Tachikawa Ki-94-Ⅱ

[blackkite]

Hi Ki-94! Enjoy.
http://www.webmodelers.com/ki94.html
http://ksa.axisz.jp/OM64Ki94.htm

 

[T-50]

Very Nice links you send us again blackkite san!

 

[blackkite]

Hi Apteryx! You can find original KI-94-Ⅰ, KI-94-Ⅱ and HA44 engine blue prints in KI-94 book. It's very technical one.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Tachikawa Ki-94 Ⅱ.
You can see oil cooler under the engine cowling, two inter coolers under the wing, two air inlets to turbo charger at each side of the fuselage and turbo charger exhaust gas outlet at bottom of the fuselage. The engine was Nakajima turbocharged forced air cooling radial HA44.

http://homepage2.nifty.com/yamagiwa/reciprocal-1/Ki94II.htm

http://homepage2.nifty.com/yamagiwa/reciprocal_ENT.htm

 

[Stargazer]

Splendid! Thanks for sharing.

 

[windswords]

I read that the 6 blade propeller was not usable because it created to much of a "blur" that obscured the pilots vision. The production model would have had a 4 blade prop instead.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! There is a opinion that the No.1 aircraft(prototype) had a 4 blades propeller and the No.2 aircraft(production model?) had a 6 blades propeller.
The No.1 aircraft's exhaust pipe from the engine to the turbocharger was exposed to the atmosphere and the No.2 aircraft's exhaust pipe was buried in the fuselage, more clean shape.
I think this vacuum model is the No.2 aircraft and attached 3-side view is the No.1 aircraft.

Ki-94 Ⅱ specification
Wing span ; 14m, Length ; 12m, Height ; 4.61m, Wing Area ; 28m2,
Engine ; Nakajima HA-44-12+Ru-20 turbocharger, 2,100hp(12,000m)/1,750hp(14,000m)
Wing loading ; 248.5kg/m2, Maximum speed : 712km/h(at 12,000m), Service ceiling ; 14,000m
Pressurized cabin

Source : Ki-94 Illusion of high altitude fighter （キー９４　幻の高高度戦闘機）, Miki Shobo, ISBN4-89522-299-3 C0053

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

http://ksa.axisz.jp/OM64Ki94.htm


http://www.candymountain.jp/Home/planes/aviashow.html

 

[windswords]

Blackkite,

The Ki-87 from Nakajima was a very similar aircraft. Although the Ki-94-II did not get to fly, in your opinion would the Army have picked the Ki-87 or Ki-94 to mass produce?

Domo

 

[blackkite]

In February 1944, the IJA ordered Tachikawa to terminate Ki-94-Ⅰ development, because the after propeller was dangerous when pilot escape the aircraft, and there were many problems for turbo charger and inter cooler installation.
In March 1944, the IJA ordered Tachikawa to develop Nakajima Ki-87's design with pressurized cabin. BTW Tachikawa judged that Ki-87's high altitude performance was not enough, and Nakajima had their own Ki-87 develop plan which had pressurized cabin.
There were possibility of Ki-94 cancellation, Tachikawa offered to terminate Ki-94 project to the IJA. The IJA angried with this offer very much and forced Tachikawa to develop Nakajima Ki-87's design with pressurized cabin. At the time, Nakajima asked Tachikawa to offer pressurized cabin technology. Then Tachikawa decided to develop normal shape Ki-94-Ⅱ and the IJA agreed with this.
Then Ki-87 with pressurized cabin plan was terminated. The IJA picked Ki-94-Ⅱ as the high altitude fighter and had mass production plan.
(Also the original Ki-87 had 300 aircrafts mass production plan. BWT it's test result is bad(turbo charger), the IJA almost gave up to develop original Ki-87)
Ki-94-Ⅱ was completed in July 1945, under ground test situation when the end of the war, moved to the U.S, but never flied and lost.
Armament : two 30mm cannon, two 20mm cannon. (One of the most heavy armed fighter in the world at the day.)
Source : Japanese wikipedia

 

[windswords]

It seems that the Ki-87 was a "backup" to the Ki-94-II in case it didn't turn out to be the aircraft they hoped it to be. Much like the Americans with the B-17/B24, B-25/B26, and B-29/B-32.

 

[alfakilo]

It seems that the Ki-87 was a "backup" to the Ki-94-II in case it didn't turn out to be the aircraft they hoped it to be. Much like the Americans with the B-17/B24, B-25/B26, and B-29/B-32.

Sorry...misunderstood what you meant.

 

[windswords]

The Americans liked to have two aircraft types for each "mission" or purpose: heavy bomber, medium bomber, escort fighter, interceptor etc. That way if one of them failed to live up to its purpose the other might be more successful. Often both aircraft types would be successful and they could specialize: The P-51 as a fighter, the P-47 as a fighter bomber, the P-38 in the Pacific theater (two engines instead of one is nice to have when you fly over a lot of water). The bombers were more apt to follow this plan. So we have both the B-25 and B-26. Both capable medium bombers.
Turbo chagers were a new and unproven technology with the Japanese. If the intention was to stop the high altitude B-29 then concentrating on developing the Ki-94-II would make sense. The fact that they intended to produce a small number of Ki-87's tells me it was the backup in case the Ki-94 didn't work out as intended. Then they would put all their efforts into building more Ki-87's.

 

[Stargazer]

Very true, windswords. This is what really bugs me with modern-day procurement philosophy. Instead of procuring two competing types and assigning them to slightly different missions, the politicians and high brass want a do-all aircraft by only one manufacturer and no back-up plan in case they fail to deliver.

 

[alfakilo]

Very true, windswords.

If true, then this practice must have been true of every other major aircraft manufacturing country during WW2. Take a moment to consider the number of similar aircraft during that time...and then ask yourself...what's the point?

The description of the B-32 as a stand by design in case the B-29 was a failure is relatively common. I'm not sure the same could be said for other aircraft.

 

[Stargazer]

Very true, windswords.

If true, then this practice must have been true of every other major aircraft manufacturing country during WW2. Take a moment to consider the number of similar aircraft during that time...and then ask yourself...what's the point?

The description of the B-32 as a stand by design in case the B-29 was a failure is relatively common. I'm not sure the same could be said for other aircraft.

But what do you make of the famous century series?

The F-100 Super Sabre, F-101 Voodoo, F-104 Starfighter, F-105 Thunderchief and F-106 Delta Dagger were all procured during the same decade, served faithfully and complemented each other nicely. Which of them all could have single-handedly done the work of the other four? None of them!

I also consider the governments to be responsible for the disappearance of so many fine companies through irresponsible policies. In the 1950s and even 1960s, each of the major contractors knew that if they made good planes, there were contracts bound for them either from the Air Force or the Navy. And if Lockheed, for instance, already had a juicy contract in their hands, Convair or Northrop would be favored in the next competition. New competitions were issued regularly for a variety of types and a variety of roles.

No more! Many companies dwindled and faded because order never materialized, but also because large orders that had been made were called off. Now it's two competitors at the most on each competition, one major competition per decade, and all the other remaining companies working as subcontractors. And if the aircraft fails to deliver, there is no backup plan.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Comic

 

[alfakilo]

But what do you make of the famous century series?

Nothing. Your question doesn't relate to the original statement. The poster singled out the USA...my point was that the same could be said about the other countries in WW2.

 

[windswords]

I don't want to pull this thread off topic but it should be understood that the US had incredible industrial capacity during WWII. They also had some very good aircraft designers and manufacturers who could develop these planes. The other nations aliied and axis were not so fortunate. The FW-190 was not a backup to the ME-109 and the Tempest was not a backup to the Spitfire, although all of these models served side by side, just as the Zero was made till the end of the war even though the N1K2-J was clearly superior. By the end of the war Japan had just a few military needs and one of them was to stop the high flying B-29's. They had no functioning navy so as promising as the A7M was, they didn't need to push it's development. With the Ki-94-II they had a an interceptor that could reach the B-29's and be able to fight through the defensive fighter screen. I believe if it were 1942 instead of 1945 they would not have tried to develop the Ki-87 at the same time. Too much concentration on one aircraft type for a nation with a small industrial base. But in 1945 that was exactly where they needed to concentrate. So they were developing a primary interceptor and a back up in case the primary did not work out.

Now to get back on topic, here are some Ki-94-II pics for you to enjoy!

 

[blackkite]

Hi!


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ki-94-Tachikawa-Ki94-Airplane-Wood-Model-Free-Ship-New-/350048204856#ht_2003wt_1139

 

[alfakilo]

I don't want to pull this thread off topic but it should be understood that the US had incredible industrial capacity during WWII.

If you are going to make statements here, then you should be ready to discuss them. I doubt that anyone needs to be told that the US had an incredible industrial capacity in WW2.

They also had some very good aircraft designers and manufacturers who could develop these planes. The other nations aliied and axis were not so fortunate.

Where did you get the idea that "other nations" lacked very good designers and manufacturers? The very existence of this forum and its topics disproves that notion.

The FW-190 was not a backup to the ME-109 and the Tempest was not a backup to the Spitfire, although all of these models served side by side...

You are the only person here trying to make the case for substitute designs. During WW2, what major participant did not develop more than one type of design? Examples are numerous, but few were ever noted to be substitutes in the event that a competing design failed. The B-32 is the only one that comes to my mind. FWIW, the Tempest (even as the Typhoon) was not developed to the same specification as was the Spitfire. The Hurricane was.

With the Ki-94-II they had a an interceptor that could reach the B-29's and be able to fight through the defensive fighter screen.

The Ki-94-II might have been a successful design...we'll never know. But whether or not it would have been an effective design is going to be a function of numbers produced and the availability of high octane fuel and qualified pilots. Where were those going to come from?

 

[Stargazer]

You are the only person here trying to make the case for substitute designs. During WW2, what major participant did not develop more than one type of design? Examples are numerous, but few were ever noted to be substitutes in the event that a competing design failed. The B-32 is the only one that comes to my mind. FWIW, the Tempest (even as the Typhoon) was not developed to the same specification as was the Spitfire. The Hurricane was.

There was also the case of the B-18 Bolo vs. the B-17 Fortress.

 

[Arjen]

Macchi C.200 vs Fiat G.50
Halifax vs Manchester/Lancaster
Yak-1/7/9 vs LaGG-1/3, La-5

There are more. I think this topic deserves its own thread.

 

[windswords]

alfakilo,
You seem to want to get into a pissing match. I was simply trying to explain an earlier statement.

"Where did you get the idea that "other nations" lacked very good designers and manufacturers? The very existence of this forum and its topics disproves that notion. "

You misunderstood what I said. The other nations were not so fortunate to have the industrial capacity of the US, which allowed them to develop multiple weapons platforms.

"You are the only person here trying to make the case for substitute designs. "
You forgot what Stargazer said earlier.

I am not here to argue. I stand by my statements. If you don't like my opinions too bad so sad.

 

[alfakilo]

I am not here to argue. I stand by my statements. If you don't like my opinions too bad so sad.

Thank you for clarifying that your statements are nothing but opinion of which little is supported by fact, unusual for a forum that is noteworthy in its aversion to such things.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi

 

[Justo Miranda]

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
Source : THE XPLANES OF IMPERIAL JAPANESE ARMY & NAVY, GREEN ARROW.

 

[CherryBlossom]

Hi there! I am in need of important information regarding the Tachikawa Ki-94 II. The purpose is because developers of the game War Thunder, have trouble with finding Japanese documentation of specific aircraft, and they cannot implement an aircraft without a substantial amount of data. They have recently released a 'Tech Tree' which boasts of the planes they are currently working on. The Ki-94 II was not there, and many moderators are considering it to be a lack of sufficient data. The Japanese playerbase is now currently looking for data regarding Ki-201, Ki-87, and in my case, the Ki-94 II.

What i do have, are original drawings (Any more clearer ones would be appreciated) put forth by the designers's son himself.

What i do need (at this moment in time)
- is a picture of the cockpit and inside of the cockpit oft the Ki-94 II. May i remind its the second model (II) and not the (I) model.

- the specifications and estimated performance by Tachikawa - i do not want the one from the Book put forth by Edwin, because the devs want original documentation i believe. I need the original document of the performance. < -- this is very important.

- I will post more required information on this topic


I understand there are already topics on this aircraft, but i wanted this message to be seen by more people, and clearly visible to the community. I hope i can get the required information from this, as it will with getting a plane into a game. Thankyou for your time.

Links of already gathered data:
http://www.geocities.jp/pinealguy/tatsuo/tatsuo.htm
http://warbirdlover.tripod.com/id24.htm

Game Link:
http://warthunder.com/


Kind regards, Cherry

 

[Stargazer]

Did you search the forum before? We have a whole topic on the Ki-94 II:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14794.0

 

[CherryBlossom]

Did you search the forum before? We have a whole topic on the Ki-94 II:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14794.0

Ofcourse. But did you read my post? I wanted to allow a wider community to view and answer my question. But now, it doesn't really matter, thanks for your consideration.

Regards Cherry

 

[Jemiba]

.. But did you read my post? I wanted to allow a wider community to view and answer my question.

Yes, we read your post, of course, and as you may have noticed, the title of your post remained
unaltered, so those, who maybe have the information you're looking for, certainly will read it, too,
and can react then.
But just by doubling a thread, it's not very likely, that you would get something, that's not already
posted in the first one.
Maybe explicitely asking for cockpit photos in the Bar would be better, than in the early projects section.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
The second picture shows intercooler air inake size for turbocharged HA-44 engine.
So Fugaku HA-54 engine intercooler air intake size need double size compared with Ki-94 Ⅱ HA-44 engine intercooler air intake size, because HA-54 was a double HA-44 engine.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
http://www.geocities.jp/pinealguy/tatsuo/tatsuo.htm

You can see chief designer Tatsuo Hasegawa in the bottom picture.(wearing white cap.)

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
This aircraft include many hints for Fugaku bomber shape.
For example, turbo charging system size, pressurized cabin shape , window size for pressurized cabin, etc.

 

[blackkite]

Bravo!!! 　
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLJLo_I5l_g

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Control panel.

 

[blackkite]

Another Ki-94Ⅱmodel bottom.(1/48 scale)
You can see oil cooler behind the propeller,exhaust gas duct from the engine to the turbo charger, intercoolers beside the exhaust gas duct, turbo charger and ram air intake at both side of the fuselage.

」

キ94 Ⅱ(ソリッドモデル　1/48)　＞　飛行機フルスクラッチソリッドモデル製作＞2018年9月号

 

[blackkite]

Republic P-47 Thunderbolt had alomost same turbocharging system compared with Ki-94Ⅱ.
P-47 ram air intake/intercooler/oil cooler cooling air intake were located just behind the propeller and air duct was very large to avoid intake air pressure drop.
Intake air was devided into oil cooler cooling air, inter cooler cooling air and engine intake air.
Engine intake air was pressurized by turbocharger and cooled by intercooler, mixed fuel by carburetor then suppried to the engine.
I feel Ki-94Ⅱ system was more simple and light weight.

The Complexity of a WW II P-47 Thunderbolt’s Powerplant | The Lyncean Group of San Diego

 

[blackkite]

Hi!　Animation movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UkGY6U8sW8&t=406s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzImknj3tpI