# Kawasaki KI 61 Hien "Tony"



## Guynemer (Dec 25, 2006)

I am curious about this Japanese fighter. Aside being the only one with an on-line engine, it showed some properties uncommon to other japanese fighters, such as outdiving his USA opponents ( or so says Greg. Boyington in his book "Baa, baa, Black Sheep). It's climbing rate or max speed were not outstanding, as far as I know.
Data on this warbird, such as notable pilots, scores, etc., will be much appreciated


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't have any tech data handy for the "Tony", but I have read that at low and middle altitudes, it was competitive with US aircraft.


----------



## exec228 (Dec 25, 2006)

Les forums du NN virtuel -> Ki.61 Hien


----------



## Guynemer (Dec 26, 2006)

Excellent link, exec228! Thanks.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 26, 2006)

did the tony use a license built DB 601 or one of those series of engines - or is this a myth that I believe or flat out made up? If it's the same A/C i'm thinking of, the allies mistakenly thought these were actual 109s or license built 109s initially...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2006)

It was powered by the Kawasaki Ha-40 which was a liscensed built DB-601 engine.

I am not sure if the Ha-140 was used in the later versions and if it was just an upgraded version of the Ha-40 or not. I dont have much info on the Ha-140 except that its production was destroyed in 1945.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Dec 27, 2006)

exec228 said:


> Les forums du NN virtuel -> Ki.61 Hien





How do you translate this to English?


----------



## ninjacats (Dec 27, 2006)

What language is that in?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 27, 2006)

French.


----------



## exec228 (Dec 28, 2006)

Marshall_Stack said:


> How do you translate this to English?


what for?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2006)

Well just off the top of my skull, taking into account everything from air density to local wind direction and the colour of the sky outside, I'd say it's because...he doesn't understand French, and would like to know just what the f*ck is going on at that forum over there. 

Dunno. Been wrong before.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 28, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Well just off the top of my skull, taking into account everything from air density to local wind direction and the colour of the sky outside, I'd say it's because...he doesn't understand French, and would like to know just what the f*ck is going on at that forum over there.
> 
> Dunno. Been wrong before.



Makes sense to me, in which case this will give you a rough translation: http://ets.freetranslation.com/


----------



## exec228 (Dec 28, 2006)

a topic starter with french nick looks to be satisfied with an article given.

any decent avia-fan, like members of this forum, can easily google enough information about this popular airplane in almost any language, whatever he can read.

so there is no sense to translate that article imho.

as for understanding what the heck this topic about, there is enough english phrases here.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2006)

Ah.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2006)




----------



## net_sailor (Dec 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not sure if the Ha-140 was used in the later versions and if it was just an upgraded version of the Ha-40 or not. I dont have much info on the Ha-140 except that its production was destroyed in 1945.


Ha-140 was improved version of Ha-40, with MW injection. Only 110 were build, and 99 of them were mounted on Ki 61-II KAI airframe.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2006)

exec228 said:


> a topic starter with french nick looks to be satisfied with an article given.
> 
> any decent avia-fan, like members of this forum, can easily google enough information about this popular airplane in almost any language, whatever he can read.
> 
> ...



What if there are newbies on the forum that dont know how to do that?

Maybe you are a god about all matters regarding aviation and google, but others arent.

And maybe you should use a grammar checker to correct your sentences. Theres plenty of those checkers around if you do a google search.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2006)

This is true.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2006)

Some people deffinatly show there colors here and then make themselves look like idiots in the process.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 28, 2006)

Yupe, but some of us are reformed idiots!!!


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Dec 28, 2006)

exec228 said:


> a topic starter with french nick looks to be satisfied with an article given.
> 
> any decent avia-fan, like members of this forum, can easily google enough information about this popular airplane in almost any language, whatever he can read.
> 
> ...




Somebody has there panties in a bunch!


----------



## exec228 (Dec 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> What if there are newbies on the forum that dont know how to do that?


it was my answer to Guynemer. the answer was understood by Guynemer and accepted as precise and useful.



syscom3 said:


> And maybe you should use a grammar checker to correct your sentences. Theres plenty of those checkers around if you do a google search.


well, msword said that my post is grammatically correct, only recommending me to use "as" instead of "like". conclusion: my posts have readability and are clear for understanding.

p.s.any internet user should learn how to use search engines. but this forum is about aviation, and not about John R. Levine or Dan Gookin.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2006)

exec228 said:


> it was my answer to Guynemer. the answer was understood by Guynemer and accepted as precise and useful.
> 
> 
> well, msword said that my post is grammatically correct, only recommending me to use "as" instead of "like". conclusion: my posts have readability and are clear for understanding.
> ...



*Well listen up because I'm directing this to YOU!!!*

True this forum is about aviation and those who run it give assistance to some who ask for it. We don't need a pinhead LIKE YOU mouthing off to ANY of the members here - *UNDERSTAND @SSHOLE!* Ever since you've been here you have come up with idiotic dipshit comments that now have gotten me pissed off - I'm telling you once, knock it off or I'll ban you - *do I make myself clear snapperhead!!!!*


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 28, 2006)




----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 28, 2006)

Dear: Exec228

[X] Clueless Newbie
[ ] Loser
[ ] Previously Banned Member
[ ] Historian Wannabee
[ ] Troll
[ ] Spammer
[ ] 13 year old numnut
[ ] Flamer
[ ] Whiner
[ ] Loonie

You Are Being Flamed Because:

[X] You posted a azzhole comment
[X] You posted a personal attack against a mod
[ ] You should have used the Search Feature
[ ] You posted the dumbest comment ever
[ ] You posted a thread in wrong area
[ ] You posted a "this plane is best b/c thread"
[ ] You posted a thread stating you can run up walls
[ ] You posted a porn thread
[ ] You posted an OMG The Sky is Falling thread
[ ] You ressurected a long dead, stupid thread
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message
[X] You flamed someone and got burnt
[ ] You posted a thread "who cares" 
[ ] You haven't read the stickies
[ ] You asked the same question that has been asked 1,000,000 times before
[ ] You think you are better than everyone else
[ ] You posted false information then refused to back it up.
[ ] You posted a video/site we've all seen a thousand times before
[ ] You believe that people from CNN are experts on war

In Punishment, You Must:

[ ] Take down all your Jane Fonda posters
[ ] Stop posting and go to class 3 times a week
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Read the Damn FAQ
[ ] Go to your room with no supper
[ ] Apologize to everybody on this forum 
[ ] Stand in the corner 
[ ] Burn your collection of "history for dumbies books" 
[X] All of the above


In Closing, I'd Like to Say:

[ ] Learn to type using ALL the correct letters
[ ] Welcome to last week
[X] Press Alt and F4 and never come back
[ ] Can I have your stuff?
[ ] Don't let the door hit you in the azz.
[ ] Now we all get to make fun of you.
[ ] Read the damn Stickies! They are there for a reason!
[ ] All of the above


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2006)

"snapperhead"..... wtf is that? A cross between a snapping turtle and a di**head?

 

Exec ..... many times we have new members who are in their teens and dont even know what a "tony" is (a cast member of the Soprano's?) or are just learning how to navigate the web.
When discussions are started over aircraft data, we all get to see it, and learn something new. Plus the experts here can often look at the data and see if its legitimate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> [X] Clueless Newbie
> [ ] Loser
> [ ] Previously Banned Member
> [ ] Historian Wannabee
> ...



BTW I like that!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2006)

How long did it take you to make up that list? 

Just long enough to Google it?


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 28, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> BTW I like that!!!



Thank you thank you, sometimes you just have to save that special one for the right person. Exec was the lucky one. He is special. 

Feel free to use it again Joe for those special newbies that stop by.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 28, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> How long did it take you to make up that list?
> 
> Just long enough to Google it?



Not long, combine a pretty fast typer and one hell of a smartazz ......poof!


----------



## Guynemer (Dec 29, 2006)

HWEW! By the info I gathered up to now, it definitly seems that KI 61s are causing more damage these days than they did in WWII!

Happy new Year!

PS. I'm an old fart born in 1947. Back in those fifties, we learned foreign languages at school, and it was not unuseful at all. My mother language is portuguese, but I wouldn't starve for lack of reading menus in countries like USA, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and, in extremis (we had latin, too), Poland and Russia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2006)

Guynemer said:


> HWEW! By the info I gathered up to now, it definitly seems that KI 61s are causing more damage these days than they did in WWII!
> 
> Happy new Year!
> 
> PS. I'm an old fart born in 1947. Back in those fifties, we learned foreign languages at school, and it was not unuseful at all. My mother language is portuguese, but I wouldn't starve for lack of reading menus in countries like USA, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and, in extremis (we had latin, too), Poland and Russia



Guynemer - feel free to ask questions anytime!


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 29, 2006)

Guynemer, did you know that Brazil contributed a group or two of P47 Thunderbolts that flew with distinction?


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Guynemer, did you know that Brazil contributed a group or two of P47 Thunderbolts that flew with distinction?



Cool I never knew that one. Anymore information?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2006)

there's a thread for it around somewhere


----------



## Bullo Loris (Dec 29, 2006)

I like so much this plane, I think is one of the best of the WWII, what do you think??.

Bullo Loris


----------



## Guynemer (Dec 29, 2006)

Yes, syscom3! This P47 group was attached to USAF, as the 350th fighter group, called 'The Sjamboks" (a sort of african whip made of hippo hide). It's logo was an angry ostrich (very angry, showing teeth(!!!) in it's grin) standing on clouds and shooting a handgun. It's commander was - (is, he is alive and well) Col. Nero Moura, later full General, or Air Brigadier in Brasil's ranking order.
A late uncle of mine flew in 350th, and saw combat.
BTW, Guynemer, aside beeing the great french ace of WWI, was also the nickname of a semitame kiskadee bird that lived by his house. It fighted any other bird that 'invaded' the garden, his territory, hence, the name.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2006)

Bullo Loris said:


> I like so much this plane, I think is one of the best of the WWII, what do you think??.
> 
> Bullo Loris



The Tony was a very good aircraft but was still outclassed by other allied aircraft namely the P-38, its chief adversary.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 29, 2006)

But against P40's, it was a match.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> But against P40's, it was a match.



I'd take a P-40 against a KI-61 I. - It would be a close match-up. It did have better armament but was a little slower than the P-40E. The Ki-61 II was a vast improvement but only 350+ were ever built.


----------



## eagledad (Dec 30, 2006)

A most Prosperous New Year to All!

I believe that only about 100 Ki-61 - II were built. There may have been 350+ airframes built, but with only 100 Ha-140 engines built, the JAAF couldn't have more Ki-61-II's than that. The extra Ki-61-II airframes were mated with the Ha-112 radial engine and became the Ki-100.

May God Fly your wing always!

Eagledad


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2006)

eagledad said:


> A most Prosperous New Year to All!
> 
> I believe that only about 100 Ki-61 - II were built. There may have been 350+ airframes built, but with only 100 Ha-140 engines built, the JAAF couldn't have more Ki-61-II's than that. The extra Ki-61-II airframes were mated with the Ha-112 radial engine and became the Ki-100.
> 
> ...





> In 1944 the Ki-61-II was being built, but was only trickling off the production lines, and was suffering from the unreliability of its engine. Moreover the engine was not being produced in sufficient numbers. The initial version of the -II had a larger wing and a new canopy, but it was soon replaced by the -IIa with the older and proven wing. Only 374 of all variants of the -II were built.
> 
> In early 1945 one of 275 engineless airframes was fitted with the Ha-112 radial engine. Although a sudden lash-up conversion this produced a staggeringly fine fighter, by far the best ever produced in Japan. This aircraft, designated the Ki-100, was put into production with desperate haste. One of the first Ki-100 units destroyed 14 F6F Hellcats over Okinawa in their first major encounter - without loss to themselves. The easily-flown and serviced Ki-100 fought supremely well against Allied fighters and B-29 bombers to the very end of hostilities in the Pacific.



Kawasaki Ki-61 "Tony" - Japanese fighter aircraft


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 14, 2011)

Hello all

I am doing an analysis of Ki.61 performance with respect to other fighters in early 1943, when the Hien was deployed. The graph below shows the seed. would anyone like to comment on it? suggestions, modifications, corrections...







Data are from:

- Íîâàÿ ñòðàíèöà 1 (Soviet tests at NII VVS)
- The P-38 Lightning (P-38 with 1125HP engines)
- P-47 Performance Tests (P-47 at 56" and Hamilton-Standard propeller)


----------



## timshatz (Jan 14, 2011)

Nice post alexandro. Just a thought, maybe you should use the numbers for a P39D or somewhere close instead of the Q. I seem to recall the D was the model used in New Guniea and the Q probably didn't see much work against the Tony (although it was probably the model in production at the time of the Tony's time).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2011)

You may be right. At least the M/N models may be in the area in the summer of 1943.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 14, 2011)

Thanks for your messages.

I have look for variants used by USAAF in Guinea nd I got P-39D/F/Q as well as P-400, but I would need speed-altitude diagrams for them.


----------



## muscogeemike (Apr 6, 2011)

eagledad said:


> A most Prosperous New Year to All!
> 
> I believe that only about 100 Ki-61 - II were built. There may have been 350+ airframes built, but with only 100 Ha-140 engines built, the JAAF couldn't have more Ki-61-II's than that. The extra Ki-61-II airframes were mated with the Ha-112 radial engine and became the Ki-100.
> 
> ...


 
This Ki-100 was reportadly a very good aircraft.


----------



## windswords (Apr 15, 2011)

The Ki-100 was said to be much more reliable and easier to fly than it's Ki-61 brother. So it was good for pilots with little training compared to what they got earlier in the war. It had good maneuverability and acceleration at low and medium altitudes. It did not have a high speed and could not function well at the heights the B-29's flew.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 22, 2011)

I haven't researched this aircraft for quite some time, but here goes:

The time of the Ki-61-I is pretty much from about the beginning of 1942. One attempted an intercept of the Doolittle Raiders in 1942.

The Japanese recorded maximum speeds with Military power and not War Emergency Power, so I suspect most of their planes were a bit faster than what is generally recorded. The -I version had too little installed power. Consider it pretty similar to a Me 109E/F.

The -II was assumed by TAIC to be 400+ mph which is reasonable considering the airframe and installed power. Consider it at its best to be fairly similar to a Me 109G. The big issue was that the Ha-140 engine was never reliable. Although the Ha 112 radial installed to make the Ki-100 was only +50 HP, it was one of the more reliable J engines and lived up to claims while the Ha-140 didn't. It was also several hundred pounds lighter (minus the cooling system) but a lot slower because of the radial drag.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 22, 2011)

Hi, Ivan, perhaps you'd be kind to answer some questions:
When we read eg. Homare have had 1900 HP, was that MIL or WEP? 
What was measured power, when engine(s) were tested by Allied institutions during/after WW2? 
What kind of fuel was Japan using, to achieve those 1900 HP? 

Thanks in advance


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 25, 2011)

The last question is easy: Japanese Aviation fuel was 92 octane. I have seen one article that mentioned that fuel drained from captured aircraft at one location tested a bit higher than that. I did not understand the significance of that article when I encountered it years ago and didn't save it.

I don't have any notes here at work, but Google to a reliable source (NASM) tells me that 1990 HP was Take-Off or WEP at +500 mm. The other ratings are also specified here but beware that it is Metric HP. Keep in mind also, that the throttle settings and HP ratings differ a bit depending on the installation and model of the engine.

NASM Research 4

I believe there are some engine test results with the famous Ki-84 that performed so well.

Consider that the typical Homare engine didn't perform all that well. It was poor enough that the Japanese considered replacing a nominal 2000 HP (Ha-45) engine with a nominal 1500 HP (Ha 112) engine even for the Ki-84. These folks were in some serious trouble as far as general reliabilty of anything at this stage of the war. 

- Ivan.


----------



## alejandro_ (May 26, 2011)

I have been looking at the Ki-61 range given in various books and reports. There is quite a bit of variation:

- According to US reports* (TAIC manual): ~1.500 miles with internal fuel (199 US galons) at 155mph.
- Vectorsite: 1.120 miles.
- Osprey duel P-38 Lighting vs Ki-61 Hien, by Donald Nijboer : 373 miles.
- Wikipedia (reference: Japanese aircraft of the Pacific War): 360 miles 

Wikipedia and Osprey are too low as Ki-61 carried almost twice as much fuel as a Bf-109/Spitfire. TAIC manual gives the most accurate data. Any opinions?

Can be found in: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/ki-61-tony-speed-altitude-diagram-27545.html


----------



## renrich (May 26, 2011)

From a little gem of a book which I have had almost forever, "Aircraft of World War Two," by Kenneth Munson, published in the US in 1968, price brand new, $4.50. The Tony had a lightweight Japanese adaptation of the German DB 601 called the HA40 putting out 1175 HP and originally used the Mauser MG151. When the German guns became scarce, Japanese built 20 mms were used. The KI61-1D had 30mm wing guns. The KI61-II was to be powered by the 1500 HP HA140 but only eight were built. Supply of engines critically short.

Vmax was 348 mph at 16400 feet, service ceiling was 32800 feet, max range was 1185 miles(yardstick), armament was two 20 mms and two 12.7s, weight empty was 5798 Lbs.
Above was the KI61-1c


----------



## tomo pauk (May 26, 2011)

A 'yardstick' range (flying from point A to point B, at best altitude, at cruising speed) of 1200 mi returns roughly 400 mi of combat range (flying @ cruising speed, 15 min @ MIL, 5 min @ WEP, return to the same airport),. So I'd guess the sources from posts directly above are not in disagreement.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 23, 2011)

Hi Guys,
Guynemer,
I just stumbled onto this Thread. There is some great information on WWII Aircraft Performance on the Ki-61-I. Somewhere on this sight I also stumbled across what appears to be a TAIC report numbered 154A and 154B. It is titled TONY 1 and TONY 2. It states that the performance figures for the Ki.61-II are based on fragmentary documentary evidence and resultant extrapotation of engine ratings (I wish I knew exactly what all that meant.?). It has perfomance graphs. The following is from 154B 1-4.
Engine: Kawasaki Ha-140/1,440hp @ WE power/5,700ft.
Test Weight: 7,232 lbs.
Maximum Speed: 335mph/S.L. 423mph/28,000ft.
Climb: 3,425fpm/S.L. 3,560fpm/6,600ft. 1,000fpm/37,400ft. 100fpm/43,000ft. 
Timed Climb: 10,000ft./3.2min. 20,000ft./6.6min. 
Maximum Range: 2,120mls./150mph./1,500ft./305gallons of fuel.
I see this Thread started in December 2006 so you probably have all this information. But just in case you didn't. I thought I'd throw it out there. If you haven't seen this report, let me know and I'll try to break the graphs down more and post info on the Tony 1 as well.
I read on Wikipedia that the Ki.61-II was one of the very few Japanese fighters able to reach the operational altitude of the B-29s raiding Japan with decent firepower. Wiki contenues stating the majority of B-29s lost to Japanese fighters were shot down by the Ki.61-II. Well, that's what Wikipedia says.


----------



## davebender (Jul 23, 2011)

Not sure what you are measuring. It's my understanding the Ki-61 carried 545L of internal fuel. That's similiar to the German Fw-190.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 23, 2011)

There is a discussion of the Ki-61 range at KI-61 Hien Range? with lots of information. Briefly, the fuel tanks got smaller as the self sealing or armour got thicker, especially the wing tanks as the wings could not expand.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 23, 2011)

Guys,
Finding this report is fairly new to me. On page 154B-2 it states that internal fuel of the Ki.61-II is 199 US gallons and with external drop tank(s) of 106 US gallons it comes to 305 gallons. Maximum range is 2,120 mls. under the conditions I have (they have) stated. This report is dated March 1945. I will gladly list the performance figures on the graph. I just wasn't sure if anyone was still interested in this thread.?


----------

