The manual has 600 km/h IAS -- but the limitations throughout the manual seem to be pretty conservative.
That said I seem to recall engine overspeeding being a greater hindrance to the maximum dive speed than the airframe, not sure though.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What was the limit of Ki 43's dive speed?
Bear in mind, the Zeroes at Guadalcanal were teetering on bingo fuel and couldn't afford to get drawn into any extended dance routines.the marines at Guadalcanal were amazed that the Zero's at Guadalcanal didn't just park on their tail and stay there but instead they dove, shot and climbed away.
...
Part of it depends on how much retooling or redesign of the wing the company and/or country is will to do.
...
most anything can be done it you throw enough time and money at it. The question is should it be done. Design new wing structure for the Ki-43 (and install engine weight a lot more) or just design new plane with all the features you want building off the knowledge you gained with the Ki 43.
The Japanese built only 773 Ki-43s before 1943 and then 1546 in 1943 and 2,693 (2742?) in 1944.
Yes that number pales in comparison to the US production but building around 4200 Ki-43s in 1943-44 shows the Japanese were wasting a lot of effort.
The difference in weight was only a few hundred pounds although a big wing version would weigh a few hundred pounds more. Both used a 14 cylinder engine but the engine in the Ki 44 is the same one you want to use in the upgraded Ki 43.
It seems we want the same thing, a four gun airplane that will do around 360mph, dive better and still maneuver close to the Ki-43. we just disagree as to "upgrade" the Ki 43 with the new engine and wing structure or build a new plane based on (but not really using many parts) the Ki 44 before the KI 84 shows up. It might give them a bit more time to work on the Ki 84 or at least it's engine.
Hello Tomo Pauk,
I don't believe adding wing armament to the Ki-43 would have worked well because as Shortround6 already mentioned, the wing was a multi spar design and would have needed some serious redesign to allow guns and ammunition. There were also fuel tanks located between the spars.
Adding extra weight outboard on the wings would also have degraded the excellent roll rate.
The Ki-43 also seemed to be rather slow for the installed power especially when compared to equivalent models of the A6M, so it may not have had quite as much development potential without a pretty thorough redesign. and if one decides to take that path, it probably makes more sense to design a new aircraft than apply patches to a lightweight airframe.
- Ivan.
The A6M with protection installed (version 52c) was slower than Ki-43 with protection installed.
Japanese big problem was their constant trying to solve probems with new aircraft types for any conceivable role, as if the rules of economies of scale were not applying to them. Interceptor needed - have both IJN and IJA buy a design each, but just in hundreds. Floatplane fighter needed (needed???) - design a specific type. Fast recon - design & produce two types. Two engined fighters - yes, 4, 5 or 6 types. Two engined bombers - half a dozen.
Hello Tomo Pauk,
I am not entirely convinced that a redesign of the wing structure to mount a pair of HMG would have been quite so easy, but I do see your point that the weight penalty would not be terribly great.
I also have seen a bunch of speeds quoted for the A6M5. Are we in agreement that 351 MPH is a reasonable maximum speed for a regular A6M5? How fast do you believe the A6M5 Model 52c was and do you happen to remember what reference that speed came from?
You are making assumptions that the Japanese Navy and Army did any kind of "planning" together at all. The two services probably hated each other worse than they hated the actual enemy. Their procurement was about as independent as that of two separate nations but unfortunately they were both dependent on the same limited industrial base. Their aerial cannons and machine guns were not the same and almost none of their ammunition was interchangeable. Even their fuel standards were not quite the same.
Floatplane fighters were a somewhat uniquely Japanese type, but they were needed because of the lack of airfield construction capability. American CBs were able to land power equipment and lay down PSP airfields quickly but the Japanese had no similar ability and would have no other fighter cover if not for Floatplanes.
As for the many types of bombers and such, some of it is also a matter of a succession of designs over many years with the lack of quantity of production being a limitation of the industrial capability.
- Ivan.
With an empty weight of 3,704 lbs, can we agree that the Zero was the best WW2 fighter under 2 short tons?
The under 4,000 lb. (empty) family would include the Koolhoven F.K.58, Fokker D.XXI, Heinkel He 100, Curtiss-Wright CW-21, Caudron C.714, Ambrosini SAI.207, Polikarpov I-16, Dewoitine D.500, Gloster Gladiator and Fiat CR.42. Of these, the Caudron, Koolhoven and Gladiator (and Sea Gladiator, the FAA's last <2 ton fighter) could have faced the Zero if deployed to SEA in 1940-41, whilst the Fokker did fight the Zero over DEI. None of these other lightweight fighters can match the Zero. Certainly the US' attempt was rubbish.
Let's put Hermes and some fighter into Force Z. In a close dogfight, does the Sea Gladiator have a chance? It's more agile than the Zero, and with four guns has the firepower to damage the Zero.
I'm not sure, was the Zero in service in 1940? As a naval fighter, did it have much to do with the China campaign? I would have thought that was more the purview of the IJAF and their Nakajima Ki-27 Nate and Kawasaki Ki-10 Perry.If I'm not mistaken, I-16 (Chinese) also did fight the Zero - in 1940 with disastrous results. But probably the pilot's training was the decisive factor.
I'm not sure, was the Zero in service in 1940? As a naval fighter, did it have much to do with the China campaign? I would have thought that was more the purview of the IJAF and their Nakajima Ki-27 Nate and Kawasaki Ki-10 Perry.
I've attached the data sheet, kindly provided by Shinpachi long time ago.
The 52c was almost 25 km/h slower than 52 (lighter, no protection). The speed decrease was also due to the switch from LMGs (two) to HMGs (3 total).
Re. floatplane fighters - okay, if they are needed that much, how about IJN take a page from themselves: there was a floatplane version of the Zero, and it was also used by land-based IJN units. Couple that with Mitsubishi designing a specific fighter type (land-based interceptor) and result is that there is no heir to Zero, while Raiden was produced in pittyful numbers, let alone the Shinden.
So, better have Kawainshi and Mitsubishi desing the next-gen CV fighter (hopefuly without the extended shaft for prop), and then produce the winner in serious numbers (both by Mitsubishi and Kawainshi) so there is enough of aircraft to outfit both carrier-based units, land-based IJN units, and modify a few dozen of them into floatplane fighters.
Limitations of industrial capability are not helped by switching from one type of aircraft to another.
Hello Tomo Pauk,
I am much more suspicious about the accuracy of the data in that spreadsheet than you apparently are.
Here are a couple examples of why:
The maximum speed of the A6M3 Model 22 (Column H) is 292 Knots which happens to be its maximum speed under "Normal Power" according to the manual. That this was a Model 22 can be confirmed by the wingspan which is 12 meters; The Model 32 would have had 11 meter wingspan and maximum speed of 290 Knots under "Normal Power".
Under the same "Normal Power" conditions the A6M5 Model 52 should be capable of only 294 Knots but is listed here in Column I as 305 Knots which is its actual maximum speed as we understand it and NOT at "Normal Power".
Note also that the A6M5 Model 52c is listed as equipped with a Sakae 31 with slightly reduced power at critical altitude and also different propeller pitch ranges. Was this really accurate for a Model 52c? The engine differences would account for a lot more than a few pounds of armour and a couple HMG.
As I see it, the A6M2-N was sufficient, but not really a great design. It was agile enough but was only a 300 MPH fighter. The successor A7M Reppu suffered many delays. Perhaps it was due to efforts on the J2M. With sufficient engineering talent,, it should not have been a problem working on two concurrent fighter designs but the A7M also depended on a Mitsubishi engine that ran into development problems. Not sure what relevance the J7W Shinden has to these timelines.
Regarding the next-gen CV fighter, that design already belonged to Mitsubishi as the A7M. If there needed to be a competing design, there should have been another company assigned to the task. If the issue of an extension shaft for the propeller is a reference to the J2M Raiden's development problems, then one has to consider that the entire concept of the aircraft was that of using a ridiculously large diameter "Bomber" engine (Kasei) of proven design and making it all work by giving it enough streamlining with a long pointy nose. It would not have worked at all without the extension shaft.
Other aircraft went with a smaller diameter engine (Homare) with nominally greater horsepower but unfortunately those installations tended to have even less reliability and actual power in the field as the war dragged on and in the end some aircraft such as Ki 84 were even redesigned to use lesser powered engine such as the Kinsei.
- Ivan.
Now me, I'd develop the N1K2-J into the N1K2-A as a carrier fighter if it had better performance than the A6M8, but would it? Or would the performance improvement be marginal?Table is translation of data tables from the two books about Zero by Bunrin Do. We can take it for what it's worth.
Diameter of the Kasei was not ridiculoulsy large. At 52.5 in, it was same as of the R-2800. Going for extension shaft not just introduced problems with vibrations, it upped the dry engine weight bs ~220 lbs, and required that Mitsubishi devotes engineering staff to design the ectual engine version. Kasei certainly worked as 'plain Jane' engine.
What materialized as the J2M needed to be designed as next-gen carrier-based fighter (waiting for A7M will not cut it), that can be also deployed at land bases and can receive floats so there is a better floatplane fighter to pick up from the A6M2-2.
Not going for counter-rotating version of the Kasei for the rex again means less strain on Mitsubishi engine design & prototype shop.
The N1K was also not that speedy - 300 mph.
Now me, I'd develop the N1K2-J into the N1K2-A as a carrier fighter if it had better performance than the A6M8, but would it? Or would the performance improvement be marginal?
Agreed, but the Kinsei delivered about 1800/1900 hp with WEP, so about the same as the Kasei with MW injection, same as the Homare if it was working properly. The A6M8 may be the best option.Historically, the lineage goes roughly this way: N1K1 Kyofu (floatplane fighter) -> N1K1-J Shiden (landplane conversion, as denoted by 'J', Nakajima Homare instead of the Mitsubishi Kasei; stalky main U/C) -> N1K2-J Shiden-kai (wersion with wing lowered down and shorter & sturdier U/C gear). Ideally, the entry model will be a low-wing airframe similar to the Shiden-kai, engine being the series 10 Kasei of 1500+ HP; next step might be instalaltion of the 20 series Kasei of 1800-1900 HP.
The next-gen fighter also needs to adress other Zero's weaknesses - no folding wing, loss of performance when protection and extra firepower is added, slow rate of roll at high speeds. The 1500-1900 HP engines can buy that in a timely manner.
Agreed, but the Kinsei delivered about 1800/1900 hp with WEP, so about the same as the Kasei with MW injection, same as the Homare if it was working properly. The A6M8 may be the best option.
Has something gone wrong in the names? The most powerful Kinsei engines were the 60 series ( Ha-112-II, Ha-33-62) which gave 1,500 or 1,560 ps for take off with water injection. Are you talking about the Kinsei's big brother with 18 cylinders the Ha-43 or MK9?Kasei was making 1500 HP with water injection by 1945, the Kinsei did it in 1944 with 1900 HP? Something needs to plug the gap in 1943-44.
The altitude power can also be compared: 1350 HP at ~13500 ft ft for Kinsei 13, 14 and 15, vs. 1050 HP for the best Kasei of 40's series. Or, 1250 HP for Kinsei 13, 14, and 15 at 20000 ft. All figures are for 'military power' per US nomenclature, without water injection.
With water injection, Kinsei early 20's series was supposed to do ~1730 HP at 16800 ft, the Kasei 50's ~1240 HP at 18500.
Again, with w/i, The Kinsei 27 was good for 1700 HP at 20300 ft, while Kasei 60's series did 1490 HP at 16700.
Basically, the bigger Kinsei was making without water injection the same or better power than what Kasei did with water inejction. The take off and altitude power of Kinsei was much better.
Advantage of Kinsei vs. Homare will be earlier availability (and reliability) - aircraft powered by Kinsei were in use before 1942.