Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > The best fighter with propeller and piston engine

Posted by: Florin September 25, 2004 10:17 pm

I compared the technical characteristics of the best known fighters of World War II (considering those with propeller and piston engine) and I concluded that the last creation of the Japanese engineers outclassed all. Even considering that this plane was built in only 2 pieces, and just performed a 45 minutes test flight on August 3, 1945, I consider it as the best fighter with propeller manufactured in World War II. The plane carried four 30 mm canons in nose and had swept wings, showing some influence from the design of Me-262. However, as you can see from photos, its shape as the only canard plane of WWII makes it a complete independent design. I see its speed (max. 750 km/h) was beaten just by Dornier Do. 335A-1 (the plane with 2 co-axial engines - max. 763 km/h) and Focke Wulf Ta 152H-1 (year 1945, max. 759 km/h). But neither of the 2 German planes carried 4 canons of 30 mm each. I have a folder about this plane, and I forgot the source of the photo. Something close can be also found on: http://www.russian.ee/~star/pictures/japan/kyushu_j7w.gif

Posted by: Florin September 25, 2004 10:26 pm

The name of the plane is Kyushu J7W Shinden. Photo from: http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/picture.asp?cat_id=10&ple_id=643&page=0&pte_id=11323

Posted by: Victor September 26, 2004 04:27 am

The armamament isn't that important. The four 20 mm guns on the Ta-152 were also very effective and had a higher rate of fire I presume, making it effective both against bombers and figthers. The Shinden was never tested in a dogfight unlike the Ta-152, so there is no way to know how it would have fared against other fighters. Also, please post the source of the photos.

Posted by: Der Maresal September 26, 2004 04:34 am

What were the results of the Ta-152 in combat ? How did it perform? I belive the best prop plane of World War II, is the Fw-190D-9 "Dora", it had unbeatable performance in all fields, it was strong in every domain, and able to do well at very high altitude. I was also used alot, and if they had more fuel in those crucial last months, it would have achieved even more then it already did. The Japanese design is original, I've never seen this plane before. I think it would have been very good, thinking that most fighters of Japan were really good and successfull planes. ie; A6M5 Zero, Ki-84, some of the best planes of ww2.

Posted by: Der Maresal September 26, 2004 04:45 am

QUOTE The Kyushu J7W Shinden (Magnificent Lightning), was one of only two canard aircraft to be built and fly during WWII (the other was the XP-55 Ascender). The reason for the rear engined pusher layout was that it was fully intended to replace the reciprocating engine with a turbojet when one became available. In order to test the airframe layout, three all wood MXY6 gliders were built. These started trials in mid1943. To test powered flight, a small four cylinder engine was installed on one of these gliders. The results were satisfactory. Kyushu was chosen to build the plane as they were relatively unburdened with war work and had the required space. Work started in June of 1944 and the first prototype was completed in ten months. The nose had four 30mm cannon and the pilot sat just forward of the swept wings. The propeller shaft was fitted with an exploding bolt so that the propeller could be jettisoned in case the pilot needed to bail out. The six bladed prop was attached to a 2,100 hp Mitsubishi MK9D 18 cylinder radial engine that was buried in the rear fuselage. Even prior to its first flight, the plane was ordered into production. The end of the war stymied any further development. First flight was not until 3 August, mostly due to the unavailability of some small items, and problems with engine overheating. Three short flights were made before war's end, totaling 45 minutes. During those flights, problem areas were discovered, the worst being a strong torque pull and some engine vibrations. A second plane was completed but not flown. Apparently at least one type survived and is in the Smithsonian collection awaiting restoration. http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/axis/j/shindenpreview.htm

Posted by: Florin September 26, 2004 06:39 am

QUOTE (Der Maresal @ Sep 25 2004, 11:45 PM) Apparently at least one type survived and is in the Smithsonian collection awaiting restoration. In the photo I attached, you can see that the people in the right, and one in the middle, are Americans. So this photo was done after the end of the war.

Posted by: Florin September 26, 2004 06:44 am

QUOTE (Der Maresal @ Sep 25 2004, 11:45 PM) The reason for the rear engined pusher layout was that it was fully intended to replace the reciprocating engine with a turbojet when one became available. The canard shape has certain advantages over the classic type of frame. It is more efficient. Of course, it also has its own specific problems, but the advantages are much greater.

Posted by: Florin September 26, 2004 06:57 am

QUOTE (Victor @ Sep 25 2004, 11:27 PM) ......The Shinden was never tested in a dogfight unlike the Ta-152, so there is no way to know how it would have fared against other fighters. The Shinden was supposed to counter the threat of the B-29. It is interesting that both sides had aces in their sleeves, in the case of the American landing in Japan intended for the Fall / Autumn of 1945. Japan was preparing a tactical jet bomber, inspired from Me-262, and a jet fighter, inspired from Me-163. The United States built about 1500 of copies of the German cruise missile V-1. The Americans intended to launch their V-1's from ships, and to pulverize this way the defenses of the shores chosen for landing.

Posted by: Victor September 26, 2004 08:07 am

But the B-29s were escorted and if the escort happened to be a P-51H, which was faster than a Shinden, then things might not be so pink.

Posted by: C-2 September 26, 2004 07:10 pm

No one of the Japanese planes had any armour And in a dog fight or ground attack ,thats BAD

Posted by: Florin September 26, 2004 07:56 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Sep 26 2004, 02:10 PM) No one of the Japanese planes had any armour And in a dog fight or ground attack ,thats BAD   I am not surprised about accounts claiming that as soon a Zero was touched, exploded like a grenade. Because: It's 1050 HP Nakajina motor needed 65 liters of kerosen per 100 km (quite an economical motor, as many accept today). The range of a "Zero" was 3200 km, and "range", according to my understanding, means also to be able to turn back. So to fly 6400 km, the "Zero" had in the beginning 4160 liters of kerosen. Quite a flying bomb! But I have to remind you that Kyushu J7W Shinden and other Japanese planes made in 1945 were designed for a completely different war. Their only task was to defend the homeland, so they had short ranges, thus less fuel carried. But I agree, the absence of armor is the same big problem even when you have less fuel. I knew about this problem in the Japanese planes of 1940...1943, but I have no idea about the design of Kyushu J7W Shinden. But I can give an insight of the cockpit. Sorry, I don't know the source, because I made the download more than one year ago.

Posted by: PanzerKing September 27, 2004 04:08 pm

I have a video game called "Wing Arms" for the Sega Saturn that let's you fly 7 allied and axis aircraft from WWII. The Shinden is one of the planes and it is a real beast! It's the fastest of the game and can take out a plane with a quick one second burst of fire...not bad! Fun game, who's knows if it's realistic or not.

Posted by: Florin September 28, 2004 03:34 am

PanzerKing, I am glad at least one soul is on my side. However, as you said, "Fun game, who's knows if it's realistic or not." C-2 had a good point mentioning the lack of armor of the Japanese planes (and we have no clue if this one is an exception) and Victor had a good point mentioning that the P-51H was a formidable opponent for any Axis plane with propeller and piston engine. The part I do not agree from Victor remark was his quote: "The armament isn't that important. The four 20 mm guns on the Ta-152 were also very effective and had a higher rate of fire I presume." If 4 canons of 20 mm are effective, to follow his point, 4 canons of 30 mm are by far more effective.

Posted by: Victor September 28, 2004 04:24 am

Well, you missed my point. A 30 mm cannon has a slower rate of fire and far less ammo. For an unexperienced pilot (like the most of teh Japanese pilots were at that time) I would go with the higher rate of fire and more ammo, as he may have troubles hitting a target. Take teh P-39 for example. It had a 37 mm cannon, which could pulverize any Axis aircraft, yet this did not hapen so often.

Posted by: Iamandi September 28, 2004 07:19 am

Good poin Victor! I want to say same things... and another things: - J7V was a bad plane. Advanced one, bad an worst baby. In that time it was no time and materials and space (american planes) for development and up-grades; - if Shinden was projected with some influence, influences was from japanese derivative from Me-262 (i forgot the name, but i have a lot of offline info in my home HDD) - and this plane (reactive one) have direct influence from "262" - if you compare pics or drawings, you may see diference - was some; - a plane like "263" (is hard to retain japanesse names!) it haves a little chances to chance some things; When i first saw the Shinden pics and data (in Modelism, issue with romanian TAB and Tornado plane, no?) i had a question: "If Japan have <power> to born this thing, why they don't try it more in beginning". Latter, i read about german U-Boats with blue prints, materials, and even 20 m.m. guns, supplyng Japan... Iama PS - For years, was my "best" plane! Impressive fire power and speed, super-good loock!

Posted by: Florin September 29, 2004 11:47 pm

QUOTE (Victor @ Sep 27 2004, 11:24 PM) Well, you missed my point. A 30 mm cannon has a slower rate of fire and far less ammo. For an unexperienced pilot (like the most of teh Japanese pilots were at that time) I would go with the higher rate of fire and more ammo, as he may have troubles hitting a target. Take teh P-39 for example. It had a 37 mm cannon, which could pulverize any Axis aircraft, yet this did not hapen so often. Victor, I did not miss it. The reason the Spitfire and the Hawker Hurricane had 8 machine guns was the estimate of an RAF pilot that a fighter at its best can keep the bomber in aim sight no more than 2 seconds. So the 2 seconds rule was followed when they fit 8 machine guns in the plane: to have so many bullets per second that the enemy plane would collapse in 2 seconds. You are right, 20 mm canons had a faster rate. But now I say... How far did you get my point? A projectile of 30 mm can carry 3.38 times more explosive, compared with the 20 mm. I saw once a footage with a Me-262 firing its 30 mm canons against a 4 motor bomber. It was like 4 continuous streams of projectiles. You could see every single projectile of the 4 streams, and the unfortunate Allied bomber was melting away literally. Over the war, the armament of the fighters evolved toward bigger calibers. And it ended with German air to air missiles, in 1945. And the trend is still followed today. The planes of today have few big air to air missiles, instead of the hundreds of bullets carried in the 40's. And for Iama: I mentioned the influences of German design ideas in this Japanese plane right in the opening article of the topic, but I guess you did not bother to read it.

Posted by: mabadesc September 30, 2004 03:03 am

QUOTE The planes of today have few big air to air missiles, instead of the hundreds of bullets carried in the 40's. Florin, I don't mean to jump on the pile against you, so don't take it personally... Just a short comment to your statement above: First off, today's planes have both air to air missiles as well as machine guns or cannons with hundreds/thousands of rounds. Secondly, and more important, they have "few big air to air missiles" because of their precision due to automated target locking. So their value increases exponentially. In WWII, one cannon round (projectile) had maybe a 0.1% chance of hitting the enemy plane. One of today's guided missiles has a 50% or larger chance of hitting the other plane. A bit off topic, but the same line of thought can be applied to bombers. In WWII, several hundred B-24/29 were sent to take care of one ground target. With today's laser-guided and smart bombs, 1 (One) B-2 bomber can take care of 28 targets. I forget the exact numbers, but I got this from a study which I found quite amazing. Anyway, this is why today's fleet of US bombers is much smaller than it was during WWII, and yet it has more capabilities and more power.

Posted by: Florin September 30, 2004 04:28 am

Yes... I thought about the radio control or LASER control of today's missiles, but I wrote what I wrote anyway. It is good to remember that the first radio remote control from air of a bomb/missile was performed by the Germans. Even though the system was primitive, the result was spectacular. With this radio controlled air to sea bomb they sunk a British aircraft carrier, in the Mediteran Sea. Maybe also a British battleship. I write "maybe" because is from memory. Who wants more information can try some search on Google. Of course, later the V-2 followed, also remote-controlled by radio, but that is much better known. The Germans also developed a very smart ground to air missile, also remote controlled by radio. Unfortunately, the German leadership considered its range up to 4000 meters as too low. And because they saw V-2 as more spectacular, they allocated the resources of Germany to it. Neglecting the ground to air defence program, in favor of the V-2 program, is considered as one of the very few mistakes made by Albert Speer as Minister of Weaponry.

Posted by: Victor September 30, 2004 04:47 am

QUOTE (Florin @ Sep 30 2004, 01:47 AM) You are right, 20 mm canons had a faster rate. But now I say... How far did you get my point? A projectile of 30 mm can carry 3.38 times more explosive, compared with the 20 mm. I saw once a footage with a Me-262 firing its 30 mm canons against a 4 motor bomber. It was like 4 continuous streams of projectiles. You could see every single projectile of the 4 streams, and the unfortunate Allied bomber was melting away literally. Over the war, the armament of the fighters evolved toward bigger calibers. And it ended with German air to air missiles, in 1945. And the trend is still followed today. The planes of today have few big air to air missiles, instead of the hundreds of bullets carried in the 40's. You first need to actually be able to hit the B-24/29 bomber, not just carry enough explosive power to bring it down. Four 20 mm cannons could do the job pretty nicely also. Even two would bring it down. But against fighters with even greater speed and in greater numbers (not to mention 6 12.7 mm HMGs, which were enough to shoot down any existing fighter and had a much higher rate of fire), four 30 mm cannons can be pretty clumsy and might not work as well. You mentioned air-to-air rockets, but these weren't by far as effective as today, as mabadesc mentioned. IMO the ultimate fighter should be able to equally handle both bombers and fighters, not just be effective against one type and it is my conviction that the Ta-152 was the best propeller fighter of WW2. It was even battle tested, unlike the Japanese project.

Posted by: C-2 September 30, 2004 08:17 pm

HA ! That's one of the few times that I agree with Victor

Posted by: mabadesc September 30, 2004 09:57 pm

QUOTE It is good to remember that the first radio remote control from air of a bomb/missile was performed by the Germans. I don't doubt this is true, Florin. The new military technology being developed in Germany in 1944-45 was quite amazing. Unfortunately for Germany, their factories and arms industry were in too bad a shape to materialize any of these new products in efficient quantities. They simply ran out of time. Also, there were some bad decisions made by their leadership, and especially by Hitler - one well-known example being the Me-262 being converted into a light bomber instead of remaining a fighter as it was initially planned.

Posted by: Der Maresal October 05, 2004 12:13 am

QUOTE (Victor @ Sep 28 2004, 04:24 AM) Well, you missed my point. A 30 mm cannon has a slower rate of fire and far less ammo. For an unexperienced pilot (like the most of teh Japanese pilots were at that time) I would go with the higher rate of fire and more ammo, as he may have troubles hitting a target. Take teh P-39 for example. It had a 37 mm cannon, which could pulverize any Axis aircraft, yet this did not hapen so often. Like the Americans and British who preferred in General Machine Guns,..and lots of them..so that their inexperienced pilots could at least hit something. P-40 Warhawk..., Thunerbolt, ...Mustand and the early Hurricane & Spitfires all had MG's and heavy 12.7 Mg's with lots of bulltes, but no cannon. The Russian, practically, all their planes from I-16, to Yak-3 had Cannon.

Posted by: Der Maresal October 05, 2004 12:18 am

At 600 Rounds per minute continous fire, what better weapon do you need? http://www.luftwaffe3945.hpg.ig.com.br German Mk108 30mm Canon.

Posted by: Iamandi October 05, 2004 09:06 am

QUOTE (Florin @ Sep 29 2004, 11:47 PM) And for Iama: I mentioned the influences of German design ideas in this Japanese plane right in the opening article of the topic, but I guess you did not bother to read it. Florin, usually, i "bother" to read all posts with interests for me. Maybe my bad english knowledge was - again - quilty (*?). What i try to say at that momment, was: Shinden plane have a second-hand german influence, beacause the plane with first - hand influence was japanesse jet plane. Maybe, in future, my english become better, and what i want to say .. have a succesfull "intelegere". Iama

Posted by: Dan Po October 28, 2004 05:25 am

QUOTE (Der Maresal @ Oct 5 2004, 03:13 AM) Like the Americans and British who preferred in General Machine Guns,..and lots of them..so that their inexperienced pilots could at least hit something. Right ! More than that, usualy, the allied pillots were engaged manly in dog fights with another fighters above Germany, Japan or Pacific. So, in this situations, some HMGs were more effective than a pair of cannons.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)