My exact thoughts

The gift that keeps on giving, thanks Greg 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇺🇸

McGuire and another super ace were bagged by a single Ki-84 over the Philippines, flying P-38L's. The third and fourth P-38's were saved by cloud cover.

Was 150 octane fuel available in Australia or Burma?

Not to mention RAAF fighter squadrons flying MkVIII Spitfires in and around New Guinea.

@@rokuth Unfortunately, the RAAF squadrons got very little air to air combat after early 1944, not long after they got their MkVIIIs. They were relegated to mopping-up ops, and it was one of the reasons for the so-called mutiny.

There were a few RAF squadrons of Spitfire VIIIs in Burma. At a glance I can see photographic evidence for squadron Nos. 155, 136 & 607 operating MkVIIIs in Burma and I presume there were more. I don't know anything about encounters with Ki-84s, but if they were present in the theatre a clash would seem likely enough.

Can't have that Sakae radial hiccuping as your A6m3 put-putts at 150 knots for four hours from Rabaul to Guadacanal, can we? Then 15 minutes of combat at WEP and then returning while sweating out the fuel remaining... You want the best gas you can get!

@@marckyle5895 Good point and accurate! The A6m3 was the "Hamp" version and it had shorter wings for more speed and faster roll but less fuel! Right when the IJN air arm decided to require shorter range interceptors is exactly when they required long range fighters.

I think I read an article in Air Force Magazine which was written by a radar operator who was on Okinawa in 1945. He stated the Frank was so fast, they wouldn't even bother to scramble P-51s as they couldn't catch them. His quote was "forget it, it's a Frank", as I recall. Great analysis!

All Ki-84 units had their own special octane fuel, I think 92, so there was no "Army" fuel octane... I don't know if this applied to all Army fighters, but it might have, as the Japanese pilots preferred the Ki-43 all the way to the end, not because of its reliability but because of its turn performance (14-15 seconds), despite this being already good (17 seconds to the left, 20 seconds to the right) in the Ki-84.

Thanks Steven, you don't know how rarely I get a comment like this. Usually, it's "I hate the math". In fact a lot of people skip that entire part or exit the video at that point which creates a real quandary for me. Do I back up what I'm saying with the actual math? Or should I just put up the answers and expect people to take my word for it? I'm going to lean towards showing the math.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles It's super appreciated. I'm rewatching the video, a 2nd time today, just to make sure I'm understanding the math.

​@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles (Old comment, I know) Please don't ever withhold the math. It is greatly appreciated.

@@SkinkUA Lol

Doesn’t apply to the Mosquito though, does it, a quite expensive aircraft to make, certainly nowadays

@@TheHarryMann Well when you consider that the Mosquito was literally moulded in two halves and then joined together, in a similar way that plastic model aircraft are put together today, what was once a production advantage becomes a repair and refurbishment nightmare.

They built roughly 3500 of them but the factories were pretty much devastated and lots hayates were built very poorly, but those that were built well and had amazing pilots, they were a force to be reckoned with for any US fighter during 44/45.

@@dobridjordje 3500 is nothing.

As materials got more scares, steel and wood started to replace sections of the wings and fuselage. Weight went up, performance dropped and quality .... well.

The Japanese were not only out of aircraft, they were out of fuel and out of pilots. The U.S. Navy had a surplus of pilots, courtesy of a ramp up of flight training after the heavy losses at Coral Sea and Midway, and was building aircraft like the F8F BEarcat and F2G Super Corsair if they were required.

@@fafner1 Actually, if you read the book "Downfall" by Richard Frank (written 1999) he points out that the Japanese were actually "holding back" aircraft for the expected Invasion of Japan (which was beleived to be coming sometime after Aug. of '45.) Numbers were thought to be just ovrer 3000---with the required fuel to fly them. Which would have allowed the Japanese to seriously challenge Allied air superiority over the invasion beaches. For the first couple weeks, at least.

The Ki-84 did go to south east Asia. Apparently, it never got into a direct scramble with Spitfire VIIIs. They were used in hit and run fighter bomber, and Spitfire VIII's tried to catch them, but at low altitude the Ki-84's would out run them without a fight. The orders to the Ki-84 pilots were to avoid engagements. Funny, the Ki-43III's that accompanied the Ki-84's had to deal with the angry Spitfire VIII's, because unlike their big brother, they could not outrun the VIII's. On an interesting side note, the experienced Ki-43 pilots considered the Spitfire VIII as their only worthy opponent, since this was the only allied fighter plane that could really "mix it in" with them. Obviously, the VIII's could not really out turn the Ki-43 in an extended turning fight, but unlike other allied fighters, they could "walk away" upwards at the low speed dogfight and escape when in trouble. However, many Spitfire pilots (especially of the V mark) got carried away and paid the price. On another side note, there is a very famous engagement in Burma where Ki-43's made a surprise attack on a forward base of Spitfire VIII's. Two of them managed to take off, and one shot down. It was a miracle that the other survived. No allied fighter could have fought the Ki-43's at low altitude with no altitude advantage other than the VIII, and even that was barely. My guess is that there were several inexperienced pilots on the Japanese side. As for the Spitfire XIV's, they did not make it on time for the fight. They were held for the European front (only 950 were built) and when that conflict ended, it took time for them to find their way to Burma.

@@demetridar506 The Ki-43 was not to be taken lightly, it had extremely fast acceleration. Wing Leader Clive "Killer" Caldwell did much better against Me-109s in his P-40 in North Africa than he did fighting Hayabusas with Spitfires in the defense of Darwin, Australia.

@@Thermopylae1159 Agreed, please look at my other comment that I started. I think that this is a message I am trying to get through to Greg. In his Ki-61 video (which of course in general I liked) Greg said that the Ki-61 pilot was in much better position than in the Ki-43. I did not agree with that statement. The Ki-43 could not protect the Japanese bombers very well, nor attack allied bombers very well, but in close combat, it was unbeatable. The Ki-84 had many of the trades of the Ki-43, but could also defend Japanese bombers, and attack US bombers effectively.

Was just about to type that it could face Mk.VIIIs in Burma. Also could they be in Manchuria when Soviets stormed in late in war, facing P-63s, Yak-9s and LA-7s... did quick check and 104th Sentai had Ki-84s in Manchuria when soviets atacked and used them for GA on soviet units.

@@countzero7 I have read nothing about Ki-84s vs. the red airforce. The La-7 could perhaps keep up with acceleration and climb rate with the Ki-84, but there would be no contest in a turning fight. However, that front was not a high priority for Japan, so I doubt there would have been too many experienced pilots stationed there.

00

F6f had lowest top speed of any r2800 fighter But had huge impact in Pacific.

isn't there a Ki-84 in Dayton, OH at the USAF museum? Perhaps it's the same airplane?

There is only one Ki-84 left in one piece in the world, it is in the Kamikaze museum in southern Japan, I cannot recall the name of the town.

No, perhaps you refer to the NiJ1. It also used the Homare, but it was not as capable an airplane.

The USAF Museum in Dayton, Ohio, definitely has a Japanese “George” fighter. I doubt it has a Ki-84. When I visited back in 2008, the George- which was a bit massive of the Japanese fighter- was parked next to the Enola Gay B-29.

​​@@demetridar506That is the Frank captured at Clark Field, the better example of the rebuild mentioned. I know it was from Clark Field by the "Aero" publication which I own. It was repatriated to Japan in about 1960, was demonstrated in an airshow in Japan ( there is a video on my channel) then parts were stolen from it and it remains on static display in some museum in Japan as the only known surviving example as you said.

It really is.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The P47 was one hell of a plane. It didn't get the publicity of the Spitfire and Mustang because it wasn't as pretty. Kind of like the B24 and B17. Thank you for your efforts in producing these videos, especially this one on Christmas Eve here in the USA. Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year. (Didn't know you are ill, hope it's not serious.)

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles There’s is any version from Ki-84 that was not built yet, especially like with Turbocharger and even 2.500 hp engine but both doesn’t exist. And I wonder what would have speed and range then?

Thanks Jay. I try to stay patient and not just bring out the ban hammer, but it's hard sometimes.

The B-29 crews took them very seriously. Bombing at night at medium altitude they were vulnerable.

And fast enough to be hard to run away from it!

TAIC didn't do any performance testing unless they specifically indicated it in the report. Everything is calculated. However, they did issue a seperate report that was just on the Homare 21 engine. The report contained detailed benchmarks, measurements, and other data that was obtained through a laborious dissection of the engine and its capabilities. I suspect that they use calculated speeds because it's easier to standardize such data across different airframes because of how variances in how atmospheric pressure, wind, and temperature can make big differences in indicated airspeed. By doing bench tests on engines under controlled conditions, TAIC could generate more useful data for pilots and engineers.

@@kannony5393 My point was that many people are under the impression that the actual test aircraft flew at 427 mph (as Wikipedia and other sources claim). As our good friend Chuck Yeager pointed out in his book, flying a full performance test card on an aircraft is complicated and there is no evidence that they took the time to do it with the Frank.

Hi Stewart. The P-51H Mustang did in fact use ADI. However it never saw combat. All other P-51s ran without it.

And my grandfather, Magome Mitsue was a KI-84 Pilot, shot down 3 mustangs over the Philippines in 1944.

No, it was tested with US 96 octane fuel. They didn't say it out flew the 51, but it's performance was comparable in some areas, and even superior in a few.

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The Allies had captured stocks of German and Japanese aviation fuel. I suspect they tested captured aircraft with both for comparison, but I'd have to read the test documents. (Also the Germans saved fuel out of crashed Allied aircraft for lab analysis and for flying captured examples.)

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for the info; I had heard that it used the same fuel that standard fighters got, hence the assumption.

Gosh you are very dedicated to the late Emperor Hirohito and The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere! Unfortunately you have missed all the actual fighting, perhaps you could do some voluntary work for Japanese charities or your local Japanese Embassy or Consulate? Is this an _Axis_ thing?

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 what the heck!!! 😳

lol, although nothing would shock me at this point.

With a prop aircraft you get to a point of diminished returns rather quickly, Greg has a bit to say on the subject, I believe it's in a video comparing hp to thrust

The TU-95 can go over 600 mph. It's also very noisy.

Regardless of power it all comes down to using that power and the tool that does this is the propeller. The more power you have the larger the propeller needs to be. You can't spin a propeller any faster than they have been since WW2 because after a point the tips of the propellers exceed the speed of sound, at this point the thrust from that propeller drops drastically. That leaves you with propeller blade length, chord and number of them. That then leads into things like the corsair faced with propeller clearance against the ground and there is the can of worms you open after that, bigger propeller means bigger plane means more power needed etc. The current Beechcraft T6 Texans and the like are a good example of what you can do with modern practices and small gas turbine engines in a light frame.

Did a bit of a search and found this. It's an old NASA document, from 1980 and that's old even for me, about high speed turboprops. While planning on reading it through I am still in the early pages. It's focus is on extending the MACH number turboprops can efficiently operate as they are more efficient at lower speeds than fan jets. They quickly bring up MACH.8, which translated to about 593 mph (if you trust the internet). Well. it's a start. ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19800012800/downloads/19800012800.pdf

Hi Rick, a lot of those other factors are in the next video. No single performance factor will make a good fighter plane.

Pierre Clostermann reported an engagement with a Do335 while piloting his Hawker Tempest V. Despite being in one of the fastest aircraft of the war at low level, Clostermann couldn't catch the Dornier, because of its superior speed. Had he caught up to it, the Tempest would likely have have made quick work of the Dornier, which was inferior in most if not all other performance measures.

@@js14a Pierre only broke the throttle gate limit-wire once in his Tempest, he couldn’t lose 3 FW190s on his tail so he more or less sacrificed his engine to get clean away. The Dornier pilot might have had the same idea, ….. especially with a tail propellor and the deadly cockpit jettison handles (German mountaineer joke ‘look no Hans’).