How did this Fighter plane perform against the Corsair, Hellcat and Mustang? I Know the Ki84 was a good fighter plane Thanks everyone!:doh:
The best link I've found detailing some history: Hasegawa 1/32 Ki-84 'Hayate' by Tom Cleaver I don't think I've read about encounters with Franks. The last book I read that would have any chance of that was Silently into the Midst of Things by Atholl Sutherland-Brown, 177 Sqn's history - there was reference to fighter interceptions but can't remember what they were (but all of the action was over Burma not China where the Franks were reportedly based). It would be interesting to look into USAAF 14th AF reports as Franks reportedly flew rings around them. I guess they mean the P-38s and P-51s.
A good book on the air war in the Pacific, with significant technical data on airplane types involved and some performance comparisons, is Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky. Lots of anecdotal stuff..quotes from pilots and aircrew involved. Great book. Great overall discussion of all aspects of war, including strategy, tactics, geography and its influences on the fighting,men, and machines. Kind of "holistic" view of the war. I have seen used copies online for very good prices.
Yes the Frank was a good fighter, do you consider it as good as the Corsair , Mustang?. Most Franks had , 2 20 mm 2 7.7 mm machine guns, some had 4 20 mm cannons. Decent speed , good manuevarability. I just don"t think there as good as the Corsair, Mustang.:noidea:
What makes you say that, WH? Loyalty or analysis? I hope the latter as I can't directly recall any encounters with Franks so I would love to hear of some. I always find it hard to compare aircraft although, obviously, some have distinct advantages over others. Many people have gone round and round about what's the best and what's the worst but, to me, there is never any definitive answer. For example, you can say quite easily that the Spitfire is a better aircraft than the Hurricane but, at the same time, you're comparing two aircraft built entirely differently. On top of that, the Hurri could absorb more punishment and was a more stable gun platform. Swings and roundabouts. The perrenial favourites for "worst" are always the Buffalo and the Airacobra but look at how the Finns used the former (and give kudos to the Commonwealth guys in the Far East as well) and how the Russians used the latter. We had a discussion on here a while ago regarding what makes a good pilot and this can be extended to the aircraft as well. No matter how inferior an aircraft like the Buffalo appeared to be, there was always a group of pilots who could make it work. In that sense, I reckon, without looking into it further, a Frank would be a worthy match for a Corsair or Mustang on even terms. Sure, it might be not as well built or whatever but I bet it could out-turn its opponents. In the latter stages of the war when the Mustang and Corsair were more prevalent in the Frank's "world", it's also quite likely the Japanese pilots were, for the most part, nowhere near as experienced or well-trained as their predecessors. There is some comment in the link above that it could also out-climb seriously powerful and/or lightweight aircraft like the P-47N and P-51H. Just my thoughts in a rare moment of clarity! :lol:
Hi All, I found this on another forum, Ki84 vs P-51 Combats -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I can think of two specific examples where Ki84 Type 4 fighters gained the advantage over P-51 Mustangs (1) October 4,1944. Four P51s of the 23rd FG where shot down with the loss of two pilots. The 85th Sentai with 4 Ki-44 and four KI-84s claimed five P-51s including two by Wakamatsu. (2) November 11.1944-Three P-51s of the 23rd FG were shot down in combat." Cheers Owen
The 23rd FG was the successor/evolution of the Flying Tigers and were equipped with Mustangs from late 1943 so certainly no shortage of experience and skill at the time.
As they always say, the aircraft is only as good as its pilot. It should also be remembered that the Mustang wasn't that widely used in the Pacific and so a direct comparison is difficult because it's use has to be analysed within the context of the ever decreasing quality of the Japanese pilots as the war progressed, as well as the fact that it was an extremely complicated machine and the standards of production were slipping daily.
Yeah I guess soeep: But the Corsair had good manueverability, because the wings are bent upward. Your right about the fact that the Frank could outclimb, Corsair, Mustang:nod:
Well, the Corsair was certainly helped in the speed stakes by the way the wings attached to the fuselage - a design bonus as it were as the wings were a result of wanting a necessarily short and strong undercarriage while still having enough height to mount that massive prop on the R1830.
Hi All, Yes, the aircraft is only as good as the pilot. However, head to head, it's worth remembering that some aircraft can make up a fair bit of difference as well. Technological advantages can make a huge difference. The superior pilot will often still be able to 'mix it' with them, but the point comes where the gap is too great. Cheers Owen
I know this is an old thread but I'v been away. A great example of pilot expience is Suburo Sakia, flying an A6M "Zero" over Iwo Jima in early 1945, engaging 15 F6F Hellcats and excaping without a single bullet hole in his plane. Re: Buffalo, I'v read interviews with Finnish pilots who are adamant that they didn't fly "Buffalo's" but rather the B-239, an earlier and much lighter aircraft, though without what we would consider essential safety features (self-sealing fuel tanks, pilot armor, etc.) Re: P-39 Airacobra, I'v always thought this plane has been un-fairly treated by history. It was designed as a low level tactical support fighter, not a high altitude interceptor. In its intended role it performed well.
