Jump to content

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

Photo
- - - - -

Ki-67-I Hiryu Front Line Bomber Performance


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Laurelix

Laurelix

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Joined 7 Months
  • 12 topics

Posted 11 April 2017 - 03:34 PM

Ki-67-I Hiryu:

DbdMyat.jpg

Wing Area:  65.85m2

Empty Weight: 8645kg

Loaded Weight: 12960kg

Powerplant: 2x Mitsubishi Ha-104

Take Off Power: 1900hp

2200m: 1810hp at military power

6100m: 1610hp at military power

:::

Max Speed: (Military / WEP)

Sea Level: 454km/h / 469km/h

2600m: 510km/h / 519km/h

6050m: 538km/h / 555km/h

-

Rate of Climb: Military Power (WEP in brackets)

Time to 3000m: 6:12 (5:30)

Time to 5000m: ??? (10:00)

Time to 6000m: 14:30 (???)

Time to 8000m: 23:30 (???)

-

Stall Speed: (No flaps)

At 10500kg: 170km/h

At 13720kg: 187km/h

-

Defensive Armament:

Ki-61-I Ko:

1x 20mm Ho-5 (Dorsal Turret)

1x 12.7mm Ho-104 (Nose)

1x 12.7mm Ho-104 (Tail)

1x 12.7mm Ho-104 (Port)

1x 12.7mm Ho-104 (Starboard)

-

Ki-61-I Otsu:

1x 20mm Ho-5 (Dorsal Turret)

1x 12.7mm Ho-104 (Nose)

2x 12.7mm Ho-104 (Tail)

1x 12.7mm Ho-104 (Port)

1x 12.7mm Ho-104 (Starboard)

-

Bomg Loads:

Option 1: 15x 50kg

Option 2: 3x 250kg

Option 3: 1x 500kg

Option 4: 1x Type 91 Torpedo

 

Additional comments:

Has Self Sealing tanks

has Armour plates to protect crew and has armour to take battle damage

Has Co2 tanks to extinghuish fires


Edited by Laurelix, 11 April 2017 - 03:35 PM.


#2 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 10 Months and 1 Day
  • 1 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 12 April 2017 - 04:09 AM

It is fascinating to compare Japanese planes with the closest US equivalent.

In this case it would be the Martin B-26 Marauder and unsurprisingly the B-26 was a heavier plane with less performance and a greater maximum bomb load.

The B-26 was an earlier design that also entered service and combat far earlier than the excellent Ki-67,

The B-26 entered combat on April 5 1942 in New Guinea well before the first Ki-67 had flown.

Before weight and wing area were increased the B-26 was also a fast bomber. The original spec called for 323mph maximum  and the early versions were over 300mph planes with reports of up to 315mph.

This wasn't as fast as the Ki -67 but by comparison with the Hudson, Beaufort and B-25 also serving in the New Guinea area it was very fast and this speed, plus greater defensive weaponry gave it a far greater chance of escaping from Japanese fighter in tail chases.

To quote from Kokoda Air Strikes by Anthony Cooper

"While the 22nd Bomb Group was flying it's risky missions with the "hot" new B-26, in the United States, the same aircraft type was developing a reputation as a difficult machine to fly and a death trap to new crews. A USAAF inquiry grounded the fleet pending modifications at the same time as the 22nd Bomb Group was flying it in operations! In Australia the powerful machine's excellent speed perfformance guaranteed it's popularity,..."



#3 Laurelix

Laurelix

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Joined 7 Months
  • 12 topics

Posted 12 April 2017 - 11:16 AM

It is fascinating to compare Japanese planes with the closest US equivalent.

In this case it would be the Martin B-26 Marauder and unsurprisingly the B-26 was a heavier plane with less performance and a greater maximum bomb load.

The B-26 was an earlier design that also entered service and combat far earlier than the excellent Ki-67,

The B-26 entered combat on April 5 1942 in New Guinea well before the first Ki-67 had flown.

Before weight and wing area were increased the B-26 was also a fast bomber. The original spec called for 323mph maximum  and the early versions were over 300mph planes with reports of up to 315mph.

This wasn't as fast as the Ki -67 but by comparison with the Hudson, Beaufort and B-25 also serving in the New Guinea area it was very fast and this speed, plus greater defensive weaponry gave it a far greater chance of escaping from Japanese fighter in tail chases.

To quote from Kokoda Air Strikes by Anthony Cooper

"While the 22nd Bomb Group was flying it's risky missions with the "hot" new B-26, in the United States, the same aircraft type was developing a reputation as a difficult machine to fly and a death trap to new crews. A USAAF inquiry grounded the fleet pending modifications at the same time as the 22nd Bomb Group was flying it in operations! In Australia the powerful machine's excellent speed perfformance guaranteed it's popularity,..."

Ki-67-I was also made to have excellent range. There was Ki-67-I Hei under construction st end of ww2. its bombload was to be 1250kg.

 

Anyways against US navy they would take a Torpedo. Very fast, excellent range, 1 run with a torpedo. it could alsi take a beating and if eveny fighter was to engage it, it has a was self defence firepower. infact if you look at its stall speed it has like 19 secomd turn time (initial) but it cant systain it since its a bomber.



#4 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 10 Months and 1 Day
  • 1 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 12 April 2017 - 12:21 PM

The pont I was trying to make was that the Ki-67 was an excellent plane as were many of the late war Japanese planes.

However in performance It was not a generation better than the sometime maligned B-26 that was in combat before the Ki-67 even flew.

The Douglas A-26 Invader also flew in combat in the South West Pacific in mid 1944,  the Ki-67 around same time or even October 44 (sources vary)

Appearing far too late and with too few numbers is typical of the late war Japanese designs and negated the impact of even the best of them.

 

Large twin engined torpedo bombers, even ones as fast and agile as the Ki-67 were big targets on the straight runs needed for successful torpedo delivery. 


  • flying kiwi likes this

#5 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 9 Months and 5 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 12 April 2017 - 11:24 PM

I think that trying to launch torpedoes from these in 1944/45 would have just turned them into the most unsuccessful kamikaze platforms ever.  



#6 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 10 Months and 1 Day
  • 1 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 13 April 2017 - 12:09 AM

The torpedo does not care how fast and agile the plane carrying it is, it has its own demands and they are inflexible.



#7 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,038 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 16 Days
  • 297 topics

Posted 14 April 2017 - 06:07 AM

I would like to know if Allied fighter pilots found it particularly difficult to intercept and shoot down a "Peggy". I mean, despite of its lauded traits, it is a bomber after all.

 

Regards, RT






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users