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.
KAWASAKI Ki.61/Ki.100 PERFORMANCE / TIMELINE
Posted 21 October 2017 - 07:03 PM
- flying kiwi likes this
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.
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