Author Topic: Ki84 (Read 4704 times)

Wilbus · « **Reply #90 on:** July 27, 2005, 08:42:27 PM »

HoHun, I am using Maximum takeoff power. Ki84 with 45/21 engine is 1990 hp. Ki44 HA-109 engine 1520hp.

For the Ki44, as far as the figures I've found is 1520 hp (HA-109 engine). EMPTY weight 2105 kg. Power/weight = 0,722. (Ki-44 II B version).

Ki84 is 1990 hp Ha-45-21 engine. Empty weight 2660kg. Power/weight = 0,748. (ki-84-Ia)

If we instead use the power we think AH Ki84 has got it would be 1820 hp instead so power/weight '= 0,684.

For my power/weight comparison I use the official numbers with the HA-45-21 engine installed and the HA-109 engine.

With those engines and empty weight the Ki84 holds a slight advantage.

Power of engines is rated as maximum take off power. Can't really compare to different engines at two different altitudes IMO they way you did. Just my opinion though.

Compare maximum power to empty weight and maximum power to either maximum take off weight, or better, normal take off weight. IMO best power/weight messurement is messured by chosing empty weight. If not empty there will be too many factors involved, fuel etc...

AmRaaM · « **Reply #91 on:** July 27, 2005, 11:13:53 PM »

My moms neighbors brother was an engineer at a plant producing k84s during the war, when he came to visit and we all went to dinner he said that the being chosen to shuttle the aircraft to deliver them was akin to being chosen to be a kamakazi pilot, many of the shuttle pilots crashed because of the engineering with avail. materials made the plane very dangerous and prone to catastophic failure of various components. Said it was very disheartening to see brand new aircraft and more importantly pilots not making it even a few hundred yards from the runway before hitting the water.

agent 009 · « **Reply #92 on:** July 28, 2005, 12:21:42 AM »

No kidding? wow. Only one Frank left in the world isn't there? in Tokyo.

HoHun · « **Reply #93 on:** July 28, 2005, 08:49:24 AM »

Hi Wilbus,

>HoHun, I am using Maximum takeoff power. Ki84 with 45/21 engine is 1990 hp. Ki44 HA-109 engine 1520hp.

The way I understood Busa, the Ki-84 is limited to 2900 rpm, +200 mm Hg with both the Homare 12 and the de-rated Homare 21, which seem to have been the only engines fitted to the operational variants. According to the graph Busa posted, that is equivalent to about 1570 HP at sea level, which is what I'm using.

For the Ki-44, I'm using 1355 HP at sea level.

>For my power/weight comparison I use the official numbers with the HA-45-21 engine installed and the HA-109 engine.

Hm, do you have official numbers for the Ha-109? I reverse-engineered the TAIC graph for my numbers, which is not as accurate as numbers straight from the original source.

>With those engines and empty weight the Ki84 holds a slight advantage.

Hm, with my numbers (take-off weight, fully fueled, without external stores) it looks like this:

Ki-84: 3608 kg, 1570 HP - 0.435 HP/kg
Ki-44: 2764 kg, 1355 HP - 0.490 HP/kg

That's a significant advantage for the Ki-44.

>Power of engines is rated as maximum take off power. Can't really compare to different engines at two different altitudes IMO they way you did. Just my opinion though.

Well, I calculated performance over the entire envelope and just provided two cornerstone data points for quick reference. The exact comparison altitude does indeed change the balance between the two aircraft, the Ki-84 benefitting from altitudes greater than 6 km.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Wilbus · « **Reply #94 on:** July 28, 2005, 05:16:44 PM »

Rgr HoHun, different numbers differnet results.

Yours may very well be more accurate.

Mitsu · « **Reply #95 on:** July 31, 2005, 11:50:05 PM »

Bring Ki43 Ki44 Ki100 to Aces High.

Wilbus · « **Reply #96 on:** August 01, 2005, 03:29:38 AM »

LOL Mitsu.

Well, since you're at it... I'll just join in.

Bring the Ki 43, 44 and 100 to AH!

Btw, do you have some more info of the 100?

hogenbor · « **Reply #97 on:** August 01, 2005, 05:51:06 AM »

Quote

The barracks are like the size of a living room in most homes, where about 20 people sleep in cramped up spaces. It's basically what Western people would expect to see in their own prisons. The pay is like 20 bucks for a month of service.
[/B]

In my coutry it caused quite a stir after some politician suggested putting MORE THAN ONE person into a cell. Yes, in prisons. Yes, the place where even the Dutch put their murderers, bank robbers, terrorists and drug dealers. Ok, you're not free to go where you want, but you can get cable TV, make phone calls every now and then and if you're lucky you can 'see' your wife in a private room occasionally. So, out of interest, what do your prisons look like?

We don't have conscripts anymore, but from my friends and colleagues I know that it was 18 months of boredom, usually spent watching a certain type of movie and drinking lots of beer. And occasionally you were supposed to shoot an Uzi.

There is a lot of talk about respect (and moral values) in my country, there isn't any anymore, not for teachers, not for parents, not for the police, not for any figure of authority. I'm 34 years old and I've seen the shift from a teacher being an unquestionable figure of authority, to someone who is called by his first name, to someone who has to take abuse and in a number of cases violence. Ok, I oversimplified, but you get the idea. Yes, this worries me.

I do not hope to understand Asian culture in my lifetime, but I work with German people a lot. The Netherlands share a border with Germany but the difference is quite noticeable. Germans do what they are told, they don't question their boss, most certainly not when he has 'Dr.' in front of his name. Dutch people do. The site manager where I work here is called by hirst first name from cleaners to engineers to the janitor. That would be unthinkable in Germany.

Mitsu · « **Reply #98 on:** August 01, 2005, 06:12:06 PM »

The Ki-100 is slow '45 fighter, but it is like the Ki-43-III or A6M5b with good ammo.

Wilbus · « **Reply #99 on:** August 01, 2005, 06:28:06 PM »

Weight and engine power mitsu? Armament?

Wotan · « **Reply #100 on:** August 01, 2005, 06:44:58 PM »

Its a Ki-61 airframe with a Ha-112-H radial engine. There were Ki-61 airframes waiting on the Ha-140. The factory producing the Ha-140 was bombed by B-29s and production disrupted.

They decided to mate the Ki-61 airframes to the radial Ha-112.

A couple of quotes (I can't verify their accurracy...)

Quote

Ki-100 (prototypes)one Cell of Kawasaki Ki-61 II KAI with Radial engine.

Ki-100 Ia Figther Type 5 of Army (mark Ia) initial model of series, KI-61 II KAI modified

Ki-100 Ib(Mark Ib) total vision cabin

Ki-100 II Prototypes- engine Mitsubishi Ha-112-II Ru with Turbocompressor of 1,500 Hp.

Specifications

Model: Ki-100-1a/b (396 produced)
Powerplant: One 1500 hp Mitsubishi Ha112-II engine.

Performance

Max Speed: 360 mph (580 km/h) at 19,685 feet (6,000 m).
Initial climb: 2,734 ft (833 m) / minute.
Service ceiling: 36,090 feet (11,000 m)
Maximum range: 1367 miles (2,200 km)

Dimensions and weights

Wingspan: 34 ft 4 in (10.48 m)
Length: 28 ft 11 in (8.82 m)
Height: 12 ft 4 in (3.75 m)
Wing area: 215 ft² (20 m²)
Weights: 5,567 lb (2,525 kg) empty, 7,705 lb (3,495 kg) loaded.

Armament

Two fuselage-mounted 20 mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing mounted 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns

Quote

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.

Widewing · « **Reply #101 on:** August 01, 2005, 06:54:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mitsu
The Ki-100 is slow '45 fighter, but it is like the Ki-43-III or A6M5b with good ammo.

Wouldn't it be more like a Ki-61 with more drag? After all, it is a re-engined Ki-61.

I've seen extraordinary claims that the Ki-100-1-Otsu was Japan's best fighter. However, considering its actual performance I cannot agree. Seriously, its performance numbers were not notably better than late Ki-61s and would suffer from the same weaknesses in AH2 as the Ki-61. Those being poor climb and miserable acceleration.

I'd rather see the Ki-44-II-Hei introduced before the Goshikisen.

My regards,

Widewing

Wotan · « **Reply #102 on:** August 01, 2005, 07:01:43 PM »

Wilbus do you own FB/AEP/PF?

Ki-100 is flyable there (I like Ki-61 better). The Ki-84 has water / methanol and has max speed of 425 or so...

Comaprison of Ki-100-1 / Ki-84-1b

Wilbus · « **Reply #103 on:** August 01, 2005, 07:03:53 PM »

Thanks Wotan

Looking at the numbers, engine power vs weight and so on, the Ki84 seem to be the better fighter (if one is to compare the Japanese best fighter of the war). I too have seen claims of both the Ki100 and Ki84 being the "best".

Looks interesting though and would be very nice to have.

Would have to agree with Widewing aswell though would rather see the Ki44 first.

Wilbus · « **Reply #104 on:** August 01, 2005, 08:04:52 PM »

Ops, mate my last post at the same time as you posted the charts I believe.

Yes I won FB/AEP/PF and will try the Ki100 in there. Haven't flown PF all that much yet.

Looking at those charts aswell the Ki84 looks to be the superior plane.