Am I the only person in the world who's a fan of the Ki-43

[tomo pauk]

The Ha-115 was a redesign of the Ha-25, with greater max RPM (2800 vs. 2700), slightly increased compression ratio, increased boost enabled via usage of 92 oct fuel vs. 87 oct fuel on the Ha-25, and indeed a 2-speed S/C. Net gain was the increase of power in all altitudes, cost being 70 kg.
Data from the TAIC manual, the asterisk (*) represents Allied estimate:

 

[Jenisch]

Actually I guess I shouldn't have underestimated the opinions of Japanese pilots, but still the speed question in regard to the Ki-43 and even the Zero puzzles me. I have read Jiro Horikoshi's book about the Zero and he criticizes the people who complain about the Zero without considering the context in which the plane was inserted (a naval fighter with long range), which thus means the designers had to make some trade-offs in order to achive the specifications. This is more palatable IMHO. As for the Ki-43, I don't think there's much of an excuse: the plane was fruit of a poor design and/or specifications. And indeed at the beginning, it was rejected. Only after improvements were carried out the IJA accepted the plane, but even so I guess it was bellow the expectations in terms of speed.

 

[Jenisch]

I guess I wasn't very clear in what I was trying to express above. So to clarify: I think the airframe of the Ki-43 with a good engine was a decent fighter, specially for the Pacific and CBI in 1942 and even to some extent 1943. However unlike the Ki-27, which was a plane that when entered in service was quite faste (specially if compared with it's potential foe, the I-16) and also agile, the Ki-43 just wasn't like that. It took more than a year for the plane to receive a new engine, and and even more (1944) for it to achive a speed that would be adequate for 1942.

I guess the fault is not even from the Army in regard to the specifications or the design team. Maybe the Japanese simply didn't had an adequate engine, so you have to make up with what you have.

 

[taly01]

The Japanese had plenty of decent engines however they seemed to have "overtuned" the Homare and DB601 copies which their next generation fighters like Ki-84 and Ki-61 were designed around. One example the re-engined Ki-61 as Ki-100 could have been built in 1942 as its Kinsei radial was already in service!

The Ki-43 did what is was built for a light fighter, the problem was that its "replacement" the Ki-61 was an unreliable nightmare, and later on the Ki-84 had many troubles on introduction, so Ki-43 had to be kept in full production even when it is 50+mph slower than newest allied types.

 

[Shinpachi]

Japanese scientists owned the uranium 235 too.

 

[Jenisch]

What I wonder is how the IJA staff viewed the way the Ki-43 should be operated. I have skpeticism in regard to the often mentioned dogfight capability as being a mistake in their specifications. I think they surely wanted quite agile planes to defeat their enemies in dogfights, but I wonder if the low top speed was necessarily a result of this policy. Because the Zero was quite similar to the Wildcat in speed, but was much more agile. Yes, it lacked armor and dive speed, but apart from this the design was solid and competitive vis-à-vis the F4F. Although the Ki-43 did not managed to do the same against the P-40 for instance, as far as speed in concerned.

 

[tomo pauk]

The P-40 was faster than F4F, so it would be hard for the Ki-43 to be faster than P-40. Zero, once it got improved Sakae, was faster than F4F.
Looks like the Zero got the improved exhausts earlier than the Ki-43, that gained some 20 km/h once installed.
As for what the IJA brass wanted, there was only so much the radials of initially 900 HP can afford.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Japanese had plenty of decent engines however they seemed to have "overtuned" the Homare and DB601 copies which their next generation fighters like Ki-84 and Ki-61 were designed around. One example the re-engined Ki-61 as Ki-100 could have been built in 1942 as its Kinsei radial was already in service!

The Ki-43 did what is was built for a light fighter, the problem was that its "replacement" the Ki-61 was an unreliable nightmare, and later on the Ki-84 had many troubles on introduction, so Ki-43 had to be kept in full production even when it is 50+mph slower than newest allied types.

Japan wasted lots of resources when designing & producing plenty of competing fighter & attack aircraft designs, and some that were ot needed. Floatplane fighter by Kawainshi, dedicated land-based fighter for the IJN, too small a winged Ki 44. Three designs of CV torpedo bombers, another two or three CV-based dive bombers - all in 4-5 years. Dedicated recon aircraft (two types) is not a good use of limited resources.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The Japanese were as guilty of fighting the last war as the Allies. Their experience in China and against the Soviets over Khalkin Gol seemed to validate their belief in the importance of high maneuverability vs speed. The Ki-43 was faster than anything the IJAAF had faced up to the launch of the Great Southern Offensive.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Japan wasted lots of resources when designing & producing plenty of competing fighter & attack aircraft designs, and some that were ot needed. Floatplane fighter by Kawainshi, dedicated land-based fighter for the IJN, too small a winged Ki 44. Three designs of CV torpedo bombers, another two or three CV-based dive bombers - all in 4-5 years. Dedicated recon aircraft (two types) is not a good use of limited resources.

Whether resources were well spent or wasted is only measurable in retrospect. Each design is always based on the perceived need at the time it is conceived. Every air force was guilty of investing in aircraft that failed to meet expectations, yet it is the death knell of an air force that eschews development of newer and better types.

 

[Shortround6]

A big problem with the KI-43, in retrospect, was that the vast majority of it's production was in 1943/44 at a time when it should have been obvious that it was no longer in the front rank/s of fighters no matter how well it did in 1941/42.

Out of the 5800-5900 Ki 43s built a bit over 3000 of them were built in 1944. And another 748 (?) in 1945.

 

[Jenisch]

The P-40 was faster than F4F, so it would be hard for the Ki-43 to be faster than P-40. Zero, once it got improved Sakae, was faster than F4F.
Looks like the Zero got the improved exhausts earlier than the Ki-43, that gained some 20 km/h once installed.
As for what the IJA brass wanted, there was only so much the radials of initially 900 HP can afford.

I guess I didn't expressed myself clearly. Yes, the P-40 was faster than the F4F. What I wanted to say was that the IJN had an aircraft with a comparable speed to it's main naval foe (the F4F). Whereas the IJA was in a disappointing position with the Ki-43 against vs the P-40 for instance.

 

[tomo pauk]

Whether resources were well spent or wasted is only measurable in retrospect. Each design is always based on the perceived need at the time it is conceived. Every air force was guilty of investing in aircraft that failed to meet expectations, yet it is the death knell of an air force that eschews development of newer and better types.

I'm all for newer and better types. Quirk with a new, expesive and long-ish to develop and start to mass produce (several years) is that the time and resources spent need to show results in a timely manner. Let's take IJN as example. They have Zero, in service as CV- and land-based fighter, as well as floatplane fighter. So the IJN embarks on developing a single-purpose Raiden, instead of pursuing a CV-based fighter of new generation that also can be land based. Outfit it with cameras so there is a recon machine.
Or - combine the late-war designs for torpedo- and dive-bomber in a single machine.

IJA could've had an useful mid- to late-war fighter had they opted for the Ki-44 with a bit bigger wing and 4 heavy MGs from start, later add 20mm instead of wing HMGs. Churn those out instead of Ki-43 from 1943 on.

All of this is before we talk about IJN and IJA being on worse terrms than, say, Stalin and Churchill, with their separate supply chains with regard to airframes, engines, armament etc.

 

[taly01]

Jenisch is right, Ki-43-I was 25mph slower speed to the Zero 21 with the same engine let alone no 20mm cannon. The IJA would have been better off accepting the Zero as a superior design, but from what I have read the interservice cooperation IJA vs IJN was poor!

The IJA could have made an Army Zero without carrier equipment and even used army guns 4x12.7!

 

[Jenisch]

but from what I have read the interservice cooperation IJA vs IJN was poor!

The comparison of their relation as being like Churchill and Stalin made by tomo pauk is the best one I have ever seen. I guess Shinpachi can validate this better than most of us.

 

[Shinpachi]

Competition between IJA and IJN was rather good each other to develop better planes.
This was effective until they made war on the U.S. in December 1941.
In April 1943, they decided to unify the designations of aviation engines as the first step toward cooperation.

 

[rank amateur]

OK! I did not know that. I figured they battled each other as hard as they did their common enemies. Would you know which planes benefitted from that cooperation?

 

[Shinpachi]

Mitsubishi J8M (Ki-200) comes to mind.
Army Ki-67 was also used as a torpedo bomber by the navy.

 

[rank amateur]

OK thanks. I thought Peggy was from the start designed for torpedo use. Futhermore regarding the ki200, it still strikes me as odd that both services insisted on separate version. Nevertheless interesting to know that there was cooperation.

 

[tomo pauk]

IMO - cooperation was thinkered about only after grave setbacks the Imperial Japanese war effort experienced, instead on timely manner.