If you were to get a navalized version of either the Jack or the George, which would you pick and WHY? What would be the strengths and what would be the weaknesses of each plane?
Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
Will come back to the question of how the planes would be made CV-capable to begin with, but...
Jack, for CAP. I would use the George for offensive operations, but it just wouldn't make much sense, really. It might make a nice escort, because it hits harder, but escorts die a lot to enemy CAP. I guess if you're sweeping from KB, I'd want George (versions 1 and 5, not 2).
So that's the Jack. It would make a great defender. But how would it be CV-capable? I tried googling to see if I could find a reason why it wasn't CV-capable, but came up empty. So I looked up dimensions, and it's not that much bigger than the A6M - 3 feet taller, 3 feet longer, but also about 4 feet less in wingspan. But the Zero's wings folded, yes? What would it do to the Jack's performance to make the wings fold (I know nothing about the engineering implications of making the wings fold... would you have to reduce some of the overall weight/load, or are folding wings of similar strength to standard wings? Etc.)?
The George is a larger plane than the Zero as well... but smaller than the Sam, which is perfectly CV capable in the game, so... *shrug*
Jack, for CAP. I would use the George for offensive operations, but it just wouldn't make much sense, really. It might make a nice escort, because it hits harder, but escorts die a lot to enemy CAP. I guess if you're sweeping from KB, I'd want George (versions 1 and 5, not 2).
So that's the Jack. It would make a great defender. But how would it be CV-capable? I tried googling to see if I could find a reason why it wasn't CV-capable, but came up empty. So I looked up dimensions, and it's not that much bigger than the A6M - 3 feet taller, 3 feet longer, but also about 4 feet less in wingspan. But the Zero's wings folded, yes? What would it do to the Jack's performance to make the wings fold (I know nothing about the engineering implications of making the wings fold... would you have to reduce some of the overall weight/load, or are folding wings of similar strength to standard wings? Etc.)?
The George is a larger plane than the Zero as well... but smaller than the Sam, which is perfectly CV capable in the game, so... *shrug*
RE: Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
I could see Jack doing this before George. George was a much larger aircraft.
Just the tips of the Zero folded...perhaps the same could be done with Jack?
Bring this up due to how we developed RA and then continued it into Between the Storms. The premise had always been that the Japanese stuck ONLY to the Zero airframe and choose not to go over to the Jack. The Development Team stays with Zero and the upgrades come quicker. This makes sense but am now wondering about flipping the view on its head. The Japanese roll out the M2 and realize they have an excellent Fighter and then--rather then stick to an existing airframe--move straight to the next generation: Jack.
The George was developed independent of the Navy so it continues on its 'normal' course of development. If the Japanese suddenly realized that George was as good of an aircraft as it turn ed out be AND contributed substantial resources to development and testing, might it have worked as well. I almost see it as a Corsair in terms of issues landing it and taking off from a CV Deck.
Don't know but it is interesting thinking about. Am curious of more opinions (George vs Jack) and comments...
Just the tips of the Zero folded...perhaps the same could be done with Jack?
Bring this up due to how we developed RA and then continued it into Between the Storms. The premise had always been that the Japanese stuck ONLY to the Zero airframe and choose not to go over to the Jack. The Development Team stays with Zero and the upgrades come quicker. This makes sense but am now wondering about flipping the view on its head. The Japanese roll out the M2 and realize they have an excellent Fighter and then--rather then stick to an existing airframe--move straight to the next generation: Jack.
The George was developed independent of the Navy so it continues on its 'normal' course of development. If the Japanese suddenly realized that George was as good of an aircraft as it turn ed out be AND contributed substantial resources to development and testing, might it have worked as well. I almost see it as a Corsair in terms of issues landing it and taking off from a CV Deck.
Don't know but it is interesting thinking about. Am curious of more opinions (George vs Jack) and comments...
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
-
ny59giants
- Posts: 9902
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm
RE: Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
Could the Jack been restricted to only the largest of the Japanese CVS like the Shokaku-kai Class CVs? Hard to do with PDU option "ON." They realize they need a better CAP fighter and the Zeros ends up being the strike escort fighter mainly while Jack stays over the CVs on CAP.
[center]
[/center]
[/center]
RE: Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
Pretty sure I recall a discussion about the George some years back and there was no way to get the landing gear strong enough for carrier landings. They had a lot of trouble just getting it able to handle 'normal' fields, let alone a carrier deck.
You'd have to search to find those discussions ...
You'd have to search to find those discussions ...
Pax
-
bomccarthy
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:32 pm
- Location: L.A.
RE: Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
I just checked Francillon and Green for some background. The short answer for why the Jack and George were never accepted for carrier use is that both were specialized designs and the IJN was counting on the A7M (which was intended to have better performance than either) to be its next generation carrier fighter.
The J2M was a highly specialized interceptor whose prolonged development began in late 1938. Since Jiro Horikoshi and his Mitsubishi team were committed to the development of the A6M at that point, the J2M experienced the first of a number of delays that would ultimately postpone even small-scale production until 1943. These delays eventually included not only the allocation of design and development resources (Jiro’s team was working on the A6M and the new A7M), but also a series of critical technical problems that continued through the early production phase in 1943 and the first half of 1944. By June 1944, the IJN decided that the N1K was a better fighter for the interim period until the A7M began production. Thus, the Jack’s specialized nature (including short range) and its ongoing technical problems pre-empted any thought of designing a version for carrier use.
The N1K Shiden was actually two very different designs, adapted from an earlier third design (the N1K1 Kyofu, “Rex” floatplane fighter). The N1K1-J Shiden (which made its initial test flight in December 1942) retained the mid-wing configuration of the Rex, with a complex telescoping landing gear that was weak and completely unsuited for carrier landings. The N1K2-J Shiden was redesigned in 1943 as a low-wing aircraft in order to eliminate the need for telescoping landing gear. Both versions were powered by the troublesome Ha-45 Homare, whose technical problems delayed development and testing of the N1K1-J throughout 1943. Flight testing of the N1K2-J began in early 1944, but ongoing technical problems with the Homare delayed development on it as well, so that only 7 prototypes had been completed for testing by June 1944. Production was fatally delayed by the end of 1944, when B-29s began hitting the plants of Kawanishi and its subcontractors.
A carrier version of the N1K2-J was proposed (N1K4-A) and a single prototype was completed in the Spring of 1945, but subsequently cancelled (probably due in part to a lack of operational aircraft carriers).
The J2M was a highly specialized interceptor whose prolonged development began in late 1938. Since Jiro Horikoshi and his Mitsubishi team were committed to the development of the A6M at that point, the J2M experienced the first of a number of delays that would ultimately postpone even small-scale production until 1943. These delays eventually included not only the allocation of design and development resources (Jiro’s team was working on the A6M and the new A7M), but also a series of critical technical problems that continued through the early production phase in 1943 and the first half of 1944. By June 1944, the IJN decided that the N1K was a better fighter for the interim period until the A7M began production. Thus, the Jack’s specialized nature (including short range) and its ongoing technical problems pre-empted any thought of designing a version for carrier use.
The N1K Shiden was actually two very different designs, adapted from an earlier third design (the N1K1 Kyofu, “Rex” floatplane fighter). The N1K1-J Shiden (which made its initial test flight in December 1942) retained the mid-wing configuration of the Rex, with a complex telescoping landing gear that was weak and completely unsuited for carrier landings. The N1K2-J Shiden was redesigned in 1943 as a low-wing aircraft in order to eliminate the need for telescoping landing gear. Both versions were powered by the troublesome Ha-45 Homare, whose technical problems delayed development and testing of the N1K1-J throughout 1943. Flight testing of the N1K2-J began in early 1944, but ongoing technical problems with the Homare delayed development on it as well, so that only 7 prototypes had been completed for testing by June 1944. Production was fatally delayed by the end of 1944, when B-29s began hitting the plants of Kawanishi and its subcontractors.
A carrier version of the N1K2-J was proposed (N1K4-A) and a single prototype was completed in the Spring of 1945, but subsequently cancelled (probably due in part to a lack of operational aircraft carriers).
RE: Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
Appreciate the comments and thoughts here. Think that Jack is more plausible. This would be especially true if Horikoshi and his team moved away from the Zero Designs and went straight to Jack.
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
-
ny59giants
- Posts: 9902
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm
RE: Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
Any reason why Japan didn't place more 20mm cannons on the A6M series (along with other airframes) and get rid of the 7.7 and 12.7mm MGs? It would seem from early war experiences that the A6M was not sufficient strong enough in her weapons to bring down the 4e bombers and the armored Allied fighters.
[center][/center]
[/center]-
bomccarthy
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:32 pm
- Location: L.A.
RE: Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Appreciate the comments and thoughts here. Think that Jack is more plausible. This would be especially true if Horikoshi and his team moved away from the Zero Designs and went straight to Jack.
For realism sake, you should bake in some time for structural redesign. The Jack was designed in response to a very narrow spec - land-based interceptor that emphasized speed and climb over maneuverability. Land-based aircraft were not structurally designed to handle the repeated impact of carrier landings over their lifespan. When a land-based design was adapted for carrier operations, such as the Supermarine Seafire, it had to be structurally reinforced. Unfortunately, this added weight, which adversely impacted performance (compare the Seafire II with the Spitfire Vc, or the Seafire XV with the Spitfire XIV). Therefore, you should also consider downgrading the carrier-based Jack's performance a bit.
In addition, the Jack had low profile canopy, which impeded forward visibility (similar to the F4U-1) -- it would have experienced higher operational losses in the hands of inexperienced pilots (crashes on landings, especially since Japanese carriers didn't have LSOs). I'm not sure how to address this in game terms.
RE: Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
John 3rd, I would like to send you a PM but the inbox is full. Thank you.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
The JAAF was going to put Ki-44 Tojos on its carriers late in the war. They were not going to bother with
folding wings, nor catapults, just arrester gear. In spite of being unarmored, it was pretty much always a satisfactory interceptor.
It was radical for a Japanese plane when specified - with focus on ROC - and it had powerful engines.
folding wings, nor catapults, just arrester gear. In spite of being unarmored, it was pretty much always a satisfactory interceptor.
It was radical for a Japanese plane when specified - with focus on ROC - and it had powerful engines.
RE: Jack vs. George CV-Based Model
ORIGINAL: el cid again
The JAAF was going to put Ki-44 Tojos on its carriers late in the war. They were not going to bother with
folding wings, nor catapults, just arrester gear. In spite of being unarmored, it was pretty much always a satisfactory interceptor.
It was radical for a Japanese plane when specified - with focus on ROC - and it had powerful engines.
That would have been a huge step up from the Ki-76 (roughly equivalent to the Fiesler Storch): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokusai_Ki-76
I've never seen any records of the IJA escort carriers having any arresting gear, nor hangers. If Tojos were ever considered, it was closer to the realm of fantasy than any kind of serious proposal.
Bill
WIS Development Team