Greg, e-mail, 10.11.2026 02:27 You are seemingly living a fantasy to say that the last-gen Allied piston fighter would have been wiped out by these aircraft.. The last generation of piston fighters from all sides were great performers. The F4U-4 Corsair was very good in all respects and the F8F Bearcat was just coming into the fight when the war ended. The J2M and Ki-84 were pretty good, but not better in any way than either of the two above, and that does not even considier the Sea Fury or the Spitrfire 20 series that may have made it over there if the war had continued. The German Ta 152s were very good. but also very few, and they came into service just when the Luftwaffe collapsed as a fighting force. That was April 1945. Before that time, they flew in groups of 1 - 2 only. After that time, they didn;t fly at all. The last-gen Japanese fighters would have held their own with good pilots, but holding your own when outnumbered 20:1 means you lose the fight. And there weren't many good Japanese pilots left since their training system was not very good and never, in fact, kept up with losses. Sure, there were a few good Japanese pilots even at the end of thw war. But theyu were vastly outnumbered by the Allies supply of pilots and aircraft, all of whicj had more and better thraining and plently of fuel to practice before combat. I have no doubt the last-gen Japanese planes would have surprised a few people, but no sense the few they could have fielded would have made a difference in any way. Still, it would be greta to see a few flying now, wouldn't it?

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 21:19 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 21:18 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 21:17 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 21:17 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 20:36 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 20:35 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 17:31 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 17:30 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 17:30 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 17:30 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 17:23 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 17:22 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 17:22 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 17:06 20

ubaTaeCJ, e-mail, 21.02.2025 17:05 20

lxbfYeaa, e-mail, 14.03.2024 06:49 20

lxbfYeaa, e-mail, 14.03.2024 06:19 20

Steve Tisdale, e-mail, 25.07.2023 09:31 I agree. A7M3 would have been awesome.

mgbovdemdq, e-mail, 09.03.2021 23:05 Muchas gracias. ?Como puedo iniciar sesion?

ron, e-mail, 29.03.2017 11:00 The Reppu A7M1 was powered by the NK9K which had it's top speed at an altitude of 6190m (20,310') was 357 mph. A7M2: the altitude was 6600m (21,650') for 390 mph. Even though this was not the high altitude version, it still did much better up high than the NK9A powered A7M1. The 2200 hp MK9A had some vibration but the 2000 hp NK9K was unreliable. The MK9A should have been in the Shiden and Hayate. They would have been even better!

ron, e-mail, 16.05.2016 20:42 The reliable 2,200 hp MK9 was the engine the design team planned for the big Reppu. It was too heavy to stay within the W/L requirement but met all the other specs close enough. It was supplied by just one factory and was delayed. It was not yet accepted by the IJN. The Other choice was the unreliable 2,000 hp NK9. It met the W/L requirement but not all the others. It was already accepted by the IJN and was ready without further delay. The IJN was spurred by the Midway defeat to convert the Reppu to the NK9 although the Reppu was designed for the more powerful MK9. This conversion wasted any time saved by this choice. The expected underpowered flight results proved most disappointing, stopping the whole program. This cost more time. The design team gained permission to convert it back, to demonstrate the MK9. 6 months later it flew and the Reppu was back on, but at what priority? An earthquake, bomb raids, and a prototype crash did the rest. The J2M5 Raiden and Kamikazi A6M7 Zero were in front of it already.

Ron, e-mail, 10.05.2016 07:41 The MK9C is called MK9S on some foriegn language sites. That is a quirk of translation I guess. Maybe C and S sound alike in Russian for example. Another note after reviewing my posts: The 13.2mm Type 3 HMG compares favorably against the Luftwaffe 13.1mm MG 131 until it is cowl mounted to synchronize with the prop. It's RoF is halved, while the electric German HMG is reduced by only 10%. I didn't mention this in the case of the Reppu since the A7M1/2 has them in the wings and not the cowl like the A6M5 Zero. Disregard the occassional jumbled sentence please. I'm sure everyone has experienced computer mischief due to the curser. It is well named. You have to keep a close eye on where it is.

Ron, e-mail, 27.04.2016 22:13 Both the A6M8 and the A7M2 were held up by the IJN for the same 2 reasons: 1. Engine size. 2. Engine weight adversely affecting W/L. They preferred less power and doomed Japan. The alternate history is for the IJN to be more farsighted like the IJA and listen to their engineers. help HP at altitude was needed to keep up with the USA. Combat flaps could compensate for lost W/L. The Zero with the Ha-112-II should have equiped the carriers mid-war! This should have filled the gap until the Ha-43 (MK9) powered Reppu could replace it starting in 1944 at the latest. These were both reliable Mitsubishi engines. Most latewar fighters were unreliable. This drawback was also more important than size or weight, along with low hp at altitude. This was where Mitsubishi could have the advantage against the IJA Ha-45 (NK9) for example. Just another opportunity lost.

Ron, e-mail, 27.04.2016 14:36 If the estimated climb of the A7M3 to 10km altitude was 13 min. 7 sec, then I estimate 6km is within 5-1/2 minutes. No production Japanese fighter can climb that fast. I base this on the flight test ratio of the A7M2 which was real. It climbed 6km in 6 min. 7 sec, and 10km in 15 min. 20 sec. The J2M2 comes close by about 10 seconds. That Reppu version was amazing if the Japanese estimate is right. Reliable 2,250 hp A7M3. 11,111 lbs loaded. Better agility than the A6M7 Zero! Six 750 rpm 20mm wing cannons!! Full armor and good wheel struts. Faster than the Ki 84! It has it's cake and eats it too.

ron, e-mail, 25.04.2016 04:37 If the NK9 powered Shiden could fly in Dec 1942, so could the A7M1, had it not been delayed so much since 1940. If the tricky landing gear of the Shiden kept it from carrier service, it should have borrowed them from the Reppu. Failing that, the A7M1 should have been on carriers as soon as possible in 1943 in place of the A6M5 as soon as this failed to be granted the Ha-112 engine. Of course, the brass had their way on both and Japan suffered for it. What if the engineers had their way on both the 1500 hp Ha-112 powered A6M5 and the 2200 hp MK9 powered A7M1 instead? They would both grace the carriers in 1943 onward potentially. The brass wouldn't have regretted it. As it turned out, the brass got around to seeing things the way the engineers did and approved them both but the war ended before they saw action! They were only a year or 2 late! The engineers were ready mid-war.

Ron, e-mail, 24.04.2016 10:35 after the A6M5 flew in Aug 1943, I belive until the MK9 was ready, the NK9 powered A7M1 should have shared the Zero production lines to phase in the Reppu. At 356 mph and with better agility than the faster climbing 351 mph Zero, it would be a much less vulnerable stable mate. This may have been significant in 1943 until the reliable MK9 powered A7M2. If the serious work on the Reppu had not been delayed in the beginning, the 390 mph A7M2 could have flown in late 1943. It was reliable, tough and climbed better now. Most of the 5,000 A6M5s could have been Reppus, at least on Mitsubishi lines. The Turkey shoot wouldn't have had just turkeys. The A7M2 Reppu would have been a contemporary with the N1K1 but faster at altitude. And the A7M3 with the N1K2 with even a better altitude margin in 1944! This Reppu had Raiden like climbing performance.

ron, e-mail, 20.04.2016 13:43 It's true that the 1800+ hp NK9 powered A7M1 was only as fast as the A6M5 so it was dropped in 1944. But handling, roll and turn was better and it had armor. The A7M2 had the newer 2200 hp MK9 in Oct, 1944 but could have flown 6 months earlier, since the underpowered A7M1 delayed it. But I was thinking, If the almost 2 year delay between 1940 and 1942 had been reduced by 6 months, the A7M1 could have flown in 1943 before the vulnerable A6M5 was using up all the resources. It's performance may not have looked as bad as it did in 1944, a year later. What if the resources were utilized to produce and supply these A7M1s to the carriers while they still had some afloat, instead of the obsolete Zero? Then, mass produce the 2200 hp MK9 at multiple factories for the A7M2 as soon as posible in 1943. This engine came after the NK9 (which would be just a stopgap). With reduced delays, the A7M2 would be in full swing production earlier by a year. Then in 1944, the A7M3 could have flown as the land-based version. These were great climbers and had good altitude performance to attack B-29s. This was doable. 6 months at the start was wasted, after Horikoshi finished the Zero and before he started serious work on the A7M. Another 6 month delay when the IJN halted work because by this time it's performace was no better than the A6M5. Then of course another 6 months is wasted to redesign the long-nose A7M3-J for super high altitude performance. But by 1946 it wasn't so super. Instead of the prodigeous A6M5, Late 1943 the A7M1 could have been a much tougher customer on the carriers. 1944 the up-engined A7M2 could have followed on. The best pilots could have protected the carriers. Late 1944 the A7M3 could have joined the fray against the raids on Japan, packing 6x20mm cannons! 1945 the A8M Rifuku (30mm packing A7M3-J with new engine) could have debuted, intead of 1946 as planned. That wasted year and a half could have resulted in a reliably powered A7M3 when other late-war fighters were unreliable, in place of the slow A6M5 and slower 340 mph A6M7! The delays due to earthquakes, bombs, the sole MK9 engine factory put out of action, and prototype accidents were bad enough but the IJN added the most delays. This required the A6M5 mass production by default.

ron, e-mail, 31.03.2016 01:10 The A7M2 could have faced the US earlier by stopping the A6M at Mitsubishi and putting the Reppu in full production with the MK9 engine when Horikoshi asked for it to start with, instead of wasting time on the unreliable NK9 (Nakajima made most A6M Zeros anyway). The brass should have learned their lesson with the A6M5 losses when they didn't listen to him before. I would put a cannon in the tail of the Reppu too, just to give pause to Allied pilots on it's 6. They may restrict attacks to low % deflection shots vs the Reppu. As good as the A7M is, it is slower than many Allied fighters so this defensive measure seems prudent. I also like the dorsal 30mm cannons of the later 3-J model. One would do on the A7M2. This would make it a threat to B-29s earlier. The A7M3 should have preceeded the redesign of the A7M3-J to save time. It was just about as good overall. This could have been in action before the end, with most of the high altitude performance of the postwar A7M3-J and climbed quicker to 10km by about 2 minutes (estimated) in the bargain too. The A7M3 had 6x20mm faster Type 99-II/5 cannons (750 rpm) with a range of 1,000m. Slow 30mm cannons with a 900m range weren't called for really when it required a bigger wing and still lost most of it's W/L advantage. Strip the carrier capable A7M2 and 3 of their tailhook and folding wing mechanism... etc, and they are even better, sooner.

ron, e-mail, 29.03.2016 22:33 So the calculated 479 mph dive speed of this A7M1 prototype number 5 is between the early and late model Hellcat and Corsair in this windtunnel test. The F8F Bearcat is equal to the F4U-4 and not as fast as the F6F-5. The F6F-5 was in stronger numbers and thus the principle foe of the Reppu in this test.

ron, e-mail, 29.03.2016 22:01 Jananese wiki saya: "For dive speed limit is 450 knots (833.4km / h) is a plan requisition, after had been somewhat asked to cut is to 425 knots (787.1km / h). However, A7M1 prototype immediately after completion because the strength of the wing was insufficient, the reinforcement of the main wing is carried out while performing a test cut in the time being 350 knots speed limit (648.2km / h). Thereafter, the strength improvement of the wing is confirmed by the vibration test using the A7M1 prototype five Unit reinforcement has been performed, (the same calculation method as the dive speed limits Zero Fighter) dive speed limit calculated from wind tunnel tests on the required performance was almost has reached 416 knots (about 770.4km / h). By the way, the body scale is close to the same carrier-based fighter F6F Hellcat dive speed limit of -3 type is 415 knots (768.6km / h), - 5-inch 430 knots (796.4Km / H), F4U Corsair -1 type system is 400 knots (740.8km / h), - in the type 4 is 425 knots (787.1km / h), more new and small F8F Bearcat was even 425 knots (787.1Km / H) [1] ."

ron, e-mail, 28.03.2016 07:39 Japanese wiki shows more ammo for the Reppu; 250 rpg for the 20mm, 60-75 rpg for the 30mm wing guns, and 125 rpg for the dorsal 30mm cannons. It concurs that the Type 99-II was the slow Model 4 in the A7M2 and the fast Model 5 in the A7M3. It also says the 2130 hp MK9 engine was reliable. The A7M3 was still carrier capable. Even the A7M2 was better at altitude than the A7M1.

ron, e-mail, 23.03.2016 07:41 2503 fpm (763mpm) is the estimated average sustained climb to 10Km altitude for the A7M3. It's the best climbing version of the Reppu. Better than the A7M3-J/A8M as well as the A7M1 and A7M2. That's another reason it is my favorite version.

ron, e-mail, 22.03.2016 21:27 2 games put initial climb for the Reppu at 4,803 fpm (24.4 m/s). Which model? Must be for A7M2, but one has speed of A7M1. The 2180 fpm (my last post) is very close to the (estimated) average sustained climb rate from sea level to 10Km for the A7M3-J: 2188 fpm. The A7M2 climbed to 6Km in 6 min. 7 sec.= 3225 fpm sustained average. And 2139 fpm average to 10Km. The A7M1 sustained climb to 6Km was 9 min. 54 sec.= 1988 fpm. Initial climb rate is much better than sustained climb rate. Should we trust the 24.4 m/s (4803 fpm) rate from the games?

ron, e-mail, 22.03.2016 19:48 2,180 fpm was the climb for the A7M2 according to one site. I don't know if that is average or initial climb. It is so low, it could be a mistake and belong to the disappointing A7M1 perhaps.

mark, e-mail, 15.03.2016 11:44 "I still see the Type 99-II called low velocity by many. It had a firing range comparable to the Hispano! These folks are obviously confused with the early 99-I. Big difference!" Japanese Type 99 was the same gun as MG FF but using the orginal 20x72 cartridge, while FF used 20x82 99-2. Both were versions of Oerlikon FFS that used 20x110 cartridge. Type 99-2 was also Oerlikon based using more powerful 20x101 cartridge. If belt fed, versions were 99-1-Model 4 and 99-2-Model 4.

ron, e-mail, 01.03.2016 11:26 A7M3-J 30mm Type 5 ammo was 60 rpg in the wings and 100 rpg dorsal load. I would have been tempted to nix the wing cannons and double the dorsal ones to 4 to save weight especially in the wings, increasing roll-rate and firing time. Accuracy and recoil would be better dealt with too. A concentrated quartet would offset the slow RoF and give longer range (900m) without convergence limitations (300-500m). The 20mm cannon was only a touch faster and with 200 rpg, plus a bit more reliable. The Type 99-II type 5 was much faster (750 rpm). This would have less recoil and wouldn't crack a wingspar like a 30mm might. Still, a 20mm quartet dorsal mounting would be more advantageous than wings. Ammo load could be increased too. Wings would be unweighted for better agility and wouldn't cause gun jams in turns with wing flex and g forces. The nose is not overweighted by gun mounting with the engine accommodating it and the interruptor gear if the roomier dorsal position is used instead. It is closer to the cg as well. The full rate of fire is not compromised to synchronize with the prop either. Not many single engined fighters outside of Japan had fixed dorsal guns. I have to tip my hat. They still kept the other positions too, but I might be tempted to just use dorsal guns especially with the heavier cannons to tackle B-29s and B-32s. But even in dogfights, you could pull lead on your target from the start, before he knows it. The angle of the cannons upward would concentrate all firepower well above your prop. Wing cannons that freeze at high altitude would be avoided. Fuselage dorsal cannons could be heated easily if needed. The Japanese and Germans used them famously in twin engine fighters. The gunsight was just above the windshield. So it worked in combat to great effect. The thing is, twin engine fighters have a clean nose (unless radar equipped) ideal for guns compared to single engine fighters. So I would focuss on this like the Raiden and Reppu did, but I would go further. 4 instead of 2, for denser pattern, even at the expence of other gun positions. Advantages of dorsal cannon summary: Full concentrated RoF. Full firing range. Room for more large calibre ammo near cg. Strength of mounting. No jamming in aerobatics. No freezing up high. Easy access to reload. Fool enemy with stealth angle-off lead sighting. Ideal for blind-spot under-belly attack also. Engine maintenance uncomplicated by nose-guns. Disadvantage: Groung strafing, unless inverted. (Of course, this is the case only in my uncompromised, pure example of concentrating all firepower most efficiently. All actual WW 2 fighters had forward firing guns good for ground strafing even when augmented with dorsal cannons)

Ron, e-mail, 22.01.2016 22:35 The A7M3 aternative was not such a major redesign. It used a mechanical 3 speed supercharged MK9S in the existing A7M2 frame and still gained most of the high altitude prowess of the 3-J long nose version. A7M2: 390 mph @ 21,650'; A7M3: 400 mph @ 28,543'; A7M3-J: 403 mph @ 32,800'; A8M: 410 mph. All but the A7M2 are estimated.

Ron, e-mail, 22.01.2016 21:58 A7M2 WoF: 3.453 (43 rps, mixed guns). Same as A6M8. 4.267kg/s (33 rps) 4x20mm @ 500 rpm each. A7M3: 9.600kg/s (75 rps) 6x20mm @ 750 rps each. Best compromise. A7M3J/A8M: 9-11kg/s (26-30 rps) 4x30mm @ 400-450 rpm each 15Kg/s counting dorsal twin 30s. 6.800kg/s (50 rps) 4x20mm @ 750 rpm each.

Ron, e-mail, 22.01.2016 02:02 The 13.2(x99mm cartg) Type 3 HMG is close to the MG 131 13.1mm but with higher velocity @ 795 mps and much heavier 49-52g bullet. Range: 900m. RoF 800 rpm. The Type 99-II Type 4 hasdecent velocity of 759 mps equal to the MG 151/20, but much slower RoF: 500 rpm but again a much heavier 128g shell and better range: 1000m. So it is closer to the US Hispano. The 99-II Type 5 is equal to the much heavier Hispano Mk V. Both have a 750 rpm RoF. The 70g 30mm(x122mm cartg) Type 5 is between the slower, long range 141g MK 103 and the short range but faster 60g MK 108. It has a heavier 345g shell and 900m range. A winning compromise. The much lighter Army 50g H0-155 has the same 900m range and 400-450 rpm but a much lighter shell. So there is nothing inferior here. The firepower is free of the short range of the MK 108 and the double weight of the MK 103 or the unreliability of the US Hispano, with a heavier projectile in each case, and with a good range. So all the Reppu versions have good to great punch. All of them have decent high muzzle velocity and top throw weight. RoF on the A7M2 with mixed guns is slow for the 20mm while adequate for dogfighting and retaining lighter Zero agility. But the A7M3 with 6x20mm fast cannons is awsome. The A7M3-J/A8M with 4x20mm fast or 4-6x30mm slow big cannons are good for intercepting B-29s.

Ron, e-mail, 21.01.2016 11:17 I've seen 410 mph estimated speed for the replacement of the Reppu, the A8M Rifuku with the Nakajima Ha-44-13 2350 hp engine. So, I would go with the 2400 hp Ha-44-21. It had the A7M3-J larger wing and the 4x30mm Reppu body, up-engined to be called Rifuku. I've also seen it with 4x20mm 750 rpm 1000m range cannons. I also like the A7M3 Reppu with 6 of these wing-cannons for volume of rounds per sec. These rounds are 128g shells almost equal to the Hispano 130g and much heavier than the H0-5 shell of the Army cannon.

Ron, e-mail, 21.01.2016 10:40 The A7M2 Reppu had the same firepower as the A6M8 Zero plus the tight turn of the A6M3 Zero 32: 360 turn in perhaps 12 seconds with the Shiden style automatic combat flaps. I still see the Type 99-II called low velocity by many. It had a firing range comparable to the Hispano! These folks are obviously confused with the early 99-I. Big difference! I like the A7M3 for the faster 20mm cannon Type 99-II Type 5 with the 750 rpm RoF. Much better than the unreliable M2 Hispano and equal to the RAF MK V Hispano 20mm cannons.

Ron, e-mail, 15.01.2016 01:12 The Russian report on the Reppu A7M2 mentions it was armed with 4 (500 rpm) Type 99-II Type 4 cannons. So maybe the A7M3 had faster (750 rpm) Type 99-II Type 5 cannons. In 2/1944 the major redesign was started for the A7M3-J using the turbocharged MK9A-Ru for high altitude. (this took a whole year to reach mockup inspection 2/1945 and still no prototype). The A7M3 was a back-up in case it failed. It too was land based but since the A7M3 was based on the A7M2 frame, it could be done much quicker if started first with minor modification using the 3 speed supercharged MK9S. This would still get most of the altitude prowess of the long nose redesign without losing the time. The sole engine plant at Daico was bombed, delaying MK9 engines. Why was the Zero replacement dependent on just one engine factory with B-29s around? If only there were several factories, this Mitsubishi engine wouldn't have held up the works for the Reppu. So with these 2 points the Reppu may have seen action. 1. Prioritize the A7M3 first since it was competent up high vs other Japanese interceptors. 6x20mm cannons are adequate. What US plane can match that? 2. Crank up the volume of MK9 engine output at multiple sites, maybe underground too! Not that the outcome could be changed for WW2, but at least the more timely potential of the Reppu A7M3 could have gone a few rounds instead of looking like perhaps the most mismanaged program of the war (late 1940-45). The A7M3 had better estimated climb than the long nose A7M3-J and the pattern of fire would be denser for dogfighting too.

Ron, e-mail, 12.01.2016 08:58 The obvious typo was meant to read A7M2 in my last post, not A6M2. Sorry. I trust you knew the A6M2 didn't go 400mph like the A7M2 in level max speed. I make my share of typos.

Ron, e-mail, 12.01.2016 08:50 The A7M1 was dropped in favor of the A7M2 with 2,200 hp. It turn very well with the automatic combat flaps. The only US fighter that could equal it in W/L and P/L and go as fast was the F6F. But the new F8F was more of a contemporary. The Bearcat could beat the A7M but it had a clear advantage in firepower. The A7M3 could challenge B-29s with 6x20mm wing cannons. The 750 rpm new Type 99-II Type 5 was in production since 5/1945 so it could have a leathal punch hard to beat. The longer nose A7M3-J packed 6x30mm long range cannon. Even better to tackle bomber raids. Unlike most Japanese fighters, it was good up high too. The A6M2 was test flown and climbed to 6 km in about 6 minutes. It went about 400 mph. even if the dive speed was reduced to 490, it was a worthy competitor. It had a more conventional 4x20mm armament that was still more reliable than the M3 Hispanos on some F8Fs. Most US fighters had the 12.7mm HMGs. No comparison! The Reppus Ace was it's bite.

Ron, e-mail, 08.01.2016 04:35 516 mph was the target dive speed (830 kph) for prototype. Some say the Reppu could turn better than the late-war Zero. That would be around 12 sec 360 circle like the A6M3. I like to use this sight to assemble new data I find about planes, more than to argue with other aviation enthusiasts about nationalism etc... Other sites are better for that. We all have favorite planes. I like to be open minded to find talented designs wherever they may be. When I see a worthy plane tied up by officials at the expense of engineers, it needs to be exposed. I like to explore the potential of planes and temper it with reality by others of like mind and love for aviation. The Reppu design team certainly had their share of frustration. But they did have a promising design. 2,200 hp gets my attention. The earlier engine was too weak for this fighter at this stage.

Armydicked, e-mail, 05.07.2012 20:33 People, can we dispence with the racism? So the Japs 'Japped' us at Pearl Harbour? Just like LTG Washington 'Japped' the Hessians at Valley Forge?!!! Casual Observation: During WWII, E-V-E-R-Y country was guilty of milking a platform that should have been retired long ago. The A6M2 Zero was a brilliant 1939 design that reached pinnacle termination in 1941 and a new design should have been initiated. Instead, the Japanese wasted resources on the A6A3, A6M5, A6M6-8 which, with a power plant double that of the A6M2 was only 17mph faster? Japan had the Heinkel He100D and the Focke-Wulf FW190A1/3 which, with better power plants would have matched the P-47/P51D. Don't laugh---Germany continued improving there Messerschmitt Me109 (1935) which reached pinnacle termination with the Me109F (1940)---its Me109G-K resulted in progressively worse aircraft to 1945. America committed the same act of stupidity with the Curtis P-36/P-40, the P-40 being a P36A with a mounted inline engine. The P40C hit pinnicle termination in 1940 and the subsequent P40 D-N Warhawks dragged the obsolessant design into JAN1945!!! FYI, the British adored their P-40s (used as desert ground attack aircraft) and begged Curtis to continue cranking out the near worthless AirCraft. People freak at what it must have been like being a P51D pilot and being forced to take on a Jet fighter like the Me262A which was 100+ mph faster. Try being a Japanese pilot in a A6M7 Zero (340mph) going up against swarms of No. American P51Hs (487mph) that were 140mph faster!!!

Tom Barron, e-mail, 04.07.2012 08:52 The Japanese lost this war before it even began. When they attacked Pearl Harbor their embassy in Washington had received a top secret signal that they were to drop off a declaration of war at the US State department. The signal was so highly classified that they could not disclose it to anyone without the right clearance. So the diplomas had to type up the declaration of war themselves. None of them could type worth a damn, and when you are doing something as historical as declaring your country's leaders had decided to go to war, well, everything had to be just so, letter perfect, and no erasures allowed! So they typed and tried and tried again and this little farce went on for so long, that by the time the ambassador had clean copy to present and got his top hat and hauled his ass over to talk to Corny Hull, well, by that time the carrier strike force was already doing their thing in Hawaii, and the Japanese, 'ah, so, we decided we would rather fight you than put up with your imperialist demands that we give up what we gained by force of arms just on your arrogant say so! En garde!' and immediately followed up by a killing blow to the US Navy fleet at Pearl Harbor. That 'we declared war on you honorably' just before the guns went bang might have cut some ice as far as their 'limited objectives' war goals were, and perhaps this would have resulted in some negotiations in mid 42 happening, but that undeclared war attack really screwed the pooch there for the Japanese. They were the Yellow Peril and America was just as racist as were the Japanese and the Germans. That attitude went through one hell of a change after they took Singapore, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Java, and the Zero was doing combat ranges of nine hundred miles away from their bases. They had extremely well trained pilots, but they were only graduating a hundred Naval Aviators a year. At Midway they lost three hundred pilots. They had their heads up their butts with 'we know..' stuff that simply was not so. The American's were fat and cowardly and didn't have the back bone for a long prolonged fight, just as the Japanese were near sighted buck toothed short little little gardeners who were only clever at copying more advance western designs. (How many of you know about which plane(s)the Zero was supposedly based on?) America caught one hell of a break when she got to read the Japanese codes. The Japanese were simply too arrogant about their own superiority. Sakai, the great Japanese ace, was one of seventy five selected out of fifteen hundred for pilot training, and of that group, only twenty five won their wings. The Japanese military was the most brutal of all of the armies and navies of the twentieth century, and I think you would have to go back to Sparta to find as military a culture. That brutal selection process chose their commanders and they followed a medieval of warfare where the worst dishonor one could have was to surrender in combat. They treated their captives in so bad a way that the only way that America would have negotiated is if they did not hear about the Bataan Death March. The eastern and western codes were two different things entirely. Succor the wounded? Just kill them so they don't slow you down! The idea that a lack of skill with a type writer might have effected how World War II went in the Pacific War sounds ludicrous, but there it is. The Japanese military were hell bent on fighting to the very last man standing,and they simply would not listen. If a plant manager told a military officer that due to lack of materials or skilled labor they could not deliver the fighters, he'd be beaten until hospitalized. (That happened at Mitsubishi, by the way.) The atomic bomb, horrible as that weapon was and is, did save a lot more lives that most people realize even now. Does anyone remember those 'really dumb' balloons that Japan sent over on the jet stream that set off a few forest fires in Washington and Oregon way late in the war? One of those weapons that only someone clutching at straws and living in a day dream would even bother with, and how dumb could they get, right? Well, the forest fires were reported in the press, and that allowed the Japanese to figure out where their balloons were winding up. In China, they had been testing biological weapons and once they had the range, guess what the real payload of those silly balloons was? We now have a policy of equating biological and chemical weapons as being the equivalent of nuclear weapons and it's the stated policy of the United States that if someone attacked us with biological warfare, they get nukes in return. Speaking of nukes, Hanford is in Washington state, and I image that if a plague got started, it would have screwed up production of the atomic bomb. You also have the naval yards there where ships would pull in for long yard periods and men would take leave and head out for all parts of the country. Gee, if only we'd ...

kildlawyrs, e-mail, 14.05.2012 06:50 Any one who honestly believes that this fighter could have changed the war's outcome in any meaningful way, should ask themselves, "Where would America's military power have been six months after Hiroshima?" As with the Germans, with the Japanese it was a classic case of , Too little, too late.

Bush Pilot, e-mail, 09.05.2012 18:29 The Japanese gambled it all on a short war? Let's consider how unlikely a negotiated surrender could be expected to actually happen. 1. Japanese undeclared war attack on US at Pearl Harbor. 2. Japanese torture/slaughter hundreds of thousands of Chinese. 3. Japanese torture/execute thousands of civilians/captured enemy prisoners. Conclusion: Nothing is going to stop the sleeping giant and it's allies from crushing these merciless warmongers, regardless of which fighter was developed and put into action whenever and with hot shot pilots or not, etc. developed by Japan. WWII era Japanese officers could give lessons on how to motivate your enemy to do anything to beat you and never be willing to negotiate.

Ron, e-mail, 21.03.2012 09:05 That MK9A 2200 hp motor could have given other Japanese fighters some much needed speed while the war was still on. At least the IJNAF. Can you imagine a 400 mph Zero in 1944, or a Shiden-Kai with 2200 hp instead of the unreliable Homare, or in place of the Raiden's unreliable 1800 hp Kasei 23. I think the Army Ki 100 was too slow with the 1500 hp Mitsubishi 62 engine, almost as slow as the A6M8. So if Kawasaki could stomach a 1500 hp Mitsubishi navy motor, what about the 2200 hp one! can you imagine letting all Japanese fighters test that engine in 1943-44. No more unreliable J2M3, Ki 61-II, N1K1/2, and of course Ki 84! They could use the extra power too (especially the Ki43). The A6M5 could have been well armored and sturdy with that bad boy under the hood and fool everyone and in quantity. As it was the A6M5 still had what? 1130 hp in 1944-45, while the Reppu engine waited and waited and missed out. Mitsubishi should have demonstrated their MK9A and K engines and quit with the 1130 hp motor already. Let the Navy authorities see the light. 1942-3 was gone. The US wasn't accommodating the A6M5 at this late date. The most numerous fighter of Japan was being relegated to suicide missions. They were fairly good at it too. As soon as Horikoshi locked horns with the Navy over the Reppu, he should have let loose with a tried and true Zero with real strength and hp! Just as a stop gap at least. Maybe they would have said no, but I doubt it. Even the smaller MK9K with 2000 hp would have brought the A6M5b up to world class performance in spring 1944. Think of 5,000 of those running loose. The Zero with armor and high velocity armament (plus a new 13.2 mm MG to compliment the other 3 weapons). Thicker skin to raise dive speed to 460 mph. This 5b version deserved more than 1130 hp. The Reppu was supposed to be ready by now but nooo! So, demonstrate a Zero special! And climax the show with a Raiden special! Corsairs and Hellcats, Lightnings and Mustangs, and MK VIII spitfires would have their hands full. Don't keep making 5,000 obsolete A6M5/6/7s. If the Navy pilots miss the low hp, let them fly old Oscars and Nates.

Ron, e-mail, 19.03.2012 03:39 Jiro Horikoshi had to be one frustrated designer! The Japanese Navy was farsighted enough to issue a 16-Shi specification in 1940 to replace the Zero with the Reppu but withdrew it, then revived it in April 1942 to a 17-Shi spec! There goes a year or so right off the bat! Next Jiro insisted on the 2200 hp MK9A or B engine being developed for the necessary performance, but the Navy 'elected to postpone its engine selection'. In September the Navy instructed Mitsubishi to install the 2000 hp NK9K instead! The A7M1 was the result in April 1944 complete with hydraulically folding wings for carrier stowage (what carriers?). As a result of its poor performance May 6 1944, as Horikoshi warned, it was suspended by the Navy. Finally they listened and authorized his MK9A installation. After a redesign for this larger engine, the A7M2 flew October 13 1944. At last the Navy found a successor to the A6M Zero! But by now nothing but misfortune befell the program; earthquakes, B-29 bomb raids, test crashes, US fighter sweeps. Unnecessary delays from the start. It should have been in service long before. Even with the 2000 hp engine the A7M1 in 1943 combat could have been in place of the prolific A6M5 altogether. 357 mph was better than 351. Then, in place of the 348 mph A6M6 Zero, the A7M2 with the more powerful engine reaching 390 mph would have rivaled the army's fleet-footed Nakajima Hayate. The Japanese Navy was its own enemy as if the USA wasn't enough. Guess they thought they were better engineers than Jiro Horikoshi and his team at Mitsubishi.

Klaatu, e-mail, 13.08.2011 02:30 They say that a company ought to begin designing their next fighter by the time the current one is being introduced into squadron service. Consequently, if the Zero went into service in 1940, then that's when Mitsubishi ought to have begun working on it's replacement, the Reppu. However, they didn't begin work on it until 1942, and the first prototype didn't fly until half way through 1944. Under those circumstances, it really wouldn't have made any difference how good the plane turned out to be, it was inevitable that it was going to be a case of too little and too late.

bombardier, e-mail, 24.05.2011 20:57 Had it been built in numbers it would have been much harder for the Allies to win the war

Ben Beekmasn, e-mail, 26.02.2011 04:26 I agree with those who say the war's outcome would have been the same whether the Japanese used the A7M Reppu, the Nakajima Ki-84, the Kawasaki Ki-100, the Mitsubishi J2-M3 or any other advanced airplane in quantity. The United States was at the same time also developing more powerful, faster, longer-ranged etc. aircraft which would overcome anything they met in combat as did the Hellcat and the Corsair. And with the huge manufacturing capacity of the Americans, a small country like Japan having the geographical size of California wouldn't have a chance at winning a protracted conflict. Indeed, the Japanese were well aware they couldn't win a long war. Their strategy from the beginning was to grab so much territory at the outset that the Allies would see the futility of trying to win it all back and would ask for a negotiated peace. The negotiations would result in Japan returning those territories they didn't really need (as in the Phillipines) but acquiring other territories that were rich in oil and natural resources (such as in the Dutch East Indies). Top Japanese militarists must have been astonished when it became apparent that the U.S. and England/Australia intended to pursue a long, costly, war to recover everything the Japanese had taken. Those Japanese Generals and Admirals who had spent time in the West, in London, Paris, Washington etc., must have known by mid-1942 that it was a war they couldn't possibly win. The militaristic spirit of "bushido" that these older upper-level officers had by than so thoroughly inculcated in the lower officer ranks made it impossible to stop their own war machine. The "youngsters" wanted to fight on regardless of the number of casualties. That is, until the atomic bombs came along and put an end to all arguments.

joel, e-mail, 10.12.2010 07:12 anyone who thinks that this aircraft would have changed history is dillusional. It would have expedited the new generatation of American aircraft like the F8F and the F80 if the A7M would have been produced in great numbers. I doubt the timeline would have changed much. The Focke-Wolfe 190 was still probably a better airplane.

Dominic, 04.10.2010 05:44 Guys, remember that the Ki-84 "Hayate" was equal to the Hellcat and Corsair in all respects, they just never got to fight at full potential due to a lack of skilled pilots and horrible fuel. Same with the Kawanishi N1K-J Shiden. The A7M, if piloted by pilots with skill equal to their American counterparts, would've laid waste to anything the Allies could've put in the air in 1945. Period.

MAXWELL POKU, e-mail, 30.06.2010 10:19 THIS IS AN INTERNET FLAUD. THESE PEOPLE ARE HERE JUST TO TAKE YOUR MONEY AND RUN. PLEASE DON'T FALL FOR THESE STUPID STORIES. THEY ARE NOT TRUE.

alb, e-mail, 15.05.2010 03:22 I think that Jiro Horikoshi scaled the A6M up to adapt the 18 cylinder engine to good effect.

Steve, e-mail, 04.08.2009 22:55 In their successors to the Zero and the Wildcat, it is remarkable how Mitsubishi and Grumman produced very similar aircraft in the Reppu and Hellcat.

sanjeet, e-mail, 25.06.2009 09:22 hellcat has its own night vision than a6m3 zero which is blind at night but if that era american got bearcat this planes would not survive and destroy

Leo Rudnicki, e-mail, 20.06.2009 16:56 There were 8 prototype aircraft built. First flight October 1944. Earthquake in December 1944, followed by B-29's dropping bombs all over. Had US submarines not sunk all the tankers supplying oil to Japan, had they used convoy protection, had they enough tankers in the first place, had they planned to fight a longer war, Had they trained vastly greater numbers of good pilots (good teachers had all burned to death on 4 carriers off Midway), had Adm's Nagumo and Kurita not dithered, at Pearl and Leyte, they would have still lost. There was no myth of P-51 invincibility. Pilots died. There was an historical fact of P-51 superiority, not just plane but pilots as well. Actually, they lost the war at the 'canal, bushido versus semper fi. The planes were just machines that they used.

sanjeet singh gill, e-mail, 20.06.2009 15:05 how to know that it is high in manuering?, and is there any video about this kind of aircraft?, and what is its maneuring angle? .Can it fight the p 51 d mustang this is wierd aircraft right.D anyone can answer ma please

Darryl, e-mail, 31.05.2009 05:45 I read that book "Samurai" by Saburo Sakai. Great book, He does mention the Reppu also the Shinden and Raiden (pg. 242). Participants on all sides had great skill and courage.

Hiroyuki Takeuchi, e-mail, 30.01.2009 02:55 I had a chance to personally interview the late Lt.Cdr.(Ret) Yoshio Shiga who test flew the A6M1 prototype. He said the plane was very docile to fly. "A well mannered lady, compared to the N1K2-J Shiden-kai which was more of a tom-boy. "

mac_bolan00, e-mail, 08.12.2008 02:08 i would think the nakajima shiden would have out-flown the p-51D at medium altitude and the mitsubishi zero could out-dogfight any plane at low altitude until the war's end.

Mick Dunn, e-mail, 23.11.2008 07:31 At the end of the dear readers, it all came down to NUMBERS! Pilots and Planes! If there were equal numbers (to USA) of even the good old Zero left in 1944 and with pilots of equal training to fly them...America would have had a helluva fight on her hands!

Sam Turner, e-mail, 17.09.2008 05:38 Did this airplane have combat flaps? and was the a7m3 planned to have 6 20mm cannons and 4 30mm cannons and 2 rear fusaloge [sry if i spelled that wrong] 30mm cannons? [thanks for the answers, and nice website]

Andrew, e-mail, 13.09.2008 07:55 If you want to know how the Reppu handled, read the book "Samurai" by Saburo Sakai, Japan's greatest surviving WWII ace. He mentions it near the end of his book.

Sam Turner, e-mail, 22.04.2008 04:59 do you know how the reppu handled? (in general) like was it more manuverable than the Zero or KI 84? more armor? etc.

Gautier, e-mail, 10.03.2008 23:06 of course, even if this plane had entered service in 1944, this wouldn't have change history.but if japanese had an engine development program as Pratt & Witney did, such a plane could had reach production as early as '42.japanese would'nt had lost so much experienced pilots and US air forces would had been in big trouble.the A7M2 was climbing fast, was as big but far more manoeuvrable than a P-47, and had enought armament punch.not to mention the diving speed, armor and range.by the way, construction seemed more sturdy and ceiling superior to the KI-84.this plane was a very serious threat for allies.

bill, e-mail, 03.03.2008 01:24 With the event of the P47N and the P51D with the experienced pilots the US had t is hard to believe this fighter would have had any more impact than the Nakajina Ki84 Frank did.

saiful bahktiar, e-mail, 28.02.2008 05:45 banzaiiiiii

Andrew, e-mail, 24.01.2007 01:41 It looks like a great plane and from the sound of prototype testing it could have helped the Japanese a lot! Once again the myth of the P-51 being this invincible aircraft is broken. I am sure SAM with a good pilot could go toe to toe with any American plane of the era..Nice website