Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

G8N1 Renzan


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Laurelix

Laurelix

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Joined 3 Months
  • 12 topics

Posted 19 April 2017 - 05:11 PM

G8N1 also known as the "Rita" using the allied codename was the japanese heavy bomber. What makes its so infamious is its speed and rate of climb and acceleration for a heavy bomber. What makes this bommber Legendary is the fact that the self defence capability of this thing is absolutely insane.

 

G8N1 Renzan:

6OljEzn.jpg

Wing Area: 112m2

Empty Weight: 17,400kg

Loaded Weight: 26,800kg

Powerplant: 4x Homare 24 NK9K-L (2000hp each)

:::

Maximum Speed: (Military Power)

592km/h at 8000m

-

Rate of Climb: (Military Power)

Time to 8000m: 17:34

-

Defensive Armament: (The Prototypes from June 1945)

* Dorsal Gunner: 2x 20mm Type 99 Model 2 Mark 5 

* Tail Gunner: 2x 20mm Type 99 Model 2 Mark 5

* Belly Gunner: 2x 20mm Type 99 Model 2 Mark 5

* Nose Gunner: 2x 13.2mm Type 2

* Port Gunner: 1x 13.2mm Type 2

* Starboard Gunner: 1x 13.2mm Type 2

jeXnsHi.jpg

-

Bombloads:

Option 1: 18x 60kg (Type 97 No.6)

Option 2: 8x 250kg (No.25 mod 2)

Option 3: 3x 800kg (No.80 mod 1)

Option 4: 2x 1500kg (Type 3 No.150 mark 5)

Option 5: 2x 2000kg (Ohka Model 33, 800kg warheads powered by Ne-20 jet engine)

-

Additional Comments:

* Armour ---> Yes

* Self Sealing tanks ---> Yes

* Co2 Tanks ---> Yes

* 20mm Type 99 model 2 mark 5 is just like the model 2 mark 4's found in N1K2's except the rate of fire was increased by 50%

(It has 760m/s velocity and roughly 700-750RPM instead of 500 RPM on all the other type 99 mk 2's)

* After the War US kept one prototype to test it, later it was scrapped. None in existance today.

OrKmC9w.jpg


Edited by Laurelix, 19 April 2017 - 05:19 PM.


#2 Stony

Stony

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 239 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 8 Months and 29 Days
  • 8 topics
  • LocationThe Right side of the Dutch/German Border

Posted 19 April 2017 - 05:38 PM

It looks like that a B-17 and a B-24 have mated... :huh:


All Photo's are made by me unless stated otherwise. Re-use with full credit only.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/stonyaviationpublishing/

http://stonyaviation.weebly.com/

http://aerialvisuals.ca/

 

Instagram: @stony_avpub


#3 Laurelix

Laurelix

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Joined 3 Months
  • 12 topics

Posted 19 April 2017 - 05:46 PM

It looks like that a B-17 and a B-24 have mated... :huh:

B-17 only has 12.7mm machine guns wgich only uses armour piercing rounds. they just make holes. The 20mm cannons on the other hand can not only shoot AP rounds but also High Explodive rounds that blow huge holes in enemy planes. 

 

G8N is so much more faster than B-17 or B-24


Edited by Laurelix, 19 April 2017 - 05:48 PM.


#4 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,524 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 11 Months and 3 Days
  • 178 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 19 April 2017 - 07:11 PM

B-17 only has 12.7mm machine guns wgich only uses armour piercing rounds. they just make holes. The 20mm cannons on the other hand can not only shoot AP rounds but also High Explodive rounds that blow huge holes in enemy planes. 

 

G8N is so much more faster than B-17 or B-24

     No-can-make such comparison. The Rita came along waaay after the B-17 and B-24 were already

in service. It actually is not even in the same category as the B-29. Work on the design for the B-29

began on 11 May 1940. The G8N1's inception began in February 1943.

     Test trials began on the G8N1 in January 1945. If you want to compare it to its closest US counterpart

you better start thinking XB-44. That was the prototype for Boeing's B-50 which began flight trial in May

1945. The G8N1's timeline for Operational service would fall somewhere between the B-29 and B-50

(which would have entered service much sooner had the war continued).

     Nakajima's 4-engine bomber was quite remarkable and under different circumstances may have

entered service earlier and been a problem for some US fighters. However its bomb load of 8,818 lbs.

was less than the 20,000 lbs. capability of the B-29 which was much more heavily armored for crew

protection. As an offensive weapon it would have entered service against such fighters as the P-47N,

F4U-4 and P-51H. If it would have entered service, it would have had a tough way to go. :)

 

PS: I did a little more thinking (Never a good thing). If the need had arisen, the G8N1 would probably

have been facing such aircraft as the P-80A and P-72 which were both in its time frame. B) If you

wish to throw the Ki.83 up as escort, go ahead. It won't make a whole lot of difference against these

two birds which were both faster and faster climbing aircraft at the altitudes they would be conversing.

 

I seriously have to get back to updating the I-16 timeline and start the Ki.45 and Ki.46 timelines.

Gotta go, Jeff :)


Edited by CORSNING, 19 April 2017 - 07:42 PM.

  • Armand likes this

#5 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 6 Months and 1 Day
  • 1 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 20 April 2017 - 01:19 AM

The Rita should be fast, it is a similar size/weight to Lancaster/B-17, is a much later design and has 8000hp.

The very heavy defensive weaponry is probably a testament to it having to face an unescorted life if it ever reached service.



#6 Laurelix

Laurelix

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Joined 3 Months
  • 12 topics

Posted 20 April 2017 - 02:04 AM

Japanese were developing the Ki-91 Heavy bomber, it was bigger than B-29 amd featured 12x 20mm protection. 2 mock ups built and when the prototype was bearing its completion, B-29 raid bomber the factory destroying the plane, blueprints and all the tools. 8000kg bombload



#7 Stony

Stony

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 239 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 8 Months and 29 Days
  • 8 topics
  • LocationThe Right side of the Dutch/German Border

Posted 20 April 2017 - 04:34 AM

B-17 only has 12.7mm machine guns wgich only uses armour piercing rounds. they just make holes. The 20mm cannons on the other hand can not only shoot AP rounds but also High Explodive rounds that blow huge holes in enemy planes.

G8N is so much more faster than B-17 or B-24


I was just talking about the looks....

All Photo's are made by me unless stated otherwise. Re-use with full credit only.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/stonyaviationpublishing/

http://stonyaviation.weebly.com/

http://aerialvisuals.ca/

 

Instagram: @stony_avpub


#8 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 6 Months and 1 Day
  • 1 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 20 April 2017 - 09:49 AM

The performance figures for these late Japanese bombers need to be treated with scepticism as they are estimates.

The planes either never flew or only flew in non operation form as prototypes. For example the Rita was intended to be pressurised but the prototype was not and there is also no sign of weapons. Many an aircraft has turned from a world beater to a failure with the addition of weapons armour and other operational items. For example the B-32.

 

You also have to question the Japanese decision to expend resources on these heavy bombers planes when they could not defend their homeland.


  • CORSNING likes this

#9 Laurelix

Laurelix

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Joined 3 Months
  • 12 topics

Posted 20 April 2017 - 11:47 AM

The performance figures for these late Japanese bombers need to be treated with scepticism as they are estimates.

The planes either never flew or only flew in non operation form as prototypes. For example the Rita was intended to be pressurised but the prototype was not and there is also no sign of weapons. Many an aircraft has turned from a world beater to a failure with the addition of weapons armour and other operational items. For example the B-32.

 

You also have to question the Japanese decision to expend resources on these heavy bombers planes when they could not defend their homeland.

G8N would carry 2 ohka's which eould be used vs US navy.


Edited by Laurelix, 20 April 2017 - 11:47 AM.


#10 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 6 Months and 1 Day
  • 1 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 20 April 2017 - 02:58 PM

To talk about what the G8N could and could not do you would first have to get manufactured and into operational service well before the end of the war, otherwise we are creating a far eastern version of Luft 46.

To quote wiki regarding the operational Ohka's which were first used only four months before the end of the war.

"the Model 11 achieved great speed, but with limited range. This was problematic, as it required the slow, heavily laden mother aircraft to approach within 37 km (20 nmi; 23 mi) of the target, making them very vulnerable to defending fighters."

The larger but faster, tougher and better defended G8N would have been more effective than the Bettys that were used but it would still have been operating in an environment where the US had air superiority.


  • CORSNING likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users