Hiromachi

I've seen engine manuals and diagrams and I know where maintenance manual for it can be found. Famous Airplanes of the World series (Bunrin-do) published few years ago book about Judy with some excerpts from flight manual too. If this flight manual could be found in full, I think having maintenance manual and engine data should be enough to get it running, but there is still question about some systems such as Navy Type 2 sight. Also it would be nice to find any data from design and construction period for detailed FM. If this issues would be overcome I think its totally doable.

Use of Sidewinders against ground targets was also described in the manuals. Not sure if I've seen this in Phantom or Crusaderather tac manual though.

I've read in one of the books pilots statement that situation could be improved with careful and thorough maintenance but what they really did to reduce chance of jamming was charging the gun at the very last moment. Would have to find a specific quote but pilot recommended to wait with switching all the switches for armament.

You can have balanced and historical (period correct) setups for Japanese as well. In June 1944 Japanese Navy could bring to the table J2M Raiden and Japanese Army had in it's inventory more than similar to Zero, Ki-43, namely Ki-61 and Ki-44. While those are not 1:1 capable aircraft, they are more capable of handling threats such as Hellcat and Corsair. Of course real high performance contemporaries were yet to arrive. Japanese Navy wanted to bring to the Marianas 343rd Ku with N1K1-J fighter, but slow production forced Navy to reequip unit A6M5s. As for the documentation. I would argue that a lot more documentations was destroyed by and because of Americans in 50s and 60s. US Intelligence carried an enormous task of following all combat units and capturing whatever documents were left and translating them. While this effort was somewhat disappointing throughout 1943 due to lack of larger bases being overrun, capturing of Saipan, Tinian and Guam changed this completely as this was a major Japanese Navy HQ in the region and also South Pacific intelligence center. It's hard to comprehend how much documents were then captured and since then until the end of the war US collected a lot more than one may think. This documentation was only partially returned, and decent portion of it was torched in decades following ww2 due to lack of interest. Japanese themselves have a lot of documents from the period but I think more in private hands than any facilities. All in all I think that one should not be worried about possibility of having a detailed FM for an aircraft such as A6M. There is enough data to make accurate FM for A6M2 and following versions. There are also flying Zeros. Ask Steve Hinton of Planes of Fame. He frequently rides A6M5 with the only Sakae engine still running.

Probably D4Y from 601st Air Group. Around 6 of them managed to sneak through Hellcats at 3 PM local time and released bombs on Bunker Hill and Wasp. But to be certain I would have to dive into this: https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4499229502/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=%E3%83%9E%E3%83%AA%E3%82%A2%E3%83%8A%E6%B2%96%E6%B5%B7%E6%88%A6&qid=1579194426&sr=8-1 But I dont think it ever got translated, even though its the newest and most accurate account on Japanese actions during the battle.

FM-2 would be perfect. They were on board of those smaller aircraft carriers.

But my AIM-9D and AIM-9G!

But it scored more kills with missiles than guns :)

Presence of dash 5 was non existent in that period. Even dash 3 with water injection wasn't common and was only starting to replace older machines in service. When I tried to research Hellcat variants during battle of Leyte Gulf, dash 3 still comprised between 33 - 40 % of Hellcats in service in the area (and thats couple months later, in October 1944). F6F-3 makes sense from either historical perspective (which is exactly my perspective) or balance point of view (since some already raised concerns if A6M5 Ai would pose a threat).

Well, if it's specifically for Marianas than correct version would be dash 3, without water injection.

D4Y because it's probably the fastest dive bomber around. In 1942 they packed two of those (in 1942 it was only a reconnaissance aircraft) on board of IJN Soryu for combat evaluation during Midway Operation. One of them did its job, but obviously ended up in water. But in a level flight that soon to be capable dive bomber could outrun Wildcat :) Plus I love the shape of that thing. Really clean lines. Dont think I have to talk about Zeros. They are as legendary as Hellcat and Wildcat. Another cool aircraft is P1Y which was a fast twin-engine bomber, fairly similar to German Ju-88 but with more emphasis on speed and ability to deliver torpedoes. Battle of Philippine Sea was it's combat debut. Unit which brought them to the Marianas was led by Takashige Egusa, dive bombing expert and creator of Japanese dive bombing doctrine. He perished during the battle during early morning attack I believe. All in all Japanese had a mixed setup of older and newer designs. D3A, B5N and G4M were dated designs by that time of the war. Then you had newer machines such as D4Y, B6N, P1Y or C6N which were in most things comparable to US contemporaries. In some ways they bested them, in others they fell short.

Well, if I may recommend something for your wishes, since it's Marianas, aircraft relevant for 1944 Battle of Philippine Sea should be mentioned, namely: Combined fleet: - A6M2 and A6M5 fighters and fighter - bombers - B6N and B5N torpedo bombers - D3A2 and D4Y1 dive bombers Land based units: - A6M5 fighters - G4M2 and P1Y bombers - J1N1 twin-engine fighters - D4Y dive bombers - L2D and G5N2-N transport aircraft

It's not so easy. Marianas defense in 1944 was a top priority so you would see both Japanese Army and Navy involved - not only in typical split, as Army would focuse on ground defense and Navy aerial and naval operations. In this case I believe IJN also deployed some coastal defense units and most importantly Yokosuka SNLF (sort of Japanese Marines) defending Navy sector of the Saipan, near Tanapag Harbor. For the defense of Saipan and Tinian you could ask for assets in form of artillery, tanks (on Saipan there were 48 Japanese tanks), various types of infantry. Then you have the IJN, which saw a much greater variety of ships than USN at that point. Getting into assets details is tricky :thumbup:

One thing to check is the island topography. I'd be surprised if coastline didnt change at all and some parts of island weren't "reshaped" throughout past 60 - 70 years. Two separate maps, although mostly similar, but with differing shapes, objects and facilities would make sense to me.

Actually no, you can combine the two, so that RWR works in background. It's not perfect but as manual states: "If the pilot desires full-time use of the azimuth-range indicator for the airplane radar, yet wants an immediate line-of-bearing display for emergency threat conditions, he can select override mode. With the override switch in ON, the azimuth-range indicator does not present threat lines of bearing unless a missile launch threat is received from the APR-27 receiver. When this condition occurs, the azimuth-range indicator reverts to a lines-of-bearing display, presenting lines of bearing to the emergency threats."

Zero is vastly superior to an I-16. Even the one we have would be at general disadvantage against A6M5. Zero against Corsair has three advantages - rate of climb, agility and situational awareness. Corsair pilot has extremely limited visibility to check what's behind him so bouncing Corsair should be possible. But if I was looking for a design to tackle Corsair, I'd go with either Ki-84 or N1K2-J, with latter being my favorite Japanese fighter but also an aircraft of which not much is known.

Just to clarify, since Zero's history and design were my fixation for many years, Zero wasnt flying in 1939. Unless you consider prototype but thats not exactly counting. Zero's combat debut was in the summer of 1940 over China and in the following months it wiped out entire Chinese opposition for the loss of 2 aircraft to anti-aircraft batteries. Of the top of my head, I think it was credited with shooting down over a 100 Chinese aircraft so that would make it highest victory to loss ratio. Also, on the contrary. Zero went through numerous changes throughout its life. A6M as a prototype started with Zuisei 800+ HP engine allowing it to exceed 500 km/h. Than in 1940 prototype was improved by introduction of famous Sakae engine (namely Sakae 11 providing 950 HP) and constant speed propeller which pushed the speed to 530+ km/h. In 1941 aircraft went through another change, Sakae 21 engine was introduced providing 1130 HP and two-speed supercharger, wing tips were removed and aileron area reduced, which reduced the wing area as well but resulted in slightly increased speed (not much tbf, which was a disappointment to Mitsubishi but still) and noticeable improved rate of roll. That variant was known as A6M3 model 32 and went into production in June 1942. Soon it was followed by a more conventional set of changes, to address variety of issues encountered over Solomons. Introduction of a new engine caused fuel reduction in the main tank which in turn cause maximum range reduction. In order to increase range, wingtips were reintroduced instead total wing area and lift and two additional fuel tanks were added near the wing tips. That version was known as A6M3 model 22 and went into production near the end of 1942. During its production also new long barrel cannons were introduced, allowing to use more potent shells and providing superior ballistics. The final and most "popular" until the end of the war version was A6M5 model 52 introduced in summer of 1943. It retained the engine but received a new type of wing to take advantage of the improvements from model 32 while not carrying any of its flaws. New radio was also introduced. In order to improve performance aircraft was modified single exhaust stacks providing so called "jet thrust", instead of previously used inefficient collective system. This resulted in speed increase to about 565 km/h. Finally aircraft after few months of production, near the end of 1943 aircraft (first ones produced by Mitsubishi, later those manufactured by Nakajima) were provided with CO2 automatic fire extinguishers. Throughout it's production aircraft went through further, but smaller, changes resulting in letter addition at the end of aircrafts designation. First in late 1943 / early 1944 was introduced A6M5a model 52a which had various structural changes increasing its Vne to 730 km/h in a dive and another armament improvement, as Zeros cannons up until this variant were fed from a 60 or 100 round magazines. A6M5a was provided with belt fed gun increasing cannon ammo load to 125 rounds per gun. In June 1944 was introduced A6M5b model 52b with bulletproof windscreen and one of the 7.7 mm machine guns was replaced by 13.2 mm heavy machine gun to increase firepower. Finally in October 1944 was introduced A6M5c model 52c addressing further the firepower issues and most importantly protection ones (at the expense of weight and performance). Aircraft was provided with two more 13.2 mm heavy machineguns, armored plate behind pilots back and under the wings rocket racks were mounted for air-to-air rocket projectiles. To address performance issues, aircraft was provided with Sakae 31A engine with improved supercharger increasing rated altitude from 6.000 m to 7.000 m. There were also later versions of the machine, namely A6M6 and A6M7 but those arent really important and did not add anything valuable to the family. All in all, while Zero did not see huge leaps such as Bf-109 or Spitfire family, throughout it's life span it saw a moderate speed increase (some 65 km/h) and performance increase, improvements in firepower and eventually in protection. But I would argue in regard to most other ww2 aircraft seeing massive leaps, that neither did see them comparable designs. F4F Wildcat even with final FM-2 variant did not close the performance gap, performance gains of Hellcat dash 3 to dash 5 were moderate at best. Only Corsair saw substantial improvements when it was provided with a new engine and propeller in a dash 4 version. Though it is true that F4U-1d had a substantial performance advantages against contemporary Zeros. In reality A6M was never expected to stand for so long in the first line and was supposed to be replaced by A7M by 1944. This did not materialize however since Mitsubishi failed to introduced a successor in time.

I have found basic documentation describing it. Looks like AN/APR-25 system with strobes indicating threat however it does not have separate indicator like the one mounted for AN/APR-25 in F-4B / F-4J post 1966 - 1967. It's using radar screen as a display. And yes, Im pretty sure those changes were incorporated prior to 1972. A 1969 Supplemental NATOPS Flight Manual indicates them along with installation of AN/APR-27 sound warning, AN/ALQ-100 ECM, AN/ALE-29A Chaff and flare dispenser and introduction of SEAM.

Oh 27 is not a problem. 30 was :) Also, AN/APR-27 is just an audible warning, whereas AN/APR-25 utilizes a more advanced and easy to track for a pilot display panel.

Decision is not up to me to make and I think it's a bit too early to comment on that one. But speaking purely from researcher perspective, I recall that most of the changes implemented in French F-8E(FN), ended up later in F-8J. That includes weapon systems (AWG-4) I believe, so there seems to be little difference from hardware standpoint.

I've found basic papers about it. Turns out there was no separate display and APR-30(V) was using radar display to provide warning for various bands (C-Band, S-Band and X-Band).

As soon as guys return from holiday break, I will ask.

That's not actually correct. If you perceive RWR as merely an indicator such as one in F-18 or SPO-10, than reconnaissance RF-8G had those too. Later versions were equipped with AN/ALR-45. As for the fighter variant of the Crusader, both F-8H and F-8J had various types of ECM and warning equipment provided as a part of Shoehorn program. F-8J for instance was equipped with AN/APR-27 missile warning system, AN/ALQ-51A Deception Jammer and Track Breaker and AN/ALE-29A Chaff and Flare Dispenser System. AN/ALQ-51A was later replaced by heavier, but quite effective AN/ALQ-100 Deception Jammer and Track Breaker, that was designed to provide azimuth, elevation, and range deception against fire control radars. Finally, since airframe change 490, F-8J was equipped with AN/APR-30(V) Radar Homing & Warning System (same or similar as in F-4B Phantom). I admittedly am at a loss how AN/APR-30(V) system looked like :) This is one piece of a puzzle that I'm still researching. But you most definitely would have some form of RWR with an audible warning provided by AN/APR-27 and visual by a SAM warning light being lit. You have to remember guys that this is a 1968 aircraft. Back in the day threat from SAMs was a primary source of concern and only with introduction of Phantoms and AIM-7s (and Soviet counterparts), air-to-air radars and radar missiles were beginning to be recognized as a viable threat to other aircraft.

I'd personally compare Steve Jobs more to Lisa Su when it comes to management and strategy.

I think the idea of Jim Keller being the sole genius behind Ryzen is pretty much a myth. It's not like Jensen is responsible for Nvidia gpu's performance or Raja Koduri is only responsible for Radeon failures.