Which is the best-looking Japanese fighter of WWII?

Which was the best looking Japanese fighter of WWII?

  • Total voters
    91

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Well remember they were working with lower octane fuels. In US testing re-tuned for high octane US fuel I believe the N1K2-J did better than 400 mph, and the Ki-84 moreso. (420-440 mph range iirc) Not to mention imptovements in climb. And I think the Ki 84 was the fastest Japanese fighter to see production/service.

And also rember that one of the principal opponents, the Hellcat, was a bit slow compared to most contemporary allied a/c, and slower tham the Ki-84 as well.
 
I thought the 'Tony' was too like the western liquid cooled in-line engines. The radial Tony, well it was a lucky solution - with the large engine - good looking - not really.
Japanese fighters seem to improve in appearance as the war progressed, the early ones - had a rugged look about them.
So my vote, went to the George, though it nearly went to the Frank.
Twin-engined - Dinah!
 

Thanks, KK 89! That is neat to know. Do you have a source for those higher octane tests, and does it say more?

Re the Hellcat, yes you are right. It is a good thing for the US Navy that the Japanese didn't have high-octane fuel, or the Hellcat might have only had, say, a 14:1 kill:loss ratio instead of the 19:1 it actually had! (according to the figures I've seen).
 
Hmm, no activity for the last 8 years.

It was a tossup between the J1N 'Irving' and the Ki-102 'Randy'. To me, their twin engine fighters had more aesthetics in their designs.
 
I chose the A6M Zero (late) - because it's gotta be better than the earlier model; and that's all I've really heard of! I presume it was the earlier model they used at Pearl Harbour?
 
The Ki.46 Dinah was one of the best from Japan. I believe if they could have
provided this aircraft with more powerful engines and good fire power, it could
have been another P-38 (First class twin-engine fighter) capable of one-on-one
confrontations with the best single-engine fighters of the times.

Getting down to the primary question asked.

There is no comparison in my opinion. The Nakajima Ki.84 is without a doubt,
the most beautiful radial engine propeller aircraft ever built. The P-47M/N was
the absolute best performing during the war period though.
 
CORSNING said:
There is no comparison in my opinion. The Nakajima Ki.84 is without a doubt, the most beautiful radial engine propeller aircraft ever built. The P-47M/N was
the absolute best performing during the war period though.
Click to expand...

More beautiful than the Sea Fury?
 
In the real world there is no beauty in any object made for killing. All military vehicle's, aircraft, rifles, knives, uniforms, munitions etc. are designed for one purpose only, and that is not to be the best looking. I can see it now, I was killed by the most beautiful aircraft with the nicest bomb, its parabolic fall was so graceful.
 
Which is a personal opinion not widely shared.

How about we cancel the classic car shows, because thousands of people have been killed over the years by '59 Cadillacs, '57 Chevys, '33 Fords and so on. They may not have been designed for war, and some automobile designs were actually influenced by Warplanes, but the fact remains, they have killed.

There's no questioning the purpose of a fighter (or bomber) but the fact remains that the designs of some of these machines are remarkable and attractive.

And while on that point, the KI-83 heavy fighter was an extremely good looking aircraft, but sadly only reached four units before the end of the war.
 
GrauGeist said:
How about we cancel the classic car shows, because thousands of people have been killed over the years by '59 Cadillacs, '57 Chevys, '33 Fords and so on
Click to expand...
rather a senseless comparison, next you will want to say stop cooking shows. The fact is no matter how beautiful an aircraft is, if it is made for the military, its a machine of war. Don't get me wrong, I have my pet aircraft and was in active service for a few decades. Furthermore the biggest thing that most people miss when talking about ww2 aircraft is that the design criteria was completely new and changing, i.e.:retractable undercarriage, constant speed props, aluminium skinning etc. etc. the list goes on. I doubt very much Schmued, Tank, Heinkel, Messerschmitt were siting at there design teams pushing for the most pretty.
 
I think beauty in design and performance are synonymous. Beauty "usually" meant sleek design (P-51 in it's slender body and wing) and smooth curves (Spitfire or P-47 elliptical wing).

"Usually" these sleek and smooth curves are associated with planes that are considered the more "pretty" planes AND are some of the best performing.

So while Schmued, Tank, Willy, etc weren't in a contest of making the next Ms. Universe, it was a result of tweeking design to increase performance that allows these planes to win the beauty contests.

Interestingly enough, the same could be said for beauty contests. These ladies work hard to slim and trim and have beautiful styling (makeup, hair, and perfectly altered outfits) to enhance their visual appeal.
 
The fact is no matter how beautiful an aircraft is, if it is made for the military, its a machine of war. Don't get me wrong, I have my pet aircraft and was in active service for a few decades".

Machines for war or not, some of the most graceful and visually pleasing things made by men relate to military purposes. Everything from 15th century Italian armour plate to the latest ICBMs have some visual appeal for most, especially those interested in things military. Doesn't make us a bunch of warmongers just average guys really.

Ive done my time at being shot at and I do not believe that wars are good for anything. still, I loved some of the kit I got to mess around with in my time. ive got soft spots for various things, including A-4 skyhawks, HMAS Melbourne, USS Enterprise, Leopard tanks, lee Enfield rifles. So what..........

Furthermore the biggest thing that most people miss when talking about ww2 aircraft is that the design criteria was completely new and changing, i.e.:retractable undercarriage, constant speed props, aluminium skinning etc. etc. the list goes on. I doubt very much Schmued, Tank, Heinkel, Messerschmitt were siting at there design teams pushing for the most pretty.

Generally I agree, however aircraft were designed to also look the part, if only to attract the requisite foreign orders. Aircraft that looked wrong generally did not attract these foreign orders, or even orders from the countries they were built in. Looks, to a minor extent at least did matter in the development of military technology.
 
Not a senseless statement at all.

The old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" holds true even for "killing machines'.

One of the things that appeals top humans is power: sleek, graceful and agile, like a predator. No one ever says "oh, look how amazing that water buffalo is!!", but they fawn over a Cheetah that runs down a Gazelle and kills it.

And we talk about all of that criteria here - often times in exhaustive detail. WWII started with biplanes and ended with jets. Technology advanced at an incredible pace during those years that has not, and perhaps never will be, matched again.

And in regards to "the most pretty", this goes back to the Cheetah - fighters have to be aerodynamic. They have to be agile, powerful and capable of killing their quarry. If they can't, they end up the prey - so they are streamlined, sleak and muscular. Survival of the fittest, simple as that.

Park an Me262 next to a Cessna 172 and tell me which one draws the most attention...
 
Now we are getting to apples and oranges and going overboard. Of coarse beauty is in the eye of beholder, the beauty queen with the perfect body and every ones eye are on prongs, but she no brain cells. In the beholder, she is the best thing created. Me262 and a Cessna, not a real comparison that actually pits apples with apples! The Spitfire and Hurricane however, the Spitfire and so beautiful, but the Hurricane was the better combat platform, park the two together and you have your 262, Cessna again, all the beholders with eyes dangling out on prongs. Other ugly but successful aircraft that will never win the beauty polls in the eyes of the beholders are the JU87 and IL-2(which still is the most produced combat aircraft ever) Just because something is beautiful, definitely doesn't make it the best. The end, not worth discussing further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
_PabloSniper_
Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
4K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Shortround6
S
A
Is Mig 21 Better For Fight
2
Replies
20
Views
4K
Zipper730
  • Poll
Which period/theater of WWII do you enjoy studying the most?
Replies
6
Views
2K
gomwolf
G
Menu
Log in
Register