PDA

View Full Version : Ki100 - will it be good?



lucas_valentine
01-07-2005, 03:04 PM
I have seen that a Ki-100 is in the pipeline in a future patch. I have read various pieces of documentation and even seen the sole survivor in the RAF museum in Hendon and from what I understand it was a very good plane, Fast, manuoverable and with good fire-power. But, Ki-100's unless I'm very much mistaken are based on Ki-61s, which ingame are okay, but not exactly dassling in performance - not all that fast, not all that manuoverable, but with okay armament - although they do have a fantastic cockpit! So, will the Ki-100 be that much different in performance to the Ki-61? I know it should be faster with that radial engine, but otherwise I'm notconviced that it will be much better. Anyone any ideas?

lucas_valentine
01-07-2005, 03:04 PM
I have seen that a Ki-100 is in the pipeline in a future patch. I have read various pieces of documentation and even seen the sole survivor in the RAF museum in Hendon and from what I understand it was a very good plane, Fast, manuoverable and with good fire-power. But, Ki-100's unless I'm very much mistaken are based on Ki-61s, which ingame are okay, but not exactly dassling in performance - not all that fast, not all that manuoverable, but with okay armament - although they do have a fantastic cockpit! So, will the Ki-100 be that much different in performance to the Ki-61? I know it should be faster with that radial engine, but otherwise I'm notconviced that it will be much better. Anyone any ideas?

Chuck_Older
01-07-2005, 03:08 PM
Yes, the Ki-100 was a great fighter.

It was essentially a re-engined Hien, but so what?

The first Bf109 prototype to fly had a Rolls Royce engine in it, an underpowered Kestrel

Didn't hurt the performance of the re-engined '109s one bit that it had a less than great engine before

No reason that in PF, it should exhibit the qualities that the type was known for in real life, which is to say: theoretically excellent

In PF we don't have engine and airframe damage from poor maintenance and over-use, so each Ki-100 should act as a factory-fresh, properly built and fueled aircraft. It should be called 'uber' and whined about.

because it was

AlmightyTallest
01-07-2005, 03:19 PM
I think the addition of the Ki-100 is great for Pacific Fighters, it shouldn't be called uber or whined about, but it should be countered like it was in real life with F4U-4's and P-47N's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A great addition for the late war planeset, and good for the Okinawa Campaign as well.

lucas_valentine
01-07-2005, 03:21 PM
It may be a matter of opinion, but I find the Ki-61 doesn't turn very well, maybe it's because I'm comparing it to things like Spitfires, Zeros and Hayates. Maybe it is better suited to a B'n Z Style. I was hoping the turning on a Ki-100 would be a little better than the Ki-61's.

VW-IceFire
01-07-2005, 03:37 PM
Ki-61 does turn better than the Spitfires or at the very least equals them. Maybe not the Mark V but its very close and it can certainly out turn its prime opponents (P-40 and P-39).

I did a little research on the Ki-61 and Ki-100. The conclusion I've reached is that the Ki-100 is better in manuverability (its lighter and the engine is a bit more powerful) but its overall top speed is not any better. I think the Ki-100 will be a good plane for variety sake but the Ki-84 will still be the ultimate in Japanese fighters.

CV8_Dudeness
01-07-2005, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lucas_valentine:
I'm not conviced that it will be much better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
me neither , its just a Radial Ki-61 POS

but we get loads of US plane fans thinking its going to be the end of the world when it becomes flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

R_Mutt
01-07-2005, 03:43 PM
nah.

p1ngu666
01-07-2005, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lucas_valentine:
I'm not conviced that it will be much better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
me neither , its just a Radial Ki-61 POS

but we get loads of US plane fans thinking its going to be the end of the world when it becomes flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep
if the acceloration and manoverablity are better, then itll be way more potent than ki61 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

everyone knows the world will end for usafliers when zero5b gets it 7.7mm gun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

lucas_valentine
01-07-2005, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Ki-61 does turn better than the Spitfires or at the very least equals them. Maybe not the Mark V but its very close and it can certainly out turn its prime opponents (P-40 and P-39). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure if you mean in reality or in-game, but in-game there is no way a Ki-61 can out turn any of the Spitfires we have. I agree it can out turn a P40 or P39, but not a Spit.

VW-IceFire
01-07-2005, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lucas_valentine:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Ki-61 does turn better than the Spitfires or at the very least equals them. Maybe not the Mark V but its very close and it can certainly out turn its prime opponents (P-40 and P-39). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure if you mean in reality or in-game, but in-game there is no way a Ki-61 can out turn any of the Spitfires we have. I agree it can out turn a P40 or P39, but not a Spit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At 400 kph the Ki-61 has an excellent turn probably because of good aerodynamics (modeled in some fashion), wign design, and effective elevator. Under that its weight and lack of engine power are going to put it in the Spitfire category. But I'd say it can hold a turn with a Spitfire Mark IX and be just barely beaten by a Mark V (the differences going ultimately to the best pilot).

The best tactic for a Ki-61 is diving on the target, planting behind, firing till they die, and flying away. Its good as a team plane but its not fast enough to try and be a solo.

If some US aircraft fans are affraid of this plane then they are really insecure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

lucas_valentine
01-07-2005, 04:32 PM
I have had some success with the Ki-61, but when I've come up against a pilot of equal ability in a Spifire, I've been out manuovered. Maybe I just haven't had enough practice in The Ki-61 yet, perhaps I need to know it a bit better. This is a plane I'd love to add to my repertoire as its got a lovely cokpit with good visability, good armament and whats more it's different - no one flys them and I love flying the planes no one else does! If the Ki-100 is a slight improvement on the Ki-61 then I will be happy.

ElAurens
01-07-2005, 04:48 PM
The Ki 100 should be a better combat AC than the KI 61, even if their speeds are the same.

Being lighter and slightly more powerful the KI 100 should have better acceleration and climb rate, not to mention better maneuverability. And it's lack of glycol radiators removes a major area of vulnerability.

In experienced hands it will be a worthy opponent.

Chuck_Older
01-07-2005, 05:58 PM
POS?

If anybody thinks that the Ki-61's reputation in this sim means anything in regards to the real capabilities of the Ki-100 or it's variants, I suggest looking the aircraft type up in a reference book instead of going by your online experience against an aircraft that is merely similar to it.

ElAurens
01-07-2005, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
its just a Radial Ki-61 POS
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never came up agianst a KI 61 flown by a seasoned 109 flyer I take it?

Fritzofn
01-07-2005, 06:52 PM
I belive the KI-100 will rock, if u get some speed on the KI-61 it's a great plane, it dosent turn well, but the 2*20's and the 2*12's does some real damadge

VBF-83_Hawk
01-07-2005, 07:19 PM
The Ki-100 was better than all allied aircraft. It was and accident when they took Ki-61 airframes and fitted them with the 1,500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II radial engine.

The aircraft forformed amazingly at high altitudes and became Japans, so called number one B-29 intercepter. They could out-performed the P-51 Mustang and P-47 escorts at 30,000 ft.

Thus they remained in Southern Japan, 300+ miles from Okinawa, as a bomber intercepter for homeland defence.

LEXX_Luthor
01-07-2005, 08:44 PM
Dude:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>US plane fans thinking its going to be the end of the world when it becomes flyable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They had enough math to see "100" is bigger than "84" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Same thing happened when pre~releace screenshots of TB~3/I~16 Zvenyo combination was posted. Luftwaffe plane fans didn't know what it was, some 1946 Russian thing they thought, and they totally Panicked on the webboard. That was fun to watch.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
01-07-2005, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Dude:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>US plane fans thinking its going to be the end of the world when it becomes flyable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They had enough math to see "100" is bigger than "84" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Same thing happened when pre~releace screenshots of TB~3/I~16 _Zvenyo_ combination was posted. Luftwaffe plane fans didn't know what it was, some 1946 Russian thing they thought, and they totally Panicked on the webboard. That was fun to watch.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
01-07-2005, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
The Ki-100 was better than all allied aircraft. It was and accident when they took Ki-61 airframes and fitted them with the 1,500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II radial engine.

The aircraft forformed amazingly at high altitudes and became Japans, so called number one B-29 intercepter. They could out-performed the P-51 Mustang and P-47 escorts at 30,000 ft.

Thus they remained in Southern Japan, 300+ miles from Okinawa, as a bomber intercepter for homeland defence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually...you're doing whats been commonly done and looking at the speeds of the Ki-100 variant that was never produced in any useable number. The Ki-100 was a poor altitude plane and was not an effective B-29 interceptor. Here's some information on the Ki-100-Ia:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Specification of Kawasaki Ki-100-Ia Army Type 5 Fighter Model 1a:

One Army Type 4 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Mitsubishi [Ha-33] 62 or Ha-112-II) rated at 1500 hp for takeoff 1350 hp at 6560 feet and 1250 hp at 19,030 feet.

Performance: Maximum speed 360 mph at 19,685 feet and 332 mph at 32,810 feet. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be attained in 6 minutes. Service ceiling 36,090 feet. Maximum range 1367 miles. Dimensions: Wingspan 34 4 7/16 inches, length 28 feet 11 1/4 inches, height 12 feet 3 5/8 inches, wing area 215.3 square feet.

Weights: 5567 pounds empty, 7705 pounds loaded.

Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho 5 cannon and two wing- mounted 12.7 mm machine guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html

Its speed performance is unimpressive for a 1944/45 plane. Also, on the Ki-100-II:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In an attempt to improve the high-altitude performance, the Ki-100-II version was evolved. It was powered by a 1500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II Ru with a turbosupercharger and water-methanol injection to boost power for short intervals. Because of a lack of space, the turbosupercharger had to be mounted underneath the engine without provision for an intercooler and its associated ducting, with air being ducted directly from the compressor to the carburetor. It first flew in May 1945. The lack of an intercooler limited the high-altitude performance of the Ki-100-II, and the turbosupercharger added 600 pounds to the weight, which reduced maximum speed by 15 mph at 10,000 feet. However, the boosted high-altitude power enabled a maximum speed of 367 mph to be be reached at 32,800 feet (the cruising altitude of the B-29 during daylight operations). It had been planned to begin production of the Ki-100-II in September of 1945, but only three prototypes of this high-altitude interceptor had been produced by the time of the Japanese surrender. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So no, the Ki-100 was not a good altitude fighter. A speed of 332mph at 32,000 feet is ok but not incredible. Spitfire LF.IX (Merlin 66) was capable of achiving 395 mph at 30,000 feet. That was the supposed "low altitude" fighter. The Spitfire HF.IX (Merlin 70) was reported at 413mph at 30,000 feet and that was considered the high altitude fighter. (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html)

These were 1943 build planes. So the Ki-100 is (as a late 1944 plane), based on what I know, totally unimpressive at high altitude and totally incapable of outfighting the Spitfire IX, or the P-51D or P-47D at said height.

However, the Ki-100 in my mind is a fascinating plane because of what it gains over the Ki-61:
- speed remains the same
- dive was always very good and remained that way
- firepower on the Ki-100 is quite decent (Ho-5 20mm is a fine cannon)
- roll rate, turn rate, and general agility is superior to that of the Mustangs
- range is quite decent for a late war plane with the kind of agility it posseses

I intend to fly it when I get the chance...but its in no way superior to the Ki-84 and definately not in the same sort of high altitude or high performance league as a Mustang. A Ki-100 pilot may be able to outfly a Mustang in manuvers but unless the Ki-100's decent dive speed can leverage an escape, a Ki-100 can never successfully disengage from a Mustang in active pursuit.

Loki-PF
01-07-2005, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Ki-61 does turn better than the Spitfires or at the very least equals them. Maybe not the Mark V but its very close and it can certainly out turn its prime opponents (P-40 and P-39).

I did a little research on the Ki-61 and Ki-100. The conclusion I've reached is that the Ki-100 is better in manuverability (its lighter and the engine is a bit more powerful) but its overall top speed is not any better. I think the Ki-100 will be a good plane for variety sake but the Ki-84 will still be the ultimate in Japanese fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute IceFire!

Interesting that you say that about turning better than a P-40..... The other night I was goofing around in QMB playing with me in an F4F vs an ever increasing number of Ki-61's. After amusing myself for an hour or so and for some *odd* reason I popped myself into a P-40 in my QMB setup and took on those Ki-61's. OMFG! Not sure if it was because the P-40 turned so much better than the mildcat or if it really does turn better than the Ki-61 (in the game) I'm nit sure. Usually the AI is no slouch at turning as it doesn't ever seem to black out.

VBF-83_Hawk
01-08-2005, 01:07 AM
lol, the book I have is wrong. I need to throw it in the trash. J/K, I have a bad habbit of not completing the full designation when I discrib something. Also I didnt mean ANY ALLIED..I was refering to PTO allied, especially those that faught in Japan...spit never went there.

Ki-100-Ia is correct

Here might be a good link.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html
If it was at Okinawa then it certainly wasnt a good B-29 intercepter.

CV8_Dudeness
01-08-2005, 01:12 AM
yes El i have , & the E7Z is what id rather have anyday

its a easy kill POS

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
OMFG! Not sure if it was because the P-40 turned so much better than the mildcat or if it really does turn better than the Ki-61 (in the game) I'm nit sure. Usually the AI is no slouch at turning as it doesn't ever seem to black out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the P-40 is under-rated by FB players , its a damm fine DFer , . . . . . on the otherhand , the Ki-100 is over-rated by many its seems , people must get caught up with seeing the 100 after the "Ki" part http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

especially considering it was a 1945 plane , it sucked

really

VBF-83_Hawk
01-08-2005, 01:19 AM
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.

Hmm, Ki-100...Ki-100-Ia author needs to make his mind up!

Matz0r
01-08-2005, 04:20 AM
With the Ki-61 airframe, that bleeds energy like no other fighter in the game, I think it will be nothing fancy about the Ki-100.

RocketDog
01-08-2005, 04:27 AM
There are Ki-100 performance curves in the latest version of IL2 compare. I don't have it in front of me, but from memory it is about as fast as a Hellcat up to ~ 3,500 m and turns as well as a Spitfire V. Above ~ 3,500 m the performance drops off very quickly. It will make a quite effective low-altitude dogfighter but against determined opposition it's going to struggle.

Both the Ki-84 Hayate and (if we ever get it) the N1K2-J Shiden Kai were better all-round fighter aircraft. It's worth noting that 343 Kokutai, a unit drawing on some of Japan's best pilots, flew the Shiden Kai.

Anyway, the Ki-100 will be a great addition to the Sim and should make for some interesting late-war missions.

Regards,

RocketDog.

EDIT - found a screencap. Red curve is for Ki-100, blue for Ki-84
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/Image2.jpg

VW-IceFire
01-08-2005, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
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.

Hmm, Ki-100...Ki-100-Ia author needs to make his mind up! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, that incidenet with the Hellcats...there's a similar one that is made in reference to and promoted everwhere regarding the N1K-2J Shiden-Kai ("George"). Most historians have now considered both of those stories propoganda as apaprently during this period there were never that many Hellcats lost in combat in a given day. So its been chalked upto propoganada.

My reference to the Spitfire was just for sake of comparison with good data that I know of. The Mustang was faster than the Spitfire IX and the P-47 had various speed advantages here and there. Especially seeing as the Ki-100 would have been coming up against the P-47N. The Corsair is also faster and the Hellcat is not much further ahead but these two planes would be closest matched (I'd say the Ki-100 would be the better in manuverability).

As for the P-40 VS Ki-61...the P-40 can do an instantaenous turn thats absolutely fantastic. That lets it dive into an opponents six and turn tighly enough to let off a crippling blow. The Ki-61 can do exactly the same thing. It depends on energy...both are very good. I think however that the Ki-61 after going around in a turn a few times with a P-40 would eventually win. I hate doing these sorts of things (swirling turning battle) so the instantaenous turn rate is more important to me...but the two are closely matched.

ElAurens
01-08-2005, 09:12 AM
Historically the Ki61 was superior to the P40. Now we all know that in the sim things are different. I fly both of them regularly online and find them to be very similar. the KI61 should be faster than the P40, but in game this is a negligible advantage, if it exists at all. the Ki100's extra 200 to 300 HP (depending on altitude) will give it a decided advantage in ACM because of greater acceleration. You can bash it all you want, but online with human pilots it will be a difficult customer.

berg417448
01-08-2005, 09:14 AM
Circumstances regarding the often posted "Ki-100 vs. Hellcat Incident":


€œOn 25 July Maj. Kobayashi disobeyed orders by taking off to intercept marauding Hellcats over Yokaichi airfield, having been instructed to stay on the ground to await incoming bombers. He and his men were by this late stage in the war flying the superlative Kawasaki Ki-100 Goshikisen (Type 5 Fighter), and in the dogfight that took place at hangar-top height, the 244th Sentai pilots reportedly shot down ten of the VF-31 Hellcats that had sortied over Japan from the carrier USS Belleau Wood - the real score was just two for two on both sides.€


Source: B-29 Hunters of the JAAF by Henry Sakaida.

VW-IceFire
01-08-2005, 10:38 AM
Well done Berg...I was looking for something like that but it really places things nicely. Thanks.

El, I'm not bashing the Ki-100 (I'm not sure if you were implying if I was but fair enough statement to make the way I was talking) but I am trying to bring some reality to the situation. Soon as they told us the Ki-100 was coming half a dozen F4U-4 and P-47N threads sprang up as if the Ki-100 was some deadly threat to the US aircraft superiority in the late 1945 scenario. The truth is that no its not and its only a bit better than its predecessor and its not as good as the Ki-84 is. Nonetheless, it has some potent qualities and I look forward to flying it and taking on some Corsairs and Hellcats or Mustangs in it.

So my only intention is to make people see where this plane has strengths and where it has weaknesses and to dispell the myth that its some sort of super fighter. If you talk about speed and climb its decent but not exceptional.

VBF-83_Hawk
01-08-2005, 10:56 AM
"2 for 2"

That sounds more like it!!!!!!

Pay close attention to the order given to the pilot:

"....having been instructed to stay on the ground to await incoming bombers." B-29s, B-24s? I dont know what bombers are refered to here, but the bombers were the threat, not the fighters.

This is why most allied fighters were "unoposed", by the "better" IJ airplanes during fighter sweeps to Kyushu. Most fighters were intersepted by Zeros, Ki-43s, Ki-84s. Once in there air, you might say they would fight anything, but the IJ leaders needed those "good" fighters for bomber intercepts. Geeeesh, if you had 200-300 B-29s "Firebombing" your AIRCRAFT FACTORIES and cities every day-night, were would you want your best fighters/interceptors? The B-29s were killing the factories that built the fighters. The allied fighter attacks were just hitting airfields and ships to hold down the intercepters. The P-47 sqaudron on Ie Shima were dieing right and left from accident misshaps rather than from IJ forces.

The B-29s were the treat more than the allied fighters.

IMO, I think if it had not been for the B-29s ablitterating Japanese factories and cities, the IJ high performance fighters would have been free to attack our fighters. The outcome would have been different.

LEXX_Luthor
01-08-2005, 06:21 PM
Excellent post Hawk.

ElAurens
01-08-2005, 06:30 PM
VW-Icefire, my comment was not aimed directly at you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And I agree that some perspective on the Ki100's performance is needed. It is no "uber"plane, but it will aquit itself well, especially in capable hands.

And those of you who think otherwise, well, just go on believing it will be a pushover. Please.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

p1ngu666
01-08-2005, 10:08 PM
ya elaurens http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

remmber usa fliers, tnb, keep it slow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

AlmightyTallest
01-08-2005, 10:57 PM
lol, no way p1ngu666, this little yank is going to hit and run. High speed slashing passes all the way with my Corsair my friend. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
01-08-2005, 11:50 PM
Hang on, If I am reading the information correctly, there were only THREE Ki-100s. They were modifies Ki-61-II just like the Ki-100-Ia, however, the difference being that the Ki-100 was just simply the first three Ki-61-IIs that were modified for testing. Once the testing was finished, they just simply designated the rest, Ki-100-Ia.

When I see the term "Ki-100", I notice that the authors are refering to the whole series, i.e. Ki-100, Ki-100-Ia, Ki-100Ib and the Ki-100-II.

SO here is what I understand;

275 Ki-61-II airframes

The first three modied for testing were designated Ki-100.

The remaining 272 Ki-61 airframes were designated as Ki-100-Ia.

Thus, there should be no performance differences between the two designations.

Ground up builds were slightly modified by simply "rounding off" the rear fuselage and making the canopy simular to the A6M. Basicly the same thing as removing the "Razer Back" on the P-47 and adding the "Bubble" canopy. These were designated Ki-100-Ib.

The Ki-100s (-Ia and -Ib) were slower than the Ki-61-II simply due to the round engine not being as streamlined as the inline engine.

There were only THREE Ki-100-IIs built.

Thus,

However, "The results of the flight testing exceeded everyone's expectations. The Ki-100 was about 600 pounds lighter than its Ki-61-II predecessor. Maneuverability and handling were markedly improved...." The Ki-100 series fighters would certainly be equals with the F6F, P-51 fighters at lower level dogfights and could certainly give the B-29s problems below 26,000 feet.

Production:

275 Ki-61-II airframes

3 Ki-100 (test beds from Ki-61-II airframes)
272 Ki-100-Ia (from remaining Ki-61-II airframes)

118 Ki-100-Ib (ground up builds with "bubble" type canopy)

3 Ki-100-II

..and another THUS:
A total of 396 Ki-100 series fighters were produced.

Basicly an equal match for the F6F, P-51 below 15 or so thousand feet.
Great interceptor aginst the B-29s below 26,000 ft.

ANOTHER good homeland defence aircraft.16,000 ft in 6 minutes However, still no big deal. Me thinks the Ki-84c would still be better for these guys and thier typical furballing.

RocketDog
01-09-2005, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
IMO, I think if it had not been for the B-29s ablitterating Japanese factories and cities, the IJ high performance fighters would have been free to attack our fighters. The outcome would have been different. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure it would have been very different. I've just read the excellent and rather sad "Genda's Blade" about 343 Kokutai. This unit flew the best available Japanese fighter and had some of the most experienced crews available. But lack of numbers, lack of fuel, poor training and aircraft that really weren't competetive against well-flown Western types meant that they still fared poorly in encounters with Allied aircraft.

Regards,

RocketDog.

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
I'm not sure it would have been very different. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you have got to be kidding

it was the destruction of Japans infrastructure & production that severly hampered Fighter development & production quality

RocketDog
01-09-2005, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
I'm not sure it would have been very different. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you have got to be kidding
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not kidding. I just happen to know something of the history.

By 1945 Japan had tiny reserves of aviation fuel and a body of pilots available of which very few had anything beyond basic training. Tactical doctrine lagged far behind that of the Allied airforces. The aircraft types available were increasingly unsuited to the sort of combat being faced. Many aircraft sat unused because of fuel and pilot shortages. As a result, the Japanese were unable to mount an effective defense against even unescorted B-29 (and later B-24) raids. By effective, I mean one which imposed prohibitive losses.

Aircraft production was reduced by the B-29 raids, but the limits of Japanese airpower were set by the quality and quantity of pilots and fuel, rather than by factory output. Had the B-29 raids not taken place, the Allied fighter sweeps would still have annihilated any Japanese fighter opposition.

In fact, only limited opposition was attempted by the Japanese because, firstly, it was realised that any fighters sent up would almost certainly be lost to little gain and secondly because reserves of aircraft, fuel and pilots were being maintained for use in normal and Kamikaze operations against an expected invasion of the Mainland.

Regards,

RocketDog.

VW-IceFire
01-09-2005, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
VW-Icefire, my comment was not aimed directly at you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And I agree that some perspective on the Ki100's performance is needed. It is no "uber"plane, but it will aquit itself well, especially in capable hands.

And those of you who think otherwise, well, just go on believing it will be a pushover. Please.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I agree with you too. Its not a pushover either...I intend to enjoy that fact when its available to us! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif