Jump to content

Ki-84 Hayate ("Frank")


Slater

Recommended Posts

hi, but i read IJA use its tony to intercept Mustang and B-29, defending the homeland....

isnt this means Ki-61 should be better than other planes ? could it be its worse kill ratio because of IJA using it against tougher opponents (mustang) ?

236347[/snapback]

From brief reading of internet information, it would appear that its use against the B-29 was prompted more by the fact that it was about the only suitable aircraft available (for the high-altitude intercept mission), rather than superiority over the Mustang. It would also appear to have been a formidable fighter in 1943 and possessing many of the performance qualities of Allied fighters (high altitude, speed, protection instead of the typical emphasis on maneuverability & range). Apparently, the Japanese considered it a better performer, overall, than the Bf109E and P-40E. There are also indications that engine troubles & quality control problems affected the aircraft throughout its career.

 

Douglas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank you for that explination & I agree for the most part except for your conclusion.

 

Th only significant difference between the F4U-1 & F4U-4 is in the -4's more powerful engine.  Your calculations show that with higher octane US fuel, the Ha-45 would have a similar power increase & yet instead of the 29 mph speed increase of the F4U-4 over the F4U-1, you say the Frank would likely only achieve a ~10 mph increase.  It is true that I would expect the power increase for the F4U example to be more constant over the entire altitude range so the speed difference between the F4U-4 & -1 would be more dramatic at higher altitudes than that of the Frank on different ontane fuel. (hope that makes sense to everyone)

236100[/snapback]

 

I have already said my calculations show the production Ki-84 with the -21 engine to be considerably faster than the 392 mph it is credited with. IF the engine worked right and the aircraft was decently completed. Which as others have pointed out, is a mighty big IF.

 

And you are still missing the point on the F4U-1 vice the F4U-4. The reason the -4 was so much faster was simply because the engine had a higher rated altitude. With RAM the -8w could only manage 1950 hp @ 20,000 ft WEP (in reality that would be about 1890 hp after taking ram heating into account), and 1650 hp @ 23,000 ft (1600 hp) mil. While the -18w was capable of 2080 hp @ 26,000 ft (1995 hp) or 1800 hp @ 29,300 ft (1710 hp).

 

Yes, the Ha-45-21 does have a little better power/altitude than the -11, about 2000 ft difference in rated altitude, but nothing like the 6000 ft difference between the -8w and -18w.

 

Just did a quick comparison. The Ha-45-21 did 1640 hp @ 21,000 ft give or take 8 ft, the Ha-45-11 would be capable of 1335 hp @ 21,000 ft, so you have about a 300 hp difference. The -18w did 2080 hp @ 26,000 ft, the -8w should have done about about 1550 hp at the same altitude (both figures uncorrected for ram). So there is a much bigger difference between the F4U-1 and F4U-4 than there was between the prototype and production Ki-84. 6000 ft and 530 hp vice 2200 ft and 305 hp. The Ki-84 is a much smaller airplane than the F4U so it will get more speed per hp than the F4U, but probably not quite the 37 mph increase the F4U-4 got over the F4U-1.

 

Greg Shaw

Edited by GregShaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

could it be its worse kill ratio because of IJA using it against tougher opponents (mustang) ?

236347[/snapback]

The figures I gave are just against the US Navy, Sep 44 to end of war. The individual claims v. losses v. Ki-61's in that period were Hellcat 275:11, Corsair 60:2 and Wildcat 29:0.

 

For USAAF I don't know of such figures broken down by types, only totals of various theaters/numbered AF's. The most "Mustang intensive" of those would probably be "Pacfic Ocean Area" (meaning 7th AF), then adding in 20th AF for last two months of war (7th fighters incl under 20th at that time). For the same period as the USN Sep 44-end, their total claims were 429, losses attributed to enemy a/c 26, 16.5:1, pretty similar to USN ratio top line; but includes some non-fighter targets (eg. bombers attacking the Marianas and Iwo Jima), and mainly occurred after early April '45 when P-51's started operating from Iwo Jima to Japan. By US type it includes some P-61, P-47D and P-38 claims, and a significant % P-47N claims at the end, but mainly P-51.

 

For "Far East Air Forces" (5th and 13th), same period Sep 44-end, the claims were 871, losses 86, 10.1:1, so that one is somewhat lower. The time distribution is more heavily earlier in the period, big peak at end of '44 in the Philppines, and would include a significant proportion of non-fighters. OTOH for all the USAAF numbers, defense v. kamikazes flying fighter types would be less than for the Navy. Also, while it's probably safe to assume claim accuracy was similar within the Navy and AAF by type or numbered AF in the same period, it's a little more agressive to assume claim accuracy was the same between the services.

 

Joe

Edited by JOE BRENNAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both the calculations you did are totally meaningless. The second one is expressed mathematically as (Sum i from 1 to n (kills(i)^2/losses(i)))/sum kills, that's just gibberish   

236189[/snapback]

I will give you one more chance to think about this one before I explain in more detail why my calculations are correct.

 

 

 

:(  The first one is not meaningful if we know the sample sizes are very different, which we do since we know them all.

236189[/snapback]

That is why I did a weighted average calculation as well.

 

 

 

So I did the grade school math in the original post: wtd average ratio is total kills/total losses, 3131/198=15.8, just like the average for each type is total kills (from each day) over total losses (from each day).

236189[/snapback]

That is where you problem comes in. You are using grade school math for a middle school math problem.

 

 

 

And the considering the vagaries of ID and kamikazes the Frank ratio (which we know isn't 8.9, because we *know* at least 6 of 16, 37%, of those losses were to Georges) is not that much different from that real average, and even less different from that of a major older type, the A6M.

236189[/snapback]

I already said the data was subject to error but that I used them anywhy since that is the data that has been posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give you one more chance to think about this one before I explain in more detail why my calculations are correct.

 

That is where you problem comes in.  You are using grade school math for a middle school math problem.

 

236430[/snapback]

You're just taking the extreme stubborness you've already shown on this thread toward admitting you're wrong to new levels. You're relatively new here, I think you'll find that it won't build your credibility to refuse to admit you've confused yourself on something as simple as this that everyone can see. One more chance for you to see that ;) is look at this way, the most direct comparison is one plane's results v. all other results (ratio of total claims/losses minus that one plane), but that differs little from comparison to the correct weighted average (total claims/total losses), since planes we're speaking of are each a small % of the total.

 

The constant contentious assertions based on rough and generic information v. people clearly presenting you more detailed information you didn't have (eg. Greg) doesn't help either, looking at that arms length it's annoying. He's giving us all non-generic info and you're doing silly quibbling while not adding any info we can't google or find in generic books, thus potentially discouraging him. That's a negative for the forum IMO. I'd ask you to consider it.

 

Joe

Edited by JOE BRENNAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already said my calculations show the production Ki-84 with the -21 engine to be considerably faster than the 392 mph it is credited with. IF the engine worked right and the aircraft was decently completed. Which as others have pointed out, is a mighty big IF.

236381[/snapback]

How many time do I have to answer this?

 

 

 

And you are still missing the point on the F4U-1 vice the F4U-4. The reason the -4 was so much faster was simply because the engine had a higher rated altitude. With RAM the -8w could only manage  1950 hp @ 20,000 ft WEP (in reality that would be about 1890 hp after taking ram heating into account), and 1650 hp @ 23,000 ft (1600 hp) mil. While the -18w was capable of 2080 hp @ 26,000 ft (1995 hp) or 1800 hp @ 29,300 ft (1710 hp).

236381[/snapback]

How can you say that I am missing the point on the F4U-1 vice the F4U-4 when you continue to say the same things I have already said? You are using different words & posting specific data (if would probably be more fair to say that you are clearifying my point) & I have no reason to believe the numbers you are posting are incorrect. I am note sure how else to answer this.

 

 

 

Yes, the Ha-45-21 does have a little better power/altitude than the -11, about 2000 ft difference in rated altitude, but nothing like the 6000 ft difference between the -8w and -18w.

236381[/snapback]

Where did I say that it did?

 

 

 

Just did a quick comparison. The Ha-45-21 did 1640 hp @ 21,000 ft give or take 8 ft, the Ha-45-11 would be capable of 1335 hp @ 21,000 ft, so you have about a 300 hp difference. The -18w did 2080 hp @ 26,000 ft, the -8w should have done about about 1550 hp at the same altitude (both figures uncorrected for ram). So there is a much bigger difference between the F4U-1 and F4U-4 than there was between the prototype and production Ki-84. 6000 ft and 530 hp vice 2200 ft and 305 hp.

236381[/snapback]

In addition to the altitude/hp increase, production Franks also benifited from a ~10 mph increase over the prototype due to individual exhaust stacks, which provided some thrust augmentation.

 

Again, I appologize for not providing more detail in my earlier posts. If I had believed that the Ha-45 Model 11 vs Ha-45 Model 21 altitude/hp increase was the same as R-2800-8 (F4U-1)/-8W (F4U-1A)/-18W (F4U-4), then I would have said that I believe the late model Franks should have been capable of 430-440 mph rather than 420-430 mph.

 

 

 

The Ki-84 is a much smaller airplane than the F4U so it will get more speed per hp than the F4U, but probably not quite the 37 mph increase the F4U-4 got over the F4U-1.

236381[/snapback]

A 37 mph increase the F4U-4 got over the F4U-1? I thought is was 29 mph (446 vs 417) . :blink: :o ;)

Could you please explain this, I think you may have just confused a few people here (partially my fault). I am 95% sure I know where your 37 mph figure comes from).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just taking the extreme stubborness you've already shown on this thread toward admitting you're wrong to new levels. You're relatively new here, I think you'll find that it won't build your credibility to refuse to admit you've confused yourself on something as simple as this that everyone can see. One more chance for you to see that  ;)  is look at this way, the most direct comparison is one plane's results v. all other results (ratio of total claims/losses minus that one plane), but that differs little from comparison to the correct weighted average (total claims/total losses), since planes we're speaking of are each a small % of the total. 

 

The constant contentious assertions based on rough and generic information v. people clearly presenting you more detailed information you didn't have (eg. Greg) doesn't help either, looking at that arms length it's annoying. He's giving us all non-generic info and you're doing silly quibbling while not adding any info we can't google or find in generic books, thus potentially discouraging him. That's a negative for the forum IMO. I'd ask you to consider it.

 

Joe

236435[/snapback]

Ok, you missed your change to correct yourself so I will explain it for you.

 

Note that unlike what you & others have done to me, I will not degrade or personaly attack you. (I tried to get you to rethink your contension & correct yourself).

 

Your "Total 3131:198; 15.8:1" is just that. A total kill/loss ratio. Not an average.

 

In order to get an average kill/loss ratio, you have to average the kill/loss ratios.

 

Let me know if you need me to explain further.

Edited by pfcem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='pfcem' date='Tue 18 Oct 2005 1058']A 37 mph increase the F4U-4 got over the F4U-1?  I thought is was 29 mph (446 vs 417) .  :blink:  :o  ;)
Could you please explain this, I think you may have just confused a few people here (partially my fault).  I am 95% sure I know where your 37 mph figure comes from).
[right][snapback]236449[/snapback][/right][/quote]
I have so many different F4U-1 and F4U-4 charts it gets confusing sometimes. The one I was using earlier shows a mil power SL speed of 353 mph, 422 mph @ 20,000 ft and 446 mph @ 29,300 ft, all at mil power. WEP was 376 mph @ SL, 440 mph @ 20,000 ft and 452 mph @ 26,000 ft.

One I just found in my collection gives the following WEP figures:

384 kn @ 20,400 ft with bomb pylons (capped) and rocket rails (445 mph)
392 kn @ 20,500 ft with bomb pylons (capped) (454 mph)
403 kn @ 20,600 ft clean (467 mph)

318 kn @ SL with bomb pylons (capped)and rocket rails (368 mph)
325 kn @ SL with bomb pylons (capped) (377 mph)
333 kn @ SL clean (386 mph)

The speed figures make sense, but the 20,000 ft altitude doesn't, particularly since I also found a -18w chart showing a FTH of 24,000 ft in H blower. I'm guessing the chart was a misprint or confusion and should be 26,400 - 26,600 ft instead.

For the F4U-1 I have one set showing 417 mph @ 19,900 ft WEP with no explanation of the condition. But since that -1/1a didn't have wing pylons I'm guessing that was clean, ie no belly pylon either.

For the F4U-1C/D I have the following:

400 mph @ 19,900 ft with bomb pylons (capped) and rocket rails
401 mph @ 19,900 ft with bomb pylons (uncapped)
408 mph @ 19,900 ft with bomb pylons (capped)
417 mph @ 20,000 ft clean

350 mph @ SL with bomb pylons (capped) and rocket rails
351 mph @ SL with bomb pylons (uncapped)
356 mph @ SL with bomb pylons (capped)
366 mph @ SL clean

I have another -1D chart around somewhere showing 415 mph clean, 405 mph capped pylons.

But it looks like I understated things, F4U-4 is more typically about 40-50 mph faster than the F4U-1 under the same conditions.

Greg Shaw

Edited by GregShaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your "Total 3131:198; 15.8:1" is just that.  A total kill/loss ratio. Not an average.

 

In order to get an average kill/loss ratio, you have to average the kill/loss ratios.

236451[/snapback]

It's not a personal attack to refuse to accept nonsense. The overall average is clearly the ratio of the total claims and losses. According to your method you'd get two quite different answers for the relative performance of one plane to all the others depending on whether you had the individual kills and losses of each of the others, or just had all the kills and losses for all the others put together.

 

For the case in question if we only know that claims agains the Oscar were 480, losses 30, and claims:losses against all other types 2651:168, we'd naturally and correctly compare 480/30=16 to 2651/168=15.8 and say the Oscar did about average compared to all the other planes. Adding the info for the other planes one by one, your method would say the answer somehow changed to "Oscar was significantly better than average"; with the same information, just subdivided. That makes no sense.

 

If you try to argue things like this, how do you expcet to gain any credibility here?, that was also just something you might think about, not a "personal attack".

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Greg.

 

Speed ratings for the F4U-1 vary significantly (anywhere from 395 - 425 mph) but I believe the most commonly accepted speeds are the 408 mph @ 19,900 ft with bomb pylons (capped) & 417 mph @ 19,900 ft clean.

 

For those interested, here is a good chart giving the speed of various WWII fighters at 1,000-10,000-20,000 ft (both mil power & WEP ratings)

PDF = http://www.vrecko.net/diverses/speedchart_en_3.05r2.pdf

HTML = http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:an1EmK3...t_en_3.05r2.pdf

I have not independently verified the data but assuming it is fairly accurate, note where the Ki-84 ranks & how close its speed is to its contempararies.

 

It would have been nice to have seen this chart include 30,000 ft (plus 5,000-10,000-15,000-25,000 ft).

 

EDIT:

PDF & HTML direct links do not appear to be working so try this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=speed...t_en_3.05r2.pdf

Edited by pfcem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a personal attack to refuse to accept nonsense. The overall average is clearly the ratio of the total claims and losses. According to your method you'd get two quite different answers for the relative performance of one plane to all the others depending on whether you had the individual kills and losses of each of the others, or just had all the kills and losses for all the others put together.

 

For the case in question if we only know that claims agains the Oscar were 480, losses 30, and claims:losses against all other types 2651:168, we'd naturally and correctly compare 480/30=16 to 2651/168=15.8 and say the Oscar did about average compared to all the other planes. Adding the info for the other planes one by one, your method would say the answer somehow changed to "Oscar was significantly better than average"; with the same information, just subdivided. That makes no sense.

 

If you try to argue things like this, how do you expcet to gain any credibility here?, that was also just something you might think about, not a "personal attack".

 

Joe

236537[/snapback]

I am sorry that you do not understand the above grade school mathematics involved with averages & ratios. [Not intended as a personal attack.]

 

Like I said, if you want the of average for a series of numbers, you average those numbers.

 

Think of it this way. All you are given is the kill/loss ratios.

 

13.6:1

16.0:1

28.0:1

23.5:1

08.9:1

03.6:1

35.0:0 (I used 35:1) *

55.0:0 (I used 55:1) *

71.0:1

17.2:1

 

Now, what is the average?

 

It is 27.2:1, not 15.8:1.

 

* Mathematically a ratio of [any number]:0 is infinity - it is a division by zero thing.

Try it for yourself. Enter any number into your calculator & divide it by zero - you will get an error.

 

This, of coarse, is just the simpler non-weighted average.

 

For a weighted average, you multiply each ratio or number by the their relative weight (of coarse you would have to know their relative weights).

I did that calculation as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A game is an reputable source? :o  :lol:

236591[/snapback]

Did I say it was a reliable source?

How do we know if it is not a reliable source?

How do we know that data used by a game is not correct?

 

I do agree that using data from a game is very dangerous since there is no guaranty that the data used by the game is correct.

 

If you believe that any of that data is inaccurate, feel free to post what you believe the correct data should be.

 

The WEP speed @ 10,000 for the F4U-4 (388 mph) appears very low (only a 15 mph increase over mil power).

 

I think some of the data for the F4U-1D & F4U-1A is a little high. Numbers already posted in this threat indicate so (by about 10 mph @ 20,000 ft). Could any of the F4U-1 sub-types be faster than the F4U-4 at any altitude?

 

If the pilots who flew them are to be believed, the F6F-5 should be much closer to the F4U-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

total USN claims >> 2973 (removed the Myrt , UI/other)

total USN losses >> 192 (removed UI/other)

 

So for every USN fighter lost, 15.5 Japanese fighters were lost. (2973/192 = 15.5)

 

basic math

 

Zeke/Hamp 1414:104; 13.6:1 >> +1.9 from the mean of 15.5

Oscar 480:30; 16:1 >> -0.6 from the mean of 15.5

Tony 364:13: 28:1 >> -12.6 from the mean of 15.5

Tojo 353:15; 23.5:1 >> -8.0 from the mean of 15.5

Frank 142:16; 8.9:1 >> +6.6 from the mean of 15.5

Jack 43:12; 3.6:1 >> +11.9 from the mean of 15.5

George 35:0 >> -19.5 from the mean of 15.5

Nate 142:2; 71:1 >> -55.3 from the mean of 15.5

 

 

 

You said they were good charts. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Greg.

 

Speed ratings for the F4U-1 vary significantly (anywhere from 395 - 425 mph) but I believe the most commonly accepted speeds are the 408 mph @ 19,900 ft with bomb pylons (capped) & 417 mph @ 19,900 ft clean.

236547[/snapback]

The early -1 models with the -8 engine were about 395 mph on mil power. The -1a was cleaner and managed around 405 mph on mil power clean, and the -1D with pylons dropped back to about 395 mph on mil. The 425 figure looks to be for a clean -1D with the arresting gear removed and the opening faired over. Probably not a representative service speed. The 430+ mph figure sometimes seen for the -1D is for an even further tweaked plane the USN cooked up for comparison testing against a P-51B.

 

Greg Shaw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

total USN claims >> 2973 (removed the Myrt , UI/other)

total USN losses >> 192 (removed UI/other)

 

So for every USN fighter lost, 15.5 Japanese fighters were lost. (2973/192 = 15.5)

 

basic math

 

Zeke/Hamp 1414:104; 13.6:1 >> +1.9 from the mean of 15.5

Oscar 480:30; 16:1 >> -0.6 from the mean of 15.5

Tony 364:13: 28:1 >> -12.6 from the mean of 15.5

Tojo 353:15; 23.5:1 >> -8.0 from the mean of 15.5

Frank 142:16; 8.9:1 >> +6.6 from the mean of 15.5

Jack 43:12; 3.6:1 >> +11.9 from the mean of 15.5

George 35:0 >> -19.5 from the mean of 15.5

Nate 142:2; 71:1 >> -55.3 from the mean of 15.5

236634[/snapback]

You are still confusing total kill:loss ratio with average kill:ratio.

They are not the same.

You are applying basic math to a slightly higher than basic math problem.

 

EDIT:

Could we please get off of this?

We all know that the data itself is flawed, so debating/arguing over calculations made from it does nothing but raise some people's blood pressure.

END EDIT:

 

 

 

You said they were good charts. :o

236634[/snapback]

No I didn't.

 

I have not independently verified the data but assuming it is fairly accurate, note where the Ki-84 ranks & how close its speed is to its contempararies.

I admit I should have emphasize assuming.

 

I have even indicated where I thought some of the data was incorrect.

Edited by pfcem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...