Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I tend to agree.A flight sim has very little to do with reality in a WWII fighter that has few, if any, reliable flight reports. But, you know that, Mr. not-Elon. Not a knock on your post, just saying.
I seriously doubt the climb rate often quoted. The Ki-61 was just shy of 3,000 fpm, and the Ki-100 had some 380 more hp and was over 800 pounds lighter. It SHOULD have climbed much better than the Ki-61, all things being equal. I'd expect 3,500 fpm or better, about like an F6F-5 Hellcat.
Well, i ask you to please reconsider and try experimenting some of the newer ones.Most of the WWII sims are just games. They have very little to do with reality. It's been a LONG while but, as I recall in Il02, the aircraft almost always crash if you land them off-airfield. In reality, real WWII airfields were just off-airport fields and many were quite rough.
Perhaps I misremember ...
Modern flight sims can be surprisingly good, but have obvious limitations. Especially when trying to model an aircraft like the Ki-100, it really is just a guess, when all the developers have to work with are rough estimations based on badly translated Japanese reports. The aircrafts true performance is lost to history unfortunately. We do know more about the Ki-84, as it was evaluated post war, and spent many years being flown in the US, albeit with a damaged propeller if I remember correctly, that caused a persistent vibration and prevented really exploring the performance. But by all accounts it was a real performer, and could outrun both the P-51 and P-47 at specific altitudes.
I suppose running on good fuel can do wonders, instead of the palm grease and boiled banana's that the Japanese were concocting at the tail end of the war.
I assume the 360mph listed top speed for the Ki-100 was from Japanese reports, but I may be wrong. It was probably capable of much more if tuned and run on proper fuel
Wouldn't the methanol injection help with knocking?I do wonder about the "running on proper fuel".
The Fuel will have about the same BTUs per pound unless really, really crappy.
What the allied fuel did was allow higher boost to be used without going into detonation.
This assumes your your supercharger has the capacity/ability to provided higher boost (more air) at the desired altitudes.
You could have filled a P-40E with 150 octane fuel, you were only going to get 1150hp at around 12-13,000ft because the supercharger simply wasn't going to flow anymore air unless you over revved the engine.
A flight sim has very little to do with reality in a WWII fighter that has few, if any, reliable flight reports. But, you know that, Mr. not-Elon. Not a knock on your post, just saying.
I seriously doubt the climb rate often quoted. The Ki-61 was just shy of 3,000 fpm, and the Ki-100 had some 380 more hp and was over 800 pounds lighter. It SHOULD have climbed much better than the Ki-61, all things being equal. I'd expect 3,500 fpm or better, about like an F6F-5 Hellcat.
About the Ki-100. I have only read good things about it, and I am recalling that the F4U-1d Corsair and F6F-3 Hellcat could fly side-by-side at equal power settings with the Corsair indicating 25 - 35 more mph of airspeed. I have never seen very reliable report of the Ki-100, but would love to. Most of what I have seen are quotes from TAIC estimates of performance. I do have one Japanese book with 367 mph top speed and pretty god climb ... about on par with the F6F-5, which was its main adversary.
Well, i ask you to please reconsider and try experimenting some of the newer ones.
DCS FW-190D9 was made with direct inputs by a surviving pilot for example:
Wouldn't the methanol injection help with knocking?
Japanese and Luftwaffe had large methanol tanks to compensate for lower octane ratings on their fuel (BF-109 enough mw-50 for around 20-30 minutes of use, with basically one hour of flight time on internal fuel).
His argument could be said to be error because he overlooked several facts.Don't have any idea, wuzak, and not too sure anyone else around to day does, either. But that has been written by Corky Meyer in several articles, and he was a Grumman production test pilot. They sometimes got an aircraft from the "other guys" to fly against their own product. I've seen nobody from the era disagree with him.
What he said, pretty accurately, was: If ram air was not used, then both the Hellcat and the Corsair flew side by side with equal manifold pressure and rpm. One or the other, and not always the same one, would slowly pull ahead for a short time and then they would fly at the same speed. In service use, the Hellcat did not use ram air in order to prevent carburetor icing. The F4U did use am air. When ram air was being used, the Corsair was very slightly faster when they were flown side by side.
Not my claim. Came via Corky Meyer. All I can really say is the F4U1d/d and F6F-3 used the same basic engine and propeller. The F4U-1a had CD0 of 0.0163. The F6F-3 had a CD0 of 0.0184. That's just under 13% difference, and that didn't seem to affect the speed very much between them with same basic engine and propeller.
The F6F-3 had a propeller with diameter of 13 feet 1 inch. The engine was an R-2800-10. 2,000 hp. No water injection for the 2,000 hp rating at 2,700 rpm. The 10W had a different carburetor.
The F4U-1 has a propeller with a diameter of 13 feet 3 or 4 inches depending on source. The engine was an R-2800-8. 2,000 hp. Later 2,250 hp with water injection (8W) at 2,700 rpm.