Japanese interceptors/fighters, fav?

Which would you rather fly in defence of home territory?


  • Total voters
    15

carpenoctem1689

Airman 1st Class
285
0
Sep 10, 2005
It would seem that the mindset here would be ETO aircraft deserve the most discussion, because i see a serious lack of PTO discussions. So in a most likely vein attempt, ill try and discuss some Japanese fighters and interceptors.

Early on in the war, the japanese had few, if any high altitude fighters and interceptors. The vaunted zero, had only a top speed of 332 MPH at 14,390 ft, and with altitude above this, performance slowly decreased. It did not have the amrament to deal with bombers of four engine configuration, and had trouble with twin engine bombers/fighters. It had a meager ceiling of 32,810 ft, rendering it definitly not the best high altitude aircraft. however this can be forgiven, due to the fact its meant as an escort fighter/fighter.

The Ki-43 was a close resemblance to the zero, being a medium atltitude fighter, and not a high level interceptor. Manoeverability was very good, but armament was a meager two 12.7 mm nose mounted machine guns. it had a top speed of 329 MPH at 13,125 ft, and above that, performance gradually decreased. Its ceiling was slightly improved over the zero, topping out at 36,750 ft.

The Ki-44 fared a little better in the higher altitude battles that would ensue in the PTO. It had a top speed of 375 MPH at 17,105 ft, an improvement over the A6M, and the Ki-43. It had a ceiling of 36,842 ft, and an armament of four machine guns. Like the previous two aircraft it had a range of over 1000 miles, and could loiter, or escort.

The Ki-84 was an aircraft much more suited to the interceptor role. with a top speed of 390 MPH at 20,131 ft, it could finally put speed and alititude somewhat together. it had a ceiling of 34,540 ft, and again a range of over 1000 miles, giving it loiter and escort ability. With an armament of two 20mm cannon, and two machine guns, it was too lightly armed to truly tackle the large, four engined bombers, like the b-17 and the b-24, and would have trouble with the b-25, b-26. However it still was better than the A6M, sporting 12.7mm Ho-103 machine guns, instead of 7.92mm ones.
 

carpenoctem1689

Airman 1st Class
285
0
Sep 10, 2005
i simply ran out of room...it wouldnt let me type anymore...though the raiden would have been one of my favorite choices, even though it was plagued by troubles, mostly engine related.
 

carpenoctem1689

Airman 1st Class
285
0
Sep 10, 2005
Im sorry, im new here today, and i just now noticed the polls board, will do from now on, and i apologize.
 

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser
Staff
Mod
47,759
10,740
Nov 8, 2004
USA/Germany
I would not go for any of those fighters up there. I am not impressed with really any of the Japanese fighters. The Zero was an overated myth. I do like the Tony and the Raiden though.
 

carpenoctem1689

Airman 1st Class
285
0
Sep 10, 2005
forgive the lack of options in the poll...im new and just now learning, thanks for the information on my mistakes, and thanks for answering my poll though.
 

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser
Staff
Mod
47,759
10,740
Nov 8, 2004
USA/Germany
The Japanese were very capable of making quality aircraft I think they were just lacking raw materials more than Germany was and they made similar mistakes as the Germans did.
 

cheddar cheese

Major General
20,265
18
Jan 9, 2004
WSM, England
Yep, the Raiden was supposed to be in service in late 42/early 43 but due to numourous problems (mainly engine) they werent in frontline service til late 44 at the earliest.
 

Jabberwocky

Staff Sergeant
1,230
437
Jul 24, 2005
Japan
What about a N1K2-J Shiden-kai?

1,990 hp engine, 4 20mms and that crazy automatic manuvering system that they put on it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread