Ki-43 Hayabusa Performance

Shortround6 · Sep 14, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
I worked in the Navy fighter training world, and I can tell you what they valued far more than technical details was operational experience and observed performance and tactical behaviors. All the instructor pilots and almost all the RIOs had been to Topgun or one of its offshoot training courses, and some of the pilots had flown one of the MiGs they had there.
Cheers,
Wes

In the modern world (post Korea ?) do the planes have G meters? Most pilots had G suits which push the turn performance of the pilot and the plane closer together? That is it doesn't make much sense to build a fighter that could sustain a 7 G turn if the pilot blacked out at 4 1/2.
Modern pilots may have more Hi G training so they can relate what they felt/experienced to the actual numbers.
How did a WW II pilot KNOW if he was blacking (or greying out) at 4 Gs or 5 Gs or some other number if the plane had no G meter to glance at before everything went grey?

Can you download the flight parameters of a training flight for revue later?
As in "at 6' 12" into the engagement Lt. Bob's plane was doing XXXmph and pulling 5 Gs in a YY degree bank at altitude ZZ,000 when he did ...................."

We have much more knowledge of the technical details and flight performance of many opposition aircraft than we had in WW II. Making it easier for operational experience and observed performance to mesh with details and theory.

In WW II the same pilot can turn in "observed performance" of an enemy aircraft a number of days apart, one observation after 7 hours of sleep and good but light breakfast and the other observation after a night of 3 hours sleep (thrown out of the Snorting Swan Pub at closing time) and a rousing breakfast of powdered eggs and bangers.
Which observation report is more accurate?

XBe02Drvr · Sep 14, 2019

Shortround6 said:
Can you download the flight parameters of a training flight for revue later?
As in "at 6' 12" into the engagement Lt. Bob's plane was doing XXXmph and pulling 5 Gs in a YY degree bank at altitude ZZ,000 when he did ...................."

When I was in, during the early 70s, our base was equipped with one of the first air combat ranges which used multiple radar dishes to track and triangulate and a computer to render a 3 dimensional matrix of the combat box. I never heard of the planes having FDRs, as this was long before digital ACARS, a sort of analog SelCal being the order of the day. The system was all hush-hush and way above my need-to-know, but from what I heard in pre-exercise briefings and what I've read since, it could record flight paths and speeds and calculate G loads and missile lethal envelopes in real time, rendering a "kill probability" verdict whenever a trigger was squeezed. A wingless Sidewinder-looking device hanging on one of the pylons carried a transponder to talk to the radars as well as both Sidewinder style IR and Sparrow style radar seeker heads, and telemetry which reported weapon selections and firing commands. All of this was recorded and downloaded for briefings. Primitive by today's standards, but a huge advance over what came before.
Cheers,
Wes

Shortround6 · Sep 14, 2019

Thank you, I am guessing instead of knowing. I don't know what was capable or when in regards to data recording.

When you say that some of the pilots involved in the training had flown examples of the Migs, that to me means that the analysts, if not the pilots, had a very very good idea of the actual performance of the Migs (or other opposition aircraft). Then it is a question of seeing how the differences in performance can be exploited (US plane is superior) or guarded against (US plane is inferior) in actual flight.

For most WW II aircraft it was a guessing game as to actual flight performance of enemy aircraft unless a captured plane could be test flown. Given the much more primitive instrumentation even coming up with really good data on one's own airplanes was something of a challenge.

sorry I can't get the picture to transfer over.

see Vintage ,Altigraph, recording Altimeter w/ barometer | #36446581
from the sales copy.

"ALTIGRAPH, A.S.S.C. 0-10000 FEET 3 HOURS Serial No. 155 DOUGLASS PRODUCTS CORPORATION NEW YORK". t This instrument recorded altitude on a sm roll of special graph paper, it has a key wind 3 hour clock timer, & a barometer with recording needle, [used red ink]."

Similar instruments would be used to record airspeed, outside temperature G loads and other sets of data.

But pen on moving chart data collection was a slow process. WHich is why there was a lot of calculations of performance being done.

Ivan1GFP · Sep 14, 2019

Watch the movie "Red Flag: The Ultimate Game" with Barry Bostwick, William DeVane and Joan van Ark and you will get a pretty good view of what it MIGHT have looked like from the ground. It is from nearly the same time period: Perhaps Late 1970's to early 1980's judging from the automobiles in the parking lot. Phantoms are beautiful!
This was a made for TV movie and is available on You-Tube.

- Ivan.

XBe02Drvr · Sep 15, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
you will get a pretty good view of what it MIGHT have looked like from the ground. It

Well, I only watched the first 40 min of it, but like all Hollywood dogfighting, it's so compressed to keep it in the frame that you lose the sense of the vast quantity of airspace these maneuvers consume. In my (limited) experience as an observer, sfter each close encounter the other parties to the dance receded into tiny dots as they maeuvered for advantage for the next merge. Even a canopy-to-canopy scissors was at a far greater distance than this flick or Topgun wouI'd have you believe. Admittedly I was too grey most of the time to get peak performance from the Mk 1 eyeball. That's what comes from wearing the next G suit off the rack without benefit of a fitting job.
Cheers,
Wes

XBe02Drvr · Sep 15, 2019

Shortround6 said:
This instrument recorded altitude on a sm roll of special graph paper, it has a key wind 3 hour clock timer, & a barometer with recording needle, [used red ink]."

Modern day soaring pilots, when competing in cross country races or record attempts, have to carry the modern day equivalent of this device to record altitude profile and a recording GPS to prove ground track.
Cheers,
Wes

Ivan1GFP · Sep 15, 2019

Shortround6 said:
We have much more knowledge of the technical details and flight performance of many opposition aircraft than we had in WW II. Making it easier for operational experience and observed performance to mesh with details and theory.

In WW II the same pilot can turn in "observed performance" of an enemy aircraft a number of days apart, one observation after 7 hours of sleep and good but light breakfast and the other observation after a night of 3 hours sleep (thrown out of the Snorting Swan Pub at closing time) and a rousing breakfast of powdered eggs and bangers.
Which observation report is more accurate?

Hello Shortround6, et al.

I have always wondered HOW some of this "observed performance" was gathered.
The allied aircrew doing the observing probably has a few other concerns during the engagement and probably doesn't have a stopwatch nor do they have an agreed upon time hack to start timing a maneuver.
Also, how do you know the enemy pilot is trying for a maximum performance maneuver or just enough to accomplish a goal without losing too much speed? How do you know if the other driver is really good or barely knows how to fly?

- Ivan.

Ivan1GFP · Sep 18, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
Well, I only watched the first 40 min of it, but like all Hollywood dogfighting, it's so compressed to keep it in the frame that you lose the sense of the vast quantity of airspace these maneuvers consume. In my (limited) experience as an observer, sfter each close encounter the other parties to the dance receded into tiny dots as they maeuvered for advantage for the next merge. Even a canopy-to-canopy scissors was at a far greater distance than this flick or Topgun wouI'd have you believe. Admittedly I was too grey most of the time to get peak performance from the Mk 1 eyeball. That's what comes from wearing the next G suit off the rack without benefit of a fitting job.
Cheers,
Wes

Hello XBe02Drvr,

When we were flying aerobatics it was in a little "bug smasher" as the pilot called it and we did our best to stay away from other aircraft and the ground and other things that might interrupt our flight. Closure rates were SLOW!
Regarding distances, as you point out, there is reality and there is Hollywood. Don't space ships moving faster than the speed of light cluster a couple hundred yards from each other like the fleets in Star Trek?

The couple conversations I have had with ex military pilots after a simulation at work were usually about the terminology they were using and the timing of events because we were really just simulating the message traffic.

- Ivan.

Laurelix · Oct 10, 2024

Laurelix said:
That actually makes a lot of sense...
You see...
A6M5 Mod 52 initially had 545kph at 6000m , 7:27 to 6000m rate of climb. It has the same engine as Ki-43-II
Then from around Late September - October 1943 it received individual exhaust pipes and were aimed backwards which created extra thrust.
New performance became: 565kph at 6000m, 7:01 to 6000m

Ki-43-II Ko had 515kph at 6000m but later came Ki-43-II Kai around September 1943 which also incorporated this feature of additional thrust.

The Speed for Ki-43-II Kai would of increased to roughly 535kph at 6000m at military power

Now... Ki-43-III Ko also has the individual exhaust pipe feature getting benefits from it as well.
Ki-43-III ko new engine has 1190hp at SL with WEP, roughly 1065hp at military power at SL (also 1230hp at 2800m)
1190 / 1065 = 1.1174 , engine power WEP multiplier
Cube Root of 1.1174 is 1.0377
The Source shows that at military power the engine optimal altitude is up to 6800m and we can be more or less sure that the WEP at 5850m is offering full 1.1174x engine power boost as well compared to military power at that altitude of 5850m. Both Ki-43-II and Ki-43-III have rather similar engine power at military power at 6000m.
The Source says 550-560kph at 5850m.
The Speed at military power without WEP at 5850m would be 530-540kph for the Ki-43-III Ko
550 / 1.0377 = 530
560 / 1.0377 = 540

Considering Ki-43-II Kai has roughly 535kph at 6000m with roughly 950hp at 6000m and Ki-43-III Ko has 950-1000hp at 6000m
It shouldnt be surprising

Posting this here since its kind of new info on the Oscar 3

In light of this new knowledge ive corrected the performance figures for the Ki-43-III's and also added Ki-43-II KAI to the list in the opening post.

Ki-43 Hayabusa Performance

More options

Shortround6

Major General

XBe02Drvr

2nd Lieutenant

Shortround6

Major General

Ivan1GFP

Tech Sergeant

XBe02Drvr

2nd Lieutenant

XBe02Drvr

2nd Lieutenant

Ivan1GFP

Tech Sergeant

Ivan1GFP

Tech Sergeant

Laurelix

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads