Author Topic: Kawasaki Ki-100  (Read 4653 times)

Offline FYB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1074
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2009, 11:49:14 PM »
J2M3 for the MA, and the A6M3 for the special events  :aok
a6m3 is a beautiful bird!  :aok


-FYB
Most skill based sport? -
The sport of understanding women.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2009, 11:53:15 PM »
I'd still like to see what the Ki-100 could be capable of.    :uhoh
-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2009, 11:57:11 PM »
Same as a Ki61. A few feet more in climb, a few mph less in speed, move the FTH up a few thousand feet.

It's nothing to write home about. It's a 1942 design that got a similarly old engine installed in it, instead of the 1941 engine it was designed to take.

Offline Cajunn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 723
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2009, 09:48:23 AM »
IMO even if you could add the bigger guns (or extra guns) in the KI-84 you would lose what makes it such great plane, it would lose its maneuverability and become a lot less effective.
“The important thing [in tactics] is to suppress the enemy's useful actions but allow his useless actions. However, doing this alone is defensive.”

Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
Japanese Samurai & Philosopher

Offline 1Boner

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2009, 11:46:59 AM »
IMO even if you could add the bigger guns (or extra guns) in the KI-84 you would lose what makes it such great plane, it would lose its maneuverability and become a lot less effective.

There's no "if" you could. They did.

Nothing that I have read anywhere indicates that manuverability is affected.

And even if loss of manuverability WAS an issue for you, you can still up the KI-84La instead of the Lb.

I'm talking about adding a variant, not eliminating one.



Viva KI-100  :rock
"Life is just as deadly as it looks"  Richard Thompson

"So umm.... just to make sure I have this right.  What you are asking is for the bombers carrying bombs, to stop dropping bombs on the bombs, so the bombers can carry bombs to bomb things with?"  AKP

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2009, 12:27:24 PM »
Same as a Ki61. A few feet more in climb, a few mph less in speed, move the FTH up a few thousand feet.

It's nothing to write home about. It's a 1942 design that got a similarly old engine installed in it, instead of the 1941 engine it was designed to take.

I've yet to see someone push the envelope in this ride.   Closest to me would be 4XTCH and I taught him a lot in the 61, because he wanted to learn it.   The rest BnZ in this ride, or come in at 15k+, which is a shame because is speaks volumes.    When I flew it I would level at 7.5k regardless.   I can turn with 80% of the plane set without resorting to "angles".

I know it sounds like ego, but I would still like to see what I could muster out of the 100.
-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Cajunn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 723
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2009, 12:42:35 PM »


Nothing that I have read anywhere indicates that maneuverability is affected.




Viva KI-100  :rock

Any time you add weight to an airframe the flight characteristics or going to change for the worse weather you read it or not that's just fact....109's or a good example  add the extra wing mounted 20mm and the added weight changes the way they fly.
“The important thing [in tactics] is to suppress the enemy's useful actions but allow his useless actions. However, doing this alone is defensive.”

Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
Japanese Samurai & Philosopher

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2009, 01:41:46 PM »
Any time you add weight to an airframe the flight characteristics or going to change for the worse weather you read it or not that's just fact....109's or a good example  add the extra wing mounted 20mm and the added weight changes the way they fly.
The Ho-105 20mm cannons don't weigh much more than the Ho-103 12.7mm machine guns they replace going from the Ia to the Ib, so not much weight was gained.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline morfiend

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10447
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2009, 02:55:57 PM »
Any time you add weight to an airframe the flight characteristics or going to change for the worse weather you read it or not that's just fact....109's or a good example  add the extra wing mounted 20mm and the added weight changes the way they fly.


 I would add to Karnak's post that comparing the 20mm gondies of the 109 isnt really fair.On the 109's the gondies add drag and weight,I beleive the drag is more detremental than the weight.The Ki84's 20mm's are built in and replace the HMG's so I dont think the difference would be noticable.

 Of course YMMV.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2009, 03:29:47 PM »
Ho-103 weights 23kg
Ho-5 weights 37kg

So the difference from the guns alone would be mere 28kg (62lbs). Too lazy to calculate the ammo but I bet the weight difference wouldnt be over 100lbs anyway.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2009, 03:40:24 PM »
300 rounds of 20mm ammo compared to 700 rounds of 12.7mm ammo, they would probably have a similar total weight.

Edit:

They might even weigh less.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2009, 03:43:17 PM by Karnak »
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2009, 03:50:37 PM »
300 rounds of 20mm ammo compared to 700 rounds of 12.7mm ammo, they would probably have a similar total weight.

Edit:

They might even weigh less.

Yes, I know it could be less (or more) just didn't bother to check it...probabaly very similar anyway.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline JunkyII

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8428
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2009, 09:55:32 PM »
Any time you add weight to an airframe the flight characteristics or going to change for the worse weather you read it or not that's just fact....109's or a good example  add the extra wing mounted 20mm and the added weight changes the way they fly.
-1 K4 has the biggest gun but handles the best overall :salute
DFC Member
Proud Member of Pigs on the Wing
"Yikes"

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2009, 10:00:42 PM »
The K4 handles best because it has a gargantuan engine to whip it around. If you put more guns on it it would perform worse.

Offline JunkyII

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8428
Re: Kawasaki Ki-100
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2009, 10:15:10 PM »
The K4 handles best because it has a gargantuan engine to whip it around. If you put more guns on it it would perform worse.
Isnt it still heavier though? Thats what I have always figured since it had better speed, probably had bigger engine :salute
DFC Member
Proud Member of Pigs on the Wing
"Yikes"