find a single flaw

>>34264198
It looks stupid

>>34264198
Too little, too late.

>>34264198
Bleeding butt symbol on the plane?

>>34264296
>>34264317
>>34264378

not arguments

Country of origin

>>34264198
Not enough

>Didn't actually fly in any sort of practical way
>Still slow by US 1944-45 plane standards
>Not great at the altitude that US planes flew at
>Japan didn't have combat pilots left

Other than that... sure, great plane.

File: Saab_J_21A-3[1].jpg (200KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1024x768px

ww2 pusher props are cute

>>34264589

uhm... no sweetie... you made that up

>>34264702
Love the J21, wish we had an airworthy one

>>34264721

It flew for less than 45 minutes TOTAL. Severe overheating and propeller instability. Mechanical unreliability ended both of it's test flights. The engine had a relatively low critical altitude and the contemporary US planes would have been the F4U-4, P47-N and P51-H.

>>34264960

uhm...no sweetie...you don't just replace 2(3?) air forces with new planes in 1 or 2 years.

>>34265014

I don't even know what you are talking about now. Japan couldn't probably built their A7Ms, Ki84s or N1Ks with them falling apart or having good pilots to fly them.

If you were talking about the US, the F4U-4 and P47-N were fighting the Japanese for 6 months by the time the J7W took it's first flight and there were ~550 P51-Hs built before the Japanese surrendered.

>>34264552
Oh fuck you're back.

How about the fact that no one picked up the design postwar?

>>34265909

Not that guy canard delta planes follow a similar enough design. That being said, the design does have lower innate stability so the Rafale and Eurofighter rely more on their avionics.

File: rutan ez.jpg (228KB, 1024x705px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1024x705px

>>34265909

uhm...actually sweetie...they did

>>34264198

FLAW DETECTED

It's undertiered on War Thunder. It's battle rating (what is used to determine what other planes it fights) is only 6.0 when it should be at least 8.3 since it is able to easily engage F-86 Sabres, Hawker Hunters, and MiG-17s.

Seriously, it's lower than Griffon Spitfires.

>>34266259

I don't see many air forces lining up to get it into inventory.

File: 31916075356_450d10186b_b.jpg (485KB, 1024x717px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1024x717px

Belldandy likes it, and Belldandy is perfect in every way; thus the Shinden has no flaws.

File: scaled composites ares.jpg (114KB, 1600x1015px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1600x1015px

>>34266712

A plane in the exact same configuration designed by the exact same guy was considered for use in the COIN role.

>>34266749
And did anybody ever actually pick it up?

File: 1440910301476.png (807KB, 763x573px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 763x573px

>>34266760

And that's relevant how?

oh wow, looks like you don't have an argument sweetie, maybe you should go back to fapping to traps if you don't want to explain what is wrong with its configuration.

>>34266776
I'll bite

If it was not picked up then it would follow that the plane has flaws. A flawless plane would be perfect. And if there was a perfect plane then it would be in use today. Ergo the air craft, as with every other aircraft, has flaws.

>>34266796

>can't name an actual flaw

ok sweetie...one more chance

>>34266748
>that insufferable need to slap animu shit onto every fucking thing under the sun in order to pander to a bunch of autistic manchildren
weebs should be gassed and their corpses defiled

File: jace.jpg (53KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1280x720px

>>34266826

>still no flaws found

One big flaw is that its biggest fan keeps fucking saying "sweetie."

>>34266805
Increased structural complexity from mounting the engine in the rear, meaning additional weight and cost of special construction and engineering to account for said complexity.

A prop at the rear throws off the plane's center of gravity, affecting its takeoff and landing ability since it has to be engineered in a way so the propeller doesn't shred itself on the tarmac every time the plane pitches the nose up.

Poorer aerodynamic performance since the rear prop fucks up airflow around the plane. Also fucks up the propeller from added stress meaning it wears out faster than a forward mounted prop.

Less airflow over the engines means they're more likely to overheat, meaning you have to dedicate more weight and cost to install specialized cooling system.

Can't bail out, paradrop, or supply drop without the risk of getting you or your cargo shredded by the props.

Xbox hueg target profile

>>34266826
Anyone who hates Belldandy is without doubt some kind of communist and should be napalmed immediately.

>>34266930
>>34267026


>Increased structural complexity from mounting the engine in the rear, meaning additional weight and cost of special construction and engineering to account for said complexity.

Wrong sweetie, it is no more difficult to mount the engine on the rear than the front.

>A prop at the rear throws off the plane's center of gravity, affecting its takeoff and landing ability since it has to be engineered in a way so the propeller doesn't shred itself on the tarmac every time the plane pitches the nose up.

Not relevant.

>Poorer aerodynamic performance since the rear prop fucks up airflow around the plane.

Arguable, push props may have reduced efficiency but also reduced drag.

>Less airflow over the engines means they're more likely to overheat, meaning you have to dedicate more weight and cost to install specialized cooling system.

Okay sweetie, maybe if I spend my time revving my engine on the ground.

>Can't bail out, paradrop, or supply drop without the risk of getting you or your cargo shredded by the props.

Not relevant.

>Xbox hueg target profile

Smaller than a P-47.

The biggest difficulty with canard configurations remains; that they have less stability margin for their center of mass.

>>34267362

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

>>34267391
>That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Not when you haven't invented Fly By Wire and need to carry and expend a variety of payloads.

>>34267418
>need to carry and expend a variety of payloads.

Not an issue, it has 4 30mm cannons, what payload does it need?

>>34266712
Every jet fighter is a pusher.

;^)

>>34267510
>Not an issue, it has 4 30mm cannons, what payload does it need?

CoM balanced ammunition stores and adequate control authority when firing.

>>34267623

O wo its almost like the entire plane is designed around those cannons

>>34267641
They designed the plane as a push prop with side air intakes and they still ran into airflow issues. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they had difficulties with recoil and the expenditure of ammunition.

>>34267661

ARGUMENT [_]
NOT AN ARGUMENT [X]

>>34267675
If you're going to play that game

>O wo its almost like the entire plane is designed around those cannons
>Competent engineering from Imperial Japan

Pick one.

>>34267712

Name one bad fighter they ever made sweetie.

>>34264198
Needs more dakka, or a proper HVAP belt, also remove bomb pylons because fuck tiny bombs.
Or MG151/20s instead of the Type 5 cannons.
More power, and possibly points for mounting rails for rockets would be cool but probably stupid and dangerous to the plane's design since it wasn't made to handle those.

>>34267675
We get it, you're retarded and somehow think this shit is entertaining.

I'd say it's major flaw is the fact it would have got it's shit pushed in severely had it ever made it to production. Japan had basically no competent pilots left and the damn plane would have been facing aircraft that had superior flight characteristics in nearly everyway. Hell if the war had drug on till 1946 it would have gotten to have faced crap like the XF-5U and F8F Bearcat on top of advanced versions of existing designs.

>>34267758
The Kawasaki Ki-45 was reduced to kamikaze roles because after B-29s adapted to flying towards the top of its operational flight ceiling, it didn't have the performance to do anything else.

>>34267824

>B-29

You mean that plane that Germany was shitting itself over for 4 whole years despite never even fighting it? The one they never developed an adequate counter for despite repeated attempts?

>>34267885
>somehow implying I'm a wheraboo

>>34267758
The Ki-61 with it's horribly unreliable engine and peashooter armament. Prehaps the Ki-45 that couldn't reach the targets it was designed to attack? Maybe we could write an entire book about the shitheap that was the J2M, because an aircraft that took four years to develop and could never really do the role it was built for and had trouble bursting into flames is surely a success story.

>>34267892
>implying i implied you were a wehraboo
>implying comparing the Ki-45 to the most advanced plane ever built reflects poorly on it

>>34267795
I get it, you fags don't have an argument.

>>34267925

>The Ki-61 with it's horribly unreliable engine

Yeah, that's what you get for using something designed by subhuman German apes.

>and peashooter armament.

Compared to what?

>Prehaps the Ki-45 that couldn't reach the targets it was designed to attack?

implying the B-29 existed when the Ki-45 was designed

> Maybe we could write an entire book about the shitheap that was the J2M

we couldn't

>>34264198
Looks like a dog pooping.

>>34267979

Yeah well like that's just your opinion sweetie

>>34267953
The Ki-61's replacement engine was little better, the Japanese Ha40 was partially redesigned and somehow the Japanese produced an engine that was less reliable and required more machining time than the DB601.
Also it's armament was fucking terrible, it carried a pair of 12.7mm machine guns above it's engine cowling and two .303 guns in the wings, only later in the war was it refitted with twin Ho-5's and two Ho-103's.
The F6F Hellcat designed at the same time was armed with 6x12.7mm and 2x20mm cannons while featuring a 30mph higher top speed, similar service ceiling and heavier armor. Hell the Ki-61's best combat performance was when it was used as a ramming vehicle.
The Ki-45 in it's initial form first took flight in early 1939 and was rejected by the army in 1940 for unfavorable flight characteristics and low performance. It didn't get redesigned and accepted into service till February of 1942, meanwhile Boeing submitted the Model 345 in 1939 and a functional aircraft was airborne by 1942. There is maybe six months between the two designs and even after being lightened and modified for the role it still couldn't properly engage the B-29 outside of just running into it like a big stupid bomb.
As for the J2M you really have to admire the skill of the Japanese aircraft designers when you consider they began working on the J2M in 1938 and it's combat debut wasn't until 1944, by the time it finally saw combat in extremely limited numbers. It suffered from engine failures constantly throughout it's production run and by the time it was built there weren't enough skilled pilots to properly fly the damn thing.

>>34269052

tl;dr

>>34264198
Flight control surfaces are also landing gear? Back to drawing board, baka. Most dishonorable desu.

>>34269443

>Flight control surfaces are also landing gear

What did he mean by this?

>>34267073
the fact that if you flew the damn thing for an hour or more and the pistons would melt to the fucking cylinder walls is a pretty damn bad design flaw if you ask me also the prop shredding on take off and landing is pretty fucking relevant if you want to service the abomination and pilot survivability is a huge design consideration and they had massive drag at the rear making pitching highly unstable due to the rear mounting now if they had continued and made the turbo jet version then yes it be pretty fucking awesome but they went with the prop engine which had a poor performing super charger now if you state well i i can put a better super charger or tweak the engine with better cooling then its not a j7w anymore so ya the j7w was complete shit especially since it over torqued like a whore on speed and shook the air frame violently

File: Do_335_Pfeil.jpg (469KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1600x1062px

It isn't this

File: 1495952666749.gif (78KB, 237x115px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 237x115px

>>34267073
>sweetie
>not relevant
Everybody move on, it's a troll trying to illicit a reaction by using passive aggressive language and not googling anything for themselves. Sage.

>>34270273
Hnnnnnngggg

>>34266776
Woa is chase still alive?

>>34270273

Superior in every way. Thanks for posting a much better pusher (puller too ;) )

>>34269052
>6x12.7mm and 2x20mm
It was 6x12.7mm OR 2x20mm and 4x12.7mm
Only a hanful of them had 20mm guns because some people were able to fuck up the guns.

It is interesting how Japanese fucked their license build inline engines. They had about as powerfull radial engines at the beginning so I don't understand why they ever bothered with those and eventually they did change those inlines to reliable radials.

>>34264702
CUUUTE!

>>34268286
Eh, I'd agree with him.

>>34264198
It's backwards. Go back and try again

>>34267758
J7W.

>>34267979
It does.

>>34264198
You posted this same thread last week dumbass.

sage

>>34266259
The Rutan planes have nothing to do with the J7W, you may as well claim that his designs were based on the AJ 37.

>>34273647

Your sage does nothing sweetie

>>34273834
Not an actual reply sweetie. How about giving an actual one.

>>34271000
Yes, and he came out as a troll

>>34273933

hahahaha NIGGER

>>34264721
Someone made that plane up, so you guys are even now
Czechm8

>>34273436
Rekt sweetie

>>34267051
weebs are cancer everyone knows it even the weebs

>>34265014
>Not an argument

File: XB-70_11.jpg (194KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1024x768px

>>34267418
>need to carry and expend a variety of payloads.

>>34266259
Actually sweetie, we both know you're willfully being retarded at this point, so why don't you just drop it.

>>34266749
>civilian kit plane
>having anything to do with a purpose designed military plane
>which was also a failure

also

>implying that we're say all pusher designs are bad because we don't like your weeabo planefu

nice straw man you have there. How about you go make another thread about how we should recommision the iowa class battleships, I'm sure that one will provoke plenty of attention that you crave from internet strangers as well.

>>34267073
Denying your opponents points flat-out without any evidence is not helping your credibility. Neither is saying "sweetie". I think you're trying to come off as condescending but you just sound kind of like you're desperately attention whoring, bro.

>>34267073
Name one plane that was a military pusher prop that didn't experience every single one of those problems.

Actually, scratch that, name one successful (post WW1) military pusher that wasn't also a push-pull design.

>>34266259
Your grammer and punctuation makes it sound like you eat dick cheese on your sandwiches and put on thick eyeliner in your 2007 camry while you're driving to your Friday night crossdresser clubs.

>>34277114
/thread

can we end this tedious shit now?

>find a bunch of flaws
>"Th-those don't count sweeite!!"

>>34264552
Too little, too late is a pretty good argument.

>>34269052
>As for the J2M you really have to admire the skill of the Japanese aircraft designers when you consider they began working on the J2M in 1938 and it's combat debut wasn't until 1944,
This is sarcasm right?

File: 1497322849234.jpg (44KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x640px

>>34267073
>sweetie
>sweetie

Let's clear this /pol/ bullshit out before it ruins everything for the millionth time

>>34278642
Yes, because only a team of fucking retards could take six years to develop an interceptor. The B-36 took less time to develop than that little shit.

File: 1497391541094.jpg (80KB, 589x1024px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 589x1024px

>>34270262
this

>>34264198
you have to take off the canards before fucking yourself in the ass with the model kit, sweetie