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

#11 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,970 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 6 Months and 2 Days
  • 138 topics

Posted 20 April 2017 - 04:35 PM

Would have been interesting to see how US fighters coped with heavy bombers.

But once again we our outside the remit of this forum section, apologies
  • CORSNING likes this

#12 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 1 Month
  • 183 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 20 April 2017 - 08:20 PM

     I'm afraid I have been one of those keeping this thread lingering in an area of

this site that it does not belong in. The video was very good and the information

listed was applicable to post #1. However the post itself belongs in the World

War 2 section. Not the AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE section of this site. I am

definitely going to side with Ricky on this one.

     Rick65 in his Post #8 and Post #10 was dead on target.


Edited by CORSNING, 20 April 2017 - 08:48 PM.


#13 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 19 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 02 May 2017 - 09:54 PM

I'm not sure if you can question the decision to expend resources on this aircraft. The alternative was surrender and they were NOT going to do that until faced with another atomic attack. So, their thinking would have been to make the best equipment they could to fight the war. This plane was a step in the right direction, as far as they were concerned.



#14 USAF Steve

USAF Steve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 4 Months and 3 Days
  • 2 topics

Posted 01 June 2017 - 06:02 PM

I'm not sure if you can question the decision to expend resources on this aircraft. The alternative was surrender and they were NOT going to do that until faced with another atomic attack. So, their thinking would have been to make the best equipment they could to fight the war. This plane was a step in the right direction, as far as they were concerned.

 

I agree you can't fault them for continuing to work on new designs no matter how futile it was (and probably seemed even to the Japanese who worked on these).   The Japanese weren't known for giving up!  

Not sure if the Japanese would have had the resources to produce a bomber of this type, and in fact if they had 4 engines to use they may have felt it more effective to build 4 single-engine suicide planes than one 4-engine bomber to carry two kamikazes.  

Somewhere I remember seeing a photo of a German 'piggyback' bomber in which they mounted an FW-190 on top a JU-88, using some sort of framework to attach them together.  The idea was, if I remember correctly, to have the pilot in the FW fly the mated pair of A/C to a target area, then cut the JU-88 loose (full of explosives obviously).  I don't remember if the JU-88 was supposed to just glide on its own or if the FW pilot had a remote stick to steer it into a target.   I've never heard of a similar setup being used by the Japanese even though it seems like something they'd want to try...I guess it was easier and cheaper to just throw a pilot in the cockpit and have him fly it into the target than to develop something like this.  I think having a remotely piloted Betty full of explosives or even fuel would have been difficult to stop if it was flown directly at a CV in a dive...maybe more difficult than a piloted Betty in similar circumstances (just due to the fact that you can kill or wound the pilot with AA fire and thus throw the 'aim' off).   Don't mind me...just my train of thought!



#15 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 1 Day
  • 108 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 01 June 2017 - 07:52 PM

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.

Heavy weapons connects with slower rate of fire, and as it wasn't just to aim and shoot but morely move ones direction of fire due to the tracers, might slower ROF have been a handicap :-/ Additional does even the 20 mm cannons have a much more curved trajectory to consider in the aim - all awhile the gunner sits in a fast moving platform and the targets moves around in all directions (in opposite to being a fighter pilot tailing a target)!
The B-17 brought with it one and a half ton of .50 rounds. The same weight in 20mm grenades ends up in much less rounds to dispose!
The same considerations count for the fighters, where the Yanks preferred many ,50's (guns, hence rounds too) to few 20mm's meanwhile RAF pendlede between fitting eight .303's or two 20mm cannons!

Edited by Armand, 01 June 2017 - 07:55 PM.


#16 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,014 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 9 Months and 13 Days
  • 293 topics

Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:46 AM

Yes, Armand, but:

 

The heavier caliber results in a much longer shooting distance, and in a much bigger destructive power when hitting the target! The reason for the superiority of fighters over bombers in direct confrontation is not the former's higher speed - it is its ability to place more missile energy into its opponent!

 

I dont know what Geoff *Bearoutwest* read about the He 177's double 20mm turret. But what I know about the LeO 451 is: it was fast, and, its single 20 mm cannon was prone to keep fighters on distance!

 

(Quoting from memory, I hope I am right rsp. expect contradiction.)

 

Regards, RT



#17 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 1 Day
  • 108 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 08 June 2017 - 03:42 PM

Yes, Armand, but:

The heavier caliber results in a much longer shooting distance, and in a much bigger destructive power when hitting the target! The reason for the superiority of fighters over bombers in direct confrontation is not the former's higher speed - it is its ability to place more missile energy into its opponent!

I dont know what Geoff *Bearoutwest* read about the He 177's double 20mm turret. But what I know about the LeO 451 is: it was fast, and, its single 20 mm cannon was prone to keep fighters on distance!

(Quoting from memory, I hope I am right rsp. expect contradiction.)

Regards, RT

This is Warbirdsforum and to the topic comes nothing without a 'but . . .'!
However. My comment was actually a 'but..' itself ;-)
Another detail is that the originally installed 20mm of the. B-29 tail armament became soon removed in favour of the twin .50's. However, that might be caused in impractical difference in the trajectory of the two calibers shooting parallel :-/

Edited by Armand, 08 June 2017 - 03:50 PM.


#18 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,548 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 7 Months and 19 Days
  • 116 topics

Posted 08 June 2017 - 06:01 PM

Ho-5 cannon
  • Caliber: 20mm (0.8 in)
  • Ammunition: 20 x 94 (84.5 g)
  • Weight: 37 kg (77 lb)
  • Rate of fire: 750 rounds/min
  • Muzzle velocity: 750 m/s (2,460 ft/s)

Browning .50

 

Rate of fire

450-600 rounds/min (M2HB)
750–850 rounds/min (AN/M2)

 



#19 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,592 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 1 Day
  • 108 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:18 PM

Ho-5 cannon

  • Caliber: 20mm (0.8 in)
  • Ammunition: 20 x 94 (84.5 g)
  • Weight: 37 kg (77 lb)
  • Rate of fire: 750 rounds/min
  • Muzzle velocity: 750 m/s (2,460 ft/s)
Browning .50
 
Rate of fire
450-600 rounds/min (M2HB)
750–850 rounds/min (AN/M2)
When machineguns have a variety of ROF is ir mainly due to the fixture: The more ridgid fitting the better works the recoil-spring. Opposite will a loosely hanged gun 'rattle' and reduce the effect of the recoil.
As the HO-5 is a clone of the M2 I would expect it to have a similar variety as the M2, however out of a reduced ROF alone due to the weight of the single round :-/
Anyhow, there is still the trajectory of the heavier round in difference!

#20 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 19 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 09 June 2017 - 01:18 AM

Hi USAF Steve,

 

First, welcome to the forum.

 

The combination you are looking for is called a Mistel. It was a composite aircraft, with a piloted unit on top and a bomb0carrying unit on the bottom. If I am not mistaken, these were not radio controlled, but rather had their controls locked in trail position. 

 

The Japanese could have produced the Renzan, but not in great numbers due to recurring bombing damage. Had they developed things like the A8M, J2M, and the G8N1 earlier, it might have been a different story.I am of the opinion that their chief blunder was their failure to initiate mass pilot training right away when the war was started. Had they done that, the eventual outcome would probably have been the same, but it might have taken 2 - 3 more years.

 

Sometime in there, the U.S.A. may have negotiated a settlement, just due to costs. I seriously doubt it, but it is a what if that sounds interesting ... though I will not pursue it.

 

I think the best flying boat of the war was the H8K Emily. The G8N1 may have been a really good plane that simply never got produced, and I doubt we'll ever truly find out. I already like the J2M, Ki-84, and Ki-100. Another favorite was the Ki-46. They had some good aircraft, for sure. Wish more had been saved.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users