Ki-27 - Japan's Ultra Agile Fighter

[@johnparrish9215]

The Ki27 would make a wonderful modern sport plane. I would love to have one.

[@jimmyboomsemtex9735]

I agree there the 2 seater with a modern engine would be a dream machine to fly

[@aaronseet2738]

* Red Bull breathes heavily

[@Bochi42]

I agree! Also the later Ki-43. I read an account by a P-47 pilot in the CBI of a Hayabusa/Oscar pilot doing a half loop up, rolling over doing another one and then most of a third before rolling out. He was amazed, though wisely kept his speed and realized neither of them was going to be able to shoot the other down and went home after that. I had the exact same thought about what a fantastic sport plane the Ki-43 would be. Both the 27 and 43 would be beautiful planes to fly in peace time.

[@Necrodermis]

@@Bochi42 well Nakajima now survives as Subaru so if someone convinced them to get into sports planes who knows maybe they could reproduce one of these beauties?

[@jackdaniel7465]

I agree with you 💯 PERCENT!!

[@NATNETINARELLI]

During WW2, Thai airforce ordered bunch of ki-27s. In late 1944, a squadron of 5 ki-27s was badly outnumbered against P-51s and P-38s in air combat over Chiangmai. Our nate squadron was decimated with only one plane surviving but shot down a mustang and damaged two P-38s.

[@KA-jm2cz]

Getting experienced mustang with ki-27 is still some sort of heroic act. Not many could do that.

[@NATNETINARELLI]

@@KA-jm2cz one of our ki-43s (Total of 24 in service during ww2) downed a B-29 in 1944, although the guy was also downed later as well.

[@jb6027]

I love this channel. No BS, just facts and great information. Thank you also for translating metrics to feet, miles per hour, etc.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@copernicium1122]

I agree, some channels have biased answers but this channel only talks about that facts, I would like to see more of his videos!

[@aussie6910]

@@AllthingsWW2 Can you do a report on the K5Y1 'Cypress'. I have a model of this aircraft & read it completed the last successful kamikaze mission of WWII, USS Callaghan sunk. Subscribed. Love your channel, keep'em coming.

[@mikepette4422]

The Navy's counterpart to the Ki-27, the Mitsubishi A5M "Claude" would be nice to look at too as I believe the 2 planes were very similar.

[@Cuccos19]

Just like the Ki-43 vs. A6M the Ki-27 vs. A5M was the same, the Army fighter was a bit lighter and a bit more agile than the Navy one. Certainly Navy fighters needed extra equipments to operate from a carrier.

[@SoloRenegade]

and the A5M was also revolutionary itself.

[@DrewShotsFan]

I've 'flown' this aircraft in a JD Webster Fighting Wings scenario vs AVG P-40s. The opposition players made the mistake of trying to mix with our Ki-27s in a maneuver fight, instead of employing boom and zoom tactics. I got my Ki-27 latched on to the tail of a P-40 and he just couldn't shake me off. It took about 6 game turns of shooting at him before finally getting the 'kill'. The game models the aircraft performances very well, and the scenario we played reflects the points you covered in this great little video. I've just subscribed to your channel

[@demetridar506]

Good video. Usually there is garbage in the Japanese aircraft subject. The advantage of the Ki-43 was that it had the superior butterfly flaps, which compensated at least in part for its heavier wing loading. By the way, many make the mistake of suggesting that the Japanese push towards maneuverability was a mistake. It is true that a highly maneuverable fighter has limited speed and dive performance, so it cannot protect well its bombers. But Japan always knew it would be outnumbered, and the only way an outnumbered type can have a chance to live and fight again against superior numbers is maneuverability. The Japanese planners were not wrong, they were just outnumbered.

[@TalkingGIJoe]

Built a 1/5 scale R/C model of this plane... flew fantastically! A real beauty in flight...

[@AllthingsWW2]

Now you're making me jealous.

[@dareka9425]

I built a scale model of the Ki-27 once. I really like the shape of this plane, especially the engine cowling that suddenly got small to follow thin profile of the rest of the body.

[@HarborLockRoad]

I feel you have the best aviation channel. Period. None of the others even come close to your presentations. Well done!

[@AllthingsWW2]

Well, that's a big compliment. Thank you!

[@anselmdanker9519]

Thank you for covering this Japanese fighter.great work.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@tillytilford2158]

These are the best aircraft videos. I love the way you put them together.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@RohanGillett]

I saw a replica of a Ki-27 at the Tokorozawa Aviation Museum in Japan a couple of years ago. Like many Japanese aircraft of the period, it was beautiful. But as the war dragged on, it sure became a target.

[@DataWaveTaGo]

Great series of technical & historical facts! Thank you!!!

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@tigercub1906]

Ki-27 had as you point out the lightest wing loading of possibly all WW2 monoplanes it still had a fixed landing gear hanging of it ,so i am claiming Ki-43 was more nimble. Great channel keep it up!

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@山田太郎-o5q2i]

日本陸軍がKi-43をテストしたところ、通常の格闘戦ではKi-27に勝てない為不採用になりかけています。その後、縦方向の機動や速度差を利用すればKi-43が勝ることが判明しています

[@Otokichi786]

It seems that the Imperial Japanese military pilots, like their Italian counterparts, prized maneuverability above everything else. This view came back to bite them hard when they met P-40s and the Flying Tigers.

[@allangibson2408]

The key with the P-40 was not to play to the strengths of the Japanese aircraft but rather use speed to make slashing attacks - in and out at high speed without turning.

[@winkhantaung8075]

But they(especially the army) recogized the impotance of engine power after testing bf 109 and built the ki 44

[@victorboucher675]

@@winkhantaung8075 Which was really stupid if you lack the fuel for thirsty high power engines. Parked on the ground, they are just target practice for Hellcats.

[@Otokichi786]

@@winkhantaung8075 Then there's the Ki-61 Hien, that used a license-built DB 605. Which led to the Ki-100 after the engine factory was bombed out of existence and the IJA "did the FW-190 thing."

[@GTgaming69]

Id recommend checking out Drachinifels vid on the A6M Zero, its pretty all encompassing when it comes to Japanese fighter doctrine in WW2 and part of that being that interestingly the whole “Japanese pilots always tried to dogfight” narrative isnt actually all that accurate. Which makes some of their aircraft design choices even more puzzling lol

[@hyenafur]

If/When you do a video on the P-51, please consider looking into how their designs impacted civilian aviation. The airfoil was a huge inspiration to Beechcraft and Piper for the Bonanza and Commanche.

[@christopherjavens3438]

Don't see this type of in depth analisis on the history channel. Well done.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@sydecarnutz972]

This makes me want to do a scale model of one for RC. I bet it would be a delight to fly!

[@GTgaming69]

Just wanna say you make really good content man. Im sure the youtube algorithm has big plans in store for you

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you! I don't really think it has, but I'm happy you believe it!

[@lw3918]

I would love to see an episode on the Bristol Beaufighter, or the Fairey Battle.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Hey, there! I will push the Beaufighter up the list. I can't promise you a date, but possibly in the next two months. The next aircraft will be British, but it won't be any of those two. Thank you for the suggestion.

[@lw3918]

@@AllthingsWW2 I would just like to see you stay away from the typical Spitfire Mustang blah blah blah. I would rather see you focus more on some of the unsung heroes of that conflict

[@AllthingsWW2]

You can count on that for the time being 👍

[@jimbernitt7590]

Hi... this is one of those times i think about the wrights first flight... and look at the first automobiles... and find it very intetesting... to see what wheels and wings advanced into ... by the time pearl harbor happened... have a nice day...

[@capo.88]

Still haven't watched but was waiting for a Japanese fighter! I will surely enjoy this one

[@icewaterslim7260]

The Soviets learned to hit-n-run and avoid turning fights in the vertical before Chenault counseled the AVG in those tactics . And the Japanese Army was slow in changing requirements from those requiring climbing and maneuverability so the Ki43 was the result. Army Ace Yohei HInoki called the Ki43 a "disaster" but probably acquired most of his count in them. Nakajima always had the good powerplants and a good fighter airframe in the Ki84, after attrition in adequately trained pilots was taking it's toll.

[@jb6027]

Maybe a video on the top scoring Japanese aces, and what became of them. Not much information in the west about the Japanese aces.

[@AllthingsWW2]

I will certainly try to diversify my content and that video is a good idea. Thank you for the suggestion!

[@ditzydoo4378]

Actually the P-36/H-75 Curtiss hawk had better wing loading, turn rate and climb rate than the A6M2 Zero's it faced at Pearl Harbor. But again the US military early on settled on not flying to it's enemy's strengths and used the Boom and Zoom tactic's developed by Claire Lee Chennault and the AVG Flying Tigers in China. As well as the Thach Weave developed by Navy Lt John Thach.

[@miquelescribanoivars5049]

It had a lower power-to-weight ratio and IJN pilots STRONGLY favoured the use of vertical manuevers even that early in the war. Also, no, the P-36 didn't outclimb the A6M2 at all. French Hawk-75A2's climb time to 2,000-4,000-6,000 meters is listed at 2.16-4.68 and 8.35 minutes respectively, by contrast the A6M2 is generally reported to climb to 6000 meters in 7.5 minutes.

[@prieten49]

The "Nate" reminds me of Japanese cars in the 1960s and 70s: very light, with a tight turning circle, and great gas mileage. Of course, you wouldn't have wanted to be in one in an accident with your typical American "chrome boat." Hiromichi Shinohara had a glorious but short career. The Japanese aircraft design approach of little to no armor, light weaponry, and no self-sealing fuel tanks demanded heroism from its pilots. I suppose none of those things mattered much in the later stages of the Pacific War when Japan called on its pilots to make the supreme sacrifice, the Kamikaze attacks.

[@stanburk7392]

I would say it affected the Kamikaze attacks as well, only 19% actually hit their target. A more durable design would have increased the chances of getting through the defenses. Agility is a good thing but when your opponent comes down on you from above at high speed it is limited what you can do for defense and near impossible to get the speed to pursue him. I am sure you know tis already just mentioning it. It does show how large militaries seem to take forever to learn lessons. they carried this light armor doctrine through to the end of WW2.

[@jankochanowski3252]

The Polish PZL P7 and P11 monoplanes were known due to good maneuverability

[@bigjj1109]

Great vblog I have a diecast model of the Ki-27 and it looks formidable although very much a plane of the 1930's than 1940's keep up the good work!

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@williamkoppos7039]

Good vid as usual. One nitpick, the I-16 faced by the Ki-27's were type 10's. 2 very comparable machines. Type 24's were the last variant in 1941.

[@Crashed131963]

Two guys with a hand held Bren light machine guns had the same fire power as this plane. Straffling locomotives was out of the question I take it?

[@theregoesmiller389]

love your videos ! ! i been playing IL2 and your videos started popping up ! ! would LOVE if you could do a video on the IL2 planes and rank them ? agility ? quickness ? top speed ? fire power ( none bombs / rockets ) ?

[@AllthingsWW2]

If I go down that road, I will probably do it on a different channel, dedicated to aviation video games. That seems like a nice idea. Thank you for the suggestion.

[@Astrawboy_NameAlreadyInUse]

4:30 That face is definitely not the optimal one to make while taken in a photo. The slant-eye. I know it's not a good thing to talk about since the ww2 era veterans fought for the country and they are long gone. But the picture haunts real good.

[@demonicusa.k.a.theblindguy3929]

I would love to see the KI-61 covered on this channel if it hasn't already been done..

[@AllthingsWW2]

I will certainly do it. I've only covered the Ki-27 when it comes to Japanese planes.

[@demonicusa.k.a.theblindguy3929]

@@AllthingsWW2 that would be great. My grandfather, and his older brother fought in the pacific, so thats my focus. The level of detail you pack into your content is much appreciated. Have a good day, and take care.

[@PaulPatten-ps1ov]

The polikarpov had an inferior supercharger, and it's pilots suffered frostbite from a cabin with incomplete enclosure. pilot visibility was better for the Nakajima. Charles Bane said the canopy slipstream on an I16 could break an incautious man's neck when looking around.

[@scootergeorge7089]

Hirohmichi Shinohara, the "Red Baron" of the Orient flew a very maneuverable fighter just as the later did with his blood red triplane.

[@larrydee8859]

As always; An excellent, informative video. (Though similar; The A5M "Claude", would also be a very interesting naval Air topic to cover. The 1930s, is a very interesting time period for aviation, especially in this theater of war).

Woow, what a great discovery, this is a realy good channel. You won a new sub 👍 You have all my support from Argentina :D

[@AllthingsWW2]

Muchas gracias!

@@AllthingsWW2 ♥️

[@701duran]

great video as always cheers

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@kennyhagan5781]

Just subscribed. Dang, you have done the research for sure. Thanks for a great video.🛩️

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you for the sub!

[@conservativemike3768]

A nice leisure aircraft, ideal for short hops to the Warbird Cafe for lunch.

[@redacted8983]

While giving informational facts about the aircraft, I love how you use war thunder as references and visual aides

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@masbeetleboy9169]

The Ki-43i was WWII's most agile airplane, hands down. The Japanese army sacrificed everything to make that aircraft that agile. Later versions of the ki-43 were heavier, but stronger, more powerful, and better protected. The Japanese army had learned the hard way by mid 1942 that they needed more than agility to win in the air.

[@timonsolus]

The Ki-27 was more agile than the Ki-43, and the Ki-27 was used in the front line in the first 6 months of the Pacific War. And the Gloster Gladiator, Fiat CR.42 and Polikarpov I-153 biplanes were more agile than the Ki-27, and fought in WW2.

[@masbeetleboy9169]

@@timonsolus I should have been more clear in my comments, the ki-43i was WWII's most agile mono-plane fighter. Counting biplanes, stars of WWI wasn't my intent. Also notice I stated the Ki-43i was more agile than the ki-27, and the Japanese Army Air Force wanted it that way. The ki-27 was agile and sturdy, but un protected. The ki-43i was a bigger airplane with a bigger engine and a retractable landing gear. It would offer more speed, acceleration, and climb rate, but it was still required to be able to turn inside a ki-27. This explains why the Oscar, ki-43, had such a long development period which meant that the ki-27 still had to fight in WWII. For Nakajima to achieve the Oscars requirements, everything else was sacrificed, armor, fire power, range, even structural integrity. The result was an extremely agile, but very limited and flimsy fighter. The ki-43i could fly and dance in the sky at near biplane speed and then zoom and climb like a truly modern monoplane, which it was.

[@timonsolus]

@@masbeetleboy9169 : Sorry, but you’re incorrect. The Ki-43 could not turn inside a Ki-27. The Ki-27 had a lower wing loading than the Ki-43 because it was a lighter plane, and being lighter meant it could turn more tightly. But the Ki-43 could turn tighter than the Allied monoplanes it was up against, like the I-16, Buffalo, Hurricane and P-40.

[@tigercub1906]

@@timonsolus i for one also think Ki27 with that landing gear hanging of it would be out turned by the Ki43 yes the wing loading was lighter on the Ki27 but its not the only factor in agility.

[@timonsolus]

@@tigercub1906 : Fixed landing gear creates more drag than retractable landing gear, but is lighter in weight as the hydraulic apparatus needed for retractable landing gear is not required. Weight coupled with wing loading limits pitch rate (but not roll rate). The Ki-43-II had a gross loaded weight of 800 kg more than the older Ki-27. This was why it couldn’t turn as tightly.

[@HughBond-kx7ly]

I am sure the ki 27 was the most manueverable fighter of its day but with an armament no heavier than a Sopwith Camel it must have been completely behind the eightball

[@alessiodecarolis]

It seems that the japanese made a big mistake after another, having success against some aircrafts (biplanes/early monoplanes) don't means it will last forever, they should've expected that they would've clashed with more powerful foes, faster & better armed, on the contrary with the KI-43 they produced an aircraft that didn't fare well against more modern fighters

[@casioak1683]

You point it right. The fatal flaw of Japan in WW2: they never updated their designs. I read this exact opinion in one of local aviation magazine. The same Nakajima bomber used in China, used again in Pacific campaign years later without any update.

[@aussie6910]

I have models of the Ki-27 & A5M2, beautiful aircraft.

[@PeteSampson-qu7qb]

In a way, the early success of the unprotected Japanese fighters cost them the airfare before it began. By the time they figured out even good pilots get hit sometimes, and a littleprotection would allow them to fly home, they were pretty low on good pilots.

[@lw3918]

An episode on the Boulton Paul Defiant would be cool.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you for your suggestion. It won't come in the near future, but I'll get there eventually!

[@lw3918]

@@AllthingsWW2 Big fan of your channel. I'm a WW 2 historian and author. My skills have allowed me to assist in the rebuilding of some warbirds.

[@RogueAce93]

Great overview!! Keep it up!

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thanks, will do!

[@bakters]

When assessing the strengths and weaknesses of WW2 aircraft, we need to remember that a lot of what we "know" comes from period propaganda. For example, the importance of pilot protection appears to be often exaggerated. Yes, it did provide some benefits at some angles against some weapons, but a lower weight provides benefits at all angles and in all situations. So it's a tricky bargain, nothing obvious, by any means. Personally I believe that the main reason for installing this extra weight was not necessarily the protection of pilots, but improving their aggressiveness and initiative. And of course, with the later more powerful engines the extra weight didn't matter that much. Similarly, self sealing fuel tanks were a compromise between range, weight and protection, which didn't do much at all against hits with later, larger caliber weapons. Another pet peeve of mine is the emphasize on "new" hit-and-run tactics, which were apparently developed against the superagile Japanese fighters. It seems it's always the Japanese, who are defeated by this "tactical innovation"... Anyway, monoplane fighters entered the skies filled with biplanes. If pilots back then couldn't figure out that trying to stall-fight a biplane is playing to the strengths of the enemy, despite constant training and mock-fighting, I doubt a few rumors of actual combat encounters could change that attitude. ;-)

[@onerimeuse]

I hate the I16. I don't think I've been killed by any aircraft more in warthunder... Damn that nimble little bastard.

[@1joshjosh1]

I tell you what was the most maneuverable monoplane ever but I can't. I was not there. So I don't know. Sounds like a good candidate though. Keep up the good videos

[@williampaz2092]

If it was given a retractable landing gear, and a 3 bladed propellor it would be an excellent sports plane today.

[@kaletovhangar]

So basically an Ki-43-II?

[@WildBillCox13]

Liked and subscribed.

[@wonkachocolates6133]

Oh Yeah, while Dog Fighting in the Kombucha Triangle, the Ki-27 used Saki for fuel and could easily be repaired using chopsticks.

[@SwineBuster]

Love this channel! 🎉

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@urviechalex9963]

It was a very useful tool on the Asian mainland prior to Pearl Harbour. It shouldn´t be compared to late war Allied fighters, though....

[@SoloRenegade]

Even the Japanese said the A6m Zero was more maneuverable.

[@HermitagePrepper]

A slightly stronger engine and a few modifications would make it unbeatable. Mounting guns in wings would eliminate the need for a propeller timing device. Fix 4 mg in the wings to increase fire power. Harden cock pit for pilot safety Self sealing gas tanks. 3 blade propeller

[@pedromaguina6593]

Tenía el Ki-27 un par de ametralladoras de Cal. 30 o 7,62mm, con eso poco daño podía hacer a un I-16 y mucho menos a los P-40. Exageración para apoyar a la causa.

[@nighthawk8053]

Ki 27 Nate was obsolete by 1941,and was undergunned and unarmoured .Many would explode if hit by 50 cal rounds, complete deathtrap.

[@martryan2060]

Brilliant video thanks maybe flyingboats or a floatplane next ? Take care ☀️ Also Ki27 ceiling was 40,000 ft. I have read a great bit about the aircraft.

[@mikepette4422]

40 thousand seems a bit high for a pre WW2 design i'd trust the 34,000 from the video more than 40 k

[@martryan2060]

@@mikepette4422 well according to Doc I have seen 40 ,000ft is mentioned many times But don't know if it was unarmed Where testing was done as an air on Manchuria work have a better ceiling than the tropics !

[@AllthingsWW2]

Hey there! One of the books I used as a source "Aircraft of World War II by Chris Chant", also referred the ceiling as being 40,190 ft. As most other sources indicated differently, I went with the more common value, as I knew there was no official value. If it had been on another section of the video I would have put a reference to the discrepancy. But on the Head to Head section, there is little room to add something else. As both values were above what the I-16 Type 24 could do, and as both fighters fought well below those heights, I left it with the more conservative value. Flyingboats seem a wonderful topic, but I have already chosen the next two aircraft. Maybe in a few months! Thank you for your suport and suggestion.

[@martryan2060]

@@AllthingsWW2 don't worry about it you are doing a fantastic job. But alot of people don't understand is alot of aircrafts performance is related to climate Operating zone . Why do you think the p51 Mustang Was only used only with B29 over Japan towards the end of the war Because it performed poorly in Tropical areas. Some aircraft had ceiling reduced by up to 10/15 percent because of this. Also Japanese fuel was rubbish. When there aircraft were fuelled up American octane there performance rose by 10/20 percent over the spectrum. Great work I have lots of books Very rare ones if you need some information.

[@AllthingsWW2]

That's a really nice offer of you, thank you!

[@chd1694]

Good video 📹👍

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thanks 👍

[@msk806]

Retractable landing gear would have improved its statistics 👌

[@andrzejgawron1287]

Hi, try to compare Ki27 with Polish PZL P24G charateristics or even slower P-11c. PZL test pilot Bolesław Orlinski wrote negative opinion about maneuverability of next generation fighter PZL P-50 „Jastrząb” comparing to P-11c. Few years later, he flew British Hawker Hurricane and then he said, that P-50 was better. Ki27 and P50 were powered by almost the same engine, both of them were single pilot monoplanes. P50 had retractable Landing gears. So, I suppose that P11c and P24G could be better than Ki27 in dogfight maneuver. Best Regards

[@AllthingsWW2]

Hey there! Gave a look at some of those fighters. The P-11 seems it could possibly turn inside the Ki-27. I will certainly do a video on a Polish plane in the future. Thank you for you comment.

[@didierdenice7456]

Shinohara 's score of 58 victories...are actually only claims !!! And since the Japanese overclaimed about 6 times the real Russian losses... it's very likely that his real score was about 10 victories... which nevertheless made him undoubtedly an ACE 🤔

[@mikepette4422]

I doubt he only had 10 maybe he has less than the 58 claimed but the 6 times figure is only a guess as the soviets were not know for accurate claims and losses either and Russia in general has never been a nation known for being honest about anything lol

[@victorboucher675]

All sides "misreported" victories.

[@geoffreycarson2311]

HI AS An ENGLISHMAN HOW CAN THE YANKS SAY 5 planes Made You An ACE 😕😂In Germany &;England EVEN though it Was FROUND UPON 😕IT WAS 10 !!!!!SAYS IT ALL g

[@didierdenice7456]

@@victorboucher675 No ! You don't get it ! Japanese didn't officially record victories... There is NO record of victories at all. These are PURELY claims and Japanese would claim just about anything they wanted. Just shooting at an ennemy was enough to claim one. The best historians who have tried to match claims agains acutual losses have calculated that the claim ratio for Japanese pilots are on average about 5-6 to 1 You are not going to find the same ratio level in the Lutwaffe, RAF or any in other air forces where despite some overclaiming ... you still had a system of verification and official recording !

[@tplyons5459]

One mistake. The Russian 7.62mm ammo had a bullet diameter of .310 inches

[@victorboucher675]

Yes, correct.

[@TonyLovell]

The Japanese seemed to fixate on virtues that would create the best fighter of WW1... all based on aerobatics and high turn rate. It was not a promising course, but would have been less disasterous if enemy pilots (Americans, certainly) hadn't realized the emphasis and come up with tactics to avoid the Japanese strengths and exploit their weaknesses.

[@conservativemike3768]

Yep. Dated doctrine, brittle leadership.. plus they rapidly ran out of money & resources since errant decision-makers didn’t expect the war to last longer than 6 months.

[@ゴルゴ榎本]

この飛行機は、スピードは出ないが、すばしっこい良い飛行機だ。

[@williammccoy7127]

Looks like the Foker DXXI

[@graemewilce3057]

Gee it certain does look like a very maneuverable fighter aircraft the Germans at the time of ww2 would have loved it .

[@pavelslama5543]

Soviet planes would work much better if their crews were trained in a similar way like the Japanese ones.

[@ilfarmboy]

Russian Japanese war 1939 results caused Japan to create the famous "Zero"

[@davidhayes7596]

Never fight ninja on his terms.

[@t.j.payeur5331]

Armed with 2 .30 caliber machine guns..like a Spad...

[@jaguareagle7026]

ki 27 abdul man my dad's name is Abdul that would have been so good

[@victorboucher675]

Agile ? Wow great for air shows.

[@mjc8281]

It must have been an horrific pain in the ass carrying that samurai sword into combat.....and unlikely often useful!

[@victorboucher675]

They liked to behead prisoners with them.

[@mjc8281]

@@victorboucher675 good luck doing that from a cockpit!

[@HughBond-kx7ly]

Yes and it would probably jam up the controls in a small cockpit

[@Astrawboy_NameAlreadyInUse]

4:30 Least Asian stereotypical figure. I can't stop thinking of the image of teeth-poking rounded-glass-wearing exaggeratedly smiling Japanese pilot.

[@geoffreycarson2311]

WHAT A PILOT HE WAS !!!IMAGINE HIM IN A K84 HAYETE 😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨😨HE WOULD HAVE BEEN WORTH 20 PLANES 😮✌g

[@victorboucher675]

Hartman 352 victories. Mostly against USSR, so seems the Commies are easy pray.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Great video. Yes, Very maneuverable but that's not what's needed - shooting down the enemy is required. I would like to see a Sqn of Ki-27 Vs a Sqn of Boulton paul defiants. The Ki-26 would easily get on the tail of Defiant .. where the turret gunner would shoot them down ... More fighter aircraft needed rear observer / gunners.

[@allangibson2408]

Until, like the Germans, they discovered the Defiant had no forward firing guns - making an attack from in front and below an easy kill.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

@@allangibson2408 experienced 264 Sqn handled Emil aces ok, it was novice 141 Sqn that was massacred out of the sun.

[@allangibson2408]

@@RemusKingOfRome There was a reason the Defiant became a night fighter. The lack of any forward firing guns was well recognised as a mistake quite rapidly. The Bf109 pilots who mistook a Defiant for a Hurricane rarely got to make the mistake twice however.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

@@allangibson2408 Yeah ok, we're off topic. replace Defiant with Dauntless. Ki-27s still die.

[@victorboucher675]

@@RemusKingOfRome Hellcat wins period. 50 BMG matters. Same for P-47.

[@rockhard3240]

Wartime subaru

[@yeetyeet5079]

I say yak 3 was more agile as Germans avoided it under 5000 meters no matter what

[@waterz2415]

10:49 troll smoke lmao

[@williamwillis1286]

Japanese "victories" were in obsolete or (in most cases) non existent planes. The Chinese were murdered by the bushel.

[@christopherjavens3438]

Too bad alot of Ki-27 were lost to the divine wind. But any real soldier would have went, so, is what it is.

[@victorboucher675]

Was that a "Typhoon" (Hawker) divine wind?

[@christopherjavens3438]

@@victorboucher675 Yep, just differant piolets

[@patrickwentz8413]

It was a flying burning deathtrap for its pilots.

[@victorboucher675]

Yes, and if turning well was that works, then the Pitts would of been a great fighter.

[@jarikinnunen1718]

It can be expressed as follows: If the Germans had used those Japanese planes in the fight against the English, the English Air Force could not have repelled them. 109`s very short range made it weak.

[@victorboucher675]

Is this humor?

[@jarikinnunen1718]

@@victorboucher675 No. 109 got 15 minute battle time. Japanese plains got 2000 km range and extreme climping rate. How you get that out?

[@kaletovhangar]

@@jarikinnunen1718 You do know that Ki-27 had terrible armament and speed for actually fighting spitfire and hurricane?

[@steveholmes11]

I'm pretty sure the RAF would have no problem with this. It's a previous generation fighter compared to Spitfire and Hurricane, and the German mission was bomber escort. Can the Ki even maintain station with a JU88 formation? For a close analogy, the Regia Aeronautica did make a few raids during the Battle of Britain, and their highly manoeuvrable biplane fighters had a very hard time.

[@jarikinnunen1718]

@@steveholmes11 Here somewhere is video of german bomber and spitfire "battle". Bomber climbed high and spitfire did can not reach it even bomber was with bombs. Spitfire was good in low, cause it wings, but otherwise not so good.

[@urbangeeze1348]

You pronounce the Ki-27 as the 'key' 27. This is not right, you should just say the letters individually as K, I 27, after all, you wouldn't pronounced the Junkers Ju 87 as the 'Jew' 87 would you? If you're presenting facts about the aircraft, at least learn to pronounce their designations correctly, or it makes you look a little ignorant. But overall a very interesting vlog though.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you for you comment. I actually tend to do it by nations. For the Soviet aircraft I read it like it is, Yak, Mig, even La (Lah). For the Japanese I decided to do the same, as Kay Aye, would sound strange to me. But you're correct, I wouldn't do it on a Ju 87, or any German plane. Food for thought.

[@toast2300]

In Japanese, the army plane designations go as follows "キ-(insert number)". キ is pronounced as "Ki", as you see it written, no pronunciation changes, so I think this is the correct way to name them Edit: the official way would be "九七式戦闘機" (kyuu-nana shiki sentouki) which means type 97 fighter

[@buckwheatINtheCity]

This fighter was underarmored and undergunned. It was soon obsolete.

[@victorboucher675]

Target practice for P-40s.

[@Astrawboy_NameAlreadyInUse]

4:30 Least Asian stereotypical figure. I can't stop thinking of the image of teeth-poking rounded-glass-wearing exaggeratedly smiling Japanese pilot.