Nakajima Ki-84 Pt. 4 Conclusions

[@PeteSampson-qu7qb]

In 1965 Dad took me fishing with two business associates. Dad was a B-17 navigator at the very start and was lightly wounded on his third mission over France. Fortunately, since he ended up being one of two men in his barracks who wasn't eventually killed or captured, he acquired an infection that sent him stateside. Then he contracted TB while training in B-29s and missed the rest of the war. Herr Spangler had been in the Luftwaffe in 1944 and he got caught by the Bf 109's landing gear on his attempted first flight. He shattered an ankle and missed the rest of the war which, considering the survival rate of Luftwaffe pilots at that time, ended up being rather fortunate too. He was also hilarious telling the story of trying to get credit for a flight without leaving the ground but his CO didn't believe him when he said the landing gear collapsed after he bounced into the air so his crash should still count as a takeoff and landing! Mr. Abe, called "Bear" because he was built like a Bear, was one of those Japanese engineering students who got drafted. He was extremely lucky because he hadn't even started flight instruction when the war ended. And the drill masters didn't beat his marvelous sense of humor out of him. So there I was, 11 years old, and fishing with Dad and two guys who had once been his sworn enemies. They were drinking beer, i had a few sips but Dad had horrible taste in beer, and telling jokes and war stories about how they were once sworn enemies and I realized that honorable warriors are more friends than enemies and they don't get to choose their enemies. These three men did choose to be friends and that is a lesson that has guided most of my life since. Cheers!

[@raulduke6105]

My pops was a fighter engine mechanic (even worked on B29’s) on Biak Island in the pacific. Knew tons of pilots and they respected the Ki84 and Ki100 immensely. Climb dive and maneuverability way more important than top speed as long as no more than a 20% difference. Have tons of pics of the Japanese bone yard they inherited. Lots of ki84’s

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Impressive. In order to be a flight engineer on a B-29, he had to really know his stuff.

[@jeffk464]

KI100 had a mission where they wiped out a ton of Hellcats. It was probably the best fighter the Japanese came up with.

[@ToreDL87]

@@jeffk464 N1K's had a similar bunch of missions, in the first meeting with N1K's only 50% of the Hellcats survived and came back pretty much shellshocked with no idea what happened.

[@weaverflytyer]

you should scan those photos of the bone yard and get them online, lots of enthusiasts like me would get excited checking out even the rusty scrapheap of japanese aircraft

[@vmoney9106]

Ki-100 was completely unknown to the Americans , hence it did. It have a reporting name. It’s simply known as the type 5 fighter (goshikisen)

[@augustosolari7721]

This is the largest amount of information you will get anywhere on KZbin/online about this wonderful plane. Thank you!

[@muskepticsometimes9133]

95% of YT aviation videos just summarize internet search. GAAA looks at original sources

[@augustosolari7721]

@@muskepticsometimes9133 yes mate, i'm tired of lousy videos Made of rehashed Wikipedia stats.

[@BARelement]

Basically

[@djbabbotstown]

This video had more density than my Canadian cousin’s, gender-confused kid.

[@muskepticsometimes9133]

@@djbabbotstown your cousin's kid identified as ki84 gender

[@mauvegrail]

When I was a boy entrant in the RAF in 1960, there was a Nakajima Ki 84 in one of the training hangers at RAF Cosford, along with a Lysander and a V1 buzz bomb. This, I think, was the beginning of the museum at Cosford, although there are museums at other RAF stations including RAF Henlow in Bedfordshire. For someone with your history credentials, I don't think you would have any problems gaining admission - should you ever visit the Wolverhampton area in Britain. Keep up the very good work.

[@mauvegrail]

P.s. RAF Henlow is near the USAF base at Chicksands.

[@whtalt92]

The Ki-84 was at Hendon in September 2022, under restoration. RAF Museum Hendon (and Cosford) are free admission, donations are very much appreciated.

[@GrahamMilkdrop]

It's a shame there's only 1 'like' button because I found myself reaching out to like this video several times while watching it. That happens a lot when watching this channel.

[@mikespillman3075]

''I regret that i have but one like to give''

[@buff123]

Good morning from Germany. I absolutely love the really professional engineering approach of your videos to give a quite complete picture of performance and flying qualities.

[@EffequalsMA]

This has been *almost* as cool as your P-47 discussion, which is my all time favourite. I am a huge P-47 fan though so, maybe I'm biased. :)

[@scottinohio701]

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@scottinohio701]

Im BIASED because my father flew 104 combat missions with the 358th FG from Oct 43 to Oct44(ETO)

[@loumencken9644]

@@scottinohio701 👍👍👍

[@joegatt2306]

Fantastic channel. No bias, no BS, no sneering at the other side's fighter plane capabilities. Just pure and honest technical approach. I wish I could understand it fully. Happy new year.

[@chriscarbaugh3936]

I am in my 50’s and a life long aviation enthusiast….. you have answered questions I have had on planes for decades! 👍

[@billgruner44]

Being a long time WW2 aircraft enthusiast and modeler, I was glad to see this review. The Ki-84 Hayate ("Gale" as I remember ) was Nakajima's premier fighter and perhaps the best of all the Imperial Japanese Army's (IJA) WW2 fighters, although the IJA's Kawasaki Ki-100 (radial engined "Tony) was excellent and was considered on par with the IJN's top fighter, the Kawanishi N1K2-J(George II). The Ki-84 also had outstanding maneuverability in keeping with Nakajima's emphasis on this capability - earlier shown by the Ki-43 Hayabusa ("Peregrine Falcon")...Allied code name Oscar. Just my own opinion but I also consider the Ki-84 the best looking of all the IJA's fighters. Main downside of the Ki-84 was rushed production and spotty quality control - particularly with the engines and main landing gear. A few over 3,000 were made. Best Ki-84 models available are Hasegawa's 1/32 and 1/48 plastic kit offerings. The older Tomy 1/32 plastic offering is pretty good, but not as good as the Hasegawa kit.

[@U1569-x2j]

And now the Arma Hobby 1/72…

[@leftistsarenotpeople]

This is THE best WWII aircraft discussion channel on the net.... PERIOD!

[@craigauckram1087]

Your comments on pilot quality is so very true, reading many written stories from the era, the top New Zealand Ace Colin Gray first victory about deflection, and his surprise of hitting his opponent, it wasn't where he was aiming. Also the story of the Canadian Ace/Test pilot? who when flying over Europe encountered a FW 190 in a Spitfire, after much jousting and sweating, combat was broken off, saying that neither could gain the advantage, and it was lucky that he had an advantage of have flown an FW 190 which he thought the German pilot hadn't flown a Spitfire.

[@LordNinja109]

The Germans did have a unit that flew captured allied aircraft to different bases for hands on instruction. Even if he didn't fly it, there's a fairly good chance the German may have sat in the cockpit and gotten first hand accounts of the limits and performance of the Spitfire

[@rayschoch5882]

Excellent, Greg, as usual. Turns out my Dad might not have been helpless in his F6F-5 if he'd met a Ki-84 over the Philippines in 1944, and the F4U-4 he was flying in 1945 would have been a near-even match. I've read a handful of accounts of Japanese pilot training, and they've had the brutality of that training in common. Seems more than a little counterproductive to me - making unnecessarily miserable the lives of people you're going to be depending on doesn't strike me as a smart approach to national defense. I do agree that there's a definite "family" resemblance between / among late-war Japanese fighters. Dad shot down a pair of Tojos during the extended Leyte Gulf battle, and from your photos, it's easy to see how, depending upon distance and angle of view, they might just as easily have been the Ki-84 or maybe something else. I found the graphs really useful in trying to get a handle on the differences in performance factors - they were understandable, even to a non-pilot.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Ray. I always enjoy your posts.

[@fafner1]

Reading about the Japanese pilot training brings to mind the recent scandals with U.S. Naval Seal training.

[@Dateichtech]

日本語で失礼します。疾風は誉エンジンがあまりにもデリケートで整備が大変でした。日本では初の2000馬力エンジン搭載機でしたが当初は運転制限がかけられ1700馬力に制限されていました。しかし1944年末には解除され2000馬力を発揮する高速戦闘機として活躍しました。しかしながら戦時中の陸軍パイロットの戦記では格闘能力はあまりないので高速の米軍機とズーム&ダイブ戦闘になってしまい期待した活躍は出来なかったと聞きます。陸軍搭載員は疾風よりもむしろ一式戦3型を好んだようです。隼ですね。隼は相手の戦法に乗らず旋回戦闘に持ち込めれば落とされる心配が少なかったと聞きます。日本の優秀機は疾風と言われますが私は自動空戦フラップを装備し格闘も速度戦闘も可能な川西のN1K2J紫電改ではないかと思います。海軍最後の正式戦闘機となった紫電改はオクタン価の高いガソリンなら時速630kmhと圧倒的な格闘能力。強力な長砲身20mmカノンを4門備えます。機数では敵わなかったですが同数のF6FやF4Uならかなり有利に。P51Dでも互角に戦えたそうです。P47Dには苦戦したようです。Ki100,五式戦は終戦間際に登場したKi61llの改良型ですが機体が頑丈で旋回性も良くほとんどの関係者が絶賛していますね。P51D相手でも逃げ回るだけでなく正面から戦えたそうです。戦争後半になると物資不足と空襲による生産設備の喪失などで日本側は数を揃えられなくなりました。それでも五式戦は7月9日の琵琶湖上空のヘルキャットとの戦闘で有利に戦い戦果を上げたと聞きます。しかしはるか数千キロ離れた硫黄島や沖縄から飛来する米軍パイロットの日本本土での戦闘は燃料や弾丸数、疲労などを考えると本当に素晴らしい強さを発揮したと感じます。米軍戦闘機隊員に敬意を表します。😂　ps はやてとP47Dはとても良くにていますね。

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

Just wanted to say how much I appreciate all the work you put into these fantastic videos.👍

[@charlestoast4051]

Going by the old maxim "if it looks right, it is right" the Frank looks like a great design. The tail fin is surprisingly small, however.

[@googoodatte]

Instead, it has a long fusage.

[@misarthim6538]

Differences in training between Japan, US / Allies and Germany sounds like a great topic for video, since the pilot training is major factor in how well the airforce performs.

[@Triple_J.1]

So is tactics. Individual and Wingmen. And overall philosophy: “The first duty of Eighth Air Force fighters is to destroy German fighters.” Most importantly is Production. The US defeated the Axis by out producing them. Even the Brits and the Russians relied heavily on US fuel, airplanes, and equipment in the turning point of each nations respective wars. Germany is about the size of Ohio with about as much oil. Japan was an isolated island network with rice and ox carts. The obscene delusion of those two was real. “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”.

[@ToreDL87]

@@Triple_J.1 Not to be the triggered weeb, but still, if you take a look at how fast Japan modernized after centuries of isolation, they managed to sustain nie-on constant conflict one way or another since the early 1900's. Within their capabilities of course (just to point that out), but once they got serious they evicted almost everyone, almost entirely, from the Pacific Theatre, within just a few months. They were no slouches, and at the start were a force to be reckoned with, so much so that U.S intelligence were on the job. As you said it was philosophy, and might I add in-fighting, lack of humility, and over-all underestimating their opponents, either one of which was enough to bring them down, that brought them down, and even then it took a massive, coordinated, international effort across 3 continents & 3 oceans, spanning 3+ years. Similarly, not to be the triggered wehraboo, Germany was pretty small compared to the U.S, nobody denying that, but they recovered from the combined effects of the Versailes Treaty and the depression, and became able to wage war on the entire European continent, within less than a decade, and similarly had everyone sweating for a while there, it took 6 years, 3 super powers and almost immeasurable money to have them call it quits. And that's not counting the human cost. So.. not for a lack of trying then! Not to get too political, I'm siding with humanity & common sense, of course, the bullies had it coming, and they got what for. But my point is that victory was not written in stone, and in war it never is. For how limited their means were, they certainly had everyone else on the back burner for a good while, and the fat lady didn't sing until it was through with, as anyone certainly could attest at the time.

[@fistofthetiger1591]

So far as I can tell, the Frank is somewhere between a Corsair and a hellcat. Approximately somewhere at the middle of production of the American fighters as far as it's performance. Not at all a bad set of company to be in! Thank you very much for this series of interesting videos!

[@isolinear9836]

In terms of operational performance, the Hellcat and Corsair have a decisive advantage over the Frank in that they are Carrier aircraft. And ultimately in Warfare overall, the Frank is far less valuable as an aircraft by comparison. Even assuming the American aircraft (and Zero) were hypothetically inferior aircraft in strict air-performance standards, it's a historic fact that Carrier embarked aircraft at Sea consistently devastated Airbases on Land which were defended solely by its own land-based aircraft. You actually need a "Network" of Airbases and Air-defenses to realistically defend against a single Carrier Battle Group in any meaningful way, and even that is really only a delaying strategy - it's a "Shield", which is useless if you don't have a proper "Sword" to strike back. This is due to the simple fact that an Airbase is a stationary target - a known quantity - which makes "initiatives" against the Airbase so much simpler to implement; for both logistical and technical matters of planning, for coordination, for execution, for morale, etc. - the Airbase's position is fixed and for the most part, immutable. In stark contrast, a Carrier is a "mobile target" - for an Enemy it is an unknown and often an unknowable threat - which must first be "found" and properly tracked for ordnance to be launched and delivered (targeting data and criteria is NOT a matter of getting a ghost return at a random bearing and launching a missile blindly into the aether of that general direction, nor does Satellite, Sonar, GPS, etc, adequately solve this problem) - and needless to say, doing this in such a systematic and timely exercise where multiple delivery vehicles must saturate/penetrate the Carrier's layered defenses in a VERY small window, is a compounding problem when SIGINT is VERY perishable. It's not a simple task at all for the US Navy to solve against itself. Now match that task and timetable of the Carrier as it concurrently solves the converse problem against the Airbase (or even a network of multiple Airbases and nodes). The one with the inherent advantage is obvious. The Carrier is capable of deciding the terms of engagement because it doesn't need (and does not have) the same Acquisition requirements (and Target Criteria) that the Airbase needs (and has)... What you cannot See, you cannot Hit, and thus cannot Kill. But what can See you, can Hit you, And thus can Kill you. The fixed Land-base is a literal Sitting Duck vis-a-vis the mobile Sea-base. No air-defense, no matter how dense, well-trained, coordinated, overlapped with firing arcs of varied platforms and weapon systems, etc, is going to survive against a Carrier strike package that has been planned, pre-programmed and practiced for years in advance (sometimes decades in advance on an institutional level). Assuming open warfare is declared by both sides, the initiative is naturally incumbent on the Carrier group - and its first move will inevitably be an immediate Missile launch. The Airbase's pilots, radars, infrared sensors, etc, can't even hope to see, let alone track, all the low-level, low profile, terrain folloowing, etc, cruise missiles the Battle Group's escorts will be firing from their VLSs alone, who's routes are pre-planned to use the terrain to mask their signatures (including acoustic) from those sensors once they reach landfall, then to arrive at designated times to saturate MULTIPLE Airbases and targets effecting those bases at different levels. Certainly not given the expanse of the network and Airbases to be defended (that's a LOT of real-estate to defend, both physically and systematically, and breaking one link can result in a cascading failure of the whole. A highway or railroad or Grid hundreds of miles long and girding everything from communication cables to waterworks only needs to have one small section or hub or substation or bridge, etc, to be collapsed in order to influence the battlespace against the Airbase, or even render it inoperable). Why does the Carrier group (and its assets) strike so easily and immediately, while the Land-base (and its assets) cannot? Simple: Because Land-Bases, Mountains, Rivers, Valleys, etc, take a LONG time to "Move" or "Change". TO put it another way, its easier for the USA to tweak its digital maps and waypoints than for its enemies to move Airbases and Mountains. The Footprint of even a single Airbase(s) is enormous and prone to that enormity and connectivity, from infrastructure to Command and Control. In contrast, the Carrier Battlegroup is comparatively small and relatively self-contained. All things being equal (or even slanted against the Carrier): While the Airbase is just searching for ways to attack the Carrier Group, the Carrier Group simply implements a pre-planned response because it knows EXACTLY where the Airbase is and has probably known for years....in all likelihood, before the Airbase General can even begin to validate his options, The Carrier's Admiral HAS ALREADY LAUNCHED. This dynamic isn't new...it literally hasn't changed since WW2 - it's asymmetric and "unfair" as Hell. It's an asymmetry analogous to the Army's tank maneuver warfare against fixed fortifications....only worse. MUCH worse. And this asymmetry has universally been a powerful weapon in the contest of "who's system of men and machines collapses first". I specialized in Anti-Air warfare in the US Military, and I can tell you, I do NOT want to be the Airbase (aka "Sitting-duck" conducting Mass-Casualty simulations) on the receiving end of an inbound Designated Time on Target (DTOT) strike package sent by a US Carrier group. For example, against China's string of pearls, beginning (or ending) with China's STC Airbase network, I would conservatively guesstimate that at least 80% of American VLS Missiles will hit home. That's no insult to the Chinese. Were such a VLS barrage to be launched against an American Airbase with a reasonably deployed and drilled air Defense and CAP, forewarning, etc, I would be "happy" if ONLY 80% of US cruise missiles struck home. And as for the Carrier's follow-up... Air-Defenses be damned. Armor against Warheads... I say Warheads win. No wonder the US Navy was happy to forgo an Interceptor role for its "Fleet defense and CAP", while leaning on "Less capable" aircraft with heavier and autonomous payloads... .... to deliver what amounts to a Coup de Grace. The Carrier can coordinate a DTOT using surface and aerial platforms with relative simplicity (that's not to say this is "Easy", but it's not entirely "New" to the US Navy), a process its Enemy on Land would struggle to find itself in a position to consider (Heck a lone DDG Burke can conduct an STOT on stationary targets with devastating effect), projecting force to specific pressure points in different spheres and multiple locations, and forcing the network to react and compensate, wasting most of their time, assets, and ultimately stressing their ability to cope with system shocks (like a person compensating for injuries by overburdening other parts of the body, causing more injuries and/or making those parts vulnerable to attack and even innate collapse). But a Land-Base (even a Carrier) doing this against an Enemy Carrier? That's a WHOLE different ballgame. You can see why the Chinese are intent on creating their own Carrier Force (again, not as easy as it sounds), and the Soviets before them. In WW2, the Land-base vs Carrier Base advantage was always in favor of the Carrier, often laughably so. Today, with the integration of GCCS, GPS, terrain-following missiles (there is no "terrain" to follow for a missile trying to find a mobile Carrier at sea), etc, the Carrier has only opened the gap even lop-sidedly in the 80 years since WW2-era technology. All of which makes the exercise mostly moot, because many people in power ALREADY KNOW THE SCORE (even if they pretend otherwise in public). There's a Sword of Damocles over the World's Sea Trade, and US Carriers are the Tang of that Sword. The USA can simply signal that the US Navy might stop/inspect/detain/"or worse" vessels and infrastructure transporting goods from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf to the Straits of Malacca, etc. Everything from the rise in insurance for the ships and their crew, to the viability of companies to make transactions for goods that cannot be delivered...the Sword of Damocles is usually enough to prevent the necessity of such a threat being carried out. Again, when it comes to "Carrier aircraft vs Land-based aircraft", most people with "money on the line" have a peculiar instinct to Know the Score - even without knowing anything about aerospace engineering. (Foreigners and Domestic "you-know-who's" keep dreaming of perfecting the Pearl Harbor attacks on American Carriers through various means, whether Cruise Missile or Submarine or even Nuclear Strike. But even when the Japanese had the most detailed and actionable intelligence on any enemy Carrier in the History of Warfare (USS Enterprise), right down to the MOORING BOLLARDS and the MINUTE of where and when the USS Enterprise was supposed to arrive and be tied up - straight from the mouths of their Japanese populace sitting right there on Oahu watching the Harbor.... SOMETHING inevitably went wrong with the Japanese plans....plans tend to do that. Only flexibility and adaptability can remedy that inevitability. Even if everything went right, they still had a LOT more US Carriers to deal with for the duration of the War. In that moment, the Japanese could only count on their most flexible tools to mitigate that inevitability...their own Carriers, of course.)

[@brendonbewersdorf986]

Thank you for doing so much hard work on this japanese aircraft need more in depth coverage like this! Here is hoping to see a N1K2 video in the future I'd love to see how it compares to the ki-84 vs late war US fighters

[@briansiler7462]

I second that request!

[@briansiler7462]

Japans Thunderbolt.

[@eduardocharlier7560]

Yes, I would love such a video too

[@jasperbarnes4544]

Same here! Would love to see a comparison between the Ki-84, Ki-100, N1K2-J and A7M2!

[@bodenplatte1360]

@@jasperbarnes4544 Yes, maybe even throw in the J2M and what little info there is about the A6M8 prototype as well!

[@zank_frappa]

always love to hear "Greetings, this is Greg..."

[@vvvci]

Dang, Greg! you've got me feeling like a U.S. navy fighter pilot getting a briefing in the ready room about the capabilities of the Frank fighter, in preparation for a fighter sweep over the Philippines or Japan, with butterflies in my stomach not sure I'm coming back from the mission! (Of course, flying in a loud, noisy single engine piston fighter trying to shake itself apart over vast expanses of Pacific Ocean was hazardous enough, without running into a flight of top-notch enemy fighters!)

[@nickmitsialis]

That's why P38s were popular in the SWP==two engines made folks more confident.

[@timwhitten9918]

@@nickmitsialis always nice to have twin engines over water that’s for sure, main reason the Navy didn’t want the F-35C

[@brokeandtired]

Even worse would be flying back to a moved carrier, with plane full of holes and a broken radio....best hope then is you crash on a friendly island.

[@timwhitten9918]

@@brokeandtired P-38s were land based

[@jackd1582]

@@timwhitten9918 long range

[@Raptor747]

While an admirable advancement in Japanese fighter design, the reality of WW2 by 1943-onwards is that numbers, logistics, training, organization, and maintenance mattered far more than a small edge in performance. This is also why the Hellcat remained so overwhelmingly popular in the US Navy despite the problems of carrier landings with Corsairs being worked out by the British--the Hellcat was a lot easier to maintain and operate from a carrier, on top of being familiar and easy to fly. The US Navy found the Hellcat's performance to be perfectly fine even up to 1945, because even if the best, newest Japanese fighters that were rarely encountered were technically superior in performance in several metrics, it was nowhere near enough of a difference to make up for the overwhelming advantage of simply having highly capable fighters available consistently and in large numbers. I think the logical extreme of this dynamic can be seen with the Me-262: despite being a practical jet fighter with excellent firepower, visibility, speed, climb rate, and dive speed, US and British pilots were more than capable of dealing with them in the numbers they could be deployed in. A few small tactical victories are meaningless in the face of overwhelming strategic realities backed up by tactical realities that represent 99% of situations. The Hayate was an attempt to get the absolute peak performance possible for a fighter that Japan could build--but even this came at the cost of unusually strict limitations on G-loads and certain maneuvers due to an airframe that isn't as rugged as normal in its attempt to chase maximum speed, climb, and acceleration from what they could build.

[@iflycentral]

This has been a fascinating series Greg. Seeing the more rarely talked about WWII fighters has been enlightening. Do you think you will ever do any more videos on some of the more rare WWI fighters?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Hi Central. Yes, I'll do that. I have so many fighters I want to cover and videos to make.

[@scottgiles7546]

@trickdodge "Some people got heated on me because I openly spoke about russian aircraft of ww2 being the sole competitors able to deal both vertical and horizontally with these late-war japanese machines. " There were some late Soviet fighters that had stunning performance but they were short range and designed around a smaller fuel load with all the weight savings that come from that. Would still kill you if they could reach you but you have to wonder what the Stang and Jug could do if they had been also designed for a small fuel load with and the resulting size reduction.

[@kenneth9874]

@trickdodge looks like you've tricked yourself

[@kenneth9874]

@@scottgiles7546 soviet fighters were mangled beyond recognition by P47's flown by Taiwan just after ww2

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I don't know who hated on you, I might have disagreed, but I don't remember hating on anyone here. The P-47s had 2600 horsepower from very early in 1944, and about 2700 by mid year. The M and N versions has 2800. That's a lot of power, more importantly it can make that power up at altitudes the German and Soviet planes couldn't dream of.

[@darrellseike3185]

Another great, yet rare video! Nobody, except WWII aviation fans will have any idea what a "Frank" is. Thank you so much. I remember looking at pictures and stats for this airplane when I was 12 and thinking, this thing must have been awesome. Thank you for such as great series!!!

[@alexanderdeburdegala4609]

Best plane coverage I've ever experienced. I enjoyed all the videos and data. Also non bias presentation has been fantastic.

[@gato2]

Now you have done a deep dive on both of my favorite ww2 fights (P-47 & Ki-84). I'm honestly super excited for what you will talk about next.

[@donbalduf572]

The comment about magnesium fires in the B-29 hit home. I experienced a magnesium fire many years ago (not in an aircraft, story too long to tell here) and it was nasty. No one was hurt, but the pucker factor was high. I can’t imagine it in any aircraft.

[@donbalduf572]

Come to think of it, didn’t Germany make considerable use of magnesium in WWII aircraft?

[@fafner1]

I once got slapped down pretty hard on this site by someone who seemed to know what he was talking about, and who claimed the whole R-3350 magnesium part story was a canard. In any case he pointed out the R-3350 became more reliable after direct injection was introduced. This makes sense as it had a reputation for burning exhaust valves, which could then serve as a glow plug to ignite the intake manifold during the intake stroke on the carbureted engines. Lemay switching to low altitude night bombing also helped engine reliability, as it avoided the long climbs to altitude with a full bomb load.

[@donbalduf572]

@@fafner1 Not shocking. The problem was well documented, so there’s really nothing to argue about. The B-29 was fast tracked to such an extent that problems were inevitable, but there was a war on!

[@fafner1]

@@donbalduf572 The guy who slapped me down didn't say the R-3350 didn't catch on fire. He claimed it had no magnesium parts and that magnesium parts weren't the probelm.

[@kidpagronprimsank05]

In old F1 car magnesium parts certainly make it a death trap as many accidents shown

[@watchmanschannelofdespair]

You're information is top notch! While the Japanese "Zero" was a great early war fighter-lack of armor protection and self sealing fuel tanks notwithstanding-I always favored the "Frank" and the "George" as my favorite Japanese WWII fighter planes. Just imagine how much better they'd have performed under optimal manufacturing conditions?

[@shaider1982]

One of the problems was that the B29 did not provide the engine with enough cooling and the cylinderhead wasn't large enough to dissapate heat. As mentioned in a video by Curious Droid, NACA did a study to correct these problems.

[@dyer2cycle]

..although the R3350 eventually became a very good engine, at the time of it's deployment on the B-29's, it was rather atrocious...I can't understand why they didn't re-engine it with the Allison V-3420, as tested in the XB-39...quite a bit more power, more reliable, and overall better aircraft performance...yes, it would have interrupted production to make the changes, but it seems like it would have been worthwhile, and the problems with the R-3350's were causing disruptions of their own..heck, since those early R-3350's were only managing 2000-2200 hp(when they were running right), I also don't understand why they didn't just use the R-2800 as a stopgap measure...

[@Trojan0304]

By late 1944 Japanese pilots were behind US pilots in training. US pilots were on the offense & had the advantage of attack . Franks had poor engine maintenance so few had high performance in engineering reports. I had air combat symposium conversations with Navy & Marine aces & they said Japanese pilots had poor tactics & training mostly. Only a few honchos left . Not enough to make a difference in missions. This channel has the best engineering reports on KZbin, thanks

[@fazole]

They also were never trained to take initiative or improvise. They played follow the leader and if the leader were eliminated, the remaining pilots were lost and unable to continue a coordinated attack. The higher decision makers frequently were not pilots as well, so the orders were given by incompetents. For example, ordering Hamps to fly round trip from Rabaul to Guadalcanal when that Zero version carried less fuel than the A6m2.

[@frankrobinsjr.1719]

@@fazole, Yeah, I was wondering about that as well. I knew that they never took people off the line. We did and had those who knew what to expect training everyone else. Because we killed their best pilots, and they had no means to stop our technological and material advantage with what they had left.

[@nickmitsialis]

Then again, the FIRST place the Ki84 saw combat was in China (A sentai that acted as 'test unit' before normal deployment? I think?). The bases were still well supplied and the maintenance team was still pretty intact. On top of that, I think a sizeable chunk of the Allied "opposition" was still flying a variant of the P40--The CBI theater was sort of a backwater, when it came to priority of receiving new model aircraft. In spite of that, I don't think I heard about any of the CBI deployed forces suffering any out of the ordinary losses (then again, I dont' think I've read too much on the theater after the AVG was absorbed into the USAAF).

[@jackd1582]

Might wanna watch Greg's prior ki84vid's .

[@jackd1582]

@@nickmitsialis They reportedly did well there , but as per Greg's other videos .Many factors, Various Issues severely impacted their effectiveness, potential, results , after that

[@johndonaldson3619]

47 minutes and 29 seconds of the best ww2 technical aviation you'll find on KZbin..thank you

[@srivatsan1904]

I don't know if there are many viewers from India on your channel, but greetings and thank you for the amazing content 😀.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks, you might be the only one.

[@wademchenry1560]

Wingnuts are everywhere.

[@haha30405_]

@@wademchenry1560 indeed

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I just checked Point 1 percent of my viewers, that's .1 are from India.

[@srivatsan1904]

​@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Please do consider making a small video on the HAL HF-24 Marut, I know it's not a the theme, but in the future should you come across any details of it, surprisingly since it was a Kurt Tank design, should be interesting to see if he took the practical rugged approach to design here as well, cheers and thanks.

[@scottinohio701]

Another FANTASTIC and INFORMATIVE series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@colinmartin2921]

Great videos, thank you Greg, they must take you forever to put them together.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Colin, these four did take a lot of time.

[@tomw9875]

Thanks Greg, this was a very good series.

[@plasmaburndeath]

Just started the video, but I wanted to thank you for being so "Frank" with us... Get it Frank/fra... I'll get me coat, and I'm here all week everyone! 😀😆

[@fazole]

I spoke with someone who went through just flight training for KAL about 30 yrs ago and he said their senior instructor was known to slap cadets! He related that one cadet did not park his training aircraft right on the line on the ramp and this cadet was verbally and physically attacked.

[@mikepette4422]

I recall reading in multiple places a statement from a Japanese Navy Pilot ( PS: I believe it's Saburo Sakai discussing and highly praising his squad mate Muto and their time on mainland Japan training new pilots for the George) about flying the Kawanishi Shinden "George" that when they faced Hellcats and Corsairs they felt like they back in 1942 and dominated the air battles. Of course this was with veteran pilots, the last few Japan had in those days. And while the George and Frank are not the same aircraft I think you can see what I'm getting at. These late war Japanese fighters gave the experienced pilots more than a chance against the Allies best.

[@silincer5186]

Sorry to correct you here! The Shinden(Magnificent Lightning) is a different aircraft. Full name Kyushu J7W Shinden. The George is called the Kawanishi N1K-J Shiden (Violet Lightning).

[@AkkaAlbatros]

the shinden was the dogfighter so if a pilot was even a bit decent could easily shoot down everything. ki84 was more towards the bomber interceptor . it could intercept even b29s at the heights they were flying.

[@silincer5186]

@@AkkaAlbatros that's wrong! I guess people mixed up the Shinden and the Shiden because of being similarly named.. The Kyushu J7W Shinden is not a dogfighter but an interceptor. Shinden was built with short range but fast climb rate as a response to US Heavy bomber. The Kawanishi N1K-J Shiden and the N1K2-J Shiden-Kai code-named George are dogfighter. The Shiden-Kai variant is one of the best dogfighter produced by either the Japanese or the American.

[@stevefriswell5422]

As usual Greg, fantastic work sir.

[@Mtlmshr]

I’ve now watched all four parts about this aircraft that you have done and I must say that this has been a very in-depth analysis of this aircraft. Props to you and your research on this plane. It takes a certain passion to do the amount of work that you have done to compile all of this information and for that I thank you. Before this series I honestly did not even know of this aircraft or am I that much into these types of things but you got me interested in this particular situation and I thank you for that!

[@boomerbaxter8420]

This is not an attempt to blow sunshine up your kilt I assure you, but dam, you produce awesome videos, I loved this series on the Ki-84 a great deal, it was a real learning experience . The Tony has always been my favorite of the axis fighters and I am looking forward to seeing a video on the Tony 2 ? or the one with the the 109-G's engine in it, thank you for all the hard work you put into your videos, it puts them on a higher tier than most others on this platform and its amazing how, a little thing like factual information is so hard to find in most of what is being put out these days, please keep up the good work and I look forward to your next video .

[@MAG3_Hiromachi]

FYI, Ki-84 max acceleration based on structural strength is 7 G and ultimate load is 12.6 G (with safety factor of 1.8). I am not sure where did that 5 G come from in the translation, but Japanese document lists pretty much the same acceleration limits as were expected from a Zero or Ki-43.

[@MAG3_Hiromachi]

Another correction, fully loaded is a standard load without external ordnance or fuel tanks, which is 3763 kg. The loadout with external fuel tanks or with bombs would be "special load" as indicated in Japanese manual.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

That 5G number is listed all over the place in the documents and it makes sense considering the spin and other warning about stress on the airframe. I think they initially planned on a 7G limit, but it didn't happen in production.

[@jiyushugi1085]

It's also worth recalling that early Ki-43s suffered from pieces 'departing the aircraft' in high-speed dives.

[@martijn9568]

@@jiyushugi1085 That fact always baffles me, but it seems to fit right in with the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service training regimes.

[@GrigoriZhukov]

Greetings from Montana. Thanks for good info on an under reported aircraft.

[@fredceely]

I love your stuff, and I appreciate your fine efforts. Thanks! I've read a great number of books about this theater of WWII and I cannot say where I picked up this fact, but it floored me when I read it. It's my favorite trick question: what percentage of precision machine tools (mills, lathes, etc.) in use in Japanese factories of any kind up to the opening of hostilities with the US had been manufactured in Japan? The answer is NONE. They could not produce a mill or a lathe. After their war broadened beyond China, they could never obtain any more. By the time the design for the Homare was ready for production, the state of Japanese manufacturing and metallurgy was not up to the task. You mention the common failure of landing gear upon landing, which was due to the fact that hardening the steel was then beyond them. That affected the Homares as well. Sensitive parts, particularly the valves, were not up to specs. That's my two cents, and I apologize, Greg, if I stepped on your toes to mention this at all. You're the expert, and your hard work on this material is a benefit and a comfort to me.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I find that believable. The US was a world leader in machine tools for a long time.

[@kannony5393]

​@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles supposedly Japan became even more dependent on importing heavy industrial equipment from Germany following the sanctions that were imposed over their invasion of China. It's one of the reasons why Japan had a much higher amount of labor required for making aircraft compared to the US, USSR, and even the UK, which similarly used a high amount of man-hours per aircraft. I've read that many of the Homares had to be hand-finished by machinists, which contributed to their poor reliability because of the high level of variation between each engine. Japan's industrialization strategy at that time period was the same that all developing nations, including the US, used to industrialize. It substituted labor for investments in machinery (or capital). This allows them to export low-cost (cheap) goods and resources in exchange for goods like lathes. At that time period, Japan's economy was still transitioning from an agrarian society to a modern, industrial society, and so much of its industry was dominated by labor rather than machinery (like the tooling used to make lathes). When the US slapped them with sanctions, the Japanese just switched to buying high-precision industrial equipment from Germany (which they were already doing). However, the Allies successful blockade of Japan slowed or stopped delivery of that equipment, at least in 1943 and probably earlier. Therefore, as its industrial equipment stocks slowly ground down, so too did the quality of Japan's engines.

[@kez0o9]

Greg's channel deserves more love original researched work of exemplary standards.

[@johngregg5735]

Great video! I'd make a joke about having 'Zero' interest, but some folks wouldn't realize it a play on words.

[@RV4aviator]

If I ever want definative info regarding Aircraft performance whatever the era, I tune into Greg's Airplanes..! Well done again Sir....Thankyou.

[@johnmichaelgavin3617]

New video yes! Always makes my week 🎉

[@BryanPAllen]

Really appreciate this Frank series Greg :)

[@GeneralJackRipper]

For more information on the bomber issue, I recommend Gladwell's _'The Bomber Mafia'._

[@icewaterslim7260]

This series was a comprehensive gem for fans of lesser known Aircraft. Sounds like the Ki 100 as well as the 61 just might've been of a sturdier airframe. if slower. All i know about it is gleaned from what little I've read ( and I've read as much as I've found) along with your fascinating piece on the Ki 61. It seems the Ki100 usually wanted to go vertical and anything gained in distancing from any fast adversary with it's diving speed would be quickly forfeited in trying to follow that up with any level run. Anyway I'm still keeping my vote for the radial engine variant should you do another Japanese aircraft but will be an appreciative audience for anything you should choose to cover from anywhere.

[@haitianspaceprogram735]

ok...this one did it, should have been on patreon long ago but this series is the tipping point

[@Token_Civilian]

What a fantastic series. Thanks Greg.

[@PhilKelley]

Thank you for another excellent video, and especially for a very thorough and educational series. In almost every video you give great and practical examples of the historian's dilemma: The past is hard to predict.

[@reaperthemad8731]

First video on this channel I have run across.... love it. A channel based on as much factual info as possible is my kind of thing.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

RTM, where have you been? I'm glad you're here.

[@reaperthemad8731]

@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles between this and The History Underground (recommend those guys if you don't already know them), my days are now full lol. WWII content? Modern Jeep dinos? Thanks for giving me more reason to never leave the house lol

[@edrosenquist6541]

I hate to say it, but this is a beautiful looking plane!

[@Pierluigi_Di_Lorenzo]

40:44 The Wright R-3350 was used after the war in some prominent airliners (Lockheed Constellation, DC-7), up to the 1970s! And also in some military transports and seaplanes (Fairchild C-119, C-123, Martin P5M). The demands on the flight engineer with regards to temperature control were very high though.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Yes, flight engineers back then had their work cut out for them, of course the 3350 got better with time, but during WW2 it was a problem child.

[@bronco5334]

Worth noting: dive acceleration, dive speed, high speed handling, and high-speed instantaneous turn rate are MUCH more important in real warfare (IE, many-versus-many) than is low-speed sustained turn rate (which is really only significant in one-versus-one) When it's a many-versus-many, if you can't immediately bring the guns to bear, you just extend away and reset to re-enter the fight at an advantageous position, allowing your allied aircraft to cover for you. You don't drag it down into a low-and-slow turn fight. If the enemy hauls their nose around to try to get you, one of your allies who is ALSO maintaining a high energy state, will handle it. Many-versus-many tactics favor speed and high speed performance. Something to keep in mind when comparing things. Even if the charts imply that the aircraft have similar theoretical maximum turn rates, if the US fighter has excellent handling and low stick forces at high speed, but inferior turn rate at low speed compared to an opponent that has a good low-speed turn but high stick forces at speed, the chart will *imply* that the US aircraft is at a disadvantage. The reality is that good high speed handling and low stick forces at high speed are generally more important than the near-stall-speed turn rates, because high-speed handling is what allows the pilots to effectively fight the aircraft while maintaining the high energy state that enable effective cooperative unit tactics..... and that advantage won't show up in an easy-to-read turn rate chart.

[@fazole]

I think you're mostly right, but if you read the biography of aces, they all eventually got into a 1v 1 or 1 v 2 fight where they got low and slow. It's mentioned many times by pilots in ww2 that they could start off in a big engagement and wind up alone in an empty sky quickly. With the distances covered and all the extreme maneuvers, it's easy to get disoriented and separate from your squadron.

[@bronco5334]

@@fazole Well, yes, slow fights still happen, and one on one fights occasionally crop up. But the thing is, out of every fighter shot down, something like 80 of 100 never even saw the attacker coming. In an ambush like that (really, it's an intercept, not an ambush, but you get what I mean), turn rate is immaterial. And many of these "killed without seeing the attacker" kills are because their opponents were using effective cooperative tactics: while they were busy trying to dogfight a single opponent, that opponent's buddy used his high energy state to just slot in and gun him down. Of those 20% of fighters shot down that actually had an opportunity to respond to the attacker, I would wager that 75% or more were killed by multiple enemies using energy fighting tactics. Only that last 5% (or fewer!) of all kills was killed because they were out-turned. Are these scholastically researched statistics? No, but I've seen plenty of statistical analysis and pilot's memoirs that all point to stats pretty close to this. I would be very surprised if kills secured through outmaneuvering an opponent accounted for even 1/10th the amount of kills that were secured through effective teamwork based on energy tactics. None of the high-scoring luftwaffe aces ever stated that they used turn-fighting to secure their kills. So... sure, low speed dogfights do happen... but do they really happen frequently enough to use them as the yardstick against which to measure a fighter?

[@deplorable_bitter_clinger7482]

Excellent point Bronco. Those who are perplexed about how the P-47 (or the Corsair, Hellcat, Wildcat or even the P-40 in the PTO could shoot down so many planes, most of which were more maneuverable than they were, always forget this: In WWII (unlike WWI), only a small percentage of air to air kills are from classic dogfights. Something like 80% are from the unobserved bounce. The P-47 excelled at what actually became important in WWII aerial combat: Speed, dive, zoom climb and roll rate. Fly far, fly fast, hit hard, then get out. How well it could "dogfight" is very close to irrelevant. The Japanese employed fighters that could out turn and out climb anything that the Allies had, yet the Allies shot them down in droves.

[@Burstix]

Greg, your statement at about 36:25 is gold. I really enjoy your videos and thoughts on many things.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thank you, I appreciate that.

[@crimony3054]

Yeah but you guys know the state of the art in engineering is what goes into aircraft, and the state of the art engineering comes from upper level engineering courses at university, and better understanding of upper level engineering can only help a pilot pilot. There are always exception, but on average, more education helps.

[@Burstix]

@@crimony3054 I will agree and say it's not a bad thing to have more education (on subject) One thing to note, planes are a lot more complex now than they were back in the day.

[@elgato9445]

An excellent summation to yet another fascinating aircraft. I like your point about the pilot training and quality in war time Japan. Thank you Greg. Happy New Year to you and yours!

[@SmokinLoon5150]

Excellent presentation. I appreciated the comparison. One thing that isn't stressed enough (though shown in the documentation at 5:03 and then mentioned at 5:25) is how none of the Japanese aircraft could maneuver with the US aircraft at high speeds. Level speed and dive speeds are stat lines, but when WW2 US pilots mention getting IAS's over 300 to keep their controls stiff that means something. There are pilot narratives stating that the Japanese fighters could not "hang" with the US fighters in high speed maneuvers due to control services becoming stiff. Matter of fact, my wife's grandfather who was a naval aviator instructor in WW2 mentioned that specific thing regarding regarding the Oscar, Zeke, Frank, and George (didn't mention the Tony). A common defensive tactic naval aviators were taught was if a Japanese fighter were on their tail is to go nose down to at least 300 IAS, then roll left 90° and get them to follow and then roll back right 180° and at over 300 IAS the Japanese fighter couldn't follow, then extend out, gain alt, rinse repeat as needed. This was true from the F4F all the way to the F4U-4 and everything in between. Clive Caldwell, the notorious RAAF P40E ace of MTO fame, wrote of that exact maneuver (at 300IAS roll left 90°, then back right 180° and the Japs couldn't follow) for RAAF pilots to use in their P40's vs Japanese in the PTO (I know I read it for USAF pilots as well but don't remember the source atm). The late war NiK2 George was the best they had at higher altitudes and at higher speeds. I think the Ki-84 was the best they had in terms of raw dog fighter, it had some stellar stats including a roll rate the Fw190 respected. ;)

[@rayschoch5882]

An Addendum: I've recently come across information (Either in other KZbin videos or via reading - Greg and/or others are free to correct me) suggesting a couple things about the Frank and B-29s. One somewhat surprising (to me) figure I came across was the the B-29 had a kill/loss ration approaching that of the Corsair when engaging Japanese fighters - at or near 11:1, if memory serves me correctly. If that's accurate, and speaking, of course, as an American, the technology behind the B-29's defensive fire control system was very successful. The other item that occurs to me is that, once Curtis LeMay took over the B-29 program, mission profiles were very different. Instead of high-altitude precision bombing, LeMay decided it would be safer for B-29 personnel, and much more damaging to the Japanese war effort, if bombs were dropped from a much lower altitude (often under 10,000 feet) for greater accuracy, and the bombing was done at night, following the British example in Europe, for greater crew safety. Essentially, we abandoned daylight "precision" bombing from 25,000 feet and adopted night-time "area" or "carpet" bombing instead. Japanese night-fighting abilities in the air were rudimentary, as was Japanese radar for directing antiaircraft fire at night. Relatively few B-29s were lost to Japanese night fighters or flak. Moreover, Japanese cities were largely built of wood, so the cities (and their war production facilities) were eminently flammable. The result was a series of incendiary raids that were hugely destructive. More people were killed in the incendiary, bombing of Tokyo than either of the atomic bomb drops, and similar incendiary raids on other Japanese home island cities were similarly destructive of Japanese war production, which was often spread out among dozens of small, sometimes home-based shops. In essence, even with "Category 1" pilots, the Ki-84 had few opportunities during the final 6 months of the war to actually engage B-29s. Apologies for the length of this…

[@badgerapocalyps2546]

Great video series, very informative!

[@mattdirks7896]

Keep these videos coming. I loved this and I'm eager for whatever is next.

[@cannonfodder4376]

Informative as always Greg, another great look at a potent fighter. A shame none are currently airworthy.

[@kevlarmac10]

I can only watch things that give me information and knowledge these documentaries are very good and stimulate your thought process history rules

[@JoshuaC923]

Excellent series Greg, fantastic work. Those Japanese military officers were really brutes, even against their own kin

[@kirbyculp3449]

Makes ya wonder, what is 'shit runs downhill' in japanese.

[@弱者-p9z]

Very cool! Thanks for making this video!

[@kentl7228]

I think Greg should be paid full-time for his with by the Smithsonian or something )) Everything is so thorough, balanced and considered. He somehow finds information long forgotten and isn't regurgitating the same old facts find in Wikipedia. I'd like an episode of two on pilots from him. Like Eric Brown, Robin Olds and such. I think he would have some great insights. He somehow finds cool, forgotten facts

[@kirbyculp3449]

Greg, regarding the brutality and prevalence of slapping in the IJA I recommend to you and your viewers the trilogy 'The Human Condition' directed by Masaki Kobayashi.

[@drewski5730]

Hi Greg, pilot checking in. I’m sure you already know that the power on stall speed will be much much lower than the power off stall speed, this is due to the prop wash over the wing causing lift as a byproduct. If we are using a “power on,” stall speed, that power setting would have to be published as a side note. I have never flown an airplane in my 9000hrs with the power on stall speed published. Although I cannot say for 100% certainty why, I’m assuming because the number would have to be published with the engine making maximum power (this alone can be a huge variable with pressure and temperature considerations). If an engine this powerful were producing maximum power at or close to the airframes stall speed, it might send the airplane into an uncontrollable snap spin in the horizontal plane. In addition, it might not even be possible to stall the airplane if the engine is moving enough air over the wing and tail surfaces, this effect can be seen at air shows when pilots “hang their airplane on the prop,” below its stall speed. All of these variables I feel would be too much to quantify for an airspeed “rule,” to follow. In practice I have flown turbine propellor driven single engine (and multi engined), airplanes well below their published stall speeds with power on; however it should be noted, increasing the aircrafts angle of attack, or changing configuration in this scenario will produce an undesirable aircraft state. This undesirable aircraft state could be as simple as reducing power by one or two percent, or by increasing the angle of attack a half degree. Edit: In fact, I seem to remember the Mustang in particular had a VMCA associated with a go around just like a multi engine airplane. Below such a speed, full power application would produce an undesirable aircraft state. I did a couple of google searches on the subject and turned up nothing, but it might also be called “botched landing speed,” or “go around speed,” “VMC,” or something of the like in the manual (if you’re a keener and want to look it up). I digress… In all scenarios, stall speed is a variable and independent of airspeed to an extent, but directly related to angle of attack. I’m not sure if any of these aircraft had AoA gauges at this point, but it’s a more important metric in the grand scheme of things.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Hi Drewski, I am a pilot as well. Yes, power on stall is quite a bit lower, but as you point out, few airplanes have a published speed for it. The Corsair does, but only at pretty low power levels. Some Japanese airplanes had them published as well. I have talked about this before as it's covered in Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. Thanks for your excellent post.

[@waltergreif4836]

excellent review of pacific fighters performance well done!!

[@byronbailey9229]

G limit is just a manufacturer limit which pilots can exceed if necessary- ultimate load factor is usually double manual’s specified g limit.

[@andrewpease3688]

Thanks for giving me something decent to watch over Christmas. Ki84 was amazingly competitive considering what Japan was going through at the time. Tigercat vs Hornet vs twin Mustang would be really interesting. Why does the TM work so well?

[@Triple_J.1]

The design eliminated the center fuselage pod along with its profile and interference drag, and negative effect on lift-induced drag.

[@BryanPAllen]

Greg I’ve noticed you mention the brutality of Japanese pilot training several times. Have you read Saburo Sakai’s autobiography, Samurai! ? He was obviously IJN but does go into great detail on IJN pilot selection, training methods/exercises , brutality, etc. He also discusses kamikaze selection and was himself used as a kamikaze even though he didn’t complete his mission. He was a pilot before the war and of the highest caliber.

[@jiyushugi1085]

Mori Juzo also describes the IJN's sadism in his autobiography 'The Miraculous Torpedo Squadron'. Apparently the Japanese didn't understand the 'fundamentals of instruction' stating that instruction is most effective when it is enjoyable......

[@fazole]

@@jiyushugi1085 It was a different time in a culture which was like the Spartans. They were trained in a military society to be brutal, tenacious, fierce soldiers who would not question or hesitate at any order and who would welcome the chance to die for the emperor. You don't make soldiers like that with "enjoyable" training and this philosophy was passed right onto military flight instruction. A lot of USAF pilot training isn't "enjoyable" either.

[@francisbusa1074]

Yes he was. I seem to remember that Martin Caiden wrote Sakai's biography. Maybe I'm wrong. I read it in 1958 in school.

[@BryanPAllen]

@@francisbusa1074 yes he did

[@kirbyculp3449]

Watch the trilogy 'The Human Condition' directed by Kobayashi.

[@PaulieLDP]

Superb video, very informative and interesting.

[@WildBillCox13]

Nice looking plane.

[@apfelsnutz]

A truly great video, that deserves an EMMY or at least a TUUBY ! Thanks so much for all you do on this channel ! To me, it's easy to see that had the Japaneese the quality pilots that we had, it might have been quite a different air war in the Pacific. If you are ever in or close to Rosamond, CA., (Circa Edwards Airforce Base), Let me know, you deserve extensive flight time in my Navion ! ... 07, Sir !

[@kenneth9874]

The japanese started the pacific war with the advantage in pilot experience and quality but was overtaken

[@carroarmatom15]

The aircraft is located at the Kamikaze Pilots Memorial Museum in Chiran, Kagoshima Prefecture.

[@Leptospirosi]

You know, I really would like to see these analytical methods applied to the Vietnam era jets, specifically the F104 Vs Phantoms and Mig 21, just to debunk some myths against the Starfighter. Could prove VERY interesting! 😎

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Everytime I make a video about post WW2 stuff, almost nobody watches it.

[@Leptospirosi]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles may be, but the F104 especially gets very strong opinions against and in favour. There is very little literature about it especially about the Vietnam war, so I guess it would be something totally "unique" with your knowledge thrown in, worth a link outside the you tube platform as well! 👍

[@Hypersonicmind]

@@Leptospirosi Hartmann hated the F104 and quit the Luftwaffe over his protestations. i think some German politicians were found guilty of taking bribes from Lockheed to get the 104 approved. i must say, a gorgeous plane.

[@oldgary57]

Curtis LeMay moved the B-29's down because of the jet stream above Japan. Japan knew quite well about the Jet stream, they launched balloons to bomb the West Coast with it.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

R.S.M. disagrees with that. My source is the man himself in Fog of War.

[@williamromine5715]

The P47 had tail radar? Somehow I missed that in your videos covering the P47! I find that totally amazing(the radar part, not my missing it). The technological advances in air craft in such a short amount of time is almost unimaginable, from bi-planes to jet and rocket powered planes in the space of 5 short years. Thank you for making this another good day( my father always said if you didn't learn something new, it wasn't a good day). Hope you had a good Christmas, and I wish you a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

[@williamromine5715]

@Cancer McAids Pretty helpful in combat. Buck Rogers technology of only a few years earlier. Thanks. Happy New Year.

[@martijn9568]

@@williamromine5715 Pretty helpful, unless the buzzer constantly went off. I imagine it would have been removed if it proved useless though.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

The German night fighters had ‘Flensburg FuG 227’ tail radar detectors (lower harmonics of) as well as ‘Naxos Z’ H2S ground radar detectors and the German pilots said it was much harder finding Russian planes at night.

[@fafner1]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 British bombers had tail warning radar. The German night fighters had recievers that could use it to home in on the target.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

@@fafner1 That is what I was on about. The Germans detected and homed in on the radars in the other planes, the unsophisticated Russian planes had no radar so the Germans had no easy signal to track down.

[@VidarLund-k5q]

It's interesting to note that Spitfires Mk. IX and XI reached a Mach number of 0,88 and 0,92 respectively in test dives in 1943, and in 1952 a Mk. PR 19 reached 0,94 over Hong Kong. Not bad for a mid thirties machine.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Maybe, I haven't been able to find a picture of a Spitfire with proper mach measuring equipment on it.

[@dmw7320]

Great content as always hoping to see you do the J2M .

[@JohnnoDordrecht]

Fantastic video , thx a lot .

[@pipipupu4359]

Its like the 8th time I've watched this video...hands down favorite video ever of my favorite chanell

[@brianford8493]

Brilliant analysis.

[@jeffreyhamilton7061]

Outstanding series!

[@tonykeith76]

Great video Greg! ( I love so deeply the Hayate, that I chose it as my nickname in DCS ) Greetings from italy

[@garydownes2111]

Great video series, thanks for all your work

[@bassplayersayer]

Excellent video Greg!!!!! Happy Holidays to You and yours.

[@fidenemini4413]

Great works! I would like to see a series of N1K2, the naval counterpart of KI84 in terms of performance.

[@thomasbernecky2078]

So when do we get the Frank vs. the P-51? Thanks for this extended look at a plane I never knew in any detail before.

[@Splattle101]

Another good, informative video. Cheers!

[@jetman787]

Just visited the RAF Museum at Henson today and wow… that have a Ki 84

[@benrobertson7855]

Thanks for all the detail in your vids.when you are into a topic,the more is really appreciated and important .it’s my one complaint about U tube that the tec details get lost for drama and” rounded” information . Constrained by a short vid. your channel constantly provides the detail wanted.and even though I aren’t a plane person,I watch your channel because of the knowledge and information .thanks very much.

[@mattgbarr]

Legendary content here. Thank you for all you do!

[@mattcavanaugh6082]

THE FOG OF WAR is a fascinating documentary. _Whirlwind: The Air War Against Japan 1942-1945_, by Barrett Tillman, covers at some length the operational struggles of the B-29.

[@talgov01]

Excellent video. Thanks!

[@jumo004]

Once again sir, very well done.