WesWorld

Kanzaki A7K - I'm guessing a cross between a Zero and a Corsair (based on the weight, the engine, and the bent wing). Range and armament are both excessive, speed is questionable, and the Japanese pilots are going to hate it (because it doesn't turn anywhere near as well as the Zero).

Kanzaki B6K - Doesn't make a lot of sense: big, slow, armed as if it's a strafer but it's a carrier plane. B6N very superior.

Kanzaki D4K - Probably too light for it's load, based on the D4Y2 of identical weight and power, which had a max load of 500 kg. Empty weight too low with the increased armament.

Kanzaki G4K1 - Has no provision for an arrestor hook, so will have a hard time landing on a carrier. Also, has no visible provision for folding wings, so will need to remain on deck at all times. Speed is good, but bombload and range are mediocre, stick with B6N.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Kanzaki B6K - Doesn't make a lot of sense: big, slow, armed as if it's a strafer but it's a carrier plane. B6N very superior.

It's also a ripped-off French design for a COIN aircraft.

From 1958.

Quoted

Kanzaki A7K - I'm guessing a cross between a Zero and a Corsair (based on the weight, the engine, and the bent wing). Range and armament are both excessive, speed is questionable, and the Japanese pilots are going to hate it (because it doesn't turn anywhere near as well as the Zero).

I used the speed what wiki indicated for the XF4U-1 with an 1805 hp engine. Maybe that was not a good thing to do, but I did not want to be too eager and jump to a 2250 hp engine right away. Looking at the data again on the F4U, I probably mixed the armament bit up with the A6M when copy/pasting the data entries so it should be the 13.2mm MGs only. As for the pilots hating it, you're quite right but one can't expect that all planes produced are going to be liked by the pilots. Still that will limit it quite and result in the Navy looking for different designs or more likely A6M upgrades.

Quoted

Kanzaki B6K - Doesn't make a lot of sense: big, slow, armed as if it's a strafer but it's a carrier plane. B6N very superior.

As indicated it is the naval version of the Ki-64, most likely a few Ki-64s being converted. B6N is definitely the better plane and most likely the one the IJN will stick with.

... and that B6N is not the same as the historical B6N (which will be the B7N here). IIRC I actually mixed a few bits of B5N and B6N together in that picture and lowered the stats a bit.

Quoted

Kanzaki D4K - Probably too light for it's load, based on the D4Y2 of identical weight and power, which had a max load of 500 kg. Empty weight too low with the increased armament.

Looking at the data, I probably made the mistake of comparing the D4Y data of a later version with the SBD Dauntless and stuck to the SBD figure of 1000 kg without altering the weight figures. Come to think of it, speed is also a bit off then.

Quoted

Kanzaki G4K1 - Has no provision for an arrestor hook, so will have a hard time landing on a carrier. Also, has no visible provision for folding wings, so will need to remain on deck at all times. Speed is good, but bombload and range are mediocre, stick with B6N.

Considering that it is a 'G' designated aircraft thus a land-based attack plane, I see no reason for fitting carrier equipment to the plane. After all, I seriously doubt a G10N would be able to land on a carrier if it had been built. Since it is a Naval version of the Ki-35, the data is about the same as that one.

Quoted

It's also a ripped-off French design for a COIN aircraft.

From 1958.

The Ki-64 has been in the encyclopedia for over a year. Surely you have noticed that before.

I talked with Vukovlad about it a long time ago who showed the S.1100 to me and it was quite obvious that with the exception of its looks and the 30mm canons, it is a completely unimpressive plane so even if its origins are in the 50s, performance-wise it fits well in the 1930s. The Ki-35, while being about 1500 kg heavier and having a shorter range, carries twice the bomb load and is a lot faster. As Hrolf indicated, even the B6N is superior.

I would consider the B6K more of an ASW plane.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I would consider the B6K more of an ASW plane.

It probably would make a good ASW plane.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
The Ki-64 has been in the encyclopedia for over a year. Surely you have noticed that before.

I did, but this provided a convenient place to comment on it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
I talked with Vukovlad about it a long time ago who showed the S.1100 to me and it was quite obvious that with the exception of its looks and the 30mm canons, it is a completely unimpressive plane so even if its origins are in the 50s, performance-wise it fits well in the 1930s. The Ki-35, while being about 1500 kg heavier and having a shorter range, carries twice the bomb load and is a lot faster. As Hrolf indicated, even the B6N is superior.

That's a bit of a dangerous precedent to set. It basically says - "As long as I can claim a plane performs like a 1930s aircraft, I can build anything I want regardless of the date."

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
That's a bit of a dangerous precedent to set. It basically says - "As long as I can claim a plane performs like a 1930s aircraft, I can build anything I want regardless of the date."

That maybe my fault. I do use a 1950's vintage trainer.

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
That's a bit of a dangerous precedent to set. It basically says - "As long as I can claim a plane performs like a 1930s aircraft, I can build anything I want regardless of the date."

That maybe my fault. I do use a 1950's vintage trainer.

Yes, but you also asked beforehand and specifically noted the relevant date.

I must add that I don't really have a problem per se with the aircraft specs, but... Marek brought the date of his plane up front and inquired, rather than me finding the original plane and taking notice of the date.

I also have to point out Walter, you yourself admit your encyclopedia is cluttered, so not noticing for a whole year is not a very good arguement. Thats why I suggested that designs get posted in the designs folders first before they go to the encyclopedia, to avoid discussions like this.

Quoted

That's a bit of a dangerous precedent to set. It basically says - "As long as I can claim a plane performs like a 1930s aircraft, I can build anything I want regardless of the date."

I personally do not mind. It's performance what counts. You can have an F-22, but if it's only capable of 300mph, it's absolutely worthless.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox

Quoted

That's a bit of a dangerous precedent to set. It basically says - "As long as I can claim a plane performs like a 1930s aircraft, I can build anything I want regardless of the date."

I personally do not mind. It's performance what counts. You can have an F-22, but if it's only capable of 300mph, it's absolutely worthless.

And as I previously noted, I don't have a problem per se with using some more advanced aircraft, particularly where the specs are in line with what is possible and likely in our game timeline. Where I start to have a problem is when people make that determination themselves. As I already commented, Marek put together a 1950s Polish aircraft for 1938 - but he admitted up front that it was two decades advanced, and asked for approval. That makes a world of difference to me.

So it is easier to ask permission and not forgiveness.

I always had a problem with that saying.

I don't think trainers matter too much as we approach the 1940s. The YaK-18 could easily have been created in the 1940s and was pretty low-tech.

A 1950s plane should be lighter than a 1930s equivelent type and more technically advanced (aerofoil, aerodynamics, engine tech etc). Saying all that anyone can make up a fictional aircraft from scratch without any markers. At least we know that 1950s spotter will fly. Player X's super-duper delta-winged, dri-decker canard equipped pusher fighter with a 3,800hp V-24 engine might look snazzy but has no link with real specs.

That is why all my RAF aircraft a 'real' projects rather than made-up. Argentina is a different kettle of fish being mainly fictional designs which no-one can cross-check for correct weights or performance with accuracy (the I-02 being 50/50 Tempest and Fw-190 but with a fictional V-12).