Kawasaki Ki.100

[Wmaker]

Fair enough, but I took exception to the way you seemed to brush off the importance of drag in climb rate. I will let it go and move on to the important stuff...


Rene J. Francillon, take him or leave him, says in regards to rate of climb:
Ki-61-I-Otsu (-b) gonna get 5:30" for 5000m
and Ki-61-I-KAI-Tei (-c) 7:00"

The Ki-61s had a number of configurations, armors, weights, and fuel tankages inside any number of "variant names" -- they would make changes without changing the designation -- so that's the best and worst case right there. 5:30 minutes is 2982fpm average. 7 minutes is average of 2300 fpm. The Ki-61-II was listed as getting to 5000m in 5 minutes flat.

Please see this very interesting post on the ubi forums:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2101024949?r=1331061059#1331061059

He's a bit of an expert in other forums. He is using first-hand original Japanese documents, official japanese handling manual info, there... He "hangs out" (for lack of better term) on forums with some other experts as well.

He shows how the prototype Ki-61 made 5000m in 5:00, the production Otsu in 5:30, the production Tei in 7:00, and the production Ki-61-II Tei in 6:00.

He includes a list of resources on Ki-61 and Ki-100s that has probably more than 50 items on it (and that's his "short" list).

I think the Ki-100 is very similar in climb rate to Ki-61s. I think OUR Ki-61 is a bit of a dog and perhaps not the best (for example, the flight tests showing it turns as well as an FM2 whereas in-game the FM-2 will out turn it easily). Assuming a Ki-61 flight model re-visit, I think a Ki-100 wouldn't be noticably better in any category, excepting the second supercharger gear it has to power it at higher alts.

No real need to bring the earlier lighter variants of the Ki-61 like the b into the discussion as we are comparing the -Tei which is in AH to the KI-100. It is well known that the earlier variants were lighter and therefore climbed significantly better because they had the same basic power output as the -Tei. Ki-100 had a better climb performance due to having better powerloading and similar prop efficiency. As simple as that.

[morfiend]

^^^


  Wmakes quit making sense,your ruining all the hyperbole!




   

[Krusty]

Well, on the subject of which Ki-61 to compare it to.....

Gaston made a comment on some other forum (Yes... THAT Gaston...) said that the Tei was almost never used. He was in a bit of a rambling mode, but he made the comment about how most of the Teis were kamikaze or sitting on airfields canibalized to keep the earlier, lighter, models in service. He said he'd never seen a Tei in flight in any photo or some such. [Edit: Stick with me, I'm coming back to this in a moment..]

I don't agree that it will be "significantly" better climbing. It's your choice of words and the long-held false belief by many that the Ki-100 was some uber plane that makes me balk at the way you say it. However, I do agree it will have SOME increased climb rate, probably. I don't consider it "significant" or "massive" or any such description. Going into the difference in variant performance, though... What of the Gaston comment? Pure bluster or is there some grain of truth behind this? Was the later version eschewed because of lesser performance? I know stories of some Japanese pilots thinking armor was cowardly, and removing it from Ki43s or Ki84s or some other plane. Would they have kept their earlier versions with similar armaments but better weight?

I've always felt we should have a couple more Ki-61 versions, but now I wonder if the version we have is really representative at all?

[icepac]

Drag is proportional to the square of speed so it's very possible that best climb speed is slow enough that the extra drag is not as much a factor as some are saying here.

[Wmaker]

It's your choice of words and the long-held false belief by many that the Ki-100 was some uber plane that makes me balk at the way you say it.

I dont know which is worse, to claim that it will be worse than it is or calling it uber.

As far as -Tei goes, saying that was some rare variant that didnt see combat is complete nonsense, 1274 comparable variants were built.

[Krusty]

I don't think I ever said it was worse. I never claimed it was uber, but there is a large following on the Internet that does. Many urban myths and falsehoods surround the performance of this aircraft ("shot down 14 hellcats on its first sortie" etc...). I was not saying I agree, I was saying because of these rampant mistruths I did not like you choice of superlative to describe the climb rate.

to the Gaston comment, he didn't say it was rare, just that it rarely saw combat. Many made, but most used in kamikaze or canibalized for Otsu models and such. I suppose that goes more into the finer details of its combat service, but I don't know all that much in this area.

[Butcher]

Here's some specifications

Ki-100Ia
2 x 12.7mm MG's and 2 x 20mm cannons
Mitsubishi Ha-112-II engine, 1500 HP
272 built
580km/6,000m
Climbs 16,400ft in 6 minutes or roughly 2700ft a minute


Ki-100-Ib
Engine is roughly a tab better, being a Ha-112-IIru, its made for high alt interceptions, doing 590km/10,000m
same loadout as Ia

Also I am showing only 390 Ki-100s were built in total between the 2 models.

Comparing this to the Ki-84 and N1K I agree with Krusty, its nothing special -
and tales of the Ki-100 shooting down massive american planes is purely propaganda, for example on July 18th 1945, 25 Ki-100's tangled with P-51 mustangs of the 111th Regiment (Who were skilled pilots not rookies) - it was pretty much a tie as a few mustang's were downed, but only 4 of the Ki-100s returned to base.

The myth concerning the 8 Ki-100s that shot down 22 Hellcats without a loss, is nothing but - propaganda, its been stated the Hellcats were mainly on a bombing run and most were downed to ack with an actual loss of only 4 hellcats, im guessing to the Ki-100s and the Ack itself.

It deserves it's place in Aces High, but don't except it to be anything other then an upgraded Ki-61.

[Wmaker]

I don't think I ever said it was worse. I never claimed it was uber, but there is a large following on the Internet that does. Many urban myths and falsehoods surround the performance of this aircraft ("shot down 14 hellcats on its first sortie" etc...). I was not saying I agree, I was saying because of these rampant mistruths I did not like you choice of superlative to describe the climb rate.

to the Gaston comment, he didn't say it was rare, just that it rarely saw combat. Many made, but most used in kamikaze or canibalized for Otsu models and such. I suppose that goes more into the finer details of its combat service, but I don't know all that much in this area.

<sigh>

I don't quite know where to start but I think it's best if I don't, at all. I'll just say that no one on this thread claimed that it'll be something amazing, so I don't quite understand why you have to bring up these myths. Considering your allergy for these myths, it is kinda comical that the only one that brought them up on this thread is you. 

[Krusty]

Wmaker, I think you just don't understand basic English sometimes, and general American English fluency others. You seem to require more things spelled out for you than anybody else, and then you misunderstand or just plain don't GET what is being spelled out, so the end result is you get upset, and I get upset trying to explain it, when the original point itself would never have made either party upset to begin with.

That is honestly what it feels like. [edit: I know I am not the best communicator at times, but almost everybody but you seems to get what I'm trying to say, so I don't think it's me to blame in these instances.]

I'm not going to try explaining the point about the myths again, because you just won't get it and will start something over it. Just know I wasn't making an argument, I was simply issuing an explanation for WHY I didn't agree with your superlatives.

[nrshida]

See Rule #4

[Krusty]

See Rule #4

[nrshida]

See Rule #4

[Krusty]

See Rule #4

[nrshida]

See Rule #4

[Baumer]

I don't agree that it will be "significantly" better climbing. It's your choice of words and the long-held false belief by many that the Ki-100 was some uber-plane that makes me balk at the way you say it. However, I do agree it will have SOME increased climb rate, probably. I don't consider it "significant" or "massive" or any such description.

Krusty the data I discussed showed a 14.2% improvement in time to climb performance. Your position is that that isn't a significant change, let me ask you this. If a plane had a top speed of 400mph and it was increased by 14.2% to 456.8mph, would you also say that isn't significant?

I have not seen any post's that indicate the Ki-100 is some uber-plane, what has been presented is that the changes were significant enough to warrant it's addition to Aces High.