How capable was the Ki-44?

[Nodeo-Franvier]

This plane rarely get talk about.

I remember reading that during early Japanese testing Ki-61 was better than Ki-44 which in turn was better than imported Bf-109E

Was Ki-44 able to hold it own against western offerings?

 

[eagledad]

Please see the section starting on page 37 about Allied opinion of the Ki-44.

FWIW

Eagledad

 

[EwenS]

The FAA encountered a number of Ki 44 during Operations Meridian I & II in Jan 1945 during strikes on the Sumatran oil refineries. Some were being flown by experienced, probably instructor, pilots. Some details here

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

The freshly formed British Pacific Fleet had to prove the worthiness of its armoured flight deck fleet aircraft carriers. Japan's remaining oil refineries were an ideal test.

www.armouredcarriers.com

 

[andrewgeorge]

Ki-44-I was trial-deployed in SE Asia in December 1941-February 1942. But it first saw widespread deployment (Ki-44-II) in China in 1943. It was apparently quite effective, although the Allies seemed to have a higher opinion of the plane than did the IJAAF.

Per Nicholas Millman (2011), the first few encounters it didn't stand out, and generally was thought to be an "Oscar" or, commonly, a "Zero" (which allied pilots frequently called Ki-43s too, even in Burma/Malaysia/China theater where they were primarily flying against IJAAF opposition).

But by mid-1943, it had encountered allied (US and ROC) fighters enough that allied fighter pilots realized this was a new plane they couldn't outrun or escape from in a dive and, from what I've read it seems to have made an outsized impression. Enough of an impression that U.S. pilots all over the larger Asia/Pacific theater of conflict were briefed on the plane and started reporting encounters with "Tojos" sometimes whenever they ran into a Japanese fighter that surprised them with its speed. "Pappy"Boyington for example claims to have run into "Tojos" over Rabaul at a time when IJN A6Ms were the only Japanese fighters within 200 miles. Probably these were just fast-flown Zeros. In the last year of the war over Japan, N1Ks, J2Ms, Ki-100s, and Ki-84s were also frequently reported as "Tojos" by U.S. fighter pilots.

Here a few quotes from Millman (2011) from allied pilots and commanders re the Ki-44 in action:

Gen. Chennault on IJAAF air offensives in China in 1943: 'This time they had two new fighter types — the "Oscar Mk II", a faster and more heavily armed version of their old stand-by, and the "Tojo" [Ki-44], a stubby, barrel-bodied fighter that looked not unlike a Thunderbolt. It could out-run the P-40, and was the best all round fighter in China skies that summer.'

Lt. Harvey Elling after narrowly escaping a Ki-44 in his P-40 over Hengyang in August, 1943: 'Shortly after this encounter, information came to us of a new fast and heavily armed fighter which could outperform the P-40 due to its large engine and sturdy elliptical wings. It was called the "Tojo". I had seen it!'

Col. "Tex" Hill after his P-51As mixed it up with Ki-44s over Canton in December, 1943: 'I don't think we can beat these new Japs in the air.'

In general, the Ki-44 could outclimb just about anything it ran into, seemed to be as fast or faster than P-40s in combat conditions, and could hang with allied types (P-40s, P-38s, and P-51s) in dives far longer than the Ki-43. It was frequently flown beyond its fairly conservative official flight envelope by aggressive and skilled IJAAF pilots. The allies thought it was a spicy opponent.

It didn't fare as well in the last year of the war in China and the Philippines for the same main reason all Japanese fighters fared poorly. Underequipped and undersupplied (especially w/ respect to fuel). And vastly outnumbered by extremely well-trained, experienced allied combat pilots flying planes with performance equal to or even better than the Ki-44.

It also was a bust in its final major role as an interceptor. It could climb like a skyrocket, but the heavy wing loading and mediocre high altitude performance from the engine meant once it was high enough to intercept B-29s it couldn't really maneuver well and it wasn't fast enough.

 

[NevadaK]

Please see the section starting on page 37 about Allied opinion of the Ki-44.

FWIW

Eagledad

Thank you for sharing this. It's interesting to see the opinion of the George N1K1.

Kk

 

[eagledad]

Nevadak,

You are welcome!

Eagledad

 

[hobbes154]

In the last year of the war over Japan, N1Ks, J2Ms, Ki-100s, and Ki-84s were also frequently reported as "Tojos" by U.S. fighter pilots.

After looking at eagledad's link I thought the following sounded more like "Jacks" (J2M) than "Tojos"!

Gen. Chennault on IJAAF air offensives in China in 1943: 'This time they had two new fighter types — the "Oscar Mk II", a faster and more heavily armed version of their old stand-by, and the "Tojo" [Ki-44], a stubby, barrel-bodied fighter that looked not unlike a Thunderbolt. It could out-run the P-40, and was the best all round fighter in China skies that summer.'

Lt. Harvey Elling after narrowly escaping a Ki-44 in his P-40 over Hengyang in August, 1943: 'Shortly after this encounter, information came to us of a new fast and heavily armed fighter which could outperform the P-40 due to its large engine and sturdy elliptical wings. It was called the "Tojo". I had seen it!'

But then it also says "The TOJO 2 bears a very strong resemblance to the P-47, particularly the P-47D with the bubble canopy." (I guess the Jack looks more like an XP-47J.)

Funny I never thought of that resemblance although the Ki-44 is one of my favourite planes. I guess because it is so much smaller. Of course you don't have a good sense of absolute size seeing a plane flying by itself (let alone in combat).

 

[andrewgeorge]

After looking at eagledad's link I thought the following sounded more like "Jacks" (J2M) than "Tojos"!

But then it also says "The TOJO 2 bears a very strong resemblance to the P-47, particularly the P-47D with the bubble canopy." (I guess the Jack looks more like an XP-47J.)

Funny I never thought of that resemblance although the Ki-44 is one of my favourite planes. I guess because it is so much smaller. Of course you don't have a good sense of absolute size seeing a plane flying by itself (let alone in combat).

Yeah, makes sense since Ki-44 had similar origins to the J2M. Designed around the same time for the same purpose (fast climbing interceptor). Except the navy's Raiden took forever to sort out its teething issues, and wasn't deployed operationally until the last year of the war more or less. Even if you don't count the test-deployment of a handful of Ki-44-I aircraft in Malaya at the outset of the war, the army's Shoki was deployed at scale much earlier.

I also never figured to compare Ki-44 to P-47 for the same reason—the Ki-44 is so much smaller! It's also a wildly different fighter plane in design, intended mission, and so on.

But they are definitely both tubby, rotund fighters!

 

[Nodeo-Franvier]

Was Ki-44 a match for contemporary Fw190A?

 

[andrewgeorge]

Was Ki-44 a match for contemporary Fw190A?

Don't know much about Fw190s so I'm sure someone else could answer that better. But just eyeballing it, a Shoki would have been a bit slower at top speed than an A-4 or an A-8.

Power to weight is higher in a Shoki than an Anton, so I'm guessing it climbs faster and accelerates quicker.

Wing loading is higher in an Anton than a Shoki, so likewise I'd infer that the Shoki generally turns inside an Anton.

Shoki has some of the heavy aileron problems at higher speed common to most WW2 Japanese fighters. Don't know about the Anton, but I'm guessing at higher speed it likely maintains a solid roll rate compared to the Shoki.

Armament is good enough for either plane in a fighter vs fighter scenario. The four 12.7s of the Shoki are more than enough to work over an enemy fighter.

Shoki has limited armor compared to an Anton I think.

Overall I'd say it's probably a fair enough fight that tactical advantage and pilot skill would be the main deciding factors.

But that's not a super informed answer unfortunately.

 

[Pale Runner]

Don't know much about Fw190s so I'm sure someone else could answer that better. But just eyeballing it, a Shoki would have been a bit slower at top speed than an A-4 or an A-8.

Power to weight is higher in a Shoki than an Anton, so I'm guessing it climbs faster and accelerates quicker.

Wing loading is higher in an Anton than a Shoki, so likewise I'd infer that the Shoki generally turns inside an Anton.

Shoki has some of the heavy aileron problems at higher speed common to most WW2 Japanese fighters. Don't know about the Anton, but I'm guessing at higher speed it likely maintains a solid roll rate compared to the Shoki.

Armament is good enough for either plane in a fighter vs fighter scenario. The four 12.7s of the Shoki are more than enough to work over an enemy fighter.

Shoki has limited armor compared to an Anton I think.

Overall I'd say it's probably a fair enough fight that tactical advantage and pilot skill would be the main deciding factors.

But that's not a super informed answer unfortunately.

I think that is rather optimistic. A competent FW190 pilot would eat a Ki44 for breakfast. Ki44 has the basic flaws of Japanse fighters: low speed and stiff controls already at moderate speeds. Not to mention weak armament and inadequate protection.

 

[andrewgeorge]

I think that is rather optimistic. A competent FW190 pilot would eat a Ki44 for breakfast. Ki44 has the basic flaws of Japanse fighters: low speed and stiff controls already at moderate speeds. Not to mention weak armament and inadequate protection.

I dunno, Ki-44 is a 375 mph level flight plane with higher power to weight and lower wing loading than a 190. It's not really fast, but it's not slow either. Spitfire V top speed at least, but with more pep.

An Anton is more like a 410mph level flight plane, so it should definitely pull away from a Shoki or chase it down given the runway to do it.

You're right that the 190 pilot is going to have some advantages in addition to that higher top end—most especially roll rate at high speed and higher diving speed.

Armament in the Ki-44 would be fine. Basically the same as a P-51B/C. Explosive 12.7mm x4 would have been enough to quickly chew up a WW2 fighter plane if you can get rounds on target.

Shoki pilot is definitely less armored than the 190 pilot, which makes a big difference in crew survivability but probably less of one in terms of the immediate outcome of the engagement itself.

Unless the Anton is going into the fight with a substantial energy advantage, all other things being equal I would give the Ki-44 pilot at least an even chance. The acceleration and climb on that thing was no joke.

We're talking overall about fairly narrow margins across most of the flight envelope, IMO. In a totally neutral scenario, I think I'd rather be the 190 pilot since I could dictate terms of engagement most of the time, but I wouldn't be overly confident in much performance wise aside from my ability to dive and roll away at high speed.

 

[MIflyer]

The 9th PRS, flying F-4 and F-5 photo Lightnings, found that the Ki-44 was a problem unless spotted far enough in advance, and lost at least one aircraft to them.
They took to sending two Lightnings for targets in which the Ki-44 was likely to be encountered, one to hang back and watch for enemy aircraft. They even tried sending P-38 escorts with the photo Lightnings but found that the fighters could not keep up with the lighter recon aircraft. Duncan's Hot Rod, a special F-4 assembled by the 9th, would have been able to run away from a Ki-44 easily, and that was one reason they built it, but I don't think it ever encountered one.

The USAAF in the CBI found that the Ki-44 was as fast as the P-47 at low altitudes, although at 20,000 ft plus that should not have been the case.

 

[Shortround6]

Problems for evaluating the Ki-44 in combat is it's low production (740 produced by the end of 1943) and it's actual deployment. Many of them were kept in Japan to guard against another Doolittle type raid or deployed to the China, Burma, Malaysia theater with a few stationed to defend the Sumatra oil fields. They actually did not see a lot of combat in 1942/43 (?). I don't know how often they were misidentified (other planes identified as them).

Armament in the Ki-44 would be fine. Basically the same as a P-51B/C. Explosive 12.7mm x4 would have been enough to quickly chew up a WW2 fighter plane if you can get rounds on target.

Actually the Ki-44 is operating at a deficit here.
Japanese 12.7mm ammo used a bullets that were around 33-36 grams while the US .50 used bullets around 41-46 grams (the M8 in 1943 and later was 43 grams) and the US round had about 100m/s more velocity so the kinetic energy rounds landed with a lot more punch (50-55%?). US bullets were more streamlined and didn't loose velocity quite as fast.
Wiki claims the following weights for the Japanese 12.7mm shells for HE and Incendiary
Italian origin................................0.8 grams (12 gr) of PETN and incendiary composition
Ma 103 fuzed HEI......................0.8 grams (12 gr) of RDX and 1.46 grams (22.5 gr) incendiary composition. (2.26grams total)
Ma 102 fuzeless HEI.................2 grams (31 gr) of PETN + RDX and 1.46 grams (22.5 gr) incendiary composition. (3.45 grams total)

US .50 M1 Incen.......................2.2 grams incendiary material
US .50 M8 API............................0.97 grams incendiary material.

Japanese do have and advantage but how much depends on the mix of rounds in the belts. US switch to all M8 API and a little tracer when supplies allowed (later in the war)

Ki-44 has problem with the guns in the cowl. Everybody had a lower rate of fire with synchronized guns. Sources on the Japanese Ho-103 vary, some say as low as 400rpm but I don't know if that is right or just trying to fit it into the US .50 cal firing at 400-500rpm in the synchronized mounts (or the Italians guns firing slow). It is often reported that the later (1944 and 1943) guns had to be slowed down due to poor materials but that is hard to pin down.
But just for arguments sake lets say the American guns fire at 800rpm each for 3200rpm or 53-54 round per second and the Japanese guns fire at 900rpm for the wing guns and 600rpm for the cowl guns for 3000rpm total or 50rps. Adjust as you see fit but the Japanese are depending a lot on the HE projectiles.

For perspective a Japanese 20mm HE shell from a Zero held 10 grams of HE and a 20mm HE tracer held 5 grams of HE.
Japanese Army 20mm shells held 3 grams HE and 9 grams Incendiary for a fuse less shell and 4 grams HE and 3.7 grams of incendiary for the conventionally fused shell.
These 12.7mm HE shells held about 25-33% the payload of a 20mm shell.

The British and German fans are still arguing about if it is better to detonate an HE shell on the skin of of the plane or several feet inside (needs a fuse).

Since just about anything beats the two 12.7mm guns in a Ki-43 from 1942 on the Ki-43 is a large improvement. Holding it's own in late 1943 on the world stage is harder to see.

My own opinion is that they should have cut back on the Ki-43 and built more Ki-44 sooner. And/or worked a little harder on improving the Ki-44 (put a bigger wing on it)

 

[andrewgeorge]

Problems for evaluating the Ki-44 in combat is it's low production (740 produced by the end of 1943) and it's actual deployment. Many of them were kept in Japan to guard against another Doolittle type raid or deployed to the China, Burma, Malaysia theater with a few stationed to defend the Sumatra oil fields. They actually did not see a lot of combat in 1942/43 (?). I don't know how often they were misidentified (other planes identified as them).


Actually the Ki-44 is operating at a deficit here.
Japanese 12.7mm ammo used a bullets that were around 33-36 grams while the US .50 used bullets around 41-46 grams (the M8 in 1943 and later was 43 grams) and the US round had about 100m/s more velocity so the kinetic energy rounds landed with a lot more punch (50-55%?). US bullets were more streamlined and didn't loose velocity quite as fast.
Wiki claims the following weights for the Japanese 12.7mm shells for HE and Incendiary
Italian origin................................0.8 grams (12 gr) of PETN and incendiary composition
Ma 103 fuzed HEI......................0.8 grams (12 gr) of RDX and 1.46 grams (22.5 gr) incendiary composition. (2.26grams total)
Ma 102 fuzeless HEI.................2 grams (31 gr) of PETN + RDX and 1.46 grams (22.5 gr) incendiary composition. (3.45 grams total)

US .50 M1 Incen.......................2.2 grams incendiary material
US .50 M8 API............................0.97 grams incendiary material.

Japanese do have and advantage but how much depends on the mix of rounds in the belts. US switch to all M8 API and a little tracer when supplies allowed (later in the war)

Ki-44 has problem with the guns in the cowl. Everybody had a lower rate of fire with synchronized guns. Sources on the Japanese Ho-103 vary, some say as low as 400rpm but I don't know if that is right or just trying to fit it into the US .50 cal firing at 400-500rpm in the synchronized mounts (or the Italians guns firing slow). It is often reported that the later (1944 and 1943) guns had to be slowed down due to poor materials but that is hard to pin down.
But just for arguments sake lets say the American guns fire at 800rpm each for 3200rpm or 53-54 round per second and the Japanese guns fire at 900rpm for the wing guns and 600rpm for the cowl guns for 3000rpm total or 50rps. Adjust as you see fit but the Japanese are depending a lot on the HE projectiles.

For perspective a Japanese 20mm HE shell from a Zero held 10 grams of HE and a 20mm HE tracer held 5 grams of HE.
Japanese Army 20mm shells held 3 grams HE and 9 grams Incendiary for a fuse less shell and 4 grams HE and 3.7 grams of incendiary for the conventionally fused shell.
These 12.7mm HE shells held about 25-33% the payload of a 20mm shell.

The British and German fans are still arguing about if it is better to detonate an HE shell on the skin of of the plane or several feet inside (needs a fuse).

Since just about anything beats the two 12.7mm guns in a Ki-43 from 1942 on the Ki-43 is a large improvement. Holding it's own in late 1943 on the world stage is harder to see.

My own opinion is that they should have cut back on the Ki-43 and built more Ki-44 sooner. And/or worked a little harder on improving the Ki-44 (put a bigger wing on it)

Thanks for the deets on the guns/ammo load.

Re your first point, it really seems IJAAF didn't really like the Shoki very much. All the reasons seem to boil down to it being trickier to fly than a Hayabusa, even though in practice no one seems to have had much of a problem, even if it had a higher stall speed. They ended production of the Shoki a year before the end of the war too, to focus on Hayate, while still churning out more Hayabusas.

But with respect to deployment, it was deployed in substantial numbers to China in mid-1943. As I posted above, it definitely seems to have been successful enough in engagements with allied aircraft that it was noticed—Chennault thought it was the best fighter in theater for a while, pilots were briefed accordingly.

As for holding its own, maybe it's a semantic point, but I think most fighter aircraft in service anywhere in the world at the time could have at least held their own in late 1943 if well-crewed and logistically supported. The performance differences between various aircraft types were a big deal to combat pilots for obvious reasons, but in practice were almost never decisive except in the area of range (a plane that can't reach the enemy is as good as no plane at all) and altitude performance (same reason).

For instance the Japanese Navy in Rabaul flew primarily model 21, 22, and 32 Zero-sens through the withdrawal of air assets in February/March 1944. Strictly comparing aircraft, USMC F4Us, USN F6Fs, and USAAF P-38s had a number of significant advantages over the A6Ms whose relative weaknesses (top speed, heavy controls at high speed, lack of armor) are of course very well known. But the result of actual air to air engagements overall tended to be fairly even over 1943 in terms of losses. Not that different from 1942 when U.S. pilots were equipped mainly with F4Fs, P-39s, and P-40s (all of which they still flew through 1943 as well of course) without the same margins of performance.

Yeah, the U.S. pilots were equipped with more capable aircraft, but the margin in practice wasn't really that big. The real difference maker was the size of the allied air forces, which dwarfed Japan's, and their supply situation—no shortage of fuel, ammunition, spares, etc. IJN was just totally overwhelmed in the end.

 

[MIflyer]

Well, the Ki-44 was at a disadvantage in that it was no doubt inferior to the Ki-43 in terms of handling. And Japanese pilots were taught to fight the way the Ki-43 did. The pilots found the Ki-44 was less maneuverable than the Ki-43 and also it landed too fast in comparison.

Probably even more notable was the difference in range. The Ki-44 could count on about 500 miles while the Ki-43 was good for 1000 and more like 1800 for ferrying. The Ki-61 was also good for 750 to 1000 miles, depending on version. The Ki-44 was literally a short ranged interceptor. The Ki-44 could not reach most targets and thus must have been rarely seen as escorts, unlike the Ki-43, Ki-61, and A6M.

 

[Barrett]

Ki-44-I was trial-deployed in SE Asia in December 1941-February 1942. But it first saw widespread deployment (Ki-44-II) in China in 1943. It was apparently quite effective, although the Allies seemed to have a higher opinion of the plane than did the IJAAF.

Per Nicholas Millman (2011), the first few encounters it didn't stand out, and generally was thought to be an "Oscar" or, commonly, a "Zero" (which allied pilots frequently called Ki-43s too, even in Burma/Malaysia/China theater where they were primarily flying against IJAAF opposition).

But by mid-1943, it had encountered allied (US and ROC) fighters enough that allied fighter pilots realized this was a new plane they couldn't outrun or escape from in a dive and, from what I've read it seems to have made an outsized impression. Enough of an impression that U.S. pilots all over the larger Asia/Pacific theater of conflict were briefed on the plane and started reporting encounters with "Tojos" sometimes whenever they ran into a Japanese fighter that surprised them with its speed. "Pappy"Boyington for example claims to have run into "Tojos" over Rabaul at a time when IJN A6Ms were the only Japanese fighters within 200 miles. Probably these were just fast-flown Zeros. In the last year of the war over Japan, N1Ks, J2Ms, Ki-100s, and Ki-84s were also frequently reported as "Tojos" by U.S. fighter pilots.

Here a few quotes from Millman (2011) from allied pilots and commanders re the Ki-44 in action:

Gen. Chennault on IJAAF air offensives in China in 1943: 'This time they had two new fighter types — the "Oscar Mk II", a faster and more heavily armed version of their old stand-by, and the "Tojo" [Ki-44], a stubby, barrel-bodied fighter that looked not unlike a Thunderbolt. It could out-run the P-40, and was the best all round fighter in China skies that summer.'

Lt. Harvey Elling after narrowly escaping a Ki-44 in his P-40 over Hengyang in August, 1943: 'Shortly after this encounter, information came to us of a new fast and heavily armed fighter which could outperform the P-40 due to its large engine and sturdy elliptical wings. It was called the "Tojo". I had seen it!'

Col. "Tex" Hill after his P-51As mixed it up with Ki-44s over Canton in December, 1943: 'I don't think we can beat these new Japs in the air.'

In general, the Ki-44 could outclimb just about anything it ran into, seemed to be as fast or faster than P-40s in combat conditions, and could hang with allied types (P-40s, P-38s, and P-51s) in dives far longer than the Ki-43. It was frequently flown beyond its fairly conservative official flight envelope by aggressive and skilled IJAAF pilots. The allies thought it was a spicy opponent.

It didn't fare as well in the last year of the war in China and the Philippines for the same main reason all Japanese fighters fared poorly. Underequipped and undersupplied (especially w/ respect to fuel). And vastly outnumbered by extremely well-trained, experienced allied combat pilots flying planes with performance equal to or even better than the Ki-44.

It also was a bust in its final major role as an interceptor. It could climb like a skyrocket, but the heavy wing loading and mediocre high altitude performance from the engine meant once it was high enough to intercept B-29s it couldn't really maneuver well and it wasn't fast enough.

Tex mentioned the Tojo situation a couple of times that I recall. He said Chennault's response was to "Get 'em on the ground" although it was not clear if that was an option...

 

[taly01]

My own opinion is that they should have cut back on the Ki-43 and built more Ki-44 sooner. And/or worked a little harder on improving the Ki-44 (put a bigger wing on it)

The IJAAF had done a good job in selecting the solution already in the Ki-61, good high speed handling, more armament and good range. It could be argued its a near perfect balanced mid war fighter, it just turned out to have a very unreliable engine that they couldn't fix in war time pressures.

 

[andrewgeorge]

The IJAAF had done a good job in selecting the solution already in the Ki-61, good high speed handling, more armament and good range. It could be argued its a near perfect balanced mid war fighter, it just turned out to have a very unreliable engine that they couldn't fix in war time pressures.

This is a good point. The Ki-61's problems were never really performance—it was getting the thing airborne.

Also, of course, regardless of which plane was built, the IJAAF was never large enough or well-enough supplied for it to make a big picture difference outside the margins. Over the course of the entire war the IJAAF took delivery of like 6,000 Ki-43s, 1,200 Ki-44s, 3,000 Ki-61s plus 400 Ki-100s, and 3,500 Ki-84s. That's 13,100 front-line, modern fighter aircraft produced for use by the IJAAF during the war. Throw in another couple thousand Ki-27s if you want be generous.

That's basically the same as the number of *P-40s* the U.S. manufactured during the war.

No matter how combat-effective your fighters pilots are, attrition from wartime use in frontline conditions is going to whittle down the number of your available aircraft really fast.

 

[beers]

Over the course of the entire war the IJAAF took delivery of like 6,000 Ki-43s, 1,200 Ki-44s, 3,000 Ki-61s plus 400 Ki-100s, and 3,500 Ki-84s. That's 13,100 front-line, modern fighter aircraft produced for use by the IJAAF during the war. Throw in another couple thousand Ki-27s if you want be generous.

The benefit is that we get a lot more cool aircraft to discuss than "Here's another Bf 109, except this one has a new radio!".

Still think they should have done the radial conversion for the Ki-61 a little earlier, when the Ha-40 proved to be seriously unreliable and hard to keep running.