Japan’s worst single-engine radial-powered fighter of WW2?

[SaparotRob]

I'd start running as soon the other guy starts changing his shoes.

 

[BiffF15]

I'd start running as soon the other guy starts changing his shoes.

Or you could kick him in the junk and just walk away…

 

[SaparotRob]

Or I could do that.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd start running as soon the other guy starts changing his shoes.

That is indeed the glitch in the joke.

 

[Timppa]

George 35 losses no kills*

*Plainly this is failure to recognise the type. Isn't it?

Yes, it is. Alone in March 9.1945 the 343 Kokutai (N1K2) shot down 14 F6F/F4U-1's, USN losing 8 pilots.
343 Kokutai lost 15 planes and 13 pilots.
Source: Henry Sakaida, Koji Takagi: Genda's Blade

 

[Conslaw]

Does anybody know what Japanese pilot claims to have shot down the most F6Fs, and how grounded those claims
are in reality?

 

[Hardlydank]

As much as I love the Ki-43, I can't deny it's probably the worst of the bunch, unless u count the Ki-27 obviously. It's quite ironic that despite being exactly the type of plane most pilots wanted, the Ki-43's doctrine didn't work out. IMO the Ki-43 is the most deserving WW2 plane of "the right plane for the wrong war.''

 

[GregP]

Hi Thumpalumpacus. You are correct; carrier deployment is not necessary.

It's just that land is a scarce commodity in the Pacific Ocean, and a land-based airplane is just not going to have the opportunities to fight in the WWII Pacific that a carrier-based airplane will have. Hence the F6F's much-superior record (numerically, at least) against Japanese aircraft ... it had more opportunity. There is pretty good evidence that the F4U and the F6F performed quite closely to one another, and had the F4U been carrier-based from the start, it likely would have been about as good as the Hellcat in overall kills.

At least both the F6F and the F4U were very good fighters, we can agree on that one, I'm sure. Cheers.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Again: I didn't see being carrier-based as a qualification laid down anywhere in the post I originally replied to.

 

[azador1606]

I've read that the Ki-44 was considered a backward step from the Ki-43. Which was Japan's worst single-engine radial-powered fighter of WW2?

One possible measure is how it compares against other aircraft of the same year. For example, the Ki-27 entered service in 1938, the same year as the Spitfire. Another measure can be execution, the Mitsubishi J2M seemed to be beset by problems.

As measures go, comparing with a non-rival or non-enemy doesn't really mean much. In that respect, I won't use comparisons like Ki-27 versus Spitfire. Also, engine issues whether quality or production shouldn't be considered either and is just a smoke screen.

On the other hand, until an aircraft is found lacking against opponents or lacking against rivals, then calling it "worst" seems only pedantic.
Many aircraft went through more than one version or covered a large period of time where they were front-line machines. In the first case their performance often improves while in the latter it can deteriorate (at least comparatively).

So, radial only knocks out only the Ki-61-I of the major types. As far a Japan goes, the Army and Navy should be considered allies rather than the same. Even engine manufacturers had to use separate factories to support one or the other.

Army:
In the early part of the conflict the Ki-27 gives exceptional service but begins to find itself outclassed by 1940. Since it does so well early on, it can't be considered "worst". (3370 produced)
The Ki-43-I restores a level of superiority (1941) and will shortly be upgraded to the Ki-43-II (1942) which modernises it to European standards as well - so neither version can be considered bad either. (5900 produced) By 1943 it's not being built in favour of newer models.
The Ki-44-I (1942) and Ki-44-II (also 1942) has a more specialised role. (1220 produced including the later Ki-44-II built by Tachikawa) In 1942 it's the best the Army has, but by 1943 it isn't and the Nakajima factory is needed for the Ki-84. Not obsolete, but superseded. Even the Ki-44-III remains a potent aircraft.
The Ki-84 is the best yet, and the best of the war for the Army - and remains competitive from 1943 to 1945. (3500 built) So, not bad and not worst either. And the competition from enemies has really stepped up too.
The Ki-100 is not as good as the Ki-84, but doesn't compete for engines or factory space - or even airframes (left over from the failed Ki-61-II. Only 400 built, but they would have built more if they could.
So I end the review of Army fighters without a candidate that is bad, and I should add the the Ki-61-I wouldn't get a nod there either being built to over 3100 in 1943.

Navy:
Again the early part of the conflict doesn't see much opposition for Navy fighters with the A4N and A5M finding themselves without serious opposition. (1100 A5M built)
By 1940 the A6M2 is outstanding and considered in the context of a carrier fighter in 1940 (or even as an escort fighter in 1940) should rightly claim best in class. Later carrier fighters maybe better one-on-one but that's apples and oranges. Its only weakness would be carrier defence.
By 1942 the A6M3 is an improved version of the same fighter. It's not quite in the same class, but it's still more than competitive. (about 3400 produced so far)
But 1943 is a different story. The A6M5 is no longer unequalled. In fact the A6M series is a victim of its own success and the lack of a ready successor is really only unnoticed due to the lack of carriers to base them on. 1943 was time for an A7x and the later A6M5-8 are candidates for worst. (over 7000 of these will be produced)
Early 1943 also sees some land-based fighters for the Navy, the J2M. Only just over 600 produced and by late 1943 the N1K1-J outshines it with about 1000 produced.
In 1944, the N1K2-J is produced to the tune of about 400. By now the J2Ms and N1Ks are better than the A6Ms.
Can we count the A7M2? Ten (10) produced.

So my vote is for the A6M5/6 with 7000 produced. And on the production side of things, the A6M was very difficult to produce especially compared to the later aircraft. So the focus on the A6M could have produced more than 7000 J2M and N1Ks. However (given the manufacturing and other considerations) an A7M is 1943 is the correct answer - probably with an NK9 engine and an upgrade later to an MK9 engine. Design effort for the J2M is essentially wasted. So there's an argument for the A7M due to arriving too late in too few numbers. (Of course, they still won't have any carriers).

So technically the mistake is the J2M instead of the A7M leading to using the A6M well past its use-by date.

 

[Admiral Beez]

So technically the mistake is the J2M instead of the A7M leading to using the A6M well past its use-by date.

Put radar and effective CIC on the carriers and working radios and cooperative doctrine into the aircraft and I'd say the Zeros will do as well as the A7M would have.

 

[msxyz]

So technically the mistake is the J2M instead of the A7M leading to using the A6M well past its use-by date.

The J2M was a low priority, low volume project, but an interceptor was needed, especially from 1943 onwards. The J2M project started in 1939 and it wasn't even eating resources needed for the A7M (it used the same engines as the G4M, the Ki-21 and the B6N among others). Of course, if the Navy and the Army had cooperated, they could have poured resources into a single aircraft instead of wasting money on many duplicate projects,. The A7M was simply started too late and the navy also insisted on some requirements that made designing an aircraft with certain characteristics of speed, power and maneuverability too difficult to implement in time to see action. Ironically, a navalized version of the N1K (that Kawanishi proposed) would have had the chance to arrive in time for the last sea campaigns of the war in 1944.

 

[DarrenW]

Does anybody know what Japanese pilot claims to have shot down the most F6Fs, and how grounded those claims
are in reality?

I believe JNAF ace Tetsuzō Iwamoto claimed the most F6Fs destroyed (29 in total) but I haven't personally seen any formal verification which validate any of these aerial victories.This number was lifted from his personal diary and not from official sources. He also claimed 48 F4Us but this is highly improbable due to the fact that he would have been personally responsible for a quarter of all Corsairs lost in aerial combat during the war.

In total Iwamoto claimed over 200 aerial victories but modern aviation historians estimate his true score to be closer to 80 aircraft. Besides fellow ace Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, Tetsuzō Iwamoto is often considered to be the highest scoring Japanese ace of all time.

 

[Tkdog]

The A6M was the best fighter in the Pacific world from its inception until somewhere around the date when the Hellcat arrived.

Which, ironically perhaps, makes it the worst possible fighter for Japan. It's capabilities helped to convince their leadership that starting a ridiculous and hopeless war was a good idea. If they had only had old slow biplanes they would have pursued other, perhaps more profitable to their population, actions.

 

[GregP]

The A6M5 entered service after the Hellcat, and for that matter after the Tempest, Corsair, Lavochkin La-5 and Fw 190A-4. In that sense, if we're going to look at separate variants of each aircraft the A6M5 can be considered a poor aircraft.

Unlike the earlier and ferociously-victorious A6M2, I do not believe the A6M5 ever ruled the skies. The IJN of 1943 needed something with the performance, protection and firepower of the Nakajima Ki-84, not a worked over Zero with late 1930s performance and protection.

The F6F made its combat debut in Sep 1943. The A6M-5 flew in Aug 1943 and made its combat debut VERY shortly after that. So, while the A6M was around since before the U.S.A. joined the war, the A6M-5 and F6F were almost exact contemporaries in deployment. The A6M-5 was a dangerous opponent even in mid-1945 if well flown. In no way can it be considered as the worst Japanese fighter.

Of course, opinions vary. Cheers.