• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

New Ki-100 aircraft models by Allen!

Allen said:
CFS2 and FS04 contact_points don't quite work the same. Most of the time for me any FS04 contact_points will have the tires 1/4 to 1/2 buried underground in CFS2.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, so the Vertical Position values are different and also possibly static_cg_height and static_pitch.

By this way, I don't know exactly if the most sensitive balues, 8 Static Compression, 9 Max / Static Compression Ratio, 10 Damping Ratio, are correct with the same settings.

OK, I see, tests would be needed for CFS2.

...
 
Hello Allen,

Nice looking aeroplanes!

Which drawings did you use for your Goshikisen?
I have a Ki-61-II that has been on hold for a while because I could not find very accurate drawings and as you know, the initial Ki-100 was just a re-engine Ki-61-II.
The Ki-100 sometimes even had a Radiator Flap control for a Radiator that wasn't even installed any more.
The numbers I was getting for the Ki-61-II just never seemed to add up properly which is why I am asking about drawings.

Well constructed and maintained versions of either the Ki-84 or Ji-100 were quite competitive fighters
Most modern references typically understate their performance quite significantly.

- Ivan.
 
Ivan

The Ki-100 and Ki-84 are not being done by drawing but are being pattern after the model they the share the same texture with.

View attachment 46786

In this shot you can see Krzysztof Malinowski Ki-100 and the dark blue wings and light blue fuselage and engine are the start of my model. I will give any one the gMax sources if they believes I'm trying to steal anyone works. This is just a case of working from a 3d model instead of a 3 view drawing.

What are you missing from the Ki-61? Sometimes making since of Japanese aircrafts becomes hard because of the odd mix and match they did and things get lost over the many years.

SOLOBO

Its fine to upload a FS04 version with me. Just check Morton ReadMe first or contact him to make sure the texture is okay.
 
Hello Allen,

In the attached drawings, there is a comparison between the Ki-100 and Ki-61-II.
Note that in the Aft Fuselage, the panel lines are an almost exact match.
From other dimensional drawings, I know that the Aft Fuselage measurements between the two aeroplanes are the same.

Now....

Take a look at the comparison between the Ki-61-I (Late) and the Ki-61-II.
Note that there are pretty serious panel line mismatches in the Aft Fuselage even though the Wings are in very good alignment.

I built a model of the Ki-61-Id (AKA Ki-61-I-KAIc) many years ago.
I have a few dimensional drawings of the -I in both long and short Fuselage versions and my model matches those drawings as closely as possible.
In order to modify it to a Ki-61-II and eventually to a Ki-100, I need to move a few pieces around.
The problem is that although the overall dimensions are pretty well documented, I don't know where to put in the "Stretch" which I know is in there somewhere.
I was hoping that you had a better set of drawings that you were working from.
The problem with my drawings is that often the numbers that are labeled do not actually line up with the actual drawing when you scale them out, so knowing that, I prefer to use the labeled dimensions.

I know what you mean about Japanese documentation being hard to understand:
The model I built (which hasn't been released yet) is called a Ki-61-I-KAIc in early documentation but apparently such a designation didn't really exist or was changed very early on by the Japanese. The actual model was apparently called a Ki-61-Id.....

- Ivan.
 

Attachments

  • Ki-61&Ki-100.jpg
    Ki-61&Ki-100.jpg
    82.3 KB · Views: 1
  • Compare.jpg
    Compare.jpg
    69.8 KB · Views: 1
  • Length Comparison.jpg
    Length Comparison.jpg
    55.2 KB · Views: 0
Given the mess that is documentation for things like Japanese aircraft I would use what I think is right and call it good tell you find out otherwise.
 
Hello Allen,

The problem here is more a matter of idealism than anything else.
I had exact dimensions for the Ki-61-Id and all versions before it.
I know no one can see the discrepancies from my guessing at the dimensions but I still want them perfect.
The dimensions for Japanese aircraft are generally not that difficult to find because of books like the FAOTW and Maru Mechanic series.
The biggest problem is getting performance numbers because most of the common references are simply wrong.
As an example, the typical listing for maximum speed for the Ki-100 is 360 MPH and yet it was stated to be the equal of a P-51D in combat.
It makes more sense when one finds period documentation that puts the maximum speed at 397 MPH which makes more sense for 1500 HP fighter.
The Japanese way of measuring performance didn't line up well with practices of other countries at the time.

Still Looking for those numbers.

- Ivan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top