Author Topic: Ki-84 (Read 935 times)

Mitsu · « **Reply #15 on:** September 08, 2001, 05:39:00 PM »

It's a Ki-84-Ic, but It was a trial production only.

Ki-84-Ic had two Ho-5 20mm cannons in nose/two Ho-105 30mm cannons on wings, or two Ho-5 20mm cannons in nose/two Ho-155 30mm cannons in wings.

Mitsu

Mitsu · « **Reply #16 on:** September 08, 2001, 05:44:00 PM »

I think Ki-84-Ia is best.

It had two Ho-103 MGs in nose (350 rounds each), and two Ho-5 Cannons in wings (150 rounds each).

It's enough to kill enemy.

Mitsu

brady · « **Reply #17 on:** September 08, 2001, 06:03:00 PM »

I thought that around 200 were produced with the 30mm's,i seam to remember seing a figure for it in Richard Bueschel's book.

The Ia would be a killer for shure, I would be happy( err Thrilled

) to fly it, but the 30mm punch would be a blast, espichaly since we are geting so many heavy cannons now days on planes.

Karnak · « **Reply #18 on:** September 08, 2001, 06:04:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mitsu:
348mph at Sea Level
422mph at 21000ft
396mph at 30000ft

Mitsu,

Unless I'm gravely mistaken, those numbers or from the US tests with higher octane fuel. With Japanese fuel (which HTC does model) the Ki-84 tops out at 392mph.

Fester' · « **Reply #19 on:** September 08, 2001, 06:04:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mitsu:
Nik should be afraid of Ki-84 in TnB.
Ki-84's Fowler Flaps will increase its turning ability.

Mitsu

<sarcasm> yeah like the p38s do right mitsu ?</sarcasm>

Mitsu · « **Reply #20 on:** September 08, 2001, 06:40:00 PM »

Fester,
it's really different type fighter against Ki-84.
Where is Ki-84 Twin Frank?

Karnak,
I know about that, and I know Major. Iwahashi recorded 392mph @ 6,120m (631km/h) in 4th (No.8404) Ki-84.

Mitsu

funkedup · « **Reply #21 on:** September 08, 2001, 06:42:00 PM »

N1K2 has fowler flaps too. At least the one at the Champlin Fighter Museum does.

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

Mitsu · « **Reply #22 on:** September 08, 2001, 08:05:00 PM »

cc funked,
N1K2 had fowler flaps too.

N1K2 would have smaller turn radius than Ki-84.
But, Ki-84 would be good at reversal maneuvers (roll rate and anti-stall ability).
So, You may be able to kill N1K2 in Scissors easily, or you can run away from N1K2.

Of course, if Ki-84 and N1K2 fly in the same area, it will be terrible.

What do you think about N1K2 and Ki-84?

Mitsu

Urchin · « **Reply #23 on:** September 08, 2001, 08:39:00 PM »

Well, unless the Ki-84 can outscissor a 190 (which it may be able to), it will have a lot of trouble outscissoring a N1K2. I have trouble scissoring with N1K2s in 190s.

By the way, I'd really be shocked and astounded if HTC put the 30mm guns on the Ki-84. I won't be if they put the 4x20mm gunson, because all the N1K2 pilots would scream and squeak if the Ki84 had 2 machineguns (thus dropping their firepower by half if they switch)- but unless someone can prove that the 30mm varient saw combat I'd be surprised if they added it.

Thats like saying - "My Niki isn't fast enough. I want a plane that can outrun everything but an La7, can outturn everything but a SpitV, Zero, and Niki, and can kill stuff in one hit to".

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: Urchin ]

SKurj · « **Reply #24 on:** September 08, 2001, 11:22:00 PM »

niki should be able to outscissor a 190...

maybe not in the first pass or 2, but as speed drops 190 is fkt
Even sooner if nik dumps speed

SKurj

gripen · « **Reply #25 on:** September 08, 2001, 11:49:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak:

Mitsu,

Unless I'm gravely mistaken, those numbers or from the US tests with higher octane fuel. With Japanese fuel (which HTC does model) the Ki-84 tops out at 392mph.

AFAIK TAIC (TAIU-SWPA) tested the Ki-84 during war at Clark Field with Japanese 92 octane fuel and water injection and got results Mitsu claimed. Later at 1946 the USAAF tested the Ki-84 (rebuilt) at Wright Field and used higher octane fuel and got a bit better results:

363mph at sea level
427mph at 20k
4275ft/min climb rate

Early Production model did just 388mph at 19685ft at JAAF test but that was without water injection and at lower rpm (2900 vs 3000). So far no one has proved that the USAAF test was somehow unrelevant despite they used higher octane fuel. Probably they used better fuel to substitute water injection and manifold pressures were same as the Japanese used with water injection. I don't see any reason why the USAAF should have done a test with somekind of "hot rod" ratings.

gripen

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]

Mitsu · « **Reply #26 on:** September 08, 2001, 11:50:00 PM »

BTW, Ki-84-Ib (Ki-84-I Otsu) recorded 660km/h at 6,000m...it's a Japanese DATA. 92 octane fuel.

Mitsu

Mitsu · « **Reply #27 on:** September 08, 2001, 11:54:00 PM »

Pyro,
Do you have "Maru Mechanic of World Aircraft - Type 4 Fighter/Type 97 Heavy Bomber/Type 2 Flying-boat"?

This reference is awesome, if you don't have this book, you should buy it.

*This book is still available in Japan.

Mitsu

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Mitsu ]

F4UDOA · « **Reply #28 on:** September 09, 2001, 12:26:00 AM »

Mitsu, Gripen,

Where did you get those test numbers? I have never seen that info published anywhere?

Mitsu · « **Reply #29 on:** September 09, 2001, 01:05:00 AM »

Thanks for following, gripen.

your data is probably Ki-84's data which was tested in Australia by US.
I believe US used 140 octane fuel for Ki-84 in that time, also US changed engine plug & engine oil to US's one.

F4UDOA,
My TAIC data is from "Japanese Aircraft Performance & Characteristics TAIC Manual". You can get this book easily.

Mitsu