Talk:Nakajima Kikka
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nakajima is the company name, Kikka is the plane name.
Confirmedhttp://www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/nakajima/KIKKA/KItoKA.html
Seems to me the article mixes up two aircraft, the experimental Nakajima 'Kikka', a straight wing research aircraft considerably smaller than the Messerschmitt 262 and the Nakkajima Ki-201 'Karyu', a projected fighter aircaft with a striking resemblance to the Messerschmitt 262, up to it's back-swept wings and much greater dimensions.Dirk P Broer23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:KikkaChryslerReport.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use inthis Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent withfair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale. Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk)17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the designation J9Y for this aircraft correct?Nigel Ish (talk)13:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that the correct designation should be either J9N or J9N1. According to "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Rene J. Francillon 1987 and "Designation Systems 4. Japan" at www.hazegray.org the "J" stood for "land based" aircraft with a numeral following for that particular category of aircraft provided for the purpose. In this case the "9" would designate that the Kikka was the 9th type of aircraft in the Navy inventory for its specific purpose. These symbols were followed by the first letter, in the English alphabet, of the manufacturer, in this case "N" for Nakajima. There may have been a "1" to designate the first version. Thus J9N1. "Y" was used for Yokosuka, which had nothing to do with the Kikka.MiGpedia (talk)16:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no the designation of Kikka. J9Y is not formal. The title of this item is a mistake. It is necessary to delete it. --219.32.30.3 (talk)01:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Kikka did not have a number from everything I can find. But if it did, it would be the J9N1 version, although I have seen the Kikka referred to as J8N1 also, but this would be incorrect.
But let us start at the beginning. First of all J stood for land-based Navy aircraft followed by the number of variants. For example, J1 would be the first land-based Navy aircraft, followed by J2 as the second. The third character in the series was a letter based on the manufacturer. The fourth character would be the version number. Thus J9N1 would stand for Navy land-based, 9th aircraft in this particular category, built by Nakajima, version 1. The following table will clarify.
Aircraft Type by Letter
ACarrier fighterBCarrier bomberCReconnaissanceDCarrier dive bomberEReconnaissance seaplaneFObservation seaplaneGLand-based bomberHFlying boatJLand-based fighterKTrainerLTransportMSpecial seaplaneNFighter seaplanePBomberQPatrolRLand-based reconnaissanceSNight fighter
Manufacturer by Letter
AAichi or North AmericanBBoeingCConsolidate AircraftDShowa or Douglas AircraftGHitachi Kokuki or GrummanHHiro or HawkerHeHeinkelJNihon Kogata Hikoki or JunkersKKawanishi or KinnerMMitsubishiNNakajimaPNihonSSaseboSiShowaVVought-SikorskyWWatanabe or KyushuYYokosukaZMizuno Guraida Seisakusho
The Japanese Navy land-based (J) fighter system during the war for initial types was:
J1N1 - Navy Experimental 13-Shi Fighter "Gekko" 3 seat built by Nakajima (N)J2M1 - Navy Interceptor "Raiden" 1 seat built by Mitsubishi (M)J3K1 - Navy Experimental 17-Shi Otsu Type Interceptor built by Kawanishi (K)J4M1 - Navy Experimental 17-Shi Otsu Type Interceptor Fighter "Senden" built by Mistubishi (M)J5N1 - Navy Experimental 18-Shi Otsu Type Interceptor "Tenrai" built by Nakajima (N)J6K1 - Navy Experimental 18-Shi Otsu Type Interceptor "Jinpu" built by Kawanishi (K)J7W1 - Navy Experimental 18-Shi Otsu Type Interceptor "Shinden" 1 seat built by Kyushu (W)J8M1 - Navy Experimental 19-Shi rocket-powered Interceptor "Shusui" 1 seat by Mistubishi (M)
So, following this pattern, the next one would be:
J9N1 - Navy Experimental 19-Shi jet-powered Attack(?) "Kikka" 1 seat built by Nakajima (N)
In the case of the J2M1, J7W1 and J8M1 these were expanded to include:
J2M7 - Navy Interceptor "Raiden" version 7 built by Mitsubishi (M)J7W2 - Navy Experimental 18-Shi version 2 jet-powered Interceptor "Shinden" by Kyushu (W)J8M2 - Navy Experimental 19-Shi rocket-powered Interceptor version 2 "Shusui" by Mistubishi (M)
This could create the following possible dervatives for the Kikka:
J9N1 - Navy Experimental 19-Shi jet-powered Attack(?) "Kikka" 1 seat by Nakajima (N)J9N2 - Navy Experimental 19-Shi jet-powered Interceptor "Kikka" 1 seat by Nakajima (N)J9N3 - Navy Experimental 19-Shi jet-powered catapult Interceptor “Kikka” 1 seat by Nakajima (N)G11N1- Navy Experimental 19-Shi jet-powered Bomber “Kikka” 1 seat by Nakajima (N)R3N1 - Navy Experimental 19-Shi jet-powered Reconnaissance "Kikka" 2 seats by Nakajima (N)K12N1- Navy Experimental 19-Shi jet-powered Trainer "Kikka" 2 seats by Nakajima (N)
Of course the Kikka had no number, but these are all derived from the book referenced before: "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Rene J Francillon.Zandovise (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Zandovise—Precedingunsigned comment added byZandovise (talk •contribs) 06:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Zandovise (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ZandoviseZandovise (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ZandoviseZandovise (talk)05:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J8N1 is INCORRECT for photograph and title J8 refers to the Mistubishi "Shusui" aircraft. Please get with the program! ZandoviseZandovise (talk)18:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum concerning the designation for this aircraft. I received a reply concerning its designation from Brian Kicklas, Acting Archives Reverence Team Leader. Following is the reply:
I believe this settles the matter concerning the Kikka, and its lack of designation.
Buster40004 Talk20:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ne-130 and Ne-330 were not upgraded version of Ne-20. They were larger engines than Ne-20, and they were for Ki-201 Karyu, not for J9Y Kikka. Upgraded version of Ne-20 was known as Ne-20-Kai or Ne-120. Sources:
--125.30.80.161 (talk)13:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Me 262 is an entirely conventional aircraft, aerodynamically. Its wings have a very slight sweepback angle, but it is nowhere near enough to qualify them as "swept" wings, or to convey any sort of aerodynamic benefit such as achieved by the later MiG-15 or F-86. A C-47 also has sweepback angle on its wings, yet most people would not describe that as "swept" wings. So does a Sunderland, and a Texan. The Me 262 has sweepback on both leading and trailing edges, but the overall sweep angle is not significantly greater than any of those aircraft. The proper way to put it is that the "Kikka had conventional wings, lacking any sweepback angle, unlike the Me 262". that language doesn't imply that the Me 262 is a "swept wing fighter" (as far as I can remember, the only reason the Me 262 even has that feature is that it was the easiest way to adjust a COG issue...just like the story with the Sunderland).
