Reading all this stuff about the Ki-100, I wonder how it would stack up against the Ki-44? By roughly checking the the data, they seem to be pretty close in some aspects, while in others, the Ki-44 seems to beat the Ki-100 easily. Your opinions?
Well here's how I see it..
Based on the data I've seen, Ki-44 would have a pretty clear advantage in both climbrate/acceleration and speed especially at lower altitudes. Ki-44 has a very light powerloading. It would probably have the lightest powerloading of all prop fighters in AH, that doesn't always translate into the best climbrate due to possible lower prop efficiency. So the Ki-44 might not be the best climbing prop fighter but definately one of the best. Ki-100 on the other hand is probably somewhere slightly above the average power loading. The differences in turn radius would largely depend on the efficiency of the Ki-44's combat flaps, which are very similar to the ones found from Ki-84 (both are Nakajima products), and as we know, they are very effective in AH. Considering rather poor roll rates of the Ki-61 -family, I'm quite sure that the Ki-44 would roll faster.
If the Ki-100 had similar performance characteristics as the Ki-61, then why would production and development of the aircraft (Ki-100) continue, since there were other aircraft whose performance overall was superior, such as the Ki-84? I find it hard to believe that the Ki-61, which was outclassed by early late-war American fighters, could still be a viable platform? I ask this question arbitrarily, because like so many successful designs, improvements were made to the aircraft to allow them to retain their advantage, or at least keep pace.
So its my belief that the Ki-100 was superior in performance to the final production versions of the Ki-61. I do not see engine reliability as the sole reason the aircraft was kept in production and development. Of course, the bookworms will nay-say this, but until we can lay our hands on some performance data and comparative data against the Ki-61, its all speculation. Sadly, there are so many variables that we've failed to consider - such as the quality of the fuel and oil used, that even comparing apples to apples is subjective without having actual examples (in full combat trim) to compare and contrast.
It is true that production continued even after the already ready airframes meant for the Ha-140 (Ki-61-II) were converted, but still, that was the main reason why the Ki-100 was born to begin with. There were already produced airframes waiting for engines. Also, Nakajima and Kawasaki were separate firms with separate rescources, infastructure and logistics. They had already been producing their own products for years. Even if Japanese leadership would have ordered Kawasaki to start producing Ki-84 for example, retooling production lines to switch manufacturing from one fighter to a new type from different manufacture would have most probably created unbearable situation due to attrition and the overall situation the country was in. Well, actually the situation was basically unbearable already for Japan even without war economical suicide such as this. Also, there's enough data to conclude that, when working properly, Ki-84 was vastly superior to the Ki-100.
