Best looking WW2 fighter

[buffnut453]

There are several sources on the internet of which I cannot validate but appear believable. Here is one however which gives some good detail. Japanese Nakajima Ki-63 Haitaka (Heinkel He 100) by comradeloganov on DeviantArt

The above source states the "design work on the Ki-61 did not begin until December 1940", after Japan had already received the 3 He 100s. One has to admit the two aircraft are uncannily similar and the noted website even indicates the Ki 63 was an Army "variant" of the He 100. And, the coincidence that the Japanese acquired 3 of the He100s makes it even more likely that some of the Ki 61 design was influenced by the Heinkel. Further, as you note, Hitachi (Nakajima) won a contract to build the aircraft which would require the transfer of technical data and all engineering drawings. Also, the Ki 61 used a licensed version of the Daimler-Benz DB 601, the same engine used by the He 100. A recent source (Zero! by Martin Caidin and Jiro Horikoshi) very strongly indicates the Japanese aircraft industry just did not have the bandwidth to crank out new designs like the U.S., Britain or Germany. One could ask, why would Japan 'reinvent the wheel' and design a whole new airplane around the DB 601 given the fact their aerospace capacity was so stretched?

Firstly, I'd never cite Caidin as a source: he was notoriously loose with facts.

I think the main problem faced by Japan's aviation industry was production capacity rather than lack of design teams or ability.

The Ki61 was started late because priority was given to the Ki60 heavyweight interceptor. Both designs were very similar,.with the 61 offering a number of design improvements that were prompted by the poor flight test performance of the Ki60.

The fact that Kawasaki was developing 2 parallel prototypes suggests that they weren't struggling for design staff. It also suggests that they weren't copying the He100; rather, they were learning for themselves based.on their own prototypes.

Finally, the Ki61 was a much larger airframe than the He100, being 3.2m longer and with a wingspan that's 2.6m greater. Those are big differences for a "copied" design.

 

[Admiral Beez]

IMO, it is one of the best looking DB 600 series powered fighters.

The MesserSpit.... not so much.

MesserSpit - The Case of Captured and Re-engined Spitfire EN830 - Aviation Humor

 

[jetcal1]

ummm no, bad comparison. The Defiant mounted 4 machineguns, not the pilot. The B-P Defiant was for the air force that plans on running away from the enemy.

Like I said, just having some fun.

 

[Spitlead]

Firstly, I'd never cite Caidin as a source: he was notoriously loose with facts.

I think the main problem faced by Japan's aviation industry was production capacity rather than lack of design teams or ability.

The Ki61 was started late because priority was given to the Ki60 heavyweight interceptor. Both designs were very similar,.with the 61 offering a number of design improvements that were prompted by the poor flight test performance of the Ki60.

The fact that Kawasaki was developing 2 parallel prototypes suggests that they weren't struggling for design staff. It also suggests that they weren't copying the He100; rather, they were learning for themselves based.on their own prototypes.

Finally, the Ki61 was a much larger airframe than the He100, being 3.2m longer and with a wingspan that's 2.6m greater. Those are big differences for a "copied" design.

Thanks for your reply buffnut453. To clarify, I described The Ki-61 as being "based on the Heinkel He-100", and that the He 100 "influenced the design of the Kawasaki Ki-61". There was no intended inference that the Ki-61 was a "copied" design which to me implies nearly identical.

I completely agree with your comment regarding production capacity issues. I will still stick to my notion that the Japanese design teams were very stretched, in part based on the book "Zero!" which I referred to. In the book Jiro Hirokoshi (lead designer) speaks about how over taxed he was that he needed to take a sabbatical for several months to recuperate. Yes, Caidin was listed as a co-author but I believe only in title. The U.S. printed paperback was simply an English translation of a Japanese book originally authored by Jiro Hirokoshi and Masatake Okumiya.

To correct an inadvertent error in your post, the Ki 61 airframe was only 2.5 feet longer, not 3.2 meters. Still, as you noted the Ki 61 is larger in both wingspan and fuselage length and may have been designed to compensate for aerodynamic deficiencies found during the He 100 trial flights or changed to improve a performance characteristic to meet the design requirements.

If interested, there was a very similar discussion on WW2Aircraft.net back in October 2010. "Ki-61 and He-100 related?" which has some other detailed information on the comparison. Here's the link if you would like to read it
Ki-61 and He-100 related?

Cheers!

 

[Graeme]

Japanese Nakajima Ki-63 Haitaka (Heinkel He 100) by comradeloganov on DeviantArt

One has to admit the two aircraft are uncannily similar and the noted website even indicates the Ki 63 was an Army "variant" of the He 100.

I believe the artist, Logan Hartke, has taken the profile of the Heinkel He 100, added the radiator bath of the Ki-61 and called it the Nakaijma Ki-63 - and added an accompanying story.
As I understand it, the real Ki-63 project resembled the Ki-84 and incorporated a similar tail with the horizontal tailplane set well forward of the vertical fin.
No doubt you saw his floatplane version.

Nakajima A9He1-N Wade Floatplane - Aleutians by comradeloganov on DeviantArt

 

[AlfaKiloSierra]

I'd say the NA-73 prototype looks better than any production P-51

 

[tomo pauk]

Logan Hartke is a very knowledgable person, I remeber him posting at Panzer General forums perhaps 20 years ago He was (is?) also very active on the What-If modellers, mostly as an artist doing side elevations.
Here is his side elevation of the LTV-designed alternate F-14A in IRIAF colors: link

 

[Elvis]

Hey guys, what about Twin Engine Fighters?

I like the Grumman F7F Tigercat...

...but I feel like many here would cite The Lockheed P-38 Lightniing...

...or maybe the DH-98 Mosquito...

 

[nuuumannn]

The B-P Defiant was for the air force that plans on running away from the enemy.

Or flying in front of it perpendicular to its direction of travel, or alongside, or underneath, or behind etc, just not very quickly. It flies well though, and its pilots liked it, if that's any consolation, just don't fire those guns forward as there's no interruptor gear...

D520 always reminds me of the Curtiss YP-37....

I like the looks of the D.520 - pilots did criticise the poor visibility on the ground because of the rear set cockpit, but I think it looks great. It's a small thing and combined with its deadly reputation - it was a b@tch to fly and handle on the ground apparently - it has mystique.

Musee de l'Air 25

 

[nuuumannn]

Hey guys, what about Twin Engine Fighters?

All great lookers, Elvis, and let's not forget the sexy Hornet...

https://www.flying-tigers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/sh1-de-Havilland-Hornet-the-fastest-production-piston-engined-fighter-ever-built-960x597.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8601/16476630808_368b6f02af_b.jpg

 

[nuuumannn]

I like the Grumman F7F Tigercat...

It's a mean looking bird. The first time I had ever heard of the F7F was at an airshow in the UK. These are the first pictures I'd taken of one.

F7F i

F7F ii

Grummans

They are 35 mm scans so they aren't great quality.

 

[GrauGeist]

just don't fire those guns forward as there's no interruptor gear...

The turret had a stop that prevented the turret from depressing the guns to horizontal when facing forward.

While it prevented the MGs from annihilating the prop, it also meant the Daffy couldn't strafe ground targets or engage an enemy from behind, unless they were slightly lower.

 

[nuuumannn]

The turret had a stop that prevented the turret from depressing the guns to horizontal when facing forward.

While it prevented the MGs from annihilating the prop, it also meant the Daffy couldn't strafe ground targets or engage an enemy from behind, unless they were slightly lower.

No, it didn't, Dave; the guns could be depressed to fire forward. The pilot even had a button on his spade grip for doing so, but had no gunsight. The recommended angle for firing the guns forward was 19 degrees above the horizontal, because there was no interruptor gear, so firing any angle below that would risk shooting the prop. The gunner had a switch in the turret to toggle firing of the guns between himself and the pilot, but this was normally wired closed and the function was not carried out for the reasons above.

There's a picture of a Daffy with its guns facing forward on this site:

Defiant T3955 Article

Here's another one.

https://www.armedconflicts.com/attachments/217/defiant-4.jpg

https://www.staplesandvine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/DEFIANT-NIGHTFIGHTER-bw.jpg

 

[GrauGeist]

The interrupters in the turret prevented the MGs from shooting the tail or the prop, which was about 19° from horizontal.

The barrels could depress further, but the actions were locked out

 

[Elvis]

It's a mean looking bird. The first time I had ever heard of the F7F was at an airshow in the UK. These are the first pictures I'd taken of one.

View attachment 652608F7F i

View attachment 652609F7F ii

View attachment 652610Grummans

They are 35 mm scans so they aren't great quality.

You are too humble, my friend.
Those are GREAT pictures!
Thank you for posting them. =)
Looks like an F6F and two F8F's in escort, in that last pic?

 

[DrumBob]

The P-38, followed by the P-61 Black Widow.

 

[nuuumannn]

The barrels could depress further, but the actions were locked out

Yes, but that's not what you said. You said they couldn't be lowered to face forward

The interrupter system was electrical and the firing circuit was conducted through brushes in contact with a drum that revolved with the turret. This had insulated pads that interrupted the circuit to prevent the guns firing at certain points. I'll give you that they couldn't be fired below 19 degrees though. In the Pilot's Notes it says the following,

"To enable the pilot to operate the guns, it is necessary for the air gunner to:
(i) lock the turret in the "Guns Forward" position with the guns at the lowest elevation that they would fire; i.e. where the guns are just clear of the interrupter which prevents the guns firing into the airscrew disc."

If I remember correctly, one Defiant claim states the guns were facing forward when the enemy aircraft was shot down, the aircraft was probably at that sweet spot where the gunner could shoot facing forward...

 

[nuuumannn]

Looks like an F6F and two F8F's in escort, in that last pic?

Sure is. there was an FM-2 Wildcat at that airshow as well.

 

[Elvis]

Sure is. there was an FM-2 Wildcat at that airshow as well.

That would've been neat to see.

 

[nuuumannn]

That would've been neat to see.

This is the aircraft, but this piccie was taken in 2018.

Martlet taxi