Not to weigh into the merits of yes or no on this bird but a technical, historical question.
The firepower on this plane is very inadequate, and was obviously known by the Japanese War Dept (?), evidenced by the fact that later birds had cannons added. Why did they build so many of these birds without increasing the gun package? Were the other Nakajima planes essentially spruced up Oscars, which answers the previous question? Any history you might have would be great.
Thanks in advance!
Boo
This has been covered in great detail elsewhere in this thread, so I'll only summarize, briefly:
The 7mm machine gun was very reliable, and had a high rate of fire. The 13mm machine "gun" was, technically, a "cannon" because it fired rounds that had fuzes and explosive charges. However, in RL, the 13mm gun was very unreliable. Not only did it jam often, but those explosive shells often detonated inside the barrel! Several Ki-43s were apparently lost due to this flaw! It was common enough that on at least some Ki-43s a slab of iron armor was placed *underneath* the gun in order to protect the engine. Talk about quality control issues...
As for other Nakajima fighter planes, they were not much like the Ki-43 Hayabusa ("Oscar").
The Ki-44 Shoki ("Tojo") was a point-defense interceptor optimized for climb rate and speed.
The Ki-84 Hayate ("Frank") was a late-war monster which, despite miserable quality control problems on the production lines, could give both the P-51D and the P-47D a run for their money.
EDIT: (The Ki-61 was not a Nakajima plane, per the post by Karnak)
The Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien ("Tony") was one of the very few IJA planes to use a liquid-cooled inline engine. The Ki-61-II used an uprated version of the license-built Aichi copy of the Daimler-Benz DB601, but quality control was so bad that it often suffered catastrophic *crankshaft* failures on takeoff!
<shudder!>