Ki-84 Hayate ("Frank")

[Slater]

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/Hayate.htm

 

Any accounts of Allied combat with this particular aircraft? Assuming a competent pilot (and a serviceable airplane) it would have seemed to be a tough opponent.

[KingSargent]

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/Hayate.htm

 

Any accounts of Allied combat with this particular aircraft? Assuming a competent pilot (and a serviceable airplane) it would have seemed to be a tough opponent.

224998[/snapback]

They needed decent avgas, too. Like all things Japanese quality deteriorated the later into 1945 they got.

 

However, according to Green, Army pilots on Okinawa liked to sit in the radar shacks and watch for a blip, then scramble to get it. If the blip moved across the screen really fast, they sat back down saying, "Forget it, it's a Frank.

[Jerry W. Loper]

They needed decent avgas, too. Like all things Japanese quality deteriorated the later into 1945 they got.

 

However, according to Green, Army pilots on Okinawa liked to sit in the radar shacks and watch for a blip, then scramble to get it. If the blip moved across the screen really fast, they sat back down saying, "Forget it, it's a Frank.

225037[/snapback]

 

Isn't the Frank the fighter whose speed increased almost 40 mph because of better fuel and maintenance after being captured by the U.S.? IIRC, in Japanese service its top speed was listed at 388 mph (according to Rene Francillon, I think), but a captured example achieved 427 mph?

[KingSargent]

Isn't the Frank the fighter whose speed increased almost 40 mph because of better fuel and maintenance after being captured by the U.S.?  IIRC, in Japanese service its top speed was listed at 388 mph (according to Rene Francillon, I think), but a captured example achieved 427 mph?

225204[/snapback]

It was either a Ki.84 or a Ki.100. Or both.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Isn't the Frank the fighter whose speed increased almost 40 mph because of better fuel and maintenance after being captured by the U.S.?  IIRC, in Japanese service its top speed was listed at 388 mph (according to Rene Francillon, I think), but a captured example achieved 427 mph?

225204[/snapback]

The 427 seems pretty well documented at this point to have been an intel calculation, not actual recorded speed of the captured examples. But the actual best speed at optimum Japanese conditions, aside from US fuel or tune up, was probably greater than 388. But that's not counting real operational conditions of the JAAF in 1945, where the answer becomes definitely, who knows? If you look up threads on j-aircraft forum on this, lots of info (and confusing disagreements, but I think this is a fair summary).

 

The claimed combat outcomes of the US air arms by Japanese type in 1945 show some but not a huge difference in success against the newer v older J fighter types; nothing like as dramatic as a few often repeated anecdotes suggest (typically from Japanese claims, and sometimes even distorting those). OTOH the US pilots couldn't very reliably identify J types, except maybe the Tony. But then again if there had really been a big practical difference, they probably would have gotten better at it.

 

For example the fighter sweep of 507th FG P-47N's over Korea Aug 13 1945. The P-47's claimed 20 a/c (fighter and non fighter) for one loss, including an "ace in a day" claim by Oscar Perdomo, last US ace of WWII. Most of the fighter claims were for "Oscars" including 4 of Perdomo's (the other a Willow trainer) but the JAAF 22nd and 85th Regiments had converted to the Frank by then and lost 11 a/c that day, doubtful any Oscars were engaged.

 

Joe

[whyhow]

Why is the Hayate often said to be equal if not better than P-51D when its operational top speed in Japanese service is significant slower?

another question is why did the Japanese had such a big problem with pilot training? they didn't face the large scale daylight bombings that bleed the Luftwaffe. was their fuel problem worse than the German's? where did they training their pilots?

[Guest pfcem]

IIRC the US test pilots that flew the Frank after the war all rated it as being superior to the Hellcat & Corsair the Navy & Marine Corps were flying at the time.

[KingSargent]

Why is the Hayate often said to be equal if not better than P-51D when its operational top speed in Japanese service is significant slower?

Operational top speed is almost always lower than on a clean, brand-new a/c with eveything working right. Also, if speed was everything, track stars would rule the world.

another question is why did the Japanese had such a big problem with pilot training? they didn't face the large scale daylight bombings that bleed the Luftwaffe.

I'm afraid the "large scale daylight bombing that bled the Luftwaffe" is USAF propaganda. The claims for victories are ridiculously excessive, especially by bomber crews. 12 German fighters could make a pass at a B-17 box and 60 of them would be reported shot down. The Luftwaffe was over-extended on many fronts, and losing on all of them. It wasn't just the big bomber raids.

  was their fuel problem worse than the German's? where did they training their pilots?

225634[/snapback]

Their fuel problem was enormous, which is why they went to war in the first place. Japanese pilot training was long and rigorous and pre-war had produced only a few highly-skilled pilots a year. When those were gone, they lacked time, instructors, the pre-war quality of air cadets, and fuel to train or practice with. The fact that they shoved everybody who could perform the basics into combat and got them killed before they had a chance to get experienced didn't help. In the first six months of the war, the Japanese could dogfight anybody and usually win - provided the other guy was using dogfighting tactics too. In 1944-5 we hear reports of small groups of US fighters attacking large Japanese formations and shooting all or most of them down while the pilots just flew straight and level because they couldn't do anything else.

But if a pre-war Jap pilot survived long enough to be able to fly a Frank, an Allied pilot expecting easy pickings could be in a lot of trouble real quick.

[MiloMorai]

American propaganda?

 

Sept 1943 to Oct 1944

 

1. a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.

 

2. a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.

 

3. 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.

 

4. a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West.

 

5. a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West.

[JOE BRENNAN]

1. I'm afraid the "large scale daylight bombing that bled the Luftwaffe" is USAF propaganda. The claims for victories are ridiculously excessive, especially by bomber crews. 12 German fighters could make a pass at a B-17 box and 60 of them would be reported shot down. The Luftwaffe was over-extended on many fronts, and losing on all of them. It wasn't just the big bomber raids.

 

2. But if a pre-war Jap pilot survived long enough to be able to fly a Frank, an Allied pilot expecting easy pickings could be in a lot of trouble real quick.

225657[/snapback]

1. Comparing the claims of the USAAF with the losses posted: In Sep 43-Oct 44 the combined USAAF ETO/MTO claims of enemy a/c, per USAAF Statistical Digest, were:

Bombers: 6237 in air

Fighters: 6553 in air, 3134 on ground

 

 

15924 raw total. Applying the rule of thumb for that period that losses to bombers were 25% of official victories and those to fighters 75%, the German aerial losses would be 6474, but ground losses v. claims is trickier to put a % on. Also the bomber claims would be almost all day fighters, fighter claims a large % day fighters but not necessarily close to all* and ground claims more evenly distributed among types. Still even considering RAF claims (I would think quite a bit lower for this period than USAAF, anyone have the stats?) and operational losses, when discounted that way the numbers seem to roughly correspond. The basic fact that the USAAF inflicted heavy attrition on the LW in that period is true.

 

*one thing I've heard is that some researchers have found lower claim accuracy of USAAF fighters counting just losses of front line fighter units, then realized that they are closer counting all German units; as 1944 went on the 8th/15th fighters were everywhere, shooting down trainers, operational types in advanced training units, even a/c of combat units committed to the "East" (ISTR an episode in Rudel's book of a big wipe out by 15th AF fighters of LW "East" a/c at a Romanian a/f.)

 

2. In theory I agree, but there don't seem to be very many such incidents. As I mentioned, the constantly repeated single anecdotes of success for the George (one against 12 Hellcats, downs 4) and Ki-100 (unit downs 14 Hellcats) have been tracked down the to actual combats and didn't happen as advertised (the George one was made up by J propaganda not a real claim, the Ki-100 one is a garbling of a real claim of 12 Hellcats v. 2 Ki-100 losses in a real combat where the outcome was 2:2 in reality). The Frank doesn't have a single famous anecdote of victory, but successful combats by them are fairly hard to find. In contrast the older types did still occasionally have success too. Not to say I'd rather fly an Oscar than a Frank.

 

Joe

[KingSargent]

American propaganda?

225705[/snapback]

Wrong. I said USAF propaganda.

 

The original comment that I answered was :

another question is why did the Japanese had such a big problem with pilot training? they didn't face the large scale daylight bombings that bleed the Luftwaffe.

 

This implies, as USAF propaganda still does, that the SBC and the 8th USAAF were responsible for all German losses in the "West". The "West" covers a lot of area and a lot of fighting and to state that the 8th USAAAF was responsible for all of it is not only wrong, it negates a lot of effort by a lot of other people. And we still get people saying, "The best fighter was the B-17, because it shot down more planes than anything!"

 

Milo, if you want to total up all the German losses in the "West", I suggest that an even more worthwhile exercise would be to total up all the claims the 8th AAF's press releases and battle reports said they got in their little corner of the West.

 

The USAAC, in its passion to become the independent USAF, consistently exagerrated and even flat-out lied. They reported victories that did not occur and exagerrated those that did. I am not talking about individual pilot claims here, I am talking about things like the June 1942 press releases that screamed "Army B-17s Sink Jap Fleet at Midway!" I am talking about the 9th USAAF sending photographer teams into the Ardennes to record "German tanks destroyed by American fighter-bombers." The photos are most enlightening, in almost every case the vehicle is clearly a victim of ground fire or has been blown in place after abandoning it.

 

Yes, the Luftwaffe was thoroughly written down in 1943-44. But to ascribe it all to "the large scale daylight bombings " is wrong.

[Guest pfcem]

Why is the Hayate often said to be equal if not better than P-51D when its operational top speed in Japanese service is significant slower?

225634[/snapback]

 

Top speed, while important, is not the only factor in making a good fighter.

The Frank is said to have been phenominally maneuverable (more so that any other Japanese aircraft of the war - the Zero & Oscar were so renound for their maneuverability that allied pilots were told not to get into a turning dogfight with them but rather use the superior speed & power of the Hellcat & Corsair to defeat them).

 

 

 

why did the Japanese had such a big problem with pilot training? they didn't face the large scale daylight bombings that bleed the Luftwaffe.

225634[/snapback]

 

Proper pilot training takes time.

Remember that the war in the Pacific did not start until Dec 1941.

Another problem was that Japan tented to place its best pilots on board its carriers.

When a carrier was lost, most of the pilots flying from that carrier were lost as well. Japan lost 4 carriers at Midway.

By mid 1944, the US had sufficient Essex class carriers so as to have numerical superiority in most theaters.

 

 

was their fuel problem worse than the German's?

225634[/snapback]

 

Yes.

Japan was totally dependent on foreign oil & US submarines wrecked havoc on Japanese merchant shipping throughout the war.

[whyhow]

Operational top speed is almost always lower than on a clean, brand-new a/c with eveything working right.  Also, if speed was everything, track stars would rule the world.

well, what I'm trying to find out is if the Hayate was a better energy fighter than P-51D. people seems to have all kind of figures like zoom climb rate, roll rate, etc for ETO fighters, do we have similiar figures for the Hayate or other Japanese planes?

Operationally, I don't see how the Hayate could be a better than the Mustang; cursed with lower octane avgas(do we know what octane?) and unreliable Ha-45 engine.

 

 

I'm afraid the "large scale daylight bombing that bled the Luftwaffe" is USAF propaganda. The claims for victories are ridiculously excessive, especially by bomber crews. 12 German fighters could make a pass at a B-17 box and 60 of them would be reported shot down. The Luftwaffe was over-extended on many fronts, and losing on all of them. It wasn't just the big bomber raids.Their fuel problem was enormous, which is why they went to war in the first place. Japanese pilot training was long and rigorous and pre-war had produced only a few highly-skilled pilots a year. When those were gone, they lacked time, instructors, the pre-war quality of air cadets, and fuel to train or practice with. The fact that they shoved everybody who could perform the basics into combat and got them killed before they had a chance to get experienced didn't help. In the first six months of the war, the Japanese could dogfight anybody and usually win - provided the other guy was using dogfighting tactics too. In 1944-5 we hear reports of small groups of US fighters attacking large Japanese formations and shooting all or most of them down while the pilots just flew straight and level because they couldn't do anything else.

But if a pre-war Jap pilot survived long enough to be able to fly a Frank, an Allied pilot expecting easy pickings could be in a lot of trouble real quick.

225657[/snapback]

 

I'm not saying that B-17s bled the Luftwaffe, the escort fighters did most of the bleeding. \escorted daylight bombings forced the Luftwaffe into an attritional war that they couldn't win. Bf109s and Fw190s weighted down with the extra heavy cannons necessary for the bomber destroyer role were easier targets for the escorting Allied fighters. The Japanese didn't face escorted B-29 raids until what 1945?

Edited September 23, 2005 by whyhow

[whyhow]

Top speed, while important, is not the only factor in making a good fighter.

The Frank is said to have been phenominally maneuverable (more so that any other Japanese aircraft of the war - the Zero & Oscar were so renound for their maneuverability that allied pilots were told not to get into a turning dogfight with them but rather use the superior speed & power of the Hellcat & Corsair to defeat them).

well, Zero and Oscar's maneaverability didn't mean much once we figured out the energy fighter tactics. So how was the Hayate as an energy fighter? could it out-climb and out-dive Allied fighters?

 

Proper pilot training takes time. 

Remember that the war in the Pacific did not start until Dec 1941.

Another problem was that Japan tented to place its best pilots on board its carriers.

When a carrier was lost, most of the pilots flying from that carrier were lost as well.  Japan lost 4 carriers at Midway.

By mid 1944, the US had sufficient Essex class carriers so as to have numerical superiority in most theaters.

Yes.

Japan was totally dependent on foreign oil & US submarines wrecked havoc on Japanese merchant shipping throughout the war.

226219[/snapback]

 

the Hayate was an IJAAF fighter, IJAAF didn't lose pilots on carriers of course the IJAAF faced heavy attrition in other theatres as well. both IJNAF and IJAAF pilots seemed to do okay until 1942, but by 1943, their pilot quality seem to decline dramatically. IIRC, most of the American pilots during the Battle of Philippine Sea were rookie pilots as well, so why were our rookie pilots so much better than Japanese rookies? Were there such one sided air battle in ETO? Obviously something was wrong with Japanese pilot training program, but what specifically went wrong?

 

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijnaf.htm

btw, this article have some good information about Japanese training program. but the author raised more question than he answered. I suspect there are still much work for historians in this area.

[KingSargent]

the Hayate was an IJAAF fighter, IJAAF didn't lose pilots on carriers  of course the IJAAF faced heavy attrition in other theatres as well. both IJNAF and IJAAF pilots seemed to do okay until 1942, but by 1943, their pilot quality seem to decline dramatically. IIRC, most of the American pilots during the Battle of Philippine Sea were rookie pilots as well, so why were our rookie pilots so much better than Japanese rookies? Were there such one sided air battle in ETO? Obviously something was wrong with Japanese pilot training program, but what specifically went wrong?

The central issue in training is the number of hours flown. The more flying, the more expertise, generally. By 1944, US pilots were getting, IIRC, ten times the training hours that new Japanese and German cadets got.

[Josh]

The central issue in training is the number of hours flown. The more flying, the more expertise, generally. By 1944, US pilots were getting, IIRC, ten times the training hours that new Japanese and German cadets got.

226271[/snapback]

 

Add on top of that the American practice of taking aces off the line and making them trainers for new pilots. This is one of the reasons why there tend to be far fewer US aces with truly tremendous kill rates (along with entering the war very late amongst others).

[KingSargent]

Add on top of that the American practice of taking aces off the line and making them trainers for new pilots. This is one of the reasons why there tend to be far fewer US aces with truly tremendous kill rates (along with entering the war very late amongst others).

226279[/snapback]

And having fewer targets....

[JOE BRENNAN]

The "West" covers a lot of area and a lot of fighting and to state that the 8th USAAAF was responsible for all of it is not only wrong, it negates a lot of effort by a lot of other people. And we still get people saying, "The best fighter was the B-17, because it shot down more planes than anything!"

 

if you want to total up all the German losses in the "West", I suggest that an even more worthwhile exercise would be to total up all the claims the 8th AAF's press releases and battle reports said they got in their little corner of the West.

226190[/snapback]

See my post above. The bulk of those USAAF claims would be 8th and 15th AF (I see no reason to focus only on 8th rather than 15th nor any reason to limit bombing campaign affect on LW to just aerial victories of the bombers themselves). They account for a large real attrition even with suitable discount factors. The 9th and 12th AF's had periodic air action but not consistently month in month out in that period, same goes for Brit/CW tactical AF's, with exceptions of certain areas and periods (for awhile after D-day for example) the Germans had mainly pulled the fighter force back into Germany and those pilots got limited opportunities. So 8/15th were not a little corner of West for the German day fighters in that period. Also as already mentioned, the 8/15th fighters prowling all around in the second part of that Sep 43-Oct 44 period were an increasing disruption to all LW operations, not only day fighters committed to the West. No other major AF I can think of had to contend with enemy fighters sweeping through domestic rear areas as a common occurence for a prolonged period. There are a few cases of US a/c coming across Japanese training late in the war (but they moved most training to North China, Manchuria, Korea and remote parts of Japan); the German night fighters did it for a while against RAF night bomber training but then Hitler wanted to see RAF plane wrecks in Germany and they stopped.

 

Joe

[tankerwanabe]

Their fuel problem was enormous, which is why they went to war in the first place. Japanese pilot training was long and rigorous and pre-war had produced only a few highly-skilled pilots a year. When those were gone, they lacked time, instructors, the pre-war quality of air cadets, and fuel to train or practice with. The fact that they shoved everybody who could perform the basics into combat and got them killed before they had a chance to get experienced didn't help. In the first six months of the war, the Japanese could dogfight anybody and usually win - provided the other guy was using dogfighting tactics too. In 1944-5 we hear reports of small groups of US fighters attacking large Japanese formations and shooting all or most of them down while the pilots just flew straight and level because they couldn't do anything else.

But if a pre-war Jap pilot survived long enough to be able to fly a Frank, an Allied pilot expecting easy pickings could be in a lot of trouble real quick.

225657[/snapback]

 

I agree with King here. The Japanese faced an enormous problem with fuel. Remember that Japan is really an island. This means that they have to SHIP fuel in. Our (underrated) submarine fleet killed off most of their merchant marine. No fuel means that pilot training suffers for lack of flying time. By the end of the war, their pilot had about 1/5 of the training we had.

 

Furthemore, unlike the U.S. the Japanese did not rotate elite pilots back home to train new pilots. So, as the war progress, elite Japanese pilots died off. This resulted in underqualifed instructors teaching new Japanese pilots.

 

And lastly, poor organization. At that time, the Japanese could not understand the concept of mass production. The number of pilots the Imperial Japanese Navy turned out monthly at the end of the war was relatively the SAME as it was during its pre-war years. We on the other hand, produced an enormous amount of pilots. I believe we had more pilots in the pipeline ready to be shipped out monthly that they had during the entire war.

 

Albeit they were 90 day wonders, there was alot of flying time in those 90 days.

[Guest pfcem]

well, Zero and Oscar's maneaverability didn't mean much once we figured out the energy fighter tactics. So how was the Hayate as an energy fighter? could it out-climb and out-dive Allied fighters?

226228[/snapback]

 

Similar power to the Hellcat & Corsair but significantly lighter.

You do the math.

Edited September 24, 2005 by pfcem

[GregShaw]

well, what I'm trying to find out is if the Hayate was a better energy fighter than P-51D. people seems to have all kind of figures like zoom climb rate, roll rate, etc for ETO fighters, do we have similiar figures for the Hayate or other Japanese planes?

Operationally, I don't see how the Hayate could be a better than the Mustang; cursed with lower octane avgas(do we know what octane?) and  unreliable Ha-45 engine.

226223[/snapback]

I did a workup on the Ki-84 about one year ago on the Aces High BB. It was one scary airplane, when everything worked.

 

The prototype doing 392 mph @ 20,080 ft with the /11 engine works out to a Cd0 of about .0212, and a SL speed of 349 mph on 1800 hp. Along with a rate of climb of 5000 fpm @ SL, 4000 fpm @ 3280 ft, and 2650 fpm @ 18,700 ft. Low altitude speed is OK by '44-45 standards, high altitude speed is poor, but that climb rate is impressive.

 

The -1 version with the /21 engine is even scarier. Considerably more power, some exhaust thrust recovery and a slightly cleaner airframe. Using slightly better Cd0 figure of .0210 gives a vMax of about 441 mph @ 23,000 ft. That is certainly overstating performance slightly, I'm not taking transonic drag rise into account, or propellor efficiency dropping off as the tips go supersonic. But the 427 mph figure the US tests showed certainly looks plausible, which still isn't quite as fast as the 450 mph a clean P-51B/C/D could manage about the same altitude. But in the 10,000 to 20,000 ft range it should be very competitive with any western fighter.

 

If I get bored this weekend I'll dig out my old figures and do a more detailed workup.

 

Greg Shaw

[JOE BRENNAN]

But the 427 mph figure the US tests showed certainly looks plausible,

 

226558[/snapback]

As mentioned, that number was itself somebody's calculation, not a real test result, apparently. A guy on j-aircraft had the document with it clearly as a before the fact calculation, whereas no one seems to have ever come up with the actual source (not books that say so but original source for the first one to say so) of 427 as an actual test result. So unless a real coincidence, 427 was just a calc. Other more recent calcs on that site (I'm not an aerodynamics calcer) were in the 410's IIRC, I wonder how closely such calculating is benchmarked to real results taking into account all variables.

 

In practical fact Franks failed to outrun various US types in real combats (I mean with the opponent close by, it was certainly hard to intercept from a standing start on the ground as when used as a fighter bomber at Okinawa, but you don't have to be faster to do that). This though gets back into theoretical v. practical operational with different maintenance, fuel, manufacturing quality of various examples, etc. stds between the two sides.

 

Joe

[Geoff Winnington-Ball]

How would the Frank have compared against the FW-190 D-series 'Long Nose' fighters?

[Red Ant]

All that stuff about the Frank being vastly superior to the P-51 or the Corairs, or any other modern front line fighter the U.S. had at the time, is pure BS in my opinion. Sure, the Ki-84 was a very good aircraft. However, it didn't really excell in any one compartment to such an extent that it could be said to outperform a P-51, P-38, P-47 or Corsair. It was fast, but not as fast as most of its American opponents. And what's more, compared to its American opponents (including late models of the P-38), its high speed handling was very disappointing. The one area where the Frank really enjoyed a marked superiority was turning, but than pretty much all Jap planes did that better than all U.S. fighters. The Frank's climb rate was also excellent, probably a good deal better than the best climbing US planes (Corsairs and late P-38L's), but still ... if climb rate was the be-all-end-all of good fighters then the Me-109K would be king. There are so many more factors to a good fighter than just turnability and rate of climb.

I'd agree that, out of all the fighter models the Japanese churned out in WWII, the Frank was probably the most capable. I'd even settle for a 'good-enough-to-cause-allied-pilots-serious-trouble-when-flown-properly. But SUPERIOR? Bull****.

Edited September 23, 2005 by Red Ant

[Guest pfcem]

All that stuff about the Frank being vastly superior to the P-51 or the Corairs, or any other modern front line fighter the U.S. had at the time, is pure BS in my opinion. Sure, the Ki-84 was a very good aircraft. However, it didn't really excell in any one compartment to such an extent that it could be said to outperform a P-51, P-38, P-47 or Corsair. It was fast, but not as fast as most of its American opponents. And what's more, compared to its American opponents (including late models of the P-38), its high speed handling was very disappointing. The one area where the Frank really enjoyed a marked superiority was turning, but than pretty much all Jap planes did that better than  all U.S. fighters. The Frank's climb rate was also excellent, probably a good deal better than the best climbing US planes (Corsairs and late P-38L's), but still ... if climb rate was the be-all-end-all of good fighters then the Me-109K would be king. There are so many more factors to a good fighter than just turnability and rate of climb.

I'd agree that, out of all the fighter models the Japanese churned out in WWII, the Frank was probably the most capable. I'd even settle for a 'good-enough-to-cause-allied-pilots-serious-trouble-when-flown-properly. But SUPERIOR? Bull****.

226652[/snapback]

 

Let me get this straight. You admit the the Frank could out turn & out climb any operational US fighter at the time but still say that claims that it is superior are BS.

 

I agree that there are a lot of factors that go into a good fighter & that comparing fighters in only one (or a few) of these factors & claiming one is superior to the other is folly.

 

The Frank was easy to fly & an good gun platform.

 

Many claim that the lower top speed of the Frank compared with US fighters as an argument against its superiority but a plane's operational top speed is misleading as it is only indicates the plane's top speed at one specific altitude & the only "official" top speed rating we have for the Frank is that of 388mph for the original (1800hp) prototype. The production Frank was supposedly faster than US fighters a low to medium altitudes & it was only at higher altitudes where US fighters could reliably outrun it.

 

While searching the internet on the Frank, I came across the following webpage:

 

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baug...ther/ki-84.html

 

Admittedly one should take anything found on the internet with a grain of salt but the references for the article look legit to me & there is nothing said in the article that I have not read elsewhere before.

 

The relevant passages are:

 

The FRANK later appeared in the battle for Okinawa, serving with the 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Hiko Sentais. Two new Sentais, the 111th and the 200th were activated with Hayates. The Hayates were used for long-range penetration missions, fighter sweeps, strafing, interception and dive-bombing missions with considerable success. The Ki-84 proved faster than the P-51D Mustang and the P-47D Thunderbolt at all but the highest altitudes. At medium altitudes, the FRANK was so fast that it was essentially immune from interception. The climb rate was exceptionally good, 16,400 feet being attained in 5 minutes 54 seconds, which was superior to that of any opposing Allied fighters.

In 1946, a captured late-production Hayate was restored and tested at the Middletown Air Depot in Pennsylvania. At a weight of 7490 pounds, the aircraft achieved a maximum speed of 427 mph at 20,000 feet, using war emergency power. This speed exceeded that of the P-51D Mustand and the P-47D at that altitude by 2 mph and 22 mph respectively. These figures were achieved with a superbly maintained and restored aircraft and with highly-refined aviation gasoline, and were not typical of Japanese-operated aircraft during the later stages of the war.

 

So it seems obvious that a well maintained Frank with a good pilot was more than a match for any US fighter at the time (at least at low to medium altitudes - higher altitudes may be somewhat debatable however).

 

With that being said the combination of a good Japaneses pilot & well maintained Japanese aircraft was hard to come buy during 1945.