el cid again
Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
|
It is a scaled down variation because it was done using a licensed copy of the original
design. It is relatively common to redesign for greater or lesser power, and for greater
or lesser wingspan as well. Consider the Japanese case of the PxYz series - these come
in several sizes - and one of them had a different kind of power altogether: jet engines.
It is also unusual in that the integration of the jet engines might well have worked -
which generally was not the case with adapted designs.
I have a similar view of the later generation of F/A-18s - I call em F/A-28s - so different
are they from the earlier series. I suspect this was a political ploy. Yet it is perfectly
true that the later, resized aircraft was a design development of its ancestor.
Note I did not say it is the same aircraft. In fact, it is a fundamentally different aircraft,
because it had a fundamentally different mission from the ancestor. But the Ju-88 design was
sound, lending itself to an unusually wide number of applications - as you know. It was probably
the best German bomber design (although it also served in recon and in night fighter roles with
distinction). The only reason more variations were not adopted by Japan was its range was not
sufficient for most PRO operations. It also suffered from the greatest of all reasons foreign
aircraft are not adopted by any country: it represented truly alien operational concepts. Another
difficulty was that any given model would be much later reaching operational status in the Far
East than it did in Europe: the player strategic trade off decision is the same as the real world
one: is this version worth producing after the date it becomes possible to do so? In many cases,
perhaps, the same plane that might be worth having in 1942 isn't so attractive in 1943 or 1944.
I regard this discussion as mainly a matter of semantics: but my usage was precise.
It was in fact an authorized derivative design, not a configuration done because independent
designers came to similar conclusions. It was authorized and licensed. That does not change
for a moment that it was quite different from the parent in every respect you assert: we do
not disagree. It also was not particularly successful, or possibly more correct, it was not
successful for very long. It represented an early attempt to integrate sensors and ASW weapons
in a country with limited options with respect to both. But submarines in the period had to spend
a great deal of time surfaced - particularly submarines hostile to Japan which lacked snort equipment -
and also because of peculiar US doctrine well suited to the period which called for surface,
radar patrols with significant surface armament. These submarines were quite vulnerable to radar
detection, particularly at night. Many of the other contemporary aircraft were much less well
equipped, and unable to stay on station long enough. [One way to get a submarine of that era was
just to wait for it to surface; its underwater range was dismal; its underwater duration was also
quite low. A major reason submarines escaped is their hunters gave up too rapidly.] It is an
interesting design. I long believed it was a purely Japanese creation. But along with several
dozen other cases, since new materials have come out in the last couple of years, I have learned
of design influences from Germany. That does not really diminish the achievement of its design team:
if one factors in the cost of the machine, it was a relatively good product given what they knew at
the time the design was done.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
quote:
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Actually, there are "sources to back that up." The first of these is
just look at the plane! I felt dumb when I read it - because I believed I
should have seen the rather unique shape of the plane as a clue. There is
also the matter both are dive bombers.
But I learned it from William Green's Warplane's of the Third Reich, one of the
rather definitive English language treatments of German military aircraft of the
period. In the Ju-88 article, of course.
There is also more information in a newer book - Japanese Secret Projects - by
Edwin M Dyer. Using information not previously published or available in English,
he usefully describes all cases of Japanese-German cooperation - and also some
things that are purely fictional (including even comic books and similar "publications"
when these had art he could print). It appears there was even more extensive
industrial cooperation than I was aware of. Many factors prevented German designs
from reaching production in Japan - but it was a rich source for design concepts
and particular equipment because (a) the Germans were relatively more advanced
and (b) the Germans were often more willing to share with the Japanese than other
countries were. Sure enough, this and several other Ju-88 concepts are described.
I worked for a number of years (at Boeing, but not for Boeing, as a "resident engineer"
for a major contractor) in the design "software integration laboratories." These permit
"flying a plane or missile before it is built" as well as experimenting with one after it
exists in ways no one can see or track. They are why we do not design planes that do not
fly any more - once a common phenomena. I can still design a plane and "fly it" on a
computer. Anyway, the Lorna was an adaptation, scaled down, for a specialist mission:
as such it was also virtually unique. Few if any other ASW aircraft were dive bombers -
intended to decrease the error inherent in dropping weapons on a datum point (the Navy
term for the location of a submarine target). [Possibly a late war Ki-45 ASW variation
was inspired by the Earlier Lorna. I didn't know about this until last month either.]
Because MAD is a very short range sensor (and "the only effective non-acoustic sensor") -
and because if part of the sub is surfaced the aircraft radar would give a good datum point -
a dive bomber might have been a good concept. Japan also had a problem with high power engines,
and needed them for fighters and bombers: they hoped to make do with low power engines,
necessitating a smaller aircraft - and resulting in low performance so that, when the Lorna
finally did have to operate near enemy fighters, it was not well able to cope with them.
Japanese Navy ideas about air-ASW did not change much over time - a version of the Peggy
intended for production around 1946 also featured lower powered engines than the parent
aircraft it was designed from, and as a result, relatively low performance. But it would
permit distant operations - provided these were not in areas of enemy fighter patrols.
The JNAF Peggy was designated Q2W1.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
quote:
ORIGINAL: el cid again
The Ki-50 as such is the JAAF version of the Ju-88. It is only found in JES Scenarios
99 & 105. Note that two OTHER versions are found in ALL scenarios but with a Naval
designation Q1W1. Not often understood as such, this too is a peculiar Ju-88 variation
with very low power engines and specialized ASW sensors (radar and MAD).
Hi Cid, haven't had the time to look at your scenarios yet but I do peek into this thread from time to time when work permits. Looks like you and your team have spent many many man-hours on this mod.
Just wondering about the claim that Q1W1 was a Ju-88 variation - do you have sources to back that up? I have never come across a similar claim, and although the Lorna looks similar, it has much a smaller and lighter airframe than a Ju-88 - wing span Lorna 16m / Ju-88 18-20m (depending on variant), wing area 38 / 52-54 square meters, weight less than 5 tons / over 12 tons etc.
Funny how perceptions can differ. I did "just look at the plane" and said to me "That is not a Ju-88 or a variant - the cockpit may resemble a Ju-88, but not the rest - it is much smaller". Just going by "looks, would you say that the P-38 is a variant of the Fokker G.I. or the Tony a variant of the Me-109? They do look alike and they share the same general layout - but they are not the same airframes. Same goes for Lorna and Ju-88.
Unfortunately I don't know the books you have cited, but the books I have and various web sources I have consulted say that although the Lorna may look like a Ju-88, it is not a Ju-88. I have have also read a bit about the German-Japanese relations and the technology transfer (Bernd Martin is the German authority on the subject). The best that can be said about the resemblance is that that the Lorna was inspired by the Ju-88 - but it is not a Japanese Ju-88 copy.
In your third point you say that the Lorna was a "scaled-down adaption" - now that is not a Ju-88 variation anymore, no? I think our different perception is just about definitions - for me, a variant or variation is the same basic airframe adapted for different roles, like in the case of the Ju-88 the A-series as bomber, the C-series as Destroyer / night fighter, the D as Recon bird, G as pure Night Fighter etc. With that definition, the Lorna is definetly NOT a Ju-88 variant. But be it as it may, as long as you have the stats right in your mod, it will be fine.
|
Printable Version
RE: RHS Thread: Critical Update 7.271 (eratta) - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread