Thumpalumpacus
Major
Why'dya say anything?!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And there is a sinkhole waiting just where you front step used to be
I get that there's only so much that you can do in that regard, and I get that I was acting like it's way simpler to fix CoG issues than it actually is. But generally, when you're forced to add ballast to an engineering project that desires low weight, you need to ask if the performance gains being made are worth it. IF the Ha-140 were a mature engine, and had acceptable reliability, then maybe it would have been worth the risk, as a 1,500hp engine with low frontal area. But it was not mature, and as such, there was little room for pilots to USE that extra power even if the aircraft DIDN'T need to make massive sacrifices in order to house the engine. So in practice, the only real benefit of the Ki-61-II was in maximum level speed, which was still only decent, and it suffered in maneuverability, reliability, and received little benefit to climb rate, due to the increase in weight balancing out the power gains.I don't know if you know anything about weight and balance but you can't effectively start adding weight, (be it ballast or armor plate) unless that weight can be installed along the "arm" where the C/G can be maintained within the C/G envelope and can be supported structurally within the aircraft. The other key is to install that ballast in a place within the arm so you use the least amount of weight possible. Using fuel to keep and aircraft within a C/G envelope is dangerous unless there is a method to burn off or transfer fuel in such a manner that the C/G envelope can be maintained. You also have to consider what is going to happen to the C/G after any armament is expelled.
Aside from the what you're saying and the poor performance of this engine, there's still a lot of thought and consideration when placing ballast on an aircraft. In some cases ballast placement and the few extra pounds that came along with it made the aircraft perform better. If I recall, the Spitfire Mk IX had almost 90 pounds of ballast in the tail. Now if you can make armor plate work for you as ballast, that's a plus, but it like hoping planets and stars align in your favor.I get that there's only so much that you can do in that regard, and I get that I was acting like it's way simpler to fix CoG issues than it actually is. But generally, when you're forced to add ballast to an engineering project that desires low weight, you need to ask if the performance gains being made are worth it.
No, it's all good and you probably have valid points about the Ki-61.Yeah, in hindsight that was me talking about of my ass. I DO Still argue that, in the case of the Ki-61-II, it was among the little things that added up as red flags to say "This new engine ain't it, chief". If water injection had been developed for the engine, then maybe the available power could have been enough to actually improve the climb rate. But as it stands, even the Ha-40 was a bit temperamental: this engine was simply never going to be worth the effort. Even the Kasei would have been a better choice, despite it ALSO being somewhat temperamental and likely requiring significant ballast to balance it out again
Yeah, in hindsight that was me talking about of my ass.
Yeah, in hindsight that was me talking about of my ass.
I'm used to being wrong.
I was married - twice...
Depending on when this was implemented, it could arguably be of greater importance than applying armor plate to the Zero, if only because making use of better pilot protection would requires a complete overhaul of the Japanese military's culture and view of the value of a serviceman's life: it doesn't matter if they survive to bail out or ditch, no one will be coming to save them.
Well, there is that point of view, but the other view is that the Japanese did apply better protection to their aircraft, the Allies just did it sooner. At the time of Pearl Harbor, not all the navy's F4Fs had self-sealing tanks. The early models rolled off the production line without them. Later models of A6M did have better protection, including self-sealing tanks. The problem/consideration (depending on which end of the telescope you wanna look down) was the specification to which the A6M was built versus the engines available. Nakajima deemed the specs too difficult and didn't even try, although the Ki-43 was a good fighter with similar performance, if not a naval aircraft. Because it took so long, as you know, to produce the A6M's replacement it was kept in service and upgraded beyond what was expected and beyond its useful life, so adding extra weight was definitely going to stifle its remarkable manoeuvrability while maintaining the performance it had with given engines.
Not being saved by their own people wasn't necessarily something the Japanese wanted, but it didn't really have the resources to do so, particularly as the war wore on and they began to lose territory - not every Japanese pilot was a Kamikaze, they did expect to survive, after all, why issue them with parachutes if they didn't?
Flotation bags were more of an inter-war thing for the RN/USN. Possibly an effort to save money back then by rescuing the aircraft. Although early F4Fs seem to have had them.I suspect to a certain extent that we are still victims of ww2 propaganda. The A6M had a built in flotation system our aircraft did not but the pilot/crew had a life jacket or life raft
A bachelor is a man who didn't make the same mistake once.I'm used to being wrong.
I was married - twice...
That's certainly correct, but the Japanese were still a bit too slow to recognize the value of a single pilot. The Armor plating and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks weren't the main problem: they were A concern, but as you mentioned, these weren't entirely standard issue at the time of the Zero's debut, and self-sealing fuel tanks compromise internal fuel storage space, limiting range. The larger problem was, again, in doctrine. This is more noticeable with the Japanese army (the infantry specifically), which was downright verbally and emotionally abusive. The Navy, in comparison, was far better at treating its men as human, but they were still prey to the idea that, for a country with high population density and limited resources, it was better to not risk spending all of your resources on them.Well, there is that point of view, but the other view is that the Japanese did apply better protection to their aircraft, the Allies just did it sooner. At the time of Pearl Harbor, not all the navy's F4Fs had self-sealing tanks. The early models rolled off the production line without them. Later models of A6M did have better protection, including self-sealing tanks. The problem/consideration (depending on which end of the telescope you wanna look down) was the specification to which the A6M was built versus the engines available. Nakajima deemed the specs too difficult and didn't even try, although the Ki-43 was a good fighter with similar performance, if not a naval aircraft. Because it took so long, as you know, to produce the A6M's replacement it was kept in service and upgraded beyond what was expected and beyond its useful life, so adding extra weight was definitely going to stifle its remarkable manoeuvrability while maintaining the performance it had with given engines.
Not being saved by their own people wasn't necessarily something the Japanese wanted, but it didn't really have the resources to do so, particularly as the war wore on and they began to lose territory - not every Japanese pilot was a Kamikaze, they did expect to survive, after all, why issue them with parachutes if they didn't?
That's certainly correct, but the Japanese were still a bit too slow to recognize the value of a single pilot. The Armor plating and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks weren't the main problem: they were A concern, but as you mentioned, these weren't entirely standard issue at the time of the Zero's debut, and self-sealing fuel tanks compromise internal fuel storage space, limiting range. The larger problem was, again, in doctrine. This is more noticeable with the Japanese army (the infantry specifically), which was downright verbally and emotionally abusive. The Navy, in comparison, was far better at treating its men as human, but they were still prey to the idea that, for a country with high population density and limited resources, it was better to not risk spending all of your resources on them.
'm not phrasing it very well, but I think you understand my point: Rifle caliber machine guns just aren't worth it in 1942.
I wonder what Japan would have built if they'd prioritized protection, firepower and speed over agility and endurance. Of course to build what is akin to a Japanese F4F-4, Mitsubishi needs a more powerful engine.Sure, the Japanese were slow to embody further protective measures into their aircraft compared to the Allies.
A MkII Spitfire or Bf109E-4I wonder what Japan would have built if they'd prioritized protection, firepower and speed over agility and endurance