Nakajima G10N Fugaku (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message

Philodraco -> Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/26/2006 9:03:56 AM)

Information from Answers.com
Nakajima G10N
The Nakajima G10N Fugaku (Japanese: 富岳 or 富嶽, "Mount Fuji"), was a planned Japanese ultra-long range heavy bomber plane designed during World War II.

The Fugaku had its origins in "Project Z", a 1942 specification for an intercontinental bomber which could take off from the Japanese-occupied Kuril Islands, bomb the continental United States, then continue onward to land in German-occupied France. Once there, it would be refitted and make another return sortie.

Project Z called for three variations on the airframe: 4,000 bombers, 5,000 transports (capable of carrying 600 troops), and 2,000 strafing attack aircraft, which would carry 400 downward-firing machine guns in the fuselage, for intense ground attacks at the rate of 6,400 rounds per second.

While the project was conceived by Nakajima head Chikuhei Nakajima, Kawanishi and Mitsubishi also made proposals for the Fugaku. The Nakajima design had straight wings and contra-rotating four-blade propellers; the Kawanishi design had elliptical wings and single four-blade propellers. To save weight, some of the landing gear was to be jettisoned after takeoff (being unnecessary on landing with an empty bomb load). Both designs used six engines.

Development started in 1943, with a design and manufacturing facility built in Mitaka, Tokyo. While Nakajima's 4-row 36-cylinder Ha-54 engine was abandoned as too complex, Mitsubishi successfully built the 2-row 22-cylinder Ha-50 engine for the Kawanishi design, testing three units in May 1944. An example of this engine was unearthed in 1979 during expansion of Haneda Airport and is on display at the Narita Aerospace Museum.

Project Z was cancelled in July 1944 and the Fugaku was never built.





Specifications (projected)
This aircraft article has not been updated to WikiProject Aircraft's current standards. Please see this page for more details.

General characteristics
Length: 46 m
Wingspan: 63 m
Height: 8.80 m
Wing area: 330.00 mē
Crew: 6 or more
Powerplant: six Nakajima Ha-54 4-row 36-cylinder air-cooled radials, 5000 hp (373 kW)
Empty weight: 42,000 kg
Loaded weight: 122,000 kg

Performance
Maximum speed: 780 km/h at 10,000 m
Maximum altitiude: 15,000 m
Range: 19,400 km

Armament
Armament: 4 Ũ 20 mm cannon, 20,000 kg of bombs

References
Ogawa, Toshihiko (1993). Nihon Kōkūki Daizukan, 1910-1945, Tokyo: Kokushokankōkai
Idei, Tadaaki (1985). 'Hikōki Mechanism Zukan', Tokyo: Guranpuri Shuppan

[image]http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/rys/rys179.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/rys/rys079.jpg[/image]



Philodraco -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/26/2006 9:06:11 AM)

we can also find some Japanese X-planes from:

http://www.j-aircraft.org/xplanes/index.html



Terminus -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/26/2006 5:01:53 PM)

Pure insanity...[8|]



Philodraco -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/26/2006 5:24:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Pure insanity...[8|]


but funny[8D]



Terminus -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/26/2006 5:27:54 PM)

Try tragic... But that's the way the Axis went; they all suffered from Huge-Must-Equal-Better-Syndrome...



Mike Scholl -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/26/2006 7:02:06 PM)

Wonder where they thought they were going to get the 66 TONS of AvGas for one of these critters to take off..., and where the Germans were going to find another 66 tons to fly it back with?  11,000 of these "White Elephants"?  Sounds like for once there was an outbreak of common sense in Japan.



Terminus -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/26/2006 8:47:17 PM)

Not to mention the 800,000 machineguns they wanted to put in the strafer variants... Using a 100+ ton aircraft to strafe...[sm=crazy.gif][sm=nono.gif]



Dili -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/26/2006 9:26:39 PM)

That happens from time to time. We just have to remember the employment doutrine of the first IFVīs - infantry fighting vehicles in 1960's-70's. All soldiers using firing  ports in vehicle and only getting out 100m from objective...even in 80's the M3 Bradley came with firing ports(they are now covered by armor).



el cid again -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/27/2006 12:42:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Try tragic... But that's the way the Axis went; they all suffered from Huge-Must-Equal-Better-Syndrome...


I take a different view. We had an almost identical design in the same period - called the B-36 - and we actually built it. It is almost identical in its original form - except for using pusher propellers vice tractor. It turned out to be anything but impractical - once we decided to build airfields big enough - which we use to this day for the B-52.
The Germans had a big problem with airfields for their four engine and six engine bombers (see Luftwaffe Over America). But they could have built them! I do not think the concept of a Super Heavy Bomber or Ultra Long Range Recon plane (both USAAF official terms) was tragic or crazy.

What was close to insane was projecting thousands of such machines. Germany planned - and never was able to get materials for - a mere 60 Me-264s - one of only two of these projects to get very far. [The other one was the Ju-290/390 series - some of which are unaccounted for - and for which JAAF bought a production licence].

Another bit of related material:

The FIRST Japanese atomic research project was aimed at propulsion for such a plane!
A similar German atomic research project had the same code designation (NZ).
BOTH the USA and USSR invested in similar work! [The USAF spent about 2 billions before the atomic bomber was cancelled about 1958. By then they had built and run 5000 hp engines - the exact size of the original Ki-144 proposal -
on the ground and also had flown an atomic reactor in a B-36].

There were similar (in concept and in expense) projects for a nuclear powered cruise missile, a nuclear powered ballistic missile, and even an interplanetary cruiser powered by atom bombs (See Project Orion, written by the son of Freman Dyson, the lead physicist).

The Axis were not the only ones attracted to gigantic, expensive and even outlandish technical concepts.



Terminus -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/27/2006 12:47:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

That happens from time to time. We just have to remember the employment doutrine of the first IFVīs - infantry fighting vehicles in 1960's-70's. All soldiers using firing ports in vehicle and only getting out 100m from objective...even in 80's the M3 Bradley came with firing ports(they are now covered by armor).


What this has to do with mounting 400 machineguns in a six-engined, 122-ton aircraft and intending to use them for strafing escapes me...



Mike Scholl -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/27/2006 1:03:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not to mention the 800,000 machineguns they wanted to put in the strafer variants... Using a 100+ ton aircraft to strafe...[sm=crazy.gif][sm=nono.gif]



I think the idea was to use it more like a C-47 gunship..., an oversized "Puff the Magic Dragon" as it were. Though with no chance of air superiority the life expectancy of one of these planes would have been extremely short.



Terminus -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/27/2006 1:18:38 AM)

Aside from the fact that this would entail maneuvering an aircraft that was twice as heavy as a B-29, with 60 feet greater wingspan and 45 feet longer fuselage at a low level, this was a great idea...



Terminus -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/27/2006 1:38:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Try tragic... But that's the way the Axis went; they all suffered from Huge-Must-Equal-Better-Syndrome...


I take a different view. We had an almost identical design in the same period - called the B-36 - and we actually built it. It is almost identical in its original form - except for using pusher propellers vice tractor. It turned out to be anything but impractical - once we decided to build airfields big enough - which we use to this day for the B-52.
The Germans had a big problem with airfields for their four engine and six engine bombers (see Luftwaffe Over America). But they could have built them! I do not think the concept of a Super Heavy Bomber or Ultra Long Range Recon plane (both USAAF official terms) was tragic or crazy.

What was close to insane was projecting thousands of such machines. Germany planned - and never was able to get materials for - a mere 60 Me-264s - one of only two of these projects to get very far. [The other one was the Ju-290/390 series - some of which are unaccounted for - and for which JAAF bought a production licence].

Another bit of related material:

The FIRST Japanese atomic research project was aimed at propulsion for such a plane!
A similar German atomic research project had the same code designation (NZ).
BOTH the USA and USSR invested in similar work! [The USAF spent about 2 billions before the atomic bomber was cancelled about 1958. By then they had built and run 5000 hp engines - the exact size of the original Ki-144 proposal -
on the ground and also had flown an atomic reactor in a B-36].

There were similar (in concept and in expense) projects for a nuclear powered cruise missile, a nuclear powered ballistic missile, and even an interplanetary cruiser powered by atom bombs (See Project Orion, written by the son of Freman Dyson, the lead physicist).

The Axis were not the only ones attracted to gigantic, expensive and even outlandish technical concepts.


Congratulations on another irrelevant post.



Mifune -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/27/2006 8:16:50 AM)

"The other one was the Ju-290/390 series - some of which are unaccounted for - and for which JAAF bought a production licence" The Ju 290 has quite the secret (and little known) history. Including being involved with many black ops for the Germans. Including one crash landing at a Spanish airfield at the end of the war overburdened with cryto and secret documents. With its immense capacity it is hard to imagine one being so overburdened. Also besides licensing rights the Japanese bought three examples of them of which they were not able to be delivered. Even with the great range of the Ju 290, the Germans were driven out of the the available airfields for such an operation to be conducted.



el cid again -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/28/2006 1:11:47 AM)

Terminus. Contratulations on another groundless and pointless insult. That you do not see how a nearly identical US aircraft prooves the concept was not silly makes you at least consistent - with yourself. That you do not see how the idea of super heavy bombers using the same airframes - Japanese and American - with atomic power - is not evidence the topic is not related.



el cid again -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/28/2006 1:14:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mifune

"The other one was the Ju-290/390 series - some of which are unaccounted for - and for which JAAF bought a production licence" The Ju 290 has quite the secret (and little known) history. Including being involved with many black ops for the Germans. Including one crash landing at a Spanish airfield at the end of the war overburdened with cryto and secret documents. With its immense capacity it is hard to imagine one being so overburdened. Also besides licensing rights the Japanese bought three examples of them of which they were not able to be delivered. Even with the great range of the Ju 290, the Germans were driven out of the the available airfields for such an operation to be conducted.


That particular aircraft eventually was purchased by Spain and served in the Spanish Air Force for a long time.
A more interesting plane is the 390 that seems to have flown to the Far East - possibly with Gen Kammler (SS)
on board.



treespider -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/28/2006 1:54:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again



There were similar (in concept and in expense) projects for a nuclear powered cruise missile, a nuclear powered ballistic missile, and even an interplanetary cruiser powered by atom bombs (See Project Orion, written by the son of Freman Dyson, the lead physicist).

The Axis were not the only ones attracted to gigantic, expensive and even outlandish technical concepts.


Here are the schematics....when will we see it in RHS?


[image]local://upfiles/15342/3BE23F5363214E379C16D7029D3534E1.gif[/image]



Nemo121 -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/28/2006 2:40:09 AM)

Looks good but I think there's definitely space for more AAA. [8D]


Nemo121 ....Shipboard FlAK Fanboy!



el cid again -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/28/2006 3:49:19 PM)

I was aware of the G10N project - but it could not have produced a plane (on half power 2500 hp engines) before about 1948 - nor a full power version (which was to use engines which were in effect coupled on each shaft)
before about 1950.

Even the Ki-91 - with 4 engines - is a bit late for the war - but it made RHS so you can see that for yourself. [At least it made the 5 more historical mods - it was dropped by EOS in favor of a more aggressive bomber program]
We don't do planes that cannot produce early enough in 1945 to have some impact on the war - and we much prefer planes in earlier years to excessive devotion to 1945 models.

Now if we did a mod starting mid war - that might be different. We could run it out to 1946 - or even later.

Still - I barely believe in 4 engine bombers for Japan - and I think a 6 engine job is a very poor investment. See my public and private debates with Nemo on the subject! If Germany could not make even 60 Me-264s, even admitting Japan did better than Germany relative to the size of its air industry, I don't believe in vast numbers of 4 engine planes - never mind 6 engine ones. And every time you lose one of those - what an investment you have lost = more than 3 fighter planes in WITP terms (and more IRL). [WITP cost = 126 for G10 and 36 for a 1E fighter or 54 for a 2E fighter or bomber]



herwin -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/28/2006 8:49:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Try tragic... But that's the way the Axis went; they all suffered from Huge-Must-Equal-Better-Syndrome...


I take a different view. We had an almost identical design in the same period - called the B-36 - and we actually built it.


Very high altitude but SLOW (200 mph). The size was for the bombs. Development started very early in WWII. We moved away from them as soon as we had reasonable alternatives. In the end, they were used for high-altitude recon, until the Soviets could reach their flight altitude with interceptors. Replaced in that mission by the U2.



el cid again -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/29/2006 1:34:23 AM)

Actually, the B-36 had a different mission - and it was not needed. It was part of a vast program to address the situation if we were thrown back across the seas - and had to fight from the US crossing both of them. The Hughes Flying Boat is another example of this. There was a fine ultra long range medium bomber as well - with in line engines (pushing and pulling - on the centerline). None were given priority because they were not needed.

My mother was trained to make a camera from a shoe box, and film and developer chemicals with household materials - so she could be an emergency photo recon person if UNSUPPORTED by a logistic tail. She ended up training bombradiers and gunners with aiming cameras - because we didn't get invaded! But we had lots of contingency plans.

Perhaps my favorite memo showing our resolve is one by Groves advising top leaders in the know that we might have to absorb several (!!) atomic bombs if Germany got it first! We were NOT going to surrender!




Philodraco -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/31/2006 3:41:23 AM)

request for artwork please



el cid again -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/31/2006 3:54:07 PM)

There are no photographs of this never built or prototyped aircraft. There are drawings. One is published in Francillon.
I think there is a model at Nakajima - and I bet you can get a picture of it. The National Diet Library has an Army section that would probably be able to find it- and they sort of speak English. [They read your letter and reply - just don't give the reply to a grammarian]



Mifune -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/31/2006 4:31:00 PM)

This page offers something to make WitP art http://www.j-aircraft.org/xplanes/hikoki_files/g10.htm



m10bob -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/31/2006 5:19:58 PM)

Sid sez:"My mother was trained to make a camera from a shoe box, and film and developer chemicals with household materials "

This was very common in the Boy Scouts as well..You can also use a Quaker Oats canister, (or any closed box for that matter.)
As for the concept of very long-range 4+ engine bombers, look at the Douglas B 19 on the bottom of all my current posts..It flew well before Pearl harbor, and was nearly as large as the later B 36, (whose designers learned from the development of the B 19...)



castor troy -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/31/2006 10:17:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I was aware of the G10N project - but it could not have produced a plane (on half power 2500 hp engines) before about 1948 - nor a full power version (which was to use engines which were in effect coupled on each shaft)
before about 1950.

Even the Ki-91 - with 4 engines - is a bit late for the war - but it made RHS so you can see that for yourself. [At least it made the 5 more historical mods - it was dropped by EOS in favor of a more aggressive bomber program]
We don't do planes that cannot produce early enough in 1945 to have some impact on the war - and we much prefer planes in earlier years to excessive devotion to 1945 models.

Now if we did a mod starting mid war - that might be different. We could run it out to 1946 - or even later.

Still - I barely believe in 4 engine bombers for Japan - and I think a 6 engine job is a very poor investment. See my public and private debates with Nemo on the subject! If Germany could not make even 60 Me-264s, even admitting Japan did better than Germany relative to the size of its air industry, I don't believe in vast numbers of 4 engine planes - never mind 6 engine ones. And every time you lose one of those - what an investment you have lost = more than 3 fighter planes in WITP terms (and more IRL). [WITP cost = 126 for G10 and 36 for a 1E fighter or 54 for a 2E fighter or bomber]


Didnīt Germany build like 1500 Me 264 and made 300 operational. Rest was destroyed before, not operational or being captured? Only 60 built seems a bit low I think...



m10bob -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (12/31/2006 10:46:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I was aware of the G10N project - but it could not have produced a plane (on half power 2500 hp engines) before about 1948 - nor a full power version (which was to use engines which were in effect coupled on each shaft)
before about 1950.

Even the Ki-91 - with 4 engines - is a bit late for the war - but it made RHS so you can see that for yourself. [At least it made the 5 more historical mods - it was dropped by EOS in favor of a more aggressive bomber program]
We don't do planes that cannot produce early enough in 1945 to have some impact on the war - and we much prefer planes in earlier years to excessive devotion to 1945 models.

Now if we did a mod starting mid war - that might be different. We could run it out to 1946 - or even later.

Still - I barely believe in 4 engine bombers for Japan - and I think a 6 engine job is a very poor investment. See my public and private debates with Nemo on the subject! If Germany could not make even 60 Me-264s, even admitting Japan did better than Germany relative to the size of its air industry, I don't believe in vast numbers of 4 engine planes - never mind 6 engine ones. And every time you lose one of those - what an investment you have lost = more than 3 fighter planes in WITP terms (and more IRL). [WITP cost = 126 for G10 and 36 for a 1E fighter or 54 for a 2E fighter or bomber]


Didnīt Germany build like 1500 Me 264 and made 300 operational. Rest was destroyed before, not operational or being captured? Only 60 built seems a bit low I think...





Here is the ME 264...

http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html

Castor Troy..Is it possible you are thinking of the Me 323?
Had the Nazis been able to build 1500, (or even fly 300 ME 264's), certain other English-speaking nations might be speaking German today..[X(]

Actually the numbers you quote seem more correct for the Me 262 Jet fighter/bomber..



el cid again -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (1/1/2007 11:40:35 AM)

Got to watch those versions numbers. There was a Me-262 - a jet fighter - the Me-263 - a rocket fighter - and the Me-264 - a bomber.

Only a tiny number of Me-264s ever flew - you have more fingers on one hand - and the only production series ever contemplated never was authorized to get the floor space, labor, engines or duraluminum it would have required. The series was considered several different times - but never got the priority needed. I regard it as the most serious of German bomber projects other than the He-177 and the Condor - both of which technically were operational 4E bomber projects. The former was a disaster - for one due to a design concept error they tried to make a heavy "dive bomber" - and it was a very bad idea; a second design concept error was to attempt to mount two diesel engines (!!)
together to drive each airscrew - to reduce the air resistence of four propellers - and that was at least as bad a concept in practice; it is hard to think of a plane program with more fires and crashes than the He-177. The latter was a improvisation on a civil airframe that never had a chance in terms of being a truly viable combat aircraft - its only virtues were range and availability when nothing else was. IJN may be lucky it didn't get the thing into service.
The other candidate for a serious bomber program was the Ju-290 program. It managed some impressive special operations and long range communications flights - including more than one to Japan with Italian crews! But it was too late in development, too large for European airfields, even more expensive (and therefor hard to justify material/labor/plant wise) than the Me-264, and probably not well enough built in the package. For details on all these programs see a new (2006) book Luftwaffe Over America.



m10bob -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (1/1/2007 4:30:41 PM)

Sid sez: "The former was a disaster - for one due to a design concept error they tried to make a heavy "dive bomber" .


Trivia: EVERY German land bomber was made to be used as a dive bomber because the pre-war philosophy was that was the only way to ensure accuracy!.
The Do 17/Do 217 series had a dive break in the form of a spreading tailcone which opened like a clamshell.
The Ju 88 series had the dive brakes mounted under the wings.
(The FW 200 Kondor is not figured into this "claim" of mine as it was never visualized during design as a land bomber), and in fact the addition of ANY bombload later on caused structual failure of the fuselage and many just "broke in half" just aft of the wingroot.
Only the Brits and the Americans worked at creating a better "level delivery" bombsight before the war, and some bombsights (like the one on Guy Gibsons' Lancasters) were a matter of lining up nails in a sheet of plywood and deliverg the bomb against the Moehne and Eder dams when the dam towers lined up with the nails.



Terminus -> RE: Nakajima G10N Fugaku (1/1/2007 4:34:14 PM)

Yeah... The Condor was a good patrol bomber, though...

I'm not sure they envisaged the He-177 as a dive bomber. Don't know for definite, obviously...



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625