# Best Japanese Army Aircraft



## tbfighterpilot (Nov 12, 2011)

Which was better against the P-40 and P-51?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2011)

The KI-84 was the best JAAF fighter IMO, whether it was better than the Mustang? Debatable.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 12, 2011)

George and Jack are not army fighter.

my vote go to type 1, Oscar 

type 4 was sure best of type 1 but came too late


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 12, 2011)

Other (Please specify) Kawasaki Ki-100 was a good 'un. Again, P-51 hard to beat.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 12, 2011)

I think I'd go with the Ki 100 as well.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 13, 2011)

Hayate - Ki-84 - is my bird here.


----------



## Thorlifter (Nov 13, 2011)

KI-84 for me too


----------



## parsifal (Nov 13, 2011)

None of the above. they are all fighter aircraft which for Japan by 1945 were a waste of time

If the debate were not given a limited range of aircraft, the best in the fighter catregory would have to be the Nakajima Kikka.

If the discussion were to be expanded to include those types that might have delivered a slightly different result for Japan, by inducing the americans to relax a little from their "unconditional surrender" declaration, we would have to expand the list to include the unconventional aircraft, and more specifically the specialised suicide craft developed by the Japanese at the end of the war The chances these types would have on any different outcome on the war are extremely low to zero, but at least they have some chance of changing the result, whereas fighters have no chance. 

Best of the special attack types has to be the pulse jet powered Yokosuka "Baka". With an attack speed of 576mph, they were difficulot to stop once launched, though no USN capital ship was ever sunk by them. The USN spent a lot of time and effort hunting down the launch vehicles for these mamnned missiles....the lowly Betty, suggesting a need for a jet powered launch aircraft similar to the AR 234. However the potency of these missiles should not be underestimated. The type never really had much chance to affect the war materially, because by the time they were deployed, Japan was in her death throws. The most successful attack of this type was on 12 April 1945, when nine "Bettys" attacked the U.S. Fleet off Okinawa. The destroyer Mannert L. Abele was hit, broke in two, and sank within 30 seconds, . DD Jeffers destroyed an Ohka with AA fire 45 m (50 yd) from the ship, but the resulting explosion was still powerful enough to cause extensive damage, forcing Jeffers to withdraw. The ship was never returned to service 

There was only one recorded hit on a capital ship with the Okha, being in March 1945, on the USS Maryland. A single hit destroyed a 406mm turret.

As deployed the type had no impact, however the potential to materially affect the war is obvious. If they had been employed enmasse, in groups of say 50 to 100 instead of never more than 20, and the delivery vehicle was somethig faster than the G4M, they may well have caused some sort of upset in the final months of the war, that might have made a difference


----------



## Wayne Little (Nov 14, 2011)

I'm running with the Ki-84 too.

....and confirming the George and Jack were Navy land based interceptors.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 14, 2011)

As always, the BEST plane is the newest plane. 

Most successful might be debatable but success is dependent on a lot of factors that have little to do with the actual design/performamce of the airplane.


----------



## wad59 (Nov 14, 2011)

Ki-100 for me !
Gérard .


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 14, 2011)

I'd have to pick the KI-100 as it was a formidable machine in the hands of an experienced pilot, capable of a one-on-one fight with the P-51D, especially at mid-altitudes...

The problem with the Nakajima Kikka, was that much like the Me262, it had a short combat radius, problematic engines and would be an easy victim to the P-51D...even the KI-201 Karyu (if it had been produced) wouldn't have fared much better even though it was marginally faster.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 15, 2011)

Parsifal, can't you let us have our fun?!  Yes, you are right, but only partially. The Kikka would have been formidable, but I have to go with GrauGeist's comments about it. Did you vote for it in the 'Other' column?

How about the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden for performance? Looked wicked. 8)


----------



## PatCartier (Nov 15, 2011)

It's impossible to compare ki27 ki84, P40 P51 !
Just can say which was the better at a specific date. 

Committed successfully in China from March, 1938, the next year in Mongolia ki27 outclassed biplanes I152 and 153 but knew difficulties in front of I-16 from the moment the soviétics pilots adopted the boom and zoom tactic. Although old-fashioned, type97 all year round on 1942 behaved honorably in CBI.
Committed in his turn in CBI from December, 1941, the type 1 Hayabusa constituted for the allied airmen an unpleasant surprise, as like that the A6M. Hayabusa spread panic in Malaysia, Burma and over Dutch India.
But as the zero, ki43 was exceeded by the allied fighters of the second generation in 1943. Ki43III Kô, operational from the mid 44 was a fighter which the only key point was an exceptional maneuverability, despite its performances was granded.
In the fight, ki84 Hayate showed himself a particularly dangerous opponent for the allies. Faster and better armed than his predecessors, he equalled the level of robustness of his American rivals and showed a much superior maneuverability. Its misfortune was to arrive too late and to be confided to inexperienced pilots, quite as was ki100-type 5 among which only 390 copies were produced...

source: Bernard Baeza, Les avions de l'Armée impériale, Lela Presse 2011
Le catalogue de Avions Bateaux

Note: J2M N1K are not japanese army but japanese navy aircrafts.

regards


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 15, 2011)

Why would we regard the Ki-100 as a tough costumer for Merlinized P-51? Perhaps for P-40, or Spitfire V, but not for P-51.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Why would we regard the Ki-100 as a tough costumer for Merlinized P-51? Perhaps for P-40, or Spitfire V, but not for P-51.


I know that some folks are surprised that the Japanese were capable of building a fighter that could challange the P-51, especially late war, but the KI-100 was one such example.

While the KI-100 was slower in level flight, in battle it could turn and dive with the P-51, had a good rate of climb with a service ceiling over 35,000 feet and packed a decent punch with it's 2 20 m/m cannon (along with it's 2 .50 cal).

In the hands of an experienced pilot, the KI-100 was very dangerous.


----------



## Arossihman (Nov 15, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> I know that some folks are surprised that the Japanese were capable of building a fighter that could challange the P-51, especially late war, but the KI-100 was one such example.
> 
> While the KI-100 was slower in level flight, in battle it could turn and dive with the P-51, had a good rate of climb with a service ceiling over 35,000 feet and packed a decent punch with it's 2 20 m/m cannon (along with it's 2 .50 cal).
> 
> In the hands of an experienced pilot, the KI-100 was very dangerous.



The zero was very dangerous in skilled hands but just like every other japanese aircraft it was very light to allow for manueverability,speed,and rate of climb but sooner or later every pilot screws up enough to take a few hits and the difference is in a japanese plane that was all it took to kill you! Not so with other types of aircraft that were built more sturdy and had very powerful engines and armor to bring the pilot home to fight another day!


----------



## davebender (Nov 15, 2011)

The Ki-84 and P-51D both entered service during the summer of 1944. About as contemporary as you can get. So why even consider early war IJA aircraft in this competition? The newly introduced Ki-84 was far superior to the Ki-27 just as the P-51 was superior to the P-40.


----------



## Glider (Nov 16, 2011)

My understanding was that the JAAF prefered the Ki 100 over the Ki 84 and for that reason alone it would get my vote.


----------



## davebender (Nov 16, 2011)

Late war Ha-45 engines which powered the Ki-84 had reliability problems which are probably due to the factory being hastily relocated underground after the above ground factory was bombed. A Ki-100 powered by a reliable engine beats a Ki-84 powered by an unreliable engine. However if both aircraft are powered by reliable engines then I prefer the much faster Ki-84.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 21, 2011)

dead tie for me between the ki-100 and the george. george has 4 x 20mm cannon standard, and can duel easily with the hellcat, the main us navy fighter. ki-100 was an easy solution for tons of radial engines and tons of ki-61s with no inlines to put in them, but it was pretty capable in good hands
on a sidenote, dont doubt the J2M. might have been troublesome with its complex engine in the jungles, but then again, which aircraft didnt have jungle problems?


----------



## treyzx10r (Nov 23, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> dead tie for me between the ki-100 and the george. george has 4 x 20mm cannon standard, and can duel easily with the hellcat, the main us navy fighter. ki-100 was an easy solution for tons of radial engines and tons of ki-61s with no inlines to put in them, but it was pretty capable in good hands
> on a sidenote, dont doubt the J2M. might have been troublesome with its complex engine in the jungles, but then again, which aircraft didnt have jungle problems?


I have to agree tied up with these as well,reliability problems were a huge factor though. The jungle was a hard place to maintain complex equipment of any type


----------



## davebender (Nov 23, 2011)

Not much of an issue by 1945. Most late production Japanese aircraft were operating from the home islands.

Meanwhile in a far away corner of China IJA ground crew place a bit more duct tape on Ki-27s and hope they will hold together for another sortie.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 23, 2011)

Haha true. But i hear so little about the combat history of the J2M, so for me it's difficult to select the ki-100 because i know next to nothing about the career of the J2M, aside from maintenance and unit movements. did J2Ms ever combat p-51s frequently enough to get an idea for the decision?


----------

