Tamiya 1:72 Kawasaki Ki-61 “Hien”

[Evangelion]

I believe it was the only Japanese WW2 aircraft to use an inverted inline engine, whereas the Germans did it all the time.

(That's why the 109s in the Battle Of Britain film looked wrong, because they were the Spanish derivatives, which had Merlins.)

[dr_gn]

Evangelion said:

I believe it was the only Japanese WW2 aircraft to use an inverted inline engine, whereas the Germans did it all the time.

(That's why the 109s in the Battle Of Britain film looked wrong, because they were the Spanish derivatives, which had Merlins.)

It was the only liquid-cooled engined Japanese fighter of the Pacific war. Inverted or otherwise, I don't think there were many (if any) in-line, V engined Japanese aircraft in that theatre. Most japanese fighters had air-cooled radials. Indeed, the subsequently developed Ki-100 was a radial-engined version of the Ki-61.

Strange how in car terminology, "in-line" is a completely different designation from "V" type engines, yet in aircraft they can both mean the same thing.

[Yertis]

I suppose that's because there are not too many radial-engined cars.

[dr_gn]

Yertis said:

I suppose that's because there are not too many radial-engined cars.

No, but there are rotary engined cars, yet in-line, V and horizontally opposed are still used to differentiate between the types.

In aviation discussions, it's often either inline or radial, despite there being many other configurations under the in-line designation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_engine_(aeron...

[CanAm]

Yertis said:

I suppose that's because there are not too many radial-engined cars.

This is the only one I know (plus the Sherman tank)

[LimaDelta]

CanAm said:

This is the only one I know (plus the Sherman tank)

Great, something else I now want but don't need and will never have. Thanks a lot.

[dr_gn]

Once saw a motorbike with a huge radial engine - kind of cool, but also kind of not.

[dr_gn]

Dark and grey washes applied, followed by a coat of clear ready for the camo decals. Despite them being great by all accounts, I’m still a bit apprehensive about a) applying them without them obscuring surface detail, and b) getting them all aligned properly so that the fuselage stripes fit between the upper and lower bits:

[Ayahuasca]

CanAm said:

Yertis said:

I suppose that's because there are not too many radial-engined cars.

This is the only one I know (plus the Sherman tank)

Goes around right hand corners beautifully. Left hand corners, not so much.



(Or maybe the other way around, I don’t know)

[robemcdonald]

Ayahuasca said:

CanAm said:

Yertis said:

I suppose that's because there are not too many radial-engined cars.

This is the only one I know (plus the Sherman tank)

Goes around right hand corners beautifully. Left hand corners, not so much.



(Or maybe the other way around, I don’t know)

Why would it be different from any other engine configuration?

[dr_gn]

robemcdonald said:

Ayahuasca said:

CanAm said:

Yertis said:

I suppose that's because there are not too many radial-engined cars.

This is the only one I know (plus the Sherman tank)

Goes around right hand corners beautifully. Left hand corners, not so much.



(Or maybe the other way around, I don’t know)

Why would it be different from any other engine configuration?

Torque reaction would probably be more, especially when the engine is changing speed, so if you’re accelerating out of a corner It would roll into or out of the corner depending on engine rotation.

The effect depends on how much mass is flying about in there though, where it’s located and how much torque is produced; might be no more than a more conventional longitudinally mounted engine.

[robemcdonald]

dr_gn said:

Torque reaction would probably be more, especially when the engine is changing speed, so if you’re accelerating out of a corner It would roll into or out of the corner depending on engine rotation.

The effect depends on how much mass is flying about in there though, where it’s located and how much torque is produced; might be no more than a more conventional longitudinally mounted engine.

It’s going to balanced though.

I thought the torque effect on aircraft was mainly due to the propeller.

Anyway apologies for the thread drift.

[dr_gn]

robemcdonald said:

dr_gn said:

Torque reaction would probably be more, especially when the engine is changing speed, so if you’re accelerating out of a corner It would roll into or out of the corner depending on engine rotation.

The effect depends on how much mass is flying about in there though, where it’s located and how much torque is produced; might be no more than a more conventional longitudinally mounted engine.

It’s going to balanced though.

I thought the torque effect on aircraft was mainly due to the propeller.

Anyway apologies for the thread drift.

Balance isn't the same as torque reaction.

Yes, the torque effect depends on the rotating weight in the engine and where it's located, with an aircraft the propeller that's attached to the engine will have a big effect. Like I mentioned, this one's probably not much different form a conventional engine.

[dr_gn]

I got the camo decals on this morning:





I concur with Snowen250’s opinion: they are really good. I thought they might look a bit wrong over the panel line wash, but they aren’t totally opaque, so the panel lines (and the red stencil lines) show through to an extent. Really good representation of a sprayed finish. The tiny print dots are apparent under very close scrutiny, I think this is a limitation of the printing process - the wood grain decals I used on the ‘naked’ Mosquito were similar in this respect.

Next the Insignia, stripes and the remaining stencils.

[Ayahuasca]

robemcdonald said:

Ayahuasca said:

CanAm said:

Yertis said:

I suppose that's because there are not too many radial-engined cars.

This is the only one I know (plus the Sherman tank)

Goes around right hand corners beautifully. Left hand corners, not so much.



(Or maybe the other way around, I don’t know)

Why would it be different from any other engine configuration?

To be fair, I was thinking it was a rotary engine, not a radial one.

Anyway, let’s let the good doctor get back to the Hien.

[dr_gn]

Ayahuasca said:

robemcdonald said:

Ayahuasca said:

CanAm said:

Yertis said:

I suppose that's because there are not too many radial-engined cars.

This is the only one I know (plus the Sherman tank)

Goes around right hand corners beautifully. Left hand corners, not so much.



(Or maybe the other way around, I don’t know)

Why would it be different from any other engine configuration?

To be fair, I was thinking it was a rotary engine, not a radial one.

Anyway, let’s let the good doctor get back to the Hien.

I did wonder about the rotary/radial thing - and you obviously mean rotary as in not RX-7 rotary (I can’t write the proper name because it just sounds so wrong).

[dr_gn]

There’s certainly a lot going on in this scheme: Metallics, intricate masking, mottling, stripes, insignia, stencils...for some reason I’ve always liked it:





One of the bomber tally stencils has a red fighter outline through it. This indicates a B-29 destroyed by a ramming attack. The mind boggles.

[dr_gn]

Fitted the exhausts:



And re-made the pitot tube out of brass:



Also used a clear “little lens” for the landing light. You can see the decal printing dots at that magnification:

[dr_gn]

Here it is finished:

Kawasaki Ki-61-Id "Hien" (Swallow)
2nd Lt. Shunzo Takashima
244th Air Group
Chofu, May 1945















And here it is with the other DB601 engined fighters I've built, the Macchi 202 Folgore, and Bf.109 E-4:





Next up: Airfix 1:72 Fairey Swordfish Floatplane, with some extra details. Cheers!

[CanAm]

dr_gn said:

Here it is finished:

Kawasaki Ki-61-Id "Hien" (Swallow)
2nd Lt. Shunzo Takashima
244th Air Group
Chofu, May 1945




Next up: Airfix 1:72 Fairey Swordfish Floatplane, with some extra details. Cheers!

This is getting ridiculous; dr_gn has even put a working DB601 in this one!!!