KI-100

[JunkyII]

Some articles I read said it was probably the best fighter the Japs had, but was produced in low numbers

[RTHolmes]

389 delivered according to wiki, saw combat, served in squadron strength. could be worth a look

J2M looks interesting too.

[phatzo]

I don't think it ever got its intended engine and was unreliable due to poor quality materials towards the end of the war. But it would be a serious bit of kit otherwise.

[sandwich]

yes
= 

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 8.82 m (28 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 12.00 m (39 ft 4 in)
Height: 3.75 m (12 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 20 m² (215 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,525 kg (5,567 lb)
Loaded weight: 3,495 kg (7,705 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Mitsubishi Ha 112-II radial engine, 1,120 kW (1,500 hp) at take off
Performance

Maximum speed: 580 km/h (313 kn, 360 mph) at 6,000 m (19,700 ft)
Cruise speed: 400 km/h (217 kn, 249 mph)
Range: 2,200 km (1,189 nmi, 1,367 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,090 ft)
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 6 min
Armament


Guns: 2 × 20 mm fuselage-mounted Ho-5 cannons, and 2 × 12.7 mm (.50 in) wing-mounted Ho-103 machine guns



Although we need the ki-43 and the G4M first.

[Karnak]

The Ki-100 was NOT the best Japanese fighter.  It was merely reliable at a time when all other Japanese fighters were not.  The Ki-84 is a much better fighter than the Ki-100 when it is operable.  The Ki-100 would perform very much like the Ki-61 we have in AH.

The Ki-100 was an emergency lash up of the Ki-61-II after the Japanese lost the ability to produce the inline engine.  It is just a Ki-61-II with a radial engine of about 1,500hp.  It was never waiting for different engine.

[Saxman]

Just looking over the specs right away it should be obvious it's not close to being Japan's best. It's best speed is only average (most of the LW American plane set is faster) and climb is only about 2700fpm, again this is about average.

It wouldn't be a BAD addition for variety's sake, but nowhere near critical for filling out holes. The Ki-61 can easily fill in for the Ki-100 because, as Karnak said, the Ki-100 IS a Ki-61, just with a different engine.

The Ki-43, Ki-44 and Ki-45 are all far more significant gaps in the plane set and are needed before any other Japanese fighter.

[Masherbrum]

The Ki-100 was NOT the best Japanese fighter.  It was merely reliable at a time when all other Japanese fighters were not.  The Ki-84 is a much better fighter than the Ki-100 when it is operable.  The Ki-100 would perform very much like the Ki-61 we have in AH.

The Ki-100 was an emergency lash up of the Ki-61-II after the Japanese lost the ability to produce the inline engine.  It is just a Ki-61-II with a radial engine of about 1,500hp.  It was never waiting for different engine.

Every book I've read on the Ki-61 states otherwise.   Flight characteristics improved on all but Top Speed.   All 3 books I have on the Ki-61 (two from Japan, so the "winner isn't siphoning BS because it won) state:  "Wingloading decreased on the Ki-100 from the Ki-61 from 189kg/m³ to 175kg/m³.   This resulted in even tighter turns than the Ki-61."   Not to mention the 100 was about 350lbs lighter to begin with.

So, I guess we agree to disagree.   The Ki-84 was NOT the best fighter they had, but in AHII it is thought of as that.   That thought cracks my arse up, because the Ki-84 was probably the MOST UNRELIABLE Fighter for Japan, starting at the Production level.   Landing gear, an engine that required a ton of maintenance at the cost of declining personnel, the list goes on.  

Yes to the Ki-100 and fix the Ki-61 II's turn radius first.  

[Karnak]

I'd say the N1K1-J was less reliable than the Ki-84.

As to the Ki-100, I didn't say it was the same, I said it was very close to our Ki-61, which it was.

Also, we don't have a Ki-61-II to have its turn rate fixed on.