But the Ki-100 is more manoueverable...<snip>
I wonder how much of this is truth, and how much is the fallacy of "accepted wisdom" ?
Admittedly, the Ki100 was about 600lbs lighter than the Ki61-II, which would improve wingloading and powerloading (otherwise identical airframes). But with appreciable increased frontal drag (the reason for lossing 29mph in top speed).
Neither plane is gonna be considered "nimble" in the sense of the classic japanese turnfighter with wingloadings of 38lbs/sqft and 35lbs/sqft.
And IMO the powerloading benefit of the Ki100 would be negated by increased frontal drag, thereby giving them nearly equal "manueverability" in the vertical sense. This is evidenced by both aircraft having the same Climb to 5km times of 6 minutes.
So considering the fact that your giving up almost 30mph in the Ki100 to the Ki61-II(360mph vs 380mph), to get a slight benefit in sustained turn ability and your getting little to no benefit in vertical manueverability (a much more important factor IMO), I would say that the Ki61-II would be a much more competitive and viable arena (and especially scenario) aircraft.
and there were about 5 times as many made too.
More yes, but not 5 times.
There were originally 404 Ki61-II airframes, but 275 were completed as Ki100's, so I guess we can call production at 129.
And the total production of Ki100's (a and b models) was only 384. So neither aircraft is what I would call "high production".
Which Ki-61-II do you want, razorback or bubble canopy?
Hehe
Well, if I'm flying it, I of course would like the bubble canopy
But from what I have read, wasn't there only a single Ki61-II made with the bubble canopy? (the modified -II, which was actually the -III prototype?) If so, then the razorback is more appropriate IMO.
So what do you guys think of the
Kawasaki Ki-64 as a Japanese perk plane
? Talk about Pony driver nightmares
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
