New, NEW Plane Request

[Kieren]

With the advent of the Navy in 1.05 how about something from the Pacific rim...

Ki-84?
Ki-44?
Ki-100?
G4M?

I am not one to lobby, but a little squeeky wheel here and there can reap some results...

...think of the scenario potential...

...think of the variety...

...think of the hordes of happy Pacific War fans...

Looks like a "win-win-win" to me!  

------------------
CM, Aces High Scenario Corps.
http://www.hpcisp.com/~kieren/calendar/calendar.htm

[Zigrat]

Pac war is good but EARLY pac war
hwildcats,zekes,dauntless yum

late war pac is all uber compared to euro stuff, need seperate arena. f4u1c and nik deserve each other

[Wanker]

Not to mention getting more navy planes, especially Japanese navy planes, will help the scenario corp in coming up with a good Pacific multi-frame scenario in the future.

Emily, Kate, Val? These are my gals.  

[Ghosth]

Jill, Judy, Mavis, Nick, along with Ki-100, ki-61.

After all if we are going to have late war US planes at least give us the late war IJN attack planes!

[newguy]

I like Zigrats idea. An arena for chogs and N1K's. Sounds good to me  

[LLv34_Camouflage]

Yes yes, early pac - Brewster Buffalo!

Camo

------------------
Camouflage
XO, Lentolaivue 34
 www.muodos.fi/LLv34

Brewster into AH!

"The really good pilots use their superior judgement to keep them out of situations
where they might be required to demonstrate their superior skill."

[NUTTZ]

KI KI KI KI KI KI KI !!!!!!
I only fly the Ki!!!!
NUTTZ

[juzz]

Early war? What you really want are Abdul and Sandy!  To go with Mosca and Chato!  

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Vermillion]

I'm all for a surge in Japanese aircraft (its been long neglected!)

Fighters:
Ki-44 Shoki
Ki-45 Toryu
Ki-61 Hien
Ki-84

Bombers:
Ki-67 Peggy
P1Y3 Frances

Just to name a few, and of course all the standard early war stuff.

Edit: Contrary to popular belief, the Ki-100 would be an absolute waste of time. Its a very late war aircraft with a midwar performance. Look up its performance.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Kieren]

Maybe, Vermillion, but it had guns, something many Japanese planes lacked. In addition, it is a variant of aircraft seldom modeled, and was reputedly more maneuverable than the Ki-61.

As far as scenarios are concerned, certainly the Ki-61 would be more important.  

[Mitsu]

Yes, Ki-100 is slow, but it's very good TnB Fighter. Ki-61 is BnZ Fighter rather than TnB.

[Vermillion]

Kieren, I don't have my reference books here to identify subtypes, but both the Ki84 and the Ki61 had varients that included x4 HO-5 20mm cannons.

If there existed one cannon that could compare in the game with the "turbolaser" Hispano (to quote RAM   ), its the HO-5. Smaller shell, but a higher rate of fire, equals a slightly higher weight of fire for the HO-5, with a compareable muzzle velocity.

Mitsu, I don't claim to be a Japanese aircraft expert, but how are the two aircraft so different?

From my memory the Ki-100, was simply a unmodified Ki-61 airframe mated to a radial engine.

An engine that produced less power, created more drag, and I don't believe it appreciably changed (ie reduced) the weight of the aircraft. So the wings and control surfaces were the same, so the wingloading was similar, and the powerloading actually got worse.

I would think that the two aircraft would be very similar in handling, except for the fact that the Ki-100 was slower overall due to the loss of the horsepower.

PS: If some guys are bothered by the N1K2, then the Ki-84 with x4 cannons (similar to N1K2, but 20mph faster) are going to irritate them to no end.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Ripsnort]

I get real tired of European air warfare, time for a Pacific change.

We have the Luzon terrain ready for a scenario, just need a couple of more planes to make ti complete!  Agree, bring on more Pacific planes!

[Kieren]

Now I have a challenge!

Anecdotal evidence (an oxymoron, I know) suggests a more maneuverable aircraft. I would need to be Wells to explain it, and sadly, I am not.  

There were many experiments with the 190, including a DB engined version. It was found that the DB version was less maneuverable than the Jumo or BMW versions. Why? I dunno.

I will say that part of the reason of the popularity of the K1-100 over the Ki-61 lay with the reliability of the radial engine (negated entirely by our "perfect" AH mechanics) over the inline engine. This resulted in more usable power, therefore a better power loading. It also was one of the few Japanese fighters with a high enough ceiling and performance at alt to challenge B-29's.

Either way, no Ki-61 or Ki-100 should ever be modeled without cannons. In AH the machine guns would be inadequate to even approach American bombers with any hope of success.

...and wouldn't you love to see the faces of all the "Allied Conspiracists" when an Axis aircraft could very well dominate low and medium level warfare, and not be LW? I'll tell you this, if people are afraid of the N1K2J, they haven't seen anything until they see the Frank!


oops!

My "challenge" is to produce whatever documentation I can provide for the claim the Ki-100 was more maneuverable than the Ki-61.  

[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 10-11-2000).]

[juzz]

Your "documentation" is here...
 

The first Ki-100 prototype aircraft made its first flight on February 1, 1945. 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 due to the lower wing and power loading. Although the maximum speed of the Ki-100 was slightly lower than that of the Ki-61-II because of the higher drag exerted by the radial engine, this performance could be reliably attained because of the better reliability of the Ha-112 engine. The design was ordered into immediate production as the Army Type 5 Fighter Model 1A (Ki-100-Ia).

The first Type 5 fighters (Ki-100-Ia) were direct conversions of existing Ki-61-II airframes. 271 airframes were converted between March and June 1945, and were immediately delivered to operational units(My note: Only a further 118 Ki-100-Ib were built, these differed in having a new canopy/fuselage to improve rear vision).

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.

I think the J2M Raiden(JACK) is the Japanese fighter with good altitude performance you were thinking of?

Regarding the Ki-100, I think in the AH arena it would be a dissapointment. Because, on paper, the Spit 5 appears superior to the Ki-100 in every way. Apart from sustained climb and turn, the Hellcat and Corsair would murder it IMO. The J2M3 Raiden would be a better plane - it's very similar, but it has 1800HP WEP and 4x20mm armament and can carry bombs.

Ki-61 variants and numbers.

Ki-61-I: 1380 built, 388 with 2x12.7mm and 2x20mm(MG 151/20's).
Ki-61-I-KAI: 1274 built. KAIc had 2x12.7mm/2x20mm(Ho-5), KAId had 2x12.7mm/2x30mm(Ho-155).
Ki-61-II: 374 built. Only 99 completed, 30 destroyed on ground, 69 delivered. 275 without engines. IIa had 2x12.7mm/2x20mm, IIb 4x20mm.
Ki-100: 396 built. 275 Ki-100-Ia conversions from Ki-61-II airframes. 118 Ki-100-Ib with improved canopy/fuselage built from new. 3 Ki-100-II prototypes. Both Ia, Ib had 2x12.7mm/2x20mm.

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 10-11-2000).]