Ki-44: Can it turn (or even out-turn) or BnZ with USAAC/USMC/USN fighters?

[Karnak]

The cowl guns on the Ki-84 are Ho-103 12.7mm guns as are the wing guns on the Ki-61 and, I think, the guns on the Ki-67 other than the Ho-5 20mm dorsal gun.

I have killed many fighters with just the two on the Ki-84 or Ki-61.  They aren't quite as good as the Browning .50 (which is what they are based on), but they are much lighter and so incur much less of a performance penalty.

[HoHun]

Hi Gianlupo,

>>Piston engines yield constant power (approximately), so it's more convenient to consider power instead of thrust, which decreases as speed increases.

>What is this decrease in thrust due to? Something that has to do with the propeller?

No, it's a result of the constant power piston engines running at constant speed yield.

With power being the product of thrust and speed, thrust drops when speed increases.

Jet engines are different thermodynamically as they breathe more air when going fast, which in turn enables them to burn more fuel, and that translates to power increasing with speed.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi BSB,

>1).  The major production version of this fighter was the KI-44 IIb which I have seen to be armed in 3 ways, 4 12.7mm mg, 2  12.7mm mg 2 20mm Ho-5 cannons or 4 20mm Ho-5 cannons.  Do you know which one is correct?

I haven't personally done any reasearch in that matter, but I remember a discussion somewhere where a lot of guys went looking for photographs to prove the use of 20 mm cannon in the Ki-44, and if I recall correctly, they ended up empty-handed. The only cannon for which photographic evidence could be found was the 40 mm recoilless gun.

>2)  I understand that the KI-44 shoki also had a excellent roll rate do you know what it was?

Unfortunately, I don't have any data on roll rates :-(

>3) You state that the Shoki's top speed is slow but I have seen it listed as 376 mph is that really slow compared to other AH aircraft below 10,000 ft?

Well, below 10000 ft it was at its best, and it wouldn't lag much behind most contemporary planes, but it is a mid-war fighter, and if you pit it against late-war fighters it's inevitably to look slow in comparison.

It undeniably has a bit of a sweet spot at low altitude, though, a bit like the Fw 190A.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi BSB,

>Also how does the Ho-103 12.7mm guns compare to our .50 cals?

They are lighter, 23 kg compared to 29 kg, but that's not much of a difference when we're talking about an aircraft of 2800 kg total.

The Ho-103's rate of fire was a bit higher than the Browning's, but it fired slightly less powerful ammunition at a slightly inferior muzzle velocity, so it provided about 60% - 70% of the Brownings firepower (judged by total projectile energy).

It was closer to the light MG131 than to the Browning in performance, but superior to the Italian 12.7 mm machine guns.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Ack-Ack]

Is the CW-21 the plane in the middle?  I know, not a very good photo.



ack-ack

[HoHun]

Hi Ack-ack,

>Is the CW-21 the plane in the middle?  I know, not a very good photo.

Wow, I hadn't seen this one before! :-) Yes, it must be the CW-21 ("Demon") in the middle.

I assume the aircraft in the foreground is a Curtiss-Wright trainer from the same "family" as the CW-21.

I don't remember exactly what I read about the CW family, but Vultee attempted to provide a range of designs from basic trainer to fighter aircraft with a maximum of commonality in parts.

Thanks for the photograph! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Widewing]

Originally posted by HoHun

The AVG faced a special experimental unit combat-testing the first Ki-44 in service. These aircraft didn't reach the level of performance the later Ki-44-II achieved, but still the AVG considered the aircraft a major threat.

Fortunately for the Flying Tigers, there was only a small number of these Ki-44s available, and by a well-planned raid, the AVG managed to wipe out most of them on the ground.

As far as I know, the AVG fought against the following types:  Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-45.

The AVG received the following fighters available: P-40, P-43, CW-21. The P-40 was the predominant type. Only a few P-43s were received, which were preferredly used as top cover for the P-40s since they enjoyed better high-altitude performance due to their turbo-supercharged engines. The P-43s were troubled by leaking tanks, however, and didn't see much combat before being grounded. Of the CW-21, there were only a handful sent, and it seems they all were lost on their ferry flight.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Are your referring to the USAAF units that replaced the AVG? On July 4, 1942 the AVG was officially disbanded. Most pilots left China, although a handful stayed on to assist in the transition.
These units still used the name Flying Tigers, but were not part of that original unit.

6 prototype Ki-44 were combat tested in SE Asia. None were involved in combat with the AVG in the defense of Rangoon. Production Ki-44s didn't reach front line units until well after the AVG had disbanded.

Also, the AVG ferried P-43s to the Chinese Air Force, but Chennault would not allow the AVG to fly them in combat due a lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Later P-43s supposedly
had self-sealing tanks, but they leaked so badly that Chennault still wasn't interested.

See Dan Ford's work on the AVG for details on the types encountered by the AVG.

My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Ack-ack,

>Is the CW-21 the plane in the middle?  I know, not a very good photo.

Wow, I hadn't seen this one before! :-) Yes, it must be the CW-21 ("Demon") in the middle.

I assume the aircraft in the foreground is a Curtiss-Wright trainer from the same "family" as the CW-21.

I don't remember exactly what I read about the CW family, but Vultee attempted to provide a range of designs from basic trainer to fighter aircraft with a maximum of commonality in parts.

Thanks for the photograph! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

That CW-21 in the photo was captured from the Dutch. It was a CW-21B. It was designed with inward folding landing gear. Those aircraft given to the AVG were standard CW-21s, with gear that folded aft and pivoted (like the P-40). Speed and agility was on par with the Ki-43. Climb was better, approaching 4,500 feet/min.
The CW-21 was a light-weight fighter concept developed from the CW-19 trainer. Not many were sold, with the Dutch being the prime customer.

Unfortunately, they were not armed better than Hayabusa and had no armor or fuel tank protection. Range was greatly inferior to the Hayabusa as well. Shilling and two other AVG pilots were forced to make emergency landings due to contaminated fuel and all three CW-21s were write-offs (one pilot, Lacy Magdenburg was killed).

My regards,

Widewing

[TexMurphy]

more on the captured CW-21

http://www.pluth.net/captured/capturedby/cw-21/captured_cw21.htm

[BSB]

HoHun, Karnak,

Thanks for the response to my questions!  Now for a new question....do you gentlemen have any information on the final version of the Shoki the KI-44-III?  This version had a 2000 hp engine and a slightly larger airframe.  Should climb like a frighten angel:) Not much information out there on it.  Thanks again for all the information didn't know that about the Japanese guns...


Sincerely,

BSB

[Karnak]

BSB,

Very few Ki-44-IIIs were built.  I don't have any hard data on it.

[HoHun]

Hi Widewing,

>Are your referring to the USAAF units that replaced the AVG?

I was relying on my memory from Dan Ford's book, but my memory appears to have been flawed. (I never read the complete book, only the chapters he published online.)

Before posting, I had merely checked the (experimental) service entry date, and finding that the test unit was deployed to China in mid-1941.

However, it appears they were immediately transferred out of China again, so apparently you're right they couldn't have faced the AVG after all.

In that case, what I remember probably refers to the USAAF experience in China. Unfortuantely, Dan Ford has taken down most of the chapters of his book so I can't check this assumption.

>Also, the AVG ferried P-43s to the Chinese Air Force, but Chennault would not allow the AVG to fly them in combat due a lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Later P-43s supposedly
had self-sealing tanks, but they leaked so badly that Chennault still wasn't interested.

With regard to the P-43, I relied on a history posted on Dan Ford's site:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/richdunn.htm

Seems I mixed up AVG and USAAF again :-/

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi BSB,

Here's an interesting article on the Ho-103:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/jaafmgs.htm

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Gianlupo]

HoHun,

thank you again for your kindness, all clear now.

See you.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Widewing,


In that case, what I remember probably refers to the USAAF experience in China. Unfortuantely, Dan Ford has taken down most of the chapters of his book so I can't check this assumption.

>Also, the AVG ferried P-43s to the Chinese Air Force, but Chennault would not allow the AVG to fly them in combat due a lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Later P-43s supposedly
had self-sealing tanks, but they leaked so badly that Chennault still wasn't interested.

With regard to the P-43, I relied on a history posted on Dan Ford's site:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/richdunn.htm

Seems I mixed up AVG and USAAF again :-/

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Yes, that is interesting info from the link. However, use of the P-43 was not by the AVG, but by the USAAF units that replaced the AVG.

Personally, I believe that the P-43 was superior to the P-40 in vitually every aspect of combat performance. Why more were not purchased by the USAAF is a mystery to me. It was the only combat-ready high altitude fighter available to the USAAF early 1942. Even though the P-47 was well into development, it was still a long way from combat-ready in the summer of 1942.

My regards,

Widewing