Author Topic: Ki-100 - we can get it easier than other IJAAF fighter... (Read 2093 times)

FDutchmn · « **Reply #1 on:** June 08, 2004, 08:58:46 PM »

ok which variant is that one!

Mitsu · « **Reply #2 on:** June 08, 2004, 09:31:12 PM »

That is the Ki-100-I-Otsu (which has bubble canopy).

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** June 08, 2004, 10:21:30 PM »

That is true. It can be done easier, but the question I'd have is why?

It has a top speed of 336mph. For a 1945 fighter that is useless. AH renders the Ki-100's strongpoint, moot. It was reliable and that meant a lot in 1945 Japan. Here we have perfectly reliable N1K2-Js, which out perfrom the Ki100 in practically every way. The Ki-61 is better in most ways.

I'd like to see a Ki-100 eventually, but it does nothing to address the current imbalance between the 1944/45 US and Japanese aircraft.

AH2 should make adding new aircraft easier and I'd like one of the first to be the Ki-84.

Mitsu · « **Reply #4 on:** June 09, 2004, 01:08:00 AM »

Karnak, Ki-100's top speed is 360mph at 19685ft.

BTW I found my very old Ki-100 thread ...
I posted Ki-100 spec on it. check it out

Rasker · « **Reply #5 on:** June 09, 2004, 01:11:33 AM »

I've read references to the K-100 as Japan's finest fighter type of the war, even better than the Ki-84 or N1K2. I assume it must have made up in maneuverability what it lacked in blazing speed.

brady · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2004, 01:26:39 AM »

Why do we want this fighter for Japan? It preformed worse than all the Ki-61's(slower than all of them and climbed worse than some and at best as good as the rest), I would much rather have an Early War Ki-61 Varient. It was also not at all as good as a Ki-84.

A Early model Ki-61, would be easer to do and preform better, and fit scenarious a lot better. The Ki-100 would require almost as much work as a compleatly new Fighter model, in the short run I would rather see a Ki-84.

The Ki-100 is not all on my short term wish list for Japan, it will not help in balance issues in any way.

Mitsu · « **Reply #7 on:** June 09, 2004, 01:28:54 AM »

It out-performed Ki-61 every way, also Major Aramaki said after he flew each ZEKE types and Ki-100, "Compared to ZEKE 52, Ki-100 had docile characteristics, it was better aircraft."

brady · « **Reply #8 on:** June 09, 2004, 01:31:22 AM »

Mitsu, My Francillion compleatly contradicts your statement, it show compleatly the oppset.

............................. ...

My Short term Wishlist for Japanese planes is:

Judy

Ki-61-Ib

Ki-84

A6M3

The Short term list is inteneded to give the most bang for the buck and make it easer for HTC to do, hince the two varients, both of which would realy help in the CT and in events to adress playbalance issue so common to PAC set ups. The Judy fills the mid to late war atack/dive bomber nich nicely and it's abaility to cary a 500KG bomb for short flights will help again adress playbalance issues. The Ki-84 is simply a must for the MA and will defentaly help in late war PAC set ups for the CT and events.

............................

Long Term would add the :

Betty, Nell, or Ki-21 (any one would do)

Emily

.............................

Eveunatialy:

P1Y1

Ki-44

Grace

Jack

Ect....

............................. ...

Mitsu, it is a cool plane, heck anything Japanese is in my book:). It is just not going to offer anything new preformance wise for Japan, and Japan sorely neads a good preformer or two, all the planes on my short term list are inteneded to give a preformance/capabality boost to the Japanese plane sets for various time frames and set up's.

Mitsu · « **Reply #9 on:** June 09, 2004, 01:38:43 AM »

What is Francillion compleatly?

brady · « **Reply #10 on:** June 09, 2004, 01:47:29 AM »

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War by Rene J. Francillon.

He lists preformance stats for all Japanese planes and gives detailed descriptions of their designe and brief descriptions of their operation histories.

When I compare the Ki-100 to the Ki-61 I see that the planes are close preformance wise, with the Ki-100 being slower on avaeage and psoosesing a generaly pore rate of climb (depending on modle your looking at).

The Ki-61-Ib is the best climber of all models.

brady · « **Reply #11 on:** June 09, 2004, 01:55:17 AM »

Ki-61-Ib: 5m 31 sec. to 5,000M, 368 MPH @ 15,945 ft.

Ki-61-1 KAIc: 7 min to 5,000M, 366 MPH @ 13,980 ft

Ki-61-II KAIa: 6 min to 5,000M, 379 MPH @ 19,685 ft

Ki-100-I: 6min to 5,000M, 360 MPH @ 19,685 ft

Mitsu · « **Reply #12 on:** June 09, 2004, 02:04:22 AM »

It seems you deny Japanese WWII books.

It is obsolete plane at top speed in '45. I agree with that.
But it was TnBer.
IJAAF pilots appreciated the performance of Ki-100.

Do you know how US military reported the first contact of Ki-100? It was the same as N1K2's one.

Also, P-51 pilot said "we could fight against Ki-61 with drop tank having, but should not fight against Ki-100 with DT.
It's very dangerous".

I believe it fits in Aces High, it will be fun fighter.

Mitsu · « **Reply #13 on:** June 09, 2004, 02:12:27 AM »

BTW Ki-61-1-Tei's (Ki-61-1-KAIc) top speed is 347mph (other source shows 360mph) at 16400ft (5000m).

brady · « **Reply #14 on:** June 09, 2004, 02:12:49 AM »

I dont mean to deny them Mitsu, I do beelave it would be a fun fighter, but as Karnak mentioned reliabality issues are not a factor in AH and in the short term I would rather see Japan get a beter preformer(ki-84), and a simple varient(ki-61-Ib), then later add this plane. The Ki-100 is in a nut shell a beter handeling Ki-61.

You all notice we have the worst preforming Ki-61 in AH presently.