Talk:Mitsubishi G4M/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Mitsubishi G4M. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Heavy bomber ?
According to the description in Operational History, Betty is comparable to Mitchelle and Marauder. Then it should only be a medium bomber and can not be a heavy bomber as stated in the "Airplane Information" table. Bomb load of only 800 kg (in Specification) is also small. Dieu2005 15:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Done. Binksternet 20:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, due to its long range G4M had definite strategic capability even if its bomb load was rather small. So the question is, what really makes the difference between medium and heavy bombers?
- I'd personally suggest G4M to be classified as an attack bomber because it's the term I've seen most commonly connected with the type.
The most distacated?
Any guesses as to what this means? I value the additions by non-native English speakers, but sometimes it's a real stretch trying to figure out what was intended. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Specifications
The "Type of prop" field in the Specs template does not mean the actual type/make of propellor, but rather the type of engine. "prop" is used to distinguish the field from "Type of jet". See [[Template:Aircraft specifications#Propeller driven aircraft]]. There actually is a "propellers" field for that info, which I have added to the engine specs section.
Per WP:AIR/PC#Aircraft specifications, the Specs are intended to be a short summary. Generally, we don't need to include all the specs providedin the sources, just those that are especially relevant to a particular model. Hope that helps! - BillCJ (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The range of the aircraft in the "Specification Section" is confusing and needs to be "tweaked" or otherwise clarified. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the post immediately before this. For one thing, 2852 kilometers is not 2,664 miles, but rather 1771 miles, and is not 2315 nautical miles, but rather 1540 nautical miles. And why would the "overloaded" range be greater than the regular range? Is the overload all in fuel?
I can change the stats to reflect the correct correlation of kilometers to miles and nautical miles, if the range in kilometers is correct. The overload question remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redidot (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Survivors
There are absolutely no survivors of the G4M? 173.178.248.10 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
High speed ?
This is quoted several times in the article. In fact its quoted maximum speed of 265 mph is actually slower than four of the five "equivalent" twin-engine bombers listed in the article. Likewise, listed cruise speed is the slowest of the four for which it is mentioned. ? Rcbutcher (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- "High speed" is a relative term...the article only mentions that phrase twice by my count, and the first time qualifies it with "at the time of its introduction". My guess is "high speed" means relative to its predecessor, the Mitsubishi G3M, which had a max speed of 233 mph according to its Wikipedia article. I don't disagree that a bit more context would be helpful in this case- if I find some time in the near future, I'll see if I can't find a good source to help improve that paragraph. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)