Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Quoted
It's also a ripped-off French design for a COIN aircraft.
From 1958.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
I would consider the B6K more of an 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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH