Toryu – Kawasaki's heavy fighter that inspired my Alias

[Graham Boak]

Your comments about Japanese engines seem to disagree with those of others, for example Bill Gunston, who considered that they had no features that couldn't be found on Western specifically US, engines.  It is difficult to find a Japanese engine in the 1600/2000hp class entering service as early or as advanced as the BMW801, or to get near a Sabre, Vulture or Centaurus.  I could also mention the ASh 82.  For the closest equivalents in Japanese types you must look two years earlier in the West.   This was also generally true in airframes - but then there is no point in designing an airframe if the engine it requires does not exist.

[Bigglesof266]

11 hours ago, Toryu said:

Although it is a more conventional Japanese fighter I would also rank the Ki-84 among the most beautiful single-seaters of WWII - only matched perhaps by the Spitfire and P-51.

Much as I appreciate the Ki-84's performance, from mine your perspective of its aesthetic beauty is a case of beauty in the eyes of the beholder, a position no doubt others might fairly consider me equally 'guilty' of.  For me aesthetically, unquestionably it's the K-61-I, although in that odd way that things do, there's something particular in that je ne sais quoi sense about the Ki-43 I & II that pulls me in. And of course, not aesthetically but otherwise, I have a love affair with all the Type 0s, not for how they looked but what they represented in terms of pilot handling & performance before they became obsoleted by the rapid advances of technology, pilot cadre attrition, and overwhelmed by sheer weight of opposing numbers conspiring placing it at a both tactical and strategic disadvantage.

 

Quote

Actually Japanese powerplants had the best power/weight and power/diameter ratio of all WWII radial engines in all three main performance categories - 1000 hp (Nakajima Sakae), 1500 hp (Mitsubishi Kinsei) and 2000 hp (Nakajima Homare). They also had a very low specific fuel consumption. The issue was rather that the early airframes were developed for smallest frontal area and couldn't therefore be upgraded with more powerful engines. The in-line route was not too successful either. Quality problems towards war-end did the rest. Technology-wise their motors were among the best in the world, I daresay. Goodwin/Starkings 'Japanese Aero-Engines' is a superb book that I can recommend to every Japanese warplane enthusiast.

Thanks for that reference. I'll try to check it out. Unfortunately so many reference sources on this kind of subject go out of print once the initial print run is exhausted thereafter becoming either absurdly expensive in the second hand market if not simply unavailable. My erudition on the specific subject (powerplants) isn't of sufficient depth to debate authoritatively qualitatively, but some of the above does contradict what I have read in for instance "Zero!" Caidin's collaboration with Horikoshi & Okumiya, and remarks elsewhere or deduced by observational logic. Regardless of power/weight/diameter/capacity ratio of the engines, my understanding is that pre and early war Japanese then state of their art powerplants suffered from severe power limitations resultant in subsequent airframe design and implementation, other factors such as IJN & IJA range, speed and climb specifications taken into consideration. Some technical being metallurgy, the skilled personal and machinery to achieve necessary machining tolerances, tech and facilities limiting refining of high octane fuels, without being exhaustingly inclusive.  British and German aero engine development in the 1930s is well documented, so it's noteworthy that the Japanese never enthusiastically embraced implementation whether by design or manufacture, liquid cooled engines, and the few they did with mediocre results considering the developments right through the 1930s in Britain by Rolls Royce, and in the late 1930s in Germany freed of the shackles of Versailles, Junkers and Daimler Benz in line series.   

Quote

The following colour photos exist. 

 

Thank you for those. Insofar as I can make out in the resolution of those seen through my aged eyes, prima facie those images suggest to me by the seeming sprayed application with such cleanly defined lines that the Toryu's disruptive pattern camouflage was factory rather than field applied. Can you shed light on this?

Finally thanks for you reply. You and I could chat enthusiastically for hours on this topic for sure.

 

.

Edited August 8, 2020 by Bigglesof266

[alt-92]

21 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Your comments about Japanese engines seem to disagree with those of others, for example Bill Gunston, who considered that they had no features that couldn't be found on Western specifically US, engines. 

I suspect a bit of unconscious bias creeping in there by the writer. One could also say that they managed to get the same featureset without having the advantage of a large industrial base compared to the US. That disadvantage hampered them later as we all know.

[Toryu]

@Graham Boak  @alt-92

 

Thank you for your comments. I think there is justification for all the statements, and as @Bigglesof266 rightly said we could chat enthusiastically for hours on this topic. Even if I may be guilty of starting it  I would ask that we close this discussion because I'd like the post to be focused on the model.

 

@Bigglesof266  Starting with the Ki-43 all JAAF single-seat fighters were supposed to be delivered in natural metal, whereas other types continued in the grey-green pre-war camouflage. Hence every fighter camouflage observed between ca. 1941 and the autumn of 1944, when the olive-brown upperside colour was introduced in production, was a 'field' modification (JAAF only!). 'Field' meaning that it was mostly applied in transition through (maintenance) depots, as may have been the case with the blotch-type scheme for the Kawasakis. Often no primer was used which led to strong chipping and colour degradation to the point where it is sometimes impossible to distinguish between abrasion and blotching. This is one of the reasons why many modellers (erroneously) believe that all Japanese aircraft were heavily weathered or the colour was generally of poor quality.

 

Cheers, Michael

[IanC]

I missed this first time round, but can I say what a superb model. Beautifully painted.

 

As for aesthetics, while I agree it's a fine looking aircraft, my vote in the two-seat category goes to a certain de Havilland type! 😄