KI-43 ?

Greg Boeser · Feb 18, 2022

The Ki-43 was designed as an air superiority fighter, with emphasis on range and maneuverability. The initial design envisioned a pair of Ho-5 12.7 mm machine guns in the nose. Problems with the early Ho-5 explosive ammo resulted in one or both being replaced with Type 89 7.7mm machine guns on early models. Once the Ho-5's ammo problem got sorted, two 12.7mm guns became the norm.
The Ki-44 was developed at the same time as a dedicated interceptor, with a more powerful engine and twice the firepower of the Ki-43, but at the expense of range and maneuverabilty.
The Ki-61 was another interceptor design but used a license built DB 601, same firepower as the Ki-44.

VA5124 · Feb 18, 2022

Thumpalumpacus said:
Relax and watch 'em wreck.

Please dont say werck thats the stressful part anyways why did no one use a nose wheel in WW2

Thumpalumpacus · Feb 18, 2022

Greg Boeser said:
The Ki-61 was another interceptor design but used a license built DB 601, same firepower as the Ki-44.

Think I'll go lookin' for a thread on the Tony.

VA5124 · Feb 18, 2022

Greg Boeser said:
The Ki-43 was designed as an air superiority fighter, with emphasis on range and maneuverability. The initial design envisioned a pair of Ho-5 12.7 mm machine guns in the nose. Problems with the early Ho-5 explosive ammo resulted in one or both being replaced with Type 89 7.7mm machine guns on early models. Once the Ho-5's ammo problem got sorted, two 12.7mm guns became the norm.
The Ki-44 was developed at the same time as a dedicated interceptor, with a more powerful engine and twice the firepower of the Ki-43, but at the expense of range and maneuverabilty.
The Ki-61 was another interceptor design but used a license built DB 601, same firepower as the Ki-44.

So they never meant it to have canoons

Greg Boeser · Feb 18, 2022

VA5124 said:
So they never meant it to have canoons

The IJA considered the Ho-5 a cannon. It fired explosive bullets. Early on, the explosive bullets had a nasty tendency to detonate upon leaving the muzzle.

VA5124 · Feb 18, 2022

Was there going to be words in that post i didnt get them ?

Greg Boeser · Feb 18, 2022

VA5124 said:
Was there going to be words in that post i didnt get them ?

Trouble with typing on smartphone touchscreen. Fat fingers.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 18, 2022

VA5124 said:
Please dont say werck thats the stressful part anyways why did no one use a nose wheel in WW2

Some aircraft in WW2 did use a nose wheel (tricycle configuration).

P-39
P-38
B-29
Me 262
P-80
P-63
P-61
B-24
He 219
He 162
Do 335

Just to name a few…

However, tail draggers were the more common configuration at the time. The big engine up in the nose played a part in that. Look at the list above. Where are their engines located?

VA5124 · Feb 18, 2022

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Some aircraft in WW2 did use a nose wheel (tricycle configuration).

P-39
P-38
B-29
Me 262
P-80
P-63
P-61
B-24
He 219
He 162
Do 335

Just to name a few…

However, tail draggers were the more common configuration at the time. The big engine up in the nose played a part in that. Look at the list above. Where are their engines located?

No where near the nose

Greg Boeser · Feb 18, 2022

Nearly all USAAF bombers used tricycle landing gear.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 18, 2022

VA5124 said:
No where near the nose

The Do 335 had 2 engines. One in the nose, and one in the tail. The nose gear would retract rearward behind the engine.

VA5124 · Feb 18, 2022

Greg Boeser said:
Nearly all USAAF bombers used tricycle landing gear.

Sorry didnt know

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 18, 2022

VA5124 said:
Sorry didnt know

No need to apologize.

VA5124 · Feb 18, 2022

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
No need to apologize.

Habit i dont like to look stupid

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 18, 2022

VA5124 said:
Habit i dont like to look stupid

Stupid is not asking questions to learn.

VA5124 · Feb 18, 2022

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Stupid is not asking questions to learn.

I wonder could they add cannon and keep the turning at the same rate

GrauGeist · Feb 18, 2022

VA5124 said:
Do they look enough alike to get them mixed up

Yes and no. If the aircraft were parked side by side, you'd notice differences right away, but in combat, where everything is happening all at once, they could easily be mistaken for one-another.

The image I attached, is from a WWII enemy aircraft spotter's guide.

Note how close the "Zeke" (A6M) is to the "Oscar" (KI-43) in appearance in their head-on profile.

The ID chart was not to scale, the KI-43 was physically a bit smaller than the A6M.

VA5124 · Feb 18, 2022

GrauGeist said:
Yes and no. If the aircraft were parked side by side, you'd notice differences right away, but in combat, where everything is happening all at once, they could easily be mistaken for one-another.

The image I attached, is from a WWII enemy aircraft spotter's guide.

Note how close the "Zeke" (A6M) is to the "Oscar" (KI-43) in appearance in their head-on profile.

The ID chart was not to scale, the KI-43 was physically a bit smaller than the A6M.

View attachment 658471

Im actually surprised how close they are

SaparotRob · Feb 18, 2022

I always thought the Oscar was the larger plane. Live and learn.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 18, 2022

VA5124 said:
I wonder could they add cannon and keep the turning at the same rate

Add a cannon to where, and what turning rate do you mean. Sorry, just want to make sure I can answer your question in the best way,

KI-43 ?

1st Sergeant

Senior Airman

Major

Senior Airman

1st Sergeant

Senior Airman

1st Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

1st Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Airman

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads