Sounds like the same dogma about Muto has been posted in several web sites and has its origins in late war Japanese propaganda. I wonder which USN units were allegedly involved? Should not be too hard to find our given the involvement of UK CVs. In that event one ought to be able to find out how many F4Us, F6Fs or whatever were lost.
Back to you on the Janes' thing. The phrase "easily bested" strikes me as hyperbole, since the N1K2 was a slower, less reliable ac than most US models. IIRC, it could "easily" best the F6F, but not the F4U, P47, or P51. On a good day the N1K2 might have been a worthy adversary for these otehr models.
Questions regarding Production
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
Flying fortress
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 4:07 am
According to this Japanese book "The six shidenkais" I had painstakingly translated, {Isbn4-7698-2283-9 c0195 Y(I can't make the Yen mark)838E} It gives a very accurate account of the battles that the 343rd went through. This is how I found out that it was Maj. applegate's F4u who was able to shoot down Muto's N1k2.
The battle on 3/19/1945 started with a japanese scout plane "Saiun" sighting a american strike force headed for japan. The pilot of the Saiun, Takada (I have no idea how to read the first name) along with 2other crew reported the presence of about 100us planes, and after experiencing engine trouble, they were surrounded by us fighters. With his damaged aircraft, Takada desperately attempts to ram one of the attacking fighters, hits one, and bounces off to hit another. Resulting in 2us and 1japanese planes going down. Later in the year showa 49 (Could anyone tell me what year this is) a memorial was built.
Immediately after recieving the report the all of 343rds planes are scrambled. (group 701-16planes, hayashi's 407th-17planes, kanno's 301st-21 planes joins the 7 N1k1 shidens already on CAP.--total 61planes)
This day the "setonaikai"- bay of seto- was filled with colorful dye in the ocean. The brown marked Japanese, and the colorful red yellow, and other colors marked us. This day we lost 48 f6fs and f4us and lost 4 sb2cs as well.
I will keep looking for additional sources, but I am pretty sure this result is quite accurate--combined with veteran pilots with good planes--even with lowgrade fuel which severely degraded the plane's performance, the 343rd and the Yokosuka were still deadly. But fortunately for us, the japanese had only 2 good squadrons that could take on allied planes and not get wiped out--the 343rd and the Yokosuka squad.
In the end both of these squads were virtually steamrolled by us as they had to fly against numerically impossible odds.
By the way muto was an interesting story. After the loss of Sugita, Genda did a pilot swap with yokosuka for muto to replace sugita. That's how muto ended up in the 343rd.
The battle on 3/19/1945 started with a japanese scout plane "Saiun" sighting a american strike force headed for japan. The pilot of the Saiun, Takada (I have no idea how to read the first name) along with 2other crew reported the presence of about 100us planes, and after experiencing engine trouble, they were surrounded by us fighters. With his damaged aircraft, Takada desperately attempts to ram one of the attacking fighters, hits one, and bounces off to hit another. Resulting in 2us and 1japanese planes going down. Later in the year showa 49 (Could anyone tell me what year this is) a memorial was built.
Immediately after recieving the report the all of 343rds planes are scrambled. (group 701-16planes, hayashi's 407th-17planes, kanno's 301st-21 planes joins the 7 N1k1 shidens already on CAP.--total 61planes)
This day the "setonaikai"- bay of seto- was filled with colorful dye in the ocean. The brown marked Japanese, and the colorful red yellow, and other colors marked us. This day we lost 48 f6fs and f4us and lost 4 sb2cs as well.
I will keep looking for additional sources, but I am pretty sure this result is quite accurate--combined with veteran pilots with good planes--even with lowgrade fuel which severely degraded the plane's performance, the 343rd and the Yokosuka were still deadly. But fortunately for us, the japanese had only 2 good squadrons that could take on allied planes and not get wiped out--the 343rd and the Yokosuka squad.
In the end both of these squads were virtually steamrolled by us as they had to fly against numerically impossible odds.
By the way muto was an interesting story. After the loss of Sugita, Genda did a pilot swap with yokosuka for muto to replace sugita. That's how muto ended up in the 343rd.
-
Flying fortress
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 4:07 am
OK, here's the P51D and H specs. Both FAR superior to the N1K2.
On to the others....
OK, this from some F4U-4 fanboy website comparing the F4U to the P51. All these stats are of course verifiable in other sources.
And of course, these speeds and climb rates are the theoretical maxima. But since the Shiden routinely had poor quality fuel, and their engine reliability stank, one would not expect them to perform at or near spec as much as the Allied ones.
(MUCH much faster than the Shiden)Specs of the P-51H-5-NA:
One Packard Merlin V-1650-9 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid cooled engine rated at 1380 hp for takeoff and a a war emergency power of 2218 hp at 10,200 feet and 1900 hp at 20,000 feet with
water injection.
Performance: Maximum speed was 444 mph at 5000 feet, 463 mph at 15,000 feet, and 487 mph at 25,000 feet.
(That beats the tar out of the N1K1's climb rate of 7 minutes 50 seconds to 19.9K feet).Range in clean condition was 755 miles at 359 mph at 10,000 feet, 1975 miles at 239 mph at 10,000 feet. Range with two 62.5 Imp. gall. drop tanks was 1150 miles at 339 mph at 10,000 feet and 1530 miles at 243 mph at 10,000 feet.
An altitude of 5000 feet could be reached in 1.5 minutes, 15,000 feet in 5 minutes.
(Comparable to Shiden)Service ceiling was 41,600 feet.
And, from the USAF museum:Weights: 6585 pounds empty, 9500 pounds normal loaded, and 11,500 pounds maximum. Dimensions: Wing span was 37 feet 0 inches, length was 33 feet 4 inches, height was 8 feet 10 inches, and wing area was 235 square feet.
Again, much superior in all respects to the Shiden. I noted with interest the Shiden's two rifle-caliber popguns and 2x20mm. Clearly not a heavily armed plane.SPECIFICATIONS P-51D
Span: 37 ft. 0 in.
Length: 32 ft. 3 in.
Height: 13 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 12,100 lbs. max.
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns and ten 5 in. rockets or 2,000 lbs. of bombs.
Engine: Packard built Rolls-Royce "Merlin" V-1650 of 1,695 hp.
Cost: $54,000
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 437 mph.
Cruising speed: 275 mph.
Range: 1,000 miles
Service Ceiling: 41,900 ft.
On to the others....
OK, this from some F4U-4 fanboy website comparing the F4U to the P51. All these stats are of course verifiable in other sources.
Again. MUCH much faster than the Shiden. Better armed. Greater climb rate.Maximum speed:
F4U-1: 417 mph @ 19,900 ft.
F4U-4: 446 mph @ 26,200 ft.
The -4 displays a 29 mph speed advantage, but more importantly, does it at a considerably greater altitude. The F4U-4 is actually 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the Mustang’s best altitude.
Rate of climb:
F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.
While the -4 has a more powerful engine, it also weighs more than the F4U-1. This marked increase in climb rate can be attributed to the more efficient 4 blade propeller as well as the higher power of the up-rated powerplant. The increase moves the Corsair into stellar company with fighters such as the P-38L and the F7F Tigercat. The F4U-4 climbs at a rate 20% better than the P-51D.
There is little doubt that the Corsair was likely the greatest load carrying fighter of its era. There is little to compare to it except perhaps late-war models of the P-47, which still fall somewhat short in maximum load.
And of course, these speeds and climb rates are the theoretical maxima. But since the Shiden routinely had poor quality fuel, and their engine reliability stank, one would not expect them to perform at or near spec as much as the Allied ones.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Clearly the F8F was not required. The US planes were far superior. If the "easily best" quote comes from a Jane's volume, clearly the editor screwed the pooch on that assessment.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
-
Flying fortress
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 4:07 am
Just for the sake of argument, the p-51 series was a great one combining good firepower, armor, speed, and range. Then again if it's looking at the specs, the f2a buffalo and the p36 , and the p39s should be able to hold it's own or best the zero. But they didn't. They had about the same top speed, armament, except for the us having armor and the japanese having longer range. The buffalo and the p36 were retired and the p39s were mediocre at best. Why? poor tactics, poorly trained pilots when compared to japan, lack of maneuverability, and other factors all contributed to the early setbacks for us.
The thing about n1ks, especially n1k2s and ki84s were they still combined the sterling manueverability of the zeros, yet had decent speed, power, firepower (not the early versions with the 2 12.7mm + 2 20mms but the n1k2s with 4 20s and eventually 6 20s, though forutnately for us the ones with 6 20mms never saw service.), and armor (though not as much as the us). Spec wise, it's obvious that the n1k2s and ki84s were not all that great, but in the air, they were good and proved that it could hold its own against us fighters.
Anyone played cfs2? Believe me, as a us pilot in a late war fighter, you really hate to see n1k2s. They are a huge pain the the a**.
Although the p51s, p47, were good speed fighters with excellent roll rate, they were not as maneuverable as n1ks or ki84s. Even in Europe, our tactics were to use slashing attacks to take out the enemy (which we did very well) because when engaged in a dogfight, the p51s and the p47s quickly lost speed and would lose the advantage of speed. We used superiority in numbers, armor, and their tactics which used the strongest points of the p51s and the p47s--speed--climing ability--diving ability-- But if a skilled japanese pilot (there weren't too many of those at the end of the war) could use the strengths of the n1ks and the ki84s--being able to keep up with the satch-weave, they stood a good chance against the us, and with their 4 20mms, a short encounter with one could be quite deadly. Which is the reason the 343rd fought so well against f4us and f6fs.
The exception is the f4u. It was a very good all around fighter with everything. Now, they would have definitely be a verrry good match with n1ks and ki84s.
The thing about n1ks, especially n1k2s and ki84s were they still combined the sterling manueverability of the zeros, yet had decent speed, power, firepower (not the early versions with the 2 12.7mm + 2 20mms but the n1k2s with 4 20s and eventually 6 20s, though forutnately for us the ones with 6 20mms never saw service.), and armor (though not as much as the us). Spec wise, it's obvious that the n1k2s and ki84s were not all that great, but in the air, they were good and proved that it could hold its own against us fighters.
Anyone played cfs2? Believe me, as a us pilot in a late war fighter, you really hate to see n1k2s. They are a huge pain the the a**.
Although the p51s, p47, were good speed fighters with excellent roll rate, they were not as maneuverable as n1ks or ki84s. Even in Europe, our tactics were to use slashing attacks to take out the enemy (which we did very well) because when engaged in a dogfight, the p51s and the p47s quickly lost speed and would lose the advantage of speed. We used superiority in numbers, armor, and their tactics which used the strongest points of the p51s and the p47s--speed--climing ability--diving ability-- But if a skilled japanese pilot (there weren't too many of those at the end of the war) could use the strengths of the n1ks and the ki84s--being able to keep up with the satch-weave, they stood a good chance against the us, and with their 4 20mms, a short encounter with one could be quite deadly. Which is the reason the 343rd fought so well against f4us and f6fs.
The exception is the f4u. It was a very good all around fighter with everything. Now, they would have definitely be a verrry good match with n1ks and ki84s.
-
Flying fortress
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 4:07 am
But I'm sure we will continue this at a later time.:pMost of what you posted is half-right. The P39 WAS a better plane than the Zeke... at low altitude. In the realm of "couldawouldshoulda," had the darned turbosupercharger been left in the thing, it would have been the best fighter of the war until late 1943. The F2 WAS as fast as the A6M... in the early unarmored variants. The F2A3 (which fought at Midway) was considerably slower, owing to increased weight. The P36 as designed was faster than the Zeke, and did not tend to burn energy as fast in combat, but by 1939 it was clear that the future was in new engines/ increased thrust and high speed aircraft (in part because it was assumed that faster a/c would be needed to deal with bombers). With the exception of the P39, of these a/c the speed difference between the A6M and the others was marginal... not enough of an advantage to really give the higher sspeed a/c a strong edge. One plane often overlooked is the F4F because it's max level flight airspeed was slower than the A6M. At speeds in excess of 280 mph, however, it's maneuverability was comparable to the A6M (whose maneuverability actually declined with increased speed). In a turning dive in excess of 350 mph, the F4F was both faster and more maneuverable (faster because the F4F could exceed 380 mph in a dive... at which speed the A6Ms usually broke up).
Frankly I find it hard to believe anyone would defend the N1. It was in fact a poor accelerator, mediocre climber, inadequately armed, insufficiently fast pig... not the svelt keeps-airspeed-no-matter-how-you-fly-it greyhound that you imagine it to be. It was barely adequate to contain the F6F. (And the F6F was, frankly, a mediocre aircraft).
The Ki-84 is the ONLY aircraft manufactured by Japan in WW2 that excites my interest. With a top speed of just over 400 mph it actually had a prayer of catching a B29 (the N1 had a whole 14 mph over a high flying B29), and airspeed to make it a worthy opponent to any of the combatants top-line a/c. It had 12.7mm MGs and 20 mm cannons, so it packed much more punch than the crummy N1.
Neither the N1 or the Ki-84 came close to the maneuverability of the A6M. The Ki-84 was comparable in mvr to the P47. The N1 comparable to the F6F. Neither of these Japanese models had either the roll rate, or faster times to 180 direction change than the F4U or the P51 at high speed. Both these American a/c were both more maneuverable and faster. At this point in the war, however, maneuverability was less often of importance than speed. When vastly different a/c encountered each other, a maneuver maximizing model vs an energy maximizing model, the nearly-invariant winner was the energy ship. Were this NOT the case, one would have expected the Oscar, or better still the Sopwith Camel, to have swept the skies during WW2.
As to maneuverability and tactics. I've been down this road many times before. The USAAF and USAF has emphasized speed over mvr for 60 years because the high-speed a/c controls the fight. In the early months of the war the P40 in the hands of the AVG ATE all the Japanese maneuver models (if you believe Erik Schilling this included A6Ms, but I'm not convinced they weren't the even more maneuverable but largely worthless Oscar).
This is also one of the reason I think vectored thrust a/c are a dead end. But that's a whole 'nother debate.
Frankly I find it hard to believe anyone would defend the N1. It was in fact a poor accelerator, mediocre climber, inadequately armed, insufficiently fast pig... not the svelt keeps-airspeed-no-matter-how-you-fly-it greyhound that you imagine it to be. It was barely adequate to contain the F6F. (And the F6F was, frankly, a mediocre aircraft).
The Ki-84 is the ONLY aircraft manufactured by Japan in WW2 that excites my interest. With a top speed of just over 400 mph it actually had a prayer of catching a B29 (the N1 had a whole 14 mph over a high flying B29), and airspeed to make it a worthy opponent to any of the combatants top-line a/c. It had 12.7mm MGs and 20 mm cannons, so it packed much more punch than the crummy N1.
Neither the N1 or the Ki-84 came close to the maneuverability of the A6M. The Ki-84 was comparable in mvr to the P47. The N1 comparable to the F6F. Neither of these Japanese models had either the roll rate, or faster times to 180 direction change than the F4U or the P51 at high speed. Both these American a/c were both more maneuverable and faster. At this point in the war, however, maneuverability was less often of importance than speed. When vastly different a/c encountered each other, a maneuver maximizing model vs an energy maximizing model, the nearly-invariant winner was the energy ship. Were this NOT the case, one would have expected the Oscar, or better still the Sopwith Camel, to have swept the skies during WW2.
As to maneuverability and tactics. I've been down this road many times before. The USAAF and USAF has emphasized speed over mvr for 60 years because the high-speed a/c controls the fight. In the early months of the war the P40 in the hands of the AVG ATE all the Japanese maneuver models (if you believe Erik Schilling this included A6Ms, but I'm not convinced they weren't the even more maneuverable but largely worthless Oscar).
This is also one of the reason I think vectored thrust a/c are a dead end. But that's a whole 'nother debate.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
B-29
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97
Japanese aircraft
J7W Shinden x 81
Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 106
Japanese aircraft losses
J7W Shinden x 1 destroyed
J7W Shinden x 4 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress x 11 destroyed
B-29 Superfortress x 27 damaged
PO2 B.Sugiyama of 30th Ftr.Sentai is credited with kill number 2
Port hits 3
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 1
Attacking Level Bombers:
11 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
18 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
18 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
8 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
15 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
12 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97
Japanese aircraft
J7W Shinden x 81
Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 106
Japanese aircraft losses
J7W Shinden x 1 destroyed
J7W Shinden x 4 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress x 11 destroyed
B-29 Superfortress x 27 damaged
PO2 B.Sugiyama of 30th Ftr.Sentai is credited with kill number 2
Port hits 3
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 1
Attacking Level Bombers:
11 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
18 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
18 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
8 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
15 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
12 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Very interesting...
Originally posted by Mogami
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97
Japanese aircraft
J7W Shinden x 81
Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 106
Japanese aircraft losses
J7W Shinden x 1 destroyed
J7W Shinden x 4 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress x 11 destroyed
B-29 Superfortress x 27 damaged
PO2 B.Sugiyama of 30th Ftr.Sentai is credited with kill number 2
Port hits 3
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 1
Attacking Level Bombers:
11 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
18 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
18 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
8 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
15 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
12 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 23000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very interesting...
What happens if you alter altitudes and test several times using each alt?
BTW. such looses are unacceptable from bomber group standpoint...
Leo "Apollo11"
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
The combat losses for the Japanese seem too low. Integrated f/c system on the 29s should have resulted in roughly 10x the number of casualties seen in this AAR.
Even light damage to a Shinden engine (with poor reliability at best to begin with) would result in the destruction of the plane. And the damage rate is far too low. Should be about 1 for 1 when attacking B29 bomber boxes.
Also I do not understand why there are all these "3 bombers" and "2 bombers" targeted. USAAF bomb groups did not fly that way as a matter of doctrine or even as a frequent matter of fact.
Even light damage to a Shinden engine (with poor reliability at best to begin with) would result in the destruction of the plane. And the damage rate is far too low. Should be about 1 for 1 when attacking B29 bomber boxes.
Also I do not understand why there are all these "3 bombers" and "2 bombers" targeted. USAAF bomb groups did not fly that way as a matter of doctrine or even as a frequent matter of fact.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Any historic info on B-29 fire control system and remote turrets?
Hi all,
turrets in almost all previous bombers) proved big failure (including fire
control system)...
Anyone knows anything more about this?
Leo "Apollo11"
I think I read somewhere that remote turrets in B-29 (as opposed to mannedOriginally posted by mdiehl
The combat losses for the Japanese seem too low. Integrated f/c system on the 29s should have resulted in roughly 10x the number of casualties seen in this AAR.
Even light damage to a Shinden engine (with poor reliability at best to begin with) would result in the destruction of the plane. And the damage rate is far too low. Should be about 1 for 1 when attacking B29 bomber boxes.
Also I do not understand why there are all these "3 bombers" and "2 bombers" targeted. USAAF bomb groups did not fly that way as a matter of doctrine or even as a frequent matter of fact.
turrets in almost all previous bombers) proved big failure (including fire
control system)...
Anyone knows anything more about this?
Leo "Apollo11"
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
They did not. The defensive armaments were mostly removed owing to lack of aerial opposition. There were some initial bugs in the observation-bubble to gun turret slave systems but these were worked out in early 1945. There was also an integrated fire control system where multiple turrets could be slaved to a single observation bubble to concentrate fire on a single approch target. An analog computation device allowed the turrets to track and accurately lead a/c at speeds in the 600 mph range (bearing in mind that the relative speed between such a/c and a high flying B29 was only 250 mph).
There is (was) a B29 fire control officer working in the B29 hangar at Pima Air and Space Museum. His complaint was that the B29s were not allowed to bomb from the same altitudes as B17s. He was confident that he could track and accurately lay fire with 8x.50cal out to about 1000 yards ANY aircraft in the German or Japanese arsenals. He said the tracking only became difficult when the relative positions were so close that the rate of deflction angle change was very very high and other B29s got in the way.
There is (was) a B29 fire control officer working in the B29 hangar at Pima Air and Space Museum. His complaint was that the B29s were not allowed to bomb from the same altitudes as B17s. He was confident that he could track and accurately lay fire with 8x.50cal out to about 1000 yards ANY aircraft in the German or Japanese arsenals. He said the tracking only became difficult when the relative positions were so close that the rate of deflction angle change was very very high and other B29s got in the way.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
B29 Specifications:
http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b29.html
And here are some comments on the teething problems:Dimensions: Wing Span 142' 3", Wing Area 1,736 Sq.Ft., Lenght 99', Max Height 27' 9"
Weight: 70,140 Lbs. (empty) - 135,000 Lbs. gross with a 12,000 Lbs. payload
Powerplant: 4x 2,200 Hp - 18-cylinder Wright R-3350 Cyclone with 8x GE B-11 Superchargers
Range: 3,250 miles @ 25,000 ft. with a 5,000 lb. payload (4,100 with auxiliary tanks)
Max Speed: 375 mph. @ 25,000 ft.
Service Ceiling: 31.850 ft.
Climb rate: 38 minutes to 25,000 ft. with full load
Fuel load: 8,198 gallons, raised to 9,548 with auxiliary tanks fitted in the bomb bays
Defensive armament: 10x .50-cal. remote-controlled machine guns, 1x 20mm. cannon (later removed)
Bomb capacity: 5,000 lbs. over a 1,600-mile radius at high altitude, 12,000 lbs. at medium altitude
Crew: 11 (pilot, co-pilot, bombardier, flight engineer, radio operator, navigator, 3 gunners in the Central Fire Control station, radar operator, tail gunner)
http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b29.html
These problems were worked out by late 1943.Then there were problems with the huge, 161/2' Hamilton Standard propellers which caused "run-a-way" engines, problems with the 4 remote controlled gun "barbettes, problems with the "fire control blisters" where gunners were stationed to aim the barbettes; the blisters sometimes blew out when the craft was pressurized and flying at high altitude. (Gunners were advised to wear a safety line in order to avoid being blown overboard if a blister popped). There were problems with booster controls for the rudder and problems with the radar.
The late war variants were VERY impressive. FLown from altitude it was unlikely taht any aircraft in the Japanese arsenal could catch one, much less shoot one down. Note the 400 mph airspeed at 30K feet:It was armed with the General Electric auto-computing fire control system composed of eight remotely-controlled .50 caliber machine guns installed in 4 barbettes located on the top and bottom of the fuselage fore and aft. Later models added 2 more machine guns to the top forward barbette to assist in defending against frontal attacks. Control of the 4 barbettes could be transferred to a single gunner or shared between front, right, left and top gunners. The tail-gunner controlled two more .50s plus a 20mm cannon. It was estimated the tail gunner accounted for 75% of all enemy planes destroyed by the Superfortress. One reason for this was the 20mm cannon. Another was the slow closing rate of an enemy approaching from the rear which allowed more time for the tail gunner to sight on the intruder.
Boeing B-29A Superfortress
Dimensions:
Wing span: 141 ft. 3 in (43.05 m)
Length: 99 ft. 0 in (30.17 m)
Height: 29 ft. 7 in (9.02 m)
Wing Area: 1,736 sq ft (529.13 sq m)
Weights:
Empty: 72,208 lb (32,752 kg)
Maximum Take-Off: 140,000 lb (63,502 kg)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 399 m.p.h. (642 km/h) at 30,000 ft (9,144 m)
Service Ceiling: 23,950 ft (7,299 m)
Combat Ceiling: 36,150 ft (11,018 m)
Normal Range: 4,200 miles (6,759 km)
(with 18,000 lbs. (8,164 kg) bombs)
Powerplant:
Four Wright Aeronautical R-3350-57 Twin Row Radial
2,200 hp (1,640 kw) take-off, 2,500 hp (1,864) WE, Air Cooled
Armament:
Eight or twelve 50-cal. machine-guns. One 20mm cannon.
Maximum bomb Load: 20,000 lbs. (9,0710 kg)
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Secret weapon
Little known Japanese fighter.
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97
Japanese aircraft
A8M1-Mog x 108
Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 103
Japanese aircraft losses
A8M1-Mog x 1 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress x 31 destroyed
B-29 Superfortress x 27 damaged
PO2 G.Obayashi of 30th Ftr.Sentai is credited with kill number 2
Port hits 7
Port fuel hits 3
Attacking Level Bombers:
19 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
22 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
13 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
8 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
1 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97
Japanese aircraft
A8M1-Mog x 108
Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 103
Japanese aircraft losses
A8M1-Mog x 1 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress x 31 destroyed
B-29 Superfortress x 27 damaged
PO2 G.Obayashi of 30th Ftr.Sentai is credited with kill number 2
Port hits 7
Port fuel hits 3
Attacking Level Bombers:
19 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
22 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
13 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
8 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
1 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress at 25000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Un huh. Would that be the wire-guided A8M1 anti-ballistic Rooster Booster, Mogami variant? If I recall that was a little publicized and highly secret project inspired by the US bat-guided bomb research, courtesy of a clandestine Spy Ring run by Mr. Moto. Almost won the Japanese the war too. If only the Mystery Machine had not been parked on the launch site. D@mn those meddling kids!
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
All 99's
Hi, In this action all pilots are 99's (it don't help the Japs much)
I'm going to lower the US pilots 25 at a time.
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97
Japanese aircraft
A6M8 Zeke x 108
Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 188
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M8 Zeke x 88 destroyed
A6M8 Zeke x 4 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 18 destroyed
P-51D Mustang x 2 damaged
FO R.Dionne of 11th BG is credited with kill number 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97
Japanese aircraft
A6M8 Zeke x 51
Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 164
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M8 Zeke x 49 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 4 destroyed
P-51D Mustang x 3 damaged
FO G.Brors of 5th BG is credited with kill number 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to lower the US pilots 25 at a time.
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97
Japanese aircraft
A6M8 Zeke x 108
Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 188
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M8 Zeke x 88 destroyed
A6M8 Zeke x 4 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 18 destroyed
P-51D Mustang x 2 damaged
FO R.Dionne of 11th BG is credited with kill number 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97
Japanese aircraft
A6M8 Zeke x 51
Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 164
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M8 Zeke x 49 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 4 destroyed
P-51D Mustang x 3 damaged
FO G.Brors of 5th BG is credited with kill number 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Any info about actual combat results?
Hi all,
directly from arms manufacturer's promo material)... <VBG>
But what about actual combat results?
Is there info on how many B-29s were shoot down by enemy fighters (or possibly
AAA if they flew low)?
Is there info on how many enemy fighters B-29 remote turrets shoot down (if
some of them remained before being stripped away)?
Leo "Apollo11"
P.S.
While writing this my eyes keep glancing over 1:48 diorama B-29 model I build
when I was 14 (almost 20 years ago) and which is still in great condition
(please note that 1:48 B-29 is really big plastic "thing")...
This is all nice (and for the most part it reads just like something takenOriginally posted by mdiehl
They did not. The defensive armaments were mostly removed owing to lack of aerial opposition. There were some initial bugs in the observation-bubble to gun turret slave systems but these were worked out in early 1945. There was also an integrated fire control system where multiple turrets could be slaved to a single observation bubble to concentrate fire on a single approch target. An analog computation device allowed the turrets to track and accurately lead a/c at speeds in the 600 mph range (bearing in mind that the relative speed between such a/c and a high flying B29 was only 250 mph).
There is (was) a B29 fire control officer working in the B29 hangar at Pima Air and Space Museum. His complaint was that the B29s were not allowed to bomb from the same altitudes as B17s. He was confident that he could track and accurately lay fire with 8x.50cal out to about 1000 yards ANY aircraft in the German or Japanese arsenals. He said the tracking only became difficult when the relative positions were so close that the rate of deflction angle change was very very high and other B29s got in the way.
directly from arms manufacturer's promo material)... <VBG>
But what about actual combat results?
Is there info on how many B-29s were shoot down by enemy fighters (or possibly
AAA if they flew low)?
Is there info on how many enemy fighters B-29 remote turrets shoot down (if
some of them remained before being stripped away)?
Leo "Apollo11"
P.S.
While writing this my eyes keep glancing over 1:48 diorama B-29 model I build
when I was 14 (almost 20 years ago) and which is still in great condition
(please note that 1:48 B-29 is really big plastic "thing")...
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
Well. Aviation history link just gives the facts. Doesn't say anything about effectiveness. The opine I gave on effectiveness of teh targeting computer is basically the paraphrased opinion of a B29 fire control officer. Since he flew, IIRC, 14 combat missions and had extensive pre-combat training in aerial gunnery with the thing, I've assumed he has some knowledge whereof he spoke.
I'll see what I can find for substantiating links. This will likely take a few days, as the usual Japanese propaganda about fleets of crashing Allied planes won't do for a source.
I know what you mean about 1:48. I have a ProModeler Black Cat PBY I'm itching to assemble, along with an F102. Since they are in 1:48, I'm saving money for an addition to my house.
I'll see what I can find for substantiating links. This will likely take a few days, as the usual Japanese propaganda about fleets of crashing Allied planes won't do for a source.
I know what you mean about 1:48. I have a ProModeler Black Cat PBY I'm itching to assemble, along with an F102. Since they are in 1:48, I'm saving money for an addition to my house.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?