Not to mean any disrespect, Mitsu, but I'd like to see the related data on what you claim. This, in sense fairness, is a must.
We've all seen how things go around. To claim something is wrong, he must come up with some sort of at least controversial data which the community can discuss about.
If someone else posted a claim like this without any back-up data, he'd be branded as a whiner instantly and the whiner-police would start posting how the original poster is nothing but a whiner who can't accept the fact that the plane of his interest was trash in real life.
I've seen many posts demanding correction, even with some good, controversial data, being attacked as a "whiner post" and yet, nobody seems to ask of you what in other cases is considered a must. This probably means the community trusts your word for it, but it also means that there is a clear double standard on who's word to trust and not. If some other newbie claimed that the Ki-61 flaps were not generating enough lift, I think everyone who reads my post right now knows what would have happened.
So, how does one calculate the lift factor? What kind of aero-dynamics and physics does it involve? What is to be compared with the real life Ki-61 and AH Ki-61 involving flap deployment and extra lift? How does one measure correct lify anyway? I think you should post the data to back up your claim, so the other guys may examine it and either agree or disagree.
Also, about the flap deployment speed, the same issue was brought up on the Bf109. The Bf109s, according to some data posted by other people, should have active flap deployment at about 220mph, and yet in AH, it is a lot lower. Other people have commented that the initial data concerning the 220mph flap deployment speed was wrong. How is it different in the Ki-61's case? How can we know if the data you have is to be trusted more than the data HTC uses?
Once again, I don't know anything, and I'm requesting some evidence on why the Ki-61 is wrong. I'm just curious.
