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.
Ki-100 and N1K-J performance
- Thread starter Jenisch
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
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.
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
Major
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!
Been trying to get that done for years!
davebender
1st Lieutenant
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
Tech Sergeant
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.
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.
Last edited:
muscogeemike
Senior Airman
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
1st Lieutenant
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.
- Thread starter
- #29
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.
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
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
Tech Sergeant
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.
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.
Last edited:
windswords
Airman
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.
- Thread starter
- #33
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.
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
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.
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.
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
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_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
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
Tech Sergeant
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.
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.
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
Tech Sergeant
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.
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_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
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.
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.
