45 degree.(Source : FAMOUS AIRPLANES OF THE WORLD, No.19)
Tei type modification was completed in July 1944 at the IJA aviation arsenal in Tachikawa.
Only two Tei type were made.
Unfortunately I have no information about exact position of Ho-5 cannon.
立川飛行機 : Tachikawa Aircraft
陸軍航空工廠 : The IJA aviation arsenal
陸軍航空技術研究所 : The IJA aviation technology research institute
滑走路 : Run way
Found a useful website about the Ki-84-II: http://forum.valka.cz/topic/view/39913/Nakadzima-Ki-84-II-Hajate
Is there any more information about this aircraft? Seems rather obscure.
This comes from a forum and the author says its from a polish book:
Toward the end of 1944 the available reserves of strategic resources began to shrink dangerously, which was especially true of aluminum and its alloys, commonly used in aircraft production, as well as other light metals. As it was becoming increasingly difficult to replenish these resources, there appeared a threat of their exhaustion and of a severe crisis in the arms industry. Seeing that, the Koku Hombu introduced a program for replacement of the hardly obtainable duralumin with more easily available materials for aircraft construction, especially with ordinary carbon steel, wood and plywood. In fact, such attempts had been for some time made by the Rikugun Kokugijutsu Kenkyusho (Army Air Technical Research Institute, known as Kogiken or Giken) at Tachikawa near Tokyo.
In the autumn of 1944, engineers of Nakajima and Kogiken prepared technical documentation for replacement of certain duralumin Ki-84 components less vital in terms of material strength with new ones made of wood and plywood. This mainly concerned the rear fuselage, tail unit elements, wing tips, push-pull rods and other, minor components. Production of such modified aircraft was begun in the spring of 1945 by Nakajima's Ota factory, with the wood parts for the construction being provided by the workshops at Tanuma.
The partly wooden Ki-84 received the Nakajima factory designation of Ki-84-II (Ki-84 Model 2), or Hayate "KAI" ("KAI" from the word Kaizo = modified); this designation, however, failed to be adopted by the Koku Hombu. The IJAAF continued to call the "wooden" Ki-84s with the designations Ki-84 Otsu and Ki-84 Hei, depending on the armament option. Anyway, viewed from outside, the "wooden" Ki-84-lls were practically indistinguishable from regular Ki-84s. It is not known how many Ki-84-lls were produced, as they were counted among the overall number of manufactured Ki-84s. The Ki-84-II was powered by the standard Ha-45-21 engine or the improved Ha-45-23, or the most powerful Ha-45-25 in the case of the latest aircraft.
If anyone can speak Japanese, please feel free to have a browse of this book: https://www.scribd.com/document/148751364/Bunrindo-Famous-Airplanes-of-the-World-19-Nakajima-Ki-84-Hayate-Army-Type-4-Fighter
I had forgotten to bring this in, a friend on our forums discovered a photo of the Ki-84 Tei model and information about it's sight and gun - and it happens to discredit all English and Japanese illustrations of it
.
I do not have the reference, I thought he sent it to me but he didn't.
①Simple sighting device for Schräge Musik or its base
②Although it is in the fully open position, it is about 60% of the opening before remodeling
③Protrusions for attaching radio antennas
④Cylinder of ballistic cover
⑤Cutout to avoid cylinder
⑥Cut part reinforcement frame
⑦Cutting part reinforcing bracket
⑧Inspection opening related to Schräge Musik
⑨Remove antenna pillars
※The cylinder that comes out from the canopy is long to protect the canopy and the pilot in the event of an unexpected 20 mm bullet outbreak.
In addition, the following discovered from the data discovered this time.
･Trial prototype of Unit 1 was completed in September of 1944.
･The prototype Unit 2 was completed from October to November of 1944 at the latest.
･The test flight took place at Fussa airfield.
･The base of the Tei type is the Ko type. (The Otsu type appeared in November 1944.) However, mass production type was planned to be based on Otsu type.
･Schräge Musik had 300 rounds.
All,
These are just a couple of thoughts (IE speculations): There were two Ki-84 Tei aircraft. Maybe the first one had the set up in the first plane of Justo's drawing and the second had the setup of the second plane in the same drawing. Then the first one got confused with the Ki-84 Ko -OR- the Ki-84 Ko had the same setup and it was carried over to the FIRST Ki-84 Tei. It would not surprise me because the Japanese were always improving things as they went along.
Hi Blackkite,
In reference to your drawing, you said the source was "No19" - No19 what exactly? No19 Maru Mechanic or what?
Here is a proposal for the Ki-117's place in War Thunder back in 2017. It was made by the user known as CherryBlossom.
Does anyone have anymore pictures of the design? It would be cool if we could find an artist that could provide us with some what-if in action shots.
- The Ki.84N would have used a 2,450 hp Ha-44-13 or a 2,530 hp Ha-44-14 engines with Ru-303 turbo-supercharger driving a four-bladed propeller with 3.6 m in diameter. The proposed armament was four 20 mm cannons. It would have had 12,3 m wingspan, 10,177 m length, 3.85 m height, 22,3 sq.m wing surface, 610 kph max speed, 5,296 kg maximum weight and 1.577 km range. On 4 June 1945 the Koku Hombu decided its mass production with the kitai number of Ki.117, project only.
- The Ki.84N would have used a 2,450 hp Ha-44-13 or a 2,530 hp Ha-44-14 engines with Ru-303 turbo-supercharger driving a four-bladed propeller with 3.6 m in diameter. The proposed armament was four 20 mm cannons. It would have had 12,3 m wingspan, 10,177 m length, 3.85 m height, 22,3 sq.m wing surface, 610 kph max speed, 5,296 kg maximum weight and 1.577 km range. On 4 June 1945 the Koku Hombu decided its mass production with the kitai number of Ki.117, project only.
Cheers,
Spitfire XIV still wins, it's engine power above 20000 ft was about 20% greater. Hi-oct fuel is good, having a better supercharger is better (on the roughly comparable engines), and that was what Giffon 65 had over the Homare.
Then the question is meaningless! A quality pilot will carry the day in an inferior machine and the Spit XIV is hardly that anyway. I get that these curve comparison exercises (top trumps for big boys?) are popular on this site and elsewhere but that misses at least 49.9% of the picture.
If you are going to ask a question and then add a rather stultifying qualifier when you don't get an answer you want, is it really a discussion?
Then the question is meaningless! A quality pilot will carry the day in an inferior machine and the Spit XIV is hardly that anyway. I get that these curve comparison exercises (top trumps for big boys?) are popular on this site and elsewhere but that misses at least 49.9% of the picture.
If you are going to ask a question and then add a rather stultifying qualifier when you don't get an answer you want, is it really a discussion?
I understand why they would take issue with that statement. A lot of people across many sites (AlternateHistory.com and Quora are good examples) don't like their main points being shut down by a counter claim that completely gets rid of the rest of their own discussion. Pilot quality should be considered, but its unfair to completely discount the aircraft themselves. After all, their question had nothing to do with pilot quality anyway, it was solely focusing on the aircraft.
I understand but, focusing on the aircraft and ignoring the biological squidgy bit, leaves the aircraft on the tarmac. Not a lot to compare between two parked up airframes.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
