windhund116
Senior Airman
- 360
- Jul 3, 2017
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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
How about a Hellcat?Tojo? Jack? I'll take a Bearcat, please.
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!Unfair comparison! Like comparing an Emil to a Spit 14. Half a generation apart. How about a KI84?
Cheers,
Wes
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.
Do you have a source for this?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?
For Ki-44s in Malaya and Burma, Shores' Bloody Shambles.Do you have a source for this?
For Ki-44s in Malaya and Burma, Shores' Bloody Shambles.
For Ki-44s vs 23rd FG in 1943, Molesworth's Sharks over China.
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.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.
The Raiden was designed to be a fast climbing, high altitude interceptor.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?