Talk:Kawasaki Ki-100

Improper Picture

The two pictures shown here are not the Ki-100, in fact, they are of a Ki-84. I have removed them for the time being, such that suitable pictures can be found. --99.244.12.52 (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted because I'm an idiot and forgot they made non-razorback Ki-100's. --99.244.12.52 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the Best?

Can anyone here verify some of the claims made by the article? It claims to be one of the best aircraft in WWII but it is not very well known. While it's predecessor, the "Tony", was well-known for its manuverability, it was also very lightly armed. So it's possible that this plane was also very manuverable and a great plane. However, some confirmation of these claims would be nice. Comatose51 04:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree - it's seems to be somewhat over the top. Megapixie 13:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have found this in at least two sources, so I will try to add cites within a week or 2. If someone has a source to the contrary, they are welcome to cite it also. As to why this is not well-known, it was a stop-gap measure enacted near the end of the war to deal with an engine shortage for the Ki-61, illustrating that necessity is indeed the mother of invention. Btw, none of the article is sourced, so I'll try to do that at the same time. - BillCJ 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

14 Hellcats destroyed?

The comment stating "In one encounter over Okinawa, one Ki-100-equipped unit destroyed 14 Hellcats without losses to themselves." is a myth I believe. Myself and others have never been able to find combat reports to substantiate this claim. So while it has become widespread, I don't believe there is any truth to this remarkable claim.

Cite added, as I have no idea when the above was posted. Will remove the item from the text after 1 week. - BillCJ 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The description of this aircraft in combat simulation game "Fighter Ace" by Microsoft mentions an air battle in which a Ki-100 unit scrambled to defend it`s airfield and destroyed 14 Hellcats, but to the loss of 2 Ki-100s of which one (piloted by an 8 kill ace pilot "Captain (Tsutae?) Obara") was lost in a collision with a Hellcat. However this battle was described as one of the last of the war (happening a few weeks before Hiroshima if I recall correctly) so it rules out the possibility that it happened over Okinawa. I don`t know the credibility of this claim, but I thought It might be worth bringing it to your attention.

Veljko Stevanovich 20. Dec. 2006. 01:35 UTC+1

The "14 Hellcats" bit refers to an action on 25 July 1945. 18 Ki-100's of 244 Sentai encountered 10 F6F Hellcats of VF-31. The 244 Sentai pilots claimed 12 Hellcats, two more than were actually there. The real losses were two Hellcats, and two Ki-100's. One Ki-100 and one F6F were lost in a collision between Major Tsutae Obara and Ensign Edwin White in which both pilots were killed. Source is Henry Sakaida's Aces of the Rising Sun, ISBN 1841766186.ANA607 03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

???? and reference

Is there any particular reason for having the (????) after the "Type 5 Fighter" etc? It seems very distracting and doesn't seem to have any apparent purpose, other than looking like vandalism. The most interesting and informative articles I have come across, describing the development and combat record of the K1-100 appeared in the Aeroplane magazine of November 2005 http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com/ Giuseppe Picarella has spent more than 15 years working on the Ki-100 which in the Milestone of Flight hall at Hendon, the only surviving Ki-100 http://www.thomasgenth.de/Hendone/index.htm His sources for the article includes, amongst others, Robert C Mikesh, the Doi family, René Francillon; The articles are well worth reading and confirm the excellent flying qualities of the aircraft.Minorhistorian (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Stats?

Where are the stats from? The quoted max speed is lower than that quoted in the body of the article. Is it perhaps speed at sea-level? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

drawings

drawings would be nice FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)FockeWulf Fw 190FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"misidentified as a 'Tony'"?

I was under the impression that since the original Ki-100 models were, in fact, Ki-61 Tony airframes with a radial engine, that the US simply never bothered to assign a different name to the type, considering it a variant of the Tony. This is much like the Yokosuka D4Y Judy; it was always a "Judy", regardless of whether it was the inline or radial engine. Just because the IJAAF decided to give it a new type name, doesn't mean that the US army "mis-identified" it as a "Tony". Rather, they were observant enough to realize the new fighter was simply a radial-engined "Tony" variant. This is in contrast to the Mitsubishi Ki-21 Sally, which caused the US some confusion by switching from the dorsal "greenhouse" to a turret. For a short time, they thought it was a new type, and gave it a new name until they realized their error. Much the same thing occurred with the A6M5, IIRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Supercharged.

"Improvement of the basic model led to the Ki-100-II, with a supercharged engine for high-altitude interception of the B-29 Superfortresses, but only three examples were built, and it never saw combat." All contemporary performance aero engines were supercharged well before the war even began, often with two-speed superchargers. You aren't going to find an engine in service outside of a basic trainer that didn't have at least a single-speed, single stage Supercharger. Below in the list of variants it says that the Ki-100-II was fitted with a Turbocharger. I am going to change the link to reflect this, unless anyone has any problems with that. .45Colt 21:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kawasaki Ki-100. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040812172819/http://www.vectorsite.net:80/avhien.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avhien.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kawasaki Ki-100/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is a very good article. Informative and well-written. Organization is good. Gives a good description of the dire circumstances under which the Ki-100 was conceived. It does need sources and probably reorganization of the second to last paragraph discussing the armament. It's very technical and kind of wrecks the flow of the article. Maybe it should go under a separate armament heading, or in articles about the guns themselves. M Van Houten 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)