Looking for Ki 43 Hayabusa data (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

That is an interesting what/if, krieghund.

My thoughts are - The A6Ms mounted the Kinsei engines might have been a good match for the F4F and the F6F but the war results would not have been improved so much because of their increased weights, including armour plates possibly, and shorter range of operation distance.

If Japan should not have lost its major aircraft-carriers together with those well experienced pilots in the Battle of Midway in June 1942, there might have been better chance for those improved A6Ms. "We were too optimistic after the victory of Pearl Harvor" said a survivor of Akagi.

Thanks.
 
I'm thinking that an A6M with a Kinsei 54 would be like the A6M3 Model 22 with the Sakae 21. More fuel but also more military power if needed. Both the Kinsei 5x series and the Sakae 21 consume fuel about the same in cruise setting.
 
Thoroughly interesting thread guys 8)
...I remember (too many years ago; like 18 ago) reading a book by a K. Watanabe 'I Was A Kamikaze Pilot' that in the last year or so, certainly in the orange cristanthimum training schools and non elite units, of the usage of 'A-Go' (iirc) Fuel - basically very high strength alcohol/sake mixed with fuel to make the stocks of high octane fuel stretch further even if at a reduced octane rating; this did lead to problems with ignition and carbaurettors on less well serviced or un-adjusted A/C and the loss of some trainees, pilots and engine/aircraft abilities.
iirc; Watanabe-san ended his training as a special attacker, flying as needed dragon destroyer/arrow (rammer) and eventually for invasion kamikaze, but the his A/C failed on take-off due to A-Go fueling issues - so he survived as war ended before his next mission was due (pulled kicking and screaming from my memory, so I might be wrong, and claim that right to be so).
 
Last edited:
That's a terrible story, Lewis, but lucky for Mr. Watanabe:lol:

I have trially combined the Mitsubishi Kinsei with the Mitsubishi Zero airframe in CGI.
On design, it does not look so bad.
A good experience for me.
Thanks.

PS: The conventional cowling for the Nakajima Sakae(dia. 1150mm) looks tight for the Mitsubishi Kinsei(dia. 1218mm) but also looks it may fit well if redesign the upper air-intake thinner and wider.

A6M5_w_Kinsei.JPG
 
Last edited:
Thanks tomo pauk. Here is the side view.

I have understood that the Kinsei was larger than the original cowling.
Wow! I have to remake:(

A6M5_w_Kinsei01.JPG
 
Yes because the engine diameter was larger and the cowl guns and their ammo boxes were deleted, this left room to expand the firewall fuel tank as in the Model 21. This left only 2 x13 MG and 2 x 20mm cannon in the wings. I believe the A6M8 fuel protection reverted to the CO2 system as the self-sealing fuel tanks were not entirely successful. (See Exploding Fuel Tanks by Richard Dunn)

Notice the redesign of the cowling to accommodate the intake requirements.
 

Attachments

  • a6m8aa.jpg
    a6m8aa.jpg
    19.9 KB · Views: 303
  • a6m8 -fron-t.jpg
    a6m8 -fron-t.jpg
    26.7 KB · Views: 305
  • Cowl.jpg
    Cowl.jpg
    56.5 KB · Views: 423
  • SIDE.jpg
    SIDE.jpg
    37.2 KB · Views: 334
Last edited:
Thanks, krieghund, for your data.
I will launch another thread to introduce my A6M8 work in the future as that is off-topic here.
Thanks again for your good cooperation!
Keep in touch.
 
Last edited:
OK, I have now understood that the almost lines in the cowl drawing of A6M8 you krieghund posted in above indicate model 54(prototype) but the additional two-dotted thin lines do Model 64(production model).

Also, my local expert says the A6M8's propeller and spinner was same one as the D4Y3's.
I can step forward now.
Thank you very much.

D4Y3_R.JPG
 
Last edited:
Ki-44 was quoted at 650 km/h in an official Japanese self evaluation document.

1150 hp in the Ki-43-II to 1230 hp in the Ki-43-III (or 1020 vs 1230 hp) could hardly have led to a 38 mph (60 km/h!) difference in top speed... The III data is likely closest...

650 km/h also makes a lot more sense for the J2M3 and N1K1, since they both had 1800 hp, as did the Ki-84 which is quoted as 700 km/h by a captured wartime Japanese pilot...

Japanese top speeds are a murky area, because Japanese charts never quoted full WEP.

Gaston
 
I found some more data from W.Green's books on Japanese Army fighters
 

Attachments

  • 001.jpg
    001.jpg
    143.8 KB · Views: 419
OSCAR 2

A pilot's handbook for OSCAR 2 captured at Korako and translated by ATIS, provides interesting information. While the plane referred to is the long wing (37.6' span) OSCAR 2, its performance and characteristics are close enough to those of the current production short wing (35.6' span) OSCAR 2 to be considered identical. There are several obvious errors in the document and it is not known whether these existed in the original, an official JAAF publication, or resulted during translation and/or transcription. Pertinent data are as follows. (All data reduced to American units).

I. Airframe Specifications:
a. Span – 37.62 feet
b. Length – 28.98 feet
c. Height (3-point) - 10.12 feet
d. Wing Area – 236.0 sq. ft.
e. Aspect Ratio - 6


II. Engine and Propeller Specifications:
a. Engine - Type 2 1150 HP (Ha-115)
b. HP/AMP/RPM/Alt.
- 1104/41.7"/2800/S.L. (T.O.) (300 mm)
- 1104/37.8"/2700/9186' (Rated) (200 mm)
- 966/37.8"/2700/27887' (?) (Rated) (200 mm)

c. Fuel – 92 octane
d. Propeller – 3 blade hydraulic C.S.
1. Diameter – 9.2 feet
2. Blade Angle - 24°-44°


III. Weights:*
a. Empty – 3812 lb.
b. Normal Gross – 5320 lb.
c. Overload – 6069 lb.


IV. Flight Limitations
1. Diving Speed – Below 373 m.p.h. I.A.S.
2. Acceleration – Below 6 g.
3. RPM – Below 2600, 3000 in dive.
4. AMP – Below 37.8" Hg
5. Full Flaps (30°) – Below 155 m.p.h. I.A.S.
6. Combat Flaps (15°) – Below 249 m.p.h. I.A.S.
7. Retract Landing Gear – Between 99 -118 m.p.h. I.A.S.
8. Lower Landing Gear – Below 168 m.p.h. I.A.S.

*Japanese weight figures vary from U.S. practice. Empty weight rarely includes armament, radio, and miscellaneous equipment usually included in the basic weight of U.S. planes. Overload weight is very often exceeded in practice, normal gross [weight,] almost always.


V. Fuel Tank Selection and Time of Consumption

A. With Jettison Tanks

Fuel Tank/Capacity/Condition/Approx. time of Consumption
Jettison/52.8 gal./Cruise/l hr. 40 min
Jettison/52.8 gal./Cruise/1 hr. 40 min.
*No. 2 Tank/69.2 gal./Combat/20 min./cruise/ 1 hr. 5 min.
*No. 1 Tank/79.2 gal./Cruise/2 hr. 0 min.
Total - 254 gal./6 hr. 45 min.

Cruise Condition: 13,123', 1900 RPM, 37.8" Hg, 168-174 m.p.h. I.A.S.
Fuel Consumption - 31.7 g.p.h.
For take-offs and landings, subtract 30 min. fuel from No. 1 tank.

*The long wing OSCAR has four wing tanks. When there is a symmetrical wing tank arrangement, it is common Jap practice to connect the symmetrical tanks to a common fuel **** and designate them as one. Thus, "No. 2 tank" is evidently the two front wing tanks.

B. Standard Fuel

Fuel Tank/Capacity/Condition/Approx. time of Consumption
No. 2 Tank/68.6 gal./Cruise/1 hr. 30 min.
No. 1 Tank/79.2 [gal.]/Combat/20 min./Cruise/1 hr. 30 min.
Total - 148 [gal.]/3 Hr. 20 min.
Cruise Condition: 13,123, 1900 RPM, 37.8" hg, 180-186 m.p.h. I.A.S.
For take-off and landing, subtract 35 min. fuel from No. 2 tank.


VI. Fuel Consumption Data for Cruising:

A. Standard Load

Altitude(ft)/IAS(mph)/TAS(mph)/RPM/AMP(Hg)/SFC(gph)/Supercharger(Speed)

3281/177/192/1800/22.1/28.0/1
13123/181/228/1900/22.1/31.7/1
13123/187/235/2000/22.1/32.2/1
22966/173/257/2000/22.1/33.8/2
22966/167/249/2000/22.1/33.8/2


B. With Jettison Tanks

3281/168/183/1800/22.1/28.0/1
13123/170/214/1900/22.1/31.7/1
13123/175/220/2000/22.1/32.2/1
22966/160/238/2000/22.1/323.8/2
22966/153/228/2000/20.1/31.2/2


VII. Take-off Distance and Time (No Wind)

Flap[position]/RPM/AMP/Distance/Time/IAS/Load
0°/2700/37.8"/630'/118 sec/68.4/Normal
15°/2700/37.8"/564'/106 sec/65.2/Normal
0°/2700/37.8"/889'/151 sec/74.6/Overload

Note: 2500 RPM and 32.9" Hg (75 mm) are used for training and normal take-offs from good run-ways. 2600 RPM and 37.8" Hg (200 mm) are normally used for short run-ways or obstructions. Tabulated figures are for maximum power take-off under emergency conditions.


VIII. Climb

Normal climb is at 2500 RPM and 32.9" Hg (75 mm). Maximum climb, tabulated below, is for a steady climb under standard load conditions. Supercharger is shifted at 14,764 ft. Time of climb does not include take-off run. Cowl flaps are open two-thirds.

Altitude(ft)/ Time(min/sec)/Rate(fpm) / IAS(mph) / RPM / AMP("Hg)
3,281 / 1.13 / 2730 / 146 / 2700 / 37.8
6,562 / 2.25 / 2898 / 146 / 2700 / 37.8
9,843 / 3.30 / 3070 / 143 / 2700 / 36.2
13,123 / 4.35 / 2893 / 140 / 2700 / 31.9
16,404 / 5.49 / 2320 / 137 / 2700 / 37.8
19,685 / 7.24 / 1949 / 130 / 2700 / 34.3
22,966 / 9.12 / 1791 / 127 / 2700 / 30.7
26,247 / 11.09 / 1535 / 112 / 2700 / 26.77
29,528 / 13.36 / 1142 / 115 / 2700 / 23.2
32,810 / 17.20 / 687 / 109 / 2700 / 19.3
36,794 – Ceiling


IX. Level Flight

Condition /Altitude / RPM / AMP /IAS /TAS/ SFC/Impeller
Cruise /13,123 / 1900 / 20.1" /177/ 224/ 29.1/1 Speed
Cruise /19,685 / 2000 / 22.1 /174/ 249/ 26.4/2
Combat /13,123 / 2600 / 35.8 /*242/ *224/ 95.1/1
Combat /19,685 / 2600 / 35.8 /*240/ *249/ 106.0/2
Full Speed /9,843 / 2700 / 34.8 /252/ 313/ nil/1
Full Speed /19,685 / 2700 / 37.8 /221/ 320/ nil/2

*Error, possibly in original, probably in either translation or transcription. Neither IAS nor TAS appear to be reasonable.


X. Indicated Stalling Airspeed at 6562 Feet

Condition/Flap Opening/Indicated Stalling Speed
Cruising/0°/74.6 m.p.h.
Landing/30°/65.2 m.p.h.
Landing Gear Down/0°/78.9 m.p.h.

With jettison tanks, indicated stalling speed is approximately 6.2 m.p.h. less. (?) Landing descent is at 93-106 m.p.h, contact at 78 m.p.h. Landing roll on grass is about 1840 feet without brakes, 1500 with.


XI. Turning Performance:

Altitude/Direction/IAS/Radius/Time/RPM/AMP
1969'/Left/205 m.p.h./307.4'/10.8/2700/37.8
1969'/Right/205 m.p.h./301.5'/11.0/2700/37.8

Note: Turns are executed without difficulty but the ailerons get heavy with increased speed.


XII. Handling Characteristics and Aerobatics:

a. Airplane is normal in every respect. Take-off is simple, turns are easy, landings are normal 3 point with practically no instability after contact.
b. In tropical conditions, vapor lock occurs during climb and at high altitude. It can be reduced by installation of a main and auxiliary [sic] tank pressure system (No. 1 and No. 2 tanks are provided) and a fuel cooler. It can be combated [sic] by operating the hand fuel pump 2 or 3 times. To minimize vapor lack, [sic] reduce the ground test run as much as possible, operate throttle slowly on take-off, take measures to keep fuel temperature low during refueling.
c. Although various types of acrobatics are possible, avoid half rolls, snap rolls, spins, inverted climbs, and steep pull-ups at high speed.
d. Enter loops at 2300 RPM and 199 m.p.h. IAS. The speed at top is about 81 m.p.h.
e. Loop rolls (Immelmans?) entered at 2300 RPM and 217 m.p.h. IAS. Altitude gain is about 1600 feet.
f. Climbing Rolls can be executed at 2300 RPM and an initial speed of 186 m.p.h. 106 m.p.h is the proper speed for Rolls.
g. Slow Rolls can be executed from level flight by gradually increasing the boost. To prevent the nose from dropping during inverted flight, adjust the trim tab to "down elevator"
h. Slow turns are made in level flight with the throttle cut at an indicated air-speed of 143 m.p.h. Loss of altitude will be about 2000 feet.
i. Steep climbs are made at 2600 RPM and 37.8"Hg. A 3281 foot climb can be gained at 50°. The Initial air-speed will be 217 m.p.h. and the final speed, 112 m.p.h.
j. Steep dives are made by setting the propeller at maximum pitch to avoid excessive RPM. The RPM will then be around 2000.


k. Supercharger change-over at 2700 RPM should be at about 13,800 feet. At 2600 RPM, 13,400 feet. The operation should be performed at 2200 RPM and below 29.92"Hg. During combat the change-over can be effected [sic]at rated horsepower without ill effects.
l. Descend at an IAS of from 186-220 m.p.h. in flat turns with the throttle open slightly.


Comment [by intelligence analyst]

This document shows OSCAR to be a ship of fair performance, good climb, and excellent maneuverability. There is no evidence that OSCAR pilots take the restrictions seriously and they seem to get away with it. The engine limitations appear to be too stringent and the performance in ATAD #T1 is based on power ratings slightly higher than those presented here. There have been reports of OSCAR showing high "flash" performance and it is possible that some sort of power-boost may now be incorporated. There is reason to believe that Jap pilots prefer OSCAR to the higher performing TOJO and TONY.
 
Hi Guys,

Thanks for the info eagledad and Ivan. I'm going to look this information over closely. You know, the more I read about the Ki.43, the more I believe the TAIC report was pretty close with its graphs and figures.
 
Hello CORSNING,

The contents of my post was also an extract from J-Aircraft.

- Ivan.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back