So far some people within the WW2 air combat community have generously provided some excellent information: http://www.airwarfareforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2973 However, the elusive turn radius and turn time numbers for the Ki-61 are still unknown. I currently have a post on a Japanese Aircraft page, but nobody has responded to it as of this posting. The individual at the Air Force History Office returned my e-mail and said that their records do not include the information for turn radius and turn time (much like the Francillon book), but that I should contact the National Archives and Records Administration. I have done so and I await a response from their office. The NARA would be the best candidate for this information because the complex at College Park, Maryland, according to the Air Force History Office, houses information about foreign aircraft, of which the Ki-61 is one.
I have received information about the Ki-61 on one of the forums I posted on. The following is from: http://www.j-aircraft.org/bbs/army_config.pl?read=11070 "Type 3 fighter manual I have doesn't give radius of turn but says a vertical bank turn made at 206 mph takes 16-17 secs. No altitude or other data given. By contrast a Type 1 fighter turn at the same speed at 1969' took 10.8L or 11.0R secs. the radius was 307.4/301.5'. RLD" If this information is legitimate, then the Ki-61 should be able to out turn the Spitfire IX. It may be primitive but we might be able to calculate the turn radius based upon the information: 16-17 seconds for a 360-degree turn at 206 mph. 206 mph is equivalent to 302 feet per second. 302 feet*16 seconds=4832 feet circumference of turn circle If circumference=2pi*r, then 4832/2pi=r Turn radius equals 769 feet in this instance. For a 17 second turn time, turn radius is 817 feet. After I did those calculations I researched the true way to find the turn radius. Curiously the turn radii are 765.1 and 818.6 for turn times of 16 seconds (75 degree bank angle) and 17 seconds (74 degree bank angle) respectively. I am surprised at how close these real numbers are to the numbers I computed supposedly incorrectly. The turn radii for the Spitfire I and V, the most nimble of the Spitfire series, have been quoted from around 696 feet (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1.html) to 880 feet (http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hodgkinson/hawker-Vspit.htm). Best turn radius for Ki-61: 765 feet Best turn radius for Spitfire I: 696 feet Other statistic for turn radius for Spitfire I or V (http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hodgkinson/hawker-Vspit.htm): 880 feet *Also keep in mind that the Ki-61 can complete a 360 degree turn in 16 seconds while it can take a Spitfire I 19 seconds to do so. If the Ki-61 can turn on par with or even a little better than the Spitfire I and V, and these are the most nimble of the Spitfire series, then it should easily turn inside a Spitfire IX.
Nonsense. If the Spit is ubermodeled (which I'm not doubting a second) or the Ki-61 undermodeled then those planes need to be corrected, PERIOD. Contrary to your beliefs, Allsop, reds aren't out to get you.
squirl, -bw- says that 330km/h turn is something like la-7 and yak-3. he supposes that it is 'forced turn' or 'instant turn' with speed drop. 90° bank is not typical for sustained turn too. concerning taic reports, -bw- is ready to improve hien's turn and decrease climb speed, if you aggree with that.
The turning should be improved. By "climb speed" do you mean climb rate or the speed for autotrim in a climb? As far as the climb rate, the Ki-61-Ib should reach 5000m in 5 minutes, 30 seconds. Whether the Ki-61-Ib is currently better than that or worse than that, that is what it needs to be. For the climb rate at different altitudes, refer to this: What needs to be decreased in the Ki-61-Ib is its acceleration in a dive and momentum. These make the Ki-61 fast but decrease its handling. I'd say overall top speed and acceleration in a dive would be the things to take from to make a compromise for gaining turning ability, because that is what the compromise would be in real life. But if attention is to be given to the Ki-61, I am willing to agree with it to see what the outcome will be. Please do not just slightly change it, but don't go overboard with improving it either!
1.ok. i mean climb rate. -bw- suggests to set climb rate according to taic chart: 5000m (16400ft) is reached in 6'30" (ki-61-ib? note it's not 5'30") by upper curve and 7'40" by lower curve (ki-61-i kaic?). 2.acceleration in dive: decrease upon what data? 3.you mean -bw- must decrease high speed controllability, i.e. compression of controlls? 4.acceleration in momentum? what's that?
All my research has turned up a time of 5:31" for 5000m for Ki-61-Ib, and 7:00" for the Ki-61-Ic. Yours has too: http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showthread.php?t=23602 About what I meant in my last post, let me elaborate. I know that "weight" in the FH is not real "weight," but that seems to be the best description about the Ki-61: it has extra "weight." While this does have the advantage of increased dive speeds, longer deceleration time from a dive and better gliding ability, that is not what I want in the Ki-61, and I believe I have shown that the Ki-61 was not a heavy B&Z machine. The extra "weight" in the Ki-61 has led to worse turning performance, which is what this thread is all about. A plane like the Ki-61 with a low wing loading combined with a good wing design was intended to have a good turn performance coupled with a satisfactory (370 mph/590 kph) speed. I think the Ki-61 now on the FH might be faster than it should be. So by removing the extra "weight," you would be reducing the top speed, deceleration time after a dive and diving ability of the Ki-61, but I think that it would be realistic because the turn radius and turn time would be improved and the plane would be less sluggish in a dogfight. My knowledge of programming is little, but isn't there some way to reduce the "weight" of the Ki-61 in a programming way; i.e. a change that would bring about the effects I described?
yes, 5'31"/7'00" is taken from Francillon, and it contradicts to TAIC report. you suggest to take better characteristics from Francillon and better cahracteristics from TAIC to unite them into one fh-plane? as for weight (speed saving), -bw- is more competent on fh fm.
Yes, I could see how "Maximum speed of la5 increased" is compeling evidence. I dont understand you exec, how can you put so much of a contradicting fight into a battle which obiously shows that handling needs to be changed to the ki61..... I think its fair enough to follow one of the two reports and listen to what squirl is saying atleast half heartedly? Next you will say he must give his left nut for the transaction.
I hope you don't mind me asking, but what is TAIC? 1. http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/kasaki61.html 2. http://www.wcfstudios.us/sites/YWB/Jap_Ki-61_Tony.htm 3. The book Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien in Japanese Army Air Force Service by Richard Bueschel 4. http://www.angelfire.com/yt2/glennsaircraft/kawasaki61.html All those say that the Ki-61 reached 5000m in 5 minutes 31 seconds. If TAIC means the chart I have shown, the reason might be that the test was run with military power. With WEP, there is a power boost, increasing climb rate. So perhaps with 100% throttle it is 6 minutes 30 seconds to 5000m and with WEP it is 5 minutes 30 seconds. There is only a 15 HP difference between military and WEP with military power measurement taken at 13,800 feet and the WEP measurement at 12,600 feet. Still, the boost may be more expressed at lower altitudes so it makes a bigger effect "on the way up" assuming it is on the whole 5 minutes 30 seconds. 15 more horsepower may not seem like much, but in a 5000m climb (over a long duration) it can pull some weight in the outcome. Take note that the rate of climb chart is also done with "only" military power.
Forced induction would actually help more at high altitude where air is thinner as opposed to low...But I like to call it "power across the band" which means that at low alt at 100 throttle, that supper charger or nos or whatever is going to make sure all the fuel gets burned and enough gas is in there to burn at any altitude.
ya nou pal, english is not universal language yet. just think of it: some performance discussions are not english! can you imagine that?! some discussions take place not in forum, but in fh-developers mailing list! unbelievable. and sometimes folks even use russian-language reports from tsagi! it's totally mean not to explain to english-speaker allsop about "report of army tests of la-5 manufactured by plant no.21; confirmed by general-lieutenant Repin, chief engineer of vvs, 1942/10/26" prepared by 287IAD 8VA by engieer-colonel Frolov and by 49IAP 1VA engineer-captain Terentyev, with use of La-5 of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd production series of plant no.21 with M-82 engine of 2nd poduction series pf engine-plant no.19 and airscrews VISh-105 (3.1m in diameter), with 2xShVAK, 170 rounds per gun on board. or such a piece of russian shit 'flight performance tests accomplished GK NII VVS with La-5 M-82 factory no.37210444 at 1942-08 during state trials'. it's not just unfair, it's perfidious to speak such discussions in russian using russian texts! i'd like to say you again, allsop, what i already said (afair). but i won't. you just calm down, sweetie.
TAIC is tactical army intelligence command of something like that. you can find abbrev meaning in internet. the report 154A quoted by you is prepared by TAIC, and as far as i understand, this report is sent to every combat unit for eyes of every fighter pilot opposing "TONY 1 and 2". i have also TAIC reports on Jack (105B) and Frank (156A). >All those say that the Ki-61 reached 5000m in 5 minutes 31 seconds. very probably all those refer francillon (at least 2 of 4), so this is not FOUR references, but ONE reference. as for wep vs military, it's a reasonable note. can you measure fh-climb with 100%mil? if combat climb number will fall near 6'30", it might excellently prove your point of view
I am suprised to see that the Ki-61-Ib is overmodeled in climb rate! I ran two tests each with 100% fuel. The military power (100% throttle no WEP) reached 5000m in 5 minutes 39 seconds. The WEP power reached 5000m in 5 minutes 2 seconds. I rolled the Ki-61 off a CV, got to low level (about 10 meters) then set auto trim on speed for 150 mph (the best speed I have found through practice). I used a stopwatch once the climb rate went positive and stopped it right at 5000m. I used 100% fuel because I noticed that the chart I quoted for time to climb and climb rate said that 1194 lbs. of fuel was loaded in the tests. This is reasonable for the 199 US gallon internal fuel capacity of the Ki-61. So the WEP time should take about 29 seconds longer than it did and the military time should take about 51 seconds longer than it did. -bw- should adjust these when he adjusts the turn performance.
you haven't specified starting TAS. if it is higher than 150mph, you can get zoom climb, instead of sustained climb. you must start climb from the same TAS you are climbing with (.speed TAS): ? .speed 150 ? turn on autospeed ? lower throttle to gain horisontal flight at SL. ? push throttle to full with chronometry. p.s.150 is better than 155?
I believe this is how I did the tests the first time, but I ran them again anyway. For the 100% military power, I got 5:39 again. With WEP I got a time of 5:01. These numbers are almost identical to the tests I ran the first time. With these tests, I rolled the Ki-61-Ib from a CV. I got to about 10 meters off the water and using .showdata, I awaited the true airspeed to reach 241 km/h (150 mph). When the speed was 241 km/h, I pressed "x" to disengage the level autotrim, and instantly pressed shift+x to start autotrim on speed. At the same time I started the stopwatch (not an easy task to do these all at once). The results of these tests imply that the climb rate of the Ki-61 is overmodeled (see my previous post). I have some questions though. If the Ki-61 is modeled to be accurate (a turn time of 16 seconds with a radius of 765 feet), but the Spitfire IX is inaccurate in regard to turning ability, then will fixing only the Ki-61 solve to problem? Additionally, though this would be a different subject, turn times and radii for the Type 1 fighter were included on the reference page for the Ki-61 (http://www.j-aircraft.org/bbs/army_config.pl?read=11070). The Type 1 fighter happens to be the Ki-43. The best turn time for the Ki-43 was 10.8 seconds and the best radius was 301.5 feet. These figures are phenomenal! I do know that this would be a different topic, but these numbers contrast with the ones on FH... However, we do not know which model of Ki-43 this was or even the load conditions of the test. What I mean to say is, to use a figure of speech, that we may have killed two (maybe three) birds with one stone. In my research for the Ki-61, I have found turn information on the Ki-43 and some Spitfires. The bottom line is that this thread is a great example of cooperation and of good research used to figure out the truth about a plane. This is tedious work, I and I thank -exec- for doing the work on his end. Even though this matter is not completely resolved, it serves somewhat as a model for this process. The opinion is presented, the in-game data is provided then the real-life data conflicting the in-game data is brought forward. I am not sure if -exec- has the energy to follow this process for every plane (this would be a lot of work), and I am also not sure if this sort of work is already conducted in Russian threads. What is good about this process is that it shows that such a change is possible.
looks like -bw- gonna make 5'30"-ib and 7'00"-i kaic. also, -bw- wants to get confirmation on turn time here http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25600 just for curiosity. _________________________ 10.8" of Ki-43 is unusable. instant/sustaned turn? 1000m? Ha-25 / Ha-115? weight? _________________________ doesn't it match with http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html ? how much? exact numbers+conditions pls. _________________________ as for thanks... i just guide you through the correct process of fix-request preparation. even without interesting in particular hien. there are so few people that can follow this route... yup, the route is not easy. one can find data, other can find contradicting data, and both look trustable. russian discussions on yak's, la's and 109's are very tough. much more harder than we have about hien.
