I have two questions regarding the Shinden:
Can it be modified to be used on aircraft carriers? Or can any pusher type propeller aircraft used on aircraft carriers at all?
Does anybody know if there were proposals for a carrier borne version at all?
 
I would think it could be modified enough for carrier use but it would take a good pilot to land it.

AFAIK there were no proposals for carrier use.
 
The J7W2 Shinden-Kai the jet engined would be easier to land due to the lack of large propellers aft?
 
The J7W2 Shinden-Kai the jet engined would be easier to land due to the lack of large propellers aft?

The answer can only be highly speculative given the limited flight testing done on the full-size J7W1.
It would have cured the torque problems but the slower throttle responses of the early turbojets would have posed other problems from carrier-based use.

As far as I know the Shinden was only proposed for land-based use, the IJN had other piston-engined fighters in development for carrier use anyway.
 
The first prototype had under-sized control surfaces.
A naval version would need larger canards and larger rudders. Rudders need to be mounted farther aft - to maintain control at low airspeeds.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know the Shinden was only proposed for land-based use, the IJN had other piston-engined fighters in development for carrier use anyway.

Other then the A7M Reppu?
 
Other then the A7M Reppu?

There was also the proposed carrier version of the Kawanishi N1K2-J (but now -A?) Shiden-KAI.
Also the proposed Kawanishi J6K Jinpu. Designed as a land based interceptor, it was proposed as a naval fighter called the A8K.

Of course neither of these even made it to the mock-up phase, but at least the navalized version of the N1K2-J was doable as the base aircraft already existed. The biggest problem with either the A8K or a carrier adaptation of the J7W would be the lack of range. Both are originally designed as interceptors and range is not a high priority with that kind of aircraft.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia (but no source given), the carrier version of the Shiden-KAI was designated the N1K3-A Model 41 and 2 prototypes were built. Also there was the N1K4-A Model 42, which had an improved Nakajima Homare 23 engine of 2,000 hp with one prototype built.

I would take this info with the proverbial "grain of salt" unless someone else can verify that these prototypes were actually built.
 

Attachments

  • N1K2-J variants, source Maru Magazine - Feb 2012.jpg
    N1K2-J variants, source Maru Magazine - Feb 2012.jpg
    557.8 KB · Views: 396
  • A8K (adaptation of J6K for carrier operations) 5 view.jpg
    A8K (adaptation of J6K for carrier operations) 5 view.jpg
    392.1 KB · Views: 353
Last edited:
According to the Japanese wiki the Shiden was tested on the Shinano.
 
According to the Japanese Wiki: (Google translate)
試製紫電改二(N1K3-A) Shiden-Kai:
A carrier-based fighter made by modifying the trial Shiden Kaiichi with a landing hook and reinforcement of the tail. Two prototypes. On November 12, 1944 (Showa 19), he participated in a landing experiment on the aircraft carrier Shinano, which was conducted in Tokyo Bay under the control of Major Hisashige Yamamoto
sources:
『世界の傑作機No.124 強風、紫電、紫電改』42頁 - "World Masterpiece No.124 Strong Wind, Shiden, Shiden Kai" p. 42
『最強戦闘機紫電改』136-137頁 - "The Strongest Fighter Shiden Kai" pp. 136-137

試製紫電改四(N1K4-A) Shiden-Kai:
A carrier-based fighter type with a landing hook added to the trial Shiden Kaisan. It is said that a prototype was manufactured.
source:
『世界の傑作機No.124 強風、紫電、紫電改』42頁 - "World Masterpiece No.124 Strong Wind, Shiden, Shiden Kai" p. 42
 
I don't want to drift too far away from the J7W, but wasn't the J2M also tried on the Shinano?
 
I don't want to drift too far away from the J7W, but wasn't the J2M also tried on the Shinano?
I doubt it. The J2M Raiden was an interceptor. It didn't have the range a carrier fighter would need. It also emphasized speed and climb and had a short wing span - also not conducive to carrier operations.
 
I saw a post regarding Japanese news that they may have found the J7W1 wheels. Anyone know anything more?
 
This is what I was talking about btw

 
Kazuyuki Takahashi (age 66), a farmer in Tachibana town , Yame City, Fukuoka prefecture owns the two wheels that may have been attached to Shinden, and his hobby is collecting historical materials.
He got this wheel from a farmer in the city about 20 years ago.
The previous owner did not know the details and the wheels were left in the barn.
Mr. Takahashi speculated, "Isn't the military surplus used for the wheels of the cart immediately after the end of the war, when there was a shortage of supplies?"

Mr. Takahashi read a newspaper article about Shinden last year and thought, "If this wheel belongs to Shinden, it will be a historically valuable material.
He investigated the wheels, tire manufacturers, and specifications of various fighters, and found that the wheels matched the characteristics of Shinden.
The side of the tire says "Made by Nippon Tire Co., Ltd."
The wheel is engraved with the letters "九(Nine, Kyu)" Circled.
Nippon Tire is the company name of Bridgestone during the war.
He asked the Kurume factory, which was manufacturing military tires, about this tire, but the factory responded that "the record at that time was requisitioned by GHQ and there is no record left."

There is no historical material on the wheels of Shinden at the Tachiarai Peace Memorial Hall (Chikuzen Town).
Most of the information on former Japanese fighter aircraft was incinerated or requisitioned by GHQ.
However, some engineers secretly hid it, and in some cases information was found in the relics.
The photograph of Shinden remains a photograph of the entire aircraft, but the wheels are covered with a cover, and the shape of the wheels cannot be confirmed.

The prototype of Shinden is exhibited only at the front of the fuselage by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
He asked the museum for information on Shinden's wheels.
The answer from the museum was, "The size of the tire is 725 mm in diameter and 200 mm in width, and it can be used in place of Nakajima Aircraft's" Saiun ".
He told the museum, "I want you to send me an image of tires," but the museum said, "The coronavirus epidemic has prevented staff from entering the archives."

It seemed that all the measures had been exhausted, but Watanabe Iron Works, the successor company of Kyushu Airplane, contacted him saying, "A OB who is familiar with that time will looks at the tires."
Mr. Takahashi immediately brought the tire to Watanabe Iron Works in Fukuoka City and showed it to Mr. Masahiro Okada (age 85 years old), a technical advisor.
According to Mr. Okada, many tires were brought in in the past, but none of them were Shinden.
Shinden has no blueprints or parts.
At the age of 10, Okada looked up at Shinden, a test flight from the Mushiroda Airfield, and joined Watanabe Iron Works at the age of 20 after the end of the war.
Mr. Okada said, "The fact that the state-of-the-art Shinden was built here at that time is the pride of the engineers," while observing the wheels all over, "There are traces of the brake shoes hitting, so actually
Probably it was used. It seems that it is not a pair of wheels because the treatment of burrs and the degree of damage are different. "
After all, Mr. Takahashi could not confirm whether the wheels were from Shinden.
Mr. Takahashi hopes, "If this tire is a Shinden wheel, I would like it to be exhibited and used by many people to think about history."
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • https___airandspace_si_edu_webimages_collections_full_2009-9041_jpg.jpg
    https___airandspace_si_edu_webimages_collections_full_2009-9041_jpg.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 224
  • https___airandspace_si_edu_webimages_collections_full_2009-12406_jpg.jpg
    https___airandspace_si_edu_webimages_collections_full_2009-12406_jpg.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 169
  • https___airandspace_si_edu_webimages_collections_full_2009-12407_jpg.jpg
    https___airandspace_si_edu_webimages_collections_full_2009-12407_jpg.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 158
  • https___airandspace_si_edu_webimages_collections_full_2009-12408_jpg.jpg
    https___airandspace_si_edu_webimages_collections_full_2009-12408_jpg.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 156
  • https___airandspace_si_edu_webimages_collections_full_19600333000a_JPG.jpg
    https___airandspace_si_edu_webimages_collections_full_19600333000a_JPG.jpg
    263.2 KB · Views: 159
  • NASM-A19600333000-NASM2019-01675.jpg
    NASM-A19600333000-NASM2019-01675.jpg
    649.5 KB · Views: 190
  • zmi_32001_03.jpg
    zmi_32001_03.jpg
    523.4 KB · Views: 204
OK, bear with me on this because I know very little of the aircraft apart from it being a bit on the lairy (Hopeful) side of design for its time. Is this one of those design templates that should be revisited in the form of a fully flying replica? Does anyone have pilot notes from the time available? This is one of those types I have wondered about for some time and I would really like to know if they got the whole thing figured out before work stopped. Sorry to go off on a tangent.
 
I find it really funny that an aircraft that is very iconic to the Japanese is in a US museum haha
 
Hi!
 

Attachments

  • J7W_1.jpg
    J7W_1.jpg
    24.9 KB · Views: 183
  • 496.jpg
    496.jpg
    29.1 KB · Views: 219
OK, bear with me on this because I know very little of the aircraft apart from it being a bit on the lairy (Hopeful) side of design for its time. Is this one of those design templates that should be revisited in the form of a fully flying replica? Does anyone have pilot notes from the time available? This is one of those types I have wondered about for some time and I would really like to know if they got the whole thing figured out before work stopped. Sorry to go off on a tangent.
Like any experimental airecraft that is unconventional, it had potential, but it also had issues that would have to be worked out. Scale flying models have exhibited a tendency to pull to one side due to the torque of the 6 blade propeller and that has to be accounted for. Our esteemed Mr. Blackkite indicated in an earlier post that the production units would have used a more conventional 4 blade propeller, but I suspect that issue would still need to be dealt with, possible engine cooling. Further upgrades would have used an advanced jet engine when it became available negating the torque problem altogether. I'm sure there would have been other issues to resolve if testing had continued. Knowing the time it takes to bring a new aircraft from prototype to production, the J7W would not have seen combat until well into 1946 if not 1947. My favorite aircraft, the Ki-84 first flew in March 1943 but did not see combat until late 1944 and it was not only a conventional design but an evolutionary one as well, based on Nakajima's previous Ki-43 and Ki-44.
 
Perhaps a contra prop would have been possible without adding too much rearward bias CG wise. I would like to have found some pilots notes on the test aircraft, how it flew etc but no idea if there are any extant. There were a huge number of very hopeful designs and finding out how pilots thought of them seems to me to be a great way of judging their validity etc. Thank you for the kind response, Sir.
 
Maybe it's just my fantasy, but I can't help thinking that a contra-rotating version of the Shiden with good engines would have been a formidable opponent to the Americans!!

Contra-rotating propellers might have solved directional (yaw) stability problems.
CR props would have eliminated asymmetric thrust, but rudders were still on too short a moment arm to be effective.
 
OK, bear with me on this because I know very little of the aircraft apart from it being a bit on the lairy (Hopeful) side of design for its time. Is this one of those design templates that should be revisited in the form of a fully flying replica? Does anyone have pilot notes from the time available? This is one of those types I have wondered about for some time and I would really like to know if they got the whole thing figured out before work stopped. Sorry to go off on a tangent.
Some test data is reported at the end of page 4. I seem to remember that the plane only made 1 or 2 brief flight(s) at ground level with landing gear down. The propeller blades where bend hitting the ground but as the pilot didn't notice it (no vibrations etc..) he wanted to make an other flight without repairs.

There used to be a webpage somewhere, with a documentary in which an engineer and the test pilot dialogued. Also Col. Bob Thacker, well known in the RC community, stuck to the original drawings and experienced similar problems (canards angle was miscalculated). Later modellers learned from his work. I am on a slow connection here so I cannot search YouT.
 
I thank you, Sir. Nice to see if any pilot notes exist but unlikely now. I have seen comments that the prop blades were shortened and that cured the prop problem but the canards and directional sability may have taken a bit more work. Nothing time would not have sorted from what I have seen. I think that not testing this PW was a mistake as a lot could have been learned.

Best info I have found. https://oldmachinepress.com/2020/05/20/kyushu-j7w1-shinden-interceptor-fighter/
 
Last edited:
When I saw her
 

Attachments

  • 962BE0BA-4D8F-4C1B-8B54-1F59200A5CA3.jpeg
    962BE0BA-4D8F-4C1B-8B54-1F59200A5CA3.jpeg
    1.1 MB · Views: 151
  • EFB359D4-ABC2-44CA-93C7-8E3CF857D28D.jpeg
    EFB359D4-ABC2-44CA-93C7-8E3CF857D28D.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 118
  • 5558CF39-F3AB-4876-91F5-ED5DE7514471.jpeg
    5558CF39-F3AB-4876-91F5-ED5DE7514471.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 110
I have still doubts about Kawanishi A8k : i don't know if originally was proposed like naval version of J6K and after there was a proposed modifications for Shi-20 Ko specification.
 
I thank you, Sir. Nice to see if any pilot notes exist but unlikely now. I have seen comments that the prop blades were shortened and that cured the prop problem but the canards and directional sability may have taken a bit more work. Nothing time would not have sorted from what I have seen. I think that not testing this PW was a mistake as a lot could have been learned.

Best info I have found. https://oldmachinepress.com/2020/05/20/kyushu-j7w1-shinden-interceptor-fighter/

Shortening propeller blades may have been the first quick-fix after they struck the runway. Cutting would make all prop blades the same length and cure balance problems.
Shinden needed many more modifications before it could be flown by line pilots.
 
Re: Pilot's notes - see link in Blackkite entry #184 in this thread. English translation should immediately come up...
 
AFAIK Dassault Rafale was the first canard to be approved for carrier operations. Rafale is many generations ahead of Shinden.
 
Shinden needed many more modifications before it could be flown by line pilots.
Agreed. Modifications of not only the airframe but the engine as well. I don't think it could have been ready for service until late 1946 or probably even later, and this is based on the previous projects of the IJA and IJN of aircraft that were conventional in nature. For example the aircraft used in my avatar, the Ki-84, first flew in March 1943 but did not enter service until the latter half of 1944 and it was an only an evolutionary development of the conventional Ki-43.
 
Last edited:
My dear Tophe,

The J7W2 was a really project to japanese navy in my source.

The Nakajima J9N was also a really project developed from J8N
Kikka jet fighter.
Hello, Perhaps it's too late to ask and not talk about the main topics, but I want to know what the difference is between Nakajima's J9N and J8N jet fighters?

Kikka came to my attention via the designation "J9N"? (due to today's confusion), and many sources referred to the designation as "J9Y," but when I search on Google, Kikka is also listed as "J8N." Probably someone can help me. Thank you.
 
My dear Tophe,

The J7W2 was a really project to japanese navy in my source.

The Nakajima J9N was also a really project developed from J8N
Kikka jet fighter.
Hello, Perhaps it's too late to ask and not talk about the main topics, but I want to know what the difference is between Nakajima's J9N and J8N jet fighters?

Kikka came to my attention via the designation "J9N"? (due to today's confusion), and many sources referred to the designation as "J9Y," but when I search on Google, Kikka is also listed as "J8N." Probably someone can help me. Thank you.
Nakajima Kikka/Kitsuka

Presented to the Kaigun Koku Hombu on 14 September 1944, as a candidate to the Kokoku Heiki No.2 project, the J9N1/MXN1 (speculative designations) Maru-Ten was a suicide bomber armed with one (fixed) Number 80 Model 2 bomb of 807.5 kg. Lacking an undercarriage, it took off from a cart propelled by two Toku-Ro.1 Type 2 rockets running over 200 m of rails.

As with the projected Ohka 43-Otsu project of Kugisho, the Maru-Ten was armed with two 13 mm Type 3 machine guns to defend from the Allied fighters. It also had foldable wings that could be hidden in caves and railroad tunnels. On September 1944 the IJN issued the ‘19-shi specification’ calling for a special attack bomber with 693 km/h max speed and 350 take-off run when using two 450 kgf RATOG bottles.

In November 1944, after a series of tests made with a Betty bomber, it was concluded that the Ne-12B centrifugal turbojet, with only 320 kgf static thrust, did not produce anywhere near the power required to propel this aircraft that had a range of just 204 km, due to its high rate of fuel consumption of 510 kg/h.

On 9 December, the Kaigun Koku Hombu decided to modify the project ‘19-shi special attack bomber’ into the 620 kph ‘anti-invasion’ fast bomber J9N2/MXN2 (speculative designations), propelled by two Yokosuka/Kugisho Ne-20 axial turbojets with 475-490 kgf static thrust, tricycle type landing gear, armoured windshield, automatic extinguisher devices and two Type 99, 20 mm cannon, but the weight of the (launchable) bomb had to be reduced to 500 kg.

With the possibility of using the Ne 20 axial turbojet, with only 62 cm of diameter, Nakajima proposed to Kaigun Koku Hombu three possible configurations for the ‘anti-invasion’ fast bomber. The first proposal consisted of a twin boom airframe with two Ne 20 turbojets mounted on the upper and lower sides of the fuselage. In the second proposal, they were located under the wing roots; the third proposal was a variant of the Maru-Ten with the engines mounted under the wings. The mock-up was presented to the IJN on 28 January 1945, receiving the official designation Kikka/Kitsuka.

The first Nakajima/Yokosuka Kikka (J9Y1 speculative designation) prototype was based upon the third proposal and flew for the first time on 7 August 1945. To gain some time, it was built with the main landing gear of an A6M5 Zero-Sen and the tailwheel of a P1Y Ginga as a nosewheel.

First prototype technical data

Wingspan: 10 m, length: 9.25 m, height: 3.05 m, wing area: 13.2 sq. m, max weight: 3,950 kg, max speed: 677 km/h, service ceiling: 10,700 m.



The prototype was used as the basis for an emergency fighter project (J9Y2 Kikka-KAI speculative designation) powered by two Ne 20-KAI turbojets with 570-650 kgf static thrust and armed with a Type 5, 30 mm cannon. The wing area was extended to 14.51 sq. m for a 12,300 m service ceiling and a time to climb to 10,000 m of 20 minutes. The estimated maximum weight for this version was 4,152 kg and the maximum speed of 785 km/h.



The possibility of using the new Ishikawajima-Shibaura Ne 130 turbojets, with 900 kgf static thrust, allowed the design of an air-superiority fighter (J9Y3 speculative designation) with combat flaps and leading-edge slots to improve maneuverability, armed with four Type 5, 30 mm cannon. The protection for the pilot consisted of one 70 mm thick armored windshield and 12 mm steel plates at the back of the seat. The two fuselage fuel tanks of 330 and 425 liters were protected with 22 mm thick leak-proof rubber. The estimated maximum weight for this version was 4,232 kg and the max speed of 713 km/h



On 13 June 1945, the Kaigun Koku Hombu decided the mass production of the special attack bomber and of the emergency fighter. At the time of Japanese surrender a second prototype was completed and 18 pre-production airplanes were in various stages of assembly. The third prototype Kikka-K was a two-seat trainer/reconnaissance variant (J9K speculative designation) with 721 km/h estimated max speed.
 

Attachments

  • 106.jpg
    106.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 185
  • 107.jpg
    107.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 182
  • 108.jpg
    108.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 180
  • 109.jpg
    109.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 180
  • 110.jpg
    110.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 176
  • 111.jpg
    111.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 183
  • 112.jpg
    112.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 184
  • 113.jpg
    113.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 198
Studio Mid have also released a nice laser cut stick and tissue rubber powered kit in 1/24 scale. Scroll down the page a little. Slighty more fun than a plastic model...probably just as hard to trim and fly as the real thing!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom