# P-51D vs. Nakajima Ki-84 "Frank"



## No_Nickname (Oct 10, 2008)

Ok, I read somewhere that the Ki-84 "Frank" was comparable, or even better then the P-51D. I was wondering if this was true and what your guys opinion of this claim.

P-51D








Nakajima Ki-84


----------



## drgondog (Oct 10, 2008)

the Ki 84 was fast (but still significantly slower at altitude) than the 51 with the fuel Japan had avaialable, but it was slightly better armed, climbed slightly faster (than a D) and turned slightly better. the 51 dove and flew faster.

Notably the 51 could get and maintain energy and pick the fight - but if it chose to give away that energy in the horizontal the 51 could be put at a disadvantage in a prolonged fight at low to medium altitudes.

The Frank was one damn good airplane. If it had US mfr engines and fuel - this would have been one of the great fighters of WWII

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 10, 2008)

No_Nickname said:


> Ok, I read somewhere that the Ki-84 "Frank" was comparable, or even better then the P-51D. I was wondering if this was true and what your guys opinion of this claim.
> 
> P-51D
> 
> ...


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 10, 2008)

drgondog said:


> the Ki 84 was fast (but still significantly slower at altitude) than the 51 with the fuel Japan had avaialable, but it was slightly better armed, climbed slightly faster (than a D) and turned slightly better. the 51 dove and flew faster.
> 
> Notably the 51 could get and maintain energy and pick the fight - but if it chose to give away that energy in the horizontal the 51 could be put at a disadvantage in a prolonged fight at low to medium altitudes.
> 
> The Frank was one damn good airplane. If it had US mfr engines and fuel - this would have been one of the great fighters of WWII



Would agree with that completely. Both excellent planes, the Ki84 was the best armed and protected of the Japanese fighters. It only took the 4 years of fighting to learn that you had to have more than just manoeuvrability


----------



## KrazyKraut (Oct 11, 2008)

I often wonder how the performance figures of japanese fighters would've changed if they had higher grade fuel available.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 11, 2008)

Altitude performance wouldn't have changed. (unless the availability of higher octane fuels lead to the engines being manufactured with of increased supercharger gear ratios)


----------



## V-1710 (Oct 11, 2008)

It has been reported that Ki-84's manufactured late in the war were inferior to earlier examples.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2008)

V-1710 said:


> It has been reported that Ki-84's manufactured late in the war were inferior to earlier examples.



That would not surprise me. Japan had a shortage of materials and the fuel they were using was not very good quality.


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 11, 2008)

I agree. The engine was complicated to build and maintain (something with the supercharger or fuel injectors, I believe) and with the allies pounding Japan, led to difficulties building this, and many other war machines.


----------



## JoeB (Oct 11, 2008)

AFAIK it's never been definitely settled how fast the Type 4 Fighter ('Frank') actually was. That's even aside from fuel. The results quoted in older books (Green, Francillon etc) said to be flyoff trials between the two apparently actually refer to speed of the Type 4 *calculated* by Allied intelligence, or else there's a great big coincidence because the same speed said to occur in a 1946 trial (427mph, Francillon "Japanese A/c" p. 236) appears in a 1944 intel manual printed before any live Allied test of a Type 4. A well manufactured production Type 4 Model 1 Otsu (Ki-84-Ia) speed at Japanese equivalent of WEP was apparently greater than the 392mph official given in Francillon but unknown. And as mentioned many later ones were poorly manufactured.

The two types first met in mid 1944 in China. In fact Type 4's were rushed there in part because of the appearance of P-51's in that theater (ie. P-51B's and C's, Allison P-51A's had operated in CBI theater since 1943 without impressing the Japanese a great deal). The Type 4 units claimed a successful kill ratio but the actual results were generally in the P-51's favor. In fact, as covered on a thread here not so long ago, even US and Chinese P-40N equipped units held their own v Type 4's in the same period, when each side's air combat losses are compared and claims of both sides ignored. 

As usual, of course, there were many other factors to those outcomes than just the capability of the planes under ideal conditions in equal numbers with equal pilots. But still there are few actual examples of Type 4's winning big victories against any Allied fighters, and despite all the other factors, that's something at least worth noting, I think. 

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2008)

For what its worth, from Wiki...

_"Initial Hayate testing at Tachikawa in early summer 1943 saw test pilot Lt. Funabashi reach a maximum level speed of 634 km/h (394 mph) in the second prototype, but after the war a captured example was tested by the U.S. Army using high-octane fuel and achieved a speed of 690 km/h (430 mph)."_


----------



## Soren (Oct 13, 2008)

The Ki-84's advantages was it superior climb rate and far superior maneuverability, it turned a lot better than the P-51, the P-51 was a pig by comparison in this area. Additionally the low alt speed of the Ki-84 was similar to that of the P-51.

The ki-84 certainly was a great fighter.


----------



## Timppa (Oct 13, 2008)

The P-51 was the better warplane hands down. Being faster at all altitudes and having better dive speed means that it could enter and disengage from fight at will. Also it had better offensive weapon load and more range.

The Ki-84 climbed and turned better, but turning was not important in air war (as it turned out )


----------



## claidemore (Oct 14, 2008)

Turning was not 'the most important', but a good fighter still had to have good turning ability. Speed was proven to be more important, and climb ability seems to be the one that gets most overlooked. A steep climbing turn could be the death knell for any inferior climbing plane in a dogfight. 

The question that arises from this thread, is how much advantage/disadvantage did these two planes have? Slightly better? Or far superior?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2008)

I think one has to look at the time and place the Ki 84 was built. As we know there were some quality problems that might of placed inferior aircraft into service. Additionally you have the skill level of the pilots.


----------



## KAKI3152 (Oct 18, 2008)

I can think of two specific examples where Ki84 Type 4 fighters gained the advantage over P-51 Mustangs

(1) October 4,1944. Four P51s of the 23rd FG where shot down with th eloss of two pilots. The 85th Sentai with 4 Ki-44 and four KI-84s claimed five P-51s including two by Wakamatsu.

(2) November 11.1944-Three P-51s of the 23rd FG were shot down in combat.


----------



## JoeB (Oct 18, 2008)

KAKI3152 said:


> I can think of two specific examples where Ki84 Type 4 fighters gained the advantage over P-51 Mustangs
> 
> (1) October 4,1944. Four P51s of the 23rd FG where shot down with th eloss of two pilots. The 85th Sentai with 4 Ki-44 and four KI-84s claimed five P-51s including two by Wakamatsu.
> 
> (2) November 11.1944-Three P-51s of the 23rd FG were shot down in combat.


In an earlier thread ('P-40 v late war Japanese fighters', we identified one of those cases, October 4. 
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-40-vs-late-war-japanese-fighters-10144.html

Are there more details of the second case? (Japanese units; the brief summary in Hata/Izawa English language version implies they suffered losses also that day).

See earlier thread for general context, for example the first Type 4 deployment by 22nd Fighter Regiment apparently resulted in at least 10 Type 4 losses (6 pilots), v 40 claims of 'destroyed and damaged' but actual US and Chinese fighter (mainly P-40N) air combat losses in the period (some surely to non-Type 4's) were less than 10. See also more examples of P-51 combats on that thread (Nov 11 is missing, though).

Of course Type 4's had their moments, OTOH two-side documented cases of older types like Zero's winning combats with US fighters also happened right to the end of the war, just not a great number of such cases. For example Aug 3 '45 302nd Air Group Zeroes jumped 506th FG P-51's which were covering a US sub picking up a pilot inside Tokyo Bay, downed a Mustang and broke off without loss.

Joe


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 18, 2008)

Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dazm9YeEFYg_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3DoLsYB52Q_

.


----------



## gianpaolo (Oct 19, 2008)

Hi


Hata/Izawa report 4 ki-43 ( 48 SENTAI? shot down at Hengyang +6 


burned on ground on around 10/11/1944 , losses that may have actually 


taken place on 11/11 , when 16 p-51 ( 75fs ) claimed 8 air + 1 ground for

3 p-51 shot down ( 1 pil k - 1 pow ) + 1 lost a/a . On same day 10 p-40 ( cacw 5 fg ) claimed 17 on ground for 2 p-40 dam and c/l

Hope this helps

Best

gianpaolo


----------



## Eurofighter (Dec 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Ki-84's advantages was it superior climb rate and far superior maneuverability, it turned a lot better than the P-51, the P-51 was a pig by comparison in this area. Additionally the low alt speed of the Ki-84 was similar to that of the P-51.
> 
> The ki-84 certainly was a great fighter.


 You only mentione the Frank's advantages over the Mustang; you forgot that in speed and at high altitude the Frank was pig against the Mustang.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeGazdik (Dec 22, 2008)

This is interesting. It almost ties in with some of the discussion on the F4U in Europe.

Because the air fighting in the Pacific was generally at a much lower altitude, this was possibly a disadvantage to the Mustang? I unfortunately know little about the detail aspects of the Japanese fighters. I suspect the Ki 84 was better at low to mid altitudes than higher? That may explain why the P-40N was successful against this great Japanese plane, because the P-40 was fighting at where it was in it's prime, whereas the P-51 was not. As great as the P-51 was, the F4U likely stacked up better in comparison to the Ki 84 at the altitudes the Pacific air battles were fought?

Besides being faster than previous Japanese fighters, was the Ki 84 finally amored to better absorb combat damage?


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2008)

The Ki-84 had similar low alt speed compared to the P-51D F4U-4, but it was far more maneuverable in all aspects of flight compared to the P-51. 

The F4U-4 Ki-84 were close in roll rate, while the Ki-84 clearly turned better. The climb rate was similar at low alt, but at mid to high alt the F4U-4 takes the lead.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 22, 2008)

I think one reason why people like the Mustang is because it's so shiny. I do.



Anyway, to get to the topic, I wonder how a Frank would have fared against a FW-190D?

Well that's sorta off topic but it is an interesting idea. Both the Frank and FW 190 have similar structure designs.


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2008)

Well besides the Fw-190 Dora-9 rolling turning better than the P-51D, I'd say it would be similar between it and the Frank. 

Had the Japanese been as far in propeller technology as the Germans then they could've squeezed another 30 km/h into the Ki-84 design for sure, and that would've made it close to untouchable in the Pacific. 

But in the end it was too little to late really. The Japanese had lost the majority of their skilled pilots in the fighting up to 1943, and by late 44 45 mostly rookies were flying these advanced a/c.


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Dec 22, 2009)

Remember the conditions the Japanese were going through by the time the Ki-84 came into service: Japan has lost nearly all of its aircraft carries, which would then result in the loses of veteran and ace pilots. Like Soren said, "mostly rookies were flying these advanced a/c." At the same time there was very little resources such as fuel and metals for the Japanese.

If compare the ki84 with the p51d, it was still a very strong opponent. The Ki84 will probably always have a turning adv excpt at 30,000ft were its performance becomes very poor. It also had better armament (alteast on the ki84II with its 4 20mm). One place in which the P-51 would have an adv is in diving and climbing. 

After the war, the US took an example of a Ki84Ia. They found out that if the Ki84 was properly maintained and supplied with good aviation gas, it was capable of reaching 426mph at 20,000ft. And if the Ki84 could actually reach those standards during the war, it would have been the best fighter in the Pacific; its only true opponent would be the F4U-4.


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2009)

With a proper engine, new prop and some better electrical systems I believe the Ki-84 would've been a better fighter than both the P-51 Fw190.


----------



## paradoxguy (Dec 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> With a proper engine, new prop and some better electrical systems I believe the Ki-84 would've been a better fighter than both the P-51 Fw190.



In addition higher quality fuel and better-trained pilots to fly the Ki. 84.

What do you envision as a" proper engine" for the Ki. 84?


----------



## Timppa (Dec 26, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Both the Frank and FW 190 have similar structure designs.



Can you give some specific details ?


----------



## davparlr (Dec 26, 2009)

Since I haven’t access to good Frank data, I will make some suppositions based on comparing it to the Fw-190A-8, which has similar power. In the Fall of ‘44, when the Frank became operational, the P-51D was using 44-1 fuel with a max boost of 75”. At fighter weight and at SL, the P-51D has a max speed of 375-380 mph with racks. The Fw-190A-8 has a SL speed of 360 mph, the Frank could be near this, a longer wingspan would hamper top speed a bit. A note here is that there is no data available to me that the Frank could come near this speed but it seems reasonable. At SL the P-51D would be faster than the Frank, perhaps significantly so. At SL and fighter weight, the P-51D is capable of about 4000’ min rate of climb, which is substantial. While I do not have a good data point for the Frank, its light weight, low wing loading, and power, would imply better performance in climb than the P-51D. So, I would guess that the P-51D would have similar performance against the Frank as against its German opponents. It would control the high ground and be competitive at the lower altitudes. Still, the P-51 should not get into a turning fight with the Frank. The Frank seemed to be an excellent fighter but its lighter weight still implies less armor than the European/American fighters.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 27, 2009)

Ive read a number of accounts that most of you would know that some of the late war FRranks used mild steel framing and faulty heat treatment to the undercarriage.


I have read some vague accounts about how the type was first deployed to China where it "flew rings around Chennaults forces based there". But after its deployment to the Phillipinnes, the rot set in, with very poor serviceability rates, and a high accident rate due to the poor QA standards being applied at the point of manufature. 

I have no information on the alleged steel framed versions, and cannot confirm the vereacity of any of these claims


----------



## JoeB (Dec 27, 2009)

davparlr said:


> The Frank seemed to be an excellent fighter but its lighter weight still implies less armor than the European/American fighters.


The Type 4 had 13mm armor behind the pilot, so heavier than US fightesr (which typically had 7-9.5mm seat plates). US fighters were armored mainly to defeat rifle caliber AP bullets and HE cannon shell or explosive bullet fragments, and armor was reduced in some later war fighters (like late model P-40's) to save weight. The Type 4's armor in contrast would have been aimed at defeating .50cal AP, which 1/2+-inch armor would give a good (though not 100%) chance of achieving considering the effects of the plane's structure on a bullet fired from directly astern, and the angle in case of a deflection shot.

Re: Parsifal on Type 4 results in China, see above in this thread and thread titled someting like 'P-40 against late war opponents'. The actual results of USAAF and Chinese-American Composite Wing P-40N v Type 4 in 1944 in China was if anything in favor of the P-40. The combats typically occurred at low altitude so the P-40's were not actually at a huge disadvantage. And posts above also discuss Type 4 successes v Merlin P-51's in China of which there were a few, but not many.

Joe


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 29, 2009)

What i've heard echoes much of what's been said. If the plane in question is well built (which was often not the case by late 44/early 45) it was formidable, able to compete and win against all comers including the P-51. In the case of the Mustang, its superior max speed would allow it to run away if undamaged or with enough advance alert, choose whether to fight or not....but if it chose to "mix it up", the Frank had better maneuverability and coulld win and was well armed. Higher alt was a weakness and the Japanese were working on a high alt version of the plane but it never deployed before the war ended IIRC.

In the end even without the QA issues, there would not have been enough planes or pilots to alter things, Japan's problem was the same as Germany's only more acute and in the end it was the pilot bottleneck that doomed them regardless of the plane.


----------

