PDA

View Full Version : Ki-84 data from taic manual w/general data



bolillo_loco
04-19-2005, 06:56 PM
here you go chimp :O

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/frank1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/frank1a.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/frank1aa.jpg

SkyChimp
04-19-2005, 08:00 PM
Thanks for posting those.

Are those from an original TAIC manual, or are they copies of pages from a 3rd party reprint?

I think those pages you posted are from an earlier document than mine (an earlier TAIC manual, probably December 1944). For ost of the planes (but mot the Ki-84), my TAIC manual has both the December 1944 pages and the March 1945 pages. Yours are formatted like my 1944 pages. The 1945 pages are formatted differently.

There is no date on yours, at least which can be seen, but it's clear from the text that there was probably no Frank in possession at the time it was written. A lot of the text information sounds speculative.

AFAIK, the last TAIC pages issued on the Ki-84 were dated March 1945. (Although supplemental pages for SOME planes were issued in June 1945 - which I have some of as well.) It looks like that much of the Ki-84's information was updated in the March 1945 pages. In the last page of mine, you will see a photo of a Ki-84 with number 46 on the tail. That's C/N 1446 captured at Clark Field in January 1945 and tested by TAIC. It's clear from my pages that there was a Frank in possession at the time the pages were put together.

Therefore, I think mine are the latest pages, and that the information contained in them was drawn, at least in part, from examination (and quite possibly testing) of the Ki-84.

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/page1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/page2.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/page3.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/page4.jpg

JR_Greenhorn
04-19-2005, 08:14 PM
Off the topic of your discussion here,

Is it really necessary to list jettisonable, auxiliary fuel tanks as vulnerable? Wouldn't that be kind of like, "well no $hi+!"

Daiichidoku
04-20-2005, 12:34 PM
nice tstuff there guys


jsut wonder if i will EVER in my life see a hard number for production of the 1C models....or even combat reports regarding it

VW-IceFire
04-20-2005, 04:40 PM
So how closely does that match the Ki-84 in 3.04? It definately shows best possible speed well over 400mph.

bolillo_loco
04-20-2005, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
nice tstuff there guys


jsut wonder if i will EVER in my life see a hard number for production of the 1C models....or even combat reports regarding it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

japanese aircraft by rene fancillon states "a few Ics were made" Toney william's book "flying guns of wwII" gives actual figures. He states that evidence suggests that no more than 3 prototypes were made.

faustnik
04-20-2005, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

It's clear from my pages that there was a Frank in possession at the time the pages were put together.

Therefore, I think mine are the latest pages, and that the information contained in them was drawn, at least in part, from examination (and quite possibly testing) of the Ki-84.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, do you think those 420+mph figures are from actual tests SkyChimp? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

SkyChimp
04-20-2005, 05:37 PM
Here is a page out of Koku-Fan Illustrated. There are 3 Ki-84 variants listed with 30mm. I had the orange-highlighted variuant translated. Here's what it apparently says:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/ki84ic.jpg

The Ki-84R is a high-altitude fighter powered by a Nakajima [Ha-45] 44 engine. There are two designs for the wing of Ki-84R. One is to increase the length of the outer section of the standard wing of Ki-84 by 50cm each. The wing area was increased to 22.5 square meter then. Another design is to extend the centre section of the wing by 90cm, then the wing area will be 23.5 square meter. The new vertical stabilizer and rudder is 10% larger than the orginal one. The diameter of the propeller is also increased to 3.5m. The weapon including two Ho-103 12.7mm gun(or two Ho-5 cannon) in the fuseluge and two Ho-155II 30mm cannon(or two Ho-5 20mm cannon) in the wing. At the time of the Japanese surrender, the design was eighty percent complete.

faustnik
04-20-2005, 05:42 PM
427mph is a little hard to believe. That's really fast for that HP output in a radial configuration.

lrrp22
04-20-2005, 05:51 PM
Faustnik,

SkyChimp may disagree, but those numbers are almost certainly not from flight tests of the Clark Field examples. The Fleet Air Arm compared the surviving Clark Field Frank- most likely the one pictured in SC's post, to the Seafire III and found the Seafire superior in virtually every regard. The Frank's CSU began to malfuntion during the flights, but the British claimed a top speed of ~400 MPH for that Frank, even with a properly functioning CSU.

Besides, the numbers given in the March '45 TAIC supplement are for a Ki-84 with the Ha-45-21 engine while the two Clark Field examples (one crashed before it could be evaluated) had the 45-11 or 12. Also, Clark Field wasn't captured until the last days of January, '45. It seems unlikely that, even if a Ha-45-21 Frank was captured, that it would have been checked, restored and tested in time to publish by March.

There was a very detailed thread regarding this data, as well as the alleged '1946' test, at j-aircraft.com last fall, but it seems have been cleaned out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

It's clear from my pages that there was a Frank in possession at the time the pages were put together.

Therefore, I think mine are the latest pages, and that the information contained in them was drawn, at least in part, from examination (and quite possibly testing) of the Ki-84.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, do you think those 420+mph figures are from actual tests SkyChimp? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp
04-20-2005, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Faustnik,

SkyChimp may disagree, but those numbers are almost certainly not from flight tests of the Clark Field examples. The Fleet Air Arm compared the surviving Clark Field Frank- most likely the one pictured in SC's post, to the Seafire III and found the Seafire superior in virtually every regard. The Frank's CSU began to malfuntion during the flights, but the British claimed a top speed of ~400 MPH for that Frank, even with a properly functioning CSU.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't necessarily disagree. In fact I more agree with you than not. I'm just saying it can't completely be ruled out either.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Besides, the numbers given in the March '45 TAIC supplement are for a Ki-84 with the Ha-45-21 engine while the two Clark Field examples (one crashed before it could be evaluated) had the 45-11 or 12.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ki-84 that crashed at Clark Field was S-10. It had already completed at least one evaluation flight. It crashed after one of these. The book "War Prizes" states about S-10: "This aircraft was captured at Clark Field and later crashed there following a test flight." Who knows if that was the only test flight, or one of several that had been conducted.




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, Clark Field wasn't captured until the last days of January, '45. It seems unlikely that, even if a Ha-45-21 Frank was captured, that it would have been checked, restored and tested in time to publish by March.

There was a very detailed thread regarding this data, as well as the alleged '1946' test, at j-aircraft.com last fall, but it seems have been cleaned out.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure how much restoration would be needed. C/N 1446 (S-17) was reportedly in very good condition when captured. It probably wouldn't have taken long to get it up and running. Additionally, with war raging, there was a need to get information to pilots asap. I doub't TAIC would have waited months to test Japanese planes.

That excerpt from the British test doesn't say which engine the plane tested was fitted with. It simply says that top speed couldn't be assessed (with that plane) and it gives estimated speeds for the Ha-45 Mod 21 equipped plane. Then it says they would be reduced slighty with a Mod 12 engine.

I've never seen anything definitive that states which engine S-10 and S-17 had, but that report seems to suggest it was the Mod 21.

Additionally, if the plane TAIC had in it possession when those pages were printed was the one in the photo (which became S-17), then it would have made more sense to publish information on the engine it was equipped with, not another unknown engine.

SkyChimp
04-20-2005, 06:41 PM
Here are some facts from various sources, that really prove nothing, but do make for interesting consideration.

--
The engine section of the TAIC manual that details the HA-45 Mod 21 refers to captured examples of that engine. That pages is dated December 1944. So, in December 1944, the US had in is possession either that engine, or planes powered by that engine.
--

--
According to Richard Bueschel's "Nakajima Ki-84 a/b Hayate: In JAAF Service", C/N 1446 was captured at Clark Field on January 28, 1945, and was in unusually good condition.

Additionally, Bueschel says pre-production models were powered by the Mod 11 engine, which equipped training units beginning in March 1944. By October 1944, the Japanese felt the Mod 11 and 12 were completely unacceptable with respect to reliability.
--

--
C/N 1446 belonged to the 2nd Company, 11th Fighter Air Regiment. According to "Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units and their Aces: 1931-1945", the 11th Hiko Sentai was first equipped with Ki-84s in March 1944.

bolillo_loco
04-20-2005, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:


--
According to Richard Bueschel's "Nakajima Ki-84 a/b Hayate: In JAAF Service",
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hey chimp would you suggest this book as something to buy? I am looking to expand my personal library. I have been looking at it for a while now because it is only 15 dollars.

SkyChimp
04-20-2005, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:


--
According to Richard Bueschel's "Nakajima Ki-84 a/b Hayate: In JAAF Service",
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hey chimp would you suggest this book as something to buy? I am looking to expand my personal library. I have been looking at it for a while now because it is only 15 dollars. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's ok. It's a softback. About 60 pages long. It's got some good photos I haven't seen elsewhere, but just a little information that isn't already available in Francillon's "Japanese Aircraft." There are no drawings, except some black/white upper/lower profiles that show markings.

Bueschel wrote a whole series. I've got them all and they make a nice collection. There's a book on the Ki-43, Ki-61, Ki-44, A6m, Ki-67, and some other's I can't remember.

Like I said, they are just OK. If you've got Francillon's "Japanese Aircraft," then you've got just about everything in Bueschel's books.

Badsight.
04-20-2005, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
427mph is a little hard to believe. That's really fast for that HP output in a radial configuration. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>whys that

La-7 : 1850 Hp
Ki-84 : 1990 Hp

top speed SL
La-7 : 610 Kmh
Ki-84 : 580 Kmh

top speed outright
La-7 : 680 kmh @ 6K
Ki-84 : 684 Kmh @ 6K

aerodynamics play a more important role in top speed rather than just Horsepower alone

look at the land speed records for the 1920s & 1930s set by coffins . . . . . i mean cars

faustnik
04-20-2005, 10:21 PM
Yeah, I guess you are right Badsight. When you compare the Ki-84 to the La-7, 427mph is not out of the question.