Author Topic: Official NiK2 performance data. (Read 560 times)

fscott · « **on:** October 14, 2000, 11:08:00 PM »

Here's some numbers from "The Great Book Of World War II Airplanes", written by 8 authors including legendary Jeffrey L. Ethell. I am sure some of you have this book. For those that don't, it is over 600 pages in length and covers 12 of the great combat aircraft of WW2, including every variant and prototype. I would assume the data is at least accurate enough to compare to performances in AH.

First a quote about the NiK2-J: "In combat 'George' was regarded as an ineffective interceptor due to it's relatively poor climbing capability. However, the Shiden Kai, as it was named, was considered an outstanding fighter in air engagements on equal terms with the best Allied fighter aircraft."

There are two interesting points here. First it had a poor climb rate for interepting allied bombers. Second, it was considered on equal terms with the best allied pacific aircraft. We all know it is a great turner and has good top speed, it is the climb rate that I argue. Someone stated that AH models the Niki as climing to 6000 meters in just over 5 minutes. That seems like a pretty good climb rate to me. Now for the official data from this same book.

Model 21 NiK2-J "George"
Max speed: 321 kts (369 mph) at 5600 m (18,370ft)
Time to climb to 6,000 meters (19,690ft): 7 min 22 sec.
Weights: Empty 5858 lbs, Loaded 8820 lbs.
Engine: Nakajima Homare 21 rated at 1825 hp at 5740ft.

Seems to me that if AH models the Niki at just over 5 min to 6000 meters, something is definately wrong.

fscott

Fishu · « **Reply #1 on:** October 15, 2000, 12:05:00 AM »

If other than 'LW uber fan' is talking against N1K2, then 'LW whiners' does not go through this time

funked · « **Reply #2 on:** October 15, 2000, 12:49:00 AM »

Read this thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/005910.html

Read what Vermillion and GATT are saying.

Then go look at the N1K2 performance chart: http://www.hitechcreations.com/n1k2.html

N1K2 in AH does indeed have very poor climb above 10k feet. Against a bomber near 30k feet it would be a useless plane, with less than 1000 fpm climb rate.

It's also got a poor top speed near 375 mph, and that speed is possible only in a narrow altitude range.

Just because you found a book with different climb and speed data than Pyro has, it doesn't mean you are right and he is wrong.

gatt · « **Reply #3 on:** October 15, 2000, 04:12:00 AM »

Funked,
top speed is right, climb time is somehow strange indeed. However, what I find amazing are not those figures, but the way the kite can handle E. Now, with 1.04 FM the thing is even worst.

What I have learned in one year must be re-learned. Those green devils can do a flat turn, without loosing E, and then accelerate to catch up with a fast non manoeuvering extending fighter? Hmmmmmm ....

------------------
GATT
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights

funked · « **Reply #4 on:** October 15, 2000, 04:39:00 AM »

Maybe the people who measured the 7'22" climb didn't use WEP? What was the weight and power setting for this test?

As for energy retention, let's see some calculations or test data on what it should do in real life. Otherwise any complaints are just pure B.S.

gatt · « **Reply #5 on:** October 15, 2000, 05:25:00 AM »

BS apart, the real problems are the arena balance and FM credibility. You can model any kite the way you want, however she must fit well in the plane set.
In the MA you encounter NIKIs and C-Hogs, 4x20mm kites, E-wonder kites, does it tell you anything? Balance, you have to preserve it.

busa · « **Reply #6 on:** October 15, 2000, 05:32:00 AM »

Some books say that N1K2-J climbs to 19685ft in 7min 22sec.
Against those, IJN official manual says that N1K2-J climbs to 19685ft in 6min 20sec.

When performance of N1K2-J was measured in the Japanese navy,
weight of N1k2-J was 3800kg(8388lbs).

The maximum speed wasn't measured with the full performance of the engine.

The pilot traning manual for N1K2-J says as follows.
climbing : 2900rpm, manifold pressure 250mm/Hg, speed 149mile.

The "Homare" engine(NK9H) full perfomance
: 3000rpm, manifold pressure 350mm/Hg(over boost 500mm/Hg).

[This message has been edited by busa (edited 10-16-2000).]

funked · « **Reply #7 on:** October 15, 2000, 06:06:00 AM »

Maybe B.S. was the wrong word. I'm not accusing anybody of being dishonest.

However I just don't see the balance problem. N1K2 was an outstanding design - it SHOULD be a popular plane. Similar to the F8F if you look at the design parameters.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-15-2000).]

gatt · « **Reply #8 on:** October 15, 2000, 07:33:00 AM »

Thx for infos BUSA. Well, I can stand a late war plane set, thats my problem.

fscott · « **Reply #9 on:** October 15, 2000, 08:30:00 AM »

Glad to see this thread is taking on a different tone than the rpevious Niki thread. Look, I'm not debating whether AH models the Niki correctly. I stated some numbers and am simply questioning if someone says the Niki climbc this much in AH and book numbers say different it is something to consider.

Someone just said, hey until you have real numbers on E-bleeding for Niki, it is all BS. The I think the same should/would apply to HiTech and the team. Let's see their numbers. Where do they get the numbers to input into the code? Is there a book, is there documentation, let's see it.

I'm not demanding anything. Asking only. Since this seems to be a hot issue with many $30 per month subscribers who demand accuracy, I think it would be fitting to see where the team gets their numbers. I think that would put an end to the debate as to whether the Niki can do what it can do in the arena.

fscott

Jigster · « **Reply #10 on:** October 15, 2000, 01:04:00 PM »

Well the N1K2 still has a FUBAR flaps worked into the model, and the Homare engine worked once out of every three flights, and lack of trained ground crews made things even worse

Anyway, I don't think the proper drag is being induced on the N1K2 during manuvers. Either the combat flaps are already included and have no drag upon being deployed (and a second set of flaps that do add drag but their purpose isn't quite clear to me

)

It's that or the N1K2 does not have it's combat flaps and should turn even better then it does now.

Someone got data on the flap deployment in landing/takeoff situations?

- Jig

wells · « **Reply #11 on:** October 15, 2000, 02:06:00 PM »

The George is 3000 lbs lighter than a Hellcat with the same power. How fast could a Hellcat climb to 20k? Take that time, multiply by 0.75 and see which 'official' figure is closer.

Vermillion · « **Reply #12 on:** October 15, 2000, 02:17:00 PM »

Ah hell Wells, its a Japanese plane.

That means its slow, it has no guns, and has no power !!!

Oh wait... it doesn't??

ITS PORKED ITS PORKED!!! NUETER IT !! NUETER IT !!

You guys are really gonna be hating life when the Ki-84Ib gets in the game.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

JoeMud · « **Reply #13 on:** October 15, 2000, 03:24:00 PM »

no reason to hate it cause sooner or later some people are gonna have enouph of it and just take there dollars elsewhere

funked · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2000, 03:31:00 PM »

Wells did some calculations of how well the planes should retain energy in a 4-g turn in this thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/005416.html

Here's the results, with higher numbers being better, results scaled so the Spit is 100.

Spit IX - 100
N1K2 - 82 (100% fuel, fuel capacity is unknown)
P-38L - 81
Macchi 205 -77
Typhoon - 73
Yak-9U - 72
109G10 - 72
F4u-1D - 69
La-5FN - 69
P-51D - 68
P-47D - 66
Fw-190A8 - 62