Talk:Kawasaki Ki-61/Archive 1

Issues in the Operational history section
I'm listing the issues I have with certain information in it, in the hope that someone with access to the refs can address them. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st para. says Ki-61 was initially mistaken for an Italian fighter or a license-built Bf 109, but 4th para. says for a German one. Which is right (per sources)?


 * It's a common fact, reported about this aircraft. It was taken for a german fighter, but still, it had an italian name. in fact, there were reports related both to the meeting of german or even italian fighters.


 * I'm aware of the reports of German aircraft, but not of Italian aircraft. I did not know that "Ki-61 Hien" is an Italian name. In any case, since it's a common fact, then it should be easy to identify a reference source, as Bzuk and others have been trying to teach you. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nooo, not Hien (=swallow in japan) was an italian name, but TONY, a typical italo-american name, used as its nickane. If not was noted such similarity, then it was called Fritz, or Heinz, sure not Tony...


 * 3rd para. says “Other units were even more unfortunate: only two of a possible 24 Ki-49s reached Rabaul in June 1943.” If this is about the Ki-49, why are we mentioning it?  If a mistake for the Ki-61, then this is the same unit (the 17th).  In same para., “suffered a disasterous series of failures and ongoing problems” is too vague; if we don’t have a source that explains this better, it needs to be removed.  Last sentence doesn’t seem to have a Ki-61 context either and I’m unaware of when and under what circumstances “over 200 were lost at one time”.


 * It's an additional information, that explains how difficult was for japan aircrafts go in the Rabaul teathre. It must be read as follows: don't be surprised if 18 out of 30 Ki-61s were lost: also 22 out 24 twin engined bombers were lost as well in such bad conditions, in the same operational theatre, for the same reasons.


 * Thanks. I now understand better what you were trying to say. Could you provide the source so that our readers will know where to go for more information on the topic? Ringraziarla, Askari Mark (Talk) 22:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The same as Ki-61s lost: Pier Francesco Vaccari, article cited. This is meant as overview as difficult was fight in these horrendous conditions, rain, humidity, cannibals etc. They matters also for military operation, that's not Battle of Britain. And surely, nothing that IL-2 sim can reproduce with credibility.--Stefanomencarelli 10:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 4th para. needs to be combed for accuracy.


 * 5th para., 1st sent. parenthetical note needs to go – but the question it poses needs to be answered. Only one weight is given for the Ki-61-I basic, and it’s unclear which it is.  Were both present when this was originally added and perhaps accidentally edited out?

Perhaps---Stefanomencarelli 11:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

About the match between Bf-109, Ki-61 and Mc.202, i have ripristined a part of my text. This is not without reasons.

I have said precisely this:


 * As firepower: since the 4x12,7mm of the Ki-61 were found too weak, it's simply obvious that with 2x12,7 and 2x20mm the situation was meant to be improved! Just check tony williams site. With some calculations, it's possible to check the destructive power combined (chemical and kinetics) of these aircrafts:


 * C.202 basic: 54
 * C.202 with additional mgs. and Re.2001: 84
 * Bf-109E:286
 * Bf-109F:226
 * Ki-61:362 (with guns)362, with 4x12,7mm, almost 180

So the Macchi was undergunned, exp. with Ki-61.

As wings: Re.2001 had a bigger wing than Macchi, and both agility and ceiling were usually reported as 'better', with atleast 1000m. more ceiling. The G.55 had a bigger wing and it was superior at altitude than C.205V. So the lack of a direct comparation between Ki-61 and Macchi could be superseted by these simply tecnical comparations, because the larger wing of the Ki-61 is almost identical to the G.55 one. So for me it's not at all an inconvenient truth. The wingload was lower, this was already enough to expect a better agility, but at higher altitude the big wing was usually ALWAYS in advantage over small wings. This had several pratical examples: spitfire HF had extended wings, not casually. MAcchi 205N had bigger wings (19smq) to improve the altitude agility, and Still, not enough to cope with G.55, Re.2005 and Ki-61 itself (21, 20 and 20 smq.) wings. Not only this, but also the shape of hien wings is very similar to G.55.

So what's the simply conclusion?: Ki-61 had a better handling than Macchi, atleast over 6000m. So simply to understand, seen the available datas of all these machines, that one shouldn't even pose the question. I mean, one that knows what is talking about.

As overall capabilities: Ki-61 had 30% more range, 350-700% more firepower than Macchi, had 400-500kg external stores vs usually 0 (some 320kg max). It was comparable as fighter, it was much superior as escort fighter, as fighter-bombers and above all, as bomber interceptor (try to ask to italian pilots the differences when they had finally 20mm guns on their aircrafts). So i think i have well explained why Hien was the better DB-601 fighter (but also teh last, so the two things matched). Perhaps Bf-109F-4 was overall even better, but with a 1350hp engine, this is another history. This beast could outfly even FW-190 A3 at altitudes.

Conclusions: before delete you must struggle to understand what this mad man tryng to say, perhaps has something to teach about some stuff.--Stefanomencarelli 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you provide sources of information, all of this detail is not usable.The comparisons with other aircraft is mainly periperal informtion. Yes, the Ki-61 showed some superiority, but its wing was almost identical to the Fiat G-55? in what way, wing/chord ratio, wing area, airfoil, use of lifting devices? what? The "big wing was usually always in advantage over small wings" is not even logical. You have a dichotomy is writing "always usually." Is it "always"- no, "usually"- no.  My vote is to keep all of this extra guesswork and "personal" research out of the article. Show some authoritaitive research and then it may be acceptable. FWIW Bzuk 13:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC).


 * I am an ingegnere aerospaziale, so I understand what you’re saying. However, I am afraid that Bzuk is right about it being OR.  Wikipedia’s rules say that we write about what others have written (and identify those sources).  Your material successfully supports your point and I have no doubt it is true, but it appears to be your “original thought”.  If it is not, then the source needs to be cited.  This information is also probably overkill on the issue in an article on the Ki-61.  It also brings in even more aircraft for comparison (the Re.2001 and G.55) and might confuse readers who don’t know much about aircraft performance.  It is for these last two reasons that I removed it yesterday.  Askari Mark (Talk) 22:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ciao Stefano. I'm in total agreement with Askari Mark's comments which have hit the nail(s) on the head. I don't think that I need to say anything to you regarding references as other editors have already addressed the subject in some depth, however, too much detailed comparative technical information about related aircraft, although interesting to some, can detract from the readability of the article and take the emphasis away from the subject.  It's just a question of finding the right balance so that the avarage reader, who we should assume has no prior knowledge on the subject, will not find the article heavy going.  I hope that you will take everyone's advice on board when contributing, as even though you're additions are giving some cause for concern, they are valuable in filling in many gaps.  Regards --Red Sunset 12:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, so before you stated that my reasons are not exactly unsupported, then you stated that wiki can write only others had written (and copyvioling these, of course)?

But wikipedia has only one real duty: give right informations. I haven't made any absurd comparation, if not having compared 2 machines that are well knows as singular careers. I have posted other aircrafts ONLY to show why these comparations are perfectly reasonable, because in Regia Aeronautica there were the same conclusions: it was needed larger wing. The fact that so many attenction is dedicated to my simple affermation: the best and the last of DB-601 fighters, is indicative of the deep immaturity and mind cowardy of the community, that prefers remove absolutely ininfluential affermations, even if rationally well supported. So is this your manner to 'make a free enciclopedia'? LOL.

So where is the mistake? Because 'no others had sayd this before?' SO what? If nobody had said that Pluto is smaller than Jupiter, so one on your Beloved wikipedia cannot write it?? ha-ha-ha. LOL. Have you a clue that EVERY enciclopedya ever written had not have only the task to 'regroup' the informations, but alwasy had added some conclusion? Discutible? Questionable? Maybe, but so human race progress. Do you understand this?

There are zillions of wikipages full of points 'questionable', perhpas well masked by 'references', and still, full of NNPOV. But Wikipedia has one real rule: the NPOV, and nor you, nor sure Bzuk have ever demostred that i am acting as NNPOV. Neutral Point Of View, right informations and copyright-free is ALL is requested, the rest is BS.

I can have a personal opinions, and still, be neutral, just every judice is supposed to be, impartial. Others cannot have a proper POV, but reporting opinions NNPOV by others, and stating these as 'references'. The thing to identifie the 'personal opinions' with 'NNPOV' is not only an insult to the intelligence, but also a total unsupported affermation. Think about this.

Obviousely i make a mistake if i think that open discussion with the pasdaran party of wiki-censorship is a good thing: much better acting in the shadows or as liar, the forms that you mistakenly have made (unsupported by the 5 pillars), needs, as molochs, to be respected. you need machines, not contributors. Printers, not minds. So you see with the higher suspect every attempt to use freely the mind by your contributors. No worse example of 'BAD CULTURE' can be made by wiki-pasdarans. Greetings.

All you had done is another excellent example of your ARROGANT CENSORSHIP. It's a waste of time pretend that you can even understand a single word of i have said. I am really disgusted of your manners, mf. Bzuk, and i want to discuss in a less misleading mode, like you are acting.--Stefanomencarelli 13:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Censorship? Not a bit. All editors are required to provide documentation. I do and so do others. If you have sources, use them. You cannot remove another editor's request for verification when a citation tag is placed on a passage. The general rule of thumb for all major articles is to provide at least one source of information for each paragraph. It is the onus of the submitter to provide that background. Other editors could do so but it requires major rewriting which Red Sunset and others have already attempted to do. His and Mark's effort has been exhaustive and if a check in the edit and article history is made, you will note that over a day's work of editing was put in. BTW, it is also your responsibility to act responsibly, characterizations are not respected nor accepted. FWIW Bzuk 14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC).

So you don't rate even information easily found in wiki.en? G.55s had 11,85m. wingspan, 21,1smq. surface. It had a trapezioidal, eloghed wings, just like Ki-61. The difference was that Ki-61 had 12m and 20smq. so this means, that the chord was shorter. But still, thet have REMARCABLE shared design features. And still, Ki-61 had lower wingload than Macchi 202, and STILL, a bigger wing was deemed to have improved performances at altitude, AS MACCHI 205N showed cleary. So these calculations and parallels have an easy answer: Ki-61 should have in advantage over Macchi at altitude, BECAUSE this was the path designed for Macchi improved models. So what's so difficult to understand? Even a child could understand this. But not a censor of wikipedia, obviousely. Yes, not a censorship, but seldom, and not citation needed here, a censorship acts ufficially as censorship.

And as citation needed tag, well, apart that i don't tell you where you should placed them, it's not guilth of mine if you post them even in the more stupid things. If Piaggio turrets were knoked, OBVIOUSELY ther rest of the weaponry, nose, flank and ventral position cannot fire behind and above the aircraft, versus dorsal attacks do you understand this? It was so obvious that one (let's say you) has just to run your brain.

And still Piaggio weaponry, thanks to have criticized me over the paragraph 'weaponry'. Let's suppose that i was only specialized about this aspect, so that paragraph should had been censored? Thanks to your critic, to avoid your usual manners last night i must worked to ALL the aircraft until 2:AM. But who cares, mr. Bzuk, you had just to bite me for every BS that you cannot agree.

Yes, these aircrafts ended to fly 60 years ago. Now, they are just rubbles. Here we not talk about GW Bush, God or both. There were only old aircrafts without any weight on modern world: Should do we still duel because this issues? Holy wars in the name of Wikipedia's references? Who can be damaged if i stated, after checked all the datas available, that Ki-61 was a better fighter than Macchi (YEs, i am not nationalist)? Who would be offensed by taht assumption? Just leave that eventually others discusses in the substance of the problem, than avoid it as Wikipedia could be endagered by that holy statement. With the discussions in the merit of the arguments it's possible to reach new results, not with censorship.--Stefanomencarelli 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (Slight amended version of my comments on the project page) Stefanomencarelli, I don't mean any disrespect by these comments, but as a professional writer myself, it is clear from the grammar of your comment above, and those on your talk page, that English is your second language. It is also clear that some of the material added to this page is very professional English, so I strongly doubt that you wrote it yourself.


 * Doubt ALL YOU WANT. IT'S ALL MINE: ALL. Throw me at Guantanamo and i'll state is a copyiol, but not without torture.

I'm guessing that you got it out of a magazine article or a book. It would be most helpful if you'd just cite your source. It is also inappropriate, and a copyright violation, to drop the text directly into the article.


 * Still gratuitus accusations: why you put me in problematic users? Yes i challenghe you 2 zillions wikipedians: FIND WHERE I COPIED SUCH TEXT:IF NOT GIVE ME YOUR EXCUSES.

I would be appropriate to quote the book or mag article, but again, that needs to be clearly identitified as a quote, sourced, and limited in length. If you can't or won't provide references, and for the other material that you wrote yourself but are refusing to reference, then it is appropriate to remove the material as original research.


 * SO YOU ARE STATING that OR i am a copyvioler OR i have made PERSONAL RESEARCHES? Do you are kidding boy? I simply compared what i found. IF i say that F-16 is a fighter better than Spitfire i cannot do this because 'this was NEVER said by nobody'? Or this is a 'personal research? Do you are aware of the immense silliness of your statements??

If there's an edit war here, it's because you either don't understand our policies or are deliberately refusing to abide by them. If it's because you don't understand them, then let me know and I'll explain them futher to you. If it's because you deliberately refuse to abide by them, and you persist in doing so, eventually that will probably lead to you being blocked from editing, which I'd rather not see happen. So, please honor our policies and help us build the integrity of the encyclopedia, rather than bringing that integrity down by introducing inappropriate material.  AK Radecki Speaketh  19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comparing the overall performances, WELL KNOWS THEMSELVES, of two aircraft and say 'that was better than other' is a violation of what rule? By God, your statement is pure LOL.


 * Sig. Stefanomencarelli, I am afraid that much of what you are calling “censorship” by Bzuk is simply normal editing to improve the “flow of words” in English, correcting spellings, verb tenses, etc. English has lots of “tricks”.  For instance when talking about the maneuver performance of several different types of aircraft, we say “aircraft performance” – not “aircraft performances” or “aircrafts performances”; however, if we were talking about an aircraft’s performances at several airshows, we talk about its “airshow performances”.  Moreover, the word “aircraft” is both singular and plural.  We don’t expect you to know that, so we fix it when we find it.


 * there is cleary more than that. To me, it show cleary that my statements were even too good know 8and so dispraced) to call the 'grammar issue'. So i still call it as censorship, sorry. You can act it as act of force, but cannot call it other than that.


 * Even the removal of text is not necessarily “censorship”. As Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability says, “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material”, and “Any edit lacking a source may be removed....”  Our guideline on reliable sources says, “... any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source.”  These are Wikipedia’s policies, not Bzuk’s, and that is why you are being encouraged to identify and cite your sources.  It is your responsibility as a contributing editor to provide them.  Rispettosamente, Askari Mark (Talk) 23:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, your wiki-policies are misinterpreted. I don't MADE such statement giving an unreferenced affermation. I have (and posted, also) sources to write '2' and sources to write '3'. So i simply made the sequent calculation: 3-2=1. So 3 is Bigger than 2. In the whole Universe, there cannot be a more stupid discussion than this one.And not for my guilth. Bzuk has bited me from the beginnings and i sincerly disprace his manners and not only them. If wiki is so coward to fear a compatation of 60-years old aircarfts, then please, stop and close your project: you haven't the dorsal spin to save the knowledge for humanity. Sorry to say, but it's so.--Stefanomencarelli 10:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And still another thing: There is the NEED to ask a CITATION NEEDED also to the affermation that Ki-61 can dodfight? Isn't clear in the article already? .

I report, at guarantee by eventual censorship, the whole analysis of this aircraft, if somone is interested.

Technical details anmd performances In all of its versions, the Ki-61 Hien was a single-seat, single-engine fighter made almost entirely from metal alloys; only the control surfaces were fabric-covered. It was ruggedly constructed, and was relatively heavy for a Japanese fighter.

The aft section of the triangular cross-section fuselage was long for a fighter powered by a DB-601 (or one of its copies), and featured a type of "razorback" dorsal structure behind the cockpit. The engine was in the nose, together with a pair of 12.7 mm caliber Ho-103 machine guns. The Ho-103 was a light weapon for its caliber (around 23 kg) and fired a light shell, but this was compensated for by its rapid rate of fire. The ammunition capacity was limited, having only around 250 rounds for each weapon. The windshield was armoured together with a 13 mm armoured steel plate in the pilot's seat. Fuel capacity was around 550 l (145 gal) allowing for a long range (over 1,000 km (540 nm) without external tanks).

The wings were quite large in area, giving a low wing loading. They housed another pair of machine guns or cannons, as well as the undercarriage gear when raised.

Overall, the performance of the Ki-61 was the best of all the DB-601-powered fighters that entered production, which were, essentially, Bf-109E and Macchi C.202. The first was considered inferior, to the Hien in a direct contest conducted in Japan, in every aspect of the combat (even if it was less heavily armed than 'Emil', having only 2x12,7 and 2x7,7mm).

Macchi C.202 was never directly compared with this japan fighter, but are known the most important parameters of its project. Both were described as agile fighters, and capable to handle Allied aircrafts like P-39, P-40 and Hurricanes. Macchi had smaller wings and was marginally lighter, so it was slightly faster. Even if slower, Ki-61 had an additional 120 l (32 gal) of fuel and a quartet of 12,7mm machine guns, so its slight inferiority in speed was more than made up by greater range (30%) and firepower (around 3600 vs. the Macchi's 1100 rounds/minute, and was even more effective if the 20 mm cannons were fitted)[1], both obtained with a weight slightly greater.

In terms of agility, the lower wing loading (usually an advantage) and the lower power-to-weight ratio (usually a disavantage) probably set the two aircraft at the same level, but the early Ki-61s were lighters and more manoeuvreables than the later models. Macchi, similar to Bf-109 had a smaller wing (16,9 compared to 20m²), best fitted for medium altitudes, but in a relative disavantage as altitude was higher. This is easily recognizable, as the efforts to improve the performances and agility at altitude, led Castoldi to the Macchi C.205N, with a 19m² wing, but still this fighter lost to Reggiane Re.2005 and Fiat G.55, that had 20 and 21,1m². This latter had a wing of elongated trapezoidal design, quite similar to the one of Ki-61. With around 150kg/m² (with the early armament suite), the Ki-61 had a lighter wingload than the Macchi (175, also with the basic armament), so it could theoretically manouver better, and gain advantage at altitude, also because it clocked its best speed at 6000m compared to 5400 of Macchi 202.--Stefanomencarelli 12:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Further info/source issues
Here are several more information and source issues I think we need to resolve:

Intro: 
 * Do we need a reference for the first mention of “Kawasaki”? I would think there would be better places to employ Gunston’s book.

?????

Design and development
 * Do we know the date/period of the multi-type flyoff?

Not after early 1942, when production started
 * In fact the summer of 1942 at Kagamigahara, next to the Kawasaki Gifu plant Dirk P Broer 00:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Operational history (Para. 3) 
 * Which unit at Rabaul suffered the high losses in Ki-34s?
 * That would be far more likely have been Ki.43s, so we have a choice between the 1st, 11th and 13th Sentai.Dirk P Broer 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC). Those units indeed took a heavy beating at Rabaul.Dirk P Broer 00:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Of the 68th, 77th and 248th Sentai Bueschel even writes that they were annihilated in New Guinea.Dirk P Broer 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ki-34 is a two-engined transport plane built by Nakajima (Allied code name "Thora")Dirk P Broer 00:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

??????


 * Besides the already mentioned engine problems, what comprised this “disastrous series of failures and ongoing problems”? What “disasters” occurred?  We really need more substance here or else tone it down.  (Please note that in the final para. of this section we write, “The aircraft was largely trouble-free in service except for the liquid-cooled engine which tended to overheat when idling on the ground and suffered from oil circulation and bearing problems.”)

Apart the ferry disaster occurred, i am not aware of any. The engine problems were never totally solved, not surely at Wewak.


 * I am not sure that about “losses as high as 200 fighters in a single attack.” I cannot recall ever reading about this.  Given such a spectacular achievement, we ought to be able to specifically identify (and source) it.

This is another sample of misunderstundment. I have stated that Allied attacked up to 200 aircraft at once, not the losses were high as 200 at single attack.--Stefanomencarelli 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Askari Mark (Talk) 23:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the original edit: "At the end of the campaign, over 1.000, perhaps almost 2000 japaneise aircrafts were lost, many of them on the ground by continous air attacks, even with over 200 machines at once." Sorry if it was misinterpreted, I obviously did not see the correction made. FWIW Bzuk 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

200 machines at once were referred to allied air attacks, not losses suffered by japs. less than Ki-61s only.

But there is another stuff about: you Bzuk have deleted the Bf-109 information on C.202 page: yuo says: they are irrilevant. But i say that they weren't. Perhaps you as canadian not notice the importance. I, as italian, am full of such comparations that are all but unuseful. So who of the two has the better picture of 'the usefulness' of such comparations? Another thing: you have shifted my affermation about 'the weaponry barely enough to shot down such robust aircrafts' on Hurricanes: no doubt they were robust, but i referred to P-40, all metallic fighters, not Hurricane fabric-covered: do you need proof? try to ask to yourself, what was the effect of HE 12,7mm vs fabric covered and then vs metallic covered aircrafts and then tell me if i shouldn't be concerned by your modiphics. I am sorry that you missed my point so often, but it's not my sin...--Stefanomencarelli 11:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm becoming to think that this article is OK, apart my disapprovation for the splitting of tecnical comparations.--Stefanomencarelli 09:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Number Built
I put a citation tag on the number built in the text of this article just because it strikes me as a rather high number of fighters for Japan to build for the last two years of the war. Can anyone cite a reference for that number? Geeman 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your post is a year ago, but I just now found this article. Would like to reply.
 * Good catch - I believe you are correct. Thats an awfully lot for that period - in fact, for any aircraft Japan didn't already have on the drawing board by mid-1941....I'll offer a possible answer: looking a while back at some ME-262 research, I was struck by how many of these jets the Germans supposedly had at the war's end - then saw that in fact, relatively few were operationally available. The majority were lacking engines or some specific part, etc. The upshot was, they were considered "built", they just needed "one more thing..." Anyway, seems to me this could be the situation with the Ki-61 - though I kind of doubt it. I would be very surprised if Japan had that many of these fighters anywhere near completion at wars end...Engr105th (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Special Attack unit
Great section by Minorhistorian about ramming attacks! I've added a condensed version of it into the Ramming article. You know, there should be an article about Bukosho. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the complement, however it is not all my work; all I added was some information about Shinomaya, Itagaki and Nakano and the awarding of the Bukosho. An article on the award would be worthwhile. Cheers. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting symbols - but what are they for?
There are some interesting and unusual square symbols appearing in some parts of this; for example, in the opening sentence "The Kawasaki Ki-61 Hein there are two square boxes with letters and numbers appearing just after the ( and further down there are five boxes in brackets after "Army Type 3 Fighter". Can anyone tell me what these are for?Circlingsky (talk)


 * This article includes some text with Japanese characters. If you're seeing square boxes, it means that your web browser isn't set up to display these properly. See here for help. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Should Allied codenames be included in article titles?
Obviously the Japanese didn't refer to their own aircraft with these names, but just about all the literature I've seen on the Pacific War relating to Japanese aviation do use them simply as an easier way to identify various planes. It's just while that browsing through the list of Japanese WWII aircraft, it's almost impossible to remember which designation refers to which type Masterblooregard (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is correctly named per the WP:AIR style guide. The code name is always to be included in the lead paragraph, and there should be a redirect from the code name to this article. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

After all
Well, after all you did of the article every thing was done like you wanted. But the technical part of the aircraft was almost omitted with this versions, and the stuff was gone. No comparations, only a bit of technical description, overall an article too focused on the history, too slighty on the operational capabilities. So how a reader can evalue the difference among the fighter of that era, even without any link to other models? I say Bf-109E and MC.202, as example. The stuff was moved to another page, now the page was deleted. This is not fair and not easy to explain.

I became here just because i read the Pdf of WWiiperformanceaicraft. This Pdf explain how the Hien was found by Allied intelligence. But obviously, nobody cared to write the results in the article. Well i'll do it.

First, Hien was found (as i predicted above) a nice aicraft to fly, without dangerous vices except too stiff air controls at high speed. cockpit was cramped and with poor forward visibility, but rationally organized. The machine was faster than FM-2 but not that much. The curves shows, however, an aircraft with a weakened engine, even unable to flight above 6 km and with a substandard max speed (590 kmh for the Ki-61-I). If this was the standard, no B-29 would had been engaged (or the community need even a citation needed to display how 6 km is below 7-9 km?) by Ki-61.

Ki-61, regardless by the engine, had nice flight capabilities, among them a low stall speed. And the capability to turn much better than any US fighter, except the FM-2. The FM-2 was enough to almost equalize the A6M5 Zero (see another PDF in the WWii performance site); the F6F and F4U were much better than the FW-190 as turning radius (smaller), well, the Ki-61 was far better than them! And competitive with A6M5 too (F190 turn radius>F6F and F4U>Ki-61=FM-2=A6M5).This is exactly what i tried to show 2 years ago with a grain of common sense. When fitted with an efficient engine (a pity that japan made a lightened version of the DB-601 and not a heavier version as italian were forced to do -with a bit less hp too), Ki-61 was surely better than the Bf-109E (already whipped in the trials) and MC.202 (100-200% more firepower, +50% range, almost as fast and surely more agile, since no MC.202 or other 175 kg/m2 fighter was capable to turn inside a Zero). This is what i had to say about it. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This proposal is a major edit, and needs some discussion before proceeding to the main article. At best, it is a spawn of the article and it requires a great deal more validation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Haven't we done this once before? See: K1 61 Hien Comparison. I don't see any differences other than the original sub-article was extensively edited but still didn't meet the standard for inclusion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

WHO says it does not matters, Bzuk? You? Or Ahunt? Then i'll do it again. Sorry, but the page is not yours, and i am amused (once more time) by your censor attitude. I have written this here 2 days before i'll did it in the Ns0, nobody answered. If you think one must be authorized by you or Ahunt well, then made your own wiki and leave to work the contributors. Since i returned here, there is no rest, everything i write is abrubtly REVERSED no matter if it is useful or not for the article, it matters that you or other evalued it as worthless. What kind of wikinette you are talking about? If wiki is not free to be edited, then it's not wiki.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please check the K1 61 Hien Comparison edit history and you will see that the original section was set up before with contributions from a number of editors but the sub-article did not receive support as a notable article. One of the issues appears to be one of focus or WP:Weight while the use of large unverified amounts of text is also problematic, touching on WP:OR, WP:POV. The query stated on this talk page was to gather comments (and consensus) which was not evident by noting: 1. No interest from other editors in this proposal and 2. Lack of support from the editors that were active in developing the article.


 * Since you are determined to add this material regardless of what other editors may consider a unnecessary section, perhaps follow these suggestions: 1. For consensus on the direction or focus of the new material, ask for a consensus. This process involves a call for the other editors to comment, registering of opinions (votes) and an announced time period to gather consensus (typically one week). 2. Make incremental revisions to the main article, identifying a part of the main article where the comparisons of performance is essential. 3. Use this talk page to solicit advice and work with others. Ask others to contribute but do act on their advice. 4. Try putting the material into a sandbox article to smooth out any problems with spelling, grammar, references, and so on. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC).


 * I'll answer to you:

1- I raised the point and i had no answer for two days: why nobody cared about? When i did the edits, zoom, a swift revert. How explain this? Maybe someone waited i'll start to edit to revert my work and make me a bit hungry?

2-When the page deleted was deleted, much wikilovely, i was blocked and nobody advised me about. Nor you did it in spite the accuses were about the 'lack of sources', and OR, nothing more wrong and false. But neither you, or Randlman, cared about to find out if the stuff was my nightmare or a real verifiable thing

3-I already did it and still, even my adding about the wing tank's capability was reverted. How so? The fuselage tank capability is OK but the wing tanks not? How i could trust in users only capable to 'revert at first sight' all i write? I am a bit old to play with kids, you know, and overall i am too amused of this situation it's should be a free encyclopedia, but my freedom here is more similar to a Gulag. Sorry, Wiki is fantastic but i have no real freedom do to anything.

4-You know what happenens in other situations of the 'sandbox'? B-50, CF-104, G-91? Well, nobody cared to even read the sources (J.Baugher, as example) i gave. Please, gime me a sort of trust for this rules. Until now, nobody displayed any sort of interest to work with outside the Ns0.

5-and finally i cannot understand what's the problem would be if i claim that 550 lts are more than 400, if 1,800 km are more than 660, if the climb to 5 km in 7' is more than 6'. And if i report the (obvious) advantage in turning capability of the Hien, given the light wingload, finally found in the Pdf document (so it's not my invention, Hien was REALLY an excellent dogfighter, since it turned almost as well than Zero and equally than FM-2). Note well, i as italian, should be more inclined to talk nicely about MC.202, but i do not it, because the really better all around fighter, as we evalue all, it's the Hien. Maybe it's my impression, but apart the nasty engine, effectively it loose only a bit in climbing and scramble time, but it had much more firepower and endurance, thus (obviously) a better escort and fighter bomber than Bf-109 or Macchi (range: 450 vs 350 vs 250 km). As the scramble, Hien could do instead CAP long as 3 hours, doubling Bf-109. As Tornado ADV vs F-16 (or P-51 vs Spit), it had the possibility to be already in flight when bandits comes without scramble with short range machines (Bf-109 had around 1 hour endurance). This would not happened often, mainly the overall unreliability of its engine. It's a pity that the engeneers did not made a 700 kg DB-601, 30 kg heavier and not 40 kg lighter than the original. Italians did it so, Japs not and came in the troubles--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If the point you are making is that no one cares what you do in the article, that does not seem to be the case. If you expressed interest in working with someone else, there are ways to go about this, and there have been editors in the past that extended that option. Use of verifiable and authoritative information is one of the crucial concerns in writing what is basically a technical subject, and the use of non-English sources though not disallowed, are not the first preference in en-Wikipedia. Finally, if all you are saying is that the Ki 61 Hien was an exceptional fighter compared to other contemporaries, state that, back it up but all that amounts to is basically a one-two sentence passage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC).


 * I don't say that Ki-61 was outstanding, but hell, if it had everything Bf-109 did not, is not my fault. And nobody is hurt if i compare the main DB-601 aircraft, with the available datas. Then, if you know 20 mm gun armed Macchi 202s or 1,000 km range Bf-109s, bring on. It seems that nowadays the only reality is to presume bad faith and use bureocracy as weapons agains others, in spite of IAR, Common sense and whetever. You must point against the datas, then you must delete at will.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise everybody to stop edit-warring. Loosmark (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read above, many efforts have been made to incorporate the submissions of all editors. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Let's say that:

1-there are contributors NOT welcomed. And some editors can decide who is the editor disliked.

2-there are not possibility to discuss with those editors, like Bzuk or Ahunt, the ones that after talk about 'verifiability' and 'OR'(laugh, in which way i could make original research about Ki-61?), they don't bother to place 'citation needed' tags or whetever, they simply delete at will. Well, i must be idiot to not do the same. After all, it seems more funny to ruin what others write, right? It's easier too.

3-There were not efforts to do anything. Ki-61 comparation were moved to another page, then that page was deleted. So this means there was no reason to have another page, it means absolutely that that page was filled with OR, or POV or whetever. There is simply a group of users that in fact, dictates their will and keep away another user to editing. It's really unacceptable and beyound any reasonable attitude. I'll wait to see if there are reasons to do this, if not, if just because Bzuk and some of his friends are decided so, this would be definitively not-wikipedian. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I reiterate, an effort was made to incorporate the material in a sub-article, K1 61 Hien Comparison which was proposed to try to retain the majority of the information. Unfortunately, there needs to be verification that the comparisons were valid and that exacting standards were invoked in order to have true head-to-head evaluations. One of the most difficult things to do is to find a measure that can approximate the exact performance envelope of an aircraft, given that power settings, altitude and many other factors are not considered. Just look at the continual Bf 109 vs Spitfire conundrum? when they did not use the same octane fuels that skewed the results one way. That is probably the reasoning behind the problems in creating a comparison section that goes beyond a sketchy statement. BTW, attributing friends to me is flattering, as I think I have provoked more animosity than friendship on any given day. LOL, Bzuk (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC).


 * THE DATAS ARE AVAILABLE. You are mixing things that are not needed to be mixed: If we have the basic datas, WHY we don't print a comparation table? Why? Weight, dimensions, wingload, max speed, fuel reserve, armament, are all OBJECTIVE datas. japaneses tested Ki-61 vs Bf-109E and Ki-61 won the contest; americans tested a derated Ki-61 (30 kmh slower than the theorical speed, 4 km below the teorical ceiling) and still, it was enoug agile to match the FM-2 Wildcat (just below Zero's agility, another US test said).

So don't tell me such pointless things. It's even more insulting to negate even SOURCED arguments. I tried to correct some things, but nothing, everytime there was a complete rollback. This is simply shameful.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem remains that comparisons such as these are highly subjective and pilots providing feedback such as the manoeverability or "agility" of a particular aircraft remain questionable. One of the aspects of introducing comparison tables that was addressed in a group forum discussion was that it tended to bring in fandom, with many instances of that already occurring in the aviation articles. A "my aircraft is better than yours" arguments really do not advance the work of documenting aviation history. FWiW, your latest comment on my talk page, regarding my joy in your reversions, had me baffled. Where did that inference come from? Bzuk (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Stefano, please stop accusing other editors of bias, national or otherwise; as Bzuk has said several of us have tried to help you with your editing, only to have our efforts thrown back in our faces. I understand how frustrating it is to spend hours working on an article only to see the work being undone. Unfortunately you need to realise that your written English is simply not of a high enough standard - it requires a lot of work to be understood by other editors, let alone the general reader. This is not intended as a personal reflection on you; I wouldn't dare insult Italians with my poor command of Italian! You have a love for aircraft and their technicalities; I wouldn't be here if I didn't have the same enthusiasm, nor would Bzuk, Nimbus and others. No doubt if we were all to meet we would have some lengthy, freindly discussions. The real problem is that the internet is so impersonal. A wrong word or phrase can become insulting, no matter how well intentioned the writer. Please, calm down and try and understand what others are actually saying, rather than interpreting everything as some kind of plot against Stefanomencarelli. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * and you tell me, exactly for that, why one reader should be confused reading some reports and tables. I wrote dozens articles here. Now what happens, i cannot editing two lines that swiftly, they are rollbacked. Shall i blame my poor english? Maybe, but still, there is a sort of intolerance that strikes me endelessy. And that is reported as well by a recent research that claims exactly what i am experiencing here: why now is so difficult to edit the ns0? Are wikipedians aware that in that way the 'project' will loose his credibility? If it's not capable to respect the other's work, because POV, sources, grammars etc, then it will end to be a non-wiki project, just editable by few contributors. And please, don't tell me about grammar: often are reported other reasons, but everytime there is one good enough to delete totally what i write. This is not justificable, and not explainable with 'poor grammar'.


 * Is it available someone ready to work in order to make a Hien evaluation (with available datas)? with the others DB-601 fighter, whetever. Why not? If not, as i expect, this is not related to grammar, but rather to the willing to forbid to me to edit at all. Every time there is a 'reason' to do it.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

X Bzuk:

Hi, needless to say i am not in agreement but atleast you bothers to answer to me.


 * such as these are highly subjective and pilots providing feedback such as the manoeverability or "agility" of a particular aircraft remain questionable

Well, so every 'questionable' affermation must be keep away from wikipedia? What, i read that there is the need of sourced arguments, the questionability of that arguments is not a issue itself, we are not talking about Iran and Shoa, after all. We talk about pilots that flew the machines and found them goods or bads. Who are you to judice them? They weren't God, sure and they did not wanted to be so. They could be wrong in their statements and i agree, to take them with a grain of salt. BUT, they leave to us their impressions; and those impressions are called historic documents, as always, as Plinium, as Caesar, as Tacitus etc. Then why you don't go in any historical article and whip out every thing could be 'questionable'? This is totally pointless, as we are not allowed to whip out historical sources.


 * One of the aspects of introducing comparison tables that was addressed in a group forum discussion was that it tended to bring in fandom, with many instances of that already occurring in the aviation articles.

Frankly speaking, with all the futile templates, tags, links and whetever else, this is really funny to read: so finally Wikipedia discouvers one futile thing: comparation tables, the only ones that instead help the reader to find the basic datas! Why i should: 1-open Ki-61, then, 2-open Bf-109, then 3-Open Mc-202. Then i must write the stuff with copy-paste tecnology, and finally compare al the datas, to have a clear difference between 3 DB-601 fighters? Why i should loose my time when there is already a table with ready datas? We know that there is not a single 'absolute' data in aicrafts, but this means as well, that we should not post any data at all? As reader, i would expect to find what i want to find, and this should be made with the least waste of time and energy. Ki-61 is not an exception. And discussions are welcomed in order to improve the article. Since neither you nor me are Gods, it's supposed that a constructive interaction (that rollback are not) helps to make a better work.


 * A "my aircraft is better than yours" arguments really do not advance the work of documenting aviation history.

This is another pointless argument. There were decads of discussions about and wikipedia should ignore this issues? Why? We can still post everything what be found to have a clearer view. I already complained in that PDF that Hien tested was sub-standard (6,000 m ceiling..), but that lecture is still higly interesting. And finally, what's the point to use it as linked source, but not in the article itself? Can you understand how unrationale is this behavouir?

Once i was reverted to be POV, anoter because the spelling, another because the 'lack of sources', lastly because 'the facts are questionable'. So, we will go nowhere with this pace. I see a clear censor attitude in these arguments, sorry Bill. Everything i post it's not good enough, 2 kb, 2 lines, two words, with this pace i cannot take Wikipedia seriously. This is still a 'free encyclopedia that anyone can edit'?--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want a comparison chart. Everybody and his brother will fight over it! Many comparison flight tests exist which contradict each other. The results depend so much on in-type expertise of the pilot, and on the condition of the aircraft under test. The best way to compare is to look at results in war. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, due to the huge American numerical superiority the results in the war are the worst possible way to compare the aircraft. Loosmark (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But ultimately the only one that counted! - Ahunt (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument given is hilarious. So, US won the war and then it's all what matters. Shall we call it a tecnical description? There is and will ever be a problem in agreement with history, but where are the 'non believers' hordes, ready to contest the USN results? Or the ufficial datas given for the aircrafts? This is unrationale and anti-historical beauhvoir. Wikipedia wants sourced datas. There are sources, and reliable too, if someone has something against them, then he should bring on. If you don't want any POSSIBLE discussion, then do not post any data and fact at all, leave blank the articles and nobody will contest it. An Encyclopedia is not so. As for war results, this is even worse as reason given. With 400,000 aircraft made, US could have whipped out the Axis alone, so every P-40 was better than any Me.262, just because the Allied won the war? These are not explanaitions. Or someone explains really well WHY we do not trust in a USN report, or please tell me how many historical documents are considered reliable sources. Frankly speaking, i consider more reliable a USN test rather than Arrianus or Plinius. But try to write Alexander or Caesar's life without those 'questionable' sources. If the arguments given are these (simply illogical and unacceptable), then i will be free to reintroduce the tables and comparations (sourced and referenced). I think wikipedia now is really falling down, and not because the tables.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)