Ki.61 Update

[FBKampfer]

Raiden is an odd ball, it can climb over 4,000 feet per minute with 4x 20mm cannons. It had a pretty good top speed, but its maneuverability was horrible (it was an interceptor). If anything I think its basically a C.205.

As for the Ki-44, closest I can think is the Fw-190A series.

See, I imagine it as being somewhat similar to a 109K crossed with an A8. Of course, it's wing loading isn't terribly high, so maybe even that is a bit of an overstatement.

[Greebo]

I wonder if the Raiden's reputation for poor maneuvrability isn't simply down to its pilots' perspective. A lot of the more experienced pilots flying it would have spent much of their careers in A6Ms. Japanese doctrine put a lot of emphasis on nimbleness in their fighters too, some pilots preferring early A6M2s and Ki-43s to their later, heavier replacements.

[Karnak]

I wonder if the Raiden's reputation for poor maneuvrability isn't simply down to its pilots' perspective. A lot of the more experienced pilots flying it would have spent much of their careers in A6Ms. Japanese doctrine put a lot of emphasis on nimbleness in their fighters too, some pilots preferring early A6M2s and Ki-43s to their later, heavier replacements.

That is the majority of it as I recall.  American test pilots apparently thought the J2M had delightful handling.

~35lbs/sq.ft of wing loading puts it in the mid-late war Spitfire wing loading category, plus it has fowler flaps as on the Ki-43, Ki-84, N1Ks and P-38s.

[Wmaker]

Better rear visibility with cut-down rear deck.  The Tony is looking even more like an Italian bird by now:

Based on what I have read, the Ki-61-II with the cut down rear fuselage ended up being a single airframe because the engine factory got bombed roughly at the same time as that variant was supoosed to go into production. Therefore rest of those airframes were used as Ki-100-Ibs.

I wonder if the Raiden's reputation for poor maneuvrability isn't simply down to its pilots' perspective. A lot of the more experienced pilots flying it would have spent much of their careers in A6Ms. Japanese doctrine put a lot of emphasis on nimbleness in their fighters too, some pilots preferring early A6M2s and Ki-43s to their later, heavier replacements.

Very much true.

I see no reason or read anything that would indicate Raiden's maneuverability as being "horrible". Like Greebo said, obviously majority of the Japanese Navy's pilots flew majority of their hours with A6Ms. Wing loading of 171kg/sqm (J2M3) is on the lighter side when talking about late war fighters in general and top of that it has effective Fowler type combat flaps.

To put things into perspective; at normal take off weight N1K2 has basically identical wing loading as the J2M3 and both have Fowler type combat flaps. I'd expect the turning radiuses of these planes to be rather close to each other.

[Butcher]

I wonder if the Raiden's reputation for poor maneuvrability isn't simply down to its pilots' perspective. A lot of the more experienced pilots flying it would have spent much of their careers in A6Ms. Japanese doctrine put a lot of emphasis on nimbleness in their fighters too, some pilots preferring early A6M2s and Ki-43s to their later, heavier replacements.

I wonder if the Ki-45 would be more maneuverable then the P-38G, from a few doctrines I've seen and accounts, the Ki-45 was able to out turn P-38G's at 16,000ft. The only short coming was the 20mm Ho-3 cannon with a rate of fire of 400rpm made the cannon rather useless against single seat fighters; (hence why later upgrades had two 20mm Ho-5 cannons and a 37mm cannon).

Although the upgraded armament was mostly for bombers, and thus was a late war upgrade as well; most used varient had two 12.7mm Type 1 and a single 20mm Ho-3 which was horribly ineffective in the SWP.

[EDO43]

The aircraft we have in game is not the Ki-61Kai C, it's the Ki-61 Tei or d.  The Ki-61 Kai C is/was equipped with Mg151 20mm wing cannon from a supply that Germany sent.  That's what makes a Kaizo (modified) C, different than the regular C...The Ki-61-Tei is a different airframe in that it's fuselage is longer than the Hei (c) and has Ho-5 cannon in the fuselage rather than the wings as depicted in the Hei.

[Ack-Ack]

I wonder if the Ki-45 would be more maneuverable then the P-38G, from a few doctrines I've seen and accounts, the Ki-45 was able to out turn P-38G's at 16,000ft. The only short coming was the 20mm Ho-3 cannon with a rate of fire of 400rpm made the cannon rather useless against single seat fighters; (hence why later upgrades had two 20mm Ho-5 cannons and a 37mm cannon).

Although the upgraded armament was mostly for bombers, and thus was a late war upgrade as well; most used varient had two 12.7mm Type 1 and a single 20mm Ho-3 which was horribly ineffective in the SWP.

If it couldn't out maneuver a P-38J, I doubt it could do the same against the P-38G.  This is what McGuire had to say about the "Nick" in his Combat Tactics in the Southwest Pacific Area.

Nick - There haven't been many of these twin-engine fighters in this area and with their poor performance they are becoming scarcer as P-38 pilots and others prove that this is one Japanese fighter they can out-turn, out-run, and out-climb. The NICK is structurally strong and there will be some difficulty in diving away, but then it won't be necessary unless he gets close on your tail.

[Karnak]

If it couldn't out maneuver a P-38J, I doubt it could do the same against the P-38G.  This is what McGuire had to say about the "Nick" in his Combat Tactics in the Southwest Pacific Area.

I've seen you post that before.  Is there anything else, something formal, that supports that claim?  As we know, combat experiences are complex and don't isolate individual performance aspects well.

[Butcher]

I've seen you post that before.  Is there anything else, something formal, that supports that claim?  As we know, combat experiences are complex and don't isolate individual performance aspects well.

Late in the war its easy to see why the P-38J would of been a better aircraft; veteran pilots - even aces like McGuire would disdain the Ki-45. However earlier in the war, not many P-40 and P-39 pilots were aces - you notice far more P-38/Corsair aces because the attrition has already set in for the Japanese War Machine. McGuire himself, thought an "Oscar" was an easy kill and eventually was killed by an instructor with over 3,000 hours (Actually holding on to his drop tanks and turning to tight causing a stall out at low altitude killed him), but he assumed the pilot was a novice - its easy for him to claim the nick was a "terrible" plane; rather the pilots were not the veterans of the early war.

Early accounts showed that the Ki-45 KAIa was a formidable fighter; that could out turn a P-38G - that is all I stated. The P-38G still out climbs and out runs a Nick, one of the benefits the Nick had however was Self sealing tanks vs every other Japanese fighter at the time. Still, the Japanese found out the long range "fighter" was a bad idea as the Germans did with the Bf-110, it simply was not capable as a single seat fighter. Plus the terrible rate of fire of the 20mm proved useless against single seat fighters.

Even if the P-38 out runs it by over 50 mph, doesn't mean the P-38 wins every time; just look at the record of the B-239 against LA-5's. McGuire I believe, probably flew against novice pilots - which makes a difference.