Ki-100 and N1K-J performance

[Jenisch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[CORSNING]

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]

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 ...

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[kettbo]

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]

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]

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]

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.