Why does the Ki-84 shed parts?

[Karnak]

As I understand it the Ki-84 was designed and built to greater strength factors than any other Japanese fighter.

Why does the Ki-84 lose parts at comparatively low speeds?  Shouldn't she hold together better than the A6M, N1K2-J and Ki-61?  (A6M2 needs a review in this regard as it holds together far beyond where it should).

If it is a quality issue, shouldn't other aircraft have structural issues modeled and shouldn't the Ki-84's landing gear be prone to failure?

[ded]

The KI-84 seems to hold together fine for me, fairly tough bird in my experience actually.

[Lusche]

Originally posted by ded
The KI-84 seems to hold together fine for me, fairly tough bird in my experience actually.

While defenitely considerably more resistant to battle damage, Ki-84 loosing parts at much lower speeds than A6M's.

[Wmaker]

I wondered this myself ever since the KI-84 was introduced. I do know that AH's damage model separates parts as complete control surfaces when they receive enough hit points so this might be irrelevant...but in RL in high speeds this could occur because of flutter.

Does anyone know if KI-84 had flutter problems? I haven't seen any sources which would mention it. It seems pretty odd that there would be such problems in a fighter aircraft that had properly balanced control surfaces and was test flown and mass produced.

EDIT/ I have to add that shortly after the plane was introduced I had to land it many times with rudder only...elevator and ailerons were both gone. /EDIT

[Saxman]

Considering Japan didn't exactly have exemplary quality control by the time the Frank entered service....

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Saxman
Considering Japan didn't exactly have exemplary quality control by the time the Frank entered service....

Indeed.  As I pointed out, if this is for that reason, why does the even later N1K2-J not shed parts.  Or the Bf109K-4.  Or Me262.

Nowhere else in AH is that modeled.

[ded]

Originally posted by Lusche
While defenitely considerably more resistant to battle damage, Ki-84 loosing parts at much lower speeds than A6M's.

I've never shed a part on one doing high speeds, and I am sure I've taken it much faster than the zeke.

[ded]

Originally posted by Karnak
Indeed.  As I pointed out, if this is for that reason, why does the even later N1K2-J not shed parts.  Or the Bf109K-4.  Or Me262.

Nowhere else in AH is that modeled.

The 262 is fragile as hell.  Every time I take one up I end up snapping wingtips.

[Lusche]

Originally posted by ded
I've never shed a part on one doing high speeds, and I am sure I've taken it much faster than the zeke.

That only tells me you didnt take the A6M fast enough.

[Saxman]

Karnak:

Maybe it has something to do with the Frank's control stiffness as airspeed builds up? I seem to recall that while the Zeke and Frank tend to get mushy at higher speeds, the George doesn't really have this problem so much.

I could sort of see where the strain of overcompensating for this sort of loss of aileron or elevator authority could damage the control surface.

[Stoney74]

Well, it could also have to do with the actual structural components of the aircraft.  IIRC, Widewing was talking about how the Zero series didn't have a continuous spar that ran through the fuselage.  It was actually 3 pieces bolted together at the wing root.  This was apparently a result of the Japanese lacking the ability to cast a single piece spar.

Taking that idea forward, and I'm just guessing here, that as the shortage of raw material and decrease in manufacturing potential as the war went on, they may have had to make certain design tradeoffs that weakened the structure--not by manufacturing quality control (which as I understand it isn't modeled in AH) but rather simple constraints placed upon the design as a result of lack of either materials or facilities capable of making the parts the plane should have had, had the designers been able to create the structure they wanted.

Perhaps?

Anyone know if there was favortism shown Nakajima versus Kawasaki by the Japanese government?  Perhaps Nakajima received more materials and manufacturing support than did Kawasaki?  (Niki being Nakajima while Ki-84 was a Kawasaki product).

[ded]

Originally posted by Lusche
That only tells me you didnt take the A6M fast enough.

Did you miss the part that I was talking about the Ki?  And as far as the Zeke goes I know the limits of it and generaly don't push past them because I really hate it when hamfisting breaks my aircraft.

[Lusche]

Originally posted by ded
Did you miss the part that I was talking about the Ki?  

No, I didn't miss it.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Stoney74
Anyone know if there was favortism shown Nakajima versus Kawasaki by the Japanese government?  Perhaps Nakajima received more materials and manufacturing support than did Kawasaki?  (Niki being Nakajima while Ki-84 was a Kawasaki product).

My impression (based on post war allied engine docs on Japanese engines) is that Nakajima was seen as more experienced company with good developement ability while Kawasaki obviously had problems in the developement as well as in production quality. Nakajima did develope and build their own engines while Kawasaki built and developed licensed engines.

And the Ki-84 was a Nakajima product while the N1K was a Kawanishi product, not Kawasaki.

[humble]

My understanding is that the Ki suffered from dive related structural failure and loss of control surfaces to a degree that caused japanese pilots to avoid high speeds dives as much as possible. I do not recall anything specific regarding speed or G forces. I've always felt that the failures are at lower speed/loadings then make sense however. I'd assume any fighter should be fine till 420-430 and 3G's. Been awhile but I always felt you could "pop" a ki at 400 and high g's...