PDA

View Full Version : Japanese Emily flying boat: evaluation



SkyChimp
05-02-2004, 08:18 PM
From Naval Aviation News, August 1947

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/emily.jpg

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

SkyChimp
05-02-2004, 08:18 PM
From Naval Aviation News, August 1947

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/emily.jpg

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
05-02-2004, 08:45 PM
Awsum, thanks chimp. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

chris455
05-03-2004, 12:11 AM
I always believed Emily was the final word in flying boats. This report certainly doesn't seem to think so. Bamboo hydraulic lines? Are they serious?

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

Giganoni
05-03-2004, 01:42 AM
I do not know when that Emily was made..report doesn't say, could it be a late war model that had to cut back on using the best materials? Was it damaged and then repaired rather crudely just to make it flying again?

I think you need to know the plane's history to make a very accurate report on the Emily type of planes overall construction, etc.

chris455
05-03-2004, 01:44 AM
Gig,
If that was meant for me, I'm just repeating what appeared in the report- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[QUOTE]
"I think you need to know the plane's history to make a very accurate report on the Emily type of planes overall construction, etc."

Agreed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

Giganoni
05-03-2004, 01:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
Gig,
If that was meant for me, I'm just repeating what appeared in the report- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[QUOTE]
"I think you need to know the plane's history to make a very accurate report on the Emily type of planes overall construction, etc."

Agreed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm just trying to keep everyone skeptical of everything heh http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luthier1
05-03-2004, 02:33 AM
That article is sure fair and balanced. "could not carry out...auxiliary bombers and offensive bomber attack". Ha ha.

Emily could carry two 800kg torpedoes, or up to 2,000 kg (4,200 lbs) of bombs or depth charges. A transport subersion, H8K2-L-32, could carry up to sixty four combat troops. Now to me that doesn't sounds like a "one-design plane - patrol reconnaisance". But of course I might be wrong.

(hello everybody)

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Giganoni
05-03-2004, 02:42 AM
Me like the new sig, yes, yes I do like the new sig.

sugaki
05-03-2004, 11:33 AM
Seems blatantly biased ...saying that it can't carry as much, despite it being primarily suited for reconnaissance doesn't make sense. Bamboo ....that could've been to shortages. Poor worksmanship, well everything was pretty poorly made in the last stages of war.

I dig the Emily myself.

-Aki

KIMURA
05-03-2004, 12:23 PM
I'm very sceptical about hydraulic lines made of bamboo, because Hydraulics operates with 10bar and more (295"Hg and more) and I'm sceptical bamboo can resist pressure from inside of that value. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Kimura

NegativeGee
05-03-2004, 01:17 PM
Should we expect a review written for Naval Aviation News in 1947 to be completely authoritative and without bias when compared to the following 57 years of research and analysis?

(I mean even the title has a mocking scorn in it).

Nope, thought not http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

chris455
05-03-2004, 01:58 PM
"Hydraulic return lines".

I know one thing, I'd pay a pretty penny to go on a flight in one of those babies, were it still possible.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
I'm very sceptical about hydraulic lines made of bamboo, because Hydraulics operates with 10bar and more (295"Hg and more) and I'm sceptical bamboo can resist pressure from inside of that value. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Kimura<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Mon May 03 2004 at 01:38 PM.]

Giganoni
05-04-2004, 01:55 AM
My WW2 Encyclopedia of Weapons does consider the Emily the best flying boat of WW2 and that it did suffer in 1945 from poor workmanship and quality of materials as most of the industries energy was devoted to fighters. However, according to my book even during the last 18 months of the war the Emily with AVS radar was sinking allied subs.

ZG77_Nagual
05-04-2004, 07:59 AM
reminds me of when the coast guard here flew albatrosses - I remember watching a rocket assisted takeoff on Grand Traverse Bay ( a very large bay off lake Michigan) - that was pretty impressive.