mdiehl
Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
|
quote:
30mm cannons on F16's? You want me to take you seriously but you spout nonsense.
Pardon my typo. 20mm.
quote:
I am sorry if we were all totally wrong. Please forgive me.
Not "we," Ace, just you.
quote:
On sources.... I am not allowed to have an opinion on a book or author unless i am an author as well? That is a new rule, never heard that one. I won't go into what i have published.
It's called credibility. When you diss a peer-reviewed source you either have the adacemic cache (generally established by your own publication record on the subject) or you don't. But if you don't, the egg winds up on your face not on the target of your scorn. I'm curious, however, what HAVE you published? Again, since you use an internet alias, there's no way for me to know. If you are the magnificent expert that you claim to be, that I ought to believe YOU and not a guy who's published a number of books, then toot yer horn bubba. Let's have it. Why should I believe you over Donald? Why is your dismissal of a book he edited as "amateur" anything other than a smear?
quote:
If you don't know what NARA is just ask, its not a problem. The Far East Theater Interrogations after the war also included translation of everything the translators could get their hands on.
And, to reiterate, an interrogation transcript in which a Japanese engineer says orally or on paper that "once we had a Ki-84 go 430 mph" [or whatever] has almost no utility for me as an empirical fact. There's data and hearsay, and the two aren't the same quality of information.
quote:
So now you are admitting a US test of the Ki-84 post war with 100 octane fuel would get worse performance? But where did the 37mph come from then?
No, I'm saying that if the Ki-84 was designed for 87 octane and you fed it 100-103 octane you *might* get reduced efficiency on the order of 3%. As to where I got the number, I took 420 mph (which is more or less the post-war US maximum sustained speed of a Ki-84 flown by a US pilot), and multiplied it by 1.03 (to cover the fact that the 420 might not be the best speed of the a/c if the fuel mixture adversely affected performance). I do not, however, accept at face value any implication that the US fuel used in the post-war flight tests resulted in reduced efficiency, since just about every source on this matter attributes the post-war test speeds of the Ki-84 vis a vis the operational speeds of the Ki-84 to "better" US fuel.
quote:
The test i attended, including F2's & F16's, i was told was planned by an American Air Force officer to show the limitations of the high altitude, high speed, all missles, ignore your guns attitude was limiting the AirForce. So it was deliberate that the F16's only used missles.
Whose air force? The USAF flies with a mixed package armament that includes guns and missiles. This was the lesson learned in the early days of Viet Nam in which, IIRR, some US fighters were missile-only equipped. More to the point, since as you say the test was specifically a demonstration of how the LACK OF GUNS hurts a modern jet fighter in combat, there is darned near NOTHING about the test that serves as an analog for WW2 combat, because WW2 air to air combat was GUNS ONLY. In a gun-only circumstance, the aircraft that can go faster will control the fight in most circumstances and it will win in most circumstances.
quote:
This is what gets me, you seem to be fairly intelligent and then you make a comment like this. Of course the Ha-21 had a higher compression than the Sakae(?) in the early Zero. That does not mean the Ha-21 was up to the compression standards of the American engines. There is not just 2 compression choices, low & high.
Well, the HA-21 hasn't got appreciably more pistons than comparable US engines and it's a lighter engine. So, absent greater displacement (more pistons or bigger pistons), the only way the HA-21 is going to develop power output to rival US radial engines is by using comparable compression ratios. But, as I said, if you can establish that the Ha-21 did not use comparably high compression but, instead, used Miracle Max's Marvelous Oil or whatever to get higher output, I'm listening.
quote:
You have now admitted that 100 octane fuel would not give 37mph.
It might. It depends on the compression ratios used by the Ha-21. If the Ha-21 was designed for better fuel (for whatever reason) than the Japanese could produce in 1944-1945 then it might indeed develop an extra 37 mph just by using US fuel.
quote:
Known quantity: residual thrust augmentation added, pre production aircraft gain 9-10mph over prototypes.
You mean the individual exaust stack configuration, to put it into plain language.
quote:
My educated assumption is 401-402 ... Unknown quantity: actual air speed loaded of the production Ki-84.
NOT unknown. You just don't believe the 388-392 range that just about everybody uses as the actual operational max w.e.p. speed of a prodcution Ki-84 in combat.
quote:
What we do know is i read in one paragraph at NARA that the Ki-84-2 flew at 20K feet 415mph. And the Japanese designers felt the plane would lose 5mph for the added weight of a wooden tail.
AND, to be clear, I do NOT believe what you read. It's hearsay, even if it is in NARA. I'll take the 388-392 mph figure that about everybody uses, and I'll accept at face value the claim that the US post-war tests of the Ki-84 resulted in greater speeds because US fuel was better.
quote:
Francillon, Gustin, Donaldson, et al list one speed; 392mph. That seems to be a prototype speed.
Why assume this is a "prototype speed" given that ....
quote:
Before you all call me a liar again, many Japanese documents were destroyed in the '44 earthquake and in the fire bombing.
... as you have noted, there is no credible data from the Japanese sources other than a "one-off" anecdote in NARA? One quip is not a substantive basis for rewriting the history of the aircraft, much less for positing a whole fleet of "production" a.c. that peformed better than most people claim?
quote:
There are many things we just don't have documentary evidence for anylonger.
I agree. Maybe it helps you to understand my take on this: if you have a set of data that says "the value of felgercarb is X" and one hint, elsewhere, that says "the value of felgercarb is X+40," it does not follow that "X+40 is the correct value because we have no other data, other than the data that we have, that allow us to determine that felgercarb is NOT X+40." The bulk of the empirical evidence available indicates that the Ki-84 topped out at 388-392 mph as deployed by the Japanese. That works for me.
quote:
Known quantity: An American after the war flew a Ki-84 at 427mph. Altitude, unknown, armament unknown.
I can fill in some of that for you. Altitude 20,000 feet.
quote:
My feeling is that the production Ki-84-1b with the type 21 flew loaded at 20k feel at about 415mph. Maybe a bit less, maybe a hair more.
It is a "feeling." You're entitled to it. I see no emprical reason to believe it. At least not on the basis of anything that you have said here or that I have read elsewhere.
_____________________________
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
RE: Ki-84 - 
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