Nakajima Ki-27 | The Nimble "Nate" [Aircraft Overview #14] 

Thats fascinating, did he ever write about his experiences?

Wow

I would love to read his experiences. Were they ever written down?

@@karoltakisobie6638 No, but he should have done that.

@@RexsHangar No, but he should have written a book. He thought it was nothing. He meant everyone else were having different hardships.

A huge advantage in dogfights of that era. But not the only one.

A design choice that would somewhat bite them in the backside later on 😅

@@allangibson2408 I do like the insane range of 2500km that the zero could achieve.

The Japanese Navy followed the same path. The lack of any high powered Japanese engines meant that the aircraft had to be very light to meet any serious performance requirements.

It was doctrine based, not an "obsessive love of". Insofar as that decision went, for the time, it was correct given the success of it, its Ki-43 IJA successor and IJN's A6M2 type 21 in their heyday. At the time they rounded up ALL opposition, diminishing only when favour went to the American's superior numbers and logistical support in conjunction with a change of engagement tactics to suit characteristics of predominant Allied PTO types at the time e.g. F4-F, P-40, P400 & P-39, if arguably outclassed with the subsequent introduction into theatre of the unfairly much maligned P-38. To compare the maneuverability doctrine of the decade to 1940 with later the far more technologically advanced much higher performance types such as the Marines' F4U & Navy's F6F, operational respectively Feb 1943 & Sept 1943 by which time the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy fighters we were already pressed with significantly greater problems than the American's of logistical support, declining pilot experience/quality and replacement output from training schools, refined grade and availability of aviation fuel, materials. To criticise Japanese for their aircraft built to a pre-existing doctrine because Japan didn't have the production capability for even existing types let alone introduction of new ones suited to a new doctrine is inane. It's amazing under all the circumstances that Japan even managed to design let alone produce such excellent designs as the (and I'll use their common US code names here) Frank, Jack, & George, and Ki-100 Hi-112 radial modified version of the Tony after the Kawasaki Ha-140 factory had destroyed by B-29s despite production numbers of all hopelessly insufficient to have any significant impact on the overwhelming American hordes by the time they became operational.

The Nationalist Chinese operated the Gloster Gladiator in 1938 during the latter part of the Japanese invasion of Canton. They did well against Japanese naval biplanes and modern bombers but poorly against the Mitsubishi A5M Claude naval fighter which was similar in layout, performance and in-service date to the Army's Ki-27. The Chinese ran out of Gladiators before Ki-27s appeared in numbers and they don't appear to have met in combat. You may be interested in this sequence from a early WW2 Japanese movie showing Ki-27s in combat with Japanese biplane fighters imitating Chinese Curtiss Hawks. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-THIaLHR8yL4.html

Ki-27s squared off with VVS over Khalhin Gol. VVS had higher losses overall, but note that many of the losses on both sides were bombers and reconnaisance aircraft. Also many were lost to causes other than fighters. Finally, much of IJAAS had greater experience from fighting in China while only lesser parts of VVS gained experience in Spain and Finland.

I don't see even the B-239 keeping up with the Ki-27 in a dogfight. It may have been agile, but the Nate is on a completely different level. I'd have to pull up stall speeds for both planes, but the Ki27 is much lighter and shouldn't lose out on wing area by much, if at all.

But the Japanese didn't do so well against the Flying Tigers in China.

Someone at Kawasaki must have been a secret German!

The Tony was Italian, not German. ;)

@@amerigo88 Tony the Samurai...

He crossed the HUD, which is not an aircraft's design flaw I guess?

@@LongTran-em6hc nope just pilot error. Pulling up in front of the enemy is not a healthy career move. Lol

The Ki-33 was basically an IJAAF spec A5M Claude…

And Aichi was integrated into Nissan. Well and Mitsubishi is still making aircraft. Power families are behind all of them.

I don't know if the Japanese Army and Navy were capable of that kind of cooperation.

IJA and IJN: HA-HA fat chance!

Difference between reality and claims.

it’s not the spitfire

@@nguyenhoangan-matt it is

So he claimed...

Mitsubishi developed the Ki-21 Sally bombers as well as the G3m Nell & G4M Betty bombers. Makes me wonder if they would have even got the spare time building Army spec Claudes without pissing off the IJN…

I'm currently running a schedule of a video every 3 days, might change that to 3 vids per weeks depending on workload as time goes by :)

Probably about there before he'd be shot down.

USSR lost around 200 airplanes in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol. The Japanese claimed 1300 Shinohara overclaimed just as everybody else.

I love it in Warthunder. A bit weak in the armament but really nimble

Yeah, that game, where every plane is a Stuka and even Stukas didn't had 90% hit percentages.

@@0Turbox simply a different in skill :D

You win an Oscar for that comment. 😊

@@hixtonweasle6169 🏆🥺 I accept this award humbly and I would like to thank my parents for pushing me to be the best 😂

@@brendonbewersdorf986 Cheers to you and yours. Well said.🤩

Yes me too, I have always thought that the Ki-43 vs P-40 conflicts in the CBI theater right up there with the Spitfire vs Me-109 in the BOB. One of the great fighter matchups!

@@hixtonweasle6169 hahaha 🤣😂 thanks lol