Japanese WWII Twin Engined Fighters - Ki-45, J1N etc

[GTX]

Folks,

A thread for whiffs of aircaft such as the Ki-45, J1N etc.

I'll start - what about an in-line engined Ki-45?



Regards,

Greg

[Maverick]

Seems eminently plausible for IJAAF aircraft Greg.  Not so sure on the IJN tho, they tended (like the USN) to steer away from liquid cooled motors.

Regards,

Mav

[pyro-manic]

What about an inline-powered Ki-83? Merlins or Griffons (with the bulged Spitfire-style cowling, rather than the round Shackleton one) would look good IMO, or DB603/5s, with leading-edge radiators like the Mosquito? Or even replace the Japanese radials with a more powerful Western engine (Centaurus, R2800 etc?)

[Daryl J.]

Great Nick, Greg.


I've thought of making a high altitude variant of the Francis in the spurious British markings PR-roundel-19.   

There's an Irving and Dinah III in Ye Olde Stash specifically slated for overall gloss sea blue USMC/Korea markings.     

[Taiidantomcat]

that looks sharp!! 

[IanH]

That's just illustrated one of my Future Projects

[sequoiaranger]

Mav, you said:
>Not so sure on the IJN tho, they tended (like the USN) to steer away from liquid cooled motors.<

I think you dislexicly misread GTX's post---he was talking about the "J1N" (Gekko fighter), not the "IJN"!

Here is one of my latest whiffs---a "Twin-engined Zero" based on the Dinah, with Zero design elements:



Yes, a twin-engined Ki.45 with inline engines would be "cool". I am currently doing the Ki.62 "inline Hayate" which will have a backstory about a stash of inline engines, DB 605's licence-built in Argentina with good metallurgy, that is found in a warehouse mislabeled "portable commodes", and used to re-equip some of the unreliable inline engines of Japanese aircraft.

[dy031101]

A jet development, straight wings or otherwise?

[GTX]

What about a Ki-45 updated with the same 1,500 hp Ha-112-II engines (with turbocharger) as the Ki-100 II?  Maybe as an alternative to the Kawasaki Ki-102 (lower drawing):





Regards,

Greg

[Maverick]

Sequoia, I realise that Greg was mentioning the J1N, there was no confusion with my reply. 

IJN aircraft didn't use the Ki- designators.  The Nakajima J1N family were twin engined aircraft flown by the IJN rather than the IJAAF.  As my reply stated, Japanese Navy aircraft were routinely radially engined and I doubt that an inline aircraft would see favour with them.

Regards,

Mav

[sequoiaranger]

>Sequoia, I realise that Greg was mentioning the J1N, there was no confusion with my reply.<

OK, I take back the statement that you were dyslexic!

>Not so sure on the IJN tho, they tended (like the USN) to steer away from liquid cooled motors.  Japanese Navy aircraft were routinely radially engined and I doubt that an inline aircraft would see favour with them.<

Remember, though, the inline-engined D4Y "Judy" dive bomber was the mainstay of the IJN for the last three years of the war (actually appearing in June of 1942 as a recce plane), and seemed in good favor except for the lousy engine reliability, eventually being replaced with a radial version.

Unfortunately for them, the Japanese "tweaked" the design of their DB-601/605 license-built engines to make them lighter, but the "tweak" weakened the engine in several ways and made it less reliable. All "we" need to do is to "whif" the reliability into the engines (in one of my whif backstories, the Japanese use Argentine-built DB engines built to tougher German specs) and then they can be used more abundantly.

I would think it would be "easy" to take a Ki.45 and graft Me-410 wings+engines on, and add more pointy wing-tips and/or spinners.

Who will be the first??

[Old Wombat]

The primary reason for the USN & IJN steering away from in-line engines was because the liquid cooled in-line engines had a weak point that could mean the loss of an aircraft & pilot, if they had to ditch at sea, merely because a bullet passed through the radiator - a problem not shared by air-cooled radial engines.

Another reason was the extra equipment, stores & maintenance required for the liquid cooling systems. Although it might not seem like much, on a busy, crowded warship (carrier) there is no room for unnecessary supplies & no time for unnecessary work. That small saving in space & time could mean the difference between victory or struggling to stay afloat in a fuel-oil covered ocean.