Kawasaki Ki-61 "Tony" Part 2

Tony id

Posted By: Gordon Clarke <gordonc@adf-serials.com>
Date: Sunday, 20 January 2002, at 5:20 p.m.

On the 10/6/44 a F/L Baker from 78 Sqn RAAF shot down a Tony Ki-61 near Japen Is. Anyone able to identify the unit this Tony belonged to? I believe it was based at Babo.

For those interested this was the last Japanese fighter shot down by the RAAF in the New Guinea campaign.

Re: Tony id

Posted By: richard dunn <rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu>
Date: Sunday, 20 January 2002, at 6:35 p.m.

In Response To: Tony id (Gordon Clarke)

I somewhat doubt you are really looking for a "Tony".

On 31 May 44, the 7th Air Div had only two operational Tonys from 68 F on strength. These were probably replacement a/c that never got to Hollandia in time to be destroyed.

As of 7 June 44 3d Air Attack Force (23d AF) JNAF had 13 Zeros, 18 type 1 Army fighters and 7 Suisei of 503 Ku on strength. "Judy" was still being misidentified as "Tony" at this point. In addition 1st Air Fleet was sending in reinforcements. As of 10 June 523 Ku with Suisei was at Wasile with 17 aircraft of which 12 were operational.

Your boy (Tony) may be a girl (Judy).

If so, 503, 523 Ku or possibly 153 Ku may be the units involved. I don't have loss data at hands. No indication of Japanese fighter loss on this date.

Re: Tony id

Posted By: Gordon Clarke <gordonc@adf-serials.com>
Date: Thursday, 24 January 2002, at 4:56 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Tony id (richard dunn)

Excuse my ignorance but is 68 F, 68 Sentai? Whereabouts were those 2 Tonys based on 31 May 44?

Wasile was quite a distance from Japen Is, though I must see if the combat report narrows down how close it was to Japen Is. Any other Judys any closer? Whereabouts were 503 and 153 Ku based?

Seems that everything was misidentified for the poor Judy, Kates and now Tonys! :)

Pity about not having Japanese fighter losses on that date. You've let me down Rick, I expected you would come through with all the details right down to the Japanese pilots names, the time of their last meal before take off and their girlfriends names. ;-)

Re: Tony id

Posted By: richard dunn <rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu>
Date: Thursday, 24 January 2002, at 7:22 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Tony id (Gordon Clarke)

Keep your expectations in check!! I do what I can to help.:)

As to "F". Prior to WW2 the official Japanese abbreviation for Flying Regiment (Hiko Rentai) was FR. By 1939, this had changed to "Hiko Sentai." Most of these "Regiments" lost their airfield Battalions and were then much smaller organizations. The official abbreviation for these Sentai was F. I work with a lot of captured documents and have found that despite the official change many Japanese operational records continued to use FR throughout WW2. After WW2 Japanese historians adopted the official designation in most of their writings. I have used FR in some writings (see Ki 43 armament article on this web-site). Some of my fellow historians have been trying to standardize terminology and seem to think F is the better useage. I know this explanation is "more than you really wanted to know" but thought it was worth discussing.

Don't know the exact base of the Tonys. Most of the 7th Air Division was at Menado, Halmahera I., Ambon, Liang, and Namlea during this period. Remember, however, the only Army fighters subordinated to the Navy were the type 1 fighters of 24 F. They were at Kau on 31 May and moved to Sorong the following day. A Zero from Sorong flew a recce over Biak on 30 May at dusk. 153 was at Babo in early June (and probably on 31 May). They also used Sorong as an operating base.

A lone aircraft was quite possibly on a recce mission and might have been far from its base.

Re: Tony id

Posted By: Gordon Clarke <gordonc@adf-serials.com>
Date: Wednesday, 30 January 2002, at 5:14 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Tony id (richard dunn)

I don't have any record of Judy unit 153. Any idea of when formed and the tail code?

503 formed 2nd half of 1943 with code EB- (backwards E).
523 formed Nov 1943 with code kanji char for "hawk", I have them at the Marianas Feb 1944. So they must have moved to New Guinea area in April or May of that year.

I agree with your final comment, the Judy was most probably on a recce flight.

Re: Tony id

Posted By: richard dunn <rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 30 January 2002, at 8:04 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Tony id (Gordon Clarke)

The movement of the 1st Air Fleet units from the Marianas to the southwest area was in connection with the Biak invasion (may 27th) and KON operation.

On March 1st 1944 the operational strength of 153 was two type 100 HQ recon a/c and two type 2 shipboard recon a/c. No J1N1 operational at that time.

S311 was the fighter unit subordinated to 153 Air in May 44.

On June 8th a report from Babo stated that 153 had available there six Zeros and no "Comets" [Suisei]. No other type was mentioned.

Perhaps someone else can help with markings.

Re: Tony id

Posted By: Larry <Hldeziv@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 30 January 2002, at 7:06 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Tony id (Gordon Clarke)

153 Kokutai
(FPO Designation: Se-115)

Formed 1 January 1944 at Shinchiku NAS/2.4 mi NW of Shinchiku city (today: Hsin-chu)/NW Formosa or possibly in Japan with an initial allowance of 24 Nakajima J1N1 Type 2 reconnaissance planes (IRVING). Personnel table of allowances issued 1 Jan 44 called for 61 officers and warrant officers, and 560 petty officers and men.

I have 3 pages of details on this Kôkûtai and all aircraft references are to it's Reconnaissance Hikôtai 102 equipped with the J1N1 during 1944. T-102 re-equipped with MYRTs in late 1944 or early 1945. The Kôkûtai also had some fighter Hikôtai attached to it, but these flew A6Ms, of course.


RE: Japanese Ki-61 "mottling"

Posted By: Tony Di Stefano <asd978@stargate.net>
Date: Monday, 31 December 2001, at 11:43 p.m.

Anyone know what the best way to get the "mottled" effect over natural metal on a KI-61? In particular I'm doing a 1/72 DML Ki-61 244 Sentai Capt Kobayashi.

Re: Japanese Ki-61 "mottling"

Posted By: Mike Rybak <mj_rybak@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, 2 January 2002, at 3:01 p.m.

In Response To: RE: Japanese Ki-61 "mottling" (Tony Di Stefano)

First paint the model overall bare metal, using whatever paints you prefere.

If you have a good airbrush, and a steady hand, you could freehand paint the mottle. If not, I would suggest a stencil approach. Photocopy the drawings from the instructions, and reduce or enlarge as needed so that they are the same size as the actual model. Carefully cut out the green areas from the drawing. Attach the stencil to the model with tiny pieces of Silly Putty, or Blu-Tack poster adhesive. The idea is that the stencil is held just a tiny bit above the surface of the model, so the edge of the green is a little bit soft.

Re: Japanese Ki-61 "mottling"

Posted By: Carlos Sempere
Date: Friday, 4 January 2002, at 2:11 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Ki-61 "mottling" (Mike Rybak)

Is there any way for brush users? (Yeah, I guess I can't call myelf a serious modeler while I'm at college. I can only build 1/72 or smaller and hang them wheels up from the ceiling, no room to spray either...)

Re: Japanese Ki-61 "mottling"

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Friday, 4 January 2002, at 9:01 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Ki-61 "mottling" (Carlos Sempere)

Try dry-brushing. For mottling, I use a Q-tip. Actually, I twirl cotton around the tip of a toothpick and make my own Q-tip. That way I ccan control the diameter of the "splotch" exactly. Get some paint on the tip, then blot it off on a pice of paper until you have the desired consistency (as dry as possible but still able to make a mark). Work building up the darker areas by going over them several times to achive the darkness you want rather than trying to cover in the first past. This produces nice soft edges and the exact pattern you want.

For the more "squiggly" type of camo pattern, actually use a brush rather than a Q-tip. Use a small, old brush with fairly stiff bristles. Trim the hairs short to stiffen the action. Load the brush with paint, blot or scrub nearly all of the paint off on a rag or paper to get to a dry-brush state. Scrub in the desired serpentine pattern, building up the darkness slowly.

These proceedures take awhile but produce very effective scale results.

244FR Web Site Muddy Dispersal Pic

Posted By: Carl Dennis <carl.d@tesco.net>
Date: Wednesday, 19 December 2001, at 10:21 a.m.

Take a look at the photo on the following page of the 244FR web site.

http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~s244f/minami.htm

It shows an aerial view of the squadron's Ki-61s parked on grass with quite a lot of what looks like muddy ground within the dispersal area. Could this be the cause of the dirty tails?


Speaking of 244th Tails

Posted By: Ryan Boerema <ryann1k2j@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 14 December 2001, at 4:41 p.m.

I asked this in the discussion below, but I think it got lost in all the mud-slinging. (Oh, don't I think I'm clever!) I've seen depictions of headquarters company 244th Tonys with blue tails and blue noses, but never in the Japanese publications I have (same with blue-tailed 248th Sentai Oscars). Does anyone in the rival mud vs. paint factions know?

Re: Speaking of 244th Tails

Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Saturday, 15 December 2001, at 4:36 a.m.

In Response To: Speaking of 244th Tails (Ryan Boerema)

A "modern" explanation of the unit markings would be welcome!

In the meantime according to one older and trusted source the 244th Sentai was also known as "Tsubakuro" or "Konoe" Butai and included a "Shinten Seiku Tai" air-to-air ramming Chutai. The same source attributes the red tail colour to this particular Chutai and the "Sentai leader's formation" only.

Colours of the Sentai tail marking are reported as white with yellow star and "4" for the 1st Chutai, red with red or yellow star and "4" for the 2nd Chutai and yellow with red star and "4" for the 3rd Chutai. Sentai Hombu marking was all white. However, this source warns that these "colors are not certain, because there are many explanation of Chutai colors about this Sentai's mark".

"Cheat" stripes on fuselages are described as white for the 1st Chutai, red for the 2nd and yellow for the 3rd but there is no mention of Sentai Hombu.

Osprey 13 and Model Art 329 corroborate this. The former shows both blue and white fuselage stripes with the red tails for Kobayashi's 3295 and 3024.

All these sources depict and/or describe the spinners as being deep brown.

Re: Speaking of 244th Tails

Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Sunday, 16 December 2001, at 6:39 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Speaking of 244th Tails (Nick Millman)

The source is a translation of the invaluable Model Art 225 of January 1984.

Incidentally, in the interests of balanced reporting and fair-play, this publication also depicts Ki-61 No.10 of the 244th Sentai which features in the "Mud vs Paint" debate here.
It is described as having "black or greenish-black underside, covering rising-sun flag and Sentai's mark".

Re: Speaking of 244th Tails

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 14 December 2001, at 5:39 p.m.

In Response To: Speaking of 244th Tails (Ryan Boerema)

You ask, "I've seen depictions of headquarters company 244th Tonys with blue tails and blue noses, but never in the Japanese publications I have (same with blue-tailed 248th Sentai Oscars). Does anyone in the rival mud vs. paint factions know?"

Most, if not all, documented sources, state that the original No.244 F marking was a red tail. Later camouflage schemes carried the famous [4<] marking. Monochrome photos do not reveal that the background colors of the Tony tails was. If it were not the camouflage color, then, in all likelyhood, it was red.

BTW: I doubt that No.248 F tails were any color but the ground color of the mainframe with the [2 4 8] of Vs being applied in the hiko chutai color.


HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (2) *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 9 December 2001, at 6:57 a.m.

2. "This one is a Ki-61 of No. 244 FR Shimbu-tai unit, flown by S/Sgt. Matsumi Nakano. Note the two damaged and one kill, ... all by rammings. I chose this angle so you could see all the gunports are sealed over. If these prove popular, I will have more on this unit to show."

Art: (c) 2001 by James Holloway

Editors note: Picture at http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/ki-61_244fr_jh_b.jpg

Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (2)

Posted By: James Holloway <bobwimple@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 9 December 2001, at 5:41 p.m.

In Response To: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (2) *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Sirs, I would like to thank Uchida Katsuhiro for introducing me to Historian T. Sakurai, for providing me confirmation on the kill marks for this plane. I was able to read the new Osprey book on the B29 Killers and find it's mistaken when it says the 244th ramming unit when into combat fully armed. I have at least three A/C where the gunports are all sealed over. It might have been a personal choice.

HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1) *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 9 December 2001, at 6:51 a.m.

James HOLLOWAY has completed four paintings to share with us in time for the Holidays.

1. "A Tony from No. 244 Hiko Sentai, in what appears to be a hastily-applied night fighter camouflage. This might be a Shimbu-tai plane, I couldn't show gunports or gunsite because all photos I examined had maintenance crew all over them. I hope to have more info on it soon."

Art: (c) 2001 James Holloway

Editors note: Picture at http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/ki-61_244fr_jh_a.jpg

Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1)

Posted By: James Holloway <bobwimple@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 9 December 2001, at 5:52 p.m.

In Response To: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1) *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Sirs, just a note to say this is definitly a quick nightfighter scheme and not leaking oil or mud thrown up by propeller wash. There are about six planes of this unit and I was able to see very good closeups of several of these, including #10 that I was able to see from several angles. This paint was slapped on to obscure the lower portions of the plane. A Japanese author had said this was done in black, but based on the photos ,and because they were starting to go to the dk green overall scheme, I thought dk green more accurate.I am now working on #88, a plane a lot of you will be familiar with that had this scheme also.

Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1)

Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2001, at 1:21 p.m.

In Response To: Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1) (James Holloway)

Beautiful painting but I think it is slush thrown up by the wheels - look at the ground in the photographs.

Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1)

Posted By: Elephtheriou George <arawasi_g@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2001, at 3:48 p.m.

In Response To: Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1) (Nick Millman)

although in the beginning I thought too that these were dirt, oil or whatever, in Koku Fan Illustrated #80 there are some photos of different planes with quite the same "camouflage" pattern, on various ground.
Furthermore, in one of the photo captions, the man who took these photos, Sunkichi Kikuchi, says that these Hiens were painted black for night missions.

Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1)

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2001, at 6:28 p.m.

In Response To: Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1) (Elephtheriou George)

I have several good photos of one of these a/c and I must agree with Nick. The spray pattern and "muddy-like" texture is quite clear in the photos; the random back-spray spattering on the lower sides of the cowling; denser coverage as one proceeds tward the rear of the a/c. Maybe the other a/c have the same pattern because they operated at under the same sloppy conditions and is not intentional camo. But what is clear from the photos I have is that the the spray pattern on the rear of the fuselage is something that has been kicked up from beneath the plane by the prop. Even the direction of the spray's texture is arcing from beneath the a/c's wing roots.

On the other hand, I also have a photo of another Ki-61 from this group (244 FR) that does appear to have been painted in a rather sloppy, but intentional pattern, that may be a nightfighter scheme. This a/c's "painting pattern" and texture is definitely not the same as that mentioned above.

I would be glad to supply scans of the pics if someone wants to post them so everyone can decide for themselves.

Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1)

Posted By: James Holloway <bobwimple@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 2:36 a.m.

In Response To: Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1) (Don Marsh)

Sirs, in defense of these being a nightfighter scheme and not oil or slush I offer this: Besides Japanese authors stating it is cammo, only the six or eight planes of this unit were affected by this, other planes of the Sentai are not dirtied, there are shots of these others in the same shot. There are photos of planes taking off in the same series and there is no spray, the planes are bunkered on the edge of the tarmac, so there was no long taxiing over muddy fields. The landing gears and doors are clean, on some A/C the bottoms of the fusalauge are clean. On none of the A/C are the tops of the wings dirtied or tail surfaces apart from a few specs. Even the tail gear doors are clean except for a few drips on #10.If the prop was blowing whatever across the plane why does it just suddenly stop? The effect of the splatter is similar to a rush job with a rag or large brush or an idustrial airbrush with the nozzel on full open. I dont know where you are seeing chunky paint, in all closeup shots the finish is very smooth and even. Only areas covered by the defense bandages and hinomaru on the bottom wings ,plus the Sentai markings are covered. That the Japanese would not cover their Sentai markings is not true, there are photos of Ki 100 from the 244th that has the Tail emblem half obscured in exactly the same way. I used to illustrate U.S.Army manuals the the Lance Missle System and was able to watch vehicle being serviced and painted, quick obscuring of the white stars and serials with a n airbrush produced similar effects. The effect on the A/C can be easily done with a large airbrush being shot from below. The only part I disagree with is that I think it is painted with a dk green instead of black.

Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1)

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 1:20 p.m.

In Response To: Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1) (James Holloway)

I hold both your art and research in esteem. All your points are quite cogent indeed, and so do not feel a need to refute to most of your excellent points. But there are a few items that I would like to comment on. . .

You wrote: "The effect of the splatter is similar to a rush job with a rag or large brush or an industrial airbrush with the nozzle on full open."I suppose I could envision a mop being used to achieve this effect. But the strokes would have to be consistently upwards from a superior vantage point, which, as an artist yourself, versed in the use of tools such as brushes et al, makes no sense at all. The "nozzle on full open" argument seems most likely to me, but why? What a waste of valuable paint, an unnecessary mess and poor application results. This is not to say that is isn't possible, it obviously is. I'm just trying to get my mind around the rationale. Also, spraying and a/c from the vantage point of a foot or two off the ground seems like it would be very difficult and inefficient to me.

You wrote: "I don't know where you are seeing chunky paint, in all close-up shots the finish is very smooth and even."I can't agree with you on this point. To me, the paint looks more like tar than paint. The area that I think best shows this is on the lower vertical fin area just above the horizontal stabilizer. There is a definite texture (to my eye) that is most disernable there (closest and least oblique to the camera and). Also, look at the drips; this is the thickest paint I've ever seen in my life.

You wrote: "That the Japanese would not cover their Sentai markings is not true, there are photos of Ki 100 from the 244th that has the Tail emblem half obscured in exactly the same way."I'm sure one may find some examples of this, but knowing what the unit emblems meant to the units and that these had the value of much more than just identification markings, this action would be highly unlikely. But I guess if you're going to paint your plane with a garden hose, one can't be too accurate with the application.

You wrote: "I used to illustrate U.S.Army manuals the the Lance Missile System and was able to watch vehicle being serviced and painted, quick obscuring of the white stars and serials with an airbrush produced similar effects. The effect on the A/C can be easily done with a large airbrush being shot from below.Were these modern a/c? (I am assuming so)...If so, consider how much larger these a/c are than the diminutive Ki-61, and how high modern a/c sit upon there tricycle l/g, as opposed to the low to the ground tail draggers of yesteryear. The vantage point in human scale would below the a/c as opposed to most WWII a/c.

You wrote: "The only part I disagree with is that I think it is painted with a dk green instead of black." I totally agree with you on this point. If this is paint, then it seems to me to be a dark, "dirty" color of green or brown, though as we all know, such things are difficult to discern from old b&w photographs.

I hope you don't feel that I'm being unnecessarily argumentative or disrespectful. I Thank you sincerely for your response, the additional information, and your continued valuable research.

No-one asked me, but....

Posted By: Ryan Boerema <ryann1k2j@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 3:21 p.m.

In Response To: Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1) (Don Marsh)

The surrounding Tonys without spray may not have flown that day, or just taxied elsewhere. No spray around landing gear, oil cooler or tail wheel? Wouldn't those be the most important areas to clean up, particularly during a quick turn around (never know when the Hellcats/B-29s are coming back,) i.e. the areas where mud -- if, indeed it is mud -- could do the most damage? And one would want to see the aircraft number on the gear doors.
And while we're on the subject of 244th tails, are the blue tails I've seen illustrated -- though not in the Japanese publications I own -- genuine? They're shore purty.
Finally, could anyone clear up which version of the Ki-61 had the extended nose. I thought it was the "Kai-C" but those ilustrated in Osprey's "B-29 Hunters...." as well as other pub.s, show the "Kai-C" with both the long and short nose.

Re: No-one asked me, but....

Posted By: Mark L. Shannon <Shingend@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Friday, 14 December 2001, at 1:49 p.m.

In Response To: No-one asked me, but.... (Ryan Boerema)

On the question of the long-noses on Ki-61's, the problem comes from the designation. I thought current belief was that the ko-otsu-hei-tei designations were not necessarily WWII Japanese in origin. Some references split the 120 Ki-61's with Mauser armament as a separate sub-designation, others do not, so some researchers call the long-nosed Hien Ki-61-I hei (c) and others the Ki-61-I tei(d). And somewhere in there is a Ki-61-I-KAI.

Re: No-one asked me, but....

Posted By: Ryan Boerema <ryann1k2j@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 14 December 2001, at 4:50 p.m.

In Response To: Re: No-one asked me, but.... (Mark L. Shannon)

So, if I understand rightly, not only are Osprey, Aircam, et al indiscriminate about what they apply the term Ki-61 Kai-C to, long or short nosed Tonys, it may not even be the correct designation for the long noses. (At least they don't call them Doras.) I'm wondering now what they do think Ki-61 Kai-C refers to. Armament?

Re: No-one asked me, but....

Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@fidnet.com>
Date: Friday, 14 December 2001, at 9:33 p.m.

In Response To: Re: No-one asked me, but.... (Ryan Boerema)

Green and Swanborough in WW2 AIRCRAFT FACT FILES JAPANESE ARMY FIGHTERS Part 1 identify the following for the Ki.61-I-KAI-hei

2x 20mm Ho-5 cannon in the nose
2x 12.7mm Ho-103 mgs in the wings

overall length extended by 7.5inches to advance the engine firewall so that the Ho-5 cannon did not "obtruded" into the cockpit (which also gave space for small auxiliary fuel tank).

removable rear fuselage

retractable tailwheel replaced by fixed unit

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2001, at 7:44 p.m.

In Response To: Re: HOLLOWAY Holiday Painting 244FR (1) (Nick Millman)

That No.244 Hiko Sentai had hastily applied camouflage to the lower surfaces and tails on some of its Tonys has been exquisitely documented by the wartime camera work of Shunkichi KIKUCHI. Please refer to Bunrindo's Koku-Fan Illustrated No.80, p.p.71-97.

These spectacularly clear photos (often two to a page) taken by KIKUCHI-san show several Kawasaki Ki-61 Tonys assigned to No.244 FR in this unusual"dirty tail" finish.

That this is a hastily applied finish is beyond a doubt (complete with paint dripping down).

That this is NOT mud from the ground is evidenced by several photos of Tonys Nos.14 and 10 which have "dirty tails" but "clean underwear" (no mud on the landing gear or covers)!

See below for an excellent view of No.10's "dirty tail!"

I am not sure about the color of this finish, but I do not think it was black.

Photo credit: (c) Shunkichi Kikuchi/Bunrindo, Koku-Fan Illustrated No.80, p.81.

Editors note: Picture at http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/ki-61_244fr_dirtytail.jpg

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!"

Posted By: JC Carbonel <jean-christophe.carbonel@laposte.fr>
Date: Wednesday, 19 December 2001, at 8:28 a.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

I will try to add my "sauce" to this muddy problem :

Like everyone else on this BBS I find no reason for such an strange use of paint . However I see many points that I find hard to reconcily with the "mud" hypothesis.

1- on the "front-side" photo : the undersurface "darkened" area has an outward "splotched" limit but an inward linear limit . How can mud projections do that (or do they use mud-masks in the IJAF like we use airbrush masks on our models ?)

2- on the "tail" photo and the "front side" photo it is obvious that the dark splash on the Hinomaru reaches its apogee around the level of the rear horizontal surfaces. How can the same splash "rebound" and muddy the tail ???

3- on the "tail" photo : the tail area does give the impression of being thrown from side of the aircraft more than from the front . If it was thrown from the front how comes there is no "shadow effect" where the tail would be protected by the horizontal surfaces?

4- on the "tail" photo and the tail wheel doors are clean . How comes ??

I am at loss to explain it but my feeling is that
- whatever was splashed on the tail had a different source (upper and to the side of the machine ) than what was splashed at hinomaru level on the fuselage.
- the wing undersurface appears to have been protected from the splash by something on its inner section.

Re: My one cent

Posted By: Antonio Veiga <aveiga@airtel.net>
Date: Friday, 14 December 2001, at 2:57 p.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

I couldn´t resist to give you a suggestion

"From the very begining the inline-engine cooling and hydraulic systems leaked.It was as if Japanese designers couldn´t keep liquids under control in an aircraft.Starting with built-in leaks, and faced with further combat damage, the ground crews almost gave up."

(Source : "Kawasaki Ki-61 HIEN in Japenese Army Air Force Service" by Richard M. Bueschel)

Could this be an oil spill case?

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!"

Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Thursday, 13 December 2001, at 1:16 p.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Oh dear! What did I start here!

I'm with Micah on this one.

Mud is light reflective and can't be matt? Hmm, come and look at my car!

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!"

Posted By: Grant Goodale <grant.goodale@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 7:12 a.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Just to throw my 2 cents in. If it was mud, it would not be light reflective unless it was still wet. You can see this matt finish near the top of the fuselage stripe and himomaru. However, the tail wheel doors are either clean or reflective.

If it was oil, then the fuselage surface would be reflective.

Each of the above contains an apparent violation of the laws of physics. If one assumes that it was paint, then why would the top of the dark colour be so "splattered"? It does not violate the physics laws but it does seem very illogical.

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2001, at 8:42 p.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Here is another view of Tony No.10 attached to No.244 Hiko Sentai.

Please note that; a) the landing gear is "clean" on the upper portion; b) the nose is "dirty" above the exhaust stubs and the paint appears to be dripping; c) the fin and rudder are "dirty" above and below the horizontal stabilizer clear back to the trailing-edge while the belly radiator remains clean! AND, look at the No.10 on the l/g cover...why is it not "dirty" from the mud as well?

Also note that only the lower surface hinomaru and white-band have been over-sprayed (camouflaged). Which begs the question, why was the area inboard of the l/g not painted? For those who think this finish was actually field-mud thrown by the prop-blast and/or wheels, why wasn't the area inboard of the l/g "muddied" as well?

Close examination of these photos and of the alleged "spray patterns," the smooth nature of the finish, and the density of the color plus "drip" marks, all support the theory that this was paint and not mud from the field. In fact, much of this airbase, as photographed by KIKUCHI-san, clearly shows concrete areas and taxiways devoid of any evidence of "mud" from the field while illustrating several Tonys parked on them with "dirty tails."

Photo credit: Bunrindo, Koku-Fan Illustrated No.80, p.80.

Editors note: Picture at http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/ki-61_244fr_dirtytail_b.jpg

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!"

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2001, at 9:41 p.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. These are the same photos I was offering to have someone post, so thank you for posting them.

The scheme, location, pattern and texture indicate to me that this "mess" was not applied by a human. While I can't answer some of your questions, such as the clean l/g, other questions of even more mysteries arise upon very close inspection:
* Why is the "dirt/paint" so thick, textured and chunky? (Especially notable on the lower portion of the vertical fin just above the horizontal stabilizer)

* How does one get paint to look like oil (or something) blownback randomly by the prop on the cowling? This is certainly not brush or airgun; and I can't even imagine throwing paint to ge that effect.

* Why have that meager, streaky, speckeling on the cowling anyway? It has all the camo effectivness of a bad oil leak.

* Note the "dirt/paint" on the lower main wing tip doesn't extent to the end of the wing, and that the spray pattern is blown back at about a 45° angle (as seen on pg 81).

* Note the dense "mud" stripe running straight back under the wing, directly above the wheel of the l/g. Obviously flung there by the rotating l/g/ wheel.

* Note the "arcing" pattern on the rear part of the fuselage appearing as if it was bounced off the ground up onto the fuselage side; the wing shielding the sides, but after the wing root, spray is from a very low angle of attack and chunky in appearence. The same shielding is seen to a lesser degree over the horizontal stabilizer, but there is speckling (as if rained) on top of the horizontal stabilier.

* The most imortant factor in my mind. . .I can't imagine the unit covering up their unit marking, a major point of pride, and doing it so badly! I'll never buy that! Especially a red marking?

And how did they get the "paint" so chuncky?

Re: "Dirty Tails" and "Phun Physics"

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 6:55 a.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" (Don Marsh)

When I previously wrote about the posibility of the crew taxiing the Tonys through a "paint bath" I was having some "phun" (read "fun") with our debate! (;>)

Actually, the pattern of the "paint/oil/camouflage" on the side of the aircraft does look to be applied in some other fashion than while taxiing.

I frequently have commented to my physics students that the laws of physics cannot be violated. I studied the photo below again and I noted that the so-called "mud-spray pattern" on the wings and tail are oblique to the wheels (as you also so noted). However, the wheels would have sprayed the mud on both sides of the wheel and the lower surfaces of the wing should have had the same degree of splatter. This is clearly not the case.

Also, the mud would have sprayed on the sides of the belly radiator as well as the rear fuselage and tail. It is equally clear this is not evidenced! To say otherwise would be an appparent violation of the laws of physics.

Another explaination is that the crew meticulously cleaned the sides of the belly radiator and the wing inboard of the l/g. If this is had been the case, then it is illogical that the crew would not have also cleaned the tail markings and lower wing hinomaru.

Again, most facetiously and in the vane of total "phun," I have reminded my students that they DO manage to violate all laws of physics as based on some responses by them to question on exams!

Re: "Dirty Tails" and "Phun Physics"

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 1:26 p.m.

In Response To: Re: "Dirty Tails" and "Phun Physics" *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

You write: "taxiing the Tonys through a "paint bath" I washaving some "phun" (read "fun") with our debate! (;>)

Whew! Glad to hear it. I figured as much, even if it does makes as much sense as anything else I can think of.

You write: "Actually, the pattern of the "paint/oil/camouflage" on the side of the aircraft does look to be applied in some other fashion than while taxiing."

Yeah... Like with a garden hose by someone laying on their back upon the ground. :)

You write: "I frequently have commented to my physics students that the laws of physics cannot be violated."

How true. Now you're following my line of thinking.

You write: "I studied the photo below again and I noted that the so-called "mud-spray pattern" on the wings and tailare oblique to the wheels (as you also so noted). However, the wheels would have sprayed the mud on both sides of the wheel and the lower surfaces of the wing should have had the same degree of splatter. This is clearly not the case." Also, the mud would have sprayed on the sides of the belly radiator as well as the rear fuselage and tail.It is equally clear this is not evidenced! To say otherwise would be an apparent violation of the laws of physics.

Ah, Mr Science to the rescue! :) ...I agree completely. I've also made these same observations in my inspection of the photos. Yet more stuff that makes no sense to me. One would think that this would be the end of the argument for me, but Nooooo! I have to be difficult. While the physics of where the spray appears makes no logical sense; but conversely, either does the physics of applying the "paint" in an upward motion from a low vantage point on a low slung a/c.

You write: "Another explanation is that the crew meticulously cleaned the sides of the belly radiator and the winginboard of the l/g. If this is had been the case, then it is illogical that the crew would not have also cleaned the tail markings and lower wing hinomaru."

Nah. I agree that this make no sense. (I'm incredulous, not a dope! ...Of course, I could be wrong about that.)

Your write: "Again, most facetiously and in the vane of total "phun," I have reminded my students that they DO manage to violate all laws of physics as based on some responses by them to question on exams!"

Phun or not, still quite humorous. I think your students are fortunate to have you for their science teacher.Thanks for playing along.

Maybe it is paint, though I'm not understanding the why's or how's of any of it. I can see arguments on both sides of this matter, and huge flaws in both also. I'm willing to let this whole matter drop. It probably is paint, but in this one instance my mind will never be at peace.

NO airbrush! So...

Posted By: Elephtheriou George <arawasi_g@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 6:50 p.m.

In Response To: Re: "Dirty Tails" and "Phun Physics" (Don Marsh)

What a debate! I surely enjoy this one!
Let me throw a second hand info regarding 244 Sentai that "Wakawasi" Higuchi Tachuhiro told me some weeks ago. He read in a book that according to the chief of the maintenance crew of the 244, the unit had only one airbrush and when that was broken, they started applying paint with other means. I hope "Wakawasi" is reading this and let us know this detail straight from the book. As to how this paint was applied, I can think of a "broken airbrush", the broom that the Japanese still use to clean the fronts of their houses or streets, rags...

Now, let me add to the "No paint" theory! Please check the photo in Page 71. In this photo we see to the left a very nicely painted Hien having been "cannibalized" with the "brushes and rugs". The plane already had its camouflage, why did they need to "repaint" it in this terrible fashion?

Please excuse me for not providing the full translation of the caption of page 71. Well, the author is wondering in the end whether these planes were supposed to be used for night ramming attacks.
I think this comment gives us a clue for the reason why they didn't care so much about the tail marking. Simply because these planes were expendable. As it was stated in the original posting of Holloway sama.

Thank you all for this highly enjoyable AND civilized debate.
Come on Don. Hit me back!!

Re: NO airbrush! So...

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 9:59 p.m.

In Response To: NO airbrush! So... (Elephtheriou George)

You write: "according to the chief of the maintenance crew of the 244, the unit had only one airbrush and when that was broken, they started applying paint with other means. As to how this paint was applied, I can think of a "broken airbrush", the broom that the Japanese still use to clean the fronts of their houses or streets, rags..."

This info may be second hand, but it certainly seems reasonable. as for methods of application, I've thought about all the methods of application you mention also. The Germans use to use mops and brooms to whitewash a/c in temporary winter camo. As they say, "necessity is the mother of invention."

You write: "Now, let me add to the "No paint" theory! Please check the photo in Page 71. In this photo we see to the left a very nicely painted Hien having been "cannibalized" with the "brushes and rugs". The plane already had its camouflage, why did they need to "repaint" it in this terrible fashion?"

I assume you're speaking of a/c #89... I agree with your observation. Of course, the argument for "camo"ing over the original camo would be to provide a "night-time" scheme. But I don't see how a haphazard and partial mess would be any improvement. Another thing I notice from this photo is that while these a/c are on the hardstand, they are surrounded on all sides by wet, muddy & rutted, wintertime fields; deep tracks going every which way through the muck. Someone else posted the suggestion (forgive me for not remembering who) that maybe the crew was in a hurry and only cleaned off the important parts such as radiator, l/g, etc.. Here's another spin on that thought: Suppose with the a/c coming and going through all those soupy fields all day they only cleaned off the important areas because they didn't feel like scrubbing the same a/c down over and over again, a waste of time and resources. Wait till the fields dry up a bit first. Just a thought.

On pg 72/73 we see two a/c in revetments (very clean); plus five more "dirty ones", two on the hard stand and three more parked in the rutted muddy field. Note the patterns on the fuselage over the wings, following the same pattern that is produced by thick exhaust. Of course, this isn't exhaust, but I mention it to point out that these patterns seem to follow the blow-back flow from the props. All start out lighter and speckled toward the front where the greater force would blow off much of the "dirt", and become progressively darker and darker towards the rear of the a/c's, where the force is less and the fuselage is closer to the soupy ground, so caking would occur.

On pg 74, what appears to be a/c white #15 we see a fairly clean, mottled camo Ki-61 with prop removed and being worked on. Notice the dried mud on the hinomaru? Notice the angle, spatter pattern and that its demarcation covering the lower half of the hinomaru appears to be similar to what is found on the very "dirty" a/c? Of course this a/c has been cleaned up better than the ones in the field because it is being worked on, but I believe this photo shows evidence of muddy spray that has been cleaned away producing the same sort of pattern on the a/c in question. (Also notice all the maintenance crew carrying around their combat helmets, showing that they didn't have the luxury of relaxing and doing a great job of cleaning up a/c, but had to prioritize work.)

You write: "Please excuse me for not providing the full translation of the caption of page 71. Well, the author is wondering in the end whether these planes were supposed to be used for night ramming attacks. I think this comment gives us a clue for the reason why they didn't care so much about the tail marking. Simply because these planes were expendable. As it was stated in the original posting of Holloway sama."

Interesting. I can accept this thinking. But I believe that out of respect for the pilot who was probably about to give his life in the ramming, the crew would have wiped off the unit marking as a matter of honor and pride.

You write: "Thank you all for this highly enjoyable AND civilized debate."

I second this sentiment. Also, a special thank you to James Halloway who's art and research has re-sparked my interest in some photos that I had nearly forgotten about, and opened up this fascinating examination into a rather esoteric subject.

You write: "Come on Don. Hit me back!!"

No way Joji, your too good a friend.

Re: NO airbrush! So...

Posted By: Mark L. Shannon <Shingend@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Friday, 14 December 2001, at 1:34 p.m.

In Response To: Re: NO airbrush! So... (Don Marsh)

Don Marsh wrote, in part:
Someone else posted the suggestion (forgive me for not remembering who) that maybe the crew was in a hurry and only cleaned off the important parts such as radiator, l/g, etc.. Here's another spin on that thought: Suppose with the a/c coming and going through all those soupy fields all day they only cleaned off the important areas because they didn't feel like scrubbing the same a/c down over and over again, a waste of time and resources. Wait till the fields dry up a bit first. Just a thought.

It is a possible thought, but I would respond that the wings and tailplane surfaces of an aircraft *were* important areas, especially on a high performance fighter intended for use against the highest performance bomber in the world, at the time. Caked mud, or even more than a patina of dust, would hurt both the basic aerodynamics of lift and control, but also the performance aspects of speed and maneuverability. Add to that the possibility of jamming control surfaces from grit and the like, and I would expect to see the hinge areas, undersurfaces, leading edges, and control surfaces cleaned before the landing gear doors, side surfaces of the radiator pan, and the fillet in the tailplanes.

Just stirring the pot a little, coming into the debate late.

Re: NO airbrush! So...

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Friday, 14 December 2001, at 9:03 p.m.

In Response To: Re: NO airbrush! So... (Mark L. Shannon)

Welcome aboard the debate. I agree with what you are saying. Notice, the wings are clean on these a/c. The areas effected are principally the sides of the fuselage aft of the wing roots and about 2/3's of the vertical fin, and a general area under the wing, outboard of the l/g.

I've seen evidence in favor of the "paint" theory (otherwise very hard to believe), but it sure looks more like mud to me based on texture, tint, spatter patterns, angles of application, not to mention that all around the hardstand as far as the eye can see, a soupy, wet, wintertime field, rutted with deep tire tracks all over the place (and a few other points that I don't want keep repeating).

I'm truly on the fence with this one, but I'm leaning strongly toward the "mud."

Re: NO airbrush! So...

Posted By: Mark L. Shannon <Shingend@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Saturday, 15 December 2001, at 11:35 a.m.

In Response To: Re: NO airbrush! So... (Don Marsh)

Looking at the pictures posted, especially the one in the 'Dirty Tails and Phun Physics' message fromMr. Lansdale, this one (10) looks to have 'dirty' finish outer underwings, a really dark streak behind the landing gear, clean radiator bath sides and gear doors, and what could be dark under the horizontal tail surfaces.

Mind you, the underwing is more implied by an appearance of speckling around where the hinomaru should be, and no contrast of underwing and hinomaru circle shape. Is one possible presence and one possible absence evidence or poor photo reproduction?

It can go either way, there is certainly a down and dirty look similar to an off-road rally car on a wet day, but the pattern does not match the logical form of spattering. A telling point to me is that on '10'the streaks behind the gear appear very well bordered, with no fan effect on the wing. This should be mud spatter, there should be a lot of spread, and the lower gear doors should show some kind of contrast between 'mud' and the dark paint.

In the WWI mailing list, we have the expression 'Dicta Ira' after a member who always tagged his messages 'Have Fun!' In a case where the evidence is enigmatic, the artifact itself is long gone, and there is no confirmation by other sources or all sources disagree with one another, draw your own conclusions and do it the way you think looks right, and tell the kibitzers to prove you are wrong. If they can, you have learned something, otherwise, they just look like dogmatists - at which point you ask to see a model they've made.

Re: NO airbrush! So...

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Sunday, 16 December 2001, at 10:28 p.m.

In Response To: Re: NO airbrush! So... (Mark L. Shannon)

Sorry for the slow response, I've been kind of busy...

You write:
"Mind you, the underwing is more implied by an appearance of speckling around where the hinomaru should be, and no contrast of underwing and hinomaru circle shape. Is one possible presence and one possible absence evidence or poor photo reproduction?"

I think we can rule out poor photo reproduction. While the photos post are of mediocre quality, the actual published shots in KFI #80 are some of the absolute best historic Japanese photos I've ever seen anywhere. Crystal clear! But the contrast in the shadows under the wing are very dark and making out details in this area is a bit rougher. If you scan the photos and lighten them up, more details can be made out.

You write:
"It can go either way, there is certainly a down and dirty look similar to an off-road rally car on a wet day, but the pattern does not match the logical form of spattering."

That's the dilemma as I see it. Both theories have numerous pros and cons. There is a logic that is missing from both the paint and the mud theories; and both theories are even baffling from a physics standpoint.

You write:
"A telling point to me is that on '10' the streaks behind the gear appear very well bordered, with no fan effect on the wing. This should be mud spatter, there should be a lot of spread..."

Not necessarily. I've ridden bikes and motorcycles for most of my life, sometimes in the rain (more often than I care to remember), and under those circumstances I inevitably would wind up with what I called a "racing stripe" (i.e. muddy water) down the middle of my back.

You write:
"In a case where the evidence is enigmatic, the artifact itself is long gone, and there is no confirmation by other sources or all sources disagree with one another, draw your own conclusions and do it the way you think looks right, and tell the kibitzers to prove you are wrong. If they can, you have learned something, otherwise, they just look like dogmatists - at which point you ask to see a model they've made."

I concur with your modeling philosophy here. However, in this case I'm not building a model, but trying to deduce the actual details and circumstances of a small group of a/c through photographic analysis and comparison for historical reasons.

Re: NO airbrush! So... *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 7:52 p.m.

In Response To: NO airbrush! So... (Elephtheriou George)

You wrote, "Please check the photo on Page 71." I did!!!

Great!

Please note the Tony to the left (see below) has had its fin fillets replaced on top of the "dirty-tail" finish. I wonder, if the tail surface was dirty with mud, why the ground crew did not clean the rest of the fin and rudder?

Photo credit: Bunrindo, Koku-Fan Illustrated No.80, p.71.

Editors note: Picture at http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/ki-61_244fr_dirtytail_c.jpg

Re: "Dirty Tails" and "Phun Physics"

Posted By: James Holloway <bobwimple@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 8:55 a.m.

In Response To: Re: "Dirty Tails" and "Phun Physics" *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Sirs!! Just take a large brush ,a rag or even a broom and slap paint on something quickly and you get this effect. Take a large industrial airbrush, like the kind used to paint cars, open it wide up and with thinned paint you get the same effect, varying on how far away you are you can vary the finish. Check out photos of those gaily painted Free French Sherman tanks you will see the same effect, plus most of the time the markings are only partially obscured, almost as if they didn't want to obliderate them completely. You can also see the same effect on the white stars of American tanks. If it was mud or oil ,why only those eight planes and not the rest of the Sentai?

Sorry, but that's mud...

Posted By: Micah Bly <yak@targetrabaul.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 8:49 a.m.

In Response To: Re: "Dirty Tails" and "Phun Physics" *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

I hate to go against one of the board Godz, but that's mud. Nothing more, nothing less. I've seen pictures of F4Us from Espiritu Santo with exactly the same spray pattern (except its lighter colored dirt/mud). The mud is kicked up from the wheels backwards, that's why the gears don't have mud on them. The prop also sprays some on the area directly behind it, as the lower blade swings near the mud/water on the ground. THere's nothing really unique about it at all.

Mud.

Re: Sorry, but that's mud... *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 9:17 a.m.

In Response To: Sorry, but that's mud... (Micah Bly)

I do not doubt your F4U analogy, I seen the same photos (and the entire lower surface is muddy on those birds). And ...I ain't no godz, but why, pray tell, is there no "mud" on the belly radiator or on the wing lower surface inboard of the l/g? Or, doesn't the prop wash go there?(;>)

Editors note: Picture at http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/ki-61_244fr_dirtytail_b.jpg

Re: Sorry, but that's mud...

Posted By: Micah Bly <yak@targetrabaul.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 9:30 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Sorry, but that's mud... *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

You have to have some old footage of WWII or Korea era prop planes landing lying around your house somewhere...

Watch where the stuff goes. You land at say 75-130 mph, the stuff goes up and BACK in a hurry. Just like the pattern shown there. I'm no physician (as the Prez might say), that's just my observation of similar planes. I don't know why, other than velocity, centrifugal force, and gravity.

As for the lower wing, I can't see that it's not muddy, but again, that would be coming from the prop, not the wheels. See how sparse the mud kicked up by the prop is compared to that thrown up and back by the wheels? I think we're arguing about a non-issue here.

Re: Sorry, but that's mud... *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 15 December 2001, at 6:56 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Sorry, but that's mud... (Micah Bly)

I am going to muddy the waters some more! (;>)

You wrote; "You have to have some old footage of WWII or Korea era prop planes landing lying around your house somewhere... Watch where the stuff goes. You land at say 75-130 mph, the stuff goes up and BACK in a hurry. Just like the pattern shown (on the 244th Tonys)."

Thank you for the suggestion!

I looked through by files and found one excellent series of "muddy" North American P-51 Mustangs assigned to the First Air Commando Group. Bob PETIT was the Deputy Commander of the fighter section and a man who has been like my father. Bob provided me with a lot of photo coverage of this unit and introduced me to most of his FAC buddies.

Pictured below is Robley MELTON, first cousin to Johnny ALISON of Micanopy, Florida. Robley is leaning agaist his Mustang during the beginning of the rainy season in, what is known today as East Pakistan, at Hailakandi Field, May 1944. The field had been turned into a sea of mud!!!

I note that the mud splatters are very much like the ones found on the No.244 F Tony "dirty tails" ... and I also noted two important distinctions:

a) the mud pattern does not extend above the horizontal stabilizer, but is coated all over the lower surfaces of the l/g, belly radiator, main wings, and lower tail surfaces (unlike the "clean" l/g, belly radiator, and inbooard of the l/g on the 244th Tonys);

and

b) the mud is very thin and translucent. One may see the insignia showing through the mud (something you cannot do in the similar photos of the 244th Tony photos). Also notice the mud is matt, not shiny.

Over to you! I would dearly enjoy seeing your photos of the muddy F4Us on Espiritu.

Editors note: Picture at http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/p-51b_melton.jpg

Stirring the pot with FRANKnmudster *PIC*

Posted By: Ryan Boerema <ryann1k2j@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 16 December 2001, at 11:56 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Sorry, but that's mud... *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

There's an interesting photo in FAOW #19, the FRANK, sufficiently poorly focussed, on p. 44 showing a Ki-84 plowing through a wet field. Have at it!

Credit: Bunrindo/FAOW No.19, 11/89, p.44 via LRA

Editors note: Picture at http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/ki-84_mudster.jpg

Re:Aquatic FRANK-n-Mudster

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 16 December 2001, at 12:28 p.m.

In Response To: Stirring the pot with FRANKnmudster *PIC* (Ryan Boerema)

That ain't a field of mud!!!

What you are seeing is a photo taken during the test trials for a special Nakajima Ki-84 fitted with waterskies taxiing on Lake Biwa. A special IJAAF unit was to be staioned on lake Biwa during the closing months of the war to help-out the IJNAF N1K1 Rex unit stationed there.

While takeoffs were possible from near-shore, the landings were far more eventful, but very clean!!!(;>)

All kidding aside... please notice that the splash does not go above the horizontal tail surfaces, as evidenced on the Tonys of the No.244 F "dirty tails."

Re: Sorry, but that's mud...

Posted By: Grant Goodale <grant.goodale@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 10:37 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Sorry, but that's mud... (Micah Bly)

If it is mud, how does one explain the pattern on the cowl *above* the exhausts? Since mud would go "up and BACK in a hurry", I would not expect it to be on that section of the cowl.

I do not mean this to be critical, only inquistive. There is some really good thinking going on in this thread.

Re: Sorry, but that's mud...

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 4:17 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Sorry, but that's mud... (Grant Goodale)

I agree, there is a lot of good thinking going on in this thread, and that's important. While the debate may seen ridiculous to some, I for one am enjoying the honest objective thinking, exchange of information and search for answers to this mystery.

Objective thinking

Posted By: Micah Bly <yak@targetrabaul.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 9:54 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Sorry, but that's mud... (Don Marsh)

Let's do some...

How many instances can you recall where air crews chose to and were allowed to paint over a major portion of the national insignia? I don't mean painting out white edges. One of those pictures up there shows the side hinomaru about 50% covered.

My objective opinion is that this was not done in general. I'm guessing that on top of the regulations about such things, not too many pilots would want their insignias coverred up, especially on the bottom... those are a big part of what keeps 'friendly' AA gunners from shooting at you.

Objectively, is there any reason to paint the horizontal stabilizer 3/4ths of the way up in an attempt to make the plane less visible from BELOW? Even in an angled view from the side, the part covered isn't the part visible... the part UNCOVERED is the visible part.

Does it save paint to glob mounds of paint on a plane in that fashion? No. It wastes paint, and doesn't cover as much area as even wiping it around with a mop or rag would do.

Are there any existing orders for such camouflage patterns?

Objectively, what reason would you have for covering mostly the tail surfaces, but not the front lower surfaces?

That's some of the questions you need to ask critically, if you want to be objective.

Okay, now let's look at some of the other questions you can ask...

Does the general appearance of that photo conform to how mud splatters on a prop plane that lands on a muddy field?

Were dirt fields common in the PTO?

Are there other photos of different types of planes with similar-looking coverings which we know to be mud?

Between missions, were understaffed Japanese ground crews kept going around the clock fixing damaged parts, retuning unreliable engines, not to mention refueling and rearming.?
Is it possible that they didn't always have time to wash mud off an airplane before sending it off again?
Are there examples of this in other services?

I dunno. I think if you look at it objectively, there's really only one possible conclusion to reach. It's not the most exciting one, I grant you. It's not romantic, it's not ground-breaking, it won't win you an award at NATS (well, it might). But it's the logical conclusion, based on evidence.

Re: Objective thinking

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 10:11 p.m.

In Response To: Objective thinking (Micah Bly)

You echo many of my sentiments on the matter.
However, check out Jim Lansdale's impressive new posting: "Re: NO airbrush! So... *PIC*". This one is the strongest case yet for the argumant in favor of "paint"

Re: Sorry, but that's mud...

Posted By: Micah Bly <yak@targetrabaul.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 10:48 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Sorry, but that's mud... (Grant Goodale)

My answer: That big whirly thing with three blades in front of the cowl. :)

The lower blade of the prop picks up mud every pass. That mud gets flung off as the prop continues spinning. Some goes above the centerline, some goes below. One side of the plane will probably have more prop mud than the other, but that's just an assumption, I don't think I've seen a picture of both sides of the same muddy plane. In any case, the prop splatter is a completely different action from the mud being thrown up by the wheels, which is going back and up (because the wheels are spinning forward).

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 5:07 a.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" (Don Marsh)

O.K. For the sake of arguement, I'll chew on the bone with you!!! (;>)

You wrote,"* The most imortant factor in my mind. . .I can't imagine the unit covering up their unit marking, a major point of pride, and doing it so badly! I'll never buy that! Especially a red marking?"

Here-in we find is the most compelling evidence for my theory! I am in total agreement with your statement regarding unit pride. Examine the photos again and witness the crew "swarming" around and over the Tonys. Why not wipe or wash them off or evidence that they have "brushed" with their bodies against the fuselage or hand marks on the tail?

Is it possible they experimented with a "quicky" application of camouflage application by taxing through a paint bath?

BTW, why no mud on the pristine concrete areas of the photos?

I will post other photos from this series soon. Meanwhile, look at the bottom finish on No.14 (p.p.86-87), which is more thorough!!!

Editors note: Picture at http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/ki-61_244fr_dirtytail_b.jpg

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!"

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 1:22 p.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

You wrote: "For the sake of argument, I'll chew on the bone with you!"
Ataboy Jim. I knew I could count on you; and you know what a pain in the *ss I can be. :)

You wrote: "I am in total agreement with your statement regarding unit pride. Examine the photos again and witness the crew "swarming" around and over the Tonys. Why not wipe or wash them off or evidence that they have "brushed" with their bodies against the fuselage or hand marks on the tail?"

Yep, George made the same observation, and I must say, that is the most compelling argument for me.

You wrote: "Is it possible they experimented with a "quickly" application of camouflage application by taxing through a paint bath?"

Of course, you're now just having fun (I hope). But the irony is that this looks like what happened; and I'm sure that this sort of application would have been just as effective and be just as good a use of resources.

You wrote: "BTW, why no mud on the pristine concrete areas of the photos?" Another good point. I don't have the answers to these questions anymore than I have the answers to how and why the "paint got applied in this fashion. I've seen some sloppy paint jobs before

You wrote: "look at the bottom finish on No.14 (p.p.86-87), which is more thorough!

Yes. This was the other photo I was referring to in my original posting. A/c #14 is *definitely* paint. Though applied rather sloppily, it is obviously paint to me and applied by design, or at least intent, on someone's part. I have no problem with this a/c, and a/c #16, which is painted in the same fashion as well, being night fighter paint schemes. The finish on #14 is clearly discernible as paint. I can even see the panel lines and rivets through the smooth paint finish of this bird.

You all may be right. Maybe this is paint. I just can't make myself believe that this mess was on purpose. I'm not trying to be obstinate. . just incredulous that this was on purpose or by human "plan"!

Thanks for humoring me Jim. I wish I had a better response for you.

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!"

Posted By: Elephtheriou George <arawasi_g@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 1:26 a.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" (Don Marsh)

From KFI #80, page 71:
"Although it's not very clear because of the light conditions, these Type 3 fighters PAINTED DARK BLACK (Ankokushoku) at the lower sides of the fuselage and from the propeller to the tail, also under the wings and until the undersides of the tail, are waiting for their maintenance. This Dark Black painting was a good way to conceal the planes from the searchlights...".
The same is repeated in the caption of the photo at page 80.

I have no idea why these particular planes were painted in that way. But in my opinion if it was oil, then looks like all the oil that these planes could carry somehow licked all at once just behind the propeller. In all 4-5 planes!

Mud. Question: have you ever seen other Japanese planes in the same dirty condition? Remember that the crews polished the planes (someone once said with oil!) in order to gain every valuable mile? Do you think they would permit all this heavy mud on the plane? Not to mention that this mud must have travelled a long until almost the tip of the wing. If it's mud, I wouldn't like to be around this plane at that moment!
Nevertheless, all your comments are logical and I don't have any answer to them.
So, please allow me, to believe the authors.

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!"

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 1:16 p.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" (Elephtheriou George)

Well, I've certainly stepped in it this time. :)
Thank you for providing the translation on the caption from KFI #80, page 71. I'm sure that what KFI says is reasonable and probably even true (though I did get a chuckle out of the phrase: "painted DARK black" ...guess they were out of light black). The claim, "This Dark Black painting was a good way to conceal the planes from the searchlights" is, of course, an obvious and logical statement. Every major air force experimented with the use of black on their nightfighters for this reason. But there are just so many things that don't add up for me on this "paint scheme", to explain the "dirty" pattern and the rationale for applying it to only those areas and in that fashion.

You wrote: "I have no idea why these particular planes were painted in that way."
That's is exactly my quandary too. Well, that and the apparent physics of how this "mess" was applicated.

You wrote: "But in my opinion if it was oil, then looks like all the oil that these planes could carry somehow licked all at once just behind the propeller."
I agree. That can't be oil (though I originally thought that several years ago when I first saw these photos, especially knowing of the Ki-61s oil problems), the aircraft would most certainly need a new engine if this were the case. Also, if one looked at photos of a/c that have been covered in oil, such as some P-47s that got a cylinder head blown off, the color is blacker, smoother and shinier (and ironically a better paint job than what is on these Ki-61s!). Still, the results does look like one big splash of "something" then blown back by the propellor.

You wrote: "Mud. Question: have you ever seen other Japanese planes in the same dirty condition?"
An excellent point George, and probably the best argument for being a scheme done on purpose.

You wrote: "Remember that the crews polished the planes (someone once said with oil!) in order to gain every valuable mile? Do you think they would permit all this heavy mud on the plane?
It was common practice in all air forces to polish a/c to obtain the highest air speeds possible through reduced friction. But this polishing was most critical on the wings, and I have seen some Japanese a/c in rather poorly maintained conditions, usually towards the end of the war when the Japanese didn't have the luxury of excellent maintenance. But the other point you make about why the crew would allow mud like this to cake on the a/c is another thing in favor of the "paint" theory.

You wrote: "all your comments are logical and I don't have any answer to them. So, please allow me, to believe the authors."
I don't blame you (or anyone else) for believing what the captions say. Your arguments are all good ones, and I thank you for trying to help me clear up my confusion regarding this mystery.

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!"

Posted By: Micah Bly <yak@targetrabaul.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 2:10 p.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" (Don Marsh)

I can't believe we're even discussing this. there are MANY photos of mud-caked planes from WWII. Even if you subscribe to the idea that the crew washed them religiously every day, every once in a while, some wacky photographer gets it in his head to take a photo of a plane taxiing immediately after having landed. Why is the concrete clean, and the plane not? unpaved fields were very common in the PTO. At the same time, many of those fields had hangers and aprons that had concrete. The plane picks up the mud before it gets to the spot where it's photographed. BEFORE the crew has a chance to sprint out and immediately hand wash the plane.

Yes, crews from both sides in WWII tried to keep their planes in good shape. NO, they weren't miracle workers. Mud happened. And they would have been busy re-arming, re-fueling, re-oiling, and re-tuning planes that were going right back out again, without a thought in the world for scrubbing off some mud. Mud was very common in the PTO. It's mud. This is one of those cases where unless you have some kind of unique and spectacular evidence to the contrary, it's an example of making a mountain out of a molehill.

It's grass gentlemen, not mud!

Posted By: Elephtheriou George <arawasi_g@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 7:13 p.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" (Micah Bly)

apparently some people think differently therefore this discussion.
Please allow me to ask again the same question I posted before.
Excuse my ignorance (absolutely NO irony intended here) but can you please point me photos of JAPANESE (not American or German in the Russian front...) airplanes with mud that resembles this?
You also mention "taxing" on a muddy airfield. Please check photos of pages 72, 73, 75 (lower), 76, 77, 79 (lower) and especially 87 (top), 89 (lower) and 91 (top). From these photos we clearly understand that the concrete part of the airfield is surrounded largely with...grass (!) not earth. Also we can see other planes taxing ON the muddy ground and they are NOT dirty at all.

Of course you are correct in your statements regarding ground crew and dirty airplanes. But I think we have a different, difficult case here and that's another reason for this discussion.

What kind of grass is that?

Posted By: Micah Bly <yak@targetrabaul.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 10:08 p.m.

In Response To: It's grass gentlemen, not mud! (Elephtheriou George)

I don't have the book in question, so unless someone posts the rest of the pictures, I won't be able to comment. However, if you have Gunyouki meka series 2 (Ki48/Ki61), there isa nice 2 page spread photo of what I suspect is the same airfield. One of the photo scans Jim posted is part of this photo. Plane #10 is visible from the other side.

The ENTIRE foreground of the photo is a huge muddy, snowy taxiway leading up to the apron. All 4 planes on the nice clean (except for the muddy wheel tracks) apron have similar mud splatterings.

The second photo on that page shows the planes taxiing in from the muddy landing strip onto the apron.

I don't know how much more evidence you would need to draw the conclusion that it's mud, and not paint. Fresh mud, at that.

Re: What kind of grass is that?

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 10:18 p.m.

In Response To: What kind of grass is that? (Micah Bly)

I've been saying the same thing about the soupy, rutted, wet, winter fields all around these a/c. While I find it difficult to believe that these are paint schemes, there is some evidence for that argument (though not enough to bring me onto the team yet).
I can email you some scans of the photos being discussed if you'd like.

Re: What kind of grass is that?

Posted By: Micah Bly <yak@targetrabaul.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 10:28 p.m.

In Response To: Re: What kind of grass is that? (Don Marsh)

Yeah, that would be great, thank you!

I don't know if it's enough to conquer the two photos I just found of that airfield apron sitting in the middle of a sea of mud in 3 directions, and the planes taxiing in from said field of mud, but I would love to see what evidence there is to the contrary.

That's very generous of you to offer, thanks.

I'm actually pretty happy about the whole thing... George made me go find those photos, and I noticed 2 TX-40 fuel trucks, which I didn't even know I had photos of. I just modeled one for our sim, and the more photos the better for the painting stage.

I don't see any grass around anywhere, so unless somebody smoked that grass, these planes took off from Muddy field A and flew to grassy field B. Not exactly unheard of, I have to say.

I just wish the two photos came with a caption. They are the only 2 in the entire book that don't have captions. SOMEBODY wants it to be a mystery :)

"Sea of mud"

Posted By: Elephtheriou George <arawasi_g@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 11:08 p.m.

In Response To: Re: What kind of grass is that? (Micah Bly)

let's see what I can give to persuade you that there is not a sea of fresh mud around the concrete airfield. I will need the assistance and scanner of Don for this, so:
Page 71: MUD MUD MUD enough to drive you mad!
Page 74: Most of the ground crew members have their uniforms dirty with oil stains OR they were sitting/standing behind the planes when the FABULOUS mud/propeller effect made the planes dirty. Notice the helmets as Don noticed them in a previous posting. Ready for action?
Page 75(lower): Ground crew members, without helmets (danger's gone) playing Yakyu (Baseball in Japanese). Snow everywhere around the concrete. What happened to the mud?
Pages 76, 77: In a close by revetment, we see nicely choped grass and a bit of snow to the left. Apparently the ground crew took a bath. Not dirty! Interestingly their boots are also very little dirty. I would expect footprints like the Bigfoot's all over but...
Page 79(lower): more clean ground crew. With clean shoes also (these guys made it a habbit not to walk on the sea of mud). And....grass! And snow.
Page 80, 81: A dirty plane! Mud everywhere on the plane but...not on the crew members. Not on their boots or the concrete. Okay the mud dried up...
Pages 87, 88, 89: WOW! Silver (and green) Hiens taxing ON the sea of mud and don't get dirty! Not even the ground crew member who is breaking the rule and is stepping on the sea of mud! Fantastic!
Page 90, 91: MORE silver Hiens with ground crew all perfectly clean. The essence of Japanese "ofuro" (bath).

Thank you. I'm going to roll in the mu...futton now if I may.

Re: "Sea of mud"

Posted By: Micah Bly <yak@targetrabaul.com>
Date: Thursday, 13 December 2001, at 12:07 a.m.

In Response To: "Sea of mud" (Elephtheriou George)

sorry George, I only have 71-73, and 80, 81, and 86, all of which Don was nice enough to scan for me!

I have a another photo which I'll try to scan tomorrow, which shows them taxiing in off the mud to the tarmac on pg71.

Frankly, I don't see any evidence that this would be anything but mud, and I'm rather confused as to why you would want to believe otherwise. You see the mud. You see the mud tracking from the plane tires, onto the tarmac. This is the 244th Sentai, so I'm assuming those photos are of Chofu field? I have a aerial photo here of Chofu, taken in 1944. It's a big field, with a tiny concrete apron on one side.

I don't know... it seems to me like you are denying the obvious. I spent the first 9 years of my life on a farm in Minnesota, I'm pretty familiar with what mud and snow look like, and what they look like on machines. That's what I see in those photos. Are you surprised somehow that the ground crew isn't waddling in the mud? I'm pretty sure I'd prefer to wait on the nice clean tarmac myself, and have the planes come to me. No surprise there.

Sorry, I just don't see anything that even hints that we are looking at anything but a few planes that just landed in the mud and taxiied to the concrete apron.

Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!"

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2001, at 4:05 p.m.

In Response To: Re:No.244 FR "Dirty Tails!" (Micah Bly)

You're right, no one cares about dirty planes. But that's not the debate. The issue here isn't mud, it's the historiclly significant confirmation and accurate documention of what is possibly a new camo scheme. Ancillary issues such as the proceedures and methods of application are sub catagories to the debate. These are important issues to historians who strive to document history bringing us insight and understanding.

KI61 Information

Posted By: Iran Ausley <ir3@socal.rr.com>
Date: Wednesday, 17 April 2002, at 12:50 p.m.

My complements to those that posted on the Kawasaki KI61 Tony. You modelers show quite a dedication and resourcefulness to the faithful recreation of this aircraft in miniature. I have a very fine Japanese ~1/5th scale KI61-Hein-2 RC kit. I would like to start accumulating documentation for this aircraft in the form of books, magazines, and any other resources that are currently available. I know that there is probably an overwhelming amount of material available but I would like to start at the beginning with perhaps a book or magazine. Any help would be appreciated. Please email

Re: KI61 Information

Posted By: Sinosauropteryx <sinraptorhk@yahoo.com.hk>
Date: Thursday, 18 April 2002, at 1:24 a.m.

In Response To: KI61 Information (Iran Ausley)

Check these:

http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=16ML72VUM2&mscssid=QCNQEG0UB6639PK4NCC743S2SKCA9B31&isbn=0764300695

http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=16ML72VUM2&mscssid=QCNQEG0UB6639PK4NCC743S2SKCA9B31&isbn=087021313X

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/cl-pln3/440HIEN.html

Tonys at Truk - 29 April 1944?

Posted By: Bill Leyh <hawk81@pacbell.net>
Date: Wednesday, 24 April 2002, at 6:29 a.m.

I just came from a visit to the reading room where I passed the time with Eric Hammel's "Aces Against Japan, Vol 1". In one of the stories about the US carrier strike against Truk on April 29, 1944, the subject pilot reported meeting Tonys in combat during the pre-strike fighter sweep.

I know I've read this a bazillion times (don't believe me? count them) and I never thought to ask about this. Was there an IJAAF garrison based on Truk or were these Zeros misidentified?

Re: Tonys at Truk - 29 April 1944?

Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>
Date: Wednesday, 24 April 2002, at 10:02 a.m.

In Response To: Tonys at Truk - 29 April 1944? (Bill Leyh)

There were no Army Air units stationed anywhere on Truk Atoll anytime. All air units stationed at Truk were all Naval

en route to New Guinea?

Posted By: Ryan Boerema <ryann1k2j@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 24 April 2002, at 12:05 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Tonys at Truk - 29 April 1944? (Allan)

For a while at least, Truk was a stepping stone of JAAF aircraft flying down to the "North of Australia" area. Could they have been transitional a/c?

Re: en route to New Guinea?

Posted By: richard dunn <rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 24 April 2002, at 1:06 p.m.

In Response To: en route to New Guinea? (Ryan Boerema)

Not in 1944. The JAAF abandoned the CV (or Akitsu Maru) to Truk, fly to Rabaul route by mid-43. Thereafter they came by air through the Philippines down the island chain of the NEI, to western New Guinea thence Wewak. Recall that the JAAF established Wewak as its main base from July 43 and had been there in some strength since earlier that Spring.

As for basing at Truk, Al is correct. It was not a JAAF combat base. However, the 208th Hiko Sentai trained there from Feb-May 43. The type 3 fighters of 68th Sentai were delivered to Truk and flew to Rabaul losing many aircraft en route. This was, I believe, the last substantial JAAF fighter transit through Truk and occurred late April 43. The next unit to arrive, the 24th Sentai, came to Wewak via Babo. Not sure about the route of the 13th Sentai which also arrived during May 43. Later fighter units definitely did not come via Truk and the aircraft replacement route also followed the path through the Philippines at least from late 43.

In 1944 the Type 100 Recon planes of the 10th Sentai maintained liaison from Rabaul to Truk and the Marianas. Likely they were the only JAAF aircraft that might have been present at either of the USN CV raids on Truk. However, I cannot verify their presence at the time of those raids.

My estimate of the chances of "Tonys" being present during the April 29th raid is zero and none. This was just before the USN learned to stop calling Suisei "Tony" and started calling them "Judy." That, in my opinion, is the most common Tony mis-identification. When the USN learned what a Judy was, it started sighting them and Tony sightings declined.

KI-61 TONY cockpit colours (cert)

Posted By: mick <p40@optusnet.com.au>
Date: Tuesday, 30 April 2002, at 5:16 a.m.

I have a friend with two Newguinea KI-61 tony's the interior colour is a dark laquer blue.All the aircraft found so far are finished in bare ally with rough sprayed green squigly lines on them.Sprayed on site they arived fron Japan unpainted.

KI 61

Posted By: Richard Crapp <Richard.Crapp@progress2.demon.co.uk>
Date: Friday, 14 June 2002, at 1:56 a.m.

I discovered that the folowing museam has the one example of a KI 61, CHIRAN in Kyushu near KAGOSHIMA .

Any one know what part of Japan that is, nere big city?

The museam's E-Mail or www sight,

Perhaps some first hand knoledge of the status of the aircraft, Condition, Display etc.

Re: KI 61

Posted By: Chris Cowx <ccowx@shaw.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 19 June 2002, at 1:30 p.m.

In Response To: KI 61 (Richard Crapp)

I have a few pictures of this plane. It is in incorrect 244th sentai colours and is a Ki 61-II. I understand it is likely a plane that was painted in stars and stripes at Yokosuka post war and then shipped to the states before being returned to Japan. Chiran(numerous spellings) is a small town in Kyushu that was a very active Kamikaze base. They have numerous planes there including a GORGEOUS Ki 84, wrecked late model Zeke, Oscar replica, AT-6, etc. They also have a very interesting collection of letters, momentos, film, etc. Well worth a visit if you can get there.

Re: KI 61

Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Wednesday, 19 June 2002, at 6:20 p.m.

In Response To: Re: KI 61 (Chris Cowx)

A single correction regarding the history of the particular Ki61II on display. The plane belonged to the flight testing unit located at the Fussa airbase at the end of the war. The Fussa AB was taken over by the USAF and expanded to become the current USAF Yokota AB. The plane was kept as a gateguard at Yokota for 8 years before being returned to Japanese hands. It was then put on display at various fairs and events and eventually kept a the JASDF Gifu AB before it was put on display at Chiran. The 244 Sentai coloring, as Chris points out, is incorrect since the base color should be NMF, but I guess the current gray is there for corrosion protection. The 244 Sentai is famous for its air defense missions flown from Chofu AB in Tokyo, but also flew cover for Kamikaze missions in Chiran for a period of time and that's why the plane is given the 244the Sentai markings.

Re: KI 61in 244th colors

Posted By: Ryan Boerema <ryann1k2j@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 20 June 2002, at 9:55 a.m.

In Response To: Re: KI 61 (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)

I just snagged the FineMolds kit of this aircraft in 1/72, the 'razorback' version. It offers #17 there at Fussa, as well as a couple of schemes, one NMF, one IJA green over NMF, of the 56th Sentai. Has anyone seen photographs of this aircraft in any other color scheme, or with any other sentai? All my literature shows only photos of #17 in its various incarnations lised above, but the old Aircam series (wish)book has it illustrated in 244th, 17th, 18th, a couple alternative 56th schemes (mottles), and 59th sentai markings. (The latter on Okinawa!) Naturally I'm very suspicious about Arco-Aircam; they've broken my heart too often -- but I am curious if there're any other photographs out there besides the Fussa test a/c?

Re: KI 61II pix while in JAAF service

Posted By: Ken Glass <ken.glass@eudoramail.com>
Date: Saturday, 22 June 2002, at 6:14 a.m.

In Response To: Re: KI 61in 244th colors (Ryan Boerema)

I know of two more photos of Ki.61 IIs while in active JAAF service. See Kokufan magazine, May 1997 issue, page 71, top photo. It is of another natural metal finish machine with dark numeral 10 on the tail fin. Probably also at Fussa. The apron area visible in the view is well paved indicating a permanent, well equipped base.

I have a copy of 'Army Fighter Ki61', #93 in a series, c.1983, by Watanabe?, small card cover hand book with Japanese text, page 113 photo. The photo may be a still from a movie clip. The image is clear enough to be able to distinguish the small vertical Kanji script in front of the tail plane for the tie down point.

It shows another natural metal finish machine making a low level pass in front of a hanger, banking with the near wing down . I would bet Fussa again. No tail markings but the tops of the main and tail planes are very bespattered with mud, in a pattern almost like those white finished MiG-3s with diagonal outline red wing tip panels. The fuselage has some dark tones on it as well indicating a heavy mud spray from the prop at some point.

Revell 1/32 Ki61 Hien

Posted By: Larry Engesath <lengesath@cox.net>
Date: Wednesday, 26 June 2002, at 12:59 p.m.

I recently acquired this kit, and would like some opinions on it. How accurate is it, and what would be involved in correcting any(?) faults? I thought there was some kind of online review/article on it, but I couldn't find it. Does anybody make any aftermarket decals for it? (I know, dream on!) I've always liked the lines of this plane, even though it's not a photo-recce aircraft. If it'll be too much work to accurize it, I may just try to trade it for stuff on my want list.

Re: Revell 1/32 Ki61 Hien

Posted By: Mike Driskill <kyofu@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 29 June 2002, at 7:00 p.m.

In Response To: Revell 1/32 Ki61 Hien (Larry Engesath)

I think the basic outline is pretty accurate though I confess I've never analyzed it in detail.

One gratuitous detail boo-boo, however, is the engine mount. The kit has a set of Bf-109-like cast mount arms with removable "access panels" on the side of the cowl. On the real aircraft, the engine mounts were built-up from sheet metal; the location of the "removable" panel was in fact the heart of the structure.

Ki 61 location

Posted By: Mike Nicholls <nicholls@hyper.net.nz>
Date: Sunday, 30 June 2002, at 5:03 a.m.

I have been told that there was a Ki61 wreck at the Santa Monica Museum of Flight some years ago. Does anyone know if this is true and if so, where it is now?

Are there any other Ki 61 aircaft in the US - other than the one owned by Kermit Weeks?

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Jim Long <jimilong@msn.com>
Date: Sunday, 30 June 2002, at 1:49 p.m.

In Response To: Ki 61 location (Mike Nicholls)

I think these are one and the same. Kermit Weeks bought the Santa Monica Ki-61. The plane that Kermit had was built up from several wrecks recovered in Papua New Guinea, I think. I inspected the Weeks' holdings some years ago and compiled a little report in my research report series of table-top publications in draft form only. I never completed it.

Jim Long of AIR'TELL Publications & Research Service.

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Monday, 1 July 2002, at 12:24 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Jim Long)

I'm not sure if the Tony relic in Kermit Weeks collection and that of the Santa Monica Museum of
Flying are one in the same. My records seem to indicate differently. But then my records on this
matter are far from definitive, and I do not have any serial numbers for the Santa Monica relic/s.
If I recall correctly there was an article in one aviation magazine about the MoF having a nearly
complete collection of Ki-61 pieces sitting in a hanger. Then about two months later, another
magazine had an article on Kermit Weeks putting a "Tony" fuselage on display. I recall the MoF's
photo showing an all natural fuselage I don't recall whether Mr Weeks' fuselage has nearly worn
off paint or is natural (wish I still had those article).

According to my current records there are only 1 complete and 4 partial Ki-61 airframes (3 if
the MoF and Weeks airframe are the same), and only one complete Ki-100 airframe in collections
at this time:

1. Ki 61-II kai: Kamikaze Museum, Chiran, Kyushu, Japan - s/n 5070.
This is the ONLY complete Ki 61 airframe currently in existence and is finished in the colors of
the 244th Sentai (not an all together accurate paint job, I might add).

2. Ki 61: Museum of Flying, Santa Monica CA - s/n unknown.
This airframe is rather tattered but fairly complete. There has been talk of putting this a/c back
into flying condition. If anyone can do it, the Museum of Flying can! Of course, money, as always,
is the issue.

3. Ki 61-I: Weeks Air Museum, Miami FL, Tamiami Airport. - s/n 379.
It's also a derelict on display as is. I don't know how much of the a/c is in Kermit Weeks
possession but it is principally the fuselage that is on display.

4. Ki 61-Ib: National Museum and Art Gallery of Papua, New Guinea - s/n 640.
This is another partial airframe and just how much of this a/c is intact I don't know.

5. A partial Ki-61 airframe (just the cockpit fuselage section) was recently discovered, by pure
chance and retrieved from a junk yard in Lae, Papua New Guinea by Bob Jarrett, Director of the
Classic Jet Fighter Museum. It is currently on display at CJFM in Parafield, Australia (FlyPast
magazine, March '99). No way of determining a s/n from what's left. Despite this fact, there was
been talk about putting the remains up for sale on eBay!

6. Ki 100-I Otsu: Aerospace Museum, RAF Cosford, England - s/n 16336.
This is the only surviving airframe of its type in existence and is complete. This a/c is believed
to have been sent from Malaya when the war ended for testing in the UK. Though it could be
easily restored to flight status it will never be flown because of its rarity. It is taken outside
and the engine is run up occasionally (especially during air shows) and it even use to be taxied
sometimes in an effort to keep it functional. Finished in the markings of plane #24 of the 5th
Sentai, despite a generally excellent job of finishing the aircraft, the color appears to be less
than accurate and the unit markings are inaccurately applied.

Final note: There has been talk of recovering a few more Ki-61 "Tony" airframes from various
island jungles; several locations are known. Sadly, money, but more often Politics (as usual) has
hampered this process tremendously. The few airframes known to still be retrievable in the
jungles are in very bad shape and fastly rotting out of existence.

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Rob Graham - the ReiShikiSenGuy
Date: Monday, 1 July 2002, at 4:57 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Don Marsh)

I have seen and photographed the Ki-61 at Weeks Air Museum and, as I recall, the fuselage is on display in a simulated jungle in the hangar. The wings, as I recall, are upright against the wall behind the fuselage, and the aircraft looks relatively complete and restorable - though not too pretty last I saw a couple of years ago. The other aircraft in the museum (the flying examples) are in gorgeous condition, so I can imagine their standards would be very high for such an undertaking, even if it were a static display aircraft.

I think that Hien did have paint at one time, but it's all dull aluminum now and needs a lot of work, but the photos I saw of the MoF Hien looked different. I think the MoF Hien had some damage to the skin that I don't recall seeing on Weeks's plane.

As much as I'd love to see and hear a Hien in flight, I'd really rather see some "new from old parts" examples with DB601s to retain that (IMHO) beautiful and characteristic nose that DB-esque engined aircraft had. I SURE have a soft spot for those beautiful machines! Bf-109s, Hiens, He-100s, Macchis, Seirans, Suiseis, the Pyorremyrsky, etc... I think they are all so special like that. The Merlin, good as it is, is just too different in appearance to slam it into one of these aircraft and change the look so much. I'm afraid a Hien with a Merlin engine would look too much like a P-51B with Hinos.

Conversely, I've thought a mildly transmogrified P-51B could pass for a Hien... Round the wingtips, stabs and rudder; modify the radiator scoop; re-do the canopy; tamper with the gear doors. It would be fairly simple, but the Merlin engine, with its V- instead of A- shape and its high-centered thrust line - well, it would still look like a Mustang.

'Course, I'm a nerd like that...

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Monday, 1 July 2002, at 5:31 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Rob Graham - the ReiShikiSenGuy)

You wrote: "I think the MoF Hien had some damage to the skin that I don't recall seeing on Weeks's plane."

I seem to recall the same. I recall the Museum of Flying's "Tony" as being rather tattered, with a lot of small corrosion holes all over the fuselage and the skin worn rather thin. The main wing was similar with substantial wrinkling and crumpling of what was left of the skin. On the other hand, the Ki-61 airframe at the Weeks, Fantasy of Flight Museum appeard to be in much better condition. That's why I think the two are not the same a/c.

I also agree with the rest of your comments. Putting disimilar engines into airframes spoils the illusion if not down right distorting the lines of the a/c. It's like those Spanish Me-109s with the Merlins. Not only do they not have that cool DB601 sound, but they look like guppies doing an immitation of a Messerschmitt. Now the ASH engines being fitted into the 4 Oscar rebuilds is doing it right. More HP and reliability without having to alter the original airframe design.

Be that as it may, whether flying or static, only one complete Hien on display and only four other substantial collections of parts is a sad state of affairs in aviation history. Especially for a bird as beautiful as the Ki-61.

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Jim Long <jimilong@msn.com>
Date: Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 11:48 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Don Marsh)

All we really have to do is to ask the MoF and Kermit Weeks about it. Anybody got any contacts with either outfit? I've lost track of Kermit. I thought he was out of business because of damage done by Hurricane Andrew. I have no contact info for MoF. Can any other reader help us?

But if we do make contact, don't be too surprised if we don't get any good answers. These traders in aircraft relics sometimes like to keep their transactions quiet. I think part of the reason for this it that some of these aircraft wrecks taken from the Pacific battlefields were more-or-less filched while the little governments of the areas were powerless to prevent the losses.

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 12:47 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Jim Long)

An excellent suggestion. Myself, I have no contacts with these organizations other than closely following their public exploits over the last ten years or so in all the various aviation magazines.

I know what you're saying about the wheeling & dealing (and occassional lifting) of relics. However, in this case I think informatioon would be forthcoming. The Tony's of these two organizations have been covered in international aviation magazines with photos of the relics included.

As you wrote, perhaps one of our members has contacts with these people and can shed some light on this little know topic.

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Jim Long <jimilong@msn.com>
Date: Thursday, 4 July 2002, at 11:36 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Don Marsh)

You know, Don, the more I think about it, the more I think I might have remembered it wrongly. Wasn't there, or isn't there, an outfit called Yesterday's Airforce out in California, too? Perhaps that was the group that sold the Ki-61 relics to Kermit Weeks. I just can't remember. It would take some looking into my files, and so far I haven't devoted the time to doing that.

I had hoped we would hear from someone on the scene who could tell us if Kermit Weeks was still in business, or if MoF still had some Ki-61 pieces.

If I find anything in my files, I'll make another posting.

Yesterdays Air Force

Posted By: J.C. Bahr <JBahr@kii.com>
Date: Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 7:46 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Jim Long)

Jim, David Talichet (who owned/restored the B-26 that Kermit Weeks now operates) use to refer to his aircraft collection as "Yesterday's Air Force." He initially based a lot of his holdings here in Topeka, KS before moving most of it out to Chino, CA. The Museum here later became (and still is known as) the Combat Air Museum. At some point, Talichet's holdings became known as M.A.R.C. - Military Aircraft Restoration Corporation, or something of that nature. I believe there is another small group out there somewhere around Chino that uses the name "Yesterdays Air Force" still today, but I don't know much about them other than I do not believe they are affiliated with Mr. Tallichet. BTW - several years ago I believe Mr. Tallichet's M.A.R.C. went under and a lot of his holdings were sold (Thus Kermit Weeks bought his B-26 and his B-24 for certain). I think Mr. Tallichet still retains his B-17 (he flew B-17's during WW II) that starred in the movie "Memphis Belle," but that's about as much as I know.

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Thursday, 4 July 2002, at 3:41 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Jim Long)

Regarding "Yesterday's Airforce" ...That name sounds familiar, but I can't say that I know them for sure. I do remember Kermit putting the Ki-61 airframe on display shortly after acquiring it.

As far as I know, not only is Kermit still in business, but thriving. He's still restoring and flying WWII aircraft. He still appears in the aviation publications on a regular basis. In fact, he has the only flying B-26 Marauder. It was featured on the cover (and inside) of this past June's issue of "Flight Journal." His current web site states that the "Fantasy of Flight" museum has the largest collection of flying WWII a/c.

If you hear anything else on this matter, I'd love to hear about it.

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Jim Long <jimilong@msn.com>
Date: Friday, 5 July 2002, at 12:15 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Don Marsh)

You know, Don, the more I think about the Ki-61 and Kermit Weeks, etc. the more I begin to remember. I think now it was a man in New Guinea who sold the Ki-61 parts to Kermit Weeks. His name was Roy Worchester, I think. Anyway he is listed and the story is told on the link below.

Click on the lint below to go there. Notice that the tail of the PNG Ki-61 No. 640 is missing. That is because it was acquired by Kermit Weeks. The tail of No. 640 is on the Kermit Weeks fuselage. I know because Kermit gave me permission to examine the relics carefully. The serial number markings (640) in black stencil is on the tail in several places. But the fuselage is No. 379, as seen in photos in Darby's book "Pacific Aircraft Wrecks and Where to Find Them," pages 11 and 42. No. 640 is show on pages 3 and 68.

It is coming back to me.

Editors note: Link to http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/png_museum.html

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Friday, 5 July 2002, at 9:41 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Jim Long)

This sure is a detective's job, isn't it. Thank you for your additional information and insight. And thank you for the "pacificwrecks.com" link, which I checked out. They do have a small photo of Kermit's Ki-61 fuselage, as I'm sure you saw. But for anyone else interested, there is also a brief blurb stating: "This particular aircraft was recovered from the South Pacific in the mid-seventies and will eventually be restored to flying condition when time permits." BTW, the Museum of Flight has made the same claim. I know that both museums are serious about restoring and flying these old a/c. But I doubt that either of these Tony's will ever be operational in my lifetime.

One new bit of info that I did find at "pacificwrecks" was a s/n for that Ki-61 cockpit fuselage section that I mentioned earlier in this thread (s/n 292). Upon reading the blurb on this other Ki-61 relic it all started coming back to me. "292" was recovered and is in the posession of Classic Jet Fighter museum in Australia. The museum claims they intend to restore it. don't they mean recreate it? Essentially all they have are cockpit walls and a canopy frame!

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Mike Nicholls <nicholls@hyper.net.nz>
Date: Tuesday, 9 July 2002, at 2:58 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Jim Long)

Thanks for your help. I have a real appetite to get hold of a Tony for my next rebuild project and will keep searching until I find something of substance. I have seen the Ki 61 owned by Kermit on display at Tiamiami - it would make a wonderful basis for restoration. The rumour in the restoration circle is that Kermit has started to search for the missing parts for it and may shortly embark on a restoration. Sure would be nice to see flying...

Re: Ki 61 location

Posted By: Don Marsh <marsh44@fuse.net>
Date: Saturday, 6 July 2002, at 9:09 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki 61 location (Jim Long)

Thanks for sharing this great information. S/n 379 was all I had on Kermit's "Tony." It does appear that he was able to collect a large portion of 379. Interesting that the wheel covers for Kermit's Ki-61 are from s/n 292. That's the virtually nonexistant Ki-61 airframe (just a cockpit section) that Classic Jets has in Australia. From what I know of 292, that "Tony" had to make a wheels up landing. It was later salvaged, and disasembled with the intention of restoring it at a later date. Apparently forgotten, what was left of s/n 292 was found in a dump in Australia a few years ago. It would appear that the wheel covers were seperated from the rest of the airframe at some time during its history. I wonder if anyone else out there has more pieces of this mysterious bird?