Jack vs. Tojo - Which was better? Why?

J2M "Jack" vs. Ki-44 "Tojo": Which was better

  • J2M "Jack"

    Votes: 22 81.5%

  • Ki-44 "Tojo"

    Votes: 5 18.5%
  • Total voters
    27

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

alejandro_ said:
On paper the Jack was superior, but Tojo was far more reliable. 302 Kokutai reported that no more than 30% of Jacks were usually available. Jack had very serious production issues.
Click to expand...
An extremely good point Alejandro. This point added to the slightly better turn of the Ki 100
is exactly why the Japanese pilots preferred it over the Ki 84....IMHO.
 
I've done some thinking and based on posts further down, I've revised the following

1. Ki-44 against
  • P-38F: It was the early P-38 variants and was available in 1942
  • P-40D/E: They were available early on in the war
  • F4U-1: Early variants were available as of the last few days of December 1942
  • F6F-3: Available in 1943

2. J2M against
  • Tempest II: There were plans to use these for the Tiger-Force as escorts
  • Spitfire IX/XVI: Not sure how many of those served in the Pacific, but they were great fighter planes
  • P-63 Kingcobra
  • P-47N Thunderbolt
 
Last edited:
AVG Tomahawks and RAF Buffalos were facing Ki-44s in December '41 and January '42.
14th AF P-40Es and Ks were dealing with Ki-44s in spring and summer of '43.
After smacking Ki-27s and Ki-43s around, the Shoki came as a big surprise.
The 23rd FG even felt that P-51As were no match for the Ki-44.
When did the Jack have it's combat debut?
 
Greg Boeser said:
The 23rd FG even felt that P-51As were no match for the Ki-44.
Click to expand...

What I was able to find from the 76th FS:
"Upon his return to Kweilin, veteran ace "Tex" Hill expressed doubt
about the P-51(A)s ability to fight the 'Tojo', stating, 'I don't think
we can beat these new Japs in the air'. Chennault was unfazed, however,
replying, 'Don't worry about it. Just hit them on the ground'."

On 1 December 1943 Tex Hill was flying with five other P-51A pilots. They
were escorting B-24s and were bounced by Ki 44s. Two of the P-51As
were shot down without loss to the Shokis. This was just an isolated
incident. But, the Ki 44-II could out climb, out roll, out accelerate and
possibly outturn the P-51A. The Mustang was faster and could out
dive the Ki-44, but the Ki-44 did dive very well also.
 
Last edited:
Glider said:
Few would deny that the Ki44 is one of those often overlooked aircraft of WW2. Had the Japanese switched Ki44 production for Ki43 life wold have been far more difficult for the Allies.
Click to expand...

From http://www.yarchive.net/mil/ki-43.html

"Not to be overlooked is the Ki-44, the performance of which was more or less comparable
to the Fw 190A series. but with a faster rate of climb." "The P-40 was simply outclassed by
it, and had the Japanese Army pushed Ki-44 units into New Guinea in 1942, it would definity
been bad..."
 
Last edited:
There is no comparative fly offs of Allied vs Ki-44 and J2M like they did for Zero. I think the J2M is a much more advanced and superior performer, and has 2-4x20mm as standard, where the Ki-44 had 4x12.7mm as standard.

The little I've found from the Japanese side is that they didn't consider the J2M able to defend itself in a dogfight (one reason the N1K-J was given production preference over the J2M). Also the Ki-44 was not considered a good plane by most Japanese as it turned poorly compared to Ki-43 and Ki-61, and it was a handful to land for new pilots.
 
T.A.I.C. Tojo 2 report 155A dated March 1945. Revised from the December 1944
report.
( T.A.I.C. Jack 11 report 105A dated December 1944 )

Altitude / Speed / Climb / Time to height
Meters / MPH / FPM / Minutes to altitude
S.L.........335/4140/----..(350/4670/----
-1,000..347/4200/--.7..(364/4670/--.6
-2,000..361/3950/-1.7..(379/4300/-1.3
-3,000..361/3500/-2.7..(379/3950/-2.3
-4,000..368/3490/-3.65(388/4060/-3.0
-5,000..380/3300/-4.7..(403/3750/-4.2
-6,000..380/2765/-5.8..(402/3280/-5.2
-7,000..373/2240/-7.3..(397/2750/-6.8
-8,000..360/1715/-8.9..(388/2170/-8.2
-9,000..345/1190/11.5..(377/1700/-9.6
10,000..322/-665/N.G...(363/1050/11.8-12.0
11,000..260/-140/N.G...(340/-680/N.G.

Engines: Nakajima type 2 1,570 hp./5,000 ft. (Mitsubishi Kasei 23 1,940 hp./4,400 ft.)

Combat Weights: 6,100 lb. (7,080 lb.)

Service Ceilings: 36,350 ft. (39.600 ft.)

Wing Loading: 37.78 (32.805) lb./sq. ft.

Power Loading: 3.885 (3.649) lb./hp.

Armament: 2 x 7.7 mm/500 rpg. or 2 x 12.7 mm/250 rpg. + 2 x 12.7 mm/ 250 rpg.
( 2 x 7.7 mm/550 rpg. or 2 x 20 mm/100 rpg. + 2 x 20 mm/100rpg.)


I have a work up on all the other aircraft mentioned previously, F4U-1, Buffalo, P-51D &
the rest, but that is not what the title of this thread is calling for.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
Note: The Ki 44-III prototype powered by a Nakajima Ha-145 was
completed in June 1943 with an increased wing area of 204.52 sq.
ft. and a larger tail. This version was designed to carry four 20 mm
cannon or 2 20 mm cannon and 2 37 mm cannon. The combat
weight of the prototype was 5,357 lb. and the increased wing
area would give it a wing loading of 26.19 lb./sq. ft. The power
loading of the 2,000 hp. Ha-145 would have placed it at 2.678 lb./ hp.
That is the best power to weight ratio of any WW2 fighter I have ever
read about. Superlative acceleration and climbing ability. Makes
one wonder why....?
 
J2M3 m21 vs. P-47N.
The following quote is from page 53 of Erik Pilawskii's 'Fighter Aircraft
Performance of WW2'.
" The J2M3 was remarkable for its tremendous flying horsepower, possessing
what was likely the most formidable power loading of any aircraft in the Pacific
war. Meanwhile, the P-47N model was a longer ranged development of the
P-47D, complete with larger wings and increased tankage. Against the 'Jack',
the Thunderbolt would have to rely on its modest speed advantage*, being
inferior to the J2M in every other performance characteristic. With equal pilots
at the controls this would not have been enough, and it is hard to see past a
victory for the J2M3 under normal circumstances."

The normal power loading for the Model 21 was about 3.65 lb./hp. which was
very good compared to the '47N's 5.64 lb./hp.

P-47N (J2M3 with 92 octane and smooth running engine.)
432 (402) mph/6,000 m.
444 (397) mph/7,000 m.
456 (388) mph/8,000 m.
463 (377) mph/9,000 m.
467 (363) mph/10,000 m.

*Modest speed advantage?
 

Concur on the modest part. Not taken into consideration is the pilot product on the stick and rudders and their training time / experience. It would be interesting to see a quarter by quarter break out by country for the war years, with pilot hours and type (fighter, trainer, bomber, transport). It would I think show tremendous declines on the Axis side, or a big fall from the beginning to end.

Cheers,
Biff
 
The super high performance quoted for late war US planes like P-47N and P-51H are using 80-90" of boost! I am not sure if 80-90" boost would be used by the fighter planes flying 850 mile over water from Iwo Jima to Japan. Using safer (rated) levels of boost the performance is still great, but is then almost the same as J2M using their own high boost over their own land.

FLIGHT TESTS OF THE P-47N AIRPLANE AAF NO. 44-88406
Speed at Military Power (53inch boost)
423mph at 38,000ft.
372mph at 15,000 ft.

P-47N sustained rate of climb is only around 1560-1740ft/min below 25,000ft at Military Power!
 
In air combat, you get no points for second place. I'm sure they babied their engines (if you can call "lugging"* the engine in super lean mixture and high cylinder head temps "babying") in the long cruises to and from the target area, but when the bad guys show up you do what you've got to do. The R2800 was a phenomenally tough engine, and if the choice is between over boosting your engine and getting the other guy before he gets you, versus babying your engine and becoming a guest of the Emperor (or worse), well that's a no-brainer in my book.
Cheers,
Wes
*For you folks unfamiliar with American slang, "lugging" is forcing an engine to run "oversquare" (high Manifold Pressure and BMEP and low RPM - Lindberg's max range technique), kind of like driving up a hill in forth gear at low speed with pedal to the floor and your engine shuddering, pinging, and protesting. This, combined with a super lean mixture leads to high cylinder head temps and stresses that can be damaging to engines less robust than an R2800.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Italian series 5/6 fighters really better?
Replies
8
Views
835
GregP
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
Replies
10
Views
320
Bretoal2
B
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
781
PAT303
P
P-51D vs F/G vs H: how good was good enough/how good was actually great?
Replies
18
Views
2K
BarnOwlLover
A
Why was the Seafire Mk.III so slow?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
4K
don4331
D
Menu
Log in
Register