Foreign Aircraft in IJAAF Service

Foreign Aircraft in IJAAF Service


Topics:
Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color! *PIC*
Me-410 in Japan
The warbird . P-40 The True Story
Captured Aircraft Maintainance
Captured P-51C "Evalina"


Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color! *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 September 2002, at 4:29 a.m.

Don MARSH has produced another outstanding profile for our MB. Working from a NASM photograph of a Curtiss P-40 recaptured after the war (see below), Don added the details in color. It was not clear from the photograph if the wing leading edges were previously painted in yellow or if they had been severely weathered or overpainted again.

At one time, this Warhawk (captured P-40 No.1) had been photographed at Tachikawa with the yellow leading edges as applied by the IJAAF unit which ferried this aircraft from the Philippines to Japan in 1942.

Credit: Photo NASM via LRA; Profile (c) 2002 Don Marsh/Don Marsh Studio

Editors note: Pictures at http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/p-40d_akeno.jpg and
at http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/p-40d_akeno_revart.jpg

Re: Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color!

Posted By: Bill Leyh <hawk81@pacbell.net>
Date: Sunday, 29 September 2002, at 6:39 a.m.

In Response To: Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color! *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Please pass to Don, it's "Yokota", not "Yakota". Also, I'm not sure, but I believe "Yokota" is a post-war name for the base. During the war, I believe it was "Fussa", the name of the city outside the base.

That area is my old stomping ground. I was stationed there for 3 years in the mid 80s.

Re: Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color!

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Sunday, 29 September 2002, at 10:16 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color! (Bill Leyh)

You are correct. I know it's Yokota, but seem to have made a last minute typo before rushing the art off to Jim for posting. Thank you for bringing this error to my attention. Also, you are correct that Yokota Air Base was known as Fussa AB during the war. Fussa from the start was an Army Flight Experiment Department created as an expansion of the resources of near by Tachikawa AB. Eventually, Fussa became the major center of all Japanese Army flight testing.

Re: Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color!

Posted By: Bill Leyh <hawk81@pacbell.net>
Date: Sunday, 29 September 2002, at 8:50 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color! (Don Marsh)

I used to live in Fussa. It was my first apartment all to myself; two bedrooms with tatami floors and a giant custom-made futon fit for a 6'3" gaijin.

If only I'd had a clue about the history of the place while I was there. I was driven by other "priorities" at that age...

Re: Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color!

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Sunday, 29 September 2002, at 9:43 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color! (Bill Leyh)

I'm glad you mentioned this. I was going to ask you in what capacity you found yourself there, and what it was like.

Re: Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color!

Posted By: Bill Leyh <hawk81@pacbell.net>
Date: Monday, 30 September 2002, at 12:24 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Akeno: Captured P-40 In Color! (Don Marsh)

I was a technician and watch supervisor for the US Coast Guard Northwest Pacific and US Air Force Commando Lion LORAN-C chains' control-monitor station located at Yokota AB. We monitored signal quality and controlled station operations for the transmitter stations located at: Hokkaido, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and Marcus Island Japan, Yap Island in the Carolines, and Pohang and Hampyong in Korea.

I was assigned to Yokota for a 3-year tour after serving one year each at Hokkaido and Okinawa. This is where I met my wife.

I loved to drive back then and went on road trips every day almost. Much of my work time was on shift hours so that opened up a lot of daytime for exploration. Used cars were cheap by US standards and life was great! Day trips to Mt Fuji and Lake Hakone were my favorites (I'm a mountain guy). The Izu peninsula and Sagami Bay are beautiful. Temples, shrines, and waterfalls were some of our favorite sites to see so trips to Kamakura, Nikko, Azuma-Bandai, and many other places were common.

The airbase at Tachikawa had closed down before my tour there began, but there was still a large block of housing there called "American Village", old military housing, that some of my friends lived in.

I lived in a large apartment complex just across Route 16 from Yokota AB (roughly one mile away from the terminal gate for any former Yokotans reading).

Since my parents were in the war, and my wife's grandfather was killed in the war, we spent more time trying to overcome prejudices than investigating wartime history.

Yokota was a great station. It combined most of the conveniences of American life with immersion in Japanese society (if it was desired). In early 1986, the US made a major change in the value of the US Dollar compared to the Yen that caused a huge increase in the cost of living. That really hurt, since adjustments to our allowances based on exchange rates only occurred once or twice a year and were based on averages. I was glad when we left in the summer of that year.

Hope I didn't talk too much. If you want to know more, just ask. I also have a large series of photo albums of some of the great sites there - Tokugawa Ieyasu's (the real man behind James Clavell's "Shogun") shrine at Nikko and the shrine at Kamakura, including the Dai Bhutsu (Great Bhudda statue of copper) are two of my favorites.

Me-410 in Japan

Posted By: michal cavcik <cavcik@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, 5 September 2002, at 1:00 p.m.

I have read some time ago that except Bf-109 also Me-410 A-2 was tested in Japan. Are there anz further any information available? Is there any photos existing?

Re: Me-410 in Japan

Posted By: William Knoth <baronred4@cs.com>
Date: Thursday, 5 September 2002, at 3:31 p.m.

In Response To: Me-410 in Japan (michal cavcik)

In The eny.of j-aircraft Vol.6 has two pic.but it's a me-210 not 410. there is info on it. but it's in japanese .someone might translate it for us.

Re: Me-410 in Japan

Posted By: Bill Sanborn <bsanborn@psemc.com>
Date: Thursday, 5 September 2002, at 5:46 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Me-410 in Japan (William Knoth)

One source I have (I'll check later, but I belive it is actually on the Luftwaffe)has stated that is a 210 upgraded to 410 standards. What that means, I'm not sure, but I suspect it has the 410 engines and wings.

Re: Me-410 in Japan

Posted By: Richard Rycroft <rjrsr@rcn.com>
Date: Saturday, 7 September 2002, at 12:26 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Me-410 in Japan (Bill Sanborn)

According to the book HITLER'S LUFTWAFFE, page 230. Both the Me 210 and ME410 are very similar. The differences being:
...the 210 had 1395 hp Daimler Benz DB 601F inverted-vee-12 liquid cooled engines
...the 410A had 1750hp DB 630A of same layout.
...the 410B had 1900hp DB 603G of same layout.
...the 410 was .5-inches wider than 210 early models (later 210 models were same span).
...the 410 was 7 to 8.5-inches longer (depending on model).
...the 410 could carry a slightly heavier load and was heavier when empty.

A modeler's dream come true. Just change the engines to create the other. BUT, I have no idea as to which class of aircraft was sent to Japan.

Re: Me-410 in Japan

Posted By: Bill Sanborn <bsanborn@psemc.com>
Date: Monday, 9 September 2002, at 8:47 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Me-410 in Japan (Richard Rycroft)

There is on difference not mentionted, the 410 a constant taper to the wing. The 210 had a different taper outboard of the engines. I picked up the Italeri and compared it to the Italeri 210 and this becomes evident. So If I'm iterpreting the comments in Green's book (see link to Jim B.'s post below) that when it comes down to it, buy both kits, build the 410, but put the 210 engines on it and that should do it for the model in Japan.

Editors note: Link to http://www.j-aircraft.org/bbs/army_config.pl?read=6544

Re: Me-410 in Japan *PIC*

Posted By: Sean G. <aseang@earthlink.net>
Date: Thursday, 5 September 2002, at 9:54 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Me-410 in Japan (Bill Sanborn)

Yep, I believe it was the short bodied Me-210 that as evaluated, but am on the road so I can't cite a source right now.

One of our J-Aircrafter's posted this from Wings magazine a while back.

Editors note: Picture at http://www.glaspell.net/reference/ija_me-210_eval_01.jpg

Re: Me-410 in Japan

Posted By: Bill Sanborn <bsanborn@psemc.com>
Date: Friday, 6 September 2002, at 10:47 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Me-410 in Japan *PIC* (Sean G.)

I'll try to remember to look up my reference tonight, (too many Guiness last night).

The fuselage length is one area of contention that I have always had. Does the Me-210 really have a shorter fuselage or is it that the engines in the 410 protude farther past the nose to give it an overall greater length, thus giving the impression of a shorter fuselage in the 210 when people compare overall lengths of the planes. In most cases the overall length of twin engined planes is the fuselage length, but in these birds the engines protrude beyond the nose of the fuselage, so I'll bet the overall length for them is measured from the farthest point forward (spinners) to the farthest point back. I'm no Luftwaffe expert so I have not really resarched it. If some one knows where the fuselage was changed I like to know. I'd like to do the plane evaluated and I have the Italeri Me-210 and FM Me-410. I have not figured out which to build or if I have to kit bash. Again I have not really looked into the project yet. It is one one of what I call my "Nichevo" projects. When I get to it. :-)

Re: Me-410 in Japan-adendum

Posted By: Bill Sanborn <bsanborn@psemc.com>
Date: Friday, 6 September 2002, at 10:53 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Me-410 in Japan (Bill Sanborn)

Oops, Should have read Jim's post before I hit the send button. He has posted the source I remember.

I'll have to check into the tail differences.

So it looks like I will have to put the 210 engines on the 410 kit and that shoud do it?

Re: Me-410 in Japan

Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@fidnet.com>
Date: Thursday, 5 September 2002, at 10:22 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Me-410 in Japan *PIC* (Sean G.)

"An Me 210A-0 (Werk-Nr.027 DI+NW) was re-engined with DB 603As and fitted with a new rear fuselage and revised wing as the Me 410 V1, flight testing commencing during the autumn of 1942, but these trials were preceded by the testing of five Me 210A-1s (Werk-Nummern 2344 and 2346-9) and one Me 210A-2 (Werk-Nr. 2350) which, while retaining their DB 601F engines, were brought up to Me 410 standards in all other respects. One of these modified Me210A-1s was later supplied to Japan for evaluation under the Nippon-German Technical Exchange Agreement."

BUT Photo of same (alas no access to scanner) has caption:
"Me 210A-2 Werk Nr.2350 which retained DB 601F engines but in other respects was brought up to Me 410 standards, was supplied to Japan for evaluation under the Nippon-German Exchange Agreement."

From THE WARPLANES OF THE THIRD REICH (William Green)(1970 edition) no ISBN

The warbird . P-40 The True Story

Posted By: Nathan Milarta <Marty@sosbbs.com>
Date: Wednesday, 21 August 2002, at 3:38 p.m.

The P-40 by many has been known as an outdated, outclassed fighter plane. In fact the P-40 was well better than many believed. Horsepower was rated at 1300 hp, and max speed was 356 mph. It could get up to 500 mph in a dive! The P-40 did lack in speed, and high altitude performance. But it made up for it in many ways. It had a good dive speed, roll rate, and was very rugged witch will always be the P-40's most famous aspect. It also had good fire power and favorable maneuverability, some say more maneuverable than the P-51! The P-40 was a formidable opponent for the Japanese Zero and German Bf 109. In fact the Germans thought that the P-40 was a more dangerous, and better opponent then the British Hurricane. At the end of the war many Japanese pilots said a well-piloted P-40 was there most feared plane. In comparison with other planes the P-40 is faster then a Hurricane, and about the same speed as a Spitfire. The British also used the P-40, and did well against the German fighter. The most famous fighter group the AVG Flying Tigers flew the P-40. They shot down 297 Japanese planes for the loss of only 10 P-40's in combat. Dec 7 1941, 2 P-40 pilots LT. George Welch, and LT. Kenneth Taylor alltogether shot down 7 Japanese planes. The 23rd FG that took over the AVG shot down 116 planes for the loss of 16 P-40's. In Italy 20 P-40's of the 325th Fighter Group was jumped by 40 Bf 109's, the result was 20 Bf 109's shot down for only one P-40. The same thing happened again the result was 19 Bf 109 for 2 P-40's. The end of the war brought the end to the P-40 as well as many other aircraft of WWII. There are only about 20 flying today out of thousands made. The P-40 is and will always be my favorite plane. The P-40 will hold a special meaning to those who flew it. Those who flew it says its one of the nicest planes they flown. The P-40 is certainly a legend, a legend in the sky. The P-40 has long been written off, but nobody ever said it wasn't Tough!!

The P-40 -Those side windows!

Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Thursday, 22 August 2002, at 9:16 a.m.

In Response To: The warbird . P-40 The True Story (Nathan Milarta)

Wonderful, charismatic aircraft but how on earth do you get those pesky side windows to fit neatly (and stay put) on a 1/72nd scale model ???

Has anyone got any idiot-proof tips for this?

Re: The P-40 -Those side windows!

Posted By: jackson <jfincher@attbi.com>
Date: Thursday, 22 August 2002, at 1:39 p.m.

In Response To: The P-40 -Those side windows! (Nick Millman)

Don't know about idiot proof Nick, but what's worked for me on a number of 1/48 projects is a whole bunch of dry fitting then a miniscule amount of a gap filling super glue. I have found that so long as the back of the part can breath where the superglue vapor can escape and the amount is kept to a minimum, fogging of the part won't happen.

I have tried using white glue without a lot of success, sets up too slow and too fragile.

One other method I've heard of but haven't tried yet is the use of watch crystal cement. I've seen it advertised by Micromark.

Re: The warbird . P-40 The True Story

Posted By: Juha Vaittinen
Date: Thursday, 22 August 2002, at 1:08 a.m.

In Response To: The warbird . P-40 The True Story (Nathan Milarta)

I agree that when used right the P-40 was a dangerous opponent but you are comparing apples and oranges when you compared claims to the true losses. If you want to know the truth you must first check how much overclaiming there were in part of the P-40 pilots in those combats You refer. And believe me, overclaiming is the norm.

Re: The warbird . P-40 The True Story

Posted By: Juha Vaittinen
Date: Thursday, 22 August 2002, at 11:35 a.m.

In Response To: (Message Deleted by Poster) (Nathan Milarta)

If my memory serves me right Dan Ford tried to establish the true number of the Japanese a/c shot down by the Tigers and came to conclusion that the Flying Tigers shot down 105 - 115 Japanese a/c. That may be a little conservative estimation but the only one to my knowledge that is based on also Japanese sources. Still the Tigers had a very good kill ratio and their overclaiming rate was not exceptional when compared to other US forces fighting in a backwater theather when looked from Washington DC. (I mean that the claims of the 8th FC were one of the most reliable made during the WWII, but even in MTO the claims were not as reliable as the 8th FC's, at least I think so) And when one remembers that the Tigers got extra money for every kill and the tactic they used one must to come to conclusion that they were skillful pilots ably led flying with an a/c that had at least some good points and that the money had very little if any influence to their claims.
The 325 FG overclaimed badly at least on July 30 1943, when JG 77 lost only 4 Bf 109s. I don't know how many other Bfs were damaged.

Re: The warbird . P-40 The True Story

Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Thursday, 22 August 2002, at 6:42 p.m.

In Response To: Re: The warbird . P-40 The True Story (Juha Vaittinen)

Accounts of 64th and 50th Sentai pilots also back the fact that the Tigers and the P-40s were formidable opponents for the Ki43s.

It may also be interesting that an account by a 64th Sentai pilot in Burma states that the British Mohawks engaged the Ki43s in close dogfights and the Japanese pilot was very impressed by the maneuverability of the opponent.

Accounts by Sakai-san of fighting uprepared P-40s and Dutch East Indies Hawk 75s give the impression during the initial invasion of the Philippines and Java give the impression that the Hawk75/81 were totally outclassed by Japanese types, but under equal conditions, they were worthy opponents.

Re: The warbird . P-40 The True Story

Posted By: Juha Vaittinen
Date: Thursday, 22 August 2002, at 11:30 p.m.

In Response To: Re: The warbird . P-40 The True Story (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)

yes, Curtiss fighters had good maneuvrability. When the British tested the P-36/Hawk 75 they were impressed its maneuvrability, especially its ailerons, which were better than those installed in the early Spit Mks and which maintained their lightness throughout the speed range and didn't heavied up nearly so badly than those of installed in British fighters in 1940 when the speed rose over 300mph. Hawk 75 was also the most succesfull fighter in French service at least up to May 10 1940. The Finns also liked it very much, especially its maneuvrability in horizontal plane.
As always it is the question of the ability to use right tactic, using own plane's good points and exploiting the weaknesses of the enemy.

You're on to something there

Posted By: Chris L in NC <chrisatty@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 21 August 2002, at 9:41 p.m.

In Response To: The warbird . P-40 The True Story (Nathan Milarta)

I agree the P-40 was and is underrated quite badly. Even though the AVG's score has been marked down considerably after thorough research, they certainly showed what could be done with PROPER TACTICS (what a concept) and not allowing the Japanese to make them play their game.

Pete Everest in his memoirs "The Fastest Man Alive" spent much of his wartime service flying P-40s and hated every minute of it, wishing he had a better plane. Finally his unit got some P-51s, his dream plane, and you guessed it, was promptly shot down and captured, luckily only a few weeks before the end of the war. Again, tactics made the difference, for he admits to making a second attack on a defended target (in violation of the hallowed rule One Pass Haul Ass) and getting nailed by ground fire. Wasn't the P-51's fault. Pete should have been more grateful to the P-40.

Then there was Robert L. Scott, who after flying lots of P-40 missions, thought they should put up, right next to the Wright Brothers Memorial, a monument to the P-40 and its Allison engine. Now that's the kind of endorsement money can't buy.

Re: The warbird . P-40 The True Story

Posted By: Dave Pluth <dave@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Wednesday, 21 August 2002, at 9:22 p.m.

In Response To: The warbird . P-40 The True Story (Nathan Milarta)

I believe that you will find most pilots rave about their rides as you have cited with the P-40. The best plane of the war for most pilots was the one that brought them back from each mission.

Re: The warbird . P-40 The True Story

Posted By: Andrew Johnson <annajohnson@loughviewhouse.com>
Date: Saturday, 24 August 2002, at 2:25 p.m.

In Response To: Re: The warbird . P-40 The True Story (Dave Pluth)

Yes, the P-40's of the AVG had the best record of any Allied fighters against the Japanese in 1941-42. But why? The P-40's and Curtis 75's were cut to bits in Sumatra, Java, Philippines, Port Moresby etc. The most important reason I believe was the early warning observer system initiated by Chennault in China. Thus, with plenty of notice the heavy P-40 (slow rate of climb, poor power to weight ratio, high wing loading) could bounce the attackers. Under these circumstances even the Hurricane and Buffalo could have performed creditably! Woe betide any Allied fighter caught at a height disadvantage in a slow climb against the nimble Hayabusa or Zero.

Of course credit must be given to Chennault, who knew more about Japanese tactics then most in the early war years.


Bf-109 tested by Japan

Posted By: Kevin Callahan <kevin.callahan2@weyerhaeuser.com>
Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2002, at 2:22 p.m.

Despite the fact that most of my modelling is of obscure types, I've gotten it in my head to do the Bf-109E that Japan flight tested. My take on the photos and artwork I've seen is that it is painted in RLM 74/75/76. I'm not a stickler for this sort of thing, but want to have a defendable position at least. I thought I would ask those who know more about the subject (which consists of, well, just about everybody). I notice someone did this plane for your 2002 Nationals project, so the subject may have been discussed before on the boards.

Is 74/75/76 the accepted scheme, or are there alternative theories?

Re: Bf-109 tested by Japan

Posted By: Grant Goodale <grant.goodale@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2002, at 3:09 p.m.

In Response To: Bf-109 tested by Japan (Kevin Callahan)

I can't really help you with the RLM colours but the photos and artwork (link below) look like Luftwaffe "from the factory" to me.

Editors note: Link to http://www.j-aircraft.com/captured/testedby/me109/me109.htm

Re: Bf-109 tested by Japan

Posted By: Kevin Callahan <kevin.callahan2@weyerhaeuser.com>
Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2002, at 3:22 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Bf-109 tested by Japan (Grant Goodale)

Actually it was Chris' artwork (he's a fellow member of IPMS Seattle) that got me started on this idea. I just thought it would be a good idea to toss the question out to a knowledgeable group and see what they think. I agree the paint was probably applied in Germany, and that the chance that it was 74/75/76 is high. But I wondered if there was another school of thought that I should consider.

Re: Japan Bf-109 at Midway

Posted By: Nathan Milarta <Marty@sosbbs.com>
Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2002, at 7:17 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Bf-109 tested by Japan (Kevin Callahan)

I read a book on the Battle of Midway(Mirical at Midway). It said that an SBD was under attack and that he saw a Bf 109 fly by him. I was very puzzled when I read this, but found out they were testing it for the Japanese Navy.
I do not know what the color would be.- But if I had to quess I'd say it was in German color but Japanese markings.

Re: Japan Bf-109 at Midway

Posted By: Rich Leonard <rdkcleon@erols.com>
Date: Wednesday, 21 August 2002, at 9:42 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Japan Bf-109 at Midway (Nathan Milarta)

A few points ...

There were no A6M3s at Midway. The Model 32 did not make a combat debut until October 1942 in the Solomons.

There were only two D4Y "Judy" types remotely close to the action at Midway and one of those was an operational loss before the battle.

And

As far as american pilots and crewmen sighting Me-109s is concerned, these types of sightings went back as far as the Battle of the Coral Sea and continued into the Guadalcanal campaign. I've spoken to Bert Earnest (an old family friend and fellow VMI alumnus) about this. He, too, reported being attacked by a 109 while making his getaway in the only TBF to survive. He thinks its funny now, but back then they were briefed to expect to see such things. An earlier case is Lt. Cdr. Jimmy Flatley, then XO of VF-42, during the Battle of the Coral Sea also reporting seeing a 109. Other cases, as I recall, popped up early in the Solomons campaign, but were, by then discounted (at least until the Tony came along).

My primary source, a VF-42 pilot, says that no one batted an eye at Flatley's report. He reports that they were also briefed to expect to see 109s, especially since the Japanese couldn't produce an decent fighter.

I think that the rush of events probably contributed Earnest's report ... VT-8 detachment flew their TBF's from Norfolk, across country, loaded them on a transport, sailed to Pearl, unloaded, and within two days had 6 planes at Midway which went into combat, I think, without checking, 2 days later. There really wasn't much time to update any previous briefings.

The only USN pilots at Midway who had even seen an Zero up close and personal were the VF-42 types who made up the majority of Yorktown's VF-3 and maybe, again without checking, a few of the VB-5 folks ... maybe.

And as far as I know there was no formal briefing of other carrier squadrons by the VF-42 pilots. There was a lot of discussion between the VF-3 and VF-42 type on the trip out. Thach was very, very interested in what they ran into and the tactics used. Remember, the VF-42 types as a group formed the most experienced US VF pilots at Midway. Perhaps the fruit of these discussions was that none of the VF-3/VF-42 pilots, who did most of the VF vs VF work at Midway, reported seeing a 109. Thach knew about the Zero from pre-war intelligence reports and the VF-42 types had been there and done that.

Re: Japan Bf-109 at Midway

Posted By: Grant Goodale <grant.goodale@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 21 August 2002, at 7:14 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japan Bf-109 at Midway (Nathan Milarta)

I know that some D4Y's were on the carriers for recon purposes. I do not know if they were ever launched. If they were, then that *might* be a possible explanation. Until the D4Y and the Ki-61 were firmly implanted in the minds of the US pilots, it seems like they called anything with an in-line engine a Bf 109.

Whatever AMM2C Adkins saw wasn't a 109

Posted By: Chris L in NC <chrisatty@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2002, at 11:33 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Japan Bf-109 at Midway (Nathan Milarta)

As interesting as the thought might be, there simply weren't any Bf 109s on Japanese carriers. The Germans did have a carrier-suitable version of the 109E known as the 109T but even though about 60 were completed they never flew from a ship, serving in Norway and off the little island of Heligoland. The Germans were quite capable of testing their own planes. The IJN wouldn't have wanted any, since the 109 didn't have half the Zero's range, nor did it conform to the maneuverability-uber-alles IJN air combat doctrine.

The passage in "Miracle at Midway" reads:

"Aboard Ensign William R. Pittman's aircraft of VS-6, AMM 2/c Floyd D. Adkins struggled with the twin mount free-gun [Prange means to say twin flex-mount ANM2 .30-caliber Brownings] he was holding in his lap. The 175-pound bun had broken loose from its mount during the dive. Immediately after Pittman pulled out of it, "a Messerschmitt-type fighter" attacked. Normally it took three men to handle the heavy, awkwardly shaped weapon, and Adkins was a rather slightly built young man. But in this emergency there came to him that surge of superhuman strength which sometimes animates the brave under stress. Bracing the gun against the fuselage, he fired it so effectively that he shot down the fighter. Challenged to lift the weapon back aboard ENTERPRISE, Adkins could not budge it from the deck."

The footnote cites the VF-6 unofficial log as well as "Incredible Victory" and "Flying Guns." This is nothing like sufficient evidence to establish the presence of 109s at Midway. The only "Messerschmitt-type", or more accurately, the only type that could have been reasonably mistaken for a Messerschmitt, at Midway would have been the two or three D4Y Judys aboard SORYU. These had license-built DB601 inverted V-12 engines and if all other known Japanese planes had radial engines, and the Allies were conditioned to think that whatever the Japanese built HAD to be a copy of SOMEthing, then if indeed Machinist's Mate Adkins was attacked by a Judy I could see how he would say it was a Messerschmitt. However, I think he really got hit by a Zero and was deep in the "fog of war" in which anyone can mistake just about anything for just about anything else.

The key thing I took away from the passage was the heroism and resourcefulness of Adkins in not giving up even when faced with a serious equipment failure.

Was - Re: Bf-109 tested by Japan

Posted By: Dave Wadman <dwad@shaw.ca>
Date: Friday, 30 August 2002, at 10:47 a.m.

In Response To: Bf-109 tested by Japan (Kevin Callahan)

I've just had a look at the 109E photos posted in this thread and would agree with Grant that it appears to be in the standard 02/71/65 finish that was applied to the E series from the E-4 on.

However, while recently examined documentary evidence indicates that the 74/75/76 scheme was not introduced on the 109 until early in the production run of the F-2 it could well be that these 'exported' examples may have received this finish for whatever reason. Unfortunately I don't have access to my 109 database at the moment (or I could tell you with more certainty) but, if they were shipped prior to June 41 then you have a 99.9% probability for 02/71/65 but if shipped after that date there is a good possibility that they 'MAY' have been finished in the greys.

Bf-109 colours in Japan *PIC*

Posted By: Grant Elliott <guzzi@space.net.au>
Date: Sunday, 1 September 2002, at 7:37 a.m.

In Response To: Was - Re: Bf-109 tested by Japan (Dave Wadman)

I have been watching this colour discussion with interest but due to my lack of knowledge of the Reich colours kept my counsel. It appears though I have put my feet in the 'Luft colours in the east' pond and feel I should share the little I know.
However, a good mate of mine who until recently built nothing but Luftwaffe and client country Bf-109s had a phone conversation wherin he states the colours designated to export aircraft of the time to have been 61/62 over 75 or so.
He is a bit of a perfectionist and built his model of #1 in those colours. I post a photo of his prize winning model for your perusal.

Editors note: Picture no longer available

Re: Bf-109 colours in Japan

Posted By: Dave Wadman <dwad@shaw.ca>
Date: Sunday, 1 September 2002, at 8:49 a.m.

In Response To: Bf-109 colours in Japan *PIC* (Grant Elliott)

Nice looking model that.
At the present time, current research strongly indicates that the oft referred to 'export colours' for a/c sold outside of Germany is incorrect in that surviving records indicate that these a/c were exported in the standard RLM colours applicable to the various types. It is also indicated that the RLM forbade the use of the paint numbers/names in connection with exported aircraft (which may have led to the origination of the 'export colour' term). Michael Ullmann briefly addresses this in his recent book and hopefully it will be addressed further in the forthcoming work by Ken Merrick.

In all probability the Japanese Emils were supplied straight from the production line and as such, in all likelihood wore the 02/71/65 finish which was the standard factory applied camo for all E models from the -4 on as shown in the various painting documentation for the type.

However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, there are always exceptions to the rule and the possibility does exist for the application of a different scheme on these Es for whatever reason. Unless specific painting directives for these particular aircraft come to light (which is unlikely) the only thing we can be sure of with any certainty is that we will never know for sure!

Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: Richard Rycroft <rjrsr@rcn.com>
Date: Sunday, 18 August 2002, at 1:31 p.m.

PLEASE DON'T JUMP ALL OVER ME, but I do know that the Luftwaffe had a major repair section designed to "fix" captured Allied aircraft. My simple questioon is: Did the IJAAF Test Facilities have teams that could repair crashed allied aircraft or did they just maintain aircraft captured intact??? I've never heard a word about repairs to crashes, just new paint jobs. I would think that with their lack of raw materials, transportation, etc; they would NOT have the time, space, means, materials and manpower to repair crashed aircraft. On the other hand, they did have close to twenty (20) years experience tinkering with "foreign" aircraft while developing their own aircraft. So yes, they had the expertise, but were these gentlemen needed to further tweak Japanese production models only. Surely, I can't be the only person interested in this aspect of the IJAAF and IJNAF. In advance, thanks for any incite or speculation.

Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: Bill Leyh <hawk81@pacbell.net>
Date: Sunday, 18 August 2002, at 4:33 p.m.

In Response To: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (Richard Rycroft)

I would imagine that the JAAF Technical department at Tachikawa would have facilities and experienced personnel to repair and maintain captured allied aircraft. This should have had a fairly high priority for materials and personnel - as these activities usually do, and for good reason.

Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: Richard Rycroft <rjrsr@rcn.com>
Date: Sunday, 18 August 2002, at 7:49 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (Bill Leyh)

Somehow I just can not picture the Japanese searching the countryside and collecting parts. The Germans basically stripped each crashed aircraft of usable parts, inventoried each piece, cataloged same, smelted the unusable parts into aluminum ingots for then manufacturing their own aircraft. Are you saying that the Japanese would have done the same thing?? Perhaps I've misunderstood their culture, as I tended to believe that they needed every inch of ship cargo space for items necessary for their country to survive. I can not believe that they had the time, space and means to reconstruct a foreign aircraft industry during a time of war. Please correct me if I'm wrong (as I usually am).

Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: Bill Leyh <hawk81@pacbell.net>
Date: Sunday, 18 August 2002, at 8:09 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (Richard Rycroft)

I don't know that they'd have gone to that extent, no. But they are known to have returned captured aircraft to Japan for test and evaluation. Many photos document that. Most typical aircraft parts can be reproduced by a decent machine shop - even engine parts such as pistons, etc. The technical department at Tachikawa army air base was tasked with this and must have had at their disposal a skilled core of technicians and facilities.

As for their ability to keep an airplane operational for an extended period of time - probably not - unless they had a stock of critical parts (spark plugs or other items not easily reproduced).

Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: Richard Rycroft <rjrsr@rcn.com>
Date: Sunday, 18 August 2002, at 9:34 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (Bill Leyh)

But that is exactly what the Germans did. They salvaged every nut and bolt, oil, engine lub, fuel, manuals, etc. Their mechanics only used those salvaged items; therefore they were able to field two kampgruppe of allied aircraft. As talented as the Japanese may have been. I don't quite see them going to this extreme. Yes, they would have utilized fully operational captured planes, but I seriously doubt that they had full-time repair facilities for crashed aircraft.
By the way, the Italians appeared to have been clueless. They didn't even know enough to use the right octane fuel. They flew them until they broke and there they sat until after the armistice.
I wonder if the Japanese melted down crashed aircraft in order to make use of the aluminum alloys for their own aircraft production. That is, when aircraft crashed on the homeland islands.

Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 19 August 2002, at 8:59 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (Richard Rycroft)

There were few American aircraft shot down over the Homeland of Japan to carry on the scale of salvage and repair carried out by the Germans.

The majority of the few Allied aircraft salvaged by the Japanese for testing were either from SEA or the Philippines during the first few months of the war. Whatever aircraft went down behind the Japanese lines in the remote islands of the South Pacific could either not be retrieved from the jungle nor from the bottom of the vast areas of ocean.

The Japanese had a difficult time getting through the Allied submarine patrols in order to supply significant quantities of their own aircraft to these remote regions. The return trips for these merchant ships contained cargo of higher priority than the few recoverable scraps of downed planes.

Heck, they were not even able to return their own aircraft for maintenance!

The volume of missions flown over Germany, or German occupied territory, territory which was readily accessible by a network of roads, made the harvesting of a bounty Allied aircraft by the Germans relatively easy for four or more years.

The Allied aircraft WERE one of Germany's principal sources of hardware and metal for recycling! This process was not possible over Japan until late 1944 or 1945. By which time, the Japanese had lost their ability to "harvest"!

Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: Richard Rycroft <rjrsr@rcn.com>
Date: Monday, 19 August 2002, at 10:30 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (James F. Lansdale)

Yours would be the exact argument that I would use. I noticed that various accounts always referred to aircaft captured when an area was overrun by the Japanese. BUT I never read where any allied aircraft were reconstructed.
I've always wondered if there is any text wherein, the Japanese Test Facility inventoried their captured aircraft. It would seem that so little was written about the Japanese that they are still quite a mystery to us westerners. Why is that?? I sometimes suspect that it was an attempt to bury any information on the "evil" empire. Prejudices ran very high for decades following the war. I was never allowed to mention "those" people when I was growing up. I'm constantly amazed at the multitude of varied subjects and things I've discovered on J-aircraft. Especially the breakthroughs in international responses to questions. Please, keep up the good work. Thanks to one and all for your inputs.

Re: Captured Aircraft: Landing Gear From Wrecks?

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 19 August 2002, at 1:19 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (Richard Rycroft)

IIRC, the Nakajima G5N prototype was designed around the wings, powerplant, and landing gear of an imported DC-4E.

Later, again IIRC, the Japanese used the landing gear from a captured/crashed American heavy bomber for the landing gear in the prototype Nakajima G8N Renzan (or did I dream this? ~(:<).

Possible confusion with the Ju 287?

Posted By: Graham Boak <graham@agboak.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2002, at 3:00 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft: Landing Gear From Wrecks? (James F. Lansdale)

This used Liberator undercarriage parts.

I hadn't heard that mentioned about the Renzan.

Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: Mike Goodwin <Mike.Goodwin@bigfoot.com>
Date: Monday, 19 August 2002, at 3:39 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (Richard Rycroft)

As an example, the Japanese shipped back components of a Mosquito from Burma, for analysis for improvement of techniques in building wooden aircraft. This was quite important to them, as their dural stocks were running out. From what I have read, they considered the construction techniques of their own Tachikawa Ki-106 (a wooden version of Frank) to be at least as good, although the quality of workmanship on the Mosquito was complimented.

But I don't know that they transported enemy aircraft carcasses for recycling. For example, there is no record of their bringing back the Mosquito's Merlins. I don't know what version Mosquito was involved, but its engines might have been equipped with two-stage superchargers, which would have been of much interest to Mitsubishi and Nakajima. Even if they were earlier Merlins, the crankshafts could have been melted down to provide decent steel for a couple more Seiran engines.

If the Japanese had melted down scrap aircraft, did they have the industrial capability to turn it into alloy sheet? Or was all their stock imported pre-war? I hadn't thought about that before.

Was the German effort related to the operations of Zirkus Rosarius? The Japanese had a large flight of captured aircraft, and they seem to have maintained these fairly well till nearly the end of the War. But they do not seem to have used these in an offensive role at all.

Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: Richard Rycroft <rjrsr@rcn.com>
Date: Monday, 19 August 2002, at 4:02 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (Mike Goodwin)

Those German squadrons were the Zircus Rosarius and the other was KG 200. The later was for clandestine operations mostly, while the former was to train pilots in combating allied aircraft. The Germans actually held annual airshows, across the country, each year in order to show these captured planes. That had to have been a great moral booster to the general public.

Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: Graham Boak <graham@agboak.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Monday, 19 August 2002, at 8:57 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (Richard Rycroft)

Yes, but there were nowhere near two complete Kampfgruppe, which would require some 60 operational a/c, simultaneously. No more than a handful of aircraft were in use at any one time - comparable (though greater in number) than the RAF and US use of ex-Luftwaffe aircraft for analysis and recognition purposes.

Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: Richard Rycroft <rjrsr@rcn.com>
Date: Monday, 19 August 2002, at 10:34 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (Graham Boak)

Agreed. But historians and writers would have you believe that a vast armada was in the works.
It's scary to think of what would have happened should they have elected to concentrate on building up a few select first-rate type aircraft only, rather than "spreading the wealth" and catering to the insiders. Food for thought under "what if".

Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance

Posted By: Lee Edw. Branch <leb1933@uia.net>
Date: Saturday, 24 August 2002, at 7:34 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured Aircraft Maintainance (Richard Rycroft)

I think it can be said the JAF did operationally utilize Allied aircraft. I note that last year there was posted here, on "J-aircraft", discussion re. a flight of P-40s which were operated in Burma by the Japanese. Said P-40s apparently attacked a JAF bomber flight by mistake and, it was said, downed some of their fellow airmen.
I also recall seeing here the interesting photo of three captured B-17s with Fuji in the background. An American POW flyer has been cited as flying tests in Japan on the American a/c in Japanese hands. Anone recall his name or any details of what must have been a bizzare and emotionally harrowing experience for a POW?

Captured P-51C "Evalina"

Posted By: Henry Sakaida
Date: Thursday, 18 July 2002, at 5:04 p.m.

For those of you who are interested in a P-51C captured by the Japanese in China, please get a copy of FLIGHT JOURNAL SPECIAL ISSUE (Summer 2002). It was ditched into a rice paddy in January 1945 and captured by the Japanese Army, then flown to Japan. Three Japanese aces flew it in mock dogfights. Maj Yasuhiko Kuroe flew Evalina against 244 Sentai's CO, Capt Teruhiko Kobayashi, who was flying the superb Ki-100 Goshiki-Sen.

The mystery of Evalina fell into my lap in 1981 and I finally solved it earlier this year.

Re: Captured P-51C "Evalina"

Posted By: Deniz Karacay <denizkaracay@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 19 July 2002, at 11:05 a.m.

In Response To: Captured P-51C "Evalina" (Henry Sakaida)

There is a decal sheet featuring that aircraft, from Three Guys Replicas.

In the sheet, it says it is not known whether the hinomaru is painted in four positions or just overpainted over US Star in two positions on and under the wing.

Is that mistery also solved for modelers sake?

Re: Captured P-51C "Evalina"

Posted By: Henry Sakaida
Date: Monday, 22 July 2002, at 4:21 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured P-51C "Evalina" (Deniz Karacay)

I wish I could answer that question! There are no other known photos of Evalina in Japanese hands. What was the practice with other captured US aircraft in JAAF hands?? Sgt Susumu Kajinami (later Koyama) died last year and he had flown it. All the Japanese pilots who flew Evalina are now gone. I bugs me that I don't know her ultimate fate.

Re: Captured P-51C "Evalina"

Posted By: Deniz Karacay <denizkaracay@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, 23 July 2002, at 12:37 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Captured P-51C "Evalina" (Henry Sakaida)

Yes, indeed, Hinomaru in six positions make sense since it would not be wise to fly an enemy a/c with markings on positions with US bars still there.

Still, if there was one flight took place with such markings before full painting was done, ot would be an terribly charismatic model. Isn't it?

Thanks for the article and info.



Return to Army Message Board