Talk:Kawasaki Ki-61

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Japan (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:41, November 24, 2016 (JST, Heisei 28) (Refresh)
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

After all[edit]

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)

Naming and Describtion[edit]

"The first encounter reports claimed Ki-61s were Messerschmitt Bf 109s, then an Italian design, which lead to Allied reporting name "Tony", assigned by the United States War Department.[1]" Located in the first paragrah.

Is this a correct statment? The Bf 109 was of German origin while the Macchi C.202, of Italian origin, closly resembled the Ki-61 in appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The McCoy system of naming Japanese aircraft applied only to Japanese aircraft, the above sentence implies that because the aircraft was Italian or German in origin it was assigned the name Tony.Kitbag (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Area of operations for 244th[edit]

The references mostly state the 244th operated from Chofu, as the article indeed states the 244th to be the most famous of the home defense (Tokyo) sentai. However in the unit chart, only Okinawa and Formosa is mentioned. Southsailor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

File:Ki-61.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Ki-61.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)