The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
07-15-2011, 04:53 AM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
Well, not wishing to have something everyone else has done, I saw on the history channel the Japanese bomber that was planned, but never built, the The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
Have gone to the dark side and converted to electric,,can you say sound cards!!
The plane has a 120" wing span, weighs 22 pounds, six , 4 cell/4000 mah, batteries producing 300 amps or 4400 watts at take off, fixed gear...so far, adding sound card for the correct sound. Not hurting for power..at all!. Have rolled it, but no way to risk a loop and a stall. I answer to wuss.
Somehow was lucky enough to win my club plane of the month.
One thing about a "One Off"..you can empathize again with student pilots with hands shaking!
I hope it entertains others as I only have tunnel vision while it in in the air.
Best to all,
Twinman
Have gone to the dark side and converted to electric,,can you say sound cards!!
The plane has a 120" wing span, weighs 22 pounds, six , 4 cell/4000 mah, batteries producing 300 amps or 4400 watts at take off, fixed gear...so far, adding sound card for the correct sound. Not hurting for power..at all!. Have rolled it, but no way to risk a loop and a stall. I answer to wuss.
Somehow was lucky enough to win my club plane of the month.
One thing about a "One Off"..you can empathize again with student pilots with hands shaking!
I hope it entertains others as I only have tunnel vision while it in in the air.
Best to all,
Twinman
07-15-2011, 05:02 AM
#4
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Indian Trail,
NC
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
Japanese peacemaker.
We are so lucky we went to war when we did. I don't think we could stand up to what the Germans and Japanese would have on hand with the ageing 1930's equipment that we would have still had in 1954.
Look at things now, we have pilots flying the F-14's thier fathers flew.
We are so lucky we went to war when we did. I don't think we could stand up to what the Germans and Japanese would have on hand with the ageing 1930's equipment that we would have still had in 1954.
Look at things now, we have pilots flying the F-14's thier fathers flew.
07-15-2011, 05:09 AM
#5
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
Thank you sir for your kind words. Job that pays for the hobby gets in the way.
This plane would have been 50% bigger than the B-29 to fly to the West Coast, drop "Something" and fly back.
Fortunately, as you said, the war ended before they could get it flying. There were planned versions including one with over 200 guns to fly above B-29 formations and fill the air with bullets.
This plane would have been 50% bigger than the B-29 to fly to the West Coast, drop "Something" and fly back.
Fortunately, as you said, the war ended before they could get it flying. There were planned versions including one with over 200 guns to fly above B-29 formations and fill the air with bullets.
07-15-2011, 05:17 AM
#6
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Indian Trail,
NC
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
ORIGINAL: twinman
This plane would have been 50% bigger than the B-29 to fly to the West Coast, drop ''Something'' and fly back.
This plane would have been 50% bigger than the B-29 to fly to the West Coast, drop ''Something'' and fly back.
07-15-2011, 05:28 AM
#7
My Feedback: (27)
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
ORIGINAL: AmishWarlord
Japanese peacemaker.
We are so lucky we went to war when we did. I don't think we could stand up to what the Germans and Japanese would have on hand with the ageing 1930's equipment that we would have still had in 1954.
Look at things now, we have pilots flying the F-14's thier fathers flew.
Japanese peacemaker.
We are so lucky we went to war when we did. I don't think we could stand up to what the Germans and Japanese would have on hand with the ageing 1930's equipment that we would have still had in 1954.
Look at things now, we have pilots flying the F-14's thier fathers flew.
Really? Hummm didn't know that we were still flying F-14! I could've sworn we retired that plane from active duty in 2006!!!
And LUCKY we went to war when we did? Like we had a choice? Perhaps a little more reading of the history books and a little less rereading of your Hobby mags would be in order, I mean how many times can you read about the DSMX technology anyways?
The Japanese had maybe two superior aircraft in WWII at the outset of the war. Mitsubishi zero in service July 1940 and the Nakajima Oscar in service 1939. The Japanese were still flying fixed gear fighters as the Nate and Claude when they entered the war with us. Claire Chenault proved our P-40s were superior to these ships over China/Burma.
The Germans on the other hand had but one, The Bf-109 which went operational in 1937. You could argue the Me-110, 1937, but this plane was proven obsolete in the Battle of Britain.
Both countries did have quite a bit of innovation during the war but were no match for the combined force and unlimited resources of the Allies. Of course everyone will argue about the Me-262 being the most modern aircraft to enter service during the war, but the us and the Brits were developing Jets of their own. Just think if the F-86 had been introduced 3 years earlier instead of 1947! Sheesh.
07-15-2011, 07:23 AM
#9
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
AmishWarlord.
Loved the side by side pictures of the B-26 and B-29.
Check attachment for Fugaku to B-29..had it been built.
Twinman
Loved the side by side pictures of the B-26 and B-29.
Check attachment for Fugaku to B-29..had it been built.
Twinman
07-15-2011, 07:31 AM
#10
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Indian Trail,
NC
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
Wow. You know IF they have used engines like those on the B-36 it may have worked.
You know when you have to add eight jet engines to your propeller driven plane to get it to fly as it should, you have F'ed up. Your team has F'ed up so bad that you should have been striped of your clothes, covered in dung and force marched from DC to LA, flogging yourselves saying "We are not worthy to be aircraft engineers" the entire way.
Oh I can feel Manfred's key board overheating allready for that one.
You know when you have to add eight jet engines to your propeller driven plane to get it to fly as it should, you have F'ed up. Your team has F'ed up so bad that you should have been striped of your clothes, covered in dung and force marched from DC to LA, flogging yourselves saying "We are not worthy to be aircraft engineers" the entire way.
Oh I can feel Manfred's key board overheating allready for that one.
07-15-2011, 07:36 AM
#11
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
Come on Wuss...what do you really think!!!???
Ha Ha
Around my club, I am the one who lives for others walking by and taking a second look and saying...What the ..... is that.
See other new post.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10621283/tm.htm
Ha Ha
Around my club, I am the one who lives for others walking by and taking a second look and saying...What the ..... is that.
See other new post.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10621283/tm.htm
07-15-2011, 07:37 AM
#12
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Indian Trail,
NC
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
What is the weight of your model and the static trust of your motors?
Don't call your self a wus for not looping that plane. I wouln't even roll mine after seeing those B-52 crash videos!
Don't call your self a wus for not looping that plane. I wouln't even roll mine after seeing those B-52 crash videos!
07-15-2011, 07:49 AM
#13
Senior Member
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
If you ask me electric is the way to go for multi-engine. It should really take the hassle out of syncing up the engines as well as the pain of starting all of them.
07-15-2011, 07:53 AM
#14
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: american falls, ID
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
Before you tell people to look out of the workshop and see whats going on in the world you should check you photo attachments for validity, thats CGI from the movie Stealth, the worst aviation picture ever made.
07-15-2011, 07:53 AM
#15
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
Model weighs around 22#, but static thrust I do not know..but it will accelerate like a rocket.
Each motor pulling 50 amps with 12x8 props or 4400 watts at take off.
Taxi is TWO clicks up on the throttle. I am from the school of never too much power! Ha Ha.
Have enough shaking hands while flying it with only five flights and the roll was at VERY high altitude, a tip stall during a loop...my heart could not take!!!!!
Will stick with Wuss!
Twinman
Each motor pulling 50 amps with 12x8 props or 4400 watts at take off.
Taxi is TWO clicks up on the throttle. I am from the school of never too much power! Ha Ha.
Have enough shaking hands while flying it with only five flights and the roll was at VERY high altitude, a tip stall during a loop...my heart could not take!!!!!
Will stick with Wuss!
Twinman
07-15-2011, 08:00 AM
#16
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
jeffk464
You are correct more than you know. I have specialised with multiple engine models for most of my years in this hobby, but when I did the 80" B-17 and four glow engines that took four hours to set up the first time and almost one hour each time to get ready to fly...that was it.
Still working on the sound system that is missing on the electrics.
Installed a Ram system on the electric B-17 with amplifier and two speakers. On the ground was great, and with RC switch was fun to scare guys, (who then disucussed my ancestors,) who were flying in other pilot stations, but in the air, could not hear it.
Six engines..was not going to happen!
Just call me Wuss.
You are correct more than you know. I have specialised with multiple engine models for most of my years in this hobby, but when I did the 80" B-17 and four glow engines that took four hours to set up the first time and almost one hour each time to get ready to fly...that was it.
Still working on the sound system that is missing on the electrics.
Installed a Ram system on the electric B-17 with amplifier and two speakers. On the ground was great, and with RC switch was fun to scare guys, (who then disucussed my ancestors,) who were flying in other pilot stations, but in the air, could not hear it.
Six engines..was not going to happen!
Just call me Wuss.
07-15-2011, 08:05 AM
#17
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Indian Trail,
NC
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
OMG these guys are cranky and have no since of sarcasm this morning.
Joke - real world- fake plane = funny.... never mind.
OK those numbers are funny
lets see 12x8 prop 50 amps 4,400 watts
what rpm you running those 12x8 props at?
07-15-2011, 04:10 PM
#19
Senior Member
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
ORIGINAL: MANFRED
Really? Hummm didn't know that we were still flying F-14! I could've sworn we retired that plane from active duty in 2006!!!
And LUCKY we went to war when we did? Like we had a choice? Perhaps a little more reading of the history books and a little less rereading of your Hobby mags would be in order, I mean how many times can you read about the DSMX technology anyways?
The Japanese had maybe two superior aircraft in WWII at the outset of the war. Mitsubishi zero in service July 1940 and the Nakajima Oscar in service 1939. The Japanese were still flying fixed gear fighters as the Nate and Claude when they entered the war with us. Claire Chenault proved our P-40s were superior to these ships over China/Burma.
The Germans on the other hand had but one, The Bf-109 which went operational in 1937. You could argue the Me-110, 1937, but this plane was proven obsolete in the Battle of Britain.
Both countries did have quite a bit of innovation during the war but were no match for the combined force and unlimited resources of the Allies. Of course everyone will argue about the Me-262 being the most modern aircraft to enter service during the war, but the us and the Brits were developing Jets of their own. Just think if the F-86 had been introduced 3 years earlier instead of 1947! Sheesh.
ORIGINAL: AmishWarlord
Japanese peacemaker.
We are so lucky we went to war when we did. I don't think we could stand up to what the Germans and Japanese would have on hand with the ageing 1930's equipment that we would have still had in 1954.
Look at things now, we have pilots flying the F-14's thier fathers flew.
Japanese peacemaker.
We are so lucky we went to war when we did. I don't think we could stand up to what the Germans and Japanese would have on hand with the ageing 1930's equipment that we would have still had in 1954.
Look at things now, we have pilots flying the F-14's thier fathers flew.
Really? Hummm didn't know that we were still flying F-14! I could've sworn we retired that plane from active duty in 2006!!!
And LUCKY we went to war when we did? Like we had a choice? Perhaps a little more reading of the history books and a little less rereading of your Hobby mags would be in order, I mean how many times can you read about the DSMX technology anyways?
The Japanese had maybe two superior aircraft in WWII at the outset of the war. Mitsubishi zero in service July 1940 and the Nakajima Oscar in service 1939. The Japanese were still flying fixed gear fighters as the Nate and Claude when they entered the war with us. Claire Chenault proved our P-40s were superior to these ships over China/Burma.
The Germans on the other hand had but one, The Bf-109 which went operational in 1937. You could argue the Me-110, 1937, but this plane was proven obsolete in the Battle of Britain.
Both countries did have quite a bit of innovation during the war but were no match for the combined force and unlimited resources of the Allies. Of course everyone will argue about the Me-262 being the most modern aircraft to enter service during the war, but the us and the Brits were developing Jets of their own. Just think if the F-86 had been introduced 3 years earlier instead of 1947! Sheesh.
07-15-2011, 07:38 PM
#20
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
I'm sure you meant F-84. The F-86 was far from a sitting duck. It had swept wings, a greater top speed, faster acceleration in a dive and even racked up more than one kill just with its superior life support system. F-86 dives from high altitude, mig follows, migs canopy fogs over and ends up a smoking hole as the F-86 flies away.
07-15-2011, 08:12 PM
#21
Senior Member
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
yup, you got me. f86 was the sabre, a most competent nemesis to the mig 15.
One thing to remember is that the f86 and mig 15 both had centrifugal compressors, the me262 along with all modern jets had axial flow compressors.
Exception is the T700 on the h60 helicopter which has something like 8 axial stages and then a centrifugal stage compressor.
P.S. the engine in the mig15 was of British design.
One thing to remember is that the f86 and mig 15 both had centrifugal compressors, the me262 along with all modern jets had axial flow compressors.
Exception is the T700 on the h60 helicopter which has something like 8 axial stages and then a centrifugal stage compressor.
P.S. the engine in the mig15 was of British design.
07-15-2011, 10:31 PM
#22
My Feedback: (27)
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
cfircav8r Thanks for the correction. F-86 was a badass!! Korea was the last great theatre of aerial combat for the beloved 50 cal. I know they were used a bit in the Nam but more for ground support. Hard to believe that gun was designed in 1918 and is still in use today, unlike Am Warlords' F-14
07-16-2011, 02:31 AM
#23
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Indian Trail,
NC
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
"The F-14 was retired from the active U.S. Navy fleet on 22 September 2006, having been replaced by the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.[2] "
Yeah it's sad though,
That's like saying the Corvette was retired and replaced by the Camaro.
As far as Ma Duce is concerned when I see us using those things I see a direct result of the 1928 gun control act. If people where allowed to tinker with machine guns in their garages like Carbine Williams did we'd have 83 years worth of advancement instead of corporate stagnation in the small arms field. Now if you tinkered around with a new idea for a heavy machine gun you'd be carted off to prison for ten years. Who would have believed that the United States Military would be running around with Italian pistols and Belgian machine guns. I guess we are just waiting now for Europe to make something better than John Browning M2.
Yeah it's sad though,
That's like saying the Corvette was retired and replaced by the Camaro.
As far as Ma Duce is concerned when I see us using those things I see a direct result of the 1928 gun control act. If people where allowed to tinker with machine guns in their garages like Carbine Williams did we'd have 83 years worth of advancement instead of corporate stagnation in the small arms field. Now if you tinkered around with a new idea for a heavy machine gun you'd be carted off to prison for ten years. Who would have believed that the United States Military would be running around with Italian pistols and Belgian machine guns. I guess we are just waiting now for Europe to make something better than John Browning M2.
07-16-2011, 03:54 AM
#24
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lacona, NY
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
Good Job Twinman, you have a one of a kind. I see planes like that and it gets me thinking about all the "What if's." I like planes like what you have. It also makes me become more of a history buff.
When ever I go to a show I always look for the prototypes if there are any.
Pete
When ever I go to a show I always look for the prototypes if there are any.
Pete
07-16-2011, 04:11 AM
#25
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Indian Trail,
NC
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: The Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku
Hey Twinman
I have a good "What if" Anime cartoon recommendation for you if you have never seen it.
"The Sky Crawlers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llqoqei-k1Y
I have a good "What if" Anime cartoon recommendation for you if you have never seen it.
"The Sky Crawlers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llqoqei-k1Y