Ki-83, was it as good as thought?

[GregP]

Early jets were not carrier-based. Not enough excess thrust. It wasn't until years after the war that jets made it to carriers. And it wasn't until maybe 1948 / 1949 that they had enough range to do maritime patrol / long-range bomber. I'm thinking the B-47 ... but really the B-52.

 

[Spindash64]

For what it's worth, the Japanese at this point didn't really have any carriers to launch planes from anyway.

As far as the original topic goes, the Ki-83 definitely seems to me like an ideal pick for Japan to desperately try to keep the home skies cleared, and if I were an IJAAF pilot in 1946, it would likely be the plane I'd hope to be assigned to fly. Yes, it would be slower than the US aircraft at the time, but even the Jet fighters wouldn't be able to outclimb it. This means it can actually dictate the terms of many of the fights it would find itself in, which, bear in mind, the lack of this ability was part of what left the zero a sitting duck later in the war. It also packs a mean punch with twin 20mm and twin 30mm cannons, and unlike the German Mk 108, the Ballistics of the Japanese 30mm were acceptable for fighter vs fighter combat: a bit slow compared to US guns, but still on par with other Japanese air to air weapons of the time. Combining this with the above average handling of the aircraft and incredible acceleration, the plane compares favorably to alternatives already in service like the Hayate Hei, is much less experimental and one-note than the Sushui, and would be ready for combat much sooner than the Karyu.

As a quick side note, I don't believe the Turbochargers would have been quite as much as an issue as you'd think, if only because the low critical altitude implies they were deliberately being conservative with these models. And the decision to even try and fit turbos is understandable when the main targets of interest for ANY new Japanese plane would be the B-29 Superfortress. While 3 speed Supers could also work, Japan really needed to get every bit of power output possible to handle the bombers, and with dwindling fuel quality and quantity (sometimes even using Pine Oil just to try and make reserves last), the better "horsepower per gallon per second" of the turbocharger was rather attractive. There's no doubt there would have been headaches involved in maintenance, but that was going to be a problem for any new Japanese fighter being fielded

 

[spicmart]

Had the Ki-45 Toryu been suited to be developed into a fighter with the performance of the Ki-83?
How did the Ki-83 compare with the other twin-engined single-seat fighter Ki-96.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Had the Ki-45 Toryu been suited to be developed into a fighter with the performance of the Ki-83?
How did the Ki-83 compare with the other twin-engined single-seat fighter Ki-96.

I'm not the expert, but I doubt the basic airframe of the Ki-45 could really benefit from more power than the 1500 hp that powered both the Ki-96 and Ki-102 derivatives. The Ki-96 was about two years earlier, and had a top speed of 600 km/h. Relative to contemporary allied aircraft it probably performed worse than the Ki-83 would have, but the engines appears to have been very reliable, something we can't be sure those of the Ki-83 would be. My take is that the Ki-96 ought to have been put into production as soon as possible.

 

[tomo pauk]

Had the Ki-45 Toryu been suited to be developed into a fighter with the performance of the Ki-83?
How did the Ki-83 compare with the other twin-engined single-seat fighter Ki-96.

Ki-83 was stressed for double the power vs. the Ki-45, thus methinks that expecting the Ki-45 to came close to Ki-83 performance-wise is nigh on impossible.
The Ki-96 was under-performer, and so was the Ki-45.