Best Japanese fighter

[CORSNING]

You tell 'em dave. The U.S. fighters were larger and heavier overall. They had to be to get the range.

Greg, TAS, it is not a practice to put a graph together using indicated airspeed. That would not mean much in the real world considering the location of the tube has a lot to do with how accurate the readings at the gauge are.

bob44, Could and Did is two very different things. Putting them together is not always very easy. When comparing aircraft performance I believe it is only a true comparison if you examine the aircraft as all things being equal. The Russians and the Japanese late war are perfect example of all things were not equal. They were were building sound designs. They were just building them under less than ideal situation.

 

[proton45]

Really? No one for the Ki-44?

 

[davebender]

Not buying that explanation. P-47 was the most numerous U.S. fighter aircraft so it's my standard for comparison.

P-47 combat radius was no better then A6M2 yet it weighed three times as much. In fact P-47D weighed 50% more then twin engine Fw-187.

7,939kg. P-47D loaded weight.
~5,000kg. Fw-187 loaded weight.
4,250kg. Me-309 loaded weight. 700 liters internal fuel. Drop tanks optional.
3,470kg. Ki-61 loaded weight. 550 liters internal fuel plus 2 x 200 liter drop tanks.
2,410kg. A6M2 loaded weight. One of the longest range fighter aircraft of WWII.

 

[tyrodtom]

What are you trying to compare dave ? Two aircraft that never reached production, and the other two had about half the HP of the P-47.

 

[CORSNING]

dave,
The A6M2 was one of the longest ranging aircraft for the first half of the war. By 1944 the U.S. fighter A/C capable of flying over 2,000 mls.: P-38, P-47, P-51 and P-63. I'm just saying they were heavier than the Bf.109, A6M and most other Japanese fighters. That gave them this ability and the strength to carry heavier payloads. tyrodtom's right, what is your point? I doubt that the Me-309 could carry 2,000 lbs. of rockets/bombs and travel 1,500 mls.

Nice proton, where's the picture of the Ki-44-III?

 

[Shortround6]

P-47 was one of the first single engine fighters designed to carry almost 1600lbs worth of guns and ammo, not including mounts, ammo boxes, chutes, gun heaters and the like. It was designed to fly at 400mph or more at 30,000ft. It was designed to an 8 "G" load factor (ultimate 12 "G"s). You don't get such capabilities from small, light aircraft.

You can argue that the US should not have specified such a heavy armament but once they did the size of the airplane followed. Over 4 times the weight of guns and ammo that an early Zero carried and over 5 times the weight of a Bf 109F. (3 gun)

The US designers were not stupid or lazy. The Customer (Army or Navy) gave them a requirement and they filled the requirement. The requirement may have been strange but unless the buyer backed off on the weight of the guns and ammo ( or strength of the aircraft) the weight of the airplane followed.

 

[Civettone]

Ki-84 and Ki-100 are 1945 aircraft. Fine aircraft but we are talking about last few months of the war.

Ki-61 entered service during 1943 and potentially could have entered service at least a year earlier if Japan had invested more resources into copying the DB601 engine. At the time it entered service Ki-61 was potentially the best land based fighter aircraft in the Pacific. That's why it gets my vote for #1.

Who says they did not invest more resources into copying it?

Really? No one for the Ki-44?

View attachment 236228

Yeah, I think the K-44 was the best Japanese mid-war fighter. Would be interesting to see a comparison between the Ki-44-II and the Ki-61-I

Kris

 

[tomo pauk]

It appears that the late war japanese fighters ,could not compete with the late war allaeid fighters . Despite their powerful engines and their small and light airframes, they were 40-50 mph slower than P51D with the super duper fuel , and over 80mph slower than the P51H

The late war Japanese fighters (Hayate, Raiden, Shinden-kai) were 20-30 mph slower than P-51D (430-440 mph vs. 410-427 mph). Their engines were powerful (when able to be operated in full power), but the engines were radial types, and that costs in drag, despite efforts to streamline the installation. The engines were also single stage designs, and that shows at 25000 ft and above, where Merlin Mustang can use the thiner air to outperform much of other fighters.

Even at the rate of climb , despite their better power and wing loadings , they were not even close to the american designs eg
Ki 84 with 1,8 kgr/hp and 172 kgr/m2 had a roc of 3790 ft/min
F8F1 with 2,07 kgr/hp and 192 kgr /m2 had a roc of 4570 ft/m ! And with water injection would reach 7000ft/min !!! Double that of ki84!

Ki-84 with water injection was good for 4275 ft/min at SL, the F8F-2 (=1948 plane) making 4300 ft/min when using water injection (2500 HP) at SL.

I know , americans had better propellers, wings of very very low drag and very very high lift, two stage superchargers and gyroscopic gunsights .

Bearcat's wing was not that very very low drag item - 23000 series wing profile, 18% thick at root, 9% at tip. Lift was probably a major plus, though. Bearcat never received two stage engine, the E series engine in the -2 was a performer, never the less.

It appears that despite their best efforts , japanese were at least 2 years behind in fighters performance.( Or even 5 years behind if the alleid claims ,from the china front, that P40s were superior to the ki 84, are true)

Talking about P-40 being superior than Ki-84 is silly (not sure what you're aiming at??). Japanese were rather late in introduction of 'second generation' of ww2 fighters, maybe a year behind the allies?

Generally, my personnal experience from studying WW2 aviation books. is that alleid aircrafts needed much less power to achieve superior performance in comparison with the axis aircrafts, and less stuctural weight to achive similar or superior structural strength.

Again, not sure what you're aiming at?
Some Allied planes were fast for installed power size/weight (P-51 vs Spitfire and Bf-109, A-20 vs. Beaufighter, Mosquito vs. pretty much anything similar), other ones were not that fast despite power (Typhoon, Hellcat, Corsair) - weight, size drag being detriments. Some were slowish despite the small size (Yak-1, war-production MiGs, P-40). Some were great under 15000 ft (Typhoon, Tempest, P-39, Allsion Mustangs, much of the Soviet fighters), other were no good under 20-25000 ft (P-47). US stuff was heavy, UK Soviet ones were lighter. US stuff was again considered rugged, usually carrying greater weight of fuel/ammo/weapons (not saying punch was greater, just the weight of weapon ammo).

 

[Shortround6]

US stuff was again considered rugged, usually carrying greater weight of fuel/ammo/weapons (not saying punch was greater, just the weight of weapon ammo).

"and less stuctural weight to achive similar or superior structural strength."

This would take some analysis. Most weight charts don't break it down enough. The American stuff was rugged and stressed for about as high or higher a "G" load than many other aircraft of similar type. There are exceptions though.

Wither this was done with LESS structural weight is an interesting question. We know the weight of a number of wings for US fighters and some others but the wing weight often includes armament provisions (the weight of the mounts, ammo boxes, feed and empty chutes, gun heating arangements,etc often disappears, it is not listed in the armaments section at any rate). Throw in things like flaps, yes they are part of the structure and yes they do impose loads on the air frame but they have NOTHING to do with the wing standing up to an 8 "G" load repeatedly.

It may, or may not include landing loads and those differ from plane to plane. F4F imposes NO landing loads on the wing (or darn few) likewise the Bf 109 only imposes minimal landing loads on the wing. P-51s and P-47s impose much larger landing loads and the F6F and F4U are in a class by themselves for US single engine fighters with the carrier landings.

Without some sort of statements from the designers or stress-men I don't think such a statement can be proved or disproved.

 

[CORSNING]

jim, The horse power listed in the TAIC reports was for a perfectly working engine. That was something not all Japanese A/C had in late 1944-1945. The power levels listed were not exact what was actually out in the field. The Ki.84's figures are for a 2,050 hp. A/C. From the information I have read, some in the field Franks were barely cranking out 1,800 hp.

Civettone,
As soon as I finish this post I plan to jump back to my original post and add the Ki.61-I to the list.

tomo,
You might have opened a can of worms comparing the Ki.84 to the F8F-2. Different generations built for different jobs. If I get a chance in the next couple of days I'll line up the Ki.84-1a to the fully loaded "clean" F8F-1. They were built more for the same jobs.

Shortround,
Any two A/C with semi-close performance can be loaded to outclimb the other. If I get a chance I'll do some digging in my files and see what I can come up with. Right off the top of my head I think the figures for the two in absolute clean condition and equipped for interception/air superiority duty is: F8F-1:~6,300 fpm. P-51H: 5,850 fpm. at S.L.

All,
There is no doubt in my mind (at this time) that the Bearcat was a more dynamic fighter aircraft (within its realm of limitations).

Sorry Shortround, I got my thread mixed up. I'll pop this over to "F8F Bearcat rate of climb" when I get the chance.

God bless you all, Jeff

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Regarding the Ki-61-I as one of the best Japanese fighters, I believe it really should not count.
It was actually available in numbers which meant something but in performance, it was very comparable to a Messerschmitt 109E but about 15 mph faster probably because of a better streamlined airframe.

The Ki-61-II had 1500 HP instead of 1175 HP, so it should have been faster. I believe the TAIC was working on the assumption that the Ha-140 was equivalent tot the DB 605 in their speed estimates. In flipping through the Bunrindo books and comparing the stated power levels of the Ha-40 versus Ha-140 at various altitudes, with the simple estimate of speed rising as to the cube root of the power difference, I can only get about 390-400 mph for the Ki-61-II. (400 mph is being VERY generous in picking data.)

The Ki-100 had the same 1500 HP but was around 500 pounds lighter than the Ki-61-II which put it back at nearly the same weight as the Ki-61-I.

The Nakajima Homare engine generally didn't achieve anywhere near the power levels it was designed for so while in theory, a superbly maintained Ki-84 would be capable of 425 to 430 mph, the aeroplanes in the field generally didn't achieve that. It was bad enough that the Japanese even tested installations of a Ha-112 in the Ki-84 airframe because at 1500 hp or so, it made more power in the actual aircraft than a Homare typically would.

The N1K2-J, although it used the same engine as the Ki-84, didnt seem to have quite the same record of problems. This is from the book Genda's Blade which describes the Shiden-KAIs as being superior to the Hellcat even when running on fairly low octane "aviation" fuel.

Regarding the US opposition, the Bearcats were not bad, but had their structural issues to work out and never became operational. The real opposition was Hellcats and -1 Corsairs and various Army types. Pilot accounts from Genda's Blade show them as feeling their Shiden-KAI to be quite superior to the Hellcat but a bit inferior to the P-47 when fighting at altitude. This group is interesting because although they had the best of the remaining navy pilots and the "best" fighter available, they were still losing to the US pilots at a rate of about 3 to 1.

My vote for best Japanese fighter is still the J2M because from various reports of captured examples (including from old Air Power articles), they appeared to be quite good build quality and have decent power and performance from a reliable engine.

This is just my interpretation from having done a fair amount of reading.
- Ivan.

 

[CORSNING]

Ivan,
That sound like a pretty good summation to me. It's funny, a few minutes ago I was just going over the comparison of the Bf.109E vs. the Ki.61-I. Pretty much the only advantage the Messer had was its climb rate. But then again the time frame would bring up the late Bf.109F/early Bf.109G, and that's a different ball game. Through in the Ki.44-II and it evens thing up a little.

 

[Civettone]

Seems to me the Bf 109E was faster than the Ki-61-I at all altitudes



Kris

 

[CORSNING]

Civettone,

Sorry I took so long to pull up the info I have. I started cleaning up the garage for the last time this year (we had a lot of crap) and I just recently quit smoking (38 years on/off). So.......that's all I have to say about that. My main studies are Japanese, Russian and U.S. A/C. I am no authority on German and U.K. A/C. The following figures for the Bf.109E-3, as far as I know at this time, are from German documents. The following figures for the Ki.61-I are from the T.A.I.C. report (because that is the best information I have on this A/C at this time). They look like this:

Altitude...Bf.109E-3...Ki.61-I
Meters....Miles Per Hour......
S.L.........310...........302
.1,000.....317...........315
.2,000.....329...........328
.3,000.....335...........338
.4,000.....345...........352
.5,000.....354...........358
.6,000.....351...........353
.7,000.....348...........346
.8,000.....331...........335
.9,000.....324...........320

The figures for the 8,000 and 9,000 meters are from the Swiss test because the German info I have does not go above 7,000 meters.

Jeff

 

[Civettone]

Thanks for the info, Jeff. BF 109 is only a bit faster at low altitudes, the Ki 61 is a bit faster higher up. But quite close all in all.

A bit remarkable as the Ki-61 was bigger and heavier.
Kris

 

[Shortround6]

Not really remarkable, the 109E was a rather draggy airplane. As shown by the difference in performance with the early F or F prototypes using the same engine.

 

[Cave Tonitrum]

A video I stumbled across regarding the Ki-84 and J2M.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCfKUOj9ojI

 

[zoomar]

The problem with all Japanese fighters is they all had major problems, stemming either from basic design or, especially after 1944, declining workmanship. That said, the Ki-84 and the N1K2, seem to be the best, retaining typical Japanese good handling with a powerful (if unreliable) engine, good firepower and adequate protection. Had the war continued, I suspect they would be more amenable to further development, unlike the Ki44, Ki-61/100 or J2M.

 

[GregP]

What makes you think the J2M wasn't a good candidate for development?

 

[Civettone]

It was bad enough that the Japanese even tested installations of a Ha-112 in the Ki-84 airframe because at 1500 hp or so, it made more power in the actual aircraft than a Homare typically would.

The N1K2-J, although it used the same engine as the Ki-84, didnt seem to have quite the same record of problems. This is from the book Genda's Blade which describes the Shiden-KAIs as being superior to the Hellcat even when running on fairly low octane "aviation" fuel.

Regarding the US opposition, the Bearcats were not bad, but had their structural issues to work out and never became operational. The real opposition was Hellcats and -1 Corsairs and various Army types. Pilot accounts from Genda's Blade show them as feeling their Shiden-KAI to be quite superior to the Hellcat but a bit inferior to the P-47 when fighting at altitude. This group is interesting because although they had the best of the remaining navy pilots and the "best" fighter available, they were still losing to the US pilots at a rate of about 3 to 1.

They tested a Ki-84 with a Ha-112 for conversion into the derived Ki-116, a lightweight Ki-84. There is no reason to assume that this was because the Homare was unsatisfactory. You said yourself that the Homare was working okay for the Shiden. In fact, that is not true either. The N1K2-J also had problems with the Homare. Of course the Kı-84s and Shidens still lost against American planes, the general level of the American pilots was far superior. Even if you read Japanese accounts on this or that plane, you have to take into consideration, that pilots have a limited view on things surrounding them. They may find their plane inferior or superior to the enemy, but the actual results will not always prove them right. A lot of it has to do with mentality and moral, they tend to cloud their judgment.

Kris