PDA

View Full Version : Kawasaki Ki-100



Tvrdi
11-06-2004, 05:49 AM
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/kasaki100.html

I didnt know japanese had such powerful plane, even later in the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ok I heard for Ki84 but this one is maybe even better in some aspects...

Atomic_Marten
11-06-2004, 06:26 AM
I tend to think so, too. KI100 was welcomed by Japanese pilots once when available, AFAIK.

Stiglr
11-06-2004, 10:12 AM
These planes weren't even SEEN until very late in the war, meaning Iwo and home island defense.
They were never plentiful, and when they did enter action, it was against huge odds. They did manage to do their share of damage, though.

They were basically Tonys with a huge radial engine upgrade (and weapons upgrade as well, I believe).

CrazyDonut
11-06-2004, 10:31 AM
It should be a pretty good plane, not an "ace maker" but a good unrealible plane as mucth of the planes produced late war. On the other hand the community is something alive, and im not sure that they will be outnumbered the same way as in the real war, and with KI-84`s and KI-100`s im pretty sure that the Hellcat and F4U will get a fight for there life....

huggy87
11-06-2004, 11:23 AM
I've always thought that the Ki-100 was one of the best looking planes of WW2. It was superior in most respects, at least in theory, to the USN aircraft and mustangs it encountered in 45'. However this game cannot really simulate the problems the Japanese were having with production quality at this time. Not to mention the inadequate pilot training.

Anyway, this is a very welcome addition to PF.

KarmaT0Burn
11-06-2004, 12:04 PM
I think this game simulates the inadequate pilot trainging pretty well.

Diablo310th
11-06-2004, 12:16 PM
Ohh great...another 45 plane to take on. sorry guys if this is a whine but....When does the Allies get a 45 fighter to counter all the 45 and theoretical Axix planes? After getting owned last night in Warclouds by all teh KI 84's in my Jug I'm a little frustrated. I wasn't flying alone either...I had a wingman and was was B&Z the Ki's. As it is now the Jug cannot outdive...out turn or out climb at any alt. We were fighting at 30,000 ft and teh Ki's were owning teh Jug. If anyone has ideas I am more than wanting to hear them.

Now more than ever we need a P-47N.

Stiglr
11-06-2004, 12:24 PM
The problem, simply, lies with the designer of your dogfight arena.

If they allow unchecked use of ueberplanes, you'll get ridiculous situations like that.

Frequent arenas where the planesets are more accurate or more balanced, or even, simply earlier. This community is full of "gottawins" who always gravitate towards the late war ueber-planes.

MEGILE
11-06-2004, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> When does the Allies get a 45 fighter to counter all the 45 and theoretical Axis planes? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire MK.22 be sure.
I'm happy that another Spit is being developed no doubt... it just seems strange having the 22 and not the XIV which has much more relevance. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Indeed the KI-84 is a worthy opponent.. even at high altitude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

CrazyDonut
11-06-2004, 03:40 PM
Well im not happy with the general plane list, but i cant model planes, someone is doing it and they might just like the KI-100 and other late war planes better than the KI-44 or the J1 "something" the thunderbolt. But i will not go so far to say that the late war German or Japanese planes are Żber. Japan produced some planes late war that with effective producing would have been a major factor. Yes the Allied produced great planes, but so did the Axis like it or not. But some stuff isnt modeld in this sim (unreliability)so we just have to live with the fact that we are fighting planes that is flying like they would if they were produced correctly...in fact in some aspects we are shown how lucky some Allied pilots where with the bad engines and materials the Axis used.

Atomic_Marten
11-06-2004, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diablo310th:
We were fighting at 30,000 ft and teh Ki's were owning teh Jug. If anyone has ideas I am more than wanting to hear them.

Now more than ever we need a P-47N. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have noticed didn't you? Well I must say that I predicted all this in one of my threads long time ago (I think it was "pacific online battles" thread). Whining is not going to stop, because KI84 is just too good plane in AEP (I assume the same stands for PF). And I'm guessing that no plane is going to be better than KI84 - I know that this sounds a bit silly, but IMO, when you take a few rides in v2.04 KI84C, then you will understand what I am talking about. That plane simply does not have significant weakness.

I have experienced the similar when I once BnZed one KI84 in P-47D27. I have missed him twice in BnZ passes (I'm poor Jug driver tho). After that I have realised there is no advantage on my side anymore (I have lost alt advantage) - and here is the moment when strange things were start to happening. I figured O.K. no prob, I'll simply outdive him (I was aware that turnfight with him is ridiculous). I have get my bird in shallow dive 110%throt. I was succesfully escaping to some point (~1.40k). Then on my amazement, he start to decrease the distance between us. I have realised that I'm not escaping anymore, and I entered in sharp dive hoping that I will somehow shake him, but in this moment my engine overheats. And to shorten the story, he chased me all the way to 1000-1500m, and on distance of ~0.60 he managed disable my rudder controll with one burst. I was lucky that in that exact moment map on server was rotated, and he did not get his kill. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

But for sure KI100 isn't so 'exotic' and 'fantasy' plane, I think that bird has more right to be included that bunch of other *really* rare birds.
About KI100 capabilities...we will see. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WTE_Gog
11-06-2004, 05:56 PM
The best late war aircraft for the axis would have to have been the Dornier Pfiel. If that thing ever gets included then hold onto your hats!
The KI-100 will be most welcome but I would rather see more of the Jap twin engined stuff. The game has enough fighters already!

lkemling
11-06-2004, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KarmaT0Burn:
I think this game simulates the inadequate pilot trainging pretty well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


EEEEEEEEEWWW That hurt!!!

Snootles
11-06-2004, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The game has enough fighters already! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The A5M, J1N Gekkou, J2M Raiden, Ki-27, Ki-44 Shoki, Ki-45 Toryu, Ki-102, and N1K Kyofu/Shiden don't really matter? Yes, I realize your point is that there is more to air combat than fighters. Rest assured I'm waiting on a lot of Japanese vehicles in general.

Qfly
11-06-2004, 07:31 PM
Might I be so bold as to ask have any of you ever flown a WWII era aircraft? Might I also be so bold as to ask have any of you ever flown a 1941 through 1944 Jap or American aircraft in actual air combat? Lastly, might I be so bold as to ask have any of you ever flown an airplane?

The argument will "never" end as to which aircraft was better as long as we shall live. There will be endless counts of whinning and moaning about one aircraft vs another. There will also be the poor developer going from side to side trying to please all the whiners and moaners but this will never happen.

Most of the aircraft were better in some hands and much much worse in the hands of others. How do you simulate that? Where do you get the exact data for an aircraft that will allow it to climb within .000001% of its factory climb specs and turn and burn under the same specs with the rest of the newborn world watching?

You don't.....

Now, for those of you that only read 1/4 of the top post before flaming.. I agree there could be nice little attainable numbers regarding HP modeling and climb rate. That is actually very easy. However the next problem becomes the ability of a plane to turn, along with sustain that turn at a given airspeed and given weight and not snap out of the turn. How do you model that with everyone *****ing and complaining about how this model snaps to easily or that one is too hard to snap? The only true way to do that is to grab an original plane within the manufacturers specs from way back then and take a ride..

The plain and simpple fact is neither you nor I will "ever" know the exact details without one of our fat or skinny arses sitting in the cockpit actually doing the maneuvers under a very strict testing environment.

In summary, I feel Oleg and his team have done their research. I also feel that they make errors. This is where thee community can come in and point their team to specific data. This will allow them to get closer to the facts but will never allow them to get spot on..

Salute, Sawacs

Snootles
11-06-2004, 07:54 PM
I compared the dives of the Ki-84-I-Ko and P-47D-27 in QMB a few miles south of Ie Shima. Difficulty was maximum realism except for camera views and speedbar enabled. I started them out at 5000m alt with supercharger at stage 1 and mixture at 100%. Fuel load was 100% and weapon load was default gun ammo. I proceeded to turn throttle to 110% and roll each plane into a 45 degree dive to the ocean. My findings:

Ki-84 reaches 860 km/h IAS at 1330m, at which point the ailerons tear off. Pieces continue to disintegrate as the plane accelerates. Impacts the water (minus control surfaces and a wing) at 990 km/h.

P-47 reaches 860 km/h IAS at 1400m. Shaking and buffeting but no damage. Impacts the water at 1020 km/h. Would have accelerated to an even greater speed were it not for the Pacific Ocean in the way. Annoying body of water... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I'm no expert, but I do know the Jug was almost unparalleled in a dive, and this would seem to suggest it as well.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-06-2004, 10:16 PM
Ill take one F4U4 please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-06-2004, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Qfly:
Might I be so bold as to ask have any of you ever flown a WWII era aircraft? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Might I also be so bold as to ask have any of you ever flown a 1941 through 1944 Jap or American aircraft in actual air combat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Lastly, might I be so bold as to ask have any of you ever flown an airplane? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Regularly


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

TB

Saburo_0
11-06-2004, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Qfly:
Might I be so bold as to ask have any of you ever flown a WWII era aircraft? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

_Yes_


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Might I also be so bold as to ask have any of you ever flown a 1941 through 1944 Jap or American aircraft in actual air combat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

_NO_


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Lastly, might I be so bold as to ask have any of you ever flown an airplane? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


_Regularly_


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

TB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, uh i don't see you complaining. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Heuristic_ALgor
11-07-2004, 12:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Ill take one F4U4 please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F4U-4 arrived in combat early in 1945. Therefore, it had only about six months to establish its combat record against the Japanese, Dave...

Giganoni
11-07-2004, 03:00 AM
Why must people complain about the Ki-84 still? Yes the Ki-84IC is powerful, but yes it did exist. Most people are upset at that version, I hope they are not upset at the others. I have said before and I'll say it again, the Ki-84 is the bastard child of the Ki-43, and 44. It has manuverability. It has good climb, dive, and speed..and it has decent firepower. It was reliability, stacked odds, and pilot training which really hurt the Ki-84. Reliability is not an issue in PF.

I think what makes the Ki-84 such a good plane is it allows the pilot to adapt easily to opponents. Fighting an LA-7? B&Z..a less manuverable plane? You can try TnB.

What is the talk of the Ki-84 being good at 30,000 ft? Past 7500m I find it barely going.

Diablo310th
11-07-2004, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
Why must people complain about the Ki-84 still? Yes the Ki-84IC is powerful, but yes it did exist. Most people are upset at that version, I hope they are not upset at the others. I have said before and I'll say it again, the Ki-84 is the bastard child of the Ki-43, and 44. It has manuverability. It has good climb, dive, and speed..and it has decent firepower. It was reliability, stacked odds, and pilot training which really hurt the Ki-84. Reliability is not an issue in PF.

I think what makes the Ki-84 such a good plane is it allows the pilot to adapt easily to opponents. Fighting an LA-7? B&Z..a less manuverable plane? You can try TnB.

What is the talk of the Ki-84 being good at 30,000 ft? Past 7500m I find it barely going. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The talk about 30,000 ft is because I was part of a 4 plane flight on WarClouds that took part. We were opposed at the time by 3 Ki841b's. At 30,000 they were turning circles around us. When i say circles I mean 180 degree turns in less than 10 secs. You could watch in your mirror at teh move. Almost like a horizontal hammerhead. I'm a regular high alt. flier so flying and fighting in the Jug at that height is nothing new to me. What I'm saying is there should have been some parity at that alt.
1. No I have never flown a real plane
2. No I have never flown a ww2 plane
3. No I have never flown one in combat.

I have flown and stuck by the Jug in this game from the beginning. Thru the good times and the bad. I will continue to fly it. I'll work on my tactics both solitary and with a team. I have never felt so frustrated tho during any of those times as I am now. The Jug flies sweet the way it is now. The problem is teh KI's are bastiges now. I don't fret about the Zekes. I have not ahd teh chance to fly against teh German planes yet...soon I hope.

VW-IceFire
11-07-2004, 07:24 AM
Diablo...was this with AEP2.04 or PF3.0? They did do some work on the Ki-84's FM I've noticed in Pacific Fighters but I hadn't taken one above 10,000 meters.

My gripes with the Ki-84's flight model was the extreme roll rate at all speeds. Thats been fixed. Its much slower nad more appreciable now...more in line with other fighters of its type.

I would doubt the Ki-84 being a good high altitude fighter (at that extreme altitude anyways). It was said that it was an ineffective B-29 interceptor and that its performance fell off....now I can see it being fairly good upto 75000 or so...but at 12000 meters I would think the Jug, Mustang, and Ta-152 would be at the top of the ladder in overall performance.

DuxCorvan
11-07-2004, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Ohh great...another 45 plane to take on. sorry guys if this is a whine but....When does the Allies get a 45 fighter to counter all the 45 and theoretical Axix planes? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

La-7, P-80... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Snootles
11-07-2004, 09:20 AM
Yak-3U

actionhank1786
11-07-2004, 10:13 AM
I-16 anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

horseback
11-07-2004, 11:12 AM
As regards the Ki-84, most Western sources agree that it was a very formidible fighter below 7000m. Above that it became progressively less effective the higher it went.

Unfortunately, I believe that Oleg has been over reliant on Japanese sources for his FM, and the Japanese were the most culturally blinded participants in the Second World War.

If a Japanese aircraft design was superior to a captured Allied aircraft(damaged, crashed and repaired by engineers unfamiliar with the aircraft with limited parts and documentation) in any major way, the Japanese declared themselves the victors, patted themselves on the back, and rushed the new aircraft into production, promising the beleaguered Japanese pilots that this plane would make them all aces.

The Ki-84 was a better dogfighter than the Mustang or the Thunderbolt, but given the skill advantages of the pilots who flew them, the speed and dive advantages of the US pilots allowed them to eschew the dogfight and stick to the slashing or hit and run tactics they'd found successful for the previous three years. While the Frank was better armored than its predecessors, it wasn't able to take more than 6 seconds (two passes with one accurate burst each) of 6 or 8 fifties than any other Axis fighter. Most of its success was due to overconfident, unwary pilots flying too low and too slow in enemy territory, or staying around to mix it up when they should have extended away and regained a height or speed advantage.

The Ki-100 was essentially less of the same, only more reliable. In the hands of a skilled and properly cautious pilot, it could be deadly. But to be successful, you had to either catch the enemy unaware, or sucker him into a tight turning fight. The Allied pilot who maintained the dive or speed advantage could disengage at will.

But I agree that the late '44 and '45 Allied aircraft are overdue. The F4U-4 and the P-47N from the US, and the Spitfire Mk XIV/XVIII were all operational in the Pacific and CBI, and deserve inclusion. None of these will turn with the Frank or Goshiki, but all are significantly faster and should have the edge in the higher altitudes.

cheers

horseback

DangerForward
11-07-2004, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Ill take one F4U4 please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great Avatar!

Diablo310th
11-07-2004, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Diablo...was this with AEP2.04 or PF3.0? They did do some work on the Ki-84's FM I've noticed in Pacific Fighters but I hadn't taken one above 10,000 meters.

My gripes with the Ki-84's flight model was the extreme roll rate at all speeds. Thats been fixed. Its much slower nad more appreciable now...more in line with other fighters of its type.

I would doubt the Ki-84 being a good high altitude fighter (at that extreme altitude anyways). It was said that it was an ineffective B-29 interceptor and that its performance fell off....now I can see it being fairly good upto 75000 or so...but at 12000 meters I would think the Jug, Mustang, and Ta-152 would be at the top of the ladder in overall performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ice...this is 3.0. That's what is so bad. The Jug definately is alot better...actually I love the way it flies...even tho it flies a little heavier. This was against the Ki 84 1b too, not even a C model.

A.K.Davis
11-07-2004, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Unfortunately, I believe that Oleg has been over reliant on Japanese sources for his FM, and the Japanese were the most culturally blinded participants in the Second World War.

If a Japanese aircraft design was superior to a captured Allied aircraft(damaged, crashed and repaired by engineers unfamiliar with the aircraft with limited parts and documentation) in any major way, the Japanese declared themselves the victors, patted themselves on the back, and rushed the new aircraft into production, promising the beleaguered Japanese pilots that _this_ plane would make them all aces. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the U.S. was equally guilty of this technological cultural arrogance and "adaptive" evaluation of captured aircraft (see the A6M2 neg-G cutout debacle in game), if not more so.

Tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives because of America's complacent attitude about Japanese technological cabilities. Consequently, we entered the war with inferior equipment and an entirely dismissive assessment of Japanese capabilities, often based on underlying racism. We paid the price for this.

Saburo_0
11-07-2004, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

Unfortunately, I believe that Oleg has been over reliant on Japanese sources for his FM, and the Japanese were the most culturally blinded participants in the Second World War.

If a Japanese aircraft design was superior to a captured Allied aircraft(damaged, crashed and repaired by engineers unfamiliar with the aircraft with limited parts and documentation) in any major way, the Japanese declared themselves the victors, patted themselves on the back, and rushed the new aircraft into production, promising the beleaguered Japanese pilots that _this_ plane would make them all aces.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From my experience the Japanese are so exacting & detail oriented that Japanese post war documents on aircraft are probably some of the most reliable you will find. Official US military reports seem to have more sloppy errors than Japanese magazine articles for model builders. Now many manufacturers felt the need to use their best numbers & sometimes these are questionable, but I haven't seen anything to indicate this was more prevalent in Japan than any other country.

VW-IceFire
11-07-2004, 09:45 PM
I'll hafta take the P-47 out for a spin soon then! I love the 47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Spitfire XIV makes very slow progress right now. Not sure whats going on actually. It was involved in Bruma for a brief period...actually its somewhat unknown if it was there or not. But if it ever gets done, I expect we'll have a Euro and Pacific default skin.

Stiglr
11-07-2004, 10:01 PM
My problem with the Ki-84 stems merely from its out-of-context use.

There were not many Ki-84s, and many suffered from reliability problems (due in part to a lot of burning Japanese industry by the time they arrived on the scene).

So, we get these "gottawins" buzzing around in optimized, 100% quality control Hayates and acting like they're all that.

Pure b***s****. If you're all that and flying Japanese planes, you're in a Zero or an Oscar. Possibly a Ki-61, although those were the first Japanese late(r) war planes to be dogged with severe teething pains.

To be honest, I don't even know how well or how poorly the plane is modelled, since I consider the very last examples of Japanese iron (including the Ki-100) to fairly irrelevant to the *competitive* part of the war.

By the way, what about the George? And the Tojo? Now those were planes that were around in enough numbers and for a long enough period of time to make a difference (or try to).

Giganoni
11-08-2004, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
My problem with the Ki-84 stems merely from its out-of-context use.

There were not many Ki-84s, and many suffered from reliability problems (due in part to a lot of burning Japanese industry by the time they arrived on the scene).



By the way, what about the George? And the Tojo? Now those were planes that were around in enough numbers and for a long enough period of time to make a difference (or try to). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, over 3500 Ki-84s of all types not enough numbers for you? George and Tojos? Their number combined is not near as many. The Ki-84 was in time for the Phillippines.

I would love to see both Georges and Tojos flyable, but I think the frank is possibly a more important aircraft.

WOLFMondo
11-08-2004, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:

I have experienced the similar when I once BnZed one KI84 in P-47D27. I have missed him twice in BnZ passes (I'm poor Jug driver tho). After that I have realised there is no advantage on my side anymore (I have lost alt advantage) - and here is the moment when strange things were start to happening. I figured O.K. no prob, I'll simply outdive him (I was aware that turnfight with him is ridiculous). I have get my bird in shallow dive 110%throt. I was succesfully escaping to some point (~1.40k). Then on my amazement, he start to decrease the distance between us. I have realised that I'm not escaping anymore, and I entered in sharp dive hoping that I will somehow shake him, but in this moment my engine overheats. And to shorten the story, he chased me all the way to 1000-1500m, and on distance of ~0.60 he managed disable my rudder controll with one burst. I was lucky that in that exact moment map on server was rotated, and he did not get his kill. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this pre or post 2.04? I find the Ki84 can't follow a jug from high alt in a shallow dive, it breaks up before the jug even starts to shake. I've found a sharp dive is no where near effective as a shallow dive in a jug because of the amount of speed that can be built up while retaining some height. ALso the Jug seems to overheat allot less at high alts post PF. Give it a try on Okinawa. Close the rads, keep the engine above 95% all the time and use the WEP constantly constantly and it hardly overheats at all untill you get down to around 4000m.

I agree though, a P47N is whats called for here.

Gunner_361st
11-08-2004, 09:41 AM
I have to agree with Stiglr on this one. I've been aching bad for more early war high difficulty dogfight servers on Hyperlobby... Hopefully more will be made soon.

Till then, I guess I'll be flying my 'obsolete' Zero or Wildcat in 44-45 servers... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

scootertgm
11-08-2004, 11:00 AM
OK... yawl, you forgot a very important piece... above 10000, flight physics are not modeled correctly for any plane, Oleg has stated this, si if you get up over 30,000 feet, play at your own risk and don't whine.

Atomic_Marten
11-08-2004, 11:56 AM
WOLFMondo that was on v2.04. I started my -running away from him- dive from over 5000m. However I was on low speed when I started my dive and initial distance was very low. I was slowly increasing distance untill some 1000-1500m (I was distanced him on over 1.40k at one point, and I begin to think that he would give up the chase but he did not do that), when he started to closing on me and on distance of some ~0.60 he managed to disable my rudder. Also, I must say that I *did not* pull nose of the Jug up at any time; I was in constant shallow dive, with small intervals of level flight.

Also it is very hard to find Franks flying above 4500m, so you *must* lower your alt, and therefore your advantage, otherwise you are in situation where you can cruising for over 30 min without engaging anyone, because they don't fly that high.

Point of my story is: I find no way to escape once when he got on my 6 and on same alt as I (in spite the fact that distance between us was high). The major mistake that I done is that I missed him in two passes (if I were in Bf109 that would not happen twice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Maybe some more experienced Jug driver can do better but... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

woofiedog
11-08-2004, 12:11 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gifThe first Type 5 fighters (Ki-100-Ia) were direct conversions of existing Ki-61-II airframes. 271 airframes were converted between March and June 1945, and were immediately delivered to operational units.

The Ki-100 was simple to fly and maintain. Even the most inexperienced pilots were able to get the hang of the Ki-100 relatively quickly. The Ha-112 engine proved to be quite reliable and simple to maintain. In combat, the Ki-100-Ia proved to be an excellent fighter, especially at low altitudes. 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. When the Ki-100 encountered the P-51D Mustang at low or medium altitudes over Japan, it was able to meet the American fighter on more or less equal terms. The outcome of P- 51D vs Ki-100 battles was usually determined by piloting skill or by numerical advantage rather than by the relative merits of the two fighter types. However, at altitudes above 26,000 feet, the maneuverability of the Ki-100 began to fall off rather severely and the fighter was at a relative disadvantage in intercepting the high-flying B-29.

So far as I am aware, the Ki-100 never had a separate Allied code name assigned to it. It may, for all I know, have been known under the code name of its predecessor --- TONY.

By June, 1945, all of the Ki-61-II airframes had been used up, and further Ki-100s were built from the outset as radial-powered machines. This version was designated Ki-100-Ib. The Ki-100-Ib differed from the Ki-100-Ia in having an all-round vision hood similar to that fitted to the experimental Ki-61-III. The first Ki-100-Ib fighters were built at the Kagamigahara and Ichinomiya Kawasaki factories in May of 1945, but production was severely hampered by the continual Allied bombing. Plans had been made to produce 200 fighters per month, but the Ichinomiya plant was forced to shut down in July 1945 after having built only 12 aircraft, and the Kagamigahara plant had its production severely curtailed by aerial attacks. By the time of the Japanese surrender, only 118 Ki-100-Ib aircraft had been delivered.

In an attempt to improve the high-altitude performance, the Ki-100-II version was evolved. It was powered by a 1500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II Ru with a turbosupercharger and water-methanol injection to boost power for short intervals. Because of a lack of space, the turbosupercharger had to be mounted underneath the engine without provision for an intercooler and its associated ducting, with air being ducted directly from the compressor to the carburetor. It first flew in May 1945. The lack of an intercooler limited the high-altitude performance of the Ki-100-II, and the turbosupercharger added 600 pounds to the weight, which reduced maximum speed by 15 mph at 10,000 feet. However, the boosted high-altitude power enabled a maximum speed of 367 mph to be be reached at 32,800 feet (the cruising altitude of the B-29 during daylight operations). It had been planned to begin production of the Ki-100-II in September of 1945, but only three prototypes of this high-altitude interceptor had been produced by the time of the Japanese surrender.

k5054
11-08-2004, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In one encounter over Okinawa, a Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 F6F Hellcat fighters without loss to themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd love to know where this one originated. It's a myth. The day it is supposed to have happened is never quoted. No US unit lost that many Hellcats in any engagement. Maybe, just maybe, the Ki-100 was a little more survivable than the other obsolete IJAAF aircraft (not the 84), but this wonder plane stuff all comes from some common tainted source. I suspect one of the Japanese aviation magazines of the 60s.

woofiedog
11-08-2004, 12:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Sources:
Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979.
Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.
War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday, 1964

Link
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html


http://www.vectorsite.net/avhien.html

JG53Frankyboy
11-08-2004, 12:44 PM
sry gentlemen , actually i wouldnt expect TOO much in that Ki-100 !

two of its major good points:
good reliability and very easy handling , still for novice pilots, doesnt count in a PC-Game.

it should be slower than a Ki84 , more at the area of the Hellcat .
the enemy have to stay with a Ki-100 pilot that the later can use its good turnability. with right flown tactics it should not be so hard to avoid close-in dogfight witht this bird.

so, i would count it as a wonderful to handle dogfighter for low to medium altitude - with a sufficent armament against fighters.

oponents who will fly strikte energy hit and run tactis should have not to much proplems with it.
actually we will see when the patch is out.

Snow_Wolf_
11-08-2004, 12:56 PM
well the Ki-84 was a Major fighter with 3514 built Majority by Nakajima. Now that N1k2-J about 400 of those are built. Now for service ceiling the Ki-84-Ia 10500m or 34,450ft. It a good fighter only place it found itself hopeless was trying to intercpt those B-29's..

the Ki-100 should be intresting to fly but only about 390 of those were built compare to the ki-61 with 2654. But if the Ki-100 was introduce early it might have made an impact in the war...

k5054
11-08-2004, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sources:
Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979.
Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.
War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume 3, William Green, Doubleday, 1964

Link
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki100.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I have all those, but my problem is that they are so similar they must have come from the same original source. And I know Bill Green didn't go to Japan, or (probably) read japanese, so he probably read it in Aireview or some such Japanese mag, or relied on a local researcher.