Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

* * * * * 1 votes


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic



    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,740 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 7 Months and 5 Days
  • 191 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 21 October 2017 - 07:03 PM

If that is your way of winning arguments, then pat yourself on the back: You've won.


Did you start this whole discussion with the idea that if you could make everyone

agree with you, then you would be the winner? If so, you lost before you even

started. Posting information on this site is not a contest. It is a gathering of the

most accurate figures and information that we can come up with as a group with

the information available. My first choice is actual military tests. My second choice

is to use manufacturer's test. My third choice is to use military / manufacturer's

best calculated data and information. I give resources to the best of my ability.


1965 I became interested in WW2 fighter aircraft.

1968 I began purchasing any publishing I could get my hands on (and afford).

1975 I knew the generally published performance figures for ever nations fighters.

2000 I began to go into more in depth research.

2008 I went into an even more in depth research with the help of other researcher.

My point here is, I inter into discussions gladly willing to share what I have learned

from those years of research. I have formulated opinions from time to time. But 

these opinions are constantly changing as I learn more and more. I am always

open to new accurate information backed by a good reference.

  • flying kiwi likes this



    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,740 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 7 Months and 5 Days
  • 191 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 21 October 2017 - 07:20 PM

And keep dreaming that the Japanese did not think one Ki-100 ALWAYS defeated one Ki-84, or that it could defeat 3 of them with equal circumstances, because I provided the SOURCED evidence that frontline pilots DID think this.

I believe I was the first one on this thread to say something very similar to this, twice.

See Posts No.6 and No.13.


All you did was demonstrate your unwillingness to learn the unexpected,

The unexpected? No, I don't think so. But now that is just a calculated opinion.

I am unwilling to be swayed by uneducated opinion though.


and provide to that effect theoretical arguments to demonstrate you know more than "biased" frontline pilots.

You can call them biased if you want to. I wouldn't though.

I said, " The Japanese flyers came from a maneuverability mindset. ".  This is

true. That is why they did not welcome such aircraft as the Ki.44 and Ki.61 at



Looks to me like the discussion began with Post No.14 

Thank you, Jeff

Edited by CORSNING, 21 October 2017 - 07:32 PM.

#33 Laurelix


    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Joined 11 Months and 2 Days
  • 12 topics

Posted 07 November 2017 - 02:53 PM

Ki-61-II Kai Ko / Ki-61-II Kai Otsu
Loaded Weight: 3825kg (100% full fuel)
Max Speed: (Military / WEP)
Sea Level: 516kph / 536kph
1000m: 541kph / 562kph
2000m: 566kph / 587kph
3000m: 579kph / 602kph
4000m: 588kph / 615kph
5000m: 599kph / 624kph
6000m: 610kph / 624kph
7000m: 599kph / 614kph
8000m: 586kph / 601kph
9000m: 568kph / 585kph
10000m: 544kph / 563kph
Rate of Climb: (Military / WEP)
Time to climb to: (3825kg weight)
1000m: 1:13 / 1:04
2000m: 2:25 / 2:08
3000m: 3:40 / 3:14
4000m: 5:01 / 4:26
5000m: 6:31 / 5:47
6000m: 8:13 / 7:19
7000m: 10:16 / 9:12
8000m: 12:56 / 11:35
9000m: 16:47 / 14:54
10000m: 23:30 / 20:12

Wing CL Max: 1.44
Stall Speed: (No Flaps, Sea Level, 3825kg) - 165km/h
Sustained Horizontal turn (No Flaps, WEP, 1000m)
Time to do 360 turn: 19 seconds

Edited by Laurelix, 08 November 2017 - 07:06 AM.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users