Out of interest, what bearing does 'your preference' have upon either the lesson of history, or the direct experience of pilots during the war?
I'm rapidly losing any bearing on the point of this thread.
I have expressed previously an urge to drop this topic, though there are still some small details to address, and some potential points that I forgot to add, such as bringing up actual combat experience—the elite pilots of the 343rd
Kokutai, even in N1K2-Js, experienced issues with fighting high-end American aircraft, at least according to previous threads on this forum, though their aircraft may have been in poor condition, as were the Spitfire Vcs in the 1943 Darwin Raid, according to accounts—but otherwise, I'm largely spent. The vast majority of reputable English-language sources I came across on the internet showed slower speeds for Japanese aircraft compared to contemporary European and American designs, if not in 1940, the Zero's debut, then certainly after 1943. Most English-language sources outside this forum presenting upper estimates for Japanese aircraft were dubious sources, say flight 'sims' like War Thunder, where realism would not be the utmost goal. However, all sources conclude that Japanese aircraft were highly maneuverable, and this apparent slow-speed high maneuverability dichotomy partially explains why I made this thread in the first place.
I'm a bit baffled, too.
The KI-84, N1K2-J and KI-100 were on a par with fighters made by any nation on earth at that point in time.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Inferior level flight speeds, especially for the Ki-100, though in dives and climb rates they were closer. Maneuverability was still good, but for how much longer? There's also their engines, which struggled at higher altitudes, and, in the case of the Homare, were unreliable. The strikingly awful record of these aircraft, with the successes of the Ki-100 in question, even with all the disadvantages of wartime Japan taken into account, cannot be dismissed outright.
This really depends a lot on exactly which model of P-47 and what boost they were using, maybe the propeller and other things. But I think the really, really fast P-47D variants (and the very late / end of the war P-47M and N) were pretty late in the game.
Looks like at the standard 56" Hg boost rating, P-47D10 wasn't any faster than an N1K1 at 6,000 meters, in fact maybe a bit slower. It's only at 65" Hg and 70" Hg that they seem to really pull ahead.
From what I've seen on the other thread you've made, you're relying on the flawed, war-time TAIC calculations for the N1K1-J. The Japanese manual for the N1K2-J, as provided by a user on this forum, shows a 611kph speed for the aircraft at altitude, though with a de-rated engine (and at military power) according to that same user, who then went on to claim that the fighter could have potentially achieved speeds approaching 650kph with emergency power, though his calculations for this were disputed.
Where the P-47 really shines is at very high altitude, 10,000 meters and more, which is very good for say, escorting heavy bombers (assuming the have the range) but is not where most combat took place in the Pacific Theater, Russia, or even quite often in Western Europe.
I will concede on this point.
Four 20mm cannon is probably a bit better than 8 x 12.7mm machine guns, or at least that seems to be the consensus around here.
I guess so.
The Energy-Maneuverability theory developed by Boyd would be a good way to compare aircraft in dogfights.
It seems like it would be suitable for comparisons between WWII aircraft from what I've heard, though I'm not intimately familiar with it.