Talk:Kawasaki Ki-61

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Number Built

I put a citation tag on the number built in the text of this article just because it strikes me as a rather high number of fighters for Japan to build for the last two years of the war. Can anyone cite a reference for that number? Geeman 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your post is a year ago, but I just now found this article. Would like to reply.
Good catch - I believe you are correct. Thats an awfully lot for that period - in fact, for any aircraft Japan didn't already have on the drawing board by mid-1941....I'll offer a possible answer: looking a while back at some ME-262 research, I was struck by how many of these jets the Germans supposedly had at the war's end - then saw that in fact, relatively few were operationally available. The majority were lacking engines or some specific part, etc. The upshot was, they were considered "built", they just needed "one more thing..." Anyway, seems to me this could be the situation with the Ki-61 - though I kind of doubt it. I would be very surprised if Japan had that many of these fighters anywhere near completion at wars end...Engr105th (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues in the Operational history section

I'm listing the issues I have with certain information in it, in the hope that someone with access to the refs can address them. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 1st para. says Ki-61 was initially mistaken for an Italian fighter or a license-built Bf 109, but 4th para. says for a German one. Which is right (per sources)?
It's a common fact, reported about this aircraft. It was taken for a german fighter, but still, it had an italian name. in fact, there were reports related both to the meeting of german or even italian fighters.
I'm aware of the reports of German aircraft, but not of Italian aircraft. I did not know that "Ki-61 Hien" is an Italian name. In any case, since it's a common fact, then it should be easy to identify a reference source, as Bzuk and others have been trying to teach you. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nooo, not Hien (=swallow in japan) was an italian name, but TONY, a typical italo-american name, used as its nickane. If not was noted such similarity, then it was called Fritz, or Heinz, sure not Tony...

  • 3rd para. says “Other units were even more unfortunate: only two of a possible 24 Ki-49s reached Rabaul in June 1943.” If this is about the Ki-49, why are we mentioning it? If a mistake for the Ki-61, then this is the same unit (the 17th). In same para., “suffered a disasterous series of failures and ongoing problems” is too vague; if we don’t have a source that explains this better, it needs to be removed. Last sentence doesn’t seem to have a Ki-61 context either and I’m unaware of when and under what circumstances “over 200 were lost at one time”.
It's an additional information, that explains how difficult was for japan aircrafts go in the Rabaul teathre. It must be read as follows: don't be surprised if 18 out of 30 Ki-61s were lost: also 22 out 24 twin engined bombers were lost as well in such bad conditions, in the same operational theatre, for the same reasons.
Thanks. I now understand better what you were trying to say. Could you provide the source so that our readers will know where to go for more information on the topic? Ringraziarla, Askari Mark (Talk) 22:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


The same as Ki-61s lost: Pier Francesco Vaccari, article cited. This is meant as overview as difficult was fight in these horrendous conditions, rain, humidity, cannibals etc. They matters also for military operation, that's not Battle of Britain. And surely, nothing that IL-2 sim can reproduce with credibility.--Stefanomencarelli 10:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 4th para. needs to be combed for accuracy.
  • 5th para., 1st sent. parenthetical note needs to go – but the question it poses needs to be answered. Only one weight is given for the Ki-61-I basic, and it’s unclear which it is. Were both present when this was originally added and perhaps accidentally edited out?

Perhaps---Stefanomencarelli 11:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

About the match between Bf-109, Ki-61 and Mc.202, i have ripristined a part of my text. This is not without reasons.

I have said precisely this:

  • As firepower: since the 4x12,7mm of the Ki-61 were found too weak, it's simply obvious that with 2x12,7 and 2x20mm the situation was meant to be improved! Just check tony williams site. With some calculations, it's possible to check the destructive power combined (chemical and kinetics) of these aircrafts:
  • C.202 basic: 54
  • C.202 with additional mgs. and Re.2001: 84
  • Bf-109E:286
  • Bf-109F:226
  • Ki-61:362 (with guns)362, with 4x12,7mm, almost 180

So the Macchi was undergunned, exp. with Ki-61.

As wings: Re.2001 had a bigger wing than Macchi, and both agility and ceiling were usually reported as 'better', with atleast 1000m. more ceiling. The G.55 had a bigger wing and it was superior at altitude than C.205V. So the lack of a direct comparation between Ki-61 and Macchi could be superseted by these simply tecnical comparations, because the larger wing of the Ki-61 is almost identical to the G.55 one. So for me it's not at all an inconvenient truth. The wingload was lower, this was already enough to expect a better agility, but at higher altitude the big wing was usually ALWAYS in advantage over small wings. This had several pratical examples: spitfire HF had extended wings, not casually. MAcchi 205N had bigger wings (19smq) to improve the altitude agility, and Still, not enough to cope with G.55, Re.2005 and Ki-61 itself (21, 20 and 20 smq.) wings. Not only this, but also the shape of hien wings is very similar to G.55.

So what's the simply conclusion?: Ki-61 had a better handling than Macchi, atleast over 6000m. So simply to understand, seen the available datas of all these machines, that one shouldn't even pose the question. I mean, one that knows what is talking about.

As overall capabilities: Ki-61 had 30% more range, 350-700% more firepower than Macchi, had 400-500kg external stores vs usually 0 (some 320kg max). It was comparable as fighter, it was much superior as escort fighter, as fighter-bombers and above all, as bomber interceptor (try to ask to italian pilots the differences when they had finally 20mm guns on their aircrafts). So i think i have well explained why Hien was the better DB-601 fighter (but also teh last, so the two things matched). Perhaps Bf-109F-4 was overall even better, but with a 1350hp engine, this is another history. This beast could outfly even FW-190 A3 at altitudes.

Conclusions: before delete you must struggle to understand what this mad man tryng to say, perhaps has something to teach about some stuff.--Stefanomencarelli 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you provide sources of information, all of this detail is not usable.The comparisons with other aircraft is mainly periperal informtion. Yes, the Ki-61 showed some superiority, but its wing was almost identical to the Fiat G-55? in what way, wing/chord ratio, wing area, airfoil, use of lifting devices? what? The "big wing was usually always in advantage over small wings" is not even logical. You have a dichotomy is writing "always usually." Is it "always"- no, "usually"- no. My vote is to keep all of this extra guesswork and "personal" research out of the article. Show some authoritaitive research and then it may be acceptable. FWIW Bzuk 13:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC).
I am an ingegnere aerospaziale, so I understand what you’re saying. However, I am afraid that Bzuk is right about it being OR. Wikipedia’s rules say that we write about what others have written (and identify those sources). Your material successfully supports your point and I have no doubt it is true, but it appears to be your “original thought”. If it is not, then the source needs to be cited. This information is also probably overkill on the issue in an article on the Ki-61. It also brings in even more aircraft for comparison (the Re.2001 and G.55) and might confuse readers who don’t know much about aircraft performance. It is for these last two reasons that I removed it yesterday. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Ciao Stefano. I'm in total agreement with Askari Mark's comments which have hit the nail(s) on the head. I don't think that I need to say anything to you regarding references as other editors have already addressed the subject in some depth, however, too much detailed comparative technical information about related aircraft, although interesting to some, can detract from the readability of the article and take the emphasis away from the subject. It's just a question of finding the right balance so that the avarage reader, who we should assume has no prior knowledge on the subject, will not find the article heavy going. I hope that you will take everyone's advice on board when contributing, as even though you're additions are giving some cause for concern, they are valuable in filling in many gaps. Regards --Red Sunset 12:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, so before you stated that my reasons are not exactly unsupported, then you stated that wiki can write only others had written (and copyvioling these, of course)?

But wikipedia has only one real duty: give right informations. I haven't made any absurd comparation, if not having compared 2 machines that are well knows as singular careers. I have posted other aircrafts ONLY to show why these comparations are perfectly reasonable, because in Regia Aeronautica there were the same conclusions: it was needed larger wing. The fact that so many attenction is dedicated to my simple affermation: the best and the last of DB-601 fighters, is indicative of the deep immaturity and mind cowardy of the community, that prefers remove absolutely ininfluential affermations, even if rationally well supported. So is this your manner to 'make a free enciclopedia'? LOL.

So where is the mistake? Because 'no others had sayd this before?' SO what? If nobody had said that Pluto is smaller than Jupiter, so one on your Beloved wikipedia cannot write it?? ha-ha-ha. LOL. Have you a clue that EVERY enciclopedya ever written had not have only the task to 'regroup' the informations, but alwasy had added some conclusion? Discutible? Questionable? Maybe, but so human race progress. Do you understand this?

There are zillions of wikipages full of points 'questionable', perhpas well masked by 'references', and still, full of NNPOV. But Wikipedia has one real rule: the NPOV, and nor you, nor sure Bzuk have ever demostred that i am acting as NNPOV. Neutral Point Of View , right informations and copyright-free is ALL is requested, the rest is BS.

I can have a personal opinions, and still, be neutral, just every judice is supposed to be, impartial. Others cannot have a proper POV, but reporting opinions NNPOV by others, and stating these as 'references'. The thing to identifie the 'personal opinions' with 'NNPOV' is not only an insult to the intelligence, but also a total unsupported affermation. Think about this.

Obviousely i make a mistake if i think that open discussion with the pasdaran party of wiki-censorship is a good thing: much better acting in the shadows or as liar, the forms that you mistakenly have made (unsupported by the 5 pillars), needs, as molochs, to be respected. you need machines, not contributors. Printers, not minds. So you see with the higher suspect every attempt to use freely the mind by your contributors. No worse example of 'BAD CULTURE' can be made by wiki-pasdarans. Greetings.


All you had done is another excellent example of your ARROGANT CENSORSHIP. It's a waste of time pretend that you can even understand a single word of i have said. I am really disgusted of your manners, mf. Bzuk, and i want to discuss in a less misleading mode, like you are acting.--Stefanomencarelli 13:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Censorship? Not a bit. All editors are required to provide documentation. I do and so do others. If you have sources, use them. You cannot remove another editor's request for verification when a citation tag is placed on a passage. The general rule of thumb for all major articles is to provide at least one source of information for each paragraph. It is the onus of the submitter to provide that background. Other editors could do so but it requires major rewriting which Red Sunset and others have already attempted to do. His and Mark's effort has been exhaustive and if a check in the edit and article history is made, you will note that over a day's work of editing was put in. BTW, it is also your responsibility to act responsibly, characterizations are not respected nor accepted. FWIW Bzuk 14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC).


So you don't rate even information easily found in wiki.en? G.55s had 11,85m. wingspan, 21,1smq. surface. It had a trapezioidal, eloghed wings, just like Ki-61. The difference was that Ki-61 had 12m and 20smq. so this means, that the chord was shorter. But still, thet have REMARCABLE shared design features. And still, Ki-61 had lower wingload than Macchi 202, and STILL, a bigger wing was deemed to have improved performances at altitude, AS MACCHI 205N showed cleary. So these calculations and parallels have an easy answer: Ki-61 should have in advantage over Macchi at altitude, BECAUSE this was the path designed for Macchi improved models. So what's so difficult to understand? Even a child could understand this. But not a censor of wikipedia, obviousely. Yes, not a censorship, but seldom, and not citation needed here, a censorship acts ufficially as censorship.

And as citation needed tag, well, apart that i don't tell you where you should placed them, it's not guilth of mine if you post them even in the more stupid things. If Piaggio turrets were knoked, OBVIOUSELY ther rest of the weaponry, nose, flank and ventral position cannot fire behind and above the aircraft, versus dorsal attacks do you understand this? It was so obvious that one (let's say you) has just to run your brain.

And still Piaggio weaponry, thanks to have criticized me over the paragraph 'weaponry'. Let's suppose that i was only specialized about this aspect, so that paragraph should had been censored? Thanks to your critic, to avoid your usual manners last night i must worked to ALL the aircraft until 2:AM. But who cares, mr. Bzuk, you had just to bite me for every BS that you cannot agree.

Yes, these aircrafts ended to fly 60 years ago. Now, they are just rubbles. Here we not talk about GW Bush, God or both. There were only old aircrafts without any weight on modern world: Should do we still duel because this issues? Holy wars in the name of Wikipedia's references? Who can be damaged if i stated, after checked all the datas available, that Ki-61 was a better fighter than Macchi (YEs, i am not nationalist)? Who would be offensed by taht assumption? Just leave that eventually others discusses in the substance of the problem, than avoid it as Wikipedia could be endagered by that holy statement. With the discussions in the merit of the arguments it's possible to reach new results, not with censorship.--Stefanomencarelli 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(Slight amended version of my comments on the project page) Stefanomencarelli, I don't mean any disrespect by these comments, but as a professional writer myself, it is clear from the grammar of your comment above, and those on your talk page, that English is your second language. It is also clear that some of the material added to this page is very professional English, so I strongly doubt that you wrote it yourself.
  • Doubt ALL YOU WANT. IT'S ALL MINE: ALL. Throw me at Guantanamo and i'll state is a copyiol, but not without torture.


I'm guessing that you got it out of a magazine article or a book. It would be most helpful if you'd just cite your source. It is also inappropriate, and a copyright violation, to drop the text directly into the article.

  • Still gratuitus accusations: why you put me in problematic users? Yes i challenghe you 2 zillions wikipedians: FIND WHERE I COPIED SUCH TEXT:IF NOT GIVE ME YOUR EXCUSES.


I would be appropriate to quote the book or mag article, but again, that needs to be clearly identitified as a quote, sourced, and limited in length. If you can't or won't provide references, and for the other material that you wrote yourself but are refusing to reference, then it is appropriate to remove the material as original research.

  • SO YOU ARE STATING that OR i am a copyvioler OR i have made PERSONAL RESEARCHES? Do you are kidding boy? I simply compared what i found. IF i say that F-16 is a fighter better than Spitfire i cannot do this because 'this was NEVER said by nobody'? Or this is a 'personal research? Do you are aware of the immense silliness of your statements??

If there's an edit war here, it's because you either don't understand our policies or are deliberately refusing to abide by them. If it's because you don't understand them, then let me know and I'll explain them futher to you. If it's because you deliberately refuse to abide by them, and you persist in doing so, eventually that will probably lead to you being blocked from editing, which I'd rather not see happen. So, please honor our policies and help us build the integrity of the encyclopedia, rather than bringing that integrity down by introducing inappropriate material. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comparing the overall performances, WELL KNOWS THEMSELVES, of two aircraft and say 'that was better than other' is a violation of what rule? By God, your statement is pure LOL.


Sig. Stefanomencarelli, I am afraid that much of what you are calling “censorship” by Bzuk is simply normal editing to improve the “flow of words” in English, correcting spellings, verb tenses, etc. English has lots of “tricks”. For instance when talking about the maneuver performance of several different types of aircraft, we say “aircraft performance” – not “aircraft performances” or “aircrafts performances”; however, if we were talking about an aircraft’s performances at several airshows, we talk about its “airshow performances”. Moreover, the word “aircraft” is both singular and plural. We don’t expect you to know that, so we fix it when we find it.
  • there is cleary more than that. To me, it show cleary that my statements were even too good know 8and so dispraced) to call the 'grammar issue'. So i still call it as censorship, sorry. You can act it as act of force, but cannot call it other than that.
Even the removal of text is not necessarily “censorship”. As Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability says, “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material”, and “Any edit lacking a source may be removed....” Our guideline on reliable sources says, “... any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source.” These are Wikipedia’s policies, not Bzuk’s, and that is why you are being encouraged to identify and cite your sources. It is your responsibility as a contributing editor to provide them. Rispettosamente, Askari Mark (Talk) 23:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, your wiki-policies are misinterpreted. I don't MADE such statement giving an unreferenced affermation. I have (and posted, also) sources to write '2' and sources to write '3'. So i simply made the sequent calculation: 3-2=1. So 3 is Bigger than 2. In the whole Universe, there cannot be a more stupid discussion than this one.And not for my guilth. Bzuk has bited me from the beginnings and i sincerly disprace his manners and not only them. If wiki is so coward to fear a compatation of 60-years old aircarfts, then please, stop and close your project: you haven't the dorsal spin to save the knowledge for humanity. Sorry to say, but it's so.--Stefanomencarelli 10:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And still another thing: There is the NEED to ask a CITATION NEEDED also to the affermation that Ki-61 can dodfight? Isn't clear in the article already? .


I report, at guarantee by eventual censorship, the whole analysis of this aircraft, if somone is interested.

Technical details anmd performances In all of its versions, the Ki-61 Hien was a single-seat, single-engine fighter made almost entirely from metal alloys; only the control surfaces were fabric-covered. It was ruggedly constructed, and was relatively heavy for a Japanese fighter.

The aft section of the triangular cross-section fuselage was long for a fighter powered by a DB-601 (or one of its copies), and featured a type of "razorback" dorsal structure behind the cockpit. The engine was in the nose, together with a pair of 12.7 mm caliber Ho-103 machine guns. The Ho-103 was a light weapon for its caliber (around 23 kg) and fired a light shell, but this was compensated for by its rapid rate of fire. The ammunition capacity was limited, having only around 250 rounds for each weapon. The windshield was armoured together with a 13 mm armoured steel plate in the pilot's seat. Fuel capacity was around 550 l (145 gal) allowing for a long range (over 1,000 km (540 nm) without external tanks).

The wings were quite large in area, giving a low wing loading. They housed another pair of machine guns or cannons, as well as the undercarriage gear when raised.

Overall, the performance of the Ki-61 was the best of all the DB-601-powered fighters that entered production, which were, essentially, Bf-109E and Macchi C.202. The first was considered inferior, to the Hien in a direct contest conducted in Japan, in every aspect of the combat (even if it was less heavily armed than 'Emil', having only 2x12,7 and 2x7,7mm).

Macchi C.202 was never directly compared with this japan fighter, but are known the most important parameters of its project. Both were described as agile fighters, and capable to handle Allied aircrafts like P-39, P-40 and Hurricanes. Macchi had smaller wings and was marginally lighter, so it was slightly faster. Even if slower, Ki-61 had an additional 120 l (32 gal) of fuel and a quartet of 12,7mm machine guns, so its slight inferiority in speed was more than made up by greater range (30%) and firepower (around 3600 vs. the Macchi's 1100 rounds/minute, and was even more effective if the 20 mm cannons were fitted)[1] , both obtained with a weight slightly greater.

In terms of agility, the lower wing loading (usually an advantage) and the lower power-to-weight ratio (usually a disavantage) probably set the two aircraft at the same level, but the early Ki-61s were lighters and more manoeuvreables than the later models. Macchi, similar to Bf-109 had a smaller wing (16,9 compared to 20m²), best fitted for medium altitudes, but in a relative disavantage as altitude was higher. This is easily recognizable, as the efforts to improve the performances and agility at altitude, led Castoldi to the Macchi C.205N, with a 19m² wing, but still this fighter lost to Reggiane Re.2005 and Fiat G.55, that had 20 and 21,1m². This latter had a wing of elongated trapezoidal design, quite similar to the one of Ki-61. With around 150kg/m² (with the early armament suite), the Ki-61 had a lighter wingload than the Macchi (175, also with the basic armament), so it could theoretically manouver better, and gain advantage at altitude, also because it clocked its best speed at 6000m compared to 5400 of Macchi 202.--Stefanomencarelli 12:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further info/source issues

Here are several more information and source issues I think we need to resolve:

Intro:

  • Do we need a reference for the first mention of “Kawasaki”? I would think there would be better places to employ Gunston’s book.

?????

Design and development

  • Do we know the date/period of the multi-type flyoff?

Not after early 1942, when production started

    • In fact the summer of 1942 at Kagamigahara, next to the Kawasaki Gifu plant[1]Dirk P Broer 00:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Operational history (Para. 3)

  • Which unit at Rabaul suffered the high losses in Ki-34s?
    • That would be far more likely have been Ki.43s, so we have a choice between the 1st, 11th and 13th Sentai.Dirk P Broer 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC). Those units indeed took a heavy beating at Rabaul.Dirk P Broer 00:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Of the 68th, 77th and 248th Sentai Bueschel even writes that they were annihilated in New Guinea.Dirk P Broer 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ki-34 is a two-engined transport plane built by Nakajima (Allied code name "Thora")Dirk P Broer 00:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

??????

  • Besides the already mentioned engine problems, what comprised this “disastrous series of failures and ongoing problems”? What “disasters” occurred? We really need more substance here or else tone it down. (Please note that in the final para. of this section we write, “The aircraft was largely trouble-free in service except for the liquid-cooled engine which tended to overheat when idling on the ground and suffered from oil circulation and bearing problems.”)

Apart the ferry disaster occurred, i am not aware of any. The engine problems were never totally solved, not surely at Wewak.

  • I am not sure that about “losses as high as 200 fighters in a single attack.” I cannot recall ever reading about this. Given such a spectacular achievement, we ought to be able to specifically identify (and source) it.

This is another sample of misunderstundment. I have stated that Allied attacked up to 200 aircraft at once, not the losses were high as 200 at single attack.--Stefanomencarelli 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Askari Mark (Talk) 23:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the original edit: "At the end of the campaign, over 1.000, perhaps almost 2000 japaneise aircrafts were lost, many of them on the ground by continous air attacks, even with over 200 machines at once." Sorry if it was misinterpreted, I obviously did not see the correction made. FWIW Bzuk 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

200 machines at once were referred to allied air attacks, not losses suffered by japs. less than Ki-61s only.

But there is another stuff about: you Bzuk have deleted the Bf-109 information on C.202 page: yuo says: they are irrilevant. But i say that they weren't. Perhaps you as canadian not notice the importance. I, as italian, am full of such comparations that are all but unuseful. So who of the two has the better picture of 'the usefulness' of such comparations? Another thing: you have shifted my affermation about 'the weaponry barely enough to shot down such robust aircrafts' on Hurricanes: no doubt they were robust, but i referred to P-40, all metallic fighters, not Hurricane fabric-covered: do you need proof? try to ask to yourself, what was the effect of HE 12,7mm vs fabric covered and then vs metallic covered aircrafts and then tell me if i shouldn't be concerned by your modiphics. I am sorry that you missed my point so often, but it's not my sin...--Stefanomencarelli 11:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bueschel 1971, "Shoki reaches its majority".

I'm becoming to think that this article is OK, apart my disapprovation for the splitting of tecnical comparations.--Stefanomencarelli 09:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special Attack unit

Great section by Minorhistorian about ramming attacks! I've added a condensed version of it into the Ramming article. You know, there should be an article about Bukosho. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the complement, however it is not all my work; all I added was some information about Shinomaya, Itagaki and Nakano and the awarding of the Bukosho. An article on the award would be worthwhile. Cheers. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)