Windswords, beat me to it! According to the article I referenced above,...the Kawasaki Ki-88 was a simpler derivative of the Ki-64, with the nose engine
and the vulnerable surface cooling system removed. It was never built.
The Imperial Army didn't realise that the P-39's deficient performance at higher altitudes was because it's turbocharger had been deleted in production versions?blackkite said:One of the reason why IJA terminated to develop Ki-88 was the low performance of P-39 which shot down easily by Japanese fighter.
On the other hand, the Russians had great success with the P-39 at low altitudes, both in ground attack, and against German aircraft. Of course, the Russians mostly used a later variant with a more powerful engine, IIRC, and German fighters were optimised for combat at higher altitudes. The rather lethal T9 cannon that the P-39 was built around may also have been more reliable in colder conditions, such as those prevailing on the Eastern Front, than it was in the South Pacific.blackkite said:P-39 was heavy. Wing loading was 57 % larger than Zero. Wing span loading was 60% larger than Zero.
Turning performance and acceleration were not so good.
If she had s turbocharger(also intercooler, piping), her weight became unacceptable. ;D
(Gross weight of P-39 was 3,350kg while Zero type 21 was 2,421kg.)
I think the armor and gun deletions were field modifications by a few squadrons tasked with intercepting aircraft at higher altitudes.Pepe Rezende said:Soviet pilots removed the wing guns, some armor and used the engines above the boost and RPMs limits. An Allison had a 30 hour live with them...
I understand that real life people are different sizes so there's no need for your patronising use of the 'rolleyes' emoji. However, I know you also understand that aircraft designers used standard-sized 'models' to depict aircrew. It wasn't a case of some drawings showing little guys and some showing big guys. That would be ridiculous. All the aircrew in design drawings were exactly the same size from one drawing to the next. I have drawings from both Messerschmitt and Heinkel showing the precise dimensions of their standardised aircrew models and depicting them in various poses so that they could be inserted into drawings as required. The Japanese did the same thing.
I knew you'd ask me that! It might take me a long time to dig them out, since, having got them, I never thought I would actually need them for anything. I'll see if I can locate them.
I understand that real life people are different sizes. However, I know you also understand that aircraft designers used standard-sized 'models' to depict aircrew. Does that sound familiar?There is no 'standard man'.
As for the well-known anthropologist Dr. T.E. Hertzberg there are men whose weight, stature and sitting height are 'standard'.
But only 7% of population adhere to two of the 'standard' dimensions, a percentage that decrease to 3% when referring to three 'standard' dimensions and under 2% when the considered 'standard' dimensions are four.
I usually work on German designs with a 'standard' stature of 1.717 m but the only statistics I know for the Japanese pilots is of 1.669 m and is dated in 1962.
'Human Dimensions & Interior Space' by Julius Panero and Martin Zelnik. Watson-Guptill, 1979 N.Y.
It's remarkable how accurate all those old Japanese re-draws actually are. They must have had the originals and basically traced over them.You are right, I have moved back the pilot position.
Thanks for helping me to improve the drawing. I must send it to the publishers next month.