Why does the Ki-84 shed parts?

[leitwolf]

The Ki-84 high-speed automatic disassembly feature sure is odd .. even more so since the AH A6M will not lose stuff in power dives.

[AirFlyer]

Originally posted by humble
I'd assume any fighter should be fine till 420-430 and 3G's.

You've never dove a Zero then. 410 is its limit, anything past that usually means ground, water, etc unless you have Alt to work out of it.

Originally posted by leitwolf
The Ki-84 high-speed automatic disassembly feature sure is odd .. even more so since the AH A6M will not lose stuff in power dives.

The zero practically pulls itself out of a dive, it seems when it compresses it pulls hard right-up.

The only thing I don't get is why the A6M2 can out-dive an A6M5b, I would think later war versions would have better handeling at higher speeds.

[Stoney74]

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

Whoops!  Showed my slip a little there.  Thanks for the clarification.  For some reason I thought the "Ki" designation was Kawasaki, but the Ki-67 was built by Mitsubishi, so that theory goes out the window.

[Helm]

Originally posted by Stoney74
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). [/B]

as far as I know all "KI" means is the Japanese Army designation for the design ...it's not a for a manufacturer per say ....like  BF  or ME

[Karnak]

As I understand it, the A6M2 should not be able to exceed about 400mph without suffering structural failure.  The A6M5 added about 600lbs of aluminum to the skin (the skin is part of the structure in stressed skinned aircraft like nearly all WWII combat aircraft) to allow higher dive speeds.

"Ki" is just the IJAAF's designation for "airplane".  Only the IJN had funky codes for role and manufacturer.

[BaldEagl]

Because I'm behind it  

BTW, The A-20 sheds parts faster than the Ki-84.

[Karnak]

A-20 is a bomber.  All bombers have lower speed limitations.

[Angus]

A20 is an attacker/bomber, but it's a TWIN. Twice the wingspan of a KI84 with engines hanging on them wings....

[schlowy2]

My mem of an AW3 (AirWarrior3), 10 years ago:
AW3 ki84: was amoung he fastest but flimsy. 'Supposively' it would lose wings if it pulled too many g's. So, a 'supposive' tactic for fighting it was to try to trick the pilot into pulling high G's, usually they would stay at high speed anyways, so only needed them to pull back hard on the stick. I didn't fly it much, if at all, only against it, so I can't say for fact, only 'what I heard' other than the speed part.
AW3 fw190: I don't remmeber being able to break the AW3 fw190 plane in AW3 at all, aside from crashing or getting shot down, heh.

Here in AH2:
 I don't fly the Ki, sorry. However, in the AH2 fw190 I've broken both airlerons by trying to roll at too high a speed I guess. Not sure but I seem to lose stuff easily, including wings.
I'll exagerate here but this is my guess, park a GV at the center of a busy airfield, 9 out of 10 AH2 fw190's will be missing atleast 1 airleron. Seems the smallest amo gets my control surfaces. On the other hand, AH2 fw190's 20mm's dont' do crud unless lucky, FAKE.

Testing:
Karnak, do this test... one of the airfields in the training arena or dueling arena, I don't know which, but it has an airfield at 30k.
Take off each plane from the 30k base, dive to get speed, level out, write down alt and speed, and then pull back on stick or whatever and see what breaks and at what speed. Make a table of the 'failure' speed for this that and the other thing. Examples: instantly pulling back on stick, or slowly pulling back on stick, or rolling... 4g's or 5g's?
Could make a table of plane vs failure speed.
Which plane in the game breaks wings at the slowest speed; hence, which is weakest? Ofcourse we ONLY get a speed and climb chart so anyone's guess till test. Oh and the results are sposed to be 'historic fact' so believe it...

Flimsiest plane in the game:
I think I already know the answer to this one... AH2 Ta152... that thing can't even take off without losing something, let alone landing.
Lets have a landing contest with these things, who can land a AH2 Ta 152 losing the fewest parts, never mind lining up on a b24, BOGUS!!!
Oh yeah, and I can't tell ya how many times I'd lose the 30mm cannon. I get sprinkled from 6'oclock and I lose the 30 (which fires thru the nose).
Thanks for Ta152 guys, NOT!!!

[Karnak]

schowly2,

Trust me, I know how to test.  I have tested and posted data on many things.  In one case I got a change made based on the tests I ran.

The test you propose would reveal certain kinds of stress limits, but not really the ones I am talking about.  The Ki-84 and Mosquito would lose their elevators and/or ailerons.  Some others might too, but most aircraft would just break their wings off.  Certainly the P-51 and Spitfire pop their wings off like that.

What I am talking about is the loss of control surfaces due to manuevering at speed.  In the case of the Ki-84 it is creaking and groaning (AH stressed airframe warning sounds) if it is over 400mph.  If it manuevers at speeds over 450mph it risks losing control surfaces.  The Mosquito risks the same at a bit higher of speed.


Now all that would be fine if the Ki-84 was designed to low stress limits.  But what information I have says it was designed to greater strength factors than any earlier Japanese fighter.  In AH those would be the A6M2, A6M5 and Ki-61.  Since AH does not model reliability that should not play a role, the aircraft should stay together until it exceeds the manufacturers specs.  The heavy elevators on the Ki-84 are mentioned in my data.  Certainly the A6M2 should not dive to higher speeds than the Ki-84.


What I am looking for is historical data that indicates the Ki-84 had a design problem that caused it to break up at comparatively low speeds.

[Kweassa]

Could make a table of plane vs failure speed.

 WTF does it matter what speed it is?

 The only thing matters is the G stress on the wing, in which case a plane being able to snap wings off at high speeds is actually a testament to the light handling of elevators at speeds where many planes would experience controls getting heavy.

 So, go do your G level stress, and make your own thread about it, instead annoying other people with constant whining about ridiculous stuff which doesn't even make any sense.

 If you don't fly the Ki-84, WTF are you doing in this thread?

[Gianlupo]

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

Err.. can you be more specific, Lusche? How fast can you push the Zeke before losing parts? You have to be beyond 450 mph to do that on a Hayate....

[Hien]

Originally posted by Kweassa


 If you don't fly the Ki-84, WTF are you doing in this thread?

Learning how to counter it.  

[AirFlyer]

Originally posted by Gianlupo
Err.. can you be more specific, Lusche? How fast can you push the Zeke before losing parts? You have to be beyond 450 mph to do that on a Hayate....

I've done 479 in a Zero without losing parts or compression, but it was a shallow dive, not a 0G dive, which I guess makes all the difference.

Note this was True Airspeed, not indicated.