Jump to content


Kyūshū J7W1 Shinden


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6 replies to this topic

Glog97 #1 Posted 11 November 2011 - 02:57 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 801
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
The uniquely different "Shinden" was the brainchild of Captain Massaoki Tsuruno around the beginning of 1943.From the outset the "Shinden" was conceived in such away that it could be fitted with a turbojet engine as soon as one became available with out any delay in production.
Posted Image
The construction of the first two prototypes started in June 1944, with the first aircraft being completed in April of 1945, but because of the unavailability of some parts and difficulties with the piston engine's cooling in ground testing the first flight of the Shinden was not made until 3/8/1945, when Captain Tsurno took to the air at Fukuoka Airport.

http://forum.valka.c...7W1_Shinden.jpg

All in all the total flying time made by the Shinden was 45 minutes by the end of the war. However even before the first  prototype took to the air, the Navy ordered the J7W1 into production, with quotas of 30 Shindens a month given to Kyushu's Zasshonokuma factory and 120 from Nakajima's Handa plant. Given the situation of the war at the start of 1945 it was never going to be possible to obtain this goal, in fact only two aircraft were ever completed. After the end of the war the second prototype was shipped to the USA, with the first being scraped.



EDIT: I changed all the pictures...


Because tomorrow, today will become yesterday,
just as yesterday, today was tomorrow...

DxDiag


Mathayus #2 Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:03 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 203
  • Member since:
    10-31-2011
The pictures don't show up.

But I googled a bit and it looks quite interesting, had to look three times to see which side was the front.


^^ I made it to 200 posts with only 180 spam posts ^^


Sgt_Bones #3 Posted 12 November 2011 - 11:56 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011
An absolutely cool looking aircraft, but I have to ask myself why the heck they didn't make the oleo strut on the front wheel shorter so its "butt" was higher up in the air, avoiding some of the problems of the prop hitting the ground? Would love to know why it was made the way they did it. The "training wheels" are cute though!  ;)

Sgt_Bones #4 Posted 12 November 2011 - 07:55 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011
Ahhh, didn't catch that! But still makes me wonder why the front gear is soooo damned long, seriously, dropping its length a foot, say a foot and a half would have definitely been good whether or not it was jet driven or prop! It seeems to stick its nose too far up in my opinion.  

Or maybe its just having watched "Sky Crawlers" where a very similar aircraft is made usable and visually viable has colored my concept of how such a plane should look!  ;)



Posted Image

Sgt_Bones #5 Posted 12 November 2011 - 11:35 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011
I used to fly, a Rallye Minerva 210, a long time ago, and a Citabria, nose of the 210 did sit up higher, since the prop was in front, and was fixed gear anyways.

Nonetheless, I personally see no advantage to the extremely long front gear, gonna wiki/google a bit to see if I can find a reason behind that.

Edit: Neither google nor wiki had any answers to it. Seems weird. When you look at an Me262, especially the early versions with tail dragger, then its a good reason to put tricycle gear on a jet! Perhaps the reasoning behind such a long strut was for make-shift fields/provisional airfirlds with the proposed later jet engine, so it couldn't burn the ground when starting/idling nor would it blow concrete chips out of hard runways like the initial tests of the 262 did (which is obviously why they went to tricycle gear!)

Alesia_Aisela #6 Posted 20 November 2011 - 04:32 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 3 battles
  • 579
  • [BUNS] BUNS
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011
Well the design was very rushed, though a slight nose-up attitude on takeoff would help ease it into the air.  Canard aircraft stay nose up in flight and all the way to the ground when the engine fails or the power is cut, this can be good or bad depending on the aircraft itself.


On a side note I am working on actually building one of these (its my life mission what can I say, almost to my private license right now) so I guess I will find out personally hehe.


RIP carlr the moderator june 11, 2012.


Znath #7 Posted 31 December 2011 - 05:37 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Test Veteran
  • 75 battles
  • 108
  • Member since:
    10-20-2011
It's one of my favorite Axis fighters that never was.  For its time, it was a pretty advanced design.  The problem they ran into on the prop driven one is it had a hard time turning against the spin of the props.  This would have been solved with the jet for the most part, but that came too little too late most likely.

I think the rotational problem is the reason they used contra-rotating props in SkyCrawlers.  They're also an exotic looking way to do a prop driven craft too so they look all extreme.
"He who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven." Sun Tzu's Art of War





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users