Substitution comments, please

[Treize69]

Actually the Ki100 was supposed to have been equipped with a 1,500Hp Ha-150 engine- a home-grown development of the DB series designed specifically for use in a new interceptor. When the factory that was to build the engine was destrtoyed in a bombing raid, it was decided instead to mate a Mistubishi Ha-112-II engine to the Ki-61-II-KAI airframe. The engine mounting was, incidentally, based on the Fw190A.

Performance was slightly slower than the Tony (366 MPH at 36,000 feet), but the engine was much more reliable (and probably more resistant to damage) and the the aircraft was much more maneuverable than its predacessor. Its ceiling was also slightly lower (36,000 as opposed to 38,000 feet). The Ki100 did perform better than the Tony at altitude however (Ki61 reached its top performance at 15,000 feet).

Both carried the same armement packages, and the Ki100 had about twice the range.

[Krusty]

I don't think that putting a radial in would simply make the exact same plane "more manuverable". I find that very hard to believe. P36 put an inline engine in and you got the birth of the P40, but that doesn't mean it was "more manuverable" -- just faster.

Also, unless the radial (with more cylinders than the in-line) had less than half the gas consumption of the in-line, I don't think it would have twice the range. The tanks weren't changed, from anything I've read. What I read was that it was almost a straight-up engine swap (with adjustments to taper the cowling).

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Krusty
I don't think that putting a radial in would simply make the exact same plane "more manuverable". I find that very hard to believe. P36 put an inline engine in and you got the birth of the P40, but that doesn't mean it was "more manuverable" -- just faster.

Also, unless the radial (with more cylinders than the in-line) had less than half the gas consumption of the in-line, I don't think it would have twice the range. The tanks weren't changed, from anything I've read. What I read was that it was almost a straight-up engine swap (with adjustments to taper the cowling).

I've also heard that the Ki-100 was greatly superior to the Tony.

But I've got nothing to back that up.

- oldman

[Treize69]

Allison V-1710 and Rolls Royce Merlin were both 12 cylinder inline V engines, yet one had almost half the gas consumption of the other.

The Ha40 was based on the DB601A, which was 1940 tech, while the Ha112-II engine was 1944 tech- a lot of time for progress to be made. It may have also operated at a much lower RPM/Manifold Pressure rating than its predacessor.

And the Ki100 had a much shorter nose with no bulky liquid cooling system (had no belly radiator), so the two may have altered the COG enough to affect its turn performance.

I'm definately not an aircraft design expert, but I personally dont see why such a signifigant change to an airframe would make a major impact on its performance capabilities.

Look at the difference between the LaGG-3 and La-5. Same basic design with a much bigger radial engine, and it became an entirely new aircraft.

[Shifty]

Found this on the KI-100

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_aircraft_adv.php?op=getplanes&planesX=122

And this on the KI-61 II

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_aircraft_adv.php?op=getplanes&planesX=125

[Krusty]

Shifty, I'm not entirely sure that webpage is trustworthy, because it quotes:

"It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves"

which has been turned into an urban myth of sorts. It never happened.



600 pounts doesn't really make THAT much difference for a plane. It's the difference between flying a Ki84 with 50% gas and with 25% gas (guess-timating here), you are still one mean mofo.

I think the engine would have helped in some instances (probably climb, maybe acceleration -- but it was draggy so I'm not sure) but I don't think it would instantly have made a super fighter. Ki100 was little better than the Ki61. I base this off of past discussions I've read on these forums and all the information that has been brought up before (ahh.. the endless debate!). Ki61 is pretty darn manuverable as it is. It's almost on par with spits (it's about the C202/5 level, I'd say).

EDIT: Just using that website, *this* is the plane AH has:

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_aircraft_adv.php?op=getplanes&planesX=123

[Krusty]

That webpage makes no sense. It says the Ki61 II had first flight in 1943, but the Ki61 I was a 1944 plane. From memory it was a late '42 or early-mid '43 (probably '43) plane.

[Treize69]

I forget which version ,but they had Tonys on New Guinea and at Rabaul by the time the P-38s and F4U-1 were reaching the frontlines, so I would agree with Krusty on its service dates.

But I still wonder if it was tested in SE Asia during the spring of '42, the AVG reported encountering Japanese fighters with Inlines in Burma.

[Kweassa]

I trust the judgement of the AvA CMs.

 But personally, I don't use subs.. it's just not fun.

[Shifty]

Originally posted by Krusty
Shifty, I'm not entirely sure that webpage is trustworthy, because it quotes:

"It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves"

which has been turned into an urban myth of sorts. It never happened.



600 pounts doesn't really make THAT much difference for a plane. It's the difference between flying a Ki84 with 50% gas and with 25% gas (guess-timating here), you are still one mean mofo.

I think the engine would have helped in some instances (probably climb, maybe acceleration -- but it was draggy so I'm not sure) but I don't think it would instantly have made a super fighter. Ki100 was little better than the Ki61. I base this off of past discussions I've read on these forums and all the information that has been brought up before (ahh.. the endless debate!). Ki61 is pretty darn manuverable as it is. It's almost on par with spits (it's about the C202/5 level, I'd say).

EDIT: Just using that website, *this* is the plane AH has:

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_aircraft_adv.php?op=getplanes&planesX=123

[Shifty]

Originally posted by Krusty
Shifty, I'm not entirely sure that webpage is trustworthy, because it quotes:

"It possessed a definite ascendancy over the Grumman F6F Hellcat. In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves"

which has been turned into an urban myth of sorts. It never happened.



600 pounts doesn't really make THAT much difference for a plane. It's the difference between flying a Ki84 with 50% gas and with 25% gas (guess-timating here), you are still one mean mofo.

I think the engine would have helped in some instances (probably climb, maybe acceleration -- but it was draggy so I'm not sure) but I don't think it would instantly have made a super fighter. Ki100 was little better than the Ki61. I base this off of past discussions I've read on these forums and all the information that has been brought up before (ahh.. the endless debate!). Ki61 is pretty darn manuverable as it is. It's almost on par with spits (it's about the C202/5 level, I'd say).

EDIT: Just using that website, *this* is the plane AH has:

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_aircraft_adv.php?op=getplanes&planesX=123

I just found that website after reading in here this afternoon. Everything I have read in books always led me to believe the KI-100 would be superior to the FW-190A5, as we know it in this sim. Then again , books always seem to potray the 190 as a better dog fighter then I've ever seen modeled in AW, WB's, or AH.  When I have time later I'd like to spend some time reviewing the whole site.