PDA

View Full Version : The ki-100



Metatron_123
01-16-2008, 01:04 AM
I've read that this plane was perhaps the premiere IJA fighter, a match for the P-51 and hated by the B-29 crews... Now looking at the specs, I could never see what was so special about it.
Flying it in Il-2 seems to confirm this... Yea I bagged a P-51 or two, but it was all getting into a favourable position. Otherwise I was just not fast enough to catch up.
So where does this plane come into it's own? Is it better at very high altitude perhaps?
I'd like to hear of your experiences.

Metatron_123
01-16-2008, 01:04 AM
I've read that this plane was perhaps the premiere IJA fighter, a match for the P-51 and hated by the B-29 crews... Now looking at the specs, I could never see what was so special about it.
Flying it in Il-2 seems to confirm this... Yea I bagged a P-51 or two, but it was all getting into a favourable position. Otherwise I was just not fast enough to catch up.
So where does this plane come into it's own? Is it better at very high altitude perhaps?
I'd like to hear of your experiences.

JG53Frankyboy
01-16-2008, 01:42 AM
AFAIK its reputation among the japanese came from the following:
1. it was easy to fly, so the less trained pilots in 1945 were able to fight in it.
2. its engine and overall was reliable , so, as other fighter were grounded because of engine/undercarriage troubles , the Ki-100 was able to fly...............

about its perfomance, i always wondered why it had a good reputation among its enemies too !?!?!?
a P-51 pilot should have absolut no proplem to fight it, sure, the Mustang should no go in a stallfight with it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
for an F6F it most propably was a deadly oponent !

about high alt performance, well, its Ha-112 engine was able to mantain 1250hp at 5800m - nothing special i would say , but propably better than most other japanese fighters.........
but the Ki-100 was around 300kg lighter than the Ki-61-II , form that the Ki-100 had the airframe. And the radial engine "worked" , where the inline of the Ki-61 did not alwasy properly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

woofiedog
01-16-2008, 02:29 AM
The Ki-100 in the game has it's faults... but it does have decent firepower and it handles very well. You can't bleed off to much speed with this bird though as it's slow building it back up again. For one of the Japanese rides in the game... it's one of my more favorite of them.

An article about the Ki-61 & Ki-100 fighters... it also has some very nicely done drawnings and profiles.

Army Type 3 Fighter Hien (http://www.markkaiser.com/japaneseaviation/hien.html)

http://www.markkaiser.com/japaneseaviation/tony/ki_61_profiles_2.gif

Waldo.Pepper
01-16-2008, 03:13 AM
Where's LBF when you need her!

Rammjaeger
01-16-2008, 04:46 AM
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=276858#276858

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=294795#294795

LEBillfish
01-16-2008, 05:55 AM
My "opinion" of the Ki-100 differs greatly then most, even the experts yet Frankeyboy touches on it already above.

First off, I believe the Ki-100 was quite simply a bandaid fix for lack of production of the Ha-140. There is a photo about of a field (can't locate it) with a number of engineless airframes parked there simply waiting for the engines to show.....So to that end Kawasaki at the army's command, developed a way to attach a selected radial to "nose chopped off" Ki-61-II's, and get aircraft in the air.

It worked, though lost a tad bit of speed in the process gaining some slight manueverability. Sadly however it was speed where the Japanese planes were lacking (all less the Ki-84) and in any case was all too late to be of much effect simply more fodder.

It did however get aircraft into the air, aircraft that for the most part would of been worthless hulks without the engine swap......Yet the Ki-100 frankly was really never meant to be (in other words simply a radical bandaid fix vs. a new design ideal).

As to the simulation itself I've never done any real testing not caring for the Ki-100 all that much when I can fly a Ki-61-I....Yet the few times I have all I can suggest to you is consider it much like flying a Ki-43-II...As it most deffinately nor ever was r/l even a Ki-84.

Think it was Buschell who entitled the chapter in his book "The Desperation Fighter"....A fitting title IMLTHO.

VW-IceFire
01-16-2008, 04:35 PM
As mentioned above the charm of the Ki-100 really wasn't its performance. It was "good enough" in that the plane was, like the Ki-61, relatively sturdy so it could sustain a dive with the average American fighter. It was also easy to fly and didn't have significant reliability problems like most of the other late war Japanese fighters. So it was well liked because they could get them in the air with novice pilots and make use of them while other planes were harder to fly for the novices and then had significant other problems on top.

The reputation is indeed a bit odd...several WWII aircraft have odd reputations that are not quite deserved or are only deserved in a particular piece of historical context. The Ki-100 seems to belong to this group.

In-game its absolutely fun to fly although it doesn't feel that different from a Ki-61. Many servers had the Ki-100 available for a while after it was made available in patches and I enjoyed flying at a severe disadvantage against some very well armed, armored, and fast fighters by using the turning capabilities and tactics against them. Its doable and the Ki-100 is a fun agile fighter to fly with enough punch in close...but not something you can take toe to toe with anything in its year.

Airmail109
01-16-2008, 05:54 PM
Perhaps pilots mistook Ki84s for Ki100s?

zardozid
01-16-2008, 08:41 PM
IMO the (contemporary) reputation of the KI-100 is not what was intended by statement's made during the war by people involved in the air program...

Even thou the fighter was the result of a band-aid solution to a problem they had...I believe the reputation grew from several considerations...One of them being that they where very well built airplanes. At that time (end of the war) build quality was very spotty...most of the fighters coming off the assembly line (KI-84, N1K Shinden) had reliability problems and (occasional) structural defects (failures)...the KI-100 air-frames (KI-61's) where built at a time when they still had skilled labor and quality materials (its doubtful that their would have been structural failures with one of those frames = reliable in a high speed dive). Another consideration was pilot confidence...Because these fighters came about in a less then satisfactory manor its entirely possible that these airplanes had to be "talked-up" so that pilots would feel confident flying into combat...The fact that this fighter was the marriage of a "tried and true" airframe and a known to be reliable engine, it may have been felt that the pilot should feel confident in "pushing the frame to the limit" so that they could "get the most out of it"...

VW-IceFire
01-16-2008, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Perhaps pilots mistook Ki84s for Ki100s? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Harder for the Japanese to do. The planes reputation comes mostly from its pilots...the Allies knew very little about the Ki-100 and in some cases still classified it under the codename TONY which was used for the Ki-61.

stalkervision
01-16-2008, 09:21 PM
The ki-100 had an excellent record agains't american fighters. I believe it was because it was faster then most of it's Japanese brothers without sacrificing manauverability. A follow on fighter to it with the same engine setup and airframe but with a major supercharger improvement for high altitude fighting was planned but never went into service.

cawimmer430
01-17-2008, 05:21 AM
I like flying the Ki-100 ingame. It does everything well but it's a little slow to hang with a Mustang or P-47. I do find it to be great bomber killer though and if you get into the right firing position you can bag an occasional P-38 too.

If you want to fly late-war Japanese and really have some fun, nothing in the IJA inventory beats a Ki-84lb/lc or J2M. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

And I have to confess I do like flying the late war Zero's too even though they're sitting ducks basically...

TheCrux
01-17-2008, 06:56 AM
Though having ballisticly inferior cannons compared to the MG151's on the ( Hei ) Tony, their cowl mount does seem to provide better overall firepower ( for my gunnery ability ) with the convergence issue less of a factor of course. Heck, for my money, I'd just assume delete the wing mounted 12.7's and save some weight.

While I'm fantasizing, I'll bet one of the few Tony's that actually got its Ha-140 engine ( one of the lucky 99 built ) would be quite the machine so equipped, assuming it ran well, and equipped with the cowl mounted cannons ( as I understand they were ) It would probably best the published 610 Kmh speed if the wing 12.7's were deleted as well.

Even the Oleg gang mused as to the possibility, pondering the potential of a K-61 with a DB-605 ( or license built copy ) in the "objects" profile.

Always thought a Tony with an extra few hundred horses would be my dream plane on IL-2.

Polyperhon
01-17-2008, 07:23 AM
Sorry but the Ki-100 is the best Jap fighter, as we have it in IL-2 , with possible exception of the J2M. It nicely balanced, trustworthy and its perfomance can be extracted easily. No nasty surprises.
Sometimes I wonder if some people that they are talking here (in the Ubi forum in general)are really testing the planes or just looking in the IL-2 compare, or I am a **** pilot.I found it difficult to extract the performance of Ki-84, both in agility and speed, since this is a plane that need a lot of care in its engine settings (supercharger stage,radiator position etc.) and overheating is always waiting...and the overall design (seems a lot of weight in the front, the design of the tail) seems to maximise agility, however has his inherent instability that leads to snaps and spins when you really try to push it.
(For more on the Ki-84 read here
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1331022745)
What I noticed is that people tend to be less critical in planes that have problems similar with P-51s. I am amazed, seems like some spend 80% of their time in IL-2 in P-51 missions and the rest 20% is just for having a quick look on the others. It's doesn't take THAT MUCH TIME to realize that the lower top speed of the Ki-100 is not such a problem (of course is disadvantage) since it dives well, maintains well its speed under mild turns, has a substained climb comparable with the P-47/P-51 (still, the usual trick to usual P-51 kinetic energy advantage=practically the usually initial higher level speed, work well in most of the cases)and low-speed acceleration is better.
The Ki-61/100 series seems that they had the strongest airframe of all Japanese fighters (J2M the only other that could be as good, N1K more a ...visual impression than anything else)and this help not only dive, but mostly high-Gs.
If you want more info, about pilot impressions (and their comparison with Ki-84) you look at the DATABASE of AEROPLANE. It justifies most of my impressions, however I should let you discover yourselves what is written in the DATABASE.

JG53Frankyboy
01-17-2008, 07:28 AM
actually almost the half of all produced Ki-61s with Ha-40 engine had its 20mm Canons (japanese Ho-5) also in the fuselage - unfortunatly this version is not modeled in game.

TgD Thunderbolt56
01-17-2008, 07:37 AM
The best way I can summarize my impression of the Ki-100 is that it's a stable gun platform, has decent firepower and all-around decent handling, but it's slow.

It's probably the 4th-best Japanese fighter behind the J2M, Ki-84 and N1K.

My personal favorite is the Ki-61 hei though followed closely by the J2M for late-war and the wonderful A6M2-21 for early-war.

JG53Frankyboy
01-17-2008, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:
Sorry but the Ki-100 is the best Jap fighter, as we have it in IL-2 , with possible exception of the J2M. It nicely balanced, trustworthy and its perfomance can be extracted easily. No nasty surprises.
Sometimes I wonder if some people that they are talking here (in the Ubi forum in general)are really testing the planes or just looking in the IL-2 compare, or I am a **** pilot.I found it difficult to extract the performance of Ki-84, both in agility and speed, since this is a plane that need a lot of care in its engine settings (supercharger stage,radiator position etc.) and overheating is always waiting...and the overall design (seems a lot of weight in the front, the design of the tail) seems to maximise agility, however has his inherent instability that leads to snaps and spins when you really try to push it.
(For more on the Ki-84 read here
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1331022745)
What I noticed is that people tend to be less critical in planes that have problems similar with P-51s. I am amazed, seems like some spend 80% of their time in IL-2 in P-51 missions and the rest 20% is just for having a quick look on the others. It's doesn't take THAT MUCH TIME to realize that the lower top speed of the Ki-100 is not such a problem (of course is disadvantage) since it dives well, maintains well its speed under mild turns, has a substained climb comparable with the P-47/P-51 (still, the usual trick to usual P-51 kinetic energy advantage=practically the usually initial higher level speed, work well in most of the cases)and low-speed acceleration is better.
The Ki-61/100 series seems that they had the strongest airframe of all Japanese fighters (J2M the only other that could be as good, N1K more a ...visual impression than anything else)and this help not only dive, but mostly high-Gs.
If you want more info, about pilot impressions (and their comparison with Ki-84) you look at the DATABASE of AEROPLANE. It justifies most of my impressions, however I should let you discover yourselves what is written in the DATABASE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sure you are allowed to have your own opinion.
as i have my own too. - flown in the VOW2 COOP based onlinewar and on the ZekevsWildcat Dogfightserver.


and yes, the Ki-84 is very nervous , also looses its wing if you pull to much G (thx to the very good elevator response even at high speed - comparable to the P-51) - but i fly it with a lot of noseheavy trimm........... that makes a very big change, at least for me.
and i hav NEVER any proplems to bring it on speed - and you can run its engine 4min45sec in overheat before it gets damaged.

the Ki-100 is also manual spercharger shifting , just at 3800m than 2500m - also you have to care the mixture setting if flying above 6700m.
the Ki-84 is here auto.

the best point the Ki-100 over a Ki-84a has is that it has 250rpg in its canons instead of 150rpg..............

Metatron_123
01-17-2008, 11:16 AM
So I guess-summarising- that it's dependable because it's trouble free, is relatively sturdy, has good armament, good climb rate, good turn rate.
So it's basically a Zero that doesn't explode as soon as it gets into someone's gunsight.
Truth be told, with the Ki-100, you're confident about your survivability.
And I guess this was great for novice pilots in 1945.
But the speed is seriously lacking. It's practically three years back in this department...

VW-IceFire
01-17-2008, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
So I guess-summarising- that it's dependable because it's trouble free, is relatively sturdy, has good armament, good climb rate, good turn rate.
So it's basically a Zero that doesn't explode as soon as it gets into someone's gunsight.
Truth be told, with the Ki-100, you're confident about your survivability.
And I guess this was great for novice pilots in 1945.
But the speed is seriously lacking. It's practically three years back in this department... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep its true that the speed is definitely not great. Not as good as the Ki-61-IIs were supposed to be either. But this was a serious attempt at a stop gap to get something in the air...considering that they managed to equal the Ki-61's performance with a draggier engine mount plus lighten the plane and increase maneuverability slightly is still somewhat impressive...to do it in just a few months was even more so.

While speed is not great the climb rate is quite decent...not especially impressive...but decent. So in an intercept situation you have the chance to at least climb for altitude and bounce the opposition with a pretty good dive to make up for the speed disadvantage. I tend to fly the Ki-100 against Mustangs like I fly the Mustang against Me-262s...the disadvantages are similar although in greater proportion for the 262. With the Ki-100 you can also tend to surprise many human opponents who aren't familiar with the plane...such as on a dogfight server filled with La-7s who are unwary enough to turn with a Ki-100 and loose badly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
01-17-2008, 03:27 PM
The '100' number is misleading.

Its basically a Ki-61 with a Radial engine.

Work out how much more power that engine gives and you can see that its not that much of an improvement over the Ki61 IIRC.

The '100' number doesnt mean it better/more modern than the Ki84.


I much prefer the Ki84/J2M2 and the N1K Shiden

Polyperhon
01-17-2008, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...the Ki-84 is very nervous , also looses its wing if you pull to much G (thx to the very good elevator response even at high speed - comparable to the P-51) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at the position of the stabilizers - this is partly responsible for what you 're mentioning.I prefers planes that have finely harmonised controls, like spitfires,warhawks,Bf 109s and yes, ki-61s.You 'll notice that all the great flying machines can live without big tail surfaces, and as the weight (and power)increases the balance goes away and the rudder becomes bigger and bigger. I suppose is a matter of how you can live with the defficiences of each plane or not.I admit that P-39 is such a plane but I love it. I should check again to see if I am doing something wrong with ki-84s engine management.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So it's basically a Zero that doesn't explode as soon as it gets into someone's gunsight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No,no big mistake. Very different type of planes.These are oversimplifications.Zero relied a lot of its rather oversized evelators and rudder (and its big wing)for achieving its agility. You need to use the rudder a lot in zeros.Different type of flying in general.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I much prefer the Ki84/J2M2 and the N1K Shiden </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no way that me and Xiolablu3 we can agree - I agree that J2M is better than the Ki-100 (the top Jap fighter for me) but the N1K better than the Ki-100? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

mortoma
01-17-2008, 08:47 PM
In game the N1K2-JA is loads faster and has better accel so I prefer it. Although KI-100 is a F6F killer for sure. Pretty useless against a well flown Sair though, because the Sair is so much faster and even the AI use this to their advantage. A human would probably fly a Sair like a 190 so if I were in a KI-100 online I'd probably stay away from them.

JadehawkII
01-17-2008, 10:06 PM
Having flown this quite a bit (But not as much as my beloved La-5FN)I can say to me it's a good all around fighter plane. Not the best at anything, but dam good all around. Once you know how she feels and turns, you will start to develop ways in your mind to counter your opponent such as Ice-Fire did with the La-7.

If I'm not out bouncing the Bombers, I'll try to keep my energy up and only attack the enemy fighters once I'm in the advantage position. Caution and patience is the rule here. Dive in, Strike and get out quickly and do not fight on their terms for a moment. If you caught below your opponent, start climbing away from them only if you got the distance to stay safe. If not, then make a run for home and fight another day. Or, high tail it until you can climb up and gain altitude then as above, fight them on your terms.

That's my opinion and my experience flying the Ki-100-Ko. I wish we had the Ki-100-Ostu and even the Ki-100-II-Ko would have been nice. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
But then again I would also wanted to see the Ki-61-II-Ostu if I had the others. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Polyperhon
01-21-2008, 03:41 PM
Jadehawk is very clear and presice in what someone has to do.He's 100% right.I can oly add that 3 planes that were a good experience before Ki-100 are LaGG-3,Bf 109 (especially early ones) and,paradoxically, F4F.Very different feeling in the air, but learning to "fight" with their disadvantages was good help.I really struggle to understand the preference of some for N1K,possibly because its american-like feel in the air (at least the most american-like feel in comparison with other jap warbirds) is more familiar to people that spend most of their times "flying" for the US.

Xiolablu3
01-21-2008, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...the Ki-84 is very nervous , also looses its wing if you pull to much G (thx to the very good elevator response even at high speed - comparable to the P-51) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at the position of the stabilizers - this is partly responsible for what you 're mentioning.I prefers planes that have finely harmonised controls, like spitfires,warhawks,Bf 109s and yes, ki-61s.You 'll notice that all the great flying machines can live without big tail surfaces, and as the weight (and power)increases the balance goes away and the rudder becomes bigger and bigger. I suppose is a matter of how you can live with the defficiences of each plane or not.I admit that P-39 is such a plane but I love it. I should check again to see if I am doing something wrong with ki-84s engine management.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So it's basically a Zero that doesn't explode as soon as it gets into someone's gunsight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No,no big mistake. Very different type of planes.These are oversimplifications.Zero relied a lot of its rather oversized evelators and rudder (and its big wing)for achieving its agility. You need to use the rudder a lot in zeros.Different type of flying in general.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I much prefer the Ki84/J2M2 and the N1K Shiden </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no way that me and Xiolablu3 we can agree - I agree that J2M is better than the Ki-100 (the top Jap fighter for me) but the N1K better than the Ki-100? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need to agree mate, each to their own!!

To be honest have hardly flown the Ki-100, so I am not in any way an expert on the subject. I have flown the Ki84 and the J2M3 quite a lot however and those are great planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Polyperhon
01-23-2008, 07:51 PM
I don't know to what planes you are more used to, but never approach Ki-100 like you gonna fly a P-51,P-47 ot F4U.Approach it as an early Bf-109 (up to F-2 model),trying to forget that Ki-100 is better in most aspects,or if you don't have enough experience with early 109s - is that possible? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif-,think late LaGG-3s,early La-5s.
In the meantime, trying to re-think my opinion about Ki-84s and N1Ks, I tried some missions.I became more familiar with Ki-84's handling but still cannot feel in practice what promises in paper, for example I don't see any real-life advantage in agility in comparison with Fw190.It's the one that makes P-51s life more difficult but is a different story with US radial fighters, and yet I haven't figured out for sure why.However I rather have even worse opinion about N1Ks now... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

VW-IceFire
01-23-2008, 09:32 PM
Performance wise the Ki-100 is indeed much closer to the early 109s. So yeah actually if you're decently proficient with the early 109s then the Ki-61 and Ki-100 are not all that different...some peculiarities of their own but very similar.

Lots of people seem to be hating the N1K-2J these days but its really a superb fighter. Tough, climbs quickly, turns tightly...the auto combat flaps kill it for some people but you have to spend some time with it to get used to it.

LEBillfish
01-23-2008, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Lots of people seem to be hating the N1K-2J these days but its really a superb fighter. Tough, climbs quickly, turns tightly...the auto combat flaps kill it for some people but you have to spend some time with it to get used to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the auto flaps deploy you have "goofed up"....Nice hedge they came up with there, considered by even the U.S. to be easily on par with their pacific fighters and even exceeding them in many cases.

Lurch1962
01-24-2008, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Heck, for my money, I'd just assume delete the wing mounted 12.7's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


One of the more interesting turns of phrase I've seen. I *assume* this is what was meant...

"...I'd just as soon delete...."

No offense intended! But it gave me a good chuckle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TheCrux
01-24-2008, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lurch1962:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Heck, for my money, I'd just assume delete the wing mounted 12.7's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


One of the more interesting turns of phrase I've seen. I *assume* this is what was meant...

"...I'd just as soon delete...."

No offense intended! But it gave me a good chuckle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's what I meant, but I assure you I did not mistakenly use "assume" for "as soon" in some oddball phonetic juxtaposition. I meant assume. Common phraseology.