Ki-84

[Bruv119]

Hello Wilbuz,

Do you still have a copy of the movie Morpheus edited together, featuring your imba Ki-84 sortie? I lost my copy and back up copy.

not a very good backup then     have you bought a new PC yet?

[Kazaa]

Well I lost the backup lol. :S

[Messiah]

Wilbus where u been ?

[Widewing]

As well, I believe the American set is modeled with 150 octane (I could be wrong)....

If it were, the P-38s would be pulling 70" MAP, the P-51s 72" MAP....  No, the American aircraft are modeled for 100-130 avgas.

I think that a lightly perked 150 octane option would be nice, both for the USAAF and RAF fighters of that late-war period.


My regards,

Widewing

[Die Hard]

I don't think a single plane in game uses 150 grade fuel.

Several in fact, but none of them are Allied. The 110C-4b and all the radial engined 190's use 150 grade fuel (German C3).

[MORAY37]

If it were, the P-38s would be pulling 70" MAP, the P-51s 72" MAP....  No, the American aircraft are modeled for 100-130 avgas.

I think that a lightly perked 150 octane option would be nice, both for the USAAF and RAF fighters of that late-war period.


My regards,

Widewing

I stand corrected wide.. thank you.

[Karnak]

I've always wondered why the Ki is the only plane in game that was nerfed for fuel quality.  Seems pretty BS to me.  They didn't model the Komet's propensity for self-immolation, or the 262's crap stained engines.... As well, Japanese Avgas was of equal quality (around 130 octane) until mid 1944.  The Ki84 first flew in 1943, March.

As well, I believe the American set is modeled with 150 octane (I could be wrong).... of which, though in production, wasn't available to the front (and very limited) until very late 1944.  130 Octane was used on most flights. 

All Japanese aircraft are modeled with Japanese fuel, not just the Ki-84.

Likewise, other than the lack of 150 octane for late war USAAF and RAF fighters, all other aircraft are modeled with the appropriate fuels.

[Ruah]

All Japanese aircraft are modeled with Japanese fuel, not just the Ki-84.

Likewise, other than the lack of 150 octane for late war USAAF and RAF fighters, all other aircraft are modeled with the appropriate fuels.

this and the weak structure construction both make the KI-84 simply a Zero with more power. . . not the true monster it could be if it were built well (they were - but whatever) and given 130 fuel. 

[PFactorDave]

Ultimatly the main advantage of flying the 84 is not the great turn rate, its climb rate, its roll rate or its very acarabatic handling in general but that you have your 2 cannons in the nose - which lets you put pretty powerful bullets quickly down the range with no convergance.  Outside of that, its an ok plane at best and I understand why people fly the N1K2 more. . .

Uh...  I thought the Ki84 had the cannons in the wings and the Ki61 had them in the nose?... (I could be wrong)  And I like the Ki84 for its combination of turn rate and acceleration.  You can turn hard in it, scrubbing off E, then accelerate to reclaim the E.  Often times you can force an opponent to scrub his E off then gain an advantage by rebuilding yours faster then he can.

[Ruah]

Uh...  I thought the Ki84 had the cannons in the wings and the Ki61 had them in the nose?... (I could be wrong)  And I like the Ki84 for its cobination of turn rate and acceleration.  You can turn hard in it, scrubbing off E, then accelerate to reclaim the E.  Often times you can force an opponent to scrub his E off then gain an advantage by rebuilding yours faster then he can.

ok, I deleated my error - you are right and I fail. . .

anyway, I have written an e-mail to Busa (who got all the documents for the KI-84) and I wanted to add the stuff I found (since I am from Japan and am currently back home here) and see if it can be 'fixed' a little. . . namely its propensity to shed parts (thats gotta change) and its top speed (its a dream, but it should be a little higher - not much but enough to make it a match for any U.S. plane except the F4U). . . but thats just a matter of choising which historically real document to trust (the japanese say it does X, the Americans say Y and the post war tests say Z. . .and they are a little different)  Anyway I don't want to get too much into the KI-84, it serves as a very sore point for me. 

[PFactorDave]

ok, I deleated my error - you are right and I fail. . .

anyway, I have written an e-mail to Busa (who got all the documents for the KI-84) and I wanted to add the stuff I found (since I am from Japan and am currently back home here) and see if it can be 'fixed' a little. . . namely its propensity to shed parts (thats gotta change) and its top speed (its a dream, but it should be a little higher - not much but enough to make it a match for any U.S. plane except the F4U). . . but thats just a matter of choising which historically real document to trust (the japanese say it does X, the Americans say Y and the post war tests say Z. . .and they are a little different)  Anyway I don't want to get too much into the KI-84, it serves as a very sore point for me. 

I hope you get some of the improvements that you are seeking, as I absolutely love flying the Ki84.   

[Karnak]

I wish they'd redo the cockpit framing graphics.  They look worse than the AH1 A6M or Mosquito.

[bongaroo]

and give us the 2 x 30mms and the 4 x 20mms set ups while they are at it!   

[Karnak]

The 30mm version never saw service.  Do not use Il-2 as a source of information.  They add all sorts of "what if" versions of aircraft to that.

[Saxman]

The 30mm version never saw service.  Do not use Il-2 as a source of information.  They add all sorts of "what if" versions of aircraft to that.

And yet they refused to add the F4U-4....