Japanese interceptors/fighters, fav?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-13-2005, 11:44 AM

Of Japenese aircraft I would go with the same CC.

cheddar cheese · 09-14-2005, 11:05 AM

Yeah, after doing a bit of reading up on it I found it was a very capable aircraft...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-14-2005, 12:24 PM

The Japanese were very capable of making quality aircraft I think they were just lacking raw materials more than Germany was and they made similar mistakes as the Germans did.

cheddar cheese · 09-14-2005, 02:21 PM

Yep, the Raiden was supposed to be in service in late 42/early 43 but due to numourous problems (mainly engine) they werent in frontline service til late 44 at the earliest.

Jabberwocky · 09-15-2005, 01:47 AM

What about a N1K2-J Shiden-kai?

1,990 hp engine, 4 20mms and that crazy automatic manuvering system that they put on it.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-16-2005, 03:19 PM

Dont know much about a auto maneuvering system. Was it like an auto pilot or something?

carpenoctem1689 · 09-18-2005, 01:52 AM

It automatically helped the pilot in a manouver, making the force needed on the stick to throw it around less...needed some perfecting though, or so i have heard.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-18-2005, 01:18 PM

Like Pilot Assist Modules and SAS/FPS Computers then.

lesofprimus · 09-18-2005, 01:36 PM

I also say the N1K2-J....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-18-2005, 01:59 PM

That is the one I would go with. Really anythign but the Zero. I really am not a fan of it.

carpenoctem1689 · 09-18-2005, 03:43 PM

The zero was a sorry excuse for an interceptor because of its light construction. It had one thing running for it, in the interceptor role, and that was the range, which gave it a long loiter time. Its armament was rather light for interception duties as well, with small machine guns in the nose, and 20mm cannon, one in each wing, carrying only 60-100 rpg, depending on the model. That was far too light for anything with two engines, and a sturdy construction, much less anything with four engines. THe light construction and lack of armor or self sealing tanks was the ultimate demise as an interceptor for the zero. This allowed the zero to be taken down very, very easily by the gunners on bombers, or to the guns of escorts. Therefore i cant see many people, if any, thinking the zero as an interceptor, but its great qualities as a fighter early on cemented its place in my poll.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-19-2005, 05:26 AM

Early it held its own at best.

syscom3 · 09-19-2005, 10:09 AM

One of its greatest assetts in the early part of the war, was its incredibly long range. It shocked and disheartened the allies to see fighters operating so far from their bases. On more than one occasion, they figured there were aircraft carriers nearby.

Also having some of the finest pilots in the world at that time, sure didnt hurt.

Deradler.....another interesting tidbit of trivia for the Zero....... it was so maneuverable, that it could also be considered a trainer. Very forgiving to a new pilot, who could master it before he could get into trouble. When the next generation of high performance fighters began to be deployed, the Japanese discovered that their training programs was not up to par, and throwing inexperienced pilots into high performance aircraft was a recipie for disaster. I bet the Luftwaffe had the same issue late in 1944 and early 1945.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-23-2005, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Deradler.....another interesting tidbit of trivia for the Zero....... it was so maneuverable, that it could also be considered a trainer. Very forgiving to a new pilot, who could master it before he could get into trouble. When the next generation of high performance fighters began to be deployed, the Japanese discovered that their training programs was not up to par, and throwing inexperienced pilots into high performance aircraft was a recipie for disaster. I bet the Luftwaffe had the same issue late in 1944 and early 1945.

Maneuverable to about 275 mph only.