Author Topic: Ki-43 "Oscar" (Read 4071 times)

Stang · « **Reply #45 on:** December 29, 2007, 02:38:33 PM »

The reason the 25 is a "hangar queen" is beacuse it isn't some late war uber monster. Yet you are arguing for a plane that would just be another? Can you say two things that actually agree with each other?

Yay for the 39 and the Ki.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #46 on:** December 29, 2007, 02:55:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stang
The reason the 25 is a "hangar queen" is beacuse it isn't some late war uber monster. Yet you are arguing for a plane that would just be another? Can you say two things that actually agree with each other?

Yay for the 39 and the Ki.

Winner.

lefty320 · « **Reply #47 on:** December 29, 2007, 03:46:16 PM »

the oscar was a big fighter in the japeneese aresenal, and it played a big role in WW2.

Soulyss · « **Reply #48 on:** December 29, 2007, 04:34:22 PM »

All for more early war designs, I think a Ki-43 would be a fun little change of pace. For the same reason I enjoy flying the zero from time to time. I usually don't expect to land at the end but it's fun till I get blown into tiny little bits, and you know what I learned? When you die... you get a new plane, so I'm not sure what the worry is.

Then again the B-25 is about the only bomber I fly with the exception of my beloved P-38, so what do I know. No it's not the fastest, nor does it have a outstanding bomb load, but you have the love the history of it, and a flight of B25 roaring in at tree top level guns blazing is a great squad sortie.

BaDkaRmA158Th · « **Reply #49 on:** December 29, 2007, 06:06:32 PM »

Fact is it has a engine, a seat and wings, and can fly.

Throw in two .50's and agility toped by none.

Put a fighter pilot in the seat with a clue, and you have one mean little ride.

People do not understand what you can do with just two .50's mounted on a plane's nose.It is like a short range laser beam, added the turning..it would be very easy to take out someone's wingtips engines or cockpit.

Not a sprey and prey bird by far, but you get in close and hammer down on any planes most vulnerable spots, you got the kill in the bag, period.

Point & click anyone?

Bubbajj · « **Reply #50 on:** December 29, 2007, 06:48:04 PM »

Zipping around in a low performance fighter is a whole different ballgame than lugging aroung in a low performance bomber, not even close. Some of the most fun rides are the older EW planes. P40s, Zekes, and F4Fs are some of the most fun and challenging planes there are. I barely touch LaLas, Spits, Doras or any of the uber fighters. The fact that I feel the B25 was a wasted opportunity and still want or would vote for a "low" performance fighter have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I wouldn't vote for a B52 if the option were given.

I got into a base capture attempt the other day. It was a full on GV assault. I didn't see one B25 in the air. A bunch of hurcs and a mossie, no B25s. I guess if you guys see them around your someplace else.

From what I'm seeing here is we got the B25 due to nostalgic reasons. I suppose it might be fun once in a while, but still mostly a hanger queen.

VansCrew1 · « **Reply #51 on:** December 29, 2007, 06:59:02 PM »

The Ki-43 and the Ki-84 seem similar. What is different about it?

Spikes · « **Reply #52 on:** December 29, 2007, 07:06:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VansCrew1
The Ki-43 and the Ki-84 seem similar. What is different about it?

They are 41 numbers off.

Stang · « **Reply #53 on:** December 29, 2007, 08:04:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VansCrew1
The Ki-43 and the Ki-84 seem similar. What is different about it?

They're about as similar as you and Axer.

VansCrew1 · « **Reply #54 on:** December 29, 2007, 08:30:32 PM »

i dont get it...

Stang · « **Reply #55 on:** December 29, 2007, 08:51:08 PM »

BigPlay · « **Reply #56 on:** January 02, 2008, 04:07:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Redlegs,

The Ki-84, meticulously maintained and running on US fuel, performed better up to 20,000ft.

The Ki-100 was far, far slower than our aircraft. The reason it was liked was because it was reliable when advanced designs like the Ki-84 were not.

As to where the Japanese were, according to the Japanese manufacturers they were about 3 years behind the US in terms of power and technology at the end of the war.

I would doubt that any of the Japanese aircraft by wars end had any real amount of service that it needed to perform the way it should have if it did receive the proper service. This has nothing to do with how capable the aircraft should have been if it did receive said service. I don't think anyone during the war had it's machinery serviced as well as the Americans.

At altitude the Americans did have faster planes. That's because they were equipped with super chargers. Iam speaking on all around ability, speed handling, armament. You forget that the Germans traded technology with the Japanese. The Japanese had a rocket fighter, jet fighter and other advanced designs like the Shindin that were flying. The P-51 and the P-47 were not even close to being on cutting edge technology. They were both less that uber at low to medium alts. Maybe 20 mph faster than the late war Jap planes so being much slower than the American planes is a bit of a stretch.

An overall assessment of the effectiveness of the Ki-100 rated it highly in agility and a well-handled Ki-100 was able to out-maneuver any American fighter including the formidable P-51D Mustangs and the P-47N Thunderbolts which were escorting the B-29 raids over Japan by that time, and was comparable in speed especially at medium altitudes. In the hands of an experienced pilot, The Ki-100 was a deadly opponent and together with the Army's Ki-84 and the Navy's Kawanishi N1K-J the only other Japanese fighters being able to defeat the latest Allied types.

That last paragraph is a quote from your link.

Krusty · « **Reply #57 on:** January 02, 2008, 04:22:42 PM »

A Brewster Buffalo shoots down an LA5 over Finland.

Doesn't mean the Buffalo was "able to compete even with the best the Soviets had to offer" -- just means it was able to get a kill due to the circumstances surrounding that engagement.

In no way, shape, form, or stretch of the imagination is the Brewster comparable to the LA5, but it can still kill them.

The fact that the Ki100 (which was NO BETTER, got that, NO BETTER than the Ki61) could get a kill under certain circumstances, does NOT mean it was better than the US planes it fought.

Nor was it faster at any alt. It could only turn tighter circles. Well, against the US fighters, a tight turning radius wasn't going to seal the deal. A6m2s, A5ms, Ki43s, etc *ALL* had tighter turning circles than any of the allied planes that shot them down in record numbers.

It borders on the edge of propaganda to say the Ki-100 was in any way competitive with the late-war US planes. It was a 1942 plane, with an even older engine tacked on in 1944 because they lost their inline engines production lines. A stop-gap, a last-ditch effort. It was not superior, it was not "great" -- I'm rather P.O.ed about the propaganda the Ki-100 receives. Most of it is out and out fabrication, the rest gross exaggeration, and some of it just plain LIES (no, they did NOT shoot down 16 hellcats on their first mission).

(*steps off soapbox*)

Raptor · « **Reply #58 on:** January 02, 2008, 05:58:58 PM »

The Japanese Rocket Plane and Jet fighter never saw service. Even if they had been pushed into service I doubt they would have performed very well considering Japan's lack of resources at the end of the war. Wouldn't have been surprised if they both exploded on their first sortie.

As far as the late war match-up goes, the Japanese planes could not perform with the American planes. Not to mention lack of trained pilots.

Why we need the Ki-43:
It COULD compete with American planes in the early/mid war scenario. It's performance was good however it's guns were lacking. It was the IJAF's equivalent to the IJN's Zero.

The Ki-43 is NEEDED in the following special events:
Guadalcanal
Solomon Islands Campaign
New Britain/Rabaul
New Guinea

We are also lacking a representative long range early/mid war japanese bomber which would be filled by the Betty bomber.

Krusty · « **Reply #59 on:** January 02, 2008, 10:42:43 PM »

Don't forget the Nell bomber!