Testing the n1k

[SOB]

Jig,

Here's a quote from "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Rene J Francillon...

 

The N1K1-Jb Model 11B was armed with four improved 20mm cannon inside the wings, was fitted with two underwing racks for bombs of up to 250kg (551 lb) ...

 

In 1943, while the N1K1-J was being evaluated by the Japanese Navy, preliminary design work on an advanced version of the aircraft had already begun at Kawanishi and the N1K1-J was placed in production only as a stop-gap measure pending availability of the new version designated N1K2-J.  The prime reason for designing the N1K2-J was to eliminate the need for the long and complex undercarriage of the earlier version, and consideration was also given to simplifying construction and maintenance.  To achieve this goal, the wings were moved to the lower fuselage, conventional main gear legs of reduced length were adopted and the fuselage and tail surfaces were entirely redesigned.  The result was a virtually new aircraft retaining only the wings and armament of the N1K1-Jb.

Hope that helps a little.  The only thing that it said about the combat flaps is that they were controlled manually on the Kyofu (float plane), they were automatic on the land based (N1K1-J and later).


SOB

[SOB]

Oh, and as for the N1K1-J and takeoff, it said the following, but unfortunately didn't go into much detail...

 

The company test pilot also complained of poor visibility during taxi-ing, resulting from the exceptionally long undercarriage, and of excessive propeller torque during take-off.  However, in flight the aircraft possessed pleasant handling characteristics and was almost as manoeuverable as the Mitsubishi Reisen.

[gatt]

Dear SOB,
when I posted Francillon's data (I mean climb data, max speed at altitude and something more) I was told to *shut-up*.
They told me they had the official flight manual, I guess provided by Japanese guys, with different (read: better) performance figures. Have you ever seen them posted or explained?

Then, we Italian said that the Spitfire MkV FM was wrong. Too fast at altitude and too good climb performance. GAWD! We opened a can of worms, with all those Spitfire experten around. Then after some weeks the MkV FM has been tuned down.

Players can simply have gut feelings and playing experience. And, above all, they judge an aircraft against the one they fly for hundred missions. The burden of the proof is not on players. I guess that their monthly fee is more than enuff to entitle them to politely post their opinion without being called whiners by some self-appointed FM scientists.

How many films of F4U and P38 flying with half wing do we have to provide? Do we have to recalculate the lift factor of half-wing to avoid being called whiners? How many times do we have to describe bat-turns, instantaneous flip-turns, 180deg turns with less than 10% speed loss, endless loops, 1,000yds pings and so on. Do we have now to recalculate, retest, provide hard data and so on? Interesting indeed.

RAM, pupil, go to the blackboard and write again one hundred times: "The Niki's FM doesnt need tuning becouse flight sim cannot be accurate". Then go get a PHD on aeronautical engineering before posting here.

Shrug. More discouraged then pissed off.

[straffo]

 

Originally posted by RAM:

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.

RAM did you take into account the increase of your ability ?
I've tried last night to take off a fully loaded Typhoon in version 1.03 and just after in version 1.04 I see no difference  

To make the test more scientific  I've put my wife in front of the computer (she is not an flightsim addict and is like the perfect test monkey^h^h^h^h^h newbie  )
I've gived her a basic course about flying (usage of rudder and so on) and she was unable to take off with the Typhoon due to the torque ! she was quite upset   so she tried again and at 7th try she got the thing airborne !

It prove one thing for me : torque is present but I don't notice anymore as I'm more trained...

[Jekyll]

Gatt.. without a doubt that was the best post I've ever seen in any of these forums.

Salute!

[Jekyll]

OK wells, you've got me REALLY confused now  

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK wells, so a Spit IX has a sustained turn speed of, say, 160 mph.
I'm tooling along in a Spit IX at 150, and go into a hard horizontal
left bank and pull the stick back in my gut.
And I'll GAIN energy?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, you'll *accelerate* to 160

With respect Wells, are you making this up as you go along?    Your argument would seem to make sense only if the Spit driver was unable to pull more than the sustained G level at 150mph.  After all, sustained level turn is a combination of a particular airspeed and a particular g loading, right?  Say, 160mph at 3.2g's.

Now, are you saying that the Spit driver is completely unable to pull more than this theoretical 3.2g's at 160mph?  Because, of course, if he CAN pull more than 3.2g's, then his airspeed must bleed off, and his total energy level MUST decrease.

I'm sure that all the AH pilots who have ever stalled while down low in an extended turnfight will be interested to learn that no matter how hard they pull on the pole, they will always have at least sustained turn airspeed.

[Suave1]

To me torque seems to be alot lighter now than it was in 1.04 . While we're on the subject of fm's, does anyone have the compression speeds of the aircraft in AH. I can't seem to get the spitfire to compress .


[This message has been edited by Suave1 (edited 12-06-2000).]

[SOB]

 

Originally posted by gatt:
Dear SOB,
when I posted Francillon's data (I mean climb data, max speed at altitude and something more) I was told to *shut-up*.
They told me they had the official flight manual, I guess provided by Japanese guys, with different (read: better) performance figures. Have you ever seen them posted or explained?

Heh...no, but if they think they've got better data, it'd sure be nice to see it wouldn't it  

 

Players can simply have gut feelings and playing experience. And, above all, they judge an aircraft against the one they fly for hundred missions. The burden of the proof is not on players. I guess that their monthly fee is more than enuff to entitle them to politely post their opinion without being called whiners by some self-appointed FM scientists.

I think you're right, but I also sometimes agree that some people's "gut feelings" are posted as whines.  Some people bring up things for discussion, and others just scream bulltoejam.

 

How many films of F4U and P38 flying with half wing do we have to provide? Do we have to recalculate the lift factor of half-wing to avoid being called whiners? How many times do we have to describe bat-turns, instantaneous flip-turns, 180deg turns with less than 10% speed loss, endless loops, 1,000yds pings and so on. Do we have now to recalculate, retest, provide hard data and so on? Interesting indeed.

I think it makes sense to have at least film of what you saw...there's too much room for speculation without it.  Also, I've got no idea about what these planes can or can't do, which is why I usually don't get into it, unless it's about the Niki...since that's pretty much the one and only plane I fly when I'm not running Buff or tanking.  And even then, I can only post what I see in books that may or may not be accurate, and call BS when I think I see someone posting more emotion than fact.
[/b][/quote]

 

RAM, pupil, go to the blackboard and write again one hundred times: "The Niki's FM doesnt need tuning becouse flight sim cannot be accurate". Then go get a PHD on aeronautical engineering before posting here.

Shrug. More discouraged then pissed off.

Some people will always call you a whiner for posting your opinion, even if you're just trying to calmly find out some facts.  I hope that's not the impression you get from me.  As for RAM, I'll always start out reading his posts expecting a whine, and do my best to be objective if it isn't...but that's a direct result of his many previous posts.

Good luck...if it's broke, I hope it gets fixed, even if it is the Niki.


SOB

[niklas]

 

Now, are you saying that the Spit driver is completely unable to pull more than this theoretical 3.2g's at 160mph?  Because, of course, if he CAN pull more than 3.2g's, then his airspeed must bleed off, and his total energy level MUST decrease.

you CAN pull harder, but you would stall. Maximum sustained rate means you fly your plane at maximum angle of attack, maximum lift. Pull harder at your stick and you ll get into a stall.

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by straffo:
RAM did you take into account the increase of your ability ?

Come on, Straffo, for sure I did and it has nothing to do with ability...in 1.03 to put a tiffie in a low speed loop meant to spin because at the top the torque makes you seem a gyrocopter.

Now you can do low speed loops with no problem

To take off requred full rudder and the plane still showed a BIG tendence to yaw. Not now. Now you can take off with half rudder deflection, with no problem.

I guess that those smashed tiffies in real life because they weren't able to avoid the right side hangars of the field were crashed there because their pilots were AFK  

On the FM, I still believe that it is way off, and that the 27loop thingie is an aberration. But so far I dont think that pyro has lied to us or cheated us in a single thing of his work ,so I will trust in his word.

Gatt...S!, sir, that was a hell of a wonderful post, I couldn't have said it better  

------------------


 

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

[gatt]

RAM,
bad boy, you had forgotten the squad motto: "Whine-makers since 1.04"  

SOB,
good post. I have absolutely no problem with your other posts and you are right, too many times opinions are posted as loud whines. Especially when on channel 1. But is is true that too many times our self-appointed-FM-engineers are a little too harsch and arrogant in their replies as well. Then the flame war begins, too bad.  

Regards    
           
Whine-Makers Since 1.04


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

[Jekyll]

 

you CAN pull harder, but you would stall. Maximum sustained rate means you fly your plane at maximum angle of attack, maximum lift. Pull harder at your stick and you ll get into a stall.

Agreed niklas, but that's not what Wells is saying.  He seems to be saying that no matter how hard you pull on the pole, if you are currently below sustained turn speed you will accelerate to that speed, and therefore build energy.

And that's just plain BS.

[niklas]

no jekyll, this is not BS. Of course Wells doesn't mean you can pull more than Clmax.

But when your sustained turn speed is 160mph, and you fly slower (somewhere between 100-160mph), then you can pull as hard as stall allows it- or let's better say: you can force your wing into any AoA in a flat turn below maximum AoA , and you ll accelerate with full engine power.

You see, Clmax is a limiter. It limits in a certain way also the amount of drag in a slow flight. In a flat turn below sustained turn speed you simply can't produce as much drag as your engine can produce. You're really forced to get faster when you open your throttle. Or you add a vertical component, and start flying a circle climb.

btw: when i'd say a typical ww2 fighter aircraft produces more total drag when it flies at 100mph compared to 150mph (normal 1G level flight), who believes this?

[Pyro]

Fscott, there is no such thing as a 100% accurate simulation.  You advocate common sense and feel over quantitative numbers.  Please explain how one could even come close to accuracy, much less 100% accuracy, using this criteria.  Who's common sense and feel is the most accurate?  Yours?

Gatt, go back and read the exchanges.  You know full well what happened and that's not what you're trying to portray here.  I had nothing to say on the issue of whether the plane was too slow or not until a post was made with a real frame of reference showing that the speeds were off from our charts.  Once that was done, the problem was immediately fixed.  



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[Zigrat]

use this spreadsheet, tehres only like 6 values you have ito input and you can find out all sorts of info (can a plane climb in a given G load turn at a given airspeed or must it dive to retain speed?) etcera. accurate to within 10%

Actually, after doing some fiddling, I have found aces high flight models to be *extremely* accurate, within the 10% range of error of my program.

But do youw own tests and find out!
 http://www.iit.edu/~buonmic/aircraft-test.xls