PDA

View Full Version : What was so impressive about Ki-100 historically?



Bankoletti
11-09-2010, 09:56 AM
Is this aircraft portrayed historically correct in the IL-2 1946 simulation? With the performance (speed, climb) comparable to 1940 109E I have trouble seeing how it could be a contender for the best Japanese figher of WW2 among competition like Frank and George.

Whenever I fly against them in the PTO I don't find them any harder a target than an A6M or Ki-61. They can dive and they have two sniping cannons in the nose, but what good is all that when you are 100kph slower than your opposition.
Well, on the deck it's reasonably fast (slightly faster than Hellcat but still a lot slower than anything else), but that's it.

I know historically the Japanese praised the reliability of the new engine (in contrast with maintenance nightmare of Ha-40/140 on Ki-61), but that doesn't explain why many allied pilots considered it the best Japanese fighter of the war.

So, where's the catch in your opinion?

Bankoletti
11-09-2010, 09:56 AM
Is this aircraft portrayed historically correct in the IL-2 1946 simulation? With the performance (speed, climb) comparable to 1940 109E I have trouble seeing how it could be a contender for the best Japanese figher of WW2 among competition like Frank and George.

Whenever I fly against them in the PTO I don't find them any harder a target than an A6M or Ki-61. They can dive and they have two sniping cannons in the nose, but what good is all that when you are 100kph slower than your opposition.
Well, on the deck it's reasonably fast (slightly faster than Hellcat but still a lot slower than anything else), but that's it.

I know historically the Japanese praised the reliability of the new engine (in contrast with maintenance nightmare of Ha-40/140 on Ki-61), but that doesn't explain why many allied pilots considered it the best Japanese fighter of the war.

So, where's the catch in your opinion?

Ba5tard5word
11-09-2010, 10:51 AM
I've never liked it in Il-2. It can barely make 500kph at sea level which means it's cat food to Corsairs. It can keep up with Hellcats but that is comparing a 1945 plane to a 43-44 plane. Ki-84's and J2M's are way faster and have better armament.

I imagine to the Japanese it was impressive just that they could get a plane to 500kph, most of their planes were painfully slow even at the end of the war, with the exception of the Ki-84, N1K1 and J2M, and only a handful of those flew.

Sillius_Sodus
11-09-2010, 11:27 AM
Perhaps they were pleased that they had an aircraft that was faster but which retained the high maneuverability so prized by their pilots.

Jaws2002
11-09-2010, 11:43 AM
They liked them because they worked...unlike the rest of the late war planes they had.

Metatron_123
11-09-2010, 12:42 PM
It's a mystery to me.

The Ki-84 wasn't that rare by the way, more than 3500 were built.

JtD
11-09-2010, 01:15 PM
"The best" doesn't necessarily mean good.

Considering that it was easier to fly than a Ki-84 and that the Japanese pilots of that time were mostly poorly trained, and that the Ki-84 did not perform like it does in game, it is not surprising that SOME Allied pilot considered it the best enemy fighter. It's subjective anyway, just look at how the Allies judged the German fighters on the Eastern and on the Western front.

R_Target
11-09-2010, 02:48 PM
I've read the phrase "Allied pilots considered it one of the best Japanese fighters of the war" numerous times, but can't recall any individual pilots who said this.

Ki-100 was reliable, handled well, and was easy to fly; which I'm sure endeared it to IJAAF pilots in 1945. It had decent performance at altitude, which made it good against B-29's.

As for fighter vs fighter, it had a few battles, but with only around 400 built, was something of a non-entity to most Allied pilots.

Romanator21
11-09-2010, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Ki-84 wasn't that rare by the way, more than 3500 were built. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, but what kind of fuel were the Ki-84s using?

Anyway, offline in the Ki-84 I never increase my power past 80%. Still does very well.

VW-IceFire
11-09-2010, 03:45 PM
This is one of those times where context is VERY important.

The Ki-100 was good because of the following reasons:

1) The engine was reliable.
2) The wide track undercarriage was amongst the best and had good handling on even the worst prepared or some of the bombed out airstrips
3) It was relatively easy to fly thus being a better aircraft in the hands of steadily decreasing training regimens for the Japanese pilots
4) Some Sentai's that had the Ki-100 available to them were made up of the remaining experts and gave a very good account of themselves in battle despite the inferior hardware.

The Ki-84 was certainly more impressive technologically but it also had engine problems. So did the N1K which apparently had all sorts of engine problems. The J2M was available in very small numbers operationally. Remember that there were still stocks of the A6M and Ki-43 even late into the war.

In-game the Ki-100 manages to do very well against the opposition when handled right. It's not a top level performer but you can play your cards right and do well against Mustangs or Corsairs. The trick is having altitude to trade for speed... the Ki-100 gathers speed and keeps it very well so you can close in and get the killing shot fairly well. The Ki-84 in-game out performs the Ki-100 but I suspect that it was generously modeled based on the US data for the most part and in Japanese service the results were likely more varied.

What I suspect is doubtful is the Allies giving the opinion that the Ki-100 was the best fighter in the Japanese fighter force. The Ki-100 was never assigned a codename and many gun camera shots erroneously identify the target as a Tony/Ki-61 on which it is based. Not to say that Allied intelligence didn't know of the fighter... Just that it was easy enough to mistakenly identify it as something else in battle.

LEBillfish
11-09-2010, 05:20 PM
Point blank..........The Ki-100 was a bandaid fix, jury rigged, slapped together aircraft from some talented folks who had seen how the FW came about and needed to do something fast.

The Ki-84 was miles better. The N1K2 & 3 were considered on par and even exceeding in many regards most aircraft of any nation at the time.

Essentially (and can't find my photo), there is a photograph of numerous Ki-61-II engineless fuselages in some woods and that is where they just about stayed. Kawasaki had experienced loads of problems with the Ha-40. About the time they started sorting them out, time for a new more powerful version the Ha-140...Trouble is, they couldn't get them to work, then production was virtually nil and while still struggling the factory making the engines was bombed (at least as I have read on one account)....To that end the army in a jam, tired of the delays by Kawasaki simply to have Kawasaki make their own engines, ordered them to figure out a way to make the radial Mitsubishi Ha-112-II be able to be used on the aircraft.

Now consider this, the sides of the Ki-61's fuselage all the way up to just about the nose cone (actually gearbox) actually supports the engine. Not some frame like the BF109, yet the fuselage itself in a Monocoque construction.....In kind if you think further, it is there at that point the engine/prop pulls the aircraft. The result being, considering aspects of the FW190, they decided to chop off the front of the fuselage (literally as the first 275+/- had this done), and then build up a frame and connecting structure, fab out a cowling, etc. etc.. Later builds were built as though intended that way, yet for all intensive purposes using the same bandaid design.

The aircraft was NOT expected to be great, to be revolutionary, or some great performer....It was a well done hack job to simply get aircraft in the air.

....and that's why it is often called the "Desperation Fighter".

K2

Romanator21
11-09-2010, 05:29 PM
Is the engine mounted in a similar way to the Spitfire's?

Anyway, what has always puzzled me is how the DM of both aircraft are so vastly different. Is there a reasoning behind it?

Bankoletti
11-09-2010, 06:26 PM
Thanks for the contribution everybody. So it seems my preconception about Ki-100 was somewhat wrong.

It's interesting because you can read on many places that Ki-100 was a top notch performer, being one of the trio of the best japanese fighters (the other two being Frank and George of course), while you never can read the same about Jack, and yet Jack is way better than Ki-100 in the sim, it's even better than Frank and in my opinion the best japanese figher in the sim - by far.

BTW, online I fly almost exclusively a mustang and I consider the Ki-100 a meat on the plate - something comparable to the Zero. Frank and Jack are tough, George already a lot easier, but everything else (Zeros, Oscars, Tonys including Ki-100) is simply cannon fodder for a well flown mustang.

The Ki-100 can't do much vs a P-51 even with alt advantage assuming the P-51 isn't on the deck (where it shouldn't be in the first place). In a shallow dive mustang will pull away from it eventually and then outzoom and/or outclimb it easily.

BillSwagger
11-09-2010, 07:24 PM
the Ki-100 was better up high, and had better ability in the horizontal than the ki-84.

I saw a test for the Tony I, but it turned out to be a Ki-61. I guess they also called ki-61s Tonys

Bill

DKoor
11-10-2010, 01:12 AM
Meh... pilots often struggled with enemy plane recognition in combat (for obvious reasons), add to it constant appearance of newer fighters etc. it is no wonder why some of them probably thought of newest enemy airplane as "best".

Considering all that and more, unless you were very experienced fighter pilot I doubt you could first hand judge enemy fighter performance anywhere near good.

PS. if their performance is anywhere near of that in game, I doubt that any Japanese pilot would really prefer Ki-100 to Ki-84 or J2M.

DuxCorvan
11-10-2010, 01:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I saw a test for the Tony I, but it turned out to be a Ki-61. I guess they also called ki-61s Tonys </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, only the Ki-61s were Tonys. The Ki-100 never received a codename.

Bankoletti
11-11-2010, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I saw a test for the Tony I, but it turned out to be a Ki-61. I guess they also called ki-61s Tonys </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, only the Ki-61s were Tonys. The Ki-100 never received a codename. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't se much reasons to actually change it. It was basically a Tony fuselage with a new engine. Fw-190D were still reffered to as "one nineties", Germans called a La-5 simply Lagg-5, and Y4D3 was called "Judy" just as Y4D2 was, despite being equipped with a radial (as opposed to earlier, inline equipped version).

There were many planes that switched from inline to radial or vice versa in WW2 - some got new designations, some haven't.

The most logical designation in this case in my opinion would be Tony-III, but a Tony nevertheless.

Xiolablu3
11-11-2010, 03:49 PM
It did make it look every different however.

To me if I didnt know I would think it was a unrelated plane.

Bankoletti
11-11-2010, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It did make it look every different however.

To me if I didnt know I would think it was a unrelated plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, appearance is quite different - pretty much what one would expect when changing an inline for a radial. The La-5 also looks quite different from Lagg-3, and the D-9 from A-8. Or P-40 from P-36.

Also, when A6M3 type 32 with clipped wings first came out, Americans thought it's a new type of fighter and gave it a new codename (Hap/Hamp), when the "only" major difference being clipped wings!