In the summer of 1943, the Kavanisi N1K Köfu (Storm) fighter began to enter the combat units of the Imperial Japan . The new fighter was faced with the best fighters of the Navy and the US Air Force. Any seaplane, no matter how exceptional its characteristics, could not win a collision with wheeled vehicles, and the Navy and the US Air Force met in the air with the land variant of the Kavanisi KB fighter plane that delivered them a lot of trouble.

The idea of ​​a coastal interceptor was born by the head of the design team of the Kavanisi Design Bureau S. Kikuhara just before the start of the war. The leadership of the Design Bureau decided to proactively develop a promising fighter, but the new project was faced with prejudice from the command of the Navy of Imperial Japan. When the war began to approach the territory of the metropolis, the latest Ryden interceptor ^[4] had technical problems with a powerful propulsion system, and the previous generation Navy interceptor “ 0 ” was unable to effectively counter the new generation of US Navy fighters. The command of the Navy had an urgent need for a powerful coastal air defense interceptor. This role was played by a new initiative project of KB "Kavanisi".

The coastal interceptor with the designation “X-1” was developed at the Kavanisi Design Bureau under the leadership of Y. Hashiuchi in the form of a redesigned Storm hydro-fighter with a Khomare-1-1 power plant ^[5] and a four-bladed VISH ^[6] large-diameter screw and the mid-range layout of the hydraulic fighter required installation of an elongated chassis of the telescopic scheme on the coastal version of the machine ^[7] .

Kavanisi Design Bureau Project

At the end of 1941, the management of the Kavanisi aircraft factory, assuming a stagnation in the demand of the Navy aviation for seaplanes, which were the main production item of the plant, decided to make an initiative design groundwork for a new topic ^[8] . The basis of the work was the development plans for coastal and deck versions of seaplanes that were in production. In particular, work was carried out on three topics: a heavy torpedo bomber based on a large flying boat “ 2 ”, a deck torpedo bomber and at the same time a coastal fighter based on the Storm hydraulic fighter ^[9] .

Leading designer of Design Bureau Kavanisi S. Kikuhara at a meeting at the Naval Aviation Directorate at the end of the year and presented a plan of initiative development of the design bureau to Rear Admiral R. Tade, head of the GU. The State Aviation Administration actively welcomed the developer’s initiative in connection with the delay in the work ^[10] on the new generation of coastal and carrier-based fighter designs ^{[9] [11]} .

Part of the leadership of the Main Naval Aviation Department objected to financing the design bureau’s work in connection with the fact that, as the main designer of seaplanes, the Kavanisi design bureau had little experience in designing coast-based vehicles ^[9] , but in April 1942 the project received the official code “Experienced Coast Interceptor” Number 1 ” ^[9] .

To accelerate the progress of work on a new topic, the design of the coastal vehicle hull repeated the design of the hydraulic fighter, but the Kasei ^[12] Mitsubishi pr-v was replaced by a more powerful ^[13] Homare ^[14] developed by the Nakajima design bureau . In addition, the plumage was modified and the midship was squeezed, compared to a hydraulic fighter on a coastal vehicle ^[9] . The laminar wing profile developed by the Navy Aviation Research Institute was fully used, with the exception of the addition of wheel landing gear and automatic flaps.

Tests

At the end of 1942, an experienced interceptor was lifted into the air from the Itami airfield near Osaka ^[15] , where the lack of technical reliability of the new engine was revealed. Instead of debugging the aircraft, Kavanisi Design Bureau was forced to wait for the development of the problems of the power plant by the developer. ^{[16] [17]} . The test pilot of the Navy, 3rd-rank captain Y. Shiga, considered the power plant defects to be the main problem of the experimental machine ^[18] , his subordinate, Lieutenant-captain K. Iwasaki, noted in the reports that the cockpit was highly polluted ^[19] .

In connection with the average plan inherited from the hydraulic fighter, the main landing gears were made elongated with a telescopic design ^{[9] [20] [21]} . On experimental machines of the first series, because of the low hydraulic pressure, folding up racks and cleaning in niches took up to 2 minutes, on serial machines the interval was reduced to 20 seconds ^{[19] [22] [23]} .

The complexity of the design of the struts caused a difference in the braking torque of different sides, which caused great difficulties in landing even for test pilots ^[24] . In 1945, in the 343rd and 301st naval regiments, up to 10 emergency situations occurred every month with a drop in hydraulic pressure and folding struts on landing. ^[24] . For the flight crew, the danger was represented by high landing mileage and ineffective brakes. Pilots often preferred to land on the ground next to the main runway, so as not to risk jumping out of it.

Reviews

As a result of the tests, it was concluded that the main shortcomings of the experienced interceptor were the insufficient reliability of the landing gear retraction mechanism, poor forward view on takeoff, and a lack of maximum speed when compared with the latest designs of US fighter aircraft. The design speed was 654 km / h, in reality, the experimental machine missed about 80 km / h. Climbing 6 km took a little more than five and a half minutes ^{[25], the} range without PTB was about 1000 km ^{[26] [27]} .

The main reason for the power loss was the use of gasoline with a low ^[28] octane number and the presence of underwing cannon gondolas with high aerodynamic drag ^[27] . With certain drawbacks, the machine had such advantages as all-round visibility, excellent maneuverability and surpassed the main fighters of the Ground Forces and Navy ^[29] in rate of climb and dive speed.

Adoption

The leadership of the State Aviation Administration of the Navy had a prejudice against the independent development of the Kavanisi Design Bureau and critically perceived some aspects of the new fighter. In the reports of naval testers often found the words:

^[thirty]

The certain success of the experimental vehicle allowed the Kavanisi Design Bureau management to decide on the construction of three units of the experimental vehicles by the summer of 1943, one of which was transferred to the military tests of the Navy.

In the summer of 1943, there was an order to take the aircraft into service with the Naval Aviation and its serial construction under the code "Syden-1-1" ^[27] . The reason for the hasty adoption of the recycled hydraulic fighter was the understanding that the main Navy deck interceptor “ 0 ” is losing its advantages in battles with the latest US Navy machines, and the main project of the Mitsubishi coastal interceptor has big problems with an unfinished power plant ^[31] .

Navy Design Bureau No. 11 ( military unit Kure ) insisted that the initiative project did not have an advantage over the Ryden design bureau that was already under construction. Nevertheless, specialists of design bureau No. 11 took part in the finalization of the project, in parallel with which the order for equipment for the Kavanisi aircraft plants began ^[32] .

The program of production of the coastal interceptor of air defense was attached so high importance that for three months by the end of 1943 at the main production in the village. Naruo built 70 cars. At the beginning of 1944, the first machines were put into operation and the first machines were produced in the city ​​of Himeji . By the spring of 1944, the main efforts were aimed at refining and starting production of the low-wing plan, but the refinement of the mid-plan model was also underway.

The first cars were equipped with the Homare-1 (NK9B) engine ^[33]. 4 prototypes received the Homare-2 (NK9H) ^[34] high power ^[35] with separate nozzles. Enough powerful ^[36] weapons were reinforced with a wing cannon pair.

Mid-plane upgrades included the Syden-1-1-Ko (N1K1-Ja) with purely cannon wing armament, the 1-1-Otsu (N1K1-Jb) with a bomb load of 500 kg and the 1-1 fighter-bomber Hey "(N1K1-Jc). In order to increase the production of interceptors, at the end of 1943 a decision was made to cease the production of a hydraulic fighter at a factory in the village. Naruo . A few months before the redeployment of interceptors to the Philippines, the production of mid-planes "Syden-1" was curtailed, and the main plant "Kavanisi" in the village. Naruo began to prepare for the release of low-wing "Syden-2" ("Kai").

Preparations for the production of the interceptor were also launched at the Mitsubishi , Aichi, Sowa aircraft factories and at the Navy aircraft plants (Kure, Omura and Kodza). The volume of production of interceptors "Syden-1" at the plant in the village. Naruo amounted to 530 units, at the plant in the city ​​of Himeji 468 units. At the end of 1944, a prototype rocket fighter (N1K1-J-Kai) was built ^[37] . Until the end of January 1945, 4 units. were modified into attack aircraft by installing a ventral container for the feces bomb. 250 kg and NURS.

Syden 1

• "1-1" (N1K1-J) - with mixed ^[38] weapons

• "Ko" (N1K1-Ja） - with cannon ^[39] weapons
• "Otsu" (N1K1-Jb) - with winged ^[40] cannon armament and 6 units of NURS.
• "Hay" (N1K1-Jc) - with external suspension pylons ^[41]

Experienced

• “X-1” （N1K1） - a mid-plane with the Homare-2 engine ^{[42] [43]}

Navy 341st , 343rd, and 201st Regiments

The first coastal interceptors "Syden-1" were planned to be put into service in four ^[44] air regiments of the 10th coastal air army (VA) of the Navy, formed from naval air divisions and the company of the 1st Navy DAV ^[45] . The rearmament lasted until the autumn of 1944, as a result of which all the air regiments of the 10th VA, except the 341st ^{[46] [47]} , were disbanded. The midplanes of the first series were also delivered to the 201st Fighter Aviation Regiment ^[49] deployed in the Philippines ^[48] .

Defense arch. Philippines

In November 1944, the 341st and 201st air regiments were redeployed to the Philippines, where they provided support for the operations of naval units in a strategic operation in w. Leite ^[47] . In this last strategic operation of the Imperial Japanese Navy, the Syden-1 interceptors were used as air defense fighters, coast reconnaissance, ^[50] and light torpedo bombers ^[51] .

At the end of October 1944 for the defense of the Philippines with about. Taiwan on about. More than 100 interceptors of the 341st air regiment were transferred to Luzon. The regiment fought with skill and rigidity, but soon he had to face a shortage of materials and spare parts in connection with the sea and air blockade of the base islands.

Defense about. Taiwan

Having received the first armament in the fall, the 341st Air Defense Regiment was redeployed to the Takao Navy military airport (Taiwan Island) ^[52] , where in October it tried to restrain the advance of the US Navy aircraft carrier formations , including 38 Carrier Division ^[53] . In mid-October, about. Taiwan was one of the largest battles between the forces of the 341st regiment and the US Navy ^[54] , where the air defense of the Japanese Navy lost 14 aircraft, shooting down to 10 units. US fighters ^[47] .

Metropolitan Defense

In January 1945, the 341st Aviation Regiment began forming ram groups of suicide bombers (“kamikaze”) ^[55] and, after incurring losses of materiel and personnel, was withdrawn ^[56] to Taiwan ^[57] .

The development of the latest aircraft was complicated by the complexity of a powerful power plant, a weak chassis and the problems of servicing sophisticated equipment at field airfields. In combat, the interceptor proved itself to be a dangerous adversary for all the latest allied fighters. Despite the success of the project, the first version of the mid-plane based on a hydraulic fighter was considered as a temporary measure until a low-plan scheme was adopted. For the flight crew, the danger was represented by high landing mileage and ineffective brakes. Pilots often preferred to land on the ground near the main runway, so as not to risk jumping out of it.

The pilot of the 343rd air regiment (Jr. Lieutenant of the Navy I. Miyazaki ) noted that the Syden-1 interceptor provided significantly better aerial firing accuracy and dive stability than the “ 0 ” deck interceptor, but considering that it was completely inferior in maneuverability and flight safety, being extremely difficult to pilot. ^[58] .

Deputy the commander of the 341st regiment ( K. Iwashita ) and the pilot of the 201st regiment, T. Kasai, believed that the interceptor in its capabilities was fully consistent with the US Hellcat main carrier-based fighter ^[59] . The first time he saw the silhouette of the Syden-1, T. Kasai mistakenly mistook him for a previous-generation Wildcat fighter of the US Navy. According to the Navy air defense pilots, at first there were cases of incorrect identification of a new interceptor and even air battles between the air defense forces of the Navy ^[60] .

• Kharuk A.I. Fighters of the Second World War. The most complete encyclopedia. - M .: Yauza, EKSMO, 2012 .-- 368 p. - 1,500 copies - ISBN 978-5-699-58917-3 .

Links

• N1K-J Shiden. Encyclopedia "Corner of the sky."
• N1K1-J at wwiiaircraftperfomance.org

/ref>。Opt. the commander of the 341st squadron K. Iwashita and the pilot of the 201st squadron T. Kasai believed that the interceptor in its capabilities was fully consistent with the US Hellcat main carrier-based fighter