Matrix Games Forums

Was thinking about those 'what if's' of Japanese Naval Air and got to thinking about the Jack. In a purely hypothetical manner, would it have made a good CV-Based Fighter? What do you think of it compared to other late-war Japanese Naval Fighters (Zero, George, and Jack). Just curious. I wouldn't (Never, EVER! [:'(] ) be thinking of using something like this on Japanese CVs. PURELY hypothetical...

OK...maybe not...

 "I wouldn't (Never, EVER! [:'(] ) be thinking of using something like this on Japanese CVs"
 
I call BS!!![:D]

The J2M was short ranged, which would have limited it's offensive use.  Also, at least early versions had issues with the main landing gear, which wouldn't have been good for carrier landings.

How about the later versions/variants? Perhaps that problem could be reflected in a higher Service Rating.

Perhaps more research goes into George to bring it forward?

Never, EVER would I think of something like this...

Would the Jack become a very good CAP fighter over the CVs due to its high climb rate vs Zeros?? As an Allied player I like the Corsair as CV CAP fighter as it performs better than the various Hellcats. Plus, its not so numerous to be on all Allied carriers.

I 'think' you could use the Jack strictly as a CVL fighter to limit its use. Since you like the 2 CV and a CVL in a CarDiv John, the CVLs could have their fighter groups withdrawn on a particular date and come back with just the Jack.

later in the war, it would be a good CAP fighter....GP

The A7M Sam was the intended next generation carrier fighter.

To operate from a carrier, a plane needs to have a tougher landing gear as well as a reinforced rear fuselage to take the shocks from the catching the wires. The Sea Hurricane and Seafire had problems with fuselage failures.

Bill

I wouldn't (Never, EVER! ) be thinking of using something like this on Japanese CVs. PURELY hypothetical...

OK...maybe not...

When initially conceived by Japanese aeronautical engineers the J2M carried 4 x 30mm machine cannon, could literally turn on a dime, climbed at 10k ft per minute, had a range of 2000 km fully loaded, an automated air to air warning system and autopilot, and an intimate cabin behind the pilot complete with geisha girl so that the pilot would be refreshed when he finally entered the combat area. Absolutely amazing aircraft for the time.

Strangely, reality intruded.

In my opinion, the J2M could have been a really nice carrier base plane in 43. I mean in front of F6F3, the J2M2 is far better than A6M, the high SR isn't a problem because carrier based planes aren't suppose to fly everytime like land base aircraft do. The range with drop tank is enough to escort corretly and his good climbing performance make him the best for CAP.

The J2M2 is more like a F4U, the best carrier plane but not being able to land on carrier because of weight, bad vision and bad landing gear.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Was thinking about those 'what if's' of Japanese Naval Air and got to thinking about the Jack. In a purely hypothetical manner, would it have made a good CV-Based Fighter? What do you think of it compared to other late-war Japanese Naval Fighters (Zero, George, and Jack). Just curious. I wouldn't (Never, EVER! [:'(] ) be thinking of using something like this on Japanese CVs. PURELY hypothetical...

OK...maybe not...

Nooo, not goodnik. As people have said, it was an interceptor. It had exactly the wrong characterists for a Naval fighter: no legs, weak undercarriage, no capacity. Poor choice. I wouldn't (never, EVER) think of using something like this on Japanese CVs. [8D][8D] [:D][:D]

Ciao. John

OK. Just got back from a quick 24-Hour break from reality. We went up to Estes Park and used our pop-up camper for the 2nd time. Had a good time. The boys got to go-kart, race down a HUGE slide, bumper boat, and have a grand old time.

If the Jack isn't a CV-Aircraft----in any form----what about George? Truly don't know much about Mr. A7M Sam...how about it as a performer?