|
Forums 1C:Maddox Games IL2 Maddox General Discussion Osprey: Ki-43 Oscar had 50% of all Japanese fighter kills.|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
What was the octanes of Japanese fuels?
|
||||
|
I think I read about the fuel issue in a chapter of a book, "Omoi Hikoukigumo" ("Heavy Contrail") written by an author named Yoichi Watanabe, and in one of those Maru Mechanics, but I could be wrong. I seem to recall the octane value was explicitly stated (and I was intrigued by the fairly low value) but I can't verify it now. The book is M.I.A and I can't find it in my bookshelf.....
Watanebe has written many articles in a Japanese monthly called "Koku Fan" ("Aviation Fan"), and he also published many books. He is famous for tracking down and interviewing hundreds of WW2 veterans over the last 2 decades, and writes exclusively based on the first hand account (instead of hearsay or based on second hand information). He has made it his mission to record as much first hand information as possible before those veterans pass away. Many of these old Japanese pilots and admirals didn't accept interviews earlier. I should also mention this ---- especially to those self-proclaimed authorities on this board. I have read MANY articles and books written in Japanese about IJN/IJA aircraft. The better the author is (and the quality of information he has), the more uncertain their description of aircraft becomes. It seems very common that the test values or specifications differ between the manufacturer, IJN (or IJA) testing divisions, IJN Kougi-syo (engineering division which sometimes even designed aircraft), and the recollection of pilots or officers in the front line. |
||||
|
..... JA, just a tip of my hat and a thank you for sharing these Japanese-language materials with us. People interested in the Japanese fuel and oil refining industry of WW2 might wish to check this site out. Go to - http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/ - and find the Reports of the US Naval Technical Mission to Japan 1945-1946, sections JM-200-K through -M. You'll find it under "Primary Documents; Government Reports". There is an immense amount of data here. BLUTARSKI |
||||
|
 |
People that hold up and try to make some amateur comparison of fuel rated in one country under a completely different system have little understanding how it even works. There are multiple ways to rate octane numbers in the petroleum industry even today. An octane number does not necessarily mean more power or even that a fuel is high quality. A good example is the specified fuel grade for a Lycoming O-360 A1A is 91 Octane. Even if the auto fuel for an approved auto fuel STC passed the Reid Vapor Pressure you still cannot use 92 Octane premium auto fuel. It does not have the required knock limited performance despite the fact it has a higher octane rating. You have to use 93 octane auto fuel at a minimum and 100 or above octane auto racing fuel is preferred. You could 1000 Octane fuel and your airplane would not develop very much power if the RVP is off. You are correct in that there is a considerable amount of ignorance on the facts surrounding aircraft fuel. All the best, Crumpp   Our Museum glorifies no state, but strives to use these aircraft as a memorial for all lost in war. Our freedom can only be truly appreciated when held in contrast to those who sought to destroy it. Our staff is proudly made up of people from many cultures and religions. Click the photos for details of our projects. "Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it." - Winston Churchill |
|||
|
Research Octane Number (RON)
The most common type of octane rating worldwide is the Research Octane Number (RON). RON is determined by running the fuel in a test engine with a variable compression ratio under controlled conditions, and comparing the results with those for mixtures of iso-octane and n-heptane. Motor Octane Number (MON) There is another type of octane rating, called Motor Octane Number (MON), or the aviation lean octane rating, which is a better measure of how the fuel behaves when under load as it is done at 900 rpm instead of the 600 rpm of the RON. MON testing uses a similar test engine to that used in RON testing, but with a preheated fuel mixture, a higher engine speed, and variable ignition timing to further stress the fuel's knock resistance. Depending on the composition of the fuel, the MON of a modern gasoline will be about 8 to 10 points lower than the RON. Normally, fuel specifications require both a minimum RON and a minimum MON. Anti-Knock Index (AKI) In most countries, including all of those of Europe, and Australia, the "headline" octane rating shown on the pump is the RON - but in the United States, Canada, and some other countries,[which?] the headline number is the average of the RON and the MON, called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI). It may also sometimes be called the Road Octane Number (RdON), Pump Octane Number (PON), or (R+M)/2. Difference between RON and AKI Because of the 8 to 10 point difference noted above, the octane rating shown in the United States is 4 to 5 points lower than the rating shown elsewhere in the world for the same fuel. See the table in the following section for a comparison. |
||||
|
|
|
Thank you yuppers. You can see just a few reasons why it is amusing to see all the silly conclusions being made on the internet about aircraft fuels.
There are multiple reasons why what is great fuel for one airplane may not develop anything close to the correct power when using another type of fuel. You can see this fact in all the testing in specific aircraft to determine if a fuel is suitable. It is very difficult to compare fuels without knowing a considerable amount of the chemical details and manufacturing process. All the best, Crumpp Our Museum glorifies no state, but strives to use these aircraft as a memorial for all lost in war. Our freedom can only be truly appreciated when held in contrast to those who sought to destroy it. Our staff is proudly made up of people from many cultures and religions. Click the photos for details of our projects. "Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it." - Winston Churchill |
|||
|
All of this leads me to ask the question "Are engines designed for a specific fuel formula or are fuels formulated to extract the desired performance from a specific engine?"
My bet is that Kettenhunde says "yes." cheers horseback "Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944 |
||||
|
From Profile Publications Number 46: The Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa, page 5-
"In February 1942 the first of five prototypes of a new variant was completed. Designated Ki-43-IIa, the improved model entered production in the following autumn (..........) The omission of pilot armour and fuel protection in earlier models was now recognized to have been a mistake; 13 mm head and back plates were fitted in the cockpit and self-sealing tanks were installed in the wings." In other words, the Ki-43-IIa introduced self-sealing tanks, and these were NOT fitted to the earlier series-I variants. The above is also in line with other sources. This does not rule out that the last batches of series-I Ki-43s left the factory with these improvements as series-I production did not immediately end when series-II production started; but I very much doubt whether the series-Is which were used over Malaya, Singapore, the NEI and Burma had self-sealing tanks. The KNIL is dead. Long live the KNIL! |
||||
|
never heard about wingguns in a Ki-43 , you have any pictures ? ..................................... and before you have to ask: Shift + F1 will center the sight. Ctrl + D will remove the lenscap F4F and I-16 has manual landing gear only |
||||
|
 |
Nope, never ever. As to armor and the like......The Japanese didn't really have what we might call "self sealing" tanks......What they at first used was a layer of silk felt, then over that 3mm thick rubber. The result was it helped with hydroshock blowout, yet also would absorb any leaking fuel so the interior of the aircraft would not fill up with fumes....as much.  As time progressed, the above combination was discarded for thicker and thicker all rubber "bullet proofing". As you can imagine, rubber makes an excellent bullet proofing in that it fragments the round, sometimes stopping it, others taking away so much energy it can't penetrate the vital areas, and if it fragments yet continues on to something like a sealed tank does less damage.....Just the loss of energy will prevent hydroshock blowout, and as you may have guessed a hole made in rubber does self seal to a certain degree. Though I'd have to look for exact numbers for the Hayabusa, the Hien as an example added a considerable amount of rubber at the end of its evolution......You'll also notice with each addition of rubber thickness, the fuel capacity shrinks. That is because the areas for the fuel cells were dimentionally hard fixed, so to fit in more rubber meant reducing the size. Lastly, the self sealing aspect (though not a true self sealing) is really not about saving fuel. It's more about not having a fuselage or wing fill up with fumes making it a giant bomb. Finally, the IL2 sim as far as Japanese aircraft and my guess most others is way off in that if a tank is hit, you switch to another (Hayabusa's had at least 4 I know of, the Hien had 3 in the wings and on early Ko 1 in the fuselage).....So at worst you'd only lose 33% of your fuel if that....Not run out like is modeled.   K2    "Does this make my Hien look big? I love my Ha-40's & teh Swallow" |
|||
|
|
|
As a p.s. to all this......
I've noticed of late on numerous forums a LOT of buzz about Ki-43's, all of it spurred on by the Osprey Ki-43 Aces book which I do NOT have. Now I think it's great that the book has inspired so many people to get interested in the Hayabusa....Frankly, it was a great aircraft, and Nakajima a great company, very forward thinking their concepts prized today as the only way to engineer and manufacture something. I also think it is great that someones writing has the power to inspire such interest in the Hayabusa. It was a workhorse aircraft to be sure, making up the lions share of IJAFC fighter aircraft not some glamorous rarely seen racehorse. What I'm not finding great is the vast....and I mean rediculously high number of incorrect statements about a very well known aircraft I'm seeing folks make......It makes me wonder if the book is that badly written so biased (have seen it in others)....Or so well written that it sways folks to over enthusiasm to the point they start wildly speculating perpetuating old, and even making up new myths. I've read them in the forums about the aircraft, the pilots, the tactics, and the combat results........and it really puts me off buying this book in that I don't want to waste my money on a fantasy tale.....Though it may not be. Anywho, it all seems to stem from folks reading this one book.......My advice?......Read others, then go back and read this one again. Perhaps it will read differently after. K2 "Does this make my Hien look big? I love my Ha-40's & teh Swallow" |
|||
|
You took and stole my thunder. The Ki-43 in Il2 is modeled wrong, all of this proves it. You fail to mention that with the KI-43II the explosive ammo pre-detonation was solved. the bigger point is that the Ki-43, ALL versions fired 12.7 explosive ammo that hit as hard as 20mm explosive ammo. I have posted this before, look at the 248 Hard Luck Sq article on line. Oleg, please fix if you can!
|
||||
|
You are WRONG! The Ki-43 tanks had 13mm of rubber on them.
|
||||
|
BTW people, I, the world Famous Blue Baron shot down 111 P40's with the Ki-43A on the SOV server during May.
The KI-43 ABC progresison did not happen in real life. They were all B models until the improved KI-43II with better explosive ammo, and protection. |
||||
|
|
|
No.....................The pre-detonation argument is/was minor, it was more a simple issue of jamming (more later on that).....As to the 12.7 being equal to the 20mm, that is very wrong, be sure. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm As to ANYTHING Mr. R.Dunn writes, you can trust it implicetly, heck even congress and NASA does. His research is unquestionable, simply be careful that you do not read into it more then he writes.
No...............In time they had 12mm rubber bullet proofing on the Ki-43-II, yet on the Ki-43-I and not even all of them it was much less........Just as I said. Mr. J. Long's research above anyone elses ON THE PLANET you can trust about Japanese Army Aircraft. Most publications use his work, without question it is the most accurate and detailed of any expert in the field.....any. As to this subject look here: http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=2770.0 ....and I quote: The later Ki-43-I aircraft had a form of fuel tank protection. It was judged as halfhearted and ineffective by Allied intelligence. It was a leak-absorption type, using rubber and absorbent material covered and held in place by a fabric covering. Some documents have called it "self-sealing," but for the early Japanese effort in the Ki-43-I it is a misleading term. The aluminum skin of the fuel tank was covered with a four-ply layer of natural rubber about an eighth of an inch thick, then a half inch of an absorbent material resembling cotton waste (was really silk felt...edit by Billfish/K2) and, finally, aluminum painted fabric which served, primarily, to hold the rubber and the cotton waste to the tank. The date and the serial number of the first Ki-43-I that had the fuel tank protection are not known, as far as I am aware. The surviving Ki-43-I, which was acquired and refurbished by the Alpine Fighter Collection in New Zealand some years ago, tells us that the installation of the protected fuel tanks was at least started by November 1942 with the 650th Ki-43-I, probably before then, but perhaps not much before then. This 650th Ki-43(serial number 750) was completed during early November 1942, at the same time that the early planes of the new Ki-43-II were going into mass production.
There never was an "A,B,C".......Nor even a Ki-43-I (as it was simply a Ki-43, then came the Ki-43-II). Those are designations made up well after WWII to try and sort it all out...Never the less using them to be clear, as production began of the Ki-43-I, weapons availability had Nakajima using Type 89 7.7mm guns to get aircraft out the doors waiting for the "new" Ho-103 12.7mm. 35 of these were shipped, those you know as the Ki-43-I-a, then very quickly some 12.7mm guns were added in roughly 45 aircraft (making what you know of as Ki-43-I-b's), yet finally when production was really rolling the "Ki-43" was fitted with JUST its intended weapons of 2-12.7mm Ho-103's (Breda 12.5mm used in prototypes).......All Ki-43's were intended to have 2xHo-103's. Period........ However, pilots used to 2x7.7mm Type89 weapons found with the newly built guns, and initially inferior ammo jamming problems. So to compensate it even added in Ki-43 field manuals, instructions were given on how to remove one of the 12.7mm guns and replace it with a 7.7mm. In that way if the 12.7 failed, you could use the 7.7. Enough aircraft were converted that many for some time believed this was a armament varient intended by Nakajima.....It was not, there was no "Ib" aircraft, they were ALL intended to be what we call Ki-43-I-c's. Now, that doesn't mean that so many Ki-43 were field converted that it seemed that's what was meant, yet it was not. More of Mr. Dunn's work on this very subject: http://www.warbirdforum.com/rdunn43.htm Some additional information: http://www.warbirdforum.com/jaafmgs.htm & http://www.warbirdforum.com/hayabusa.htm This is EXACTLY why I avoided this topic......So will say it again:
K2 "Does this make my Hien look big? I love my Ha-40's & teh Swallow" |
|||
|
|
|
Well, since this has overflowed onto other threads let's instead of beating this bloated dead horse poke it with a sharp stick to pop it once and for all.
Virtually every Ki-43 ace and commander I have read of comments by late 1943 that the time for the Hayabusa had past....Yet as a final jab at it we have the following from MacArthur's Eagles by Lex McAulay, page 109, 2nd paragraph..... "On 25 December 4 Air Army reported to Tokyo that officers in subordinate units had confirmed that the Tony was superior to the Oscar. Linked to this admission, by the end of December 1943, it was Necessary for Capt. Yutaka Kozuki and other experienced pilots of the 248 Sentai to compile a paper listing combat lessons learned in an attempt to assist the inexperienced pilots. Basically the paper was a list of "dos and don'ts" on how to avoid being shot down but little to do with how to destroy the enemy. It was defensive in nature and content, not offensive. But allied leaders of the time produced papers emphasizing how best to destroy Japanese aircraft using height, speed, teamwork, and gunnery." So regarding the Ki-43, the best the best pilots could offer was how to "help" avoid being shot down.....That coming from men trained in the combat mindset of there is only one answer for every situation.....Attack, Attack, Attack. So by late December 1943 it confirmed in writing what the pilots had to live with since the beginning of that year and commented on by every Ki-43 ace I have ever read about......That the Hayabusa's days as an effective fighter were well over, done, finished. It was used and produced after that time as they had nothing else to immediately offer. K2 "Does this make my Hien look big? I love my Ha-40's & teh Swallow" |
|||
|
 |
all i know is...
awesome photos, LB, please post more if you have them!  |
|||
|
 |
Part of the reason that no one is taking you seriously is that you have failed to supply ANY evidence to such contentions, despite being repeatedly asked to do so by persons including myself. So for the millionth time, please supply the British report you keep mentioning that supports your contention that - 'the the Japanese 12.7mm hits like a 20mm.' If you want anyone here to believe you, this is what it will take, not childish ranting and repetition. P.S. I am not holding my breath waiting for you to supply even the barest response to my request. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Forums 1C:Maddox Games IL2 Maddox General Discussion Osprey: Ki-43 Oscar had 50% of all Japanese fighter kills.
