Kawanishi KX-9 (Army "TB" Super Heavy Bomber)

[Pelzig]

Kawanishi didn't stray far from the dihedral and aspect ratio of the Ki-77. And I can't say I'm surprised. The Ki-77 proved itself, so, why not apply something similar in the TB. In fact the 6 degree dihedral was the same between the two aircraft with the Ki-77 having a smaller aspect ratio of 11.

 

[blackkite]

Kawanishi didn't stray far from the dihedral and aspect ratio of the Ki-77. And I can't say I'm surprised. The Ki-77 proved itself, so, why not apply something similar in the TB. In fact the 6 degree dihedral was the same between the two aircraft with the Ki-77 having a smaller aspect ratio of 11.

Yes Ed! Very good point. We must take care about the wing shape of Ki-77(A-26) and Kokenki because they were Professor Hidemasa Kimura's design same as TB.

 

[blackkite]

Please take care about wing leading edge sweep back angle and wing trailing edge sweep forward angle.
I feel A-26, Kokenki and TB had same angle. If so we can imagine TB's wing shape easily , because we already know the wing area and span of TB.

 

[Pelzig]

The KX-9 designation was Kawanishi's internal one for the TB bomber which was a competitor to the Fugaku. As far as I know, the TB never received a IJN designation and neither did the Fugaku. Sometimes, makes me wonder if someone, somewhere, got KX-9 and turned it into G9K at some point.

Interesting.

If the G9K was indeed a land-based derivative of the Emily, is it therefore possible that the KX-9 might have been a contender of the Fugaku? And since the KX-9 may have been submitted to a 19-Shi Super Heavy Bomber specification, was the Fugaku also submitted to the same?

Also, supposing the latter was indeed the G10N (as many Japanese sources seem to imply) then perhaps the KX-9 might have been the G10K if accepted?

 

[Stargazer]

Wasn't Fugaku BOTH an Army and Navy project? And if so, couldn't the KX-9 also have been submitted to both? This would make sense if the requirement/competition was a multi-service one.

 

[Pelzig]

The Project Z/Fugaku did, indeed, begin as a IJA and IJN joint venture. Because of the inter service rivalry, the IJN pretty much shut out the IJA designs and so the IJA left the whole thing to Nakajima and the IJN. So, they went off to do their own project, the TB. The IJA brought the TB to the table at the very end (after they'd left the Fugaku project), when Nakajima had finalized the definitive Fugaku design. The TB was defeated in those discussions and the Fugaku was approved.


You can see this same thing in the Mitsubishi J8M. The IJA would have used the J8M as the Ki-200. But the IJA had their own ideas about the rocket fighter which the IJN blew off and ignored. So, off the IJA went to make their own version, the Ki-202.

Wasn't Fugaku BOTH an Army and Navy project? And if so, couldn't the KX-9 also have been submitted to both? This would make sense if the requirement/competition was a multi-service one.

 

[airman]

You can find G9K in this site. (variants)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_H8K

My dear Blackkite,


now we can say,the mystery has been solved.

My dear hesham! It's important to verify the source of this wiki information that "the G9K was a land base variant of H8K, 2-shiki large flying boat". If this information was based on the momory or documents of the IJN or Kawanishi's OB, it's reliable.

Then Kawanishi TB haven't an officially designation as bomber

 

[Skyraider3D]

Turns out, one of the TB's intended engines has survived: https://oldmachinepress.com/2018/10/20/mitsubishi-ha-50-22-cylinder-aircraft-engine/

 

[maxmwill]

Hello people i´m looking for drawnings or artist inpressions of the Kawanishi tb bomber
It was ment as an after thought for the G10N Fugaku, im very interested in ww2 Japanese aviation.
Especially in unbuild projects,so i can use some pics of Japanese never were bombers like the tb
bomber.
cheers T-50

I'm not sure if anyone has suggested these, but I found the three-view of the Kawanishi Project Z, which is the one supplied in the reply to you, and that is on page 26 of Japanese Secret Projects: X Planes and Experimental Aircraft of the IJA and IJN 1922-1945. The TB that you're asking for begins on page 37, with a profile in color of it, natuaral dural finish, and on page 39, there is a three view, which shows a 4 engine, straight taper wings, and is very large. If this doesn't violate any fair use rules, here is a paragraph which might help.

"The TB was to be a 4 engine bomber. In the Fugaku, the IJN felt six engines were needed to obtain the range and carry a useful bombload across the Pacific. Kawanishi felt that four engines were a known property to deal with design-wise rather than an untried six-engine design. But to achieve the required range required special means to sustain the aircraft for long distances. And nobody had more experience with this than the Tokyo Teikoku Daigaku. The university had become involved with long range aircraft beginning in 1932 with the Gasuden Koken(see page 18), a specially designed aircraft built to beat the long distancve, closed course record. The Koken featured several advances, such as fully retractable landing gear, and every effort was made to make the aircraft aerodynamically clean. The fuselage was slender and, once airborne, the pilot would slide a fairing over the open cockpit to make it flush with the fuselage, The Koken was an immense success with the Japanese, breaking the record on 13 May, 1938 with a closed circuit distance of 11,651.011km."

This came from the afore-mentioned title, but there are two volumes, this one being Vol 2. Volume 1 is about the experimental aircraft of the IJA and IJN. The author's name is Edwin M Dyer III.

Here is a link to Amazon. This way you also know what price they are, and ccould even order them, if you wish. I think you'll have many questions answered.

https://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Secret-Projects-Experimental-Aircraft/dp/1906537410/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1540141458&sr=8-1&keywords=japanese+secret+projects&dpID=51kD%252BvgnusL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

I just looked at the asking price for Vol. 1, and am shocked. I bought both these, and 1 was the same price. Not now, though.

 

[windswords]

Hi maxmwill,

I have both volumes of Ed's books, and they are well done and worth getting. If the price is too high look for it on used books sites or see if you can get from your local library (inter-library loan).

By the way, the author, Edwin M Dyer III is a member of this group. His user name is Hikoki1946, so you have already read his posts in this thread.

 

[maxmwill]

Yes I have, and I enjoy reading them, as he knows what he's talking about. I don't pry, and take most everything at face value. And yes, I have both, and I didn't pay the pretty penny being asked for on Amazon. I used to have a small collection of books, which, after my first marriage dissolved, so too did the books, and I was put in a situation where I had to streamline my life severely, hobbies and all, and over the past 15 years have been slowly putting it back together, as I have to become sedentary due to medical reasons, for which my current(and final, as I vastly prefer to have someone to grow old and wrinkled with, and to shuffle off together at the proper time many years from now.

When I attended Spartan, I spent a lot of time in dusty cupboards and the archives to bone up on aviation history, and developed a love for the less well known flying machines, which has continued to grow and mature. As an A&P, I learned to love airframe structure, and all other components of an aircraft, and now I can pursue it with vigor.

And, I wouldn't mind helping get some(as in as many as I can help inspire) kits from what I've learned.

 

[gerhard]

Hi Maxmwill

I have 1 or 2 spare copies of Vol 2. Brand new. These are excellent books well worth having.

Let me know if you are interested.

Cheers

 

[maxmwill]

I thank you for your kind offer, but I have a copy of Vol 2 as well.

When I had enough money to treat myself to a new book, I found both volumes, and, lo and behold, enough fund to purchase both at once.

However, I do have an extra copy of Nurflugel(forget the rest of the title), a thin tome covering the Horten flying wings, in the original German that I'm willing to gift someone who is beginning to research them(they designed other wonderful flying wings besides the Ho IX(Go229 for those who prefer Gotha), and I'm think about one in particular, the Ho Va or b). That one reminds of of the DFS-40, and is just as pretty, and looks like a fun scratch build project.

And now, I have to ask a question: How viable as commercial products, that is, as kit planes for the home built aircraft market, would either of these designs, the Ho V a or b, or the DFS-40 could these be viable designs for the average "basement builder)? I'm not sure, but there are available engines of similar horsepower, and everything else about each craft is very conventional with regard to construction techniques and materials, although an enterprising individual of sufficient talent and innate stubborness, could change some of the materials for construction from wood and aluminum to composite construction. As flying wings, they'd have a high "intrigue factor", given that many in the US are still enamored of flying wings(the B2 Spirit, not the best role model, as this design is a prima donna, that is, it requires lots and lots of extra special treatment, but then it is what it is), and have been off and on since the debut of the B35/49 flying wings of post war vintage, with the B49 having also been a minor star in a movie, as well), and so ever since I learned of the DFS40 and the other Horten designs, I've been looking for pireps, or pilot reports of flying these beasties, but have yet to find even one, although I have since learned that one of the pilots of the DFS40 absolutely hated that, and I'd like to find out why.

Still, onward and upward, and off we go to start boring more big holes in the sky after we kick the tire and light the fires.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://www.militaryfactory.com/air...q40aNX2CR4VzcPy1nL7qc6sCcqB2XG4iJwzIF3sEg7B8c