Why are the Japanese planes so slow?

[F4UDOA]

ANGUS!!

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
Hai, F4UDOA-san.

Angie, if you really interested to discuss it, lets do it in another thread or something, or by mail by whatever. Whispering death san is right. Cant do it right now, `not at home, no heavy weapons with me. ,)

[Angus]

LOL

Anyway, some information from a 190 thread that might come in handy.
Crumpp pointed out that the Germans were ahead of anybody else in high quality paint. That influences top speed some little bit.
I wonder how those matters were by the japanese.

Also, something from the back of my head.
I remember that the Zeke had a very thin skin, and even by changes of temperature outside where the aircraft were standing, the expansion of the thin metal would be clearly hearable with popping sounds.
Anyway, when it comes to this, I wonder about rivets, were they high or flushed, and did the thin weight-saving metal give in, - issue being boundary layer you see....

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
LOL

Anyway, some information from a 190 thread that might come in handy.
Crumpp pointed out that the Germans were ahead of anybody else in high quality paint. That influences top speed some little bit.
I wonder how those matters were by the japanese.

Hmm, could be true. I recall George said the LW`s camo paint was of smaller grain size than that of the Allies were using, and certainly George knows his stuff better than anyone else I know. German chemical industry always been - and still is - top notch, even an artist friend of mine said he either uses German or Japanese paints for his art, they are the best. Not sure if this applies to WW2 Japanese paints, though, Japan become a leader in many fields only after WW2.

[HoHun]

Hi Flakbait,

>From what Baugher said the lead elevators were corrected when the airframe underwent changes between the pre-production and the full production model.

Thanks, that's interesting.

>The Ki-61 was supposed to get a redesigned engine (Ha-140) for the Ki-61-II model, but it was a nightmare to keep running.

The production count on Baugher's site is puzzling. 374 built, 30 of these destroyed on the ground, 275 built without engines and completed as Ki-100. At first I thought that meant that only 69 were delivered as Ki-61-II, but it seems that the 275 engine-less airframes were built on top of the 374 completed aircraft.

>On the rare occasion when it did run properly, it had 14mph more speed than the KAIc and a much faster climb rate.

Well, I don't trust Baugher's numbers much because he gives two different full throttle heights for the Ha-40. If the Ki-61-II really got 1250 HP @ 5700 m, it was a 400 mph aircraft. (Not that 400 mph is particularly fast.)

>As best I can tell, the Ki-100 was a bit quicker to accelerate than the Ki-61 KAIc and a better climber thanks to an extra 400+ horses.

Sounds reasonable, but of course it depends on the full throttle heights.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)