08/06/2026
The names of Japanese aircraft, part 2
Since the previous quite popular post generated a number of comments, please allow me to share some of the most interesting, with further thoughts. Again, this is not a post that tries to exhaust the subject and I'm doing my best to keep these difficult and complicated things short and easy to understand.
First up a comment by Steve Nelson:
I was chatting with a native Japanese speaker at a model show about the Ki-61, and asked him how the name was pronounced. Most Americans pronounce it "Hine," but the correct pronunciation is actually "Hee-Enn." The J2M is also often called a "Ray-dun," when it's actuality pronounced "Rye-Denn." And then of course the American habit of referring to IJAAF aircraft as "Kay-Eye" (number) when it should be "Key" (number.) 🙂
Arawasi - All absolutely correct observations Steve. I think the problem arises from the habbit of US readers/speakers to bring the pronunciation of every word they see written in the Latin alphabet closer to the pronunciation they are familiar or comfortable with.
It happens in every language around the world including of course the Japanese, with its sound limitations. For example, since there are no "L" or "V" in Japanese when you hear them talk about a "Baru" this the best their language can help them pronounce the word "Val".
Famously the Japanese tourist who kept shouting to the taxi driver "BIBARI HIRUSU PURIIIZ!", was never driven to "Beverly Hills".
Same way, speakers/readers comfortable with the Latin or Italian pronunciation, understand that when Japanese write "e E" it's always a hard "eh" as in "s*x" (oops, did I do something naughty here?). The "a A" is always a hard "uh" as in "bath" or "class" or "action" or "apartment".
So, "Hayate" is pronounced exactly as it's written "Ha" as in "hat" "Ya" as in "Yahoo" and "Te" as in "terrible" or "temptation", not "heyyeiti" or whatever.
"Gunze" is not pronounced "ganzi" but "Gu" as in "Google" and "ze" as in "zed", "zepellin" or "zest" with an "n" between them.
"Ta" as in "tabloid" or "tandem", "mi" as in "military" and "milk" and "ya" (see above). So, that's how "Tamiya" is pronounced, not "taymyyey" or whatever.
And the most commonly mispronounced Japanese aviation word: “Ka” as in “Karen”, “mi” as in “middle” and “ze” (see above). Not “kamakazi”.
I know it's difficult especially for beginners or for those with limited interest but we would all appreciate it if you could at least make an effort to write it "Hien" not "Hein", a spelling not a pronunciation mistake.
Some years ago an author in our magazine insisted on writing the Japanese names in his article family name second (Ishoroku Yamamoto, Saburo Sakai) as is common in most Western cultures. The Japanese traditionally write their family name first (Yamamoto Ishoroku, Sakai Saburo) and as you probably have noticed we keep this tradition everywhere in Arawasi (blog, site, FB, publications). It's not a "class between cultures" or anything, it's just a sign of respect and a way to appreciate that just because something is written in the Latin (Not "English") alphabet, to become easier to communicate, doesn't mean there aren't different traditions around the world. Who was the US president who kept calling the North Korean dictator "Mr. Un"? (in "Kim Jong Un" "Kim" is the family name).
For a while some capitalized the family name and brought it forward (YAMAMOTO Ishoroku) but on the net it looks like shouting so, it's not very popular these days.
“ShinMaywa”, the decedents of Kawanishi, has opted to write its name in a way that makes it easily understood to “English” speakers. I will keep this part short.
In general, the Japanese have many different ways to Romanize ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization ) the Japanese language using the Latin alphabet. Only last month the Japanese Government “recommended” the Hepburn system ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepburn_romanization ).
But since various others are still taught at public schools and are in daily use, this reflects in the inconsistency the Japanese aircraft names (and more) are Romanized.
The most common problem has to do with the long vowels used in Japanese. Example, the name of the capital city of Japan, is not actually “Tokyo” guys, the two “o” are long. So it should be written as “Tōkyō” or “Toukyou” or Tohkyoh” but they all look weird and confusing, don’t they?
In this FB page we have chosen not to use any indication to show the long vowels, other FB pages do. In our publications we use the modified Hepburn system, except when there is a long vowel in the beginning of a name that needs to be written in capital. Again, it looks weird. That’s the main reason why “Ohka” is traditionally written like this, not “Oka” or “Ouka” or “Ōka”.
The other day, I read somewhere the following:
"Happy to report the re-released Sword 1/72 Ki-44 Shouki/Tojo has arrived today."
"Shouki" or Shoki" or "Shōki" or "Shohki"? For the Japanese guy who wrote the comment, "Shouki" is the more "natural". But then we would pronounce it "sookie" (like in the Steppenwolf song), not "Shoki" as in "shokin'" (without the "n" in the end).
This problem is also very common on kit boxes, where the same aircraft type is written in many different ways.
In that vein, people often ask us why we chose “Arawasi”, instead of “Arawashi”. It’s the way that Japanese word meaning “Wild Eagles” (the nickname of all Japanese pilots) is transliterated into LATIN (not English), a way to reflect the international nature of our endeavor, since friends from many different countries participate and help out.
In the previous post I wrote: ““Zero-sen Moderu Niju Ichi” (Model 21), yes, they understand.”
Someone somewhere (but certainly not on our FB page and article) commented:
“It’s a common mistake made on YouTube videos made by younger creators or AI . The model codes are read digit by digit. In this case, it’s Ni Ichi gata, in English the appropriate translation is model two one. The first digit represents the number of times modifications were made to the airframe and the second to the engine.”
Arawasi - Correct observation and I have absolutely no problem with that, except, if that practice is to be observed, then every Japanese publication, site (including Wiki), FB page and more should also change the way they write it. "2" is “two”. "1" is “one”. "21" is “twenty one”, not “two one”. Elementary school level. Either write it "2 1" with space between the two numbers, or find some other way, like "2-1".
Further on the separate number pronunciation, Japanese people, like many others, usually prefer to streamline their speech for quicker communication.
Even the Imperial year designations are pronounced separately “Kyu Nana Sen” (Nine Seven Fighter), not “Kyuju Nana Sen” (Ninety Seven Fighter). “Kyu Roku Kansen” (Nine Six Carrier Fighter).
They even did it with unit names/numbers. The famous 244 Sentai is commonly called “Ni Yon Yon Sentai” (Two Four Four Sentai) instead of “Nihyaku Yonju Yon Sentai” which is a mouthful.
The 302 Kokutai is commonly called “San Maru Futa” (Three Zero Two), instead of “Sanbyaku Ni” (Three Hundred Two).
But what about the 50 Sentai? Is it “Go Maru” (Five Zero) or “Goju” (Fifty). I have no idea.
Indra Krishnamurti also commented:
Thank you for the informative post. Interestingly, just after the war, Indonesia retained and used some of the left over mostly IJAAF aircraft, and called them nicknames, mostly based on the abbreviated Imperial Year system, and at least one by its Kitai number. I listed them below.
Indonesian Name Kitai Japanese Name
Guntei Ki-51 99 Shiki Gun Teisatsu-ki
Rokojunana Ki-67 Roku jū nana (67)
Suky Ki-48 Shiki-souhatu-keibaku ‘Sokei’
Sanshikisin Ki-61 Sanshikisentōki
Curen(g) K5Y Chūkanrenshūki
Cukiu Ki-36 98 Shiki Chokusetsu Kyohdoh Teisatsu-ki ‘Chokkyoh’
Nishikoren(g) Ki-79 Nisshiki Koto Renshuuki
There's a 'Nagashima', a reconnaissance aircraft that I have been unable to identify.
These are considered 'semi-official' names written in Indonesian AF history books, and thus many Indonesian aviation or history enthusiasts would be quite aware of these nicknames.
Thank you very much for your interesting contribution. I guess it also reflects how the Japanese crews called their planes. "Rokujunana" (Sixty Seven), not "Roku Nana" (Six Seven).
A Japanese commentator asked in exasperation:
なぜ
96式陸上攻撃機と書かないのでしょう。
"Why don't they write "Type 96 Land Attack Aircraft"?"
The answer is simple. Because no non-Japanese can remember which plane you're referring to when you say:
Type 96 carrier-based fighter, Type 96 land-based attack aircraft, Type 96 Carrier Attack Bomber or Type 94/96 Carrier Bomber.
It get’s worse. Can you picture, without looking it up, which plane we’re talking about when you see: Type 3, Type 90, Type 95 and Type 96 Carrier Fighter?
“Oh, I really like the Type 95 carrier fighter!” “Which one is that?” “The one before the Type 96”
And if we decide to use uniformly the “Type” designation, what are we going to call the planes like the “Reppu” that didn’t get one?
Another issue occasionally raised by annoyingly persistent Japanese speakers is the use of the wording "Imperial Japanese Army/Navy Air Force", shortened to IJAAF and IJNAF.
Yes, technically speaking these were not independent "Air Forces" as in other countries. There had been some proponents of this, the most vocal being General Yamash*ta, who envisioned a "Japanese Army Luftwaffe" but all efforts came to naught.
The rivalry between the Navy and the Army is infamous and thoroughly recorded. I don't think that adding one more rival to the mix would have helped much.
I can't remember the exact details of the story but I read somewhere that when some Army pilots went to the Mitsubishi factory to get replacement aircraft, they saw a huge curtain inside one of the hangars. When they asked what that was for, they were told that behind the curtain were Navy aircraft.
Maybe the course of the Pacific War would have been slightly different if the Army had for example adopted a land based version of the Zero instead of the "Hayabusa".
But I digress.
The correct literal designation would be "The Aviation Department of the Imperial Japanese Army/Navy" ("TADOTIJA/N"?!?!?!) but I don't think that a sentence like this "Two seaplanes from the Aviation Department of the Imperial Japanese Navy were catapulted from the cruiser..." would help any reader properly understand what the author is trying to say and after 5-6 appearances in a book, you get a feeling that it’s just used to fill up space.
The "Imperial Japanese Navy/Army" abbreviated to "IJN" and "IJA" is much better, but then issues arise when there is reference to IJA "Sentai" for example. Is it an infantry unit or an air unit?
Finally, personally, I have issues with the use of "Imperial Japanese Army Service" as used by Wiki and some Utubers. I have associated the word "service" with civilian aviation and airlines that provide service to the passengers. I watch "The Bear" these days and the chefs shout "service!" all the time.
Yes, I know the verb commonly used is "to serve" in the Army or Navy and in the US the "thank you for your service" is a common expression. But even in the US it's called "Air Force", not "Air Service". Would you change it to "Royal Air Service" instead of "RAF"?
I'm not sure who decided to change the IJAAF and IJNAF to IJAAS and IJNAS but hey, as I said, I'm not a member of the "Aviation Grammar Police". On the other hand, any calls for consistency immediately brand you a "gatekeeper", so, there is also that.
So, to recap.
Non-Japanese aviation enthusiasts are traditionally accustomed to call Japanese aircraft in a certain way, while the Japanese themselves call them differently. All ways are correct, it's just a matter of conveniency and consistency that leads to better comprehension and clarity.
For example, as mentioned in the previous post, if you start calling the plane "Type 97 Attack Bomber" then you should also stop using the wording "torpedo bomber" and the "97" should get a space between the two numbers (or maybe not?). All changes that would lead to further inconsistency and confusion.
In other words, some balance must be struck between authenticity and convenience. I think that those that fight for the former sometimes forget that the main goal is to communicate easily and not get stuck in technicalities. For readers, it’s really frustrating to constantly refer to the glossary or “aircraft list” in each paragraph because an author chose to be “authentic”… whatever that even means.
Again, thank you all guys for the feedback and the comments. Feel free to continue doing so and maybe we’ll have a part 3.
