Kawasaki Ki-45

[Wmaker]

Well, I must have misread you:

Well, that's what you do.

Well... debating the characteristics of the 2 planes:

I weren't and am not debating anything. I'm just putting Ki-45's performance into context. 110C happens to be closest performance-wise in AH and was mentoned several times in this thread.

The Ha102 provides 1080hp per engine in the best of circumstances. The DB601 powering the 110C-4 would produce between 1100 and 1200 hp per engine. That's about 300-400hp more total. While the Ki has more wing area, it also has 1700kg more weight when loaded, and even the base empty air frame was 500kg heavier.

<sigh>

It seems you have your figures mixed up. It's the other way around. Ki-45 has less wing area and weighs also a lot less. I have to say though that these math-skills of yours never cease to amaze me.

As an aside: At the same time the Ki-45 was being developed, the Bf110 had already progressed to the 1500hp-per-engine G model prototype with significantly better armament and capabilities. Interesting comparison, eh?

As mentioned above, this is totally irrelevant and beside my point.

[Krusty]

Interesting how I could have taken that quote wrong, eh? Seeing as how you basically said it was a "major" combat type then said right after it wasn't one of the "main" combat types. Whatever. I'll let it go. Moving on...

You are quite right. I did mix up the weights/wings. I pulled up a quick and dirty wiki page for each to compare, and was looking at the wrong ones. Terribly sorry, what a silly goof to make. It does drive home the fact that the Ki was underpowered, though, having even less wing area. Its initial climb rate is listed as 2100 fpm in a couple of places. That's a bit lower than the 110C.

Has nothing to do with math. The point that the 110C is similar to the Ki-45 was contested/corrected immediately, and your "putting into context" is merely "debating" that facts to say you think they are similar. But you say you're not debating, only "putting into context" -- which is really the same thing: defending your opinion. That's fine. It's allowed. This is a civil discussion and you are entitled to your opinions.

[HighTone]

For air-to-air in Aces High, the Ki-45 wouldn't be any worse or better than Bf110C. As noted, the wingloadings are very close. 110 might again a small advantage in turn radius due in MA-weights due to the fact that it carries sightly more fuel and has slats. Other hand, Ki-45 has a clearly better powerloading and would therefore climb and accelerate better. So overall they'd be very close to each other.

At low altitudes in a flat lufberry, Ki-45 would turn inside the P-38s in Aces High just like the 110C currently does.

Hopefully AH features Ki-45 one day, with a production run of nearly 1700 it was one of the major combat types of the IJAAF.

I would love to have a Japanese twin in the game. It would be great for the special events as well. The Ki-45 and the Ki-102 would be  lots of fun.

Rock on Wmaker, I'm with ya.

[Wmaker]

Interesting how I could have taken that quote wrong, eh? Seeing as how you basically said it was a "major" combat type then said right after it wasn't one of the "main" combat types. Whatever. I'll let it go. Moving on...

It indeed was one of the major combat types. One of the workhorses of the IJAAF. It was used as a day fighter/bomber interceptor, night fighter, strike aircraft. It was operated in South East Asia, Dutch East Indies, New Guinea and China etc. It was for example operated by ten Sentais in the course of the war. Looking at the Japanese fighters we don't have in Aces High, only Ki-43 had a bigger (a lot bigger indeed) production run. Ki-45 was widely used combat type no matter of how it performed or weather you like it or not.

It does drive home the fact that the Ki was underpowered, though, having even less wing area. Its initial climb rate is listed as 2100 fpm in a couple of places. That's a bit lower than the 110C.

I don't quite understand what the wing area has to do with it but if you think Ki-45 is underpowered then 110C has to be aswell considering that Ki-45 has better powerloading than 110C. In wingloading these two aircraft are very closely matched. I wouldn't look too closely on initial climb rate figures given on various websites.

Has nothing to do with math.

Well, when you manage to work up a 400hp difference between the Ki-45 and 110C it is starting to be a bit amusing.

The point that the 110C is similar to the Ki-45 was contested/corrected immediately, and your "putting into context" is merely "debating" that facts to say you think they are similar. But you say you're not debating, only "putting into context" -- which is really the same thing: defending your opinion. That's fine. It's allowed. This is a civil discussion and you are entitled to your opinions.

Fair enough. So far I've proved that the performance figures of these two types are rather close and that theres nothing that makes Ki-45 somehow mystically far worse than 110C.

Of the subs used in Special Events, 110C is actually a fairly good sub for the Ki-45. Of course I hate the need to use subs in general and wish Ki-45 would get added at some point. As one of the work horses of the IJAAF it definately deserves its place in the sim.

[Wmaker]

In post war tests flown by the American's the pilots got the following impresions of the Ki-45:

- Very poor taxing characteristics due to poor brakes and full-swivel tail wheel.

- Due to the high nose attitude S-turns needed while taxing.

- Very good take-off chracteristics and only short roll needed. Aircraft gets airborne at 85-90mph IAS.

- Initial climb was good and acceleration continued in the climb.

- The effectiveness of the control was satisfactory from high speed down to the stall with the exception of stick forces which became very heavy at 300mph IAS.

- Flight characteristics were commendable and American pilots were impressed by the maneuverability.

- The stall characteristics were satisfactory and the pilot got adequate warning of the approaching stall.

- The approach and landing chracteristics were also found to be very good, the aircrfat touching down at 70-75mph.

- The engines ran rough and there was excessive noise and vibration levels in the cockpit at all speeds.

- The cockpit was found to be narrow and the pilot's seat adjustment was insufficient.

- The visibility downward was found to be ppor and very poor to the rear.

Source: Francillon's Kawasaki Ki-45 -book in the old Profile series

[Volron]

- The cockpit was found to be narrow and the pilot's seat adjustment was insufficient.

Well the average American Pilot is a bit bigger than the average Japanese Pilot.  If there was a comment about the plane from a Japanese pilot, this may be different.  Do you happen to have access to any books that had a Japanese pilot comment on the plane?

All in all, I do think this plane would be a good add to AH, if only just to have the option to fly her.  Maybe not right now, but definitely deserves a spot in AH.  Didn't the 45's that had the 37mm have better engines?  How good was the 45's 37mm?  I may as well ask this now; How well would the 45's 37mm do against gvs when they add it?  Reason I asked is simple, someone would end up asking about it eventually.  I think it will be along the lines of the 39's 37mm when trying to kill gvs?

[Krusty]

Probably worse than the P-39 gun. The Japanese large cannons were notorious for their poor quality, poor reliability, and poor hitting power. Their caseless 40mm comes to mind, especially. They put a lot of time and effort into 20mm and perfected that, but IMO anything larger and they were totally lost.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Thanks for this invaluable account, WMAKER, especially since it buttresses the intuitive take I wrote earlier.

It's like I say, and I'm going to coin this as Godzilla's Aces High Theorem I: There are NO BAD ADDS.

This a/c was a major combatant and thus and at the very least would be a fine scenario addition. If a larger contingent of players begin to make use of the other arenas, it might be useful there as well.

[Wmaker]

Well the average American Pilot is a bit bigger than the average Japanese Pilot.  If there was a comment about the plane from a Japanese pilot, this may be different. 

Yep, and the fact that US planes generally had pretty roomy cockpits.

Do you happen to have access to any books that had a Japanese pilot comment on the plane?

Not off hand.

How good was the 45's 37mm?  I may as well ask this now; How well would the 45's 37mm do against gvs when they add it?  Reason I asked is simple, someone would end up asking about it eventually.  I think it will be along the lines of the 39's 37mm when trying to kill gvs?

Yeh, the Ho-203 of the ki-45 would be close to the P-39's M4 cannon in terms of AT-effectiveness, ie. not very good. M4 has mv of 610m/s and Ho-203 has mv of 570m/s. Both fire HE ammo. Against smaller aircraft it would obviously be one shot one kill weapon.

[SmokinLoon]

In post war tests flown by the American's the pilots got the following impresions of the Ki-45:

- Very poor taxing characteristics due to poor brakes and full-swivel tail wheel.

- Due to the high nose attitude S-turns needed while taxing.

- Very good take-off chracteristics and only short roll needed. Aircraft gets airborne at 85-90mph IAS.

- Initial climb was good and acceleration continued in the climb.

- The effectiveness of the control was satisfactory from high speed down to the stall with the exception of stick forces which became very heavy at 300mph IAS.

- Flight characteristics were commendable and American pilots were impressed by the maneuverability.

- The stall characteristics were satisfactory and the pilot got adequate warning of the approaching stall.

- The approach and landing chracteristics were also found to be very good, the aircrfat touching down at 70-75mph.

- The engines ran rough and there was excessive noise and vibration levels in the cockpit at all speeds.

- The cockpit was found to be narrow and the pilot's seat adjustment was insufficient.

- The visibility downward was found to be ppor and very poor to the rear.

Source: Francillon's Kawasaki Ki-45 -book in the old Profile series

Reports like these are what I hope HTC (and players) pay attention to when they design and fly sim aircraft.  Granted, there is no "hard data" in the form of numbers, but actual pilot testimony should mean something, imo.

[Krusty]

What, "engines ran rough," "seat was uncomfortable," and "taxiing was hard"?

Those are useless as far as modeling in-game. HTC does model such things as stall speeds and I presume they have a way of determining how something handles in a stall based on the physics of the wing etc... They do a lot of research, but they use actual objective data, rather than subjective impressions. It's the better way to go: more reliable, more accurate. Most of the time they get it right, too.

[icepac]

If the engines "ran rough" then they were obviously not making thier rated power.

So many tests were compromised including some fw190 and ta152 tests by the allies.

[SmokinLoon]

What, "engines ran rough," "seat was uncomfortable," and "taxiing was hard"?

Those are useless as far as modeling in-game. HTC does model such things as stall speeds and I presume they have a way of determining how something handles in a stall based on the physics of the wing etc... They do a lot of research, but they use actual objective data, rather than subjective impressions. It's the better way to go: more reliable, more accurate. Most of the time they get it right, too.

You just once again insinuated the worst in what someone wrote.  Funny how you didn't mention the short take off, or the effective control from high speed to stall, or commendable flight characteristics, etc.  Lots of positives there that may not be able to be picked up by flight modeling software.  Mind you, I mentioned that in a different manner in my first post.      

[Wmaker]

Nice pic:


And some performance data (probabaly TAIC testing and/or estimates):


Would be great if someone with knowledge of th language could translate!

[Krusty]

Funny how you didn't mention the short take off, or the effective control from high speed to stall,

These are objective things and are shown in actual flight test resports. HTC follows these kind of reports and these would be modeled. As I mentioned.

or commendable flight characteristics, etc.

Again going back to SUBJECTIVE points. What is commendable? That the seat is more comfortable? That the pilot's arms don't get tired as quickly because of ergonomics? None of these are modeled nor do they play a role in this game.

The stuff you can measure is taken into account. The quantifiable is considered. Opinions aren't. At least, not that I've seen so far on any existing AH models.