Kawanishi G9K ? 
 
Topics:
Was there a Nakajima G9N?
 
Was there a Nakajima G9N?
 
Posted By: Steve Horn <mailto:shorn3@bellsouth.net?subject=Was there a Nakajima G9N?>
Date: Monday, 10 September 2001, at 8:46 a.m.
 
Thanks for the overwhelming response to my questions on the G10N1 Fugaku. Now few more questions:
1. Was an experimental Shi number ever assigned to the G10N, since it was "experimental" and never got past the drawing board? If not, why not?
2. Somewhere I ran across a reference to a G9N. Did a G9N exist? Any data available? References? Did IT have a Shi number?
Steve Horn
 
Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?
 
Posted By: Bill Sanborn <mailto:bsanborn@psemc.com?subject=Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?>
Date: Monday, 10 September 2001, at 9:57 a.m.
 
In Response To: Was there a Nakajima G9N? (Steve Horn)
 
According to Francillion in "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" The G10N was started as a private venture. I speculate that Shi numbers were assigned when the request originated from a military specification, so no shi number would have been assigned. Also at the end of the war the whole system was changing for various reason and the shi system may have been bypassed for security reasons. This is demonstrated by the Rifuku which did get a shi, but no short designation, ie A?M.
Francillion also lists the G9K which would have made it a Kawanishi plane and indicates that it was a project only.
Bill
 
Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?
 
Posted By: Mike Goodwin <mailto:Mike.Goodwin@iname.com?subject=Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?>
Date: Monday, 10 September 2001, at 10:54 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N? (Bill Sanborn)
 
I have never seen the G9K designation in any Japanese reference, and Francillon uses it to refer to a 17-Shi Kawanishi project which was also a private venture (which was proposed after cancellation of the 16-Shi G7M Taizan), and which predated the 18-Shi G8N Renzan "Rita". So, all in all, I do not trust his use of the G9K designation for that aircraft.
There was another Kawanishi bomber design, the 19-Shi TB, which is shown in Deniz's posting over on the X-Planes board. This is a possible candidate for a G9K designation but, once again, I have never seen a reference to that. There was a Nakajima 19-Shi bomber design too, also shown in Deniz's posting. This would have been the G9N if the specification was the same and the G9K designation was for real.
The Shi- designation system seems to have survived to the end of the War. It designated IJNAF specifications, rather than aircraft, and (by definition) was not used in service, so there would be little point in changing it.
The references agree that the G10N Fugaku was accepted for development at one point, so it would very probably have received a Shi number at that time. But the project seemed to change so much, and only the 19-Shi specification is mentioned in the references that I have found so far. I guess that, after IJNAF acceptance of the concept of a bomber with the range to reach the USA, they never bothered issuing newer (20-Shi?) specifications, as the project never got to the stage where this was worthwhile.
But this is all just my 2 pence worth, and complete speculation.
Cheers,
Mike
 
Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?
 
Posted By: Bill Sanborn <mailto:bsanborn@psemc.com?subject=Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?>
Date: Monday, 10 September 2001, at 11:09 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N? (Mike Goodwin)
 
It seems plausible,
Interesting note in the first plane referenced in the Mikesh article is that the "G10N1 designation was not official, but merely an accepted progression of the existing identifying system". This maybe a progressionn of dropping the short designation system like Rifuku. The plane was only known by its given name to add confusion to allied intellegence identification of new planes. It is sure confusing me on the Fugaku.
 
Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?
 
Posted By: Steve Horn <mailto:shorn3@bellsouth.net?subject=Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?>
Date: Monday, 10 September 2001, at 12:06 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N? (Bill Sanborn)
 
Thank you, Bill and Mike, for the quick responses. I guess I saw the reference to the G9N in my Francillon, too, and that's what brought up my questions. The rationale that you both offer makes much sense and appreciate your inputs. Aireview's "General View of Japanese Military Aircraft in the Pacific War" offers comments about the G10N and a 3-view that looks like one of the views in Bunrindo's "Japanese Military Aircraft Illustrated, Vol. 2, Bombers", but I still keep seeing artwork of another six-engined bomber that I believe is the Kawanishi TB. I'm getting a translation soon of the pages from the Bunrindo tome, so maybe that will clear up some of the mystery about the Japanese "Amerika bombers." Thanks again for your help.
Steve Horn
 
Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?
 
Posted By: Tadeusz Januszewski <mailto:elmeco@motronik.com.pl?subject=Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?>
Date: Monday, 10 September 2001, at 2:02 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N? (Steve Horn)
 
RIKUFU (no Rifuku) was Mitsubishi, Navy Experimental 20Shi Ko Type Carrier Firgter, no bomber. According specification 19Shi was project bomber designed by Kawanishi. Project Z was designed by Nakajima as G10N1 FUGAKU.
Tadeusz
 
Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?
 
Posted By: Bill Sanborn <mailto:bsanborn@psemc.com?subject=Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N?>
Date: Monday, 10 September 2001, at 2:27 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Was there a Nakajima G9N? (Tadeusz Januszewski)
 
OK, I was just using Francillon's spelling of the Mitsubishi 20shi carrier fighter. I was just using it as an example and didn't mean to imply it was a bomber.
Bill
 
Return to Navy Message Board Threads