mdiehl
Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE] this already happened with Japanese aircraft that entered in production in the last year of the war, like the Ki-84, which was almost as good as the best US fighters, but which had poor production standards and high attrition level. [/QUOTE]
Well, if you call 60-100 mph slower, less durable, lower airspeed, ceiling, and dive rate "almost as good...." Seriosly, giving credit where due, the Ki-84 was a good make-up attempt. It was the equal of the F6F. It was nowhere near as good a plane as the F4U, P51, various late war UK aircraft, late-model P47s or P38s, the P63, etc., various late war German a/c (late variants of the FW190, and the TA152). The Ki-84 would have been a competitive aircraft in mid 1943. By the time it entered production, it was greatly outclassed.
The problem wasn't Japanese "craftsmanship" per se. It was conflicting requirements and a ocntinued confusion about the best characteristics of a fighter. Even in the late war Japanese a/c designers wer sacrificing robustness for lighter weight, hence the various landing gear problems. Related to that was the inability to design a first class high thrust-to-weight radial engine that could run on the mediocre gasoline used by Japan. This affected HP at all altitudes, and made high-altitude performance of Japanese a/c problematic throughout the war.
_____________________________
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
|
Printable Version
Couple factual errors here - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread