DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Yes, it's confusing the way the author did that. He was trying to denote that the "Tojos" the pilots thought they encountered were actually N1K2s (the original action report does not include the bracketed portion).
The N1K2-J Shiden Kai vs Its US Counterpart
- Thread starter contrails16
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dogfight fighter grumman shiden kai
Yes, it's confusing the way the author did that. He was trying to denote that the "Tojos" the pilots thought they encountered were actually N1K2s (the original action report does not include the bracketed portion).
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Of course! That's what this forum is all about. The actual performance of late-war Japanese fighter aircraft is murky at best, so if you have anything further to add to the discussion I for one would love to hear it....
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It is now.
Thanks, though sadly, I can add nothing of value myself, only point out potentially worthwhile discussions elsewhere.Of course! That's what this forum is all about. The actual performance of late-war Japanese fighter aircraft is murky at best, so if you have anything further to add to the discussion I for one would love to hear it....
While we are at it, on an ubisoft forum, one guy claimed that the Ki-84 had better performance stats than the Ki-100, but the later was considerably more reliable, can anyone verify or contradict?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The KI-84 had issues with it's maingear and Homare radial.
The KI-100 seemed to be a bit more reliable with it's Kinsei radial and better developed maingear.
The KI-100 seemed to be a bit more reliable with it's Kinsei radial and better developed maingear.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
One important factor which helped foster a sterling reputation for the Ki-100 was that, unlike the Ki-84, J2M, and N1K2, it's performance in the field closely resembled factory specifications. In competitive trials held by the IJAF during the war, the Goshikisen (Type 5) was the clear winner over the Ki-84 in practically every mock combat flown. This to me is a clear indication that the Nakajima product was no where near reaching the performance numbers claimed by the manufacturer.
Another factor to consider is that Kawasaki may have had better quality control than their counterparts and this allowed for aircraft which held up better in the harsh conditions of combat. But this is only a theory of mine as I cannot corroborate it with any statistical proof.
Another factor to consider is that Kawasaki may have had better quality control than their counterparts and this allowed for aircraft which held up better in the harsh conditions of combat. But this is only a theory of mine as I cannot corroborate it with any statistical proof.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
The Mitsubishi Ha.112-II that was in the Ki.100-I & -II was quite a bit more
reliable than the Nakajima Ha.45s in the Ki.84. That, and the fact that
the Ki.100 was fully maneuverable up to its dive limited 550 mph were
its two greatest ascendancies over the Ki.84.
The topic of this thread does not include these fighter but I would like
to add one more quote concerning the Frank. The following quote
came from F4U Corsair vs Ki-84 Frank, Duel 73 from Osprey by Edward
M. Young.
Page 21: The following statement comes from Nakajima's test pilot
Yoshizawa.:
" The Ki.84 used 92 octane gasoline. When we used 100 octane
gasoline that the Navy stored in Taiwan, all engine problems stopped.
It was obvious that the troubles were caused by the fuel, but it was not
easy to obtain such high octane fuel then."
reliable than the Nakajima Ha.45s in the Ki.84. That, and the fact that
the Ki.100 was fully maneuverable up to its dive limited 550 mph were
its two greatest ascendancies over the Ki.84.
The topic of this thread does not include these fighter but I would like
to add one more quote concerning the Frank. The following quote
came from F4U Corsair vs Ki-84 Frank, Duel 73 from Osprey by Edward
M. Young.
Page 21: The following statement comes from Nakajima's test pilot
Yoshizawa.:
" The Ki.84 used 92 octane gasoline. When we used 100 octane
gasoline that the Navy stored in Taiwan, all engine problems stopped.
It was obvious that the troubles were caused by the fuel, but it was not
easy to obtain such high octane fuel then."
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
One last point to consider before returning to the N1K conversation, is that the KI-100 came directly from the KI-61, which was a mature design.
The KI-84 was developed (quickly) mid-war and rushed into service, so bugs like the weak maingear didn't have time to get ironed out. Instead, the pilots learned to work around it.
The KI-84 was developed (quickly) mid-war and rushed into service, so bugs like the weak maingear didn't have time to get ironed out. Instead, the pilots learned to work around it.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Nicely done but meh... lost interest... no Mustangs.
I totally get it, Hellcats and Corsairs are not your bag. Is this better???
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
I totally get it, Hellcats and Corsairs are not your bag. Is this better???
Actually, I do like the Hellcat a great deal, I equate it to the P-51B as the right machine, in the right place at the right time and one hell of a great airplane.
That said, thanks for the video, I had seen that one before, seems like they even got the Mustang markings fairly correct, looks to be renditions of Iwo Based 21st FG birds.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I understand totally. I like the P-51 quite a lot too and agree with you wholeheartedly about the role each played during the war.
The only issue I have with the video is the premise that the Americans were shooting up villages without provocation. May have happened on occasion but it was never officially sanctioned.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Thanks, my ego just got a lot bigger - if that's even possible lol... and back atcha!
AerialTorpedoDude69
Airman 1st Class
- 291
- Mar 1, 2022
I have read this passage several times and I believe they are referring to the Shiden-Kai, not the N1K1-J Shiden.
The full quote, translated by an American who was fluent in Japanese, appears in "Genda's Blade" (pg 48). Sakaida's version contains more information and makes it clear that he's referring to the Shiden-Kai. There's potentially some bad translation. Genda said that the landing gear was not falling apart, it was deploying and causing aerodynamic drag. "apt to fall apart in the air" may be a mistranslation. The quote makes it seems like this issue was corrected in the N1K2-J Shiden-Kai rather than something that was introduced in the redesign.
Also, the previous paragraph mentions that a Shiden-kai pilot almost died when his landing gear came down during a fight.
I think this error appears in a lot of books because the N1K1-J had defective landing gear.
However, Genda stated that about 25% of their combat losses related to the faulty landing gear. That quote is important because the 343rd was mostly equipped with Shiden-Kai. If 25% of their losses were N1K1-J with defective gear, then that would mean they had a lot of N1K1-J in service. But you can see from Genda's Blade that the N1K1-J was a reserve aircraft and never made up more than a small percentage of most sorties.
This is another problematic quote probably based on a poor translation, but fortunately you also linked to an unimpeachable source as well which mentioned that the pine root oil was 95 octane iirc. However, it was extremely high in aromatics, which made using it as a single-source of fuel impossible. The imperial japanese military decided to dilute their lower octane fuels with pine root oil to bump up octane. This is similar to using MMT to boost octane ratings.
RE: US Aircraft VS the Shiden-Kai and Shiden
I wanted to add a little more to this discussion about what made the Hellcat worse on paper, but a superior aircraft compared to the N1K2-J:
The Shiden's fuseless 20mm cannon ammunition may have technically had more destructive power and similar velocity compared to the M2 0.50 caliber machine gun, but it also contributed to the Shiden's poorer survivability.
The ball armor piercing ammo would have been less prone to exploding when hit by enemy fire. In fact, one of the 343rd's officers Naoshi Kanno, died as the result of a cannon malfunction from a defective batch of 20mm shells. On top of that, the ammo belts on the Shiden Kai's cannon were staggered between high-explosive, armor piercing, and tracer. Except that the fuseless were significantly faster than the AP rounds, which would lead to velocity mismatch and reduced accuracy.
Also, as mentioned on this forum, the Hellcat also had automatic flaps. It's strange that no other publication has this information in it.
All books that I've consulted on the Hellcat completely ignore what made the Hellcat the best US dogfighter of the war (if it's true). Going off the description provided by
N4521U , the flaps are hydraulically activated and a compression spring controls the extension of the flap.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
I was assuming a Shiden Kai.
GregP
Major
I was assuming a Shiden Kai.
GregP
Major
Roll rate is important for a very good reason. Assume both aircraft turn about the same and have about the same speed, for the sake of argument, but one rolls 50% better than the other. So, One completes a 90° roll in 4 seconds while the other one completes a 135° roll in the same time. Assume the faster-rolling aircraft is being attacked by the slower-rolling aircraft, and that the slower-rolling aircraft manages to get on the tail of the faster-rolling one.
OK, the pilot in front snaps into a left roll. In 4 seconds, he rolls 135°, centers the stick, and pulls hard away from the attack. The other guy is 45° away from the pull and must continue the roll or pull and roll while he pulls. If he does, he slows more than the guy in front AND takes longer to get "in plane" and online with his target again for a shot. Meanwhile, the target counts to 2 or 3, rolls again for 4 seconds, centers the ailerons and pulls again. He is, as a result, even further off-plane and offline from the attacker.
2 or 3 of these actions and he is nowhere near the gunsight of the attacker and may well begin to get on the tail of the attacker or, alternately, make a move to get away and escape, his choice, since pulling g off-line creates separation from the attacker.
In the real world, things are not so clear-cut. One is usually faster than the other, accelerates better, dives better, or does SOMETHING better. So the faster roller can get offline and use his performance advantage SOMEWHERE to gain separation. Separation is virtually the only way to turn the tables on an attacker who has an intial advantage. No separtation usually means the victim gets shot down or, at minimum, damaged.
Last edited:
Airborne2001
Airman 1st Class
- 180
- Jun 17, 2024
When piloted by an experienced pilot, the Shiden Kai seems to have been about an equal to the F6F-5. It's true that it was not superior to it, but the Shiden Kai also was not inferior to the Hellcat. As long as an experienced pilot was behind the controls, both planes good square off pretty evenly.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
That is a key point often lost in discussions about "this type versus that type".
By 1944, Nichizawa was still extremely dangerous with his A6M in spite of his aircraft being outclassed by newer Allied types.