The (Kind of) Accidental Superplane: Kawasaki Ki-100
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 02. 2024
- In this video, we talk about the Kawasaki Ki-100, a Japanese fighter from late WW2 that was kind of built by accident. We first talk about Japan's military situation in late 1944 - early 1945, being constantly bombed by allied forces (mostly America) and with threats of a land invasion looming. We then look at an earlier attempt at making a fighter with an in-line liquid cooled engine, something kind of unusual for Japanese fighters. We look at the performance and problems with that design and engine that led to them trying out a radial engine on the frame, with gave them much better results and directly led to the Ki-100.
We talk about the proposed role of the Ki-100 as a high-level interceptor and how it initially didn't do that very well, but performed quite well as a lower-level fighter. We look at some examples of the Ki-100 fighting dominant American aircraft like the F6F Hellcat and P-51, and how the Ki-100, at minimum, was about on par with them. We end by looking at why the Ki-100 wasn't produced in greater numbers and how it stacks up to other Japanese fighter designs.
Nobody wants to admit this in public, but some of the greatest aviation artwork ever created was designed to decorate the cardboard box covers of plastic model kits. I wish I still had some of my old box covers!
Concur!
I agree….box art, especially from the 1950’s, is spectacular
One thing to bear in mind is that the Zero was a navy fighter whereas the other types mentioned were army types, and the Japanese army and navy air forces had their own separate development programs, so to call the KI-100 a successor to the Zero is somewhat misleading. The Japanese navy did have a replacement for the Zero in development (the Mitsubishi A7M "Reppu") but is came too late and never saw active service.
The most performant japanese navy fighter was the Kawanishi N1K1 Shiden and the direct successor of the A6M Reisen.
The Japanese Navy did field ground based fighters (J2M, N1K1/2) that were not carrier based. @@apis_aculei
@@apis_aculeiWhile true, a carrier-capable variant of the George was never produced, since it was intended to solely be part of their land-based air force, with the A7M Sam continuing with the carrier role.
@@oriontaylor
They did actually make two navalized Shiden Kai prototypes but gave up because by that point they had run out of carrier-qualified pilots (and had only a few carriers left).
@@apis_aculeiactually, the Shiden and Shiden kai were land based developments of the N1K1 Kyofu float plane interceptor.
I once worked with a guy in Japan who was the company staff bus driver. He was in his 70's then. Talking to him at the company New Year party, turns out out he was "volunteered" out of high school at 18 and sent to basic training with the Army airforce. After 6 weeks of basic training he was sent to flight school for another 6 weeks of ground training and then after a whole 16 hours of flight training he was posted to a fighter unit in northern Japan to fly Ki-100's. He got 90 minutes more flight instruction at the unit before being declared ready. He never flew a single combat mission because they never had enough fuel *and* aircraft at the same time, so only the most senior pilots did any combat flying. His entire war service involved less than 20 hours of flying, and then Japan surrendered and he got a pilot's pension for life. He was scared of heights too, which I (& he) thought was halarious given the service he got shoved into.
According to record by August 45 Japan had only one working oil refinery and that was destroyed on the 14th of August along with fuel stores. Japan was in the same boat as the Germans with lots of pilots and aircraft but no fuel for training or operations. You touched on an important point many don't get.
Makes you wonder why they'd waste resources training new pilots if they weren't allowed to fly
@@Legitpenguins99 More a case of the left hand not coordinated with the right hand, I suspect. They train them in anticipation of losses, but can't predict what the fuel situation will be. Then, at the operational end of things, they make the decision to use the fuel they do have on hand for the more experienced pilots.
In 1979 on Okinawa, I met a Japanese methodist minister who had trained as a Kamikaze pilot. Before the war his brother was a Japanese Naval pilot, and his brother taught him how to fly, takeoff and land. When he was 18 he was drafted and trained as a pilot. He made 3 missions and never found the Allied fleet. When he returned to base, he knew how to land unlike his fellow squadron mates who died on landing. His war time experience turned him towards Christianity. It's hard to believe that the Japanese of today came from the Japanese of WW2 and before.
@@stingginner1012 Japanese pilots including the ones trained for Kamikazi flights were trained how to land. Sure their flight training was no where near that of western pilots but neither was Luftwaffe day fighters. Even Pre war German day fighter pilots were never trained on instrument flying as it was felt there were always ground features available for navigation. In the end many pilots were lost do to bad weather or missions going well past dusk and pilots not being able to fly by instruments.
Pops was an engine mechanic on Biak and they inherited a Japanese boneyard. They slowly took apart all the engines and couldn’t believe how Japanese metallurgy deteriorated over time
with the scarcity of proper metal alloy, that is understandable specially for aircraft built in the later years of the war.
Its funny you say that as Japanese metallurgy is world renowned. The Japanese Samurai sword is forgery at its best! I guess this antidote is similar to saying the Germans had poor engineering based on all the engine malfunctions that brought down birds late war. Lack of materials, oil, and gas has a hell of a way of making your stuff look shit!
@@raulduke6105 If you think I missed the point. Then you didn’t read my post.
@@FullSweatTryhard
Samurai sword met it's match in China ... Chinese military officer's Tao clashed with Jap's samurai katana... the Tao broke katana in half .
I do find it Alanis level ironic that the Japanese were desperately trying to find a solution to high altitude daylight B-29 raids at the same time that the 20th Air Force were desperately trying to find a solution to the ineffective results of high altitude daylight B-29 raids, which they abandoned for RAF Bomber Command style low level night incendiary raids, thus making the reason for supercharging the Ki-100 kind of an exercise in futility.
The only thing ironic about her song is that she doesn't understand irony
Picklerick, you're partially right. Yes, XX and XXI Bomber Commands initially had trouble with the (undiscovered at the time) jet stream above Japan. Dropping at 30,000 feet, the bombs would get scattered across the map. So, you're right, they did change to RAF-style night incendiary raids.
Where I would quibble is that the US eventually switched to a two-pronged approach. When targets would be obscured by clouds, night fire raid. When they wouldn't, though, the bombers would go in during the day, but dropping at 20,000 feet instead. This was below the jet stream, and was thus far more effective. With Toyota, they lost their Tokyo factory during MEETINGHOUSE, and their factory in the Nagoya area took a bomb during a daylight raid on 15 August.
@@Spacklatard America and India both have a genius for almost knowing what words mean.
i saw this and i immeadiatley thought it looked like the p39 aircobra
Good point!
It is amazing that the Japanese were able to bring the Ki-100 into production and its actual victories (whatever the number) prove that it was competitive with the American stalwarts. However, if the war had lasted even 1 or 2 more months, the Ki-100 would have been met with 3 new adversaries. The Gruman F8F Bearcat and F7F Tigercat, as well as the Chance-Vought Corsair F4U-5. All of these were already flying and had proven performance gains over the older American fighters. In particular, they could all exceed 450 mph and handled well.
Don't forget the P-51H and P-47N which were both slated to lead the November 1945 invasion of mainland Japan, or the P-82, A-1 skyraider, and more. UK had the Spiteful and Sea Fury, and Hornet. Australia had the CA-15, etc.
@@SoloRenegade And the P-80 was in service, although don't think any were sent to the Pacific.
@@johnbrobston1334 the P-80 was deliberately withheld from service during WW2 for logistical reasons. It would disrupt the war effort to switch to jets. Mechanics needing retraining, new fuel supplies, new parts, pilots needed retraining, factories had to be converted over, etc. and the prop fighters were winning just fine already, teh war outcome was already a foregone conclusion. British kept their jets out of frontline service for the same reasons. And to keep them from falling into enemy hands.
F8F was on the way in the pacific that time, full military equipped and ready for combat. But war in the pacific ended shortly after
I suppose a few more months and japan would have started having ki200, j8m and j9n1 (kikka) in small numbers, perhaps even some j7w's... Who knows.
You fail to mention the most amazing thing about the conversion from the Ki61 to the Ki100 - The entire redesign and protoype construction was done inside of 1 month! (Jan to Freb 1945.) It took the German 3 years (1938-40) to design the Fw 190A and 2 years 1942-43) to re-engine the A model into the D model.
impressive.
Yep, losing a war can light a fire under your ass.
Using slave labor is Using uninspired labor.
Pointless comparison.
The German people's fighter was designed and brought to production in an amazingly short time.
And that used the new jet technology.
The same as Ki-100 a Russians La-5 was designer, in almost similar time period and the same technique : we must change inline engine (cause its too powerlees or we didn't have more) to radial engine , so we attach radial engine to fuselage , covering IT by wooding covers on sides to spore up projekt, and we seebhow this works. And later we will prepared a new fuselage in shape for radial engine😊.
So hurry up guys, frontline waiting😁.
There half as many parts in a radial as a German liquid cooled. The complexity was the fuel injection and multi-speed superchargers.
Very high compression ratios too, since the axis had to use much lower octane fuel which meant their designs had to really wring out every bit of hp, thus stressing engines more.
@@fazole The Germans received high octane from the US right up until the rail lines from Spain through France were cut off in late 44. This corresponded with the end of large number Luftwaffe fighter operations and the shift to larger numbers of jet aircraft which flew on J2, a coal based synthetic fuel.
Standard OIl built a refinery in the Canary Islands just to supply Germany with fuel which remained a secret for years. The fuel was then taken to Spain by tanker with Panam registration or by supply subs. Then Germany also got a lot of gasoline from Romania but that was over run by the red army around roughly the same time as the Spanish supply was cut off.
@@jimdavison4077 How did it remain a secret?
@@EllieMaes-Grandad For decades it was never revealed to the public, that's how.
I recall reading that the weight of the DB600-series of inverted V12 engines made a LEAD counterweight necessary in the Ki-61. When the Mistubishi Ha-112-II radial engine was chosen, the Lead weight was removed and things got interesting.
I haven't found mention Ki-61-I having counterweights, but Ki-61-II definitely had it. The new engine in it was of course heavier and mounted in a longer nose. The counterweight was located near the tailwheel. I think it was about 15kg, but can't say for sure.
I read that as well. The other weight saving factor was the removal of all the no longer needed radiators and cooling systems
The KI 61 was one of the prettiest fighters WW2 imo. The KI 100 was reminiscent of the excellent late war Lavochkin series of fighters.
I thought of the Ki-100 as the IJA's "FW-190."
@hi786 I always considered the Ki-84/Ki-43/Ki-44/A6M collectively as Japan's FW190.
@@SoloRenegadeI tend to agree with you. I think the Japanese evaluation of the FW 190A in comparison with their own aircraft is very interesting. Put up the three IJAAF fighters you mentioned, only Ki-84 Hayate came anywhere near the Focke-Wulf in performance. And, as you probably know, with a properly maintained engine and quality gasoline, Ki-84 actually outperformed FW 190A by a significant margin. Have you seen the Ki-84 video on Greg's Autos and Aircraft? Great exploration of the Hayate.
I just want to say I appreciate how you covered the topics in your earliest videos, even if it might super-clash with your content now.
Sounds of life, Smile down the runway, The apothecary diaries are superb. Perfect to show a lady your not watching cartoons. Rather excellent draw your significant other away from reality show's as well.
Great video, well done. I have been to the RAF museum at Hendon, North London several times. As mentioned, this museum has the worlds only surviving Ki-100. It also has the worlds only surviving Mitsubishi Dinah twin engined reconnaissance aircraft parked next to it, as well as a rocket powered 'Baka' (idiot) Kamakaza aircraft. Talking to the staff at the museum, they have said that some Japanese tourists have been amazed to stumble upon these aircraft. They have even helped to translate some of the old and not understood Japanese writing on the side of the Ki-100. (Japanese written language has changed since WW2). Also, I have met the great late test pilot Capt. Eric Brown RN more than once. (He was a world record holder who had flown 485 aircaft types, including many rare WW2 German aircraft). Asking him which was the best Japanese fighter of WW2, he replied that it was the Ki-84 Hayate. Perhaps you should make a video about this aircraft. I don't know how many Japanese fighter aircraft types he test flew, but he said that this aircraft was the best of them. Which didn't surprise me, as the Ki-84 fighter (on paper at least) had the highest rate of climb and speed of any Japanese WW2 fighter.
Army ace pilots said that a Ki-100 was worth 3 Ki-84 which they said was too heavy. Some pilots prefered Ki-43-III to Ki-84 because Ki-43-III had a good climb rate and acceleration with a superb maneuverability at low altitude.
One thing I didn't hear mentioned was the problem of putting a larger radial engine onto a slender fuselage. Kawasaki had an imported FW 190A. They studied how the Germans faired a large radial onto a slim fuselage. The Japanese leaned the lesson well.
The IJN had the same problem. The Yokosuka D4Y dive bomber was using the same license built DB engine and had the same headaches. The D4Y1 and -2 had the DB engine. The plague prone Atsuta liquid cooled engine (LCE) was replace by a much more reliable radial in the D4Y3 and -4 in the same way as in the Ki-100. The Japanese never really came to terms with LCEs.
If IJN and IJA pilots of the time heard you calling the Ki-100 the 'Zero 2', you'd be lucky not to understand Japanese. The blistering denunciation and contempt you would receive would be volcanic. You simply don't understand how much the two military branches hated each other.
So understated 😂 and true. Like saying Texas is stolen Mexican land😂
Yeah they were literally assassinating one another.
@@ToreDL87 The hot headed younger officers were even killing senior officers within their own ranks if they dared mention anything about giving up or even disagreeing with them. It was chaotic.
Yeah, ki-100 was the "Tony 2" if it was anyrhing.
@@horsemumbler1 Yep, that's pretty much the case. With so few made and coming so late in the war, it never received an 'official' code name.
The comparison of planes in dog fight combats needs to consider pilot experience, by late war, US pilots were well trained and Japanese pilots were even beginners with low hours or stressed out very experienced pilots.
@malcolmlewis5860: Yes. No handful of relatively good aircraft would have turned the tide. By that stage of the war the Allies were were in full war production mode.They were mass producing thousands of highly skilled and qualified pilots equipped with state of the art aircraft. Both the unskilled novices and the handful of skilled fliers that the Japanese could field would have been wiped out quite rapidly and the airfields they operated from would have been blasted into mounds of rubble.
I now have this on loop... Forever.
I knew that thumbnail was the box art for the Otaki kit.
Haven't seen that picture since the eighties but instantly recognised it
Terrific video once again. Mahalo!
I love the subjects covered, the deadpan delivery and the humour. This is one of my favourite channels.
Excellent stuff bro
So my father tried getting me into motorcycles. The bike he put me on was a Kawasaki Ninja, he knew I was a speed freak, I broke both my ankles after I laid that bike down doing a power wheelie. I have never even thought of riding again. I had maybe 400 hrs rising dirt bikes, my old man set me up for the L. Oh well, he spent 250k to have my ankles worked on. That said, Kawasaki makes good stuff, it broke my ankles I have respect!
interesting as always - thanks
A great video sir! I'm glad you used miles instead of kilometres. I'm an old fella and I can relate better to the measurements of distance I grew up with. Thank you.
Fascinating. I knew about the zero, and I knew Kawasaki manufactured planes as well. But I didn’t know the Japanese aircraft industry was this extensive. Good stuff!
Hey, well done Hendon for saving one!
Were here and we are aware of this ! Thanks
Well worth a Re-watch ...
Man, i really love your logo.
Excellent video! New subscriber!
Great video.
Toward the end of the video, the creator finally mentions pilot quality. The US Army Air Force and Navy had huge, very successful aircrew training programs combined with massive aircraft production numbers, overwhelmed Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) and Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) air forces. Pilot quality (e.g. training, experience and tactics) made up for flying sometimes inferior equipment vs. an enemy flying a better aircraft as demonstrated by the 1942-1943 Pacific air battles between US Navy/Marine Corps units flying the F4F/FM-2 Wildcat flown against the IJN A6M (Zero). BTW, a cousin of mine, Donald E. Runyon, flew Wildcats and shot down eight Japanese aircraft (at least two Zeros) during his first combat tour with VF-6 flying from the USS Enterprise. (Source: Wildcat Aces of World War 2, pp. 16-19, 92.)
The creator deems the KI-100 to be the closest thing to a "Zero II." However, the Zero was an IJN fighter aircraft originally designed to operate off aircraft carriers and lacked self-sealing fuel tanks, which seemed to be its greatest weakness along with its lightweight construction, whereas the KI-100 was an IJA fighter aircraft not constrained by design requirements imposed by shipboard service.
One Ki-100 was on display at the Air Force Museum's original location at Patterson Field until some time in the 1950s when it was scrapped.
When it came to the Zero, the Nakajima Sake was not Jiro Horikoshi's choice of engine. He wanted to put the Mitsubishi Kinsei in it but was denied by the Imperial Japanese Navy's top brass. Eventually they relented and a prototype, the A6M8 type 64, was built. It finally provided more power to offset the increased weight of armor and guns but it was too late.
Thank you. A video about an aircraft that might have been a good asset if it had been discovered earlier.
16:40 Generally 2x20mm and 2x12.7mm are considered as powerful as 6x12.7mm. Of course this depends on what guns they are and how much ammo they carry. At the very least Ki-100 is on the average in each category.
Also who told Ki-100 had poor armor? It actually had thicker armor than any of those US fighters it faced. Only thing lacking from it was bulletproof windscreen, which appears to have been due to Kawasaki's inability to produce those. At the start of Ki-61's career both sides noted how much beating it could take and after that the protection was only increased.
Apart from whisical engine, Ki-61 was very rugged. Just look how wide and low landing gear it has. Thanks to that it was able to hold together in very rough landings. In addition it was able to dive with any other fighter plane of the time. The wing structure was so rugged that Kawasaki tried to make weaker wings to save weight.
Did the KI-100 have self-sealing fuel tanks? This lack of protection proved a major weakness of leading Japanese aircraft like the A6M (Zero) and the G4M (Betty) bomber.
@@royrunyon1286 Yes it had. From the very start Ki-61s had self-sealing tanks, although in the first about 500 aircraft these were very weak. They were only somewhat useful against .30cal and so was the armor. Then the tank protection was increased, pilot's seat armor switched to thicker plates and an armor plate was also added to protect the cooling system from behind. The last plate was of course removed with the liquid cooling system when they converted to Ki-100. CO2 fire extinguishers are also said to have been installed to Ki-61s about halfway during the production. Those were rare for IJA, but several IJN aircraft had them.
5:49 “Radial engines don’t need additional cooling systems”... shows picture of a plane with an auxiliary oil cooler.. :D
10:55 You can hear "Meshersmitt" quite a lot in English-language aviation videos, but "Mishubitsi" is a new one.😊 Thank you for an interesting video.
Anime fits just fine into military history channel theme, with things like Sky Crawlers, Space Battleship Yamato, Mobile Suit Gundam, the Wind Rises, Grave of the Fireflies, Nausicaa and other military/history/aviation themed anime series...
GATE is pretty good too, basically JSDF propaganda. Very entertaining.
I would add Macross, Area 88, Flag
@@Zephirot080 yup, those are good too
Hello there again! Unfortunately my page long replies to you in the other section were deleted instantly by a bot and now it doesn't allow even short ones. It seems links, document names, too many numbers and just too long text are not allowed. CZcams simply isn't a good place for such discussion, thus I keep this last one short.
I can see your numbers come straight from wikipedia without context. For example 3200 ft/min climb rate for P-51D is the fastest climb on specific WEP setting, which should not be compared directly to climb times to specific altitude. Similar climb rate data is not available for Ki-100 straight from any chart, but 3580 ft/min can be calculated from climb time chart. That's on Military Power. Right now I couldn't find clear climb time chart for P-51D, but a 1500lbs lighter P-51B clocked slightly better numbers as Ki-100 all the way up to 20 000ft. However Japanese included take-off into the climb time, while US climb chart starts straight from climbing. You should also check whatever data you have seen about Spitfires and P-38 as those are simply not late war values. Late variants of both of those reached well over 4000ft/min.
Overall it's not wrong to assume the better performer would always win, but this was proven wrong numerous times in mock-up duels and in battle. Ki-100 in specific gets lucky because when it was fielded in Spring 1945 the fight came down on lower altitudes, thus the weak high altitude performance wasn't much of an issue. I'd also encourage to read what US air doctrine was at that time. It's much like that used against Luftwaffe in 45: Pilots were encouraged to be aggressive as the goal was to destroy the opposing airforces, rather than just escort the bombers. Strafe runs on airfields became a common thing and dogfights over nearby towns.
Lately I've heard many claims about the same old F4F vs A6M win/loss ratios, but so far no one has brought up comprehensive sources. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it indeed was in favour to F4F.
@@Teh0X "However Japanese included take-off into the climb time, while US climb chart starts straight from climbing. "
climbing begins at takeoff...... that's how airplanes work.
Whether you initiate a climb at 1000MSL, or 500MSL makes no difference, you had to start from a level flight attitude to begin the climb whether from cruise or from takeoff, doesn't matter. you're splitting hairs and cherry picking, even though it doesn't make a difference.
"Overall it's not wrong to assume the better performer would always win, but this was proven wrong numerous times in mock-up duels and in battle. Ki-100 in specific gets lucky because when it was fielded in Spring 1945 the fight came down on lower altitudes, thus the weak high altitude performance wasn't much of an issue."
It's not wrong at ALL to assume the higher performance fighter wins 100% of the time. It only isn't true if you add the Additional assumptions/conditions that the superior plane has an inferior pilot. But when you assume both pilots are of equal skill and knowledge, the higher performance plane wins 100% of the time.
P-51 has high altitude advantage, but doesn't lose that advantage at low altitude either like the P-47 does.
" I'd also encourage to read what US air doctrine was at that time. It's much like that used against Luftwaffe in 45: Pilots were encouraged to be aggressive as the goal was to destroy the opposing airforces, rather than just escort the bombers."
US fighter doctrine, starting in the 930s, was to not turn fight the enemy. US fighter doctrine in WW2 was to Boom and Zoom, using superior speed and team tactics. Regardless whether escorting, dogfighting low, or CAS, the doctrine was Boom and Zoom, don't turn with the enemy. That's how US fighters were all designed to fight too. Claire Chennault was one that helped make Boom and Zoom doctrine. And the P-40 AVG proved it worked, as did many other fighters and units in WW2. Zemke's wolfpack thrived on Boom and Zoom tactics to offset the P-47's pathetic acceleration and maneuverability.
Combatants normally know their own losses and exaggerate enemy losses, so to compare losses, compare the own losses claims of both sides. So the July 16 fight with Mustangs should be considered a Mustang win 5-1; where the July 25 fight with Hellcats should be considered a 2-2 wash. Combatants might cover up their own losses during the war, but rarely continue to do so afterwards, though they do continue to inflate enemy kills afterwards.
absolutely true
If i had to go into combat during the Pacific war, i would have picked the P-47N.
Fantastic engine. Proven, rugged, and well developed airframe, ALL the firepower, even a primitive rear radar to verify your 6 was clear.
Range was amazing too.
Looking at the ultra jug (XP 72) prototype shows us that the development potential of that big airframe was never fully realised.
Very few airframes were able to safely harness the awesome power that would become available at the twilight of the piston era.
I would recommend the video done by Greg's airplanes and automobiles on the KI-61 for a more in-depth look at the plane
Remember the *Battle of Chongqing* where the debut dogfight btwn Chinese Polikarpov fighters and then-new superplane Mitsubishi A6M Zero dominated, which gave the Imperial Japanese Navy full confidence for the *Pearl Harbor attack* - indeed the *Battle of Chongqing* was the direct-springboard to *the attack on Pearl Harbor* and Chinese Air Force warnings about the new "Zero" air-superiority fighter completely fell on deaf ears of the allies. The A6M Zero variants were still deadly in hands of skilled pilots; 100+kill ace Hiroyoshi Nishizawa scored a double-kill against the F6F Hellcat in his last combat mission. 60+kill ace Saburo Sakai helped to almost-shoot down a giant B-32 Dominator bomber AFTER the war was officially over, 18th of August 1945.
Kawasaki - Bonkers for Speed, always were, always will be.
If they had not lost so many skilled pilots, it could have be a bit dicey.
That would work across the board with the Axis.
I am always amused by the kind of comparisons you make. Comparing early war models with late war models, the later models are somehow always better than early models. What a surprise! They're designed by the same guys with more experience and taught what works by the successes and failures of the earlier models, so of course the last fighter design of the war is better than any fighter in service since 1939, even if that old design was (arguably) the best in the world in its time.
As far as the combat success of the Ki-100 against American fighters, a Japanese plane lost was gone forever. Each American plane lost had a shipload of replacements on its way with a fresh pilot for each.
Ki-61, Ki-44 and A6M3 are my main Japanese planes on warthunder, ki-61 is my favorite, it's so underrated in game
Give the Ki-100 a try, it's very good
@@reinbeers5322 I still havent reached it yet, need to research one plane before it, but I will add to my list of planes for sure
@@urbplay I can also recommend the Ki-43-1 specifically, its better than the other Ki-43s. It's my 2nd favorite plane in the game.
Later on, the A7M2 is also an amazing fighter.
@@reinbeers5322 kinda ass since gaijin made it feel heavier than the ki-61 _for some reason_
I see you got the taste
Genuis ending^^
I adore this plane and the ki-61 easily my favorite ww2 planes maybe only topped by the fw190
Nah the Mossie
Ki84
We need more of these 'less iconic' yet interesting Japanese ww2 fighters!!
That liquid cooled engine is NOT an inline engine, but an inverted V type. It had two rows of cylinders, not 1 like an inline would.
That's not quite right - inline engines can have several cylinder banks, but the important thing is that the cylinders in each bank line up.
V, inverted V, W, horizontally opposed, even the rare H and X engines are all inline, as long as the pistons aren't offset.
You are correct that the engine was an inverted V type engine but their general classification is still an in-line engine as the the two rows of cylinders were in a line. I
I think the inverted V type in-line engines were better suited as fighter engines than an upright V engine as pilot visibility was slightly better. Also the DB series of engines were fuel injected rather than carbureted allowing them to continue to perform during negative G maneuvers. The early upright V Merlin engines would cut out in these circumstances until a modification to their carbs would partially fix the issue. Given the relative complexity of liquid cooled in-line engines and the conditions under which many were produced during WW2 I find it amazing how reliable they generally were. A real credit to the engineers of the day.
Direct injection also has other very important advantages - for one, it means your fuel octane requirement is lowered. Not by a huge amount, but it allows for more power with the same fuel.
Great video as always.
I would love to see a video from you about the Japanese dive bomber, the Yokosuka D4Y2, Judy. How it was never fully utilized and then the change to make it in to a bomber interceptor with the S variant, makes it a very interesting topic and that it was an inline engine aircraft as well as the Tony.
My mother was one of those girl students being trained with bamboo spears to repel the US invasion forces.
My mother was a young girl on Miyako Jima and experienced the effects of air attacks by Allied aircraft (probably from Royal Navy aircraft carriers) during the Okinawa campaign.
Have you seen the weapons Germans made very late in war for civilians? Think of those and junk weapons from Fallout series. That's how Japanese civilian guns looked like. Not many pictures of them out there. There were even bows and crossbows, including bolts with exploding arrows. Unknown how many were really build. Obviously these went straight to garbage bin when war ended.
Oh, I thought it said "Kawasaki KZ-1000".
Same thing, though.
21:00 they installed a supercharger or 'add an additional supercharger' to an existing one, making it a 2 stage superharger like Mustangs for example?
He's a bit wrong there, look up pictures of the Ki-100-II and look under the plane, just behind the engine cowling. They fit a turbocharger to it as its second stage.
The engine itself kept its single stage supercharger (I'm unsure if it was still a 2-speed or not), so you had that turbocharger feeding into the engine's mechanical supercharger.
So more like a P-47 or P-38.
Japanese WW2 props are super underrated. For some reason there's a perception that they were less advanced than German fighters, and perhaps that's true in terms of their engines and superchargers, but they had substantial advantages in their manoeuvrability and ease of production.
maneuverability was inferior to speed in a fighter back in the 1930s. Speed is more important than maneuverability when choosing your top fighter design. Japan was the only nation to ignore that fact. Without powerful engines, Japanese fighters couldn't compete effectively. They couldn't fly as far, as fast, carry as much, accelerate as quickly, climb as quickly, etc. They compensated for this by being extremely lightweight, to a fault. By the time more powerful designs were starting to appear, it was already too late, and so such designs saw little to no combat and thus faded into history being largely unknown by most people as they contributed nothing of note to the war by arriving too late to matter.
Japanese aircraft were not easier to produce than the likes of the F6F and other designs. And the logistics of Japanese aircraft manufacturing from end-to-end were terrible. Planes were often not produced at actual airfields, and had to be carted by oxen and cart and assembled.
Japan is very interesting from an engineering perspective, their designs noteworthy. But most of their best designs are forgotten by history for a reason. Not because they weren't good, but because they didn't matter. This happens to events on all sides of the war for the same reasons. For example, most people don't know the US did an amphibious assault in Southern France during WW2. Forgotten for the same reasons.
@@SoloRenegade Japan plane have longest range of all WW2 fighter bruh , they also have really good climb rate, only thing that they lack are speed at least for the zero it from the weak engine. For armour army ki84 and n1k are just well armoured like any western counter part they just slower then western counter part cause by lower octane fuel, after war test with american fuel see them as fast as any american plane btw but with better turn rate , climb rate. Do research before talking shit😂
@@jerryle379 A6M had long range for a fighter early, but many Allied fighters far surpassed it during the war including the Spitfire, P-51, P-47, and more. Few japanese planes had such range.
Seems you are reacting emotionally and irrationally. Sounds like you're about to start crying too.
Japanese planes weren't as fast, were fragile in construction, typically lacked self sealing tanks, radios, etc. They were built light/fragile to compensate for their lack of HP. And they were no match for Allied fighters that came later such as the F4U, P-51, F8F, P-47N, Spitfire, and more. They have rather poor performance compared to their contemporaries. The Ki-84 for example, despite being one of the best and fastest, was still slow by comparison. Even the P-40N was reaching over 400mph at low altitudes.
@@SoloRenegadeThat's simply not true. The A6Ms range was far better than the Spitfire's, or even US carrier fighters of the day. And the Ki-84 was hardly slow, it was one of the fastest fighters in the Pacific, being faster than the F-6F and nearly as fast as the F-4U when run on US high octane fuel in testing.
@@jameshodgson3656 A6M had long range for it's time in 1941.
After 1941 the A6M was beat.
Combat ranges (in miles),
A6M: 1160
P-47N: 1200
P-51D: 1650
P-38L: 1300
US Spitfire variant built in Ohio: 1600
P-47D: 1030
F4U-4: 1005
F6F-5: 945
F8F-2: 1105
...
Speeds (mph)
Ki-84: 427
P-40N: 410
P-51D: 445
P-51H: 485
P-47N: 467
F4U-4: 446
Spitfire Mk XIV: 446
F6F-5: 391
P-39Q: 389
F8F-2: 455
P-38L: 414 at only 1400HP (engines capable of 1800-2200HP sustained)
...
So the longest range Japanese fighter had less combat range than most US fighters. And the fastest Japanese fighter was slower than most Allied fighters.
Doesn't matter. They were starting to make delivery of the bearcat and tiger cat to the Fleet at the end of the war.
Amazing how closely the Ki-100 resembles the Soviet La-5. Convergent evolution in action.
11:55 the navy did the same thing with the D4Y, but then it's the navy we're talking about.
Excellent video
Going to the RAF museum in London
Let's not forget the Ki-84, which sported a radial engine equivalent to the P&W R-2800, and which achieved a top speed of 426 mph (later tested in the US at 422 mph).
The Homare is very different to the R2800. It makes just shy of 2000hp at low altitude instead of 2700+ in some later R2800 variants. It also has a much smaller diameter.
Yes, it was wonderful.....on those rare occasions when it actually ran.
Top speed of the Ki-84 was 400-410 mph with typical fighters-only 92 octane Japanese Army fuels, and its unique full-time mw-50 injection. The prop small size limited both the speed and the climb rate, which was similar to the poor climb of a FW-190A-8. Sustained Turns were 19 s. Left 21 right (similar or a bit better to P-51). Army pilots all much preferred the survivability of the Ki-43-II at 13 s. both ways. Only the Ki-100 was rated as superior due to its firepower and around 14-15 s turn times. 1 Ki-100 would defeat 3 Ki-84s in tests, switch pilots and do it again...
@@wrathofatlantis2316 All of that is wrong.
@ers5322 Because you rely on US post War calculated (not flown) estimations from a boosted and rebuilt engine that never flew... Your knowledge of original translated Japanese sources is clearly nil. I would presume you do not even know what made the Ki-84's MW-50 injection system unique.
Universal preference of Japanese commanders (and pilots) for the Ki-43 over the Ki-84, Ki-44 and Ki-61:
Osprey "Ki-43 aces of WWII" p.50: Sgt. Toshimi Ikezawa, Ki-43 ace: "I heard Major Eto had refused delivery of the Ki-84 (640-660 km/h). They could not avoid an attack if it came from above, because of the Ki-84's poor rate of turn. I think we owe our survival to the Ki-43 (540 km/h), as the Ki-84 would have left you in a tight spot if attacked from above by P-51s. Skilled Spitfire [Mk VIII] pilots would pull out of their dives when they realized they could not catch us [unaware]. New [Spitfire] pilots would continue to dive straight down on us, leaving them vulnerable in a turning fight..."
TAIC captured Ki-43-II pilot manual note: "There is evidence to believe Japanese Army pilots have a strong preference for the Ki-43 over the higher performing Tony and Tojo."
Superiority in turn (and climb) of the Ki-100 over the Ki-84:
-"Aeroplane" November 2005, "Ki-100 fighter Database": p. 61-77: "The conclusion drawn by the Akeno pilots left little to the imagination: In short, it stated that given equally skilled pilots, the Ki-100 (585 km/h) would ALWAYS win a fight with the Ki-84 (640-660 km/h) in any one-to-one combat. They further added that in a combat situation with up to THREE Ki-84s, the Ki-100 pilot could still develop the battle to his advantage. The results of the evaluations at the Hitachi school were just as clear-cut: [Captain Yasuro Mazaki] added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and WHILE CLIMBING." P. 77 -The maneuverability of the Ki-100 was the best of the Army's frontline fighters. with the exception of the Ki-43."
Actual best case late Ki-84 performance numbers from Japanese sources:
Ki 84-Ib: 4x20mm Ho-5 with 120 shells per cannon.
P /L: 4.1 lb /hp; Max speed: 410 mph /20,000'
Initial Climb: 3,787 fpm; Climb to 16,405': 6'54" (this is similar to a FW-190A-8)
W /L: 35.5 lb /sf
Ceiling: 34,449
Normal Range: 1,025
This is not to say the Ki-84 was a bad aircraft. It was also not as unreliable as claimed, at least if the pilot did not overstress the engine beyond 400 mph... It was simply average. Despite its button-triggered butterfly flaps, it had no outstanding feature or large advantage compared to Allied types, unlike the Ki-43.
In general, opinion of foreign aircrafts by test pilots are misleading, or, as in the case of the Ki-84, purely fabricated calculations based on a complete ignorance of the airframe. For instance, Eric Brown's conclusions about both the Spitfire and the FW-190A are the exact opposite of how they actually performed and were used for turning. Only front-line accounts are reliable, test pilot impressions of foreign equipment being nearly always useless.
The Ki 61 encountered the Supermarine Spitfire Mk 8 in Burma which was fitted with the Merlin Mk61 series engine they usually flew at low altitudes to support their own ground forces these late war aircraft were more or less evenly matched
Yotsuba! Excellent taste.
General LeMay lowered the bombing ceiling from 30,000 feet to 8000 feet.
Yotsuba is a very nice series!
Thanks....informative.
Yotsuba&! A man of culture and taste!
I would have liked to have learned which of the planes mentioned were naval aircraft and which were army. The two service branches had very different aircraft and tactics.
Out of the limited information available online on this fighter, one of the snippets one always hears is that when Japanese test pilots compared the KI-100 to the KI-84 the Ki-100 was always the superior plane and if it those two model planes fought each other, the Ki-100 would “ALWAYS” win.
While I can see that being easier to fly and having greater reliability were strong factors for making the KI-100 a better all-around plane for the Japanese to produce, the improved maneuverability, alone, wouldn’t seem to automatically make the significantly slower KI-100 a plane that would dominate the Ki-84. For example, using that logic, the Zero would’ve dominated the Hellcat, Corsair, P-38, P-47, and P-51, but it clearly did not.
Maybe they only tested them in low-speed turning fights? that would be consistent with how they usually focused on manoeuvrability above all else
Some Ki-84s were build with earlier Homare 12 engine, which had about 200hp less than later variants. In addition large amount of Homares were rated down due to poor quality.
Even Americans and British noted how slow it was to service and repair their own 18-cylinder radials compared to 14-cylinder radials, just because the cylinders were so much tighter together. Homare took that one step further by being brand new and very small for 18-cylinder engine. Meanwhile Ha-112-II in Ki-100 descended from long line of Kinseis and it had a well matured direct injection system.
As a result most Ki-84s had top speed somewhere between 600 and 650km/h. In typical Japanese fashion Ki-100's 580km/h top speed is on military power. In higher emergency power setting it would likely reach just slightly over 600km/h. That's just not enough advantage over Ki-100 to make the difference. An underpowered Ki-84 would also lose in climb and turn. In dive performance Ki-100 is said to be the best Japanese fighter and fully able to keep up with American types it faced.
There's a myth about the Ki-100 being an outstanding fighter. The facts are that it did bring any significant performance increase over the Ki-61. It was 100 mph slower than the P-47N. Handling was excellent, and it offered very good maneuverability over its limited speed range. However, it was 40 mph slower than the Navy's F6F-5, and it was slower yet than the F4U-1D and the much faster F4U-4. At sea level, the P-51D could attain 367 mph. P-38L could do 345 mph. The F6F-5 could reach 335 mph. In contrast, the Ki-100 could barely reach 300 mph. That one battle between Hellcats and Ki-100s is often told out of context. The Hellcats were attacking ground targets when the Japanese fighters arrived at 12,000 feet. They attacked with the advantage of altitude and, consequently, speed. In the ensuing fight, 1 Hellcat and Ki-100 collided mid-air. Both crashed. Another Hellcat suffered an oil cooler hit. It turned for the carrier, but the lack of oil required the pilot to ditch. He was recovered. A Ki-100 was shot down, and two others badly shot up. One crash landed. The other limped home badly damaged. The Japanese disengaged. The F6F-5s lacked fuel to pursue. The corresponding Navy combat report can be found online. Japanese claims were consistently grossly exaggerated. US claims were validated by gun camera film. US losses were always accurate.
That was in a dogfight, where the Ki-100's longer wings and lower wingloading gave it a notable advantage. The Ki-84s (and every plane with the Homare engine) also suffered reliability issues, being sometimes detuned for reliability, that and other manufacturing issues with the Ki-84 meant that it wasn't that much faster than the Ki-100 - the usually quoted top speeds for the Ki-84 come from a rebuilt example tested in the US, which was of far higher quality.
@@CoreyCJordan The Hellcat's only advantage is straight line speed - versus climb rate, maneuverability, agility, visibility, all firmly on the Ki-100's side. Poor japanese pilots are likely the cause of those results.
I think your "middle ground" approach for losses is a very bad approach. Kill claims often vastly outnumber actual confirmed kills. When tallying losses, the side who lost a plane is almost always far more reliable, because they have exact knowledge of what they had and what they now have.
Why would self reported combat losses be subject to your revision? Would a US squadron lose "three or four" aircraft and somehow mistakenly report only one loss? For what reason?
I agree. Losses reported on both sides should be taken at face value unless there is significant data available to the contrary.
"Ki" is a single letter in Japanese, pronounced "key". So, when referring to aircraft makes we usually say key-100 instead of k.I. 100. Not a big deal.
Kawasaki Ki-100 vs Focke Wulf Dora longnoase please!
Mention of various U.S. aircraft, but was there any interaction with UK types, if only from carriers?
The one with the cut down rear is very similar to the La5 La7 in profile
The wings are very different.
@@splitsandpens In profile, no one said exact duplicate! With the oil cooler or air intake on top of the cowling and the exhaust stacks on the sides. And the cockpit is also similarly extended after the razorback cut down. The similarities are due to both being based on aircraft with inline engines and razorback fuselages.
I was thinking the same thing. It makes sense that they would, both airframes were originally designed for an inline engine then were converted to a radial engine.
anime and military history goes hand in hand.
7:35-
Big shout out to the legendary P40 'Warhawk'!
(Although, my first model kit, and therefore my favourite designation, was the 'Kittyhawk' version, Mk IV onwards I think..?)
🤘🤘
🍄
The Kawasaki Ki 61 Hien " Tony " , first I time I heard of Them using Mud as Coolant , Its one of my Top japanese WW2 Fighters ..
0:27 BASED yotsuba& enjoyer
That engine the German DB601 was in the Japanese aircraft and yes we were confused at first. I actually think that’s Japan’s most beautiful aircraft. KI61 was a great aircraft. Too bad there’s none left that I know of maybe pieces and blueprints but I don’t think we got a working example. The P47N was the best WW2 fighter of them all.
Id watch the heck out of IHYLS2 where you talk about random topics of interest
Seeing Zero Two pop up at the very end was an unexpected surprise 😆
So what im hearing is they should have put a compressor fan just inside the engine cowling and made the cowling as tight to the engine as possible. Like in the 190.
Not really. The Ki-100 never needed the cooling fan at the front as it ran much cooler than the Fw190s did.
What it "needed" was to simply show up earlier.
@@reinbeers5322 Interestingly, a later version of the FW190 (the Ta-152) used an inline engine & didn't make it much more "close cowled" than the ordinary ones.
@@bryanwheeler1608 That was because the Fw 190 Ds used a "Kraftei" installation (translates to power-egg, roughly) where all the radiators and coolant/oil lines are contained within the engine cowling.
So, if an engine swap was needed due to damage or for maintenance, they could just swap the whole thing and get that aircraft back in the air instead of having to take half the plane apart.
They could also just ship those engines in crates, complete with the engine cowling and everything, ready to go - this was also done with the BMW 801 radial in the radial-equipped Fw 190s; their multi engined aircraft like the Ju88 and Do 217 also had this, and others I can't remember right now.
The Fw190 D9 was still _very_ fast so I don't think it made much of a difference. The maintenance advantage was definitely worth it.
Oh yes! Please continue on this Japanese line, with the Kawanishi N1K Shiden Kai (George) and Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Jack). :)
Anime... LOL!🤣What first come in my mind are the quartz watches (which made the quartz crises in the 70s what made the Swiss watch companies almost crap themselves) and cheap yet very good cars.
The N1K story should include its seaplane origins because that’s always amazed me.
Yes! The J2 series is one of baddest ass fighters they had. Performance was great.
KI 61 was japans version of the 109
As an aviation, watch, and auto enthusiast...I very much resonate with this comment
@@fjohnson9749 Common mistake. Just because you put a Toyota engine into a Jaguar, it won't be a Toyota. Their engines had a common root, but I'm quite sure the Ha-40 was not a "ctrl+c - ctrl+v" version of the DB601. Also a variant of the Ki-61 had a pair of MG151/20, but only about 600 cannons were transported to Japan on a submarine. So, not more than 300 fighters could be equipped with that. And the rest, the whole plane, was a totally different one. Just like the Italian ones.
Incidentally, the radiators associated with liquid-cooled engines also produce significant amounts of drag, although that could be mitigated somewhat by designing the radiator to use the Meredith Effect. I remember getting into arguments with people who were convinced that liquid-cooled engines had a significant drag DISADVANTAGE compared to air-cooled radials because the air-cooled radials didn't have a radiator. 🤣
Recently..watched a documentary on the Japanese flight testing of the ME-109B in 1943…
A very poetic description😂
You forgot the F4F-U Corsair and the P-39/P-400 Airacobra and the F6F Hellcat
the 61 looks like a c202 falgore, what about the Jack?
The letter Ki in Japanese was used as an abbreviation for airplane ''Hikoki''. In IJAAF service it was pronounced ''KEY.'' The IJNAS used a different system, so a ZEKE was an A6M5. For Attack, type 6, Mitsubishi, version 5. Very much like the USN's use of F4F for Fighter, 4th type, from ''F'' = Grumman.
Interesting that the Ki-100 never got a McCoy Code name.
Not quite correct on what ki stands for, actually it is from kitai. 機体, for airframe.
The "A" in A6M stood for carrier type fighter.
@@richarddouglas688 OK. Thanks for the correction. I knew there was some semantic relation, somewhere. KITAI = Airframe. Got it.
@@Nghilifa OK. Got it. Domo.
Watching the film, Eternal Zero, I noticed that the pilots weren't wearing oxygen masks or having radios, Was this normal in the Zero and other Japanese aircraft, please?
That references how unreliable ALL radios were in south pacific at the time- A trend which made pilots rip the radios out.
One assumes the film is an accurate portrayal of IJN aerial kamikaze attacks. While the aircraft were flown above 10-12K feet (3000-3700 meters), the pilots would have to be on oxygen.
Oh, and Yotsuba is great, good choice 😆
The p 38 was much better..we’re did you get your info from?
Next video, the "Jack", the real intended replacement for the Zero.
Vere few planes in the war could justify having an inline engine, and that was only because the planes themselves had other traits like long range or good high altitude abilities etc. Radial engines were the best type of engine for the war, and made sense for every kind of mission.
The KI 61 was the Japanese variant of the Heinkel HE 112. Japan purchased 6 before the start of ww2 for evaluations. They flew them in China and were impressed. In a way, the KI 100 is kind of the Japanese FW 190 due to its German roots.
I don't understand why they didn't add turbo superchargers to boost high altitude performance from the start,
Ki-100 was too late. but very cool.
Oh, the zero 2 !!! :P
Hm, the picture of the "one" K100 in Hendon looks strangely like a model-plane. funny perspective......
If you want to compare the Ki-61 with other axis fighters I would suggest the Italian Folgore rather than the German Bf-109 ; considering the fact that Bf-109s have either round noses or conic noses cut straight at the tip depending on the variant, while the folgore is actually pointy.
Japan like Italy tried to stick with domestic produced radial engines but like Italy they lagged in radial engine development.
the Macchi C.205 was one of the three "Serie 5" Italian fighters built around the powerful Daimler-Benz DB 605 engine. The C.205 was a development of the earlier C.202 Folgore. With a top speed of some 640 km/h (400 mph).
Yotsuba&! Is a fun read.