Talk:Nakajima Ki-84

Request to add Ki-84 "Frank" nickname

I request that somewhere in the article (preferably towards the beginning) the Allied reporting name "Frank" be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.31.144 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"High Octane" Fuel and true top speed

In reading the article there are two mentions of how the aircraft performed better with high octane fuel. I have found that this has mislead people on exactly what high octane fuel does. You don't magically gain performance by pouring a higher octane into the engine. Increasing compression in an engine requires fuel with better anti knocking characteristics thus creating the need for higher octane fuel. Using a lower octane than what it's cleared for will simply destroy the engine while higher octane won't do anything special. As such mentioning how the aircraft performed well when good fuel was used is entirely irrelevent.

The speed achieved in US was achieved on 92 Octane fuel[1] - same as used by IJA - and there is no problem why Japanese wouldn't be able to achieve it if only plane would be properly serviced and maintained.

Apart from this there is enough evidence from interrogations from Japanese POWs. 1st Lt. Hideo Nomuri from 51st Sentai, was evasive since he told interrogators he flew the OSCAR II rather than the FRANK. However, the 51st flew only the Type 4 fighter in the Philippines Campaign, where Nomuri was captured. He also gave fairly extensive data on the Type 4 fighter. He said its true airspeed at 5000m (note: not at 6000m) was 650 kph (= 403 mph) which corresponds with TAIC.

Other prisoner Yukio Nakamura, who was another Type 4 fighter pilot captured in the Philippines gave his fighter's max speed as 700 kph (= 435 mph).

2nd Lieutenant Seigei Shimaza was not a fighter pilot but a technician assigned to the 2nd Air Supply Depot in the Philippines. He was educated at Tokyo's Industrial University. He provided considerable technical information including performance details on Ki-67 Peggy and Ki-84 Frank. He placed the Type 4 fighter's max speed at around 700 kph.

Not only can I find no proof regarding the use of high grade fuel during post war tests, but even if it had been used there isn't any reason why it should magically perform better with it, this is not how fuel works. 108.12.186.251 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's all about the guidelines of WP:RS and WP:V; please avoid WP:SYN. If you can cite the source, you are welcome to make the supplement. Regards Bouquey (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The Vne speed (800km/h, 410knt) seems to be quoted as KTAS, rather than the more conventional KIAS. The max speed is apparently stated as KIAS, rather than the usual KTAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.159.17 (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In the first place, learn how to spell “irrelevant.” Makes you sound like a doofus when you can’t spell in your own language. Secondly, low octane fuel WAS a problem which limited aircraft performance. When adequate octane cannot be obtained, the engines are DERATED to operate on the lower octane. This involves modifications of ignition and cam timing and RPM limiting. The engine thus produces less power, but can function on the lower grade fuel. When Germany could not procure fuel towards the end of WW II, they flew with synthetic fuel, low octane. The derated engines placed them at a great disadvantage against allied planes, which, by the way, did NOT use 92 octane, but 130/145 octane.98.183.25.236 (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You're objectively wrong, sorry! 2600:4040:B39B:5300:5CC1:43C6:DC1D:54F3 (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Production at Ota plant

Hi all, it seems there is an error in table from USSBS survey with ki-84 production figures

at the top of the page 72 (USSBS survey) is written: "comparative figures of Ota production by quarters " accordingly years 1941 to 1945 are divided in four columns in the table; but headings say genuary, february, march , april instead than first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, fourth quarter

so it appears that the plant produced aircrafts only the first 4 months each year and produced nothing all the rest of the other months (that would be clearly very strange); more at pag. 71, when it describes figure 17, it always talks about quarters; i.g it says: "estimation of Frank production was generally correct except for the fourth quarter of 1944 ,when the estimation was 182 planes high"; in table at pag.72 inside column "april" 1944 is shown: extimated 1025, produced 843 ; so a difference of 182 as attributed to fourth quarter 1944 at pag. 71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blizzardwi (talk • contribs) 11:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit I made more researches: table seems definitevely uncorrect; cross-reference same USSBS survey , appendix M - airframe production by type and model (pag 41): it's possible to see monthly production figures for ki-84; production started in 1943 with this output: august  : 1 september: 1 october  : 3 november : 11 december : 8 and so on Blizzardwi (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Blizzardwi

The production numbers seems now a bit suspect. The first Ki 84 of the batch c/n 8401, was completed in March 1943 and made its maiden flight on April 1943. A month later, the second Ki-84 flew for the first time over the Ojima Airfield and joined the company's flight test programm. The production table now suggest that those two pre models were completed only in July to Sept, which is highly conflictive. Also, it doesn't make sense that production run until Sept. 45, (despite the wars end and facility abandonment) which would also entirely dismiss any production of the Ki-116 (successor) which started in July 1945 shortly after the Ki84's EOL. Bouquey (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The pre-production aircraft may not be counted in the report and/or they're not counted until turned over to the IJAAF, I don't know. There's often a substantial lag between production and delivery in other airforces, so why not the Japanese? And what makes you think that production continued into September. Just because the report is quarterly doesn't mean that production didn't cease earlier in the quarter? But there's a bigger problem because there's no mention of the report in the bibliography, much less a link. That needs to be fixed first off, then we can discuss any possible errors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I don't know it either, however, it took me a while to find the aforementioned report and reviewing it. On the Appendix M. pp. 40-42 we actually can find the monthly produced airframes. Going to improve and change it. Cheers! Bouquey (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, just be sure to add a damn link to the USSBS in the bibliography so we can double-check things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Guard your speech. The article does not improve all alone, so leave your bad habits aside. If you want to make a request, use the bon ton, but don't demand like I were your employee. Bouquey (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The reference to the USSBS is useless without bibliographic information or at least a link. Without that info your changes to the production numbers could be instantly reverted as baseless, so I'd think that you'd have an interest in adding that info to support your work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please? The reference was unambiguous clear, before and now, even without a further annotation. Going to one of your latest edit (Shores, et al., pp. 395, 405), you don't seem to obey the rule either. Does it mean I can revert it instantly, because your info provides neither a link nor a valuable "bibliographic information"? No, so please leave such silly and redundant gospel beside. Case closed. Bouquey (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Not for you to declare closed or not. At any rate, thanks for your edit adding a link to the USSBS report.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture and Caption re: comparison to US aircraft

The third picture in the article, showing four airplanes, does not match up with its caption. The caption says that the Ki-84 was faster than the P-51D or P-47D at altitude. The picture shows (back to front) a P-51, an F6F, a Ki-84, and a Spitfire, but no P47. My suggestion would be to move the text of the caption into the body of the article, and make the caption just descriptive ("A Ki-84 flying alongside Allied aircraft...") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czib (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)