So I took the time to read through Gaston's post and a couple of things seem to have me scratching my head.
The most striking thing is it seems that Gaston thinks having a high corner speed is a good thing,or am I reading this wrong?
He then questions Badboy as to why more engine power would make a difference or again am I wrong on this?
One last thing,I might be wrong again so bare with me but I thought corner speed was defined as the lowest possible speed at which an airframe would pull 6 G's.
Discuss!
-No, what I am saying is that ANY downthrottling MAKES NO SENSE IF THE CORNER SPEED IS THAT HIGH.... Which inevitably means that the MOST POWER POSSIBLE to stay as close as possible to Corner Speed is NOT useful for the tightest and fastest possible sustained turns (in nose-tracted aircrafts)... More power simply pulls them into too wide a radius (which does not happen to pushers, for obvious leverage reasons)...
-My other point is that the predictive power of maths is very poor, as the N1K1 example demontrates.
I must correct here the speculation on my part that the N1K2's low wing solved the horizontal handling problems: The N1K2 was extensively trained for, and used (successfully) in boom and zoom attacks, which coming from the Japanese indicates to me they STILL didn't think its horizontal handling smelled the roses...
Also my pilot quotes makes no mention of the N1K2 being any better, which in the context of the boom and zoom training I think could be taken as a clue my speculation about the wing position's positive effect was wrong.
My overall point is that maths are not at all predictive for detailed, or even rough, comparative performance in WWII fighters: See this Ki-100 vs Ki-84 evaluation as an example:
"-OK, how about this for substantiated?: "Aeroplane" November 2005, "Ki-100 fighter Database" p. 61-77. (16 full pages on nothing but the Ki-100, with remarkable details, including on the development of the projected high-altitude turbo-charged variant)
Textual quote : P. 76:
"At these schools, the cream of the IJAAF's instructors, all very experienced combat pilots, would give their opinion on the new fighter (Ki-100). Almost all the Akeno instructors were graduates of the 54th Class of the Army Air Academy and also highly-qualified sentai commanders in their own right.
During March and April they would fly the Ki-100 in comparison tests against the most capable Japanese fighter then in service, the Ki-84 "Frank". After extensive testing the conclusion drawn by the Akeno pilots left little to the imagination.
In short, it stated that given equally skilled pilots, the Ki-100 would ALWAYS win a fight with the Ki-84 in any one-to-one combat. They further added that in a combat situation with up to three Ki-84s, the Ki-100 pilot could still develop the battle to his advantage.
The results of the evaluations at the Hitachi school were just as clear-cut. Captain Yasuro Mazaki and captain Toyoshia Komatso,also both graduates of the 54th class, developed the combat evaluation situations for the new fighter, and in order to give an unbiaised opinion of the aircraft, they swapped aircraft after each engagements and attempted combat from the opposite standpoint.
In the first combat the Ki-100 was flown against a single Ki-84 with the Ki-100 winning outright.
Mazaki stated: "When we entered combat with the Ki-100 taking the height advantage, the Ki-100 won every time. Even with an altitude disadvantage the Ki-100 could hold down the Ki-84 in two or three climbs during the exercise"
He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."
If the math cannot predict that the Ki-100 is worth 2-3 Ki-84s in dogfights, and repeat it after switching pilots, as the Japanese tested themselves, what the HELL can we assume it can predict?!?!?!
Gaston