Ki-44: Can it turn (or even out-turn) or BnZ with USAAC/USMC/USN fighters?

[1K3]

Most JAAF pilots don't really like the Ki-44 since it lacks the ability to perform "circus acts" like the used to with Ki-43

Now the question... did JAAF turned and BnZ with US fighters?

[HoHun]

Hi 1K3,

>Most JAAF pilots don't really like the Ki-44 since it lacks the ability to perform "circus acts" like the used to with Ki-43

>Now the question... did JAAF turned and BnZ with US fighters?

The Ki-44 has a 1600 HP engine in a 2800 kg airframe. Its top speed is sort of low, but it climbs like mad. Its turn rate might not have been great by Japanese standards, but compared to Western designs, it must have been one of the best.

A P-51 pilot in China commented that the Ki-44 was the only Japanese aircraft that was not out-classed by the Mustang. (On terms of speed, it certainly was, but it tells us about the level of appreciation the Ki-44 received.)

Apparently, the Ki-44 could be dived at high speeds as well.

I'd say that as long as the fight stays below 4 km, the Ki-44 would be a very competent fighter with speed as its only Achilles' heel.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[1K3]

whoa.... you're almost talking about Ki-84...

[HoHun]

Hi 1K3,

>whoa.... you're almost talking about Ki-84...

Well, the Ki-44 was a step towards Ki-84 performance, except for its lower top speed.

Technically, however, the Ki-84 was very close to the Ki-43 in dimensions and layout, while the Ki-44 was the odd one in between which combined a high-powered engine with a much smaller airframe.

The Ki-44 has about the same weight and wing area as the Me 109E, but close to 1600 HP instead of around 1000 HP.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[wastel1]

i just like the J2M2/M3 more..now THATs an airplane :-)

[TexMurphy]

Im not exactly familiar with the Ki44 on how good it was but it like almost all Japanese planes had a great climb rate. This though doesnt make it or other Jap planes great BnZers as their dive characteristics wherent as good as american planes. Im not sure how good the dive of the 44 was but since it was a relativly light plane it wouldnt outdive the american planes. Also while climbing good the light weight really makes zooming bad as zoom is about energy retention much more then anything.

Tex

Edit: Note that "beeing able to dive at high speed" doesnt make it a good diver. If a plane is light it wount accellerate in a dive as well as a heavy plane.

[HoHun]

Hi Tex,

>Im not exactly familiar with the Ki44 on how good it was but it like almost all Japanese planes had a great climb rate.

I figure it actually had the best rate of climb of all Japanese planes :-)

>This though doesnt make it or other Jap planes great BnZers as their dive characteristics wherent as good as american planes.

Unfortunately, there is not much data on the diving capabilities of the Ki-44. What little there is seems to indicate they were good, but that's a rather fragmentary impression.

>Edit: Note that "beeing able to dive at high speed" doesnt make it a good diver. If a plane is light it wount accellerate in a dive as well as a heavy plane.

Generally, that's true, but of course power-to-weight ratio helps in the initial phase of the dive. Likewise, it helps when zooming, and while a heavier aircraft carries more energy at the bottom of the zoom, it also has to spend more of it in the pullout between dive and climb.

Not that I think you're wrong - I'm just trying to explain how the asymmetric performance could create an impression of parity in spite of the differences in design :-)

If the US aircraft chooses to dive and run, I don't think the Ki-44 would be able to keep up, though, provided the US fighter creates some separation before the dive.

(One US fighter that could not match the Ki-44 was the P-40. The AVG actually met early-series, lower-powered Ki-44s over China, feeling they were out-performed badly. To re-gain air superiority, the AVG staged a long-range strike against the enemy base, destroying most Ki-44s on the ground.)

I'd expect the F6F, which is unusually slow for a US design, would have some difficulties against the Ki-44, too. However, the US engine has a better supercharger, so above 5 km the Hellcat would still hold the speed advantage.

The Ki-44 would probably require tactics similar to those that work for the Me 109: Employ the climb rate to stay on top of the fight and attack lower enemies in short dives that don't get too fast or go down too low. You could probably try some aggressive, E-bleeding turns as well, but break off combat as soon as the enemy plunges for the deck.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[TexMurphy]

HoHun

Interesting that you mention the AVG.

What the AVG did in combat, which other US forces didnt do, is to dive away. I remember reading in a quite long article about the AVG that it was the use of this tactic and use of head ons that was one of the keys to their success in the air, ofcourse there where alot of other components to their success as well. They never ever turned with the Japs and all they did was ho and dive.

The early model planes they faced where hugely out gunned by the american planes, hence the use of HO tactics.

But the article doesnt really go into what planes they where up against, still a good read though. http://historynet.com/ahi/bl_flying_tigers/index.html

The AVG used mainly P40Bs (Hawk 81A3, export version of P40B). So the them struggling vs Ki-44 wouldnt come as a supprice. But still the dive ability is there due to the high mass.

And yes you are right that the accelleration of a plane does play part in the initial face of the dive. So diving with enemy tight in on your six is very dangerous but is still the only way out of the situation as you cant out climb or out manouver your enemy.

But if the tactic (for the AVG) was to set up HOs then they would have had the enemy facing away from them when they dove away. But remember this is early war before the Japs introduced cannon planes.

Tex

[Gianlupo]

Originally posted by HoHun

... of course power-to-weight ratio helps in the initial phase of the dive. Likewise, it helps when zooming, ...

I have a couple of stupid questions to make, HoHun, I hope you have the patience to answer.

When you talk about the "power-to-weight ratio", are you talking about the relationship between the thrust developed by the propeller and the weigth of the plane?

If so, shouldn't it be less relevant than inertia (or, better, momentum) in the beginning of a zoom? (btw, by "zoom" I mean a climbing movement); it should become more relevant after the initial climb, am I wrong? And shouldn't it be the same in a dive?

Sorry if I bother you with this and if I said nonsense, but I'm not an engineer or a real life pilot, I just want to understand better the physics of flight.

Thanks for your patience.

[HoHun]

Hi Gianlupo,

>When you talk about the "power-to-weight ratio", are you talking about the relationship between the thrust developed by the propeller and the weigth of the plane?

Actually, I'm talking about the engine power in relation to the weight of the plane. Piston engines yield constant power (approximately), so it's more convenient to consider power instead of thrust, which decreases as speed increases. (For jet engines, thrust is constant and power increases with speed, so there you'd prefer to talk about thrust-to-weight ratio.)

>If so, shouldn't it be less relevant than inertia (or, better, momentum) in the beginning of a zoom? (btw, by "zoom" I mean a climbing movement); it should become more relevant after the initial climb, am I wrong? And shouldn't it be the same in a dive?

Exactly :-) The higher power-to-weight ratio makes the largest diference at the low-speed end of both the dive and the climb, while the mass helps most at high speeds.

There's one additional complication, though, and that is that pulling out of a dive burns more energy for a heavier aircraft than for a light one.

That means the Ki-44 has an advantage at the beginning of the dive, during the pull-out, and at the end of the zoom while the US aircraft is better off in the straight high-speed parts.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Tex,

>The AVG used mainly P40Bs (Hawk 81A3, export version of P40B). So the them struggling vs Ki-44 wouldnt come as a supprice. But still the dive ability is there due to the high mass.

Well, I don't believe any version of the P-40 stood much of a chance against the Ki-44. The problem with diving away from one in a P-40 is not the dive itself, but the superior level speed of the Ki-44 once the dive has been completed.

The AVG faced a special experimental unit combat-testing the first Ki-44 in service. These aircraft didn't reach the level of performance the later Ki-44-II achieved, but still the AVG considered the aircraft a major threat.

Fortunately for the Flying Tigers, there was only a small number of these Ki-44s available, and by a well-planned raid, the AVG managed to wipe out most of them on the ground.

As far as I know, the AVG fought against the following types:  Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-45.

The AVG received the following fighters available: P-40, P-43, CW-21. The P-40 was the predominant type. Only a few P-43s were received, which were preferredly used as top cover for the P-40s since they enjoyed better high-altitude performance due to their turbo-supercharged engines. The P-43s were troubled by leaking tanks, however, and didn't see much combat before being grounded. Of the CW-21, there were only a handful sent, and it seems they all were lost on their ferry flight.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Gianlupo]

Hi HoHun!

Thank you for the answer, it helped me to have a more precise picture of what happens in a vertical manuever.

Just another question, if I may ask

Piston engines yield constant power (approximately), so it's more convenient to consider power instead of thrust, which decreases as speed increases.

What is this decrease in thrust due to? Something that has to do with the propeller?

Thanks again for your patience.

[BSB]

HoHun,

It is great to see this plane discussed as it is my favorite and the one I want to see added to AH the most.  My questions to you are....
1).  The major production version of this fighter was the KI-44 IIb which I have seen to be armed in 3 ways, 4 12.7mm mg, 2  12.7mm mg 2 20mm Ho-5 cannons or 4 20mm Ho-5 cannons.  Do you know which one is correct?

2)  I understand that the KI-44 shoki also had a excellent roll rate do you know what it was?

3) You state that the Shoki's top speed is slow but I have seen it listed as 376 mph is that really slow compared to other AH aircraft below 10,000 ft?

Thanks for any info I have been looking all over the web for information on this aircraft.  I am even going to be ordering a book on it soon.  

BSB

[Karnak]

BSB,

The Ki-44-II-Otsu (Ki-44-IIb) was armed with four Ho-103 12.7mm machine guns.

[BSB]

Karnak,

Thanks for the info Karnak! And the speedy reply.  Would you happen to have any information on my other questions?  Also how does the Ho-103 12.7mm guns compare to our .50 cals?

Thanks for any information.

BSB