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

[Timppa]

lack of armour, and allied to that, the propensity to catch fire...

Ki43-II had both heavy pilot armor and self sealing tanks...

 

[parsifal]

Prototypes for the Ki-43-II flew in February 1942, with early (unarmoured) versions entering service December 1942. Armouring of the ki43 did not begin until the introduction of the Ki-43 II (Ko) subtype, and then only with a 13mm sliver of armour to protect the pilots head, and some for the pilots back area. This was slightly more effective than the armoured screens being fitted at that time to the A6M5a subtype. The Ki-43II from April 1944 began to be fitted with a crude rubber like coating around the fuel cell, to act as a sort of fire retardant, which ive read were roughly as effective as the onboard extinguishers that were by then being fitted to the zero at about that time. This was later replaced by 3-layer rubber bladder, 8mm core with 2mm oil-proof lamination. The bladder has proven to be highly resistant against 7.7mm bullets, but was not effective against larger calibers. The pilot also enjoyed a slightly taller canopy and a reflector gunsight for the first time in place of the earlier telescopic gunsight., less most of the armour described above (which came later) Nakajima commenced production of the Ki-43-II at its Ota factory in November 1942. Production was also started at the Tachikawa Hikoki and the 1st Army Air Arsenal (Tachikawa Dai-Ichi Rikugun Kokusho). Although Tachikawa Hikoki successfully managed to enter into large-scale production of the Ki-43, the 1st Army Air Arsenal was less successful. –

Tachikawa also produced the Ki-43 III, which utilized the more powerful Nakajima Army Type 1 Ha-115-II engine. Maximum speed increased to 358 mph. The definitive armoured subtype of the ki-43 was the ki-43II (Kai) to entry date im uncertain of, but it was the latter part of 1944.

Tachikawa produced 2124 Ki-43-II and -III aircraft between April 1944 and the end of the war Total production of all versions amounted to 5,919 aircraft. On that basis, the majority of ki-43s were not armoured, and an even larger proportion were indifferently protected.

Ki-43-II Ko Hayabusa "Oscar" of the 25 Sentai China 1944 as the heavily armoured version was being introduced

Back armouring in the ki-43II ko subtype

Captured Nakajima Ki-43-IIb "Otsu" in flight. Pikots head protection is visible. Photo is dated mid 1944

 

[michael rauls]

Prototypes for the Ki-43-II flew in February 1942, with early (unarmoured) versions entering service December 1942. Armouring of the ki43 did not begin until the introduction of the Ki-43 II (Ko) subtype, and then only with a 13mm sliver of armour to protect the pilots head, and some for the pilots back area. This was slightly more effective than the armoured screens being fitted at that time to the A6M5a subtype. The Ki-43II from April 1944 began to be fitted with a crude rubber like coating around the fuel cell, to act as a sort of fire retardant, which ive read were roughly as effective as the onboard extinguishers that were by then being fitted to the zero at about that time. This was later replaced by 3-layer rubber bladder, 8mm core with 2mm oil-proof lamination. The bladder has proven to be highly resistant against 7.7mm bullets, but was not effective against larger calibers. The pilot also enjoyed a slightly taller canopy and a reflector gunsight for the first time in place of the earlier telescopic gunsight., less most of the armour described above (which came later) Nakajima commenced production of the Ki-43-II at its Ota factory in November 1942. Production was also started at the Tachikawa Hikoki and the 1st Army Air Arsenal (Tachikawa Dai-Ichi Rikugun Kokusho). Although Tachikawa Hikoki successfully managed to enter into large-scale production of the Ki-43, the 1st Army Air Arsenal was less successful. –

Tachikawa also produced the Ki-43 III, which utilized the more powerful Nakajima Army Type 1 Ha-115-II engine. Maximum speed increased to 358 mph. The definitive armoured subtype of the ki-43 was the ki-43II (Kai) to entry date im uncertain of, but it was the latter part of 1944.

Tachikawa produced 2124 Ki-43-II and -III aircraft between April 1944 and the end of the war Total production of all versions amounted to 5,919 aircraft. On that basis, the majority of ki-43s were not armoured, and an even larger proportion were indifferently protected.

View attachment 502060
Ki-43-II Ko Hayabusa "Oscar" of the 25 Sentai China 1944 as the heavily armoured version was being introduced

View attachment 502061
Back armouring in the ki-43II ko subtype

View attachment 502062
Captured Nakajima Ki-43-IIb "Otsu" in flight. Pikots head protection is visible. Photo is dated mid 1944

Great post. I have always felt the ki 43 was one of those under appreciated types. I think drastically in its case. Does anyone here know the performance figures( speed/climb) for the later models? I have read that hp was up to almost 1300 on the later models and this would seem to be substantial for such a light plane but have never seen performance figures specifically for the later versions.

 

[Shortround6]

The Ki-43 used just about the same engine as the Zero. In their usual mode of non co-operation the Army and Navy could not agree to a common specification (or testing procedure?) so the HP ratings for the KI-43 and Zero often differ by around 20hp or so or are given at slightly different altitudes.

There were a number of different prototypes built near the end of the war with more powerful engines but none in any real quantities (over 10?) so service use was pretty much non existent.

 

[michael rauls]

The Ki-43 used just about the same engine as the Zero. In their usual mode of non co-operation the Army and Navy could not agree to a common specification (or testing procedure?) so the HP ratings for the KI-43 and Zero often differ by around 20hp or so or are given at slightly different altitudes.

There were a number of different prototypes built near the end of the war with more powerful engines but none in any real quantities (over 10?) so service use was pretty much non existent.

So the max speed of about325/335( depends which source your reading) remained more or less constant with the later operational types?

 

[eagledad]

Gentlemen
FYI
Data for Ki 43 III
Speed / Altitude
Mph / feet
305 @ sl
330 @ 9000
327 @ 15000
358 @ 22000
330 @ 30000
300 @ 35000
Rate of Climb
Feet/minute / Altitude
3430 @ sl
3500 @ 8000
2700 @ 13000
2630 @ 20000
Absolute ceiling 38000
Loaded Weight 5650 pound
Engine Power "War Emergency"
Source TAIC manual
Data Calculated by the TAIC staff 1944

If aircraft in the field reached this performance or not is anyone's guess

I "eye-balled" the data off of the graphs, but they should be close.

Eagledad

 

[Shortround6]

The trouble is the wike says (and wiki can be terribly wrong)

Ki-43-II-KAI (Mark 2 improved)
Fitted with ejector exhaust stacks (adding approximately 30 hp) and additional 151 liters fuel tank in fuselage.
Ki-43-III
Prototypes powered by Nakajima Ha-115-II engine of 920 kW (1,230 hp)
2 × 170 L (45 gal) drop tanks (~3 hour full-throttle endurance)
Ki-43-III "Ko" (Mark 3a)
Series model, some fitted with skis for operations from snow
Ki-43-III "Otsu" (Mark 3b)
Variant with the Mitsubishi Ha-112-II radial engine and armed with twin 20 mm Ho-5 cannon. (Prototype – Only 2 Built)
Ki-62 Project
Advanced interceptor version of Nakajima Ki-43 with a powerful engine and armed with 30 mm (1.18 in) or 40 mm (1.57 in) cannons.

and

"Ki-43-III's pre-production started with ten prototypes completed during May 1944 to August 1945"

so when did the Ki-43 go into production and how many were made?

 

[michael rauls]

Gentlemen
FYI
Data for Ki 43 III
Speed / Altitude
Mph / feet
305 @ sl
330 @ 9000
327 @ 15000
358 @ 22000
330 @ 30000
300 @ 35000
Rate of Climb
Feet/minute / Altitude
3430 @ sl
3500 @ 8000
2700 @ 13000
2630 @ 20000
Absolute ceiling 38000
Loaded Weight 5650 pound
Engine Power "War Emergency"
Source TAIC manual
Data Calculated by the TAIC staff 1944

If aircraft in the field reached this performance or not is anyone's guess

I "eye-balled" the data off of the graphs, but they should be close.

Eagledad

That 360 top speed and 3500 foot per minute climb rate when coupled with exeptional maneuverability would seem to make for a rather capable fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

The main problem with the Ki-43 was not it's performance, it is the lack of hitting power.

By 1944 Japan was faced with large numbers of medium/heavy bombers and the Ki-43 was a very expensive way of getting two 12.7mm machine guns with 250rpg (500 rounds total) into firing position. yes they shot down the large bombers but it often took repeated passes by several fighters to bring down one B-24.
A somewhat bigger fighter with four 12.7s or two 20mm and two 12.7s should have had a much higher success ratio and not actually cost twice as much to build or operate.

 

[michael rauls]

The main problem with the Ki-43 was not it's performance, it is the lack of hitting power.

By 1944 Japan was faced with large numbers of medium/heavy bombers and the Ki-43 was a very expensive way of getting two 12.7mm machine guns with 250rpg (500 rounds total) into firing position. yes they shot down the large bombers but it often took repeated passes by several fighters to bring down one B-24.
A somewhat bigger fighter with four 12.7s or two 20mm and two 12.7s should have had a much higher success ratio and not actually cost twice as much to build or operate.

That's another thing ive wondered about the ki43. Why was the armament kept so light. I know extra armament will add wieght and degrade performance but it seems putting 2 more 12.7s, one in each wing fpr example, wouldn't degrade performance much and would certainly be worth the trade off. I've wondered what the thinking was here.

 

[GrauGeist]

That's another thing ive wondered about the ki43. Why was the armament kept so light. I know extra armament will add wieght and degrade performance but it seems putting 2 more 12.7s, one in each wing fpr example, wouldn't degrade performance much and would certainly be worth the trade off. I've wondered what the thinking was here.

1930's philosophy.

Look at the major air forces of the day and you'll see a broad range of types that primarily had two MGs in the cowling with perhaps two additional MGs (or cannon) in the wing - typically near the wing root.

It wasn't until WWII got underway in earnest that aircraft armament started to evolve.

 

[GrauGeist]

Michael, I rarely ever recommend a Wikipedia page as a WWII reference, however in this case I'll make an exception.

The link I'll provide is a list of ALL aircraft involved in WWII, and you can view the list and compare the 1930's fighters to the 1940's fighters. Take note of the armament of the types that were designed and put into service in the 1930's compared to the fighters that were put into service from about 1942 onward. There was a major shift in armament doctrine in about two years (1940 - 1942) and this was due to an escalation in both firepower and armor/countermeasures.

In the case of the Japanese fighters, they had been up against lesser types in their early days of success, but when they ran up against the sturdy, well armed American types (1941 onward), their typical armament suddenly was not adequate and the days of easy kills were no longer.

Anyway, here's the link - perhaps this may help give an idea of how things progressed:
List of aircraft of World War II - Wikipedia

 

[michael rauls]

1930's philosophy.

Look at the major air forces of the day and you'll see a broad range of types that primarily had two MGs in the cowling with perhaps two additional MGs (or cannon) in the wing - typically near the wing root.

It wasn't until WWII got underway in earnest that aircraft armament started to evolve.

Yes that makes perfect sense but i was thinking more in terms of later modification once the need was known.
Many later Japanese types had at least reasonable armament and even the zero was better in this respect yet with the ki43 the never went beyond 2 heavy machine guns as far as i know.
Maybe it would have taken a wing redesign? That's the only possible reason I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[michael rauls]

Michael, I rarely ever recommend a Wikipedia page as a WWII reference, however in this case I'll make an exception.

The link I'll provide is a list of ALL aircraft involved in WWII, and you can view the list and compare the 1930's fighters to the 1940's fighters. Take note of the armament of the types that were designed and put into service in the 1930's compared to the fighters that were put into service from about 1942 onward. There was a major shift in armament doctrine in about two years (1940 - 1942) and this was due to an escalation in both firepower and armor/countermeasures.

In the case of the Japanese fighters, they had been up against lesser types in their early days of success, but when they ran up against the sturdy, well armed American types (1941 onward), their typical armament suddenly was not adequate and the days of easy kills were no longer.

Anyway, here's the link - perhaps this may help give an idea of how things progressed:
List of aircraft of World War II - Wikipedia

I was to some degree aware of how light armament was on many pre war types but that page is indeed an eye opener. Thanks

 

[Shortround6]

I believe this has come up in other threads. The Ki-43 may have used a three spar wing?
The 7.7mm type 89 machine gun may not have been the most reliable (jam free) weapon.
I believe that in the Japanese Army only one model of the KI 61 ever used them as wing guns.

 

[michael rauls]

The main problem with the Ki-43 was not it's performance, it is the lack of hitting power.

By 1944 Japan was faced with large numbers of medium/heavy bombers and the Ki-43 was a very expensive way of getting two 12.7mm machine guns with 250rpg (500 rounds total) into firing position. yes they shot down the large bombers but it often took repeated passes by several fighters to bring down one B-24.
A somewhat bigger fighter with four 12.7s or two 20mm and two 12.7s should have had a much higher success ratio and not actually cost twice as much to build or operate.

Good point. And and that would also be one less pilot to train/ risk for the same result.

 

[Shortround6]

and about the same amount of ground crew.

However good the Ki 43 may have been in 1942-43 it was something the Japanese could not really afford in 1944-45 no matter how cheap it was on per plane basis.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Nakajima was already working on the Ki-44 as an interceptor and the pre-production models were combat tested right along side the Ki-43s in Malaya and Burma from the start of the war. It had all the things the Ki-43 lacked. heavy armament, powerful engine. But the pilots hated it because that performance came at the cost of maneuverability. Early examples in China fared poorly because their pilots tried to fly them like Hayabusas and got clobbered. Later, in 1943, when they were concentrated in their own Sentais with adequate training in the proper use of the type, they began to give the Americans and Chinese fits. Using zoom and boom tactics, they shifted the balance of air power back into Japanese favor until the arrival of P-51As and Cs in theater.The Ki 84 proved even better as a general purpose fighter. But these later types could not be made as quickly as the simpler Ki-43, which soldiered on well after its obsolescence was obvious.

 

[marine38]

Just bored and was wondering. For some reason, I love that plane, in spite of it seeming so...underwhelming...compared to most of the "big" planes. It seems to have such character, and it was surprisingly successful for an aircraft that never had more than 2 x 12.7mm MG's or any kind of armor at all; sometimes the success that the Japanese and Soviets had with relatively light armament makes me wonder if we really needed as many big guns as we think we did. I also suspect the Ki-43 must have been great fun to fly, being so light and nimble. "Hayabusa" is a great name too. I know the A6M is more glamorous and better known (the Ki-43 was just "The Army Zero" to Allied pilots), maybe better looking too, but I prefer the Ki-43. Supposedly it shot down more aircraft than any other Japanese fighter (basically making it the Japanese Hurricane!), and did it in spite of being much lighter-armed and even more lightly-built than the Zero. And it was gaining victories right up to the end of the war, when in the right hands. Not bad for an aircraft that was facing opponents that outclassed it by such a magnitude. I guess I just always like the underdog...

Are

 

[windswords]

I believe this has come up in other threads. The Ki-43 may have used a three spar wing?
The 7.7mm type 89 machine gun may not have been the most reliable (jam free) weapon.
I believe that in the Japanese Army only one model of the KI 61 ever used them as wing guns.

That is correct. Because of the wing spars neither machine guns nor cannons could be added to the wing. The 12.7 mm used in the cowl guns did have a small explosive charge in them to give them more hitting power. I don't know how effective they were.