Author Topic: Ki84 and Ki100 questions ? (Read 588 times)

RRAM · « **Reply #15 on:** June 24, 2002, 10:26:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mitsu

If this plane only produced 50 or 60, I would agree with you.

hehehehe Mitsu

. Frankly, seeing its performance I think the Ki100 not only should NOT be a perk, but a 35 ENY playe

But still is very late war...who knows

P.S. Hristo, the chart posted above, I think is of the US tests done on a Ki84 using high octanage fuel. In-service with IJAAF the plane was unreliable and had much worse performance because the use of low octane fuels.

-=Silo=- · « **Reply #16 on:** June 24, 2002, 03:06:59 PM »

Gentlemen, gentlemen please settle down

I consider the Ki-100 a variant of the Ki-61, much like the 190-D is a variant of the 190-A series... except in reverse. With that said, the Ki-100 offers no more performance than a Ki-61-I Hei with 2x12.7mm and 2x20mm.

Yes. Ki-84 is a monster. Its top speed? Well depends on what you read. It used 4 different engines of various power throughout its service life, but the most common was the 1990hp version (Also used in N1K). So top speeds vary from 388mph - 427mph. Personally I think 410-415 mph would be the best range.

Ki-44?? Never had 20mm installed in combat as far as I know. Only used 4x12.7mm, 2x12.7mm 2x40mm and 2x12.7mm and 2 x 7.7mm

That is all

butch2k · « **Reply #17 on:** June 24, 2002, 03:29:50 PM »

From the original source

butch2k · « **Reply #18 on:** June 24, 2002, 03:31:59 PM »

Part 2

butch2k · « **Reply #19 on:** June 24, 2002, 03:32:59 PM »

Part 3

butch2k · « **Reply #20 on:** June 24, 2002, 03:33:56 PM »

Part 4

Mitsu · « **Reply #21 on:** June 25, 2002, 07:21:28 AM »

Butch, you da man!!!

thanks.

Vermillion · « **Reply #22 on:** June 25, 2002, 08:29:18 AM »

Butch, isn't that the TAIC document on the Ki-84?

If so, thats not a measured flight test. Thats the intelligence services "predicted" performance based upon known parameters and alot of guess work. Look at the TAIC data on the N1K2, and then compare it to how it actually performed. They definitely erred on the side of caution.

And the 420+ mph at 21,000ft data is flight test data, but its post war and based upon American 100 octane fuel. Wartime (especially late in the war) Japanese aviation fuel was 86-89 octane and sometimes less, and sometimes was "boosted" or "fortified" with a pine oil extract.

I'd love to see the 420+ Ki84, in fact I've lobbied for it before, but I doubt thats what we would ever see in AH.

Pongo · « **Reply #23 on:** June 25, 2002, 10:16:50 AM »

That doc says right in it that it is an estimate assuming the plane has the shape of an oscar..they didnt even know what it looked like when that document was written..how can you pass it on as "from the source"
lol

butch2k · « **Reply #24 on:** June 25, 2002, 10:53:32 AM »

I meant the orginal source for mitsu data, i realized too late that it was not the correct one btw, as Mitsu japanese book used the TAIC report while mine is from the ATAD.
Since I also have the TAIC report here are the meanings of the curves :
full line : Military power, Normal weight
small doted line : WEP, Normal Weight
large doted line : Military power, overload weight

btw the Frank engine required a minimum octane of 92.

J_A_B · « **Reply #25 on:** June 25, 2002, 11:09:45 AM »

"btw the Frank engine required a minimum octane of 92."

That is probably why they suffered so many fires and failures in service since they were running them on less a lot of the time.

J_A_B

oboe · « **Reply #26 on:** June 25, 2002, 08:09:06 PM »

According to Butch's TAIC document, the 422 mph was achieved in 1944 with 92 octane fuel. Its right there in the lower corner.

Mitsu · « **Reply #27 on:** June 27, 2002, 04:12:27 PM »

butch,

do you have any other IJAAF fighters performance graphs on the TAIC, example ki-43, ki-44, ki-45, or ki-61?

I have a book called TAIC Manual, but this book doesn't have the performance graphs of the planes.

thanks.