Thank you Wmaker, I'm sorry to differ with you but you have stated one thing incorrectly. I actually didn't find any data regarding the Ki-61-II. The weights I found pertained to the Ki-61-I-KAIc. I do not know how similar this is to the KI-61-I-Tei we have in Aces High.
Currently the AH model for the Ki-61 is off... It should turn as well as the wildcat, but does not.
Let me preface with saying I'm open to being convinced, I simply wasn't up to date.
I was up til now just comparing what we HAVE vs what was requested... After the recent posts in the other thread I realized I didn't know exactly WHICH version of Ki-61 we have.
Seems we have a bit of a frankenstein.. The speed and climb of a Ki-61-II (the 140 engine, a DB603 knockoff), the weight of a Ki-61-I, the turn performance of neither (or maybe that's why it turns so bad, that's modeled off the -II?), and the weapons of a Ki-61-Id (aka Ki-61-I Tai).
The Japanese had almost no in-line experience. They copied the Ha40 fairly closely off the DB601A, this is no secret. Their uprated engine looks and performs a LOT like the DB603, and also a lot like the C205's DB603 derivitave engine as well.
Further, it's well documented in the many early "generation 1" models that AH has that many of these planes combine features of multiple versions. Often they can have the weapons of one version, the graphics of another, and the performance of yet another (the old-style typhie spawned quite a few debates). At the time it was understandable. Even though they don't seem to do that with newer craft, we must contend that this is a very real possibility when discussing these first-generation craft that still have the old-style graphics and/or flight and damage models.
Our Ki-61 in AH has the weight and weapons of a Ki-61-Ic (to use the western designation)
There's nothing derogatory in the term. Don't misunderstand me. It's more a colorful euphamism for "having mixed lineage" (to put it politely).
. I really loved that plane in WarBirds.Yes it was my favorite, especially when I first started.
Krusty, for the last time, the Ki-61 was basically a license built and re-engineered He-100. It had NOTHING to do with the 205. As possibly the Ki-61's biggest fan in the game, I have to applaud Wmaker's posts. He's saved me a ton of typing. The Ki-61 we have in game, is indeed closest to the Id (performance wise).
The 100 fuselage implemented the FW-190 A5's engine mounts in order to "narrow the already wider nose due to the radial".
The 100's optimum altitude in WWII was around 20k. Which contrary to popular criticism in here, was perfect for making mincemeat of the 20k B-29 raids. The goal of the -100 was to get to the bombers easier and the radial accomplished that easier than the -61.
Some 100 squadrons (starting with the 111th Regiment) didn't load the 12.7mm ammo, making the -100 even more maneuverable at altitude. But this became more common after the characteristics were noted.
I am NOT talking about implementing -100's into the game. I am merely defending the very relevant -100 in WWII. It was more than a match for the Hellcat and Mustangs in the hands of a capable pilot. To discredit this, is nothing more than ignorance. While only roughly 275 -100's were built, the Japanese were forced to rethink the propulsion of the -61's. They had to make due and basically modified the A-5's fuselage from the cockpit forward and even utilizing the 801D's exhaust, which were modified to fit as well. The 244th Sentai were feared by USAAF and USN pilots alike.
I never said they used the "A-5 nose". They looked at the design of the engine mounts, and exhaust. They obviously made tweaks. Also, the 61 handles NOTHING like 205 or a 109, so you can pretend the He-100 that was sent to Japan, wasn't used as a platform. :)
The 100 fuselage implemented the FW-190 A5's engine mounts in order to "narrow the already wider nose due to the radial". [...] They had to make due and basically modified the A-5's fuselage from the cockpit forward and even utilizing the 801D's exhaust, which were modified to fit as well.
Thanks for the video Perrine. I did like to see the original footage even if the pseudo 1980s music was a little disturbing. Is that taken from a documentary do you know?
However the specification (including weights and measures) at the bottom of the Wikipedia article is for the Ki-100-1a/b Goshikisen. Which would correspond to the data in the first column of the third and forth scans you kindly uploaded. Assuming that the Ki-100-1a/b Goshikisen is the same model or similar to the Ki-100-I?
That gives the empty weight at 2,525 kgs, which all seems consistant so far.
If the Aces High Ki-61 is the KI-61-I-Tei, and that is the same actual model as the Ki-61-I-KAIc, as you stated, then the empty weight is listed at in the middle column of the second scan as 2,630 kgs.
So it is actually true then, that the Ki-100-1a/b Goshikisen was indeed lighter than the version of the Ki-61 we currently have in Aces High?
105 kilos or 231 pounds lighter, as well as the additional power?
Help me out Wmaker, I know you have an eye for data & I am now confused about the model types so I even suspect I am reading the data wrong?
Here are a few diagrams of interest. Some comparing the cowling modification to accommodate the radial engine. These have been kindly shared from JHerne's personal library.
----------------
This last scan for your perusal Wmaker. The first six rows seem to be about dimensions. Seventh row engine information including weights. Eighth row propeller data I imagine. Ninth row wing loading and power to weight ratios? Tenth perhaps fuel tanks & capacities? Eleventh looks like Unloaded Weight, fuel capacity in kgs and finally fully loaded weights. Shows an apparent internal fuel increase from the Ki-61-I onwards.
So again it is showing the Ki-100-I to be 105 kgs lighter than the Ki-61-I. I'm afraid I can't decipher the exact subtype of the Ki-61-I in the top of the first column.
I think this has been a very productive and interesting thread so far. Not only have we finally found useful data regarding the weight savings of (at least one model of) the Ki-100 conversion, but I believe Baumer is right, the unloaded weight of the current AH Ki-61 is 292 kilos too high? That's quite a lot. Also a sort of hidden error, as the excess weight only announces itself slowly as you burn down from 100% fuel. Could this explain the other discrepancies in performance?
If the data is correct doesn't this make it a bug? :rofl :bolt:
Another area I was unclear on, the loaded weight for the Model 1 matches what we have, but the empty weight is very different. The table list's the empty weight as 2630 Kg (5,798lbs) but in AH the best empty weight is 6,440lbs so I'm not sure where that discrepancy comes from.
Each of the three models we have in the simulation (Ko, Otsu, Hei) had varied fuel tanks and capacities as the aircraft evolved. The Ki-61 Ko (1a) thru Hei (1c) had various "internal" fuel tanks during it's production run. These varied from 750 liters to 500 liters placed about wings and fuselage....Exact numbers are per serial number (source Jim Long)
* Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I Ko, coded s/n's 113-500
Fuel Tanks: 2/190l. outer wing tanks, 1/170l. center wing tank, 1/200l. fuselage tank = 750l. + 2x200l. drop tanks = 1,150l..
* Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I Otsu, coded s/n's 501-1092
Fuel Tanks s/n 501-513: 2/190l. outer wing tanks, 1/170l. center wing tank, 1/200l. fuselage tank = 750l. + 2x200l. drop tanks = 1,150l..
Fuel Tanks s/n 514-649: 2/190l. outer wing tanks, 1/170l. center wing tank = 550l. + 2x200l. drop tanks = 950l..
Fuel Tanks s/n 650-1092: 2/170l. outer wing tanks, 1/160l. center wing tank = 500l. + 2x200l. drop tanks = 900l..
* Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I Hei, coded s/n's 3001-3400
Fuel Tanks: 2/170l. outer wing tanks, 1/160l. center wing tank = 500l. + 2x200l. drop tanks = 900l..
Now what we're seeing there are a couple of changes. First off the removal of the 200l. fuselage tank, secondly a reduction in size of internal tanks forced by improvements in bullet-proofing (armor) about the fuel tanks in that you can't make the wings thicker in practicallity, so the tanks get smaller.
To correctly address this issue (and coupled with armor), the simulation's 3 versions should have the following maximum internal fuel capacities (including drop tanks as optional loadouts):
Ki-61-I Ko: 750l. internal = 750l.
Ki-61-I Ko: 750l. internal + 1x200l. drop tank = 950l.
Ki-61-I Ko: 750l. internal + 2x200l. drop tanks = 1,150l.
Ki-61-I Otsu: 750l. internal = 750l.
Ki-61-I Otsu: 750l. internal + 1x200l. drop tank = 950l.
Ki-61-I Otsu: 750l. internal + 2x200l. drop tanks = 1,150l.
Ki-61-I Otsu: 550l. internal = 550l.
Ki-61-I Otsu: 550l. internal + 1x200l. drop tank = 750l.
Ki-61-I Otsu: 550l. internal + 2x200l. drop tanks = 950l.
Ki-61-I Otsu: 500l. internal = 500l.
Ki-61-I Otsu: 500l. internal + 1x200l. drop tank = 700l.
Ki-61-I Otsu: 500l. internal + 2x200l. drop tanks = 900l.
Ki-61-I Hei: 500l. internal = 500l.
Ki-61-I Hei: 500l. internal + 1x200l. drop tank = 700l.
Ki-61-I Hei: 500l. internal + 2x200l. drop tanks = 900l.
| 2630kg : Empty weight (can be found from several sources, Francillon, etc.) ~36,4kg : Oil (40liters of oil, 0.91kg/l) ~67,4kg : Coolant (65 liters, 70% water, 30% Glysantin, taken from 109E --> should be close enough for this purpose.) ~ 100kg : Pilot(+parachute?) ~ 431kg : Full internal fuel (595liters of fuel, source ML#5, 0.725kg/l density used) ~ 121kg : Ammunition (Weight taken straight from AHII) ----------------------- 3385,8kg : Total 3470kg :Aces High take-off weight/Weight mentioned in literature |
Wmaker the only point I'd like to add is that sometimes (depending on the source documentation) I have seen items like coolant and oil included in the empty weight.
I don't have enough documentation to firmly state that there is an issue with the Ki-61 we have. However, what I do have, leads me to think it might be slightly over weight (642lbs subtracting 200lbs for the pilot = 442lbs overweight),
I never said they used the "A-5 nose". They looked at the design of the engine mounts, and exhaust. They obviously made tweaks. Also, the 61 handles NOTHING like 205 or a 109, so you can pretend the He-100 that was sent to Japan, wasn't used as a platform. :)
Krusty, Wmaker did not say empty weights are often inaccurate.
Alright Krusty, in the interests of keeping the discussion constructive, I will concede that point. Presented as Wmaker suggested the empty weights could be considered 'inaccurate'. Although I think 'unclear' would be a much better word because the only trouble we are actually having with the figures is that we don't know precisely what fluids and expendables they include and don't.
I was belabouring the weight minus fuel especially so we could make a comparison of the structural weights of the aircraft and its effect on performance and that point is still valid. With the figures we have within the confines of each source it is a reasonable assumption that they are consistent at least. In other words still useful for direct comparison of sub types and variants.
We could really use a word from from HTC here to explain their decisions and assumptions (if any) of which data they based their models on. But I expect they are busy.
Arguing with Krusty is pointless. He's already contradicted printed and accepted sources.
...the Ki-61 was basically a license built and re-engineered He-100.
Ok this is getting silly again...
You guys are just talking in circles over something that really doesn't matter either way. <sigh>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of contradicting printed and accepted sources...
Could you provide a quote from an "accepted" source that agrees with this statement of yours:
?
Here's a nice example of a source which Baumer kindly provided which happens to completely disagree:
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Ki61/part1.jpg)
...as did Francillon:
"While negotiating with Daimler-Benz, Kawasaki had approached the Army with initial design studies for various fighter aircraft making use of this engine. As reports from the air war in Europe were showing the apparent superioiry of aircraft powered by liquid-cooled engines, the Koku Hombu instructed Kawasaki in February 1940 to proceed with two aircraft of this type: the Ki-60, a heavy interceptor, and the Ki-61, a lighter all-purpose fighter, priority being given to the heavier aircraft. In December however the emphasis shifted to the Ki-61 for which Takeo Doi and Shin Owada responsible. The aircraft, powered by a Kawasaki Ha-40, showed in its design the strong influence left by Dr Vogt on his Japanese pupils."
So, a source please?
1. Regarding the reworking of the Fuselage, 190 engine mounts and exhaust, refer to Bueschel. I GAVE THE SOURCES when I replied. But you people get hung up on "semantics" that you fail to comprehend. Go back to the initial reply (it's still there).
2. Regarding the common claim of USN mistaking the Ki-61 for a 109, that is littered throughout publications. But because pilots "mistook" the Ki-61 for a 109 (which is where the whole 109 thing originated), does NOT mean it was based off of the 109 (or discount the He-100 being a possible "foundation" which is all I was trying to say. Not an "exact duplicate of the He-100" as you guys are trying to make claim.).
The Ki-61 handles NOTHING like a 109E or a 205, so making the "generic claim" is pointless. Unlike Krusty, I have flown this bird for the majority of the time in this game (8.5+ years). I have trained several people who wanted to take the time and actually work the ride (they approached me and took it serious, not a "waste my time as I'll not fly it long"). The only thing even remotely similar are the draining of the wing tanks of the 205 and 61, to improve the roll rate.
Applying MA things into this post would be that the MAJORITY of Ki-61's seen in game, try for the bounce. Because they truly do not understand the handling characteristics of the plane. I also understand that any ride in the MA can be used as such. From personal observations, over 95% of the Tony's I encounter try to bounce. Most when trying a 1 vs 1 in 61's, end up in the tower as they are clueless on what to do without alt.
3. Regarding the He-100, I'm not the only person on this board who has pointed out the "similarities". I'll leave that one up to you to figure out, but it isn't a "two weeker".
Anything else Wmaker, or does that about cover it?
<sigh>
I'm not playing any sort of semantics game.
There's a huge difference between a licence-built product and two products that have some superficial resemblence. It is not about semantics. Anyone with even basic understanding of these aircraft and the engineering involved should understand that.
Ki-61 is an in-house Kawasaki design it is not a He100 nor is it a Bf109.
I really don't care if you'll get that or not. My main purpose was to put correct facts on the table so that anyone reading this thread doesn't get any false ideas about the origings of the Ki-61. There are enough WWII aviation myths and disinformation going around as it is.
Then two people (guess) were hell bent on discrediting the sources.
As possibly the Ki-61's biggest fan in the game,
Could we please keep antagonistic comments about players out of this thread please. If you want to have at it over personal grudges then please start another thread. It wouldn't hurt to have a light hearted and interesting discussion about an aircraft for once.
I have, in my possession, two sets of Japanese text books outlining the development of Japanese aircraft based on the manufacturer. While I cannot read Kanjii sufficiently well enough to make out details, these books are dated 1956, so are either working from source documents or first-hand knowledge of individuals who were involved in the aircraft.
If someone is willing to translate, I will scan these pages and post them to see if this can shed any additional light on the subject.
Now - without delving into the technical data - let's ask ourselves some soul questions regarding the Ki-100.
If the Ki-100 had similar performance characteristics as the Ki-61, then why would production and development of the aircraft (Ki-100) continue, since there were other aircraft whose performance overall was superior, such as the Ki-84? I find it hard to believe that the Ki-61, which was outclassed by early late-war American fighters, could still be a viable platform? I ask this question arbitrarily, because like so many successful designs, improvements were made to the aircraft to allow them to retain their advantage, or at least keep pace.
So its my belief that the Ki-100 was superior in performance to the final production versions of the Ki-61. I do not see engine reliability as the sole reason the aircraft was kept in production and development. Of course, the bookworms will nay-say this, but until we can lay our hands on some performance data and comparative data against the Ki-61, its all speculation. Sadly, there are so many variables that we've failed to consider - such as the quality of the fuel and oil used, that even comparing apples to apples is subjective without having actual examples (in full combat trim) to compare and contrast.
So, can we at least agree that it would be an interesting addition to AH? :rock
PS: You're welcome for the photos.
J
It's ok, he's on a very long "Ignore list". I figured it was nothing dealing with the topic. It seems perdweeb and sukov have taken it upon themselves to be the "defenders of the BBS", but ostracize themselves while doing it. It's their choice to act like the 21-23 years olds that they are. Mind you, I've never said a bad thing about them.
I agree JHerne, but it's just not worth arguing over the semantics with people. I'd like to have it in game.
:rofl I knew you didn't have the self-control. Thank you for proving my point.
If the Ki-100 had similar performance characteristics as the Ki-61, then why would production and development of the aircraft (Ki-100) continue, since there were other aircraft whose performance overall was superior, such as the Ki-84?
Reading all this stuff about the Ki-100, I wonder how it would stack up against the Ki-44? By roughly checking the the data, they seem to be pretty close in some aspects, while in others, the Ki-44 seems to beat the Ki-100 easily. Your opinions?
If the Ki-100 had similar performance characteristics as the Ki-61, then why would production and development of the aircraft (Ki-100) continue, since there were other aircraft whose performance overall was superior, such as the Ki-84? I find it hard to believe that the Ki-61, which was outclassed by early late-war American fighters, could still be a viable platform? I ask this question arbitrarily, because like so many successful designs, improvements were made to the aircraft to allow them to retain their advantage, or at least keep pace.
So its my belief that the Ki-100 was superior in performance to the final production versions of the Ki-61. I do not see engine reliability as the sole reason the aircraft was kept in production and development. Of course, the bookworms will nay-say this, but until we can lay our hands on some performance data and comparative data against the Ki-61, its all speculation. Sadly, there are so many variables that we've failed to consider - such as the quality of the fuel and oil used, that even comparing apples to apples is subjective without having actual examples (in full combat trim) to compare and contrast.
So that this wouldn't get too serious... :D
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/cooling.jpg)
Would be great if one of our Japanese friends could translate this. :D My guess is that it has something to do with the weight of the cooling system compared to the radial engined Ki-100. ...Or it's something about keeping both contents sufficiently cool enables them to work as intended. :rofl