Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomRavager
EF-2000 Typhoon doesn't have the shitty thrust to weight issues that the Japanese TSFs do, it's capable of powering around on thrusters which the Fubuki and Shiranui can't. Same would go for the Rafale, being a Typhoon ripoff.
So it does handle differently from Japanese TSFs, even if it brings in the sensor mast, shoulder vanes and forearm blades as control surfaces to boost maneuverability like the Japanese do. There's no contradiction. I just mentioned the Typhoon off-hand to make the (entirely superfluous, I'll admit) point that these things aren't an exclusively Japanese design feature, it's pretty much unimportant.
|
Yuuya's point was the unbalance ratio between manuverability bias vs weak engine power for Fubuki.
From your information, Euro TSFs seems to have balanced manuverability vs engine power (higher rated) ratios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slick_rick
The debate isn't about the need to upgrade but the particulars of how to upgrade.
|
Well, "the need to upgrade" is already covered by Japan's XFJ project existance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slick_rick
I assume the hellcats and wildcats shared more similarity than they did with the Japanese Zero's in design and philosophy of operation.
|
Both Japanese Zero and WildCats has similar engine class, but the Zero is not loaded with WildCat's relatively heavy armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.
"Wildcat was outperformed by the faster and more nimble 331 mph (533 km/h) Mitsubishi A6M Zero".
"It was not until 1943 that more advanced naval fighters capable of taking on the Zero on more even terms, the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair"
F6F Hellcat still carries relatively heavy armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Later Zeros also includes some armor+self-sealing fuel tanks and uprated engines, but they are late for WWII. If the war continued, both US and Japan might end-up with similar fighters (pre-Jet fighters).