Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Mitsu on May 07, 2006, 11:13:45 PM
-
I'm still waiting for it. :D
It was the last IJAAF's TnB fighter.
Pleeeease gimme it!
-
And the Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-45, J2M... G4M as a bomber...
I'd love to have some more japanese airplanes in the game.. how on earth is there ever going to be a Pacific "combat tour" thing with the planeset we have now.
Oh yea... and a P-39.
-
Ki-100 was gay?
-
We really need more jap planes.I think HTC mentioned that russian and jap planes are priority, not sure:huh .
-
Mitsu, I'v been flying the Ki-84 a lot ever since Wilbuz showed me A few tricks in it.
How would you compair the Ki-100 to the Ki-84 ?
P.S: I have no clue about JP planes.
-
Originally posted by Kazaa
Mitsu, I'v been flying the Ki-84 a lot ever since Wilbuz showed me A few tricks in it.
How would you compair the Ki-100 to the Ki-84 ?
P.S: I have no clue about JP planes.
ki100 is an 84 on steroids :D
-
actually, technically, it's a ki61 on steroids:aok
was basically a modded ki61 airframe with a radial engine. speed wasnt spectacular but turning ability gun package and climbrate were excellent:D
-
So it's A Spit16 ? :rolleyes:
-
Judy Judy Judy.
-Sik
-
I would not mind having A different Ki-84 Variant.
I know there was 4 different types of Ki-84-1, but i'm not to sure on what the differents where, engines I guess.
P.S: Do not quote me on this lol :p
-
Bring Bring Bring it!!!
FOR THE LOVE OF KURT TANK BRING THE Ki-100 TO AH
-
EDIT: Kazaa beat me to it, sorry.
Originally posted by Pooface
ki100 is an 84 on steroids :D
Not so. Ki100 is a Ki61 with a radial engine. Performance was about identical, but it was more reliable (an issue we don't have in AH) and it was available, as the Ki61s ran out of DB601 clones due to allied bombing.
Nothing "uber" about it. Unless you cound the Ki61 or C205 uber. I count them as "decent, possible good, and fun to fly" but not anywhere near "uber".
-
Folks think it was Uber because its "100" instead of "61".
What Krusty said, it was developed as a result of production shortages with the Ki-61s inline engine. Performance specs are very close to a Ki-61s. Small advantage in that it could withstand more battle damage as a radial.
-
the Ki-100 was not just a marginal improvement over the ki-61 airframe it used (which by the way is a honey of a plane)
Here's the Ki-100 in a nutshell
1) Ki-100 could dive with P-51 Mustangs unlike most Japanese fighters and hold the speed on pullout
2) Ki-100 had double the 20mm rounds with the cannons mounted in the wings
3) Ki-100 had an initial climb of 3,300 ft/min
4) Ki-100's radial engine (about 1,500hp) proved far more reliable than the ki-61's v12 (rated at 1,175)
5) Ki-100 was lighter than the ki-61 - and this weight reduction with an increase in HP would lead to faster acceleration performance
6) In one encounter over Okinawa, one Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 Hellcats without losses to themselves
7) empty weight is lighter than the La-7
Overall a really great airplane
and excelent companion to the ki-100 would be the Mitsubishi J2M "Raiden!!!
I absolutely LOVE ugly planes and the Raiden was damn smurfy
here's the raiden:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/07/Mitsubishi_J2M.JPG/300px-Mitsubishi_J2M.JPG)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Nothing "uber" about it. Unless you cound the Ki61 or C205 uber. I count them as "decent, possible good, and fun to fly" but not anywhere near "uber".
Ki-100 would be a great topic for Myth Busters. So much nonsense has been written about it you'd think it was much more than another under-powered example of futility. I'd classify the Ki-100 and very much inferior to the Ki-84 except in a dive.
Both the Ki-61 and the C.205 are excellent aircraft as long as they remain above 200 mph. Get either slow and they are dog meat. Both are hopeless against any of the know turn-fighters. So, get enough altitude so that you can use their excellent high-speed handling and bug out (if you can) if the fight starts to deteriorate into a turning contest.
My regards,
Widewing
-
*Normal loaded weight for a Ki-100 was 7705 lbs, which is 55 lbs heavier than the Ki-61.
*Top speed 360 mph, practically identical.
*Climb rate perhaps is slightly better.
*Armament is the same as a Ki-61 with nose mounted 20mm and wing mounted 12.7s.
"Ki-100 could dive with P-51 Mustangs unlike most Japanese fighters and hold the speed on pullout"
So could the Ki-84, Ki-61 and N1K2. Its not unique. What, you think because a Ki-61 had an inline engine means it couldn't dive???
"In one encounter over Okinawa, one Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 Hellcats without losses to themselves"
Claimed, *not* confirmed, and this "encounter" I have seen in every single post about it, which tries to make it sound "uber". Everybody quotes it.
The best Japanese fighter of WW2 was the IJAAF Ki-84 with the N1K2-J of the IJN being a close 2nd.
-
Copied from Wikipedia-
Ki-100
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 8.82 m (28 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 10.48 m (34 ft 4 in)
Height: 3.75 m (12 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 20 m² (215 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,525 kg (5,567 lb)
Loaded weight: 3,495 kg (7,705 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Mitsubishi Ha 112-II radial engine, 1,119 kW (1,500 hp) at 6,000 m (19,685 ft)
Performance
Maximum speed: 580 km/h (360 mph)
Range: 2,200 km (1,367 mi)
Service ceiling: 36,090 feet (11,000 m)
Rate of climb: 16.8 m/s (3,300 ft/min)
Wing loading: kg/m² (lb/ft²)
Power/mass: kW/kg (hp/lb)
Maximum dive speed: 850 km/h (528 mph)
Armament
2x 20 mm wing-mounted Ho-5 cannons, 250 20x94 mm rounds/gun
2x 12.7 mm fuselage-mounted Ho-103 machine guns, 250 12.7x81 mm rounds/gun
Ki-61
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 8.94 m (29 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 12.00 m (39 ft 4 in)
Height: 3.70 m (12 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 20.00 m² (215.28 ft²)
Airfoil: NACA 2R 16 wing root, NACA 24009 tip
Internal fuel capacity: 550 L (145.2 US gal)
External fuel capacity: 2x 200 L (53.8 US gal) drop tanks
Empty weight: 2,630 kg (5,800 lb)
Loaded weight: 3,470 kg (7,650 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Kawasaki Ha-40 liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 875 kW (1,175 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 580 km/h (360 mph) at 5,000 m (16,405 ft)
Range: 580 km (360 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,600 m (38,100 ft)
Rate of climb: 15.2 m/s (2,983 ft/min)
Wing loading: 173.5 kg/m² (35.5 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.25 kW/kg (0.15 hp/lb)
Time to altitude: 7.0 min to 5,000 m (16,405 ft)
Armament
2x 20 mm Ho-5 cannon, 120 rounds/gun
2x 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Ho-103 machine guns, 200 rounds/gun
Same speed between the two, Ki-100 has a greater rate of climb and longer range; but the Ki-61 has a slightly higher ceiling, and its lighter, so probably turns better.
-
Originally posted by Bombardy
the Ki-100 was not just a marginal improvement over the ki-61 airframe it used (which by the way is a honey of a plane)
Here's the Ki-100 in a nutshell
1) Ki-100 could dive with P-51 Mustangs unlike most Japanese fighters and hold the speed on pullout
2) Ki-100 had double the 20mm rounds with the cannons mounted in the wings
3) Ki-100 had an initial climb of 3,300 ft/min
4) Ki-100's radial engine (about 1,500hp) proved far more reliable than the ki-61's v12 (rated at 1,175)
5) Ki-100 was lighter than the ki-61 - and this weight reduction with an increase in HP would lead to faster acceleration performance
6) In one encounter over Okinawa, one Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 Hellcats without losses to themselves
7) empty weight is lighter than the La-7
Overall a really great airplane
Item 1) There were few instances where the Ki-100 wasn't dodging Mustangs.
Item 2) Moving the cannon to the wing increased roll rate via added mass far off centerline and created convergence issues.
Item 3) Initial climb is not sustained climb. My understanding is that the climb rate deteriorated rapidly with altitude.
Item 4) More hp was accompanied by increased drag. No gain in speed over the Ki-61, and it was notably slower than later Ki-61s. Reliability was improved, but that does not add to combat capability, only availability.
Item 5) Added drag likely offset weight savings.
Item 6) Myth...Never happened. Navy records show no such event. This is a well circulated hoax.
Item 7) So what? At 6,000 meters, the La-7 was 62 mph faster than the Ki-100. The Ki-100 would have been a good fighter in 1941. By 1945, it was obsolecent.
You need a better source than wikipedia....
Seriously, the aircraft's performance does not remotely elevate it to the notion that it was a competitive fighter. It most certainly was not. It will suffer the same fate as the Ki-61 in AH2, sparse use and generally outclassed.
My regards,
Widewing
-
well, with such a low production fighter (what less that 100?) it's probably going to remain an enigma
Don't knock wikipedia, you know it the truth, just like the enquirer!
got any problems with the Mitsubishi J2M "Raiden" widewing???????
you're not part of the "don't add it to the planeset unless it's competetive with late war planes" gang are you?
-
Originally posted by Bombardy
well, with such a low production fighter (what less that 100?) it's probably going to remain an enigma
Don't knock wikipedia, you know it the truth, just like the enquirer!
got any problems with the Mitsubishi J2M "Raiden" widewing???????
you're not part of the "don't add it to the planeset unless it's competetive with late war planes" gang are you?
I have no objection to the Ki-100 or the J2M3 being added. However, the Ki-44 was built in much greater numbers as was the Ki-43 (another useless plane for the MA, I'm afraid). A total of 389 Ki-100s were manufactured. We currently have the two most competitive Japanese fighters. Additional Japanese fighters would get little use in MA, but would be very useful for scenarios or AvA arena.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Funny how two people can look at the same source and draw opposite conclusions from them...
He uses wiki to say the Ki100 was a superfighter, I use it to show its really just a Ki61 with a different engine. :)
-
Dug out my book "IJAAF Aces of WW2" by Henry Sakaida on the Ki-100 vs F6F fight, which was over the Japanese Home Islands, not Okinawa.
It took place between the IJAAFs 244th Sentai and USN VF-31 F6Fs on 25 July 1945.
"The 244th claimed 12 Hellcats destroyed for the loss of two pilots, while VF-31 counter claimed with 8 kills for the loss of two".
So in reality it was a draw, both sides losing 2, with both sides over claiming in that encounter, and in the hectic air combats of WW2 such things were not uncommon.
-
For all those saying "Well it had a climb rate of 2900 fpm!" or "It had a top speed of 360!!"
Here is a little perspective:
HTC's as-is Ki61 flight envelope (http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/ki611c.html)
What you see is what we got. It would be nearly identical in almost every way to the way the Ki61 flies. Considering that it is basically a Ki61, and we already have such a plane, I don't want to see it in AH. I'd rather see a Ki43, or a better (I don't personally think we need a Ki44, but that's pure opinion), and other planes.
Especially Judy!! Inline engines rule! (*ducks from all the stones being thrown*)
:t
-
My attempts to hijack this thread and turn it into a PRO-Mitsubishi JM2 Raiden thread are not working out like I planned...........
LOOK, get on the farking bandwagon and GIVE IT UP for the J2M Raiden!!!
seriously, here are just some of the cool features of this amazing aircraft:
1) 2x 20 mm Type 99-II Mk 4 cannon in each wing. Ammo: 200 rpg approx
A 3rd oblique mounted cannon in some interceptors could fire upward as it passed underneath a bomber.
ohhh yea baby!!!
2) or 4x20mm with 200 rounds per gun mounted in the wings
3) 1,820 hp engine.......in a "uglier than thou" nose!
4) 3,838 ft/min climb......woo hoo!!!! bring on those high alt bombers!!!
5) Top speed in excess of 382 mph (could be as high as 400+ if based on US Army tests!
6) A good example of a dedicated interceptor of japanese origin
(http://www.mmpbooks.biz/books/8391632776/raidenbookreviewrk_profils.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/IJARG/images/j2m3raiden-2.jpg)
-
I'm all for more Japanese and Russian fighters. I think they should be given top priority over any other German, British, and US planes.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
I'm all for more Japanese and Russian fighters. I think they should be given top priority over any other German, British, and US FIGHTERS.
I'm sorry, I almost agreed with you. I made one change (in caps). Now I agree with you. Those countries mentioned all have at least 1 type of bomber I'd like to see. :)
-
Bring both the Ki 100 and J2M to AH. My Hellcat needs more targets.
-
What was the other plane that was converted from the DB V12 knockoff to a big fat radial?
That's the plane we should add.
-Sik
-
"3) 1,820 hp engine.......in a "uglier than thou" nose!"
Well, ugly or not, it certainly is more streamlined than the cowling on some US radial engined fighters...
-C+
-
And it paid for it, big time. It had horrible problems with the shaft going from the engine to the prop, as well as other issues.
-
Germans tried that on early 190s and very quickly abandoned the streamlined cowls as well.
-
We never get more planes or vehicles. HT think we already have enough to play and prefer to move the office. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bombardy
My attempts to hijack this thread and turn it into a PRO-Mitsubishi JM2 Raiden thread are not working out like I planned...........
LOOK, get on the farking bandwagon and GIVE IT UP for the J2M Raiden!!!
seriously, here are just some of the cool features of this amazing aircraft:
1) 2x 20 mm Type 99-II Mk 4 cannon in each wing. Ammo: 200 rpg approx
A 3rd oblique mounted cannon in some interceptors could fire upward as it passed underneath a bomber.
ohhh yea baby!!!
2) or 4x20mm with 200 rounds per gun mounted in the wings
3) 1,820 hp engine.......in a "uglier than thou" nose!
4) 3,838 ft/min climb......woo hoo!!!! bring on those high alt bombers!!!
5) Top speed in excess of 382 mph (could be as high as 400+ if based on US Army tests!
6) A good example of a dedicated interceptor of japanese origin
(http://www.mmpbooks.biz/books/8391632776/raidenbookreviewrk_profils.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/IJARG/images/j2m3raiden-2.jpg)
This kid is soooooooo funny, great I vote for the JM2 as well !!!
If the Ki84 was the best JP fighter of WW2, which I agree on 100% ! Then why not get some more 84 variants ?
The Ki84-1b would be nice 4x20mm (dual cowl mounted) JP shredders, woot got my vote :aok
-
Does anyone have historical data on the top end speed of the Ki-84-1a ?
"Some people are still disappointed in what they feel that it lacks in top end speed as compared to some historical data."
Quote from Soda's Aircraft Evaluation Pages.
Kaz :aok
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Judy Judy Judy.
-Sik
I am with Sik on this one. The Japanese forces already have their BEST Fighters and Hi-Level Bomber - what they need now are better Dive Bombers and Torpedo Planes.
We Need the D4Y JUDY and B6N JILL. The KATE & VAL are just too slow and too underarmed to survive late war scenarios.
(http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3788/pic58du.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
! :aok
-
Originally posted by Kazaa
Does anyone have historical data on the top end speed of the Ki-84-1a ?
"Some people are still disappointed in what they feel that it lacks in top end speed as compared to some historical data."
Quote from Soda's Aircraft Evaluation Pages.
Kaz :aok
Hey guys, I just spent some time looking for data on the Ki-84-Ia engine performance in other threads.
Seems that the Ki-84-Ia had a few problems with engine reliability. :confused:
All in all it's still a great ride no matter what, this must be why there is so much debate on the Ki-84-Ia top end speed.
P.S: I will have to read into the subject some more.
Kaz
-
Kazaa,
The main problems with Japanese aircraft engine reliability was:
1. Low manufacturing tolerences leading to breakdowns, low hours and less than designed Horsepower.
2. Low quality fuel. Much was not refined as well as it could be - especially later in the war after the supply was about cut off by US Submarines.
3. Low Octaine Fuel. Japanese fuel was like 83 octaine IIRC. Allied aircraft ran 100+ octaine fuel with some reports of fuel going high as 150 octaine.
!
-
I don't know about the Jill, but the Judy is a mid-war (not late-war) plane. It would be easily caught if it was chased, but still it's better than the Val!!!
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I don't know about the Jill, but the Judy is a mid-war (not late-war) plane. It would be easily caught if it was chased, but still it's better than the Val!!!
The Judy would be the fastest divebomber in game (well, not counting the JABOs) and about 90-100 mph faster than the Val. In scenario terms that's pretty staggering. In the events and scenarios I've participated in, the Vals and Kates can get through F4Fs by going into a shallow dive and getting up to a pretty good clip. I think that Judy's will stand a decent chance against Hellcats and hogs. At least it won't be the death certificate when you are told you have to fly one (as the Val and Kate are in mid-late war scenarios).
-Sik
-
Do either of them have a dorsal gun? Just wondering. Looks like the bottom one may have either a single gun covering the low-6, but it could be a brake too.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Do either of them have a dorsal gun? Just wondering. Looks like the bottom one may have either a single gun covering the low-6, but it could be a brake too.
I believe the MOST either of them had (Depending on varient) was a single 13mm Dorsal gun. More a decoration than a defense, but still something for a player to do after being shot down in an Event.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Do either of them have a dorsal gun? Just wondering. Looks like the bottom one may have either a single gun covering the low-6, but it could be a brake too.
Both of them did.
(Depending on Variant)
JUDY had two fixed forward firing 7.7mm's and had another 7.7 in the dorsal and a 13mm in the ventral.
JILL early versions has the same as the JUDY - later versions had a 13mm gun that could be removed and used either in the dorsal or ventral positions.
I didn't put it in my other post but a better Torpedo Bomber might be the B7A GRACE. It is both better armed, faster and carries more ord.
Two wing-mounted 20 mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon and one flexible rear-firing 13 mm Type 2 machine-gun (late production B7A2).
(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/300/6530ah.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Originally posted by Krusty
I don't know about the Jill, but the Judy is a mid-war (not late-war) plane. It would be easily caught if it was chased, but still it's better than the Val!!!
Depending on the variant you are talking about. The JUDY first went to sea during the Battle of Midway (June 42) as a Fast Carrier Recon Plane. That version is entirely differnt than the Inline-engined Dive Bomber version that came later on in 43. The Radial engined Dive Bomber Version didn't come out till 44 IIRC.
Grant you your last statement is 110% on target - would be like night and day against the VAL. The Heavier ord load can carry up to a 1000lbs bomb or 3x 500 lbs bombs plus the better defensive armament would make a big difference also.
!
-
And GULL WINGS!
Bring on the flying freaks!!!