Japanese Secret Projects:Experimental Aircraft of the IJA & IJN 1939-1945
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,597
- Reaction score
- 6,844
About "Hitachi He-Type Heavy Bomber" , I find following information in Japanese site.
http://ameblo.jp/none145/entry-11024257688.html
1943年頃迄は、独逸（ドイツ）から日本、日本から独逸（ドイツ）には個々の海上船舶を用いて連絡する事があり、例えば日立航空機とハインケル社の大型爆撃機He-177型に関する技術提携の為に同社のクルト・シュミット技師や機体構造のプレス加工技術指導にヘンシェル社のフランツ・ポール技師やその他多くの技術者との交流がこの海上船舶によって行われた。
There was a case that Germany and Japan make a contact using marine shipping until around 1943. For example visit to Japan of Kurt Schmidt engineer of Heinkel company for technological tie-up about large bomber He-177 type of the Hitachi airplane and Heinkel company and visit to Japan of Franz Paul engineer of Henschel company for pressing technical guidance of the fuselage structure were performed by marine shipping.
ED's volume 2 include impressive 3 side view of Hitachi "He-Type" Heavy Bomber.
http://ameblo.jp/none145/entry-11024257688.html
1943年頃迄は、独逸（ドイツ）から日本、日本から独逸（ドイツ）には個々の海上船舶を用いて連絡する事があり、例えば日立航空機とハインケル社の大型爆撃機He-177型に関する技術提携の為に同社のクルト・シュミット技師や機体構造のプレス加工技術指導にヘンシェル社のフランツ・ポール技師やその他多くの技術者との交流がこの海上船舶によって行われた。
There was a case that Germany and Japan make a contact using marine shipping until around 1943. For example visit to Japan of Kurt Schmidt engineer of Heinkel company for technological tie-up about large bomber He-177 type of the Hitachi airplane and Heinkel company and visit to Japan of Franz Paul engineer of Henschel company for pressing technical guidance of the fuselage structure were performed by marine shipping.
ED's volume 2 include impressive 3 side view of Hitachi "He-Type" Heavy Bomber.
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,597
- Reaction score
- 6,844
- Joined
- 29 August 2010
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 281
Well, Amazon (U.S.) finally got stock. My copy is "Preparing for Shipment". 
foiling
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 12 August 2007
- Messages
- 365
- Reaction score
- 131
Blackite, thanks for sharing. This side view of the Kawanishi KX-03 with the Hughes Hercules & Lockheed Galaxy is breath-taking. A wonderful drawing of an amazing monster, really quite elegantly imposing. Who is the artist?
pathology_doc
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Messages
- 1,561
- Reaction score
- 1,415
Got mine last week but managed to hold off on reading it until I had a quiet weekend to myself.
I have to admit, I'm somewhat disappointed. The proofing and editing seemed "off", leading to some very clumsy sentences (and at times even paragraphs), but the other major problem is that for some of the aircraft bought or attempted to be sourced from abroad (e.g. the four-engined He177 variant), our esteemed colleague has told us almost everything about the airplanes' foreign development history and very little if anything about how the design was evolved or modified while in Japanese hands (and by whom).
The same goes for some of the indigenous Japanese designs, in which we get a full developmental history of the service aircraft (built, flown and operated against enemies) from which the design was evolved but very little on the actual Secret Project. I accept that in some cases this is because the relevant data were reduced to ashes sometime before 15 August 1945, but at times this comes across as padding.
On the other hand, many of the projects for which good development histories are available (and some for which they are not) are interesting, bordering on the bizarre, and bonus points are due for providing tabulated summaries of dimensions and performance (whether realised or projected) and to what stage the project progressed (if any). One also gets the feeling as a unifying thread that much as with the Luftwaffe's design/procurement cycle, there were inter-service rivalries and top-down interference that led to enormous and unaffordable waste and duplication (for example, the idea that anyone in those days could possibly run TWO Manhattan Projects not just in parallel but in secret competition with each other just beggars the imagination), and much effort was also expended going up blind alleys best left unexplored (the Americans - and to a lesser extent the British, once the immediate threat to Britain had evaporated - could afford this; Germany and Japan could not, and even less so as the war went on). In addition, both Germany and Japan seem to have been beset with difficulties in developing reliable powerplants for their next-generation aircraft while the British and Americans, for all the various failures they had, never seemed short of an engine to turn to (or to improve to ever-higher levels of performance).
One also sadly gets the idea that Germany and Japan were ultimately content to fight their own separate wars, despite the fact that they had the same enemies in common. I suppose that was a result of having the national ideologies that they did, but whatever the case, the almost complete lack of useful co-operation between two initially very formidable enemies is something for which the Allies can be thankful.
I have to admit, I'm somewhat disappointed. The proofing and editing seemed "off", leading to some very clumsy sentences (and at times even paragraphs), but the other major problem is that for some of the aircraft bought or attempted to be sourced from abroad (e.g. the four-engined He177 variant), our esteemed colleague has told us almost everything about the airplanes' foreign development history and very little if anything about how the design was evolved or modified while in Japanese hands (and by whom).
The same goes for some of the indigenous Japanese designs, in which we get a full developmental history of the service aircraft (built, flown and operated against enemies) from which the design was evolved but very little on the actual Secret Project. I accept that in some cases this is because the relevant data were reduced to ashes sometime before 15 August 1945, but at times this comes across as padding.
On the other hand, many of the projects for which good development histories are available (and some for which they are not) are interesting, bordering on the bizarre, and bonus points are due for providing tabulated summaries of dimensions and performance (whether realised or projected) and to what stage the project progressed (if any). One also gets the feeling as a unifying thread that much as with the Luftwaffe's design/procurement cycle, there were inter-service rivalries and top-down interference that led to enormous and unaffordable waste and duplication (for example, the idea that anyone in those days could possibly run TWO Manhattan Projects not just in parallel but in secret competition with each other just beggars the imagination), and much effort was also expended going up blind alleys best left unexplored (the Americans - and to a lesser extent the British, once the immediate threat to Britain had evaporated - could afford this; Germany and Japan could not, and even less so as the war went on). In addition, both Germany and Japan seem to have been beset with difficulties in developing reliable powerplants for their next-generation aircraft while the British and Americans, for all the various failures they had, never seemed short of an engine to turn to (or to improve to ever-higher levels of performance).
One also sadly gets the idea that Germany and Japan were ultimately content to fight their own separate wars, despite the fact that they had the same enemies in common. I suppose that was a result of having the national ideologies that they did, but whatever the case, the almost complete lack of useful co-operation between two initially very formidable enemies is something for which the Allies can be thankful.
Pelzig
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 23 October 2008
- Messages
- 448
- Reaction score
- 77
Greetings:
Firstly, a thank you for supporting the book with your purchase. Also, I appreciate your commentary. That is one of the delightful things about this forum is that criticism is given in a forthright, constructive manner and fashion.
So, to your points. My apologies if the manuscript was cause for disappointment. I like to think my writing style is fairly consistent but I imagine over the years, it may change and I just don't notice it. As for the foreign aircraft, i.e. the Hitachi He 177, there is very little to be had since Germany was never able to deliver to the Japanese an example of the He 177. So, what modifications they would have done (outside of using four, separate engines) we will never know as they had no opportunity to adapt an actual He 177. So, while we could speculate, it would be sheer conjecture. Much the same applied to the Mitsubishi Ki-90 as the Germans were not able to provide the Japanese with an actual example of the Junkers Ju 90 (let alone useful blue prints). This contrasts to the Nakajima G5N in which we can see what the Japanese did when they had an actual example aircraft (the DC-4E) to work from and we see it also with the Mitsubishi Ki-20.
As for padding chapters, I can tell you that is not the intent. Bear in mind that a lot of the projects in the second volume were adaptations of existing aircraft. So, I felt it was prudent to discuss the aircraft upon which the project was based. My reasoning was two-fold. First, I made the assumption that some purchaser's of the book may not be all that familiar with Japanese aircraft. Granted, the majority of the audience for this book are familiar with the various mainline Japanese aircraft however I felt there would be some exclusion if I did not discuss them. And how could one discuss the Nakajima Ki-68 (for example) without describing the bomber from which it was derived (the G5N)? This, then, brings up the second reason: providing context. Why was the project derived from the parent plane? What was good about the parent plane that it would be considered for modification and adaptation? Examples include all the variants of the Ki-84. In context of a solid, well performing fighter in the Ki-84, one can see why so many "flavors" of the Ki-84 would be tried such as the Ki-117, Ki-106, etc. This also applies to, say, the development of the Q2M Taiyo. Why would Mitsubishi and the IJN spend the effort to realize the Q2M? The chapter provides the context, showing the history of the Q1W1 Tokai and how its appalling performance made it a easy mark for enemy fighters and how the G4M2a Model 22 Ko and G4M3 adaptations were also coming up short in their role and thus a dedicated design in the Q2M was desired.
And yes, indeed, the IJA and the IJN's separate nuclear weapon projects was the epitome of the inter-service rivalry and as was typical, when they finally decided to come together, it was too late.
Cheers!
Firstly, a thank you for supporting the book with your purchase. Also, I appreciate your commentary. That is one of the delightful things about this forum is that criticism is given in a forthright, constructive manner and fashion.
So, to your points. My apologies if the manuscript was cause for disappointment. I like to think my writing style is fairly consistent but I imagine over the years, it may change and I just don't notice it. As for the foreign aircraft, i.e. the Hitachi He 177, there is very little to be had since Germany was never able to deliver to the Japanese an example of the He 177. So, what modifications they would have done (outside of using four, separate engines) we will never know as they had no opportunity to adapt an actual He 177. So, while we could speculate, it would be sheer conjecture. Much the same applied to the Mitsubishi Ki-90 as the Germans were not able to provide the Japanese with an actual example of the Junkers Ju 90 (let alone useful blue prints). This contrasts to the Nakajima G5N in which we can see what the Japanese did when they had an actual example aircraft (the DC-4E) to work from and we see it also with the Mitsubishi Ki-20.
As for padding chapters, I can tell you that is not the intent. Bear in mind that a lot of the projects in the second volume were adaptations of existing aircraft. So, I felt it was prudent to discuss the aircraft upon which the project was based. My reasoning was two-fold. First, I made the assumption that some purchaser's of the book may not be all that familiar with Japanese aircraft. Granted, the majority of the audience for this book are familiar with the various mainline Japanese aircraft however I felt there would be some exclusion if I did not discuss them. And how could one discuss the Nakajima Ki-68 (for example) without describing the bomber from which it was derived (the G5N)? This, then, brings up the second reason: providing context. Why was the project derived from the parent plane? What was good about the parent plane that it would be considered for modification and adaptation? Examples include all the variants of the Ki-84. In context of a solid, well performing fighter in the Ki-84, one can see why so many "flavors" of the Ki-84 would be tried such as the Ki-117, Ki-106, etc. This also applies to, say, the development of the Q2M Taiyo. Why would Mitsubishi and the IJN spend the effort to realize the Q2M? The chapter provides the context, showing the history of the Q1W1 Tokai and how its appalling performance made it a easy mark for enemy fighters and how the G4M2a Model 22 Ko and G4M3 adaptations were also coming up short in their role and thus a dedicated design in the Q2M was desired.
And yes, indeed, the IJA and the IJN's separate nuclear weapon projects was the epitome of the inter-service rivalry and as was typical, when they finally decided to come together, it was too late.
Cheers!
pathology_doc said:
Similar threads
-
"Pacific and CBI Night Fighters: Air War In The Darkness"
- Started by Justo Miranda
- Replies: 6
-
other less known japanese aircraft projects- Started by airman
- Replies: 14
-
theorical and speculative japanese projects on wwii
- Started by airman
- Replies: 3
-
-
IJN Service Airplane Development Program Designations- Started by snark
- Replies: 7