Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Ardy123 on April 05, 2011, 02:33:39 PM
-
I would love to see this Japanese twin engine fighter.
(http://www.aviationtrivia.info/images/ki45.jpg)
specs
Performance
* Maximum speed: 540 km/h (292 kn, 336 mph)
* Range: 2,000 km (1,081 nmi, 1,243 mi)
* Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,800 ft)
* Rate of climb: 11.7 m/s (2,300 ft/min)
* Wing loading: 171.9 kg/m² (35 lb/ft²)
* Power/mass: 0.26 kW/kg (0.16 hp/lb)
-
Twin engined...yes please!
-
Big +1.
-
It would be a very fun plane to shoot down in a P-38.
ack-ack
-
Looks like a fun ride... Ack-ack, youre so ironic ;)
-
Looks like a fun ride... Ack-ack, youre so ironic ;)
What's ironic about using the P-38 to shoot down a plane that was as maneuverable as a brick and totally outclassed by fighters?
ack-ack
-
What's ironic about using the P-38 to shoot down a plane that was as maneuverable as a brick and totally outclassed by fighters?
ack-ack
Ack,what was the 38's record against the Ki45? I'm sure there must have been some encounters.
:salute
-
+1
I love Ack-Ack's logic.
-
Ack,what was the 38's record against the Ki45? I'm sure there must have been some encounters.
:salute
don't have specific numbers but from McGuire's comments in his analysis report, "Combat Tactics in the Southwest Pacific Area", the Ki-45 didn't fair very well against the P-38 or any other USAAF/USN fighter.
Nick - There haven't been many of these twin-engine fighters in this area and with their poor performance they are becoming scarcer as P-38 pilots and others prove that this is one Japanese fighter they can out-turn, out-run, and out-climb. The NICK is structurally strong and there will be some difficulty in diving away, but then it won't be necessary unless he gets close on your tail.
ack-ack
-
don't have specific numbers but from McGuire's comments in his analysis report, "Combat Tactics in the Southwest Pacific Area", the Ki-45 didn't fair very well against the P-38 or any other USAAF/USN fighter.
ack-ack
same could be said about pretty much anything japan had flying at the time couldn't it? following much of your logic, nothing but late war monsters belong in ah... :rolleyes:
-
don't have specific numbers but from McGuire's comments in his analysis report, "Combat Tactics in the Southwest Pacific Area", the Ki-45 didn't fair very well against the P-38 or any other USAAF/USN fighter.
ack-ack
Is it that it didn't fare well generally or that it didn't fare well against McGuire and cronies (how many could say that)?
It's a little slow and the climb rate isn't the greatest. OTOH, the wingloading is fairly low and I bet it burns reeel purty.
I say bring it.
-
same could be said about pretty much anything japan had flying at the time couldn't it? following much of your logic, nothing but late war monsters belong in ah... :rolleyes:
That. I fly a pretty much outclassed ride, and i have some success with it. Its the best fun beating them in an inferior ride, isnt it?
Anyway, Ack-Ack, what can you do when you meet a spitfire? Use your skills to beat his superior plane. Same with the ki-45.
Little ugly plane. I would fly it ;)
-
It was lightly armed, and the later faster variants only hit 330mph at altitude. It was shot to pieces by even P-40Es and that is why in mid 1942 it was withdrawn from use as a fighter. It was relegated to ground attack, anti shipping, and later in a desperate ploy, pushed up against B-29s (but then, all Japanese planes were at that late a stage in the war).
It was a flop, a never-was-been. It has limited use and you would be severely disappointed with its performance if you got it.
Fly a 110C and you'll have a more manuverable plane with better guns that was in service more than 2 years before the Ki-45 and is still 20+mph faster than it.
-
same could be said about pretty much anything japan had flying at the time couldn't it? following much of your logic, nothing but late war monsters belong in ah... :rolleyes:
Wow...someone needs to take some reading comprehension classes.
And no, it cannot be said about anything Japan was flying at the time since the Ki-45 was introduced into service in 1942 and when the majority of USAAF/USN planes that encountered the Ki-45 was in '42-43 in the SWPA (New Guinea / Solomons area).
ack-ack
-
That. I fly a pretty much outclassed ride, and i have some success with it. Its the best fun beating them in an inferior ride, isnt it?
Anyway, Ack-Ack, what can you do when you meet a spitfire? Use your skills to beat his superior plane. Same with the ki-45.
Little ugly plane. I would fly it ;)
There are some planes that were just crappy, no matter how skilled the pilot thinks he may be.
ack-ack
-
Wow...someone needs to take some reading comprehension classes.
And no, it cannot be said about anything Japan was flying at the time since the Ki-45 was introduced into service in 1942 and when the majority of USAAF/USN planes that encountered the Ki-45 was in '42-43 in the SWPA (New Guinea / Solomons area).
ack-ack
i comprehend everything where your objections have been concerned not only regarding the op here but in other discussions...some i agreed with, but many of the others you used the same logic as you used here...
-
There are some planes that were just crappy, no matter how skilled the pilot thinks he may be.
ack-ack
I should do more research on Japanese aircraft. I remembered it from an old game I used to play when I was a kid called "Aces of the Pacific". It had many Japanese airplanes that we don't have in AH. And I know that AoP was not a 'realistic' game, but it was fun to play on my 386.
Some of the planes that we don't have..
1) Kawanishi H8K "Emily"
2) Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally"
3) Nakajima Ki-27 "Nate"
4) Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar"
5) Ki-44 "ToJo" (not in AoP)
-
I should do more research on Japanese aircraft. I remembered it from an old game I used to play when I was a kid called "Aces of the Pacific". It had many Japanese airplanes that we don't have in AH. And I know that AoP was not a 'realistic' game, but it was fun to play on my 386.
Some of the planes that we don't have..
1) Kawanishi H8K "Emily"
2) Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally"
3) Nakajima Ki-27 "Nate"
4) Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar"
5) Ki-44 "ToJo" (not in AoP)
#'s 2,4, and 5 for sure :aok
-
As much as I'd love to have the Ki-45 "nick", the 110C-4B (early war version) currently in AH is almost identical. The only exception would be if HTC added the variant with the 37mm cannon used for the anti-ship role. The "b" and "c" models all had the same engines but had different gun configurations. The "c" has the dual 20mm; the "d" had the dual 20mm and the 37mm. Either model could carry 2/250kg bombs, too.
It would be good to have, no doubt.
-
As much as I'd love to have the Ki-45 "nick", the 110C-4B (early war version) currently in AH is almost identical. The only exception would be if HTC added the variant with the 37mm cannon used for the anti-ship role. The "b" and "c" models all had the same engines but had different gun configurations. The "c" has the dual 20mm; the "d" had the dual 20mm and the 37mm. Either model could carry 2/250kg bombs, too.
It would be good to have, no doubt.
No, the Bf 110C-4 is not almost identicle to the Ki-45 other than the intended role of the planes.
ack-ack
-
#'s 2,4, and 5 for sure :aok
Yes, Iwant that Tojo - and the J2M Raiden for buff-killin' of the B-29 variety.
-
No, the Bf 110C-4 is not almost identicle to the Ki-45 other than the intended role of the planes.
ack-ack
Speeds... check. Climb rates... check. Bomb load out... check. Guns.... check (albeit the Nick's 37mm option). What am I missing other than turn rates?
-
Can't comment on airfoil, but wingloading (assuming those figures from Wikipedia/Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War are for "loaded" weight) is 35 lbs/sqft which is about 5 better than all other AH twins in lightened dogfighting trim, and powerloading's about 12% worse (or probably equal to AH twins also "loaded").
-
Don't know a lot on this aircraft but I do like how unusual it looks so just on that I would add it.
Also some unique paint schemes.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Kawasaki_Ki-45-1.jpg)
-
Can't comment on airfoil, but wingloading (assuming those figures from Wikipedia/Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War are for "loaded" weight) is 35 lbs/sqft which is about 5 better than all other AH twins in lightened dogfighting trim, and powerloading's about 12% worse (or probably equal to AH twins also "loaded").
Exactly. This leads me to believe, per the damn formula, that sustained turn should be pretty good even if the powerloading limits your max bank/sustained-turn lift vectoring. I'm envisioning some kind of typically early-war Japanese version of the twin, lightweight, allergic to bullets, probably a bit stiff over 300, but a beautifully maneuverable low-speed handler. That it's upsized compared to the zero will only make it more vulnerbale to the passing 20 mil or 50 spray.
-
Speeds... check. Climb rates... check. Bomb load out... check. Guns.... check (albeit the Nick's 37mm option). What am I missing other than turn rates?
the guns couldnt hit the broadside of a barn for the japanese... Type 99 MK I 20mm cannons are POS guns compared to any other 20mm (MK II had a better velocity but still bad compared to the HO-5). their 12.7mm wasnt half bad though but it only carried a (max) loadout of 2 of them and 2 7.92mm MGs plus the one cannon and the speed for the KI 45 is slower. 110s range was 400 approx longer. service ceiling was higher... yeah pretty much everything.
Wingload was actually very close to a 110s though
-
For air-to-air in Aces High, the Ki-45 wouldn't be any worse or better than Bf110C. As noted, the wingloadings are very close. 110 might again a small advantage in turn radius due in MA-weights due to the fact that it carries sightly more fuel and has slats. Other hand, Ki-45 has a clearly better powerloading and would therefore climb and accelerate better. So overall they'd be very close to each other.
At low altitudes in a flat lufberry, Ki-45 would turn inside the P-38s in Aces High just like the 110C currently does.
Hopefully AH features Ki-45 one day, with a production run of nearly 1700 it was one of the major combat types of the IJAAF.
-
I would think the fact that even at best alt the 110C is 20+mph faster than the Ki45 means either the Ki is more draggy or has weaker engines (or both?). That would translate into slower climb speed, don't you think?
These things were ripped to pieces by 1942 P-40Es so badly they were removed from fighter duties.
EDIT: I disagree with your thought that simply because it had 1700 built it was a main combat type. It was relegated to second rate duties after a couple of very costly engagements.
EDIT2: For comparison, throughout the entire war 1700 Ki-45s were made with freedom of production. In just 1.5 years 3500 Ki-84s were made, and that was when production was being bombed into the ground. It clearly wasn't a Japanese priority. Over 10,000 A6M (zero) types were built during the same time, and this is on top of all the other myriad designs being developed and produced.
-
I would think the fact that even at best alt the 110C is 20+mph faster than the Ki45 means either the Ki is more draggy or has weaker engines (or both?). That would translate into slower climb speed, don't you think?
Depending on the source and variant, Ki-45 does about 336-340mph at its critical alt. In AH 110C-4 does ~345mph at its critical alt. 110C-4 FTH is ~19k and Ki-45s ~20k. Power outputs are very close but 110C-4 is clearly heavier.
EDIT: I disagree with your thought that simply because it had 1700 built it was a main combat type. It was relegated to second rate duties after a couple of very costly engagements.
Never said it was main combat type. That would be the Ki-43 for the IJAAF.
-
Never said it was main combat type. That would be the Ki-43 for the IJAAF.
Well, I must have misread you:
with a production run of nearly 1700 it was one of the major combat types of the IJAAF.
Depending on the source and variant, Ki-45 does about 336-340mph at its critical alt. In AH 110C-4 does ~345mph at its critical alt. 110C-4 FTH is ~19k and Ki-45s ~20k. Power outputs are very close but 110C-4 is clearly heavier.
Well... debating the characteristics of the 2 planes:
The Ha102 provides 1080hp per engine in the best of circumstances. The DB601 powering the 110C-4 would produce between 1100 and 1200 hp per engine. That's about 300-400hp more total. While the Ki has more wing area, it also has 1700kg more weight when loaded, and even the base empty air frame was 500kg heavier. It's got wide radials (typically draggy) and a larger fuselage with steps and bumps. IMO the 110 is much smaller and sleeker, with less drag due to the narrow fuselage and the inline engines.
As an aside: At the same time the Ki-45 was being developed, the Bf110 had already progressed to the 1500hp-per-engine G model prototype with significantly better armament and capabilities. Interesting comparison, eh?
-
Well, I must have misread you:
Well, that's what you do.
Well... debating the characteristics of the 2 planes:
I weren't and am not debating anything. I'm just putting Ki-45's performance into context. 110C happens to be closest performance-wise in AH and was mentoned several times in this thread.
The Ha102 provides 1080hp per engine in the best of circumstances. The DB601 powering the 110C-4 would produce between 1100 and 1200 hp per engine. That's about 300-400hp more total. While the Ki has more wing area, it also has 1700kg more weight when loaded, and even the base empty air frame was 500kg heavier.
<sigh>
It seems you have your figures mixed up. It's the other way around. Ki-45 has less wing area and weighs also a lot less. I have to say though that these math-skills of yours never cease to amaze me. :D
As an aside: At the same time the Ki-45 was being developed, the Bf110 had already progressed to the 1500hp-per-engine G model prototype with significantly better armament and capabilities. Interesting comparison, eh?
As mentioned above, this is totally irrelevant and beside my point.
-
Interesting how I could have taken that quote wrong, eh? Seeing as how you basically said it was a "major" combat type then said right after it wasn't one of the "main" combat types. Whatever. I'll let it go. Moving on...
You are quite right. I did mix up the weights/wings. I pulled up a quick and dirty wiki page for each to compare, and was looking at the wrong ones. Terribly sorry, what a silly goof to make. It does drive home the fact that the Ki was underpowered, though, having even less wing area. Its initial climb rate is listed as 2100 fpm in a couple of places. That's a bit lower than the 110C.
Has nothing to do with math. The point that the 110C is similar to the Ki-45 was contested/corrected immediately, and your "putting into context" is merely "debating" that facts to say you think they are similar. But you say you're not debating, only "putting into context" -- which is really the same thing: defending your opinion. That's fine. It's allowed. This is a civil discussion and you are entitled to your opinions.
-
For air-to-air in Aces High, the Ki-45 wouldn't be any worse or better than Bf110C. As noted, the wingloadings are very close. 110 might again a small advantage in turn radius due in MA-weights due to the fact that it carries sightly more fuel and has slats. Other hand, Ki-45 has a clearly better powerloading and would therefore climb and accelerate better. So overall they'd be very close to each other.
At low altitudes in a flat lufberry, Ki-45 would turn inside the P-38s in Aces High just like the 110C currently does.
Hopefully AH features Ki-45 one day, with a production run of nearly 1700 it was one of the major combat types of the IJAAF.
I would love to have a Japanese twin in the game. It would be great for the special events as well. The Ki-45 and the Ki-102 would be lots of fun.
Rock on Wmaker, I'm with ya.
-
Interesting how I could have taken that quote wrong, eh? Seeing as how you basically said it was a "major" combat type then said right after it wasn't one of the "main" combat types. Whatever. I'll let it go. Moving on...
It indeed was one of the major combat types. One of the workhorses of the IJAAF. It was used as a day fighter/bomber interceptor, night fighter, strike aircraft. It was operated in South East Asia, Dutch East Indies, New Guinea and China etc. It was for example operated by ten Sentais in the course of the war. Looking at the Japanese fighters we don't have in Aces High, only Ki-43 had a bigger (a lot bigger indeed) production run. Ki-45 was widely used combat type no matter of how it performed or weather you like it or not.
It does drive home the fact that the Ki was underpowered, though, having even less wing area. Its initial climb rate is listed as 2100 fpm in a couple of places. That's a bit lower than the 110C.
I don't quite understand what the wing area has to do with it but if you think Ki-45 is underpowered then 110C has to be aswell considering that Ki-45 has better powerloading than 110C. In wingloading these two aircraft are very closely matched. I wouldn't look too closely on initial climb rate figures given on various websites.
Has nothing to do with math.
Well, when you manage to work up a 400hp difference between the Ki-45 and 110C it is starting to be a bit amusing. :D
The point that the 110C is similar to the Ki-45 was contested/corrected immediately, and your "putting into context" is merely "debating" that facts to say you think they are similar. But you say you're not debating, only "putting into context" -- which is really the same thing: defending your opinion. That's fine. It's allowed. This is a civil discussion and you are entitled to your opinions.
Fair enough. So far I've proved that the performance figures of these two types are rather close and that theres nothing that makes Ki-45 somehow mystically far worse than 110C.
Of the subs used in Special Events, 110C is actually a fairly good sub for the Ki-45. Of course I hate the need to use subs in general and wish Ki-45 would get added at some point. As one of the work horses of the IJAAF it definately deserves its place in the sim.
-
In post war tests flown by the American's the pilots got the following impresions of the Ki-45:
- Very poor taxing characteristics due to poor brakes and full-swivel tail wheel.
- Due to the high nose attitude S-turns needed while taxing.
- Very good take-off chracteristics and only short roll needed. Aircraft gets airborne at 85-90mph IAS.
- Initial climb was good and acceleration continued in the climb.
- The effectiveness of the control was satisfactory from high speed down to the stall with the exception of stick forces which became very heavy at 300mph IAS.
- Flight characteristics were commendable and American pilots were impressed by the maneuverability.
- The stall characteristics were satisfactory and the pilot got adequate warning of the approaching stall.
- The approach and landing chracteristics were also found to be very good, the aircrfat touching down at 70-75mph.
- The engines ran rough and there was excessive noise and vibration levels in the cockpit at all speeds.
- The cockpit was found to be narrow and the pilot's seat adjustment was insufficient.
- The visibility downward was found to be ppor and very poor to the rear.
Source: Francillon's Kawasaki Ki-45 -book in the old Profile series
-
- The cockpit was found to be narrow and the pilot's seat adjustment was insufficient.
Well the average American Pilot is a bit bigger than the average Japanese Pilot. If there was a comment about the plane from a Japanese pilot, this may be different. Do you happen to have access to any books that had a Japanese pilot comment on the plane?
All in all, I do think this plane would be a good add to AH, if only just to have the option to fly her. Maybe not right now, but definitely deserves a spot in AH. Didn't the 45's that had the 37mm have better engines? How good was the 45's 37mm? I may as well ask this now; How well would the 45's 37mm do against gvs when they add it? Reason I asked is simple, someone would end up asking about it eventually. I think it will be along the lines of the 39's 37mm when trying to kill gvs?
-
Probably worse than the P-39 gun. The Japanese large cannons were notorious for their poor quality, poor reliability, and poor hitting power. Their caseless 40mm comes to mind, especially. They put a lot of time and effort into 20mm and perfected that, but IMO anything larger and they were totally lost.
-
Thanks for this invaluable account, WMAKER, especially since it buttresses the intuitive take I wrote earlier.
It's like I say, and I'm going to coin this as Godzilla's Aces High Theorem I: There are NO BAD ADDS.
This a/c was a major combatant and thus and at the very least would be a fine scenario addition. If a larger contingent of players begin to make use of the other arenas, it might be useful there as well.
-
Well the average American Pilot is a bit bigger than the average Japanese Pilot. If there was a comment about the plane from a Japanese pilot, this may be different.
Yep, and the fact that US planes generally had pretty roomy cockpits.
Do you happen to have access to any books that had a Japanese pilot comment on the plane?
Not off hand.
How good was the 45's 37mm? I may as well ask this now; How well would the 45's 37mm do against gvs when they add it? Reason I asked is simple, someone would end up asking about it eventually. I think it will be along the lines of the 39's 37mm when trying to kill gvs?
Yeh, the Ho-203 of the ki-45 would be close to the P-39's M4 cannon in terms of AT-effectiveness, ie. not very good. M4 has mv of 610m/s and Ho-203 has mv of 570m/s. Both fire HE ammo. Against smaller aircraft it would obviously be one shot one kill weapon.
-
In post war tests flown by the American's the pilots got the following impresions of the Ki-45:
- Very poor taxing characteristics due to poor brakes and full-swivel tail wheel.
- Due to the high nose attitude S-turns needed while taxing.
- Very good take-off chracteristics and only short roll needed. Aircraft gets airborne at 85-90mph IAS.
- Initial climb was good and acceleration continued in the climb.
- The effectiveness of the control was satisfactory from high speed down to the stall with the exception of stick forces which became very heavy at 300mph IAS.
- Flight characteristics were commendable and American pilots were impressed by the maneuverability.
- The stall characteristics were satisfactory and the pilot got adequate warning of the approaching stall.
- The approach and landing chracteristics were also found to be very good, the aircrfat touching down at 70-75mph.
- The engines ran rough and there was excessive noise and vibration levels in the cockpit at all speeds.
- The cockpit was found to be narrow and the pilot's seat adjustment was insufficient.
- The visibility downward was found to be ppor and very poor to the rear.
Source: Francillon's Kawasaki Ki-45 -book in the old Profile series
Reports like these are what I hope HTC (and players) pay attention to when they design and fly sim aircraft. Granted, there is no "hard data" in the form of numbers, but actual pilot testimony should mean something, imo.
-
What, "engines ran rough," "seat was uncomfortable," and "taxiing was hard"?
Those are useless as far as modeling in-game. HTC does model such things as stall speeds and I presume they have a way of determining how something handles in a stall based on the physics of the wing etc... They do a lot of research, but they use actual objective data, rather than subjective impressions. It's the better way to go: more reliable, more accurate. Most of the time they get it right, too.
-
If the engines "ran rough" then they were obviously not making thier rated power.
So many tests were compromised including some fw190 and ta152 tests by the allies.
-
What, "engines ran rough," "seat was uncomfortable," and "taxiing was hard"?
Those are useless as far as modeling in-game. HTC does model such things as stall speeds and I presume they have a way of determining how something handles in a stall based on the physics of the wing etc... They do a lot of research, but they use actual objective data, rather than subjective impressions. It's the better way to go: more reliable, more accurate. Most of the time they get it right, too.
You just once again insinuated the worst in what someone wrote. Funny how you didn't mention the short take off, or the effective control from high speed to stall, or commendable flight characteristics, etc. Lots of positives there that may not be able to be picked up by flight modeling software. Mind you, I mentioned that in a different manner in my first post. :bhead
-
Nice pic:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/ki45.jpg)
And some performance data (probabaly TAIC testing and/or estimates):
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/ki45_2.jpg)
Would be great if someone with knowledge of th language could translate! :)
-
Funny how you didn't mention the short take off, or the effective control from high speed to stall,
These are objective things and are shown in actual flight test resports. HTC follows these kind of reports and these would be modeled. As I mentioned.
or commendable flight characteristics, etc.
Again going back to SUBJECTIVE points. What is commendable? That the seat is more comfortable? That the pilot's arms don't get tired as quickly because of ergonomics? None of these are modeled nor do they play a role in this game.
The stuff you can measure is taken into account. The quantifiable is considered. Opinions aren't. At least, not that I've seen so far on any existing AH models.
-
And some performance data (probabaly TAIC testing and/or estimates):
Those have to be the initial estimates that were never met.
The Ki-45 certainly didn't do 350-360mph, from all other accounts I've read.
-
Those have to be the initial estimates that were never met.
The Ki-45 certainly didn't do 350-360mph, from all other accounts I've read.
Actually those figures "don't have to be" anything in particular unless you have a better source. They are what they are, and what they are can be found out best with an open mind. That is why I asked if someone could translate.
-
My wife is fluent in Japanese. She translates as a a matter of course in her work at Tokai Rika. I'll run it by her tonight since she often requests that I fineline her English intracompany publications.
-
Ki-46 Dinah.... :rofl Easy target for my P-38 :D
Sincerly
1Nicolas A-20G Fighter/Bomber Pilot :airplane:
-
Ki-46 Dinah.... :rofl Easy target for my P-38 :D
Sincerly
1Nicolas A-20G Fighter/Bomber Pilot :airplane:
P-38s and Spitfires certainly weren't laughing at the Ki-46 in WWII, nor was it an easy target. There was a reason the Luftwaffe wanted a production license for it so badly too.
-
My wife is fluent in Japanese. She translates as a a matter of course in her work at Tokai Rika. I'll run it by her tonight since she often requests that I fineline her English intracompany publications.
Thanks for the offer Godzilla and thank your wife for me too! :salute
Like I said earlier I'm suspecting that it is data from the TAIC's (Technical Air Intelligence Center) Manual on Japanese aircraft and as such they are probably performance estimates.
Here's an example of such a chart for J2M:
(http://bonanzleimages.s3.amazonaws.com/afu/images/8310/7934/TAIC_1A.jpg)
Lot of the data on that page on the Ki-45 is pretty self explanary but I'm mainly interested on the box on the lower left corner. It seems to have the legend for the performance charts. I'm interested if the legend matches that J2M-chart. It probably does.
-
Thanks for the offer Godzilla and thank your wife for me too! :salute
Like I said earlier I'm suspecting that it is data from the TAIC's (Technical Air Intelligence Center) Manual on Japanese aircraft and as such they are probably performance estimates.
Here's an example of such a chart for J2M:
(http://bonanzleimages.s3.amazonaws.com/afu/images/8310/7934/TAIC_1A.jpg)
Lot of the data on that page on the Ki-45 is pretty self explanary but I'm mainly interested on the box on the lower left corner. It seems to have the legend for the performance charts. I'm interested if the legend matches that J2M-chart. It probably does.
It's good that you've clarified. Why? Because it makes the fact that I forgot to give her a copy last night somehat better, since I can now be more specific about the priority of information we want. She's actually at home today so I'm sending her an e-copy now. Sorry I forgot last night. Understand, if I prioritize it will be quicker. My wife is a native speaker - she grew up there (still maintains her citizenship in fact, despite having been here since '90) - but, even so, reading Japanese is never trivial. Katakana/Hiragana is one thing - hell, I could probably translate that part of it. It's the big bad Kanji that can really baffle even aficionados sometimes. Consider that there are thousands of the pictograms and that many have different sources/significances (hanzi, kokuji, kokkun) and there it is.
So, I'll tell her to get us the lower left first.
And you're right - it's pretty easy to discern, e.g. the climb perf and speed perf charts and what units they use.
-
I'm personally wondering why an original japanese-text document would show miles per hour and 1000s of feet per minute on the charts.
I didn't think they used those measuring methods. Something doesn't seem right. Shouldn't it be kph and m/s ?
EDIT: As an aside, every reference you can find on this thing has top speed listed in the 335 range. I haven't seen and real controversy or debate about that yet.
-
Initial feedback via an email from my wife:
The document was published by an individual (Yoshiharu Nakano) who refs, upper left, an US Military (something like USN Air Information Bureau or Service) source which published revised data in '46. original data in '45. So, the ultimate source is some sort of US military eval that released this data some time near the end of the war in a publication: Japanese Aircraft Performance and Characteristics (revised 11/45 report is of data for Ha-chi-tatsu (? not sure) from US Test data - apparently they had one and tested it some time prior to publication). Speed was found to be faster by the US testers than in the data from the Japanese publication - @5460m 568kph (20-30 kph faster than Japanese data, but I don't have source on this comparative set). There's also some comment that the data is unusual in that it is for "combat" (what she calls "fighting"), which I suspect is like WEP or something like full mil.
So, Krusty's guess appears to be a good one - it looks like original source here is US eval and not Japanese.
My wife did that hurriedly and away from her tube. I told her to find me an attribution. She says that appears upper left - you can see the Romajji dates there.
As for the box lower left, it is a simple legend. She came back with: "The upper left graphs show all outputs. in the upper right and lower left, - and -.-. indicate military outputs. .... and -..-.. are fighting outputs."
I'll milk her on this some more, if you llike but I think that source info is what you were after. As for the speed discrepancy, perhaps the US evaluators were using better US Tar..? or maybe just a high-quality sample, fit and finish-wise..?
-
Or, as in many cases they had better fuel and could run it at higher settings without detonation in the cylinders, giving more power. Most captured US tests of Japanese aircraft yielded at least 10% improvement over Japan's own real-world testing. then you get cases like the Ki-84 with significant improvement in US hands with US supplies.
Unrelated to the chart:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/toryu.htm
Interesting short read. Some excerpts/comments on the Toryu and its initial use in combat and some other impressions from Watanabe Yoji (I don't know who that is off the top of my head), from a book in 1983.
Credited as:
"Notes from WATANABE Yoji: Toryu: Jubaku kira (Toryu: Bomber Killer) (Tokyo, Sankei Shuppan, 1983)"
-
Initial feedback via an email from my wife:
The document was published by an individual (Yoshiharu Nakano) who refs, upper left, an US Military (something like USN Air Information Bureau or Service) source which published revised data in '46. original data in '45. So, the ultimate source is some sort of US military eval that released this data some time near the end of the war in a publication: Japanese Aircraft Performance and Characteristics (revised 11/45 report is of data for Ha-chi-tatsu (? not sure) from US Test data - apparently they had one and tested it some time prior to publication). Speed was found to be faster by the US testers than in the data from the Japanese publication - @5460m 568kph (20-30 kph faster than Japanese data, but I don't have source on this comparative set). There's also some comment that the data is unusual in that it is for "combat" (what she calls "fighting"), which I suspect is like WEP or something like full mil.
So, Krusty's guess appears to be a good one - it looks like original source here is US eval and not Japanese.
My wife did that hurriedly and away from her tube. I told her to find me an attribution. She says that appears upper left - you can see the Romajji dates there.
As for the box lower left, it is a simple legend. She came back with: "The upper left graphs show all outputs. in the upper right and lower left, - and -.-. indicate military outputs. .... and -..-.. are fighting outputs."
I'll milk her on this some more, if you llike but I think that source info is what you were after. As for the speed discrepancy, perhaps the US evaluators were using better US Tar..? or maybe just a high-quality sample, fit and finish-wise..?
Thank you very much! It confirms what I suspected that the data is most probably from the TAIC Manual. I know Americans had at least two Ki-45s. They probabaly got one running well and using higher octane fuel they got better performance. Depends on what boost levels they used in their tests. I've never seen at what power settings the official Japanese figures were achieved either so it's hard to say.
Thanks again Godzilla and thank you wife for me aswell!
Hopefully Toryu finds it way to AH one day! :)
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKN-V_wdHsqdwCNbqNQyzZoSqay7vwDbeu2QpR8GKH2kmb4_tL)
I'm personally wondering why an original japanese-text document would show miles per hour and 1000s of feet per minute on the charts.
I didn't think they used those measuring methods. Something doesn't seem right. Shouldn't it be kph and m/s ?
As I said earlier, I suspected that the data comes from the TAIC manual which was gathered by the US intelligence regarding Japanese aircraft.
EDIT: As an aside, every reference you can find on this thing has top speed listed in the 335 range. I haven't seen and real controversy or debate about that yet.
One variant did 335.5mph another 340mph according to Francillon. And yet, you still claimed earlier in this thread how 110C would be 20mph faster even though 110C does *only* 345mph at alt in AH.
-
I last saw this plane laying around at Garber in the 90s so I guess someone cleaned it up and they displayed what they could though I'm pretty sure they had much more of the plane at that time.
If you put either "garber" or "nasm" after any plane number and google it, you should find some good information and behind the scenes photos since had at least part if not entire examples of every single WWII plane.........it's just that there are so many stored it would boggle your mind.
I remember leaking containers stuffed full of wings and other parts all over the place back in the 80s.
I'm sure they have at least another 50 years worth of restoration ahead of them.
-
One variant did 335.5mph another 340mph according to Francillon. And yet, you still claimed earlier in this thread how 110C would be 20mph faster even though 110C does *only* 345mph at alt in AH.
The 110C looked closer to 350. the Ki-45 (at the time, cursory searching) looked 330. That's 20mph.
-
Ni!
-
The 110C looked closer to 350.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=59&p2=-1&pw=2>ype=0)
-
Yes.. and?
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=bf110c
and:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/thumb/1/14/110c4spd.jpg/300px-110c4spd.jpg)
It's a few mph off of 350.
Nitpick much? I explained where I got 20mph from. Ki-45 is a few mph faster than I originally thought, but I was pretty close.
EDIT: It's even listed as 348mph in Wiki and other online references. 2mph off.
-
It's a few mph off of 350.
<sigh>
Try looking at the scales of those charts. The other has 20mph increment and the other has 25mph.
Nitpick much?
You come in here yelling how Ki-45 was a flop and "a never has been" when it was flown by 10 Sentais all over the Pacific and in the CBI-theater in several different roles. Then I explain how its performance isn't far from 110C's performance. Then you disagree and start making bogus arguments without any sources. I use facts, figures and post my sources. Then you justify one of your bogus points by "not looking at the speed properly". If you don't have the faintest clue about the plane the thread is about why don't you just ask questions about the plane or refrain from commenting alltogether? It's much smarter to stay silent than type BS.
And now you cry about me nitpicking?
Priceless.
-
isent that the jap plane that the front gunner of the b17 (old 666) shot down before he was K.I.A (apologies, i dont remember the mans name)
-
isent that the jap plane that the front gunner of the b17 (old 666) shot down before he was K.I.A (apologies, i dont remember the mans name)
keine ahnung...
-
Ki-45 :aok
Would be fun......one day :pray
-
Here's hoping!
-
+1
-
Damn. If IJAAF could roll out the Ki-83.... :D