Matrix Games Forums

left and right are easy in extreme

but I can't identify the one on the middle.. a P-43?

P43 had more of a sloped backwards tail I think.

Seafire, J2M Raiden, Hellcat.

Lol I didn't think about Japanese planes; and make sense because these are all naval fighters.

EDIT: Interesting that Japan didn't build a carrier version of either the JM2 or the N1K.
This picture comes from the excellent http://www.armouredcarriers.com/ webpage
and there is a section on the FAA and it's main aircraft models.
If the British were capable of making the Seafire from the inadequate (for carrier ops) Spitfire, why would Japan kept the Zero??

http://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/ ... ines-taic/

Search for the same image you posted.

While it says Spitfire, the FAA Roundel and Bar plus you can can just make out the arrester hook.

This photograph is also in the AWM collection. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/AC0184/

ID number AC0184
Collection type Photograph
Object type Black & white
Place made Philippines
Physical description Black & white

Description Over the Philippines, a formation of aircraft led by a captured Japanese Navy interceptor fighter aircraft Mitsubishi J2M "Raiden (Thunderbolt)" allied code name "Jack", of the Technical Air Intelligence Unit, South West Pacific Area (SWPA) located at Clark Field, Luzon, Philippines from the end of January 1945. The aircraft was recovered from a makeshift airstrip in Manila when American forces recaptured the city. Other aircraft in the formation are a Royal Navy Seafire (lower left) and a US Navy Grumman Hellcat. The Mitsubishi J2M's development to full combat status was delayed by technical problems and production indecision, resulting in employment being mainly in the defence of Japan from United States army air force bombing.

See also
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/AC0211/
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/AC0180/

ORIGINAL: JeffK

http://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/ ... ines-taic/

Search for the same image you posted.

While it says Spitfire, the FAA Roundel and Bar plus you can can just make out the arrester hook.

Didn't the Seafire also have a four-bladed prop vs. the Spitfire's 3 bladed one?

Lol I didn't think about Japanese planes; and make sense because these are all naval fighters.

That's it young man, its back to plane recognition 101![:D]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: JeffK

http://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/ ... ines-taic/

Search for the same image you posted.

While it says Spitfire, the FAA Roundel and Bar plus you can can just make out the arrester hook.

Didn't the Seafire also have a four-bladed prop vs. the Spitfire's 3 bladed one?

Plenty odf Spits had 4 blade props.

Spitfire VIII

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Lol I didn't think about Japanese planes; and make sense because these are all naval fighters.

EDIT: Interesting that Japan didn't build a carrier version of either the JM2 or the N1K.
This picture comes from the excellent http://www.armouredcarriers.com/ webpage
and there is a section on the FAA and it's main aircraft models.
If the British were capable of making the Seafire from the inadequate (for carrier ops) Spitfire, why would Japan kept the Zero??

By the time the Raiden and George were ready for service, the Japanese didn't have much in the way of a carrier force and training pilots to land even Zeros on carriers was proving very challenging. The Japanese did develop the Sam as the successor to the Zero on carriers, but it was too little too late.

Most Japanese carriers by 1944 were pretty small. The Unryus were Hiryu copies which were small for fleet carriers (746 ft vs 845 for a Shokaku, and 855ft for Taiho). The IJN also had a lot of CVLs that were even smaller. They would have to come up with some kind of wing fold just to get them down the elevators and the short deck would make for a tricky take off.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

http://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/ ... ines-taic/

Search for the same image you posted.

While it says Spitfire, the FAA Roundel and Bar plus you can can just make out the arrester hook.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Didn't the Seafire also have a four-bladed prop vs. the Spitfire's 3 bladed one?

The size of the prop was dependent on the engine used. The Spitfire Mk I, II, and V used a lower power Merlin that didn't require a 4 bladed prop. The Mk VI had the same engine as the Mk V with extra supercharging for high altitude and it had a 4 bladed prop. The Mk VIII and later all had 4 bladed props with either a higher rated Merlin or a Rolls Royce Griffon engine. The Mk IX had the same engine version (though rolls Royce built) as the P-51D. Because of a shortage of RR Merlins, some Mk IXs were built with Packard built Merlins and renumbered Mk XIV (I believe it was that mark, it was up in the mid-teens).

The Seafire Mk I was a navalized Mk V and had a 3 bladed prop. Most Seafires were converted from later marks of the Spitfire which all had 4 bladed props.

Bill

Spit XVI (I have a pic somewhere), the Spit XIV had a Griffon and a 5 blade prop.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: JeffK

http://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/ ... ines-taic/

Search for the same image you posted.

While it says Spitfire, the FAA Roundel and Bar plus you can can just make out the arrester hook.

Didn't the Seafire also have a four-bladed prop vs. the Spitfire's 3 bladed one?

Plenty of Spits had 4 blade props.

Seafire II & III had Merlin 46/32 with cropped supercharger implellors for improved performance at low levels. They were fitted with four bladed props to handle the extra power compared with the Spitfire V fitted with a standard Merlin 46 and three bladed prop.

The Spitfire didn't get the four bladed prop until the Mk VIII/IX with the higher powered Merlin 60 series engines.

Edit: As Bill said........

You guys know your props better than a theatre manager ...[:)]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Lol I didn't think about Japanese planes; and make sense because these are all naval fighters.

EDIT: Interesting that Japan didn't build a carrier version of either the JM2 or the N1K.
This picture comes from the excellent http://www.armouredcarriers.com/ webpage
and there is a section on the FAA and it's main aircraft models.
If the British were capable of making the Seafire from the inadequate (for carrier ops) Spitfire, why would Japan kept the Zero??

By the time the Raiden and George were ready for service, the Japanese didn't have much in the way of a carrier force and training pilots to land even Zeros on carriers was proving very challenging. The Japanese did develop the Sam as the successor to the Zero on carriers, but it was too little too late.

Most Japanese carriers by 1944 were pretty small. The Unryus were Hiryu copies which were small for fleet carriers (746 ft vs 845 for a Shokaku, and 855ft for Taiho). The IJN also had a lot of CVLs that were even smaller. They would have to come up with some kind of wing fold just to get them down the elevators and the short deck would make for a tricky take off.

Just to add a little bit more to what Bill said -- carrier-based aircraft are designed to be much stronger than land-based planes, since they have to survive repeated slams into a carrier deck over the course of their service life. This added structural strength, in turn, makes carrier aircraft heavier than comparable land-based planes. The Seafire had added structural elements which made it stronger, and heavier, than it Spitfire equivalent. As a result, Seafires were always a bit behind in performance compared to their Spitfire stablemates.

The J2M and N1K were designed as land-based aircraft - structural redesigns would have been needed to make them carrier-capable, and any resulting redesign would have come out heavier than the land-based originals. A carrier-based N1K was proposed, but the Kawanishi design team never got around to working on it (they had their hands full trying to get the prototype N1K-5j completed), and the IJN was counting on the A7M anyway.

Planes that are successful land- and carrier-based aircraft almost always start out as carrier-based (e.g., F4U Corsair, F-4 Phantom, A-7 Corsair II).

I agree, but when you read all the ingenuity that the British had in finding a short term solution to their significant challenges, then you have to question if the Japanese did enough. I once again highly recommend http://www.armouredcarriers.com/ webpage.
By early WW2 they didn't have anything other than Sea Gladiators, plus an emergency program that would yield the Fulmar. Seeing the gap, they quickly decided to convert RAF Battle of Britain leftover Hurricanes and Spitfires into some working, if highly compromised, designs. The early Seafires were prone to deck landing crashes, both were very short ranged, neither had folding wings (early version), Sea Hurricanes didn't fit in the elevators, etc. But they worked out solutions like using the Fulmars for long patrols while keeping the Sea Hurricanes ready on deck to launch when the enemy was spotted.

And it can be argued that Japan was in a different situation, having a working design in the Zero, but overall, you can see more rigidity in their problem solving compared to the Allies. By the way technology was advancing, the Zero replacement should had been ready by late 1942/ early 1943

I've heard (I know) that the most efficient arrangement (in theory, excluding certain details of reality) is a single blade prop. For obvious reasons that wouldn't work. Nonetheless two bladed props were entirely appropriate for the early (WWI) engines. Engine development outstripped propeller design and it became necessary to add blades in order to express the full power of the more advanced engines. Ergo the highest performing engines tended to be at their best with more blades. A P-51, because of its streamlining and relative lack of lift, performed best with 5 blades with a RR engine. A Spit with abundant lift but with corresponding greater air resistance maxed out with 4 blades. I know, they had 5 blades in the end and I expect to be shredded into little itty bitty unrecognizable green pieces but sometimes I just feel like a nut.

Which itty bitty green piece do we stomp first.[:'(]

Not long ago, read an interesting article about the Westland Whirlwind 2E fighter.

Seems the props used for the initial trials were not standard, and they lost about 30 mph when production props were fitted, something about a .001" difference in the airfoil section. (I didnt understand it all, may have had other differences)

From my understanding of props, the more blades a prop has, the more turbulence each blade has to go through and thus decrease efficiency. That's why many general aviation airplanes with three blades are actually slower in cruise than two bladed ones, but their climb performance is better. Otherwise, what the green iguana said.