Kawasaki Ki-45

[Krusty]

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

Those have to be the initial estimates that were never met.

The Ki-45 certainly didn't do 350-360mph, from all other accounts I've read.

[Wmaker]

Those have to be the initial estimates that were never met.

The Ki-45 certainly didn't do 350-360mph, from all other accounts I've read.

Actually those figures "don't have to be" anything in particular unless you have a better source. They are what they are, and what they are can be found out best with an open mind. That is why I asked if someone could translate.

[PJ_Godzilla]

My wife is fluent in Japanese. She translates as a a matter of course in her work at Tokai Rika. I'll run it by her tonight since she often requests that I fineline her English intracompany publications.

[1Nicolas]

Ki-46 Dinah.... Easy target for my P-38





                                        Sincerly
                                             1Nicolas A-20G Fighter/Bomber Pilot

[Karnak]

Ki-46 Dinah.... Easy target for my P-38





                                        Sincerly
                                             1Nicolas A-20G Fighter/Bomber Pilot

P-38s and Spitfires certainly weren't laughing at the Ki-46 in WWII, nor was it an easy target.  There was a reason the Luftwaffe wanted a production license for it so badly too.

[Wmaker]

My wife is fluent in Japanese. She translates as a a matter of course in her work at Tokai Rika. I'll run it by her tonight since she often requests that I fineline her English intracompany publications.

Thanks for the offer Godzilla and thank your wife for me too!

Like I said earlier I'm suspecting that it is data from the TAIC's (Technical Air Intelligence Center) Manual on Japanese aircraft and as such they are probably performance estimates.

Here's an example of such a chart for J2M:


Lot of the data on that page on the Ki-45 is pretty self explanary but I'm mainly interested on the box on the lower left corner. It seems to have the legend for the performance charts. I'm interested if the legend matches that J2M-chart. It probably does.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Thanks for the offer Godzilla and thank your wife for me too!

Like I said earlier I'm suspecting that it is data from the TAIC's (Technical Air Intelligence Center) Manual on Japanese aircraft and as such they are probably performance estimates.

Here's an example of such a chart for J2M:
(Image removed from quote.)

Lot of the data on that page on the Ki-45 is pretty self explanary but I'm mainly interested on the box on the lower left corner. It seems to have the legend for the performance charts. I'm interested if the legend matches that J2M-chart. It probably does.

It's good that you've clarified. Why? Because it makes the fact that I forgot to give her a copy last night somehat better, since I can now be more specific about the priority of information we want. She's actually at home today so I'm sending her an e-copy now. Sorry I forgot last night. Understand, if I prioritize it will be quicker. My wife is a native speaker - she grew up there (still maintains her citizenship in fact, despite having been here since '90) - but, even so, reading Japanese is never trivial. Katakana/Hiragana is one thing - hell, I could probably translate that part of it. It's the big bad Kanji that can really baffle even aficionados sometimes. Consider that there are thousands of the pictograms and that many have different sources/significances (hanzi, kokuji, kokkun) and there it is.

So, I'll tell her to get us the lower left first.

And you're right - it's pretty easy to discern, e.g. the climb perf and speed perf charts and what units they use.

[Krusty]

I'm personally wondering why an original japanese-text document would show miles per hour and 1000s of feet per minute on the charts.

I didn't think they used those measuring methods. Something doesn't seem right. Shouldn't it be kph and m/s ?


EDIT: As an aside, every reference you can find on this thing has top speed listed in the 335 range. I haven't seen and real controversy or debate about that yet.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Initial feedback via an email from my wife:

The document was published by an individual (Yoshiharu Nakano) who refs, upper left, an US Military (something like USN Air Information Bureau or Service) source which published revised data in '46. original data in '45. So, the ultimate source is some sort of US military eval that released this data some time near the end of the war in a publication: Japanese Aircraft Performance and Characteristics (revised 11/45 report is of data for Ha-chi-tatsu (? not sure) from US Test data - apparently they had one and tested it some time prior to publication). Speed was found to be faster by the US testers than in the data from the Japanese publication - @5460m 568kph (20-30 kph faster than Japanese data, but I don't have source on this comparative set). There's also some comment that the data is unusual in that it is for "combat" (what she calls "fighting"), which I suspect is like WEP or something like full mil.


So, Krusty's guess appears to be a good one - it looks like original source here is US eval and not Japanese.

My wife did that hurriedly and away from her tube. I told her to find me an attribution. She says that appears upper left - you can see the Romajji dates there.

As for the box lower left, it is a simple legend. She came back with: "The upper left graphs show all outputs. in the upper right and lower left, - and -.-. indicate military outputs. .... and -..-.. are fighting outputs."

I'll milk her on this some more, if you llike but I think that source info is what you were after. As for the speed discrepancy, perhaps the US evaluators were using better US Tar..? or maybe just a high-quality sample, fit and finish-wise..?

[Krusty]

Or, as in many cases they had better fuel and could run it at higher settings without detonation in the cylinders, giving more power. Most captured US tests of Japanese aircraft yielded at least 10% improvement over Japan's own real-world testing. then you get cases like the Ki-84 with significant improvement in US hands with US supplies.


Unrelated to the chart:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/toryu.htm

Interesting short read. Some excerpts/comments on the Toryu and its initial use in combat and some other impressions from Watanabe Yoji (I don't know who that is off the top of my head), from a book in 1983.

Credited as:
"Notes from WATANABE Yoji: Toryu: Jubaku kira (Toryu: Bomber Killer) (Tokyo, Sankei Shuppan, 1983)"

[Wmaker]

Initial feedback via an email from my wife:

The document was published by an individual (Yoshiharu Nakano) who refs, upper left, an US Military (something like USN Air Information Bureau or Service) source which published revised data in '46. original data in '45. So, the ultimate source is some sort of US military eval that released this data some time near the end of the war in a publication: Japanese Aircraft Performance and Characteristics (revised 11/45 report is of data for Ha-chi-tatsu (? not sure) from US Test data - apparently they had one and tested it some time prior to publication). Speed was found to be faster by the US testers than in the data from the Japanese publication - @5460m 568kph (20-30 kph faster than Japanese data, but I don't have source on this comparative set). There's also some comment that the data is unusual in that it is for "combat" (what she calls "fighting"), which I suspect is like WEP or something like full mil.


So, Krusty's guess appears to be a good one - it looks like original source here is US eval and not Japanese.

My wife did that hurriedly and away from her tube. I told her to find me an attribution. She says that appears upper left - you can see the Romajji dates there.

As for the box lower left, it is a simple legend. She came back with: "The upper left graphs show all outputs. in the upper right and lower left, - and -.-. indicate military outputs. .... and -..-.. are fighting outputs."

I'll milk her on this some more, if you llike but I think that source info is what you were after. As for the speed discrepancy, perhaps the US evaluators were using better US Tar..? or maybe just a high-quality sample, fit and finish-wise..?

Thank you very much! It confirms what I suspected that the data is most probably from the TAIC Manual. I know Americans had at least two Ki-45s. They probabaly got one running well and using higher octane fuel they got better performance. Depends on what boost levels they used in their tests. I've never seen at what power settings the official Japanese figures were achieved either so it's hard to say.

Thanks again Godzilla and thank you wife for me aswell!

Hopefully Toryu finds it way to AH one day!

I'm personally wondering why an original japanese-text document would show miles per hour and 1000s of feet per minute on the charts.

I didn't think they used those measuring methods. Something doesn't seem right. Shouldn't it be kph and m/s ?

As I said earlier, I suspected that the data comes from the TAIC manual which was gathered by the US intelligence regarding Japanese aircraft.

EDIT: As an aside, every reference you can find on this thing has top speed listed in the 335 range. I haven't seen and real controversy or debate about that yet.

One variant did 335.5mph another 340mph according to Francillon. And yet, you still claimed earlier in this thread how 110C would be 20mph faster even though 110C does *only* 345mph at alt in AH.

[icepac]

I last saw this plane laying around at Garber in the 90s so I guess someone cleaned it up and they displayed what they could though I'm pretty sure they had much more of the plane at that time.

If you put either "garber" or "nasm" after any plane number and google it, you should find some good information and behind the scenes photos since had at least part if not entire examples of every single WWII plane.........it's just that there are so many stored it would boggle your mind.

I remember leaking containers stuffed full of wings and other parts all over the place back in the 80s.

I'm sure they have at least another 50 years worth of restoration ahead of them.

[Krusty]

One variant did 335.5mph another 340mph according to Francillon. And yet, you still claimed earlier in this thread how 110C would be 20mph faster even though 110C does *only* 345mph at alt in AH.

The 110C looked closer to 350. the Ki-45 (at the time, cursory searching) looked 330. That's 20mph.

[Tupac]

Ni!

[Wmaker]

The 110C looked closer to 350.