Talk:Ginga/@comment-108.88.197.98-20160814103322/@comment-108.88.197.98-20160819211808

OP here:

The above poster's right, the Homare engines used on the Ginga were 1800-2000hp engines with an even smaller frontal area than the already very compact Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp. The Homae had major issues with heat dissipation due to that choice, and also had the sort of reliability issues that most new engine designs have, but was otherwise excellent and powered Japan's best fighters of the war.

Regarding my original point, my argument is: "how often did Japanese light/medium bombers get to use their massive range to perform attacks that couldn't be done otherwise?"

At the point in the war that the Ginga was introduced, my guess is, "not many, if any." If that's correct, then its an example of a well-designed aircraft built for a role that no longer existed. I personally think Japanese bombers sacrificed too much in the pursuit of ultra-long range. The Ginga was introduced into a defensive war where the enemy was quickly dominating the skies. To fully use its long range, it would have to fly unescorted through enemy airspace, which is a one-way trip (at best) for any bomber, no matter how excellent. There's also the fact that each Ginga uses two Homare engines that could otherwise be used for fighters capable of facing Corsairs and Hellcats on relatively even terms, which I would think should be a higher priority. I could go on, but these are my essential thoughts on Japanese WW2 bomber design philosophy, and hopefully explain why I remain confused as to why their military stuck with said philosophy all the way through the end of the war.