Originally posted by Charge
I'm interested of what you people think why Ki84 could not be as fast as Corsair?
Do we have some data? I'll believe if we have the data.
But again [kicks dead horse], just because its smaller and lighter does not mean an inference should be made that it could be just as fast. Turn better? Climb better? Perhaps. Faster? not necessarily.
If you say the Ki-84 should turn better than the Corsair, I'd say that's a reasonable observation, as the wing loading would be lower (even though there may be other factors).
If you say the Ki-84 should climb better than the Corsair, I'd say that's a reasonable observation, as the power loading would be lower.
If you say the Ki-84 should be as fast or faster than the Corsair, and your justification was that "it looks more aerodynamic", I'll take issue with that. What airfoil was used on the Ki-84 and what was the design lift coefficient of that airfoil? How much washout was built into the wing? How efficient was the stabilizers' sizing with respect to trim drag creation? How efficient was the engine baffling? What was its flat plate drag area? How efficient was the propellor?
All questions that would need to be known to form a defendable theory on how fast the aircraft should have been. I'm not saying the KI-84 shouldn't be faster, I'm merely critiquing the evidence used to justify the theory.