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
- - - - -

Duel over China: Curtiss Model 68 Hawk III vs. Mitsubishi G3M


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#31 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 9 Days
  • 299 topics

Posted 30 November 2017 - 09:57 AM

Sorry again for being late, and sorry to contradict, Rick. For me,

 

I agree that the G4M is a different plane, ...

 

and

 

For me the G4M is the G3XM ...

 

are contradictory.

 

I know the G3M was not "close" to the Mosquito, but I repeat myself in saying, with the Ki-15 and Ki-46 Mitsubshi was on the right track and I still wonder why they didn't further follow it. For a "Mosquito" concept the defensive weaponry should have been reduced or completely dropped instead of being extended.

 

Regards, RT



#32 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Joined 6 Years and 25 Days
  • 2 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 02 December 2017 - 01:45 AM

My comments are only contradictory if you want them to be.

The G3M and G4M are clearly different planes but they had similar roles.

The G4M is a plane developed by the same company that was intended to be better in every way (except possibly range) than the G3M.

As such it is the G3M Extra and explains why the G3M was not further developed.

 

The Ki-15, 46 and the latter Nakajima C6N are unique planes in that they are dedicated reconnaisance planes that were designed specifically for this role with no compromises to give them any multi role capacity. As such they are examples of a Japanese trend to design planes that were optimised for specialist roles or even for specific niches within that role. A focus on maneouvrability and range  was common and resulted in planes that had incredible abilities and just as marked weakness. To achieve maneouvrability and range many designs were very structural light and not over supplied with engine power which restricted the options to redesign them later to widen their scope of work.

 

By comparison the Mosquito was initially proposed by de Havilland as a powerful unarmed fast bomber. The provision for forward firing weapons was included in the initial design by them to increase versatility, critical given the lack of support the concept initially received from a conservative Ministry. A reconnaisance role was initially forced upon the plane by a Ministry sceptical of the concept of a bomber with no defensive weapons.

By planning and by circumstance the Mosquito was conceived  by de Havilland as a multi role plane in a way that Japanese planes were not.

Perhaps the environment in the UK gave greater freedom to designers and companies than was available in Japan as the Beaufighter was also a company driven design that was intended to achieve multiple roles.



#33 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 9 Days
  • 299 topics

Posted 02 December 2017 - 07:00 PM

Perhaps the environment in the UK gave greater freedom to designers and companies than was available in Japan ...

If so, have there been any voices of Japanese designers protesting against those restrictions? Well, probably nobody of us knows...

 

I say, if you have Ki-15 AND Ki-46 AND G3M on your drawing board, the consequence of creating a fast (nearly) unarmed bomber out of them is coercive!

 

Or is this only my hindsight-driven consideration? Also, I cannot remember having read anything about any Luftwaffe heads demanding to see Ju 88 and Do 17 in their initially intended roles again. The later S version of the Ju 88 came at a certain point of time as return to the original concept.

 

Regards, RT



#34 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Joined 6 Years and 25 Days
  • 2 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 03 December 2017 - 08:18 AM

Can anyone think of a Japanese plane fielded in WW2 that was the result of a private development rather than being designed to compete for an Army or Navy contract? Did the Japanese procurement system allow flexibility for this sort of initiative by manufacturers?

The only instance that I have seen reference to is the privately developed Kawanishi N1K1-J, the initial land version of the N1K1 float plane, soon superseded by the N1K2.

In addition to the Mosquito and the Beaufighter there are other examples of Allied planes where a specification was written to suit a plane largely created by a manufacturer, for example specification F.36/34 was written around the design of the Hurricane though there was Ministry input into the plane design prior to this specification being created.



#35 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 5 Months and 27 Days
  • 188 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:27 AM

     Just mildly off topic; The G3Ms first combat mission was 14 August 1937 over

China. These aircraft were G3M2s with a maximum speed of 232 mph./4,180 m.

     The Tupolev SB-2M-100A first combat mission was over Spain on 28 October

1936. These SBs were capable of 263 mph./4,000 m. (faster than any G3M models).

The SB-2M-100A first appeared over the skies of China in September 1937. First

combat mission was in December 1937. B)  :rolleyes:



#36 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 5 Months and 27 Days
  • 188 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 20 December 2017 - 04:39 PM

I am about 2/5ths the way through Aces of the 'Republic of China Air Force' by Raymond Cheung

and have not read any mention that the Hawk III had any difficulty in intercepting the Nell.

 

Just two cents worth, Jeff :)

I am now just a little way past the 1/2 mark in this book. I do read slow but that isn't

the reason I have not finished this book yet. I take this book with me when I have to

go somewhere that I will be waiting like the doctor's office, or taking my wife shopping.

Anyway I have just come across this on page 48.

     " The G3M, after dropping its ordinance, was very fast, and the Chinese fighters

(Hawk II) struggled to keep up with it."

 

The Curtiss Hawk II had a published maximum speed of 187 mph./S.L. and 208 mph.

at just over 2,000 m. (6,900 ft.). These began to be delivered to China starting in 1932.



#37 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 9 Days
  • 299 topics

Posted 21 December 2017 - 06:28 AM

"The G3M, after dropping its ordinance, was very fast, and the Chinese fighters

(Hawk II) struggled to keep up with it."

Yes, after dropping its ordnance, which was carried outside, as we know. Apparently nobody at Mitsubishi's thought about a G3XM with internal bomb bay and omit those bulgy gun stations, as we already discussed.

 

The Hawk III obviously had not much of an advantage over the Hawk II, which you mentioned, Jeff, isn't it?

 

Regards, RT



#38 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 5 Months and 27 Days
  • 188 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 21 December 2017 - 09:22 PM

The Hawk III had a 15 mph. speed advantage over the Hawk II at sea level.

At the Hawk II's full throttle height of 6,900 ft. it had a 17 mph. speed disadvantage.

I am just taking a calculated guess here but would guess the Hawk III probably

had at least a 35-40 mph. advantage at 11,500 ft. B)



#39 bearoutwest

bearoutwest

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 11 Months and 25 Days
  • 1 topics

Posted 09 January 2018 - 09:08 AM

https://www.ebay.com...yMAAOSwl9RaG4iO

 

Just for RT - Internal view of Ki-46 rear cockpit.  Found on eBay.

If the link doesn't work - try google search using "Ki-46 Dinah interior Lae 1943"

 

...geoff



#40 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 9 Days
  • 299 topics

Posted 09 January 2018 - 10:41 AM

Thank you for linking to this picture, Geoff. As I am a spoiled person, who already had to chance to fly as passenger in a Mustang (thanks to Greg), I always miss the comfort of plush and upholstery in these WWII aircraft.

 

Regards, RT






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users