# Which is the best-looking Japanese fighter of WWII?



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2008)

Ok, we did the Russians, how about the Japanese? This is totally subjective, what Japanese fighter do YOU think was the best looking? Again, I'm likely to forget one, so bear with me. I don't know whether to include a couple of types, A7M, for instance, that didn't see combat. I think I'll not-- only types that saw combat.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 27, 2008)

I always liked the lines of the Ki-61 Tony. It's a cross between a BF-109, a P-51 and a Fiat G.55


----------



## Wildcat (Jul 27, 2008)

The Ki-61 gets my vote, great looking aircraft.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2008)

Yeah, I have a feeling it's going to win hands down.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 28, 2008)

If prototypes were included the Ki-83 or maybe J7W would probably be big on the list. (the Ki-83 for me personally)

Some of the J1N's were pretty nice looking too, but I think I'm half way on the Ki-43 and Ki-46...


----------



## claidemore (Jul 28, 2008)

Ki-43 Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon). Best looking radial fighter of the war IMO. Had some pretty nice paint jobs, was long and slender, elegant looking (for a radial, thats quite a feat!). Hayabusa is a cool name too. Still photos of it look great, but if you watch the videos of it on YouTube, you can't help but fall in love.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 28, 2008)

Ki-84 Frank for me fellas....!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 28, 2008)

I'm going with the Hayabusa.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 28, 2008)

I like the Ki-100, which was probably the finest plane produced by the IJAAF.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

Wow, a 3-way tie!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 30, 2008)

THe A5M was a pretty plane with the elliptical wings and the interesting upper fusa;age and tail. 







And the A5M3 prototype (with Hispano-Suiza 12x V-12) looks very sleek too, the inline engine blending very well with the design.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 30, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> THe A5M was a pretty plane with the elliptical wings and the interesting upper fusa;age and tail.
> 
> And the A5M3 prototype (with Hispano-Suiza 12x V-12) looks very sleek too, the inline engine blending very well with the design.



But you didn't vote for it.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 30, 2008)

Nope, I still think the Ki-43's the nicest looking, but the A5M might be my secon choice. (since we're not including prototypes, the A5M3 doen't count anyway -like the Ki-83-, and I don't really like the fixed gear on it, the Ki-27's gear looked better matched)


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jul 30, 2008)

Hayabusa for me. Is is one of the beautiful planes ever to take the skies

edd


----------



## Negative Creep (Aug 1, 2008)

The Oscar always looked a bit frail and malnourished for my liking. ANother vote for the Tony


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 1, 2008)

Negative Creep said:


> The Oscar always looked a bit frail and malnourished for my liking.



ha ha ha. Well put NC.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 1, 2008)

The Tojo looks like an Oscar with a belly-ache.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 1, 2008)

I voted for Tony, but I am also fond of the chubby Jack, not so much as a sleek beautiful design, but because it looks robust and purposeful.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 1, 2008)

I think the N1K-J (probably the N1K2 moreso) was the most substantial, purposeful, and rugged looking of the Japanese fighters. (and the look fits pretty well with the actual characteristics of the plane)


----------



## Oreo (Aug 2, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I think the N1K-J (probably the N1K2 moreso) was the most substantial, purposeful, and rugged looking of the Japanese fighters. (and the look fits pretty well with the actual characteristics of the plane)



It was very much so. The thing that amazes me is how the Japanese never seemed to manage to put a 400 mph fighter into the squadrons during the entire war. George, Jack, Tony, Tojo, Frank, and even the A7M were all under 400. officially.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 2, 2008)

Well remember they were working with lower octane fuels. In US testing re-tuned for high octane US fuel I believe the N1K2-J did better than 400 mph, and the Ki-84 moreso. (420-440 mph range iirc) Not to mention imptovements in climb. And I think the Ki 84 was the fastest Japanese fighter to see production/service.

And also rember that one of the principal opponents, the Hellcat, was a bit slow compared to most contemporary allied a/c, and slower tham the Ki-84 as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## merlin (Aug 2, 2008)

I thought the 'Tony' was too like the western liquid cooled in-line engines. The radial Tony, well it was a lucky solution - with the large engine - good looking - not really.
Japanese fighters seem to improve in appearance as the war progressed, the early ones - had a rugged look about them.
So my vote, went to the George, though it nearly went to the Frank.
Twin-engined - Dinah!


----------



## Wayne Little (Aug 2, 2008)

Seeing as we're talking looks...I'm running with the A6M Zero (late)


----------



## Oreo (Aug 2, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Well remember they were working with lower octane fuels. In US testing re-tuned for high octane US fuel I believe the N1K2-J did better than 400 mph, and the Ki-84 moreso. (420-440 mph range iirc) Not to mention imptovements in climb. And I think the Ki 84 was the fastest Japanese fighter to see production/service.
> 
> And also rember that one of the principal opponents, the Hellcat, was a bit slow compared to most contemporary allied a/c, and slower tham the Ki-84 as well.



Thanks, KK 89! That is neat to know. Do you have a source for those higher octane tests, and does it say more?

Re the Hellcat, yes you are right. It is a good thing for the US Navy that the Japanese didn't have high-octane fuel, or the Hellcat might have only had, say, a 14:1 kill:loss ratio instead of the 19:1 it actually had! (according to the figures I've seen).


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 2, 2008)

Personally I like the Zero and the George. Voted for the George in the poll, just looks "meaner".


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 2, 2008)

On the high octane tests, I'm not sure on solid doccumentation, but there's a lot of hits for it on google: Ki-84 mph octane - Google Search (figure for the Ki 84 seems to be ~430 mph)


----------



## Oreo (Aug 2, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> On the high octane tests, I'm not sure on solid doccumentation, but there's a lot of hits for it on google: Ki-84 mph octane - Google Search (figure for the Ki 84 seems to be ~430 mph)



Noice! The little-told advantage we held in the Pacific!


----------



## aurora-7 (Aug 8, 2016)

Hmm, no activity for the last 8 years.

It was a tossup between the J1N 'Irving' and the Ki-102 'Randy'. To me, their twin engine fighters had more aesthetics in their designs.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 8, 2016)

I think the Ki-84


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 9, 2016)

Ok, I would have marked the Dinah, but I think its recon version is sexier.


----------



## BattleshipNightZ (Aug 10, 2016)

I chose the A6M Zero (late) - because it's gotta be better than the earlier model; and that's all I've really heard of! I presume it was the earlier model they used at Pearl Harbour?


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 10, 2016)

The Ki.46 Dinah was one of the best from Japan. I believe if they could have
provided this aircraft with more powerful engines and good fire power, it could
have been another P-38 (First class twin-engine fighter) capable of one-on-one
confrontations with the best single-engine fighters of the times.

Getting down to the primary question asked.

There is no comparison in my opinion. The Nakajima Ki.84 is without a doubt,
the most beautiful radial engine propeller aircraft ever built. The P-47M/N was
the absolute best performing during the war period though.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 10, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> There is no comparison in my opinion. The Nakajima Ki.84 is without a doubt, the most beautiful radial engine propeller aircraft ever built. The P-47M/N was
> the absolute best performing during the war period though.



More beautiful than the Sea Fury?


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 10, 2016)

In the real world there is no beauty in any object made for killing. All military vehicle's, aircraft, rifles, knives, uniforms, munitions etc. are designed for one purpose only, and that is not to be the best looking. I can see it now, I was killed by the most beautiful aircraft with the nicest bomb, its parabolic fall was so graceful.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 10, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> In the real world there is no beauty in any object made for killing. All military vehicle's, aircraft, rifles, knives, uniforms, munitions etc. are designed for one purpose only, and that is not to be the best looking. I can see it now, I was killed by the most beautiful aircraft with the nicest bomb, its parabolic fall was so graceful.


Which is a personal opinion not widely shared.

How about we cancel the classic car shows, because thousands of people have been killed over the years by '59 Cadillacs, '57 Chevys, '33 Fords and so on. They may not have been designed for war, and some automobile designs were actually influenced by Warplanes, but the fact remains, they have killed.

There's no questioning the purpose of a fighter (or bomber) but the fact remains that the designs of some of these machines are remarkable and attractive.

And while on that point, the KI-83 heavy fighter was an extremely good looking aircraft, but sadly only reached four units before the end of the war.


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 10, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> How about we cancel the classic car shows, because thousands of people have been killed over the years by '59 Cadillacs, '57 Chevys, '33 Fords and so on


rather a senseless comparison, next you will want to say stop cooking shows. The fact is no matter how beautiful an aircraft is, if it is made for the military, its a machine of war. Don't get me wrong, I have my pet aircraft and was in active service for a few decades. Furthermore the biggest thing that most people miss when talking about ww2 aircraft is that the design criteria was completely new and changing, i.e.:retractable undercarriage, constant speed props, aluminium skinning etc. etc. the list goes on. I doubt very much Schmued, Tank, Heinkel, Messerschmitt were siting at there design teams pushing for the most pretty.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 11, 2016)

I think beauty in design and performance are synonymous. Beauty "usually" meant sleek design (P-51 in it's slender body and wing) and smooth curves (Spitfire or P-47 elliptical wing).

"Usually" these sleek and smooth curves are associated with planes that are considered the more "pretty" planes AND are some of the best performing.

So while Schmued, Tank, Willy, etc weren't in a contest of making the next Ms. Universe, it was a result of tweeking design to increase performance that allows these planes to win the beauty contests. 

Interestingly enough, the same could be said for beauty contests. These ladies work hard to slim and trim and have beautiful styling (makeup, hair, and perfectly altered outfits) to enhance their visual appeal.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 11, 2016)

_The fact is no matter how beautiful an aircraft is, if it is made for the military, its a machine of war. Don't get me wrong, I have my pet aircraft and was in active service for a few decades_".

Machines for war or not, some of the most graceful and visually pleasing things made by men relate to military purposes. Everything from 15th century Italian armour plate to the latest ICBMs have some visual appeal for most, especially those interested in things military. Doesn't make us a bunch of warmongers just average guys really.

Ive done my time at being shot at and I do not believe that wars are good for anything. still, I loved some of the kit I got to mess around with in my time. ive got soft spots for various things, including A-4 skyhawks, HMAS Melbourne, USS Enterprise, Leopard tanks, lee Enfield rifles. So what..........

_ Furthermore the biggest thing that most people miss when talking about ww2 aircraft is that the design criteria was completely new and changing, i.e.:retractable undercarriage, constant speed props, aluminium skinning etc. etc. the list goes on. I doubt very much Schmued, Tank, Heinkel, Messerschmitt were siting at there design teams pushing for the most pretty_.

Generally I agree, however aircraft were designed to also look the part, if only to attract the requisite foreign orders. Aircraft that looked wrong generally did not attract these foreign orders, or even orders from the countries they were built in. Looks, to a minor extent at least did matter in the development of military technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> rather a senseless comparison, next you will want to say stop cooking shows. The fact is no matter how beautiful an aircraft is, if it is made for the military, its a machine of war. Don't get me wrong, I have my pet aircraft and was in active service for a few decades. Furthermore the biggest thing that most people miss when talking about ww2 aircraft is that the design criteria was completely new and changing, i.e.:retractable undercarriage, constant speed props, aluminium skinning etc. etc. the list goes on. I doubt very much Schmued, Tank, Heinkel, Messerschmitt were siting at there design teams pushing for the most pretty.


Not a senseless statement at all.

The old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" holds true even for "killing machines'.

One of the things that appeals top humans is power: sleek, graceful and agile, like a predator. No one ever says "oh, look how amazing that water buffalo is!!", but they fawn over a Cheetah that runs down a Gazelle and kills it.

And we talk about all of that criteria here - often times in exhaustive detail. WWII started with biplanes and ended with jets. Technology advanced at an incredible pace during those years that has not, and perhaps never will be, matched again.

And in regards to "the most pretty", this goes back to the Cheetah - fighters have to be aerodynamic. They have to be agile, powerful and capable of killing their quarry. If they can't, they end up the prey - so they are streamlined, sleak and muscular. Survival of the fittest, simple as that.

Park an Me262 next to a Cessna 172 and tell me which one draws the most attention...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 11, 2016)

Now we are getting to apples and oranges and going overboard. Of coarse beauty is in the eye of beholder, the beauty queen with the perfect body and every ones eye are on prongs, but she no brain cells. In the beholder, she is the best thing created. Me262 and a Cessna, not a real comparison that actually pits apples with apples! The Spitfire and Hurricane however, the Spitfire and so beautiful, but the Hurricane was the better combat platform, park the two together and you have your 262, Cessna again, all the beholders with eyes dangling out on prongs. Other ugly but successful aircraft that will never win the beauty polls in the eyes of the beholders are the JU87 and IL-2(which still is the most produced combat aircraft ever) Just because something is beautiful, definitely doesn't make it the best. The end, not worth discussing further.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 11, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> rather a senseless comparison, next you will want to say stop cooking shows.



Emeril Lagasse's violence [BAM!], Gordon Ramsay's violent temper, the knife-wielding Julia Child and Martha Stewart's illegal activities and resulting jail time have traumatized generations.
We most certainly should ban such shows and replace them with wholesome fare.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> The end, not worth discussing further.


Finally something you've said that both makes sense and I agree with...


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 11, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> More beautiful than the Sea Fury?


The P-47 M/N, definitely not. The Ki.84, yes without a doubt. Look closely and be true to yourself.


----------



## aurora-7 (Aug 11, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> The P-47 M/N, definitely not. The Ki.84, yes without a doubt. Look closely and be true to yourself.



I have to go with the SeaFury, myself. It's aerodynamics at the cowling and spinner give it an edge for me.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 11, 2016)

Kyushu J7W Shinden...case closed amigos.


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 11, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Finally something you've said that both makes sense and I agree with...


Because after a while you understand it


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 11, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Emeril Lagasse's violence [BAM!], Gordon Ramsay's violent temper, the knife-wielding Julia Child and Martha Stewart's illegal activities and resulting jail time have traumatized generations.
> We most certainly should ban such shows and replace them with wholesome fare.


Cannot stand cooking shows, as boring and senseless as beauty shows.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> Because after a while you understand it


I thought you said you were done?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 11, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> I thought you said you were done?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2016)

Capt. Vick said:


> Kyushu J7W Shinden...case closed amigos.


lol...the Shinden certainly has sleek lines.


----------



## at6 (Aug 16, 2016)

Has to be the A6M2 with the later A6M series running a close second.


----------



## T Bolt (Aug 25, 2016)

Capt. Vick said:


> Kyushu J7W Shinden...case closed amigos.


I wholeheartedly agree Jim' it looks like greased lightening just sitting there.


----------



## Frank Stewart (Aug 26, 2016)

I also like the *Mitsubishi J2M Raiden* in good looking single engine planes. They also had a very nice twin or two, but my heart is always on the singles for the best looks in foreign planes!
The P1Y2-S _Shisei Kyokkō _was easily the best looking of the Jap twins.
Just my opinion.


----------



## Frank Stewart (Aug 26, 2016)

aurora-7 said:


> I have to go with the SeaFury, myself. It's aerodynamics at the cowling and spinner give it an edge for me.


It also had a raised cockpit like the Bearcat and that made it much better as a fighter although I do not know the exact performance details of the SeaFury, it is one of my favorite single radial engined planes just because of it's looks. I also like the P-51H because all things considered, it was the single best single engined fighter to enter service during WW-II! IMHO!


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 31, 2016)

The P-51H didn't see any action during WWII


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 31, 2016)

There were more F8Fs delivered to operational units than the P-51H.

The first F8Fs were delivered in May, 1945 (VF-19 operational 21 May 1945) and the first P-51Hs were delivered in July, 1945.

Neither saw combat in WWII.


----------



## aurora-7 (Sep 1, 2016)

And neither were Japanese made and therefore do not qualify as choices for this thread's poll.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2016)

aurora-7 said:


> And neither were Japanese made and therefore do not qualify as choices for this thread's poll.


Sort of like the Seafury, right? 

Thought I mentioned the KI-102 in this thread already, but it had great lines and excellent performance, but like many high-performance Japanese types, arrived too late to make a difference.


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 3, 2016)

Oreo said:


> Ok, we did the Russians, how about the Japanese? This is totally subjective, what Japanese fighter do YOU think was the best looking? Again, I'm likely to forget one, so bear with me. I don't know whether to include a couple of types, A7M, for instance, that didn't see combat. I think I'll not-- only types that saw combat.



*Without a doubt THIS was the best-looking Japanese fighter of WWII!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Guv (Mar 22, 2017)

For me a close call between the Ki-61 and Ki-84. No votes for the Ki-44?????? That thing looked like a pumped up FW-190!


----------



## spicmart (Mar 26, 2017)

The Ki-84 kind of had faintly negatively swept wings if you look closely at the forward leading edge.
Just like the P-40.

I wonder if that had any advantages.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 26, 2017)

Do you have an official or even published source for this or is it just from looking at pictures?


----------



## spicmart (Mar 26, 2017)

Just looking at pictures and building models of them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 26, 2017)

spicmart said:


> Just looking at pictures and building models of them.



"America's Hundred Thousand" says that the P-40 had 1 degree, 19 minutes of wing sweep. Darn near straight but certainly not negative sweep.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 26, 2017)

What is the definition of negative sweep?


----------



## Robert Porter (Mar 26, 2017)

Wikipedia lists it as "The Nakajima Ki 43 is notable for being the only successful fighter aircraft with a truly forward-swept wing, although the forward sweep of its leading edge is nearly unnoticeable."

Forward-swept wing - Wikipedia

We all know you can't trust Wikipedia but the citations listed look legit. And it is the 43 not 83


----------



## spicmart (Mar 26, 2017)

I meant the Nakajima Ki-84 “Frank“, not the Ki-83.
Being also a Nakajima design you can look at some drawings and japanese model company designed (I think Hasegawa should know) aircraft models that the Frank did have some negative swept wing leading edges albeit just very slightly.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 27, 2017)

I've tried to superimpose a line over the leading edges of both Ki-43 and Ki-84, result being both leading edges have zero sweep, wheter forward or backward.
The Wikipedia quote seems missing now.


----------



## Robert Porter (Mar 27, 2017)

The reference does state that the sweep was not very noticeable. "*although the forward sweep of its leading edge is nearly unnoticeable*". Not sure where we could get design drawings, at least I have not found any on the web yet.


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Mar 28, 2017)

My favorite is the Kyushu J7W Shinden.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 29, 2017)

Mitsubishi Ki-83, a direct descendant of the Ki-46 “Dinah“, one of the most elegant twin engined aircraft of WW2.
And it (Ki-83) had the performance to back up its killer beauty.


----------



## Zippythehog (May 2, 2017)

Forward sweep reduces wingtip vortices and hence drag. Low airspeed roll control is enhanced for the same reason-spanwise airflow.


----------



## HBPencil (May 2, 2017)

The Ki-84 for me. It has clean, well proportioned lines like the Oscar and Zero but with a stronger hint of utilitarian aggressiveness... in other words it looks more bad-ass


----------



## MDriskill (May 10, 2017)

Another Tony vote...though, as a group, I think the Japanese had the best-looking fighter force overall of any WW2 nation! The Oscar, Tojo, Frank, Ki-100, George, and Jack have all been among my faves since I was a kid.

I believe the Oscar, Tojo, and Frank all had a straight wing leading edge, though with the pronounced dihedral, they can appear to be slightly forward-swept from some angles.


----------

