I have, in my possession, two sets of Japanese text books outlining the development of Japanese aircraft based on the manufacturer. While I cannot read Kanjii sufficiently well enough to make out details, these books are dated 1956, so are either working from source documents or first-hand knowledge of individuals who were involved in the aircraft.
If someone is willing to translate, I will scan these pages and post them to see if this can shed any additional light on the subject.
Now - without delving into the technical data - let's ask ourselves some soul questions regarding the Ki-100.
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.
So, can we at least agree that it would be an interesting addition to AH?
PS: You're welcome for the photos.
J
