Gaston, one of the drawbacks of being completely devoid of objectivity, is that you are unable to be critical and deduce the motivations and reasons for certain reports & data. The Ki-100 was a stop gap, presented subjectively as a new and devastating aircraft to give hope and morale to a poorly trained and desperate airforce.
Regarding flight performance think about it logically, how could a Ki-100 outperform a Ki-84? By the way, one Hellcat and one Ki-100 in that engagement were lost when they collided.
Would still be a nice and logical addition to the game however.
I guess it is a testament to your objectivity (and of that of others here) that a reference is made to some air battle that has nothing to do with anything I said OR the Ki-84...
You'll have to forgive me: I didn't realize the high level of discussion I was dealing with here...
Yes OK... Let's follow your logic further: The Japanese denigrated in that test their own Ki-84, which in service must have outnumbered the Ki-100 by about ten to one, and which was still in high priority development and high level production (being after all
less than a year past its very first combat of around summer of '44, maybe even late Summer if I recall), and decided, just like that you know, to diss a major production program in the interest of a hasty lash-up that would likely never see the same numbers produced?
And they produced an entirely
fake test that would raise morale by saying their most advanced and most numerous fighter was, comparatively to an improvised fighter, a piece of junk?
Did I get all the ins and outs of your pathetic argument, or did I miss anything?
By the way, concerning predicting how well these things do in turns (Gosh! How can you think the Ki-100 is a better fighter than the Ki-84? Good grief!) and my shocking theory that the P-47 out-turns the Me-109G at low speed sustained turns (as the 190A does the Spit), did you know nobody knows what the actual wingloading of these things is? I checked...
It's called a wing strain gauge: Don't worry if you have never heard of it, there's a reason for that... It measures precisely the bending of the wings by running a current on a piece of metal tape attached to the spars in an x pattern (there are probably different methods)...
It's been used since the 1930s, but there is one important problem...
I ask experts for results, and I ask and I ask, and all I get are static 1940s wing bending tests on the ground...
It seems pretty clear that until the jet age came along and swept prop fighters away, nobody tested the amount of actual wing bending a prop fighter gets while in a sustained turn in actual flight!
If
in-flight WWII fighter wing strain gauge
turning tests exist I would love to hear about them... Dive pull-out tests don't count...
Sorry for the disgression. Let's go back to how amazing the Ki-84 was compared to a Ki-100... 'Cause we know better than the actual pilots you know... The arguments developped here proved it...
Gaston
