PDA

View Full Version : The Ki-61s performance!



XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:08 PM
what role will this baby take, if it will be
flyable in FB,
will it be competetive? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://www.georgiacombat.com/KI61/Ki61-06.jpg



We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!


Message Edited on 10/20/0309:46PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:08 PM
what role will this baby take, if it will be
flyable in FB,
will it be competetive? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://www.georgiacombat.com/KI61/Ki61-06.jpg



We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!


Message Edited on 10/20/0309:46PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:14 PM
Fb109 vs Ki61 might be popular onwhine for a while anyway.

Competitive:: I think the biggest problems were manufacture and maintenence--two things you won't find onwhine or offwine in FB, and the Japanese Army finding TnB pilots willing to fight with it.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:15 PM
I beleive oleg said something about it being the axis version of the LAs



"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:19 PM
I don´t know how off the FM is in Aces High but in there it can handle on its own.I guess it´s all up to the pilot (won againt a spitfire V in it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_113_1066458192.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:21 PM
Ki-61 performance is comparable with that of Emil, slightly worse turn and climb, slightly better max speed. The only real advantage was the range, due to larger fuel tank.

Ki-100 equals Emil in turn and climb and still is a little bit faster than Emil. Not very impressive considering that Emil (E4) is a '40 plane and Ki-100 is a '45 plane.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:24 PM
LW_lcarp wrote:
- I beleive oleg said something about it being the
- axis version of the LAs


Noo, that the Ki-84.

- Pain'

http://members.chello.nl/s.ozmen/4hm.jpg



The guy who wins is the guy who makes the fewer gross mistakes.
Lieutenant Jim "Huck" Harris, USN
U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School Instructor

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:27 PM
Superluminal, who made that drawing in your sig? Was there such a project? It seems strange because it does not have any kind of air scoop.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:32 PM
It´s a Yak 9 gone through Gimp modification /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_113_1066458192.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:34 PM
Superluminal wrote:
- It´s a Yak 9 gone through Gimp modification /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Belly scoop seems gone too/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Did you do it?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/20/0312:35PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:56 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Ki-61 performance is comparable with that of Emil,
- slightly worse turn and climb, slightly better max
- speed. The only real advantage was the range, due to
- larger fuel tank.

The Ki-61-Ib was surely faster in climb than any 109E. Around 30seconds faster to 5000m, although the Ki-61-Ib was heavier by ca.200kg and had the same HP than the DB601A of the E-4.The Ki-61-II had the same performance in climb as the Emil. The Ki-61 had nearly the same vmax like the 109 F-2.
The Ki-61 had the better armament than even the Emil with it's poor MG/FF.

- Not very impressive
- considering that Emil (E4) is a '40 plane and Ki-100
- is a '45 plane.

Japanese trials showed an absolute superioriy of the Ki-61 to the Emil in mock combats. Also the Ki-100 was no 1945 design, it was in fact a Ki-61-II KAI with an alternative engine, nothing more.



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 07:18 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Ki-61 performance is comparable with that of Emil,
- slightly worse turn and climb, slightly better max
- speed. The only real advantage was the range, due to
- larger fuel tank.

Do you have sources for these statements? From what I found so far it appears that the Ki-61 was superior to the Emil in almost any respect: speed, climb, turn, durability, range, visibiltiy...

So this makes me wonder if I read crap only, so far.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 07:49 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Ki-61 performance is comparable with that of Emil,
-- slightly worse turn and climb, slightly better max
-- speed. The only real advantage was the range, due to
-- larger fuel tank.
-
- The Ki-61-Ib was surely faster in climb than any
- 109E. Around 30seconds faster to 5000m,

You certainly have time to climb at different settings for the 2 airplanes. They have the same engines, but japanese engineers never made the DB601 really working, also Ki-61 was much, much more heavier than Emil. This is why Emil climb, accelerated and turns better than Ki-61.


- The Ki-61 had the better armament than even the Emil
- with it's poor MG/FF.

It should have, considering that Ki-61 appeared in '43.



-- Not very impressive
-- considering that Emil (E4) is a '40 plane and Ki-100
-- is a '45 plane.
-
- Japanese trials showed an absolute superioriy of the
- Ki-61 to the Emil in mock combats.

What kind of absolute superiority those tests showed?? E4 has an initial climb rate of 3500fpm. All initial climb figures I saw for Ki-61I were below 3000fpm (somewhere at 2700fpm).


- Also the Ki-100
- was no 1945 design, it was in fact a Ki-61-II KAI
- with an alternative engine, nothing more.

Ki-100 appeared in 1945, don't avoid the facts you don't like Kimura.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/20/0301:50PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 09:50 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Ki-61 performance is comparable with that of Emil,
- slightly worse turn and climb, slightly better max
- speed. The only real advantage was the range, due to
- larger fuel tank.
-
- Ki-100 equals Emil in turn and climb and still is a
- little bit faster than Emil. Not very impressive
- considering that Emil (E4) is a '40 plane and Ki-100
- is a '45 plane.

I think you didn't read history books well. Why not you hit books now to read about late Japanese planes before you got foot in mouth again. There are lot of mis-idea about Japanese planes. Frequest heard quota of Ki-100 is: "The Ki-100 was simple to fly and maintain. Even the most inexperienced pilots were able to get the hang of the Ki-100 relatively quickly. The Ha-112 engine proved to be quite reliable and simple to maintain. In combat, the Ki-100-Ia proved to be an excellent fighter, especially at low altitudes. It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves. When the Ki-100 encountered the P-51D Mustang at low or medium altitudes over Japan, it was able to meet the American fighter on more or less equal terms. The outcome of P- 51D vs Ki-100 battles was usually determined by piloting skill or by numerical advantage rather than by the relative merits of the two fighter types."

Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 09:55 PM
WereSnowleopard wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Ki-61 performance is comparable with that of Emil,
-- slightly worse turn and climb, slightly better max
-- speed. The only real advantage was the range, due to
-- larger fuel tank.
--
-- Ki-100 equals Emil in turn and climb and still is a
-- little bit faster than Emil. Not very impressive
-- considering that Emil (E4) is a '40 plane and Ki-100
-- is a '45 plane.
-
-
- I think you didn't read history books well. Why
- not you hit books now to read about late Japanese
- planes before you got foot in mouth again. There are
- lot of mis-idea about Japanese planes.


Very good. Now tell me what was wrong from what I said. I think you should go back and read those books.




- Frequest heard quota of Ki-100 is: "The Ki-100 was simple to
- fly and maintain. Even the most inexperienced pilots
- were able to get the hang of the Ki-100 relatively
- quickly. The Ha-112 engine proved to be quite
- reliable and simple to maintain. In combat, the
- Ki-100-Ia proved to be an excellent fighter,
- especially at low altitudes. It possessed a definite
- ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one
- encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit
- destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to
- themselves. When the Ki-100 encountered the P-51D
- Mustang at low or medium altitudes over Japan, it
- was able to meet the American fighter on more or
- less equal terms. The outcome of P- 51D vs Ki-100
- battles was usually determined by piloting skill or
- by numerical advantage rather than by the relative
- merits of the two fighter types."


I do not dispute any of those facts, except the P-51D part. P-51D was better than Ki-100 in any respect, except turn ability. But american fighter pilots learned rapidly not to turn with japanese fighters (even though Ki-100 was not a particulary good turn fighter).



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/20/0304:05PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:01 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
- It should have, considering that Ki-61 appeared in
- '43.
-

The Ki.61 first flew in Dec. '41. Production for the Ki.61 began in Aug.'42.

-
-
- Ki-100 appeared in 1945, don't avoid the facts you
- don't like Kimura.
-
-

The Ki.100 flew in Feb.'44.


Armament of 2 12.7mm and 2 20mm is sure better than the 109's until the G-6 and even then was better until the 30mm was installed.

Vision for the pilot was better than the 109's.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:08 PM
Well. You do seem to get a lot of flak from your posts don't you Huck?

Off-topic: Just thought I'd take the opportunity to say that, IMO you are one of very few people who endeavour to get the facts right, remain objective and stay mature. Methinks you're an asset to this forum..

Hats off to you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.su27flanker.flyer.co.uk/spitire.jpg


~ Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IX LF

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:14 PM
Interesting quotation, without source and last paragraph left off (see italics far below).


WereSnowleopard::
"The Ki-100 was simple to fly and maintain. Even the most inexperienced pilots were able to get the hang of the Ki-100 relatively quickly. The Ha-112 engine proved to be quite reliable and simple to maintain. In combat, the Ki-100-Ia proved to be an excellent fighter, especially at low altitudes. It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves. When the Ki-100 encountered the P-51D Mustang at low or medium altitudes over Japan, it was able to meet the American fighter on more or less equal terms. The outcome of P- 51D vs Ki-100 battles was usually determined by piloting skill or by numerical advantage rather than by the relative merits of the two fighter types."



http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html#RTFToC1
The Ki-100 was simple to fly and maintain. Even the most inexperienced pilots were able to get the hang of the Ki-100 relatively quickly. The Ha-112 engine proved to be quite reliable and simple to maintain. In combat, the Ki-100-Ia proved to be an excellent fighter, especially at low altitudes. It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves. When the Ki-100 encountered the P-51D Mustang at low or medium altitudes over Japan, it was able to meet the American fighter on more or less equal terms. The outcome of P- 51D vs Ki-100 battles was usually determined by piloting skill or by numerical advantage rather than by the relative merits of the two fighter types. However, at altitudes above 26,000 feet, the maneuverability of the Ki-100 began to fall off rather severely and the fighter was at a relative disadvantage in intercepting the high-flying B-29.


Not that there is anything wrong with this, I mean sounds like a Yak. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif But the dropping of one sentence from a larger paragraph is making Huckie look really good right about now.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:16 PM
Tipical answer comming from Milo: filled with mistakes.


MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
--
-- It should have, considering that Ki-61 appeared in
-- '43.
--
-
- The Ki.61 first flew in Dec. '41. Production for the
- Ki.61 began in Aug.'42.


First delivery to a combat squadron was made in February 1943. This is what matters, factory pilots did not do combat missions.


-- Ki-100 appeared in 1945, don't avoid the facts you
-- don't like Kimura.
--
--
-
- The Ki.100 flew in Feb.'44.

Read again, it was Feb '45, after the destruction of Kawasaki Akashi engine plant in Jan '45.


- Armament of 2 12.7mm and 2 20mm is sure better than
- the 109's until the G-6 and even then was better
- until the 30mm was installed.

30mm cannon was available for G6 in '43.


- Vision for the pilot was better than the 109's.

This is bullsh*t. Erla canopy ensured better visibility than any other canopy except those with armored glass behind the pilot. And those were just a few, beside the russian ones.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:24 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Ki-100 appeared in 1945, don't avoid the facts you
- don't like Kimura.

..... The Ki-100 was no "1945" design, as you well know. The Ki-100 was simply a late war stop-gap adaptation of a radial engine to the original Ki-61 airframe - just like the attempt to fit the BMW-801 to a 109 airframe, except that the Japanese were apparently successful in their effort. Maybe the a/c appeared in 1945, but the aircraft DESIGN was 1942/1943. Kimura is correct and you are playing lawyer games.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:28 PM
nixon-fiend wrote:
- Well. You do seem to get a lot of flak from your
- posts don't you Huck?
-
- Off-topic: Just thought I'd take the opportunity to
- say that, IMO you are one of very few people who
- endeavour to get the facts right, remain objective
- and stay mature. Methinks you're an asset to this
- forum..
-
- Hats off to you.
-


With all due respect, I guess you haven't been around here very long.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:34 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Ki-100 appeared in 1945, don't avoid the facts you
-- don't like Kimura.
-
- ..... The Ki-100 was no "1945" design, as you well
- know. The Ki-100 was simply a late war stop-gap
- adaptation of a radial engine to the original Ki-61
- airframe - just like the attempt to fit the BMW-801
- to a 109 airframe, except that the Japanese were
- apparently successful in their effort. Maybe the a/c
- appeared in 1945, but the aircraft DESIGN was
- 1942/1943. Kimura is correct and you are playing
- lawyer games.


I never said Ki-100 was a 1945 design, I said it was a 1945 plane. It entered in production in 1945. It is a fact strong enough for you? Or are prefering "what-if"s? He-100, which had a clear influence on Ki-61 design, was a prewar design, capable of 670km/h and possibly over 700km/h with GM-1 (which was adopted on DB601).

IMO they should have at least equal the performance of the plane they started the design process: He-100.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:35 PM
Huck: with all respect, you sound a slite agressive
in your posts,please cant you tone it down a bit,
your upsetting people,I dont want this to go into
a whine thread, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



the Ki-100 was considered as one of Japans best fighters,
if not even the best by some.



We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:43 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- With all due respect, I guess you haven't been
- around here very long.
-

Meh. The guy seems fair to me, he just gets jumped everytime he has something to say..


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.su27flanker.flyer.co.uk/spitire.jpg


~ Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IX LF

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:43 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- What kind of absolute superiority those tests
- showed?? E4 has an initial climb rate of 3500fpm.
- All initial climb figures I saw for Ki-61I were
- below 3000fpm (somewhere at 2700fpm).

It's difficult to say under what condition Japanese climb times are given. Were they made undert the equivalent to normal, military or combat power? Hard to say.



BTW, the fly-offs took place at Kagamigahara in 1942. The Ki-61 was flown against the Ki-43-II, P-40E and Me-109E/2. The Ki-61 was reported to have "better performance" than all these aircraft. It was also compared to the LaGG-3, an example of which was obtained when a Soviet defector flew it into Manchuria. The Ki-61 was deemed better than than that aircraft as well.

But in 1942 the aircraft against which the Ki-61 was judged were obsolete. By the time the Ki-61 was deployed to the Solomans in April 1943, the Corsairs were trickling in, and P-38s had been available for some time.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Message Edited on 10/21/0301:56AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:45 PM
Too late! as soon a he shows up it goes down hill.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid84/pcf14831e07273a1e01a33fb0e5650ffa/face10c7.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:17 PM
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
- also Ki-61 was much, much more heavier than Emil.

About 200 kg isn't "much, much more" considering both aircraft were well over 2 tons (empty).

- This is why Emil climb

In fact, just like Kimura pointed out, the Hien did outclimb any Emil. It got to 16400 feet within 5:31 minutes, now that makes me wonder how 2700 fps will work. (Average is 3000 already.)

- accelerated and turns better than Ki-61.

Acceleration certainly depends on the situation, I bet the Kawasaki is better above 550 kph where the Bf never went. Also, I bet it's better in a dive.
The Kawasaki has a larger wing area (20 m^2 compared to only 16,4.) The higher weight is more than compesated this way. You'll have to go trough some aerodynamics to find the better turner, but as far as wing loading is concerned, the Kawasaki wins.

- P-51D was better than Ki-100 in any respect, except turn ability.

Why? Because it was American? Or was it because it won the war? Don't mistake the Ki-100 for another Zero. It had way better high speed handling. The only true advantage for the P-51 is it's speed, just like turning is for the Ki-100.
- 30mm cannon was available for G6 in '43.

How many were there in 1943? And how many were there in March? I wonder why so many Germans used the MG 151/20 in their Bf 109 right until the end if there were MK 108's everywhere...

- This is bullsh*t. Erla canopy ensured better visibility than any other canopy except those with armored glass behind the pilot.

Even if you don't like it, I think I'll agree with Milo. Earla canopy wasn't used with all BF 109's anyway, I wonder why people always bring in those later-in-the-war developments, which naturally were better. Compare to an early G-6, if you like.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:40 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- I never said Ki-100 was a 1945 design, I said it was
- a 1945 plane. It entered in production in 1945. It
- is a fact strong enough for you?


..... Then, for my edification, please explain what exactly you are lecturing Kimura about?



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:41 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- You certainly have time to climb at different
- settings for the 2 airplanes. They have the same
- engines, but japanese engineers never made the DB601
- really working, also Ki-61 was much, much more
- heavier than Emil. This is why Emil climb,
- accelerated and turns better than Ki-61.

If the climbing time of a Emil to 5000m is faster than 5mins 31 secs then the Emil climbs faster.
-
-
-- The Ki-61 had the better armament than even the Emil
-- with it's poor MG/FF.

- It should have, considering that Ki-61 appeared in
- '43.

Sorry Huck, but the age of appear is no quaranty for better armament. Even later appearing Japanese or US designs had bader armament. Remind the difference of Ho-5 (MG151/20) to the Type 99 and MG/FF.
-

- What kind of absolute superiority those tests
- showed?? E4 has an initial climb rate of 3500fpm.
- All initial climb figures I saw for Ki-61I were
- below 3000fpm (somewhere at 2700fpm).

I wasn't among the visitors who saw these trials. But at hand of the results of those mock fights the 1st serie of Ki-61 was ordered by the Army AF.



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/



Message Edited on 10/20/0311:45PM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:42 PM
nixon-fiend wrote:
- BLUTARSKI wrote:
-- With all due respect, I guess you haven't been
-- around here very long.
--
-
- Meh. The guy seems fair to me, he just gets jumped
- everytime he has something to say..


Wait and see. It will come around as inevitably as a scheduled bus.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 12:27 AM
So much angst over the performance of a couple of planes. What I'm starting to see is a role reversal, like some people here have been liberated from the woes of American propaganda only to try and ignore the facts that American aircraft in WWII were quite good as well.

I agree that stating that single plane won the war (although people try to pin alot of single things on winning the war - as it stands, everything from the P-51 to the B-17 to the Sherman tank won the war nearly singlehandedly) is absoutely rediculous. People fought, won, and lost in the war.

I agree with attempting to establish a less biased historical perspective. This game and its forums have gone a long way into establishing a more fact based perspective of WWII and the various performances of planes...but it seems to have gone the other way.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 01:39 AM
JtD wrote:

- Why? Because it was American? Or was it because it
- won the war? Don't mistake the Ki-100 for another
- Zero. It had way better high speed handling. The
- only true advantage for the P-51 is it's speed, just
- like turning is for the Ki-100.

Because it was American? Don't use that argument with Huck. It may apply to some people, NEVER to Huck.

As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Huck with regards to Japanese planes.

Later Japanese planes such as the Ki-84 and Ki-100, as well as the N1K2J, were MUCH better than previous planes(Zeke, Oscar, etc). But IMO, the Japanese NEVER put a fighter into production that was as good as the Mustang or Corsair. In fact, I think their best planes approached the Hellcat in terms of performance.

The Japanese did not produce a true 400mph prop fighter during the whole war (yes I know, the Ki-84 did 427 mph after being refurbished and fueled with US fuel). In terms of manueverability and speed, the Hellcat, Ki-84, Ki-100 and N1K2J were probably pretty comparable. But even given the similarities in speed and performance, the Hellcat still held major andvantages especially in ruggedness and high altitude performance.

Don't get me wrong, I love Japanese planes. I find them infinitely more fascinating that the bland German types. But the Japanese were disadvantaged because they simply would not let completely go of that "manueverability at all costs" mentality. When the allies placed a premium on speed and high altitude performance, the Japanese were producing planes mediocre in this regard, but that could fly rings around other planes in slow speed dogfights.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Message Edited on 10/21/0304:48AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:47 AM
to all that posted info inthis thread ...... TY

was informative

some web pages can be biased & when you get 3 or 4 people who have done a lot of research together you get cross referencing that greatly adds to the background info

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:06 AM
Lets not forget the P-38. The scourge of the Pacific. The Jap pilots hated it because "it was not fair". That's a quite by a Japanese ace when asked about the P-38 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

SkyChimp wrote:


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:11 AM
S!

Greetings,

I flew the Ki-61 (Tony) almost exclusivly in the online (pay to play) Sim Warbirds 2 and later WB3. Prior to IL2's comming out Warbirds IMHO had the most realistic flight engine I had encountered.

The Ki-61 was in design retro-engineered from the bf-109 it even had a engine built under liscence or somthing like that from the original german engine. One of the few inline engines the japs made.

In my experiance the Ki-61 maintianed much of the 109's climb chararistics, and also had a respectible turn rate like most jap fighters did. This made it a nimble bird that could climb. it was small like the 109, and didnt take huge amounts of damage. It's primary weakness was light arnament in most of the earlier models, so you had to get in close to score a kill. Visibility was good also.

it the AC is introduced to FB I know I will be very interested to see how it performs. During the war it suffered maintenance issues which were primarily it's downfall, of course this isnt an issue online /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

S!

Cheers





WTE Tigger

http://www.users.bigpond.com/lsf_anvil/images/Tigs75.gif




WTE Tigger

http://www.users.bigpond.com/lsf_anvil/images/Tigs75.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 10:09 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Because it was American? Don't use that argument
- with Huck. It may apply to some people, NEVER to
- Huck.

I was only teasing him a little.

- As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Huck
- with regards to Japanese planes.
-
- Later Japanese planes such as the Ki-84 and Ki-100,
- as well as the N1K2J, were MUCH better than previous
- planes(Zeke, Oscar, etc). But IMO, the Japanese
- NEVER put a fighter into production that was as good
- as the Mustang or Corsair. In fact, I think their
- best planes approached the Hellcat in terms of
- performance.

I don't think I can agree 100%. I think the planes performed a little inferior, but this wasn't necessarily the planes fault. (Look at Ki-84 performance in American tests.) However, during the war it didn't matter if it's design or fuel quality. So the Japanese were left with a disadvantage. Huckebein_FW however said, that the only advantage the Ki-100 had was turning. From my impression it also was the better climber. Furthermore I consider it's armarment superior nad it probably had better acceleration at low speeds.

- The Japanese did not produce a true 400mph prop
- fighter during the whole war (yes I know, the Ki-84
- did 427 mph after being refurbished and fueled with
- US fuel). In terms of manueverability and speed,
- the Hellcat, Ki-84, Ki-100 and N1K2J were probably
- pretty comparable. But even given the similarities
- in speed and performance, the Hellcat still held
- major andvantages especially in ruggedness and high
- altitude performance.

I don't think the Hellcat was quite es good as the Ki-84, might be on equal terms with the other two, though. In a one vs. one I'd prefer the Japanese plane, just like I'd prefer a Russian over a German.

Do you happen to have test data regarding climb, roll, turn etc.?

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:16 PM
SkyChimp wrote:

- As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Huck
- with regards to Japanese planes.
-
- Later Japanese planes such as the Ki-84 and Ki-100,
- as well as the N1K2J, were MUCH better than previous
- planes(Zeke, Oscar, etc). But IMO, the Japanese
- NEVER put a fighter into production that was as good
- as the Mustang or Corsair. In fact, I think their
- best planes approached the Hellcat in terms of
- performance.

Hmm, that depends of point of view. It would be interesting to find out how storng
-
- The Japanese did not produce a true 400mph prop
- fighter during the whole war (yes I know, the Ki-84
- did 427 mph after being refurbished and fueled with
- US fuel).

That depends on the source which are available Sky. Fill the tanks of any Pony or Corsair with Japanese poor standard fuel, changing the spark plugs to Jap.standard and none of your +400mpg US a/c will reach that mark - none./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
So your statement seems not fair.


- In terms of manueverability and speed,
- the Hellcat, Ki-84, Ki-100 and N1K2J were probably
- pretty comparable. But even given the similarities
- in speed and performance, the Hellcat still held
- major andvantages especially in ruggedness and high
- altitude performance.

See point above.


- Don't get me wrong, I love Japanese planes. I find
- them infinitely more fascinating that the bland
- German types.

LOL me too./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But the Japanese were disadvantaged
- because they simply would not let completely go of
- that "manueverability at all costs" mentality. When
- the allies placed a premium on speed and high
- altitude performance, the Japanese were producing
- planes mediocre in this regard, but that could fly
- rings around other planes in slow speed dogfights.

Hmm,I say Ki-44. The 1st Japanese a/c of 2nd Generation. The mentality changed completely from then on. In regard of speed a sure advantage, but with wider turning radius, compareable to Allied a/c. Outclassed the P-40 in any way.
The Ki-61 was the one and only exception on that "new" phylosophie. To all other 3rd generation Japanese designs the topspeed and armor protection counted more than tight turning circles.






"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:29 PM
JtD wrote:
-- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- also Ki-61 was much, much more heavier than Emil.
-
- About 200 kg isn't "much, much more" considering
- both aircraft were well over 2 tons (empty).


You are talking about the first model of Ki-61I that had a relatively small production number. Until the entering in production of Ki-61I-KAI in 1944, production was slow.

If Ki-61I had a difference in weight with Emil of 300kg at loaded weight, Ki-61I-KAI, the modified version for better range and better structural strength, was much heavier: 800kg! This is reflected in time to climb: 5.30min to 5000m, 7min to 5000m for the second variant. Keep in mind that the second variant was the Ki-61 type that saw the largest production numbers.



-- This is why Emil climb
-
- In fact, just like Kimura pointed out, the Hien did
- outclimb any Emil. It got to 16400 feet within 5:31
- minutes, now that makes me wonder how 2700 fps will
- work. (Average is 3000 already.)

Kimura unfortunately does not know the climb time to 5000m for Emil, but already has an opinion. Emil climbed to 5000m in less than 5min. It's hard to tell exactly how much less than 5min, because I'm reading a climb chart (the original Emil climb chart), but it is certainly less than 5min.

You saw that average for Ki-61I climb to 5000m was 3000fpm already, that's because DB601 kept the climb performance constant up to 4000m for both Emil and Ki-61.



-- accelerated and turns better than Ki-61.
-
- Acceleration certainly depends on the situation, I
- bet the Kawasaki is better above 550 kph where the
- Bf never went.

What does that mean? 550kmh? for what model? Even Emil with GM1 was much faster than that.



- Also, I bet it's better in a dive.

If you bet you'll lose your money. Dive limit for Emil was 750kmh IAS. That's very high for an early plane. Also Ki-61I was found unsatisfactory in dive, therefore was streghtened structuraly in the second variant.


- The Kawasaki has a larger wing area (20 m^2 compared
- to only 16,4.) The higher weight is more than
- compesated this way. You'll have to go trough some
- aerodynamics to find the better turner, but as far
- as wing loading is concerned, the Kawasaki wins.

Ki-61I had 10% better wing loading, but also 10% worse power loading than Emil. Since in sustained turn rate both factors enter in the same proportion, it means that both had close turn rate characteristics. But between Ki-61I-KAI and Emil there was no contest.



-- P-51D was better than Ki-100 in any respect, except turn ability.
-
- Why? Because it was American? Or was it because it
- won the war?

Yes, that's right. It was american therefore it must be better. Ask Skychimp, he's willing to give you all the details. But don't forget that it was also flown by the brits, another plus in it's resume according to Rockedog.


- It had way better high speed handling. The
- only true advantage for the P-51 is it's speed, just
- like turning is for the Ki-100.

Possibly, but you'll need facts to convince me of this.



-- 30mm cannon was available for G6 in '43.
-
- How many were there in 1943? And how many were there
- in March? I wonder why so many Germans used the MG
- 151/20 in their Bf 109 right until the end if there
- were MK 108's everywhere...


Mk108 replaced MG151/20 in '44 in almost all Bf-109. Mk108 saw widespread use because it was very appreciated by the pilots.



-- This is bullsh*t. Erla canopy ensured better visibility than any other canopy except those with armored glass behind the pilot.
-
- Even if you don't like it, I think I'll agree with
- Milo. Earla canopy wasn't used with all BF 109's
- anyway, I wonder why people always bring in those
- later-in-the-war developments, which naturally were
- better. Compare to an early G-6, if you like.


This is unbelievable. You are trying to take into consideration only an early type of Ki-61, without mentioning that production for that particular model barely reached 1000 planes, when Bf-109 fitted with Mk108 and Erla canopy were over 10,000. But sure let's try to make the comparison fair and bring early G6, an '42 fighter.

jtd next time get your facts right, if you want an answer.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:40 PM
Funny, how everytime when Huck writes something, and he instantly gets a hole lot of crap from Yank-whiners/VVS-whiners.. I consider Huck as the leader and example for all of us, the very few Luftwhiners.. keep it up, Huck, dont let the Yankwhiners to make you sad ..
This forum would be so empty without you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:46 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- You certainly have time to climb at different
-- settings for the 2 airplanes. They have the same
-- engines, but japanese engineers never made the DB601
-- really working, also Ki-61 was much, much more
-- heavier than Emil. This is why Emil climb,
-- accelerated and turns better than Ki-61.
-
- If the climbing time of a Emil to 5000m is faster
- than 5mins 31 secs then the Emil climbs faster.

Yes it was below 5min.


--- The Ki-61 had the better armament than even the Emil
--- with it's poor MG/FF.
-
-- It should have, considering that Ki-61 appeared in
-- '43.
-
- Sorry Huck, but the age of appear is no quaranty for
- better armament.

Unfortunately yes. And this is also valid for fighters. Even if Ki-61I-KAI from '44 was much poorer in performance than Ki-61I (only dive was better due to various streghtenings). Ki-61I-KAI was a mediocre performer compared even with early war fighters, not with '44 planes.



-- What kind of absolute superiority those tests
-- showed?? E4 has an initial climb rate of 3500fpm.
-- All initial climb figures I saw for Ki-61I were
-- below 3000fpm (somewhere at 2700fpm).
-
- I wasn't among the visitors who saw these trials.
- But at hand of the results of those mock fights the
- 1st serie of Ki-61 was ordered by the Army AF.

It was compared with obsolete fighters. This seems satisfactory for JAAF though.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:03 PM
Vipez- wrote:
- Funny, how everytime when Huck writes something, and
- he instantly gets a hole lot of crap from
- Yank-whiners/VVS-whiners..


When you crap, you sit on a seat with a hole in it./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That hole gets to see alot of crap.

------------

Huckie to use your excuse from another thread, that is what the source said, Aug '44. Considering the other dates listed are correct there was no reason to question the Aug '44 date.





http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:03 PM
SkyChimp wrote:

- Later Japanese planes such as the Ki-84 and Ki-100,
- as well as the N1K2J, were MUCH better than previous
- planes(Zeke, Oscar, etc). But IMO, the Japanese
- NEVER put a fighter into production that was as good
- as the Mustang or Corsair. In fact, I think their
- best planes approached the Hellcat in terms of
- performance.
-
- The Japanese did not produce a true 400mph prop
- fighter during the whole war (yes I know, the Ki-84
- did 427 mph after being refurbished and fueled with
- US fuel). In terms of manueverability and speed,
- the Hellcat, Ki-84, Ki-100 and N1K2J were probably
- pretty comparable. But even given the similarities
- in speed and performance, the Hellcat still held
- major andvantages especially in ruggedness and high
- altitude performance.
-
- Don't get me wrong, I love Japanese planes. I find
- them infinitely more fascinating that the bland
- German types. But the Japanese were disadvantaged
- because they simply would not let completely go of
- that "manueverability at all costs" mentality. When
- the allies placed a premium on speed and high
- altitude performance, the Japanese were producing
- planes mediocre in this regard, but that could fly
- rings around other planes in slow speed dogfights.


This is also my opinion. Low wing loading does not bring anything else than tighter turn radius and higher stall speed, and maybe more docile stall characteristics. But it also brings much lower max speed, and less acceleration and climb due to poorer excess thrust. The american planes which had only a max speed and dive advantages were able to sweep the japanese fighters just because the tactics americans had used kept their pilots out of danger. Turning in slow and tight circles is a deadly mistake not a valid tactic in the late war years. And this was the only thing that most japanese fighters were capable of. Keep in mind that Zero was kept in service until the end of war.


They should have cut the wing of their early fighters, and with add more power, like they did with Ki-44. Ki-44 though, was not popular. I don't know if this happened just because japanese pilots did not like the handling of the high wing loading, high torque fighters, or Ki-44 had poor handling indeed.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:22 PM
- Mk108 replaced MG151/20 in '44 in almost all Bf-109.
- Mk108 saw widespread use because it was very
- appreciated by the pilots.


The MK108 was appreciated by the pilots flying RVT, 'cause it could kill a Fortress or Libertator with three or four hits. Most 109s at the eastern front never got the MK, with exception of the Kurfürst models.
Hartmann and Barkhorn (who flew the Dora during the last days of the war) had 20mm's in their G-14s at the end of the conflict.

Mk108 was barely spread at the eastern front but relatively widespread at the western front /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.virtual-jabog32.de)

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:59 PM
JtD wrote:

- I don't think I can agree 100%. I think the planes
- performed a little inferior, but this wasn't
- necessarily the planes fault. (Look at Ki-84
- performance in American tests.) However, during the
- war it didn't matter if it's design or fuel quality.
- So the Japanese were left with a disadvantage.
- Huckebein_FW however said, that the only advantage
- the Ki-100 had was turning. From my impression it
- also was the better climber.


Ki-100I was slightly better in climb only than Ki-61I-KAI only up medium altitudes. At high altitude any Ki-61 was better than Ki-100. Ki-100 was worse than Ki-61I in climb at any altitude.



- I don't think the Hellcat was quite es good as the
- Ki-84, might be on equal terms with the other two,
- though. In a one vs. one I'd prefer the Japanese
- plane, just like I'd prefer a Russian over a German.


What we have now in FB has almost no resemblance with reality. Except for a 1 sec less per 360 deg turn at sea level, which BTW is simply too small to be an useful advantage, and max speed of La7, Bf-109 was better than any russian planes from the beginning to the end of war, in any performance characteristic.


-
- Do you happen to have test data regarding climb,
- roll, turn etc.?

You don't know them but you have a strong opinion. Nice.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:06 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- You are talking about the first model of Ki-61I that
- had a relatively small production number.

Yes, I am. I am talking about the Ki-61 that went into service in March 1943.

I sure know that the later Ki-61's were heavier, I don't know climbing times. 7 minutes seems to be a bit high.

- Kimura unfortunately does not know the climb time to
- 5000m for Emil, but already has an opinion. Emil
- climbed to 5000m in less than 5min.

When did it do so? I know it went to 3000 in 3:06 min and to 6000 in 7:06 min. If it went to 5000 in less than 5 mins, it should have a considerably boost somewhere above 3000, which I find highly dubious.

- It's hard to
- tell exactly how much less than 5min, because I'm
- reading a climb chart (the original Emil climb
- chart), but it is certainly less than 5min.

What does this climb chart say about 3000 and 6000 meters?

- What does that mean? 550kmh? for what model? Even
- Emil with GM1 was much faster than that.

550 km per hour. A very odinary 109E featuring a DB 601A without any of those fancy boost systems had a top speed of 560 km/h. This is true for any Bf 109 from E-1 t E-4 I guess. There was hardly any increase when switching to the 1200hp variant with later versions. The Ki-61 however, achieved 590 km/h with a 1175PS variant.

- If you bet you'll lose your money. Dive limit for
- Emil was 750kmh IAS. That's very high for an early
- plane. Also Ki-61I was found unsatisfactory in dive,
- therefore was streghtened structuraly in the second
- variant.

I'm not talking about div limits, but about acceleration in a dive.

- Ki-61I had 10% better wing loading, but also 10%
- worse power loading than Emil. Since in sustained
- turn rate both factors enter in the same proportion,
- it means that both had close turn rate
- characteristics. But between Ki-61I-KAI and Emil
- there was no contest.

Okay. Keep in mind I still am talking about early Ki-61. Even if I wasn't, your statement: Emil could outturn Ki-61 is much to general to be true.

- Mk108 replaced MG151/20 in '44 in almost all Bf-109.
- Mk108 saw widespread use because it was very
- appreciated by the pilots.

1st: I don't think so. Almost all is a bit to much.
2nd: 1944 is not 1943.

- This is unbelievable. You are trying to take into
- consideration only an early type of Ki-61, without
- mentioning that production for that particular model
- barely reached 1000 planes, when Bf-109 fitted with
- Mk108 and Erla canopy were over 10,000. But sure
- let's try to make the comparison fair and bring
- early G6, an '42 fighter.

What do total numbers say? Erla canopy wasn't standard with Bf-109 until at least the second half of 1943. So I think a coparism between Ki-61, as in March 1943 with Bf 109, as in March 1943 isn't totally wrong.
(Relax. I'm not trying to prove anything here.)

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:19 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Ki-100I was slightly better in climb only than
- Ki-61I-KAI only up medium altitudes. At high
- altitude any Ki-61 was better than Ki-100. Ki-100
- was worse than Ki-61I in climb at any altitude.

I was (and you were) comparing to a P-51D.

- What we have now in FB has almost no resemblance
- with reality.

I disagree.

- Except for a 1 sec less per 360 deg
- turn at sea level, which BTW is simply too small to
- be an useful advantage, and max speed of La7, Bf-109
- was better than any russian planes from the
- beginning to the end of war, in any performance
- characteristic.

Sure. Their range for example was always better than the range of any Russian fighter. And when the MiG-3 left the Emil far behind in high alt combats, it was only an illusion. Just like the I-153 coudln't really outturn a 109, because if 1 second doesn't matter 8 won't do either...

Please don't make statements like the one above.

I'd prefer Russian over German. If you prefer German over Russian, fine. To each it's own.

- You don't know them but you have a strong opinion.
- Nice.

No, I happen to read books more frequently than raw data and charts. Even though they are second hand at best, they often seem to point in the right direction.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:22 PM
That climb to 5000m seems lil to much. After my sources the Ki-61-I KAIa climbed to 5000m in excact 6:00 minutes.

BTW the KAI variants were produced in minor numbers. The standard Ia/Ib was produced from Aug.42 to July 44(parallel) with 1350 examples. From all KAI-variants 1274 were produced, from Jan.44 to Jan.45.



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:24 PM
KIMURA wrote:
--
-- The Japanese did not produce a true 400mph prop
-- fighter during the whole war (yes I know, the Ki-84
-- did 427 mph after being refurbished and fueled with
-- US fuel).
-
- That depends on the source which are available Sky.
- Fill the tanks of any Pony or Corsair with Japanese
- poor standard fuel, changing the spark plugs to
- Jap.standard and none of your +400mpg US a/c will
- reach that mark - none.
- So your statement seems not fair.

His statement is very fair. That Hayate had a modified engine for 115/145 grade fuel. How many american aircrafts used such fuel in 1944 when Hayate reached the front. None. That fuel brought 500hp more, for me 427mph is still very much disappointing.



- Hmm,I say Ki-44. The 1st Japanese a/c of 2nd
- Generation. The mentality changed completely from
- then on. In regard of speed a sure advantage, but
- with wider turning radius, compareable to Allied
- a/c. Outclassed the P-40 in any way.
- The Ki-61 was the one and only exception on that
- "new" phylosophie. To all other 3rd generation
- Japanese designs the topspeed and armor protection
- counted more than tight turning circles


Unfortunatelly Ki-44 was not received well, so Ki-84 returned to the old low wing loading solutions. That those late war japanese planes were still designed for low speed maneuvering can be easily seen in the dimension of the ailerons. Ailerons span is almost half the semispan of the wing even for Ki-84. That's awful big, it means that at high speeds those ailerons are locked.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:39 PM
Quotes - Ki61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the two P-38s chasing me had an incredible climbing power. They stood on their tails and were catching up to my Type 3. I felt shivers down my spine. I have never had this experinece before. P-40s, P-39s, F4Fs, and even F4Us could not follow the Type 3 in steep climb. But this twin boomed P-38 was following me with ease!

Yoshio Matsumoto, 103 Independent Chutai, describing his first encounter with the P-38




We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:41 PM
JtD wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- You are talking about the first model of Ki-61I that
-- had a relatively small production number.
-
- Yes, I am. I am talking about the Ki-61 that went
- into service in March 1943.
-
- I sure know that the later Ki-61's were heavier, I
- don't know climbing times. 7 minutes seems to be a
- bit high.

Why? is it because you don't like the number? got any stronger arguments than this?

7 min to 5000m is taken from R. Francillon.



-- Kimura unfortunately does not know the climb time to
-- 5000m for Emil, but already has an opinion. Emil
-- climbed to 5000m in less than 5min.
-
- When did it do so? I know it went to 3000 in 3:06
- min and to 6000 in 7:06 min. If it went to 5000 in
- less than 5 mins, it should have a considerably
- boost somewhere above 3000, which I find highly
- dubious.

It did so all the time. This climb time is taken from an original chart for E1 to E3. I don't know what second hand datas do you have and for what climb setting.



-- It's hard to
-- tell exactly how much less than 5min, because I'm
-- reading a climb chart (the original Emil climb
-- chart), but it is certainly less than 5min.
-
- What does this climb chart say about 3000 and 6000
- meters?

It says less than 3 min to 3000m, aprox 7min to 6000m, and 9min to 7000m.



-- If you bet you'll lose your money. Dive limit for
-- Emil was 750kmh IAS. That's very high for an early
-- plane. Also Ki-61I was found unsatisfactory in dive,
-- therefore was streghtened structuraly in the second
-- variant.
-
- I'm not talking about div limits, but about
- acceleration in a dive.

If you don't consider dive limits then the better climber is also the better diver. Always (at speeds below max speed at considered alt).



-- Ki-61I had 10% better wing loading, but also 10%
-- worse power loading than Emil. Since in sustained
-- turn rate both factors enter in the same proportion,
-- it means that both had close turn rate
-- characteristics. But between Ki-61I-KAI and Emil
-- there was no contest.
-
- Okay. Keep in mind I still am talking about early
- Ki-61. Even if I wasn't, your statement: Emil could
- outturn Ki-61 is much to general to be true.

Yes but those models saw limited service for a year.


-- Mk108 replaced MG151/20 in '44 in almost all Bf-109.
-- Mk108 saw widespread use because it was very
-- appreciated by the pilots.
-
- 1st: I don't think so. Almost all is a bit to much.
- 2nd: 1944 is not 1943.
-
-- This is unbelievable. You are trying to take into
-- consideration only an early type of Ki-61, without
-- mentioning that production for that particular model
-- barely reached 1000 planes, when Bf-109 fitted with
-- Mk108 and Erla canopy were over 10,000. But sure
-- let's try to make the comparison fair and bring
-- early G6, an '42 fighter.
-
- What do total numbers say? Erla canopy wasn't
- standard with Bf-109 until at least the second half
- of 1943. So I think a coparism between Ki-61, as in
- March 1943 with Bf 109, as in March 1943 isn't
- totally wrong.
- (Relax. I'm not trying to prove anything here.)

Yes, you did not prove anything here.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:56 PM
JtD wrote:
-- What we have now in FB has almost no resemblance
-- with reality.
-
- I disagree.

Now we have in FB 16sec turn times for La7 and Yak3, no overheating on CSP planes with max RPM from take-off to touch-down or 4000fpm climbing P-47 and so on and so on. Even if they put Tie Fighters in it you wouldn't notice.



-- Except for a 1 sec less per 360 deg
-- turn at sea level, which BTW is simply too small to
-- be an useful advantage, and max speed of La7, Bf-109
-- was better than any russian planes from the
-- beginning to the end of war, in any performance
-- characteristic.
-
- Sure. Their range for example was always better than
- the range of any Russian fighter. And when the MiG-3
- left the Emil far behind in high alt combats

MiG-3 had worse performance than E4 at any altitude. Only max speed was better. F models already available in '42 were better in anything and filled the gap in max speed at altitude. Also MiG-3 was not a plane liked by it's pilots due to poor maneuvrability and handling.



, it was
- only an illusion. Just like the I-153 coudln't
- really outturn a 109, because if 1 second doesn't
- matter 8 won't do either...

Sure I-153 outturn anything, but also I-153 is slower than anything, even than bombers. So why bother with it, when you can do the mission very well by ignoring it? I-153 was a dismal failure for a ww2 fighter.


- Please don't make statements like the one above.

Oh please.



- I'd prefer Russian over German. If you prefer German
- over Russian, fine. To each it's own.
-
-- You don't know them but you have a strong opinion.
-- Nice.
-
- No, I happen to read books more frequently than raw
- data and charts. Even though they are second hand at
- best, they often seem to point in the right
- direction.

But when you enter in a discussion about fighter performance have real data ready.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/21/0311:08AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:04 PM
fjuff79 wrote:
- Quotes - Ki61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- But the two P-38s chasing me had an incredible
- climbing power. They stood on their tails and were
- catching up to my Type 3. I felt shivers down my
- spine. I have never had this experinece before.
- P-40s, P-39s, F4Fs, and even F4Us could not follow
- the Type 3 in steep climb. But this twin boomed P-38
- was following me with ease!
-
- Yoshio Matsumoto, 103 Independent Chutai, describing
- his first encounter with the P-38



P-38 had indeed a better climb than Ki-61, without being real performers in this regard. This tells a lot about the climb performance of Ki-61.

Now fjuff to answer your question about Ki-61 performance, it was comparable for the first model Ki-61I with Yak1b, which is not bad (even better at altitude). Problem is that late in the war it got worse, only to receive a small improvement with Ki-100 (but still below Ki-61I performance).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/21/0311:05AM by Huckebein_FW

ZG77_Nagual
10-21-2003, 05:08 PM
It will be interesting to fly the P63 against these japanese types - according to post war vvs flyoffs it was generally superior to vvs planes in horizontal maneuvers.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:13 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- JtD wrote:

-- (Relax. I'm not trying to prove anything here.)
-
- Yes, you did not prove anything here.

*lol*, you are so predictable. Just relax.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:32 PM
WereSnowleopard quoted:
-
- In one
- encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit
- destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to
- themselves.

One of the problems with getting to know Japanese aircraft in the West is the lack of information available. The Japanese themselves destroyed much between surrendering and the American occupation, and oddly enough wrote most of their documents in Japanese, which few western authors read. The result is the same few pieces of information tend to get repeated with few authors checking original sources.

I have looked into this claim a bit and have decided it is nothing more than a propaganda claim made by the Japanese at the time. I have not been able to match it up with a description of a massacre on the American side where a whole formation of Hellcats was dispatched without downing a single enemy aircraft, and have come across other example, such as a wild roof-top level dogfight between Ki-100s of the 244th Sentai and VF-31 Hellcats over a Japanese airfield, where similar extravagant claims were made. If anyone has more information on this encounter over Okinawa please let me know!

The Ki-100 is often presented as a miracle weapon, but as can be seen from its performance figures it was good but not excellent. I think the clinching argument is that it had no assigned Allied code name (it is usually just referred to as a 'Tony' if at all), suggesting that its performance was simply not that different from other Japanese aircraft such as the Ki-84 for it to stand out.

And I'm with Kimura and Skychimp - I find Japanese aircraft fascinating and can't wait to get my hands on them in FB.

-------------------------------------
When the (German) rationalisation drive began it was found that the armed forces had greatly inflated the demand for raw materials by exaggerating the quantity needed for each unit of production. The large firms held substantial stocks of scarce materials, particularly aluminium, which had been allocated on the basis of 16,000 lb for each aircraft, regardless of the fact that a fighter consumed only a quarter of this quantity. Aircraft firms had so much ingot aluminium in store that they used it to produce non-essential goods - ladder, greenhouses, even mosquito nets.

Professor R.J. Overy, 'War and Economy in the Third Reich'

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:36 PM
For comparison Huck. About your statement of the decrease of wing load from Ki-44 to Ki-84. Compare the F6F-5 and the Ki-84. Both are around 180kg/m2. So, that load per square meter is not a typical Japanese feature, as you stated.



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:41 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- For comparison Huck. About your statement of the
- decrease of wing load from Ki-44 to Ki-84. Compare
- the F6F-5 and the Ki-84. Both are around 180kg/m2.
- So, that load per square meter is not a typical
- Japanese feature, as you stated.


All Navy plane had to have low wing loading for low stall speed and related to it small take-off run needed on carriers deck. But Ki-84 was not a carrier plane, this is why it's performance is dissapointing. Compare Ki-84 wing loading with similar USAAF late war planes. Take P-38 for example.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:41 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- His statement is very fair. That Hayate had a
- modified engine for 115/145 grade fuel. How many
- american aircrafts used such fuel in 1944 when
- Hayate reached the front. None. That fuel brought
- 500hp more, for me 427mph is still very much
- disappointing.

So, then the Ha-45/?? produced originally 1400HP or 1900HP? Tested the USA the upgraded Ha-45 with 2400HP or 1900HP./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:50 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- His statement is very fair. That Hayate had a
-- modified engine for 115/145 grade fuel. How many
-- american aircrafts used such fuel in 1944 when
-- Hayate reached the front. None. That fuel brought
-- 500hp more, for me 427mph is still very much
-- disappointing.
-
- So, then the Ha-45/?? produced originally 1400HP or
- 1900HP? Tested the USA the upgraded Ha-45 with
- 2400HP or 1900HP.

Ha-45 as it was in japanese service had different power ratings, all around 1900hp.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:51 PM
Compare Ki-84 wing loading with
- similar USAAF late war planes. Take P-38 for
- example.


You'd better not compare the P-38 with it's twin engines with the Hayate. They're two different ideas of fighter. It's like comparing the Spitfire to the Bf110.
You'd rather compare it to the Mustang in order to make a real relation /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.virtual-jabog32.de)

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:56 PM
Bremspropeller wrote:
- Compare Ki-84 wing loading with
-- similar USAAF late war planes. Take P-38 for
-- example.
-
-
- You'd better not compare the P-38 with it's twin
- engines with the Hayate. They're two different ideas
- of fighter. It's like comparing the Spitfire to the
- Bf110.
- You'd rather compare it to the Mustang in order to
- make a real relation


Ok then, P-47 and P-51 are good examples of late war USAAF fighters operational in Pacific.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:00 PM
huck you made reference to the HE 100 being used as inspiration for the Ki61, I dont know whether the online sources are correct but it was stated that 3 he100 0's were sold to japan for 1.2 million duetchmarks for study


http://zclan.us/jg6/images/KIvsHE100.jpg


http://zclan.us/jg6/themes/NukeNews/images/logo.gif
JG6 Oddball (Geschwaderkommodoren)
http://jg6.net

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:03 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- All Navy plane had to have low wing loading for low
- stall speed and related to it small take-off run
- needed on carriers deck. But Ki-84 was not a carrier
- plane, this is why it's performance is
- dissapointing. Compare Ki-84 wing loading with
- similar USAAF late war planes. Take P-38 for
- example.

Not agreed. Depends on the written spec for the plane. The Army wanted a figher with 180kg/m2, so they got it./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Why you think the 109 had these high %age of accidents. Not only caused of narrow wheel track.



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:05 PM
Z_oddball wrote:
- huck you made reference to the HE 100 being used as
- inspiration for the Ki61, I dont know whether the
- online sources are correct but it was stated that 3
- he100 0's were sold to japan for 1.2 million
- duetchmarks for study

Yep, quite amazing similarity, isn't it? I will surely fly Ki-61 since He-100 is one of my all times favorites.


http://zclan.us/jg6/images/KIvsHE100.jpg



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:07 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Ha-45 as it was in japanese service had different
- power ratings, all around 1900hp.

That's not the answer to my Q. These 1900HP for the Ha-45/11 and 1990HP for the Ka-45/21 - are these the values from American or Japanese sources? Those 427mph, it is flown with your 500HP more (2400HP) or with 1900HP.



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:08 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- All Navy plane had to have low wing loading for low
-- stall speed and related to it small take-off run
-- needed on carriers deck. But Ki-84 was not a carrier
-- plane, this is why it's performance is
-- dissapointing. Compare Ki-84 wing loading with
-- similar USAAF late war planes. Take P-38 for
-- example.
-
- Not agreed. Depends on the written spec for the
- plane. The Army wanted a figher with 180kg/m2, so
- they got it.


Yes sure. It was in the requirement. I don't blame the manufacturer, but the military planners.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:21 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- JtD wrote:
--- What we have now in FB has almost no resemblance
--- with reality.
--
-- I disagree.
-
- Now we have in FB 16sec turn times for La7 and Yak3,
- no overheating on CSP planes with max RPM from
- take-off to touch-down or 4000fpm climbing P-47 and
- so on and so on. Even if they put Tie Fighters in it
- you wouldn't notice.
-

Oh I'd notice alright...a Tie fighter would mean a whole new skin template to make!

I'm looking forward to all the japanese a/c, if only because it'll add more variety to the game.


cheers,
Tony
(flying as "wombat" on HL)


< !--image map -->
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~tonybirchill/sig.jpg
<map name="main">
<area shape="rect" coords="0,0,200,54" href="http://www.il2airracing.com/" alt="Il2 online air racing">
<area shape="rect" coords="200,0,400,54" href="http://pub82.ezboard.com/b1ejava" alt="skinners heaven">
</map>


oh yeah, and I'm a Whirlwind whiner too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ZG77_Nagual
10-21-2003, 06:23 PM
Interesting thread on the p38 - sacrilege alert!! In several places the author quote pilots who said it was much superior to the...P51!!

"A PTO ditty ran:

"Don't give me a P-51.
It was all right for fighting the Hun,
But if fighting the Jap you try,
You'll run out of sky.
Don't give me a P-51.""


Heres the thread - very nice read:

http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:26 PM
I agree with with Sky Chimp here. One thing that will be interesting in FB though is that Online seems to be about a bunch of low level dogfights without a lot of team work. This is a good environment for Japanese planes & I think they were quite often very enjoyable to fly .

SkyChimp wrote:

But the Japanese were disadvantaged
- because they simply would not let completely go of
- that "manueverability at all costs" mentality. When
- the allies placed a premium on speed and high
- altitude performance, the Japanese were producing
- planes mediocre in this regard, but that could fly
- rings around other planes in slow speed dogfights.

On this whole Tony vs. Emil thing the advantages I see for for the Tony (Hien) are :

armament 4 .50s vs 2 .30s & 2 MGFF (some might prefer 109s armament tho)

Landing Gear! The Tony is clearly better here.

Advantages for the 109 E A much more reliable engine
Better quality of equipment in general such as fuel tanks etc. better maintencance & better trained mechanics etc.

As for details of turn rate climb etc I 'll leave that to others.




Message Edited on 10/21/0301:34PM by Saburo_0

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:31 PM
Here is a nice read about the Ki-61 and Ki-100:



The Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien ("Tony") & Ki-100
v1.2.0 / 01 jul 03 / greg goebel / public domain

* The Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien ("Swallow") fighter represented a major departure for Japanese aircraft design in World War II. While other Japanese fighters were designed with air-cooled radials and were optimized for maneuverability, the Ki-61 used a liquid-cooled in-line engine and was designed for speed and power.
In fact, the Ki-61 was so different from other Japanese fighters that when the type was first encountered in combat over New Guinea in June 1943, the Allies thought it wasn't a Japanese design at all. At first they believed it was a copy of the German Messerschmitt Me-109, then suspected it was a copy of the Italian Macchi C.202 Foglore or similar Italian fighter. For this reason they gave it the code-name "Antonio", or "Tony", though by the summer of 1943 the Allies had realized the Ki-61 was in fact a Japanese design.
The Hien proved initially successful in combat against American fighters. As the war in the Pacific ground on, however, the Ki-61 found itself increasingly outclassed, but it soldiered on until the end of hostilities. This document describes the history of the Ki-61 and its radial-engine derivative, the Ki-100.

[1] ORIGINS OF THE KI-61
* The confusion of the Ki-61 with German and Italian fighters had some basis in the aircraft's origins. Between 1923 and 1933, Kawasaki Aircraft Engineering Company's head designer was a German named Dr. Richard Vogt, who returned to Germany in 1933 to take a similar position at the firm of Blohm und Voss during the war. Not surprisingly, Kawasaki continued to be strongly influenced by Dr. Vogt's beliefs after he left, particularly a faith in the usefulness of liquid-cooled inline engines. This made Kawasaki something of a heretic among Japanese aircraft manufacturers, who preferred air-cooled radials.
In March 1938, Kawasaki signed an agreement with Daimler-Benz of Germany for manufacturing rights to the liquid-cooled inline engines then under development by the German firm. In April 1940, a Kawasaki engineering team visited Daimler-Benz in Stuttgart to obtain plans and samples of the DB-601A engine, then being used in the Me-109.
The Kawasaki engine team managed to increase the take-off power of their version of the engine to 875 kW (1,175 HP) and reduce its weight slightly. The engine was put into production in November 1941. It was designated the "Ha-40", or "Army Type 2", though it would be later redesignated the "Ha-60" in a combined Army/Navy nomenclature.
In the meantime, certain officers at the Air Headquarters of the Imperial Japanese Army were very interested in the new fighters powered by liquid-cooled being developed in Britain, the USA, the USSR, Germany, and France. The Japanese Army also had unpleasant experiences in air combat against the Soviet Polikarpov I-16 fighter during the beating the Imperial Army took in their Manchurian border clash with the USSR in the summer of 1939. This experience suggested the the single-minded focus on agility above all that characterized Japanese fighter design doctrine might need to yield to a focus on speed and improved armor protection and firepower.
* In February 1940, the Army initiated work with Kawasaki on two single-seat fighters based on the DB-601 derivative engine: a heavy interceptor, designated the "Ki-60", and a general-purpose fighter, designated the "Ki-61". Kawasaki decided to build the Ki-60 first, and the design team, under Kawasaki chief designer Takeo Doi and his deputy Shin Owada, constructed three prototypes of the interceptor in 1941.

The Ha-40 engine was not available at that time, so the three aircraft were powered by sample DB-601A engines obtained from Germany. The Ki-60 was a low-wing monoplane, with plenty of power and heavy armament by Japanese standards. The first and second prototypes had two 12.7 millimeter (0.50 caliber) Ho-103 machine guns mounted on the nose in front of the pilot and two 20 millimeter Mauser MG-151 cannons, one mounted in each wing, for a total of four guns. The third prototype had four 12.7 millimeter guns.
KAWASAKI KI-60:
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 10.5 meters 34 feet 5 inches
wing area 16.2 sq_meters 174.4 sq_feet
length 8.47 meters 27 feet 9 inches
height 3.7 meters 12 feet 2 inches

empty weight 2,150 kilograms 4,740 pounds
loaded weight 2,750 kilograms 6,063 pounds

max speed at altitude 560 KPH 348 MPH / 303 KT
service ceiling 10,000 meters 32,800 feet
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

Flight tests began in March 1941 and showed that the Ki-60 was too unmaneuverable and didn't meet its speed and climb requirements. Various tweaks to improve the aircraft failed, and so the Ki-60 was abandoned.
* The experience was valuable, however. Design work on the Ki-61, whose development had been proceeding in parallel with the Ki-60 since December 1940, incorporated new features derived from the lessons learned by the Ki-60 program:
Aerodynamic refinements were added.
The wing was increased in size and length to improve maneuverability.
The fuselage was slimmed down to improve speed.
Armament was reduced by replacing the two 20 millimeter guns in the wings with either two 12.7 millimeter Ho-103 guns or two Type 89 7.7 millimeter (0.303 caliber) guns.
Fuel capacity was increased, as required by offensive fighter operations, which dictated longer range than required by an interceptor.
The landing gear track was widened to allow use from primitive forward airfields.
The first prototype was rolled out in early December 1941, and its performance proved excellent. Eleven more prototypes were delivered to the Army, which performed intensive trials with them. The Ki-61 was pitted against other Japanese fighters, as well as against the Messerschmitt Bf-109E-3, of which two had been bought by the Army from the Germans, and the Curtiss P-40E, several of which had been captured during the seizure of the Dutch East Indies.
While the test pilots were a little skeptical of the new aircraft at first, pilots with combat experience appreciated the Ki-61's self-sealing fuel tanks, heavier armor and armament, and fast diving speed. The air combat tests showed the Ki-61 to be faster than all its adversaries in the tests, and easily out-maneuvered all of them except the Japanese Nakajima Ki-43 ("Oscar").
The 13th Ki-61, a production prototype, was delivered in August 1942. The Army gave the green light for production, and the fighter began to roll off the assembly line, with 34 delivered by the end of 1942. The type was formally known as the "Army Type 3 Fighter Model 1 Hien", or "Ki-61-I".
The production machines differed from the prototypes only in tweaky details. Initial production consisted of two variants: the "Ki-61-Ia", with two 12.7 millimeter guns in the nose and a 7.7 millimeter gun in each wings for a total of four guns; and the "Ki-61-Ib", with 12.7 millimeter guns in both fuselage and wings. These aircraft could be fitted with two 200 liter (53 US gallon) drop tanks.

[2] THE KI-61-I GOES TO WAR
* The Hien entered combat in the spring of 1943 in the New Guinea war zone, covering New Guinea, the Admiralty Islands, New Britain, and New Ireland. The new Japanese fighter caused some pain and consternation among Allied pilots, particularly when they found out the hard way that they could no longer go into a dive and escape as they had from lighter Japanese fighters. 5th Air Force Commander General George Kenney found his P-40 Warhawks completely outclassed, and begged for more P-38 Lightnings to counter the threat of the new enemy fighter.
The Ki-61 demonstrated only a few teething problems in field use, such as a tendency towards engine overheating during ground running under tropical conditions. However, despite the heavier armament, it still didn't have the punch to easily knock rugged and well-armed Allied bombers out of the sky.
The Kawasaki designers had forseen this problem. The Japanese Ho-5 20 millimeter cannon wasn't available at the time, but the Japanese obtained 800 Mauser MG-151/20 20 millimeter cannon from Germany in August 1943, and modified 388 Ki-61-I airframes on the production line to carry the German weapons in place of the two 12.7 millimeter wing guns. The cannon had to be mounted on their sides to fit into a wing, with an underwing blister for the breech, and some reinforcements were added to the wing to absorb the increased recoil.
* Once the Ho-5 cannon became available, Kawasaki designers then reversed the arrangement of the guns, putting the 20 millimeter cannon in the nose and the 12.7 millimeter guns in the wings. While they were making these modifications, they also made a few changes to streamline manufacturing and simplify field maintenance.

This new variant was designated the "Ki-61-I KAIc" (where "KAI" was for "kaizo", or "modified") was 19 centimeters (7.5 inches) longer than its predecessors, with a detachable rear section, a fixed tailwheel instead of the retractable tailwheel previously used, stronger wings, and stores pylons outboard of the main landing gear, allowing it to carry two 250 kilogram (550 pound) bombs.
KAWASAKI KI-61-I KAIC:
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 12 meters 39 feet 4 inches
wing area 20 sq_meters 215.3 sq_feet
length 8.94 meters 29 feet 3 inches
height 3.70 meters 12 feet 2 inches

empty weight 2,630 kilograms 5,800 pounds
loaded weight 3,470 kilograms 7,650 pounds

maximum speed 590 KPH 366 MPH / 318 KT
service ceiling 10,000 meters 32,810 feet
range 1,800 kilometers 1,120 MI / 975 NMI
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

The Ki-61-I KAIc went into production in January 1944 and ultimately replaced production of all earlier models in August 1944. A few "Ki-61-I KAId" bomber interceptors were also built in late 1944. These aircraft featured two 12.7 millimeter guns in the fuselage and a 30 millimeter Ho-105 cannon in each wing.
Total production of all subvariants of the Ki-61-I was 2,654, with the Ki-61-I KAIc accounting for over half that number.

[3] KI-61-II / KI-100 / KI-64
* Even before the Hien saw combat, the Army had been pressing Kawasaki for an improved version of the same aircraft. To this end, Kawasaki engineers focused on an improved version of the Ha-40 engine known as the "Ha-140", which was expected to have a take-off power of 1,120 kW (1,500 HP).
The first prototype of the new variant, the "Ki-61-II", flew in August 1943. Ten more prototypes were ordered. They featured a wing with 10% more area, and an improved canopy to provide better rear visibility, but the Ha-140 development program ran into troubles, and only eight of the prototypes received engines. Even then, they suffered from engine troubles, structural failures due to weaknesses in the new wing, and handling problems.
In an attempt to fix the problems, after delivery of the eighth Ki-61-II prototype, the ninth prototype was extensively modified during manufacture. The extended wing was replaced with the original Hien wing, the fuselage was lengthened, and the rudder area increased. The result was the "Ki-61-II KAI", with initial flight of the prototype in April 1944. It was followed by 30 more prototypes. As long as the temperamental Ha-140 engine worked properly, the Ki-61-II KAI proved to be a promising interceptor, with a fast climb rate and good high-altitude flight characteristics.
Despite the problems with the engine, the military situation was increasingly desperate, and so the Ki-61-II KAI was put into production anyway in September 1944. Two versions were produced, one designated "Ki-61-II KAIa", with 12.7 millimeter guns in the wings and 20 millimeter cannon in the nose, and the other designated "Ki-61-II KAIb", with four 20 millimeter cannon.
374 Ki-61-II KAI airframes were built and 99 of them fitted with engines. Then, on 19 January 1945, US Army Air Force B-29 Superfortresses turned the plant at Akashi that was building the Ha-140 engine into cinders and rubble. That abruptly ended concerns over the reliability of the Ha-140 engine, but left 275 airframes sitting around without powerplants.
* However, in November 1944 concerns over the availability (or lack thereof) of the Ha-140 engine had led the Munitions Ministry to request that Kawasaki redesign the Ki-61-II KAI to use an available engine. Company engineers performed a lightning design effort to mate the fighter to the 1,120 kW (1,500 HP) Mitsubishi Ha-112-II 14-cylinder double-row air-cooled radial engine. The engineers inspected the radial engine installation of a sample Focke-Wulf FW-190 fighter obtained from Germany and, in an example of interservice cooperation that was far more the exception than the rule between the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy, took advantage of Navy efforts to use the Ha-112-II.
The first prototype conversion of three took to the air on 1 February 1945. Sometimes improvisations work poorly, sometimes they work surprisingly well, and the new variant demonstrated excellent performance. The rest of the engineless Ki-61-II KAI airframes were then converted to the new fighter type, which was designated the "Ki-100-Ia". They retained the armament of the Ki-61-II KAIb, consisting of 12.7 millimeter guns in the wings and 20 millimeter guns in the fuselage.
Performance was roughly the same but engine reliability was vastly improved. The Ki-100 was in fact an excellent fighter, a nasty customer for Allied aircraft to deal with while being surprisingly comfortable and easy to fly, an important consideration when experienced Japanese pilots were in increasingly short supply.

A batch of 118 new-production Ki-100s were then built, incorporating an all-round vision canopy, tested on a modified Ki-61-II KAI, and given the designation "Ki-100-Ib".
Work was then done to add a turbosupercharger and water-methanol engine boost to the Ki-100 to provide improved high-altitude performance. The first prototype of this variant, designated the "Ki-100-II", flew in May 1945, with two more prototypes completed before Japan's surrender ended plans for production.
KAWASAKI KI-100-IB:
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 12 meters 39 feet 4 inches
wing area 20 sq_meters 215.3 sq_feet
length 8.82 meters 28 feet 11 inches
height 3.75 meters 12 feet 4 inches

empty weight 2,525 kilograms 5,567 pounds
loaded weight 3,495 kilograms 7,705 pounds

max speed at altitude 580 KPH 360 MPH / 315 KT
service ceiling 11,000 meters 36,000 feet
normal range 1,400 kilometers 870 MI / 755 NMI
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

* As Allied forces pushed in the bounds of Japan's overextended ocean empire, the Hien fought in the South Pacific, in the Philippines, on Okinawa, and finally in defense of the Japanese home islands themselves. Some Hien units also served on in China and on Formosa.
The home defense units operating on Japan used a mixed bag of Ki-61 variants, essentially anything they could get their hands on. The most famous of these units was the 244th Sentai (Fighter Group) under Japanese ace Major Tembico Kobayashi. Major Kobayashi encouraged his men to perform frontal attacks on B-29s and press their assaults to close range, even ramming if that was what was needed. Major Kobayashi set an example by fighting with almost suicidal determination.
By this time, the Hien was outclassed by American Mustangs and other late-model US fighters. In fact, when attacking B-29s Hiens often had to be protected by Ki-100s. Operations dwindled as planes and pilots continued to fall in combat and fuel and spare parts dried up. By the end, the home defense units were no longer capable of posing a real threat to the Americans.
Of the 3,159 Hiens built, not many survived the war. Several were evaluated by the Americans and one was presented back to Japan by the US Air Force later. This was the only surviving Hien as of the mid-1960s. American aircraft restorer Kermit Weeks has a Ki-61 airframe in slow process of restoration.
* The Ki-61 wasn't the only fighter design to be powered by the Ha-40 engine. Kawasaki also experimented with an unusual twin-engine design conceived by Takeo Doi in 1939 and approved for prototype development in October 1940 as the Kawasaki "Ki-64".

The Ki-64 actually had both engines in a line, straddling the cockpit and driving a single contra-rotating prop system with twin three-bladed props. The combined engine was known as the "Ha-201", and generated 1,755 kW (2,350 HP) take-off power. It featured an unusual steam cooling system with radiators in the wing and flap surfaces. The front engine used the right wing for cooling, while the rear engine used the left wing. The Ki-64 had a vague configurational resemblance to the Hien, though it was larger.
KAWASAKI KI-64 (ESTIMATED SPECIFICATIONS):
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 13.5 meters 44 feet 4 inches
wing area 28 sq_meters 301.4 sq_feet
length 11.03 meters 36 feet 2 inches
height 4.25 meters 13 feet 11 inches

empty weight 4,050 kilograms 8,929 pounds
loaded weight 5,100 kilograms 11,245 pounds

max speed at altitude 690 KPH 429 MPH / 375 KT
service ceiling 12,000 meters 39,400 feet
range 1,000 kilometers 620 MI / 540 NMI
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

One prototype was finished in December 1943, but the rear engine caught fire on the fifth test flight. The aircraft made an emergency landing and survived. However, it was never repaired and the project was abandoned in the middle of 1944.

[4] COMMENTS, SOURCES, & REVISION HISTORY
* I seem to be strongly inclined in my writing to describe aircraft I made models of when I was a kid. This is something of an attempt at vindication, I think, because I was such an inept modelmaker. However, I do recall that I did a fair-to-middling job on my 1/72 scale Ki-61, and it still sticks in my mind, though the sleek "sky shark" look of the Hien helped make it memorable as well.
One of the puzzles in writing about Japanese aircraft is trying to figure out whether to use the Japanese name ("Hien") or the Allied codename ("Tony") in the text. Obviously one of the reasons for giving codenames was to give Allied forces a more easily recognized "handle" for the aircraft than the Japanese designation, if the Allies even knew what the Japanese designation was when a new aircraft appeared.
Using the Allied codename might be a bit more convenient, but somehow giving an aircraft a name assigned by an enemy seems disrespectful. The Hien is the hero of its own story and even if it was used against my own countrymen, it deserves to be respected on its own terms.
* Sources include:
THE KAWASAKI KI-61 HIEN by Dr. Rene J. Francillon, PROFILE PUBLICATIONS, 1966.
JAPANESE AIRCRAFT OF THE PACIFIC WAR by Dr. Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, second edition 1979.
THE COMPLETE BOOK OF FIGHTERS by William Green and Gordon Swanborough, Smithmark, 1994.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:35 PM
Zyzbot, That was a nice read.
Thank You!

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 08:49 PM
Saburo_0 wrote:
- I agree with with Sky Chimp here. One thing that
- will be interesting in FB though is that Online
- seems to be about a bunch of low level dogfights
- without a lot of team work. This is a good
- environment for Japanese planes & I think they were
- quite often very enjoyable to fly .

Good point.

- On this whole Tony vs. Emil thing the advantages I
- see for for the Tony (Hien) are :
- etc.

One huge advantage the Ki-61 has over the Bf 109 is that it comes in many more interesting colours. To give you a flavour of the skins we can expect for it here's a link to Danny Best's site and the skins he did for the Ki-61 in CFS2:

http://home.wxs.nl/~danbest/cfs2.html

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



-------------------------------------
When the (German) rationalisation drive began it was found that the armed forces had greatly inflated the demand for raw materials by exaggerating the quantity needed for each unit of production. The large firms held substantial stocks of scarce materials, particularly aluminium, which had been allocated on the basis of 16,000 lb for each aircraft, regardless of the fact that a fighter consumed only a quarter of this quantity. Aircraft firms had so much ingot aluminium in store that they used it to produce non-essential goods - ladder, greenhouses, even mosquito nets.

Professor R.J. Overy, 'War and Economy in the Third Reich'

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 10:27 PM
Mr_Nakajima

One huge advantage the Ki-61 has over the Bf 109 is
- that it comes in many more interesting colours.

LOL
Yes indeed!

give me apretty painted plane any day.

http://www.aeronutz.flyer.co.uk/ki61.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 11:06 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Why? is it because you don't like the number? got
- any stronger arguments than this?
-
- 7 min to 5000m is taken from R. Francillon.


But Francillion does not say the circumstances under which the climb was conducted. Again, was it done at in the equivalent of normal, military or combat power? Who knoews, it doesn't say. I'd be real hard pressed to believe 2,343 fpm is any Ki-61s maximum climb rate.

The only English source for max performance that I know of is the TAIC Manual. And the only person I know of with a complete copy is Butch. Maybe he can post the relevanty pages.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:15 PM
Mr_Nakajima wrote:
- WereSnowleopard quoted:
--
-- In one
-- encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit
-- destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to
-- themselves........
-
- And I'm with Kimura and Skychimp - I find Japanese
- aircraft fascinating and can't wait to get my hands
- on them in FB.
-

Huge Thank you for support me as I had read many time in old book long time ago. I wish I could had have them but it was 20 yrs ago and that time WWW wasn't big time and never though I could have copies it from books to save for quick refereces. Thank you again. Also If I keep books then I will have a room for books and call it as "private library" Thank you again.

Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:27 PM
Zyzbot wrote:
- Here is a nice read about the Ki-61 and Ki-100:
-
Yes Yes Yes. I remembered now as I read it before about test on Ki-60 and fail in test and they slim it down result big improve. Also most importand is wide track undercarriage. German could had it do better. Of course too much political conflict in German party to decide about plane production. Best example for stupid is Hilter demand Me-262 to be blitz bomber not fighter that cause delay in date, if he accept it as fighter then Me-262 will fly early as in 1943 as same thing if party accept Fw-187 then will do better than Me-110 as same thing with He-100. Oh no! as I said bad thing about Me-109 as I like fly it often in FB. I wish, they can do with Me-109 in bubble version and wide track undercarriage same as Ki-61/100! Maybe if Japanese ship Ki-61 back in submarine to German then German may do better! Zyzbot, Thank you again!

Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:38 PM
Also It will be most difficult to find data of most Japanese planes because of firebombing and American armed force at Japan, have difficult to read them so they discharge them without know how importand they are. They did take some captured planes to USA but not all of them and they often test them for short time then destroy them. They may not bother to test them hard because they busy testing/building American jet engines and jet fighters.

Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 05:54 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiG-3 had worse performance than E4 at any altitude.
- Only max speed was better. F models already
- available in '42 were better in anything and filled
- the gap in max speed at altitude. Also MiG-3 was not
- a plane liked by it's pilots due to poor
- maneuvrability and handling.


huck you know nothing about the MIG3 .. it was WAY faster then any 109 up to the year 1944 ! climbed like a rocket and Alexander Pokryshkin could turnfight any YAK at low alt with it .... it was like the 109 an experts plane - not like the spit or yak that you could just jump in the cockpit and take it up. it earned a bad rep initially with the MIG1 version (maneuvrability and handling) and it is true that the AM-35 engine was never really perfected (was kinda unreliable) - but that and the fact that the MIG was taken out of production in 42 has NOTHING to do with any "bad handling" or crap like that. infact when fitted with different engines it was far superiour to any La or Yak. The MIG3 is a good comparison with the He-100.

at high alt a 1941 MIG3 can easily compare with 1944 109s or any other 1944 plane for that matter. most of them cant even reach 12.000 metres.

"the one and only MIG1 whiner"

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 06:11 PM
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/ki61-performance-data1.jpg


Butch

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 07:14 PM
johann_thor::
-- it (MiG) was like the 109 an experts plane - not like the spit or yak
-- that you could just jump in the cockpit and take it up.

Good insight about comparing the hot MiG with hot Fb109. MiGs killed alot of poorly trained pilots, as did Messerschmitt's German Fb109 pilot killer when Germany was forced to toss Newbies into frontline conditions.

I must say, Huckebein_FW's obvious hatred of any German pilot not good enough to be Ace is beginning to amaze me, and he reminds me of the German RLM itself. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 07:36 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- johann_thor::
--- it (MiG) was like the 109 an experts plane - not like the spit or yak
--- that you could just jump in the cockpit and take it up.
-
- Good insight about comparing the hot MiG with hot
- Fb109. MiGs killed alot of poorly trained pilots, as
- did Messerschmitt's German Fb109 pilot killer when
- Germany was forced to toss Newbies into frontline
- conditions.
-
- I must say, Huckebein_FW's obvious hatred of any
- German pilot not good enough to be Ace is beginning
- to amaze me, and he reminds me of the German RLM
- itself.


What means that an expert's plane? Was Bf-109 difficult to fly because it had a narrow landing gear? It was difficult to land. Though it was difficult for those that had very few hours in it. Most pilots described it as easy land after you get accustomed with it. I hope you won't try to convince me that Mustang was easier to take-off and land on a field runaway with holes, bumps, mud and grass.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 07:54 PM
johann_thor wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- MiG-3 had worse performance than E4 at any altitude.
-- Only max speed was better. F models already
-- available in '42 were better in anything and filled
-- the gap in max speed at altitude. Also MiG-3 was not
-- a plane liked by it's pilots due to poor
-- maneuvrability and handling.
-
-
- huck you know nothing about the MIG3 .. it was WAY
- faster then any 109 up to the year 1944!

What?? G2 was faster that any MiG3 put in production.

- climbed like a rocket

what a joke! MIG3 had an initial climb of 13m/sec compared to G2 that had 22m/s.


- and Alexander Pokryshkin could
- turnfight any YAK at low alt with it ....

Could turnfight with it? It was the worse turnfighter that VVS had in early war, it was worse even than Lagg'41, and that's a performance in itself. Its 360 deg turn time was 22 sec compare with 18 sec for F4.


- it earned a bad rep initially with the MIG1
- version (maneuvrability and handling) and it is true
- that the AM-35 engine was never really perfected
- (was kinda unreliable) - but that and the fact that
- the MIG was taken out of production in 42 has
- NOTHING to do with any "bad handling" or crap like
- that.

Pokryshkin a real veteran pilot wanted once, during the late war years, to fly a MiG3 to find the taste of his early days as a pilot. He took off and nearly crashed and swore never to climb in that plane again. Few days before the incident a close friend of his died similarly in a MiG3. Many other pilots testified that the plane had bad handling.


- at high alt a 1941 MIG3 can easily compare with 1944
- 109s or any other 1944 plane for that matter. most
- of them cant even reach 12.000 metres.

The source for this can only be your ingnorance. G2 had the same ceiling with MiG3. G2 is a '42 plane.
MiG was not able to produce during the war at least a single successful design.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:07 PM
And by the way I think we are missing the main point here, the Ki-61 performance. Butch just posted a max speed / climb chart. Thanks Butch!

It shows quite clearly that climb rate was below 3000fpm, in fact it barely reached 2500fpm.

Butch is this chart a translation of an original japanese climb chart or is it a chart from an american test?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:53 PM
great post Zuzbot, more of that.
by the way, most info on the Ki61 is in Japanese,
do we have any Japanes blokes around here ,
who can help us with more info on this bird.
also combat stories.







We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 10:34 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- And by the way I think we are missing the main point
- here, the Ki-61 performance. Butch just posted a max
- speed / climb chart. Thanks Butch!
-
- It shows quite clearly that climb rate was below
- 3000fpm, in fact it barely reached 2500fpm.
-
- Butch is this chart a translation of an original
- japanese climb chart or is it a chart from an
- american test?

It proves the topspeed which was stated here already, but with a max. climb of ca.2540fpm (774m/min.) and a climb to 5000m within ca. 6:40. Is that new?


If anyone at my Funeral has a long face,
I'll never speak to him again.
Stan Laurel


EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 10:44 PM
butch2k wrote:
- <img
- src="http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures
- /tmp/ki61-performance-data1.jpg">
-
-
-
- Butch
-

Thanks, Butch. Just as I feared. The TAIC manual chart does not state the power setting. Clearly Francillion drew his climb data from the TAIC manual.

Butch, does the manual give any other climb data other than that in the chart? Clearly, the Ki-61 could climb better than that.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 10:46 PM
KIMURA wrote:

- It proves the topspeed which was stated here
- already, but with a max. climb of ca.2540fpm
- (774m/min.) and a climb to 5000m within ca. 6:40. Is
- that new?

That chart doesn't say it was a Max climb rate. I thought it would, but it doesn't.

Without question, the Ki-61 could climb better than 2,500 fpm.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 10:51 PM
Sky,


Perhaps Huckebein might be willing to perform one of his calculations to get the exact maximum Ki-61 climb rate.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 11:05 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Sky,
-
-
- Perhaps Huckebein might be willing to perform one of
- his calculations to get the exact maximum Ki-61
- climb rate.
-
-
-
- Blutarski
-
-

Huck's goal would be to "prove" the Ki-61 inferior to the Bf-109E. I'm not sure I would trust his "calculations."

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 11:06 PM
Sky,

I was not really serious .......;-)



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 11:08 PM
Sky

In the opponsit to the most, I'm very careful on chart sheets./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


If anyone at my Funeral has a long face,
I'll never speak to him again.
Stan Laurel


EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 11:56 PM
I have checked all the source that I have and these are the numbers I found:


Ki-61-I-Otsu Hein

Climb rate: 5,000 meters in 5 minutes and 31 seconds


Ki-61-KAI-Hei Hein


Climb Rate: 5,000 meters in 7 minutes


Ki-61-II-Ko Hein

Climb Rate : 5,000 meters in 6 minutes


I found nothing about power settings these climbs occured at.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 12:49 AM
Zyzbot wrote:
- I have checked all the source that I have and these
- are the numbers I found:
-
-
- Ki-61-I-Otsu Hein
-
- Climb rate: 5,000 meters in 5 minutes and 31
- seconds

My book shows the same climb rate
with top speed 591 Kph at 6000m
ceiling 11600 m
-
-
- Ki-61-KAI-Hei Hein
-
-
- Climb Rate: 5,000 meters in 7 minutes
-(this is climb rate is see for the Ki-45
?)

Ki-61-II
My book shows 5000 meters in 6'00"
top speed 610 @ 6000 meters ceiling 11000 meters

-
- Ki-61-II-Ko Hein
-
- Climb Rate : 5,000 meters in 6 minutes
-
-
- I found nothing about power settings these climbs
- occured at.
(me neither)

hey maybe we are back on topic ?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 02:52 AM
I just found this interesting Ki-61 story:

"On December 3, 1944, Corporal Matsumi Nakano of 244 Sentai's special Shinten (body attack) detachment, flying from Chofu airfield near Tokyo, caught up with a box-formation of twelve B-29s. After two failures to approach, he made a third dive on an aircraft in the center of the box. He missed and ended up just under the bomber's fuselage. After a few seconds of level flight he zoomed in at full throttle and tore into one of the horizontal stabilizers with his propeller. He then ascended, as if his Hien was fixed to the B-29. After a while the bomber began to fall down and a moment later Nakano somehow managed to disengage and belly-landed safely.

His plane was displayed outside of Tokyo's Matsuya Department Store during Christmas, together with a full-scale mock-up of the B-29 and some parts of the bombers wreck. (See photographs. The moderate damage to the lower parts of the Hien seems to indicate Nakano possibly landed gear-down!).

On January 27, 1945, Nakano, now promoted to St.Sergeant, was flying together with Sgt. Masao Itagaki (who had also succeeded in two ramming attacks!). They found a formation of ten B-29s flying slightly below. Nakano dove, missed again, tore off the bombers tail, just like on the first occasion, and made another safe belly-landing.

The a/c used the first time was a Ki-61-I-Otsu, probably with armament removed. "

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 03:48 AM
It will be hard to believe test chart. Many factors...New engine? even break in well, full fuel? full military load? How good test pilot is? test climb once or repeat climb then divide into average meaure? Sometime during war, pilot/crew hot rod engine up like adjust fuel injection, tune-up and whatever to make it more great. Most expertie usually know how to do it even adjust fuel mix before get in combat to make most best performace. Also Sometime plane builders cheat on military by provide false data and sneaky beef test plane up to try beat other planes in tests. Protype and production plane always not same.

Sometime hardcore refuse believe other stuff are better than his own stuff so I bet you know what I talk about. I wish we have sort of analogy test like tester will try three different soft drinks without see brandname to find out which are better taste. Why not Should testers get in a univeral cockpit in plane simulations and test fly three or more different planes without see outside of planes to decide which planes are better.

Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 06:32 AM
Sky it's not the TAIC manual but the ATAD one /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
But i think it's military power rather than WEP that is shown here. I'll check the TAIC manual as well.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 08:24 AM
PAIN... your signature is incorrect. it says Revelations 6.1 .... its not revelations. it is REVELATION. its not plural. fyi.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. Semper Invictus! <img src ="http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509047.jpg">

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 12:17 PM
About Butch2k's climb chart (thanks for that, Butch):

The climbing times are for a normal fighter and a fully loaded one. The normal load in this chart is 6982 lb (3170kg). The empty weight of early Ki-61 is only 4870 lb (2210kg), that is only about 70%. I don't know under which conditions climbing times are usually measured, but even with the additional fuel load of 1194 lb (542 kg) an early Ki-61 weights only 6064 lb (2753 kg), still 15% less than the version tested. From plain physics this should reduce climbing times by about 15% (or 30% for empty plane) to roughly 6 (or 5) minutes. The same way the empty "Type 3" would weight 5790 lb (2630 kg), 17% less.

About the engine setting: I have seen climb charts for an Bf 109 E-3 (with basically the same engine). The shape of the climb graph for the Ki-61 is similar to the one they designated "5 min max. power" and totally different from the one with normal max. power. Since I don't know which country used which desgnations for which settings, I'll leave this to the experts. But I think that this climb chart was done with the maximum power available to the Ki-61.

Were climbing times usually measured with a loaded plane? Was it done this way everywhere in the world?What exactly is "Tony Type 3 SSF" in Japanese designation? Ki-61 Ic?

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 02:26 PM
I know many of the Japanese fighter could climb in
much steeper angle than the allieds planes,
but still some of the allieds could climb faster,
is this to seperate things?
like the allied could climb to a special hight faster
than the Japanese,
but coulnt follow them if they
climbed in steep angles?



We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 02:34 PM
Allied fighters were the P-38F, the P40E, and the P-39D. They were faced with A6M3 Zeros, a few Ki43 Oscars, and one other fighter plane which was the big news of the scenario.

http://rhinobytes.com/haze/ki61.jpg


To provide more depth for the Japanese, they were given the Ki61 "Tony". This is a plane which didn't actually show up in New Guinea during this time period - but theoretically could have, as they had been produced by 1943. It was the new, hot ride for the scenario, as it could (like all Japanese planes) not only out turn all of the Allied planes, but it could also outclimb them all handily, and was as fast as anything the Allies had. It's only failings were its light armament (4 12.7mm guns), its light armor (not as fragile as an A6M3, but still not as hardy as the Allied planes), and the fact that it didn't dive or roll as well as any of the Allied planes.





We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!




We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 02:59 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- What?? G2 was faster that any MiG3 put in
- production.

really ? the 1940 MIG3 had a max speed of 660+ km/h at 7400 metres and a service ceiling of 12.000 metres and the G2 is "put into production" in 1942 when MIG3 was taken out of production in january 1942. When German recon planes (ju-86p) got shot down at 11.000-12.000 metres before operation Barbarossa the Germans had no effective response to escort those planes .... the 109s could not operate at those alts ... and at those alts (6000 and above) no plane in the whole world could counter the MIG3s performance !

- what a joke! MIG3 had an initial climb of 13m/sec
- compared to G2 that had 22m/s.
-
Ok huck i have many times agreed with your points .... like when you try your best to prove that the German fighters are equal or superiour to their contemporary counterparts - wich i agree with in some ways. BUT.... this is typical misuse of correct data ... the MIG (Mikulin AM-35A) had to do without 2-stage supercharger and was therefore ineffective at low alt .... so you choose to compare the initial climb because that completely sucks - the 109 has a 2-stage supercharger and a very good initial climb ... the MIG (Mikulin AM-35A) does not start to climb well until after 2000 metres or better yet ... at 6000+ metres where the 109 does not stand a chance ..... I agree with you that the 109 is a brilliant plane and i would defend it to the last ... BUT .... accept facts ! the MIG3 was the most advanced high-speed - high-alt interceptor in 1940-1942 anywhere in the world !


- Could turnfight with it? It was the worse
- turnfighter that VVS had in early war, it was worse
- even than Lagg'41, and that's a performance in
- itself. Its 360 deg turn time was 22 sec compare
- with 18 sec for F4.
-
Yet Pokryshkin could stage mock dogfights with experienced YAK-riders and turn inside them with ease at any alt ... don't you get it ? the Russian pilots sucked in the beginning of the great patriotic war .... to put them in a MIG3 was suicide .... and early on they were put in the MIG1 and were mostly killed when taking off or landing ... not good for the reputation of this plane ... even though the 1941 MIG3s were totally different from the suicidal 1940 MIG1's .... you needed skill to fight in this plane - skill that early russian pilots did not have !

-
- Pokryshkin a real veteran pilot wanted once, during
- the late war years, to fly a MiG3 to find the taste
- of his early days as a pilot. He took off and nearly
- crashed and swore never to climb in that plane
- again. Few days before the incident a close friend
- of his died similarly in a MiG3. Many other pilots
- testified that the plane had bad handling.

I dont blame him - it was years since he flew the plane ! and one question for you - how many 1941 109E or F were still being used in 1945 ? many MIGs of all sorts were used throughout the war fulfilling their role perfectly and they were all 1940-1941 planes ... the six MIG3U built from scrap Mikulin AM-35A engines operated without loss throughout the entire war !


- The source for this can only be your ingnorance. G2
- had the same ceiling with MiG3. G2 is a '42 plane.
- MiG was not able to produce during the war at least
- a single successful design.

bull$hit - the I-211, I-230 and I-231 were brilliant designs - like I said before the La-5/Yak's were preferred for very different reasons - the Russians won the war because they produced crude designs that were easy to produce in large numbers - the germans lost the war because all their designs were "uber" and difficult to produce - and hardly made it past the assembly line until late 44

On the other hand the decision to halt MIG3 production was propably right - stalin was was not an idiot like hitler was.


about the topic of the post (been arguing with huck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the Ki-61 would have been a great high-speed fighter if the japanese test pilots would not have been so ignorant about the use of high wing-loading fighters - they "disliked" the handling of the high wing-loading He-100 and the japanese early prototypes so they tried to make it some kind of "compromise" between the 2 ... laughable ! a japanese made He-100 could have outflown the american fighters to oblivion ... but nooooooo .... they had to hold on to their ignorant turn-fighter doctrine ..... "this plane has too high wing-loading" ....... idiots !


"the one and only MIG1 whiner""

The board you are trying to access does not exist. Please check the URL and try again.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 04:11 PM
If the Japanes would be idiots as you stated - J Thor - why then the try of today's fighters designs to decrease pure topspeeds and the use of vectoring thrust to increase manoeuverbility, also with lower wing load?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If anyone at my Funeral has a long face, I'll never speak to him again.
Stan Laurel



EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 04:53 PM
yes the SU-34 is the king of the modern sky - http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 04:55 PM
fjuff79 wrote:
- I know many of the Japanese fighter could climb in
- much steeper angle than the allieds planes,
- but still some of the allieds could climb faster,
- is this to seperate things?
- like the allied could climb to a special hight
- faster
- than the Japanese,
- but coulnt follow them if they
- climbed in steep angles?
-
-
Angle of climb and rate of climb are indeed two separate things.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 05:05 PM
johann_thor
You really made me laugh...
Can you please tell me the serial number of that marvellous MiG-3 that reached 670km/h ?
Here is some more data about your beloved MiG-3
<table border="1">
<col width="148" style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:5412;width:111pt">
<col width="96" style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:3510;width:72pt">
<col width="64" span="8" style="width:48pt">
<tr height="30" style="height:22.5pt">
<td height="30" class="xl24" width="148" style="height:22.5pt;width:111pt"></td>
<td class="xl24" width="96" style="width:72pt" x:num>Speed 0m</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">MaxSpeed</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt" x:num="7.1">climb to 5000m</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt" x:num>Ceiling (m)</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt" x:num> </td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt" x:num>turn time at
1000m</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt" x:num>combat wight</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
</tr>
<tr height="30" style="height:22.5pt">
<td height="30" class="xl24" width="148" style="height:22.5pt;width:111pt">MiG-3
€Œ-35€</td>
<td class="xl24" width="96" style="width:72pt" x:num>466</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">615/7800</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt" x:num="7.1">7,1</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt" x:num>10600</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt" x:num>615</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt" x:num>22</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt" x:num>3299</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">1 ¯³. 12,7
</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">Ž²÷¥²</td>
</tr>
<tr height="30" style="height:22.5pt">
<td height="30" class="xl24" width="148" style="height:22.5pt;width:111pt">¥?¨é*é
¥²</td>
<td class="xl25" width="96" style="width:72pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">-5000
* </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">300
¯ ²?*â</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">ˆˆ</td>
</tr>
<tr height="30" style="height:22.5pt">
<td height="30" class="xl24" width="148" style="height:22.5pt;width:111pt">N
3943 </td>
<td class="xl25" width="96" style="width:72pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">0,9 V ª.</td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">2 ¯³. 7,62
</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">ӚӚ
¯</td>
</tr>
<tr height="30" style="height:22.5pt">
<td height="30" class="xl24" width="148" style="height:22.5pt;width:111pt">¯?¥¤ª?ª ¨</td>
<td class="xl25" width="96" style="width:72pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl25" width="64" style="width:48pt"> </td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">1500
¯ ²?*â</td>
<td class="xl24" width="64" style="width:48pt">ª*²?.</td>
</tr>
</table>



Serial MiG-3 could barely reach 615km/h.
During the whole war MiG-3 proved very unsuccessful against high-altitude raids of Ju-86. Read some more soviet sources please, not propaganda ones.

MiG-3 was almost twice cheaper than Yak-1 or LaGG-3 in 1940, and remained cheaper than LaGG-3 in 1941.
I can provide with the exact prices for every soviet plane if you wish
So the reason for halting its production was not its price!

MiG-3 had very weak armament
MiG-3 engine AM-35A was very unreliable, and out-of dated (used only one stage supercharger), during NII trials in 1940 they replaced the engine 9 times to complete the tests!
Even in 1941 the engine remained extremely unreliable.The AM-37 was intended as a replacement, but Mikulin was reluctant to continue his work over it (some sources claim he was angry to Stalin, because he refused to pay him for the AM-35 engine, yes ).

MiG-3 was much inferior to Bf-109F in all aspects, I think you know basic maths and can compare numbers, I can provide you tons of data about both planes,
And yes you are correct only of one thing : Stalin was not an idiot when he stopped the production of MiG-3.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 09:31 PM
TipoMan wrote:
- Serial MiG-3 could barely reach 615km/h.

Well, I read a lot about 640km/h at 7800 meters. Where does this come from?

- During the whole war MiG-3 proved very unsuccessful
- against high-altitude raids of Ju-86. Read some more
- soviet sources please, not propaganda ones.

If so, why weren't the Ju-86 raid intensified? (Just curious, because I don't know much about that.)

- MiG-3 was almost twice cheaper than Yak-1 or LaGG-3
- in 1940, and remained cheaper than LaGG-3 in 1941.
- I can provide with the exact prices for every soviet
- plane if you wish

Well I wish. I'd really like to see these numbers. Are they good for comparism with other countries?

- MiG-3 had very weak armament

Compared to which 1940 plane? I agree if compared with later planes which flew with 0.50 or 20mm weapons, but since the Russian guns were more powerful than Western contemporaries, firepower was average (i.e. compared to a 8 x .303 wing).

- MiG-3 was much inferior to Bf-109F in all aspects, I
- think you know basic maths and can compare numbers,

I can, and since I have a different opinion,...

- I can provide you tons of data about both planes,

...please do. Maybe you start another thread "MiG-3 performance". I'd be eceptionally glad if you'd show some high alt climb performance shwoing a "much inferior" MiG-3. MiG-3 in my understandings include the stretched ud version, numerically strongest variant.

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 12:35 AM
butch2k wrote:
- Sky it's not the TAIC manual but the ATAD one /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
- But i think it's military power rather than WEP that
- is shown here. I'll check the TAIC manual as well.
-
- Butch
-

Gotcha, thanks. I thought those charts were coming from the TAIC manual. I have a reprint of the TAIC manual and those charts aren't in it, so I thought mine was missing something.

I also agree the climb rate is at most Military power, possibly normal power (if there is such a thing on Japanese fighters). I seriously doubted it was combat power.

=============

BTW, if anyone out there is contemplating buying the reprint of thr TAIC manual by "Planes of Fame," I suggest you avoid it like the plague. The quality of reprint is HORRID.

http://www.aeroplanebooks.com/maloney.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 02:03 AM
fjuff79 wrote:
- Allied fighters were the P-38F, the P40E, and the
- P-39D...


BTW, did anyone notice this is a picture of the very rare "bubble top" Ki-61? In fact, I've never seen any other photos of it besides this one:

http://rhinobytes.com/haze/ki61.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 10:04 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- BTW, did anyone notice this is a picture of the very
- rare "bubble top" Ki-61? In fact, I've never seen
- any other photos of it besides this one:

Me neither. And I would have missed that one, too. Thx for drawing my attention at this.

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 11:47 AM
hmm, sadly that's not a proper side view./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

If anyone at my Funeral has a long face, I'll never speak to him again.
Stan Laurel



EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 01:39 PM
TipoMan wrote:
- johann_thor
- You really made me laugh...
- Can you please tell me the serial number of that
- marvellous MiG-3 that reached 670km/h ?
- Here is some more data about your beloved MiG-3

all data i have seen about the MIG1/MIG3 show max speed of 640-660 km at 7400-7800 metres - and always the service ceiling is 12.000 metres - faster speeds were recorded but not confirmed.

- Serial MiG-3 could barely reach 615km/h.
- During the whole war MiG-3 proved very unsuccessful
- against high-altitude raids of Ju-86. Read some more
- soviet sources please, not propaganda ones.

the source i read was german - they were totally surprised to see a fighter operating at 12.000 metres - had nothing to couter it with - and if the MIG was so bad at this ... why was there not a single russian design to replace the MIG that carried out this task throughout the war. hehe and your table said what ... ceiling 10600 metres ? absolutely bogus data !
-
- MiG-3 was almost twice cheaper than Yak-1 or LaGG-3
- in 1940, and remained cheaper than LaGG-3 in 1941.
- I can provide with the exact prices for every soviet
- plane if you wish
- So the reason for halting its production was not its
- price!

i said that its production was halted for very different reasons (yes i made a comparison with the russians having good cheap designs and the germans "uber" and complex ones) but the reason was that the Mikulin engine plant (wich was overrun in the beginning of the war) was producing the AM-38 engine for the IL-2 and all of its resources were bound to this project. the AM-35A, AM37 and other engines never recieved any kind of priority.


- MiG-3 had very weak armament


very similar to the F-2/F-4/G-2 some had 2 x 12,7mm some had 2 x shvak guns (not common) most had 2 x Shkas and one 12,7mm gun - what is the big difference ?
-
- MiG-3 was much inferior to Bf-109F in all aspects, I
- think you know basic maths and can compare numbers,
- I can provide you tons of data about both planes,

I never said the MIG was superiour to the F2 ... but at high alt this was the best thing the russians had to counter the F2 ... and the MIG was faster then the F2 and the F4 ... that you can read from any numbers .. any sources.

- And yes you are correct only of one thing : Stalin
- was not an idiot when he stopped the production of
- MiG-3.

i am glad we can agree on something http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif reason i make this conclusion is stalins own words "the shturmoviks are needed like bread and butter". i think anyone would agree that any interruption of IL-2 production / shortage of AM-38 engines would have been fatal for the russian war effort.

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 02:26 PM
sorry but you have to take the Mig3
discussion else were, this is a
Ki61 thread.


give us more Ki61 info



We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 02:40 PM
sorry this started with some argument with huck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 05:42 PM
Here`s some perf. graphs I have for mig 3 :


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fghterchart2.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Aircraft-evaluation-24.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Aircraft-evaluation-23.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Aircraft-evaluation-17.jpg



Note that even own Soviet data is controversion quite in cases. But bascially I agree that the Mig was quite unique regards it`s high altltidue performance in 1940 and 1941. Low altitude performance was not that impressive.

But should be kept in mind that verying manufacture quality made big difference with Soviet planes, early ones often were not as good in the field for poor maintance and production.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 07:39 PM
n



Message Edited on 10/26/0309:58AM by Saburo_0

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 01:25 AM
Johann, I think case with the Mig was not that simple..

Although in theory Mig was excelent high altitude interceptor, but IRL it also demanded an expert pilot to pilot it effectivily.. and Real Mig was far from beeing a turn fighter.. it demanded lot of experience from pilot, and mig was very very vulnerable to damage.. sometimes even slightest damaged set Migs on fire.. and apart from that first migs had lot of tecnical difficulties.. engine durability was very low, and you could only fly for few flights.. I've read russian remoins of Mig3 1940 models, and lot of russian pilots have said that it was actually dangerous to fly, when suddenly you might had lost your engine in middle of the flight .. it also had other problems conserning fligh stability, and plane gravity and relatively high pilot workload.. it was also prone for spins, and it was hard to recover from spins. Later mig3s eventually fixxed most of these problems, but still you can't really find many russian aces flown with the Mig.. it was simply hard to operate, and russian pilots were not yet fully trained for optimal use of Mig as interceptor..


Besides imo mig has got some extra armor in FB 1.11, now it seems Mig takes a beating again before one can bring it down with 109 F-2 or F-4.. But I admit, it is an tough, tough opponent for 109 F-2 or F-4 at altitudes above 6km..



____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/26/0302:29AM by Vipez-

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 05:39 PM
does anybody know of any Ki61 aces?

Message Edited on 10/27/0304:45PM by fjuff79