Ki-100... a japanese spitfire?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by slimm50
I found the following quote:

from here: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html

This is Emmanual Gustin's site and Joe Baugher's writing. Dubious sources at best were used for the Ki-100 piece.

A few facts: Ki-100-I-Otsu performance:

Max speed at 19,685 feet: 360 mph
Max speed at sea level: 309 mph
Climb to 16,000 ft: 6.0 minutes.

The simple fact is that the Ki-100 was nothing more than a radial engine'd Ki-61. There was no significant improvement in performance, except in climb rate. One minute was shaved off its climb time to 16,000 feet, (just under 4,900 meters) or 14% better.

Compare the F6F-5, F4U-4, P-51D and P-47N, all testing at full internal load.

F6F-5: From TAIC (Technical Air Intelligence Command) testing-
408 mph at 21,600
320 mph at sea level
Climb to 16,000 ft: 5.7 minutes

F4U-4: From USN testing
446 mph at 26,200 ft
381 mph at sea level
Climb to 16,000 ft: 4.6 minutes

P-51D: USAAF testing-
437 mph at 25,000 ft.
367 mph at sea level
Climb to 16,000 ft: 5.6 minutes

P-47N: USAAF testing-
467 mph at 32,500 ft.
362 mph at sea level
Climb to 16,000 ft: 8.8 minutes

P-38L: USAAF testing-
414 mph at 25,000 ft (440 mph at full factory rated HP)*
345 mph at sea level (357 mph at full factory rated HP)*
Climb to 16,000 ft: 5.1 minutes (4.9 minutes at full factory rated HP)*

*Allison rated the V1710-111/113 at 1,725 hp. The USAAF derated down to 1,600 hp because of reliability concerns. Allison field reps rigged P-38Ls for full rated power when asked by pilot.

So, here we have the enduring myth that the Ki-100 was any less out-classed than the Ki-61. The facts are different from the stories.

It is 51 mph slower at 19,680 ft (the Ki-100's best altitude) than the P-38L, 62 mph slower than the P-51D and 82 mph slower than the P-47N. It is 34 mph slower than the F6F-5 and 75 mph slower than the F4U-4 at that altitude.

Yes, the radial was easier to maintain and it offered greater reliability. However, the increased power was offset by increased drag of the cobbled-up engine installation. It was a decent fighter by early 1943 standards, but by March 1945 (when it appeared in service), it had to contend with some very high performance Allied fighters, including the F4U-4. Even the F4U-1A and -1D were notably faster and higher flying, and offered similar climb. Down the road were the F7F, F8F and P-51H, all of which were on an entirely different performance level.

Virtually every Allied fighter of the time (with the exception of the FM-2, which out-climbed and handily out-maneuvered the Kawasaki) was faster to the extent that they could engage and disengage at will.

Should the Ki-100 be added to the plane set? Absolutely. Will it prove to significantly better than the Ki-61? No.

The simple fact is that no 360 mph fighter was going to be able to compete with the late-war aircraft being flown by the Allies, including the F6F-5.

My regards,

Widewing

[Pongo]

Im sure the japanese pilot believed it. But they believed alot of things.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Sikboy
I have 500 hours in a Ki-100, and I assure you, it's not made of Jello.

it's pudding

-Sik

Well, my dad is a retired general in the japanese defense force, and he let me fly HIS Ki100 -- and you're not 2 engine rated either!!! Let me tell you, my father the colonel knows how an autopilot works -- and the controls should be frozen ROYAL gelatin, not that Jello crap!!

And dont think I'll respond if you try to pin me down on any of this, either -- I know you're really trying to do identity theft.

AND don't think your mid control ray  will work, because I'm wearing the football helmet with aluminum foil that I own the patent for!!

[oboe]

widewing -

I don't think I've ever seen a reference for the F6F exceeding 400 mph.   Most of the specs I've seen put it at 380 or less.

Story behind that?

[Morpheus]

The Blue Ox treads lightly over thin grass.

[Glasses]

"mmm mmm mmm Pud-din' "

[Widewing]

Originally posted by oboe
widewing -

I don't think I've ever seen a reference for the F6F exceeding 400 mph.   Most of the specs I've seen put it at 380 or less.

Story behind that?

There was a design error on the location of the pitot static vent location that gave false airspeed indications. Grumman admitted it to the Navy. In turn the Navy really didn't care and didn't want to interupt production to make the correction. Most testing was done by using the existing static vents for data collection, thus the error was duplicated.

In side by side testing at 22,000 feet, the F4U-1A and F6F-5 were a dead heat in terms of speed.

TAIC instrumented the F6F-5 with independent equipment and recorded accurate speed numbers that were virtually the same as Grumman's with the static vent relocated. Speeds between 405 and 411 mph were possible with the F6F-5, depending upon tuning and cleanliness of the airframe (properly fitting cowling panels were critical).

Now considering both the F4U-1A and F6F-5 were powered by R-2800s, and the F6F-5's engine made 125 more hp than the F4U-1A's (-10W for F6F and -8W for F4U-1A), it made up for the F4U's slightly lower drag coefficient. Speed was about equal at altitude. However, because the F4U took air directly into the carb, at low altitudes (ram air) it made more power than the Grumman, which brought in air from the accessory section (no ram air), the F4U was faster at sea level in low blower.

Former Grumman chief test pilot Corky Meyer has written about this in Flight Journal, both the ram air effect and the mis-located static vent.

By the way, that TAIC test pitted the F6F-5 against the Zero 52 (A6M5). Needless to say, except for maneuvering below 150 mph, the Zero was badly outclassed.

A brief overview of the test was issued to British FAA Hellcat pilots serving in the Pacific and a copy appears in Barrett Tillman's book, "Hellcat".

My regards,

Widewing

[38ruk]

i must say widewing , that all of your reply's are well written and educational , i enjoy the history lessons <> 38

[hogenbor]

Originally posted by Widewing


Now considering both the F4U-1A and F6F-5 were powered by R-2800s, and the F6F-5's engine made 125 more hp than the F4U-1A's (-10W for F6F and -8W for F4U-1A), it made up for the F4U's slightly lower drag coefficient. Speed was about equal at altitude. However, because the F4U took air directly into the carb, at low altitudes (ram air) it made more power than the Grumman, which brought in air from the accessory section (no ram air), the F4U was faster at sea level in low blower.

Widewing, can you explain why the Corsair had a long post war career and the Hellcat didn't? I always thought the Hellcat was the back-up for the Corsair and became the mainstay of the US Navy carrier fighter force because Corsairs had (initially) a lot of trouble operating from carriers. But still the Hellcat didn't see much development, the Corsair did, it even served in the Korean conflict.

Was it because the Corsair was technologically more advanced and had more room from development? Or was it the fact that the Corsair was the plane the Navy always wanted? Or was it a political decision?

The performance differences between similarly engined F6F's and F4U's weren't dramatic and the F6F's was much better suited to a carrier environment (or so I'm told). Enlighten me.

Regards,

Ronald

[SkyWolf]

Hellcat became the F8 Bearcat...though it never saw extensive duty anywhere to my knowledge.

Woof

[Mitsu]

Slow Slow! it's too slow!

I want H8K2!

[Black Sheep]

So what were the Japanese using at the end of the war for baka runs? NOS, B Stock, Refurbished Zeros and Franks? Did they use the newer planes, including the Tony's too? Just curious. I'm betting experience was not a requirement for those runs

[slimm50]

Originally posted by 38ruk
i must say widewing , that all of your reply's are well written and educational , i enjoy the history lessons <> 38

^^....what he said.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by hogenbor
Widewing, can you explain why the Corsair had a long post war career and the Hellcat didn't? I always thought the Hellcat was the back-up for the Corsair and became the mainstay of the US Navy carrier fighter force because Corsairs had (initially) a lot of trouble operating from carriers. But still the Hellcat didn't see much development, the Corsair did, it even served in the Korean conflict.

Was it because the Corsair was technologically more advanced and had more room from development? Or was it the fact that the Corsair was the plane the Navy always wanted? Or was it a political decision?

The performance differences between similarly engined F6F's and F4U's weren't dramatic and the F6F's was much better suited to a carrier environment (or so I'm told). Enlighten me.

Regards,

Ronald

Grumman was very conservative company, despite designing some radical twin-engine fighters. Grumman was still testing the XF6F-6 when the war ended. This Hellcat had 2,450 hp available and a four-blade prop. Climb was in the area of 4k/min, speed up to 425 mph at 25k. However, development was slow due to the F7F and F8F programs. Both of these would prove superior to the hotrod Hellcat. As it was, the F6F airframe did not offer a great deal of development potential. Vought's Corsair did offer greater potential and remained in service well past the Korean War.

Grumman's first jet (F9F-3 Panther) would prove better than Vought's first jet (F6U-1 Pirate). Likewise, the F9F-6 Cougar (swept wing development of Panther) would be more successful than Vought's F7U-1 Cutlass, which was roundly despised in the fleet. Vought finally hit another home run with the F8U Crusader, which was a terrific fighter and still serves around the world today. Grumman's XF10F-1 was a failure, being an experimantal swing-wing design. Their F11F Tiger was a good performer but lacked range and suffered much from problems with the J-65 engine. It was the chosen ride for the Blue Angels until 1968. We all know about Grumman's last Navy fighter, the F-14A, B and D. Vought never built another fighter accepted by the Navy. Instead they built the successful A-7 series of light attack jets.

My regards,

Widewing

[hogenbor]

Originally posted by Widewing
Grumman was very conservative company, despite designing some radical twin-engine fighters. Grumman was still testing the XF6F-6 when the war ended. This Hellcat had 2,450 hp available and a four-blade prop. Climb was in the area of 4k/min, speed up to 425 mph at 25k. However, development was slow due to the F7F and F8F programs. Both of these would prove superior to the hotrod Hellcat. As it was, the F6F airframe did not offer a great deal of development potential. Vought's Corsair did offer greater potential and remained in service well past the Korean War.

Grumman's first jet (F9F-3 Panther) would prove better than Vought's first jet (F6U-1 Pirate). Likewise, the F9F-6 Cougar (swept wing development of Panther) would be more successful than Vought's F7U-1 Cutlass, which was roundly despised in the fleet. Vought finally hit another home run with the F8U Crusader, which was a terrific fighter and still serves around the world today. Grumman's XF10F-1 was a failure, being an experimantal swing-wing design. Their F11F Tiger was a good performer but lacked range and suffered much from problems with the J-65 engine. It was the chosen ride for the Blue Angels until 1968. We all know about Grumman's last Navy fighter, the F-14A, B and D. Vought never built another fighter accepted by the Navy. Instead they built the successful A-7 series of light attack jets.

My regards,

Widewing

That sums it up extremely well. Thanks. Does anyone have some more info on the Cutlass? I've heard stories that it was downright dangerous, a little bit of background would be nice. But I'll Google first myself.

This seems to be a good source of info:

http://www.dvhaa.org/f7u.html

Scary, no single engined landings allowed and the real possibility that your nosewheeel snaps upon landing and kills you in the process.


Regards,

Ronald