Good stuff Rich! Nice pics too Eric.
Was the Bearcat as good as the Late War Japanese fighters?
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Very good read Rich.
BTW, anybody got 1.8M lying around?
http://www.controller.com/listings/...1103633&guid=2A669FA4387D4BC3A93D5AD26E0D3A3E
BTW, anybody got 1.8M lying around?
http://www.controller.com/listings/...1103633&guid=2A669FA4387D4BC3A93D5AD26E0D3A3E
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Thats strange, seeing how the Bearcat is an American made aircraft, not some Swedish POS......ozumn said:
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
No, but if Im not mistaken, and maybe R Leonard could shed some light, but wasnt each Bearcat sent off the production line with some big breasted Swedish bimbo rubbing her boobs on each cowling???
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
I can neither confirm nor deny that production process.
Rich
Rich
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Soundbreaker Welch? said:
Which in turn, the FW looks like a bootleg copy of the Hughes H-1, which some people claim it was, along with the Zero.
- Thread starter
- #29
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
So we Americans just took our own design back.
Pretty interesting.
Pretty interesting.
Or all designs evolve towards a distinctive shape which is similar. Assuming (I know that's generally where the problems start, "Assuming" anything, but for the sake of arguement...) speed is the greatest asset of piston engined fighter from the Second World War, then Radial engine fighters all head towards the same shape (with alterations based on design parameters).
It will have the largest engine possible up front to give the absolute maximum in horsepower, thinnest wings (no Hurricane Wings, closer to Laminar Flow, aka P51A wings) to reduce drag but give the lift needed, bubble canopy (see them before they see you), heavy armaments (higher the speed, less time you have to get a shot in hence the more heavy slugs in the air at one time increasing the chances of critical damage), armor and survivability equipment (inert gasses pumped into the fuel tanks, CO2 or other fire extinguishers, emergency release equipment- sometimes even a hachet!) and wide track gear to make landings easier on low time pilots (and the high time too!).
What you end up with is a fast, manuverable (high roll rate), heavily armed and relatively heavy aircraft. The Tempest, Fury, Bearcat, Ki-100 and Lagg-9 are all similar in appearance.
I think the early war aircraft all had a distictiveness that was based on differing design philosophies (for instance radial engined aircraft such as the F4F, the Skua, Zero and P36 all showed a design philosophy reflecting biases or requirements of the 30s where aircraft were more elegant than in the middle 40s-imho). By the time the end of the war had come around, radial engined aircraft were built much more functionally than their predecessors. They were, for the most part, disposable. As such, form followed function.
Same thing held true with the inlines but not to the degree of development. Seems inlines (in fighter aircraft) pretty much stopped in developement at the end of the war. Whereast the radials continued to be developed (mostly for COIN or Ground Attack) the inlines were replaced by turboprops. Probably the ability of a radial to absorb damage gave it another 20 years of design life.
Again, IMHO.
It will have the largest engine possible up front to give the absolute maximum in horsepower, thinnest wings (no Hurricane Wings, closer to Laminar Flow, aka P51A wings) to reduce drag but give the lift needed, bubble canopy (see them before they see you), heavy armaments (higher the speed, less time you have to get a shot in hence the more heavy slugs in the air at one time increasing the chances of critical damage), armor and survivability equipment (inert gasses pumped into the fuel tanks, CO2 or other fire extinguishers, emergency release equipment- sometimes even a hachet!) and wide track gear to make landings easier on low time pilots (and the high time too!).
What you end up with is a fast, manuverable (high roll rate), heavily armed and relatively heavy aircraft. The Tempest, Fury, Bearcat, Ki-100 and Lagg-9 are all similar in appearance.
I think the early war aircraft all had a distictiveness that was based on differing design philosophies (for instance radial engined aircraft such as the F4F, the Skua, Zero and P36 all showed a design philosophy reflecting biases or requirements of the 30s where aircraft were more elegant than in the middle 40s-imho). By the time the end of the war had come around, radial engined aircraft were built much more functionally than their predecessors. They were, for the most part, disposable. As such, form followed function.
Same thing held true with the inlines but not to the degree of development. Seems inlines (in fighter aircraft) pretty much stopped in developement at the end of the war. Whereast the radials continued to be developed (mostly for COIN or Ground Attack) the inlines were replaced by turboprops. Probably the ability of a radial to absorb damage gave it another 20 years of design life.
Again, IMHO.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Soundbreaker Welch? said:
I just saw a Military Channel story on the FW190. It said that Kurt Tank was very impressed by the H-1. The Fw190 does take some design features from the H-1. Most noticable is the landing gear and the radial engine and general layout. The H-1 was an amazing aircraft and could do 353 mph in 1935. Compare that to contempory military aircraft. I believe it surpassed the previous airspeed record by 40 mph or so.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Tanks use of the radial was because of the non-availability of the inline DB's that were being sucked up by the Bf 109 production lines...
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
lesofprimus said:
That's true, but I think the success with H-1 gave him confidence that the radial would work for a fighter. That was an unpopular configuration in the Luftwaffe. He tried to improve the NACA design for engine enclosure, but his design was unsuccessful and resorted to a common design. Also of note, the BMW engine was a Pratt and Witney built under license, probably modifed by BMW.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I agree...
syscom3
Pacific Historian
bogy said:
The Ki-84 was equivelant to what the allies had in mid 1944.
The Japanese were always one generation behind the allies in designs and it got worse thoughout 1945.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
bogy said:
You're kidding, right? Don't get me wrong, I think the Ki-84 series was one of the best the Japanese produced, certainly the most elegant in looks and its performance statistics weren't too shabby either, but out performing an F8F? No, sorry. Syscom3 has accurately identified the problem for the Japanese. For a variety of reasons they were behind the curve on development from late 1942 on.
Rich
Think Rlenord and SYS got it right. The Japanese never really had the industrial base to develop a full range of aircraft in a timely fashion. They could and did design great aircraft (A6M, Ki100 and Ki84 were excellent examples of that ability) but lacked the resources and production capacity to flood the skies with these aircraft. A step behind in design due to lack of assets to allocate to the design and just way behind in producing adequate numbers of those they did design. Add to that problems with fit and finish, shortage of maintainence personel and equipment when in the field and you see them slipping farther and farther behind in their ability to affect the course of a battle and finally, the outcome of the war.
Add to all that the B29s bombing their factories and it is one seriously losing proposition.
Add to all that the B29s bombing their factories and it is one seriously losing proposition.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
- Poll
