P-51D vs. Nakajima Ki-84 "Frank"

[MikeGazdik]

This is interesting. It almost ties in with some of the discussion on the F4U in Europe.

Because the air fighting in the Pacific was generally at a much lower altitude, this was possibly a disadvantage to the Mustang? I unfortunately know little about the detail aspects of the Japanese fighters. I suspect the Ki 84 was better at low to mid altitudes than higher? That may explain why the P-40N was successful against this great Japanese plane, because the P-40 was fighting at where it was in it's prime, whereas the P-51 was not. As great as the P-51 was, the F4U likely stacked up better in comparison to the Ki 84 at the altitudes the Pacific air battles were fought?

Besides being faster than previous Japanese fighters, was the Ki 84 finally amored to better absorb combat damage?

 

[Soren]

The Ki-84 had similar low alt speed compared to the P-51D F4U-4, but it was far more maneuverable in all aspects of flight compared to the P-51.

The F4U-4 Ki-84 were close in roll rate, while the Ki-84 clearly turned better. The climb rate was similar at low alt, but at mid to high alt the F4U-4 takes the lead.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I think one reason why people like the Mustang is because it's so shiny. I do.



Anyway, to get to the topic, I wonder how a Frank would have fared against a FW-190D?

Well that's sorta off topic but it is an interesting idea. Both the Frank and FW 190 have similar structure designs.

 

[Soren]

Well besides the Fw-190 Dora-9 rolling turning better than the P-51D, I'd say it would be similar between it and the Frank.

Had the Japanese been as far in propeller technology as the Germans then they could've squeezed another 30 km/h into the Ki-84 design for sure, and that would've made it close to untouchable in the Pacific.

But in the end it was too little to late really. The Japanese had lost the majority of their skilled pilots in the fighting up to 1943, and by late 44 45 mostly rookies were flying these advanced a/c.

 

[wwii:)aircraft]

Remember the conditions the Japanese were going through by the time the Ki-84 came into service: Japan has lost nearly all of its aircraft carries, which would then result in the loses of veteran and ace pilots. Like Soren said, "mostly rookies were flying these advanced a/c." At the same time there was very little resources such as fuel and metals for the Japanese.

If compare the ki84 with the p51d, it was still a very strong opponent. The Ki84 will probably always have a turning adv excpt at 30,000ft were its performance becomes very poor. It also had better armament (alteast on the ki84II with its 4 20mm). One place in which the P-51 would have an adv is in diving and climbing.

After the war, the US took an example of a Ki84Ia. They found out that if the Ki84 was properly maintained and supplied with good aviation gas, it was capable of reaching 426mph at 20,000ft. And if the Ki84 could actually reach those standards during the war, it would have been the best fighter in the Pacific; its only true opponent would be the F4U-4.

 

[Soren]

With a proper engine, new prop and some better electrical systems I believe the Ki-84 would've been a better fighter than both the P-51 Fw190.

 

[paradoxguy]

With a proper engine, new prop and some better electrical systems I believe the Ki-84 would've been a better fighter than both the P-51 Fw190.

In addition higher quality fuel and better-trained pilots to fly the Ki. 84.

What do you envision as a" proper engine" for the Ki. 84?

 

[Timppa]

Both the Frank and FW 190 have similar structure designs.

Can you give some specific details ?

 

[davparlr]

Since I haven't access to good Frank data, I will make some suppositions based on comparing it to the Fw-190A-8, which has similar power. In the Fall of '44, when the Frank became operational, the P-51D was using 44-1 fuel with a max boost of 75". At fighter weight and at SL, the P-51D has a max speed of 375-380 mph with racks. The Fw-190A-8 has a SL speed of 360 mph, the Frank could be near this, a longer wingspan would hamper top speed a bit. A note here is that there is no data available to me that the Frank could come near this speed but it seems reasonable. At SL the P-51D would be faster than the Frank, perhaps significantly so. At SL and fighter weight, the P-51D is capable of about 4000' min rate of climb, which is substantial. While I do not have a good data point for the Frank, its light weight, low wing loading, and power, would imply better performance in climb than the P-51D. So, I would guess that the P-51D would have similar performance against the Frank as against its German opponents. It would control the high ground and be competitive at the lower altitudes. Still, the P-51 should not get into a turning fight with the Frank. The Frank seemed to be an excellent fighter but its lighter weight still implies less armor than the European/American fighters.

 

[parsifal]

Ive read a number of accounts that most of you would know that some of the late war FRranks used mild steel framing and faulty heat treatment to the undercarriage.


I have read some vague accounts about how the type was first deployed to China where it "flew rings around Chennaults forces based there". But after its deployment to the Phillipinnes, the rot set in, with very poor serviceability rates, and a high accident rate due to the poor QA standards being applied at the point of manufature.

I have no information on the alleged steel framed versions, and cannot confirm the vereacity of any of these claims

 

[JoeB]

The Frank seemed to be an excellent fighter but its lighter weight still implies less armor than the European/American fighters.

The Type 4 had 13mm armor behind the pilot, so heavier than US fightesr (which typically had 7-9.5mm seat plates). US fighters were armored mainly to defeat rifle caliber AP bullets and HE cannon shell or explosive bullet fragments, and armor was reduced in some later war fighters (like late model P-40's) to save weight. The Type 4's armor in contrast would have been aimed at defeating .50cal AP, which 1/2+-inch armor would give a good (though not 100%) chance of achieving considering the effects of the plane's structure on a bullet fired from directly astern, and the angle in case of a deflection shot.

Re: Parsifal on Type 4 results in China, see above in this thread and thread titled someting like 'P-40 against late war opponents'. The actual results of USAAF and Chinese-American Composite Wing P-40N v Type 4 in 1944 in China was if anything in favor of the P-40. The combats typically occurred at low altitude so the P-40's were not actually at a huge disadvantage. And posts above also discuss Type 4 successes v Merlin P-51's in China of which there were a few, but not many.

Joe

 

[Nikademus]

What i've heard echoes much of what's been said. If the plane in question is well built (which was often not the case by late 44/early 45) it was formidable, able to compete and win against all comers including the P-51. In the case of the Mustang, its superior max speed would allow it to run away if undamaged or with enough advance alert, choose whether to fight or not....but if it chose to "mix it up", the Frank had better maneuverability and coulld win and was well armed. Higher alt was a weakness and the Japanese were working on a high alt version of the plane but it never deployed before the war ended IIRC.

In the end even without the QA issues, there would not have been enough planes or pilots to alter things, Japan's problem was the same as Germany's only more acute and in the end it was the pilot bottleneck that doomed them regardless of the plane.