ki 84 plane set

[Wmaker]

Wmaker: You know better than that. You know for sure that many of the late-war monsters that the Japanese aircraft industry developed either had too many teething problems or were held back for the eventual US invasion force (to the point of creating production lines hidden in caves not just for engines but entire aircraft). The A6M7 and A6M8, the B6N Jill, the Ohka... Numerous advanced craft were BUILT but that doesn't mean they saw any appreciable service.

The aircraft in those pictures are in full warpaint. They have 104. Sentai's insignia's on their tails and Chutai colour markings on their spinners and vertical stabilizers. The white band is a rather clear tactical marking. This isn't the only source which mentiones it as the Chutai commander's aircraft. When it comes to this particular case and photographic evidence, suggesting that these aircraft were trainers is absurd.

FYI, I'm not particularly advocating anything to any particular direction. I'm talkng about the real aircraft.

It's foolish for you to say "prove they didn't" when, much like any discussion with late war Japanese or even German aircraft, the burden of proof is to say they actually DID serve.

You are completely missing the point. The photos depict delivered combat unit -Ibs. I repeat, aircraft that have been delivered to a combat unit. Evidence that an aircraft was delievered to combat unit is usually good for other aircraft, why is Ki-84 any different? Just because the war ended before the picture was taken, doesn't mean they didn't serve in the said unit they were delivered to. BTW, there are publications say that those pics were taken in Manchuria during the war, but that's really beside the point.

So, I would very much like to see any pictures you have of the -Ib with the 20mm vents on the nose.

Like I said, those pictures depict -Ibs and they are the only ones I've seen.

P.S. You mention the Homare engines... Forgive me if I'm blunt on this, as there's been plenty said already, but you aren't really making too fine a point with the Ha45-23 reference.

In my last post, I didn't make a single reference to -23.

The only difference between the -23 and the -21 was the pressurized fuel system to keep the gas from cutting out. The down side is that they came later, and as the quality of production and performance deteriorated, the extra 100 horsepower over the models 11 and 12 was lost.

On paper, Ha-45-12 developed 1825hp and -21 developed 1990hp. That makes a 165hp difference, not 100hp. Like I mentioned, Busa found in his research that the -21s were derated in service to levels of -12's output (1825hp). On paper, -23 developed 1900hp. What I do not know and have been wondering, is weather or not the -23 and the -25 developed their advertised outputs in service or were they possibly derated aswell. This is what I meant when I said: "The issue is far from being as simple as you depict it."

Help me out on this... What is your real position on this? Are you, like nrshida, taking the position that the Ki-84-II is another name for the Ki-84-Ib? Or do you agree with me that the -II was a totally different monster, and that the -Ib matched other potential configurations of the -Ia, but you are discussing more minor differences between these two sub-types?

So far I've been talking the differences between Ia and Ib only, but now that you asked...

The sources I've mentioned agree that nrshida is essentially correct and that you are flatout wrong. The "IIs" were essentially -Ias and -Ibs with part of the aluminum alloy construction was replaced with wooden components. And just like nrshida already mentioned, Nakajima used the II-designation for these aircraft but Koku Hombu didn't adopt that designation but continued to use the Ia/Ib designations (the western designations for Ko and Otsu).

On the "-II":

"The partly wooden Ki-84 recieved the Nakajima factory designation of Ki-84-II (Ki-84 Model 2), or "Hayate" KAI; this designation, however, failed to be adopted by the Koku Hombu. The IJAAF continued to call the "wooden" Ki-84-IIs were practically indistinguishable from regular Ki-84s. it is not known how many Ki-84-IIs were produced, as they were conted among the overall number of manufactured Ki-84s. The Ki-84-II was powered by the standard Ha-45-21 engine or improved Ha-45-23, or the most powerful Ha-45-25 in the case of the latest aircraft."

Source: Leszek A. Wieliczko's Ki-84 book (ISBN: 83-89088-76-2)

...it actually says all this just with a different wording in that page 8 on that Francillon's profile-book you linked to.

From the page 8:

"In Nakajima's nomelecture these improved aircraft, ...,were known as Ki-84-II Hayate Kai (Gale modified) but the JAAF headquarters and the Ministry of Munitions never adopted this designation, the aircraft being also designated Ki-84-Ib and Ki-84-Ic* in service operation."

(We know now that Ic -wasn't put into production)

We are both actually using the same basic sources in the end but you manage to create a disagreement over them because you don't seem to understand what is being said in them.

[Krusty]

Sorry for delay, had a busy weekend.

Okay, I'm going to do something here, I'm going to try and just pick the main points in hopes of keeping on topic here. Hope there's no insult if I don't respond to everything.

1) The photos
2) the engines
3) The designation -II

1) Photos are nice, but depending on many external factors any number of things could have happened. I never said they were specifically TRAINER planes, just that any squadron has a ramp-up time, a training period with the aircraft before they use those craft in combat. They need to be checked by the ground crew, test flown around the field, possibly rechecked to see if the engine was falling apart after a few minutes, whatever. I don't know the usual procedures, but I do know that it's not a simple matter of "If the plane's in the picture on the ground, it saw combat in the air." Considering the -Ib only started production of about 100 units in March of 1945, it really isn't much time to see combat. The war's end is approaching.

You've said you're not taking one approach or the other and that's fine. However your discussion suggests you think they saw combat. I believe that more photographic evidence must be found before you can prove that.

2) The engines... You said (in not so many words) you thought I was ignoring you or just not understanding. I do understand, as a matter of fact. I realize the differences with the engines. However I also realize and have read about the terrible QA and the far inferior performance of these engines. Even the higher number of the engine's model ("model 23") wouldn't produce more than the earlier ("model 12") because in the end they had to be severely down-rated. Further, while I've mentioned also that I know the -I models have various engines, when I'm referring to the -II I also refer to the intended boosted engine that SHOULD have been in it. This engine had many problems and you found -IIs with the same engines as -Is. That doesn't make them the same model in my book. That's just another of many stop-gap measure the Japanese undertook to keep planes rolling out regardless of quality or performance. To me that's quite a simple issue.

3) The -II vs the -I. To steal your line, "The issue is far from being as simple as you depict it." This is the area I feel you and nrshida don't comprehend the complexities of the Japanese naming conventions and the way most of the numbers you're reading were assigned after the fact. The Japanese didn't refer to something as a -I until there was a -II, and that was only after the fact. You would find a Ki-84-Ia would simply be referred to as Ki-84, and Ki-84-Ib (as we call it now) was simply Ki-84B. The point of one of my previous posts to nrshida was to help illustrate these naming problems by including links to some of the discussions around Ki-61s and Ki-43s, but here's a direct correlation to the Ki-84 AND the numbers produced:

http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=4702.0

The guy responding (Jim Long) is one of my new-found heros lately on the matter. He down-plays it by saying he's no expert but he is considered so by many. He is going off primary source material in original Japanese, and reports from directly after the war. Read the whole topic in that link, he further goes on (lower on the page) to discuss naming issues.


On this last point is where I personally feel nrshida is wrong. I feel he is just getting confused by all the different names that can be applied at different phases of the war, of after the war, by western and eastern societies... I think he's drawn a simple conclusion to a complex issue, and as a result is incorrect. It's not that I'm holding a grudge, I just think he's wrong on the subject.

[Wmaker]

1) Photos are nice, but depending on many external factors any number of things could have happened. I never said they were specifically TRAINER planes, just that any squadron has a ramp-up time, a training period with the aircraft before they use those craft in combat. They need to be checked by the ground crew, test flown around the field, possibly rechecked to see if the engine was falling apart after a few minutes, whatever. I don't know the usual procedures, but I do know that it's not a simple matter of "If the plane's in the picture on the ground, it saw combat in the air." Considering the -Ib only started production of about 100 units in March of 1945, it really isn't much time to see combat. The war's end is approaching.

Don't talk about trainers as "could have been" if you don't mean they could have been trainers. There's 5 months of combat left. But really I don't see any point arguing about this with you. I let you make all the conclusions you want. I've made mine.

you found -IIs with the same engines as -Is. That doesn't make them the same model in my book.

Read this again with thought: "The partly wooden Ki-84 recieved the Nakajima factory designation of Ki-84-II (Ki-84 Model 2), or "Hayate" KAI; this designation, however, failed to be adopted by the Koku Hombu. The IJAAF continued to call the "wooden" Ki-84-IIs were practically indistinguishable from regular Ki-84s. it is not known how many Ki-84-IIs were produced, as they were counted among the overall number of manufactured Ki-84s. The Ki-84-II was powered by the standard Ha-45-21 engine or improved Ha-45-23, or the most powerful Ha-45-25 in the case of the latest aircraft."
Source: Leszek A. Wieliczko's Ki-84 book (ISBN: 83-89088-76-2)

Before replying, remember what you posted about this issue earlier. You posted: "Help me out on this... What is your real position on this? Are you, like nrshida, taking the position that the Ki-84-II is another name for the Ki-84-Ib? Or do you agree with me that the -II was a totally different monster, and that the -Ib matched other potential configurations of the -Ia, but you are discussing more minor differences between these two sub-types?"

3) The -II vs the -I. To steal your line, "The issue is far from being as simple as you depict it." This is the area I feel you and nrshida don't comprehend the complexities of the Japanese naming conventions and the way most of the numbers you're reading were assigned after the fact. The Japanese didn't refer to something as a -I until there was a -II, and that was only after the fact. You would find a Ki-84-Ia would simply be referred to as Ki-84, and Ki-84-Ib (as we call it now) was simply Ki-84B.

I'm well a aware about the naming conventions. I used the western literature Ia/Ib -designations for consistency and clarity because they were used since the start of this thread. Forget the naming conventions and read this once again:

"The partly wooden Ki-84 recieved the Nakajima factory designation of Ki-84-II (Ki-84 Model 2), or "Hayate" KAI; this designation, however, failed to be adopted by the Koku Hombu. The IJAAF continued to call the "wooden" Ki-84-IIs were practically indistinguishable from regular Ki-84s. it is not known how many Ki-84-IIs were produced, as they were counted among the overall number of manufactured Ki-84s. The Ki-84-II was powered by the standard Ha-45-21 engine or improved Ha-45-23, or the most powerful Ha-45-25 in the case of the latest aircraft."
Source: Leszek A. Wieliczko's Ki-84 book (ISBN: 83-89088-76-2)

The Ki-84-II production is buried inside the Ki-84a/b production. The IIs were Ki-84a/bs with various metal components replaced with wooden ones to conserve metal, not "a totally different monster" as you put it. It said the exact same thing in the Francillons profile book you linked to. You just read it wrong a drew faulty conclusions. Nrshida was correct all along, you were wrong. Nothing in that BBS link where Jim Long talks about Ki-84b production refutes the above quote from Wieliczko's book.

[Scotty55OEFVet]

The ki84 is every bit better then a spixteen why do u want a better one?

I agree and im still learning. I have flown the Ki a lot lately and have found that it can bump heads with almost any plane in game. Cant explain it...just love that KI!

[nrshida]

Oh no, actually I find the different sets of naming conventions, and converting between the different sets rather straightforward. All I did was choose primarily one set for comparison, the designations used by Nakajima, the manufacturer.

I think I did say I would be happy to acknowledge I had it wrong if a better synopsis was forthcoming. But again Krusty has not given us his overview of the different sub types.

Although new to studying Ki-84s, I'm not exactly new to academic investigation or study. I really see no scope for confusing the models unless one should choose to deliberately mix-up the issue by making comparisons from the different designation / naming sets. If one were to do that then no doubt confusion could be sustained indefinitely, should one wish to do this.

True the numbers of production of the sub types and dates introduced are rather vague and uncertain and probably always will be by now, given the time that has passed and the esoteric interest in the topic, plus the loss of documents and living witnesses etc, but it isn't really productive or very interesting to dwell on that I think.

Unless of course one were building a case to exclude further sub types from inclusion in Aces High on the grounds that there weren't sufficient numbers produced. That would be a little inconsistent though, since I did understand there were less than 250 chogs produced were there not? And how many Ta-152s? Just as a for instance you understand. I'm happy for the fans of those types that they are present. Besides, I have now concluded that the management of HTC decide for themselves which models to include, and I'm sure the energy put into campaigning by players compared to the success ratio is fairly low. I guess I'll just have to slum it with our current Early Production model Ki-84. How terrible.

Anyway, as entertaining and amusing as all this bickering is, I've concluded it isn't really very productive. I have now obtained a copy of Wieliczko's book, as Wmaker recommended, and I would further recommend reading it, in conjunction with Francillon, to anyone who is interested in actually finding out what model was what and the history of the aircraft. The information is plainly presented for anyone to see. A very good read with great photographs and diagrams. Thanks Wmaker.