KI-43 ?

The Basket · Feb 21, 2022

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.

The Basket · Feb 21, 2022

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.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 21, 2022

VA5124 said:
Tell that to porsche both the 917 and 962 were superlight even for a group C car but they had very heavy engines in them the 917 being powered by a flat-12 while the 962 had a twin tubro flat-6 and remember these cars were stressed to do over 200mph at le mans

A Porsche is not a high performance fighter aircraft flying at 23,000 ft…

SaparotRob · Feb 21, 2022

VA5124 said:
Ok im wrong for the 5th time this weekend but on a sidenote the mk2b is my favorite british ww2 figther

I didn't know any of this stuff until I started reading the threads.
I like the Hurricane too.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 21, 2022

VA5124 said:
2b it looks excatly the same doesnt look like the wing changed at all

You need to think of the internal structure….

SaparotRob · Feb 21, 2022

Are any diagrams of MK. II Hurricane wing structure that show how guns are fitted?

VA5124 · Feb 21, 2022

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
You need to think of the internal structure….

I like the mk2b hurricane i dont know excatly how the wing is made

buffnut453 · Feb 21, 2022

SaparotRob said:
Are any diagrams of MK. II Hurricane wing structure that show how guns are fitted?

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:

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 21, 2022

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

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.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 21, 2022

If I legally could, I would invite you to spend a day at my job. It might clarify a few things for you about aircraft structures and modifications.

VA5124 · Feb 21, 2022

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
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

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 21, 2022

VA5124 said:
But how do you upgun while keeping performence

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).

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 21, 2022

For example you are not going to put four 20 mm cannons in a Zero and still have the range they wanted.

VA5124 · Feb 21, 2022

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
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

buffnut453 · Feb 21, 2022

VA5124 said:
Couldnt you just up engine it

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.

VA5124 · Feb 21, 2022

buffnut453 said:
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.

There's no such thing as a perfect aircraft design. Winning designs are simply the least worst combination of compromises.

A 2,000 hp v12 with 12 x .303 in mgs plus water injection

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 21, 2022

VA5124 said:
Couldnt you just up engine it

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.

GrauGeist · Feb 21, 2022

VA5124 said:
Couldnt you just up engine it

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.

VA5124 · Feb 21, 2022

GrauGeist said:
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

MikeMeech · Feb 21, 2022

SaparotRob said:
Are any diagrams of MK. II Hurricane wing structure that show how guns are fitted?

Hi

Here are a couple of drawings, reference the twelve-gun Hurricane, that may be helpful:

Mike

KI-43 ?

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Senior Airman

Captain

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Captain

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads