Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: AHTbolt on October 12, 2011, 08:26:50 PM
-
Very interesting late war Japanese fighter.
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/Nippon/photos/Ki-100_.jpg)
Kawasaki Ki.100-I
Type: Fighter
Service: Japanese Army Air Force (JAAF)
Crew: Pilot
Armament: two 12.7mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns in nose
two 12.7mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns in wings
(later models included 20mm and 30mm cannons)
Reference: Francillon: 129, Mondey:
Specifications:
Length: 28' 11.25" (8.82 m)
Height: 12' 3.6" (3.75 m)
Wingspan: 39' 4.5" (12 m)
Wing area: 215.278 sq. ft (20 sq. m)
Empty Weight: 5567 lbs (2525 kg)
Loaded Weight: 7705 lbs (3495 kg)
Propulsion:
No. of Engines: 1
Powerplant: Mitsubishi [Ha-33] 62 14-cyclinder radial engine
Horsepower: 1500 hp
Performance:
Range (normal): 870 miles (1400 km)
Range (max): 1367 miles (2200 km)
Cruise Speed: 249 mph (400 km/h) at 13,125 ft
Max Speed: 360 mph (580 km/h) at 19,685 ft
Climb to/in: 16,405 ft (5000 m) in 6 min 0 sec
Ceiling: 36,090 ft (11,000 m)
Production: approximately 396 Ki-100s total
information found here http://www.daveswarbirds.com/Nippon/Japanese.htm
-
+1
-
I have never heard of a Ki-100 armed only with 12.7mm machine guns. I suspect your source is in error. Seeing as they are re-engined Ki-61-IIs they should share the same armament, two 12.7mm Ho-103 machine guns and two 20mm Ho-5 cannons.
-
I have never heard of a Ki-100 armed only with 12.7mm machine guns. I suspect your source is in error. Seeing as they are re-engined Ki-61-IIs they should share the same armament, two 12.7mm Ho-103 machine guns and two 20mm Ho-5 cannons.
(later models included 20mm and 30mm cannons)<---<<<
He did mention that. Perhaps only preproduction or very early models had just the 12.7mm, and most of the actual types fielded was with the 20mm?
-
Oh I forgot to add a +1 :rolleyes:
-
(later models included 20mm and 30mm cannons)<---<<<
He did mention that. Perhaps only preproduction or very early models had just the 12.7mm, and most of the actual types fielded was with the 20mm?
No, there shouldn't be any with just 12.7mm guns. Some earlier Ki-61-Is had four 12.7mm guns, but by the time the Ki-61-II was being built they were all armed with two 12.7mm and two 20mm guns. All Ki-100s were derived from the Ki-61-II.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,296722.0.html
-
+1
-
Two 250 rounds 20mm cannons on the nose would be enough fire power for that Ki! :salute
It would out-turn Ki-84. :rock
And it has good climb, but slower speed, and slower roll. :D
Also it will not blow off ailerons or elevators while diving... :lol
-
No 30-mm weapon was fitted to this type. The armament was identical to Aces High's Ki-61, two cowl mounted 20-mm Cannon and two wing mounted 12.7-mm MG.
-
As I understood it before, the Ki-61 woud outperform it. Wrong?
-
It was more reliable, not a better performer, for the most part.
-
Ah Krusty's back. Where have you been? We were on the point of sending out a search party.
You have to qualify the term outperform. The Ki-100 gained a considerable power increase and enjoyed a considerable weight saving over the Ki-61 it replaced, with the associated benefits to those changes. Although there was more drag so the top speed was slightly lower.
Some of us hope that when the prehistoric looking AH model of the Ki-61 gets revamped, HTC will go the extra mile and include the Ki-100 too (also perhaps a few more versions of the Ki-61 (and correct the weight of the one we have)). Would be an opportunity to add a clutch of Japanese aircraft in one go :banana:
-
Life sucks, it's been keeping my busy.
Keep in mind the Ki61 was already flying well into the end of the war. The Ki-100 saw limited service, in limited areas, even though 100-200 were constructed.
There is also a major difference between a radial and an inline. It's not just power and weight. Look at a P-36 and a P-40 for comparison.
-
I believe it's climb rate increased greatly and the top speed was a few mph slower at all altitudes.
-
"Greatly"? No. Marginally at best. Climb rate is greatly hampered by drag.
-
"Greatly"? No. Marginally at best. Climb rate is greatly hampered by drag.
Climbrate will be increased due to more thrust available compared to the weight. At climbing speeds induced drag is overall bigger contributor than parasite drag.
What is "greatly" and what is not is subjective but I consider 325hp increase in power to be very significant for a WWII fighter aircraft and as such, the increase in climbrate will be significant indeed.
-
At best climb speeds parasitic drag is less of a factor that induced drag, unless I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely.
They did make a very neat job of the installation:-
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3432/dscf0863.jpg)
(http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/4936/dscf0864x.jpg)
(http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/3623/dscf0866l.jpg)
It is a very small aircraft, approximately the same size as a Bf109. You only really appreciate the difference when you stand in front of a P-47! :eek:
"Greatly"? No. Marginally at best. Climb rate is greatly hampered by drag.
I think that's why it would be an interesting addition, to be able to make a direct comparison between the two.
-
Ah, that'll learn me to update topics before posting when my Laptop's lid has been closed all night. Apologies WMaker.
-
Apologies WMaker.
Np, I'm guessing that two times won't be enough anyway. :D
-
A translated chart I have shows the Ki-100 getting to 5000 meters in 6 minutes vs Ki-61 taking 7 minutes. The difference in climb performance seems pretty significant to me.
-
You realize....
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) in 6 minutes..... 16,400 divided by 6 = 2733 fpm average.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=47&p2=-1&pw=1>ype=2)
Whereas our in-game Ki-61 averages 2700-2800 fpm all the way up to 14k before it starts to taper off?
Like I said, and I ADMIT I'm generalizing here, marginal difference.
Drag DOES impact climb rate. Flying with an empty DT will kill rate of climb, dropping it will improve it noticably. The weight is negligable on most airframes (60lbs? Less?), so the drag can be shown to be the killer of RoC.
-
You realize....
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) in 6 minutes..... 16,400 divided by 6 = 2733 fpm average.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=47&p2=-1&pw=1>ype=2)
Whereas our in-game Ki-61 averages 2700-2800 fpm all the way up to 14k before it starts to taper off?
Like I said, and I ADMIT I'm generalizing here, marginal difference.
Drag DOES impact climb rate. Flying with an empty DT will kill rate of climb, dropping it will improve it noticably. The weight is negligable on most airframes (60lbs? Less?), so the drag can be shown to be the killer of RoC.
You'll see the same "increase" in average RoC when you just theoretically compare it to the "time to alt" for all planes. Many times these are "from standing" times.
No one said that the overall drag doesn't affect climbrate, no one even said that parasitic drag doesn't affect climb rate. We are saying that significant increase in power will yield a noticeable increase in climbrate. Last time you were claiming how A6M3 will have a lower climb rate than A6M2 and then it was due to the "smaller wingarea". You were totally wrong then as demonstrated by actual data and AH modelling and you are just as wrong now.
-
Apples vs Oranges
The Ki-100 had a 14.2% better time to climb then the Ki-61. A 10% difference in any meaningful performance metric, is not minimal or marginal.
-
No one said that the overall drag doesn't affect climbrate,
Fair enough, but I took exception to the way you seemed to brush off the importance of drag in climb rate. I will let it go and move on to the important stuff...
Rene J. Francillon, take him or leave him, says in regards to rate of climb:
Ki-61-I-Otsu (-b) gonna get 5:30" for 5000m
and Ki-61-I-KAI-Tei (-c) 7:00"
The Ki-61s had a number of configurations, armors, weights, and fuel tankages inside any number of "variant names" -- they would make changes without changing the designation -- so that's the best and worst case right there. 5:30 minutes is 2982fpm average. 7 minutes is average of 2300 fpm. The Ki-61-II was listed as getting to 5000m in 5 minutes flat.
Please see this very interesting post on the ubi forums:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2101024949?r=1331061059#1331061059
He's a bit of an expert in other forums. He is using first-hand original Japanese documents, official japanese handling manual info, there... He "hangs out" (for lack of better term) on forums with some other experts as well.
He shows how the prototype Ki-61 made 5000m in 5:00, the production Otsu in 5:30, the production Tei in 7:00, and the production Ki-61-II Tei in 6:00.
He includes a list of resources on Ki-61 and Ki-100s that has probably more than 50 items on it (and that's his "short" list).
I think the Ki-100 is very similar in climb rate to Ki-61s. I think OUR Ki-61 is a bit of a dog and perhaps not the best (for example, the flight tests showing it turns as well as an FM2 whereas in-game the FM-2 will out turn it easily). Assuming a Ki-61 flight model re-visit, I think a Ki-100 wouldn't be noticably better in any category, excepting the second supercharger gear it has to power it at higher alts.
-
Last time you were claiming how A6M3 will have a lower climb rate than A6M2 and then it was due to the "smaller wingarea". You were totally wrong then as demonstrated by actual data and AH modelling and you are just as wrong now.
Incorrect... HTC chose to use US fuel data (apparently? I don't know where he got that rate), but other reference material backed me up and I shared this with everyone, before the eventual Krusty-bashing began. Also pilot anecdotes themselves from pilots transitioning to the new ride. The specs did not hold up to the climb rate it has in-game. It is a completely inaccurate rate of climb we currently have (it OUTclimbs the A6M5b!), but knowing HTC's speed for fixing these issues I won't hold my breath.
-
(it OUTclimbs the A6M5b!),
In a fully fueled clean config the A6M5b climbs just slightly slower (@100 fpm?) than an A6M3 32 from 0-@8k or so as a result of it being 370 lbs heavier (extra internal goodies and fuel) while using the same engine the 1130 hp Sakae model 21. The extra thrust from the exhaust stacks is not enough to compensate for that weight increase. The A6M3 has the best power-weight ratio of any of the Zeros when comparing loaded weights.
Climb test with both a/c at 5650 lbs (weight of a full fuel A6M3) clean (ran the A6M5 with a high fuel burn to get its weight down to the same) from 0 flaps T.O. roll on runway fuel burn 1.0 at commencement of test (alt-r then engine start):
A6M3 0-10k in 3:28 (208 seconds)
A6M5b 0-10k in 3:18 (198 seconds) < climbs @ 5 % faster at same weight (although still close). Not slower. That would be as a result of the extra thrust from the ejector exhaust stacks.
Oh re the A6M3 32. There isnt anybody that wouldn't pick it over an A6M2 with its 940hp engine and 60 rounds of cannon per gun. That much is pretty clear.
Ki-100 (back on topic). Its not a super 1945 IJ fighter. It is slightly better at alt and climbs better yes to a Ki-61 and I would still like to see it added down the road, sure. Not untill we get a J2M Raiden and Ki-43 (two a/c that are very opposite in most ways) first though.
The two best IJ fighters in WW2 hands down were the Ki-84 and the N1K2-J which we have in the game already. There is no undiscovered wonder fighter for the IJ we don't yet have. The Ki-100 is not the equal of either of them. Its a slightly better (you can debate by how much) Ki-61 variant.
-
Japanese wonder fighter? Who said they were looking for that? Some people would simply like to have some of the more interesting aircraft included regardless of their uberness rating.
Krusty during our last exchange about the Hayate, didn't you basically trash Francillon as an unreliable source? You don't see a problem with being selective about your sources of information from case to case?
The AH Ki-61 is apparently overweight. That was illustrated recently with information from three separate sources.
-
Japanese wonder fighter? Who said they were looking for that?
There have been numerous posts in the past re the Ki-100 as it pertains to perhaps that. Not nessecarily in this thread here. I just posted it for context. I was not pointing fingers at anybody in particular. Like I said I would like to see it added and it is an improvement over the Ki-61.
Ki-100. :aok from me.
-
Incorrect... HTC chose to use US fuel data (apparently? I don't know where he got that rate), but other reference material backed me up and I shared this with everyone, before the eventual Krusty-bashing began. Also pilot anecdotes themselves from pilots transitioning to the new ride. The specs did not hold up to the climb rate it has in-game. It is a completely inaccurate rate of climb we currently have (it OUTclimbs the A6M5b!), but knowing HTC's speed for fixing these issues I won't hold my breath.
Nothing you say here is "backed up" by anything. You didn't post any of those pilot anecdotes (not that they would explain a way simple physics anyway) even though I repedeatly asked you to. You never posted any. And as, Squire said, the fact that it theoretically slightly outclimbs A6M5b on couple altitude bands isn't really wrong or a miracle of any sort, the only one to whom this wasn't clear from the start were you.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=115&p2=25&pw=0>ype=2)
Everyone can draw their own conclusions of the original thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,305565.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,305565.0.html)
-
Fair enough, but I took exception to the way you seemed to brush off the importance of drag in climb rate. I will let it go and move on to the important stuff...
Rene J. Francillon, take him or leave him, says in regards to rate of climb:
Ki-61-I-Otsu (-b) gonna get 5:30" for 5000m
and Ki-61-I-KAI-Tei (-c) 7:00"
The Ki-61s had a number of configurations, armors, weights, and fuel tankages inside any number of "variant names" -- they would make changes without changing the designation -- so that's the best and worst case right there. 5:30 minutes is 2982fpm average. 7 minutes is average of 2300 fpm. The Ki-61-II was listed as getting to 5000m in 5 minutes flat.
Please see this very interesting post on the ubi forums:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2101024949?r=1331061059#1331061059
He's a bit of an expert in other forums. He is using first-hand original Japanese documents, official japanese handling manual info, there... He "hangs out" (for lack of better term) on forums with some other experts as well.
He shows how the prototype Ki-61 made 5000m in 5:00, the production Otsu in 5:30, the production Tei in 7:00, and the production Ki-61-II Tei in 6:00.
He includes a list of resources on Ki-61 and Ki-100s that has probably more than 50 items on it (and that's his "short" list).
I think the Ki-100 is very similar in climb rate to Ki-61s. I think OUR Ki-61 is a bit of a dog and perhaps not the best (for example, the flight tests showing it turns as well as an FM2 whereas in-game the FM-2 will out turn it easily). Assuming a Ki-61 flight model re-visit, I think a Ki-100 wouldn't be noticably better in any category, excepting the second supercharger gear it has to power it at higher alts.
No real need to bring the earlier lighter variants of the Ki-61 like the b into the discussion as we are comparing the -Tei which is in AH to the KI-100. It is well known that the earlier variants were lighter and therefore climbed significantly better because they had the same basic power output as the -Tei. Ki-100 had a better climb performance due to having better powerloading and similar prop efficiency. As simple as that.
-
^^^
Wmakes quit making sense,your ruining all the hyperbole!
:salute
-
Well, on the subject of which Ki-61 to compare it to.....
Gaston made a comment on some other forum (Yes... THAT Gaston...) said that the Tei was almost never used. He was in a bit of a rambling mode, but he made the comment about how most of the Teis were kamikaze or sitting on airfields canibalized to keep the earlier, lighter, models in service. He said he'd never seen a Tei in flight in any photo or some such. [Edit: Stick with me, I'm coming back to this in a moment..]
I don't agree that it will be "significantly" better climbing. It's your choice of words and the long-held false belief by many that the Ki-100 was some uber plane that makes me balk at the way you say it. However, I do agree it will have SOME increased climb rate, probably. I don't consider it "significant" or "massive" or any such description. Going into the difference in variant performance, though... What of the Gaston comment? Pure bluster or is there some grain of truth behind this? Was the later version eschewed because of lesser performance? I know stories of some Japanese pilots thinking armor was cowardly, and removing it from Ki43s or Ki84s or some other plane. Would they have kept their earlier versions with similar armaments but better weight?
I've always felt we should have a couple more Ki-61 versions, but now I wonder if the version we have is really representative at all?
-
Drag is proportional to the square of speed so it's very possible that best climb speed is slow enough that the extra drag is not as much a factor as some are saying here.
-
It's your choice of words and the long-held false belief by many that the Ki-100 was some uber plane that makes me balk at the way you say it.
I dont know which is worse, to claim that it will be worse than it is or calling it uber.
As far as -Tei goes, saying that was some rare variant that didnt see combat is complete nonsense, 1274 comparable variants were built.
-
I don't think I ever said it was worse. I never claimed it was uber, but there is a large following on the Internet that does. Many urban myths and falsehoods surround the performance of this aircraft ("shot down 14 hellcats on its first sortie" etc...). I was not saying I agree, I was saying because of these rampant mistruths I did not like you choice of superlative to describe the climb rate.
to the Gaston comment, he didn't say it was rare, just that it rarely saw combat. Many made, but most used in kamikaze or canibalized for Otsu models and such. I suppose that goes more into the finer details of its combat service, but I don't know all that much in this area.
-
Here's some specifications
Ki-100Ia
2 x 12.7mm MG's and 2 x 20mm cannons
Mitsubishi Ha-112-II engine, 1500 HP
272 built
580km/6,000m
Climbs 16,400ft in 6 minutes or roughly 2700ft a minute
Ki-100-Ib
Engine is roughly a tab better, being a Ha-112-IIru, its made for high alt interceptions, doing 590km/10,000m
same loadout as Ia
Also I am showing only 390 Ki-100s were built in total between the 2 models.
Comparing this to the Ki-84 and N1K I agree with Krusty, its nothing special -
and tales of the Ki-100 shooting down massive american planes is purely propaganda, for example on July 18th 1945, 25 Ki-100's tangled with P-51 mustangs of the 111th Regiment (Who were skilled pilots not rookies) - it was pretty much a tie as a few mustang's were downed, but only 4 of the Ki-100s returned to base.
The myth concerning the 8 Ki-100s that shot down 22 Hellcats without a loss, is nothing but - propaganda, its been stated the Hellcats were mainly on a bombing run and most were downed to ack with an actual loss of only 4 hellcats, im guessing to the Ki-100s and the Ack itself.
It deserves it's place in Aces High, but don't except it to be anything other then an upgraded Ki-61.
-
I don't think I ever said it was worse. I never claimed it was uber, but there is a large following on the Internet that does. Many urban myths and falsehoods surround the performance of this aircraft ("shot down 14 hellcats on its first sortie" etc...). I was not saying I agree, I was saying because of these rampant mistruths I did not like you choice of superlative to describe the climb rate.
to the Gaston comment, he didn't say it was rare, just that it rarely saw combat. Many made, but most used in kamikaze or canibalized for Otsu models and such. I suppose that goes more into the finer details of its combat service, but I don't know all that much in this area.
<sigh>
I don't quite know where to start but I think it's best if I don't, at all. I'll just say that no one on this thread claimed that it'll be something amazing, so I don't quite understand why you have to bring up these myths. Considering your allergy for these myths, it is kinda comical that the only one that brought them up on this thread is you. :D
-
Wmaker, I think you just don't understand basic English sometimes, and general American English fluency others. You seem to require more things spelled out for you than anybody else, and then you misunderstand or just plain don't GET what is being spelled out, so the end result is you get upset, and I get upset trying to explain it, when the original point itself would never have made either party upset to begin with.
That is honestly what it feels like. [edit: I know I am not the best communicator at times, but almost everybody but you seems to get what I'm trying to say, so I don't think it's me to blame in these instances.]
I'm not going to try explaining the point about the myths again, because you just won't get it and will start something over it. Just know I wasn't making an argument, I was simply issuing an explanation for WHY I didn't agree with your superlatives.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
I don't agree that it will be "significantly" better climbing. It's your choice of words and the long-held false belief by many that the Ki-100 was some uber-plane that makes me balk at the way you say it. However, I do agree it will have SOME increased climb rate, probably. I don't consider it "significant" or "massive" or any such description.
Krusty the data I discussed showed a 14.2% improvement in time to climb performance. Your position is that that isn't a significant change, let me ask you this. If a plane had a top speed of 400mph and it was increased by 14.2% to 456.8mph, would you also say that isn't significant?
I have not seen any post's that indicate the Ki-100 is some uber-plane, what has been presented is that the changes were significant enough to warrant it's addition to Aces High.
-
Well, Krusty did claim that the request Scher and I had for the Mossie VI to be remodeled with ejector stacks wouldn't matter as 20mph wasn't significant. I don't know if he still hews to that position, but the Mossie's K/D ratio last tour was 1.2 to 1 whereas before the remodel it was always in the 0.6-0.8 to 1 ratio.
-
See Rule #4
-
Does anybody have an actual climb rate chart? Not just the "5000m in 6 minutes" quote? What's the initial rate, and what does it drop to, etc? I'm not attempting to further the argument any (the issue seems well covered by now), I'm genuinely curious to compare to AH's climb chart.
I've always had a lot of trouble getting a more detailed climb chart for Japanese aircraft than x minutes to y feet.
-
I've run into the same problem doing internet searches the past 2 days. It definitely seems like it was tested, maybe even by US forces (?) as well, but it doesn't seem like they thought it was worth making a chart.
Odd, and a little annoying.
-
Charts and graphs aside and hurling poop bombs at each other I just think is a cool looking airplane. :neener:
-
Nrshida's rage fit nothwithstanding, I suppose it all boils down to semantics, what I consider a lot vs what you might.
:lol nice try.
Don't try to claim that you are the injured party who is just honestly plodding along trying to find the facts. You're not. You're looking to find some pseudo data which supports your mission that just in case the plane gets added, HTC should use the poorest performing data available.
It doesn't boil down to semantics, that's how you make the space to do your reality fiddling, by constantly changing the parameters of the discussion.
It boils down to finding reasonable data, free from agenda, which we have. The horsepower and weights have been supplied several times from reliable sources.
Fortunately for the rest of us HTC continues to demonstrate its will to model its aircraft as accurately as possible. I'm sure if HTC chose to include this aircraft (and I'm sure they will eventually) then we will all have the opportunity to compare the change of reduced weight, increased power and drag on a familiar airframe.
(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/558/ki100.jpg)
(http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4140/ki100details.jpg)
(http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6189/ki100radialcowling.jpg)
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/705/ki100narrowfusalage.jpg)
(http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7582/dscf0889u.jpg)
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6258/dscf0890v.jpg)
(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8552/dscf0892x.jpg)
(http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/327/dscf0894i.jpg)
(http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/2479/dscf0895.jpg)
-
Let me get the terrible tony.
But I will be hanged by AKAK's P-38J... :D
-
I've always had a lot of trouble getting a more detailed climb chart for Japanese aircraft than x minutes to y feet.
I have the manuals in Japanese for all Japanese aircraft, sadly its going to be x meters to y minutes.
Best I can tell you is 2733ft per minute climb rate (16400 / 6 minutes)
There isn't anything more specific in this, the manuals I have come directly from the aircraft designer, and it won't give you any more detailed information.
-
As in printed manuals Butcher, or electronic versions?
-
See Rule #4
-
As in printed manuals Butcher, or electronic versions?
Yes printed Manuals, roughly around 325 or so printed manuals, I have a few I copied to PDF because of old age, I mainly use Osprey aircam aviation or vanguard for my sources since I have roughly over 590 PDF files on various aircraft/tanks/ships.
It's interesting to see what the prototypes did vs combat ready versions, of course bugs and everything else have to be evaluated and modified.
-
Butcher I'm interested in how you got the manufacturer's manuals from the sources you listed. I have a good collection of manuals and I'm always looking for more. Can you share more about where you found the Japanese manuals in particular?
thanks,
Baumer
-
Incorrect... HTC chose to use US fuel data (apparently? I don't know where he got that rate)
What fuel got to do with it?
-
See Rule #4
-
Butcher I'm interested in how you got the manufacturer's manuals from the sources you listed. I have a good collection of manuals and I'm always looking for more. Can you share more about where you found the Japanese manuals in particular?
thanks,
Baumer
A gent I knew in another game had passed away, I knew him and his wife for some time and she wanted to donate the books to the community that played at the time, I offered a list the books on the forums long as someone paid shipping charges i'd mail them a section of the books and divide them up evenly. In the end nobody wanted the manuals, and she gave me whatever we didn't mail off. I received the volume set to History of United States Naval Operations in World War II and had a trunk load of manuals I thought I'd never read because most are in foreign languages, but I figured i'd preserve them at least till lately since I have been opening them up to get information for Aces High.
-
Butcher, have you got anything directly from Nakajima specifically about the Ki-84?
Yeah, what do you need to know about the Ki-84? I Have both the IJA and USAF specifications for the Ki-84, also the spec's on the Ki-84-II, Ki-106, Ki-113 and Ki-116.
-
Well I'd love to see anything interesting you've got, especially if it comes directly from the manufacturer, as I'm sure would a lot of people. Take this discussion for instance, if you had any manufacturer's data to contribute then I am sure it would help HTC to construct their model if and when they decide to include it.
Sounds like you have an awful lot of valuable resources. I appreciate it would take a lot of time and energy to digitise it, but it would be a shame to not eventually distribute it.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
It's a fair cop Skuzzy! :salute
-
See Rule #4
-
I need it.
-
(http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~s244f/ki-100_kobayashi.jpg)
:pray