Ki-27 vs Ki-43: Why is the Nate tougher?

[JG53Frankyboy]

at least the Alpine Fighter Collection's Ki-43-I in NZ had a tripple layer of rubber and silk "protection" for its fueltanks. but true, its a very late production Ki-43-I !!

my "concern" about the 43 and 27 in DM comparison is how easy it is to flame the 43 and how difficult the 27. Even when it is very easy to get a fueltank leak and loosing fuel in the 27.

[JtD]

Did the Ki-27 have wing fuel tanks?

Rubber layer isn't self sealing. No Ki-43 fuel tank was self sealing, they were just having different amounts of protection. True, some protection also on I models, that protection was increasing as the war went on.

[JG53Frankyboy]

the "wingtanks" of the 27 reached almost to the strut where the fixed landing gear was attached.

the tanks of the 43 reached well to the strut of its gear.

[Romanator21]

One could also compare the strength of the G4M Betty and Ki-21 Sally. One is a Zippo, the other seems to be a tank. I also wonder about the apparent fragility of the Pe-2 compared to the Bf-110, Ju-88 or A-20.

[IceFire]

Indeed there are some DM's that just don't seem to make sense... I know generally how the DM's work in theory but in practice there seems to be some interesting results.

If the Ki-27 and Ki-43-I are so similar... they should go down similarly but they don't. Even if the wing tanks are smaller... fire a dozen .303 rounds in that general area and you should get a light... but you rarely do.

[bf-110]

Another ultra strong plane is I-16.
Even newer soviet planes are more fragile than it.P-40 (later models) are also strong,but propeller stops at any reason.

IJN and IJA planes looks quite fragile,but USN fighters are too stronger than them.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by bf-110

Another ultra strong plane is I-16.
Even newer soviet planes are more fragile than it.P-40 (later models) are also strong,but propeller stops at any reason.

IJN and IJA planes looks quite fragile,but USN fighters are too stronger than them.

You may be remembering back in the 1.1 days but the I-16 isn't really that strong anymore. A few good shots to the fuselage and they light right up.

Back in the old days they used to shrug off everything and keep on fighting.

Actually if you compare I-16 versus Ki-27 which is a Khalkin Gol matchup there is a major problem because the Ki-27 is nearly immune to the I-16's machine guns but the reverse is not true so the Ki-27 wins most fights on DM alone.

[engarde]

Originally Posted by bf-110

Another ultra strong plane is I-16.
Even newer soviet planes are more fragile than it.P-40 (later models) are also strong,but propeller stops at any reason.

IJN and IJA planes looks quite fragile,but USN fighters are too stronger than them.

i have noticed that, both the p40 and p39 seem to have engine fires or stoppages much more than anything else.

[KnightFandragon]

idk about tough but nates can turn on a pinhead....I have tried to dogfight them in my Spitfire and had them out turn me.....same thing with a Buffalo and some early war french plane...things seemed to turn around right in place like a tank

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

idk about tough but nates can turn on a pinhead....I have tried to dogfight them in my Spitfire and had them out turn me.....same thing with a Buffalo and some early war french plane...things seemed to turn around right in place like a tank

This part doesn't surprise me. It's regarded as one of the quickest turning monoplanes which isn't surprising given Japan's Army Air Force doctrine of turn fighting. When the Ki-43 was introduced even it was regarded by pilots as too slow in the turn compared to what they were used to.

The Ki-61 and Ki-44 were real shocks to these pilots no doubt!