Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

With a very, very high retrospectroscope factor a better option for the JAAF would have been a big wing Ki-44 to sort of match the Ki-61.
The JAAF wasted way too much time and effort on the Ki-43 after the initial victories.

You're basically saying that the IJA should have built a better Hayabusa and everyone here agrees with you. I absolutely love watching people fly the Hayabusa in simulators but that is not a plane fit for combat. Even the Ki-43-III Ko wasn't fit for combat.

The 1300HP Kinsei-50 (Ha-112-I) did not have MW injection, this only appearing on the 1500HP Ha-112-II (Kinsei-60).

According to the handbook on Japanese Aero Engines it did have MW50 injection in the 52 and 53 series (second hand source). Shinpachi also provided an authoritative document which shows the same. Apparently, the 50-series added just MW injection and the 60 series added both water injection and direct injection, although I think this document has a typo in it as it refers to the 62 as being a "Ru" model which means turbo charged. EDIT: If you can find Shinpachi's document, it's located on these forums. I may have gotten some details of the 50 series incorrect but I can't find the source.

EDIT: I found the document and it does have a typo in its translation but it's trivial. So the Kinsei 62-Ru added MW injection, fuel injection, and turbine supercharging in one go. The Kinsei 61 was carbureted and was likely available much earlier parallel to the 1,300 Kinsei 52, which was put into bombers as early as 1941 or even earlier. So a 1,300 HP Zero or Hayabusa was a possibility as early as '41. Wow.

The very first aircraft that flew with the 112-II engine was aiui the Ki-46-III prototype in March 1943, so i don't think the prototype engine appeared before 1942, certainly not flightworthy, despite what it's said. Perhaps the design started in 1941, or maybe the very first prototype engines appeared in 1941, but it took until 1943 to debug it suficiently for flight status? Again as per USSBS production started in second half of 1943.

That was my understanding but it may have been available much earlier according to some documents at least. I wish that I had Goodwin and Starkings book because some have said that it suggests the 60 series was ready for aircraft in 1941. But my guess is that it was the Kinsei 61 that was available earlier.

As for the Zero, indeed the prototype A6M8 (probably called something else, like A6M6) COULD fly sometime in 1943 too, with production in 1944. At least a 1500HP Zero would cope a bit better with the F6F-3/5 and F4U-1.

That was what Horikoshi claimed but he was talking about reengining the A6M2 with the larger Kinsei rather than working on the A6M3 and A6M5. But if it started with the Kinsei as Horikoshi had wanted from the very beginning, it might have been available much earlier. But it's likely that a Kinsei-powered aircraft would have reduced the aircraft complement of Japanese carriers which in turn would have impacted their strike capability. I do not think the Kinsei was ever an option for the IJN as they prioritized striking power over other factors.

 

[MikeMeech]

That was my understanding but it may have been available much earlier according to some documents at least. I wish that I had Goodwin and Starkings book because some have said that it suggests the 60 series was ready for aircraft in 1941. But my guess is that it was the Kinsei 61 that was available earlier.


That was what Horikoshi claimed but he was talking about reengining the A6M2 with the larger Kinsei rather than working on the A6M3 and A6M5. But if it started with the Kinsei as Horikoshi had wanted from the very beginning, it might have been available much earlier. But it's likely that a Kinsei-powered aircraft would have reduced the aircraft complement of Japanese carriers which in turn would have impacted their strike capability. I do not think the Kinsei was ever an option for the IJN as they prioritized striking power over other factors.

Hi
From Goodwin and Starkings 'Japanese Aero-Engines 1910-1945', pages 100-103:

Mike

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

M MikeMeech hey thanks so much for sharing this information!!!

It explains why there's so much confusion about the Kinsei 61. If Goodwin and Starkings didn't have much information on it, it's probably because the records on it were destroyed. While some of the information conflicts with Shinpachi's Japanese document, most of it jibes. I think the discrepancy is because of unclear notation as to what constitutes MW50 injection and indirect injection as opposed to direct injection. Going off Goodwin and Starkings's book, I'd say that S Shortround6 is right that a Kinsei 60 Hayabusa could have entered production in 43 because they would have had to reengine it. But a Kinsei 50 with MW50 injection was possible from the beginning of the war. Very interesting how the Japanese brass didn't understand how good the engine was for fighters until far too late.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Just having torpedoes that work made for a huge improvement over the USN, but having flashless powder is an absolute must. In WW1 the RN realized that the German Navy was far ahead in night action technology and training; between the wars the RN studied and implemented changes that rectified most of it's night action deficiencies.

It's utterly incredible to me that anyone actually thinks the 1941-45 RN could stand up to the IJN on it's own, but I really hope to find the time to plunge into this in it's own thread. Hopefully later next week. I really can't wait to dive into it in detail.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I recall that length was already at maximum, per the Navy contract

I know, I have been saying the contract was the problem.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You're basically saying that the IJA should have built a better Hayabusa and everyone here agrees with you. I absolutely love watching people fly the Hayabusa in simulators but that is not a plane fit for combat. Even the Ki-43-III Ko wasn't fit for combat.

According to the handbook on Japanese Aero Engines it did have MW50 injection in the 52 and 53 series (second hand source). Shinpachi also provided an authoritative document which shows the same. Apparently, the 50-series added just MW injection and the 60 series added both water injection and direct injection, although I think this document has a typo in it as it refers to the 62 as being a "Ru" model which means turbo charged. EDIT: If you can find Shinpachi's document, it's located on these forums. I may have gotten some details of the 50 series incorrect but I can't find the source.

EDIT: I found the document and it does have a typo in its translation but it's trivial. So the Kinsei 62-Ru added MW injection, fuel injection, and turbine supercharging in one go. The Kinsei 61 was carbureted and was likely available much earlier parallel to the 1,300 Kinsei 52, which was put into bombers as early as 1941 or even earlier. So a 1,300 HP Zero or Hayabusa was a possibility as early as '41. Wow.

That was my understanding but it may have been available much earlier according to some documents at least. I wish that I had Goodwin and Starkings book because some have said that it suggests the 60 series was ready for aircraft in 1941. But my guess is that it was the Kinsei 61 that was available earlier.


That was what Horikoshi claimed but he was talking about reengining the A6M2 with the larger Kinsei rather than working on the A6M3 and A6M5. But if it started with the Kinsei as Horikoshi had wanted from the very beginning, it might have been available much earlier. But it's likely that a Kinsei-powered aircraft would have reduced the aircraft complement of Japanese carriers which in turn would have impacted their strike capability. I do not think the Kinsei was ever an option for the IJN as they prioritized striking power over other factors.

For a plane not fit for combat the Ki-43 sure seems to have shot down a lot of Allied aircraft...

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

For a plane not fit for combat the Ki-43 sure seems to have shot down a lot of Allied aircraft...

#1 among all Japanese aircraft, if I remember correctly. But I'm not saying it was a bad aircraft. But it was more fit to be a stunt plane than it was a combat aircraft. A lot of its design was pure overkill. Why put those low-turbulence fowler flaps on an aircraft with already excellent maneuverability? And why the forward-swept wings? And why not have some wing-mounted armament? And if there's no wing-mounted armament, why not thin the wing a little to make it a bit faster? Or use a "laminar" flow airfoil? At the end of the day, they sacrificed everything to make the most maneuverable monoplane of the war. IMO, it should have been flying at airshows instead of in combat.

 

[GrauGeist]

It's utterly incredible to me that anyone actually thinks the 1941-45 RN could stand up to the IJN on it's own, but I really hope to find the time to plunge into this in it's own thread. Hopefully later next week. I really can't wait to dive into it in detail.

I'm still trying to figure out what they meant by "flashless powder"...

 

[WARSPITER]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwif6_3a4LWAAxUS-mEKHVhlAYAQFnoECA0QAQ&url=http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.php&usg=AOvVaw3biHasVlpwFXWxszZlgE-v&opi=89978449

 

[EwenS]

I'm still trying to figure out what they meant by "flashless powder"...

A brief study here about the gun propellants used by various nations.

History and Technology - Naval Propellants - A Brief Overview - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

It seems that there were limits on the size of weapons for which "flashless powder" was created.

Britain - 5.25" with reduced flash for 6" Mk.XIII
Japan - 5.5"
US - stopped work on such propellants in 1928 because they produced more smoke causing difficulties with visual rangefinding. Work began again in summer 1942 and a solution found and from Sept 1942 it was produced for 3-6" plus imports from Canada for 6-8" and reduced charges up to 16".

So I'm not clear about who had what and when and it's effect on various battles given references to it in various places.

 

[EwenS]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwif6_3a4LWAAxUS-mEKHVhlAYAQFnoECA0QAQ&url=http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.php&usg=AOvVaw3biHasVlpwFXWxszZlgE-v&opi=89978449

Snap!!!

 

[GrauGeist]

A brief study here about the gun propellants used by various nations.

History and Technology - Naval Propellants - A Brief Overview - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

It seems that there were limits on the size of weapons for which "flashless powder" was created.

Britain - 5.25" with reduced flash for 6" Mk.XIII
Japan - 5.5"
US - stopped work on such propellants in 1928 because they produced more smoke causing difficulties with visual rangefinding. Work began again in summer 1942 and a solution found and from Sept 1942 it was produced for 3-6" plus imports from Canada for 6-8" and reduced charges up to 16".

So I'm not clear about who had what and when and it's effect on various battles given references to it in various places.

Evidently, it was not worked out by the time of WWII, as there are some amazing photos of Naval guns in action at night.

 

[WARSPITER]

Evidently, it was not worked out by the time of WWII, as there are some amazing photos of Naval guns in action at night.

The production of flashless powder was resource intensive and was generally limited to guns up to 6" size.
A definite boon for destroyers and cruisers fighting at night.

I suppose a ship firing eight or nine 15/16" guns would be fairly noticeable anyway.

 

[EwenS]

Evidently, it was not worked out by the time of WWII, as there are some amazing photos of Naval guns in action at night.

Guns using flashless powder at night don't make for good photographs

 

[Shortround6]

Flash less is not accurate, but it is a lot shorter than typing out

"Not truly flash less but lot less flash than normal and much less likely to blind our own gunners/observers/director crewman propellent. "

Something like camouflage paint doesn't make tanks or aircraft "disappear".

 

[Shortround6]

For a plane not fit for combat the Ki-43 sure seems to have shot down a lot of Allied aircraft...

production According to Francillon
Ki-27......3,399
Ki-43.....5,919
Ki-44.....1,225
Ki-61.....3,078
Ki-84.....3,514
Ki-100....121+275 converted Ki-61 airframes.


Now adjust over years for

Opposition aircraft
Opposition aircrew training

Japanese aircrew training
Japanese fuel supply

tactical situation changes

With nearly 6000 built it is not surprising that the Ki-43 shot down a lot of Allied aircraft. Doesn't mean that it was best solution or most cost effective solution or even that it was actually very good let alone in the running for best solution, aside from the fact that they had two sizable plants tooled up for it.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwif6_3a4LWAAxUS-mEKHVhlAYAQFnoECA0QAQ&url=http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.php&usg=AOvVaw3biHasVlpwFXWxszZlgE-v&opi=89978449

Yeah so not really 'flashless" or even used for most larger guns -

"Flashless propellant was in great demand during the war, however, for guns larger than 5.25" (13.3 cm), full flashless charges became too bulky for existing turret arrangements and so the only larger weapon issued these was the 6" (15.2cm) Mark XXIII. These were actually "reduced flash" or "non-blinding" charges and were designated as NQFP. This propellant was issued in cord form and differed from NF by having 4.5% more nitrocellulose, 4.5% less centralite and 2% potassium sulfate."

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

production According to Francillon
Ki-27......3,399
Ki-43.....5,919
Ki-44.....1,225
Ki-61.....3,078
Ki-84.....3,514
Ki-100....121+275 converted Ki-61 airframes.


Now adjust over years for

Opposition aircraft
Opposition aircrew training

Japanese aircrew training
Japanese fuel supply

tactical situation changes

With nearly 6000 built it is not surprising that the Ki-43 shot down a lot of Allied aircraft. Doesn't mean that it was best solution or most cost effective solution or even that it was actually very good let alone in the running for best solution, aside from the fact that they had two sizable plants tooled up for it.

I am not certain what the exact number of victories was of the Ki-43 (does anyone have that number?) but many aircraft were made in large numbers which did not shoot down a lot of enemy aircraft. They made 1,000 Defiants and they shot down... 10 airplanes? 20? They made 3,000 Typhoons and I think got a few hundred victories. They made almost 10,000 P-39s and while the roughly half of those which went to the Soviets did some good, the other 5,000 seem to have shot down about 350 enemy aircraft (claimed not actually confirmed).

I am pretty sure the Ki-43 did a good bit better than that. The idea of calling it a 'stunt plane' is absurd. It was very much a fighter, not even necessarily the most maneuverable monoplane fighter of the war incidentally, but one which was extraordinarily good at one set of traits (agility and precision) while less so at others (speed and firepower).

We have a simplistic concept in the West that speed and firepower are the only thing that matters, and that has caused problems for us over the years.

 

[Shortround6]

My own opinion of the Ki-43 was that while it wasn't bad in 1942 (included Dec 1941) it was pretty much past it's "use by" date in 1943.

The whole thing is in 1942 both sides, Japanese and Allies, were running on thin, worn out, knotted shoestrings compared to what they would be using in late 1943/1944 and in a whole different world that what was going on Europe and NA/Italy.

Japanese fighter production till Dec 1942 in quarters.
plane..........................Ki-43......................Zero
1940............................0...............................98
1/41.............................0..............................76
2/41............................35............................83
3/41............................45............................88
4/41............................77..........................162
1/42...........................113.........................249
2/42..........................169..........................258
3/42...........................154.........................353
4/42...........................180........................ 496

Add in the few dozen Ki-44s and Ki-61 as you wish.
JAAF was responsible for SE Asia, China and India to start. Then got sucked into New Guinea etc.

For the Japanese they blew through the junk that the Allies had in Dec 1941 through Feb 1942, in part due to better pilots. There were other reasons.
Small numbers of planes lacking in reinforcements/repair parts were common on both sides.

 

[WARSPITER]

They made 3,000 Typhoons and I think got a few hundred victories.

Plus the role played in the halting of FW190 raids across the channel in 1942, successful attacks on channel shipping, radar / warning sites,
supply dumps, and hundreds of trains in France and Belgium in 1943, the decimation of coastal radar sites, support for troops from D-day on,
attacks on headquarters, supply areas, transport - including a major role in the halting of the Mortain counter attack, destroying the equipment
of 7th Army and the Fifth Panzer Army plus the massive casualties caused at Falaise, all this in 1944, then the same support through to the end
of the war in 1945.

The role and the effect is what counts, not just enemy aircraft downed.

The Ki-43 was undoubtedly highly manoeuvrable but for what the Typhoon did you need a different aircraft to the Ki-43. Having more types of
different aircraft available sooner in numbers was a big advantage to the Allies.