Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SgtPappy on January 13, 2008, 09:20:19 PM
-
I've been looking all over the BBS, google and the IL-2 BBS just in case someone already posted this already.
The Ki-84 (allegedly) found figures like 427 mph when tested in the US in 1946.
- What were the criteria of the tests? 100/130 grade octane or was it 115/145
grade?
- The paint was stripped and the guns were taken off ...
- Was there a special injection?
-
The Ki-84 addressed two of the most common complaints about Nakajima's previous Japanese Imperial Army fighter, the popular and highly maneuverable Ki-43 "Hayabusa" ("peregrine falcon"): it tackled issues of insufficient firepower, poor defensive armor and a lack of climbing power. The Ki-84 was introduced with two 12.7mm (50-caliber) machine guns and two 20mm cannons, a considerable improvement over the single 7.7mm and single 12.7mm machine guns which equipped the Hayabusa. Defensive armor offered Hayate pilots better protection than the unsealed wing tanks and light-alloy airframe of the Ki-43. In addition, the Ki-84 used a 65mm armor-glass canopy, 13mm of head and back armor, and multiple bulkheads in the fuselage, which protected both the methanol-water tank (used to increase the effectiveness of the supercharger) and also the centrally located fuel tank.
But it was the powerplant that gave the Hayate its high speed and prowess in combat. Derived from the Homare engine common to many Japanese aircraft, the Hayate used a direct-injection version of the engine, using water injection to aid the supercharger in giving the Ki-84 a rated 2000 hp at takeoff. This combination—in theory, at least—gave it a climb rate and top speed roughly competitive with the top Allied fighters of the late Pacific theater, the P-51D Mustang and P-47D Thunderbolt (with top speeds of 433 and 426 mph, respectively). The Hayate's initial testing at Tachikawa in early summer 1943 saw test pilot Lt. Funabashi reach a maximum level speed of 634 km/h (394 mph) in the second prototype, but after the war a captured example was tested by the U.S. Army using high-octane fuel and achieved a speed of 690 km/h (430 mph).
The complicated direct-injection engine, however, required a great deal of care in construction and maintenance and, as the Allies advanced toward the Japanese homeland, it became increasingly difficult to support the Hayate's designed performance. Compounding reliability issues was the Allied submarine blockade which prevented delivery of crucial components such as the landing gear. Many Hayates consequently suffered strut collapses on landing.
i got it off of here www.answers.com/topic/nakajima-ki-84 (http:// www.answers.com/topic/nakajima-ki-84) (i hope i did it right)
-
It should also be noted that the poor quality of the fuel available prevented the Ki-84 from achieving its on-paper performance in the field.
-
also you need to make sure you comparing the right series of Ki-84
the one in Aces High is the Ki-84-la, not the later versions which are a bit faster and also have better armament......
-
Originally posted by TequilaChaser
also you need to make sure you comparing the right series of Ki-84
the one in Aces High is the Ki-84-la, not the later versions which are a bit faster and also have better armament......
Nope. The Ha-45-21 which provided the highest peak power can be found on Ki-84-Ia fighters as well. The engine varried, but it is not tracked by model number.
-
Thanks guys
lol, Angelsandair, the link didn't work :p
yea, I noticed the Japanese weren't able to manufacture synthetic fuels anywhere near as well as countries like the U.S. and Germany could; thus they couldn't find the best performance in their engines.
I'm just trying to find what octane level was used during the U.S. testing of the Hayate... was it 100/130 or 115/145?
-
well just copy the link
-
Yea, that did the trick. I saw that page too, it's good, but too bad it doesn't specify fuel grade.
-
ehhh, its what u get for googling information, but it had some interesting information about other japanese planes like the ki-43, ki-44, ki-83..........
-
www.indianamilitary.org/.../AirPower%20Jan75.htm (http:// www.indianamilitary.org/.../AirPower%20Jan75.htm) hey, i found a HUGE page on japanese fighters, just kind of scanned it over, man u will love it okay, ur just gonna have to type in indianamilitary.org, its not working even if u copy and paste
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
www.indianamilitary.org/.../AirPower%20Jan75.htm (http:// www.indianamilitary.org/.../AirPower%20Jan75.htm) hey, i found a HUGE page on japanese fighters, just kind of scanned it over, man u will love it okay, ur just gonna have to type in indianamilitary.org, its not working even if u copy and paste
I found some major blunders in their aircraft histories. One is especially egregious as it has been proven conclusively to be myth. The website states the following:
"In combat, the Ki-100-Ia proved to be an excellent fighter, especially at low altitudes. It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves. When the Ki-100 encountered the P-51D Mustang at low or medium altitudes over Japan, it was able to meet the American fighter on more or less equal terms."
This myth has been perpetuated by several aviation authors of rather low esteem within the circle of aviation historians. From what I can determine, Rene J. Francillon was the originator of this myth. I've read some of his work, and if he manufactured life vests, he's be making them from cast iron. It just so happens that this website lists Francillon as a source...
Francillon's exact quote was:
"It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves. When the Ki-100 encountered the P-51D Mustang at low or medium altitudes over Japan, it was able to meet the American fighter on more or less equal terms. The outcome of P- 51D vs Ki-100 battles was usually determined by piloting skill or by numerical advantage rather than by the relative merits of the two fighter types."
The fact that no Ki-100s were in squadron strength service during the Okinawa campaign apparently eluded Francillon.
Navy records do not show anything close to Francillon's claim. What they do show is that in late July of 1945 a high gaggle of Ki-100s attacking a group of F6Fs beating up a Japanese airfield. They resulting combat left two Ki-100s down from gunfire and another collided with an F6F, both planes being lost (although the American bailed out of his damaged fighter, the Japanese pilot didn't). Another F6F suffered damage from tripleA and ditched off the coast, the pilot being rescued by an American sub.
Anyway, I'd take anything presented on that website as questionable at best, worthless at worst.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I seem to remember a discussion of this very subject when Ki84 was first introduced... and some following discussions after that Wotan came up with an interesting argument that the Ki84 very well may have been much faster than the claimed 398mph despite Japanese quality control and inferior fuel grade.
I seem to recall it was an argument based on something to have to do about the "slower" Ki84 being mishandled in American testings or something... but I can't remember any details (verdammt!).
And.. I am a terrible forum scavenger. Been rummaging through the search forums but can't seem to find the thread...
-
I did find this thread (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155362&highlight=Ki84+Wotan), though, which contains some of the arguments I've seen, but not the whole deal.
-
Nice thread, I read it. Apparently, someone stated that 100/130 grade octane was used to give the Ki-84 its amazing performance. It was also stated that Japanese fuel with methanol/water injection would yield better performance than 100/130 grade octane alone.
At any rate there we have it. The Ki-84 has amazing performance... better speed than any PTO Allied or Axis plane operating.
Doesn't mean that it would be unbeatable though.
-
o and the link i got i think it was from the 70s........another setback about googling stuff, still some of it is kind of cool
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
At any rate there we have it. The Ki-84 has amazing performance... better speed than any PTO Allied or Axis plane operating.
Could you elaborate on that?
There's been enough bullsheet written about Japanese fighters to keep a stable boy employed till retirement, and enough in this thread to keep him busy at the old folks home thereafter.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hah, that's the thing. I can't elaborate on that... not yet anyway which is why I'm trying to find official proof.
If these tests were done with 100/130 octane and that Hayate did actually fly at aroun 437 mph, it's probably safe to say, at the least, that its performance is better than the current flight model... not that there's anything wrong with that.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Hah, that's the thing. I can't elaborate on that... not yet anyway which is why I'm trying to find official proof.
If these tests were done with 100/130 octane and that Hayate did actually fly at aroun 437 mph, it's probably safe to say, at the least, that its performance is better than the current flight model... not that there's anything wrong with that.
437 is not "better speed than any PTO Allied...plane operating"...Not by a long shot.
-
Yes, very true. I pretty much over exaggerated there, I admit.
Just in our game, you have to admit, that would be pretty high performance... not the best but quite good indeed.
-
Ki-84 was undoubtedly the best Japanese fighter to see significant service and the only Japanese fighter that could, potentially, meet Allied fighters as an equal.
I would not be surprised if the Ha-45-21 powered Ki-84s performed better, in some cases, than the Ki-84 in AH. However, I would be very surprised if any Ki-84 exceeded 410mph in level flight in Japanese service.
If the Japanese industry had not been crippled by the US armed forces and the stupidity of the Japanese government the Ki-84 would have been relatively competitive with most US fighters being employed in the final two years of WWII, if notably less durable to wear and tear. As it was, the Ki-84's potential was crippled by the lack of good fuel, quality control, poor maintainance and lack of well trained pilots.
The Ki-84 was a potentially great fighter, but to say it was decively superior to Allied types is pure hyperbole.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Hah, that's the thing. I can't elaborate on that... not yet anyway which is why I'm trying to find official proof.
If these tests were done with 100/130 octane and that Hayate did actually fly at aroun 437 mph, it's probably safe to say, at the least, that its performance is better than the current flight model... not that there's anything wrong with that.
I haven't seen anything to support 437 mph... maybe 425 mph, sans ammo, paint and highly polished, with a perfectly tuned motor running fuel that the Japanese didn't have.
The reality of things is that the Ki-84 was a sub 400 mph fighter, with less than stellar performance at medium altitudes.
Japanese industry wasn't quite capable of producing the type and quality of fighters required to compete with the US and Britain. Indeed, the next generation of Allied fighters, many of which would have been in combat by September of 1945, opened the gap even wider.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Just a note: no model of the Homare had direct injection. The system described by some authors as such was basically similar to the Bendix-Stromberg pressure carburettor, i.e. basically a single point injection. But not buhara.
-
Very true, WW... Japanese industry had barely the mobility/efficiency of US factories.
Thanks Skaltura; where'd you find that info ?
-
"But not buhara."
Eh? Wazzat?
The only "buhara" I know is a Persian mat. :huh
-C+
-
Charge, are you Finnish? If so, the explanation for the buhara can be had from AA taskukirja 34. Check out the story where Mickey is pretending to buy a Persian mat.
Pappy: I got the info from Graham White who in turn got the info from an SAE paper written on the Homare by a former Nakajima engineer involved in its development.
-
Oh wow, that's gotta be good info. thanks Skal.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I haven't seen anything to support 437 mph... maybe 425 mph, sans ammo, paint and highly polished, with a perfectly tuned motor running fuel that the Japanese didn't have.
The reality of things is that the Ki-84 was a sub 400 mph fighter, with less than stellar performance at medium altitudes.
Japanese industry wasn't quite capable of producing the type and quality of fighters required to compete with the US and Britain. Indeed, the next generation of Allied fighters, many of which would have been in combat by September of 1945, opened the gap even wider.
My regards,
Widewing
Actually the Japs had some pretty amazing aircraft on the drawing board as well. The P-80 was a piece of crap so please don't use that as an example. The bearcat would have been interesting and was a ubber plane that would have given any axis plane a run for it's money. The US really didnt have another great plane until German captured info became available.
-
I should make a correction.. the data sheets I've seen have said 427 mph, but those US data sheets did not come with any kind of test information, criteria or variables. It was just a sheet, suggesting it was a theoretical test.
The Ki-84, however, likely is faster than the F4U for example because the Hayate is lighter, smaller, has around 1900 hp at max. possible ratings (if that figure is accurate) and definitely seems much more aerodynamic. If anything, it's fast, but I'm still not sure about that 427 mph figure. WW is likely correct about it with no ammo or paint.
I once had a book by Granger publishing all about WWII aircraft. The ki-84 was pictured in aluminum coating, US markings and a caption stated that it was tested in the US.
-
If you're curious, here is the definitive thread where the topic of the Ki-84 top speed in the AH FM we have is covered many moons ago :).
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=134252&referrerid=3699
Pyro made his conclusions based on a lot of collaboration with busa who provided some very detailed research in Japan on the topic.
Page 5 is where busa starts to explain some of the details he uncovered that he had passed on to Pyro for modelling the Ki-84.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
The Ki-84, however, likely is faster than the F4U for example because the Hayate is lighter, smaller, has around 1900 hp at max. possible ratings (if that figure is accurate) and definitely seems much more aerodynamic.
And what resource, other than your own deduction, did you use to form this opinion? By this reasoning, a Spitfire should be faster than a P-47, but its not, not by a long shot.
-
By my reckoning, it is fast enough to beat the fire crews to the crash site every single time. I will test this shortly.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
And what resource, other than your own deduction, did you use to form this opinion? By this reasoning, a Spitfire should be faster than a P-47, but its not, not by a long shot.
Depends on the P-47 and Spitfire in question now, doesn't it? :p
As to the Ki-84, I doubt it was ever faster than the F4U in service, but I bet it was a lot closer to the F4U's speed than other Japanese fighters.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Depends on the P-47 and Spitfire in question now, doesn't it? :p
As to the Ki-84, I doubt it was ever faster than the F4U in service, but I bet it was a lot closer to the F4U's speed than other Japanese fighters.
I wasn't thinking of the Spit XVIII. I was thinking more along the lines of the Spit IX or VIII vs. the Jug. Touche', but you get my point.
-
Yeah, I know, but comparing the Spit at 1,500hp to the P-47 at 2,200hp wasn't quite like comparing the Ki-84 at 1,990ho to the F4U at 2,200hp. Put the ballpark same power in the Spit and P-47 and the Spit is faster.
Thing is, I doubt a service Ki-84 ever actually put out 1,990hp.
-
Karnak proved my point. Thanks for the data, dTango, much appreciated :aok
Though no, Ki-84's never did produce that much power; they were lucky if they got 1800 hp. But with the recent engine studies I've seen, the Hayate's engine was built to produce around 1900 hp, 260 hp shy of a Corsair. So with this rating, they Ki-84 should at least perform more like an F4U.
Not a whine thread, it's just a statement on how a Ki-84 in best condition would perform.
-
I read that entire old thread. I didn't come off sounding too well. :p
The Ki-84 as originally released in AH was in a sad state. I am quite happy with it as it is now and the current AH Ki-84 is much more like what I was expecting to get.
-
I remember quite an uproar over the Ki, and the complete disappointment upon its release. I didn't fly it a great deal, or often, but have recently given up on the Spit 16 in favor of the Ki-84. I'm surprised it isn't one of the most common planes in the MA.
-
Even with reduced performance compared to the conceptual stats, I still believe a well-flown Frank is probably the F4U's most dangerous opponent. If I can, I try to pick them off as quick as I can in a fight.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Yeah, I know, but comparing the Spit at 1,500hp to the P-47 at 2,200hp wasn't quite like comparing the Ki-84 at 1,990ho to the F4U at 2,200hp. Put the ballpark same power in the Spit and P-47 and the Spit is faster.
Ok, poor example perhaps. Substitute the P-51 for the P-47, and my argument is the same. The Pony is bigger, heavier, and has the same horsepower advantage over the Spit as the Corsair has over the Ki-84.
There are so many more factors involved that are quantifiable, like drag area, cooling drag (which is a huge performance factor for radial engined planes), trim drag, wing efficiency, etc. My point is that there are aerodynamic considerations that are swept under the rug by Pappy's earlier post. Take Formula 1 Air Racing for example. All the planes weigh the same, they have the same wing area, and run the same engine. And yet, there are those aircraft that go out and turn 265mph laps, and those that go out and turn 170mph laps. Moreover, you look at the former champions plane compared to the former runner up, and you'd swear the runner up plane should be faster, simply because it looks sleeker and more modern.
You guys provide some resources that prove your point, I'll buy it, and learn something in the process. But to simply deduce that the Ki-84 "should" perform better with nothing to base it on, other than a document that we would all agree evaluated no normal Ki-84, is a stretch.
-
Originally posted by BigPlay
Actually the Japs had some pretty amazing aircraft on the drawing board as well. The P-80 was a piece of crap so please don't use that as an example. The bearcat would have been interesting and was a ubber plane that would have given any axis plane a run for it's money. The US really didnt have another great plane until German captured info became available.
I don't think he was talking about the P-80 at all. While the F8F was designed, in part, based on Grumman's observations of the FW190, the F7F, P-51H and P72 were not, and were performance monsters compared to late generation Japanese aircraft. And, they would have been in combat before the anticipated end of Operation Olympic as opposed to the drafting table.
-
I think the post war US test kinda did prove it, at least at lower altitudes. The Ki-84 has at least some aerodynamic refinements over earlier Japanese fights, such as lamilar flow wings.
As I said though, no Japanese service Ki-84 would put out those kinds of numbers, so I don't understand what you're asking to be proven. I think the current AH Ki-84 is about as close as we can expect to get to the real one's numbers and it is definately slower than the F4U.
Also, it should be noted that in post war interviews Nakajima and Mitsubishi engineers bluntly stated that the US was about three years ahead of Japan in terms of powerplants and aircraft design techniques. The Japanese engineers themselves were under no illusion of the situation.
Japan had no miracle wonder fighters about to come out at the end and turn the thing. Neither did Germany.
-
"Japan had no miracle wonder fighters about to come out at the end and turn the thing. Neither did Germany."
How is that relevant to this discussion? Other than just pointing out your quite obvious bias against axis rides and technology?
Germany had advanced technology in its disposal but it did not "turn the tide" despite the great propaganda value it had. But it still was advanced technology and German scientists were in high value after the war -strangely despite the political aspirations they may have had during the war.
Japanese scientists probably tried all they could to provide more competitive fighters but I'm thinking there were many hindrances they faced which may have made it more difficult to them than their allied counterparts. It seems that their engine technology was lacking and that dictated many design guidelines of their fighters like lightness and thus lack of proper armour which later on in defensive fighting became fatal.
***
"While the F8F was designed, in part, based on Grumman's observations of the FW190."
"In part"? Well, reading the FW190 test against Corsair and F6F you really start to wonder what really impressed the US designers in 190's design, doesn't it?
-C+
-
You misread what I meant or I said it badly. I was refering to BigPlay's comment that Stoney quoted.
Both Japan and Germany had good engineers who where just as good and dedicated as anybody in the US, UK, or USSR.
But neither of them had superaircraft about to come out that would dominate the Allies. The J7W, for example, while very bold was ordered into production before it had even been flown simply due to the desparation of the Japanese government. In the two test flights it did have there were indications of serious stability issues and it is unlikely that barely trained pilots would have been able to get anything out of it but death. The He162, while an absolutely astounding weapon program even without taking Germany's declining situation in late '44 and early '45 into account, was likewise too much to handle for barely trained pilots.
In game terms I would love to see how the A7M would do if Horikoshi had been allowed to use the 2,200hp Mitsubishi MK9C engine as he wanted instead of being forced to design it to take the Nakajima Homare, as in the N1K. He told the Navy it would not have the desired performance, the Navy insisted on using the less powerful Homare to simplify their supply issues, he designed the A7M1 with the Homare and the Navy rejected it due to poor performance compared to the desired performance. He redesigned it to take the MK9C, but the program was then delayed by an earthquake and US bombing. If he had gotten the go ahead to use the MK9C from the start the US probably would have been facing A7Ms in combat sometime in the last 6 months of 1944.
What I object to is the idea that sites like Luft46 (http://www.luft46.com/) give uninformed people that Germany or Japan had things that were about to see service that were far in advance of anything the Allies had and that just isn't true.
Had the war in Europe lasted longer with Germany holding its borders the only likely difference is that the Do335, He162 and Ta152 would have seen some heavy usage. The Me263 would probably have gotten into combat too.
For Japan, had the war lasted longer (imagine no nukes) the J7W1 and A7M2 would probably gotten into it. Certainly late designs like the Ki-102 and J2M5 would have seen heavier usage too. Things like their massive bombers capable of reaching the US were simply wish list things that were never going to happen in the wartime situation Japan was in.
Against these things we have Allied aircraft in the wings such as the F7F and F8F which were in service and on the way to the front. We have the Hawker Fury and the De Haviland Hornet and Vampire on the way. Too often when talking about the "almost" made it stuff Germany and/or Japan had people forget about the Allies stuff that also almost made it or was on the way.
-
Stoney, I'm not really trying to prove anything, I'm just trying to figure out what the Ki-84's true potential was. If it was actually 427 mph, I'm not going to go to the Wishlist forum and ask for a 427 mph Frank, no, because our Ki-84 is fine AFAIK.
I'm just curious as to the Hayate's true potential, that is all. So far 've actually found no documentation at all supporting the figure, but it is possible that the US tested the Frank as I saw a photo of a Frank with U.S. markings as mentioned... not true evidence, but it raises a few questions.
-
SgtPappy,
The US did test the Ki-84 post war. I seem to recall that the one that was tested is the one that was returned to Japan in the 1970s. As I recall, it was the last flyable Ki-84.
-
And there's no test data on it?
-
Not sure. Data may have been lost.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
...so I don't understand what you're asking to be proven.
I was talking about Pappy's post that the "Ki-84 should [emphasis added] be faster than the F4U..."
My point overall here is that there are aerodynamic factors in play that (1) should be used to make these types of determinations or (2) if the data to do #1 are not available, then its really a weak opinion.
I'm not trying to denegrate anyone here. Pappy, you seem to express a true desire to understand what makes these planes behave the way they do. My point is merely to help you make informed opinions. I probably should have worded things a little less bluntly in order to remove any perception that I was being condescending or rude. I do not know all of the answers--I stalk this board to try and find them just as you guys do.
I enjoy these discussions probably more than anything else on these forums, so I don't want to indirectly shut them down by being a jack-a**.
Cheers,
-
Sry bout that Karnak.
"What I object to is the idea that sites like Luft46 give uninformed people that Germany or Japan had things that were about to see service that were far in advance of anything the Allies had and that just isn't true.
I certainly agree with you on that. While some of the new types were certainly interesting and would have probably seen limited use their effect would have been, at best, negligible. Pretty much like ME262. Interesting but in practice very vulnerable piece of machinery in that strategic and tactical situation they were used in.
***
"I was talking about Pappy's post that the "Ki-84 should [emphasis added] be faster than the F4U..."
"My point overall here is that there are aerodynamic factors in play that (1) should be used to make these types of determinations or (2) if the data to do #1 are not available, then its really a weak opinion."
I'm interested of what you people think why Ki84 could not be as fast as Corsair?
Less power yes, but Frank was also smaller and lighter. So does it come down to what was the 84's engine's critical height of operation? If you consider that it could be tuned to operate a bit higher the Ki84 would be in the same ballpark with D model?
-C+
-
I'm interested of what you people think why Ki84 could not be as fast as Corsair?
As am I.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
I was talking about Pappy's post that the "Ki-84 should [emphasis added] be faster than the F4U..."
My point overall here is that there are aerodynamic factors in play that (1) should be used to make these types of determinations or (2) if the data to do #1 are not available, then its really a weak opinion.
I'm not trying to denegrate anyone here. Pappy, you seem to express a true desire to understand what makes these planes behave the way they do. My point is merely to help you make informed opinions. I probably should have worded things a little less bluntly in order to remove any perception that I was being condescending or rude. I do not know all of the answers--I stalk this board to try and find them just as you guys do.
I enjoy these discussions probably more than anything else on these forums, so I don't want to indirectly shut them down by being a jack-a**.
Cheers,
It's not that it seemed harsh, it only seemed like you were suggesting my Ki-84 performance assumption was a whine, but no worries, I'm just clearing up what I'm really here for.
-
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.
-
Actually, between 5000-10,000 no WEP, and ~2500-7500 with WEP the Ki-84 IS faster than the 1D and 1C by a slim (may as well be nonexistent) margin.
However the Birdcage, 1A, and -4 are no contest.
Though even if the Frank operated at peak possible performance based on the design on paper, she would have still been pwnt by the 4Hog. :D
-
"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?"
Interesting points. My thoughts about those:
Airfoil is a significant factor in determining drag but even with completely same airfoil but smaller you will have less drag. The airfoil lift coefficient can be a two bladed sword in high speed. The more asymmetric the airfoil is the more it may need negative AoA to get l e s s lift from it in high speed and then the airfoil starts to cause more drag, that is why a symmetric airfoil is better for high speed since you can control the amount of lift with very little changes in AoA. The best result would probably be nearly 0deg airfoil angle (if the weigth permits) at the same height where the engine has its second FTH (highest) combining lowest drag with best power.
Washout can probably have negative effects too. Consider an FW190 going full speed and its wing root profile is in 0 deg angle to airflow. It will have its wing tips -2 deg against the airflow. I don't think that is necessarily good drag-wise. It can be but I have a feeling it mostly doesn't. So the point is what amount of lift can a specific part of wing area produce at certain speed with the airfoil shape in question? If the 0 deg angle lift overcomes the weight of the a/c it will begin ascending and it will need negative AoA to stay level. I do not know if this happens in any WW2 a/c, even Spitfire with its huge wing area (it has washout too). A smaller wing may need more positive AoA at engines too high alt FTH pretty much negating to effects of increased power.
Flat plate drag area also needs to take into account the angle in which the opposing surfaces are to airflow. With this I mean that a coin can have smaller flatplate area but more drag than a slightly bigger ball giving different drag figures.
Considering the speed i don't think the trim has any significance unless it clearly tries to force the plane into attitude it does not want to be in and that usually happens in very slow speed, although possible also in high speed if you need to force the a/c into other attitude than it naturally tries to remain.
I'm not sure what you mean with engine baffling other than the air bleed from inside the cowling to outside and that depends on how much cooling the engine needs at given speed. I'd bet that in most cases the more flow through the engine the more drag. If the cooling louvers are closed the cooling air pretty much churns inside the cowling but causes less drag. So in a way yes the cooling efficiency of the baffling dictates the need to open the louvers which would increase drag.
Propellor, of course has a huge effect. If the propeller is inefficient there is no use in increasing the power as the performance may even decrease if the force does not transfer to surrounding air.
I have often wondered how much drag radials actually have from drag calculation point of view and come into initial conclusion that as long as the propeller rotates and disturbs the air flow in the center of the engine the drag is rather low (not as low as in inline engines of course), but if the propeller stops the drag rises dramatically and thus they are quite hard to calculate for static models.
But as it was said there is not enough data to make further conclusions. It is just that the speed figures seem to support the conclusion that with slightly higher FTH the Ki84 could keep up with Corsair for what ever the reason.
-C+
-
Though that's good reasoning, I guess we'll never know if the Ki-84 could perform like a Hog until there's some hard data, similar to the ones on aircraft conditions, weights, fuel used etc.
-
Wow Widewing you sure know your stuff about these planes , I learned alot about the KI 84 just reading some of these things and seeing the stats , Thank you sir :aok
As Always A Nutte
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/ki84-perfdata2.jpg)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/KI84Hayate0002.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I haven't seen anything to support 437 mph... maybe 425 mph, sans ammo, paint and highly polished, with a perfectly tuned motor running fuel that the Japanese didn't have.
How does higher grade fuel increases performance of an engine, running at mil (or WEP) power which was designed to run on fuel Japanese did have?
-
Originally posted by Charge
"Japan had no miracle wonder fighters about to come out at the end and turn the thing. Neither did Germany."
I didn't say that the Japanese had wonder weapons I said they had some advanced designs in the works. Nor did I say it would have mattered. My statement was just on how advanced the Axis designs were. Germany did have a number of aircraft that could have flown much earlier , there are tons of books on that subject. There was even more advanced aircraft on the drawing board and with a little R&R they would have even out classed their current designs.The Bell X-5 was a US test plane based on geometry wings that was totally a German design and in fact is identical to the US X-5 in almost every way. The Flying wing was another design started by the Horton brothers and was flying at wars end, not in operational service but flying .The US F-86 wings were of German design as were the Mig 15's. So saying that German didn't have advanced aircraft that would have gone into production is unwarranted. They may not have changed anything by that stage of the war has nothing to do with the fact that those planes were way out in front of US designs that were on the drawing board. The German's also had intercontinental missiles that would have saw service if the war had gone on for another year. The F8, P-51 H and all the other late designs and modifications that the US had at wars end would have been totally out classed if these German planes had seen combat. Again they may not have had the pilots to fly them to make much difference. My statement was originally in defense of bringing out other Axis aircraft that
would have added a little flavor to the game rather that another Spit or other variant of an existing plane.
-
Thanks Milo!
Are those the Japanese texts from which the Americans made their copy? I have the same doc, but I can't read Japanese :D
-
Don't know Pappy for the Japanese doc starts with 1946, so would guess it is American data.
The Flying wing was another design started by the Horton brothers and was flying at wars end, not in operational service but flying .
BigPlay ever hear of an American named Northrop? Check out his B-35.
-
Are those the Japanese texts from which the Americans made their copy? I have the same doc, but I can't read Japanese
Actually, the Japanese document is of one Nakano Yoshiharu, and starts; "In , printed in July of 1946.... " .. and then the scan gets gritty and my eyes are strained.
So, the article is actually quoting the US Navy's testings.
-
Ah I see.
Is there any way to calculate the Ki-84's actual top speed with the vast knowledge we have on aircraft today?
There must be a database with the Ki-84's dimensions, NACA root/tip, engine specs etc. Now I just have to find them. I cannot rest until I know the Ki-84's true top speed!
-
Just a note: some info on Nakajima engines, including the Homare, can be had from the SAE paper 881610 "Engine Fuels and Lubrication Systems at Nakajima Aircraft Co. from 1936-1945" by Dr. Nagakawa Ryoichi (Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.) and Mizutani Sotaro (Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.). I found the copied paper while looking for a replacement plug for my headphones in a drawer!
-
haha what a great place to find something helpful. Thanks for the reference.
Another thing we could find out is what other tests were made during the same period as the Ki-84 testing and if these tests produced fantastic results that do not reflect the actual results.
-
That particular KI 84 (On the tests) seems to perform closely to a Spit VIII of the era (well, Spit VIII is older) where in those conditions (BurmaIndia) the Mk VIII is recorded as a 420 mph aircraft with ROC to 20K being 5 minutes...
-
"can be had from the SAE paper 881610 "Engine Fuels and Lubrication Systems at Nakajima Aircraft Co. from 1936-1945" by Dr. Nagakawa Ryoichi (Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.) and Mizutani Sotaro (Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.)."
Thats nice info! Where can this document be found?
-C+
-
Also, gotta know one thing.
I'm finding various claims in different sources: What month in 1944 did the Ki-84 enter service?
Most sources say August, but that's a combat debut date and I'm not sure if it entered service and fought in that same month. Other sources say June and other say as early as April 1944.
-
There's something should be paid attention first.
1. Ha-45 engine was designed for 100 octane fuel, more octane than 100 can't get more power.
2. After 22th Sentai's experimental combat flight at China front, Japanese realized Ki-84 need high octane fuel to make the complicated Ha-45 engine operating well . Later,ki84 units could always receive better fuel(100 in Philippine/92-95 homeland) than other units which used Ki-43/44 or 61(87-91 octane).
3. Ki-84-1a was installed the same engine with ki-84-1b,but early Ha-45-21 rpm was limited(only 1800hp) due to some production problems and safety concerned. That's our 624 km/hr Ki-84-1a. However, early Ki-84 only had one external fuel tank/bomb rack at central fuselage like the famous photo below:
Watching its lower central fuselage and compare to others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ki-84.jpg)
4. In light of former imperial army officer's memory,the late full horsepower Ki-84 reached 660km/hr in Japanese official flight test,unfortunately no documents remain.
5. U.S. testing ki84 wasn't full loaded and painted.
Then,choose the truth you want to believe:)
-
Interesting CPW. 660kmph (410mph) is right about where I'd think the absolute fastest the Japanese might have gotten the Ki-84 would be.
-
"Then,choose the truth you want to believe"
:p
So many truths around ...can make up my mind...
-C+
-
haha, well that's interesting stuff, CPW. Where did you manage to find that information?
I also read somewhere that the Ha-42-21's being produced in wartime were also, like the airframe, of relative poor quality. It was meant to produce extra power but most of the Homare engines were built in such a way that they had to be modified to run with the 100/130 grade octane the U.S. was using.
I could be wrong, I'll look up the source from where I found it.
-
1. Ha-45 engine was designed for 100 octane fuel, more octane than 100 can't get more power.
I'm not so sure how accurate that is. Car engines can produce more power w/ higher octane fuel so why couldn't a radial aircraft engine do so as well? Both are internal combustion engines.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
haha, well that's interesting stuff, CPW. Where did you manage to find that information?
I also read somewhere that the Ha-42-21's being produced in wartime were also, like the airframe, of relative poor quality. It was meant to produce extra power but most of the Homare engines were built in such a way that they had to be modified to run with the 100/130 grade octane the U.S. was using.
I could be wrong, I'll look up the source from where I found it.
I bought some books and learned some Japanese:D
Actually from a Japanese military magazine which publicated in 1950-60s,the most serious problem on ki-84 was landing gear and hadn't described about any engine failure. So, it may solved before war end.
Originally posted by Elfie
I'm not so sure how accurate that is. Car engines can produce more power w/ higher octane fuel so why couldn't a radial aircraft engine do so as well? Both are internal combustion engines.
I searched for this in Japanese , Chinese and English webs, and they told the same answer.
For instance from IL-2 sturmovik game web:
For the case of the Ki-84 engine , the fact that you use higher octane fuel on it doesn't change anything AFAIK , it's still the same rate of air/fuel mix injected in less than 1 second going in the carburator , same rate of compression ..... it really doesn't change anything because the engine is not designed to accept higher octane fuel , engines need a minimum octane indice , but using a higher octane than what the engine has been designed for is useless , trust me this is for sure :rofl
link:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4881000825
----------------------------
Besides,octane too high would cause some problems(from WWII aircraft net):
Problems associated with the use of 150 grade fuel.
150 grade fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html)
P-38
Spark plug leading was increased. The extent of this leading was such that plug change was required after approximately 15 hours flying. This conditions was aggravated considerably by low cruising powers used to and from target areas, while trying to get the maximum range possible. It was found, however, that regular periods of high power running for a minute of two in most cases smoothed out any rough running engines unless the cause was other than leading.
P-51
The same type of lead fouling as described in a and b above happened in the case of the P-51 except that is was probably more serious than in either of the other two types. Using 130 grade fuel with 4?cc. of lead, the average operational P-51 could last 5 missions (roughly 25 hours) before the fouling required plug change. With 150 grade fuel containing 6 cc. of lead, 10 to 12 hours, or normally 2 missions, was the average length of time between spark plug changes or cleaning. At various times in the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft on 150 grade fuel many other maintenance difficulties were attributed to the fuel, but final analysis proved that the only real effect of the fuel was the lead fouling. Some units maintained that they had some deteriorations of seals, but this was not borne our throughout the command, nor was there any concrete evidence that it existed in the units.
The excessive fouling of spark plugs usually exhibited itself in roughing up of engines after a couple of hours of low power cruising. Periodic bursts of high power in most cases smoothed the engine out. However, if the engine was allowed to go too long a period without being cleaned out, the accumulation of lead bromide globules successfully withstood any attempts to blow them out. In some instances, long periods of idling while waiting for take-off and a failure to use high power on take off resulted in loss of power during take-off run and in some cases caused complete cutting out with subsequent belly landing. The cases of cutting-out on take-off definitely attributed to excessive fouling were comparatively few, although numerous enough to list it as an effect of the extra lead.
As a result of several months operational use with the fuel, an SOP ?designed to reduce power failures on take-off, leading troubles in flight, and other things which were causing early returns and abortive aircraft ?was published. This is inclosure no. 1. Almost immediately after this section published this SOP practically all of the troubles then existing ceased, although it was necessary to change plugs after each two missions or thereabouts.
P-47
Spark plug fouling was the only maintenance difficulty encountered during the period in which 150 grade fuel was used. Spark plug life was reduced by about 50%, the same low power cruising as described above being the principle cause for the extra fouling. No deleterious effects on diaphragms, fuel hose or any other rubber of synthetic rubber materials were noted.
-
Just putting in higher octane gasoline does not really increase power but might in some cases even decrease it.
Using higher octane fuel you can increase supercharger pressure and advance ignition timing. It is another matter how easily this is done in some particular machine. Maybe just changing the pressure regulating spring to a stiffer one and manually adjusting the distributor timing heads if supercharger can support higher pressure without need to changing it to a bigger one. However some machines may run out of cooling surface so that overheating will destroy the engine if there is no larger radiators installed. Usually it also requires different plugs which are coated with special alloys to withstand increased temperatures or they need to be able to dissipate more heat to the base from the ignition heads so that they do not themselves cause premature detonation.
If the engine is designed ONLY for use of 100 octane and everything is optimized to support only that amount of power and heat (and its dissipation) just putting in higher octane gas and increasing charger pressure is just asking for problems and low serviceability rate.
-C+
-
Don't know Pappy for the Japanese doc starts with 1946, so would guess it is American data.
BigPlay ever hear of an American named Northrop? Check out his B-35.
Yah I've heard of Jack Northrop, I met his son at an air show that the N9B flew at. However the Horton brothers were the first to get the wing design flying not Mr. Northrop.
-
Since this was bumped, I'll reply.
Charge: Often it's a matter of simple changes. P51s and P47s using 150 octane changed out spark plugs. Bf109s simply changed some timer somewhere, swapped out the plugs, and all of a sudden were using 1.98 ata instead of 1.8 ata. It's not that the gas alone improves performance, but the gas allows greater MAP (throttle) settings.
On the Ho229:
Forget the post war Northrop wings, look earlier. In the late '30s they built the N-1M flying wing.
In the early 1930s a guy named Freeling in San Franciso built a small flying wing model and then later a full scale model and flew it. I didn't know about this one until I saw it on Wiki.
Junkers had a model in 1918 or so for a flying wing transport, and started construction, only to have it destroyed for violating the end-of-war treaties (size limitations). This one I heard about before checking wiki ;)
You'll note the one prototype for the Ho 229 crashed in Feb 1945 after about 2 hours of flight time, due to an engine fire and only one other prototype was even close to completion as alies over-ran the factories.
EDIT: Just ran across this after posting:
"Many of those who were actually building the Ho IX doubted that it would have ever flown successfully anyway."
from www.centennialofflight.gov (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/flying_wing/Tech8.htm)
-
Since this is still here...
Does anyone know if the U.S. tested Ki-84 needed some kind of modification to the engine or something else in order to hit the mythical performance figure of 427 mph?
-
"Many of those who were actually building the Ho IX doubted that it would have ever flown successfully anyway."
from www.centennialofflight.gov (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/flying_wing/Tech8.htm)
Yet it did. Though not with jet engines.
-
Yet it did. Though not with jet engines.
One might take that (most might take that) to mean it wasn't a success....
-
On the Ho229:
Forget the post war Northrop wings, look earlier. In the late '30s they built the N-1M flying wing.
In the early 1930s a guy named Freeling in San Franciso built a small flying wing model and then later a full scale model and flew it. I didn't know about this one until I saw it on Wiki.
Junkers had a model in 1918 or so for a flying wing transport, and started construction, only to have it destroyed for violating the end-of-war treaties (size limitations). This one I heard about before checking wiki ;)
You'll note the one prototype for the Ho 229 crashed in Feb 1945 after about 2 hours of flight time, due to an engine fire and only one other prototype was even close to completion as alies over-ran the factories.
EDIT: Just ran across this after posting:
"Many of those who were actually building the Ho IX doubted that it would have ever flown successfully anyway."
from www.centennialofflight.gov (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/flying_wing/Tech8.htm)
[/quote]
Here is a better website and a clip of some of it's verbage. It indicates that an engine stall caused the crash, not an engine fire and was said to have flown sucessfully.
Now the only Horten 229 to ever fly were the Horten 229 V2 prototype that were powered by two Jumo 004 jet engines. It was a successfull aircraft, but after a rough landing it were grounded until repairs have been made, but after the repairs were made the test pilot Erwin Ziller ignored the orders of the Horten brothers not to fly until they were there he did it anyway and that proved to be his last flight. The aircraft stalled and crashed killing him and destroying the only powered Horten 229 prototype. This meant that the Horten brothers had to wait even longer to be able to get things properly up and running.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/horton-brothers-flying-wings-3618.html
-
Here is the story of the whole project. This is from the NASM website that also had interviews with the Horten brothers about their work, It is also on tape, their explanation for not restoring the Horten 229 V3 is that they are waiting for their new facility to be completed, this will all in all take 7 years.
Quote:
In 1943 the all-wing Horten 229 promised spectacular performance and the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) chief, Hermann Göring, allocated half-a-million Reich Marks to the brothers Reimar and Walter Horten to build and fly several prototypes. Numerous technical problems beset this unique design and the only powered example crashed after several test flights but the airplane remains one of the most unusual combat aircraft tested during World War II. (Note to the reader: Horten used roman numerals to identify his designs and he followed the German aircraft industry practice of using 'Versuch,' literally test or experiment, numbers to describe pre-production prototypes built to test and develop a new design into a production airplane. The Horten IX design became the Horten Ho 229 aircraft program after Göring granted the project official status in 1943 and the technical office of the Reichsluftfahrtministerium assigned to it the design number 229. This is also the nomenclature used in official German documents).
The idea for the Horten IX grew first in the mind of Walter Horten when he was serving in the Luftwaffe as a fighter pilot engaged in combat in 1940 during the Battle of Britain. Horten was the technical officer for Jadgeschwader (fighter squadron) 26 stationed in France. The nature of the battle and the tactics employed by the Germans spotlighted the design deficiencies of the Messerschmitt Bf 109, Germany 's most advanced fighter airplane at that time. The Luftwaffe pilots had to fly across the English Channel or the North Sea to fulfill their missions – escorting German bombers and attacking British fighters – and Horten watched his unit lose many men over hostile territory at the very limit of the airplane's combat radius. Often after just a few minutes flying in combat, the Germans frequently had to turn back to their bases or run out of fuel and this lack of endurance severely limited their effectiveness. The Messerschmitt was also vulnerable because it had just a single engine. One bullet could puncture almost any part of the cooling system and when this happened, the engine could continue to function for only a few minutes before it overheated and seized up. Walter Horten came to believe that the Luftwaffe needed a new fighter designed with performance superior to the Spitfire, Britain's most advanced fighter. The new airplane required sufficient range to fly to England, loiter for a useful length of time and engage in combat, and then return safely to occupied Europe. He understood that only a twin-engine aircraft could give pilots a reasonable chance of returning with substantial battle damage or even the loss of one engine.
Since 1933, and interrupted only by military service, Walter and Reimar had experimented with all-wing aircraft. With Walter's help, Reimar had used his skills as a mathematician and designer to overcome many of the limitations of this exotic configuration. Walter believed that Reimar could design an all-wing fighter with significantly better combat performance than the Spitfire. The new fighter needed a powerful, robust propulsion system to give the airplane great speed but also one that could absorb damage and continue to function. The Nazis had begun developing rocket, pulse-jet, and jet turbine configurations by 1940 and Walter's role as squadron technical officer gave him access to information about these advanced programs. He soon concluded that if his brother could design a fighter propelled by two small and powerful engines and unencumbered by a fuselage or tail, very high performance was possible.
At the end of 1940, Walter shared his thoughts on the all-wing fighter with Reimar who fully agreed with his brother's assessment and immediately set to work on the new fighter. Fiercely independent and lacking the proper intellectual credentials, Reimar worked at some distance from the mainstream German aeronautical community. At the start of his career, he was denied access to wind tunnels due to the cost but also because of his young age and lack of education, so he tested his ideas using models and piloted aircraft. By the time the war began, Reimar actually preferred to develop his ideas by building and testing full-size aircraft. The brothers had already successfully flown more than 20 aircraft by 1941 but the new jet wing would be heavier and faster than any previous Horten design. To minimize the risk of experimenting with such an advanced aircraft, Reimar built and tested several interim designs, each one moderately faster, heavier, or more advanced in some significant way than the one before it.
Reimar built the Horten V b and V c to evaluate the all-wing layout when powered by twin engines driving pusher propellers. He began in 1941 to consider fitting the Dietrich-Argus pulse jet motor to the Horten V but this engine had drawbacks and in the first month of 1942, Walter gave his brother dimensioned drawings and graphs that charted the performance curves of the new Junkers 004 jet turbine engine (this engine is also fitted to these NASM aircraft: Messerschmitt Me 262, Arado Ar 234, and the Heinkel He 162). Later that year, Reimar flew a new design called the Horten VII that was similar to the Horten V but larger and equipped with more powerful reciprocating engines. The Horten VI ultra-high performance sailplane also figured into the preliminary aerodynamic design of the jet flying wing after Reimar tested this aircraft with a special center section.
Walter used his personal connections with important officials to keep the idea of the jet wing alive in the early stages of its development. General Ernst Udet, Chief of Luftwaffe Procurement and Supply and head of the Technical Office “was the man who protected this idea and followed this idea” for the all-wing fighter for almost a year until Udet took his own life in November 1941. At the beginning of 1943, Walter heard Göring complain that Germany was fielding 17 different types of twin-engine military airplanes with similar, and rather mediocre, performance but parts were not interchangeable between any two designs. He decreed that henceforth he would not approve for production another new twin-engine airplane unless it could carry 1,000 kg (2,210 lb) of bombs to a ‘penetration depth' of 1,000 km (620 miles, penetration depth defined as 1/3 the range ) at a speed of 1,000 km/h (620 mph). Asked to comment, Reimar announced that only a warplane equipped with jet engines had a chance to meet those requirements.
In August Reimar submitted a short summary of an all-wing design that came close to achieving Göring's specifications. He issued the brothers a contract, and then demanded the new aircraft fly in 3 months! Reimar responded that the first Horten IX prototype could fly in six months and Göring accepted this schedule after revealing his desperation to get the new fighter in the air with all possible speed. Reimar believed that he had boosted the Reichsmarschall's confidence in his work after he told him that his all-wing jet bomber was based on data obtained from bona fide flight tests with piloted aircraft.
Official support had now been granted to the first all-wing Horten airplane designed specifically for military applications but the jet bomber that the Horten brothers began to design was much different from the all-wing pure fighter that Walter had envisioned nearly four years earlier as the answer to the Luftwaffe's needs for a long-range interceptor. Hencefourth, the official designation for airplanes based on the Horten IX design changed to Horten Ho 229 suffixed with ‘Versuch' numbers to designate the various prototypes.
Hope this helps
-
Some rather biased wording/language there....
Anyways, that puts to bed the propoganda that the Nothrop designs were directly taken from the Ho229.
However, the original design was dreamed up by somebody with no education in the matter. Keep that in mind. A lot of odd designs can fly, but I promise you it was no super weapon, it was not some 1000km plane, and it would not have flown better than a spitfire (HAH!!)
Those guys were totally dreaming. The world needs dreamers, but the hype they receive after-the-fact is about as bad as the He162's hype, and the Do335's hype, and any other luft '46 plane's hype. It's an odd phenomenon, but there's this cult of exaggeration on all luft '46 designs.
-
Those are not my words, there from the mentioned website. Who cares if it was no better than a spit at that point. It had far greater potential than any piston driven aircraft had and if the war had continued I'm sure a capible version would have show up. By the end of WW2 piston driven aircraft had reached it's zenith as far as performance went. The U.S. did try to advance piston driven performance and only could get so far. The jet airplane was the future and the germans had the edge. I also didn't say the Horton brothers came up with the design either. I said they were the first to get a flying jet version off the ground.
P.S. I spoke with Adolf Dickfield who flew the He162 in combat and scored a victory on a P-47. He liked the plane but said the problem was with the glue that was used.He said he barely landed the plane after that sortie because the glue was failing and plywood was pealing off the plane. If you remember the allies bombedthe factory that made the special glue that was to be used on all wooden built aircraft. The factory was destroyed alongwith all the sceintist and the glue formula. The germans were never able to reproduce the glue again.
-
I also didn't say the Horton brothers came up with the design either. I said they were the first to get a flying jet version off the ground.
No you didn't.
The Flying wing was another design started by the Horton brothers and was flying at wars end, not in operational service but flying .
No mention of jet power.
-
Those guys were totally dreaming. The world needs dreamers, but the hype they receive after-the-fact is about as bad as the He162's hype, and the Do335's hype, and any other luft '46 plane's hype. It's an odd phenomenon, but there's this cult of exaggeration on all luft '46 designs.
The whole "never know what those mad German scientists are going to throw at us" makes great dramatization, comic book fair(The Red Skull!), and historical(hysterical?) speculation on the History channel about the Germans being an inch from taking over the world with nuclear armed bombers with the range to strike America.
BTW, practically everything at luft46.com is ugly, jet-powered, or impossible except this http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwbmw802.html (http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwbmw802.html) hot little number. The Krauts obviously derived it from the Corsair of course (Or was the Corsair derived from it, I forget how it is supposed to work?) :D
-
One might take that (most might take that) to mean it wasn't a success....
Then "one" or "most" would be dimwitted. The war ended before the jet prototype was completed.
-
No you didn't.
No mention of jet power.
OK who got their wing flying before them ? Please don't relive the flight of the Phoenix, models don't count. I went back and checked my past post, your right no mention of jet powered.
-
The whole "never know what those mad German scientists are going to throw at us" makes great dramatization, comic book fair(The Red Skull!), and historical(hysterical?) speculation on the History channel about the Germans being an inch from taking over the world with nuclear armed bombers with the range to strike America.
BTW, practically everything at luft46.com is ugly, jet-powered, or impossible except this http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwbmw802.html (http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwbmw802.html) hot little number. The Krauts obviously derived it from the Corsair of course (Or was the Corsair derived from it, I forget how it is supposed to work?) :D
Remember one thing...... there would not have been a space program if it weren't for Werner Von Braun and his team. Just like the Russian's wouldn't have had one either. Now would we read about them in the DC or Marvel comic books.