Technical lost opportunities japan alternate history discussion gas oil ratio calculator

##########

One of these is the Ki-43, historically it first flew in late 1938, but was only put in production in 1941 after having to be redesigned. But if the IJA chaps were thinking better and looking gas 78 industries around more, maybe seeing all those monoplanes with retractable gear in action in Europe would have compelled them to relax a bit that agility requirement (i bet even without the butterfly flaps it would still have been more agile that anything US or british, maybe just equal to the Zero but still good enough) and get Ki-43 in service in 1940. Would also have been good to adopt a reflex sight like the Zero. This would have gotten them perhaps 6 or more sentais of Ki-43 in December 1941, as opposed to just 2. Perhaps by this time they would have managed to at least partially solve the fragility problems of the Ki-43-I.

As for the IJN, well Shiden is a good example of a lost opportunity. Historically they gave top priority to the N1K1, a flawed concept, but have they not found out about the P-38 or F4U by 1941? If the IJN would have recognized circle k gas station locations the potential of a land plane version of the Kyofu, instead of being just a private venture the N1K1-J should have received full support, leaving N1K1 as secondary. Concentrating on actually making a better landplane out of the N1K1-J, i.e. low wing, perhaps a more aerodynamic rear fuselage (a sort of N1K2-J but appearing in 1942), maybe using a Kasei-20 series engine initially with Homare to come later, would have created a usable fighter by mid 1943. I’m not sure if cancelling the J2M would be a good idea or not (certainly more of the J2M5 versions would have been useful), as it also uses the electricity distribution network Kasei engine. Perhaps it’s better to built as many Shiden and Raiden as possible while reducing the now obsolete Zero numbers as much as possible (Nakajima built the A6M2 until 1944 if i’m not mistaken!).

Good points, regarding the A7M i was thinking along the lines, fine, the Homare won’t be powerful enough, so lighten the thing as much as possible to get it near spec and in service asap. They could have built an initial version without folding wings, maybe just folding the tips like the Zero. As i understand c gastronomie it the aircraft qualities were very good even when underpowered, but that lack of power resulted in much too low speed and rate of climb. Actually they could have had quite a hotrod if they would have fitted the MK9 in this lightened airframe.

Interesting what you say about B7A, jiggling about with production without trying to create airframes out of thin air, i was thinking cancelling G4M2/3 production in early 1944 and using every available Kasei thus released for more Gingas, or alternatively the same number of Gingas but with mostly Kasei engines, leaving the released Homare engines to power the Ryusei. One could also eat into the B6N and D4Y production for more Ryuseis instead, but anyway by that time thy would really need as many fighters and of the gas near me app highest possible performance.

I have a few opinions, mostly hopelessly perimated. Ki-43 production was slow in starting because pilot acceptance was equally slow, until combat flaps changed their minds. Japanese fighters were all equipped with radios, and the A6M and Ki-43 radios didn’t work. The 1943 Ki-43IIb received a new radio, but I don’t know if it worked grade 9 electricity unit review either. There was another fighter which was even slower in production, while much faster in speed, the Ki-44 Shoki. It was capable of B-29 interception, but the numbers produced barely surpassed the Boulton Paul Defiant. The Ha-115 and Sakae 21 were not the same engine. Army and Navy didn’t work together, and neither was very co-operative with the opinions of aircraft designers. It’s quite possible that they were obtuse with engine manufacturers as well. I don’t know. The Mitsubishi J2M Raiden was saddled with a cowling over its Kasei engine similar to the experimental cowling #3 on the American XP-42. They should have used #5. The making of light fighters with light engines and big wings on one hand, and heavy intercepters with big engines and small wings on the other gas or electricity more expensive hand, could have been a mistake. In the end, however, the Zeke was produced in the largest numbers, and those numbers were still short compared to losses, and vastly short compared to allied production of any number of superior aircraft. In the end, it was the end.

Would be curious to see a more userful split for IJA and IJN as far as types are concerned, for instance it would have been better to build Zeros for both IJA and IJN as it was simply a better aircraft, on the other hand perhaps the J2M could be cancelled and Ki-44 will be developed for both instead (can’t see why it couldn’t be fitted with a Kasei). Ki-61 would be a useful mid-war land electricity explained based fighter, and it and a radial engined version could start replacing IJA Zeros in this scenario until Ki-84 comes along. Then perhaps you could have the Shiden designed as an interim carrier fighter for IJN waiting for the Reppu. Ki-45 and J1N were another waste gas 91 octane, just have the Ki-45 for both, then the Ki-102 and Ki-83 later in the war.

Could also jiggle about with things like building D3As instead of Ki-51, and of course perhaps G4M could be replaced by some variant of Ki-21 or maybe Ki-49 early on, and replaced by something like the Ki-67 later in the war (waving away the P1Y), but then of course that means perhaps waving away the whole concept of Rikko in the first place.

Click to expand…There’s no question the Army-Navy power games and duplication debilitated the japanese war effort, however me i wouldn’t say that things like Ki-46 or C6N were bad. They gas natural were useful given the circumstances, and of course the C6N would have been useful in it’s original role as a CV bases recce, it was as fast as the F6F, and faster than any other japanese CV aircraft that could have been used in that role.

The only way i could think of is if somehow the Army puts more emphasis on performace and will use liquid cooled engines more widely, if you have the Ki-45 fitted with say two Ha-40, then probably a recce version will approach the Ki-46 in capability. Hm, that’s another idea, using liquid cooled engines for Ki-43 and/or Ki-44, of course that would make them a bit heavier but also faster. The alternatives before being able to design their own liquid cooled engines are the HS-12Y (which they did got), the DB-600/601 and Jumo-211.

Thinking about this from another angle, commonality is a good thing, but then if all the eggs are put in on basket (thinking of the example above of having Ki-21 gas in back trapped or Ki-49 used by the Navy too insted of G3M and G4M*), one or other aircraft manufacturer will perhaps loose the knowledge and experience that comes with designing and building. So it’s all swings and roundabouts.

There’s no question the Army-Navy power games and duplication debilitated the japanese war effort gas weed, however me i wouldn’t say that things like Ki-46 or C6N were bad. They were useful given the circumstances, and of course the C6N would have been useful in it’s original role as a CV bases recce, it was as fast as the F6F, and faster than any other japanese CV aircraft that could have been used in that role.

The only way i could think of is if somehow the Army puts more emphasis on performace and will use liquid cooled engines more widely, if you have the Ki-45 fitted with say two Ha-40, then probably a recce version will approach the Ki-46 in capability. Hm, that’s another idea, using liquid cooled engines for Ki-43 and/or Ki-44, of course that would make them a bit heavier but also faster. The alternatives before being able to design their own liquid cooled engines are the HS-12Y (which they did got), the DB-600/601 and Jumo-211.

Thinking about this from another angle, commonality is a good thing, but then if all the eggs are put in on basket (thinking of the example above of having electricity for refrigeration heating and air conditioning 9th edition pdf Ki-21 or Ki-49 used by the Navy too insted of G3M and G4M*), one or other aircraft manufacturer will perhaps loose the knowledge and experience that comes with designing and building. So it’s all swings and roundabouts.

* i saw electricity laws physics a suggestion, very logical, that the G4M could have made into a better aircraft if they would have protected part of the fuel tanks, ie, the self-sealing tanks would be containing fuel when the target would be reached while the unprotected ones would have been empty by then and filled with inert gas. There would still be some loss in range, but survivability would have been significantly increased. Aircraft like P1Y and H8K did used this system.