# Ki-100 and N1K-J performance



## Jenisch (Jan 20, 2012)

Hello, 

Those aircraft apparently didn't have a very respectable performance against the latest Allied fighters such as the Mustang, even with the fact they were probably faster in Japanese hands due to the absence of boost data in Japanese sources. At least the Ki-100 was to receive a turbocharger in a version that didn't entered in production. The N1K, if I'm not wrong, also had an upgraded version in the drawing board. 

My impression of those aircraft is that despite they were not world-beaters, they provided a better overall performance than predominant worst machines like the Ki-43 and the Zero, and in late war Japan, were pilots flown many defensive missions, with well trained pilots at the controls (rarely), they provided a minimally acceptable performance. Consideration also should be given to the fact those planes were considerated as stop-gap by the Japanese for more advanced aircraft, such as the Ki-87 and the Kikka jet.

What are your opinions?


----------



## GregP (Jan 20, 2012)

Methinks you have been misinformed.

The Ki-100 and N1K2-J were two of the best Japanese fighters of the war.

According to the WWII combat pilots who have given talks at the Planes of Fame, the best four Japanese fighters of the war, in no particular order, were:

1) Mitsubishi J2M Raiden "Jack"
2) Kawasaki Ki-100
3) Kawanishi NiK2-J Shiden-Kai "George"
4) Nakajim Ki-84 Hayate "Frank"

The founder of the Planes of Fame, Ed Maloney, a world-renowned authority on Japanese types, agrees. The Japanese themselves compared the Ki-100 against the Ki-84 and came to the conclusion that the Ki-100, if flown by the same pilot, would always win the engagement. As I'm sure you already know, the Ki-100 was a radial engine variant of the Ki-61 "Tony".

Of course, opinions, like your gas mileage, may vary ...


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 20, 2012)

The Ki-87 and Kikka were both years away from being operational. Seeing as how the Ki-87 first flew in April 45, and the Kikka on Aug. 7th 45, one day after the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, both aircraft were way to far from being ready for use.

If both these aircraft had first flown a whole year earlier than they did, there still very likely would not have been time to work out the problems any new aircraft will have, and then produce enough to make any difference.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 21, 2012)

Overall, I think Japan, like Germany and even Italy were able to come up with excellent designs by war's but could not cope with the difficult strategic situation each nation found itself towards the end of their respective involvement in the hostilities.
The Nik2-J Shiden would have been a serious threat to B-29's crew had it been available in numbers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2012)

The problem Japan had (and Italy and Germany too) was that it took 2-4 years to bring a new fighter from initial design to squadron service. This was time that most countries did not have. Many countries were also limited by the number of engineers and draftsmen available. Rapid development of new aircraft could only come at the expense of slow development of existing aircraft and vice versa. There was no shortage of ideas or lack of talent other than what you would expect given the differences in population.

Please note that even the for the US planes that were coming into service in 1944 were the result of requirements issued in 1941, before Pearl Harbor.


----------



## davebender (Jan 21, 2012)

Kawasaki Ki-100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
25 July 1945
18 Ki-100 fighters from 244th Sentai encountered 10 Hellcats of the light aircraft carrier USS Belleau Wood's Fighter Squadron 31

Messerschmitt Me 262 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
18 March 1945
37 Me 262s of JG 7 intercepted a force of 1,221 bombers and 632 escorting fighters


Do you see a pattern here? 1945 Britain, the USA and the Soviet Union routinely employed 1,000 aircraft for an operation. Germany and Japan were struggling to oppose them with a couple squadrons of Me-262s or Ki-100s. You cannot achieve decisive results with those odds. 

The Ki-100 had essentially the same airframe as the Ki-61. It suggests what the IJA might have achieved if the Ki-61 program received the same priority as the Ki-43. Otherwise the Ki-61 / Ki-100 is little more then a historical footnote due to small operational numbers.


----------



## davebender (Jan 21, 2012)

Historically Kawasaki acquired a license to build the cutting edge DB601 engine during 1938. The resulting Ha-40 engine had several technical problems that WWII Kawasaki was unable to resolve. That crippled the Ki-61 aircraft program.

What if Kawasaki had decided to build the more conventional Jumo 211 V12 instead? Would the Junkers engine be easier for Japan to mass produce? 

By 1941 the Jumo 211F produced a respectable 1,322 hp and had a pressurised coolant system similiar to the DB601 engine. If Kawasaki produced a reliable copy the Ki-61 fighter could be produced earlier and in greater numbers. Perhaps it would become the primary IJA fighter aircraft by 1944 ILO the historical Ki-43.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 21, 2012)

GregP,
The founder of the Planes of Fame, Ed Maloney, a world-renowned authority on Japanese types, agrees. The Japanese themselves compared the Ki-100 against the Ki-84 and came to the conclusion that the Ki-100, if flown by the same pilot, would always win the engagement. As I'm sure you already know, the Ki-100 was a radial engine variant of the Ki-61 "Tony".

I always wondered what the conditions of the confrontations were for the Japanese to make this claim for the Ki-100. It had better handling qualities and was more dependable from what I have read to date. BUT, I can't help but feel this decission is based on mixing around in a dog fight in classical Japanese style. The much greater speeds and climb of the Ki.84 (when operating properly) would have allowed it to dictate the rules of combat. I could definitely be wrong, but that IS my opinion at this time.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 21, 2012)

GregP said:


> Methinks you have been misinformed.
> 
> The Ki-100 and N1K2-J were two of the best Japanese fighters of the war.
> 
> ...



My conclusion was about the low speed those aircraft had. But thinking better, like your source states, perhaps this was not the worst problem. The Hawker Hunter and the Mig-17 were both subsonic and were serious opponents for supersonic aircraft in their times. The F/A-18 today is also slower than the competition, and even so the envelop makes it a respectable machine.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 21, 2012)

Another example that came to my mind now was Hans Lerch's report of the captured La-5FN in the book Luftwaffe Test Pilot. The tested Lavochkin achived a speed comparable to a Bf 109 G-6 without MW-50, and still he considerated the plane a very serious oponnent until 3000m. This in 1944, when MW50 was already quiet common in the 109s.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 21, 2012)

The mig-17 was a threat to the F-105 only when it was loaded with all the external ordinance it usually carried, up to 7 tons. The F-105 wasn't so manuverable in that state. Once it's wings were clean, it was faster at sea level than the Mig-17 at any altitude.


----------



## davebender (Jan 21, 2012)

A good example as to why even high speed bombers must be escorted to the target.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 21, 2012)

MiG-17 was dangerous for a F-4 so i think was also for a F-105 w/o load
for the acig site, MiG-17/J-5 shoot down 14 F-4 for 59 MiG


----------



## davebender (Jan 21, 2012)

The F-4 was often employed as a bomber. Until the bombs were dropped it would have been as vulnerable as the F-105.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 21, 2012)

The F-105 lost 334 over North Vietnam, but only 17 due to Migs, the North Vietnamese claim they shot down 40. The F-105 shot down 27 Migs, 23 with their cannon, the rest AIM.
The F,4, just the USAF, and only F-4s, not RF-4s, lost 370 over North and South Vietnam, 33 due to Migs, 30 downed by SAMs, and 307 downed by AAA. 193 of those were lost over NVN. In return they shot down 107 Migs. I don't know the NVN's Mig claims against the F-4.

This doesn't include Navy or Marine claims or loses.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 21, 2012)

for the acig site the MiG-17/J-5 shoot down 11 F-105 for 32 of their


----------



## kettbo (Jan 21, 2012)

The Fw 190A with short nose was more manueverable than the long nose Dora with inline
Take the long inline engine off the Ki 61 Tony and put on the stubby radial and no cooling system, save wt too for the Ki 100.
See a pattern here too?
Within certain parameters, you get a lighter and faster plane with better handling and quicker changing of axis I'd think


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 21, 2012)

The empty weight of the Ki-100 is only about 250 lbs less, and takeoff weight is actually more than the Ki-61. But I think it's because of more fuel.
The Ki-100 is about 10 mph faster, gets to 16,400 ft one minute quicker. Small improvents all the way around, but not war changing.
But because of labor skills at the factory, it had engine reliabilty problems too.


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm not too sure what F-105's, F-4's, and MiGs have to do with Ki-100's. That should probably be in the Viet Nam Section?

The Ki-100 was VERY effective, as was the Ki-84 and J2M. The N1K2-J was also very effective, though it wasn't a major type numerically. Trying to compare num bers 70 years later doesn't give us much of a feel for combat effectiveness. All four of these Japanese fighters were effective when operating properly with a competent pilot. They would have been so in ANY theater of operations.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 22, 2012)

Hi Guys,
I have recently purchased a book with over 60 Japanese aircraft specifications and performance figures. Information is from the Technical Air Intelligence Center and is titled JAPANESE AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS TAIC MANUAL NO 1. The following figures are from actual tests, fragmentary documantary evidence and resultant extrapolation of engine ratings. All performance figures are using 92 grade fuel. The N1K1-J, Ki.84-1a and J2M3 had the added use of methanol to boost their power. Height is in meters/Speed mph/Climb fpm:

Height........Ki.84-1a........J2M3..........Ki.61-II.......N1K1-J
.......0........362/4,275.....359/4,835...335/3,425...355/4,400
.1,000........379/4,350.....374/4,940...348/3,500...369/4,410
.2,000........389/3,890.....380/4,650...362/3,540...369/3,950
.3,000........389/3,570.....382/4,270...363/3,175...369/3,680
.4,000........388/3,590.....403/4,320...375/3,050...392/3,700
.5,000........414/3,610.....415/4,350...390/3,030...408/3,760
.6,000........426/3,350.....410/3,760...402/2,960...408/3,340
.7,000........426/2,870.....404/3,160...409/2,800...402/2,850
.8,000........416/2,280.....394/2,440...417/2,590...393/2,260
.9,000........403/1,720.....383/1,850...417/2,280...387/1,700
10,000.......387/1,175.....368/1,150...406/1,750...366/1,210
11,000.......NG./..575......349/..600...390/1,225...NG./..625
MAX...........427/21,200...417/16,600.423/28,600..408.............Height in feet.

The Frank's performance was later adjusted to a maximum of 422 mph/21,200ft and 3,790 fpm/S.L. by TAIC. No reasons given in the book.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 22, 2012)

GregP said:


> I'm not too sure what F-105's, F-4's, and MiGs have to do with Ki-100's. That should probably be in the Viet Nam Section?
> .


 I was replying to the statement Jenisch made, that the subsonic Mig-17 was a serious opponent to supersonic aircraft. I was pointing out that those aircraft didn't have supersonic capability when they were laden down with tons of external ordinance. And things just went more off topic from there.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 22, 2012)

What I found most interesting is that the Tony II's power did not fall off as fast as the others above 25,000 ft. And at 30,000 ft. pretty much dominated the group. Considering the contenders, that's pretty amazing. So I did some more digging and found a statement made on Wikipedia that the majority of B-29s lost to fighters was to the Ki.61-II.
I don't know the exact performance figures of the Bf.109G-10, but every one of the Japanese fighters listed could outturn and outroll the Messerschmitt and were probably close in performance figures at a some altitudes.


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2012)

Thanks for the numbers! Lists fit very nicely into Excel. too bad we don't have numbers like that, in those increments, for ALL the WWII aircraft!

Been trying to get that done for years!


----------



## davebender (Jan 22, 2012)

That's very late in the war. Contemporary European aircraft would include the Me-262, Ta-152, Me-109K, Griffon powered Spitfires, Tempest, YaK-9U, La-7 etc.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 22, 2012)

GregP,
I have just recently started taking all the graphs I have and started breaking them down in 1,000m and 5,000ft increments. I don't have a graph on all fighter aircraft but I have several. If Japanese aircraft are what you are after the TAIC book lists most Japanese A/C. The fighters (that I've noticed so far) it does not list are: Ki.43-1, Ki.43-III, Ki.100, N1K2-J, Ki.44-I, A6M2 11 or 21. It pretty much has all the rest (that I can tell so far). If there is one (few) you,re looking for I can start puting figures together. I'd PM you, but I haven't figured out what that is or how to do it on this sight yet.

Sincerely, Jeff.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2012)

For PM:
Click at user name, the menu will show. Choose the 'Private message' option.

Tnx for the data, BTW


----------



## muscogeemike (Jan 22, 2012)

GregP said:


> Methinks you have been misinformed.
> 
> The Ki-100 and N1K2-J were two of the best Japanese fighters of the war.
> 
> ...



I would agree with your list except for the J2M Raiden - would it be better classified as an interceptor rather than a true fighter?


----------



## davebender (Jan 23, 2012)

If bombers are escorted then interceptors must be able to cope with enemy fighter aircraft. Otherwise the interceptors won't survive. So IMO there isn't much difference between an interceptor and a fighter aircraft.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 23, 2012)

GregP said:


> I'm not too sure what F-105's, F-4's, and MiGs have to do with Ki-100's.


 
To put the things in a better perspective: you already imaginate the Bf 109 F operating in 1945? The production Ki-100 was quiet similar to it, at least as far as engine performance was concerned.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 23, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> For PM:
> Click at user name, the menu will show. Choose the 'Private message' option.
> 
> Tnx for the data, BTW


 
Thanks Tomo. You just brought me out of the dark ages (well, at least on this sight). Thanks again, Jeff.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 23, 2012)

Just some more info on the A/C I have already listed.

TIME TO HEIGHT...FRANK 1a...JACK 21......TONY 2...GEORGE 11
.1,000m..................8min.........6min..........8min.......8min
.2,000...................1.65..........1.05...........1.9.........1.6
.3,000...................2.60..........2.00...........2.8.........2.5
.4,000...................3.65..........2.90...........4.0.........3.5
.5,000...................4.6............3.9.............5.0........4.9
.6,000...................5.7............4.7.............6.3........5.5
.7,000...................6.8............6.0.............7.6........6.7
.8,000...................8.25..........7.7.............8.9........8.2
.9,000...................9.6............9.4............10.3.......9.4
10,000..................NG...........12.0............NG.........NG

FRANK 1a: 2,040 W.E.P. 7,940 lbs. 226 sq.ft. wing area.
JACK 21: 1,940 W.E.P. 7,320 lbs. 216 sq. ft.
TONY 2: 1,440 W.E.P. 7,232 lbs. 215 sq.ft.
GEORGE 11: 2,050 W.E.P. 7,717 lbs. 252.951 sq.ft.


----------



## windswords (Jan 25, 2012)

CORSNING said:


> GregP,
> The founder of the Planes of Fame, Ed Maloney, a world-renowned authority on Japanese types, agrees. The Japanese themselves compared the Ki-100 against the Ki-84 and came to the conclusion that the Ki-100, if flown by the same pilot, would always win the engagement. As I'm sure you already know, the Ki-100 was a radial engine variant of the Ki-61 "Tony".
> 
> I always wondered what the conditions of the confrontations were for the Japanese to make this claim for the Ki-100. It had better handling qualities and was more dependable from what I have read to date. BUT, I can't help but feel this decission is based on mixing around in a dog fight in classical Japanese style. The much greater speeds and climb of the Ki.84 (when operating properly) would have allowed it to dictate the rules of combat. I could definitely be wrong, but that IS my opinion at this time.



I believe you are correct. the Ki-100 was rated superior in classical dog fighting. It was also easier for a novice to fly. But if you are going to go up against the energy fighters of the US such as the D Mustang, the N Thunderbolt and the Corsair and Hellcat then you need something with more power and that would be the Ki-84 - at least when it was operating at its intended performance levels. The Ki-100 was probably better at the low to mid altitudes. A Ki-84 with a turbo supercharger would have been interesting and could have posed a real threat to the B-29's.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 26, 2012)

windswords said:


> then you need something with more power and that would be the Ki-84 - at least when it was operating at its intended performance levels. The Ki-100 was probably better at the low to mid altitudes. A Ki-84 with a turbo supercharger would have been interesting and could have posed a real threat to the B-29's.


 
Yeah. But actually, the Japanese planned to install a turbo in the Ki-100 as well.

I don't think the performance of the production Ki-100 was very impressive, even at low and medium altitude against types such as the P-51, P-47N and F4U-4. Even so, as a defensive fighter like it was used, being vectored by radar and using it's high diving speed and light control forces, the machine probably was more dangerous than is apparent. 

The Ki-100 was also more mechanically reliable than the Hayate, specially it's engine, the Ki-84 performance fell as the war progressed. According to my Kagero monograph, Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate page 51, some aircraft didn't even managed to achive 400 km/h! Factors like poor maintence conditions and lack of spare parts, specially overseas, lack of qualified mechanics and quality petroleum products were also behind this.

Another important point of the Ki-100 is that was a fighter more easy to fly than the 84, something certainly of much help in late war Japan. 

Unfortnately for the IJAAF, an aircraft like the Ki-100 (or the Ki-61), should have appeared as their main fighter aircraft in 1941. The main reason for this not happen goes back to 1935, when the Ki-10 biplane was chosen over the monoplane Ki-11, and in late 1937 when the Ki-27 was chosen over the Ki-28 and specially the Ki-12. 

The problem of Imperial Japan was the stubborn senior Officers in both the Army and Navy, who denied more advanced projects more than any other nation. The Japanese wartime situation also meant that after wrong choices be made aircraft design, it was more difficult to solve them than was from their enemies. This was further enhanced by the "victory fever" early in the war, that desconsiderate more advanced projects because it was belived the war was won.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 28, 2012)

I did a little more research and found there was one JAAF fighter that we totally over looked. With 2,000 hp. at a combat weight of 5,357 lbs and a new wing of over 204 sq.ft. it was a contender. Power loading: 2.68 lbs/hp. and wing loading: 26.25 lbs/sq.ft. The Japanese dropped it in favor of the Ki.84. I believe the reasons are the same as picking the Ki.100 over the Ki.84. Easier for the novice to fly, better handling qualities and a better dogfighter. Unfortunately there is very little data on the net on the Ki.44-III. I have no speed or climb figures for this awesome little fighter.
What I do have is TAIC 155A report on the Ki.44-II. The Shoki (when flown using its best qualities) outclassed the P-40. But just for fun I decided to include figures from a USAAF fighter that I always felt was overall unappreciated by most (except the VVS). The following figures for the Shoki are from 155A and the figures for the Airacobra are from a USAAF fighter comparison graph and from Ray Wagners' books.: Height is in meters/speed is mph/climb is fpm:

Height....Ki.44-II.......P-39N
.......0...335/4,140...338/4,135
.1,000...347/4,200...360/4,290
.2,000...361/3,950...382/4,400
.3,000...361/3,500...397/4,110
.4,000...368/3,490...393/3,650
.5,000...380/3,300...388/3,150
.6,000...380/2,800...382/2,750
.7,000...373/2,210...374/2,325
.8,000...360/1,690...365/1,775
.9,000...345/1,180...353/1,300
10,000..322/..640....NG.
11,000..260/..150

Ki.44-II: 1,570 W.E.P./combat weight:6,100 lbs/Wing area:169sq.ft.= Power load:3.885/Wing load:36.095

P-39N: 1,420 W.E.P./combat weight: 7,400 lbs/Wing area: 213sq.ft.=Power load:5.21/Wing load:34.74

Point No. 1:
The point of the comparison is that the P-39 (especially at low altitudes) was not a total lemon. Sometimes wing guns and other equipment were removed in order to increase performance.

Point No. 2:
The Ki.44-III was a sky rocket. I do not know how much better it handled with the increased wing area but its climb and acceleration must have been first class.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 28, 2012)

I was leafing through the TAIC manual and notice the Ki-46 wasn't such a slouch: Ki.46-III: 2x 1,580 hp. 12,405 lbs. wing area 352 sq.ft. 350 mph/S.L. 407 mph/19,300 ft. Max.W.E.P.climb of 4,550fpm/2,950ft. 10,000ft/2.9min. 20,000ft/6.7min. 1,000fpm at 32,800ft. I think I might just look over the graphs and figure out the numbers sometime.


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 3, 2012)

> Just some more info on the A/C I have already listed.



Excellent data CORSNING. A while ago some data were posted on the Ki-100:

【V-Max（km/h / m）】 
　500 / 1000 
　520 / 2000 
　539 / 3000 
　543 / 3210 
　536 / 4000 
　551 / 5000 
　575 / 6000 
　578 / 6140 
　568 / 7000 
　556 / 8000 
　542 / 9000 
　527 / 10000 

【Climb to（m / minutes】 
　1000 / 1'12" 
　2000 / 2'13" 
　3000 / 3'08" 
　4000 / 4'29" 
　5000 / 6'00" 
　6000 / 7'25" 
　7000 / 8'56" 
　8000 / 10'57" 
　10000 / 20'00" 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/ki-100-peformance-30338.html

It's a shame that only a few tests are available. Also, it is not know the condition and setting of the aircraft when carried out, thus comparison is always difficult. In any case, all late war Japanese fitghters had quality issues that reduced performance. Ki-84 gave such a high performance after it's engine was rebuilt by US personnel.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 3, 2012)

Thank you alejandro. I believe that those figures for the Ki.100 are at military power. Unfortunately this plane is not covered in the TAIC manual and I have not seen W.E.P. figures for it.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 15, 2012)

Hello CORSNING,

I am kinda late into the game, but here goes anyway: 
I have the same book though I have no idea where in the house it is at the moment.

Part of the problem with this book is that it combines both estimated performance and actual flight tests interchangeably.

The J2M Raiden and Ki-84 Hayate were actually flight tested. The Ki-61-II was entirely based on estimates.

From what I have read in various places, I believe that the Japanese didn't do particularly well with superchargers. Because of this, their planes tended to be fairly good down low but didn't have very high maximum speeds because their critical altitudes were down around 15,000 to 20,000 feet.

The reason why the Ki-100 did so well is because although it had only about 1500 hp, it could achieve this power level very reliably. The Ki-61-II had the same power in theory, but wasn't reliable and was a LOT heavier. Yes, the Ki-61-I was only about 250 pounds heavier than the Ki-100 but it had about 350 hp less also. The Nakajima Homare Ha-45 was a great engine if it ran right but generally it didn't. Thus a claimed 1990 hp often was more like 1300 hp in the field.

A lot of the B-29 intercepts were by Ki-61s but they were Ki-61-Is. They only way they could accomplish this was because the B-29s were not flying at their maximum altitude. They started coming in lower when it was discovered that the jetstream was making their bombing terribly inaccurate. (So it was explained to me by someone I consider very knowledgeable.)

FWIW, Although the N1K2-Ja was quite an excellent fighter, the 343 Kokutai was still losing at a rate of 3 to 1 or so against US fighters (from the book Genda's Blade) and they were probably the best Japanese pilots around at that stage of the war. Some notable losses were due to serious mechanical and weapons failures and this was in a fighter that was superior in just about every way to its most common opposition the Hellcat.

- Ivan.


----------



## CORSNING (May 22, 2012)

Hello Ivan,
I use the TAIC manual because even though some of the information is calculated, it is still the best source of information I have seen covering the maximum capabilities of JAAF and JNAF fighter aircraft at war emergency powers.
I believe the main reason for the loss rates of Japanese late war fighters vs. Hellcats and P-40s was Japanese tactics. From what I have read it seems that they did not coordinate attacts as Allied pilots did.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 23, 2012)

The latest update of Mike Williams' website includes TAIC report on the George.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/George-107A.pdf

Also, it is possible to find a report on the George, written by a test pilot after testing a captured. It can be found in the magazine Air Enthusiast (April 1973) and was posted by wells in j-aircraft. The aircraft was flown at 360mph IAS but it is not know at which height and conditions (temperature, pressure...).

_During the final months of WWII, an allied test pilot was given the task of performing the initial evaluation flight of an N1K1-J Shiden found intact in the Philippines by advancing Allied forces. The aircraft was flown with the fuselage and underwing guns removed, and was in excellent mechanical condition apart from the brakes, the starboard brake being virtually ineffective. The primary purpose of the flight was to check out the airraft preparatory to full tactical trials, but at the end of the landing roll the starboard oleo leg collapsed and the Shiden was so badly damaged that it could not be flown again. The test pilot’s report follows.

The N1K1-J possessed excellent take-off, climb and high speed characteristics, and afforded good vision from the cockpit, but from the pilot’s viewpoint was inferior to the J2M3 Raiden, not impressing one with that feeling of confidence normally associated with a good, substantial aircraft. The cockpit layout was, in general, very good with the flight instruments well grouped. The airspeed, rpm and manifold pressure gauges were mounted high on the instrument panel and easily read during the take-off run. All cranks and controls were readily to hand and easily operated with the exception of the undercarriage and flap controls.

This fighter was fairly comfortable for a pilot of normal stature, but an objectionable feature was the rigging of the stick which was both too high and too far forward for comfort. The aircraft appeared well ventilated, although this may have been due to the removal of the fuselage guns, there being no ventilating system installed in this particular aircraft. The rudder bar was very narrow and the operation of the brakes difficult with full rudder. The narrow cockpit canopy did not allow much movement of the head, but the cockpit, being mounted high in the fuselage, provided good vision over the nose, vision for taxying being particularly good for a tailwheel-equipped fighter and better than that for either the J2M3 or Ki-84. All round vision could be considered excellent.

The N1K1-J was flown from a macadam runway and taxying and ground handling in general proved poor owing to the ineffective brakes. The rudder was of little help for taxying but this was improved with the flaps extended due to the fact that the throw of the rudder was increased from 23 deg to 33 deg with flaps down. If the power was applied gradually take-off was normal with little tendency to swing, but the aircraft was tail heavy and the tail did not come up very readily. The take-off run was short and the aircraft left the ground easily at about 105 mph, the undercarriage retracting slowly with little change in trim.

The initial climb was excellent. At 2350 rpm and indicated speed of 140 mph the stabilized rate of climb indicated approximately 2200 ft/min at 8000 ft. The aircraft was then tested from the stall up to 360 mph indicated, and the rudder proved light and effective at all speeds while the ailerons were found to be effective but slightly on the heavy side at all speeds up to about 320 mph. The rate of roll was good up to 360 mph at which the ailerons became extremely heavy. The controls were unbalanced in that the rudder and elevators were much lighter than the ailerons and could be considered as too light. The rudder and elevators were fitted with trim tabs for which the controls were positioned on the port side of the cockpit. These controls were excellent. There were considerable changes in rudder trim with speed and power.

The stability of the N1K1-J at cruising speed was excellent. This was checked at 7000 ft with 2100 rpm, oil and cowl flaps closed and an airspeed of 189 mph indicated. Directionally and longitudinally it was statically and dynamically stable and laterally was just about neutrally stable. The aircraft was stalled both clean and dirty and revealed a serious port wing stall under all conditions, the stall coming without any warning other than when the cowl flaps were open, the stall then being preceded by vibration. The N1K1-J was stalled clean at 100 mph, with cowl flaps open 20 deg at 104 mph, with undercarriage down at 100 mph and with both undercarriage and flaps down at 85 mph.

As this particular N1K1-J had apparently previously been crashed and rebuilt, and the repairs were of unknown quality, no rough manoeuvers were attempted, but it appeared that the aircraft could easily be damaged as a result of rough handling of the overly light elevators. It performed a snap 1/3 port roll at 125 mph in a 2G turn to port or starboard, it executed rolls and Immelmans rather sloppily but turned well as a result of its good rate of roll and light elevators. 

On the approach the undercarriage and flap handle had to be returned to neutral or else there was no brake pressure, and there was too much change in trim as the flaps were lowered and speed was lost, but in other respects the approach was very straightforward with excellent vision for the pilot. The aircraft was easy to land with all oleos being soft and the tail came down readily, but the one landing was made crosswind and while the N1K1-J was stable in the landing run, it was obvious that it should not be operated from prepared runways owing to its poor brakes.

The Homare power plant appeared to be generally very satisfactory, easily starting up from cold but loading up when hot. It was found to run smoothly at all rev settings. The mixture control was similar to that found on the North American T-6 with positive lock fitted, and the airscrew operation was hooked in to the throttle and functioned very well, this automatic airscrew-throttle arrangement undoubtedly being advantageous in combat. Engine cooling was not good, cowl flaps having to be opened up fairly wide in normal climb, and cylinder head temperatures were very dependent on cowl flap openings.

The flight lasted for 1 hr 45 min, and the conclusions were that the N1K1-J had the following favourable features: good vision, good stability, good take-off qualities; good performance; a high diving speed and a good instrument layout. Its unfavourable features were: poor stalling and accelerated stalling characteristics; ineffective brakes and rudder brake action; weak undercarriage; complex gear and flap system; poorly balanced controls and heavy ailerons at high speed._


----------



## proton45 (Jul 23, 2012)

A couple of issues to consider when thinking about these fighters...

The Ki-100 was very dependable in a high speed dive...the build quality of the Ki-100 was much better then the Ki-84. Pilots often felt that they could not depend on their Ki-84 in combat conditions, also the HA-45 was very unreliable...pilots could not run their engines at full power for very long (if at all). However, the Kinsei engine, that is found in the Ki-100, was rated at a lower HP then the HA-45...but it had a much more dependable reputation under combat use.

The Ki-100 gave pilots the confidence to push their machine to the extremes needed to take advantage of their enemy's mistakes. Yes...the faster fighter has the power to dictate the terms of the engagement, however...that assumes that both fighters see each other at the same time. Shooting down the enemy frequently happens without the "victim" knowing their number is up...and most fighters, on patrol, do not cruse around at full speed all the time.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 26, 2012)

As far as I'm aware, the 61's and 100's were designed/built with european style self sealing tanks and armours as Ing./Dr. Voight (spelling) did some design teaching work with rhe design teams pre-Japans AoW/DoW.


----------



## Jenisch (Jul 27, 2012)

alejandro_ said:


> The latest update of Mike Williams' website includes TAIC report on the George.
> 
> Its unfavourable features were: poor stalling and accelerated stalling characteristics; ineffective brakes and rudder brake action; weak undercarriage; complex gear and flap system; poorly balanced controls and heavy ailerons at high speed.[/I]



No mention to "low speed" as a negative point. For already some time I'm thinking that the aircraft that had a speed advantage didn't necessarily enjoyed a notorious superiority over the other.


----------



## hurricane55 (Aug 3, 2012)

The Ki-100 and N1K were two of the three best Japanese air superiority fighters of the late war, along with the Ki-84. They were excellent dogfighters, combining the maneuverability of the Zero with self sealing fuel tanks and other improvements. The Ki-100 was also an effective bomber interceptor, being able to quickly shoot down high flying B-29 superfortresses.


----------

