Talk:Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa

message: Good length, though most of that length is tech specs. Could probably benefit from an infobox. LordAmeth 10:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment

message: "Nevertheless, the Ki-43 shot down more Allied aircraft than any other Japanese fighter."
I seriously doubt this, I see no source for this fact. Remember, the "other" main fighter, A6M Zero was in service before the Ki-43, and total production was almost double that of the Hayabusa (11000+). Also, the Zero was produced in huge numbers in 1945 too, while Nakajima started to focus on newer planes, such as Ki-84 instead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koivis (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The cite on the lead paragraph (i.e. Glancey) - supports this claim.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The Zero was only a Navy plane. The Ki-43 saw heavy service over land in Asia. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find the claim rather dubious, myself, but to the original poster I would point out that Tachikawa was producing Ki-43s up until the end of the war.--172.190.50.79 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Army Ki-43 was the main Japanese fighter type used in the Burma, Singapore, Malayan, and Hong Kong campaigns.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Really?

message: I have gone through and changed the titles and links for all the places in the article where it lists the Type 97 light machine gun as the Ki-43's rifle-caliber armament. First, that's the wrong gun altogether...that gun was never used in any aircraft. It's a box fed infantry machine gun. I'm sure the person who made those links was thinking instead of the Type 97 aircraft machine gun, which is indeed a Vickers-based aircraft machine gun (although the page didn't exist until recently). Unfortunately, that is not the correct gun either. The Type 97, as used in the A6M Zero, is a Japanese Navy gun. The Navy and Army did NOT share any weapons, ever. The correct gun for an Army fighter is the Type 89 machine gun, another Vickers, but slightly different and firing a different 7.7mm cartridge. 
I've recommended perhaps combining the two guns into one article, to avoid possible confusion.  
.45Colt 17:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type 97 machine gun is incorrect. 

message: Substituted at 00:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nakajima Ki-43. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160214184610/http://www.flyingheritage.com/TemplatePlane.aspx?contentId=21 to http://www.flyingheritage.com/TemplatePlane.aspx?contentId=21
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The Ki-43 does not have forward swept wings. It just looks vaguely like it does. The leasing edge is straight. The trailing edge tapers forward. The spar and panel lines all maintain an even spacing relative to the chord as it narrows down the wing. Combined with the dihedral of the wing this gives an optical illusion of being swept forward when viewed from any angle behind directly above. But when you look straight down on it, it is clear that the wings are perfectly straight, not forward swept. Why would they be angled forward? Idumea47b (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The source is questionable, especially on that. The DC-3 has mild sweep, but it's still not considered a swept-wing aircraft as such. BilCat (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fair - I've tried looking for more reputable sources that could verify or negate this, but the lack of reliable references explicitly discussing the leading edge angle (those that do mention it are cloning/plagiarizing earlier versions of Wikipedia pages, both this one and the one on the forward-swept wing design, which is where I originally got the content and the source in the first place). implies to me that it is either not actually a forward-swept wing design, or that the forward sweep is so minimal so as to be undetectable (and therefore functionally not a forward-swept wing design).Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Forward swept wings"