305 replies to this topic

[Raindrops]

Putting something in here I have not seen - at least, as far as I can remember.Apparently there was a N1K1 15 prototype - two versions testing various floats and using a Mitsubishi MK4D to drive contra-rotating propellers.

New to me, but not sure if that's just because I'm unobservant.

Edited by Raindrops, 20 July 2014 - 04:39 PM.

[J311yfish]

That's very interesting.  Haven't seen that picture before.  The idea shows up again in the Ki-64 though, so maybe we'll see the concept in-game.  French Arsenal VB-10 too.

[Carl_the_Cuttlefish]

J311yfish, on 02 April 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

I have been thinking about how to fill the lower tiers on the IJN side leading up to the N1K1-J and the J1N1.  These are the possibilities:

 

Option 0:   Nothing

-- leave it blank because the A6M is legendary and eclipses everything else in production

 

Option 1:  Dive Bombers

-- You would be giving up the firepower/speed/maneuverability of the A5M or A6M in order to have a tail-gunner, greater payload, and dive brakes.

-- Examples:  Aichi D1A, Aichi D3A, Yokosuka D4Y, Aichi B7A

-- barriers to implementation:  

• maps built with dive bombing in mind
• ability to bind 2 separate bomb release buttons

Notes:

-- Kotobuki and Hikari engines = correspond to Type 91, A4N, A5M engines (Tiers I-III)

-- Kinsei 43, 44, 54, and Atsuta 12, 32 would then correspond to Tiers IV-V (Zuisei and Sakae engines of A6M line)

-- Kinsei 62 engine = corresponds with A6M5 engine (Tier VI)

-- Nakajima D2N1 and D3N1 didn't make it into production because they couldn't outperform D1A / D3A

-- Yokosuka D3Y2-K / D5Y1 suicide left off the list

-- Aichi B7A Ryusei accounted for on the torpedo bomber list as it shares their designation

 

Option 2:  Torpedo Bombers

-- As with dive bombers above, you would be giving up the firepower/speed/maneuverability of the A5M or A6M in order to have a tail-gunner.

-- Examples:  Mitsubishi B5M, Nakajima B5N, Nakajima B6N, Aichi B7A

 

Option 3:  Floatplanes

-- As with dive bombers above, you would be giving up the speed/maneuverability of the A5M or A6M in order to have a tail-gunner (and/or heavier armament for the tier)

-- floatplane lineage could contribute directly to the development of the N1K1-J

-- Examples:  Nakajima E8N, Mitsubishi F1M, Nakajima A6M2-N, Kawanishi N1K1

-- barriers to implementation:

• hangar rendering (sitting on a trailer? or something else)

 

Notes:

Aichi E16A has good armament but made its first flight 3 weeks after N1K1

Mitsubishi F1M

 

Option 4:  Flying Boats

-- You would be giving up extreme speed/maneuverability in order to have a tail gunner or multiple gunners, and would be heavily armored, presumably to deliver a bomb payload in a manner similar to ground attack aircraft currently in game, taking the "sky whale" concept to a whole new level

-- Examples:  Yokosuka H5Y, Kawanishi H3K, Kawanishi H6K, Kawanishi H8K

 

Notes:

-- Aichi H9A engine = also used in A6M1 (Tier IV)

-- Kawanishi H8K engine = also used in Kawanishi N1K1, and a variation used in Mitsubishi J2M (Tier VII)

-- there are many early designs and prototypes accounted for in Robert Mikesh's book, Japanese Aircraft 1910-1941

 

Option 5:  Recon / Patrol / Observation aircraft

-- You would be giving up firepower and armor for speed.

-- recon aircraft could contribute directly to the development of the J1N1

-- Examples:  Mitsubishi C5M, Nakajima C6N, Kyushu Q1W

 

Option 6:  Other fighter prototypes/projects

-- parallel fighters developed as companies competed with each other (Ex. Ki-33)

-- canceled fighter projects

-- modified imports, etc.

 

Option 7:  Some combination of the above

-- such as the "night fighter" variations on any of the above

-- this could contribute directly to the development of the J1N1 dedicated night fighter.

 

 

I recognize that most of the aircraft here are going heavily against precedent.  My goal here is to get a good look at everything to see how it might fit in.  It is really just a sudoku exercise at this point, but there are still some reasonable (or obvious) conclusions to be derived.  For instance, a dedicated dive bomber or floatplane progression would probably not arrive before the IJA fighters because there are barriers to implementation.  Flying boats are comparable to low-altitude flying fortresses and probably wouldn't even be considered until then if ever.  Perhaps another avenue for implementing them would be through alternate battle modes that use AI, but I don't want to speculate about that.  Anyway, just to be thorough, here is an interpretation of dive bombers and floatplane progression based on information derived from Francillon and Mikesh.

 

 

Dive bombers and floatplanes included:

 

 

Oh my god J3llyfish, I want that divebomber line!!! What do you think about the Nakajima J9Y as a tier VIII on the divebomber line?

[J311yfish]

S01836775, on 27 August 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

Oh my god J3llyfish, I want that divebomber line!!! What do you think about the Nakajima J9Y as a tier VIII on the divebomber line?

 

A line dedicated completely to dive bombers does not make sense in the current version of the game.  The problem is the low forward armament (2x7.7mm) that continues until Aichi B7A at Tier VII (2x20mm).  If you have played the Ki-33 for example (2x7.7mm), it is already outgunned at Tier III, and relies on speed and maneuverability to make up the difference.  I could elaborate but I think you get the idea.  It is also discussed elsewhere in this thread in more detail.

 

There is a way around that, however, if you are willing to consider the dive bombers to be a reasonable transition to heavy fighters used in a ground attack role (as for the current British tech tree via Blackburn Skua).  This gives you Aichi D1A and Aichi D3A (D3A used at Pearl Harbor).

[J311yfish]

Update

-- illustration modified to account for Mitsubishi J4M as premium and to better convey manufacturers of heavy fighters

-- general refinement ongoing

[J311yfish]

This is just a quick update to account for current refinement efforts.

 

 

BLUE BOX

-- The decision to use J4M as a Tier VII premium is an indicator that N1K1-J (and related development) is favored.

    -- In that case, given N1K1-J's chronology and abundant development, it would not be unreasonable to find N1K1-J at Tier VI, N1K2-J as Tier VII.

        -- if that is done then J2M would be parallel, or simply removed to be premium.  A close look at chronology should indicate the outcome.

    -- N1K1-J was actually tested with rocket boosters, so there is at least a logical relationship to J8M1 along those lines.

-- a recent Wargaming announcement confirmed plans for a Japanese rocket-powered aircraft:

    -- Mitsubishi J8M1 = Ki-200.

    -- Mitsubishi J8M2 does not have an IJA equivalent.

    -- Mitsubishi J8M3 = Ki-202.

    -- Japanese rocket-related threads here and here, details otherwise on page 5.

 

PURPLE BOX

-- the whole point of this line is to get to the remarkable Ki-83 designed by Tomio Kubo and to inform a reasonable path to the twin-engine Ki-201.

-- The chronology of this line works vertically, but there are two caveats that should be noted:

    1) Mitsubishi Ki-30 and Ki-51 are 2-3 years ahead of their horizontal contemporaries in order to maintain the SPEED theme throughout the line.

     -- Mitsubishi Ki-15 (C5M "Babs") would otherwise be a good choice to maintain chronology, speed, and role consistent with J1N1, but lacks forward armament.

    2) Mitsubishi Ki-46 development began before J1N1 and resulted in an earlier first flight date; however they were both under development at the same time.

-- The armament of this line is light in general due to the emphasis on speed necessary for reliable reconnaissance.

    -- Ki-46 did not actually acquire forward armament until Ki-46-III.  Fiction is not a crutch, it just happens to be essential here to make the line work.

 

GREEN BOX

-- Ki-43 and Ki-44 were actually developed concurrently so it would not be unreasonable to find both advanced parallel (or staggered) to one another.

-- it might be possible to fit Nakajima Ki-62/63 here as well (design by Koyama to rival Ki-61), though details and imagery are so far scarce.  The Docavia books in French may have more details.

 

RED BOX

-- At first glance it might appear that Ki-60 is too fast for the tier, but based on the expectation that Hawker Hurricane is to appear at Tier IV for United Kingdom it is not unreasonable.  The primary alternative (based on engine developments) is Yokosuka D4Y before it becomes a dive bomber, but doing that breaks the consistency of the line by deviating from the designs of Takeo Doi.  Similar case for Kawasaki Ki-32.

-- Yokosuka R2Y3 is fictional but necessary for completion.  It would use the Ne-440 engines found on J7W3.

Edited by J311yfish, 05 September 2014 - 11:20 PM.

[Carl_the_Cuttlefish]

Hmm, sounds like their sticking in a Japanese line with rocket engines "very soon". Cool!

[J311yfish]

Update 1.5 engine module tier changes:

 

engine	affected	implicated
Kinsei 62 from VI to VII	Mitsubishi A6M5	Mitsubishi Ki-46 Nakajima Ki-116 Kawasaki Ki-96 Kawasaki Ki-100 Kawasaki Ki-102 Yokosuka D4Y3
NK9K from VI to VII	Mitsubishi A7M	Aichi S1A
MK9A from VII to VIII	Mitsubishi A7M Kyushu J7W1	Kawanishi N1K5-J Kawanishi J3K Aichi B7A3
MK9D from VII to VIII	Mitsubishi J4M
MK9E from VIII to IX	Mitsubishi A7M
MK9F from VIII to IX	Kyushu J7W1

 

 

Could this mean a balance pass for Japanese heavy fighters and J8M rocket under construction?  Or a consequence of a balance pass elsewhere?  Time will tell.

 

 

other engine tier changes by country:

 

http://worldofwarplanes.com/game/version/current/

 

Engines

 

Germany
Kestrel VI engine tier raised from II to III
DB 600 Aa engine tier raised from IV to V
DB 601 A-1 engine tier raised from V to VI
DB 601 B-1 engine tier raised from V to VI
DB 601 N engine tier raised from V to VI
BWM 801 C-2 engine tier raised from V to VI
DB 601 F (Me.210) engine tier raised from V to VI
BMW 801 G-2 engine tier raised from VI to VII
DB 603 G engine tier raised from VII to VIII
DB 605 AS engine tier raised from VII to VIII
DB 605 ASBM engine tier raised from VII to VIII
BMW 801 E engine tier raised from VII to VIII
DB 605 ASCM engine tier raised from VIII to IX
BMW 003 A engine tier raised from VIII to IX
Jumo 213 J-1 engine tier raised from VIII to IX
Jumo 004 B engine tier raised from VIII to IX
HWK 509 engine tier HWK 509 raised from VIII to IX
DB 603 LA engine tier raised from VIII to IX

 

USSR
Tier of M-62IR (BSh-1) engine decreased from V to IV
M-25 engine tier raised from? II to III
M-25B engine tier raised from III to IV
M-34F engine tier raised from III to IV
M-100 engine tier raised from III to IV
M-62 engine tier raised from IV to V
M-63 engine tier raised from IV to V
M-100A engine tier raised from IV to V
M-103 engine tier raised from IV to V
?M-35A engine tier raised from IV to V
?M-38 engine tier raised from V to VI
M-82A engine tier raised from V to VI
M-82F engine tier raised from VI to VII
?M-43 engine tier raised from VIII to IX
M-93 engine tier raised from VIII to IX
M-93 + RD-1 engine tier raised from VIII to IX
RD-10 engine tier raised from VIII to IX
RD-10A engine tier raised from VIII to IX

 

USA
R-1830-25 engine tier raised from IV to V
R-1830-94 engine tier raised from V to VI
Tier V-1650-7 engine raised from VII to VIII
R-200-2(D) engine tier raised from VIII to IX
Merlin 145M engine tier raised from VIII to IX
V-1650-9 engine tier raised from VIII to IX

 

Japan
Kinsei 62 engine tier raised from VI to VII    --> Mitsubishi A6M5    Mitsubishi Ki-46  Nakajima Ki-116    Kawasaki Ki-96    Kawasaki Ki-100        Kawasaki Ki-102        Yokosuka D4Y3
NK9K engine tier raised from VI to VII        --> Mitsubishi A7M     Aichi S1A
MK9A engine tier raised from VII to VIII    --> Mitsubishi A7M / Kyushu J7W1    Kawanishi N1K5-J    Kawanishi J3K    Aichi B7A3
MK9D engine tier raised from VII to VIII    --> Mitsubishi J4M
MK9E engine tier raised from VIII to IX        --> Mitsubishi A7M
MK9F engine tier raised from VIII to IX        --> Kyushu J7W1

 

Great Britain
Merlin 77 engine tier raised from VII to VIII
Merlin 66 engine tier raised from VII to VIII
Griffon IIB engine tier raised from VII to VIII
Griffon 61 engine tier raised from VIII to IX
Griffon 65 engine tier raised from VIII to IX
Griffon 85 engine tier raised from VIII to IX
Metrovick F.5 engine tier raised from VIII to IX
Rolls-Royce Nene No. 28 engine tier raised from VIII to IX

 

 

 

Edited by J311yfish, 06 September 2014 - 03:32 AM.

[J311yfish]

Japanese piston aircraft engines

-- production by manufacturer (map 1942)

-- production by manufacturer (table 1945)

 

 

Mitsubishi -- air-cooled radials

14-cylinder	unified designation	horsepower	aircraft                [engine module in-game]
	Ha-6	825	Mitsubishi Ki-30
	Ha-26	900-950	Mitsubishi Ki-46-I Mitsubishi Ki-51
Zuisei and Ha-102  ("Holy Star")	Ha-31	875-1080	Mitsubishi A6M1 [IV  Zuisei 13],  [IV  Zuisei 14] Kawasaki Ki-45 (x2) [IV  Ha-102] Mitsubishi Ki-46-I/II (x2) Mitsubishi Ki-51
Kasei MK4  ("Mars")	Ha-32	1460-1850	Mitsubishi J2M Raiden Kawanishi N1K1 Kyofu
Ha-101, Kinsei MK8, Ha-112  ("Venus")	Ha-33	1280-1560	Mitsubishi A6M5 [VII  Kinsei 62] Aichi D3A Kawasaki Ki-96 (x2) Kawasaki Ki-102 (x2) [V  Ha-112-II], [V  Ha-112-II Ru] Kawasaki Ki-108 (x2) Kawasaki Ki-100 (conversion of Ki-61) Nakajima Ki-43 Mansyu Ki-116 (conversion of Ki-84) Ki-46-III/IV (x2) Ki-71 Yokosuka D4Y3/4
18-cylinder	unified designation	horsepower	aircraft
Ha-104		1800-2000	Mitsubishi Ki-67 (x2) Kawasaki Ki-102 "Special Fighter 2" (x2) Mitsubishi Ki-109 (x2) Kawasaki Ki-119
Ha-211, MK9	Ha-43	2200	Mitsubishi A7M  [VIII  MK9A], [IX  MK9E] Kawanishi J3K Mitsubishi J4M [VII  MK9D] Kawanishi N1K5-J Kyushu J7W1  [VIII  MK9D], [IX  MK9F] Aichi B7A Mitsubishi Ki-83 (x2) Rikugun Ki-93 (x2) considered  [VII  Ha-211 Ru] Tachikawa Ki-94-I (x2)  [VII  Ha-211 Ru] Mansyu Ki-98
Ha-214, MK10		2400	Kyushu J7W1 [IX  MK10B] Rikugun Ki-93 (x2) [VII  Ha-214 Ru] Kawasaki Ki-91 (x4)

 

Mitsubishi Hispano-Suiza liquid-cooled 12-cylinder V  450-600hp -- 1MF2 (05/1928) -- Germany's Professor Baumann, Nobushiro Nakata, Jiro Horikoshi, Jiro Tanaka (Wieliczko, 4)

 

24-cylinder (2x12)

Ha-203-II ... Ki-73 ---> see relationship to Ki-83, R2Y1 --> R2Y2

 

-- "In superchargers [Mitsubishi] had developed and installed turbo superchargers in three high-altitude reconnaisance planes, Ki-46 Type IV (Dinah) which were used and lost over Okinawa.  These planes had fuel injection Kinsei engines.  The company claimed that these superchargers had proven satisfactory and had increased the performance of the engine.  Little information was available on this subject because the installations had been lost and the bombings at Nagoya had destroyed much of the information ... Primary emphasis was still being placed by the company on gear driven superchargers.  The latest model of this type was the Ha42, model 31 which was a two-stage supercharger with hydraulic couplings of the German Vulcan design.  It is interesting to note that the arrangement of this supercharger was very similar to the noew Pratt & Whitney 2800 E engine with two side-mounted impellors.  The performance expected from this model is illustrated in the enclosed blueprint of new engine specifications.  The mechanical clutches used by the Mitsubishi company were the standard centrifugal type used for several years.  They were generally satisfactory until the end of the war when the use of substitute materials caused some cases of slippage.  The general trend of supercharger impellor size and tip speeds was upwards at a relatively slow rate.  A three-speed supercharger had been developed and was just going into production at the time of the heaviest bombings in Nagoya which practically wiped out the plant and all three-speed production." (ATIG Report 24, 4)

-- "The company was working on two-speed noses and had built one experimental model which had undergone 200 cycles of gear changes when the bombing of Nagoya destroyed the setup.  The incorporation of this two-speed nose extended the nose length about four inches." (ATIG Report 24, 4)

 

 

 

Nakajima -- air-cooled radials

9-cylinder radial	unified designation	horsepower	aircraft           [engine module in-game]
Bristol Jupiter			Nakajima Type 91 [I  Jupiter VI], [I  Jupiter VIIF.P]
Ha-1 Kotobuki ("Congratulations", "Longevity")		550-785	Nakajima Type 91 [II  Kotobuki 2] Nakajima Ki-11 Nakajima Ki-27 Mitsubishi Ki-18 [II  Kotobuki 5] Mitsubishi Ki-33 [II  Kotobuki 5] Mitsubishi A5M [II  Kotobuki 5], [III  Kotobuki 3], [IV  Kotobuki 41] Aichi D1A Nakajima Ki-8
Ha-8, Hikari ("Splendor")		700-840	Mitsubishi A4N [II  Hikari 2], [II  Hikari 3], [III  Hikari 1] Aichi D1A Aichi D3A Nakajima D3N Mitsubishi Ki-15
Ha-20 [Mercury]		730-820	Kawasaki Ki-45 prototypes  [III  Ha-20b]
Ha-26		900
14-cylinder radial	unified designation	horsepower	aircraft
Ha-5		950-1080	Mitsubishi Ki-30 Nakajima Ki-49 prototype (x2)
Sakae NK1  ("Prosperity")* ("Army Type 97") ("Type 1 Model 2") Ha-25 Ha-102 Ha-105 Ha-115 "Gnome-derived ... from 1939" (Smith, 132)	[Ha-35]	950-1230	Mitsubishi A6M2 [IV  Sakae 12], [V  Sakae 21], [VI  Sakae 31a] Mitsubishi A6M5 [VI  Sakae 31a] Nakajima Ki-43 [IV  Ha-25] Kawasaki Ki-45 (x2)  [III  Ha-25] Kawasaki Ki-66-Ia (x2) Nakajima J1N1 (x2)
Ha-109 ("Army Type 2") Ha-34		1300-1500	Nakajima Ki-44-II Nakajima Ki-49-II, Ki-58 (x2)
Ha-41 ("Army Type 100")		1260	Nakajima Ki-44-I Nakajima Ki-49-I (x2)
Mamoru ("Protector") NK7 "possibly owing something to the Pratt & Whitney R-2000" (Smith, 132)		1800-1870	Nakajima G5N (x4) Nakajima B6N
Ha-117		2420	Nakajima Ki-49-III, Ki-80 (x2)
18-cylinder radial	unified designation	horsepower	aircraft
Homare NK9 (Ha-45) ("Honor") Ha-44/NK11 Ha-145		1800-2400	Mitsubishi A7M [VII  NK9K] Kawanishi N1K1-J Kawanishi N1K2-J Yokosuka D4Y5 Aichi B7A Aichi S1A (x2) Kawasaki Ki-66-Id (x2) Nakajima Ki-44-III Nakajima Ki-84 Nakajima J5N1 (x2) Kawanishi J6K
Ha-217/Ha-46		3000	Nakajima Ki-87 Tachikawa Ki-94-II
36-cylinder (4x9)	unified designation	horsepower	aircraft
Ha-505		5000	Nakajima G10N (x6)

*Dyer claims that Nakajima NK1B Sakae 11 14-cylinder air-cooled radial was a license version of the Gnome-Rhone 14K Mistral Major. (Dyer, 68)

 

 

Ha-39 ... Kawasaki Ki-66-Ic

Ha-315 ... Kawasaki Ki-66-Ib

Ha-315-II ... Kawasaki Ki-66-Id

 

-- "In the opinion of the [Nakajima] design engineers one of the best Nakajima engines used in service was the Homare 21 (Ha 45-21) of 2180 cu.in.  This engine was rated at 2000 HP take off, and 1650 HP at 18,700 feet altitude [5700m].  The most promising engine among the experimental group which might have been in production within six months was considered the Ha 44-13 [as found on Tachikawa Ki-94-II].  This engine (2940 cu.in.) was rated at 2500 HP takeoff and 2100 HP at 19,600 feet [5974m]." (ATIG Report No.45, 7)

 

 

Kawasaki and Aichi -- liquid-cooled V

 

Kawasaki

liquid-cooled V-12	unified designation	horsepower	aircraft             [engine module in-game]
Ha-9  (BMW VI)			Kawasaki Ki-5 [III  Ha-9] Kawasaki Ki-10 Kawasaki Ki-28 Kawasaki Ki-32
Ha-40  (Daimler-Benz DB 601)			Kawasaki Ki-60 Kawasaki Ki-61
Ha-140		1500	Kawasaki Ki-61-II Kawasaki Ki-88 [VI  Ha-140]
Ha-201 (2x Ha-40)			Kawasaki Ki-64*

*see Ki-64 relationship to Mitsubishi Ki-73 --> Mitsubishi Ki-83 and Yokosuka R2Y1 --> Yokosuka R2Y2

 

Notes:

-- "It was the year that Kawasaki lost out in the Army Type 97 Fighter competition [1937] when company representative Sei Yamasaki, in Germany under the orders of managing director Masayuki Nemoto, began an aggressive pursuit of the manufacturing rights for the new Daimler-Benz DB.601A engine.  Kawasaki had achieved a measure of success with its 92-Sen and Ki-10 95-Sen series of inline-powered biplane J.A.A.F. fighters, but lost its position as the leading Army fighter producer in 1937 when its Ki-28 experimental fighter was passed over in favor of the radial powered Nakajima Ki-27.  This procurement defeat promised to stunt the growth of the maverick Army aircraft producer, and all stops were pulled to regain the technological advantage ..." (Bueschel, 3)

-- "The long-standing Kawasaki engineering alliance with German interests offered a way out of the dilemma.  Through friendship, persuasion, the contacts of Dr. Vogt, former Kawasaki Chief Designer then working with Blohm und Voss in Hamburg, and with hard currency, a license agreement between the German engine producer and the hopeful Japanese fighter manufacturer was carved out in late 1939.  Kawasaki now had complete rights to the most powerful new inline engine in the world, and a chance to recapture the attention of the Japanese Army.  With Hisashi Tojo, brother of wartime premier Hideki Tojo, on the Kawasaki board of directors the new acquisition quickly received recognition in high places." (Bueschel, 3)  

-- "In February 1940 the Army gave Kawasaki developmental contracts for the Ki-60 Heavy and Ki-61 Light Fighters utilizing the German power plant and its Japanese adaptations.  By April, Kawasaki was actively promoting its gain and illustrating a modern low wing inline-engine fighter in its advertising before Chief Designer, Takeo Doi, even had the first of the two new projects completed on paper.  With the Ki-60 Doi and his co-designer Skni Ohwada, armed with the same power plant, set out to out-design the Messerschmitt Bf109 then under development in Germany.   Three DB.601A engines imported from Germany in April 1940 as patterns for Kawasaki development were assigned to the Ki-60 project, and by March 1941 the first prototype was ready for flight as the Ki-6001." (Bueschel, 4)  

-- "The adaptation of the DB 601 engine to Japanese production techniques began immediately, and the first Japanese-built version, designated the Ha-40 by Kawasaki, was completed in July 1941." (Nijboer, 18)

-- "The liquid cooled engine production of this company was confined entirely to variations of the basic German DB designs.  The company had been licensees of the DB company for several years before the war and continued with this basic design up to the end of the war.  Production was for the Army only." (ATIG Report 39)

-- "While the company manufactured experimentally a number of variations of the basic model, their main production was confined to two models, the Ha-40 and the Ha-140.  Data on these engines [is below].  Two experimental engines of the Ha-240 designation had been built, but had failed the type test.  These engines were destroyed in the bombing of Akashi.  At the end of the war the primary experimental effort of the company was devoted to supercharging the Ha-140 engine to obtain 1250hp at 6500 meters altitude (21,000 ft).  This altitude rating was never actually attained." (ATIG Report 39)

-- "The Mitsubishi high pressure injection equipment was used exclusively.  The entire equipment was brought directly from Mitsubishi.  Injection at 120 atmospheres was directly into the cylinder head.  Difficulties were encountered with fuel leakage and fuel line rupture due to the very high pressures." (ATIG Report 39)

-- "Water injection was utilized at powers above 80% rated power.  A fifty percent water-alcohol mixture was injected into the supercharger impeller inlet.  Great difficulty from corrosion was experienced and no really effective remedy had been found." (ATIG Report 39)

-- "The Ishikawajima Shibaura company had built one turbo supercharger for the Ha-140 model engine which was mounted in a company experimental airplane.  One month of flight tests gave no data on turbine performance because difficulty with the turbo regulator had existed on every flight.  The end of the war prevented further experimentation on this installation." (ATIG Report 39)

-- "A design for a threespeed gear driven supercharger had been developed, but none had been built.  A 2-stage double entry type had been tested on an electric motor, but had not been incorporated on the Ha-140 for which it was designed.  The standard supercharger was a variable speed design using the Vulcan fluid coupling.  This required a larger oil cooler than would have been necessary without this type of drive." (ATIG Report 39)

-- [ATIG Report 39 has more details on cooling difficulties, bearings, crankshaft failures, valve overlaps]

-- "No jet or rocket work was being done by [Kawasaki].  The government had asked the company to undertake some of this work in 1943 but the company refused." (ATIG Report 39)

-- "Before the air raids of January 1945 the main experimental effort had been concentrated on supercharger development for the Ha-140.  After the January air raids little experimental work had been done and the intensive effort was applied to dispersion and consequent production problems." (ATIG Report 39)

 

Kawasaki engine data from ATIG Report 39:

Desig.	Cylinders	Bore	Stroke	Cu.In.	Power	RPM	Power	RPM
Ha 40	12	150	160	2075	1020	2400	1175	2500
Ha 140	12	150	160	2075	1350	2650	1500	2700
Ha 240*	12	154	160	2200	1500	2700	1700	2800
Ha 440**	12	165	170	2700	1800	2700	2000	2800

* "2 engines built, type test never passed, both engines destroyed in bombing of Akashi."

** "Never built.  Only crank case and cylinder block cast.  Army showed no interest and design was dropped."

 

 

 

BMW VI 450-630hp ... Kawasaki KDA-3 (03/1928) -- Vogt (Wieliczko, 4)

 

---

 

Aichi (Navy)

liquid-cooled V-12	unified designation	horsepower	aircraft             [engine module in-game]
Daimler-Benz DB 601
Aichi Atsuta 30			Yokosuka D4Y Aichi M6A Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (considered only)
2x Aichi Atsuta 30	Ha-70	3400	Yokosuka R2Y1

 

Notes:

-- "Aichi had been granted a license by Daimler-Benz as early as November 20 1936, to manufacture the DB 600A--D, 12-cylinder liquid-cooled engine.  Two were actually imported that year and three the next, serving as production patterns.  At that time, the Aichi Clock and Electric Co. (Aichi Tokey Denki KK), from which Aichi Aircraft Company was derived, was building only the air-cooled Kotobuki 9-cylinder engine.  Other Japanese manufacturers had produced liquid-cooled engines for reduced frontal area, but development did not keep up with improvements in aircraft design and performance requirements." (Mikesh, 9)

-- "By early 1938 the Japanese Navy acquired from Germany the Heinkel He 118 V4, along with its production rights.  Powered by the DB 601A, the Heinkel's spectacular performance impressed the Naval Staff to such an extent that from it evolved the design of Judy [D4Y] which was to be suited for Japan's aircraft carriers.  The success of both airplanes was attributed to the slender lines of the high-powered liquid-cooled engine." (Mikesh, 9)

-- "The Atsuta Engine Plant of Aichi, located in south central Nagoya City, tooled for the Daimler-Benz design.  By 1939, eleven of the more advanced DB 601's were imported, and manufacturing rights were updated for Aichi to produce this model for the Navy, and Kawasaki for the Army." (Mikesh, 9)

-- "Atsuta became the logical name for the new engine, derived from the holy Shrine in Aichi Prefecture, after which that section of Nagoya, and the plant, took their names.  It was at this plant that all the in-line engines for the IJN were produced, and it remained the only engine of this type that was used during the war.  Production was off to a slow start, with only five Atsuta 21 engines completed in 1940.  Although the test models of Judy were powered by German manufactured engines, Aichi's preproduction aircraft in the spring of 1942 were able to be powered by the indigenous Atusta 21 1400hp.  This set the pattern for the engine that would power Seiran [Aichi M6A]." (Mikesh, 9)

 

Aichi AE1A Atsuta 21 [Ha.60] 1400hp

-- "The first flight of Seiran took place in November 1943.  The planned use of the Atsuta 32 engine failed to materialize and the Atsuta 21 was substituted initially." (Mikesh, 6)

-- "Seiran first took to the air in November 1943.  Some sources indicate that the prototype aircraft used the Atsuta 21, however a firsthand account states that only the first was so equipped, and later changed to match all others with the Atsuta 32." (Mikesh, 11)

altitude (m)	horsepower (hp)
takeoff	1400
1700	1250
5000	1290

-- [AE1A designation and above data] (Mikesh, 29-30)

 

Aichi AE1P Atsuta 32 [Ha.60] 1400hp

-- "Since a torpedo or bomb had to be in place on the aircraft while stowed within the [submarine] hangar, an inline engine to reduce fuselage sectional area was a logical selection.  The Aichi Atsuta 32 was the choice [for the Aichi M6A Seiran].  This 12-cylinder liquid-cooled engine was a near copy of the German Daimler-Benz DB 601A for which Aichi had the production rights.  The engine developed 1400hp.  Its inverted 'V' design offered good pilot visibility and gave the plane a lower center of gravity than other types."  (Mikesh, 3)

-- "Peak output of the Atsuta 32 engine reached 107 in May 1944, but these were shared with Judy, which was produced in greater quantity.  Engine production slumped markedly in September and October of 1944 because of mechanical difficulties encountered in machining crankshafts, but recovered briefly in November only to be negated by the shattering earthquake in December.  Engine production became so critical that it had a direct effect on the production rate of Seiran as the major supply problem.  Difficulties in obtaining engine components along with air attacks upon the Atsuta engine plant also had a profound effect." (Mikesh, 10)

-- "Maintenance difficulties with the Atsuta engine eventually led to the installation of the more reliable Mitsubishi Kinsei 62 radial engine to power Judy, but such a modification was not possible for Seiran confined to the submarine's available space.  Fortunately, the inverted-V design placed the cylinders and other components of the engine at an optimum position for maintenance within the submarine hangar.  Special attention was also given to the placement of the radiator for ease in maintenance with the wings folded.  Seiran, then, became the only Japanese airplane that retained the inline engine installation throughout the war, for the Army's Kawasaki Ki-61 Tony converted to the Mitsubishi Ha-112 radial air-cooled engine, to become Ki-100, Type 5 Fighter." (Mikesh, 10)

-- "Postwar evaluation by teams of engine technicians rated the standard of worksmanship of the Atsuta engine far below that of the Army's Kawasaki Type 2 counterpart, and even lower in comparison with other engines having the usual high standards of Mitsubishi and Nakajima." (Mikesh, 10)

altitude (m)	horsepower (hp)
takeoff	1400
1700	1340
5000	1290

-- [AE1P designation and above data] (Mikesh, 29-30)

 

 

others:

BMW IX ... Kawasaki Ki-3

DB 600G ... Yokosuka D4Y1 prototypes

 

 

outliers

 

Hispano-Suiza 12Xcrs ... Nakajima Ki-12, Mitsubishi A5M3a

 

Hitachi Ha-13 ... Ki-36

Hitachi Ha-38 ... Ki-72

 

Hiro Type 91 -- water-cooled W-12 derived from the Napier Lion ... 620-750hp

 

 

 

---

 

Japanese jet and rocket engines (work in progress)

^ unverified information, but useful as a lead.

 

Ne-20

-- proposed for Kayaba Katsuodori

-- tested in Mitsubishi G4M2d

-- flown in Nakajima Kikka

 

Nakajima

-- "[Nakajima] was working on two jet projects at the end of the war, the TR 12, and the Ne-220.  The TR 10 project had been assigned the company as a Navy-designed turbo-jet about two years ago [report dated 11/5/1945].  The final version contained a compressor of four axial stages followed by a centrifugal stage.  A single-stage turbine furnished the power for driving the compressor.  The Ne-220 was the Nakajima version of the German BMW axial-flow turbojet engine.  These engines will be described in more detail in a future report." (ATIG Report No.45, 6)

 

Mitsubishi

-- "The only jet, turbine, or rocket work being undertaken by [Mitsubishi] at the end of the war was the power plant for Shusui which was being developed at Matsumoto.  It was considered that Shusui power plant was ready for flight operation and that the power plant failure terminating the first and only flight had been the result of a readily correctable defect.  Further investigation of this development will be reported in the future.  As stated previously, [Mitsubishi] had some time ago undertaken to manufacture a jet propulsion engine to Navy design, but had abandoned it when no successful design appeared imminent." (ATIG Report No.24, 5)

 

RATO

-- "Initial Japanese interest in German jet technique was in respect to assisted take-off rockets [RATO] as used on the Ju-88 bomber.  In early [09/1943], Japanese representatives in Berlin requested information concerning those rockets, and, as of that date, appeared to be under the impression that the rockets used a solid powder propellant, rather than concentrated hydrogen peroxide and a catalyst.  In the following November it was intended to dispatch specimen rockets to Japan at the earliest opportunity.  Information on the nature and properties of T-Stoff and the catalyst (Z-Stoff -- potassium permanganate) was obtained and negotiations for manufacturing rights, presumably for the take-off rockets, were undertaken." (Unclassified Report)

 

 

 

---

 

Other technological relationships here

 

 

Sources:

 

World Encyclopedia of Aero Engines: From the Pioneers to the Present Day, by Bill Gunston (2007 Sutton)

A History of Aircraft Piston Engines (1986 Smith)

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, by Rene Francillon (1970 Putnam)

Japanese Secret Projects:  Experimental Aircraft of the IJA and IJN 1939-1945, by Edwin M. Dyer III (2009 Midland)

P-38 Lightning vs. Ki-61 Tony: New Guinea 1943-1944, by Donald Nijboer (2010 Osprey)

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia, by Kent Budge -- leads only

Secret Projects Forum -- leads only

 

 

Edited by J311yfish, 10 November 2018 - 03:12 PM.

[J311yfish]

This is just a quick update to account for current refinement efforts.

 

 

BLUE BOX

The announcement that Mitsubishi J4M is to return as a Tier VII premium is a strong indicator that N1K1-J and related development is favored for the transition to J8M1.  

-- Explained in detail here and here (EU forum).

-- N1K1-J's chronology (12/1942+) and engine development (Homare 11, 21, 23, more) implies that Ki-84 (04/1943+) is also to be Tier VI (Homare 11, 21, 23, more).

 

GREEN BOX

The primary question that remains is whether or not certain aircraft (Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-84) will be split to cover two tiers based on their historical adversaries in other countries.  I am going to assume that the answer is No because it reduces complexity, but if there is to be a split based on historical value then here is a quick overview:

-- Ki-43 based on its prolonged development (4 engines, X airframes, 3 armament upgrades spanning ~5 years)

-- Ki-44 based on its performance (3 engines, X airframes, many armament configurations spanning ~4 years)

-- Ki-84 based on its competitiveness to P-51 which is split across 3 tiers (3 production engines, 2 production airframes, 2 production armament upgrades; more if late plans considered).

-- Ki-201 for fictional extension to Tier X (use of Ne-440 engine)

^ There are sub-considerations for each of those outcomes, but I'm not going to dive into that unless there are substantial indicators, so:

-- Ki-87 has been moved up to VII in order to cover the deficiencies of late Ki-84 variants.

-- Kikka is now alone at VIII.

 

RED BOX

In order to understand how these three aircraft are directly related it is necessary to understand their development history:

-- Ki-64 was Takeo Doi's planned upgrade to the Ki-61 that involved coupling two liquid-cooled 12-cylinder engines (Daimler-Benz DB.601 under license as Kawasaki Ha-40). 

-- Ki-73 (not shown) was Tomio Kubo's initiation of the same concept (coupling of two liquid-cooled 12-cylinder engines), but complications with the engine led him to develop instead a traditional twin-engine configuration, the remarkable Ki-83.

-- Yokosuka R2Y1 also coupled two liquid-cooled 12-cylinder engines (2x Daimler-Benz DB.601 under license as Aichi Atsuta) and flew as the prototype for the R2Y2 which was to be developed further as a jet attack bomber.

^ if that is not the best way to get the Ki-83 into the game based on actual, chronological, technological progress, I don't know what is.

 

Future updates:

Edwin Dyer's second book is expected to be released very soon and should have more detail on these aircraft:

-- Mitsubishi A7M

-- Nakajima Ki-84 (and its Ki-106, Ki-113, Ki-116, Ki-117 variants)

-- Mitsubishi Ki-83 (and its Ki-95, Ki-103 variants)

-- Kawasaki Ki-119 (development of Ki-100 that did not materialize)

-- Aichi S1A

-- Kyushu Q3W

 

I consider the project to be very refined at this point and do not anticipate any major revisions.  Unless there is a major shift in the game, such as the inclusion of torpedo bombers, medium or heavy bombers, dedicated night fighters, etc., then I think it is fair to say that this project is almost done.  Small variations are certainly possible, but overall effect on playability would be minimal, such as:

-- J8M from A7M instead of N1K2-J (if preference is given to the Mitsubishi label).

-- A6M2 to N1K1-J bridged by their floatplane variation, A6M2-N --> N1K1 --> N1K1-J (if preference is given to historical narrative).

-- potential for some aircraft to be split across two tiers (if allegiance given to historical narrative or overarching chronology).

 

Edited by J311yfish, 28 September 2014 - 11:37 PM.

[J311yfish]

re: dive bombers

 

While reading about the Aichi M6A from a reputable source (Robert Mikesh) I discovered the following:

 

Development:

 

 

summary:

-- Seiran was a direct descendant of D4Y and E16A, parallel to B7A, all of which were built by Aichi at Nagoya.

-- Seiran was designed to fit on submersible aircraft carriers (I-400 submarine) in order to give Japan a surprise attack capability

-- Seiran was developed as part of a broader scheme to enable attacks upon the Panama Canal as well as the coast of the United States.

 

 

details:

-- "The original basis for the design evolved around the advanced carrier-based dive bomber D4Y1 Suisei (Judy) which had just started rolling off Aichi's Eitoku plant in southwestern Nagoya City that spring.  The hope was that Suisei, with some modifications, could be adapted for submarine use.  In this capacity it was to be named Keisei.  The conversion was found impractical, however, as was the attempt to have interchangeability of major assemblies between the two aircraft." (Mikesh, 4)

-- "Although features of Judy were carried into the basic design of Seiran, a near total redesign became necessary in order to perfect a foldable airplane to fit into the eleven-foot six-inch diameter hangar tube of the submarine.  This requirement became the point of departure of the design.  The absolute minimum of parts were to be separated from the airframe body so as to facilitate a swift erection of the aircraft at the time of launch." (Mikesh, 4)

-- The propeller -- in place -- determined the centerline location of the airplane when within the hangar tube.  A six-inch clearance is all that remained at each tip of the 126-inch propeller." (Mikesh, 4)

-- see here (EU forum)

 

Designers: (Francillon and Mikesh)

E16A -- Engineers Kishiro Matsuo and Yasushiro Ozawa

M6A -- design team led by Norio Ozaki, Yasushiro Ozawa and Morishige Mori.  Mikesh claims Engineer Anraku was responsible for the folding-wing design.

B7A -- designed by Chief Engineer Norio Ozaki, assisted by Morishige Mori and Yasushiro Ozawa

 

Design relationships:

D3A --> D4Y ----> B7A

D3A --> D4Y ----> M6A
E13K --> E16K --> M6A

 

 

Floats:

 

summary:  

-- floats were optional to give Seiran a second-strike capability.

-- floats able to be jettisoned during flight if speed and maneuverability became a priority.

 

details:

-- "The original plan for this special attack plane had no provision for landing gear or floats.  The plane was to be used for one round trip, and since maximum performance was essential, a recovery device would merely be burdensome and add additional weight.  A crash landing near the submarine would suffice." (Mikesh, 6)

-- "By the time the proposal to build such an airplane reached Aichi engineers, planners within the Naval Aviation Headquarters had already taken another look at the prospects of a second strike possibility with the same aircraft.  One devastating blow against the Panama Canal had been the sole mission of Seiran.  Suppose the attack were so successful by avoiding interception, that were the aircraft able to be recovered for refueling and rearming, successive follow-on attacks could be made.  The failure to do this at Pearl Harbor was one of the few flaws in that well-executed mission.  There was no downgrading of the primary plan to attack the Panama Canal, but Seiran and the special Sen Toku submarine fleet had further potential for strikes against U.S. Pacific coastal cities and targets of opportunity such as fleet transports and fleet built-up concentrations.  Because of their enormous range, the subs could depart from Japan's forward bases in Fiji or Samoa, and easily round Cape Horn and make attacks against U.S. east coast metropolitan areas.  The psychological effect, if not real damage, would be very great.  The design to reduce hazards to crewmen in a crash landing at sea also made some type of landing system advantageous." (Mikesh, 6)

-- "From this evolved the need for float type gear for the Seirans.  Adding this safeguard eased the minds of the designers and planners of the plane.  These floats became the only detachable parts from the aircraft.  Separate storage facilities for the floats were provided in the form of smaller tubular cells along both sides of the main hangar but below the main deck.  These floats rested on dollies and were moved along an inclined track to the location for attaching to the wings of the Seiran when needed.  The options remained that the aircraft could be launched with or without the floats, since the catapult launching car was attached to the fuselage at four very rugged fittings, and not to the floats.  The aircraft remained on this launching car while aboard the submarine, which facilitated handling.  The pilot was able to jettison the pontoons in flight if evasive action became more imperative than a dignified water landing." (Mikesh, 7)

-- "In the early period of Seiran development, two preproduction airframes emerged with retractable landing gear for land based operation.  These were to facilitate flight testing, and then later to be used as dual control trainers, since the float equipped Seirans were single control.  These two airplanes were probably the fifth and sixth prototypes, while yet another source states that they were the sixth and seventh airframes.  These were given the name Nanzan, and carried the designation of M6A1-K." (Mikesh, 8)

-- "Rate of climb of the two aircraft was much the same [compared to D4Y November 1943], but Seiran lost out in cruising speed because of the weight and drag of the floats.  Cruise was a disappointing low 160 kts. at 3,000m (9,845 ft), while maximum speed with floats was 232 kts.  Without floats a calculated 300 kts. would be reached as the original specifications required.  Landing speeds were similar, as the slotted flaps of Seiran took care of the weight disadvantages of the floats ... The two planes had similar wing loadings of approximately 150 kg/m² but to offset the increased weight of the floats, Seiran's wing area was larger by 3.4m²." (Mikesh, 8)

 

 

Armament:

 

summary:

-- Seiran designers considered a variety of forward armament, but ultimately did not install any, presumably due to weight constraints

 

details:

-- "Seiran was designed for a crew of two, housed in a well faired greenhouse.  The hatches over both seats slid to the rear for entry.  The rearmost portion rotated 180 degrees on the longitudeinal axis down into the fuselage and at the same time raised the gun and mount into firing position.  One 13mm Type 2 flex mounted machine gun was carried in this rear position.  This was a 300 round belt fed weapon which was similar to the German MG 131." (Mikesh, 7)

-- "Forward-firing fixed-armament was a controversial matter, however.  Originally the plane was to have one 7.7mm fixed weapon in addition to the rear flexible gun.  In January 1943, the Navy felt that the mission required of this aircraft did not warrant the added weight of the fixed gun and directed that it be deleted.  The need was later reconsidered by having two 20mm Type 99 Model 1, which was the Navy's most popular weapon, then considered the 20mm Type 2, all of which were to have 100 rounds each.  Also contemplated were two 17mm, having 200 rounds each, but in the end, no fixed weapons were ever installed in the Seiran." (Mikesh, 7)

 

Armament -- where exactly?

In order to substantiate the narrative I think it is necessary to first figure out where the forward-firing armament was intended to be:

 

1) upper fuselage (like D4Y, Ki-60, Ki-61, Ki-64):

-- this would be consistent with D4Y, Ki-60, Ki-61, Ki-64, all of which used inline engines

-- Ki-64 in particular mounted 20mm's (prototype complete 10/1942, first flight 12/1943)

-- Henry Sakaida's 3-view of the M6A actually shows it equipped with the same telescopic gunsight (protruding forward from the cockpit) as found on the D4Y

 

2) wings (like B7A or E16A):

-- wing concepts were taken directly from E16A floatplane (under construction at approximately the same time)

-- E16A mounted 20mm's outboard of float attachment to wings, just outside the propeller arc

-- if M6A mounted 20mm's in the same location it would conflict with the location of the fuel tanks (according to Henry Sakaida's cutaway illustrations), further reducing M6A's range, which would not have been considered desirable.

 

3) ventral tunnel (like B6N):

-- the single 7.7mm for B6N was mounted in a ventral tunnel

-- there is no direct relationship to support this

 

further inquiry:

-- Seiran 17mm may have been an adaptation from 13mm or 20mm; work in progress

 

 

---

 

Why this matters -- implications:

 

summary:

-- This is the missing aircraft that makes an IJN attack line (dive bombers) viable.

 

details:

-- Aichi was the fourth-largest manufacturer and their dedication to carrier-strike aircraft can be represented in a mannner that is historical, progressive, and playable if the armament puzzle can be solved.

---- The problem has been lack of forward-firing armament (2x7.7mm) leading up to Aichi B7A (2x20mm).  

---- If this aircraft were included (without the optional float attachments), then it would be possible to represent IJN's strike aircraft parallel to the IJA's twin-engine multi-role heavy fighters (Ki-45/96/102).

---- it would also make it possible to represent Japan's use of German liquid-cooled engine technology by both the IJA (Kawasaki) and IJN (Aichi).

 

 

Module overview:

 

Tier	Aircraft	Engine	Speed	Armament	Bombs
II	Aichi D1A	Kotobuki 2  580hp Kotobuki 3  640hp Hikari 1       730hp	280 km/h @ 2050m   309 km/h @ 3200m	2x7.7mm Type 92  and 1x7.7mm Type 92 rear	2x30kg (W) and 1x250kg (F)
III	Aichi D3A1	Hikari 1      710hp Kinsei 3     840hp Kinsei 43  1000hp Kinsei 44  1070hp	386 km/h @ 3000m	2x7.7mm Type 97 and 1x7.7mm Type 92 rear	2x60kg (W) 1x250kg (F)
IV	Yokosuka D4Y1                  D4Y1-C                  D4Y1  11                  D4Y2  12	DB.600G 960hp Aichi AE1A Atsuta 12  1200hp   Aichi AE1P  Atsuta __  1400hp	not specified* 532 km/h @ 3000m 552 km/h @ 4750m 579 km/h @ 5250m	2x7.7mm Type 97 (S) and  1x7.92mm Type 1 rear	up to 310kg
V	Aichi M6A	Aichi AE1P  Atsuta 21  1400hp Aichi AE1T  Atsuta 32  1400hp	(430 km/h with floats) 555 km/h without floats	2x17mm  or 2x20mm Type 99 Model 1  or 2x20mm Type 99 Model 2  and 1x13mm rear	up to 800kg
VI	Aichi B7A	Homare 11  1800hp Homare 12  2000hp Homare 23  2000hp MK9A          2200hp	567 km/h @ 6550m	2x20mm Type 99 Model 2 (W) and 1x7.92 Type 1 rear  or 1x13mm Type 2 rear	up to 800kg
VII	Aichi S1A (heavy fighter)	2x Homare 22  2000hp 2x Homare 24	589 km/h @8000m	2x30mm Type 5 (F) and 2x20mm Type 99-2 (F) and  2x20mm Type 99 Model 2 in remote-control dorsal turret	4x60kg or 1x250kg

*no speed indicated; however the specification called for the aircraft to exceed 518 km/h, and test flights begun December 1940 "exceeded the Navy's most optimistic hopes" (Francillon, 455)

** see Aichi M6A1-K land-based trainer for comparable speed without floats (same engine).

 

engine relationships check out horizontally:  

-- Aichi Atsuta is equivalent to Kawasaki Ha-40 as both are Daimler-Benz DB.601's produced under license

-- Homare 11, 12, 23 are also used by N1K1-J and Ki-84 development beginning at Tier VI 

 

Chronology checks out if you look beyond first flight dates to actual development timelines because M6A and B7A were developed parallel from D4Y.

-- Also interesting to note that the majority of D4Y production was carried out by Aichi (1818 of 2038 total aircraft).

-- further confirmation possible by looking at production timelines for each Aichi factory (work in progress).

 

 

Tree overview:

 

Rough draft:

^ some refinement may be needed but that is the general idea.

 

The challenge is to represent the development visually in a way that is true to historical narrative.

 

If allegiance is given to role (heavy fighters, dive bombers) then it might be as above. 

 

If allegiance is given to manufacturer (Aichi, Yokosuka), the changes in role are apparent as you progress up the tree.

 

Aichi D1A -- carrier-based dive bomber

Aichi D3A -- carrier-based dive bomber

Yokosuka D4Y -- to be a carrier-based dive bomber replacement for D3Y, development slowed due to structural difficulty; A6M's also used to cover dive bomber role at this point; 89% of total production managed by Aichi.

Aichi M6A -- development from D4Y to be submarine-based attack aircraft (plot to disrupt U.S. Navy by destroying Panama Canal)

Aichi B7A -- to be the carrier-based dive bomber replacement for D4Y, but loss of carriers led to use from land bases.

Aichi S1A -- carrier-based dive bombers no longer viable or relevant at this stage of the war; role is now to intercept and destroy Allied bombers from land bases (shift to defensive posture now reflected by development)

Rokugun Ki-93 -- the ultimate development of heavy caliber anti-bomber and anti-shipping; larger/heavier than Aichi S1A

Yokosuka R2Y2 -- planned jet bomber with cannon armament in the nose

Yokosuka R2Y3 -- planned jet bomber with cannon armament in the nose, continued.

 

In this way it tells the story of the transition from carrier-based offense to land-based defense.

 

 

---

 

Sources:

 

-- Robert Mikesh -- book devoted to Aichi M6A (1975); curator at National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. (autobiography)

-- Henry Sakaida (et al.) -- book devoted to I-400 submarines (2006); chapter devoted to Aichi M6A; Mikesh and others listed in bibliography

-- Rene Francillon -- mentions detachable floats, but doesn't cover the development close enough to acknowledge also a relationship to D4Y or the deliberation about forward armament.

 

 

Edited by J311yfish, 11 November 2014 - 03:59 PM.

[Colonel_Kraken]

Would definitely LOVE to have the Nakajima Ki line!

 

Good work, sir.

Edited by Colonel_Kraken, 26 September 2014 - 03:15 PM.

[Raindrops]

New WoWS video showing ship classes - has planes on the deck of a Japanese carrier (not sure the class) at one point. Thought at first I was looking at A6Ms, but another glance makes them B7As and D4Y1s.

Will this effect WoWP any? Probably not, but somebody is still modelling Japanese planes at least.

[J311yfish]

This is just a quick update to account for current refinement efforts and the broader implications of Aichi M6A for dive bombers and floatplanes:

 

 

Dive bombers:

^ Aichi M6A makes it possible to have a line of dedicated carrier-based attack aircraft (dive bombers) as shown above and further implicates floatplanes.

 

 

Floatplanes:

If dive bombers are included (as above) then there are 2 aircraft developed directly from floatplanes and 1 aircraft with floatplane lineage:

-- Aichi D3A -----------> Yokosuka D4Y ---> Aichi M6A (liquid-cooled engine and related concepts)

-- Aichi E13A ---------> Aichi E16A ---------> Aichi M6A (float and folding wing concepts)

-- Kawanishi E15K --> Kawanishi N1K1 --> Kawanishi N1K1-J

-- Kyushu began as Watanabe Iron Works on the island of Kyushu, and their first products were seaplanes (E9W1) and seaplane trainers (K4Y1, K6W1, K8W1).  They were contracted to build A5M in 1938, E14Y1 in 1939, and in October 1943 became known as Kyushu before developing the unconventional J7W.  

 

If you add all of that up with consideration for Japanese rocket-powered aircraft (announced as coming soon, produced by Mitsubishi) then the far-reaching implications are:

 

 

Dive bombers and floatplanes:

 

I don't know if that is a direction that Wargaming intends to go (developments explained by floatplanes -- PURPLE BOX), but if they do, then I think that in order for floatplanes to be viable they would have to have some kind of tactical advantage, such as the use of their floats for rapid deceleration over water ("touch-and-go"), which would in turn require adjustment to the terrain collision mechanics.  Visibility and concealment at low altitudes might also be relevant.  This is speculation, but given that Japanese use of floatplanes eclipses all other nations, and informs some significant developments, I think that the strongest case for floatplanes can only be made by Japan.

 

I think it would be smart to unlock J7W before the Japanese rockets are released because it could mean inclusion of N1K1-J and a change in the layout.

 

Until there is a solid indication one way or the other I'm just going to leave everything as is, stopping at dive bombers.

 

Night fighters may get their own evaluation soon, but due to the chaotic nature of their implementation (single engine, twin engine, various manufacturers, one-off recon/bomber adaptations, schrage-musik configurations, etc.) I don't think that they are likely to get their own completely dedicated line.  If they are introduced then I think that certain aircraft known to have been used in night fighter roles (many) will then be allowed to configure themselves accordingly (access to modules, etc.), but I speculate.  Implications then are modified targeting mechanics (to account for angled weaponry), possible changes to radar mechanics, fog of war, etc.

 

See related roadmap thread for these kinds of considerations and how they might fit into the grand scheme of things.

Edited by J311yfish, 02 October 2014 - 05:51 PM.

[lostwingman]

WG has been very against integrating WoWS, WoT, and WoWP into the same matches (as in taking WoWP planes into tank and ship matches). The best we have to look forward to is whenever it is WG finally makes clans across the three games and does the integrated clan wars they've been promising.

 

Also please note that the three games are developed in individual game studios in three different countries. It would be very hard to do collaboration that way.

Edited by lostwingman, 30 September 2014 - 02:32 PM.

[Carl_the_Cuttlefish]

Huh, interesting. So I should keep my A7M. I had no idea that THAT's what the rocket planes were. And I don't really see why they wouldn't add the floatplanes. They weren't barges like the Catalina or something. And the Rex was a widely produced plane. The question is if they would make them any different than fighters?

[Raindrops]

Personally, I'd think it more likely the J8M will get thrown on top of something else than the J7W getting re-aligned - when in doubt, bet on the lazy way out. Regardless of the how, the teasing has been done, and now we just have to wait for the implementation.

Other than that, I do want to reiterate LW's note above - not only would it be a strategic hassle, but a balancing nightmare to combine the games. (Balance the planes against eachother AND targets, and vice-vis.) Plus, it has been said in the past that was not in WG's plans. Personally, I agree with their choice - they could pick up a "World of War" later on, but let WoT, WoWP, and WoWS play in their own little playpens as well. (I'd put the same note on your roadmap post, but then I'd be redundant.)

[J311yfish]

lostwingman, on 30 September 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

WG has been very against integrating WoWS, WoT, and WoWP into the same matches (as in taking WoWP planes into tank and ship matches). The best we have to look forward to is whenever it is WG finally makes clans across the three games and does the integrated clan wars they've been promising.

 

Also please note that the three games are developed in individual game studios in three different countries. It would be very hard to do collaboration that way.

 

Raindrops, on 01 October 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

Other than that, I do want to reiterate LW's note above - not only would it be a strategic hassle, but a balancing nightmare to combine the games. (Balance the planes against eachother AND targets, and vice-vis.) Plus, it has been said in the past that was not in WG's plans. Personally, I agree with their choice - they could pick up a "World of War" later on, but let WoT, WoWP, and WoWS play in their own little playpens as well. (I'd put the same note on your roadmap post, but then I'd be redundant.)

 

I do not doubt that it would be extraordinarily complex to accomplish something like "World of War" and I do not mean to suggest that development of each (WoT, WoWP, WoWS) should be subjugated to an over-arching vision at the expense of what might make them individually unique, fun, and profitable; yet I think the notion of "integration" is still valuable (as a concept) because it provides some kind of framework to understand development decisions.  If you were tasked with identifying (from scratch) the distinct layers of the atmosphere, for example, it would be helpful to know where outer space begins because it establishes an outer limit and implies gradation from the ground.  That is exactly what I have tried to do with the roadmap thread -- establish an endpoint ("space") with major gradations based on game mechanics ("layers of the atmosphere") necessary for each type of aircraft (fighter-bombers, night fighters, floatplanes, etc.).

 

So, "integration" is valuable alone as a concept, but it does not necessarily end there.  Assuming that each game is successful to a degree that allows steady progression, consider that 5+ years from now there will be major assets in place (many man-hours of coding, research, models, skins, etc.), and that the concept of integration might then be revisited even though it may not be on the radar right now  (Examples: Microsoft Word assets carried forward to Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop assets carried forward to Creative Suite).  I would be surprised if the assets are abandoned or rebuilt completely from scratch for the next incarnation.  I could say more on this but I'll stop.

 

I would also expect some degree of collaboration between the studios to be necessary in order to reduce costs.  For example, the video above shows an aircraft carrier with Japanese aircraft on the deck.  It is true that each studio can research, model, and skin them independently, but if they were to instead share/adapt/modify as needed ("collaborate") then a reduction in development cost/time can be realized (up to 50%).  That's kind of compelling (why pay for the same aircraft twice?).

Edited by J311yfish, 02 October 2014 - 01:01 PM.

[Warmongrol]

The list is looking good! 

[lostwingman]

J311yfish, on 02 October 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

 

 

I do not doubt that it would be extraordinarily complex to accomplish something like "World of War" and I do not mean to suggest that development of each (WoT, WoWP, WoWS) should be subjugated to an over-arching vision at the expense of what might make them individually unique, fun, and profitable; yet I think the notion of "integration" is still valuable (as a concept) because it provides some kind of framework to understand development decisions.  If you were tasked with identifying (from scratch) the distinct layers of the atmosphere, for example, it would be helpful to know where outer space begins because it establishes an outer limit and implies gradation from the ground.  That is exactly what I have tried to do with the roadmap thread -- establish an endpoint ("space") with major gradations based on game mechanics ("layers of the atmosphere") necessary for each type of aircraft (fighter-bombers, night fighters, floatplanes, etc.).

 

So, "integration" is valuable alone as a concept, but it does not necessarily end there.  Assuming that each game is successful to a degree that allows steady progression, consider that 5+ years from now there will be major assets in place (many man-hours of coding, research, models, skins, etc.), and that the concept of integration might then be revisited even though it may not be on the radar right now  (Examples: Microsoft Word assets carried forward to Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop assets carried forward to Creative Suite).  I would be surprised if the assets are abandoned or rebuilt completely from scratch for the next incarnation.  I could say more on this but I'll stop.

 

I would also expect some degree of collaboration between the studios to be necessary in order to reduce costs.  For example, the video above shows an aircraft carrier with Japanese aircraft on the deck.  It is true that each studio can research, model, and skin them independently, but if they were to instead share/adapt/modify as needed ("collaborate") then a reduction in development cost/time can be realized (up to 50%).  That's kind of compelling (why pay for the same aircraft twice?).

 

There's quite a bit of difference between sharing model assets and programmed tools with the monumental task of balancing this whole thing. Balance and the testing passes it takes require a lot of time on the devs part (and even the lengthy systems they use have come under fire as being too simplistic). Balance is also a big reason why the devs say they wouldn't do something like WT that integrates these game types (Air, Ground, Sea), that's what SerB himself has said repeatedly. I just see it as going well beyond speculation to think of that as an end goal.