Jump to content

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

- - - - -

Zero Design

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic



    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,664 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 4 Months and 24 Days
  • 187 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:21 PM

No, seriously, think N1K1 float plane to N1K2-J. You know, I never knew how

great a difference there was in the N1K1-J and the N1K2-J until I read Aircraft

of the Aces No.129. Two different worlds.

#42 GregP


    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,295 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 3 Months and 12 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:13 PM

The Ki-84 was about a match for any Allied fighter, if you listen to the people who fought them instead of modern "experts."


The J2M was a very good interceptor / fighter, even if few were actually made.


The Low wing N1K2-J Shiden-kai was head and shoulders better than the N1K1-J mid-wing Shiden. The rest of the variants were only built in quantities of 2 or were paper aircraft; planned but not built.


The Kawanishi Emily flying boat was easily the best flying boat of the entire war that actually got into production.

#43 Rick65


    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 11 Months and 22 Days
  • 1 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 25 August 2017 - 01:50 AM

The perception of late war Japanese fighters suffers from the perception that speed is all.

Given that most combat does not occur at high altitude this perception gives a misleading understanding of the ability of these planes.

Many of the Allied fighters (particularly the ones not flying off carriers) seem to have superior performance because they have engines better boosted for high altitude performance, better fuel and hence have higher top speeds.

The Japanese planes that did perform well at the higher altitudes (N1K1 & 2, Ki-84 Ki-61II etc) were typically fitted with engines that had issues with reliability problems , variable fuel, manufacturing defects and consequently were often unabile to achieve their design output.

#44 Ricky



  • Moderators
  • 2,988 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 9 Months and 23 Days
  • 138 topics

Posted 25 August 2017 - 07:18 AM

Except this war a problem for them when trying to defend against bomber raids on Japan.

Though, to be fair, they'd never really needed good altitude performance in their fighters before, so why would anyone expect them to have it

#45 GregP


    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,295 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 3 Months and 12 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:04 PM

I think the Japanese development went pretty well, considering the bombing, raw material shortages, and the need for rapid advances, just to keep up, much less get better than the opposition. It speaks well for Japanese ingenuity. Our advances, while no less amazing in themselves, were developed with no attacks, much less pressure as the war went on, particularly after the defeat of Germany.


The Germans have the Flugwerk Company making replicas. I'd like to see the same from Japan!

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users