Ki-61/Ki-100 discussion

[nrshida]

Thanks Wmaker, that was an excellent post. I actually thought the same as Baumer, that coolant, oil, hydraulic fluid (if present), all that sort of non consumable stuff would be included in the unloaded weight. While ammunition, fuel, the pilot's lunch etc would be the stuff that gets loaded on a flight per flight basis.

If you are correct and unloaded literally means what the motorcycle manufacturers state as dry weight, they even omit the battery acid. The swines 

Your list seems pretty complete I could only think to add Water/Methanol mixture, but I don't think the Ki-61/Ki-100 had that system. Shame we have to make a guess about what the aircraft industry means (or meant in 1945) by 'unloaded weight'. Any professionals out there who can comment? Hopefully someone in the know will read this thread!

[Wmaker]

Wmaker the only point I'd like to add is that sometimes (depending on the source documentation) I have seen items like coolant and oil included in the empty weight.

Yep. For example in some German load plans coolant is included in the empty weight and oil isn't.

I don't have enough documentation to firmly state that there is an issue with the Ki-61 we have. However, what I do have, leads me to think it might be slightly over weight (642lbs subtracting 200lbs for the pilot = 442lbs overweight),

As I don't have a primary source load plan so I can't say anything definitive either. It's just that we have two weights that are the same in virtually all sources and those are the empty and loaded/take off weight. And so far it looks like we have to take them as accurate. That "load plan" I put together was just an attempt to fill in the weight (which is quite substantial) between those figures. It could be that it is close to correct or not. AH fuel and ammo loads also seem to agree with real life.

[Ack-Ack]

I never said they used the "A-5 nose".  They looked at the design of the engine mounts, and exhaust.  They obviously made tweaks.  Also, the 61 handles NOTHING like 205 or a 109, so you can pretend the He-100 that was sent to Japan, wasn't used as a platform.

Funny that this thread mentions the C.205 and Bf 109.  When the USAF pilots first encountered the Tony, it was incorrectly identified as either a C.205 or a Bf 109 by the USAF pilots.

ack-ack

[Krusty]

Krusty, Wmaker did not say empty weights are often inaccurate.

You, sir, are incorrect. He was discussing the very same topic I was, that there are too many questions, inconsistencies, and unknown values in "empty weights" to really rely upon them.

Since he had just covered the exact topic as I, I would have been remiss to ignore his contribution to the thread and leave his name out.

We were talking about the same thing.

[nrshida]

Alright Krusty, in the interests of keeping the discussion constructive, I will concede that point. Presented as Wmaker suggested the empty weights could be considered 'inaccurate'. Although I think 'unclear' would be a much better word because the only trouble we are actually having with the figures is that we don't know precisely what fluids and expendables they include and don't.

I was belabouring the weight minus fuel especially so we could make a comparison of the structural weights of the aircraft and its effect on performance and that point is still valid. With the figures we have within the confines of each source it is a reasonable assumption that they are consistent at least. In other words still useful for direct comparison of sub types and variants.

We could really use a word from from HTC here to explain their decisions and assumptions (if any) of which data they based their models on. But I expect they are busy.

[Masherbrum]

Alright Krusty, in the interests of keeping the discussion constructive, I will concede that point. Presented as Wmaker suggested the empty weights could be considered 'inaccurate'. Although I think 'unclear' would be a much better word because the only trouble we are actually having with the figures is that we don't know precisely what fluids and expendables they include and don't.

I was belabouring the weight minus fuel especially so we could make a comparison of the structural weights of the aircraft and its effect on performance and that point is still valid. With the figures we have within the confines of each source it is a reasonable assumption that they are consistent at least. In other words still useful for direct comparison of sub types and variants.

We could really use a word from from HTC here to explain their decisions and assumptions (if any) of which data they based their models on. But I expect they are busy.

Arguing with Krusty is pointless.   He's already contradicted printed and accepted sources.

[Wmaker]

Ok this is getting silly again...

You guys are just talking in circles over something that really doesn't matter either way. <sigh>






---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguing with Krusty is pointless.   He's already contradicted printed and accepted sources.

Speaking of contradicting printed and accepted  sources...

Could you provide a quote from an "accepted" source that agrees with this statement of yours:

...the Ki-61 was basically a license built and re-engineered He-100.

?

Here's a nice example of a source which Baumer kindly provided which happens to completely disagree:


...as did Francillon:

"While negotiating with Daimler-Benz, Kawasaki had approached the Army with initial design studies for various fighter aircraft making use of this engine. As reports from the air war in Europe were showing the apparent superioiry of aircraft powered by liquid-cooled engines, the Koku Hombu instructed Kawasaki in February 1940 to proceed with two aircraft of this type: the Ki-60, a heavy interceptor, and the Ki-61, a lighter all-purpose fighter, priority being given to the heavier aircraft. In December however the emphasis shifted to the Ki-61 for which Takeo Doi and Shin Owada responsible. The aircraft, powered by a Kawasaki Ha-40, showed in its design the strong influence left by Dr Vogt on his Japanese pupils."


So, a source please?

[Masherbrum]

Ok this is getting silly again...

You guys are just talking in circles over something that really doesn't matter either way. <sigh>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of contradicting printed and accepted  sources...

Could you provide a quote from an "accepted" source that agrees with this statement of yours:

?

Here's a nice example of a source which Baumer kindly provided which happens to completely disagree:
(Image removed from quote.)

...as did Francillon:

"While negotiating with Daimler-Benz, Kawasaki had approached the Army with initial design studies for various fighter aircraft making use of this engine. As reports from the air war in Europe were showing the apparent superioiry of aircraft powered by liquid-cooled engines, the Koku Hombu instructed Kawasaki in February 1940 to proceed with two aircraft of this type: the Ki-60, a heavy interceptor, and the Ki-61, a lighter all-purpose fighter, priority being given to the heavier aircraft. In December however the emphasis shifted to the Ki-61 for which Takeo Doi and Shin Owada responsible. The aircraft, powered by a Kawasaki Ha-40, showed in its design the strong influence left by Dr Vogt on his Japanese pupils."


So, a source please?

1.  Regarding the reworking of the Fuselage, 190 engine mounts and exhaust, refer to Bueschel.   I GAVE THE SOURCES when I replied.   But you people get hung up on "semantics" that you fail to comprehend.   Go back to the initial reply (it's still there).

2.  Regarding the common claim of USN mistaking the Ki-61 for a 109, that is littered throughout publications.   But because pilots "mistook" the Ki-61 for a 109 (which is where the whole 109 thing originated), does NOT mean it was based off of the 109 (or discount the He-100 being a possible "foundation" which is all I was trying to say.  Not an "exact duplicate of the He-100" as you guys are trying to make claim.).  

The Ki-61 handles NOTHING like a 109E or a 205, so making the "generic claim" is pointless.   Unlike Krusty, I have flown this bird for the majority of the time in this game (8.5+ years).   I have trained several people who wanted to take the time and actually work the ride (they approached me and took it serious, not a "waste my time as I'll not fly it long").   The only thing even remotely similar are the draining of the wing tanks of the 205 and 61, to improve the roll rate.  

Applying MA things into this post would be that the MAJORITY of Ki-61's seen in game, try for the bounce.   Because they truly do not understand the handling characteristics of the plane.   I also understand that any ride in the MA can be used as such.   From personal observations, over 95% of the Tony's I encounter try to bounce.   Most when trying a 1 vs 1 in 61's, end up in the tower as they are clueless on what to do without alt.  

3.  Regarding the He-100, I'm not the only person on this board who has pointed out the "similarities".   I'll leave that one up to you to figure out, but it isn't a "two weeker".  

Anything else Wmaker, or does that about cover it?

[Wmaker]

1.  Regarding the reworking of the Fuselage, 190 engine mounts and exhaust, refer to Bueschel.   I GAVE THE SOURCES when I replied.   But you people get hung up on "semantics" that you fail to comprehend.   Go back to the initial reply (it's still there).

2.  Regarding the common claim of USN mistaking the Ki-61 for a 109, that is littered throughout publications.   But because pilots "mistook" the Ki-61 for a 109 (which is where the whole 109 thing originated), does NOT mean it was based off of the 109 (or discount the He-100 being a possible "foundation" which is all I was trying to say.  Not an "exact duplicate of the He-100" as you guys are trying to make claim.).  

The Ki-61 handles NOTHING like a 109E or a 205, so making the "generic claim" is pointless.   Unlike Krusty, I have flown this bird for the majority of the time in this game (8.5+ years).   I have trained several people who wanted to take the time and actually work the ride (they approached me and took it serious, not a "waste my time as I'll not fly it long").   The only thing even remotely similar are the draining of the wing tanks of the 205 and 61, to improve the roll rate.  

Applying MA things into this post would be that the MAJORITY of Ki-61's seen in game, try for the bounce.   Because they truly do not understand the handling characteristics of the plane.   I also understand that any ride in the MA can be used as such.   From personal observations, over 95% of the Tony's I encounter try to bounce.   Most when trying a 1 vs 1 in 61's, end up in the tower as they are clueless on what to do without alt.  

3.  Regarding the He-100, I'm not the only person on this board who has pointed out the "similarities".   I'll leave that one up to you to figure out, but it isn't a "two weeker".  

Anything else Wmaker, or does that about cover it?

Having similarities and being a "licence-built re-engineered" copy are two totally different things. Why speak something and then mean something totally different? No licence building contracts were signed when it comes to Ki-61's air frame as a whole, the engine was licence-built as we well know. No point in calling dog a cat. Licence-built and re-engineered are basically each others' opposites anyway, used together they form an oxymoron.

None of this talk about the game, flying Ki-61 in the game or to which aircraft it was mistaken for initially or by whom has nothing to do with what I asked.

[Masherbrum]

Keep playing the semantics game.  Your question was sufficiently answered. 

[Masherbrum]

61-I-Tei


Bf-109 E-1


They look NOTHING alike.   Again, regarding the "quote" you want answered.   When the Tony was FIRST ENCOUNTERED by USN pilots, they "thought it was a 109".   Awesome.   However, the cited sources and the modifications still prove otherwise.  

For chits n giggles, here is a picture of the actual He-100 that was sent to Japan.




Now, back to the Ki-100.   On pg.29 of Bueschel's book (I do not have a scanner).   "In a crash design program, in which a German Focke-Wulf Fw-190 A-5 fighter originally sent to Japan in late 1943, was dismantled to study it's engine mounting characteristics.   The conversion was engineered in time to have the first prototype completed in just 90 days.  The Focke-Wulf fuselage was almost as narrow as the Hien's and the flush side mounting of the German BMW 801D engine's exhausts were adopted for the conversion."

Case closed.

[Wmaker]

<sigh>

I'm not playing any sort of semantics game.

There's a huge difference between a licence-built product and two products that have some superficial resemblence. It is not about semantics. Anyone with even basic understanding of these aircraft and the engineering involved should understand that.

Ki-61 is an in-house Kawasaki design it is not a He100 nor is it a Bf109.

I really don't care if you'll get that or not. My main purpose was to put correct facts on the table so that anyone reading this thread doesn't get any false ideas about the origings of the Ki-61. There are enough WWII aviation myths and disinformation going around as it is.

[Masherbrum]

<sigh>

I'm not playing any sort of semantics game.

There's a huge difference between a licence-built product and two products that have some superficial resemblence. It is not about semantics. Anyone with even basic understanding of these aircraft and the engineering involved should understand that.

Ki-61 is an in-house Kawasaki design it is not a He100 nor is it a Bf109.

I really don't care if you'll get that or not. My main purpose was to put correct facts on the table so that anyone reading this thread doesn't get any false ideas about the origings of the Ki-61. There are enough WWII aviation myths and disinformation going around as it is.

I never said it wasn't.   I said "it was basically a license built He-100", not "a license built He-100".   Do you think for one second I discount it from being a Kawasaki?   The Japanese have always been good at "improving" on set designs and this is no different.

The "myth" is citing "the mistaking the Hien for a Bf-109" after the first few engagements.   Pilot scuttlebutt is something totally irrelevant to this discussion.  

This THREAD deals with the Ki-61 and Ki-100.   I believe there is a gross misunderstanding of this.  I have now quoted the RELEVANT source above, for the implentation of the Radial into the 61's fuselage, creating the Ki-100.   Then two people (guess) were hell bent on discrediting the sources.   As for the need for the Ki-100?  Performance was roughly the same but engine reliability was vastly improved.

[Wmaker]

Then two people (guess) were hell bent on discrediting the sources.

I'm not discrediting the soruces at all. Just correcting your poor interpretation of them.

[Krusty]

Quite so...

Let him serve as a negative example WMaker. He's really not worth it.


Nrshida, ignore the troll there, but in answer to your post: Wmaker is right, we're getting off track.

In case you're new let me explain a few things. HTC models aircraft after actual documents. They don't use prototypes and they try to model after war-time examples... However they don't tell us what they use. There are far far too many people that would nit-pick the heck out of the source, that would basically attempt to further their own agenda by arguring nonstop about "detail X" or "detail Y" that really only serves their own purposes.

Sometimes, based on testing that is known on real aircraft, and power curves obtained, you can see if something matches up (Our Fw190A-5 for example matches one specific set of charts from a certain test) and you can assume they have used this information to build their flight model. However, they do not really openly talk about their sources nor necessarily divulge the hows and whys of their modeling. Sometimes they do, but it's relatively rare.

It's unofficial HTC policy (yes, unofficial, hehe).