Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It's always good to question sources. However, Francillon's book is still considered the benchmark when discussing Japanese WWII aircraft mainly because he did search out official Japanese documents whenever possible. In addition, Nakajima Ki-84 a/b Hayate in Japanese Army Air Force Service (Bueschel) reiterates these same performance stats and his book had a multitude of aviation researchers involved, many of whom were of Japanese descent. So I suspect that this data is as accurate as humanly possible.2. The Fancillon data is for the prototypes, which lacked thrust augmentation exhaust stacks, used an unspecified fuel type (probably 92 octane), had 1,800 HP engines (as you mentioned), used an unknown test methodology, etc... So these are not indicative of actual performance either. Also, I could not find any of Francillon's sources. I'm not sure where he got his data from.
To achieve the rated 2,000 hp water injection would definitely be required. Furthermore, because of the poor quality of Japanese fuels it was common to utilize it for even lower power levels to reduce detonation.Where does methanol water injection fit into all of this? The Ki.84 had it. It is the only explanation for the engine's rated BMEP.
Sounds like a really dumb policy, USSR was in much dire straits for most of the war and they didn't do that, not on that scale anyway, most of the soviet aircraft early problems seem to be factories not used or trained in producing the more advanced airframes.To elaborate on what Shinpachi mentioned, Japan's conscription policy did not exclude critical workers, such as skilled machinists and mechanics who would otherwise contribute to engine production. As a result, as the war progressed, engine quality fell off the map as critical skilled labor was rapidly replaced with child and newly trained workers.
Additionally, it's mentioned in multiple sources that the Homare ran best on 100 octane fuel. I'm not sure why that is because that implies it was designed from the outset to use 100 octane fuel.
But pretty much all of Japan's high horsepower engines were maintenance nightmares. If you look at the serviceability of planes with the Homare, the Kasei, or early model Tenzans (B6N1), they're all reported to be terrible. Why else would pilots prefer the Kinsei 64 over the Homare?
I think I have mentioned basic matters in my old thread "Data base Japanese aircraft engines."Shinpachi might know more.
That's all well and good but for the Japanese to get the expected performance from the Ki-84 (anything approaching 390 mph) the engine would require full obtainable horsepower so water injection would be utilized and that's what the discussion has been about.Folks in this discussion seem to be forgetting that the Japanese use of Water Methanol wasn't quite the same as that of other nations. They basically used it whenever the throttle settings were pushed over our equivalent of Maximum Continuous power.
Sounds like a really dumb policy, USSR was in much dire straits for most of the war and they didn't do that, not on that scale anyway, most of the soviet aircraft early problems seem to be factories not used or trained in producing the more advanced airframes.
It seems that you could be making too many assumptions and dismissing the information in the book out right, but of course this is your choice.DarrenW The problem with Bueschel's book is that while he has an acknowledgements section, he doesn't cite any sources as well and it appears he merely copied Fancillon's data without attribution, as far as I can tell. In his acknowledgements section, there's references to entities that did not exist at the time the book was written, such as the Nakajima aircraft company. IMO, there appears to be some degree of creative license and liberal attitudes toward sourcing in that book. But as it stands, it should not be seen as an authoritative source.
Also, it looks like most of the acknowledgements section refers to Japanese aviation magazines, US individuals, and Japanese individuals. These appear to be the sources of the photos in that book and not sources of data, as the names are associated with photos and never data. There are no in-text references, actually.
Again, the problem is not what Bueschel wrote but rather his lack of proper attribution. This is a major issue with aviation scholarship of that period: poor attribution.
I didn't mean to imply that Bueschel is some kind of Martin Caidin who would fabricate information. And you make a good point about Nakajima being the source of the records, although we don't know for certain (because it wasn't adequately sourced).It seems that you could be making too many assumptions and dismissing the information in the book out right, but of course this is your choice.
For instance, when Bueschel mentions Nakajimi he could be giving credit because he was sourcing company documents. Hideya Ando was present at the Tachikawa Army Aviation Maintenance School during the war so I would think he could have provided some valuable first-hand information on at least the testing of the prototype/pre-production Ki-84s. And a plausible reason for why his data matches Francillon's is that they sourced the SAME data.
Those providing photographs could also have technical data to offer which was relevant as well.
My belief is that when there is less than desired information out there concerning a subject (i.e. Japanese aircraft performance data) it's important to consider the published works of authors until we find enough conflicting information to the contrary (case in point, Martin Caidin). Lastly published works, especially when this book was written, are normally not referenced down to every factoid (such as we currently find in Wikipedia articles). This doesn't automatically equate to an author doing anything unscrupulous or twisting the facts to suit a particular narrative.
I apologize for misunderstanding you and agree with the premise of your argument. One thing for certain is that there's definitely more to be uncovered concerning the Frank and other Japanese WWII aircraft as well.I didn't mean to imply that Bueschel is some kind of Martin Caidin who would fabricate information. And you make a good point about Nakajima being the source of the records, although we don't know for certain (because it wasn't adequately sourced).
So while we can't throw his book out the window, I'm saying we can't treat it with the same weight as a primary source, a primary source being Nakajima, the designers, a pilot who flew the plane, etc.... By the way, I say this as someone who read and loved Bueschel's book.
In fact, my only criticism of his work is that it lacks adequate sourcing. Bueschel in general wrote high quality books, regardless of the plane. So his credibility is not in question. What's in question is where he got his information from. As it was not uncommon for aviation scholars of that era to get things wrong on occasion. I can point to dozens of errors in Francillon's book as an example.
Thanks for sharing those pages! It's great seeing a source from the 50s derived from the original designers' data. I would guess that this document is what informed most American aviation scholarship on the subject, including Bueschel and Francillon.The other Japanese publications are from "Bunrin-Do" one from 1971 the other from 1985, mostly same data.
Another in only Japanese only on the Ki-84 Published by "Model Art" 1997.
Finally, a Koku-FAN Illustrated No.92 from 1997 with maybe (I can't read Japanese) updated 2000.
If interested further, I can scan the specific performance data and post.