Fugaku : Z-plane, G10 or G12

[Jemiba]

You nailed it ! And we even had such discussions here, which to my opinion were more
influenced by the desire to prove the "superiority" of the German technology during WW II, than to
discuss an actual design. And so I thought it to be important to point out, that this thread seems to
be free of such attempts, but full of mentions of sources and a lot of work with making drawings,
comparisons and so on (although I cannot judge most of the sources by myself, of course. Often
I cannot even read a single word ! ).
Would such methods be applied to quite a lot of those fancy German designs, I think many of them would
be deleted from most sources.

 

[Pelzig]

I was interviewed concerning my book on Japanese x-planes and the question on if the planes, had they gotten into service, would have "turned the tide" came up and I said absolutely not. Prolonged the war? Perhaps. Won it? Not a chance. Most of the "what if" scenarios I've read which had merit all point to events happening very early on in the war and, in some cases, before it. Had events then gone differently, perhaps the outcome of the war would have changed. Once you got past 1940-1941, the final result (victory for the Allies) in most of the scenarios held true.

Yeah. You're getting my point here. What really bugs me most often in that type of thread is the "if it had been built, we would have won" kind of thing. And however much I LOVE unbuilt designs, I find that much too often the "1946" type reconstructions reek of fascination for the Nazi more than a real love of the machines themselves...

 

[blackkite]

Hi! My objective is to construct consistent Fugaku configuration compared with all of the data from official documents, books, Fugaku engineer's testimony and aeronautical theory,etc.
When I went to the National Diet Library, I found the list which contains all of the document concerning Chikuhei Nakajima by Fuji Heavy Industries. There were many interesting documents such as Z-plane design documents, Renzan detail drawings and Saiun detail drawings.
But I can't find any document about Fugaku. FHI has no Fugaku document!
This means all of the design documents about Fugaku were under strict observation by IJA and IJN,
no one could take out any Fugaku design document from the design office. All of the documents were burned out same as H7Y1 flying boat. If GHQ discovered any Fugaku documents, Fugaku major designers would be the war criminal.Perhaps all Nakajima's engineers who engaged Fugaku were ordered not to talk about Fugaku by Chikuhei Nakajima. Chikuhei Nakajima, Satoshi Koyama(chief designer), Masashi Tanaka(HA-54 designer), Ichiro Nakagawa(Homare engine designer) and Yasuo Naito(Aerodynamic engineer) did not talk about Fugaku at all even post war. I used to read that some Nakajima designer who engaged Fugaku project said that all of the Fugaku drawings in the world were mistake. I really think so. They are inconsistent compared with the data(wing area, length, etc) from the official documents. I believe we can grasp the shape of Fugaku wing which consistent compared with official document's data(wing area,span) and which has same aerodynamic characteristics(aspect ratio, taper ratio) compared with Z-plane's wing now. No doubt, we SPF is one of the front runner of Fugaku research. Where there is a will, there is a way. ;D

My next strategies for determination of Fugaku HA44 variant(most realistic Fugaku) shape are as follows.
1.To construct the shape of inner engine nacelle which contains 1.9m diameter tire considering wing structure, while the height
of Fugaku is 11.14m.(I found this data from Japanese Aireview Magazine in 1955. Z's height was
12m)
2.To construct fuselage shape considering following facts.
・Fuel consumption of Fugaku HA-44 variant was half as Z-plane because HA-54 was double
HA-44, fuselage of Fugaku HA44 variant is small compared with Z-plane, because no fuselage
fuel tanks were needed. (Z-plane's wing tanks capacity were 57,200 L and fuselage tanks
capacity were 42,729L)
・The wing shape of Z-plane and Fugaku HA44 variant were almost same size, the position of the
air center(25% wing chord) were almost same. But Fugaku HA-44 variant's engine weight is half
of Z's engine weight, center of gravity moved backward. To cancel this effect, we need
lighter(shorter) back fuselage. (Z's length was 45m and Fugaku HA-44 variant's length was
42m).

 

[lark]

Thanks for all the reseach you alreay have done Blackkite.
Keep up the good work..

 

[T-50]

Hi Blackkite again a nice technical drawing of the Fugaku I must say!,I saw on this drawing a radar dome within a parabolic or dish shaped radar probably in the 10cm waveband.
Were the Japanese really planned a dish shaped radar for the Fugaku?its really very modern for the early 40ies!
And if so was the radar system mended for navigation or also for bombing like the radar set of the B-29 did

 

[blackkite]

Hi! I have never heard about Japanese navigation and bombing radar system. Concerning electric equipment, Japanese technologies at the day were no match for the Western level. Ten years delay. The engine technologies were 5 years delay.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Landing gear arrangement of Fugaku HA-44 variant. I hope that my guess is almost right. Tire diameter is right. ;D

 

[Nick Sumner]

The engine technologies were 5 years delay.

That may be true of jet engines but Japanese radials were as good as anyone else's. Overcoming the handicap of low octane fuel was no small feat and Japanese cowling design for radial engines was extremely good.

 

[Kevin Renner]

The engine technologies were 5 years delay.

That may be true of jet engines but Japanese radials were as good as anyone else's. Overcoming the handicap of low octane fuel was no small feat and Japanese cowling design for radial engines was extremely good.

Well, obtaining the right to build P&W designs pre war certainly didn't hurt.

 

[blackkite]

To determine Fugaku's horizontal tail stabilizer position, I checked Z-plane's horizontal tail volume ratio VH'. Calculation result was 0.66 while generally VH' is 0.8 to 1.6.
Z-plane's VH' was little small for stable flight. It's difficult to absorb 3m(Z's length 45m - Fugaku's length 42m) by the length between air center of main wing and air center of horizontal tail stabilizer(Lt'), I think Fugaku's Lt' and St(area of horizontal tail stabilizer) were almost same as Z's one. I want to move vertical tail stabilizer to forward(about 3m) for Fugaku's vertical tail stabilizer compared with Z-plane.

Vertical Tail Volume Ratio =Vv= (Vertical Tail Moment Arm/Main Wing Span)×
(Vertical Tail Area/Main Wing Area)
Z's Vv=(24/65) ×(40/350)=0.042
Fugaku's Vv=((24-3)/63)×(40/330)=0.04

 

[blackkite]

Mt.Fuji in summertime. Sorry off topic.

 

[blackkite]

Hi Enjoy!
http://www.k5.dion.ne.jp/~toku5/anigland/fugaku.htm

 

[blackkite]

Hi! My image for Fugaku HA44 valiant. Enjoy.
I modify fuselage width from 2.85m to 3.0m(measured from Nakajima Z drawing).

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Z-plane vs Fugaku HA44 valiant(my guess). These drawings are almost same size.
I think Fugaku had a elliptical cross section fuselage same as Z-plane because it had a slanting cocoon type circular cross section pressurized cabin.

And Z-plane drawing from Winning Game Plan by Chikuhei Nakajima. It already applied area rule! ;D

I can't understand the meaning why Z-plane's propeller thrust lines were not parallel. Someone please show me the reason.
When landing, plane lean the wing to generate side force to control flying direction, but Fugaku had a very long span wing, it's very dangerous to lean the wing and generate side force using slanting engine power control?

Leading edge swept back angle and trailing edge forward swept angle of my guess for Fugaku wing are no problem. Fuselage center line of Z and Fugaku are not parallel.

 

[Kugelblitz]

Sorry for being off topic, but this might be a good place to ask for a picture of a B-36 with armament "out". I´ve never seen one, not for want of searching!

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Enjoy.
Source:FAMOUS AIRPLANES OF THE WORLD CONVAIR B-36 PEACEMAKER. ;D BUNRINDO JAPAN; ISBN978-4-89319-160-1
Through Fugaku study, I really think that Boeing B-29 and Convair B-36 were really outstanding excellent design.
Also Fugaku was very challenging,too.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! B-36 Armament out.
I modify the drawing 0f Fugaku HA44 variant. Please watch page 12. Enjoy.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! You can see large image by clicking bottom right of each pictures. The cabin shape is little different from my image.
http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/yuunagi_dameya/7557760.html
And another Fugaku model picture.
Source:Internet site.

 

[T-50]

Hi Blackkite San this is a very interesting version of the Fugaku,the nose section looks like the pression cabin of the Ki-77 Patsy.
I was wondering which version has thepreference the B-29 style nose or the Ki77 style Nose.
Its a nice model I must say!

 

[blackkite]

Hi T50 san! I think this model must be based on following drawing. It's after war work.
I find another Fugaku drawing. It's charming.Enjoy.
Source: Internet site

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Z-plane transport version flying model is under construction in Japan now. It will be complete November this year.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! You will see various WW2 aircraft in this site. Enjoy.

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/3-Japan/04-Bombers/G10N1-Fugaku/G10N1-Fugaku.htm

 

[blackkite]

Hi! My guess for Fugaku pressurized cabin. Too many windows. ;D
Each window size(350mm×350mm) is almost same as B-29's window size.
Cabin diameter is 2.5m same as Renzan's cabin height while B-29's cabin diameter was 2.87m(113 inch).
Cabin length is same as Renzan's ,too. Fuselage height is 4m same as Z-plane.
If she had 2 beds, every crew could sleep 8 hours per day.
Turret shape is from Aichi Denko fighter.

 

[T-50]

Nice drawning of the nose Blackkite San!

 

[blackkite]

Thanks T-50 san. I really want to see your Fugaku drawing. I know my drawings are far from the true shape of Fugaku. ;D
BTW I will begin to draw side view.

 

[T-50]

Hi Blackkite San Ill will send you soon my version of the G10N

 

[blackkite]

Hi! My guess for Fugaku HA44 variant front view. Main landing gear inner tires were dropped after take off.
The fuselage cross section shape is from Z-plane except pressurized cabin.
And I add some modification to Fugaku HA44 variant plan view. Enjoy.

 

[T-50]

Hi Blackkite San Ill must say you did again a wonderfull job! very nice drawings!
If I complete my next G10N drawing Ill send you the picture,but it will be later I'm afraid.
Ive some delays sadly,busy men but I promise you you get my picture when it is finished!
best regards T-50

 

[blackkite]

Many thanks T-50 san! Yes I know we are very busy indeed.

 

[blackkite]

Hi I am drawing Fugaku HA44 variant side view now which has a single vertical tail stabilizer,the height is 12m same as Z-plane.
The completion target is the end of November this year.
There is a opinion that Fugaku's height is 8.8m. I neglected this opinion for along time because it's too low for me, but recently I realized that if Fugaku had twin vertical tail stabilizers same as B-24, 8.8m height was possible.
Source of drawing:Internet

 

[Nik]

Engine angles...

Any ideas on those engine angles ??

I wondered if the thrust lines were to improve control during engine-out events, but...

I suppose the alternative is that it has something to do with air-flow over wings due 'area ruling', if that was the case for this design...

 

[blackkite]

Yes B-36's and Z-plane's engine thrust lines were not parallel to the flight direction. But 4 engines bomber(b-29, Renzan, etc)'s engine thrust lines were parallel to the flight direction. I can't understand the meaning of the difference between 6 engines bomber engine thrust lines direction and 4 engines bomber engine thrust lines direction.
Angled thrust line is the lift increase method for short chord outer wing? It might be not so draggy because engine nacelles were parallel to propellers air flow.

 

[airman]

Hi I am drawing Fugaku HA44 variant side view now which has a single vertical tail stabilizer,the height is 12m same as Z-plane.
The completion target is the end of November this year.
There is a opinion that Fugaku's height is 8.8m. I neglected this opinion for along time because it's too low for me, but recently I realized that if Fugaku had twin vertical tail stabilizers same as B-24, 8.8m height was possible.
Source of drawing:Internet

Compliments , nice drawing !

 

[Stargazer]

I agree. Lots of nice work in this gallery... And yet for a long time I figured that all the artwork in this topic was from/was inspired by genuine material, but found out later that a lot of it is speculation... All this stuff would be much more appropriate in the "Speculative" section of the forum, wouldn't it? ???

 

[frank]

The DC-4E & also the G5N used the angled setup as well. I didn't realize the B-36's engines were angled.

Yes B-36's and Z-plane's engine thrust lines were not parallel to the flight direction. But 4 engines bomber(b-29, Renzan, etc)'s engine thrust lines were parallel to the flight direction. I can't understand the meaning of the difference between 6 engines bomber engine thrust lines direction and 4 engines bomber engine thrust lines direction.
Angled thrust line is the lift increase method for short chord outer wing? It might be not so draggy because engine nacelles were parallel to propellers air flow.

 

[blackkite]

Hi B-36's engine thrust lines were slightly angled to the inside direction compared with flight direction. Don't you think so?
B-36's wing tip shape are same as my guess for Fugaku's wing tip(From Renzan. ;D)

 

[blackkite]

Sorry for delay. It's under construction. My wife ordered me "Stop Fugaku ". BTW I never stop it. ;D
Wing side view looks like Mt.Fuji.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Still it's under construction. :-\

 

[blackkite]

I understand here is the proper position for my Fugaku post. Thanks a lot. ;D
I will continue to draw Fugaku HA50 variant, Fukaku HA54 variant, twin vertical stabilizer Fugaku, and Kawanishi TB with my very very slow pace. Recently I found that existing TB's drawing is not proper because engines are too small and fuselage is too short compared with the specification.

 

[Skybolt]

Well, actually, originally this thread rightfuly belonged to the Early Secret Projects section. Only later, it veered towards the speculative. I fear that transplanting the entire thread in this section could be a mistake.