Ki-84 Hayate ("Frank")

[Ol Paint]

Both wartime reports & postwar flight tests (whether you believe them or not) clearly state that when a well-maintained Frank was flown by a good pilot, it could out climb, out turn, & out run any US fighter at 20,000ft or below.

 

--SNIP--

226870[/snapback]

Remember this? Or how about this:

--SNIP--

My guess is that the reason why nobody seems to be able to confirm the actual speed the Frank obtained during US fight tests in 1946 is because it turned out to be even faster (with US fuel) then they thought it would be and did not want to admit to the public how fast it really was.

--SNIP--

226929[/snapback]

Please be so kind as to point out EXACTLY where any poster has claimed that the Ki-84 could NOT exceed 400mph under ideal conditions. The closest you are going to get is JOE BRENNAN's comments regarding whether 427mph is an actual airspeed achieved, or calculation and other comments related to the ability of the engine to develop full power on the fuel available. You are the one getting lathered up about this--quit jumping to irrational conclusions and apply some analytical thinking to your reasoning, and you might get further.

 

The US had no problem acknowledging that the British and Germans were ahead of us in jet technology. Explain why piston power is a sacred cow. Your extraordinary claim of stupendous performance by the Ki-84 causing a cover-up requires extraordinary proof--especially in the face of contemporary US aircraft design. Recall, too, that the US believed the A6M capable of greater performance than it achieved in Japanese service due to testing with US aviation fuel. What makes you think that the agencies involved are suddenly going to divine exactly what octane to expect the Japanese to be using?

 

One more piece of trivia--the US built one XP-40Q, which achieved 422mph @20,500' (almost exactly what the Ki-84 did/may have done), yet did this at a weight of 9,000lb on 1,425hp (V1710-121) and could climb to 20,000ft in 4.8min. It had a service ceiling of 39,000ft. It was rejected for not performing as well as production Mustangs and Thunderbolts, yet it matches your numbers for the Ki-84 on MIL power in speed and climb, and exceeds the Ki-84 in ceiling. And the US is so frightened by a fighter with similar performance (below 20,000ft) to one that it rejected for service (that had a larger operating envelope) that a 60-year coverup is put into place.

 

Douglas

 

http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/warhawk-2.htm

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p40_16.html

[whyhow]

look, no matter how good the Ki-84 is on paper (and even there it wasn't the super fighter some make it out to be), its unreliable engine meant that it was far from satisfactory in operation. even the Japanese gave up trying to improve the reliability of the Ha-45 engine, and adapted the Hayate airframe for the less powerful 1500-hp Mitsubishi Ha-33. they considered that combination more promising.

I remember reading somewhere that the Ha-45 never managed to operate its rated power-rating. can anyone confirm that?

Edited October 2, 2005 by whyhow

[Rickshaw]

I wonder, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Guest pfcem]

One more piece of trivia--the US built one XP-40Q, which achieved 422mph @20,500' (almost exactly what the Ki-84 did/may have done), yet did this at a weight of 9,000lb on 1,425hp (V1710-121) and could climb to 20,000ft in 4.8min.  It had a service ceiling of 39,000ft. 

229703[/snapback]

 

I have no idea how they came up with 20,000ft in 4.8min but it is complete BS.

 

Both the P-51D & F4U-1 were able to reach 20,000' in about 7 min.

 

The Spitfire was known as a good climber.

 

Spitfire Mk V (closest to the XP-40Q in terms of engine power)

Merlin 55 rated at between 1,440 & 1,470 hp

loaded weight 6,650 lbs

7.5 mins to 20,000 ft

 

Spitfire Mk IX (closest to the XP-40Q in terms of loaded weight)

Merlin 61/63/66/70 rated at between 1,565 & 1,710 hp

loaded weight 8,500 lbs

6.5-7min mins to 20,000 ft (depending on engine)

 

Spitfire Mk XI (late model Griffon-powered with exception rate of climb) - corrected as Seafire 47

Griffon 87 rated at between 2,150 & 2,350 hp

loaded weight 10,250 lbs

4.8 mins to 20,000 ft

Edited October 2, 2005 by pfcem

[KingSargent]

I wonder, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

229730[/snapback]

Sixteen.

[larrikin]

Sixteen.

229747[/snapback]

 

King would know, he was there.

[Rickshaw]

Sixteen.

229747[/snapback]

You sure? I have a reference here that claims eighteen.

[MiloMorai]

The Frank had combat flaps too (those magical devices that gave the Spitfire, Hellcat & P-38 - not to mention most Japanese aircfaft there good maneuvering performance).

First I have heard that the Spitfire had combat flaps. When were these installed?

 

Spitfire Mk XI (late model Griffon-powered with exception rate of climb)

Griffon 87 rated at between 2,150 & 2,350 hp

loaded weight 10,250 lbs

4.8 mins to 20,000 ft

 

Spit XI was the unarmed PR version of the Mk IX, both Merlin powered. Typo??

 

There was only one series of F 21, LAxxx, if this is type you meant, and all were powered by Griffon 61s.

[Guest pfcem]

First I have heard that the Spitfire had combat flaps. When were these installed?

Spit XI was the unarmed PR version of the Mk IX, both Merlin powered. Typo??

 

There was only one series of F 21, LAxxx, if this is type you meant, and all were powered by Griffon 61s.

229802[/snapback]

 

Yes it was a tyo.

 

corrected now as Seafire 47

[Bob B]

Yes it was a tyo....

 

 

229871[/snapback]

 

I have days like this too.

[JOE BRENNAN]

I did find the following posts in searching for information:

229520[/snapback]

There was a later discussion there too long ago to come up on search (I wish that forum kept archives longer) but that they didn't put in the FAQ's. At that time there seemed to be a consensus that the prescence of the exact performance numbers often attributed to the "1946 test" in a fairly early 1945 intelligence manual suggested they weren't from a test. As for other slightly lower speed test, again actual evidence is lacking, and proponents of it there (some of whom seemed to have studied this stuff in some detail) seemed to be backing off certainty of actual tests showing 400+ speeds.

 

This is just the documentation issue. Other technical info does suggest speeds higher than 390 were likely (but once again, some Japanese sources say not). In any case it is somewhat angels head on pin. Give a modern Reno team a Frank and I've no doubt they'd squeeze a whole lot more than 388 out of it (maybe put an R-3350 in it like Sea Fury racers!)

 

The two relevant issues, to me are:

-did Ki-84's actually have a lot more success in air combat than the mid war or even improved early war types? I posted above some claim ratio's (we can infer reasonable US claim accuracy at that time) from the Navy by type, lower for Ki-84's and N1K1J's, than earlier types but not vastly different (this seemed to be ignored rather than challenged with other facts or accepted). And there are few bona fide two sided accounts of significant air combat sucesses by Ki-84's. If someone can post just several, everyone can learn. There were a few I know, but as I said Zero's etc weren't absolutely incapable of victory in 1945. Henry Sakaida's "Pacific Air Combat" has the fascinating story of a sub/air rescue in Tokyo Bay of a US P-51 pilot downed by flak Aug 3 '45. In one of the many twists and turns of that melee (J aircraft v. sub, PB4Y v. J-aircraft, fighter v fighter, a quartet of A6M's downed one of a quartet of P-51's w/o loss; why not? in any given situation). I'm looking for a *big, systematic* difference, haven't found it, certainly open to new facts on it.

 

-as a subset of that, was the common speed of Ki-84's in operational conditions markedly superior to F6F's, superior to F4U's and P-38L's and comparable to P-51's and P-47N's, as would be suggested by the "test" (estimate, testimate, whatever we decide it wasn't a Japanese number); or even a bit lower down (say comparable to P-38/F4U)? Again no specific examples I know of demonstrating this (which would be some combat reports saying "a Frank pulled away from me" in an air combat chase, not hard to intercept from a standing start on the ground, which is true for any attacker with a speed somewhat similar to the interceptor). I'd positively like to see such info if it exists, I seem to have been misunderstood on that point, but semi-theoretical assertions of it don't do much for me.

 

Joe

Edited October 2, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[MiloMorai]

pfcem,

 

the Seafire 47 was a post WW2 a/c. The first flight of PS945 was on Oct 12 1946, over a year after WW2 had ended.

[Guest pfcem]

pfcem,

 

the Seafire 47 was a post WW2 a/c. The first flight of PS945 was on Oct 12 1946, over a year after WW2 had ended.

229925[/snapback]

 

Yes I know that.

 

It is a naval version of the land-based Spitfire F24 with counter-rotating propellers to negate the tendency to swing on takeoff.

 

I was unable to verify an wartime Spitfire capable of <5 min to 20,000 ft.

 

The Seafire 47 just happened to be the Spitfire version that I found that is claimed to be able to reach 20,000 ft in 4.8 min (same as the BS time quoted for the XP-40Q).

 

It is entirely possible that other late model Griffen powered Spitfires could do it in around ~5 min but I was unable to verify it.

Edited October 3, 2005 by pfcem

[Guest pfcem]

Give a modern Reno team a Frank and I've no doubt they'd squeeze a whole lot more than 388 out of it (maybe put an R-3350 in it like Sea Fury racers!)

229916[/snapback]

 

That would be true if they could fit a R-3350 to a Frank but it is WAY too big.

 

The Ha-45 is comparible in size to the BMW 801 fitted to the FW 190.

 

 

The two relevant issues, to me are:

-did Ki-84's actually have a lot more success in air combat than the mid war or even improved early war types?

229916[/snapback]

 

Again, in 1945 Japanes fighters were limited more by combat conditions that had nothing to do with the comparitive capabilities of the planes themselves. The added flight performance of the Frank over earlier Japanese fighters is useless unless the pilots flying it know how to use it.

 

 

was the common speed of Ki-84's in operational conditions markedly superior to F6F's, superior to F4U's and P-38L's and comparable to P-51's and P-47N's, as would be suggested by the "test" (estimate, testimate, whatever we decide it wasn't a Japanese number); or even a bit lower down (say comparable to P-38/F4U)?

229916[/snapback]

 

My personal opinion is that up to ~25,000 ft, the Frank was comparable in speed to the F4U-1, F6F-5*, P-38L (non WEP)** & P-47D. To be more specific, I believe a well-maintained Frank on Japanese 92/95/97 octane fuel had a top speed of between 420 & 430 mph at ~20,000 ft. The lack of a two-stage supercharger obviously gave the advantage to most late war US fighters above 25,000 ft.

 

*The Hellcat is another example of an plane who's "official" to top speed was less than 400 mph but the F6F-5 with water-injection was said by many who flew it to be as fast or faster than the F4U-1.

 

**http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/SpeedChart.html

[JOE BRENNAN]

1. That would be true if they could fit a R-3350 to a Frank but it is WAY too big.

 

2. My personal opinion is that up to ~25,000 ft, the Frank was comparable in speed to the F4U-1, F6F-5*, P-38L (non WEP)** & P-47D.  To be more specific, I believe a well-maintained Frank on Japanese 92/95/97 octane fuel had a top speed of between 420 & 430 mph at ~20,000 ft.

229985[/snapback]

1. That's a joke son, as Foghorn Leghorn would say.

2. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think you've supported it well.

 

Joe

[Guest pfcem]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think you've supported it well.

 

Joe

230197[/snapback]

 

Anybody else, or is it just Joe & his "there is no way the half A$$ backwards Japanese savages could have possibly built anything comparable to the US" way of thinking.

[Bob B]

Anybody else, or is it just Joe & his "there is no way the half A$$ backwards Japanese savages could have possibly built anything comparable to the US" way of thinking.

230247[/snapback]

 

 

I don't believe that is what Joe is saying. Joe is a fact based person, and AFAIK, has nothing against the Japanese people. Lets face it, Japanese fighters swept almost eveything from the skies in the early part of the war, and IJN bombers put some of the biggest Western warships on the bottom.

 

Lacking formal Japanese, or US, test results, and with no personal pilot accounts, everything else is hypothetical. The Hayate was a very good airplane and it may have been capable of going faster than the stated 388 MPH. However, like everything else in Japan at that time the quality of the product declined as raw materials became harder to get. Wm. Green states ( Famous Fighter of The Second World War) that by 1945 the lower Manufacturing standards had cut the standard Hayates climb rate and performance.

 

I have studied all sorts of Japanese Military Equipment and this is pretty much true across the board. For instance, I have a study where a fellow studied the Metallurgical content of Japanese Type 99 rifle receivers from early examples to late war samples. The closer they got to the end of the Empire the more the material started having notably lower amounts of the elements that makes steel strong and tough. My favorite WW2 MG is the Japanese Type 92, I have shot one quite a bit and I think they are just too cool. However, I am not crazy enough to claim that it was the best MG of WW2.

 

The Japanese had some excellent Ideas just check out the Hikoki: 1946 web site:

 

http://www.j-aircraft.org/xplanes/

 

They just did not have enough time, or material, to execute the designs.

Edited October 4, 2005 by Bob B

[hojutsuka]

Anybody else, or is it just Joe & his "there is no way the half A$$ backwards Japanese savages could have possibly built anything comparable to the US" way of thinking.

230247[/snapback]

I agree with Joe Brennan that you, "pfcem", haven't supported your position very well.

 

I have read many posts by Joe Brennan, and have seen nothing to indicate that he is prejudiced against Japanese as you suggest. I think you are reading into his posts something that is not there.

 

Hojutsuka

[Ol Paint]

Yes I know that. 

 

It is a naval version of the land-based Spitfire F24 with counter-rotating propellers to negate the tendency to swing on takeoff.

 

I was unable to verify an wartime Spitfire capable of <5 min to 20,000 ft.

 

The Seafire 47 just happened to be the Spitfire version that I found that is claimed to be able to reach 20,000 ft in 4.8 min (same as the BS time quoted for the XP-40Q).

 

It is entirely possible that other late model Griffen powerd Spitfires could do it in around ~5 min but I was unable to verify it.

229978[/snapback]

So, now that your assumptions are challenged, you are just going to write off a performance figure as BS? Aren't you the one getting worked up about folks not taking performance numbers as gospel? Or is this pfcem's "there is no way the half a-- US could have possibly built anything comparable to the Japanese" way of thinking?

 

The problem with your assumption of 420-430mph in Japanese service is that it isn't supported by any of the available information. Even your own source (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html) credits the aircraft with max speeds between 388-392mph for prototypes and 388mph for service aircraft in Japanese service. You are assuming that 100-200hp (the difference between the original 11/12 model engines and 21/23 model engines) is good for a 40mph increase in speed, without accounting for any weight growth between early and late production aircraft. It is doubtful that the speed-power relationship is linearly proportional at these speeds (i.e. 10% increase in hp = 10% increase in airspeed), even if the aircraft were otherwise identical. So far, you haven't posted any information that would lead me to believe that production aircraft did not suffer weight growth, aerodynamic changes, or other issues that might affect performance--based on the developmental histories of many other aircraft, the hypothesis that the Ki-84 was immune to the normal changes over its production life is ridiculous.

 

You are welcome to your opinions, but understand that there will be disagreement when there is a lack of verifiable source information. Neither racism or nationalism has anything to do with it.

 

Douglas

 

[Edited to clarify "linearly proportional" and for incorrect verb conjugation.]

Edited October 4, 2005 by Ol Paint

[GregShaw]

I have no idea how they came up with 20,000ft in 4.8min but it is complete BS.

 

Both the P-51D & F4U-1 were able to reach 20,000' in about 7 min.

 

The Spitfire was known as a good climber.

 

Spitfire Mk V (closest to the XP-40Q in terms of engine power)

Merlin 55 rated at between 1,440 & 1,470 hp

loaded weight 6,650 lbs

7.5 mins to 20,000 ft

 

Spitfire Mk IX (closest to the XP-40Q in terms of loaded weight)

Merlin 61/63/66/70 rated at between 1,565 & 1,710 hp

loaded weight 8,500 lbs

6.5-7min mins to 20,000 ft (depending on engine)

 

Spitfire Mk XI  (late model Griffon-powered with exception rate of climb) -  corrected as Seafire 47

Griffon 87 rated at between 2,150 & 2,350 hp

loaded weight 10,250 lbs

4.8 mins to 20,000 ft

229738[/snapback]

 

The XP-40Q did NOT have a 1425 hp engine, that was military power. You are comparing Spitfires at emergency power to a XP-40Q at mil power. I don't have my references available yet, but IIRC the XP-40Q engine was about 1825 hp WEP, and its 2-stage/variable-speed blower drive gave better altitude performance that the 2/2 Merlins prior to the 100 series.

 

For a 9000 lb fighter, the 400 hp increase from mil to emergency power should be good for about 1175 fpm improvement in climb rate, somewhere around 30%. Given the much smoother power curve from the variable speed drive in comparison to the sawtooth typical of 2-speed drives I don't have any problem believing it could handily outclimb a Spitfire VII/VIII/IX/XVI. Climbing as well as a Griffon Spitfire that weighs 15% more but only has about 15-25% more power doesn't sound too unreasonable either.

 

Greg Shaw

[Ol Paint]

The XP-40Q did NOT have a 1425 hp engine, that was military power. You are comparing Spitfires at emergency power to a XP-40Q at mil power. I don't have my references available yet, but IIRC the XP-40Q engine was about 1825 hp WEP, and its 2-stage/variable-speed blower drive gave better altitude performance that the 2/2 Merlins prior to the 100 series.

 

For a 9000 lb fighter, the 400 hp increase from mil to emergency power should be good for about 1175 fpm improvement in climb rate, somewhere around 30%. Given the much smoother power curve from the variable speed drive in comparison to the sawtooth typical of 2-speed drives I don't have any problem believing it could handily outclimb a Spitfire VII/VIII/IX/XVI. Climbing as well as a Griffon Spitfire that weighs 15% more but only has about 15-25% more power doesn't sound too unreasonable either.

 

Greg Shaw

230654[/snapback]

Thanks for the update, Greg. My copy of "Vees for Victory" is still boxed up, and I don't have the familiarity with the hp figures that you do, so I didn't risk taking a WAG at the WEP ratings.

 

Douglas

[Guest pfcem]

So, now that your assumptions are challenged, you are just going to write off a performance figure as BS?  Aren't you the one getting worked up about folks not taking performance numbers as gospel?    Or is this pfcem's "there is no way the half a-- US could have possibly built anything comparable to the Japanese" way of thinking?

230639[/snapback]

 

No & I provided a number of comparisoions to show how it is impossible for the XP-40Q to each 20,000 ft in 4.8 min.

 

 

The problem with your assumption of 420-430mph in Japanese service is that it isn't supported by any of the available information.  Even your own source (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html) credits the aircraft with max speeds between 388-392mph for prototypes and 388mph for service aircraft in Japanese service.  You are assuming that 100-200hp (the difference between the original 11/12 model engines and 21/23 model engines) is good for a 40mph increase in speed, without accounting for any weight growth between early and late production aircraft.  It is doubtful that the speed-power relationship is linearly proportional at these speeds (i.e. 10% increase in hp = 10% increase in airspeed), even if the aircraft were otherwise identical.  So far, you haven't posted any information that would lead me to believe that production aircraft did not suffer weight growth, aerodynamic changes, or other issues that might affect performance--based on the developmental histories of many other aircraft, the hypothesis that the Ki-84 was immune to the normal changes over its production life is ridiculous.

230639[/snapback]

 

The only "official" top speed rating for the Frank comes from the "official" Nakajima report that the 1st prototype obtained a top speed of 388 mph.

 

Every other speed rating given for any version the Frank has been either given as the same 388 mph or 392 mph (I believe as a purposeful attempt to hide the Franks true top speed - the Japanese were well know for doing things like that).

 

For those who have read my previous posts, I apologive for having to repeat myself but...

 

The 4th prototype reportadly onbatined 394 mph (again unofficial & unconfirmed).

Production models were fitted with individual exhaust stacks, believed to increase top speed by ~10 mph.

That puts the top speed of the 1st production models (with the 1,800 hp Ha-11) to as much as 404 mph.

 

The later production models had a 1,990 hp Ha-21 (2,000-2,050 hp Ha-25 still later) which would undoubtable increase top speed significantly.

 

To give an example of how increased hp increases top speed, The F4U-4 had a 250 hp increase over the F4U-1 & that resulted in a ~30 mph increase in top speed.

 

So the Ha-21 powered Frank should be capable of a 20-25 mph increase over the Ha-11 powered one. Hense a top speed of 420-430 mph is not unrealistic for a well-maintained Ha-21 (or Ha-23) powered Frank.

 

I did mention weight growth (& apearantly cause some confusion in doing so). Some later model Franks included some wood construction in order to save on metal materials. The difference in weight between the partial wood conctructoin & all-metal models was about 500 lbs.

 

 

You are welcome to your opinions, but understand that there will be disagreement when there is a lack of verifiable source information.  Neither racism or nationalism has anything to do with it.

230639[/snapback]

 

The lack of verifiable source information is the problem. If there were verifiable source information, I would not have to go through so much effort to show all the comparative evidience as to what the Frank was truly capable of.

[Guest pfcem]

The XP-40Q did NOT have a 1425 hp engine, that was military power. You are comparing Spitfires at emergency power to a XP-40Q at mil power. I don't have my references available yet, but IIRC the XP-40Q engine was about 1825 hp WEP, and its 2-stage/variable-speed blower drive gave better altitude performance that the 2/2 Merlins prior to the 100 series.

 

For a 9000 lb fighter, the 400 hp increase from mil to emergency power should be good for about 1175 fpm improvement in climb rate, somewhere around 30%. Given the much smoother power curve from the variable speed drive in comparison to the sawtooth typical of 2-speed drives I don't have any problem believing it could handily outclimb a Spitfire VII/VIII/IX/XVI. Climbing as well as a Griffon Spitfire that weighs 15% more but only has about 15-25% more power doesn't sound too unreasonable either.

 

Greg Shaw

230654[/snapback]

 

Oops.

 

Most Allison V-1710s had a WEP rating of 200-250 hp over their military power rating so 1,825 hp seems a little high but was probably somewhere between 1,700 & 1,800 hp.

 

The P-38L V-1710-111/113s were rated at 1,475 hp at military power & 1,725 hp at WEP (many sources simply slpit the difference & rate then at 1,600 hp)

 

That still puts the XP-40Q in the same power-to-weight range as the Spitfire XII but still significantly less than the Spitfire Mk XIV - neither of which could reach 20,000 ft in less than 6 min.

 

The P-51D could reach 20,000 ft in about 7min. The XP-40Q was rejected because is did not significantly improve on the performance of existing aircraft.

 

If the XP-40Q could reach 20,000 ft in less than 5 min it would have definately been produced.

Edited October 4, 2005 by pfcem

[MiloMorai]

So the Ha-21 powered Frank should be capable of a 20-25 mph increase over the Ha-11 powered one. Hense a top speed of 420-430 mph is not unrealistic for a well-maintained Ha-21 (or Ha-23) powered Frank.

 

That is the big problem. The Ki-84 was not well maintained, nor well built. The engine was unreliable with the pilot not knowing when it would 'cook' itself. It also proved to be totally unreliable under field maintainance conditions. There was also fuel pressure drops, for no reason. Even the low pressure fuel system did not totally solve the the problem.

 

On a delivery flight on Nov 4, of the 80 a/c starting out, only 14 reached their destination.

 

The P-40Q was slower than the contemperary P-51s and P-47s. It did not have the range either. The Americans did not need another fighter a/c.

[Guest pfcem]

For those still not convinced that the Frank could conceivably be capable of 420-430 mph.

 

Tempest V (Jun 1943)

engine: 2,180 hp 36.7L (2238 ci) Sabre 24-cylinder flat-H

L x WS x H: 33' 8" x 41' x 16' 1"

loaded weight: 13,500 lbs

top speed: 427 mph

rate of climb: 3,000 ft/min

 

Spitfire Mk IX (Jul 1942)

engine: 1,565 - 1,710 hp 27.0L (1649 ci) Merlin V-12 (varied between several sub-types)

L x WS x H: 31' 4" x 32' 7" (LF) / 36' 10" (F) / 40' 2" (HF) x 12' 7"

loaded weight: 8,500 lbs

top speed: 408 mph

rate of climb: 4,000 ft/min (6.7 mins to 20,000 ft)

 

Spitfire Mk XIV (Jan 1944)

engine: 2,035 hp 36.7L (2239 ci) Griffon V-12

L x WS x H: 31' 4" x 32' 7" (LF) / 36' 10" (F) / 40' 2" (HF) x 12' 7"

loaded weight: 8,750 lbs - 10,000 lbs (sources vary)

top speed: 448 mph

rate of climb: 4,700 ft/min

 

FW 190A-8 (late 1943/early 1944)

engine: 1,700 hp 41.8L (2562 ci) BMW 801 14-cylinder radial

L x WS x H: 29' 4" x 34' 5" x 13'

loaded weight: 10,000 lbs

top speed: 408 mph

rate of climb: 3,500 ft/min

 

Me 109G

engine: 1,475hp (1,800 hp with MW50 boost) 35.7L (2180 ci) DB 605A V-12

L x WS x H: 29' 8" x 32' 6" x 11' 2 "

loaded weight: 7,000 lbs

top speed: 428 mph (with MW50 boost)

rate of climb: 4,000 ft/min

 

Yak-9U (1944)

engine: 1,650 hp 35.0L (2135 ci) Klimov VK-107A V-12

L x WS x H: 28' 6" x 32' x 9' 10"

loaded weight: 7,000 lbs

top speed: 435mph

rate of climb: 5,000 ft/min

 

F6F-5 Hellcat (Apr 1944)

engine: 2,000 hp (2,250 hp with water injection) 46.0L (2804 ci) P&W R-2800-10W 18-cylinder radial

L x WS x H: 33' 7" x 42' 10" x 14' 5"

loaded weight: 12,000 lbs

top speed: 380 mph (officially) but generally well know to be over 400 mph & similar to the F4U-1

rate of climb: 3,000 - 3,600 ft/min (sources vary)

 

P-51D Mustang (Jun 1944)

engine: 1,450 hp (1,695 hp WEP) 27.0L (1649 ci) V-1650-7 Packard Merlin V-12

L x WS x H: 32' 3" x 37' x 13' 8"

loaded weight: 10,000 ft

top speed: 437 mph

rate of climb: 3,500 ft/min (~7 mins to 20,000 ft)

 

P-47D Thunderbolt (Sep 1942)

engine: 2,000 hp (2,300 hp with water injection) 46.0L (2804 ci) P&W R-2800-59 18-cylinder radial

L x WS x H: 36' 1 " x 40' 9" x 14' 2"

loaded weight: 14,500 lbs

top speed: 428 mph

rate of climb: 3,000 ft/min

 

F4U-1 Corsair (Dec 1942)

engine: 2,000 hp 46.0L (2804 ci) P&W R-2800-8 18-cylinder radial

L x WS x H: 33' 8" x 41' x 15'

loaded weight: 12,000 lbs

top speed: 417 mph

rate of climb: 3,250 ft/min

 

F4U-4 Corsair (oct 1944)

engine: 2,100 hp (2,450 hp with water injection) 46.0L (2804 ci) P&W R-2800-18W 18-cylinder radial

L x WS x H: 33' 8" x 41' x 15'

loaded weight: 12,000 lbs

top speed: 446 mph

rate of climb: 4,000 ft/min

 

Ki-84-1 (Apr 1944 - initial producion model with 1,800 hp Ha-45 Model 11)

[i have been unable to determin exactly when the Model 21 & Model 25 engines entered service]

engine: 1,990 hp 35.8L (2184 ci) Nakajima Ha-45 Model 21 18 cylinder radial

[some late aircraft fitted with 2,000-2,040 hp Ha-45 Model 25 (sources vary)]

L x WS x H: 32' 7" x 36' 10" x 11' 1"

loaded weight: 8,000 lbs (8,500 lbs for partial wood construstion -II)

top speed: 388-392 mph "official" (420-430 mph more likely)

rate of climb: 3,790 ft/min "official" (4,000-4,500 ft/min more likely)

 

Based on the above examples, the nearest equivalent to the Frank in terms of size, weight & power is the Spitfire Mk XIV (highlighted in bold). Obviously the Spitfire was a more spreamlined aircraft with its V-12 Griffon so its top speed & rate of climb would be somewhat greater than the Frank but how much so is anybodys guess.

 

Unfortunately I have been unable to find a reliable source for what the Cd is for any WWII fighter but you should be able to get a reasonable idea of how the Cd of these fighters might compare based on their dimensions & examining pics & illistations of them.

 

The closest radial engined fighter to the Frank in terms of size is the FW 190 but the Frank is 1,500-2,000 lbs lighter & certainly more streamlined.

 

Besides the obvious size difference, the Frank looks a lot like the P-47D & certainly had the lowest Cd of any of the above radial engined fighters.

 

The P-47 & F4U (both radial engined & significanly larger & heavier than the Frank) had a top speed of 428 & 446 mph respectively.