Mitsubishi Ki-83 vs. other twin seat twin-engine prop fighters

Admiral Beez · Oct 23, 2019

Is the Mitsubishi Ki-83 the best twin-seat twin-engine piston-powered WW2-era fighter?

I'm surprised they didn't make it a single seater to compete with the likes of the de Havilland Hornet, Lockheed P-38L Lightning, Dornier Do 335 Pfeil, Grumman F7F Tigercat.

tomo pauk · Oct 23, 2019

If we claim that Ki 83 was a ww2 fighter, then the same can be said for the DH Hornet, Twin Mustang and indeed Do 335.
BTW - why we'd expect from Japanese engineers back in ww2 to know about the Twin Mustang, Hornet and F7F?

spicmart · Oct 23, 2019

Admiral Beez said:
Is the Mitsubishi Ki-83 the best twin-seat twin-engine piston-powered WW2-era fighter?

I'm surprised they didn't make it a single seater to compete with the likes of the de Havilland Hornet, Lockheed P-38L Lightning, Dornier Do 335 Pfeil, Grumman F7F Tigercat.

A supported and developed Fw 187 might have been the German equivalent to those mentioned though some doubt it had the stretch to get to this point.

Admiral Beez · Oct 23, 2019

tomo pauk said:
If we claim that Ki 83 was a ww2 fighter, then the same can be said for the DH Hornet, Twin Mustang and indeed Do 335.

Yes, that's why I included 2/3 of those above. You can include the F-82 if you'd like.

tomo pauk said:
BTW - why we'd expect from Japanese engineers back in ww2 to know about the Twin Mustang, Hornet and F7F?

I suspect my reply will generate further rhetorical questions, but I'll bite....once.

First of all, for the purposes of my query above it's not important that the Japanese engineers know about what other countries are doing. But I don't see why it's an impossibility for Japan's engineers to know about the aircraft I listed, with the Do. 335 first flying in April 1943, F7F in Nov 1943 and the Hornet in April 1944. There were Japanese spies active in both the UK and USA right up to war's end. With the Ki-83 not flying until Nov 1944, there's every chance that Japanese intel could know about these earlier twin engine fighters. Certainly the Germans would have shared the Do.335 design if asked, same as they did the Me.262 and Me.163.

tomo pauk · Oct 23, 2019

Admiral Beez said:
...
First of all, for the purposes of my query above it's not important that the Japanese engineers know about what other countries are doing. But I don't see why Japan's engineers would not know about the aircraft I listed, with the Do. 335 first flying in April 1943, F7F in Nov 1943 and the Hornet in April 1944. With the Ki-83 not flying until Nov 1944, there's every chance that Japanese intel could know about these earlier twin engine fighters. Certainly the Germans would have shared the Do.335 design if asked, same as they did the Me.262 and Me.163.

IMO, Japanese were trying to come out with a fighter that offered both performance and excellent firepower. Choice of 2 engines to power it was, again, nothing fancy - everyone was either trying it out or actually producing and using 2-engined fighters, some being better than the others, and by 1944 Japanese were harboring no hopes that every new Allied fighter will not up the bar a bit.
With that said, and looking at specification sheets, a working Ki 83 would've probably been at least equal P-38L or F7F-1, and a bit worse than P-82, Hornet or a working Do 335.
On the other hand, the Ha-43 engine seems to be more than capable to haul around 4 cannons at excellent performance in a 1-engined fighter - if I'm reading right the Japanese Wikipedia, the version installed on the Ki 83 was making 1720 HP at ~30000 ft.

Shinpachi · Oct 23, 2019

There were no Japanese spies in the US after June 1942.
FBI grasped all of them prior to Pearl Harbor and deported by the month by some exchange ships.

Dimlee · Oct 25, 2019

Interesting thread on the same subject.
Ki-83, was it as good as thought?

By the way, it always seemed to me that the cockpit of US tested prototype was too small for 2 seats.
I read somewhere that radio operator was placed inside the fuselage probably... but that means he was useless as an observer.

GregP · Oct 25, 2019

They only made four Ki-83s.

I'm pretty sure that they'd have to produce a LOT more than that to even be considered a production aircraft, must less "best" at anything.

Shinpachi · Oct 25, 2019

Dimlee said:
Interesting thread on the same subject.
Ki-83, was it as good as thought?

By the way, it always seemed to me that the cockpit of US tested prototype was too small for 2 seats.
I read somewhere that radio operator was placed inside the fuselage probably... but that means he was useless as an observer.

Good question, Dimlee.
Mitsubishi designed the Ki-83 as a single seater but the army was so greedy about multiple purposes the spare seat was added as an excuse.
There were windows as also an excuse.

Source: The X-planes of Imperial Japanese Army & Navy by Green Arrow

Capt. Vick · Oct 25, 2019

I would love to see some actual pictures of that.

GregP · Oct 25, 2019

Me. I always did like the aircraft, but figured it was an interesting footnote only.

Shinpachi · Oct 25, 2019

Here are some pics and diagrams of the Ki-83 from "The X-planes of Imperial Japanese Army & Navy" by Green Arrow.

Shinpachi · Oct 25, 2019

More.

spicmart · Jun 6, 2020

Postwar tests with US fuel showed it reached 759 kmh. The Hornet F. Mk 1 could do 764 kmh. That's pretty much the same in my bock.
And the Ki-83 looks sooo much better than the Hornet.
The German equivalent had to be the Fw 187 if chosen, supported to be developed as the German standard twin-engine fighter.

Koopernic · Jun 9, 2020

Shinpachi said:
Good question, Dimlee.
Mitsubishi designed the Ki-83 as a single seater but the army was so greedy about multiple purposes the spare seat was added as an excuse.
There were windows as also an excuse.

View attachment 558195
Source: The X-planes of Imperial Japanese Army & Navy by Green Arrow

The Luftwaffe, under Siegfried Kneymeyer, experimentally converted an Arado Ar 234B bomber into a night fighter by having the Lichtenstein aerials penetrate the plexiglass glass cockpit and by placing the radar operator in the rear tail section like this. Specialised night fighter versions of the Ar 234C and the Purpose built Ar 234P would have had a two seater cockpit but they still intended to keep the radar operator in the separate rear section. There was a great deal of electronics and communication equipment to operate. Active radar, passive radar, jam resistant telemetry, navigation becons etc.

Mitsubishi Ki-83 vs. other twin seat twin-engine prop fighters

More options

Admiral Beez

Major

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

spicmart

Staff Sergeant

Admiral Beez

Major

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

Shinpachi

Colonel

Dimlee

Tech Sergeant

GregP

Major

Shinpachi

Colonel

Capt. Vick

Moderator

GregP

Major

Shinpachi

Colonel

Attachments

Shinpachi

Colonel

Attachments

spicmart

Staff Sergeant

Koopernic

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads