Kawasaki Ki.100

[Krusty]

"Greatly"? No. Marginally at best. Climb rate is greatly hampered by drag.

[Wmaker]

"Greatly"? No. Marginally at best. Climb rate is greatly hampered by drag.

Climbrate will be increased due to more thrust available compared to the weight. At climbing speeds induced drag is overall bigger contributor than parasite drag.

What is "greatly" and what is not is subjective but I consider 325hp increase in power to be very significant for a WWII fighter aircraft and as such, the increase in climbrate will be significant indeed.

[nrshida]

At best climb speeds parasitic drag is less of a factor that induced drag, unless I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely.

They did make a very neat job of the installation:-





It is a very small aircraft, approximately the same size as a Bf109. You only really appreciate the difference when you stand in front of a P-47!  

"Greatly"? No. Marginally at best. Climb rate is greatly hampered by drag.

I think that's why it would be an interesting addition, to be able to make a direct comparison between the two.

[nrshida]

Ah, that'll learn me to update topics before posting when my Laptop's lid has been closed all night. Apologies WMaker.

[Wmaker]

Apologies WMaker.

Np, I'm guessing that two times won't be enough anyway.

[Baumer]

A translated chart I have shows the Ki-100 getting to 5000 meters in 6 minutes vs Ki-61 taking 7 minutes. The difference in climb performance seems pretty significant to me.

[Krusty]

You realize....

Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) in 6 minutes..... 16,400 divided by 6 = 2733 fpm average.



Whereas our in-game Ki-61 averages 2700-2800 fpm all the way up to 14k before it starts to taper off?

Like I said, and I ADMIT I'm generalizing here, marginal difference.


Drag DOES impact climb rate. Flying with an empty DT will kill rate of climb, dropping it will improve it noticably. The weight is negligable on most airframes (60lbs? Less?), so the drag can be shown to be the killer of RoC.

[Wmaker]

You realize....

Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) in 6 minutes..... 16,400 divided by 6 = 2733 fpm average.

(Image removed from quote.)

Whereas our in-game Ki-61 averages 2700-2800 fpm all the way up to 14k before it starts to taper off?

Like I said, and I ADMIT I'm generalizing here, marginal difference.


Drag DOES impact climb rate. Flying with an empty DT will kill rate of climb, dropping it will improve it noticably. The weight is negligable on most airframes (60lbs? Less?), so the drag can be shown to be the killer of RoC.

You'll see the same "increase" in average RoC when you just theoretically compare it to the "time to alt" for all planes. Many times these are "from standing" times.

No one said that the overall drag doesn't affect climbrate, no one even said that parasitic drag doesn't affect climb rate. We are saying that significant increase in power will yield a noticeable increase in climbrate. Last time you were claiming how A6M3 will have a lower climb rate than A6M2 and then it was due to the "smaller wingarea". You were totally wrong then as demonstrated by actual data and AH modelling and you are just as wrong now.

[Baumer]

Apples vs Oranges

The Ki-100 had a 14.2% better time to climb then the Ki-61. A 10% difference in any meaningful performance metric, is not minimal or marginal.

[Krusty]

No one said that the overall drag doesn't affect climbrate,

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.

[Krusty]

Last time you were claiming how A6M3 will have a lower climb rate than A6M2 and then it was due to the "smaller wingarea". You were totally wrong then as demonstrated by actual data and AH modelling and you are just as wrong now.

Incorrect... HTC chose to use US fuel data (apparently? I don't know where he got that rate), but other reference material backed me up and I shared this with everyone, before the eventual Krusty-bashing began. Also pilot anecdotes themselves from pilots transitioning to the new ride. The specs did not hold up to the climb rate it has in-game. It is a completely inaccurate rate of climb we currently have (it OUTclimbs the A6M5b!), but knowing HTC's speed for fixing these issues I won't hold my breath.

[Squire]

(it OUTclimbs the A6M5b!),

In a fully fueled clean config the A6M5b climbs just slightly slower (@100 fpm?) than an A6M3 32 from 0-@8k or so as a result of it being 370 lbs heavier (extra internal goodies and fuel) while using the same engine the 1130 hp Sakae model 21. The extra thrust from the exhaust stacks is not enough to compensate for that weight increase. The A6M3 has the best power-weight ratio of any of the Zeros when comparing loaded weights.

Climb test with both a/c at 5650 lbs (weight of a full fuel A6M3) clean (ran the A6M5 with a high fuel burn to get its weight down to the same) from 0 flaps T.O. roll on runway fuel burn 1.0 at commencement of test (alt-r then engine start):

A6M3 0-10k in 3:28 (208 seconds)
A6M5b 0-10k in 3:18 (198 seconds) < climbs @ 5 % faster at same weight (although still close). Not slower. That would be as a result of the extra thrust from the ejector exhaust stacks.

Oh re the A6M3 32. There isnt anybody that wouldn't pick it over an A6M2 with its 940hp engine and 60 rounds of cannon per gun. That much is pretty clear.

Ki-100 (back on topic). Its not a super 1945 IJ fighter. It is slightly better at alt and climbs better yes to a Ki-61 and I would still like to see it added down the road, sure. Not untill we get a J2M Raiden and Ki-43 (two a/c that are very opposite in most ways) first though.

The two best IJ fighters in WW2 hands down were the Ki-84 and the N1K2-J which we have in the game already. There is no undiscovered wonder fighter for the IJ we don't yet have. The Ki-100 is not the equal of either of them. Its a slightly better (you can debate by how much) Ki-61 variant.

[nrshida]

Japanese wonder fighter? Who said they were looking for that? Some people would simply like to have some of the more interesting aircraft included regardless of their uberness rating.

Krusty during our last exchange about the Hayate, didn't you basically trash Francillon as an unreliable source? You don't see a problem with being selective about your sources of information from case to case?

The AH Ki-61 is apparently overweight. That was illustrated recently with information from three separate sources.

[Squire]

Japanese wonder fighter? Who said they were looking for that?

There have been numerous posts in the past re the Ki-100 as it pertains to perhaps that. Not nessecarily in this thread here. I just posted it for context. I was not pointing fingers at anybody in particular. Like I said I would like to see it added and it is an improvement over the Ki-61.

Ki-100. from me.

[Wmaker]

Incorrect... HTC chose to use US fuel data (apparently? I don't know where he got that rate), but other reference material backed me up and I shared this with everyone, before the eventual Krusty-bashing began. Also pilot anecdotes themselves from pilots transitioning to the new ride. The specs did not hold up to the climb rate it has in-game. It is a completely inaccurate rate of climb we currently have (it OUTclimbs the A6M5b!), but knowing HTC's speed for fixing these issues I won't hold my breath.

Nothing you say here is "backed up" by anything. You didn't post any of those pilot anecdotes (not that they would explain a way simple physics anyway) even though I repedeatly asked you to. You never posted any. And as, Squire said, the fact that it theoretically slightly outclimbs A6M5b on couple altitude bands isn't really wrong or a miracle of any sort, the only one to whom this wasn't clear from the start were you.



Everyone can draw their own conclusions of the original thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,305565.0.html