Shortround6
Major General
The Ki-67 was good airplane but it wasn't quite there. It was fast but not fast enough, especially considering it's time frame. Going into action in the summer of 1944 means it is up against F6Fs, F4Us, P-47s and P-51s.
It had good power and decent passive protection but it's low gross weight compared to the big American 3 (and the German Ju-88 and Do 217) means something got left out. Details are not the best in western sources so they may be in error. Rear of the plane is protected (in most cases) by one 20mm gun in powered dorsal turret and three 12.7mm guns in manual mounts. Some late production planes got a twin tail mount and few (?) got a single 20mm in the tail. Much better than earlier Japanese bombers but a little short compared to the American bombers.
Bomb load is closer to the A-20 than the American big 3. However the lighter weight of the Ki-67 and it's slightly bigger wing means it had a much better ceiling. How much of an advantage that was in 1944/45 I don't know.
Performance with torpedo is a bit of an unknown (as is performance of American bombers with torpedoes) as the torpedo is carried outside and most drawings show bomb bay doors removed but not always.
The A-26 was supposed to be able to carry two torpedoes but I don't think they were ever used operationally, a bit like the pilots manual discussing the 75mm cannon in the nose of the A-26. It was planned and tested but never mass produced or fitted to service aircraft.
It might have been possible to modify the Ki-67 to handle much greater bomb loads but the Japanese still needed more range than most other countries did (anybody want to try raiding B-29 bases on Saipan using Iwo Jima as a staging point using Ju-88/188s or Do 217s?).
It is tough comparing 30,000lb aircraft to aircraft weighing 35-37,000lbs.
It had good power and decent passive protection but it's low gross weight compared to the big American 3 (and the German Ju-88 and Do 217) means something got left out. Details are not the best in western sources so they may be in error. Rear of the plane is protected (in most cases) by one 20mm gun in powered dorsal turret and three 12.7mm guns in manual mounts. Some late production planes got a twin tail mount and few (?) got a single 20mm in the tail. Much better than earlier Japanese bombers but a little short compared to the American bombers.
Bomb load is closer to the A-20 than the American big 3. However the lighter weight of the Ki-67 and it's slightly bigger wing means it had a much better ceiling. How much of an advantage that was in 1944/45 I don't know.
Performance with torpedo is a bit of an unknown (as is performance of American bombers with torpedoes) as the torpedo is carried outside and most drawings show bomb bay doors removed but not always.
The A-26 was supposed to be able to carry two torpedoes but I don't think they were ever used operationally, a bit like the pilots manual discussing the 75mm cannon in the nose of the A-26. It was planned and tested but never mass produced or fitted to service aircraft.
It might have been possible to modify the Ki-67 to handle much greater bomb loads but the Japanese still needed more range than most other countries did (anybody want to try raiding B-29 bases on Saipan using Iwo Jima as a staging point using Ju-88/188s or Do 217s?).
It is tough comparing 30,000lb aircraft to aircraft weighing 35-37,000lbs.
