Testing the n1k

[gatt]

PYRO, my rant was not against HTC and my english is bad. Still, I believe that players feedback, when posted in a polite way, should be very important for HTC and not considered always as a "whine against the plane that shot you down".

Zigrat,
how did you build the spreadsheet? Try not to be too much technical please ...  

[CJ]

Ram, he didn't say that the Niki could do a continuous 5 g turn.  He said that it could do loops with 5 g's only at the bottoms of the loops.  At the top it's probably at around .5 g's or 1, and on the up and down portions maybe 1.5 or 2.  If you figure the average G load it's probably around 2 or 2.5, which COULD be a sustainable situation.  Another thing.. 175 miles per hour is a lot of speed.  hell, from 125 mph in my Stinson 108 i can zoom climb to 500 feet agl.  That has a power to weight ratio of about half of what a ww2 fighter has which works out to be 1500 lbs/165 hp = 9.09 lbs/hp.  So double the horsepower per mass, and double the kinetic energy, and you've got a decent vertical zoom provided you are smooth with the entry.  

Another thing to look at is that the aircraft is actually accelerating over the top of the loop, and is probably actually gaining energy on the up and down run.  The only portion where it's actually losing energy is the bottom where the G load is 5.  A good aerobatic glider can perform loops with little loss of altitude.  It wouldn't take much of an engine to allow it to sustain energy, and so with the powerful engines in a ww2 fighter, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to sustain loops from 175 mph.  

Another thing about the comparison between the F-16 and the N1k.  The nik would not generate nearly the amount of induced drag per mass, per G as the F-16 by virtue of it's planform, airfoil, and wing loading, so in order to sustain a given G load, it would need a much lower thrust to weight ratio than the F-16.  

It seems entirely possible to me that these flight models are at least close.  The ones in 1.03 simply burned energy too fast as was demonstrated with empherical data, and simply calling the capibilities of the aircraft as they are currently modeled "roadkill" is subjective, and I'm pretty sure it's also inaccurate.  Going back to 1.03, in my estimation, would be a step backwards.  


 

Originally posted by RAM:
Ok, so the much praised and realistic 1.04 FM seems wrong as a whole?...

Really, HTC, why not give a step back and recover 1.03 until the current FM is REALLY ready to be implemented?...methinks it was MORE realistic than 1.04 even with the high e-burning.     (I'm completely serious in this thing. with 1.03 maybe planes did burn too much E but at least you rarely saw SUCH roadkill moves as are seen in 1.04. For realism sake, please bring back 1.03 FM until the new FM is fixed!!!)

 Only by reading this I know the 1.04 FM has a serious trouble, and not related to the high E-keeping of the planes.

 A tiffie doing a loop just after a takeoff??? LOL!!!!!!! Thats plain ridiculous.!
In real life, a tiffie whould play the helicopter trying to do "that" (if it doesnt crash into the right side hangars of the airfield on the takeoff, I mean     )

The lack of torque is another BS thing in the new FM.

I am serious, 1.04 is SERIOUSLY FLAWED. if not in E-retaining (that imo it clearly is), for sure it is in torque modelling. PLEASE bring back 1.03 FM until the new FM is correctly modelled.


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-05-2000).]

[funked]

Well said CJ.  FYI the loops on the film were about 4.5g at the bottom and 1.5g over the top.

[fscott]

Pyro, thank you, you answered my question and admitted that AH E-retention was not accurate. Although you didn't "say" it, you admitted it.

Now, let's work on it. Instead of defending the E-retention model, and blasting anyone who challenges it, then lets start with the planes we are most concerned with. I feel the entire E modeeling needs changed whereas others feel it's just in a few aircraft. But many do agree something "feels" wrong.

There is nothing wrong with going by feel. Chuck Yeager in his own words said he never understood how to explain an aircraft's performance in "real numbers", but he went on how it felt.  He had one person who could interpret his words to the engineers.

fscott

[CJ]

Originally posted by RAM:
I read your words and I will have to believe you ,Pyro.

But, we still need to know a couple of things:

1-Where is the torque?. Dont tell me it is now at the level it should because it isnt. Historical problems with tiffies smashing against hangars because they had not enough lateral control at low speeds to overcome the torque are well documented. The planes now have few, if any , noticeable torque problems.

2-If the N1K2's combat flaps are modelled, is the correspondent drag added?. IF not (and after 27 low speed tight lopps I dont think that the drag is there), will it be added?.

3-Isn't N1K2's laminar flow wing very similar to that in the P51?. If yes (and I
recall that laminar flow wings are optimiced fom hispeed low G environments and act badly-add a lot of drag- in a low speed hi-G enviromnent) then why is it able to pull so much low speed high G moves with so low E-burning? do I have the concept of laminar flow wings screwed?.

No.. I think you're right about the laminar flow airfoils, but what you're missing is that at high AOA they become more like a non-laminar flow airfoil in performance.  Some are better than others with respect to angle of attack sensitivity.  As I recall, the P-51's airfoil was pretty sensitive to this, while modern laminar flow airfoils like those on Glassairs tend to have much better characteristics. I'm not sure what type the N1k has.

 Also, Combat flaps would probably actually reduce drag in high lift situations since it simply optimizes the airfoil camber for the flight condition it that is required of it. Since it reduces the angle of attack at which the aircraft has to operate in order to generate the required lift, parasitic drag might also be reduced since the fuselage is not having to drag through the air at as large of an angle.  Also the propeller blades would be more efficient since they prop disk is not as highly angled, and the elevator and rudder might also be more effective since the air flowing over them would be more direct and less disturbed by the fuselage.  There are a lot of factors that i'm sure i missed that also take effect, so let me know what i missed.    

CJ

[CJ]

 

Originally posted by CJ:

Originally posted by RAM:
I read your words and I will have to believe you ,Pyro.

But, we still need to know a couple of things:

1-Where is the torque?. Dont tell me it is now at the level it should because it isnt. Historical problems with tiffies smashing against hangars because they had not enough lateral control at low speeds to overcome the torque are well documented. The planes now have few, if any , noticeable torque problems.

2-If the N1K2's combat flaps are modelled, is the correspondent drag added?. IF not (and after 27 low speed tight lopps I dont think that the drag is there), will it be added?.

3-Isn't N1K2's laminar flow wing very similar to that in the P51?. If yes (and I
recall that laminar flow wings are optimiced fom hispeed low G environments and act badly-add a lot of drag- in a low speed hi-G enviromnent) then why is it able to pull so much low speed high G moves with so low E-burning? do I have the concept of laminar flow wings screwed?.
End of quote by RAM-------------------

I should have made the end of the quotation more clear

Ram,
No.. I think you're right about the laminar flow airfoils, but what you're missing is that at high AOA they become more like a non-laminar flow airfoil in performance.  Some are better than others with respect to angle of attack sensitivity.  As I recall, the P-51's airfoil was pretty sensitive to this, while modern laminar flow airfoils like those on Glassairs tend to have much better characteristics. I'm not sure what type the N1k has.

 Also, Combat flaps would probably actually reduce drag in high lift situations since it simply optimizes the airfoil camber for the flight condition it that is required of it. Since it reduces the angle of attack at which the aircraft has to operate in order to generate the required lift, parasitic drag might also be reduced since the fuselage is not having to drag through the air at as large of an angle.  Also the propeller blades would be more efficient since they prop disk is not as highly angled, and the elevator and rudder might also be more effective since the air flowing over them would be more direct and less disturbed by the fuselage.  There are a lot of factors that i'm sure i missed that also take effect, so let me know what i missed.    

CJ

[funked]

LOL Fscott!
You're joking right?

[RAM]

CJ, your post is the most thorough and well-explained one I've read in quite a lot of time. Thanks and <S!> for that.

Now that we have discussed that the N1K2 seemed **able** to do what is shown on the film ,regarding aerodynamics, and flap drag,I have to say that I always thought that the laminar flow wing had serious drawbacks as I explained before. you say that depends on the concrete airfoil...but still a laminar flow wing adds more drag than a normal one in hi-G low speed maneouvers, am I wrong?.

Then I think there is somethine wrong there. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And there is still one thing unexplained:the lack of torque effects.

 Thinking about it, after reading your post, maybe the 27 loop thingie is possible to do due the SERIOUS lack of torque the niki has. 2000hp must have more effect than what is shown in AH.

SAme goes with tiffie and even with G10 (although in the 109 the torque is more noticeable, it still is too few imo). In 1.03 I felt that the torque was OK, now I simply think is gone.

[funked]

RAM I am thinking the same thing about torque.  It seems like it should be stronger.  But this is just my feeling.  But I don't know how to model it myself, and I don't have any real life data, so I don't know if my feeling is correct.

For instance, recoil effects in AH feel too small to me.  But I built my own mathematical model to predict what the recoil effect should be.  And sure enough, AH recoil matched my model.

I do know that the AH engine model is pretty sophisticated.  There appears to be:
1.  Prop torque reaction (i.e. you need to trim roll differently at different throttle settings).
2.  Gyroscopic effect (coupling of pitch/yaw motion caused by angular momentum of the engine/prop system)
3.  Reactions from angular acceleration of the engine/prop system (i.e. the plane will "jerk" on the roll axis if you use throttle to change RPM suddenly at low speeds).

AFAIK these are all the important physical effects that would create our "feel" of torque.  So maybe they just need some fine tuning?  Or maybe it's like the recoil, i.e. it's physically correct but doesn't feel right because we are watching it on a screen instead of sitting in a real plane.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-06-2000).]

[Lephturn]

Hey fscott... that thing that went whistling past your head?  That was Pyro's point.


------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs  http://www.flyingpigs.com
 
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

[J_A_B]

I am not very familiar with the AH N1K2-J; I have never flown it and didn't see it enough in the arena to get to know it well.

However, I AM familiar with the N1K2-J of reality, and I find some interesting parallels between the AH universe and reality:

Some AH players complain about the N1K being able to do "impossible" things.  This is much like F6F pilots reporting that the N1K2 made "impossible" turns.  

N1K2-J's, on several occasions, single handedly took on 8-12 F6F's, F4U's and P-51's and sent them running.  That can't be based solely on pilot skill.  And the people in AH are, for the most part, much better than the average WW2 pilot (we can learn from our fatal mistakes).

The main weaknesses of the N1K2-J--unreliable workmanship and some structure problems (not to mention untrained pilots)--aren't modeled in AH.  So, as one might expect, we have a killer.

Perhaps the N1K2 is SLIGHTLY overmodeled.  However, I feel that it's likely the plane could perform incredible maneuvers.  It is not surprising to me at all that this plane is a superb performer.

To be realistic, a well-flown N1K2 should be able to fight MANY enemies single-handedly.  That is exactly what AH's N1K2 can do--and is the source of many complaints (much like the real plane).

Based on the complaints, AH's N1K2 seems about right to me, at least compared to the real plane.  I am not generally a fan of Japanese planes, but I have to admit this one was an exceptional design.

Even if some of the exact numbers are off, the N1K2 is having the same effect in the arena as it did in reality.  The main problem isn't so much the plane itself; rather, it's the unlimited availability of it.


J_A_B

[RAM]

Saburo Sakai fought 15 Hellcats on Okinawa, alone, and with one eye only.

He was in an A6M5b...

 

[Jigster]

A note on the N1K2's flaps, I've read they drop down when deployed, leaving about a 2-3 inch gap between the leading edge of the flap and the trailing edge of the wing. It almost appears that these flaps are intended as a minature second wing that when deployed does not change the chambering of the wing very much.

[Jigster]

 

However, I AM familiar with the N1K2-J of reality, and I find some interesting parallels between the AH universe and reality:

Some AH players complain about the N1K being able to do "impossible" things.  This is much like F6F pilots reporting that the N1K2 made "impossible" turns.  

N1K2-J's, on several occasions, single handedly took on 8-12 F6F's, F4U's and P-51's and sent them running.  That can't be based solely on pilot skill.  And the people in AH are, for the most part, much better than the average WW2 pilot (we can learn from our fatal mistakes).

In the hands of the pilots of the 343rd Air Corps, [the N1K2-J] was a deadly opponent, for these pilots were the IJN equivalent of the Luftwaffe's JV-44; commanded by Minoru Genda, the 343rd had almost all of the surviving "old hands" who could still fly combat.

One of these was Naoshi Kanno, who numbered an unprecedented 17 B-17s among his 52 Solomons kills, being the first Japanese pilot to perfect the "12 o-clock high" head-on attack against the B-17 later used by the Luftwaffe. Kanno was killed in combat against 16 F4Us (during which he shot down 3) in June 1945.

The N1K2 is known for the wartime production problems, lack of trainees, and poorly trained ground crew making it very hard to keep a significant number of them airborne.

just sayin'

- Jig

[Jigster]

 bah double post


[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 12-06-2000).]