Author Topic: Stinger. Any single engined Japanese planes have one of these in the tail? (Read 495 times)

agent 009 · « **on:** July 14, 2005, 02:28:26 AM »

Machine guns on the Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa
You don't seem to have Java Script enabled! -- Dan Ford. About those Ki-43 machineguns ... armament mix of the earlier plane ... the "stinger" in the tail of a Ki ... or machine cannon, as the Japanese reckoned anything larger than 11 mm. The gun was in ...http://www.warbirdforum.com/jaafmgs.htm - 10k - Cached - More from this site - Save -

KI 21 bomber did. What about single engined fighters? Read something yrs ago along these lines, but could be way off. Any data anyone?

Wilbus · « **Reply #1 on:** July 15, 2005, 07:48:14 PM »

agent 009 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2005, 12:35:48 AM »

Did any single engined Japanese fighter planes have a machine gun in the tail?

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** July 16, 2005, 02:42:07 AM »

None that I am aware of.

It wouldn't really match the Japanese doctrine of being on the offensive. They didn't initially think armor was worth it because the Japanese fighter would be the one doing the attacking.

Armor also cost a bigger chunk of performance and range for them due to their somewhat less powerful engines.

agent 009 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 16, 2005, 02:48:03 AM »

Perhaps so. the Tony had some armor no? had self sealing fuel tanks.

Also read where one a Tony pulled away from a 38 in a dive.

Karnak · « **Reply #5 on:** July 16, 2005, 03:50:06 PM »

Oh, they added armor and self sealing tanks once it was pounded into them that it was a good idea after all.

The A6M2, B5N2 and D3A1 (and I am not 100% positive about the bombers) are the only Japanese fighters in AH to lack any protection at all. The A6M5b has a little pilot armor. The Ki-61, Ki-67, Ki-84 and N1K2-J all have pilot armor and self sealing tanks.

By the time the Japanese did add armor though they had lost the core of their excelent pre-war pilots and they never recovered.

One of the things the Ki-61 was built and accepted into service for was to deal with the American tactic of diving away from the Ki-43s, which like the A6M could not follow a P-40 or F4F in a dive.

agent 009 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 16, 2005, 10:12:13 PM »

Aha, that would make sense, the dive comment. The Tony had some 'tail' work done, & lengthened fuselage I think. As well wing restrenthening in the Tony 2. The larger wing was not success, so original wing put back on albeit restrengthened.

Wonder how much better Tony 2 was over tony 1. Tony 2 was faster than KI 100.