# Ki-84 - uber aircraft?



## Sgt. Pappy (Jan 18, 2008)

Hey,

I've been looking all over the web and I've been coming across sites many a time stating that the Ki-84 was actually a much superior plane to what the official figures state.

The Ki-84 we all know has a top speed of ~ 380 - 390 mph. This is on the lower-grade octane used by the Japanese during WWII. When tested in the U.S., many sites claim that the Ki-84 had reached ~ 430 mph in level flight when stripped of paint, ammunition (not sure if the weapons were in there or the fuel % being carried) and with the use high-grade U.S. fuel. What grade was this? 100/130 or 115/145? Big difference. 

Trying to get to the bottom of the Ki-84's true performance.

Thanks!


----------



## merlin (Jan 19, 2008)

In Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War by RRene J Francillon, in the last paragraph on this aircraft he states:

Although production Hayates were plagued by inferior workmanship, they were the most successful Japanes aircraft operating during the Okinawa campaign and in the defence of the homeland, and Nakajima and Mansyu delivered 3,382 production Ki-84s in seventeen months, no mean feat considering the chaos brought about by the B-29 raids. As demonstrated by a captured aircraft restored at the Middletown Air Depot, Pennsylvannia, in the spring of 1946, the Ki-84's performance was truly spectacular: at a weight of 7,490 lb, considered representative of combat operations, the aircraft reached a speed of 427 mph at 20,000 ft using War Emergency Power.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 19, 2008)

This particular performance is not representative for normal Ki-84´s. Not only have they lightened the plane and used higher grade fuels but also parts of the fuel system and the engine had to be remanufactured. It is not known in how far performance gains may be attributed to these improvements.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 19, 2008)

also the common figure speed 380/390 mph is not representative, japanese not use WEP in official speed test. the japanese figure can't comparate with allied or german


----------



## HoHun (Jan 19, 2008)

Hi Vincenzo,

>also the common figure speed 380/390 mph is not representative, japanese not use WEP in official speed test. the japanese figure can't comparate with allied or german

Thanks for the information, that's quite interesting!  Do you have a source where this is defined (or explained)? It would be most interesting - information of this type is usually hard to find!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 19, 2008)

i read in a forum, in this forum Oleg Maddox's Ready Room - Forum Powered by eve community


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Jan 19, 2008)

Thanks!

Though, Vincenzo, that's not really a source since it's just some other person saying the same thing. We mean like official documentation.

Delcyros, 
So they tuned the engine differently in order to handle the octane?


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

The Ki-84 did feature excellent low alt performance though, being faster than most US fighters there. 

However the main advantage enjoyed by the Ki-84 was its superior maneuverability to all US British fighters.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 19, 2008)

true a forum is not a source, but it's very strange that the japanese fighters is so slow comparate to alllied or european axis fighters. some can try ask a source in that forum.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 19, 2008)

i see may be the our forum document the source see Performance of Late War Japanese Fighters - Topic Powered by eve community
the link a THESE


----------



## delcyros (Jan 20, 2008)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> Delcyros,
> So they tuned the engine differently in order to handle the octane?



Yes, I belive so. RG_Lunatic wrote something on this here on an old thread.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jan 20, 2008)

Using better fuel would not of itself make much difference to performance. The whole point of higher-octane fuel is that it enabled higher cylinder pressures to be developed (through using higher compression ratios or higher supercharging pressures) without the fuel reaching detonation point, thereby producing more power. 

So you would _have _to modify the engine to get significant benefit from better fuel.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 20, 2008)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> Though, Vincenzo, that's not really a source since it's just some other person saying the same thing. We mean like official documentation.


AFAIK there is no definitive published source about the 'real' speed of the Type 4 Fighter (Ki-84, 'Frank'). Anotehr forum with high quality discussion about Japanese a/c is j-aircraft.com, see their FAQ's page for archived Ki-84 threads which cover this topic. No definitive answer but two likely facts are that Japanese official numbers did indeed tend to be conservative, and 388 is for an early not definitive version. I agree web forums always have the question of 'who are these guys?' and usually several people saying opposing or not exactly the same things; OTOH serious researchers and authors do post on web forums.
Return to Faq

Another piece of info, though not an answer either, is this US intel manual (below) from March '45 listing the top speed of the Type 4 as 427mph at 20k ft. Note this is before the end of the war and therefore the postwar trials which according to Francillon achieved the exact same number, suggesting the possiblility that 427 was a calculated estimate, and no trial ever produced it. AFAIK nobody has found the original trial results Francillon refers to.

As to actual Type 4 combat results, we had a good thread here recently comparing claims and losses from Japanese, US and Chinese published sources for Type 4 v P-40 ops in China in 1944. US/Chinese P-40 units held their own.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-40-vs-late-war-japanese-fighters-10144.html

Some other two side documented (losses are given, claims not mentioned) combats including Type 4's are:

Jan 7 '45: 4 P-38's of 475th Grp fought a single Type 1 later assisted by a single Type 4, Leyte area. 2 P-38's were lost (including the ace Tommy McGuire) plus the Type 1 lost/KIA; the Type 4 crashlanded.

Jan 8, 45: FM-2 Wildcats from VC-20 and VC-21 downed apparently 3 and 5 respectively from a mixed force of 73rd Sentai Type 4's and 19th Sentai Type 3's ('Tony'), without loss.

July 28, 45: 47th Sentai lost 8 a/c when bounced near their airfield by VF-16 F6F's.

Aug 13, '45: 22nd and 85th Sentais lost 11 fighters (probably all Type 4's) v 1 507th FG P-47N lost in the Seoul, Korea area.

August 14 '45: 47th Sentai lost 2 Type 4's v 1 35th FS P-38L.

"Naval Aviation Combat Statistics" quotes USN claims and losses by type for Sept '44 thru end of war, as 114 Franks downed v 12 F6F's 28:4 for F4U's. Problem is, besides the usual of not knowing exactly how those US victory credits correlate with actual Japanese losses, there were a lot of mis-ID's among a pretty large number of basically similar looking Japanese radial fighter types late in the war. For example, no FM claims v Franks are listed because in the case above the FM's believed the radial opponents were 'Tojo's'; and several of the F6F losses were in a combat Henry Sakaida shows in "Genda's Blade" to have been v. JNAF 343rd Air Group Shiden (N1K1J 'George'; that book estimates btw the 343rd was on short end of a 1:3 actual kill ratio v US fighters; it's not the same type, but at least it's data of two sided research of a bunch of late war combats for a comparable type, AFAIK there's no systematic data for any Type 4 unit in the home defence theater).

That's a pretty small sample of all combats including Type 4's (others, please  ) but the point is there aren't many two side documented cases of Type 4's defeating US fighters, AFAIK. The 'other' factors tended to be stacked against the Type 4's; and in the Type 4's case there's more uncertainty than usual about the 'plane' factors, even besides the usual question of how to convert a technical measure like speed into a quantitative measures of combat effectiveness.







Joe


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Jan 20, 2008)

Thanks again all! Very interesting info. Especially that writeup, JoeB. Is that all from the link? 

True, Williams. But this cannot be said for all engines. The Merlin 66 at one point ran on 100 grade UK Octane (100/125 US grade I think?). With almost no modification to the engine took on 150 UK grade (115/145 US grade) and look at the huge performance boost it got at low-med alts just from that octane grade.

It seems that some octane grades differ enough to boost performance.

Kind of like an exam. Say you need 75% to get some kind of award or degree. If you get 60% you don't fail the test but you don't get your degree. If you get 74% that's great but you still need 1%. So a fuel grade of say, 140 UK grade (just an example) would probably not increase performance, but it is substantially higher graded than 100. Then just 10 more grades up and voila, performance boost.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 20, 2008)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> Thanks again all! Very interesting info. Especially that writeup, JoeB. Is that all from the link?


No, the relevant stuff on the j-aircraft FAQ's (especially Ki-84 part 2), is mainly about the speed question, so most of what I posted isn't there, and OTOH I recommend that link for lots of stuff I didn't post  

Joe


----------



## Tony Williams (Jan 20, 2008)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> True, Williams. But this cannot be said for all engines. The Merlin 66 at one point ran on 100 grade UK Octane (100/125 US grade I think?). With almost no modification to the engine took on 150 UK grade (115/145 US grade) and look at the huge performance boost it got at low-med alts just from that octane grade.
> 
> It seems that some octane grades differ enough to boost performance.



The "almost no modification" consisted of changes to the supercharging in order to increase the boost pressure quite considerably, and that's what increased the performance - which is the point I made.

I have in front of me "The Merlin in Perspective", an official publication of the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust. This includes the following information:

The Merlin was first developed on 87 octane fuel, at which the maximum permissible boost pressure was +6 psi. Changing to 100 octane immediately enabled the pressure to be increased to +12 psi, which increased the power from just over 1,000 to 1,300 hp. 

Further development (particularly a two-stage supercharger, together with modifying the constituents of the fuel to better suit the engine) enabled the boost pressure to be increased to +18 psi, increasing the power to 1,600 hp. 

The final development came with 150 octane fuel in 1944, which enabled the boost pressure to be raised to +25 psi and the power to over 2,000 hp.

Through all of the above, the Merlin stayed basically the same (apart from durability/longevity improvements); the increasing performance was entirely down to increasing supercharger boost pressures, which was only made possible by using improved fuels.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Jan 20, 2008)

Ah yes. I have borrowed that book and I really want to get myself a copy.

That's interesting. The 150 grade, though, doesn't seem to need modification to the supercharger. I'm still bad with my terminologies but I'm reading off of Spitfire IX Trials at +25 boost
I could be wrong, but I just haven't found any modification pertaining to the supercharger or other parts to allow the use of 150 grade. 

The other grades, yes but not 150.


----------



## merlin (Jan 22, 2008)

Fellow 'posters' may be interested in the introductions to the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate.

First from Francillon:

The Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate, undoubtedly the best Japanese fighter aircraft to see large-scale operation during the last year of the war, was as feared by Allied crews as it was praised by Japanese pilots. Well protected, well armed, fast and manoeuvrable, this fighter gave a good account of itself in the desperate battles over the Phillipines, the Ryukyu Islands and the Japanese Home islands, and Japan's faith in it is emphasized by the fact that at the end of the war they were building inderground factories with a planned rate of 200 Hayates per month.

Second from Wllm Green:

During the summer of 1944 the J.A.A.F. introduced a new warplane, the Ki-84-1a or Type 4 Fighter, Model 1a, which was destined to become for the Allies the most troublesome Army fighter encountered in combat from that time until the end of the war. Employed in all operational theatres, and used for high-, medium-, and low-altitude interception, close-support and dive-bombing, the Hayate differed radically from earlier J.A.A.F. fighters, in that relatively light construction gave place to an extremely sturdy structure. It compared favourably with the best of its antagonists; it was slightly slower than the P-51H Mustang and the P-47N Thunderbolt, but it could out-climb and out-manoeovre both American fighters.

For such good write-ups, the designers must have done something right. It was not the aircraft's fault if, at times poor workmanship or maintenance gave it problems at crucial times.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 22, 2008)

merlin said:


> Fellow 'posters' may be interested in the introductions to the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate.
> 
> First from Francillon:
> 
> ...


This is apropo to the recent off topic tangent on another thread about aviation authors. It particularly mentioned criticism of Green, who I defended as a good basic source but outdated. Francillon wasn't mentioned but has also written a lot of accurate, and some pretty inaccurate, things over his long career.

See my post on the first page (and the link to excellent earlier thread on this forum about Type 4 ops in China). I don't know of any two side documented combats where Type 4's were so successful as to be 'feared' or even very 'troublesome'. A potentially good plane yes, but actually successful or 'feared' in the circumstances pertaining, much more doubtful, at least as far as fighter v fighter combat.

As a kid I read Green's series when it was pretty new, and I still refer to Francillon's 'Japanese A/c...' all the time (though with due caution, not just about those kind of generalizations, but which units operated planes, how many produced, etc. there are apparently a fair number of errors in that info). Once upon a time I would assume the kind of general characterizations in those books were backed up with a lot of well documented examples of particular combats, but now I realize that's a doubtful assumption.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Jan 23, 2008)

Merlin, I would be extremely surprised if the KI 84 could out climb a P51 H although I don't know if they ever encountered one another. A fighter the KI 84 probably did encounter which it would not have had many if any advantages over would have been the F4U4.


----------



## attack!!! (Jan 24, 2008)

I think the best Japanese fighter aircraft is the Kawanishi N1K-J Shiden Kai:


> In air-to-air combat, experienced Japanese pilots flying Shiden Kais could more than hold their own against most American pilots flying F6F Hellcats. In February 1945, *a brave pilot, Warrant Officer Muto, single-handedly engaged 12 Hellcats and shot down four of them before the remainder disengaged*


Is this story true?


----------



## renrich (Jan 24, 2008)

If you are referring to the Shinden, a canard AC, my source says that it had a total flying time of 45 minutes before the war ended so I doubt if it had any kills.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Jan 24, 2008)

He's referring to the Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden Kai "George". 
Kawanishi N1K1-J Shiden (Violet Lightning) and N1K2-J Shiden Kai

It's a conventional monoplane .. not like the Shinden.


----------



## merlin (Jan 24, 2008)

No attack!! is not refering to the Shinden, the reference 'Shiden' is correct the Allied code name being 'George'.
As soon as the prototype of the floatplane fighter 15-shi Kyofu (Mighty Wind) flew, work began on a land-based version. The first version had almost mid-fuselage set wings - which meant low undercarriage. 
This to quote Green:
.... entered service with the J.N.A.F. early in 1944, and despite troubles with its Homare engine and shortcomings resulting from the inadequate development period, it soon proved itself a redoutable warplane, and its pilots came to lool upon the formidable Gruman Hellcat as a relatively easy 'kill'.
The second version the Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden-Kai (George 21) was a simplified aircraft - only 43,000 parts compared with 66,000 on the first, it was now a low-set wing yielding a less complicated undercarriage. 
It was this machine that Flight Warrant Officer Kinsuke Muto is quoted by Green as having his 'success' - what a competent pilot can do.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 24, 2008)

attack!!! said:


> 'a brave pilot, Warrant Officer Muto, single-handedly engaged 12 Hellcats and shot down four of them before the remainder disengaged'
> Is this story true?


No, and it's not even a claim actually made by Muto. It was invented in a war time Japanese press release, then repeated by writers like Green and Francillon and ever since. 

Again see my earlier post mentioning "Genda's Blade" about the 343rd Air Group. The author, Henry Sakaida, estimated from correlating their and US accounts of their various combats that this elite Shiden ('George') unit's actual exchange ratio v US fighters (it met USAAF, USN and USMC) was around 1:3, ie. in the US favor; although it did have some successful combats. I recommend that book, and as I mentioned regret there isn't so far anything similar dealing comprehensively with a Type 4 ('Frank') unit's actual results, even in Japanese AFAIK.

Like the Type 4, the Shiden* was inherently a good plane, but its combat record in the actual cirsumstances, as far as can be verified from two sided accounting, was not all that impressive.

*紫電 shiden=violet [colored] lightning v 震電 shinden=tremor causing lightning (or 'magnificent' lightning as often rendered).

Joe


----------



## renrich (Jan 24, 2008)

I strongly question that any Japanese pilot ever looked on a Hellcat as an easy kill. At least Saburo Sakai did not indicate that although he did score some kills against that AC, although I don't believe it was in a George. My source shows the George as having performance about like an F6F3 but not up to the Level of the F6F5.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JoeB (Jan 24, 2008)

merlin said:


> This to quote Green:
> .... it soon proved itself a redoutable warplane, and its pilots came to lool upon the formidable Gruman Hellcat as a relatively easy 'kill'.


I didn't notice the quotation of that classic chestnut before. There's simply no evidence to support that statement, AFAIK no evidence Green even thought he had any particular evidence  . Let me ask again more directly, why exactly *are* we quoting Green at this stage of the game?

Joe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jan 25, 2008)

JoeB said:


> Once upon a time I would assume the kind of general characterizations in those books were backed up with a lot of well documented examples of particular combats, but now I realize that's a doubtful assumption.



You discussed a number of authors in another thread Joe and now Francillion joins the list?



merlin said:


> It compared favourably with the best of its antagonists; it was slightly slower than the P-51H Mustang and the P-47N Thunderbolt, but it could out-climb and out-manoeovre both American fighters.



This is also mentioned in Francillion's biblical "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" of 1970. He mentions the Ki-84 reaching;

_ "427mph at 20,000 ft using War Emergency Power. This speed exceeded that of the American P-51D-25-NA Mustang and Republic P-47D-35-RA Thunderbolt at the same altitude by 3 mph and 22 mph respectively."_

Joe has mentioned that Francillion provides no evidence where this comparison data came from.

Interestingly he wrote an article for the part-work series Airplane in 1990 and makes no mention of the above comparison, simply concluding that a Ki-84 was;
_
.."extensively tested in the Philippines and the United States, this evaluation confirming the high opinion in which the Hayate was held by allied crews."_


----------



## JoeB (Jan 25, 2008)

Graeme said:


> You discussed a number of authors in another thread Joe and now Francillion joins the list?
> 
> ...Francillion's biblical "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" of 1970. He mentions the Ki-84 reaching;


Yes, "Japanese a/c..." is an important book but you can't rely on it entirely, not for those sort of unfootnoted characterizations, and also not for the order of battle info (which units operated which planes at the end of each section), or necessarily the production histories, etc. Though there isn't any one English language book that covers the whole topic better that I know of.

Francillon way back also wrote stuff on the Pacific War apparently using popularized Japanese publications as source. I remember one article, though can't remember the exact citation, reciting vastly inflated Japanese aerial claims at Coral Sea as if facts. Now as we all know, older Western work usually did the inverse, some lower quality stuff still does, repeating Allied claims clearly not verified as losses in long known and credible Japanese sources. But it's something to keep in mind, that Francillon's original approach to this topic seems to have been via popularized Japanese accounts and that's where some of those statements probably come from. Anyway again, with 'Hellcat easy kill', whether it's from Green or Francillon, and while it may have appeared first in some Japanese article or book, it's highly questionable whether that was actually the view of Japanese air units, and it clearly can't be supported with two sided facts of F6F v Shiden combats; likewise the 1 George v 12 F6F's comes out 4:1 in favor of George, was a Japanese wartime press claim, not an actual JNAF claim, besides not being true.

Joe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Jan 26, 2008)

What is really needed is hardcore test data... the aircraft's condition, loading etc. Hard to find especially on Japanese planes.


----------



## attack!!! (Jan 26, 2008)

And now is Saburo Sakai, alone in a Zero, against possibly twenty Hellcats:
Sakai


> I can say that it was difficult. Only twice had I ever been caught unawares by my enemy, and the second time was on 24 June 1944 when we flew from Iwo Jima to intercept an inbound force of American planes. This was also when I first met the new Grumman F6F Hellcat, a very formidable fighter. I shot one down, but I was lucky because I never saw the enemy flight approach on my blind side. My peripheral vision was gone. This was when I took off the straps of my parachute harness so I could turn my head around and see things more. As soon as I did this I saw perhaps six Hellcats on my tail, and I began all of my tricks to throw them off. I was lucky, because I don’t think they had much experience against an experienced fighter pilot. I reduced power, they overshot and I increased throttle and turned right inside them. I was on their tail and I shot down another one, but then there were more on me! I pulled away, rolled over into a dive to get away. Then later I pulled out, but found myself surrounded by fifteen Hellcats, and this was amazing, because these aircraft matched me turn and spiral at every maneuver. No other enemy aircraft I had ever fought could do this, and I learned at that time my old tricks were of no use; this plane could perhaps not turn inside the Zero, but it could pull every other maneuver, and it was faster than our 350 miles per hour and could take much more damage and still fly. What saved me was the fact that these pilots were very new. Had they been the veterans of before I would have been dead many times over. *I was in this fight for almost half an hour, me alone against possibly twenty enemy planes, of which I had shot down two and damaged another*, but they would not let me go. I must have been something of a novelty to them, given the fact that they had been used to killing inexperienced teenagers. Now it seemed that these were also the same caliber of pilots firing at me from incredible distances. They never had a chance of hitting me. It seemed that they just wanted to keep me in the area, and the law of averages would allow them to win


Who can believe this?.

If Sakai could do such impossible thing with a Zero, why Muto with a Shiden Kai couldn't?
(sorry, my English's terrible)


----------



## Nikademus (Jan 26, 2008)

JoeB said:


> likewise the 1 George v 12 F6F's comes out 4:1 in favor of George, was a Japanese wartime press claim, not an actual JNAF claim, besides not being true.
> 
> Joe



What was the actual result then? I've read this version of the battle. While such a feat would be an "exception" vs. the norm, it's not out of the realm of possibility.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 26, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> What was the actual result then? I've read this version of the battle. While such a feat would be an "exception" vs. the norm, it's not out of the realm of possibility.


Again, the key flaw in that story is it's based on a wartime press account, not the JNAF's account. In the press account Muto (then with the Yokosuka Air Group Fighter Sdn) took on 12 F6F's singlehanded, thus creating a much needed new hero. In the real combat, February 16, 1945, it was 10 Shiden from his unit, and Muto himself never claimed otherwise, that probably believed they took on 12 F6F's. The actual opponents were 7 F6F's from VF-82. See Sakaida "Pacific Air Combat WWII-Voices from the Past". VF-82 did in fact lose 4 a/c but many more were claimed. There may have Shiden losses that's not clear AFAIK. So it's not 'couldn't' it's just 'didn't', and didn't actually claim to.

The point about war time press accounts is somewhat generally important too I think as it bears on the occasional debate of "but can we trust 'their' accounts?" , whoever 'they' happen to be in a given case. A less dramatic example is books which use USAAF war time releases about daily activity to calculate losses. Those releases did sometimes omit as combat losses eg. combat damaged planes which didn't make it all the way back; whereas the true total losses can be seen in the records. So I've heard from people I consider reliable, but I've seen it myself wrt to USAF press releases v records in the Korean War. For example the first US jet lost in air combat, an F-80C July 19 1950 to NK Yak-9P's. Books based on press releases have long failed to mention that loss, just mentioning the 3 Yak's claimed (2 failed to return per captured NK accounts), resulting in 'a-ha!!!' 's from people who've found first hand accounts suggesting the loss, and who sometimes would like to believe there were lots more US air combat losses in that war than officially 'admitted'. But that F-80 loss and its cause is quite clear in the records themselves, and included in immediate postwar official totals.

Joe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JoeB (Jan 26, 2008)

delete double post


----------



## attack!!! (Jan 26, 2008)

JoeB said:


> Again, the key flaw in that story is it's based on a wartime press account, not the JNAF's account. In the press account Muto (then with the Yokosuka Air Group Fighter Sdn) took on 12 F6F's singlehanded, thus creating a much needed new hero. In the real combat, February 16, 1945, it was 10 Shiden from his unit, and Muto himself never claimed otherwise, that probably believed they took on 12 F6F's. The actual opponents were 7 F6F's from VF-82. See Sakaida "Pacific Air Combat WWII-Voices from the Past". VF-82 did in fact lose 4 a/c but many more were claimed. There may have Shiden losses that's not clear AFAIK. So it's not 'couldn't' it's just 'didn't', and didn't actually claim to.
> ...


Uhm, i guess you are right


----------



## Nikademus (Jan 27, 2008)

JoeB said:


> Again, the key flaw in that story is it's based on a wartime press account, not the JNAF's account. In the press account Muto (then with the Yokosuka Air Group Fighter Sdn) took on 12 F6F's singlehanded, thus creating a much needed new hero. In the real combat, February 16, 1945, it was 10 Shiden from his unit, and Muto himself never claimed otherwise, that probably believed they took on 12 F6F's. The actual opponents were 7 F6F's from VF-82. See Sakaida "Pacific Air Combat WWII-Voices from the Past". VF-82 did in fact lose 4 a/c but many more were claimed. There may have Shiden losses that's not clear AFAIK. So it's not 'couldn't' it's just 'didn't', and didn't actually claim to.



Ok, so what you meant when you said "didn't happen" was the part stating that only 1 Shiden took on (or was taken on) by 12 F6F's, not that Muto didn't/coudn't have downed 4 Hellcats during the fight.

Interesting. I hadn't heard it was based on a "press account" though I was aware the story has always been disputed to a degree. I can believe the story could have been distorted however....since one of the books in my lib. describes Muto doing this same thing in Feb of 45 only the date was the 26, he was flying an old Zero, and the 12 enemy planes were Corsairs. Only the end result was the same. 4 claims.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 27, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> Ok, so what you meant when you said "didn't happen" was the part stating that only 1 Shiden took on (or was taken on) by 12 F6F's, not that Muto didn't/coudn't have downed 4 Hellcats during the fight.


Maybe we're destined to quibble over small points  . To me the fame of the story come froms 12:1 yields 4:0, so I would simply say it didn't happen. Since first none of those stats is accurate, and moreover the Japanese air unit itself didn't claim that version, somebody made up important aspects, not the usual situation of conflict between good faith perceptions/recollections on opposing sides.

And the likelihood of all 4 F6F's being due to one pilot in a sizeable fight with many other claims (the combat described in Hata/Izawa may be the same one, claims exceeding the number of F6F's present) would seem minimal. Whereas the possiblity than any given pilot *could* score 4 victories in a mission would seem taken for granted, as already stated. Per official USN list VF-82 was awarded 6 victories in that combat, almost surely an overstatement, but 4:0 was probably not the total score either (Sakaida doesn't say). The source for the press account being at odds with Muto's own description of the action included Muto's wife, so I don't any reason to doubt the basic conclusion of fictionalized press account (Muto himself was killed in a combat with Yorktown F6F's and F4U's July 24 '45).

One correction, if one really wants to stretch to say the story 'happened' it might help  , is most of the Yokosuka a/c were Raiden (J2M 'Jack') and Zeroes; Muto's might have been the single Shiden, in the formation.

Joe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nikademus (Jan 29, 2008)

JoeB said:


> Maybe we're destined to quibble over small points  . To me the fame of the story come froms 12:1 yields 4:0, so I would simply say it didn't happen. Since first none of those stats is accurate, and moreover the Japanese air unit itself didn't claim that version, somebody made up important aspects, not the usual situation of conflict between good faith perceptions/recollections on opposing sides.



lol....perhaps we are. . I really was only trying to clarify what you said "didn't happen"....thats all as well as get a more definitive nose count of what happened. I thought I had a track on it but now it looks like my original interpretation was correct after all.  So you are in fact saying it, [the losses] didn't happen at all. 



> And the likelihood of all 4 F6F's being due to one pilot in a sizeable fight with many other claims (the combat described in Hata/Izawa may be the same one, claims exceeding the number of F6F's present) would seem minimal.



Possibly. I will agree that it's unlikely in most any scenario. I'd never use such as general example of prowess either by machine or man. However that said, I've read several verified accounts of such a result (4 to 4+ by one pilot with no return loss) happening in other skirmishes so IMO one simply can't dismiss Muto comprehensively based on what's been presented so far.



> Whereas the possiblity than any given pilot *could* score 4 victories in a mission would seem taken for granted, as already stated. Per official USN list VF-82 was awarded 6 victories in that combat, almost surely an overstatement, but 4:0 was probably not the total score either (Sakaida doesn't say).



Unfortunately "official" victory lists are usually wrong, though sometimes they can be spot on. They can also be completely wrong. I've lost track of the # of air battles described where one or both sides were convinced they shot down enemy planes and in fact got none as it turned out in postwar research. 

But we could go down this road till the end of time. I guess the point i'm making is that you made a couple of very concrete sounding statements about the combat being more or less completely falsified so i was interested in seeing what the "real" results were. Since there are no hard numbers as it turns out, my gut feeling is that there's too much assumption going on for any definitive claim of completely false to be made. I would be interested in reading what Sakaida wrote about this combat (or seeing it posted) . I've not yet found any other source so far that confirms it to be a simple distorted press account. So i'll fall back on the more generalized conclusions i've made from past research.....Yes, 4 kills in one skirmish or closely related set of skirmishes by one pilot would be extraordinarie....but not impossible(i.e. Muto could have done it, esp given the armament of his mount), a 4:0 exchange is also not ordinary based on average results in multiple theaters when the opponents fall within certain parameters (pilot + machine)....but again, not impossible. The USN was churning out tons of well trained but green pilots well suited to the docile and forgiving nature of the F6F (which helped the loss ratio immensly) Given the nature of the fighting in 44-45, many of them might have gotten used to easy opposition such as when Sakai was pounced on and a suprise given. Suddenly facing an experten or group of experten in more formidable machines is certainly formulae for an isolated tactical upset. If in fact there was more than one Shiden present in this fight, the possibility of the result increases still further. Lastly, no....there's rarely such a thing as an easy kill when the opposition/technology level is within a certain tolerance (and that covers a wide swath of WWII aircraft). Most modern or semi-modern warplanes can put up a good fight if flown well....so saying a "hellcat is an easy kill" isn't worth alot. 

So after all this blah blah, what i'm saying in short is, i'm not considering this battle an indciation of the complete domination of Shidens over Hellcats. Rather, the Shiden, with good pilots would have made things for the Hellcats and others a far tougher fight as the former aircraft had some strengths to pit against Hellcat weaknesses far better than the outdated aircraft more often being faced.


----------



## Soren (Jan 30, 2008)

Sorry about my outburst btw Nika, forgot to say that in my last post.

Apparently the true AVG didn't meet any Zero's.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 30, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> lol....perhaps we are. .
> 1. So you are in fact saying it, [the losses] didn't happen at all.
> 
> 2. Unfortunately "official" victory lists are usually wrong, though sometimes they can be spot on. They can also be completely wrong.
> ...


1. How could I be saying there weren't USN losses when I'm the only one quoting a source matching specific USN losses (4 of VF-82) to that combat? 

2. As I already said, right in the quote. But 6 victories credited and none scored would be rare for USN claims at that stage of the war, see below.

3. In a recent exchange you said you shouldn't have to post excerpts from "Fighters Over Tunisia" by Shores re: USN Casablanca combats. As it happened, I didn't ask you to: I named 4 other sources, one by the semi-official French author Jacques Mordal and two English ones directly quoting French records and detailed USN ones. But let's say the discussion really had hinged on your interpretation of Shores: I would still have agreed with you that if I want to challenge your interpretation of a book you cite, I have to obtain it. The burden is not on you to scan and post from it (as mentioned I do plan to buy Shores' forthcoming rewrite, a project announced in an email from Shores posted on 12 O'Clock High forum).

But as far as the published source here Muto's wife told Sakaida that Muto said his achievement had been fictionalized by the official press. I see no validity in 'falling back' on other sources that just researched it less.

But, for alternative instantly accessible source I found this post on a Japanese forum. From the format, I'd say it's from the "Maru Special Pacific Air Sea War Series" which I've seen reproduced and credited elsewhere on web, though I can't gtee that's where it comes from:
FlasH BBS Pro v1.41 [‹c˜_ƒ{[ƒh‰ß‹ŽƒƒO]
Post number 2517
Summarizing: 2/16/1945 Yokosuka AG; 10 Zeroes 2 Shiden-kai; mission commander Capt Tsukamoto; details of the other pilots , 2nd Lt Hagiri and Muto being the Shiden pilots; Hagiri claims F6F and the others 5 (more? but no specific Muto claims), 1 fails to return, 2 hit (substantial uncertainty IMO/IME about what those references mean, wrecked, just damaged? etc).

And a site about Muto saying 12:1 was a 'myth' by the press
•“¡‹à‹`@*ˆÑ

So the mythical nature of one on many is not all hanging on Henry Sakaida.

Much of the rest is IMO obvious and already said by both you and me: a Shiden pilot *might* down 4 F6F's. But the famous story in Green etc is not "a Shiden might down 4 F6F's", it's a "Shiden took on 12 F6F's singlehanded and downed 4" : didn't happen. 

As for Shiden doing better than Zero in 1945 combats, stands to reason but to what degree, can you provide this info? It's one issue being debated on that forum page I quoted, actually. USN claim/loss stats by type actually say otherwise, though those stats were plagued with mis-id's of the enemy as already mentioned. And again Sakaida quoted 1:3 ratio for the Shiden-kai equipped 343rd AG (in "Genda's Blade"), and that unit had a concentration of notable pilots of the 1945 JNAF, not just a better plane.

Joe


----------



## Nikademus (Jan 30, 2008)

JoeB said:


> 1. How could I be saying there weren't USN losses when I'm the only one quoting a source matching specific USN losses (4 of VF-82) to that combat?



Thats what I was trying to clarify from the beginning. I thought I had understood you correctly after the first exchange, hence my effort to post it to make sure there was no misunderstanding...that being that what you claimed "never happened" was the 12:1 fight, not the loss count of 4 USN planes. Your last response seemed to counter that again when you responded that you felt it "didn't happen at all" 



> 2. As I already said, right in the quote. But 6 victories credited and none scored would be rare for USN claims at that stage of the war, see below.



why? 



> The burden is not on you to scan and post from it (as mentioned I do plan to buy Shores' forthcoming rewrite, a project announced in an email from Shores posted on 12 O'Clock High forum).



I think your misunderstanding me. If it's a "burden" to post any of the excerpts from Sakaida then by all means don't. Since you want to re-bring up Shores....I have posted some exerpts from it relating to other recent subjects as well as 1 or 2 other sources in trying to present some insight into discussions they were connected too. I recall saying in the Tunisia tangent that I didn't feel the desire to do so on that subject since we were nitpicking over a small varience on the range of the potential kills, a varience that existed even among the several sources you quoted. Here...well I havn't found much info at all on the battle and was interested in seeing more. I guess i'll have to hunt down a copy of Sakaida when i get a chance. In other words, i'm _interested._ thats all. 



> But as far as the published source here Muto's wife told Sakaida that Muto said his achievement had been fictionalized by the official press. I see no validity in 'falling back' on other sources that just researched it less.



As i've said, I don't have a problem believing that the battle was distorted. However I did object to claims that the whole thing was fictionalized. I was hoping for some hard numbers. What Muto allegedly told his wife and then passed on to Sakaida is not hard numbers. 's-all i'm saying. In the end 4 planes were lost according to the USN. If Muto had pals covering his back and distracting enemy planes it stands to more reason that he could have pulled a tactical upset.



> But, for alternative instantly accessible source I found this post on a Japanese forum.
> So the mythical nature of one on many is not all hanging on Henry Sakaida.



I'm afraid my Japanese is rusty. Thats why i was curious on anything you might post from Sakaida's book.




> As for Shiden doing better than Zero in 1945 combats, stands to reason but to what degree, can you provide this info? It's one issue being debated on that forum page I quoted, actually. USN claim/loss stats by type actually say otherwise, though those stats were plagued with mis-id's of the enemy as already mentioned.



If your basing plane effectiveness based mainly on claim/loss stats you can pretty much argue anything since those stats are impacted by more than just the stats of the plane. I'm not suprised at all that the stats would not indicate such....given the state of Japan's pilot corp, her logistical situation and the quality of the manufactering by that period.




> And again Sakaida quoted 1:3 ratio for the Shiden-kai equipped 343rd AG (in "Genda's Blade"), and that unit had a concentration of notable pilots of the 1945 JNAF, not just a better plane.
> Joe



Without looking at the individual battles....again, one could draw about any conclusion they want. CR-42's traded 1:1 with Hurricanes early in the battles over Malta. Should i conclude that the Hurricane has no superiority or that Gladiators would do just as well or better?


----------

