PDA

View Full Version : Bf109 vs Tony



XyZspineZyX
12-17-2006, 09:31 AM
A few weeks ago, at the request of one of the members of these boards I made and uploaded a skin of a Bf109 sent to Japan for evaluation.

As I go and recheck some of my skin uploads, I notice that there has been a review posted about this skin.

Now, in my comments I wrote "One of five 109E-7's sent to Japan for evaluation in 1941. The Japanese were apparently not impressed."...which was merely a recap from a website that I had found on the subject. Now, a rather sarcastic individual posted the following comment:

"Yeah the Japs did not like it some much that they made a copy called the Tony. What would have happened if Britain had sent the One and only Spitfire on order to Japan?"

Now, I know that the DB engines impressed the Japanese to a certain extent, since they asked to licence build them for the Ki-61s. But was the Tony actually a "copy" of the Bf109 as this person states?

Looking at the aircraft's design, I can say that it was perhaps influenced, but to go an shout out loud that it was a copy...I find this person to be rather childish and misinformed. Can any of the PTO gurus here clarify?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/Skunk24/sig2.jpg
Escadron virtuel RCAF 438 (http://438cityofmontreal.googlepages.com)
<span class="ev_code_red"> Are you from Montreal? French is good? JOIN US! RCAF 438 "The City of Montreal"</span>

"You know, I've personally flown over 194 missions and I was shot down on every one. Come to think of it, I've never landed a plane in my life."

LEBillfish
12-17-2006, 09:52 AM
Actually, the HE-100 in profile looks closer, and the Japanese had actually procurred both. Yet He-100 fixtures and such never arrived. However, if you look at the Ki-60 & Ki-61, it becomes rather clear quickly they are "not" copies of Bf-109's.

Naturally having similar engines (and I've been debating this one with Kimura)..Certain aspects will end up similar & if you think about it being monoplanes all aircraft have some similar features. Yet the Ki-61 was a vastly different aircraft, even including the engine and it's components itself. How it mounted, was wired and plumbed, the controls, wings, armament, supporting systems etc..

Yet they both have wings, tails, a canopy, and a propeller....So I suppose I can see where one might think it is a "copy".....Just like a P-51 is a copy of the Yak-1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"Does this make my Hien look big?"
"I love my Ha-40's"
"She loves teh Swallow"
"Don't call me cho-cho san"
</span>

slipBall
12-17-2006, 10:11 AM
Japan did surprise the world concerning their aircraft developement. Hard to say where the truth lies...Howard Hughes had this to say about one of his designs, and the Japanese



Howard Hughes Aviator In His Own Words

Hughes: "It says the plane with which he set the land speed record was, as the fact indicates, the fastest plane built up to that time is not correct because there had been one or two seaplanes built for the Schneider Trophy Race which were faster. However they had practically no range and were only usable on a very very smooth lake with fuel enough for a few minutes flight, utterly impractical. This airplane [H-1 Racer] which is under discussion here was the fastest land plane which had ever been built and was the most efficient airplane ever built up to that time by a considerable amount . . . You see this airplane was fast because it was clean and yet it attained its speed with a Pratt and Whitney engine of perfectly normal design with normal reliability.

Now this follows - Hughes submitted a pursuit plane version of his design to the Army Air Corps and felt confident that after his demonstration of his trans-continental flight the army would be interested because this airplane was definitely faster than any military aircraft anywhere in the world - pursuit plane, bomber, or anything else. . . However the Army Air Corps did not accept this design. Right here I don't know exactly what reason to give. I don't want to indict the Army Air Corps for passing up the airplane so a little thought should be given to this. I have my own ideas as to why they didn't accept it but after all I'm doing a lot of business now with the Air Force and let's not generate any ill-will here.

Now regarding the Japanese Zero . . . The Japanese Zero was a shock of the utmost magnitude to the United States because it had been thought up to that time that the Japanese were far inferior mechanically, I should say in point of aircraft design and mechanical aptitude, to the United States and nobody expected the Japanese to have an airplane that would be at all competitive. Well, in any event, when one of these Japanese Zeros was finally captured and studied and analyzed it was quite apparent to everyone that it had been copied from the Hughes plane which has been discussed earlier here. That is the only relationship between the Japanese Zero and the Hughes H-I design. I had no dealings with the Japanese or any other foreign government for the plane and to the best of everyone's knowledge the Japanese had no other access to it except through whatever espionage they may have had or through seeing photographs of it which naturally were published all over the world.

Bill Utley: (attending the meeting as the Hughes company publicist, recounts how before the war a delegation of Japanese air force generals had seen the H-1 in a hangar in New Jersey) "They were late for a banquet in New York where they were being toasted and they saw your airplane and I have been told by Al Ludwick I think, that they couldn't drag them away from it, that they climbed all over it, that they examined it from head to toe, and that was the start of their interest in your airplane"

Hughes: Oh, really?

Utley: Yeah.

Hughes: Well, I don't think we better bring that in because there might be some question as to why the hell they were let in the hangar.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/orders.jpg

3.JG51_BigBear
12-17-2006, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Skunk241981:
A few weeks ago, at the request of one of the members of these boards I made and uploaded a skin of a Bf109 sent to Japan for evaluation.

As I go and recheck some of my skin uploads, I notice that there has been a review posted about this skin.

Now, in my comments I wrote "One of five 109E-7's sent to Japan for evaluation in 1941. The Japanese were apparently not impressed."...which was merely a recap from a website that I had found on the subject. Now, a rather sarcastic individual posted the following comment:

"Yeah the Japs did not like it some much that they made a copy called the Tony. What would have happened if Britain had sent the One and only Spitfire on order to Japan?"

Now, I know that the DB engines impressed the Japanese to a certain extent, since they asked to licence build them for the Ki-61s. But was the Tony actually a "copy" of the Bf109 as this person states?

Looking at the aircraft's design, I can say that it was perhaps influenced, but to go an shout out loud that it was a copy...I find this person to be rather childish and misinformed. Can any of the PTO gurus here clarify?

I've always thought this was a funny myth since the two planes don't even look all that similar. The wing platform and tail alone are remarkably different.

A lot of planes from that era had a similar look. The Me-109, the Spitfire, the Yak-1, the Lagg-3, the Hurricane, the P-40, heck even the early P-51 had an inline engine with a raised turle deck.

JDXKiller
12-17-2006, 10:48 AM
If the Ki-61 was influenced by a german aircraft design, then it was the Heinkel He 100.
http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/he100-5.jpg

Wikipedia:

When the war opened in 1939 Heinkel was allowed to look for foreign licensees for the design. Japanese and Soviet delegations visited the Marienehe factory in late October, and were both impressed with what they saw. Thus it was in foreign hands that the 100 finally saw use, although only in terms of adopted design features.

The Japanese were also looking for new designs, notably those using inline engines where they had little experience. They purchased the three D-0's for 1.2 million DM, as well as a license for production and a set of jigs for another 1.8 million DM. The three D-0's arrived in Japan in May 1940 and were re-assembled at Kasumigaura. They were then delivered to the Japanese Naval Air Force where they were re-named AXHei, for "Experimental Heinkel Fighter". When referring to the German design the aircraft is called both the He 100 and He 113, with at least one set of plans bearing the later name.

In tests the Navy was so impressed that they planned to put the aircraft into production as soon as possible as their land based interceptor ? unlike every other forces in the world, the Army and Navy both fielded complete land based air forces. Hitachi won the contract for the aircraft and started construction of a factory in Chiba for its production. With the war in full swing in Europe however, the jigs and plans never arrived. Why this wasn't sorted out is something of a mystery, and it appears there isn't enough information in the common sources to say for sure what happened.

The DB 601 engine design was far more advanced than any indigenous Japanese design, which tended to concentrate on air cooled radials. To get a jump into the inline field, Kawasaki had already purchased the license for the 601A from Daimler Benz in 1938. The adoption process went smoothly, they adapted it to Japanese tooling and had it in production by late 1940 as the Ha-40.

At the same time Kawasaki was working on two parallel fighter efforts, the Ki-60 heavy fighter and the Ki-61. The former was abandoned after poor test results (the test pilots disliked the high wing loading, as they always did) but work continued on the lightened Ki-61 with the Ha-40 engine. The Ki-61 was clearly influenced by the He 100.

Like the D's it lost the surface cooling system (although an early prototype may have included it), but is otherwise largely similar in design except for changes to the wing and vertical stabilizer. Since the Ki-61 was supposed to be lighter and offer better range than the Ki-60, the design had a longer and more tapered wing for better altitude performance. This also improved the handling to the delight of the test pilots, and the aircraft was put into production. The Hien would prove to be the first of the Japanese aircraft that was truly equal to the contemporary US fighters.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_100



Fly Friendly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1781/bf109africa2px.jpg
______________________________
"Kapitulation, nö, da halt ich nichts davon."

Nimits
12-17-2006, 11:48 AM
The Ki-61 has a certain "German" or "European" look to it, alot different the other Japanese fighters. Many Allied pilots were convinced they were seeing Bf-109s over New Guinea (don't fault them too much; the IJAAF kept reporting Spitfires over Malaya and Singapore . . .). To be honest, from certain angles even in still photographs a Ki-61 can look alot like a Bf-109. So it is not surprising that many then and now believed the Ki-61 to be influenced by the Bf-109.

leeG727
12-17-2006, 12:02 PM
The Allies called the Ki-61 "Tony" because they thought it was an Italian design.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

----------
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g258/leeG727/IL2/leeG-sig.gif

Opie-won
12-17-2006, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by leeG727:
The Allies called the Ki-61 "Tony" because they thought it was an Italian design.

Come to think of it, The MC202/205 and the Tony do look a good bit alike in general outline....

VW-IceFire
12-17-2006, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Opie-won:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leeG727:
The Allies called the Ki-61 "Tony" because they thought it was an Italian design.

Come to think of it, The MC202/205 and the Tony do look a good bit alike in general outline.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And thus we have three sets of aircraft which, when using the same engine type and having similar requirements, ended up looking very similar overall.

I think the Japanese were probably not impressed by the Bf109E-7 as it was not much of a turn fighter. The F-2 or F-4 would have been a far more impressive aircraft to them and even then it probably would have failed to impress. The Ki-60 failed to impress as well and the lighter Ki-61 was acceptable enough in the turn to go forward.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

ElAurens
12-17-2006, 06:56 PM
It's interesting how these same subjects keep coming around every few months.

The Bf109 and the Ki61 have two things in common. They both have 12 cylinder engines of the inverted V configuration, and they are both airplanes.

All similarities end there.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
12-17-2006, 08:02 PM
I actually already knew all this info. I just started in order to have inputs from a few different individuals and point the person who made the sarcastic remark directly here, as a sort of smack in the face so to speak. Thanks all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/Skunk24/sig2.jpg
Escadron virtuel RCAF 438 (http://438cityofmontreal.googlepages.com)
<span class="ev_code_red"> Are you from Montreal? French is good? JOIN US! RCAF 438 "The City of Montreal"</span>

"You know, I've personally flown over 194 missions and I was shot down on every one. Come to think of it, I've never landed a plane in my life."

tools4foolsA
12-18-2006, 04:46 AM
The Bf109 and the Ki61 have two things in common. They both have 12 cylinder engines of the inverted V configuration, and they are both airplanes.

All similarities end there.

Insn't there onmore similarity?

Rear fuselage/cockpit design?

The Ki-61 having the rear fuselage extended to the upper rear end of the canopy while virtually all other japanese fighters (except for Raiden) have a low rear fuselage with an all round canopy (including the earlier Zero/Oscar).

This in combination with the inverted V engine makes the Ki-61 look like a 109 (or He100) if looked at from side - much less like a Zero, Oscar, Shoki, Hayate, George, etc...

****

LEBillfish
12-18-2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
Insn't there onmore similarity?

Rear fuselage/cockpit design?

The Ki-61 having the rear fuselage extended to the upper rear end of the canopy while virtually all other japanese fighters (except for Raiden) have a low rear fuselage with an all round canopy (including the earlier Zero/Oscar).

This in combination with the inverted V engine makes the Ki-61 look like a 109 (or He100) if looked at from side - much less like a Zero, Oscar, Shoki, Hayate, George, etc...

****

Does a 109 look like a FW190?...Hence a Ki-61 doesn't look like a A6M3 and for even more dramatic reasons then you may realize......Early P51, Spit, P40, Yak etc. all had their rears run up to the top of the canopy Yet you'd not say they are copies....

Common attributes WILL lend often to "similar" designs.....Yet does not make them duplicates.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"Does this make my Hien look big?"
"I love my Ha-40's"
"She loves teh Swallow"
"Don't call me cho-cho san"
</span>

tools4foolsA
12-18-2006, 01:24 PM
Yet you'd not say they are copies....

Never said that in the first place... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just pointed out that that inverted V engine is not only similarity ...

Even specified "if looked at from the side".

Similarity to me means:

- A 109E-3 is very similar in looks to a 109E-7
- a 109-E and a Ki-61 look quite similar due to similar engine layout and canopy/rear fuselage design.
Less similar but still to some extend:
- early P-51 is less similar as for radiator under rear fuselage, engine cowling upward pointing.
- P40, less similar, large radiator under chin
- Spit for upward pointed nose plus round canopy.

Those last 3 planes have already less similarities, but still are somewhat similar in side view.

With bubble canopy and radial engine we go even further away from similarity to 109 and Ki-61.

The add more engines (or jets), swept wing or whatever, and then we are down to the last, braodest similarity:

they are all planes...

Now what would be intersting to me is
- why the canopy was done the way it is on Ki-61/

All other directly previous Japanese designs had different canopy (Oscar/Zero), so why did the Japanese change this? Was it influenced by the 109?
For the engine cowling design it seems somewhat logic as the engine design is similar to DB engine - inverted V. So design can come up similar. But how a bout canopy/rear fuselage? Why? Isn't actually a step back in terms of visibility for pilot?

****

ElAurens
12-18-2006, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
But how a bout canopy/rear fuselage? Why? Isn't actually a step back in terms of visibility for pilot?


"Razor back" type rear fuselages ala P51B/C, Bf 109, early P47s, most Spits, etc... are more aerodynamic than bubble canopy types. As an example the P51B was about 20mph faster than the D model at altitude.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

LEBillfish
12-18-2006, 07:08 PM
Well, because it was a transition period, and design still often is aesthetic. The transition period being from small to heavy caliber weapons. Armor, still had a place against sub-.50 caliber ammunition. So, you design considering for it, and since it is to be at the pilots head and back, you are left with an option....Have a solid structure to support it OR support it from its base meaning that weight will put a strain on the mounts so require even stronger/heavier points to mount it at. So at that point, why not make the shape pleasing...Partially due to;

Bubble "shaped" canopies actually were not...Most often they were numerous flat/semi-flat plates with a considerable supporting structure....Early Ki-61 (or may have been Ki-60) canopies made of duraluminum collapsed, so materials must change to heavier pieces OR you have more frame and smaller pieces like the zero....So again, reduced Plexiglas (which is by no means light compared to aluminum)...Lightened the total weight, and allowed for larger pieces......

Lastly, forming of "true" bubble canopies was still evolving...and in 1942 when the plane was first being built were not quite where they were a year or 2 later.....Even still I'd bet they were optically not on par. Yet if you look at the Ki-61 canopy compared to the 109, it is much more advanced.



Do NOT try and apply all designs based on a similar one as being inspiration for the next...Sometimes just like having 4 wheels on a car, function dictates final form as it should....Meaning if X is this way, and Y is that way, Z simply just works out this way best always.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"Does this make my Hien look big?"
"I love my Ha-40's"
"She loves teh Swallow"
"Don't call me cho-cho san"
</span>

Cadarth
12-20-2006, 04:42 AM
Excerpt taken from The Great Book of World War II Airplanes, page 601. Authors: Jeffery L. Ethell, Robert Grinsell, Roger Freeman, David A. Anderton, Fredrick A. Johnsen, Bill Sweetman, Alex Vanages-Baginskis, and Robert C. Mikesh. Illustrated by Rikyu Watannabe.


Zero Fighter - Text by Robert C. Mikesh

Made in Japan
The Zero was, as we now know, a completely original design. No one will more vigorously defend this than the designer himself, Jiro Horikoshi. In his words, this is the response to this very old controversy:
"The Zero fighter was no more a copy than any other fighter used in the world today. All single-engined all-metal low-wing monoplanes are to some extent progressive 'copies' of the original Junkers 'Blechesel', the father of all these machines. There is a certain pool of common information from which all engineers draw. There is a certain reciprocal borrowing of detail ideas without permission during wartime, and by cross-licensing in times of peace.
"As virtually all competent aircraft designers will hold with me, the business of creating any new aircraft is a process of adapting the existing art and science to the problem at hand. For Example, I will state that the undercarriage of the retraction on the Zero was inspired by the Vought 143, and that the system of fastening the engine cowl and the method of mounting the engine came from other foreign planes. And nothing else, so far as the airframe is concerned. It is no exaggeration to say that we did not look upon the general design or basic configuration of foreign aircraft with great respect. Any designer who fails, out of vanity, to adapt the best techniques available to him, fails his job. All engineers are influenced by their teachers, by their experience and by the constant stream of scientific information that is placed at their disposal.
"As foreigners inspected our aircraft in the combat zone, they were quick to identify accessories that looked familiar to them as copies of their own products. What they did overlook was that these were built under licence from abroad; wheels were manufactured by Okamoto Engineering Company under licence from Bendix and Palmer, instruments were built by the Tokyo Instrument Company under licence, or later in the war, by direct copy from Sperry, Pioneer and Kollsman. Sumitomo built hydromatic propellers under licence from Hamilton Standard, as well as the German VDM propeller. The Nihon Musical Instrument. Co. built the Junkers and Schwarz propellers, while the Kokusai Aircraft Company built the French Ratier prop. We built 20-mm cannon licensed by Oerlikon of Switzerland and copies of the 13-mm (.50 cal.) browning.
"I can claim, however, in the study of the Zero, its ancestors and descendants, that it was original to the same degree as other planes are, and that while it contains certain special features that were all its own, it serves as a prime example of a special design created to suit an unusual set of circumstances."

Think on this for a few mins.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/2602/cadarthpfsig6nn.jpg