mm, 2 * 7.7mm mg), with decent speed, and superb manuvearibility. It is very exciting indeed.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

chris455
04-20-2004, 11:49 AM
I notice that there are no sources posted as to where this info came from.

It makes one wonder what the US after action reports say regarding the numbers of US aircraft lost.
Particularly interesting is the statement,

"Given that, at this stage of the war, the American pilots did not have the level of training their predecessors who had fought in 1942-44 had, such an outcome against pilots as experienced as those of the 343rd, mounted in an airplane like the Shiden-Kai, is not really that surprising".

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Odd that; I had always believed that US pilots gained experience and skill as the war progressed.

Oh well, I guess you learn something new every day. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

GK.
04-20-2004, 11:51 AM
ignore the trolls, my goal is to provide unbiased information. Most of the stuff posted here you can find on credible websites (use google) that have their sources listed.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

PlaneEater
04-20-2004, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
ignore the trolls, my goal is to provide unbiased information.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Did you say something? I wasn't paying attention.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

VW-IceFire
04-20-2004, 04:49 PM
That story has been published in books before as well that I've run into so its probably true to some extent.

I'm hoping they have the Shiden and the Shiden Kai as flyables or at the very least AI planes. When I'm flying for the JNAF I think I'll be wanting to fly this plane.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Giganoni
04-20-2004, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
I notice that there are no sources posted as to where this info came from.

It makes one wonder what the US after action reports say regarding the numbers of US aircraft lost.
Particularly interesting is the statement,

_"Given that, at this stage of the war, the American pilots did not have the level of training their predecessors who had fought in 1942-44 had, such an outcome against pilots as experienced as those of the 343rd, mounted in an airplane like the Shiden-Kai, is not really that surprising"._

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Odd that; I had always believed that US pilots _gained_ experience and skill as the war progressed.

Oh well, I guess you learn something new every day. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well chris, you jug loving nut http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I'm questioning my previous beliefs that in the later air war the Americans were lopsided in terms of training and experience. We always say..well after 30 missions or so American pilots were rotated to train the new pilots. I've been reading some books and I've noticed that a lot of veterans would go back to Japan to train the new pilots..only later on as the war started to get bad would they no longer train and be reincorporated as fighter pilots. At least this seems the case for the JAAF.

I think in the instance of the 343rd kokutai they probably came across a lot of well trained American pilots, but America kept rotating new pilots in with no combat experience. I guess you just have to ask yourself what is more important, well trained, or well experienced? Anyway I do think on average in the late war America had better trained pilots, but I don't think it was as lopsided as I used to believe. (Like formation fighting, reading some sources that say the Japanese caught on really quick on its importance).

chris455
04-20-2004, 06:16 PM
Well Giganoni,
BTW ("Jug loving nut"- I like the sound of it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)
I hear what you're saying, I just can't bring myself to this strange, Alice-through-the looking-glass place:

"Given that, at this stage of the war, the American pilots did not have the level of training their predecessors who had fought in 1942-44 had................................."

That is hogwash, pure and simple.

Since the original poster won't reveal his source, I have my suspicions as to the veracity of the post.

The statement is simply fantastic, and is out of keeping with everything I've ever read, or heard, about the way the war in the Pacific progressed.

I appreciate your objectivity Giganoni, and if you encounter documented sources supporting the statement above, and share them, I will stand down- "be sure".

But you'll forgive if I don't hold my breath. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

Penguin_PFF
04-20-2004, 07:37 PM
The info here...

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/n1ki.html

...is the source of about 99% of what you'll find on the web.

It's only one page of many, BTW:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/

SkyChimp
04-20-2004, 08:03 PM
Joe Baugher has a great site, but he parrots the same old line that the Shiden Kai was well armored. It wasn't. In the book Genda's Blade Genda stated his plane had no armor at all. In fact, I don't believe the Shiden Kais captured by the US had any armor either.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

GK.
04-20-2004, 08:17 PM
I quote World War 2 airplanes volume 2:
"These planes were powerful, fast, well protected, and heavily armed and were among the few Japanese fighters that could stand up to the best enemy planes, including the American Hellcats and COrsairs. In the hands of the aces, the Shiden could even outfly American planes."

Need Faustnik because his source probably has the details of the armor used. However, Im guessing that in individual cases the pilots may have opted to take off the armor to gain an edge in performance.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

SkyChimp
04-20-2004, 09:01 PM
If you want to know what kind of armor the US found in captured Japanese planes, then I'd suggest the book:

JAPANESE AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE & CHARACTERISTICS TAIC MANUAL
http://www.aeroplanebooks.com/maloney.jpg

This book is a re-print of the original TAIC manual. It's not a very good reprint (image qualities aren't that great), but it's good enough and has a lot of information (like all those absurdly high top speeds people like to complain about http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) in it.

$29.95
http://www.aeroplanebooks.com/
http://www.aeroplanebooks.com/ww2_pg10.htm

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

TAGERT.
04-20-2004, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlaneEater:
Did you say something? I wasn't paying attention.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFLMAO!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Penguin_PFF
04-20-2004, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
If you want to know what kind of armor the US found in captured Japanese planes, then I'd suggest the book:

JAPANESE AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE & CHARACTERISTICS TAIC MANUAL
http://www.aeroplanebooks.com/maloney.jpg

This book is a re-print of the original TAIC manual. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm all over that like white on rice. Thanks!

Just from what I've found out, I've been skeptical about the toughness of the Shiden myself. I haven't seen any indication of armor plating in technical drawings or photographs of any operational aircraft. The fuel tanks were self-sealing, and the aircraft's framework seems to be fairly dense, but those are the only indications of toughness that I see. The aircraft's skin seems to be thin and light in most of the damage photos I have. I don't have a skin thickness diagram for the N1K1-J, but my copy of the N1K2-J's diagram shows that it was mostly covered with 0.5mm-thick aluminum.

I guess I really can't believe everything I read on the Internet? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

chris455
04-20-2004, 10:08 PM
Well, I found it.

This is the "source" for the above information on the Shiden furnished by (insert name here). Some guy who builds models for a living.

Modeling Madness.com
Scott Van Aken
10108 State Route 4
Lebanon, IL
62254, USA

And the complete thread word for word:
http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/j/cleavergeorge.htm

I wonder what credentials this guy has as a reputable historian. Maybe tons. Maybe none.
I'd sure like to know why he thinks late-war US pilots were poorly trained and lacked the skill of their early war counterparts. He looks to be a helluva kit-basher though.

[QUOTE]
"ignore the trolls, my goal is to provide unbiased information. Most of the stuff posted here you can find on credible websites (use google) that have their sources listed". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif (emphasis mine)

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Tue April 20 2004 at 10:56 PM.]

GK.
04-20-2004, 10:16 PM
Chimp, that book looks interesting but expensive. Im more interested in getting the data that oleg will be using to model the planes, and I doubt that will be US test data.

Chris-

"I'd sure like to know why he thinks late-war US pilots were poorly trained and lacked the skill of their early war counterparts.
"
can you proove otherwise?
good luck on your wild goose chase.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

chris455
04-20-2004, 10:35 PM
Hi GK!
You forget something my friend:
I'M NOT THE ONE WHO POSTED THE CLAIM.

You were.

"Given that, at this stage of the war, the American pilots did not have the level of training their predecessors who had fought in 1942-44 had................................."

And since our model builder friend doesn't post here, he is unavailable to substantiate this wild claim he made. Which makes your post unproveable. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif

Case closed.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

chris455
04-20-2004, 11:45 PM
For anyone who is truly interested in reading some credible information on the Shiden and Shiden-kai, I recommend this site:

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/n1k1/index.html

It appears to be a well-researched site that describes not only the Shiden's shortcomings, but the fact that inspite of them it was one of the truly great combat aircraft of WWII. Lots of other worthwhile stuff too. Enjoy.
Chris

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Tue April 20 2004 at 11:11 PM.]

Giganoni
04-21-2004, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Joe Baugher has a great site, but he parrots the same old line that the Shiden Kai was well armored. It wasn't. In the book _Genda's Blade_ Genda stated his plane had no armor at all. In fact, I don't believe the Shiden Kais captured by the US had any armor either.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you believe Henry, which although he has references, he never CITES his sources..and please refer the page number where Genda says the Shiden-kai had no pilot armor..this is what Henry is disputing, pilot armor. Henry is very vague when he says "Some surviving veterans state there was no armor plate behind the pilots seat, only a wooden panel." Another vague statement..if only some of the veterans said this, what did the others say? Also..he lists two examples of Shiden-kais the Americans refurbished, only two? Also this does not apply to the original Shiden. The Shiden had pilot armor, Henry even has diagrams showing it does, yet no armor in the Shiden-kai? It is possible, or it is possible that only late versions of the Shiden-kai were without pilot armor.

chris455
04-21-2004, 12:20 AM
Gig,
Not to disagree with the Chimpster, but the site I posted a link to above mentions armor several times in reference to the Shiden.
Apparently this author believes it was armored.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

Giganoni
04-21-2004, 12:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
Gig,
Not to disagree with the Chimpster, but the site I posted a link to above mentions armor several times in reference to the Shiden.
Apparently this author believes it was armored.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Chris, I know the site well, I think I've even used it in arguing with you once or twice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif However I don't believe it specifically says that the Shiden-KAI had pilot armor and this is what Henry and Skychimp are arguing, that it didn't. I was just trying to point out how vague Henry's book is..and should be speculated because he,unlike a historian should, never cites his sources. He simply has a bibliography.

chris455
04-21-2004, 12:53 AM
Gotcha-
Wasn't actually aware that you and I had ever "argued" though-
"discussed varying points of view" maybe- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

Giganoni
04-21-2004, 01:02 AM
Okay..maybe I corrected, informed, or even misinformed you then..not argue. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

RAC_Pips
04-21-2004, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FWdreamer:
wanted to know what the IJN's next evolution was after the zero. I read somewhere that the "George" was this next step.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
FWdreamer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To answer your original question FWdreamer the progression wasn't from A6M Zero to N1K1-j Shiden. The J2M Raiden came next after the Zero.

Development work started on the J2M as early as 1938, but was then delayed a year so that the Mitsubishi team could concentrate on the A6M.

When it finally got underway again design problems with the J2M engine, laminar wing and continuing A6M upgrade demands meant that the J2M prototype didn't fly until March '42 - 9 months before the N1K1-J flew.

Sadly engine problems would plague the J2M's life so that few were ultimatley produced - just 476 in total.

The J2M Raiden's great strength was heavy armour, excellent climb and dive rate and massive firepower.

This is the baby I want to fly! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RAC_Pips
04-21-2004, 01:32 AM
Guys, just a comment on all these websites being used in various quotes.

First off books are the only really valid information base.

The various websites are simply plagiarism. Most folks who have/run these sites are nothing more than very amateur historians. I'm not knocking them for that, but their information is drawn for books or other sites. Very rarely do any of them actually do any research themselves. They are great starting points if your new to the subject - but that's about it.

So saying, there is one site that I would recommend for information regarding IJAAF and IJNAF aircraft. It's J-Aircraft at http://www.j-aircraft.com/

The guys who run this site ARE Japanese historian experts. They have consulted on several books on the subject, and you will find their names listed in the references of writers such as Barrett Tillman, Henry Sakaida and Richard Mikesh, to name just a few.

And just as important you will find authors frequenting this site. Which speaks volumes for it's varacity. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luthier1
04-21-2004, 01:37 AM
Pips,

I think it must be said that your comments also apply to a very large number of aviation books. Very few authors go the distance and get all their information from first-hand original wartime sources. Most of them are just as poorly researched as those websites, and are basically a rehashing of something they've read in some other books.

This is a horrible death circle of doom which causes a few persistent myths to keep popping up everywhere, even in some otherwise reputable sources.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Giganoni
04-21-2004, 01:47 AM
Yes the problem with many aviation books is that they never use foot or end notes. If they added them, it would be really easy to look at a statement, look at the footnote, then look at the source to validate the info.

Blottogg
04-21-2004, 05:20 AM
To add a little more grist to the mill, while I was still stationed at Wright-Patterson, we'd get to go to the restoration hangers for the museum from time to time (our unit historian was tight with the restoration crew.) I was there once shooting photos of the SPAD rebuild they were doing at the time for a buddy who wanted to build one from plans, when I looked over next to the pile of SPAD parts at the George they were also working on. I don't remember whether the Shiden-Kai had armor or not (I wasn't foresighted enough to realize it would become a subject of heated geek forum debate a decade later), but I do remember the restoration staff grousing about how lightly the George was built, compared to other WWII aircraft they'd worked on. It was giving them fits, because it didn't take much corrosion to render a skin or rib unusable, leaving there job more of a rebuild than a restoration. I'll see about digging through my photo pile in storage later today. I think I took a shot or two of the George.

Pips and Luthier, I agree with you that many of these internet sites, though possibly well meaning, are little more than good first stops for condensed book contents. Though if the books were incorrect, the sites will be too. Thanks for the link too, Pips.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

FWdreamer
04-21-2004, 09:56 AM
S!
Thanks guys for the posts of facts and arguements http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif The above links are great and I will use them. I am not concerned about the arour of the plane right now, just wanted info on it in terms of production dates and entry of service. My squad will be setting up IJN squad to fly in online campaigns. We follow the timeline of when planes are released before we can fly them in campaign.

Once again thanks to all for your info on this plane. I also understand your passions for arguing points about how a plane was built and such, as aviation historians getting the facts is what is important.

FWdreamer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Zamex.
04-21-2004, 09:59 AM
Hi,

mz drawing of N1K2-J.

Zamex

Zamex.
04-21-2004, 09:59 AM
http://www.lietadla.com/lietadla/japonske/n1k/draw2.jpg

[This message was edited by Tully__ on Thu April 22 2004 at 05:38 AM.]

chris455
04-21-2004, 10:46 AM
Can you blow up that drawing so that it's a tad bigger?
I'm trying to show my friend in L.A. and he can't quite see it-
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

04-21-2004, 11:03 AM
Sorry I can not resize it currently. You can find one more both with this one on http://www.lietadla.com/lietadla/japonske/n1k.htm at the bottom.

Korolov
04-21-2004, 11:18 AM
ICKKK!!!! Hyperlink that, man! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

KIMURA
04-21-2004, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
ICKKK!!!! Hyperlink that, man! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

resized drawing to a more usefull thing.......
http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/draw2.jpg

Kimura

Obi_Kwiet
04-21-2004, 11:43 AM
I think PF would be good if there was some kind of option for MP that limited the amount of time a certain AC can be flown. Sure the George may have been great, but you can‚'t say the Hell Cat, or the P-51 is crap because of this. They didn‚'t have very many Georges. The P-51 and Hell Cat were great because they were good work horses that were easily mass produced. The US did waste tones of time building 5 Uber Go-229's here a couple hundred 262's there, or a thousand Georges here (I doubt that many of those got to the front). The US concentrated on making tones of good AC, but not a couple of really uber AC. If you have 3 F-18‚'s against 10,000 Bf-109‚'s whose gonna win? There should be some way to reflect the historical balance between AC in MP, other then just banning all little used AC from the servers. That way we don't have tones of "(Blank) plane is way too uber!!" threads.

Mr_Nakajima
04-21-2004, 12:00 PM
LOL Zamex! You win the award for the Wiiiiiidest post I have ever seen!

No pilot armour on the Shiden-Kai. This is what 'Genda's Blade' says on the matter (page 65):

'It was widely believed in post-war circles that the Shiden-Kai had armour protection for the pilot. There is no evidence to support this. Some surviving veterans state that there was no armour plate behind the pilots seat, only a wooden panel. Two Shiden-Kais refurbished in the Unites States...had no armour plates. An RAAF Intelligence summary published after the surrender stated 'Internal tankage is protected with laminated rubber over metal. Bullet-proof windshield is provided but no other pilot armour'.

That the Shiden-Kai had no pilot armour is surprising for a late war fighter, but Sakaida and Takaki are quite sure it had none, as you can see from the quote they make a specific point of disputing claims it had any. There book is thoroughly researched with interviews with several Japanese pilots. The RAAF report also leaves little room for doubt.

None of this detracts from me really, really wanting to fly the Shiden-Kai in PF though. For CFS2 I got a Japanese payware add-on which featured three versions of it, complete with modelling of the pilot opening the canopy and raising his seat when the undercarriage was lowered.

Genda's Blade is written by Henry Sakaida and Koji Takaki, published by Classis Publications, ISBN 1-903223-25-3. Well recommended.

DuxCorvan
04-21-2004, 12:23 PM
I've heard that the first versions of the George were so complex and had so many parts that it was very slow and difficult to produce, and very hard to put in operational condition for maintenance crews.

The second George was so different from the first that it can be considered a new aircraft. It was far easier to produce, too.

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

butch2k
04-21-2004, 12:28 PM
Don't put too much faith in the TAIC manual repro Skychimp mentionned above, indeed the repro is based on a late 44 manual as far as i can tell. Moreover some parts have been rewritten without it being mentionned anywhere.
For instance check the SAM data Skychimp, you'll notice that the font usd for most of the text is bigger than most found anywhere, this data is not original. Everytime you encounter this font, it means not original TAIC data.

P-DEX
04-21-2004, 12:40 PM
I am in the process of reading the very same book, Mr._Nakajima. I've gotten about halfway though it and so far it does not disappoint. A well written and researched account of something that is obviously very hard to recreate since most of the Japanese records were destroyed and the pilots either killed in battle or dead of old age.

While reading said book just today, I came across another "quirk" of the much-touted George fighter. It appeared that the Shiden-Kai had a bad habit of having its landing gear lower unexpectedly while in flight. According to Captain Genda it was a problem that was encountered all through the production of the George and never really fixed though "it got a little better at the end". If I remember correctly, Genda said that if the George reached about 420km/hr in a strafing or diving attack the landing gear would disintegrate.

I wonder if Luthier and Co. will model that little quirk in their George model. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Giganoni
04-21-2004, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr_Nakajima:
LOL Zamex! You win the award for the Wiiiiiidest post I have ever seen!

No pilot armour on the Shiden-Kai. This is what 'Genda's Blade' says on the matter (page 65):

'It was widely believed in post-war circles that the Shiden-Kai had armour protection for the pilot. There is no evidence to support this. Some surviving veterans state that there was no armour plate behind the pilots seat, only a wooden panel. Two Shiden-Kais refurbished in the Unites States...had no armour plates. An RAAF Intelligence summary published after the surrender stated 'Internal tankage is protected with laminated rubber over metal. Bullet-proof windshield is provided but no other pilot armour'.

That the Shiden-Kai had no pilot armour is surprising for a late war fighter, but Sakaida and Takaki are quite sure it had none, as you can see from the quote they make a specific point of disputing claims it had any. There book is thoroughly researched with interviews with several Japanese pilots. The RAAF report also leaves little room for doubt.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just disputed these quotes Nakajima..especially the veterans saying it didn't have pilot armor. The book says "some" well, what did the other veterans say? Why only some? Which veterans said? He never says WHERE the two aircraft the US got came from..were they from a factory? (where possibly parts could have been left off, especially late in the war) from a unit? An RAF intelligence summary report? Oh my..well that proves it. Oh wait..he doesn't say which report..doesn't say how many planes they looked at, where they looked at them, and which ones they looked at. He never cites where he gets these vague statements..and that leads me to be a skeptic on these statements. I find many things flat out wrong or misinformed in this book as well, as interesting as it may be.

The funniest instance is where he states that Japanese pilots would have perferred the 6 .50 cals over the 20mm cannon, yet to the right of that statement he has Japanese pilots praising the "enormous" firepower of the Shiden-kais 4 20 mmm cannon.

You always have to be skeptical of aviation books, especially ones by amatuer historians.

P-DEX
04-21-2004, 01:38 PM
"The funniest instance is where he states that Japanese pilots would have perferred the 6 .50 cals over the 20mm cannon, yet to the right of that statement he has Japanese pilots praising the "enormous" firepower of the Shiden-kais 4 20 mmm cannon."


Hey...you're dissing my book! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway, this statement doesn't strike me as a mutually exclusive viewpoint. I would read that as the author saying that while Japanese pilots would have liked to have the array of six .50 cal guns (since a great number of Japanese planes during the war had either .30 equivalents or a maximum of four .50 equivalents) the 20mm cannons were welcomed as an acceptable alternative since they had no such .50 platform in existence at the time. I mean if you were a Japanese pilot consistently seeing Allied aircraft shake of numerous machine gun hits and then turn around and blast you out of the sky on a montly basis, having quad-20's hammering away at an Allied fighter and blowing chunks of the aircraft off must have seemed like a godsend.

The .50 caliber could hit at a longer range than a cannon shell, sure...but I'm sure the JNAF was glad to see any reliable destructive air weapon that would knock an Allied plane out of the sky at this point (when the George was flying).

Giganoni
04-21-2004, 11:03 PM
Well, you can say he was arguing since many fighters would have 2, or 4 mgs, or 2mgs, 2cannons. However, he was arguing that they wanted the .50 cal over the 20mm.

Also, back to armor...he quotes the Hellcat pilots saying the Shiden kai was well armored. Although pilot accounts are very unreliable, Henry says there was no evidence that there was armor on the Shiden-kai. Yet he states evidence (although very poor) that there was. He never makes any attempt to dispute these pilot claims as well.

Tully__
04-22-2004, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamex.:
http://www.lietadla.com/lietadla/japonske/n1k/draw2.jpg

[This message was edited by Tully__ on Thu April 22 2004 at 05:38 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zamex, please please please for drawings this big, post a reduced size image and a link to the hi-res version. If you post them directly they make the forum almost impossible to read.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/legalsig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)
Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

Mr_Nakajima
04-22-2004, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
I just disputed these quotes Nakajima..especially the veterans saying it didn't have pilot armor. The book says "some" well, what did the other veterans say? Why only some? Which veterans said? He never says WHERE the two aircraft the US got came from..were they from a factory? (where possibly parts could have been left off, especially late in the war) from a unit? An RAF intelligence summary report? Oh my..well that proves it. Oh wait..he doesn't say which report..doesn't say how many planes they looked at, where they looked at them, and which ones they looked at. He never cites where he gets these vague statements..and that leads me to be a skeptic on these statements.

You always have to be skeptical of aviation books, especially ones by amatuer historians.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disputing a book because it hasn't been written like a lawyer's case is easy. If you want to know which RAAF report, write to the authors courtesey of their publishers. I've done so in the past and usually received replies.

I don't think either author counts as an amatuer historian either. They've certainly published more books than me. And I suspect more than you as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

P-DEX
04-22-2004, 11:38 AM
Well, all I can say is this...

The records of the feats of Japanese airman in World War 2 will never be fully realized since a great portion of their surviving records were destroyed either by accident or purposely by the end of the war. When you factor in that equation that thousands of Japanese airman who chose to "go down fighting" instead of "living to fight another day" (that whole samurai warrior code thing); plus the death of those few Japanese pilots who survived the war and died as old men; plus the fact by the end of the war the Japanese military was in such disarray with the lightning advance of the Allies (hence the poor record keeping) I think it's clear that we will never know the story in crystal clear detail.

So even if Sakaida sometimes seems to contradict himself (a fault in the translation maybe?), his overall efforts to shed light on a small piece of Japanese aviation history in WW2 should not be overlooked. So far, his efforts are the best efforts to do such a monumentous thing.

SkyChimp
04-22-2004, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
Don't put too much faith in the TAIC manual repro Skychimp mentionned above, indeed the repro is based on a late 44 manual as far as i can tell. Moreover some parts have been rewritten without it being mentionned anywhere.
For instance check the SAM data Skychimp, you'll notice that the font usd for most of the text is bigger than most found anywhere, this data is not original. Everytime you encounter this font, it means not original TAIC data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Planes Of Fame reproduction is really bad from a quality stand-point. But the data in it has been consistent with everything I've seen you post post from your TAIC manual Butch.

I understand the reproduction is not an exact reproduction, but what errors are contained in it?

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

butch2k
04-22-2004, 11:50 PM
My problem with it is that they do not mention what is original and what is not. For instance the June 45 TAIC manual states on the SAM that there is not enough data to put any performance figure, yet the plane of fame version copy is overwrtiten with data taken from other sources.
And they completed some other part which are not original TAIC report. So saying that that this is a TAIC repro is not entirely correct.
Moreover it's not the very latest available TAIC data on Japanese aircraft, check the Frank for instance and compare the included sheets with the ones in posted in the Frank monster thread.

LEXX_Luthor
04-23-2004, 07:46 AM
LOL..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Saburo Sakai on Ki~44:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Promotions in the Navy were based on what school you graduated from and who you knew, it had nothing to do with merit. Some guy could smash up 20 planes trying to learn how to fly, and then not shoot down a damn thing and he'd be promoted faster than me or any other successful pilot simply because he came from the right school. Those were the kinds of idiots we had leading us. How were we supposed to win the war with leadership like that? Take that idiot [Minoru] Genda. He could barely fly, but he jumped up and down about the Shiden-kai ["George"], so everybody else pretended to like it, too. That plane was a piece of crap, put together by a third-rate firm [Kawanishi].

~ http://www.danford.net/sakai2.htm (this is page 2)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MetalG.
04-23-2004, 08:21 AM
Lexx, Ki-44 is not a Shiden-kai.
Also Saburo Sakai was flying for the Japanese Navy so he would never have flown any Ki aicraft at all since all Ki- designated aircraft were used only by the Japanese Army, like the A6Ms were only used by the Japanese Navy (and also the N1Ks).

LEXX_Luthor
04-23-2004, 08:25 AM
LOL its "tojo" or something I just realized that with *Kwiatos* thread. Dumb thing was I had changed the post to put "Ki44" in there. http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/kopfpatsch.gif

I figure it may be pilots bashing each other. Also Saburo ~loved~ the Zero even until the end. But then maybe he has a point I dunno.

sugaki
04-23-2004, 12:03 PM
I think Saburo Sakai was a bit biased toward the Zero. Tojo could beat out a Zero by climbing and using BnZ tactics against it.

As far sources I use for the Shidenkai, it comes from a Japanese book,

http://www.skynet-1.com/navy/01.html

It's based on a compilation of the IJN's official numbers, as well as figures straight from the manufacturers. Much better than anecdotes from pilots.

Landing gear problems were more with the Shiden than the Shidenkai, due to its very distinct landing gear that expands/shrinks in two parts.

As for the successor of the Zero, the A7M Reppu was always thought of as the true successor. The Shiden/Shidenkai were turned into a fighters after they realized the hidden potential in its original form, the Kyofu. Plans were made to turn the Shidenkai into a carrier-based fighter, with the prototype variants carried onboard the Shinano (contrary to what the Shinano! book said about carrying A7M's), but the carrier sank, and with that plans to make a carrier-based variant.

-Aki