PDA

View Full Version : Ki-61 Landing Gear & Other issues.....



LEBillfish
08-08-2005, 10:34 AM
Hi All;

I've tried emailing 1c on these items a few times but guessing they're swamped so too busy to respond....So having found another issue will repost again here as the "bug" thread seems to have gone nuts. ALL of this I can supply documentation for.

My sincere thanks to Jim Long for his patience in helping with my education....

Possible Bug:
Gear will not manually deploy.....5+x now I have received hits to my wings that resulted in me being unable to lower the landing gear....In kind, "Manual Lowering" would not work (though should not like say a I-16 that requires numerous cranks)....

The Ki-61 had an "Emergency Landing Gear "Uplock" release Lever" which is situated beside the seat on the right side "under" the "Emergency Hydraulic Hand Pump" lever. When pulled, it would manually release the latch holding the gear up and they would simply fall...Momentum or if required wing wagging causing them to swing to the downed position past the toggle 0 point locking.

So in all reality, they should "at least" have the manual option available.

Other issues still.....

Modeling Issues:
No venturi (double black cone on left cowling)...That was only used on 3 planes of the 244th Sentai, and is still debated if it was just a quick fix for a damaged part in the air intake to run various gauges, or used to run a prototype gyroscopic sight.

Trim tabs missing on ALL control surfaces.....This is a minor thing however something that cannot be corrected by skinning and is required for markings.

Pilot "step" missing on left side beside radiator housing....Minor issue "inconsequential".

Navigation lights on wings 3x too big, Navigation light on rudder missing (both can be corrected in skinning except location of actual rudder "light effect".

Landing gear covers are seriously wrong, shape is incorrect particularly at Oleo mark splits.

Accordion Boot overlanding gear shock rod missing (9 section boot covering the bare metal shock rod)....In kind inner cover stop/lift bar missing (arched bar that stopped cover from swinging and made contact with the tire to close)

Gauges and other items are missing from within the cockpit....Inconsequential for play though certain gauges not working (would need to reconfirm this) can affect knowledge of planes condition.

First off, each type of gun used in the wing needed a clearance bulge, yet it was on the upper surface of the wing. Any below is so minimal it would not matter. In kind, the bulge on top for the wing varied in size and location for all 3 types of guns. Also you'll not vents above and below for the gun bays.......Vents can be resolved through skinning, the bulges however cannot. Since we have 3 different models, there is no reason why these clearance bulges cannot be corrected.

1b & 1c had retractable tail gear (though not like 1a with closing covers, radiused cutout correct)....However, this was "blocked down"....Once in the field I cannot confirm if this blocking was sometimes deliberately removed, however there are photo's of 1b & 1c with it retracted.

Counterbalance weights under Ailerons missing (believe that is what they are).

Loadout Modeling:

There is no proof and it is believed by most that the Ki-61-1a thru 1c never carried ground attack bombs. Later they however were fitted with Phosphorous "anti-bomber" bombs to be dropped into formations.....However, in that we do not have the 1d thru II series this helps make up for their loadouts....In kind, a 100kg bomb needs to be added if that is the logic.

Ki-61 OFTEN did not carry the racks for external drop tanks. This was "intended" by the factory and even sports markings stating "Install ONLY when drop tanks are to be carried". In the field they were often not mounted. Other times they were left on simply due to the constant need for them. I suggest they be removed from the plane if either a bomb or ext. fuel tank loadout is not selected.

There is some evidence that sometimes only a single external fuel tank would be utilized, in those cases both fuel racks would be in place however only one droptank on the right side should be in place (compensated for torque).

The Ki-61 thru 1c had various "internal" fuel tanks during it's production run. These varied from 750 liters to 500 liters placed about wings and fuselage....Exact numbers will be given if this is something wished to be addressed and if I can get permission from my "highly qualified" source.

Damage Modeling:

Ki-61-1c had a fire extinguisher system.

Ki-61's had "selectable" tank lever (below prop pitch & Throttle unit) so if one was hit they could switch to others...This included a selector switch for fuel quantity per tank......Now that would be difficult to model in the sim, However, that should mean "All" fuel stores should not run dry if one tank is hit.

Fuel tank "leak absorbing" and "bullet proofing" rapidly improved through the Ki-61-I series. This evolved from 10mm silk felt and 3mm rubber to 9mm top & 6mm sides and bottom rubber to 12mm rubber in the 1a-1c respectively

The pilot seat armor steadily improved from 10mm plate to 16mm head, 12mm body.

Radiator in most 1b (all but 13) and all 1c models had 8mm armor plate protecting them.

Gear, flaps, radiator door were hydraulically actuated though "not sure" if they had check valves to insure if one was damaged rest would work (doubtful)......All control surfaces were via cable and bell crank.

Windscreen due to cowling design would be doubtful to "Oil up" as it does when the engine is hit....In kind where in the Bf109 had a flat windscreen, the Ki-61 only had a tiny area as such for the optical sight. In either case I'd suspect oil could NOT reach the windscreen upon a hit.

Flight Modeling:
Though the Ki-61 had "trim tabs" on all surfaces, it does not have in flight adjustable trim for the rudder or ailerons....Only the elevator on the Ki-61-1, Ki-61-II, & Ki-100 had in flight adjustment via a small box left of the pilots seat........All three control surfaces Aileron/Rudder/Elevator however had "ground adjustable" tabs.

Max. Speed...These are the generally accepted numbers form the Kawasaki data, JAFC data, U.S. captured example coded JAFC S/N 263 (real S/N 163, so a Ki-61-1-Ko).
Ki-61-1a
Max. Speed = 590 km/hr@5,000m
Cruising Speed = Unknown
Climb = Unknown
Ki-61-1b
Max. Speed = 592 km/hr@4,860m
Cruising Speed = 400 km/hr@4,000m
Climb = 5,000m/5min, 31seconds
Ki-61-1c
Max. Speed = Unknown
Cruising Speed = Unknown
Climb = Unknown
Test results as follows: Only max speed was tested and the conditions of the plane were...
Fully trimmed (no trim on rudder may help)
Radiator closed
Engine Overheat turned off
Altitude 4,860m
Tried various combinations of prop pitch and throttle with 100%pp/110% throttle achieving the highest speed
25-100% fuel had little effect
Ki-61-1b "Otsu" in sim Max. Speed at altiitude = 560km/hr T.A.S. or 32km/hr too slow


Please consider addressing as much of this that you can 1c....Most are very very simple fixes of simply removing some aspects of the model, or adding features from other planes...

Thanks,

Kelly K. / K2-Kelly / Billfish

TeaWagon
08-08-2005, 03:59 PM
Bump for the Hien. Though honestly, Fish, I severely doubt anything will be done. This simulator I'd say is close to being put to rest officially, though unofficial work and dedicated fans will likely be using it for quite a longer while, including myself more than likely.

Cheers.

TeaWagon

nakamura_kenji
08-08-2005, 04:45 PM
"Windscreen due to cowling design would be doubtful to "Oil up" as it does when the engine is hit....In kind where in the Bf109 had a flat windscreen, the Ki-61 only had a tiny area as such for the optical sight. In either case I'd suspect oil could NOT reach the windscreen upon a hit."

that is most anoy thing about damage model as if first thing that happen when damagemean have bug out and run even though plane still perfect flyable p_q

LEBillfish what you think speed i always find cant get go faster than 350mph though when read many quote speed as faster ki-100 more region of 370mph

also how different ki-61-ID i know construct in sections but from what see of little picture i see it similar ki-61-IC except 20mm in nose not wing?

LEBillfish
08-08-2005, 05:31 PM
I've never conducted any speed tests on the sim model, and I'm not really sure what it does in the sim, nor am I really sure how to read the numbers as to "cruising or max. speed". I'll see if the one person I trust on this can shed some light on it....

As to the 1d, first off I'd like to say I have been reading how such designations were a "western" concept, not Japanese. I mean think about it..A B C D E....Not how the Japanese alphabet works.

Anywho, the "1d" was in actuality a "radically" different plane, much of it redesigned from the ground up.

First off the fusalage from the firewall forward had an additional 19-20cm added to it. This was to accomodate the 20mm guns in the nose, my "guess" for amunition size as they stacked the boxes side by side.

Next, the tail section was made removable for replacement and service, plus the tail wheel was made truly "fixed down" eliminating the hydraulics.....The tail section was also larger, and there was even some discussion of making it out of wood, yet I don't "Believe" this was ever put into production.

A change "re-addition" of internal fuel tanks was made again, and this was the first model "confirmed" to have been able to carry bombs due to wing strengthening.

Yet most of all the entire plane was simplified. The number of parts reduced and my guess would be the bugs of the previous models finally addressed. So though it seemed to be "almost" the same plane, it was actually now much more reliable, and working toward the final systems and designs you'd see in the Ki-61-II and Ki-100 series.

Unlike Nakajima and the Ki-43, I am under the "impression" (don't know), that in having troubles producing it in any quantity, continuous improvement like one saw on the Ki-43 was not done, only when given the order to "fix" problems and make changes were things addressed....Though there does seem to be some minimal continuous improvement through the series.

ElAurens
08-08-2005, 08:49 PM
Thanks for your diligence Billfish. Here's hoping our favorite aircraft gets some attention from Oleg and crew.

I'd hate to loose the option to carry bombs, but, if it did not have them IRL then they sould not be there. I wonder how much faster it should be without the wing racks?

LEBillfish
08-08-2005, 10:29 PM
Well most of all on this I'd simply like the venturi gone, and fuel racks gone unless a bomb or fuel tank is selected....All nothing stuff to fix, but as it stands it's just a collection of Ki-61-1a thru Ki-61-II parts....

Strange, but my husbands father was talking to me the other day and I told him about my research.....He (being 11-14 at the time) remembered the Tony, but little of any other plane. To me him being a smart man..(even stranger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif...smart...man...smart..man)...it suddenly struck me how this one plane made an impact yet in truth was fairly inconsequential compared to many others.

Would be nice to clean it up.

VW-IceFire
08-08-2005, 10:33 PM
Awesome work...very detailed.

I'm in the planning stages of a Ki-100 and maybe Ki-61 late war campaign. Glad to know the planes have fans http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JunkoIfurita
08-09-2005, 01:41 AM
Strange, but my husbands father was talking to me the other day and I told him about my research.....He (being 11-14 at the time) remembered the Tony, but little of any other plane. To me him being a smart man..(even stranger Veryhappy...smart...man...smart..man)...it suddenly struck me how this one plane made an impact yet in truth was fairly inconsequential compared to many others.

Would be nice to clean it up.

Simple. Like yourself, the Ki-61 had a stunning profile http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chauvinist male talk aside: living in a country where nearly every civil and military aircraft made use of radial engines, and shared a visual affinity as such, the Ki-61 just looked SO different that it would be sure to stick in one's mind. It really does have a memorable profile: I have to admit that I had trouble believing the Tony to be a japanese aircraft on first glance.

----

nakamura_kenji
08-09-2005, 04:10 AM
ki-61 most beautiful all japanese aircraft fighters radials nice but inline make streamlined it wonderful, wonderful plane just need better engine it did

TeaWagon
08-09-2005, 08:33 AM
Difference stands out. This is undoubtedly why the Hien stands out so much in Japanse service, as from what I've seen it was the only inline engine Japanese fighter to enter service in any respectable quantity.

Quite an interesting history to it as well. Luckilly for us, the Ha-40's reliability problems are not modeled in the simulator, otherwise I don't think it'd be nearly as delightful to fly as it is now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Both in performance and feel I find it comparable to the P-40M in this simulator, and I think this is one of the reasons I like it so much considering the Warhawk is one of my favorite fighter types of this era.

As much as I'd like to see historically accurate corrections made to the type, I still have my doubts anything further will be done. Either way, I will enjoy it for what it is, as flawed as the modelers made it... Much like the '40 E/E-mod/M's exaggerated wing dihedyral.

Cheers.

TeaWagon

ElAurens
08-09-2005, 10:57 AM
In terms of real world performance the Ki 61 should be faster than all but the early blocks of the P40N.

TeaWagon
08-09-2005, 12:42 PM
Two of the books I have that mention the Hien state rather similar top speed performance.

Maximum Speed - 369 mph at 15,945 feet (592 km/h at 4,860 m) ----- World War II Aircrafy by Christopher Chant

Maximum Speed - 368 mph at 16,000 feet" ----- Fire in the Sky; Air War in the South Pacific by Eric M. Bergerud

Considering how close the numbers are, I would imagine these two authors likely got their information from the same or similar sources. What these are, I don't know.

TeaWagon

LEBillfish
08-10-2005, 08:19 AM
Okie Dokie....As to speed issue.

These numbers come from IJAAF/Manufacturer sources, however were passed down so are not confirmed. They are assumed to be "T.A.S." however that is not confirmed though is assumed being the norm.. These are not to be assumed to be gospel BUT is all that is known at this time.

Ki-61-1a
Max. Speed = 590 km/hr@5,000m
Cruising Speed = Unknown
Climb = Unknown

Ki-61-1b
Max. Speed = 592 km/hr@4,860m
Cruising Speed = 400 km/hr@4,000m
Climb = 5,000m/5min, 31seconds

Ki-61-1c
Max. Speed = Unknown
Cruising Speed = Unknown
Climb = Unknown

I'll do some in sim tests this morning and edit this post after...

Test results as follows: Only max speed was tested and the conditions of the plane were...
Fully trimmed (no trim on rudder may help)
Radiator closed
Engine Overheat turned off
Altitude 4,860m
Tried various combinations of prop pitch and throttle with 100%pp/110% throttle achieving the highest speed
25-100% fuel had little effect

Ki-61-1b "Otsu" in sim Max. Speed at altiitude = 560km/hr T.A.S.

However, I know higher speeds can be reached at lower altitudes (perhaps 10-20 I.A.S.) which how realistic that is I cannot say. (just know the plane not how to fly them or aeronautical truths)

LEBillfish
08-10-2005, 08:52 AM
Oh and btw.......The oil reservoir on the Hien is actually behind the instrument cluster in a T shape to make room for your legs/feet with a supplemental behind the cockpit in the fuselage.

The windscreen soot/oiling just wasn't a factor with this plane
.

LEBillfish
08-10-2005, 08:12 PM
Ohhhhh I so hate saying this as this feature helps my aim so very much...and will add it to the list above....

Though the Ki-61 had "trim tabs" on all surfaces, it does not have in flight adjustable trim for the rudder or ailerons....Only the elevator on the Ki-61-1, Ki-61-II, & Ki-100 had in flight adjustment via a small box left of the pilots seat........All three control surfaces Aileron/Rudder/Elevator however had "ground adjustable" tabs.

TeaWagon
08-11-2005, 07:57 AM
Disappointing to hear the only pilot adjustable trim was the elevator controls. I find rudder trim terribly convenient for many different applications, namely to correct for torque-generated side-slip when taking off or cruising at altitude.

Thats the way it goes, though. Do you know whether the Oscar historically had pilot adjustable rudder trim, Fish? If it did indeed, it would seem odd to me that later types developed for the IJA would not have this feature, or even have it be a requirement.

TeaWagon

LEBillfish
08-11-2005, 10:11 AM
Well once again......Nakajima is not Kawasaki, is not Kawanishi, is not Mitsubishi, is not Aichi......I did a quick glance at some books I have and can niether confirm nor deny the use of "in-flight" trim control....I'll keep looking for you though.

TeaWagon
08-11-2005, 11:30 AM
I realize that most of the types were not designed or manufactured by the same company, Fish, but obviously armies did military overviews of a type before they were adopted for production, noting what alterations or changes should be made before it was suitable to be mass-produced.

Pilot-adjustable rudder trim wouldn't be a terribly difficult or complex system to install in an aircraft, but if it wasn't done, it wasn't done. It just seems odd to me that the IJA would not make something simple like this a mandatory requirement.

Then again, reality is often stranger than fiction. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TeaWagon

lbhskier37
08-11-2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by TeaWagon:
I realize that most of the types were not designed or manufactured by the same company, Fish, but obviously armies did military overviews of a type before they were adopted for production, noting what alterations or changes should be made before it was suitable to be mass-produced.

Pilot-adjustable rudder trim wouldn't be a terribly difficult or complex system to install in an aircraft, but if it wasn't done, it wasn't done. It just seems odd to me that the IJA would not make something simple like this a mandatory requirement.

Then again, reality is often stranger than fiction. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TeaWagon

At least in the LW, rudder and aileron trim were only requirements on aircraft above a certain size. Maybe this was also the case on IJA and IJN aircraft. It would be an easy system to impliment, but so would self sealing tanks and pilot armor, but every bit of weight removed will improve performance of an aircraft.

LEBillfish
08-11-2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by TeaWagon:
Pilot-adjustable rudder trim wouldn't be a terribly difficult or complex system to install in an aircraft, but if it wasn't done, it wasn't done. It just seems odd to me that the IJA would not make something simple like this a mandatory requirement. TeaWagon

Well yet lets think about it for a second....Ground adjusted tabs obviously set to compensate for manufacturing varience and for my guess an "optimum cruising" condition...SO you're not fighting the plane on the long boring portion of the flight wearing you out.

In-flight trim important for those minor changes that are constantly happening...Yet once in a combat situation things get complicated....Your trying to track your opponent, check your 6, cover your wingman, adjust your throttle and pitch, fire your guns, compensate for altitude, use flaps, etc......Elevator hard enough to optimize, now what if you have two more cranks to turn to try and optimize a flight path that will probably change in 2 seconds.....It's simply my guess just too much to ask, especially in the panic of combat (how many here adjust nothing while in an intense fight).

So my "guess" is the logic was the same as we "do"....That being compensate with the stick and pedals, as it's going to change in a couple seconds anyway. Our trim here obviously much easier to adjust.

Don't get me wrong, a well pitch, roll and yaw trimmed plane can really help....Just is it practical in combat?

What I'm not sure I buy however is how "far" off perfect trim most planes here seem to be....That I don't buy, but.....don't know.

LEBillfish
08-12-2005, 01:08 AM
Ki-61 bomb rack (only right side of each is marked)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/Untitled-2.jpg
(photoscan copyright R.Lane)

Ki-61 NENRYO RAKKA TANKU KENSUI-KA
RAKKA TANKU SOU-CHAKU-JI NOMI TORI-TSUKE

Ki-61 Drop Tank Suspension Mount
Install only when drop tanks are to be carried

These are some of the markings on the side of each fuel rack.

Thanks to J. Long for the education.

LEBillfish
08-13-2005, 09:13 AM
BTW.....I have been informed that the common mistake of 358 Ki-61-1d manufactured is in many books (sadly, errors seem to be passed on from source to source).

The real production number for the Ki-61-1d would be 1,358.

TeaWagon
08-13-2005, 07:06 PM
I have a pretty good feeling that errors passed on from secondary source to secondary source apply to far more topics than the history of a WWII-era aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway... May I ask who Jim Long is, Billfish? You keep mentioning that this man is responsible for educating you on the subject, and I am wondering just who he is.

TeaWagon

LEBillfish
08-13-2005, 07:17 PM
Mr. Jim Long is the owner of Air'Tell Publishing. Though I cannot speak for what I'm sure are a number of accomplishments under his belt, he has been a considerable contributor to books on the subject based on his considerable and I must say indepth and well documented research. I hesitate to list some of the books he has supplied research information for due to the final published works short comings and occasional errors in contrast to Mr. Long's. SO would suggest looking over the credits you may find.

Never the less, Mr. Long has very "generously" been helping me learn of the Ki-61. For his considerable time and efforts I am sincerely grateful. His work that he has kindly shared with me well beyond ANYTHING I have found elsewhere on the subject.

From his work mostly, yet to some degree his generousity...He has truly gained my respect and gratitude. Anything I know on the subject that is correct due to his efforts solely. Messer's Lansdale, Glass and "Masa" helping as well.

TeaWagon
08-14-2005, 01:28 AM
Understood, Fish. Air`Tell publishing? Can't say I've heard of this.

Has he written any books of his own? Also, does he have a public email in which he allows people to contact him to ask questions?

TeaWagon

LEBillfish
08-14-2005, 08:18 AM
Well his work from what I gather is what publishers base theirs off of though he collaborated to write a book on the B-32....As to a public email I would highly doubt that, and believe he limits his publications to "reports"....A researcher, his work thorough, orderly and detailed.

Frankly, I don't think he is doing me so much a favor as he is some of the other research experts on Japanese aviation of WWII...They were getting rapidly tired of my incessant, elementary questions so I believe he has been doing this to help them.....Poor man, he is no doubt regretting his decision http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

TeaWagon
08-14-2005, 09:47 AM
Hehehehe. Thats pretty funny, Fish. I can just imagine... "Did the Hien have pilot controllable rudder trim?" 'Yes.' "Where are you getting the information for your research and what exactly are you finding?" 'Lots of things, in many places.' "How many questions can I ask you before you become irritated?" 'Too late.'

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Hehe. Thats the problem with being the curious little scamp that wants to learn but not make themself a nuisance in the process. Cheers.

TeaWagon

LEBillfish
08-16-2005, 08:40 AM
Ok, I have some additional information that I'll "adjust" the lead post with.....

We have often heard of "bulges" under the wings to accommodate the 151/20 Mauser gun action, this is basically incorrect for a couple of reasons....First off, each type of gun used in the wing needed a clearance bulge, yet it was on the upper surface of the wing. Any below is so minimal it would not matter. What most people "mis-interpret" as being clearance below are actually nothing more then "Brass catchers" for training.

In kind, the bulge on top for the wing varied in size and location for all 3 types of guns. Also you'll note vents above and below for the gun bays.......Vents can be resolved through skinning, the bulges however cannot. Since we have 3 different models, there is no reason why these clearance bulges cannot be corrected. Here is a plan view of each.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/Gunbulges.jpg

LEBillfish
08-18-2005, 06:42 PM
about the bump on the wings it...err...forgot what I was going to say...never mind.

VW-IceFire
08-18-2005, 09:43 PM
Billfish...maybe you can help me with something Ki-61 related. I'm considering the possibility of a Defense of Kyushu campaign. I'm definately interested in a Ki-100 campaign...and the 59th Sentai flew from the Kyushu area in 1945. As I understand, the group probably transitioned from the Ki-61.

Do you have any details on when this switch occured and if it was total or if the group was using both types side by side.

Any other suggestions, ideas, or resources on aircraft and operations in the area would be immensely helpful as I'm having trouble getting the details of what was going on.

LEBillfish
08-19-2005, 12:54 AM
Let me start you off with this and I'll take a look.....though right off I'd guess both even using type 3 model I Ko's if they had them...Toward the end if it would fly it was used, and those that could no longer compete they'd simply strip out the guns and armor so they could ram easier (though why I have no idea the raids at that time were low Alt. if I recall correctly)

http://gunsight.jp/b/english/data/a-haiti-e.htm

LEBillfish
08-19-2005, 09:44 AM
IceFire, what I'm about to post should "NOT" be taken as gospel as I simply used a single book that I know to have discrepancies and from what I have learned of the situation.....(you are really though going to have to do some serious checking....Look for information on LaMay and firebombing)

Essentially...the 59th if I understand it never "transitioned" to Ki-100's, they simply had them added to their supply of Ki-61's.

However, essentially by late 1945 when the homeland was being hammered, units were pulled back from the Philippines/Formosa to the main island and Okinawa. Those brought back to Okinawa often listed as being "Home defense", those to the main Island broken up into three "defense sectors", West, Central, Eastern.

The 59th upon its recall was established first in Okinawa like most, then further withdrawn to the "Western" Defense Sector out of I think Aishiya, ***uoka. A few other units in that sector would be:
56th Ki-61's
204th Ki-27 & Ki-43's
71st Ki-84

However, know units routinely knowing where the B29's would be coming from would set up and fly patrolling this sector from the other 2...The names too many to list however of JAFC units they flew anything from Ki-27 and on, even Ki-45/46...really anything.

The 59th once withdrawn to home defense had both Ki-61's and Ki-100s...None discarded as production had ceased. So planes were not "replaced" yet flew till they could no more.

Though initially B29's were escorted by Mustangs, the short fly time they had coupled with high losses ceased their use to a great degree. In kind, Hellcats were routinely decimated by Ki-100's....Yet LeMay soon felt due to lack of Japanese planes in the air, some stating "none"...That escort duty was not required. In kind, he had realized that it was pointless to fly to a high altitude wasting fuel to only be shot at by Flak, so soon had bombers flying VERY low altitude missions, I have heard between 6-9,000' as the AAA shells could not arm at that low altitude so were worthless.

However, Japanese planes that did make it up often were a combination of many tactics. Some using their guns like the 59th for the most part, some even having the guns removed their sole intent to ram. Lastly, they also used incendiary bombs (clusters of incendiary sticks) dropping them into formations.

To build early missions I'd suggest a few Mustangs with a very limited flight time, and hellcats heavy escorting the B29's (Also believe B24's may have been used).....In kind the use of ANY Japanese plane would be correct from virtually any unit (though central sector more plausible as Tokyo in the east was of primary concern)....I would suggest having some unarmed, some fully armed even with bombs if they'll work on contacting a bomber, others from the central or eastern zone with drop tanks.

VW-IceFire
08-19-2005, 01:04 PM
Even if its not Gospel...its more than I have. Usually building campaigns involves doing alot of research but unless you can nail a very serious and detailed source, its 1/3rd history and 2/3rds fiction.

The better sense I can get of the history, the better I can write the fiction to at least be as plausiable as possible.

So I have a few more questions that maybe you can help answer.

1) The use of Hellcats. So USN fighters flew escort of B-29s? I presume this is when they were flying the lower altitude missions? Did they fly those during daylight as well as at night?

2) I didn't realize that Mustang escorts were ended. Did the Mustangs then get released to go strafe targets?

3) As I understand it, B-24's only made one or two raids on Kyushu and I guess they were launched from Okinawa and not the Marianas.

4) What about the Japanese Navy units? I understand the southern bases were often Kamikazi bases and the northern ones seemed to be Army units. Do you have any information on which units were in roughly what bases? Were the Navy units also responsible for the defense of Kyushu? I always figured there would be Georges, Raidens, and Zeros about as well...but I'm not clear on the situation there. I know the Navy and Army didn't always mix well.

Aishiya is on the Kyushu map (its in the north of the map) which is great so I can have a historical base to fly from.

I'm trying to setup missions and make things as interesting as possible. As I sort of would like to have this as a longer campaign...I think starting in the Ki-61 (probably the Hei as its closest to the firepower of the Tei and I presume thats what they had) and then progressing to the Ki-100 is in the works.

This is great tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I appreciate you taking the time to write what you have!

I just have to start collecting skins for the 61, 100, and something generic for all the Allied aircraft in the area.

LEBillfish
08-19-2005, 01:53 PM
1. As to the Hellcats I don't know, all it states is that the Ki-100 handled them quite easily. Ex. 8 Ki-100 downed 22 Helcats without a loss.

2. The point I had read about the Mustangs was much like BF109's over england. By the time they got there they had only a few minutes fuel left...and since little resistance was being met was pointless sending them.

3. No idea on the B24's, however I have read many accounts of Ki-43 tangling with them over the home islands, and more so the use of the incindeary bombs on them by Ki-61 there.

4. The Army was in charge of ALL homeland defense and AAA. However my guess is the IJN would most deffinately been a part of activity by this time as that is the sole place the war was. However, Oft time units in both groups were "held back" waiting for the "big invasion". That being one explination for the initial lack of fighters in the air. Never the less, the Army was spread out as I said above accross all of Japan...The 244th well known for example and many of the Taiatari (body crashing/ramming) Shinten Seiku-Tai (Shuddering Sky) units mostly around Tokyo. SO the army was everywhere, the IJN possibly "held back" but not sure.

As to the use of the Type 3, Model I Hei, remember, if they had it they flew it (note above Ki-27 used)...That would be fine yet really many many Otsu would have been involved as well. The good stuff sent to out island units to prevent it getting this far, older versions held back for a defense never believed needed.

Here is a nice looking map....
http://www.ease.com/~randyj/alljapan.jpg

VW-IceFire
08-19-2005, 09:38 PM
Excellent stuff. Well more research to do for me!

Sorry for derailing the thread a bit. I know you have a special liking for the Ki-61 and as a devotee of the Tempest/Typhoon fanclub I think I can understand http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEBillfish
08-23-2005, 12:43 PM
bumping in hopes of.....

telsono
08-23-2005, 03:00 PM
Billfish;

Thanks for the information. On reviewing one of the websites you mentioned I read a forum of on IJA drop tanks. Very intereting, as it helped me with two models I was building. It seems that all IJA drop tanks were delivered in IJA light blue grey and not aluminum dope! This is hard to tell apart from photographs.
Thanks again for helping me keep things accurate on my kits, a Ki-43II (Miyabe) and a Ki-61 (Kobayashi).

TeaWagon
08-26-2005, 11:15 PM
Billfish,

Interesting comment there on the KI-100 vs. Hellcat engagements. 8x 100's downing 22 Hellcats without a loss? That seems rather dramatic. Do you know the tactical nature of such an engagement?

Oleg's IL-2 Compare, comparing the KI-100 and F6F5, seems to indicate the Ki-100 is superior in climb till about 6,000 meters where the types match... The Ki-100 being much tighter turning until high speeds, about 460 km/h... with the Hellcat being slightly faster on the deck and at most altitudes, especially above 6,000 meters where it starts getting a real performance edge apparently.

So obviously this would indicate a Hellcat would need to use energy tactics against such an agile and decently fast Japanese fighter, and not get sucked into a turning or climbing fight. Very interesting.

TeaWagon

LEBillfish
08-27-2005, 09:48 AM
All it says further was that the engagement was over Okinawa, and that the report had a "wartime propaganda ring to it".....However, I have read U.S. Reports/accounts of the trouble they had with the Ki-84 at X incident. Trouble is there were no Ki-84's at X place, yet there were Ki-100's.

However as said above don't trust my related Ki-100 info, look for yourself as I have really only investigated the Ki-61. What I state simply trying to remember tidbits I breezed over.

LEBillfish
08-28-2005, 11:59 PM
really disappoints me if what is hinted at is true that this plane will not be cleaned up it considered on par with the J8 model to such a degree.......Ki-100 I flew for the first time tonight, it's interior could use a tad bit of refining as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

VW-IceFire
08-29-2005, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
really disappoints me if what is hinted at is true that this plane will not be cleaned up it considered on par with the J8 model to such a degree.......Ki-100 I flew for the first time tonight, it's interior could use a tad bit of refining as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Oh I don't know...the interior looks quite good to my eyes. Not perfect but one of the top ones that we have. Go fly the Stuka and Mig-3 and then it'll look beautiful http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Performance issues are other matters...but these are difficult to track down for me. I'm willing to do tests if that will help.

LEBillfish
08-30-2005, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
really disappoints me if what is hinted at is true that this plane will not be cleaned up it considered on par with the J8 model to such a degree.......Ki-100 I flew for the first time tonight, it's interior could use a tad bit of refining as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Oh I don't know...the interior looks quite good to my eyes. Not perfect but one of the top ones that we have. Go fly the Stuka and Mig-3 and then it'll look beautiful http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Performance issues are other matters...but these are difficult to track down for me. I'm willing to do tests if that will help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well look again at the Ki-100 interior...it is nothing like the Ki-61 in quality. In kind, on the Ki-61 you should not have rudder trim, fuel tanks should not run dry from a hit to one of up to 7 fuel tanks, should be no rediculous venturi, on and on. Most of it simply "eliminating a bit of code"...nothing more.

LEBillfish
09-02-2005, 09:23 AM
Well this is going to be lost in the shuffle it looks like so am going to copy the thread to PF forum so we can at least sort out some myths for our own education.