Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Duel: Nakajima Ki-84 vs. Vought F4U Corsair


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#11 andyo2000

andyo2000

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 10 Months and 4 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 12 January 2005 - 08:11 PM

The Hayate's range is pegged at 1347 miles (2168 km.) and the Corsair's at 1015 miles (1633 km.)

#12 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,630 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 2 Months and 30 Days
  • 184 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 05 January 2017 - 08:36 PM

     I have a few quotes from ' F4U Corsair vs Ki-84 "Frank" Pacific Theater 1945 ' by Edward M.

Young.

 

     " In 1943 the American aviation industry built more aircraft than Japan did during the entire war.

Nakajima and its affiliates could not match the Corsair's production from Brewster, Goodyear and

Vought."

 

     " During the course of the Pacific War, JAAF pilot training underwent significant changes in both

organizational structure and duration as a result of the attrition and growing shortages of aircraft and

fuel. As the war went on, shortened flying training and inadequate flying practice led to a steady

deterioration in pilot quality. When the JAAF was finally able to introduce a superior airplane in the

Type 4 Fighter, its training system was not able to produce pilots with the skills needed to take

advantage of its flying and fighting qualities. "

 

     The number of hours of flight experience for a JAAF pilot trainee before he entered combat

declined as the war progressed. In 1941 the average hours of training were 400 to 500. By mid 1942

it had dropped to 350 hours. Mid 1943 it had fallen again to 250 hours. In mid 1944 it was about 125

hours and 100 hours by mid 1945.

 

     The poor quality of production of the aircraft and the flight training of JAAF pilots were the critical

factors in the actual outcome of the combats between these two fighters.

 

The Planes:

     " The Corsair's higher speed, excellent acceleration and rate of roll gave US Navy and US Marine

Corps pilots an advantage in combats with the Ki.84, but the lighter weight Hayate's superior

maneuverability and rate of climb, coupled with its heavy armament, made the Nakajima fighter a

dangerous opponent in the hands of an experienced pilot."



#13 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 12 Days
  • 297 topics

Posted 07 January 2017 - 09:27 AM

Well, we all know that a single new aircraft type is not enough to turn the tides of war. At least, the Ki-84 came about one year too late, as the Corsair appeared already in 1943.

 

I don't know by 100%, but I mean lack of experience of Japanese pilots (not only army, navy too) was due to lack of fuel, and this was caused by the successfull US submarine warfare. My friend here proposed to relegate all outdated Japanese aircraft of suitable range and payload to subhunting duties.

 

I mean there was postwar reseach on captured Ki-84s that showed it could have been still faster if the engine got fuel of proper octane number.

<later insertion: some answer already given in the other Ki-84 thread, did not read before>

 

What I also don't know is why the Japanese navy was never interested in the Ki-84 (we see here a Japanese-US army-navy cross-comparison). Maybe the answer is written in the book. We impatiently wait for your comment, Jeff.

 

Regards, RT



#14 TheArtOfFlight

TheArtOfFlight

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Joined 9 Months and 23 Days
  • 5 topics
  • LocationUK

Posted 07 January 2017 - 12:03 PM

Everyone has pretty much covered what i was thinking myself on the subject. Just one point, im not sure the Ki-84 was a Navy/carrier fighter like the F4U, although im open to anyone who knows different to inform me. That (in a way) can change the range of an aircraft simply by being shipped closer to the C/Z or Target. And of course i have to add that the F4U wasnt used in the carrier role until the later on. Most marine versions being operated from conventional/ground runways/airfields. That is until the RAF taught everyone exactly how to land them on a aircraft carrier... :D

 

Personally i think without doubt the Corsair was the better aircraft. 



#15 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,630 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 2 Months and 30 Days
  • 184 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 07 January 2017 - 01:55 PM

 

What I also don't know is why the Japanese navy was never interested in the Ki-84 (we see here a Japanese-US army-navy cross-comparison). Maybe the answer is written in the book. We impatiently wait for your comment, Jeff.

 

Regards, RT

As I said (somewhere :rolleyes: ) The JAAF and the JNAF did not collaborate with each other even anywhere near as much

as the USAAF and USN. That includes just about everything. Kawasaki and Nakajima built fighters for the JAAF and

Mitsubishi and Kawanishi built fighters for the JNAF. I believe even the armament on these aircraft was mostly

designate differently. It wasn't until the USAAF was knocking on Japans front door that the two branches of service

began to work together with any commitment.


Edited by CORSNING, 07 January 2017 - 03:22 PM.


#16 [email protected]

[email protected]

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 4 Months and 23 Days
  • 18 topics
  • LocationTyne and Wear, United Kingdom

Posted 07 January 2017 - 08:25 PM

After considering the above options, the KI-84 was probably the better combat aircraft regarding the dogfights, however the Corsair was more versatile,with better diving capability and the ground attack role.....if any one has any info on stats re the KI-84, it would be interesting to read,many thanks guys...
Best regards
Keith....

#17 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 12 Days
  • 297 topics

Posted 08 January 2017 - 04:22 PM

As I said (somewhere :rolleyes: ) The JAAF and the JNAF did not collaborate with each other even anywhere near as much

as the USAAF and USN. That includes just about everything. Kawasaki and Nakajima built fighters for the JAAF and

Mitsubishi and Kawanishi built fighters for the JNAF. I believe even the armament on these aircraft was mostly

designate differently. It wasn't until the USAAF was knocking on Japans front door that the two branches of service

began to work together with any commitment.

Yes, Jeff, but:

 

Nakajima built torpedo bombers for the JNAF too. So, I mean, wasn't the JNAF even interested in the new fighter forseen for the JAAF? Had I been a JNAF responsible, and been in contact with Nakajima, at least I would have questioned the firm what is going on there. I mean if something like this had ever been real, it is possibly written down in your new book. Please have a look in it and tell us. Thank you! :)

 

Regards, RT



#18 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,581 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 9 Months and 18 Days
  • 117 topics

Posted 08 January 2017 - 04:59 PM

This Japanese naval fighter RT.

 

N1K1_George__full_full.jpg



#19 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,630 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 2 Months and 30 Days
  • 184 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 08 January 2017 - 06:58 PM

RT,

     In a sense Kutscha just said it all. The Kawanishi N1K was built to JNAF specifications and the

Nakajima Ki.84 was built to JAAF specifications. I'm sure each branch of the service thought they had

the better aircraft. I did look through my new book again and I did not see any reference to the JNAF

other than for the use of the same engines.

     I would liken the comparison to the USN Corsair and the AAF Mustang. Or maybe the RAF

Tempest and the RNAF Sea Fury.


Edited by CORSNING, 08 January 2017 - 06:59 PM.


#20 F7Ftigercatlover

F7Ftigercatlover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Joined 11 Months
  • 7 topics
  • LocationArizona

Posted 08 January 2017 - 07:49 PM

In terms of 'pilot quality' the pilot with the most experience and skill coupled with a capable aircraft is pretty hard to fight against. During the first days of the German invasion of Poland in 1939, some Polish pilots in Pz.11 biplanes managed to shoot down Bf-109's simply because the German flyers were inexperienced. So I think an experienced and I mean an ace, in a Ki-84 could shoot down any American or British fighter in the Pacific theatre.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users