PDA

View Full Version : Ki 44 Shoki "Tojo"



Asgeir_Strips
01-11-2005, 08:38 AM
I Know this aircraft didn't see much service during the war, but it was the best IJA INterceptor of the war, i really like this airplane. Allthough its totally unlikely that it will be added in future patches, maybe Oleg Will make a Pacific Expansion based on the new BoB engine after BoB is released?

Take a look at this link. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki44.html

http://exordio.com/1939-1945/pictures/aviones/ki-44.jpg

VW-IceFire
01-11-2005, 09:02 AM
Its definately a cool plane and would be neat to see. Apparently there is little to no hope of it being a flyable plane because there are no references on it anymore (all were destroyed I guess).

Stiglr
01-11-2005, 10:21 AM
Oh, bullsh**. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You can find the Maru Mechanic on Ki-44 with a quick visit to ebay on any given week. That'll give you plenty of detail to make the external and pit, and half what you need for the flight model, too.

VW-IceFire
01-11-2005, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Oh, bullsh**. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You can find the Maru Mechanic on Ki-44 with a quick visit to ebay on any given week. That'll give you plenty of detail to make the external and pit, and half what you need for the flight model, too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm just going on what has been said. Apparently that information is simply not enough to be totally accurate to the standards that the modelers for this game to have work with.

No doubt your favorite simulation game that you carefully expouse every second post doesn't have a problem with a little extrapolation and neither do I...but I'm just calling them as I see and hear them. We were told that the Ki-44 was simply not possible with current references...if that is true or not is another matter. I appologise for not being clear enough in my initial post.

I say again, I'd love to see any new plane if it ads to the scenarios we can produce in the game. Anything is a bonus to me.

Stiglr
01-11-2005, 11:36 AM
Nothing against you personally, Icefire, but this kind of B.S. is just too common in here.

We always hear how we can't have a plane just because a real example doesn't exist, or hasn't been photographed, and the sky will fall if one knob on the left side of the cockpit won't be rendered in the exact shape and color... and then, on planes where enough sources do exist, the flight model is so laughably off as to make one wonder if this is truly the plane in question.

Priorities are so misplaced sometimes. That's why I'm "coughing" on this one.

Have you ever seen a Maru Mechanic? If you had, you'd know just how high quality the information, drawings and photographs in them are. They show you everything short of how to change the oil, machine the bearings and load in live ammo.

LEXX_Luthor
01-11-2005, 12:18 PM
He's right Ice, if the old MiG~3 cockpit is good enough for this sim, and it is as I fly MiG all the time, we can get Ki~44 into this sim, which by coincidence here happened to be the Japanese high altitude high speed "MiG-3." Stiglr is not the only one not counting knobs in the cockpit.

This is where Oleg may make a mistake in BoB, as the astronomically high standards may prevent a wider World War 2 sim exploring lesser known aircraft like Whirlwind just as an example. If we think Flyable 4 engine bomber cockpits are hard to find in FB/PF because they are hard to model, just wait...Gibbage posted at netwings that only the most highly professional modelers will be able to complete BoB single engine fighter cockpits. There is no limit to increasing modeling standards, short of restoring the real aircraft.

Stiglr
01-11-2005, 12:41 PM
And, it'd be much easier to take such high standards in cockpit modeling if the standards for the flight modelling were equally exacting.

Plus, if sources are so scarce, there's certainly not going to be a bunch of people nitpicking a dial or switch placement. How would they prove it?

I_Jg3_BARKHORN
01-11-2005, 12:58 PM
the maru mechanic is sweet. Although I do not have the one on the ki44. I do however have the several other resources on the ki 44. i will look and see what i have. One point of intrest. Someone built several of these for cfs2. They were great, complete with full pit. Not to mention, there has to be something somewhere, other wise model, and resin companies could not create kits and after market stuff. perhaps write Hasegawa, or even jaguar resin companies.
S!

Bull_dog_
01-11-2005, 01:08 PM
Stiglr...sometimes...just sometimes you make too darn much sense.

I get the distinct impression that we are being fed a bunch of excuses as opposed to being told outright what is and is not happening. Stig is exactly right about the inability to argue where a knob is, if good references don't exist.

I doubt the Ki-44 or many other aircraft are going to make it into the sim if they are not or very near complete now. The dissappearence of Luthier, sick programmers, now the lockheed thing...I just have a bad feeling about the future of this sim... I think Oleg/UBI is getting ready to pull the plug on it and move on to greener pastures....just please give us the Typhoon, Mosquito, Tempest and Spit Mk XIV first! Maybe a flyable Avenger.

I just get the impression that Oleg is increasingly stretched from a resource standpoint and it is very expensive to rework stuff and add stuff to a product that won't be sold...now i'd be willing to pay for another addon and I think most who can afford it would but I don't think those make much if any money for guys like Oleg.

I'd just rather have the information straight even if I don't like it.

Daiichidoku
01-11-2005, 01:13 PM
I usually agree with what Stiglr says....

Lexxx, that was probanly the best post I have ever read by you, hehe

All points in this thread seem pretty much on the money, IMHO

Out of 100 who play FB/PF, how many would freak out that not every button in the Pe-2 cockpit was correct, if we were given a flyable one? Be sure, SOMEone would, but with 97 or 98 out of 100 enjoying the flyable Pe-2 (assuming the FM/DM isnt totally botched) who cares?

We have AI Galdiator Mks I and II doing next to nothing...I certainly wouldnt mind flying the Glad MkII with the J8A cockpit...anyone have any objections to this?

There's what? 3 or 4 B-25s that are basically collecting dust, because of cockpit differences? I know Oleg has his "standards" but I dont think anyone will complain about flying a B-25H with the J cockpit....at the very least, a disclaimer could be including in the game, or even added as a tiny placard in said cockpit, that it is not authentic, and is only temporary until such time as an accurate one can be utilized...of course, with a further disclaimer stating that a new cockpit may never come

Is it SO much of a problem to use a generic gunners station for a bomber, pending accurate data for such station?

From what I have read, and seen, there ARE rear stations modelled and submitted to Oleg for the Beaufighter, both with gun stowed, and set up, and many have seen the screenies of the B-29....AFAIK, neither will ever see the light of day for FB/PF...WHY?

goshikisen
01-11-2005, 01:35 PM
It'd be nice to see the Shoki in PF as AI at the very least. No offense to Gibbage and his fine work... but if we can see the Allied "Demon" (which saw virtually no action) then we can certainly make room for the much more prevalent Axis "Demon".

Regards, Goshikisen

Stiglr
01-11-2005, 01:59 PM
Well, since it's now relevant to the discussion, you know I had to mention at some point that you can fly two or 3 Shoki versions in Target:Rabaul. (http://www.targetware.net)

It's a nice plane, but it does have a bit of a snap roll that can be nasty at times.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LuftWulf190
01-11-2005, 01:59 PM
I agree with Stiglr, the Ki-44 should be in the game. I have the fantastic models that were done for CFS2, and it would be great to see the plan in PF.

R_Mutt
01-11-2005, 02:05 PM
So Stiglr's going to model it for us than? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

harryklein66
01-11-2005, 02:20 PM
I got the Maru mech on raiden/reppu/ki-46, and the one on me109/fw190,(I don't have the one on ki-44), but what i can say is that they are ok for the external modeling, but only the raiden pit is "well documented"."well documented" mean
that there is only beautifull painting of the pit, NO BLUE PRINT, so u have to guess every thing when modeling , and from my experience in 3d modeling, I can say that it take's at least twice the time to do things.
Some time ago I react like u stiglr about the MS 406, Oleg say that they never make it flyable, because of the lack of flight data, and reference for the pit, when I read this I think like u "MUHA! my a**",and I try to find those data by my self...it was 3 years ago now.
after 3 year's of search all the 3 view scheme I found for the external where wrong (as wrong as the model whe have in the game), i never see any blue print of the pit just poor quality pictures,
and for the FM all books or internet site give's different value...and with those value u don't even have half of what is need for the game.
So it's not impossible to do but i take a while
to do project like those one...see Jippo ju88 or agamemnon22 pe2.

ps:GAKKEN are very good too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif and sorry for bad english http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DuxCorvan
01-11-2005, 02:22 PM
I agree. If there are no references left, then we can cope with ANY reasonable guess. Who's gonna complain?

And if that accuracy and quality are so essential, why do we have an 'accurate' pit for a plane that never existed (Bf 109Z) or they don't update totally outdated stuff as the blotchy P.11c pit?

As we say in Spain, I think 'they are trying to sell us their motorbike' in this matter. They simply ask very high standards in accuracy and quality to avoid being bombed with tons of 3rd party projects that everybody would want in, with all the huge amount of -free- work this implies. It's easier to say 'we only accept the best and more accurate jobs' than to say to a horde of whiners 'we are not eager to put all those gigs of 3rd party stuff in our encrypted game'.

But FB/FB is yet full of inaccurate stuff, and of very disimilar quality, from P.11 and MiG-3 to I-185 and J8A. Look how required standards grow in time, as the game gets more and more 3rd party dependent.

Stiglr
01-11-2005, 03:00 PM
harryklein wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>there is only beautifull painting of the pit, NO BLUE PRINT, so u have to guess every thing when modeling , and from my experience in 3d modeling, I can say that it take's at least twice the time to do things.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd take a "beautiful painting" over nothing any day. Anyway, when doing pits you seldom have the same degree of detail as an external 3-view. You almost always have to make inferences and guestimates based on proximity to other objects, multiple angled photos or whatever when you're building pits. If you can get 2 or 3 real photos (which are often missing a gauge or two), a straight on diagram of the control panel, and a good look at both side walls, you've probably got enough to do justice to a cockpit.

And, again, what difference does down-to-the-hexbolt accuracy in a cockpit really make in the grand scheme of things? So you're missing a knob or switch here or there, particularly one that controls something that's not even modelled in the sim. It's all eye candy.

I would really rather Oleg confine his extreme "quality standards" to the flight modeling, because that's really where the rubber meets the road. And it's also where this sim family skids off that road, too.

NegativeGee
01-11-2005, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by R_Mutt:
So Stiglr's going to model it for us than? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, but Luthier had commissioned a guy to do the externals already.

Don't know what came of it though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Ah well, we will have to keep hoping for our Ki-44 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Atomic_Marten
01-11-2005, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
...but this kind of B.S. is just too common in here.

We always hear how we can't have a plane just because a real example doesn't exist, or hasn't been photographed, and the sky will fall if one knob on the left side of the cockpit won't be rendered in the exact shape and color... and then, on planes where enough sources _do_ exist, the flight model is so laughably off as to make one wonder if this is truly the plane in question.

Priorities are so misplaced sometimes. That's why I'm "coughing" on this one.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I mean on the level of information. We can have the most of our desired aircraft of WW2 (that'll be a good percentage of WW2 birds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) if that is all what it takes (info)..

Just quick search thru the book sellers/publishers online reveals amazing number of very rare birds described in several books with photos etc.

I think, what is real problem is few guys good enough to do the work.

Heinz_Knokke
01-11-2005, 05:09 PM
By the way, I believe I'm the person who did this CFS2 Ki-44 Shoki you're talking about:

http://pigeonh.free.fr/ki442.htm

I did all the versions of the plane that saw service in the war, from pre-production models Ki-44-I to the model II Hei.
Finding the research material took me more than a full year; but I believe that for peoples willing the find the info, there is enough material available to do a pretty accurate Ki-44-I and Ki-44-II cockpit (prettier than the one of the 109s - where a lot of info exist and the result does not justice to the real airplane)
Every info is available on the gauges in the cockpit of the Ki-44-I AND -II (the only one I couldn't find a good enough picture is the oxygen flow meter). A lot of the gauges are the sames that can be found in the Ki-43.

By the way, the Ki-43-I in PF has so many visuals bugs in it (butterfly flaps the big one) that I really wonder how it could be included in PF according to the high accuracy that is required for a plane to be added in the game.

Thanks to passionate researchers interested in japaneses airplanes, a lot of info is available.
Mr Nick Millman was kind enough to send me a copy of the TAIC manual for the Ki-44 model IIb.
The manual has also a lot of information about the model I.

For visual model and damage modeling, the Maru on the Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-44 would alone be enough to do the Ki-44 and redo the Ki-43 accurately.

As for the MS-406 that could not be included in the game for lack of information about the plane... A D-3801 would be perfect for me. And seing the amazing quantity of documents about the D-520 available at the Air and Space Museum at Le Bourget, I suppose that at least as much technical data would be available about the MS-406.

It seems to me the real problem is not with lack of available technical data, but rather with lack of time for the devellopers to gather it and put the 3D models and data together to add news planes in the game.

tigertalon
01-11-2005, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
but it was the best IJA INterceptor of the war
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ki84 and Ki100 were vastly superior.

ImpStarDuece
01-11-2005, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heinz_Knokke:
By the way, I believe I'm the person who did this CFS2 Ki-44 Shoki you're talking about:

http://pigeonh.free.fr/ki442.htm

I did all the versions of the plane that saw service in the war, from pre-production models Ki-44-I to the model II Hei.
Finding the research material took me more than a full year; but I believe that for peoples willing the find the info, there is enough material available to do a pretty accurate Ki-44-I and Ki-44-II cockpit (prettier than the one of the 109s - where a lot of info exist and the result does not justice to the real airplane)
Every info is available on the gauges in the cockpit of the Ki-44-I AND -II (the only one I couldn't find a good enough picture is the oxygen flow meter). A lot of the gauges are the sames that can be found in the Ki-43.


Thanks to passionate researchers interested in japaneses airplanes, a lot of info is available.
Mr Nick Millman was kind enough to send me a copy of the TAIC manual for the Ki-44 model IIb.
The manual has also a lot of information about the model I.

For visual model and damage modeling, the Maru on the Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-44 would alone be enough to do the Ki-44 and redo the Ki-43 accurately.

It seems to me the real problem is not with lack of available technical data, but rather with lack of time for the devellopers to gather it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


BING!

Can anybody say Jackpot?


This is why we have the game that we love! Little voices popping up in the community going 'um, hello, um, over here please, yes, here, PAY ATTENTION TO ME, dammnit!'


Heinz, would you be willing to supply the information you have collected and use to either 1C or a third party in order to facilitate the Ki-44 being accurately represented in the game? Anything that you or other community members can do would be appreciated. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Furthermore, if information from Japanese sources, museums or libraries is required anytime over the next 6 months I hereby volunteer to do the work. A modeler and programmer I am NOT, but i do know a thing or two about research.

harryklein66
01-11-2005, 06:25 PM
I never said that the ki-44 pit or external can't be done, I said it take's time to do it(not 5min as some look to think), and i'm not sure it could be finish before they stop to accept new plane for eap/pf.

and there are several difference between the 406 and D-3801 in FM(speed+33km/h,climb rate,overheat,engine HS12Y.51) and
enxternal/internal(radiator,cooling system,exaust pipes,wings gun mount,radio,radio antenna,gun sight,front glass,most of the gauges and gauges position,some lever,seat,armor added,colors,etc...)
the D520,Bloch152 and potez63 series are well documented,but no the other, like Bre690/91/93,Leo45,and the ms406
so maybe the D-3801 would be perfect for you...but it's not a MS406 neither a 410.

PS: oui le Bourget est un tres beau musée http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifand nice ki44 model http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hawkmeister
01-11-2005, 06:36 PM
Yes - the TAIC manual for the Ki-44 is widely available. I have a copy of it on the comp myself. And in addition to the Maru Mechanic, the Famous Airplanes of the World issue on the Ki-44 has alot of information on the construction, performance, and pilot interviews.

It would also be incorrect to say this plane saw limited service. If judging by Allied or German numerics, perhaps, but by Japanese standards the plane was significant. Same with the Ki-100, which seems to get alot of "they didn't make 10,000 so it's a what-if". The plane was very significant for Japan. The Ki-44 saw alot of service in the CBI where numbers on both sides were relatively small. Later, in the defense of the Philippines and the home islands, the plane played a significant role.

-Bill

VW-IceFire
01-11-2005, 10:02 PM
Wow...so there is more information available than was let on by the people uptop. Its a bit of a shame I guess...seems like it just sort of got forgotten. But so did alot of things...like missing an entire class of US carriers that were extraordinarily prominent at Midway and elsewhere, or a Japanese army AI bomber, or Rabul, and so on.

I love the missions you can do on the PTO theater but if I wanted to go and do something else its just very hard.

p1ngu666
01-11-2005, 10:27 PM
and burma http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

p1ngu666
01-11-2005, 10:46 PM
i quickly looked it up, zeroish (5series) performance with less firepower :\
ill read the text of it in bed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hawkmeister
01-11-2005, 11:21 PM
From Famous Airplanes of the World #16, Ki-44 Shoki...

Ki-44-II Otsu
1,450HP (1,520HP War Emergency) 14-cylinder twin-row radial
Empty Weight - 2,106kg
Normal Loaded Weight - 2,764kg
Max Gross Weight - 2,998kg
Wing Area - 15.00 Square Meters
Top Speed - 605kph @ 5,200M
Stall Speed (clean) - 150kph
Climb to 5,000M in 4 minutes 26 seconds
Service Ceiling - 11,200M
Armament - 4 X 12.7mm machine guns, 2 30-100kg bombs

Armor protection for the pilot and self-sealing fuel tanks.

Another common variant had 2 X 12.77mm machine guns and 2 X 20mm cannon (Mauser license-built).

And then there was the bomber killer with 2 40mm wing-mounted rocket launchers (not cannon as often quoted).

The plane has more in common with an early FW-190 than a Zero. Yet still has a lower wing loading than the 190.

And then there are the butterfly combat flaps...

Something else important to consider - this plane was built when Japan was still producing high-quality engines and materials. It suffered none of the material defects of the late war planes, had a very reliable engine, and a very strong structure.

Check out the wing and power loadings and compare them to other PF/IL2FB fighters.

This plane is not to be underrated.

-Bill

Daiichidoku
01-12-2005, 01:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
but it was the best IJA INterceptor of the war
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ki84 and Ki100 were vastly superior. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Depends on what you think an "interceptor" is....the J3M3 is easily a contender with a great climb to height...

Feathered_IV
01-12-2005, 06:19 AM
Here is one from Monogram Close-up No.14:

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/Feathered-z.jpg

Typical Nakajima layout.

JG53Frankyboy
01-12-2005, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
but it was the best IJA INterceptor of the war
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ki84 and Ki100 were vastly superior. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Depends on what you think an "interceptor" is....the J3M3 is easily a contender with a great climb to height... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but he J2M3 Raiden is a Navy plane , not Army http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Heinz_Knokke
01-12-2005, 07:01 AM
I already proposed to 1C to make available to them the data I've got one month ago, but got no answer.

By the way, no Ki-44 version with 20mm canon ever went into service.
Ki-44 is a very relevant airplane for the pacific theater. It's apparition in theater gave a tremendous advantage to the japaneses over the allies.

actionhank1786
01-12-2005, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heinz_Knokke:
I already proposed to 1C to make available to them the data I've got one month ago, but got no answer.

By the way, no Ki-44 version with 20mm canon ever went into service.
Ki-44 is a very relevant airplane for the pacific theater. It's apparition in theater gave a tremendous advantage to the japaneses over the allies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so what armament was most common on it?
this plane interests me for some reason.
I aaw a picture of it on here a while ago.
it's kinda cute? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Asgeir_Strips
01-12-2005, 10:54 AM
wow, i didn't know that ya'll was so interested in the Ki44, it sure somebody could model it properly, but the problem is, (i think) that Oleg and Company wouldn't have accepted it.. Shame really.. In a magazine Called Flight Journal, They gave out a Pacific Fighters (not the game,) special edition, and it was an article about an USAAC Squadron Called "Yellow Scorpions" i think.. They flew the P51 (A36, P51A,B,C and D ,model) They Flew in the CBI theater against Japanese Zeros, Oscars, Tojo's and Frank's. They had a impressive technique to get rid of zeros on their tail during bomber escort missions: They called in over the radio to a bomber that they (him) were flying under the bomber, and the ventral/dorsal/waist gunners would unload on the following japanese pilot, that tactic proved very effective!

Also the Frank was called the Oscar's Younger brother! :-) And also, the mustang pilots, considered the Tojo as a very dangerous airplane, and it was capable of giving the 'Stang a run for its money, same goes with the Frank....

Saburo_0
01-12-2005, 11:17 AM
Really wanted the Shoki. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I;m happy to get the Raiden but would have preferred the Shoki to the Ki-61. the Ki- 44 has a fantastic climb rate, & a reliable engine.
Ki 61 just doesn't match up IMHO.

The cockpit ultra realism is foolish in my opinion. i don't spend much time looking at all the little cockpit details & to not include important planes because the cockpit's not 100 % accurate is foolish. Especially when we're subjected to canopy bars that are accurate only when your eyes are focusing on them.

hawkmeister
01-12-2005, 01:40 PM
The major production variant is the Ki-44-II Otsu for which I quoted specs above.

The Bunrindo FAOW #16 makes specific mention of the Ho-5 20mm Mauser cannon being used in some sub-types.

An interesting sidenote is that the Ki-44 and J2M were both designed in response to a similar requirement issued by both the army and navy in the same time frame. The Ki-44 entered service with relatively little trouble in 1942, while the J2M suffered from serious problems with it's engine, engine vibrations, cooling, etc. and did not reach operation in any numbers until 1944.

-Bill

JG53Frankyboy
01-12-2005, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heinz_Knokke:
I already proposed to 1C to make available to them the data I've got one month ago, but got no answer.

By the way, no Ki-44 version with 20mm canon ever went into service.
Ki-44 is a very relevant airplane for the pacific theater. It's apparition in theater gave a tremendous advantage to the japaneses over the allies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so what armament was most common on it?
this plane interests me for some reason.
I aaw a picture of it on here a while ago.
it's kinda cute? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the most Ki44 had 4 x 12.7mm Ho103 guns

Heinz_Knokke
01-13-2005, 09:04 AM
The most common version of the Shoki was the Ki-44 model 2 Hei with 4x12.7 Ho-103 machineguns (with 427 a/c built)

Most Ki-44 model 2 Otsu (2 x Ho-103 and 2 x Ho-301 40mm guns) where stripped of the guns, some of them used in ramming tactics by the 47 Sentai where stripped of all armament to be able to achieve flight at a greater altitude.

The Ki-44 with 20mm Ho-5 guns was the prototype of the model 3, and a single one was build (perhaps destroyed in bombings, as it seems the US TAIU never tried to get their hands on it).