PDA

View Full Version : Best IJNA and IJAA fighter.



bobbybob23
05-30-2004, 07:25 AM
well speaks for itself best place to visit is here

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/index.html

IJNA - cant make my mind up

IJAA - KI-100

bobbybob23
05-30-2004, 07:25 AM
well speaks for itself best place to visit is here

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/index.html

IJNA - cant make my mind up

IJAA - KI-100

k5054
05-30-2004, 07:55 AM
The site you link to perpetuates the Ki-100 myth, but it's not actually true. The Allies probably never even noticed the Ki-100. If it killed 14 Hellcats on one day without loss, I'd like to know what day and what US unit was involved. Ki-84 was probably the best Army fighter, when it was working. Ki-100 was nothing special, as comparison of its spec with the best 1942 planes will show. It wasn't competitive in 1945 at all. It wasn't better than the 1941 Tojo.

The best navy fighter was probably the George, again when it was working. A6M8 might have been something, but it did not see service. I'd like to see it in a patch, after everything that did see service is in the game.

MrOblongo
05-30-2004, 09:34 AM
In Aces of the Pacific Manual u can read the George could fight 12 allied planes at one and become victorius (that doesnt mean shot down all). But those late war japanesse planes were awesome!!...problem was they could hardly take off with thousands of US planes above...and if they take off the 15 yrs old pilot was not very usefull... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

IJAA : Ki-84 "Frank
IJNA : N1K2-J "George"

The George is the best, 4x20mm + 2x12mm !! and nimble as a zero and sturdy as a Hellcat!

Mr_Nakajima
05-30-2004, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
The Allies probably never even noticed the Ki-100. If it killed 14 Hellcats on one day without loss, I'd like to know what day and what US unit was involved. Ki-84 was probably the best Army fighter, when it was working. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Allies didn't notice the Ki-100 - it does not have a code name assigned to it such as 'Frank'. This alone suggests that its performance was simply not radically different from other Japanese types to stand out.

I agree about the 14 Hellcats incident being a myth. At that late stage in the war, if the USN had suffered such heavy losses it would have made a big impression. I have never found any coroboration from the American side that the incident took place.

The Ki-100 was the best JAAF fighter of the war according to the Japanese themselves. Its combination of a comparatively reliable engine and performance/handling characteristics made it a useful machine, unlike the Ki-44 which was almost universally loathed. Pure performance figures don't tell the whole story, especially if an aircraft was so difficult to fly that novice pilots could not safely handle it.

Shogo_Takeuchi
05-30-2004, 01:05 PM
Hmm, its a very good question.

I think the following:

Best JNAF fighter: The Shiden-Kai (George late version)

Best JAAF fighter: The Ki-100 and the Ki-61 II Kai

(the only two fighters they effectively shot down B-29, Mustangs; Hellcats; Thunderbolts).

But all of these fighters have the same problem they work not realy good a typical japanese end war product http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

You can also read my posts in my Topic " Japanese Aircraft " in OlegÔ┬┤s Ready Room.

There i have write a lot about japanese fighters. you must search the seven sites for what you want http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

here the link:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=730106142&r=544102534#544102534


--------------------------------
Contemplate the workings of this world, listen to the words of wise, and take all that is good as your own. With this as your base, open your own doors to truth. Do not overlook the thuth right before you. Study how water flows in a valley stream, smootly and freely between the rocks...Everything - even mountains, rivers, plants and trees - should be your teacher.

- Morihei Ueshiba -

[This message was edited by Shogo_Takeuchi on Sun May 30 2004 at 12:13 PM.]

Ruy Horta
05-30-2004, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
The site you link to perpetuates the Ki-100 myth, but it's not actually true. The Allies probably never even noticed the Ki-100. If it killed 14 Hellcats on one day without loss, I'd like to know what day and what US unit was involved. Ki-84 was probably the best Army fighter, when it was working. Ki-100 was nothing special, as comparison of its spec with the best 1942 planes will show. It wasn't competitive in 1945 at all. It wasn't better than the 1941 Tojo.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got a nice piece of color guncam footage of a Ki 100 getting shot, have to say that for the amount of hits its not as fire prone as the Zero or Hayabusa.

Ruy Horta

[This message was edited by rhorta on Sun May 30 2004 at 02:34 PM.]

Ruy Horta
05-30-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrOblongo:
In Aces of the Pacific Manual u can read the George could fight 12 allied planes at one and become victorius (that doesnt mean shot down all).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Genda's Blade is indicative of the qualities of the Shiden-Kai than this a/c was at best an equal to the F4U and F6F, but not superior. To be honest since reading what is essentially the definitive study of this unit, by basically a Japanese team of historians, I've been disappointed.

- The 343rd Air Group hardly deserves the "elite" tag
- a large part of its pilots were either regular or green
- it suffered badly even under relatively equal circumstances

To top it off, it looks like Genda's Blade is 75% myth and only 25% fact, unfortunately much of the Shiden-Kai history is tied up with this single unit.

Ruy Horta

Giganoni
05-30-2004, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhorta:

If Genda's Blade is indicative of the qualities of the Shiden-Kai than this a/c was at best an equal to the F4U and F6F, but not superior. To be honest since reading what is essentially the definitive study of this unit, by basically a Japanese team of historians, I've been disappointed.

- The 343rd Air Group hardly deserves the "elite" tag
- a large part of its pilots were either regular or green
- it suffered badly even under relatively equal circumstances

To top it off, it looks like Genda's Blade is 75% myth and only 25% fact, unfortunately much of the Shiden-Kai history is tied up with this single unit.

Ruy Horta<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats interesting, because the book Genda's Blade is by an American amature historian and helped by a Japanese man who worked in the textile business for fourty years. That does not seem to me to be by Japanese historians. Also you fail to mention that most of their engagements the 343rd Kokutai was hardly flying at full strength on their missions.

The Shiden kai had notorious mechanical trouble and many times 3 or 4 pilots to a flight had to turn back due to mechanical problems. One example from the book is on page 82 when the 343rd on April 16 1945 was to launch 40 fighters (an impressive amount so late in the war) 4 didn't even take off due to mechanical problems and then during flight three more aborted. That's 7 fighters taken out of action even before battle.

Also this unit rarely got to fight on equal terms, most of the time it was outnumbered.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

RAC_Pips
05-30-2004, 07:04 PM
The Ki-100 Type 5 has often been touted in books as the best of IJA fighters, but without any reason as to why.

The answer can be found in Richard M Bueschel's series of books on Japanese aircraft, published by Schiffer.

In his book on the Ki-100 he too gives it the label of best 'LATE' war IJA fighter. There are several reasons namely:

a) it was very easy to fly and land, with gentle stall characteristics - so was ideal for new pilots.

b) it had an excellent climb rate for a Japanese fighter - 3280ft/min

c) although slightly slower than the Ki-61 (and much more so than the Ki-84) it was over 700lb lighter than the Ki-61 and 800lb lighter than the Ki-84. This resulted in better climb, higher ceiling much better manoeuverability.

d) once coupled with the Mitsubishi HA.112-II water methanol injected radial engine it proved to be a very reliable aircraft. And with water methanol it had a boosted speed of 395mph at 26,700ft.

e) it's improved high level performance made it the best of the available IJA fighters for B-29 interception.

Bueschell goes on to say that of the above, two points clinch the Ki-100's position as the best ie most effective. The first was the superior relaibility offered by the Mitsubishi Ha.12-II engine. Here the Ki-84 was let down badly. The second key point is that the Ki-100 had better high performance compared to the Ki-84, which made it the preferred fighter interceptor of the B-29. And that alone made it the best fighter in Japanese eyes, for the B-29 was hated with a passion by all Japanese.

The reason why the Ki-100 wasn't allocated a name by American Intelligence was simply due to the fact that it was not erecognised as a new fighter, only being available in very samll numbers. After all less than 400 were produced.

As a balance though it should be mentioned that in Bueschel's book on the Ki-84 he rates that aircraft as perhaps the best 'all round' fighter, given that it's speed and rate of climb made it more of a match at all altitudes against US and USN fighters.

The late war IJNAf fighters that saw service, namely the J2M Raiden, the N1K1-J Shiden and the N1K2-J Shiden Kai were all of a simliar design concept ie interceptor, and had simliar performance. All were supposed to be well armoured, fast, with heavy cannon.

Conceptually the J2M was the best, being the best armoured, with the best climb rate and high altitude performance. But it's unreliable engine let it down. And drastically affected it's introduction to operational service. The N1Ki-J was good, but it also had engine, airframe and visibility issues.

With the N1K2-J most of these issues were fixed and the Shiden-Kai performed well, although the engine did give trouble until the end. Still it was more reliable than the other two, and far superior to the poor A6M5/6 versions of the Zero.

SkyChimp
05-30-2004, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If Genda's Blade is indicative of the qualities of the Shiden-Kai than this a/c was at best an equal to the F4U and F6F, but not superior. To be honest since reading what is essentially the definitive study of this unit, by basically a Japanese team of historians, I've been disappointed.

- The 343rd Air Group hardly deserves the "elite" tag
- a large part of its pilots were either regular or green
- it suffered badly even under relatively equal circumstances

To top it off, it looks like Genda's Blade is 75% myth and only 25% fact, unfortunately much of the Shiden-Kai history is tied up with this single unit.

Ruy Horta<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree, that's why I never bought this book. It's got some great pictures, though.

Classic hasn't come up with a winner in a long time. There last book on the Mustang was horrid.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/dauntless.jpg

SkyChimp
05-30-2004, 07:16 PM
I'd rate the J2M as the best Naval fighter. Outstanding rate of climb, good high-altitude performance, good armament, good in a dive. But IIRC, no example examined by the US had any armor at all.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/dauntless.jpg

Giganoni
05-30-2004, 08:53 PM
The J2M2 or J2M3? Because they J2M3 was the four cannon version. It is the best Naval fighter though? J2M4 was to be fitted with upward firing cannon to remedy its problem with operating against high flying B-29s (but never really produced). Luckily the B-29s in the day time were not always up at 32,000ft. So that calls into question whether its high altitude performance was really "stellar". I have seen in a couple of my sources mention the structural strength of the J2M3, mainly the wings in order to hold the 4 cannon (2 fully in the wings). So that MAY make it harder to down but my sources will either say it had armor and self seal fuel tanks or they don't mention anything (not even that it had no armor or self sealing fuel tanks). Still, I say the shiden kai comes out on top because it did not have a tendency to, oh..disengrate in mid air. Jacks tended to do that due to violent engine vibrations.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Ruy Horta
05-31-2004, 01:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhorta:

If Genda's Blade is indicative of the qualities of the Shiden-Kai than this a/c was at best an equal to the F4U and F6F, but not superior. To be honest since reading what is essentially the definitive study of this unit, by basically a Japanese team of historians, I've been disappointed.

- The 343rd Air Group hardly deserves the "elite" tag
- a large part of its pilots were either regular or green
- it suffered badly even under relatively equal circumstances

To top it off, it looks like Genda's Blade is 75% myth and only 25% fact, unfortunately much of the Shiden-Kai history is tied up with this single unit.

Ruy Horta<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats interesting, because the book _Genda's Blade_ is by an American amature historian <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who happens to be of Japanese descent, not the recipe for a "biased" American. Now to say the two are basically amateur is to downplay the role of "amateurs" in the field of historical writing / research. You might as well throw away 90% of your titles here...

Both writers have had experience in the field of WW2 research / writing so we are not talking greenhorns here.

If the story they tell is not to your liking its because they have tried to fit limited Japanese sources to American ones. Although most of the Japanese side is annecdotal, the American side is fairly well documented.

In some cases this will lead to a reassesment of the fighting value of this elite unit and its a/c. In the end the book does put things into a better perspective and unfortunately there are simply not enough Japanese records to do any better.

But I agree with Skychimp, its not a great book, otoh its worth a purchase if you are interested in the subject.

My main criticism is the lack of technical reference. At least more attention could have been given to the technical development of the Shiden, from its earliest start to its final derivative. An opportunity lost and a serious failure on the part of the authors, IMHO.

Ruy Horta

[This message was edited by rhorta on Mon May 31 2004 at 03:02 AM.]

Ruy Horta
05-31-2004, 02:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAC_Pips:
The answer can be found in Richard M Bueschel's series of books on Japanese aircraft, published by Schiffer.

b) it had an excellent climb rate for a Japanese fighter - 3280ft/min

c) although slightly slower than the Ki-61 (and much more so than the Ki-84) it was over 700lb lighter than the Ki-61 and 800lb lighter than the Ki-84. This resulted in better climb, higher ceiling much better manoeuverability.

d) once coupled with the Mitsubishi HA.112-II water methanol injected radial engine it proved to be a very reliable aircraft. And with water methanol it had a boosted speed of 395mph at 26,700ft.

e) it's improved high level performance made it the best of the available IJA fighters for B-29 interception.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source Koku Fan / Bunrindo, cut and paste from earlier post on the subject:

Ki 100 I (174.8kg/m2)

speed in kph @ alt. meter

500/1000
520/2000
539/3000
543/3210
536/4000 (2nd gear supercharger?)
551/5000
575/6000
578/6140 (top speed)
568/7000
556/8000
542/9000
527/10000

time to height in min./meter

1000/1'12"
2000/2'13"
3000/3'08"
4000/4'29"
5000/6'00"
6000/7'26"
7000/8'56"
8000/10'47"
10000/20'00"

Ki 100 II (183.5kg/m2)

speed in kph @ alt. meter

500/1000
560/5000
570/6000
585/8000
565/10000

time to height in min./meter

5000/6'40"
8000/11'30"
10000/18'00"

The Ki 100 II would be at a disadvantage compared to the Ki 100 I below 6000m, only above that altitude will its performance pick up. A real high altitude fighter, not an ideal one for the AEP engine and MP gameplay.

Now compare these figures with two other types, genuine interceptors.

J2M2 (164.4kg/m2)
596/5450
5000/4'30"

J2M3 (171.3kg/m2)
596/5450
6000/5'38"

Ki 44 II Koh (184kg/m2)
605/5200
5000/4'15"

Ki 44 II Otsu (184kg/m2)
605/5200
5000/4'26"

Ki 84 I Koh (172kg/m2 *)
624/6000
5000/5'54"

Below 6000m these birds are top dog, and it even appears that their wingloading isn't that bad compared to the Ki 100.

Besides, it appears that much of the B-29 work was not done from high altitude at all, but at high medium altidudes, negating the Type 5's superior high alt. performance even more.

Between the Army's Type 2, 3, 4 and 5 there were plenty of pros and cons, but I do not think that in practice the Type 5 was an Ueberplane.

Was it good, probably, since it certainly was able to take a licking that other Japanese types could not. Its predessor already proofed to be a good a/c (apart from technical difficulties with the engine).

Ruy Horta

05-31-2004, 04:48 AM
When historians, and school children,and others who may for any reason study WW2 history, even 100 years from now, look back on the World War 2 era, in the Pacific region.

The classic A6M2 Zero will hit them right between the eyes, it may not have been the best Naval fighter over the entire span of the Pacific War, but the A6M2 will stand the test of time when ever anybody refers to WW2 Pacific thearte history.

It is the classic Icon.

Giganoni
05-31-2004, 05:39 AM
I am simply contesting your quote here,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhorta:

To be honest since reading what is essentially the definitive study of this unit, by basically a Japanese team of historians, I've been disappointed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously this is a false statement as I have stated earlier. I am also contesting your points about the 343rd Kokutai

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhorta:

- The 343rd Air Group hardly deserves the "elite" tag
- a large part of its pilots were either regular or green
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does it not deserve the elite tag? Because most of its pilots were green or regular. Okay, if we are to believe Genda's Blade maybe 30-40 of the 120 pilots were veterans. So because of that they are not an elite unit? I wonder how many Japanese squadrons that were formed post December 1944 had 30-40 veteran pilots. Could the IJN have practically formed a more elite unit 8 months before surrender? I suppose if they wanted to drain every kokutai of officers and people who had good experience then yes, perhaps they could have scrounged up 120 veteran navy pilots. Compared to the pilots fighting in the rest of IJN Kokutais the 343rd is looking pretty elite to me.

As to the authors, yes Henry Sakaida is not a professional historian and yes I look at his work more skeptically than I do those written by people who have degrees. However, I do not consider his work worthless, and I disagree that it is not a good book. It is a book that includes something many historians would not.

You see, a historian's job is to work mostly with primary and secondary written sources. I was amazed to find out that many historians do not even look at anything else. Sakaida includes pilot interviews. Are they the most reliable type of source? No, of course not, but they capture other things a statistic cannot. They can capture emotion, they tell how those pilots fought and how their friends die. You can learn a lot from the mentality of the pilots, see how they saw their situation.

No, they probably wont accurately tell you how well a Shiden-kai performed, or how many planes were destroyed on a certain day exactly, but they probably give instead something more important. There are still things in the book that I find very annoying, but the pilot interviews are a necessary part in understanding the whole concept of fighting for or against the 343rd Kokutai.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Ruy Horta
05-31-2004, 07:40 AM
Giganoni, you are contradicting yourself in your latest post on several issues. However I will answer a couple of points.

You may or may not contest my description of the writing team, but I wrote: "by basically a Japanese team of historians". I considered an American of Japanese descent as basically Japanese and their status as amateurs with previous record of publications sufficient to earn the title: historian. I will not start a debate on true Historians (with a degree) vs amateur ones... but this touches the part where you contradict yourself within the space of two posts.

Also I did not say that Genda's Blade, IMHO, fails wrt not representing how the a/c flew / performed, but by its lack of what could have been a technical history as well. To learn about the men AND the machine. The attention given to the Shiden itself is relatively superficial. I found the book sufficient to warrent a purchase, interesting in a number of areas and disappointing in others. From a human pov it is like I wrote a decisive work on the 343rd.

IMHO the authors show us that the 343rd was set up as an elite unit, using TEAM tactics (this single issue would be the decisive variable), but in practice this was only partially realized and the losses were terrible, its claims overrated.

IMHO the impact of the Shiden-Kai was more mythical than real, especially the Muto story.

Ruy Horta

RAC_Pips
05-31-2004, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhorta:
You may or may not contest my description of the writing team, but I wrote: "by basically a Japanese team of historians". I considered an American of Japanese descent as basically Japanese and their status as amateurs with previous record of publications sufficient to earn the title: historian. I will not start a debate on true Historians (with a degree) vs amateur ones... Ruy Horta<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most unfair.

An amateur is one who cultivates a study or other activity for enjoyment and not professional gain. Henry most assuredly works for gain - he's just fortunate that he is also doing what he loves. I'm sure that most of us wish the same.

As far as term historian goes the definition is simply 'a writer of history'. There is no qualification, implied or otherwise, of the need for a degree to be so called.

Henry is a most credible air historian fully deserving of that title He has been at it for a number of years and has an impressive lists of books to his credit. His work is as good as most in the field.

If you don't like his work.... that's fine. There is some of his work that I too am not impressed by. But stick to a critique of his work; not an attack on the man.

SkyChimp
05-31-2004, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
The J2M2 or J2M3? Because they J2M3 was the four cannon version. It is the best Naval fighter though? J2M4 was to be fitted with upward firing cannon to remedy its problem with operating against high flying B-29s (but never really produced). Luckily the B-29s in the day time were not always up at 32,000ft. So that calls into question whether its high altitude performance was really "stellar". I have seen in a couple of my sources mention the structural strength of the J2M3, mainly the wings in order to hold the 4 cannon (2 fully in the wings). So that MAY make it harder to down but my sources will either say it had armor and self seal fuel tanks or they don't mention anything (not even that it had no armor or self sealing fuel tanks). Still, I say the shiden kai comes out on top because it did not have a tendency to, oh..disengrate in mid air. Jacks tended to do that due to violent engine vibrations.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I didn't say it had "'stellar'" high-altitude performance. I said it had good high-altitude performance.

And apparently none of the captured examples examined by the US had any armor whatsoever (except a piece of bullet-proof glass).

The TAIC manual shows no pilot armor, no oil tank armor, no protected fuel tanks.

Apparently few, if any, late-war Japanese fighters actually had the armor legend attributes to them.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/dauntless.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Mon May 31 2004 at 08:09 AM.]

Ruy Horta
05-31-2004, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAC_Pips:
Henry is a most credible air historian fully deserving of that title He has been at it for a number of years and has an impressive lists of books to his credit. His work is as good as most in the field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please back track, I did qualify the man as an HISTORIAN. I simply wrote that I do not wish to start an argument about historians in a broad sense, and the narrow academic meaning.

See my posts of 30 May, 11:33 PM and 31 May, 09:45 AM

Ruy Horta

ElAurens
05-31-2004, 11:27 AM
I do find it interesting that the aircraft that was by far the farthest from the Japanese norm, the Ki 61, turned out to be their best overall machine. It was relatively heavy (for a Japanese machine), had an inline engine, and placed (for it's time of introduction) a premium on speed. It was a very capable airframe only let down by it's unreliable engine. but when it worked properly, as it will in this sim, it was a formidable opponent. It was superior to all the early USN/USAAF types, and competitve until the end.

As to why the Ki 100 has no codename. My copy of "Japanese Aircraft Code Names & Designations" by Robert C. Mikesh and published by Schiffer, (you all should have this one) states in Chapter III,"Non code Named Japanese Aircraft" :

"Kawasaki Army Type 5 Fighter (Ki-100). Although frequently(emphasis mine,EL) met in combat toward the end of the war, it is surprising that this Ki-100 was not given a code name. Although this is a radial-engine version of the Ki-61 Tony, it was never identified in recognition manuals as a derivative if the same aircraft having the same name."

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

sugaki
05-31-2004, 12:37 PM
For all the hubub against the Ki-100 and N1K1, there hasn't been a single piece of info in this thread or others that debunks the "myth" that they were good fighters.

Best IJAAF fighter is the Ki-100 IMO. Some Japanese pilots who flew both birds preferred the Ki-100.

I'm not particularly fond of Henry Sakaida's books, but simply putting him down saying "his books suck" doesn't make a very compelling argument.

And like all other threads, there's always this zeal to make out (especially) Japanese planes as overhypped planes. Worthless threads. As though any smattering of morsels of information you can give will provide convincing evidence to "turn people to the truth"?

Giganoni
05-31-2004, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhorta:
Giganoni, you are contradicting yourself in your latest post on several issues. However I will answer a couple of points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh? Several issues? Please do tell,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


I will not start a debate on true Historians (with a degree) vs amateur ones... but this touches the part where you contradict yourself within the space of two posts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh so I bash the authors my first post..and then praise them the next? Lets see what I typed

"Thats interesting, because the book Genda's Blade is by an American amature historian and helped by a Japanese man who worked in the textile business for fourty years. That does not seem to me to be by Japanese historians."

My Second Post

"As to the authors, yes Henry Sakaida is not a professional historian and yes I look at his work more skeptically than I do those written by people who have degrees. However, I do not consider his work worthless, and I disagree that it is not a good book. It is a book that includes something many historians would not."

I then go on to praise Sakaida for using Japanese and American Pilot interviews with what written sources he has. I don't see a contradiction, I never criticize the authors in the first post. All it does is refute your statement about the authors being JAPANESE historians (I'm sorry but just because Sakaida is of Japanese decent, when he was born in America, his father born in America I don't consider him "basically Japanese").


I really don't know why you don't consider the 343rd kokutai an elite unit though. Formed 8 months before the cease fire it is obvious they gave as many good pilots as practically possible to the unit and gave them the best a/c the IJN had (Although Skychimp would say otherwise http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) Japan's situation in late 44 early 45 basically ensured that the 343rd would take heavy losses and be consistently outnumbered. In comparison to other IJN Kokutais it is obvious that the 343rd were an elite unit.


Skychimp, no you did not say stellar and I apologize, but which J2M is the best? the J2M2 or J2M3, because the J2M3 had a worse performance than the J2M2. In speed and climb rate.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Ruy Horta
05-31-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
I'm not particularly fond of Henry Sakaida's books, but simply putting him down saying "his books suck" doesn't make a very compelling argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please point where it is written that Henry Sakaida's book or work sucks.

Also, in case you back track some of my post on this matter, plenty of threads we posted together, there is no intent to lessen the reputation of Japanese types where it is deserved.

HOWEVER, between hard figures and good (albeit annecdotal or other) evidence and unsubstanciated, or in certain cases simply refuted, claims lies a big gap.

I honestly do believe that the Type 2, 3, 4 and 5 were excellent a/c. I also believe that the A6M, J2M and N1K2 were good a/c. All were at least to some extent, equal to allied types during their operational life time.

OTOH Type 5 and N1K2-KAI seem to have attracted some fame of mythical proportions, while the J2M and Ki-44 are somewhat forgotten performers.

Point is that we miss a lot of quantitative material when it comes to Japanese a/c and units.

In this case I was hoping to find the 343rd AG. reputation supported by "Genda's Blade", however IMHO it was not, on the contrary, my current view is to a certain extend founded upon its writing.

It would be interesting to compare 343rd AG figures with other Japanese fighter units flying relatively modern types during the last year of the war.

Ruy Horta

k5054
05-31-2004, 04:25 PM
"For all the hubub against the Ki-100 and N1K1, there hasn't been a single piece of info in this thread or others that debunks the "myth" that they were good fighters."

With all due respect, surely the onus is on those who make the claims to justify them. With Ki-100 I can see an aircraft which does not break 600kmh, at any altitude. This is not competitive in 1945. The climb rate is around Spitfire 1/109E, the speed is 109F (or a little less), 190A-3 beats it in every way. If the numbers are showing inferiority, somebody has to show what disproves what the numbers say if they hope to make claims for the aircraft.
I don't care how easy to land it was, it's 100+kph off the pace to fight P-51D or P-47N. Even the performance of the turbo version is not enough to beat a Spit 9.
At least N1K1-J has some evidence to say the commonly quoted 362 mph top speed is too slow, and a big enough engine to make you think 400 or so would look more likely, but Ki-100 is a 1942 fighter in performance trying to live in a 1945 world.

SkyChimp
05-31-2004, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:

Skychimp, no you did not say stellar and I apologize, but which J2M is the best? the J2M2 or J2M3, because the J2M3 had a worse performance than the J2M2. In speed and climb rate.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's not a whole lot to choose from between the J2M2 and the J2M3. The 3 had slightly less performance in exchange for better armament. Given that fact, I'd say the 3 was the better fighter. Certainly better for bomber interception.

I think that most published performance numbers, like in Francillon and Mushroom's Mits J2M Raiden show performance at military power. IIRC, the TAIC manual gives an inital climb rate for the J2M3 of 4,500fpm and a top speed of around 400mph. That's at combat power. But I can't find my copy and I'm going off memory.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/dauntless.jpg

RAC_Pips
05-31-2004, 04:57 PM
K5054

The thread topic calls for a discussion of the 'best IJN and IJA fighters'. So it has to be viewed in that light namely how Japanese fighters compare performance wise to 'each other', not the enemy.

For their really was no comparison between late war Japanese aircraft and that of the US. Some new models had the potential to hold their own, perhaps even be superior to that of the enemy. But poor production quality, delays, lack of engine performance etc nobbled them.

Performance is relative. The achilles heel of the Japanese aviation industry was it's lack of powerful engines. It plagued the Japanese throughout the war. And was never solved.

Consequently they always fought at a massive disadvantage from around early '43 onwards.

Giganoni
05-31-2004, 05:09 PM
I don't think many would dispute that the Ki-100's performance was not wholy spectacular compared to other 45 planes. However, we've all been saying that many Japanese pilots considered it the finest fighter the IJAAF had. They were more interested in it working correctly and that they could use it easily rather than it being slower or not climbing as well as the opposition. With other planes you always had to worry in a DF that your engine could suddenly bust and your dead meat. With the Ki-100 they didn't have to worry about that.

I don't know why we are talking about the Ki-100 II though, only three prototypes were made. However, Army planes used the type 2 Ho-5 20 mm cannon, and the navy used the type 99. I thought I read somewhere that the navy one was inferior? Is that true?

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

NegativeGee
05-31-2004, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:

I don't know why we are talking about the Ki-100 II though, only three prototypes were made. However, Army planes used the type 2 Ho-5 20 mm cannon, and the navy used the type 99. I thought I read somewhere that the navy one was inferior? Is that true?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Army weapon had a much better rate of fire and a greater muzzle velocity.

Both weapons are covered on this page:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - G├╝nther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Ruy Horta
06-01-2004, 02:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I think that most published performance numbers, like in Francillon and Mushroom's _Mits J2M Raiden_ show performance at military power. IIRC, the TAIC manual gives an inital climb rate for the J2M3 of 4,500fpm and a top speed of around 400mph. That's at combat power. But I can't find my copy and I'm going off memory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAIC Manual as printed in bookform
J2M2

350mph @ SL
407mph @ 17.400ft

Take Off 1870hp @ SL

Normal 1370hp @ 9.850ft

Military 1580 @ SL
Military 1560 @ 17.900ft

WEP 1940 @ 4.400ft (plus methanol? RH)

Only mention of armor is bullet proof windshield.

From report I once found on the Net, also TAIC

V-Max 402mph @ 20.500ft
WEP 407mph @ 17.400ft

V-Max 330mph @ SL
WEP 350mph @ SL

Take Off 1875hp @ SL

Normal 1370hp @ 9.850ft
Normal 1270hp @ 20.400ft

Military 1695hp @ 6.900ft
Military 1560hp @ 17.900ft

estimated
WEP 1940hp @ 4.000ft
WEP 1765hp @ 14.800ft

No armor or fuel-protection is provided on either model J2M1 or 2.

The TAIC doc. comes with a nice graph giving Rate of Climb, Time to Altitude and Speed vs Altitude data, for normal and overload condition, both at MP and WEP.]

The Jack and Shiden mod. 11 sheets might be helpfull when creating their FM?

These original TAIC datasheets are great, more detailed than those which were printed in the book. It is a shame I only have the J2M Mod. 11 and N1K1-J in complete form, the Ki-84 doc is partly based on estimates, but it has the same figures that appeared in the TAIC book (again with graphs.

Ruy Horta

Giganoni
06-01-2004, 03:31 AM
Sometimes you have to wonder though where the TAIC got their planes. In the instance of the J2M, they used an abandoned one near Manila. It had to be disassembled and repaired then they tested it at Clark Field. Did the Japanese manage to strip it of all useful components and armaments? Maybe, maybe not. Did they test it with a better quality aviation fuel than what the Japanese had? History of the tested plane itself must be examined before any generalizations of the other planes can avoid skepticism.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Ruy Horta
06-01-2004, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
History of the tested plane itself must be examined before any generalizations of the other planes can avoid skepticism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree fully, however, the norm is that captured a/c are relatively "war weary". Although it is by now a known fact that Japanese engine performance did benefit from good quality US fuel (although this is less a case of octane and more one of purity). It reflects poorly on Japanese manufacture and conditions if Japanese types were only giving their best AFTER capture.

OTOH, you'd like to hear that the Shiden Mod.11 is even faster according to the TAIC.

WEP 416mph @ 19.000ft

Although this is at a reduced fuel load (582 lb vs 1116 lb ), under interceptor condition. The initial climb (as interceptor) is almost as good as the J2M, but it drops off faster. But at SL the Mod.11 is feisty. Shame that I do not have similar TAIC reports on the Shiden-Kai.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

sugaki
06-01-2004, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>HOWEVER, between hard figures and good (albeit annecdotal or other) evidence and unsubstanciated, or in certain cases simply refuted, claims lies a big gap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"With the Ki-100 we're unstoppable" - Teruhiko Kobayashi, Lieutenant, head of 244 Sentai, May 1945 upon switching from the Ki-61.

Other pilot quotes:

"Better to be supplied with 1 Goshikisen than 3 Hayate"

The 111 Sentai and 5 Sentai's 8 Goshikisen encountered 22 Hellcats in May '45, shooting down all twenty two without a single loss.

Propaganda? Maybe. But there's something to be said for a plane that garnered more respect than a Hayate (and not simply cus' it had a more reliable Kinsei engine).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With Ki-100 I can see an aircraft which does not break 600kmh, at any altitude. This is not competitive in 1945.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hellcats and Corsairs don't cruise at 600 km (F6F-5 cruises at under 300kph), nor do they hit their max speed after 5 seconds of flying from cruising speed. Simply having a higher top speed doesn't make an airplane superior. It's more complicated than that. Not to mention different peformance at different altitudes, acceleration.

-Aki

Giganoni
06-01-2004, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:


The 111 Sentai and 5 Sentai's 8 Goshikisen encountered 22 Hellcats in May '45, shooting down all twenty two without a single loss.

Propaganda? Maybe. But there's something to be said for a plane that garnered more respect than a Hayate (and not simply cus' it had a more reliable Kinsei engine).



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obvious propoganda, the 111th Sentai did not even exist until July 1945. Before then it was the Kyodo Hikotai of the Akeno Kyodo Hiko Shidan. All of this is according to Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units and Their Aces by Izawa Yashuho and Hata Ikuhiko.

The only battle honor they list for the 111th sentai is on July 16th where 24 Ki100s fought over 12 P-51s claimed 6, with five probable for a loss of five Ki-100s and three pilots. Not bad losses for a "1942" plane.

The closest instance they record of the Ki-100s dominating the Hellcat is from the 244th Sentai. On the 25th of July 18 Ki-100s claim 12 f6fs for the loss of two (two pilots wounded or killed, or maybe just two aircraft)

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

k5054
06-02-2004, 05:22 AM
"
Describes the mood or content of the topic posted 01-06-04 11:32 Tue June 01 2004 11:32 AM
quote:HOWEVER, between hard figures and good (albeit annecdotal or other) evidence and unsubstanciated, or in certain cases simply refuted, claims lies a big gap.

"With the Ki-100 we're unstoppable" - Teruhiko Kobayashi, Lieutenant, head of 244 Sentai, May 1945 upon switching from the Ki-61.

Other pilot quotes:

"Better to be supplied with 1 Goshikisen than 3 Hayate"

The 111 Sentai and 5 Sentai's 8 Goshikisen encountered 22 Hellcats in May '45, shooting down all twenty two without a single loss.

Propaganda? Maybe. But there's something to be said for a plane that garnered more respect than a Hayate (and not simply cus' it had a more reliable Kinsei engine).

quote:With Ki-100 I can see an aircraft which does not break 600kmh, at any altitude. This is not competitive in 1945.

Hellcats and Corsairs don't cruise at 600 km (F6F-5 cruises at under 300kph), nor do they hit their max speed after 5 seconds of flying from cruising speed. Simply having a higher top speed doesn't make an airplane superior. It's more complicated than that. Not to mention different peformance at different altitudes, acceleration.
"

Sorry, top speed IS the major factor, given adequacy in other areas. If you have better top speed there's always better acceleration and climb at speed a little less than max. You can always get away, or get into a better position for attack. My theory is that for individual aircraft, it's largely the pilot, for small units, the leader and for fighter forces, it's top speed.
In the vast majority of cases the force with the faster fighters would dominate the battle (in WW1 or 2). There's an exception in the case of Finland vs USSR, because all other things were not equal, soviet tactics were stupid.
Fast fighters keep your young pilots alive to learn the trade. Slow fighters don't. That's why the IJ forces, and the Luftwaffe, lost the fighter war. When your new guys stay alive, you have longer to train the replacements, they don't need to be rushed to the front, a virtuous circle.
***this will of course not be the case in the virtual world of PF, but it was in real life.***


If anyone wants to embellish the reputation of late-war IJ fighters by claiming a dozen mustangs here, 22 hellcats there, they really ought to try to find some kind of corroboration from US records, because these claims have the odour of pure BS.

ElAurens
06-02-2004, 05:46 AM
The US Navy test report of a captured Ki 61 states that it was "neat and convenient" and "pleasant to fly".

And here we have the crux of the matter. The Ki 61, and by extension the Ki 100 development of it, were good flying aeroplanes. They had levels of performance that made them competitve and that were acheived easily by their pilots. These are traits that every designer of combat aircraft the world over strives to achieve. Maximum performance from the aircraft with minimum stress on the pilot.
Certainly most American designs strove for these same goals. This is why the Japanese consider them their best.

They are not saying that these were not their best because the F6F or P51 were "better". They are saying that these were their best aircraft from their perspective.

Not hard to understand is it?

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Mr_Nakajima
06-02-2004, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
The closest instance they record of the Ki-100s dominating the Hellcat is from the 244th Sentai. On the 25th of July 18 Ki-100s claim 12 f6fs for the loss of two (two pilots wounded or killed, or maybe just two aircraft)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Claimed seems to be the right word - the incident is mentioned in 'Japanese Army Air Force Aces 1937-1945' by Henty Sakaida, ISBN 1-85532-529-2, and both sides overclaimed heavily. The 244th claimed 12 for the loss of 2, VF-31 claimed 8 and 3 probables for the loss of 2.

The 244th lost two pilots, Capt Tsutae Obara (an 8 kill ace) in a collision with an F6F and WO Shin Ikuta.

sugaki
06-02-2004, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sorry, top speed IS the major factor, given adequacy in other areas. ...Fast fighters keep your young pilots alive to learn the trade. Slow fighters don't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't say it isn't a big factor, but far too often on this board people have this ridiculously simplistic formula of higher top speed = better fighter. By that account a C6N Saiun would be a better fighter than most IJN fighters.

Call the accounts phony propaganda, but either way the Ki-100 fought at the very least on par with US aircraft, as did the N1K1--there aren't any records of wholesale slaughter, nor one-sided conflicts.

For instances where we do have both US and Japanese accounts, both sides are overinflated, so don't think that US accounts are instrinsically more accurate. And in comparing corraborative numbers between F6F and Ki-100/N1K1 conflicts, the losses for both sides usually end up pretty even.

Had the IJAAF converted the Ki-61s to Ki-100s much earlier, say in '43, I think there would've been a lot more to appreciate about the plane--with only 400 fighters, it didn't have a chance to prove itself, especially on paper.

I agree that higher top speed = better survivability though. Higher top speed means you dictate the terms of the engagement. However, that more heavily impacted attrition for the A6M Zero, which was outclassed by the F6F and F4U.

-Aki

csThor
06-02-2004, 11:47 AM
Semi-OT:

Ruy you might have to look at the scope of "Genda's Blade" as well as its siblings from "Jagdwaffe" series. These aren't technical books, but concentrate on units, environment and pilots - short the atmosphere. I have quite a few of "Jagdwaffe" series and I like them the way they are (although I'd appreciate a bit more appendix detail as a detailed OOB with units, planetype, bases etc). I would not expect a technical book when the whole series seems to concentrate on other parts of the picture (did I mention I find those tech books mostly dry as the Jundland Waste on Tattooine? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

k5054
06-02-2004, 12:07 PM
Aki, clearly we are not disagreeing here, I am quite willing to concede that the Ki-100 was the best IJAAF fighter if the guys who flew it say it was, even if Ki-84 is better on paper. I just disagree with the books which support the myth of the hellcat-and-mustang killer. I still support the Ki-44 as possibly the most up-to-date of Japanese fighters at the time it came out, but it was NOT popular with most of the Ki-43 pilots. It seems to me that the supreme importance of speed was not recognised by the IJ forces, and this has its basis in a romantic (by western standards) view of air combat as a manly struggle equivalent to a sword fight.

jpatrick62
06-02-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAC_Pips:
K5054


For their really was no comparison between late war Japanese aircraft and that of the US. Some new models had the potential to hold their own, perhaps even be superior to that of the enemy. Consequently they always fought at a massive disadvantage from around early '43 onwards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God points - for all the talk of the N1K1 and Ki-100 fighters a simple look at their perfomance numbers should give some pause. Neither of these fighters could reach the same top speed as an early model F4U-1A. neiher could they roll with it. By WW2, energy fighting was in and low speed turn and burn was out. Whoever held the altitude and energy advantage usually could dictate the terms of the fight. The Americans learned this the hard way, but they learned nevertheless. The Imperial navy fighters never seemed to understand this nor did they use team tactics as well. The German Fighter design was build on this foundation, with both the FW190 and Me109 having relatively high wing loading. The remarkable thing is reading comments from Japanese pilots after the war praising the fighter designs which could horizontally turn even though the slowest rolling plane can change directions faster than the best horizontal turner. By the end of the war, energy fighting had establishe itself as the preeminent tactic, and nothing in the Japanese arsenal could touch late model F4U-4's or the planned Bearcat.

Ruy Horta
06-02-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
Semi-OT:
Ruy you might have to look at the scope of "Genda's Blade" as well as its siblings from "Jagdwaffe" series. These aren't technical books, but concentrate on units, environment and pilots - short the atmosphere. I have quite a few of "Jagdwaffe" series and I like them the way they are (although I'd appreciate a bit more appendix detail as a detailed OOB with units, planetype, bases etc). I would not expect a technical book when the whole series seems to concentrate on other parts of the picture (did I mention I find those tech books mostly dry as the Jundland Waste on Tattooine? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif

The Jagdwaffe booklets are nice indeed.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

IMHO Genda's Blade should have followed the same format as the original Classic publication: JV 44.

We are talking about an elite unit which owed much of its fame to two dictinct subjects. One the being the Shiden-Kai, the other being the unit's leadership. Yes, Sakaida and Takaki present a good picture when it comes to the pilots and the unit, but IMHO (!) a poor one when it comes to the aircraft. It would have taken perhaps an extra 10-20 pages, exposing the strength and weakness of the design etc etc etc. Instead we get only 3 pages dedicated to the Shiden-Kai, ex. linedrawings and profiles. The difference between a good book and a great book, again IMHO. Of course being a typical folio book it all looks great.

You compare Genda's Blade with the Jagdwaffe series, I compare it to JV 44 and Panzerj├┬Ąger, these were the benchmark Classic books. Even Classic's Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours has more technical information than Genda's Blade.

Now if this were a book about JG 52 or JG 54, or about 302nd AG, I would find this technical background less important, but since IMHO the whole story of the Shiden Kai and 343rd AG is intertwined, you cannot discuss one without the other, just like you can't discuss JV 44 without the Me 262. That's why I am a little disappointed with Genda's Blade. That does not say that I am not happy with my purchase, on the contrary I would even recommend it, but with this note.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

As a semi mad book collector I think I am able to make a distinction, however being said type of collector I am also a little more critical...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

PS. Lets not argue any further about the merrits of this book, I do not think it serves any further purpose within this thread.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

[This message was edited by rhorta on Wed June 02 2004 at 11:58 AM.]

DIRTY-MAC
06-03-2004, 06:48 PM
I think the Japanese planes may in general have had less
differens between top speed and combat speed
than the USA fighters had,

READ THIS!
This fighter ace will explain it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
COMBAT SPEED.........

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part4.htm


Well combat speed seems to be a very important aspect in airial combat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message was edited by DIRTY-MAC on Thu June 03 2004 at 05:57 PM.]