Yokosuka D4Y "Judy"
 
 
Topics:
I.D. Photo No.1:  *PIC*
D4Y1 Designation at Midway
D4Y4 query
D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal  
D4Y1/2 used as interceptor? (New)
D4Y4 Questions (New)
 
I.D. Photo No.1: D4Y Judy
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=I.D. Photo No.1: Aichi D4Y1-C Judy *PIC*>
Date: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 4:32 a.m.
 
A series of photographs captured on Saipan have been published in little known MIS documents. I am posting these photos in the hopes of more positive identification of the units indicated by the tail code.
Photo No.1
 
The tail marking on the Aichi D4Y1 [21-006] Judy below could possibly indicate No.121 kaigun kokutai or No.521 kaigun kokutai.
 
Any thoughts or references would be appreciated.
 
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: I.D. Photo No.1: D4Y Judy
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Re: I.D. Photo No.1: D4Y Judy>
Date: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 11:43 a.m.
 
In Response To: I.D. Photo No.1: Aichi D4Y1-C Judy *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
Dear Jim,You have told us where the photo was captured, but do you know where the photo was snapped? If Japan, it could be either of the two units you say. If the Marianas, I'd go with 121 Kuu.
It appears from a blurb in FAW 69 that 521 Kuu never got to the Marianas.
The variants for Judy are messy. I think you might be safer calling this a "Model 11", a
more inclusive name than "D4Y1-C"
 
Re: I.D. Photo No.1: D4Y Judy
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: I.D. Photo No.1: D4Y Judy>
Date: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 5:14 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: I.D. Photo No.1: D4Y Judy (Tom Hall)
 
Dear Tom,
You asked,"You have told us where the photo was captured,but do you know where the photo was snapped?"
I have no idea! That is why I asked for help. You also stated, "The variants for Judy are messy. I think you might be safer calling this a "Model 11", a more inclusive name than "D4Y1-C". O.K. What variant is it? I do not know these things as well of the various models of the Judy as you do. Are you saying this should be called an Aichi D4Y1 model 11 rather than a D4Y1-C?
 
Thank you for your help.
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: I.D. Photo No.1: D4Y Judy
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Re: I.D. Photo No.1: D4Y Judy>
Date: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 7:25 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: I.D. Photo No.1: D4Y Judy (James F. Lansdale)
 
In preparing Asahi Journal 4,3, which will go to press early next month, I found many dis- crepancies in materials on the variants of Judy. Where I have had to label planes similar to the one in your photo, I call them simply "mid-production Model 11s". I think you will see clearly in the next issue how badly in
conflict the references are with each other and why research into manufacturer or Japanese Navy records is needed. Like you, I lean toward your photo being of a -C. For me, the biggest clue is the airplane number, 006! This suggests recon to me, and 121 Kuu was a recon unit
D4Y1 Designation at Midway
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=D4Y1 Designation at Midway>
Date: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
 
Any clue as to what the designation for Soryu's two D4Y1 embarked for Midway would have been? BI-401 and BI-402, perhaps?
-jon parshall-
Imperial Japanese Navy Page
 
http://www.combinedfleet.com
 
Re: D4Y1 Designation at Midway
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=Re: D4Y1 Designation at Midway>
Date: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 7:09 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: D4Y1 Designation at Midway (Chris Allred)
 
I just checked Kojinsha "Mechanism of Japanese Carriers", and on p. 148 they have a drawing of Soryu's D4Y's tailplane markings. It was indeed BI-201. I would assume that the other was BI-202, leaving the remainder of the Type 99 bombers numbered 203-220.
Jon
 
Re: D4Y1 Designation at Midway
 
Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: D4Y1 Designation at Midway>
Date: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 12:17 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: D4Y1 Designation at Midway (Jon Parshall)
 
Hi Chris and Jon,
As far as I know, no actual picture did survive and we don't even know if any of those planes were ever photographed at all...
I don't want to open a can of worms here but both planes were reconnaissance aircraft with no dive bombing capabilities. They were both D4Y1-C Model 11 and not plain D4Y1 due to the failure of the original design to bear the stress of dive bombing operations. The first real dive bombers of the line, known as D4Y2 Model 12, with a much beefed up structure, didn't enter service until much later.
It is by no mean sure that the first numerical digit used on those reconnaissance birds was "2" (normally reserved for dive bombers)... Many reconnaissance planes of the IJNAF omitted this first numerical digit reducing their tail code to a two digit numerical figure.
If BI-201 and 202 is a possibility, I think it is entirely possible that these birds were in fact coded only BI-01 and the other BI-02 respectively ...
Just some food for thought...
François
 
Re: D4Y Designations
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Re: D4Y Designations>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 7:24 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: D4Y1 Designation at Midway (François P. WEILL)
 
Dear Francois,
I like your idea about the numbers on the tails.
Also, you are wise to remind that there are no published photos of these two planes, as far as anyone knows.
Because of there not being photos, we do not even know the shapes of these planes. The planes on
Soryu, according to FAW 69, were the third and fourth prototypes. No configuration of Judy had
been accepted yet, and no production D4Y1-C had been built yet. The clearest designation for the
Soryu planes would be "13 Shi".
What has been printed in English about Judy variants is indeed a can of worms. I hope to send out some worm-catchers soon.
 
 
Posted By: John MacGregor <mailto:JohnMacG6@hotmail.com?subject=D4Y4 query>
Date: Thursday, 23 November 2000, at 7:58 a.m.
 
The FAOW book on the D4y series had several shots of late model D4Y4s with a section of the lower rear fuselage removed (behind and below the wing trailing edge and directly beloe the observers' cockpit.) Anybody know what this cut-out was for? Maybe RATO gear?
 
Re: D4Y4 query
 
Posted By: Pete Chalmers <mailto:pchalmers@carolina.rr.com?subject=Re: D4Y4 query>
Date: Thursday, 23 November 2000, at 8:10 a.m.
 
In Response To: D4Y4 query (John MacGregor)
 
John;
I've always assumed that the rocket pods were installed not as "JATO" but to increase maximum speed for that final dive in the "special attack" mode. The box art for the FineMolds kit certainly suggests this.
 
Re: D4Y4 rockets
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Re: D4Y4 rockets>
Date: Thursday, 23 November 2000, at 10:58 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: D4Y4 query (Pete Chalmers)
 
I think you are right.
According to Maru Mechanic, the plan was to put five rockets into the D4Y4, two in the ventral nose and three in the aft ventral fuselage. The two up front were to provide take-off boost, especially helpful
for heavy bomb loads or carrier ops. However, with no carriers to speak of, and perhaps also due to technical problems, the plan for nose rockets seems to have been dropped.
The aft fuselage rockets were intended for the final dive, and were very similar to those in the Ohka. It would be interesting to know more about the rockets. For example, what was the fuel, and were its ingredients in short supply?
I think it's safe to assume that those planes with a big chunk of their bellies left open were waiting to receive rockets which probably never were installed. Few were actually fitted.
Do US Navy reports mention attacks by rocket-powered Judies?
 
Re: D4Y4 rockets
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: D4Y4 rockets>
Date: Thursday, 23 November 2000, at 3:14 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: D4Y4 rockets (Tom Hall)
 
Tom
I would suspect that there might not be too many reports of rocket assist during the final dive. The flame and smoke from the rockets might be easily interpreted as a hit a/c in flames by the ship crews during the frenzy of an attack.
 
FWIW
Grant
 
Re: D4Y4 rockets
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Re: D4Y4 rockets>
Date: Friday, 24 November 2000, at 7:02 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: D4Y4 rockets (Grant Goodale)
 
Good point. Still, I think someone would notice the sudden acceleration and ask why our (or British Pacific Fleet) AA guns had to suddenly increase the lead on the target. This sort of phenomenon should have been reported for intelligence gathering.
My guess is there is no report of it because I suspect no more than two or three test planes ever got the rockets
 
 
Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal>
Date: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 1:24 a.m.
 
Dear Friends,
I don’t want to be unduly critical with another researcher but the interpretation of the early D4Y (presumably prototypes or pre-production aircraft) embarked on the Soryu at Midway by Jim Schubert in the last issue of Asahi Journal looks to me as very adventurous.
1. Jim Schubert considers the plane to have probably remained in the Hairyokushoku finish of early war standard.
a. Though not totally impossible, this theory is IMHO stretching the things a bit. Jim Schubert says a lot of repainting in defensive camouflage had already took place in the Fleet but there is no reason to think that these particular planes were so treated. I think he didn’t take into account some known facts in his "guesstimate". The period of field repainting dates back to the first large cruise of the Rengo Kantai some weeks after Pearl Harbor. We know, for example, that a lot of D3A1’s were so repainted before to go to the Indian Ocean operation (though not all planes). But, before Midway and after Coral Sea, the Rengo Kantai was regrouped in the Home Islands to prepare for the oncoming offensive in the Central Pacific. Midway took place at the end of spring 1942, a time where FACTORY painted aircraft in green over Hairyokushoku (whatever the variant I3 or J3), bare metal or aluminum dope were already delivered to the units (example : Kawanishi H6K5). Only the fighters (in fact the A6M2 Model 21 at that time) were still produced (and used) in the early war offensive scheme. If we agree on the estimation that the D4Y used at Midway were pre-production or prototypes, it likely that they were already taken into the IJNAF inventory and tested presumably by the Yokosuka Naval Air Arsenal test unit (code Ko), so they were likely to have been painted ptrototype yellow orange not Hairyokushoku (as specified since 1938). So to say it is obvious they were repainted for operational use before being embarked on carrier Soryu. So to say, it is much more likely they were repainted in the latest standard for anything but fighters. Hence, dk. green over Hairyokushoku (presumably I3 as it seems this variant was more often used on non-factory painted planes than J3) than kept in the earlier all Hairyokushoku scheme.
b.Be them have been painted in two tone defensive camouflage or, like Jim Schubert thinks, in plain Hairyokushoku, the use of any kind of so-called antiglare surface on an inline engine plane, which was also a reconnaissance plane by the way is mostly unlikely. In line single engine planes were apparently traditionally devoid of antiglare surfaces since years in the IJNAF and single engine reconnaissance planes like the Mitsubishi C5M2 were notoriously devoid of antiglare painted cowl despite being radial engine planes! … I won’t "guesstimate" them with such a feature and would need to have a picture to believe it !!! …
2. The markings… I would like simply to recall that the three digits numerical part of the aircraft identification generally used on much (but not ALL) the planes on carriers or other units of the IJNAF in this time (and even later with new id. systems to come, at least until late in the war) was not entirely related to plane order in unit. Planes in the 1XX range were supposed to be fighters, planes in the 2XX range: dive bombers and plane in the 3XX range torpedo-level bombers or land based attack bombers. Planes using a higher first numerical digit or TWO numerical digits were devoid to other roles. Such was the case of shipboard reconnaissance and observation floatplanes for example but also it was the case of C5M2 planes attached to land based fighter units as navigational scouts and raid damage assessment like those of the Tainan Kokutai (code V-XX). So to say I think very unlikely for a reconnaissance aircraft, despite its dive bomber ascendancy (remember for unclear reasons those planes were not qualified for the role they were designed for…) to have been incorporated in the Soryu inventory as dive bombers with a three numerical digit designation beginning in the 2XX range. I think considering the usual practices of the time they should have been designed with only two digits, hence for example BI-01 and NOT BI-201 as Jim Schubert depicts one of them.
To sum it up, I think these planes (two were embarked as far as I can remember) were IMHO most probably finished in two tone camouflage with no antiglare paint and probably designed BI-01 and BI-02 and if they stood in the already out fashioned (for any combat planes but fighters) all Hairyokushoku scheme, they had no antiglare paint on them and were not coded with a three numerical digit figure.
I’d wish to have your opinions on the subject…
Friendly.
François
 
Re: D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal
 
Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mailto:mhoran@snet.net?subject=Re: D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal>
Date: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 3:05 p.m.
 
In Response To: D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal (François P. WEILL)
 
I cannot speak to a redition I have not seen, but I do have some input on the two Judy's carried by Soryu. The Soryu records for the operation indicate that the people flying them enroute were full fledged members of the D3A unit on board ship, as they flew missions in both types. Thus, it would seem logical to conclude that they were attached to, and part of, that unit. It would, therefore, make sense that they were painted the same and marked 22x as the D3As were organized in two nine-plane chutais.
All supposition, however. I can't recall if the tail code is mentioned in the records, but I think not (and am too lazy to look) ...
 
Re: D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal
 
Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal>
Date: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 12:26 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal (Mark E. Horan)
 
Dear Mark,
I beg to disagree.
As far as I can remember, a carrier complement was technically considered as a unit in itself albeit a mixed one. We can refer it as the (name of the carrier) group.
It is not surprising that regular D3A pilots operated the recon. planes as it was usual before these first aircraft devoted to reconnaissance were embarked to use the D3A as a scout (and the B5N too). Just the way the USN used the Dauntless during the same period.
However those D3A's retained their dive bombing capabilities on other missions.
The particularity of these early D4Y was they were NOT qualified as dive bombers but strictly reconnaissance planes.
As the identification refers to the plane (not the crew) and the mission was very specific (they cannot double as regular dive bombers) I really don't think it was logical to give them a dive bomber identification.
Another argument against this theory is the fact that their incorporation would have involved re-numbering the already in service D3A planes as the example given in the article is BI-201 which was a designation logically ALREADY USED by a D3A... Should these D4Y's had been technically incorporated in the dive bombing section of the Soryu group, it appears that a higher plane in section number should have been used to avoid the bothering task of re-numbering ALL the D3A's aboard... Hence a number higher than the highest numbered D3A... For me it doesn't seem fit.
As for the published documentation on these planes, may I recall that it is scarce (to say the least) and that Japanese records were mostly destroyed with the loss of the main carriers in the battle. We have no actual photo of these D4Y's to see what they looked like. So the designation eventually attributed to these planes in already published sources remains purely speculative. As is my theory on them. The only difference being mine is constructed by educated guess from IJNAF usual practices during this period. The D4Y's involved here might well have been exceptions, but in the absence of any hard evidence I consider we might more safely rely on usual practices to lessen the chance of error.
Once again, a serious aero-historian will tell you "I don't know" but a modeler who whishes to represent these planes is confronted with the necessity to "guesstimate" and my opinion is the most reliable (if we can use this word)way to proceed is to stay with what is logically and from available documentation the "most probable"...
Friendly
François
 
Re: D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal>
Date: Monday, 29 January 2001, at 7:09 p.m.
 
In Response To: D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal (François P. WEILL)
 
Nice post Francois,
I have heard about the Judy's as well on the carriers at Midway. I have also read that these Judy's were on the carriers as reconaissance types as early as the Pearl Harbor raids? (I believe I have read this). I have read this only and am not hear to argue for or against it, I just thought it was interesting and I might mention it. From what I have read again these Judy's were reconaissance. What color were they painted?
I don't have a clue, but it is possible that your statement of them being repainted to camoflauge of green over grey is quite possible.
Cruiser K
 
Re: Soryu D4Y, 4/6/42; a rebuttle
 
Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mailto:mhoran@snet.net?subject=Re: Soryu D4Y, 4/6/42; a rebuttle>
Date: Saturday, 24 February 2001, at 11:26 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: D4Y at Midway and the Asahi Journal (François P. WEILL)
 
Gang;
Earlier I posted:
"I cannot speak to an edition I have not seen, but I do have some input on the two Judy's carried by Soryu. The Soryu records for the operation indicate that the people flying them enroute were full fledged members of the D3A unit on board ship, as they flew missions in both types. Thus, it would seem logical to conclude that they were attached to, and part of, that unit. It would, therefore, make sense that they were painted the same and marked 22x as the D3As were organized in two nine-plane chutais.
All supposition, however. I can't recall if the tail code is mentioned in the records, but I think not (and am too lazy to look) ... "
Mr. Weill responded:
"I beg to disagree.
As far as I can remember, a carrier complement was technically considered as a unit in itself albeit a mixed one. We can refer it as the (name of the carrier) group.
It is not surprising that regular D3A pilots operated the recon. planes as it was usual before these first aircraft devoted to reconnaissance were embarked to use the D3A as a scout (and the B5N too). Just the way the USN used the Dauntless during the same period.
However those D3A's retained their dive bombing capabilities on other missions.
The particularity of these early D4Y was they were NOT qualified as dive bombers but strictly reconnaissance planes.
As the identification refers to the plane (not the crew) and the mission was very specific (they cannot double as regular dive bombers) I really don't think it was logical to give them a dive bomber identification.
Another argument against this theory is the fact that their incorporation would have involved re-numbering the already in service D3A planes as the example given in the article is BI-201 which was a designation logically ALREADY USED by a D3A... Should these D4Y's had been technically incorporated in the dive bombing section of the Soryu group, it appears that a higher plane in section number should have been used to avoid the bothering task of re-numbering ALL the D3A's aboard...
Hence a number higher than the highest numbered D3A... For me it doesn't seem fit.
As for the published documentation on these planes, may I recall that it is scarce (to say the least) and that Japanese records were mostly destroyed with the loss of the main carriers in the battle. We have no actual photo of these D4Y's to see what they looked like. So the designation eventually attributed to these planes in already published sources remains purely speculative. As is my theory on them. The only difference being mine is constructed by educated guess from IJNAF usual practices during this period. The D4Y's involved here might well have been exceptions, but in the absence of any hard evidence I consider we might more safely rely on usual practices to lessen the chance of error.
Once again, a serious aero-historian will tell you "I don't know" but a modeler who whishes to represent these planes is confronted with the necessity to "guesstimate" and my opinion is the most reliable (if we can use this word)way to proceed is to stay with what is logically and from available documentation the "most probable"..."
My response (having now taken the time to look):
The Soryu's Battle Report for Midway, in reference to the flight of her Special Reconnaissance plane, states [Translated of course] "Plane 201 with orders to search for and contact the enemy task force."
 
Posted By: Mike Aldrich <mailto:VaYank5150@aol.com?subject=D4Y1/2 used as interceptor?>
Date: Wednesday, 17 July 2002, at 7:26 p.m.
 
Hello,
I just purchased a Fine Molds D4Y1/2 "Judy" from eBay and have also been reading Osprey's "B-29 Hunters of the JAAF." In this book, there are more than a few references to Naval units stationed around Japan, having sent up D4Y1's to intercept incoming B-29's. In my limited research, it was my understanding that this aircraft was a dive bomber, albeit a VERY fast one. Did the D4Y1 see regular action as an interceptor during daytime raids by B-29's?
 
TIA
-Mike
 
Re: D4Y1/2 used as interceptor?
 
Posted By: Geoff Payne
Date: Sunday, 21 July 2002, at 3:08 a.m.
 
In Response To: D4Y1/2 used as interceptor? (Mike Aldrich)
 
Hi,
If you can get hold of the book "Broken Wings of the Samurai", Mikesh, Airlife 1993. There are a couple of photos of D4Y nightfighters in chapter 3, including close ups of the armarment fitting. Models are made by Fujimi in 1/72nd, no 35128, and in 1/48th by Fine Molds. I got mine through Hobby Link Japan and have found them fast and reliable.
 
 
D4Y1 Air Ace
 
Posted By: Andrew Obluski <mailto:aoba41@yahoo.com?subject=D4Y1 Air Ace>
Date: Friday, 19 July 2002, at 1:57 a.m.
 
In Response To: D4Y1/2 used as interceptor? (Mike Aldrich)
 
PO1c NAKA Yoshimitsu flew a D4Y dive bombers converted as a night fighters with 302 Kokutai. He was credited with 5 B-29's shot down and 4 more damaged.
Source: Christopher Shores 'Air Aces'
Andrew
 
Re: D4Y1 Air Ace
 
Posted By: Mike Aldrich <mailto:VaYank5150@aol.com?subject=Re: D4Y1 Air Ace>
Date: Friday, 19 July 2002, at 5:37 a.m.
 
In Response To: D4Y1 Air Ace (Andrew Obluski)
 
Andrew,
Now that sounds like a good subject for a D4Y model project. Do you know which version of the D4Y he flew in? I wonder if there are any decals around that could simulate the tail codes, etc.? Also, is "Air Aces" the full title of the book you referred to?
TIA,
Mike
 
D4Y2-S observer Lt. (jg) KANAZAWA, Hisao (302 Ku) *PIC*
 
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000GT-B@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=D4Y2-S observer Lt. (jg) KANAZAWA, Hisao (302 Ku) *PIC*>
Date: Friday, 19 July 2002, at 10:48 a.m.
 
In Response To:  (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
"On December 13, 1944, I and my pilot CPO Naka were waiting for the order in the aviator's room. Then, a sailor rushed into the room and said that so many B-29s were coming to Japan.
"'Here they come!' We Suisei squadron and the squadrons of Gekko and Ginga were stand-by. The informations about the B-29s reached to our base again and again via Chichi Jima, Haha Jima and Hachijo Jima.
"Now, we saw the 'Z' flag climbing up the flag pole. The squadrons of Zero-sen and Raiden were taking off as soon as they saw the 'Z' flag.
"Now, it's our turn - Suisei squadron.
"'Here we go, sir!', said CPO Naka. I said, 'All right!' And I wrote the time we took off on my flight record in our plane 'Yo D-228'
"We received the massage from Atsugi that 'B-29s are going to Nagoya.'
"Suddenly, Naka shouted, 'Sir, they're coming! Over there!'
"'Oxigen mask stand-by!' 'Yes,sir! Let me test the gun, sir' Bang! Our oblique 20mm gun fired just one bullet. Strange! Naka pushed the button of the gun many times, but the gun did not work. 'Damn it! Sir, the gun is out of order! Shall we ram the B-29, sir?' 'Wait, wait! We'll surely have another chance.' 'Sir, this is the first time I saw B-29. May I get closer to it and watch it?' 'OK.'
"Thus, our first combat flight was over in vain. But I will make it next time!
"On Feb. 10, I and Naka painted our first kill mark on the tail fin.
"After we attacked one B-29, we saw white smoke from that plane.
"We claimed one probable on the night. We flew back to Atsugi. I was glad to get a 'present' to Capt. Kozono.
"As soon as we landed on Atsugi Air Base, our maintenence crews rushed to us and guided us to the park way. I showed my fore finger (B-29 X 1) to the ground crews. They smiled when they saw my sign.
"I went to the command post to report to Capt. Kozono. 'Suisei No. 2 of 1st Shotai has just returned, sir!' And I claimed one probable in front of Capt. Kozono.
"Capt. Kozono kindly said, 'Well done! Now, why don't you take a rest?' Next, CPO Naka was questioned about the detail of our combat. The press men came and took the pictures of me and Naka. That was the first aerial score of the Suisei night fighter squadron of 302 Ku. Naka later said to me, 'You told me not to ram the B-29 at our first combat. You were qute right, sir!'
Source: "Atsugi Suisei Night Fighter Squadron Vs. B-29" by Lt. (jg) KANAZAWA, Hisao (Ushio Shobo)
 
Naka's fate after the war (IJA Maj. Ugi)
 
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000GT-B@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Naka's fate after the war (IJA Maj. Ugi)>
Date: Monday, 22 July 2002, at 9:07 a.m.
 
In Response To: (Andrew Obluski)
 
Naka joined the rebels of 302 Ku after the war and sentenced to one year's imprisonment (suspended) by the Yokosuka Naval District Court of Law on Oct. 12, 1945. He was sent to Sugamo Prison in Tokyo before the sentence.
Naka and other petty officers were released on Oct. 13, 1945.
IJA Maj. UGI, Motomichi (CO of 98 Sentai [Ki-67 Hiryu torpedo squadron], Kodama Air Base, Saitama Pref.) was waiting in front of the prison when they were released. (Ugi accepted the Navy rebels from 302 Ku and took care of them for a while just after the war.)
Naka went to Kodama with Ugi after he was released and cultivated Kodama Air Base with Ugi and other people.
Naka's poem (made in the prison):
"I love my country from the bottom of my heart.
Now I am guilty.
They do not love their country at all.
Now they are not guilty."
(Kanazawa gave up the resistance when Capt. Kozono became ill.)
Source: "Heavy Vapor Trails" by WATANABE, Yoji (1999 Bungei Shunju)
 
Re: D4Y1/2 used as interceptor?
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: D4Y1/2 used as interceptor?>
Date: Thursday, 18 July 2002, at 5:57 a.m.
 
In Response To:  (Mike Aldrich)
 
Mike
There are indications that the D4Y1 was used to drop type 3 bombs on bomber formations over Rabaul and the Solomons as early as 1943. I have been trying to obtain details for some time. Any help is welcome.
Rick
 
Re: D4Y1/2 used as interceptor?
 
Posted By: Mike Aldrich <mailto:VaYank5150@aol.com?subject=Re: D4Y1/2 used as interceptor?>
Date: Thursday, 18 July 2002, at 6:47 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: D4Y1/2 used as interceptor? (richard dunn)
 
Rick,
I have not finished "B-29 Hunters of the JAAF" yet, but there have been a couple of incidents of aerial burst bombs in it. However, these mention the 50kg phospherous bombs being dropped by Ki-46 Dinah's as opposed to D4Y1's. I am NO expert on the subject and am only telling you what I have read so far. I am certain someone from this board knows more and I would be interested in hearing too!
-Mike
 
Re: D4Y1/2 used as interceptor?
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Wednesday, 17 July 2002, at 9:57 p.m.
 
In Response To: D4Y1/2 used as interceptor? (Mike Aldrich)
 
They carried a single 20mm cannon firing forward and upward to lob cannon shells into the belly of the bombers while flying pararell to them from below. D4Ys were used for day and night interception until P-51s started escorting the B-29s. After that they were not used during daytime.
 
Posted By: John MacGregor <mailto:JohnMacG6@hotmail.com?subject=D4Y4 Questions>
Date: Wednesday, 12 June 2002, at 12:51 p.m.
 
I’ve just bought the Finemold’s 1:48th scale D4Y4 (from the Arawasi site – excellent service BTW) and have a few questions about this aircraft. All these questions are specifically about the D4Y4 Type 43 version.
· Late-model D4Y4s had their cowl guns deleted, yet photos seem to show something behind the pilot’s windscreen. Was the gunsight retained (for aiming during the attack dive?) or was this something else – a compass or some such?
· This version carried an 800Kg bomb semi-externally; I’m assuming that the hinged bomb-rack arm of earlier dive-bomber versions had been deleted, therefore this aircraft could not be used for conventional (i.e. non-suicide) attacks – is this correct? Was this bomb fixed into the plane or could it be jettisoned in the air? The box-top art and the colour side-view in FAOTW #69 show some kind of device carried on the bottom of the bomb. What was this thing? Some kind of fuse?
· Was the periscope-bombsight still carried in the rear cockpit on this version?
· Were the dive brakes retained on the D4Y4 version?
One last question – Does anyone known if there’s an etched-brass detail set available for this kit?
 
Re: D4Y4 Questions
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Friday, 14 June 2002, at 5:42 p.m.
 
In Response To: D4Y4 Questions (John MacGregor)
 
*D4Y4s had either a simple sight or an optical sight (Type 3 Model 1) for bomb aiming.
*The bomb rack arm was deleted so it could not do vertical dives but it could and did carry out shallow dive bombings.
*I don't know about the rear seat sight
*The dive flaps were integral with the landing flaps so they should have been retained.