Japanese IJN Heavy Bombers?

[John 3rd]

Michael and I were bouncing ideas around yesterday while I was driving and we got to talking about a limited number of long-range four-engine Japanese IJN bombers. The LIZ was developed prior to the war but was underpowered and RITA looked like a pretty good aircraft late in 1944.

What are thoughts on that? We were thinking even just two Daitai of 27 planes would make the Allied Player have to think about protecting his back water areas some...

Is probably a stupid idea but wanted to 'toss' it out for USEFUL comment and reactions.

[John 3rd]

The LIZ
General characteristics

Crew: 7 (G5N1/2), 6 (G5N2-L)
Length: 31.02 m (101 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 42.12 m (138 ft 2 in)
Height: 8.8 m (27 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 201.8 m² (2,171.37 ft²)
Empty weight: 20,100 kg (44,300 lb)
Loaded weight: 28,150 kg (62,060 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 32,000 kg (70,528 lb)
Powerplant: 4 × Nakajima NK7A "Mamori-11" 14-cylinder air-cooled radial Sumitomo/Hamilton four-blade constant-speed, 1395 kW (1870 hp) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 420 km/h (227 kn, 261 mph)
Cruise speed: 278 km/h (150 kn, 173 mph, G5N1)
Range: 4,260 km (2,302 nmi, 2,648 mi)
Service ceiling: 7,450 m (24,442 ft)

Armament

Guns

2× 20 mm Type 99 cannons
4× 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Type 92 machine guns

Ordnance

2,000-4,000 kg (4,408-8,816 lb) bombs or torpedoes
2× 1,500 kg torpedoes
2× 1,500 kg bombs
4× 800 kg bombs
12× 250 kg bombs
24× 60 kg bombs
4,000 kg freight (G5N2-L)

[John 3rd]

G9 Rita Specs:
General characteristics

Crew: ten
Length: 22.94 m (75 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 32.54 m (106 ft 9 in)
Height: 7.20 m (23 ft 7 in)
Wing area: 112 m² (1,205 ft²)
Empty weight: 17,400 kg (38,400 lb)
Loaded weight: 26,800 kg (59,100 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 32,150 kg (70,900 lb)
Powerplant: 4 × Nakajima NK9K-L Homare 24 18-cylinder radial engines, 1,491 kW (2,000 hp) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 576 km/h (358 mph)
Range: 7,250 km (4,500 miles)
Service ceiling: 10,200 m (33,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 457 m/min (1,500 ft/min)
Wing loading: 239 kg/m² (49 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.22 kW/kg (0.14 hp/lb)

Armament

2× 20 mm Type 99 cannon in each dorsal, ventral, and tail turrets
2× 13.2 mm (.51 in) Type 2 machine guns in nose turret
2× 13.2 mm (.51 in) Type 2 machine gun in fuselage sides
Up to 4,000 kg (8,818 lb) of bombs

[btd64]

John, I think it would add a little more zest to the game. Like the idea.[:)] And i'm not a JFB....GP

[Cavalry Corp]

Good idea like it - will it be retro fitted to games started of RA7.1?

I would like to see an early Japanese night fighter as well - or midify the guns on the nicks to make them better. I do not believe they are as bad as in the game.

[Kitakami]

A long range IJN bomber with TWO torpedoes (G5N)? It might prove quite deadly with good pilots. I like the concept of a heavy bomber late in the war, but I am not certain if early (or at start) it might prove a bit too unbalancing.

Just a thought.

[derhexer]

"A long range IJN bomber with TWO torpedoes (G5N)? It might prove quite deadly with good pilots. I like the concept of a heavy bomber late in the war, but I am not certain if early (or at start) it might prove a bit too unbalancing.

Just a thought"

The Americans had heavy bombers at the beginning of WWII - the B17. If the Japanese could have brought their heavy bombers on line in 1941 they would have used them w/o worrying too much about balance. Suggest developers make their scenario as realistic as possible and give the Japs heavy bombers

[HansBolter]

I agree with derhexer. The Netties already make the Allies cover very backwater naval move with air.

Enhancing the already over enhanced Japanese even more is a bit too much to stomach.

As it is with Japanese having control over R&D they can have jets way, way earlier than historical.

Why not consider allowing the Americans to advance the Atomic Bombs as a balancing factor?

Think any JFBs would go for that? Not on your life.

What I'm endeavoring to point out with my hyperbole is that the 4Es are the one dominant weapon platform the Allies possess.

Giving the Japanese the same dominant weapon type will skew game balance. Will the Allies be given weapons platforms only the Japanese possess as a balancing agent such as highly maneuverable fighters with 90 skill pilots or ultra long range torp carrying 2Es with 90 skill pilots that almost never miss?

Again, the point is that for all the griping JFBs do over how unfair it is for the Americans to have these superpowered 4Es they turn a blind eye to the many, many superpowered weapons platforms they possess that the Aliies don't.

Trying to give both sides the same toys just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Dili]

How much time span the R&D can be improved?
One idea was to make the model operational on last months of war and the player can choose to spend resources to bring it to a useful date.

[PaxMondo]

John,

My thoughts here, take are leave as you see fit.

The IJ only built a couple of dozen or so Emily the entire war. Something like 30 is the number that sticks in my mind. Besides the incredible drain to actually field these, they struggled to maintain them and keep them flying. Think of it this way, they only had so many mechanics. They could spend them to keep one Emily or one squadron of Oscar ...

Most players build far more than 30, they build a couple of hundred or more. What I've done to better simulate the load on the IJ economy in my mod is to increase the number of engines, hence the cost to build the Emily, from 4 to 8 engines. Mavis is 4 to 6 engines. This makes the choice of building either of these planes a bit more painful requiring more reflection. I am now far more careful in building and using Mavis/Emily and use the Netty far more for patrol, just as the IJN actually did.

AFAICT, the game engines doesn't really care about how many engines is on a plane other than calculating initial cost and AV support required. In both cases, the increased engines increases the costs which is what is wanted. What I'm trying to represent is that it was FAR more difficult for the IJ to field multi-engine AC than it was for the allies. So far, I am quite happy with the results.

Use as you see fit ...

[DOCUP]

John, its your mod.  Do what you want.  If someone doesn't want to play with them they don't have to play the mod or they can change it.

[oldman45]

I would say no or make the planes difficult to maintain.

[ny59giants]

I was the one who proposed these 4e engine beast to John. If I remember correctly, you can make them cost 6 engines or even 8 even though they have only 4. I would also make them SR 4 or 5 to decrease how often you can truly use them.

[wdolson]

The basic criteria for service rating is 1 pt per engine, add 1 for liquid cooled engine, and 1 if the plane had a reputation for being temperamental. A 4 engine plane would start with a service rating of 4.

I would make a few exceptions. The P-47 had an air cooled engine, but with the turbo system, it probably should have the service rating bumped to 2. The P-40 was liquid cooled, but with the radiator right under the engine, the plumbing was unusually simple for a liquid cooled engine and the major reason the P-40 stayed in service as long as it did was because it was exceptionally reliable under the worst environments. It's field serviceability was in the same ballpark as the Wildcat.

I might make the Sturmovik a 1 also, not that it's going to mean much in the game. I have read that it was a very easy to keep flying airplane too. With it's tiny range and light bomb load, it really isn't very effective in the game. Plus the Soviets never activate in most games.

Frequently aircraft that are just introduced and were known to have a lot of teething problems usually have their service rating bumped by at least one. When the G8N was under development, Japan had very little land based 4e aircraft experience and the G8N was probably one of the most complex planes Japan ever built, though it was based on a couple of early production DC-6s Japan bought before the war. (The lineage is obvious if you look at pictures of the two planes.) I would put the service rating at 5. You could also require a unique engine for the Rita. That would require dedicating an engine plant to produce engines for it.

Bill

[Mike Solli]

Not to mention dedicating an airframe factory dedicated to keeping only a couple of air units filled with planes. It would be fun to have something unusual in the Japanese arsenal, but that would be an expensive toy.

Edit: If it were to have "6" engines, that would cost 216 HI per plane. At a SR of 5, ouch!

[MadmanRick]

Interesting thoughts! However, prior to this thread I had been working on a hypothetical 4E Japanese bomber. There is some speculative info on the 'net about a Kawanishi Heavy, including a basic line drawing. It was envisioned as sort of a Japanese version of the Liberator. Here is what I was able to do with that basic line drawing, call it the Kawanishi G5K:

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Not to mention dedicating an airframe factory dedicated to keeping only a couple of air units filled with planes. It would be fun to have something unusual in the Japanese arsenal, but that would be an expensive toy.

Edit: If it were to have "6" engines, that would cost 216 HI per plane. At a SR of 5, ouch!

Yes, quite pricey ... 8E AC are something you really have to think about before building any ...

[John 3rd]

If anyone knows ANYTHING about how I like to make the Mods they know I like to give players choices.

We have now given a ton of choices to the Allied player with all the additions made in Treaty, RA, and then the combination BTS. There has actually been a reduction in Japanese additions/changes due to Treaty work. Seems like this could be a nice add-on for Japan.

Allowing for the LIZ and at the start of the war then a late-war RITA makes a lot of sense to me. I concur with Michael and a few of the other comments that it should be quite expensive. My thinking is to treat it as a 6-engine bomber so it takes quite a bit. Allow for one factory producing 3-4 LIZ a month and let the player decide if he wants to expand them. Bring RITA as the successor at the same cost in late-44.

It would seem reasonable to me that players could make a House Rule of letting----say---two Daitai of the Heavy Bombers be the maximum build-out for Japan. The LIZ will be slow and vulnerable to fighter attack while the RITA looks like a highly capable late-war bomber.

Does anyone have art work for either of these planes? Is there existing art work in any of the standard Scenarios or Mods?

[btd64]

Like I said, I'm a AFB and I like the idea....GP

[MadmanRick]

AFAIK, the Liz has not been done as an add-on. The Rita is already part of the AE database, either in stock or as part of the various mods. If interested I would be willing to do a Liz. Also, I added a hypothetical He-111 and Fw-200 as part of a mod I did myself. I took the assumption that Japan built them under license, to "supplement" their own production. The Condor was particularly useful as a long-range land-based scout/bomber, but the '111, also came in handy in China! Let know if you'd like some Liz artwork?

Rick