Japan actually received five Me109s in 1941 to test fly. The Japanese found it inferior actually to what they had. Read Francillon’s. The Ki-61 program began with the DB.601 engine in 1937 which became the Ha 40.

The several of the Me109s (possibly the one in your pictures) were actually tested against the Ki-61 (as well as a captured P-40 Warhawk) and the Japanese thought the Ki-61 was superior to both.

There was no Me109 to work of off for the Kawasaki team. The Ki-61 was already built and flying by the time the Me109s arrived.

Strevitel you attempt to make generalizations with false assumptions.

Lookie here, a P-40 with the RAF roundel. http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/t_images/kittyhawkii_t.jpg.

So in your analogy, you could make the ludicrous claim the British had copied the Kitty Hawk for the Spitfire because both were inline engined fighters.

LOL. Forget it, Strevitel.

Just read Rene Francillon’s definitive Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War.

All single engined fighters with inline powerplants looked alike but the Ki-61 had very little input from the Me109. Just take a look at the undercarriage. There was no Me109 specimen for Kawasaki to work off of. That sending of a Me109 to Kawasaki for the Ki-61 story you’re telling is spreading false information.

As far as learning from the Germans, the entire design philosophy of the Japanese and Germans were different. That is the one obvious fact of anyone who studied WWII aircraft.

Japanese used air-cooled radials and German used water-cooled inline engines. Japanese emphasized range and maneuverability and the German went after performance.

As for Japanese copying Germany by the time of the Komet and Me262 – by that point (1944) there was no contact between Japan and Germany except by submarines. What was passed between them were mostly prototypes.

As for Japan behind Germany and Italy. Italy being ahead of Japan at any point in WWII is pure idiocy. In fact, it could argued that by 1940, Japan was actually ahead of Germany with the Zero (which if was used in the Battle of Britain would have had enough range to escort Luftwaffe bombers to and from Britain instead of the 15 minutes combat time of the Me109 which left the He 111s and Ju 88s defenseless. The Me110s certainly didn’t help and needed escorting themselves.)

In specific fields such as naval aviation, Japan was arguably ahead of everyone in 1940. Even in things like reconnaissance planes, the Ki-46 was considered the best in its class in 1940.

Of course, there were lots of things that the Japanese made which sucked too (like the Germans they spent too much energy on too many new types and kept around too many old types that were past usefulness.)

Strevitel, just read up on the history of the Japanese industry before attempting to post sweeping terms regarding it.

Israel like many other countries does not have the industrial/economical basis to produce a mayor-weapon-system on its own power

Exactly. Israel is not great aircraft design and manufacturing center. The examples put by Erez and myself were all French while the Lavi was American.

but it had/has enough connections/links to Europe/USA to create a system tailored to its needs similar Sweden.

It depended on those connections. Without those connections or when one of the those providing Israel with aid (such as the US in the Lavi project) decides to pull the plug, the Israeli industry can’t build it.

Still most money from the USA, but Israeli participation kept program-costs low.

Instead of blabbing on, Sens, just look at the Lavi with some logic. The Lavi case is extremely simple. If the Lavi was cheap or if Israel owned more than a significant share of it, Israel would have built the Lavi whether the US objected or not. But reality showed that Israel couldn’t build it without American participation. It’s nothing more than a canceled project that you’re trying to imply some importance to.

Now, even if Israel could sell this failed project -canceled because of American objections – why sell it to China which would bring even more American objections that caused the cancellation of the Lavi in the first place?

The Israeli government is not stupid and certainly not suicidal. Without American largesse and protection, Israel can’t survive.

The rest of your stuff is composed of idiotic non-sequitur opinions that don’t belong this particular discussion or this thread.

Just remember, I’m not the one who turned the subject of this thread to another J-10-Lavi argument. I brought that picture, yes, but not to restart these flames but to have some physical reference between the J-10 and the Lavi.

You said “family” resemblance. So it is pretty clear that you are attempting to link the J-10 to a Israeli betrayal of the US for “money” because there wasn’t much else China could have given Israel besides money.

1. Israel produced the Nesher (100% Mirage V), the Kfir (60% Mirage V) and the Fouga Magister jet aircraft before the Lavi.

French design (Nesher), French design(Kfir) and French design (Magister). No experience in developing a new aircraft. The Lavi is American just as Nesher, Kfir and Magister were French.

That picture you posted (as well as every other Lavi picture) look like a F-16 from the front. (1)

The program costed 2.2 billion dollars when it was cancelled – no more than the development costs of other airplanes in the world in the Lavi’s class. In 1987 the US removed its share of the cost of Lavi project. Since development was near completion, the US made clear it will not participate in the cost of building 300 Lavis for the Israeli airforce. In other words, they let us bring the plane’s technology to maturity but killed the plane.

They were only able to kill it because the technology belongs to them. If it was yours, you would go ahead with it no matter what the Americans say.

The project was also canelled due to the fragile political climate of Israel at the time, and was cancelled in the vote with 12 for and 11 against, with the 12th voice persuaded in the last minute as a political move.

Now, if Israel closed down the Lavi because of “politics” then there is no way your government would risk even more political censure by passing along the Lavi to China.

The answer to your question is simple – we simply couldn’t bear the cost of producing the Lavi alone.

You can’t bear the cost of of reproducing every American component that the Lavi needed. It was basically an American plane. If it were yours and you used Israeli parts then you would have built it.

But you couldn’t because it was a failed project that depended on American technology.

The post Lavi IAI was near total loss in 1988. I’m opining that the IAI and Israel couldn’t care less about the US, and according to the Ha’aretz newspaper from 1994, the Chinese paid over 1 billion dollars for the Lavi technology.

They couldn’t care less about the US except they couldn’t build the Lavi without American funding and American technology. Right.

It’s that simple. You can afford what you can build. Israel couldn’t afford something that is dependent on American largesse and American technical expertise.

You can’t use contradictory arguments.

1. If the Lavi was Israeli then the US wouldn’t be able to stop its development. The US did and did so easily because the Lavi depended on US tech.

2. If the Lavi was a success then Israel would have mass produced it. It did not because it could not produce an US plane without the US. China could have built the Blackhawk with US help too. But none was forthcoming and China now builds French helos. The Lavi is a simply another failed program that every industry has. Buying a failed program guarantees failure. The J-10 flies and is in production unlike the Lavi.

3. If the Israel government closed down the Lavi because of adverse political pressure from the US then it be suicidal to then give that project to China which would bring even worse American pressure.

Each one of your arguments contradict themselves. Face it, the Israeli government simply cancelled a failed project that depended on American tech (just as the Nesher, Kfir and Magister depended on French tech.) It even denied ever passing it along to anyone.

——————————————————–
Notes:
(1)http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/3fal90.htm

“On paper, the Lavi was becoming very similar to the F-16 and F-18. In reality, however, Israel possessed neither the technology nor the capital required for such a project. According to a 1983 General Accounting Office (GAO) study,
“Israel will be significantly dependent on US technology and financing for major portions of the aircraft. Israel will also require US approval for the planned third country sales because of the US engine and the significant amount of US origin high technology used in the Lavi’s airframe construction, avionics and planned weapons system.””

And the crux of those arguments were

1. Israel doesn’t have an advance airframe design and manufacturing industry; beyond the Kfir (which is a Mirage), Israel has not created a mass produced plane on its own,

2. the Lavi was American technology and based on the F-16; it was dependent on American willingness to allow its technology to be used. It was finally cancelled because of the US.

3. it was a project failure even worse than say the Chinese Y-10 which actually flew far more miles and actually carried passengers and goods to multiple cities. There has been no Lavi since three prototypes nailed together with American subsystems and they never flew beyond test flights,

4. if we take the argument that the Lavi was a technical success and was cancelled only under American pressure then why bring on even worse American pressure in transferring that same cancelled project to China? If it was a technical success and Israel was willing to bear the American pressure it would for transferring the Lavi to China then why not just mass produce the Lavi in spite of the US?

Any idiot could see that if the Israel government had acted politically by canceling the project under US pressure, it’s certainly not going to risk worse political fallout by giving that same project to China.

What does Israel have to gain from China that would balance out such a risk of US retaliation? The risk-reward analysis of this Lavi-given-to-China scenario makes no sense whatsoever.

Japan based many aircraft on German Models before they move to Americans ones after WWII

That pretty much destroys your credibility in knowing the Japanese aircraft industry, Flogger.

The Japanese had only one substantial design based on a German plane and that was the Ki-61, Japan’s only inline engine aircraft. Other than that Japan used radial engines in their aircraft while Germany used mainly inline.

Tell me, Flogger, each German plane the Zero, Tojo, Frank, George, Sally, Betty, Kate, Judy, Oscar and Jack were respectively based on. I basically named every major Japanese frontline machine I could think of.

and the Kikka is not the exception in fact the got blue prints of the BMW003.

Not really. There were no blueprints transferred. The Ne-20 was based on an earlier turbojet called the Ne-12. The BMW003 did help in when photos of it studied by the Japanese engineers working from the Ne-12 base. (1)

Come on, man, if you start a thread on the Japanese industry, you should at least know more about the industry you’re talking about.

——————————————————————
Notes:
(1)http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/kikka.html
“Initially, the [Kikka] was to be powered by a pair of 441 lb.s.t. Tsu-11 Campini-type engines, but these were soon replaced by two 750 lb.s.t. Japanese-designed Ne-12 turbojets. However, the Ne-12 failed to deliver the expected thrust, and official interest in the Kikka began to wane because it appeared that it would be unable to meet its performance requirements.

However, In the meantime, photographs of the German BMW 003 axial-flow turbojet had been obtained, and the Japanese were able to use these photos to assist them in designing a similar turbojet (designated Ne-20) rated at 1047 lb.s.t. It was decided to switch the Kikka to the Ne-20, and since it now appeared that the performance requirements could be met after all, the project moved forward with greater rapidity.”

No Q-5 but here’s an ARJ-21 article from the mag, International Aerospace.

Good detailed article – until the author decided to do an editorial at the very end. Thanks much for posting.