Oscar KI43

[Karnak]

N1K2-J?

No, over 400 made is enough to get it out of that category in my opinion.

[2bighorn]

but essentially it was a footnote compared to the service of the previous 2 variants.

1098 Ki-43-IIIa built. That's more than a footnote.

[Debrody]

In AH the majority of the airframes has the most pimped out versions, for example: 109k, 152, p47m, f4u4 and f4u1c, spit16, la7, brewster.
I can see NO point why not add the 20mm version of this lil ride, rising her up from the hangar queen role. More than 1000 was built, more than p47ms, f4u1cs, f4u4s and 152s together (!) so idk whats the point.
In the other hand, the 12mm version can be added too as an EW or a scenario ride. I bet those versions dont require much 3d modification.
BIG +1

[Karnak]

In AH the majority of the airframes has the most pimped out versions, for example: 109k, 152, p47m, f4u4 and f4u1c, spit16, la7, brewster.
I can see NO point why not add the 20mm version of this lil ride, rising her up from the hangar queen role. More than 1000 was built, more than p47ms, f4u1cs, f4u4s and 152s together (!) so idk whats the point.
In the other hand, the 12mm version can be added too as an EW or a scenario ride. I bet those versions dont require much 3d modification.
BIG +1

Erm, the Ki-43-III had two 12.7mm machine guns, just like the Ki-43-II, but it did 360mph instead of 330mph.  The Ki-43-IIIb with two 20mm Ho-5 cannons was not used due to the end of the war.

[Debrody]

Erm, the Ki-43-III had two 12.7mm machine guns, just like the Ki-43-II, but it did 360mph instead of 330mph.  The Ki-43-IIIb with two 20mm Ho-5 cannons was not used due to the end of the war.

Opps   thanks for the correction <S>
360mph is capable, heck, only 25mph slower than my g-6 and turns the crap outta anything.
In the real war it could be a weak aircraft, but in AH, the deck furballs are just for this ride.

[dirtdart]

This was my favorite ride when playing pacific fighters online.  On a side note, I did enjoy the ability to fly whatever skin I came up with in PF. 

[Krusty]

1098 Ki-43-IIIa built. That's more than a footnote.

Where, pray tell, could you have possibly pulled that number?

The one plant that made them made 2600 combined -II and -IIIs, but it was making the -IIs at full speed for 2 years before it made -IIIs for about 6 months or so. I seriously doubt the 2 year span leading up to the 6 months of -III production would only have made the same amount of airframes... Especially considering it was still producing -IIs alongside the -IIIs for those 6 months or so.

[2bighorn]

Where, pray tell, could you have possibly pulled that number?

The one plant that made them made 2600 combined -II and -IIIs, but it was making the -IIs at full speed for 2 years before it made -IIIs for about 6 months or so. I seriously doubt the 2 year span leading up to the 6 months of -III production would only have made the same amount of airframes... Especially considering it was still producing -IIs alongside the -IIIs for those 6 months or so.

Tachikawa Hikoki
production run Mark II, May 1943 - mid 1944 1,531
production run Mark III, mid 1944 - July 1945 1,098 (excludes IIIc prototypes), Tachikawa expands production in 1944 with new plant at Kofu

Source: Carl Molesworth, Jim Winchester and Stewart Wilson
 

[icepac]

Yep.....added another plant who continued production after the original plant switched over to the ki84

[Wmaker]

Bighorn,

Thanks for that production figure and source! In Osprey publication's book Ki-43 vs P-40, Molesworth lists the same production figure.

In Japanese publication called Aero Detail #29 Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar" HAYABUSA the Ki-43-III prodution is said to have been 1727 aircraft from July '44 till end of the war (serials 7001-8727).

Funny, since the plane didn't begin production until December 1944.

I don't know the book you mentioned, but I suspect they got their facts wrong on that one.

EDIT: Although there is some idle speculation that 64th Sentai got a small number of pre-production Ki-43-IIIs at some point to test/trial, I will give you that much. Perhaps that is where the book you listed makes a mistake.

Edit2: Actually, that doesn't explain your book's mistake, since they started getting pre-production prototypes in September.

What I find funny is how it is of course my source that's wrong and yours is of course right. I repeat, your arrogance knows no bounds. The 64th's use of the type is no "idle speculation" when the date in which the planes arrived is listed and and against what types they were used in combat. -III also saw heavy use during the defence of the Philippines.

It is also funny how you pull your "few hundred planes" from a hat and then start pestering bighorn for a source for his figure. Comedy gold.