How about an "early war" IJA fighter?

[funked]

Good points about the date for first combat.  So it's early-mid-war then.  

Also I'm not sure that the Ki-100 was a better plane than the Ki-44-II except at high altitudes.  I think the 3-digit Ki number creates an expectation of performance that the actual aircraft did not live up to.

And most Ki-84's reportedly did not perform significantly better than the Ki-44-II, due to severe manufacturing problems with both the airframe and powerplant.

Mostly I just like the looks of the Ki-44.  

And against 1942-43 Allied opponents, it would give IJAAF scenario pilots a devastating weapon.

[funked]

PS Spritle:

 

Have you seen the wings on the Shoki? I doubt the plane could get out of its own way.

Actually the wing loading is no worse than an Fw 190A.

 

Another quote out of the book "The Ki-44 was restricted against snap rolls, spins, stalls and inverted flight at high speeds

Similar restrictions can be found in pilot's instructions for the P-47D and P-51D.

You have to consider the Shoki in the context of previous Japanese fighters.  Pilots who are used to a kite like the Oscar or Nate are going to have some real adjusting to do when transitioning to a plane with a wingloading near 40 lb/ft^2.

 

and pilot protection and self-sealing fuel tanks were found ineffective against the standard Allied 0.5 in machine-guns.

There was not a piece of armor on any WW2 fighter plane that could stop a direct hit from a .50 cal round.  The author's remark is more telling about the .50 cal than the Shoki.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-05-2000).]

[Spritle]

Funked,

I'd like to see your source for your Airframe manufacturing flaws.  Actually the Ki-84 required 10,000 fewer man hours to produce than the Shoki, that's per aircraft!

This allowed them to produce 3,514 aircraft between Aug. 1943 and Aug. 1945.  That almost triples Ki-44 production for the same time frame.  The Ki-84 achieved a production rate of 373 aircraft in a single month the highest of any JAAF aircraft.

Also the only airframe problem that I have ever seen mentioned about the Ki-84 is weak landing gear on the later varients.  That's it, no other comments on airframe.  If you can quote a source that would help a bunch.  

I think it says a huge amount about the Frank that Nakagima canned the Ki-44 in favor of the Ki-84.  Hardly better than the Ki-44?  I would say that everyone thought the Ki-84 was better.  

I think if you polled you would see that given the choice most people would fly the Frank over the Shoki.  It does everything better except climb.  

Spritle

P.S.

The Frank had some nice paint schemes as well

 
 




[This message has been edited by Spritle (edited 10-05-2000).]

[juzz]

I don't think people are ready for FRANK - listen to them complain about GEORGE!  

What you want is Shoki instead, with 37mm and 40mm fun-guns of course!  

[Sundog]

What I have read in `Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki in Japanese Army Air Force Service' by Richard M. Bueschel ISBN: 0-88740-914-8
on page 10 states, `It was a while before it was realized that the 40mm cannon were a major disappointment. The muzzle velocity was so low the effective range was a suicidal 150 yds. Even before the final aerial assault on Japan, the Ki-44-IIb was yanked from production and comfortably replaced by the Ki-44-IIc in March 1944 starting with serial 1750 with four 12.7mm guns, two each in the fuselage and wings.'

Of course, it could always be an option for those who like to get in really close, after all, we don't have to contend with B-29s in here ;-) .

   

[This message has been edited by Sundog (edited 10-16-2000).]

[juzz]

150 metres is fine versus vehicles, which is what they were designed to shoot.