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

Certain versions of the J2M had four 20mm cannons, right? This made it as potent as the Kawanishi N1K Shiden. I'd imagine those 20mm cannons would make those planes more lethal against the B-29s.
 
My tentative conclusion is that the Ki-44 could have been a terrifying if fragile opponent at low to medium altitude and that the USAAF over New Guinea was lucky that their opponents did not deploy it. Of course, the range was inferior to that of the Ki-43 and the Ki-61 and it is possible that Ki-44 had defects such as low Vne or a low rate of roll which have not been mentioned so far in this thread. However, there is no obvious reason why it should not roll rapidly and its acceleration should be the best in the world in late 1942.
The USAAF in China certainly echoes your conclusion. When the first production aircraft began arriving in theater in early 1943 they gave the 23rd Fighter Group a nasty shock. The Ki-44 had a higher ceiling, better acceleration, a potent armament, excellent roll rate, and could stay with a P-40 in a dive.
 
Tojo? Jack? I'll take a Bearcat, please.
How about a Hellcat?

f6f-5-28-jpg.jpg


The Ki-44 seems to have been a reliable plane, deploying them to North East New Guinea in 1943-44 when the air bases were under heavy attack would have been a good use for them. Even if the landing strip needed was longer than Ki-43 they did fly bombers there so must have had some long strips available.
 
I thought that it was quite interesting to imagine a Bearcat powered by the J2M's Kasei engine Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190. It seems surprisingly simple to guess the performance because the Kasei's maximum power is quite close to the normal rating of the R-2800-30W. Thus F8F-2 Bearcat's maximum speed at normal rating, 363 knots (418 mph) at 22,000 ft, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf, is probably close to what a Kasei powered Bearcat could achieve. It is harder to guess what a J2M5 could actually do and even harder to guess what a R-2800C powered Raiden could manage.
 
They'd love to put an R-2800 of adequate outline in the Planes of Fame J2M-3, but there are no R-2800s with an extension shaft. It's OK to re-engine something like a Yak-3 / 9 because an Allison fits nicely and is available ... at least more available than a Mikulin or Kilmov, AND it doesn't look much different from a stock unit.

But putting an R-2800 in the J2M-3 would considerably alter its lines, making it a non-starter for a restoration to flight status project.
 
Unfair comparison! Like comparing an Emil to a Spit 14. Half a generation apart. How about a KI84?
Cheers,
Wes
Absolutely... The Ki-44 was flying in China in 1941; and could have been in service even earlier if IJA hadn't put so much attention on the Ki-43... The Raiden was a very sound design; if it had been given priority over all Homare-engined fighters (except the Ki-84), it could have been in service by the end of 1943 (and begun replacing the Ki-44)--- just in time to give the B-29 fits... In my opinion, the Japanese would have saved themselves a lot of grief if they just focussed all their warplane engine attention on the Kinsei and Kasei (and their 18-cylinder derivatives) and quickly phased out all the rest (and not started on the Homare) before they started the war!
 
I never flew the airplane so all I have is my source material to go by. Much of what is in these books are eyewitness testimonials which were given to the respective author. If any of the material is incorrect than it can most likely be traced back to a Japanese pilot or ground crew member.

If you're saying it had a landing speed similar to a WWII carrier aircraft then who am I to disagree with you...but feel free to throw another red X my way if it makes you feel any better. :)

What does THAT mean? If I do give a red X, all it means is "I disagree." Doesn't mean you're evil or anything. Really.
 
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.
Do you have a source for this?

When did the Jack have it's combat debut?
 
My pick would in fact be the Ki-44, simply because it was built and deployed in much greater numbers. So it actually had some impact on the war.

I'm not sure how much of a game-changer it was though, and I'm confused on a couple of points.

Somebody said the Ki-44 lacked armor and SS tanks? I thought it did have armor?

The main fault seems to be that it was somewhat lightly armed, and didn't turn that well which can't have been popular with Japanese pilots. Is there any sense what Japanese pilots thought of it?

Considering how long it was in production, they didn't make that many. Only a dribble in 1942, a bit better but still rather few in 1943 and 44.

Why is the J2M so short and stubby? It looks almost like a souped up I-16 (or an I-180). I thought such a short fuselage had been abandoned as a design feature by the middle of the war. I thought it tended to make aircraft unstable. Am I wrong about that? Is there some advantage to the short length other than weight savings (which I think would be marginal...?) Carrier storage?
 
What does THAT mean? If I do give a red X, all it means is "I disagree." Doesn't mean you're evil or anything. Really.
Greg we discussed all of this over a year and half ago. I accepted your explanation then and was only having a bit of fun during what I felt at the time seemed to be a building of emotion over the comments I made about the Jack.

To recap my opinion of the J2M, it's actual performance wasn't close to what we see in TAIC reports. No surprise there, as this is true of practically ever Japanese aircraft evaluated by the center. This is due to the overall acceptance of the most favorable (i.e. inflated) values concerning properties such as aerodynamic drag, prop efficiency, thrust augmentation, and engine performance used for the CALCULATED performance figures.

I'd look for a ten percent reduction in performance as a ballpark figure, which would put the maximum speed of a factory fresh aircraft in good condition pretty darn near to what the JNAF achieved during ACTUAL flight testing of the aircraft during the war.
 
Why is the J2M so short and stubby? It looks almost like a souped up I-16 (or an I-180). I thought such a short fuselage had been abandoned as a design feature by the middle of the war. I thought it tended to make aircraft unstable. Am I wrong about that? Is there some advantage to the short length other than weight savings (which I think would be marginal...?) Carrier storage?
The Raiden was designed to be a fast climbing, high altitude interceptor.

It never saw carrier ops.
 
It was 32 feet 8 inches in length which isn't amazingly short.
It was just very wide because it had a very large diameter Mitsubishi Kasei engine normally considered a "Bomber Engine" buried deep in the fuselage.
The variant of the Seafire in the same photograph is about 2.5 feet shorter.

- Ivan.

https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpr...en_in_the_philippines_taic_in_flight_1945.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back