Ki-48 Performance Info

[el cid again]

"With the exception of a small increase in fuselage length....the Ki-48 II was externally identical to the Ki-48 I but as well as fuel tank protection there was armor plating for the crew..."

The increase was 0.15 meters - and seems not to relate to the bomb bay - but was "to improve stability"

The IIb introduced "retractable, snow fence type dive brakes under the outboard wing panels"

I already quoted that maximum bomb load was "double that of the Model I" or 800 kg.

[el cid again]

I found the 500 kg data - seems the Ki-48 II could carry two 250 kg bombs - but not internally - these were external. Probably these were the weapons used when dive bombing. But since we are classifying it as a dive bomber, it is probably that load we should be using.

This also explains the 800 kg load without increasing bomb bay size. IF the original bomb bay could carry 400 kg - and if the II could fit 500 kg externally - and 800 kg load is now possible. If the normal internal load is 300 kg - it may be this was also combined with the external load. I wish I knew if the internal bombs could be released in dive bomber mode?

[m10bob]

Excellent site for pics of Japanese aircraft, taken by the Japanese.(3 pages on the Ki 48 alone).

http://www.ijaafphotos.com/

This one seems to have an external mounted stabalizing(?) loadbar just above the bomb?

[Dili]

This is backwards: they did - so they could. Why are you challenging the data? No source says a I model could not fit 400 kg - and the 50 kg was the standard bomb.

I am sorry,my mistake i see you were using my 4x4 designation . When i came in that day i interpreted 4x4=16. You have the wing struture above. Usually high wing bombers dont have a bomb bay where both wings connects to each other.

We don't do this for other planes - so I ask again - why this one????

Because doesnt make the sense that this plane is almost as good as the biggest operational Japanese Army bombers.

I wish I knew if the internal bombs could be released in dive bomber mode  

.

I have seen Ki-48 without bomb bay doors. That can be an hint that might dive bombing from bomb bay -of course not at high step angle, but more than that i dont know.

What is the standart definition for Dive Bombing Classification? How many degrees dive? I suppose more than 45º.

I found the 500 kg data - seems the Ki-48 II could carry two 250 kg bombs - but not internally - these were external.

.

What is your source? i never saw that reference or photos for external loads.
 

m10bob:

I suppose that is the I-GO(spelling?) guided bomb and it's wing. Maybe an idea for El Cid.

m10bob you might like also the top of that site with other countries http://www.warbirdpix.com/

[m10bob]

Thank you Dili![:)]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

What is the standart definition for Dive Bombing Classification? How many degrees dive? I suppose more than 45º.

Off the top of my head, I think it is 60 degrees or more. I think 70 degrees was common - and more than that difficult or impossible. Between that and level bombing - is glide bombing. Turns out glide bombing is as accurate as dive bombing - IF you can see the target. The dive bomber concept was a bigger deal when everything was done visually - you could more easily see the target in many terrain situations. Another thing that was not thought of early was skip bombing - almost impossible to miss a ship with this - but no one thought of it for decades. Instead of needing to hit a point, you need to hit a line - easier to do.

[el cid again]

IGo-1b was TESTED on a Ki-48 - but not designed for it - and the aircraft never deployed with it. It was for the Ki-102(b I think).

However, the picture might show how the 250 kg bombs were mounted? My source says, however, they were on wing racks - and those don't look like that.

External 250 kg bombs seems to explain a great deal - including some reports of a typical 500 kg load - and dive bombing (from the IIb on - the first IIs apparently didn't yet have the dive breaks).

[Dili]

And your source is? (for external load)

There is space for 2x250kg bombs in Ki-48 bomb bay. The references i posted at beginning of this thread says 2x250kg or 1x500kg.



Btw i just learned that G3M apparently didnt have bomb bay at all. All bombs were in fuselage bomb racks instead of torpedo; 800kg max. And G4M1 could get 4x250kg in bomb bay but without bomb bay doors since they didnt worked. G4M2 introduced a bulge in bombay and that version had finally working bomb bay doors.

[el cid again]

I confirm your latter data.

I found the material on the Ki-48 on a Japanese warbirds site - in some detail. It mentions 1 x 250 kg bomb under each wing. It is hard to believe they could mount any 500 kg bombs at all - and if they could - it almost certainly would have to be centerline - possibly without bomb bay doors. To do it on a wing would require amazing stressing that I find hard to believe was done on this light aircraft.

[Dili]

And the link for the site is?

[Brady]

The referances listed in the link should be taken seriously, I own a few coppys of the "Maru Mechanic " series and their very well done, thought I dont have # 16.
 
 It should be noted that the 800 kg weapon type is not an army weapon, it is a Navy weapon, army planes were not designed to field it, and of the various models is that size range, the 800 kg sucide load could simply of been a lash up of several 100 kg bombs, if they did use a Navy weapon I would be interested to see some proof of it.
 
 The only army plane I know of that used a Navy weapon operationaly was the Ki-67 and it's torp load out, at least the only one I know that was to do so by designe.
 
 FYI-Army and Navy planes used interly diferent bombs even in the same weight range they were diferent, Army 250 kg and 500kg weapons were totaly diferent designes than the Navy ones, possing diferent penatration and blast efects, generaly Army Bombs had a higher charge to weight ratio, not always but more often than not.

[Dili]

I dont think anyone is arguing about a 800kg weapon. el cid said that Ki-48 could get 8x100kg, i disputed that saying there is no internal space, he now changed to 2x250kg external and maybe 300kg inside bomb bay but unable to Dive bomb with bomb bay if i understood him correctly, either external or internal if he puts a weight of 500kg is fine by me since in my opinion 400-500kg was the normal load . I still dont have a source that supports external loads in Ki-48. My references all posted in this thread go only to a maximum of 500kg bombs in 1x500kg or 2x250kg being the norm 8x50kg(400kg). Except of course the suicide bomber with 800kg explosive which i think it will be a propose built explosive.

[Brady]

My sources all say that the Ki-48 carried all her weapons internaly.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I dont think anyone is arguing about a 800kg weapon. el cid said that Ki-48 could get 8x100kg, i disputed that saying there is no internal space, he now changed to 2x250kg external and maybe 300kg inside bomb bay but unable to Dive bomb with bomb bay if i understood him correctly, either external or internal if he puts a weight of 500kg is fine by me since in my opinion 400-500kg was the normal load . I still dont have a source that supports external loads in Ki-48. My references all posted in this thread go only to a maximum of 500kg bombs in 1x500kg or 2x250kg being the norm 8x50kg(400kg). Except of course the suicide bomber with 800kg explosive which i think it will be a propose built explosive.

Deep inside some Warbirds material I found loadings for the Ki-48 II. It listed 2 x 250 kg bombs external. I also found the bomb bay has not changed size. The normal internal load was 300 kg. Granted it could carry 400 kg - almost certainly in the form of 8 x 50 kg or 16 x 25 kg weapons - 300 was normal for the I. I now think it was ALSO normal for the II in the bomb bay. All they did to "double" the bomb load was mount external loads on the wings. Used as a horizontal bomber, you could technically get 800 kg - 300 in the bay and 500 external. Used as a dive bomber I suspect you only got the 500. We are using it in the external form.

I am sending for a dedicated book on the Ki-48.

[Dili]

Bad quality photo of Ki-48 bomb bay racks http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/ki-48/1258/index.html
 
 

[el cid again]

Not that bad. It certainly appears they come in pairs - just off the centerline. Hard to say if we can see them all - but that looks a lot like 4. If so - these would be 100 kg bomb racks - explaining the 400 kg internal load of the bomb bay quite nicely. How that permits the carriage of larger numbers of 50 kg, 25 kg or even 15 kg bombs is a mystery still: but there are various possibilities. It may be these mounts are removed for a tail first mounting for the smaller bombs, or that the smaller bombs have an adapter of some sort. But I am inclined to think my analysis - the bomb bay may not be altered at all for the II - and the external mounting on the wings accounts for the extra load - is correct. II was intended to become a dive bomber - and wing mounting works for that - while not for what we see here (no swing arm).
The easy way to get there is to mount externally. The only problem is that the II load should then be 900 kg (400 internal and 500 external) - and it is always given as 800. But Ju-88 is similar - it can carry combinations in theory above what it is rated for - and there may be sound safety reasons for weight limiting. If so - then the max load really is 900 kg - if you are careful (and safe if you load 100 kg less fuel) - but range would suffer.

[Dili]

Like i have said i dont know of any reference for external bomb load.

[Brady]

THe thing with the rack's is that at a glance you cant realy tell anything,they would switch them out for various loads, take the kate for example, to hang the 6 x 60 kg bombs under her they put a totaly different rack on then the type used to sling the two 250 kg bombs, which of course was totaly diferent from the 800 kg bomb or the torpedo, this was common for many plane types Allied and Axis, internal or external, a universal rack was uncommon.

[Dili]

The folowing capacities are given on a technical drawing of a firdt modle Ki-48 in Maru Mechanic No. 16, dated 1979, entitled Type 99 Twin-Engine Bomber.

No. 1 Left (Leading Edge) = 215 liters
No. 1 Right (Leading Edge) = 215 liters
No. 2 Left (Main Wing) = 400 liters
No. 2 Right (Main Wing) = 400 liters
No. 3 (Center-Wing in Fuselage) = 310 liters
No. 4 (fuselage) = 225 liters

For a total of 1765 liters.

Other sources may give different amounts.

Jim Long

 
From  http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=4815.0
 
1765 lit. is more or less 1371kg
 
For comparison Blenheim IV
 
w/ 1530kg Gasoline range 2350km w/ 454 bomb load w/ 2x1000hp engines.
 

[el cid again]

All well and good - but the inherant efficiency of the engines - and the airframe - is not really indicated by weight alone. Different airframes and engines will yield significantly differing data. Also - details like the selected cruise speed matter - you can get different data for the SAME airframe / engine combination. Also altitude matters. And of course external loads matter.