KI-43 ?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

So to sum up. Was the Ki-43 a success then the answer is yes. It achieved it's military goals.

However it's design ideals were not copied in later designs and it was well behind the curveball by 1945.

So is 2 machine guns good armament? No. But it was good enough obviously for a narrow time window.

Is making a very light weight fighter a good idea? Again seemingly yes for a very narrow time window and if the opposition is not as good.

The next fighter is the Ki-84 which is very different in concept.

If you take a little MG sports car and then make it tow a caravan then it's going to be a bad show. Light weight fighters have very little growth potential because of the weak engines and light structure. You can add more stuff but it's going to be slower and less agile. So even more vulnerable. Of course one can argue that speed and agility can replace armour because you can't hit what you can't see. And a skilled pilot should be shooting down anything with any gun.

So the Hayabusa was an evolutionary dead end from 1930 fighters and it's skillset of agility had to be replaced by ruggedness and sheer performance and sheer firepower.

Agility was not as important as believed.
 
A fighter needs to shoot down...

Other fighters.
Bombers
Recon aircraft.

So I need a lightweight agile fighter to dogfight and heavy armament and armour and combat persistence and high performance to catch high flying recon aircraft.

Also range would be nice so it can perform escort and ground attack.

So yeah. That's not going to work in a 1930s fighter.

I need at least 2,000bhp before I can even get that started.
 

A Porsche is not a high performance fighter aircraft flying at 23,000 ft…
 
SaparotRob said:
Are any diagrams of MK. II Hurricane wing structure that show how guns are fitted?
Click to expand...

Although not as good as a clear schematic, these photos show the various flavours of wing armament for the Hurricane. Bottom left is the standard 8-gun installation for the 'a' wing. Next to it is the 'b' wing with the 2 extra 303 machine guns outboard, with the additional access hatches and structure/strengthening to accommodate the additional weapons. Top right is the 'c' wing with 2x 20mm cannon placed pretty much in the space occupied by the 4x 303s of the 'a' wing. However, the installation for the 20mm weapons was very different, requiring bulged access panels to accommodate a portion of the ammo feed mechanism.:




Here's an external shot of the 'b' wing showing the exit ports for the 2 extra 303s in the wing leading edge outboard of the landing light. Note that the guns are at different elevations in an attempt to squeeze them into the smallest possible space:



A few more sketches showing the external appearance of the different armament configurations:





And here's a cutaway of a MkIa - note there is no support structure for the 2 additional guns of the 'b' wing:



And here's a cutaway of a MkIIc. Note how different the internal structure of the wing is at the gun bay compared to the 'a' wing above. In particular, note how far back the cannon go into the wing structure compared to the much shorter 303 in the above cutaway. Also, the cannon installation had to absorb far greater recoil than was the case with the 303 machine gun:

 
VA5124 said:
I like the mk2b hurricane i dont know excatly how the wing is made
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with liking it. Everyone is just trying to explain that structurally you cannot just throw whatever armament you want into an aircraft. Doing so requires structural modifications or strengthening. Both of which add weight, and weight impacts performance.
 
But how do you upgun while keeping performence
 
VA5124 said:
But how do you upgun while keeping performence
Click to expand...

As Biff pointed out earlier, you have to trade something elsewhere. Reduce weight in other locations. That's what engineers do.

Hence why the Ki-43 and Zero were designed the way they were. The engineers designed the structure, armament, armor protection, and fuel capacities/locations to get the performance they wanted. Had they put in the armor and armament that England, German or USA fighters had, you would either have a vastly different looking aircraft or poor performance (as it currently is designed).
 
Couldnt you just up engine it
 
VA5124 said:
Couldnt you just up engine it
Click to expand...

Yes but a bigger engine is more weight...and a bigger engine burns more fuel which means you need bigger fuel tanks to maintain range....and more fuel = more weight (again).

There's no such thing as a perfect aircraft design. Winning designs are simply the least worst combination of compromises.
 
Last edited:
A 2,000 hp v12 with 12 x .303 in mgs plus water injection
 
VA5124 said:
Couldnt you just up engine it
Click to expand...

Putting a larger engine creates more weight. Larger engines weigh more. They also need more fuel. They also require structural modifications which also increases weight.

Remember a few days ago when I mentioned the Bf 109. It started out as a light weight very maneuverable aircraft. This lasted until the F variant. Starting with the Bf 109G it got faster, but it also got heavier and less maneuverable.
 
Last edited:
VA5124 said:
Couldnt you just up engine it
Click to expand...
Bigger engines weigh more, ha e a larger diameter and require different mounting structures.
Add to that, the need to redesign the wider cowling to fit the fuselage. It could be done, but all of that takes time for the engineers to calculate the weight redistribution, design the nessecary changes and then pass that information on to the manufacturer.
Then the engines need to be ordered (if available) and have the subframe (engine mounts) ordered from a vendor.
You'll also need to pull a couple existing airframes off the assembly line to be used as prototypes and then all the changes made from fitting the new engine into it as well as fitting the new cowling into the front. They'll also need to make some weight redistribution to the airframe to compensate for the heavier engine (because the change in weight will also change the very important center if gravity) as well as making physical changes to the airframe (higher torque) such as lengthening the fuselage and perhaps making the tail a bit taller.
Then the prototypes need to be tested and any adjustments/corrections done before the air force will accept the new version.
If the Air Force accepts it, then the order is made and the manufacturer has to tool up to produce this new version.

All in all, it's a complicated and time consuming process.
 
Just trying to figure how to have all the good things you need in a fighter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The real combat history of the Ki-43
19 20 21
Replies
409
Views
28K
Wild_Bill_Kelso
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jerrybandit67
J
Douglas O-31 or O-43?
Replies
2
Views
890
Sabrejet
KI-84 vs soviet aircraft 1945
Replies
11
Views
2K
Vincenzo
A
Re.2000 vs. Ki-43?
Replies
1
Views
706
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Menu
Log in
Register