Ki-100

[Hajo]

Gorgeous aircraft.  I to have mentioned the Ki100 several times as a nice addition to the Japanese Inventory.  The Soviet inventory of fighters also could use a few additions such as the Yak3.

We have a nice inventory of allied planes.  109s and 190s also...although an He219 & FW190A4 would be nice.  We have more then enough variants of the Spitfire imho as well.

The "Jack"  "Tojo" and the Ki100 would round out the Japanese planeset nicely imho.

[Krusty]

Ki61-I:

1175hp Ha40 (DB knock-off)
Weights: empty 5798lb loaded: 7650lbs
Max Speed: 348mph
initial climb: 2200fpm
ceiling: 32,800ft
range 990-1100 mi.

Ki61-II:

1450hp Ha-140 (DB knock-off)
Weights: empty 6294lb loaded: 8433lbs
Max Speed: 379mph
initial climb: 2200fpm
ceiling: 36,089ft
range 990-1100 mi.

Ki-100:
1450hp Ha-140 (DB knock-off)
Weights: empty 5567lb loaded: 7705lbs
Max Speed: 367mph
initial climb: 3280fpm
ceiling: 37,700ft
range 1200 mi.


As you can see it actually performs WORSE than the Ki61-II. The difference between the I and the II is like the C202 and the C205. Different engine. Initial Ki61-IIs had a larger redesigned wing but they quickly went back to the original wing.

One thing to note, we have a Ki61-I-KAIc. Strange thing is it's a -I (lighter weight) but with a -II 12.7mm loadout (instead of 7mm) and it has a top speed of about 370, like the II. I think AH has a hybrid model going on, or something.

Ki100 would perform WORSE than what we have now, and all the rest is too similar to warrant 2 models that do the same thing and act the same way.

[1K3]

Note that Ki-100 speed matches Ki-61-Ic but has much higher rate of climb


Specification of Kawasaki Ki-61-I-KAIc Army Type 3 Fighter Model 1c:

One Army Type 2 twelve-cylinder liquid cooled engine (Kawasaki Ha-40) rated at 1180 hp for takeoff and 1100 hp at 11,480 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 366 mph at 13,980 feet. An altitude of 16,400 feet could be reached in 7 minutes. Service ceiling 32,810 feet. Maximum range 1120 miles.

Dimensions: Wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 29 feet 4 inches, height 12 feet 1 11/16 inches, wing area 215.3 square feet. Weights: 5798 pounds empty, 7650 pounds loaded.

Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 20 mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 12.7 mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns and two wing-mounted 12.7 mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-61.html

[Debonair]

Ki-61-II had very low production numbers.  Ki-100 has the weight of the Ki-61-I & the power of the -II, sounds like a fun plane to fly.  I bet wings level & full power it could get to a super low IAS before stalling.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Krusty
Ki61-I:

1175hp Ha40 (DB knock-off)
Weights: empty 5798lb loaded: 7650lbs
Max Speed: 348mph
initial climb: 2200fpm
ceiling: 32,800ft
range 990-1100 mi.

Ki61-II:

1450hp Ha-140 (DB knock-off)
Weights: empty 6294lb loaded: 8433lbs
Max Speed: 379mph
initial climb: 2200fpm
ceiling: 36,089ft
range 990-1100 mi.

Ki-100:
1450hp Ha-140 (DB knock-off)
Weights: empty 5567lb loaded: 7705lbs
Max Speed: 367mph
initial climb: 3280fpm
ceiling: 37,700ft
range 1200 mi.


As you can see it actually performs WORSE than the Ki61-II. The difference between the I and the II is like the C202 and the C205. Different engine. Initial Ki61-IIs had a larger redesigned wing but they quickly went back to the original wing.

One thing to note, we have a Ki61-I-KAIc. Strange thing is it's a -I (lighter weight) but with a -II 12.7mm loadout (instead of 7mm) and it has a top speed of about 370, like the II. I think AH has a hybrid model going on, or something.

Ki100 would perform WORSE than what we have now, and all the rest is too similar to warrant 2 models that do the same thing and act the same way.

Worse?

By those numbers I see in ki100 a plane with 50% greater climb and 700lbs less weight with the same armament, same wing area, better visibility and no radiator damage possible all that for only being 13mph slower - and I bet thats only an issue at higher altitudes down low the 100 may be just as fast.

So the ki100 would be vastly better than ki61-II in:

Climb
Acceleration
Turn
Low speed handling
High AoA
Damage resitance

They would be equal in firepower.

Ki61-II slightly faster and probably only so at higher alitudes

Ki100 is obviously much betterb than ki61-II, even more so when you consider that the US opponents Japan faced were 70mph faster than even the Ki61-II so the 13mph were irellevant but climb accel and turn were extremely important to the slower japanese fighter...

[Slash27]

Krusty, the Ki-100 has a radial engine and not the inline DB copy. I also wouldnt use the top speed as the indicator of outperforming another aircraft. I wouldnt say the AH2 Ta-152 outperforms the Ki-84.( the real life versions I really wouldnt have a clue)

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Slash27
Good deal:D

More tidbits on the Ki-100

 It was superior to the F6F Hellcat and pilots soon regarded the Grumman fighter as an easy kill In the first encounter between Hellcats and Ki-100's, 14 of the Hellcats were shot down without loss to the Japanese. It also proved capable if intercepting B-29's. It even proved itself the equal of the P-51 Mustang, contests between the two aircraft being determined by pilot skill rather than the merits of the aircraft.
 

This claim of shooting down 14 Hellcats without loss has long since been proven false. Never happened. 50% to 70% of all Japanese claims never happened. One historian who researched Japanese claims stated "that they (the Japanese) claimed virtually everything they shot at, and missed most of those to boot". (Barrett Tillman, 2002)

As it actually stands, most surviving Japanese pilots considered the F6F as the BEST American fighter, stating that it was the most feared.

There's a lot of revisionist history surrounding the Ki-100. The fact remains that it offered lack-luster performance, being between 75 and 100 mph slower than the latest USAAF fighters, and generally outclassed by everything else in the Allied fighter inventory.

I too would prefer the JM3 Raiden to the Ki-100, although any addition to the Japanese plane set would be welcome.

My regards,

Widewing

[Schutt]

Top speed isnt the prime concern.

All ramble about the new spit16 while its top speed is really not that high.

So the ki 100 could be real good eaven when slower. But i find the mid and early war much more interesting, having more than just an a6m2 and a6m5 for the scenarios would be great.

[storch]

at the end of the day the guy wishes that the Ki100 be added.  it's his wish irrespective of what anyone's opinion may be.  i think it would be a welcome addition to japanese set ups in the sea and ct.

[Slash27]

Originally posted by Widewing

There's a lot of revisionist history surrounding the Ki-100. The fact remains that it offered lack-luster performance, being between 75 and 100 mph slower than the latest USAAF fighters, and generally outclassed by everything else in the Allied fighter inventory.

I too would prefer the JM3 Raiden to the Ki-100, although any addition to the Japanese plane set would be welcome.

My regards,

Widewing

Well, Im not here trying to revise history by any means. While I very much appreciate and prefer facts over claims, I really just want a new toy for AH2. And to expand on what Storch said, at the end of the day I want as a complete Japanese planeset as possible. Has any other sim ever modelled a Ki-100, Ki-44, or Ki-45? Whether or not an aircraft was out classed or sub par in real life, I enjoy the historic match ups found in the CT and special events more than anything else in AH.

 And since I have you here WW, what was the reasons for its lack-luster performance? Was it the actual design of the aircraft or quality issues with engines and such?

 And if you have some recomendations on reference books it would be greatly welcomed. I have a shelf full of stuff but I get frustrated with lack of accuracy and conflicting or just plane lack of information in what I have.

[Krusty]

16k in 7 minutes? That's only 2,200fpm climb, sorry, that's no better than the Ki61. Do the math, 16 / 7 = 2.2 (truncated).

Like I said, the radial engine on the Ki100 was not a performance issue, it was a reliability issue. Less Ki100s were made than Ki61-IIs, and as has been mentioned the Ki61-II was pretty rare. The Ki61-I we have no actually has the light performance of the -I but the top speed and power of the -II, so what does it matter what the Ki100 can do? It won't be lighter. It won't be faster. It won't climb faster (2200fpm) It won't do anything, basically, except be more draggy.

EDIT:Grunherz, you are correct, it has a radial. I copied and pasted, and forgot to change the engine listing (lol) my bad! The other stuff is right though. I don't know where the climb rate my book has came from, the math doesn't add up to that.

[Slash27]

I dont think limiting a limited plane set because a plane wasnt 'uber-fantastic' is a good course to take. I also wish for the Ki-43. But this is just a wish list and not a demand list. HTC doesnt have a team of 10 guys to work on every ride we or they may want and I realize this. But to have these new planes is my wish.

[Debonair]

Everywhere I read says that there were four Ki.100s produced for each Ki.61-II

[Krusty]

Well if there were only 100 Ki61-IIs (more rare than the -I) that means there were only 25 Ki100s.

EDIT: That's just an example, I think there were 140 -IIs, but you get the idea.

[KTM520guy]

I think you have your math backwards. Wouldn't that be 400 Ki-100's as per your example?