Author Topic: ki84's are a pain (Read 2952 times)

Widewing · « **Reply #30 on:** December 12, 2006, 08:51:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Actually, I very specifically remember a war-time evaluation mentioning the Spit14 has the same turning circle as its predecessors... I'm not good with searching stuff, but I'll see if I can come up with that report in the forums.

I've read this report... But, it was merely commentary, no actual data was offered.

"Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starboard. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV."

I have my doubts. While the two aircraft had nearly identical coefficients of lift, the Spitfire XIV was considerably heavier, IE: Higher wing loading. Those facts do not support the statement in the report. To compare the two directly, simply divide the different wing loadings by the coefficient of lift. That will give you a ballpark idea in terms of proportion. It would be nice to know if they actually measured turn radius or relied upon the pilot's perceptions.

My regards,

Widewing

1K3 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 12, 2006, 09:24:39 PM »

The Ki-84 and the Spitfire VIII in AH are almost equal in imo. I wonder if this can be said in real life Ki-84 vs Spitfire VIII match.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #32 on:** December 13, 2006, 12:11:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
The Ki-84 and the Spitfire VIII in AH are almost equal in imo. I wonder if this can be said in real life Ki-84 vs Spitfire VIII match.

I don't know that the Spit VIIIs ran into Ki-84s. It was mostly Oscars and the Spit drivers were told early and often, don't turn with them.

Lessons had been hard won early in the war when the Hurri's and Spit Vs came to the Pacific and tried to rely on what in the ETO had been their superior turning ability. It didn't work against the Japanese birds.

Angus · « **Reply #33 on:** December 13, 2006, 01:45:10 AM »

Somewhere I read about Clive Caldwell attacking a formation of Japanese aircraft from well below. In speed, climb and dive as well as high speed handling the Japanese planes could not touch his Spit VIII.
Another pilot, M.C."Bush" Cotton also comments on it as doing 420 mph and hitting 20K in 5 minutes. How does that rack up with the Ki84?

Krusty · « **Reply #34 on:** December 13, 2006, 11:20:27 AM »

Just from AH modeling, I'm of the mind that the Ki is superior. Once the speeds drop after merges, and what-not, the Ki has the upper hand with its turn capabilities. Especially when the speeds reach stall speed, because the spit might be uber, but the Ki is uber-UBER, in the nose-up-spiraling-climb aspect. Spit might be able to spiral climb, but the Ki can do it tighter and at a higher angle, and lower speeds, so all you have to do is get slow and the ki does a yo-yo on you and you're a goner.

Just my thoughts.

1K3 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 13, 2006, 01:31:25 PM »

http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php

I compared the Spit VIII and Ki-84 with gonzoville AH charts. The spit 8 and Ki 84 are almost equal in speed, acceleration, turn radius, and firepower. The spit 8 beats the Ki-84 in climbrate (spit has ~700 fpm advantage at WEP).

Angus · « **Reply #36 on:** December 13, 2006, 02:13:02 PM »

Krusty, try the Spit VIII in spiralling climb. I love it when the XVI is on your tail and stalls out

In RL, AFAIK, nothing really caught a Spit in a spiralling climb.

SgtPappy · « **Reply #37 on:** December 13, 2006, 08:49:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Woops, turns out to be the AFDU report 117 on the Spit14 that states the Spit14 has the same circle as the Spit9... My bad.

Not sure if anyone had noticed... but that site compares the XIV to a Tempest V... not a Spitfire Mk.V.

Additionally, the Spitfire 8 and 9 turned almost identically, but in the game, the 8 turns much better. HOWEVER, the Spit9 should be a little better in rolling, especially at low altitudes, while, in the game it seems to roll the same. Considering that the Mk.VIII in the game has shortened airlerons, it should roll a bit worse. If the 8 in the game had the extended wingtips, it would roll even worse. In all, the Mk.IX's maneuverability is underrated, and the Mk.VIII's speed is underrated. The only (or main) thing
which the Mk.IX lacks over the VIII is range - and even then, the Mk.IX's of late WWII had large rear-fuselage fuel tanks, giving them better internal fuel range than the Mk.VIII. The mk.VIII is also less likely to rip apart in high-G maneuvers since it's a little stronger, structurally. Its tailwheel makes it a little more aerodynamic too, but not hugely.

Also, the spit16 was essentially just a 9 with an American-built, Packard-Merlin 266 (the 2 in front of the 66 was added as an RAF measure to make sure no1 screwed up the maintenance since the American built-Merlin had slightly different tooling needed to fix it). The plane should perform almost identically to the Mk.IX, and climb rate should be slightly worse if anything, since the design is the same as the Mk.IX, yet with an ever-so-slightly higher wing loading. Its turning seems okay, however.

Climbing is a different story. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8tac.html
According to the tests, the Mk.VIII should only drop under the mk.IX in climb under 10,000'. Above such altitudes, the Mk.VIII should be better in climb. Both with and w/out WEP, in the game, the 9's and 16's outclimb the 8 until at least 16,000' according to Gonzo's tests.

*Note* - not sure of the octane ratings of the a/c tests, but most other test factors are listed. Please enlighten me as to what I'm getting wrong here (probably a lot).

Kweassa · « **Reply #38 on:** December 14, 2006, 12:59:12 AM »

Quote

Not sure if anyone had noticed... but that site compares the XIV to a Tempest V... not a Spitfire Mk.V.

err... actually, it compares it with the Spit9 when the turning circle is mentioned.

Quote

TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX
13. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).

Range & Endurance
14. The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 gallons of oil. When handled similarily, the Spitfire XIV uses fuel at about 1 1/4 times the rate of the Spitfire IX. Its endurance is therefore slightly less. Owing to its higher speed for corresponding engine settings, its range is about equal. For the same reasons, extra fuel carried in a long-range tank keeps its range about equal to that of the Spitfire IX, its endurance being slightly less.

Speeds
15. At all heights the Spitfire XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.

Climb
16. The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.

Dive
17. The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.

Search View and Rear View
20. The search view from the pilot's cockpit is good; the longer nose of the aircraft interferes with the all-round visibility, which remains the same as that of the Spitfire IX. Rear View is similar.

Sighting View and Fire Power
21. The sighting view is slightly better being 4 deg (140 m.p.h.) as against 3 1/3 deg. The two bulges at the side cause little restriction. The firepower is identical with the Spitfire IX.

Armour
22. As for the Spitfire IX

Conclusions
23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #39 on:** December 14, 2006, 02:08:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SgtPappy
Not sure if anyone had noticed... but that site compares the XIV to a Tempest V... not a Spitfire Mk.V.

Additionally, the Spitfire 8 and 9 turned almost identically, but in the game, the 8 turns much better. HOWEVER, the Spit9 should be a little better in rolling, especially at low altitudes, while, in the game it seems to roll the same. Considering that the Mk.VIII in the game has shortened airlerons, it should roll a bit worse. If the 8 in the game had the extended wingtips, it would roll even worse. In all, the Mk.IX's maneuverability is underrated, and the Mk.VIII's speed is underrated. The only (or main) thing
which the Mk.IX lacks over the VIII is range - and even then, the Mk.IX's of late WWII had large rear-fuselage fuel tanks, giving them better internal fuel range than the Mk.VIII. The mk.VIII is also less likely to rip apart in high-G maneuvers since it's a little stronger, structurally. Its tailwheel makes it a little more aerodynamic too, but not hugely.

Also, the spit16 was essentially just a 9 with an American-built, Packard-Merlin 266 (the 2 in front of the 66 was added as an RAF measure to make sure no1 screwed up the maintenance since the American built-Merlin had slightly different tooling needed to fix it). The plane should perform almost identically to the Mk.IX, and climb rate should be slightly worse if anything, since the design is the same as the Mk.IX, yet with an ever-so-slightly higher wing loading. Its turning seems okay, however.

Climbing is a different story. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8tac.html
According to the tests, the Mk.VIII should only drop under the mk.IX in climb under 10,000'. Above such altitudes, the Mk.VIII should be better in climb. Both with and w/out WEP, in the game, the 9's and 16's outclimb the 8 until at least 16,000' according to Gonzo's tests.

*Note* - not sure of the octane ratings of the a/c tests, but most other test factors are listed. Please enlighten me as to what I'm getting wrong here (probably a lot).

Regarding the 8 and 9 test. Both had Merlin 63s. The Spit IX in AH is an FIX with a Merlin 61 while the VIII is an LFVIII with a Merlin 66.

In the test the VIII had the extended high alt wings of the very early VIIIs and the VII. It also was carrying more internal fuel then the IX. And the VIII was a heavier bird to begin with.

In AH the VIII with 50 fuel is carrying more then both the IX or XVI. I think if you had them at the same fuel load internally it would be different on the climb. And again of the three 2 stage Merlin Spits in AH the VIII is the heavier of the three.

SKJohn · « **Reply #40 on:** December 14, 2006, 10:55:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by humble
hog vs spit16

I probably have a dozen more lying around if you want em.....

Thanks Humble!

Noir · « **Reply #41 on:** December 14, 2006, 01:15:30 PM »

I don't include spit16 when I'm talking about spits...this thing is a flying game exploit, its turn rate should be porked to me, especially over 15k high as the wingtips are here for some reason aren't they ?

the spit8 does not turn better compared to a spit9, it got a retractible tailwheel that adds some weight on the tail and is heavier in general (wing tanks etc). If you use the spit8 like a turning plane you got it wrong IMO, and wont survive. I'm a dedicated spit pilot when uping as fighter (check my kill stats) and the spit8 is what I choose when I need bnz capabilities, using its turn is the last resort when some pure bnz plane catch me. As for the spit9 it bleeds E like mad, but as some magical feeling in turns and some outrageous low speed climb rate.

Many people say that spits (not the 16) are for noobs, but I don't think so. Flying with a mix of turns and speed is not that easy, as in turns hurris&co will tear you in pieces , and in speed P51&co will nail you. Not to mention its paper wings that fall with a few pings. Flyin spits requires some serious SA, and great knowledge of all planes capabilities, because you don't have any feat that gives you a sure advantage over all the other planes.

As for the KI84 when I fly spits I simply try to run from them or kill them fast. Spit8 will loose in a low speed turnfight but it has some advantage in dive, the spit9 will be equal on turns but can't outrun the Ki84. Only option is to be lucky that the pilot is not Wilbuz and try to win in a turnfight, or use your situation to end the fight right away, or just dive away.

Ki84 is THE turnfighter hunter. F4U's better not get caught slow on the deck

Angus · « **Reply #42 on:** December 14, 2006, 05:48:41 PM »

Spit VIII is also a turnfighter hunter. (Take a slipper tank and max 50% fuel)
Seafire is a turnfighter hunter
Hurricane is a turnfighter hunter
Zeke is a turnfighter hunter, - lol, if you find a gaggle of turnfighters....

Benny Moore · « **Reply #43 on:** December 14, 2006, 06:15:39 PM »

Zekes! Ha ha, those little guys always make me laugh. I call them "crunchies." The other day someone was asking me to ban the Zekes. I told him that Zekes are easy kills, but he kept insisting that they were the most deadly airplane in the game. Finally, I told him to take up a Zeke and I'd show him why they're junk. I was flying my P-38, of course, and you can guess the outcome. He stopped saying that the Zekes are the best!

SgtPappy · « **Reply #44 on:** December 14, 2006, 06:21:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
err... actually, it compares it with the Spit9 when the turning circle is mentioned.

Ha... I'm just going to huddle i my little corner now.

Anyway, Guppy... it has a Merlin 61, huh? Wow I should have considered that possibility. That makes so much more sense as to why it performs smellier...

Noir... according to the test of Gonzo, the Spit9 turns worse. Did they fix that in the most recent major patch? If so, I may fly it. However, next to the Hayate, the Hogs (especially the 4-Hog) seem to be uber dangerous enemies for me - mostly because of their turning with flaps. I believe their was a discussion, but how are these flaps making outturn the Spits?

The only thing I can think of is the 'inverted gullness'... but many say that's a bad assumption. Even good ol' Saxman stated that the F4U's flaps help it turna little TOO well. Wing loading was in favor of the Spitfire and I still need to know how the other factors stack up. I believe someone in another thread stated that he was told by an F4U pilot that a good Hog pilot could outturn Spits. However, it is known that some P-38 pilots said that they'd outturn Zekes... heck, even Saburo Sakai said that according to www.p-38online.com , yet we all know that THAT wasn't very likely. I'll continue on my research to see what I can find.