Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: tikky on February 22, 2005, 12:25:30 AM
-
I heard/saw quotes from jap pilots that ki-100 is so easy to fly that even inexperienced pilots can kill 14 hellcats with ease.
-
As long there was no pilot in it guess.
-
I just don't believe that quote-- I doubt inexperienced pilots kill anything with ease.
I can believe, however, that the Ki.100 had docile handling characteristics, good reliability and durability, performance at altitude, pilot protection, great armament, and was easily a match for the F6F.
I think it'd be a great addition to AH.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I just don't believe that quote-- I doubt inexperienced pilots kill anything with ease.
And not to mention that nobody (or plane available at the time) could kill 14 Hellcats with anything approaching Ease.
I would love to see the Ki-100, and think that the casual player will expect it to be a lot better than it was. I'm not sure if it does anything better than the Ki-84. May be packs more ammo :confused:
-Sik
-
14 hellcats I think is a little much. WWII hidtory is not my strongest, I am more napoleonic. heh Anyway I think I read that the Japenses suffered by the late war sucha dearth of experienced pilots that they were basically being sent to sink or swim, with little or no training. So while the plane may have been a match ( I would not know if it was or not) I beleive the pilots were not.
As an aside I heard a story about WWII fighters in relation to systems theory and how to use it.
They were having problems with losses on a fighter plane ( I do not remember which one) So they call in an expert to look at the planes. This cat goes wround measuring,looking talking to pilots and taking pictures of the planes. He does this for a day or 2 and leaves. Does not say a word just leaves. 3-4 days later he shows up wlaks up to some commander guy takes him to a plane and says weld amour here here and here. the officer says why our planes never get hit in those spots. The guy looks at him and says the ones that come back don't. I guess after they did the welding there survival rate skyroketed.
I do not know what that has to to do with exact systems theory but, I thought I would share. basically this post kinda hijacks the thread so I am sorry and will go away now.:)
-
Actuallu Aubrey that was pretty interesting.
-
I found the following quote:
from here: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html
"The Ki-100 was simple to fly and maintain. Even the most inexperienced pilots were able to get the hang of the Ki-100 relatively quickly. The Ha-112 engine proved to be quite reliable and simple to maintain. In combat, the Ki-100-Ia proved to be an excellent fighter, especially at low altitudes. It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves. When the Ki-100 encountered the P-51D Mustang at low or medium altitudes over Japan, it was able to meet the American fighter on more or less equal terms. The outcome of P- 51D vs Ki-100 battles was usually determined by piloting skill or by numerical advantage rather than by the relative merits of the two fighter types. However, at altitudes above 26,000 feet, the maneuverability of the Ki-100 began to fall off rather severely and the fighter was at a relative disadvantage in intercepting the high-flying B-29."
-
Originally posted by tikky
I heard/saw quotes from jap pilots that ki-100 is so easy to fly that even inexperienced pilots can kill 14 hellcats with ease.
You ever play that game as a kid where you whisper something to the person next to you, they pass it along the same way, and so on until it makes a circle and you see how much the message has mutated by the time it comes back around to the start?
Someone else posted a similar reference once. The original is the Saburo Sakai story where he fought off all the hellcats in his Zero. Someone somewhere changed the facts a bit and made it a Ki-100. Then someone took out Sakai's name so the story couldnt be ripped apart like the BS it was. Then it went to not only surviving a fight with that many, the pilot actually shot them down.
I actually emailed a guy who had one of these stories posted on his website, and tried to pass it off as genuine. We emailed back and forth for about a month until it was verified that his sources were all bogus and he took it down. I have no idea how the Ki-100 ever got into the story.
-
Originally posted by Aubrey
As an aside I heard a story about WWII fighters in relation to systems theory and how to use it.
That's about as incorrect as it can be. What really happened was a large scale professional study by USAAF on bomber losses. The study, however, did really suggest to add armor plates to locations as your mentioned, but of course to bombers, not fighters. There was no skyrocketing survival rates, but an improvement neverthless on the long run.
-
I make no claims as to the veracity of any story I may tell at anytime.
Or
Swim at your own risk
besides that is what I heard as I said I would not know if or if not true about any wwII plane. I am learning as we go here. I find the subject interesting so I am doing research. As of right now though you could tell me a Ki 100 was made out of jello and I would believe you.
-
The Ki-100 was so effective because it was made of jello. :D
-
Originally posted by hammer
The Ki-100 was so effective because it was made of jello. :D
It's true, it's true. I read that somewhere on the intardnet, too!!
-
Originally posted by slimm50
It's true, it's true. I read that somewhere on the intardnet, too!!
I have 500 hours in a Ki-100, and I assure you, it's not made of Jello.
it's pudding
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I have 500 hours in a Ki-100, and I assure you, it's not made of Jello.
it's pudding
-Sik
Jello pudding???
-
O.K. I just got off the phone with a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy that was talking to a guy that worked on a KI100
He knows for a fact it is not made out of Jello (TM) but made out of popsicle sticks some bailing wire and one or two squirrel pelts
-
Originally posted by slimm50
I found the following quote:
from here: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html
This is Emmanual Gustin's site and Joe Baugher's writing. Dubious sources at best were used for the Ki-100 piece.
A few facts: Ki-100-I-Otsu performance:
Max speed at 19,685 feet: 360 mph
Max speed at sea level: 309 mph
Climb to 16,000 ft: 6.0 minutes.
The simple fact is that the Ki-100 was nothing more than a radial engine'd Ki-61. There was no significant improvement in performance, except in climb rate. One minute was shaved off its climb time to 16,000 feet, (just under 4,900 meters) or 14% better.
Compare the F6F-5, F4U-4, P-51D and P-47N, all testing at full internal load.
F6F-5: From TAIC (Technical Air Intelligence Command) testing-
408 mph at 21,600
320 mph at sea level
Climb to 16,000 ft: 5.7 minutes
F4U-4: From USN testing
446 mph at 26,200 ft
381 mph at sea level
Climb to 16,000 ft: 4.6 minutes
P-51D: USAAF testing-
437 mph at 25,000 ft.
367 mph at sea level
Climb to 16,000 ft: 5.6 minutes
P-47N: USAAF testing-
467 mph at 32,500 ft.
362 mph at sea level
Climb to 16,000 ft: 8.8 minutes
P-38L: USAAF testing-
414 mph at 25,000 ft (440 mph at full factory rated HP)*
345 mph at sea level (357 mph at full factory rated HP)*
Climb to 16,000 ft: 5.1 minutes (4.9 minutes at full factory rated HP)*
*Allison rated the V1710-111/113 at 1,725 hp. The USAAF derated down to 1,600 hp because of reliability concerns. Allison field reps rigged P-38Ls for full rated power when asked by pilot.
So, here we have the enduring myth that the Ki-100 was any less out-classed than the Ki-61. The facts are different from the stories.
It is 51 mph slower at 19,680 ft (the Ki-100's best altitude) than the P-38L, 62 mph slower than the P-51D and 82 mph slower than the P-47N. It is 34 mph slower than the F6F-5 and 75 mph slower than the F4U-4 at that altitude.
Yes, the radial was easier to maintain and it offered greater reliability. However, the increased power was offset by increased drag of the cobbled-up engine installation. It was a decent fighter by early 1943 standards, but by March 1945 (when it appeared in service), it had to contend with some very high performance Allied fighters, including the F4U-4. Even the F4U-1A and -1D were notably faster and higher flying, and offered similar climb. Down the road were the F7F, F8F and P-51H, all of which were on an entirely different performance level.
Virtually every Allied fighter of the time (with the exception of the FM-2, which out-climbed and handily out-maneuvered the Kawasaki) was faster to the extent that they could engage and disengage at will.
Should the Ki-100 be added to the plane set? Absolutely. Will it prove to significantly better than the Ki-61? No.
The simple fact is that no 360 mph fighter was going to be able to compete with the late-war aircraft being flown by the Allies, including the F6F-5.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Im sure the japanese pilot believed it. But they believed alot of things.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I have 500 hours in a Ki-100, and I assure you, it's not made of Jello.
it's pudding
-Sik
Well, my dad is a retired general in the japanese defense force, and he let me fly HIS Ki100 -- and you're not 2 engine rated either!!! Let me tell you, my father the colonel knows how an autopilot works -- and the controls should be frozen ROYAL gelatin, not that Jello crap!!
And dont think I'll respond if you try to pin me down on any of this, either -- I know you're really trying to do identity theft.
AND don't think your mid control ray will work, because I'm wearing the football helmet with aluminum foil that I own the patent for!!
;):lol
-
widewing -
I don't think I've ever seen a reference for the F6F exceeding 400 mph. Most of the specs I've seen put it at 380 or less.
Story behind that?
-
The Blue Ox treads lightly over thin grass.
-
"mmm mmm mmm Pud-din' "
-
Originally posted by oboe
widewing -
I don't think I've ever seen a reference for the F6F exceeding 400 mph. Most of the specs I've seen put it at 380 or less.
Story behind that?
There was a design error on the location of the pitot static vent location that gave false airspeed indications. Grumman admitted it to the Navy. In turn the Navy really didn't care and didn't want to interupt production to make the correction. Most testing was done by using the existing static vents for data collection, thus the error was duplicated.
In side by side testing at 22,000 feet, the F4U-1A and F6F-5 were a dead heat in terms of speed.
TAIC instrumented the F6F-5 with independent equipment and recorded accurate speed numbers that were virtually the same as Grumman's with the static vent relocated. Speeds between 405 and 411 mph were possible with the F6F-5, depending upon tuning and cleanliness of the airframe (properly fitting cowling panels were critical).
Now considering both the F4U-1A and F6F-5 were powered by R-2800s, and the F6F-5's engine made 125 more hp than the F4U-1A's (-10W for F6F and -8W for F4U-1A), it made up for the F4U's slightly lower drag coefficient. Speed was about equal at altitude. However, because the F4U took air directly into the carb, at low altitudes (ram air) it made more power than the Grumman, which brought in air from the accessory section (no ram air), the F4U was faster at sea level in low blower.
Former Grumman chief test pilot Corky Meyer has written about this in Flight Journal, both the ram air effect and the mis-located static vent.
By the way, that TAIC test pitted the F6F-5 against the Zero 52 (A6M5). Needless to say, except for maneuvering below 150 mph, the Zero was badly outclassed.
A brief overview of the test was issued to British FAA Hellcat pilots serving in the Pacific and a copy appears in Barrett Tillman's book, "Hellcat".
My regards,
Widewing
-
i must say widewing , that all of your reply's are well written and educational , i enjoy the history lessons <
> 38
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Now considering both the F4U-1A and F6F-5 were powered by R-2800s, and the F6F-5's engine made 125 more hp than the F4U-1A's (-10W for F6F and -8W for F4U-1A), it made up for the F4U's slightly lower drag coefficient. Speed was about equal at altitude. However, because the F4U took air directly into the carb, at low altitudes (ram air) it made more power than the Grumman, which brought in air from the accessory section (no ram air), the F4U was faster at sea level in low blower.
Widewing, can you explain why the Corsair had a long post war career and the Hellcat didn't? I always thought the Hellcat was the back-up for the Corsair and became the mainstay of the US Navy carrier fighter force because Corsairs had (initially) a lot of trouble operating from carriers. But still the Hellcat didn't see much development, the Corsair did, it even served in the Korean conflict.
Was it because the Corsair was technologically more advanced and had more room from development? Or was it the fact that the Corsair was the plane the Navy always wanted? Or was it a political decision?
The performance differences between similarly engined F6F's and F4U's weren't dramatic and the F6F's was much better suited to a carrier environment (or so I'm told). Enlighten me.
Regards,
Ronald
-
Hellcat became the F8 Bearcat...though it never saw extensive duty anywhere to my knowledge. :)
Woof
-
Slow Slow! it's too slow!
I want H8K2!
:D
-
So what were the Japanese using at the end of the war for baka runs? NOS, B Stock, Refurbished Zeros and Franks? Did they use the newer planes, including the Tony's too? Just curious. I'm betting experience was not a requirement for those runs :lol
-
Originally posted by 38ruk
i must say widewing , that all of your reply's are well written and educational , i enjoy the history lessons <> 38
^^....what he said.:D
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
Widewing, can you explain why the Corsair had a long post war career and the Hellcat didn't? I always thought the Hellcat was the back-up for the Corsair and became the mainstay of the US Navy carrier fighter force because Corsairs had (initially) a lot of trouble operating from carriers. But still the Hellcat didn't see much development, the Corsair did, it even served in the Korean conflict.
Was it because the Corsair was technologically more advanced and had more room from development? Or was it the fact that the Corsair was the plane the Navy always wanted? Or was it a political decision?
The performance differences between similarly engined F6F's and F4U's weren't dramatic and the F6F's was much better suited to a carrier environment (or so I'm told). Enlighten me.
Regards,
Ronald
Grumman was very conservative company, despite designing some radical twin-engine fighters. Grumman was still testing the XF6F-6 when the war ended. This Hellcat had 2,450 hp available and a four-blade prop. Climb was in the area of 4k/min, speed up to 425 mph at 25k. However, development was slow due to the F7F and F8F programs. Both of these would prove superior to the hotrod Hellcat. As it was, the F6F airframe did not offer a great deal of development potential. Vought's Corsair did offer greater potential and remained in service well past the Korean War.
Grumman's first jet (F9F-3 Panther) would prove better than Vought's first jet (F6U-1 Pirate). Likewise, the F9F-6 Cougar (swept wing development of Panther) would be more successful than Vought's F7U-1 Cutlass, which was roundly despised in the fleet. Vought finally hit another home run with the F8U Crusader, which was a terrific fighter and still serves around the world today. Grumman's XF10F-1 was a failure, being an experimantal swing-wing design. Their F11F Tiger was a good performer but lacked range and suffered much from problems with the J-65 engine. It was the chosen ride for the Blue Angels until 1968. We all know about Grumman's last Navy fighter, the F-14A, B and D. Vought never built another fighter accepted by the Navy. Instead they built the successful A-7 series of light attack jets.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Grumman was very conservative company, despite designing some radical twin-engine fighters. Grumman was still testing the XF6F-6 when the war ended. This Hellcat had 2,450 hp available and a four-blade prop. Climb was in the area of 4k/min, speed up to 425 mph at 25k. However, development was slow due to the F7F and F8F programs. Both of these would prove superior to the hotrod Hellcat. As it was, the F6F airframe did not offer a great deal of development potential. Vought's Corsair did offer greater potential and remained in service well past the Korean War.
Grumman's first jet (F9F-3 Panther) would prove better than Vought's first jet (F6U-1 Pirate). Likewise, the F9F-6 Cougar (swept wing development of Panther) would be more successful than Vought's F7U-1 Cutlass, which was roundly despised in the fleet. Vought finally hit another home run with the F8U Crusader, which was a terrific fighter and still serves around the world today. Grumman's XF10F-1 was a failure, being an experimantal swing-wing design. Their F11F Tiger was a good performer but lacked range and suffered much from problems with the J-65 engine. It was the chosen ride for the Blue Angels until 1968. We all know about Grumman's last Navy fighter, the F-14A, B and D. Vought never built another fighter accepted by the Navy. Instead they built the successful A-7 series of light attack jets.
My regards,
Widewing
That sums it up extremely well. Thanks. Does anyone have some more info on the Cutlass? I've heard stories that it was downright dangerous, a little bit of background would be nice. But I'll Google first myself.
This seems to be a good source of info:
http://www.dvhaa.org/f7u.html
Scary, no single engined landings allowed and the real possibility that your nosewheeel snaps upon landing and kills you in the process.
Regards,
Ronald
-
I've read that pilots called it the "Gutless" because it was so terribly underpowered.
Can't really blame the designers though -- they were promised twice as much thrust as was eventually delivered.
Guess that's the risk on the cutting edge. I suppose jet powerplant engineers have much refined their ability to estimate thrust from design parameters, cause I dont recall hearing of this happening with other airframes. Or, did Vought engineers gamble that knowingly optomistic predictions from GE would pan out? I wonder
-
Originally posted by hammer
The Ki-100 was so effective because it was made of jello. :D
Bakamono da! Idiot! Get your facts correct! Being a Japanese plane, the KI-100 was obviously made of tofu, not Jello! Yes, the consistency and taste might be similair, but that is where all similarities stop! Also, in the summer, Jello would have melted, whereas all tofu needs to maintain its consistency is moisture. Where did the Japanese fight? Right..... the Pacific. And isn't it very humid in the pacific area? Of course it is. That explains why they were made of tofu and not jello.