Compare and contrast: Ki 43 and the Zero fighter

[Spitfires Forever]

As some may have guessed by now I have really developed an interest in Japanese fighters, but have always wondered what valid performance comparisons can be made between the two fighters. Since I will be starting on a Ki 43 kit quite soon, and having read numerous books on the amazing Zero, having a good background on the Hayabusa would give me inspiration for the upcoming build.

Cheers

Edited February 25, 2015 by Spitfires Forever

[MDriskill]

Take a look at J-aircraft, an excellent research site for WW2 Japanese aircraft. You will find a look through the forums and archives there very interesting I believe.

There was a long discussion there, perhaps two years ago, regarding why the A6M was not built for the IJAAF (though I can't seem to find it now!). IIRC, this involved rather a lot of heated debate in comparing technical points of Mssrs. Zeke and Oscar. The topic is all the more intriguing as the majority of A6M's were actually constructed by Nakajima.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/


Nick Millman's super blog is also an excellent resource for both machines, and other related subjects.

http://www.aviationofjapan.com/

Edited March 1, 2015 by MDriskill

[Nick Millman]

To be fair I don't think much in the way of comparison will be found at my blog! I tend to leave those sort of x vs y comparisons to the flight sim fraternity as the arguments tend to be long and hard and very much directed by preference and gaming experience!

As Yeager used to say "It's the man not the machine"!

Nick

[Seawinder]

As some may have guessed by now I have really developed an interest in Japanese fighters, but have always wondered what valid performance comparisons can be made between the two fighters. Since I will be starting on a Ki 43 kit quite soon, and having read numerous books on the amazing Zero, having a good background on the Hayabusa would give me inspiration for the upcoming build.

Cheers

Which Ki-43 kit are you going to build?

I'm no kind of expert on Japanese planes, but if you check out the Wikipedia articles on the Ki-43 and A6M2, you'll find that the Zero was slightly lighter, had a slightly lower wing loading, but carried heavier armament. The Ki-43 only had two synchronized 7.7mm MGs (later one 12.7mm and one 7.7mm; later still two 12.7mm). The Ki-43 still reflected the paramount importance placed by the IJAAF on maneuverability.

[3DStewart]

Compare and contrast? It's a pointless activity. They lost so they're both useless!

Stewart

[Guest]

Compare and contrast? It's a pointless activity. They lost so they're both useless!

Stewart

I get your point, but it is interesting to me to find out the various strong and weak points of each aircraft. I think they were perhaps closer in performance than a comparison between the P-39 and P-40, but in the end I guess it is all superfluous in the end, as is history in general for that matter.

Cheers

[3DStewart]

Spitfire

Perhaps you should consider the relative merits of each from the owner's point of view. Which was produced in the greatest numbers, which was still in production at the end of the war?

Stewart

[Nick Millman]

Compare and contrast? It's a pointless activity. They lost so they're both useless!

Stewart

Your comment, apart from being untrue, impugns the efforts of the many valiant Allied pilots, aircrew and other servicemen who fought against and in many cases lost their lives to the Zero and Ki-43 throughout the war.

That is throughout the war.

And in 1942 very few of those men would have considered those aircraft to be "useless".

Nick

[Don McIntyre]

Capt Eric Brown, while not comparing these specific aircraft did an interesting book that compared different allied naval aircraft to their axis (not necessarily naval aircraft) counterparts. I do have it in the library, but, unfortunately, can't locate it at the moment, so can't give you details.

[MDriskill]

This is, literally, only an indirect answer to your question, but you might gain some insight from the "Duel" series of books published by Osprey. While the A6M and Ki-43 are not compared directly, each aircraft does feature in the series twice:

No. 8, Ki-43 vs. P-40
No. 16, A6M vs. Seafire
No. 41, Ki-43 vs. B-24
No. 54, A6M vs. F4F

These books are well-written, nicely illustrated, and interesting to read. No doubt these four volumes contain at least a few nuggets that would be useful in comparing the aircraft.

Edited March 1, 2015 by MDriskill

[Guest]

I have read several books on the Zero, as well as many first hand accounts of American pilots who fought against it, and I think I wouldn't be too far off by saying that up until 1943 the Zero was if not the best, one of the best air superiority fighters of the war. I remember reading an account of one of our USAAF pilots who came in for a briefing with some newly arrived RAF BoB veterans who were very successful against the Messerschmitts. The pilot warned them about the Zero and its capabilities, and of course the Brits were skeptical about the reports. the USAAF pilot warned them to not get into a turning fight with the Zero, they really didn't take the Yank pilot too seriously, after all they arrived with Spitfires, which were a totally different aircraft than the P-40, a much less nimble and slower fighter. From what I remember 12 pilots went out and seven came back. I don't know as much about the Hayabusa, but from watching actual footage of the Ki-43 performing aerobatics that were very similar to that of the Zero, it seems that in the hands of an Anabuki, Masuzawa, or Kajinami, the Ki-43 could probably do as much damage and perhaps move as adroitly as a Zero, but of course I am just speculating, thusly my post. I basically would like to know the rate of climb between the two, top speed, aerobatic ability, etc. It would have been interesting to see what Nishizawa would have thought of the Army fighter.

Cheers

[MDriskill]

Again, I would recommend the J-aircraft forums linked above. I can pretty much guarantee this question would provoke an enthusiastic cascade of both fact and opinion there!

[Nick Millman]

I have read several books on the Zero, as well as many first hand accounts of American pilots who fought against it, and I think I wouldn't be too far off by saying that up until 1943 the Zero was if not the best, one of the best air superiority fighters of the war. I remember reading an account of one of our USAAF pilots who came in for a briefing with some newly arrived RAF BoB veterans who were very successful against the Messerschmitts. The pilot warned them about the Zero and its capabilities, and of course the Brits were skeptical about the reports. the USAAF pilot warned them to not get into a turning fight with the Zero, they really didn't take the Yank pilot too seriously, after all they arrived with Spitfires, which were a totally different aircraft than the P-40, a much less nimble and slower fighter. From what I remember 12 pilots went out and seven came back. I don't know as much about the Hayabusa, but from watching actual footage of the Ki-43 performing aerobatics that were very similar to that of the Zero, it seems that in the hands of an Anabuki, Masuzawa, or Kajinami, the Ki-43 could probably do as much damage and perhaps move as adroitly as a Zero, but of course I am just speculating, thusly my post. I basically would like to know the rate of climb between the two, top speed, aerobatic ability, etc. It would have been interesting to see what Nishizawa would have thought of the Army fighter.

Cheers

That all sounds like a conglomeration of anecdotal stuff inspired by various tales, from the arrival of 81 Sqn in Burma, warned about the Ki-43 by resident 136 Sqn personnel (no Yanks involved), to earlier tales of the AVG despairing of the stuffy RAF - up against the Ki-27 and Ki-43, with possibly the arrival of RAF Spitfire squadrons in Australia thrown in for good measure.

The Zero played very little part in CBI but the Ki-43 and Ki-44 were habitually referred to there as "Zero" by American pilots. The AVG even managed to turn the Ki-27 into a Zero, a myth so well established that one of the better modern AVG historians got into trouble with veterans and AVG groupies over it.

I suggest that you try and find a copy of this 1944 intelligence document - there are quite a few repros knocking about and it can probably be downloaded somewhere too.

http://www.amazon.com/Performance-Characteristics-Japanese-Aircraft-Op-16-V-T/dp/B00NHDT67A

It includes excellent performance data tables with power/speed/climb curves. A6M2 and Ki-43-II had approximately the same speed but the Oscar climbed at a rate of about 440 ft/min faster within its optimum altitude of 10-20,000 ft.

Nick

PS The Ki-43 armament tends to get discounted against the Zero wing cannon but the Japanese Army classified the 12.7mm as a "machine cannon" and it could fire explosive rounds.

[Guest]

Hi Nick

After WWII there were many "war books" written about the various battles fought, and I have no doubt that we have to take a grain of salt with the majority of the tales written about fighter aces. Once you get past primary source material the veracity of that material, becomes highly suspect. Even first hand accounts can be highly suspect, just look at most witness to crimes, no two people witnessing the same event can be completely trusted, take for instance those exploits touted by Greg Boyington (much of Baa Baa Blacksheep can be discarded as mythical, short of the officially 28 confirmed kills.) Althoigh interesting, most history has a certain degree of fictional information, it is the nature of the beast. Perception is often taken for reality unfortunately, paint schemes of aircraft are a great example, nes pas?

Cheers

[Seawinder]

You never said which Hayabusa kit you were going to start.

[Guest]

You never said which Hayabusa kit you were going to start.

Sorry mate, the 1/48 Otaki version. The Hasegawa kits go for 30 to 40 dollars apiece so I am going cheap. From what I have read, with a little work it is a decent kit.

Cheers