The Niki and possible answer to uberness? Real numbers.

[fscott]

Let me get my point across quickly and right to the data.  

Flying the Niki makes you fell like it is being *jerked* around by the thrust of its engine, rather than the plane's weight determining holding back it's maneuverability. Get what I mean?

These numbers represent pounds per one horsepower. Obviously the higher pounds per horsepower, the worse the plane performs.

1 - Empty weights could be slightly different in some cases, but only marginally if not accurate.

2 - Weight does not include fuel load, ammo, etc.

3 - Horsepower is taken from maximum setting, including wep.  Again some may have different numbers but it should be close if not accurate for most of these.

4 - These numbers alone do not represent propellor efficiency, wing loading, all of which affect an aircraft's ability to climb, dive, and it's general performance.

Nik1-J2:
5858 lbs
1990 hp
2.95 lbs/hp

A6m5c:
3920 lbs
1130 hp
3.47 lbs/hp

J2m3:
5675 lbs
1820 hp
3.12 lbs/hp

Ki84:
5864 lbs
1900 hp
3.09 lbs/hp

Yak9u:
5100 lbs
1650 hp
3.09 lbs/hp

Spit9:
5610 lbs
1660 hp
3.38 lbs/hp

P51D:
7125 lbs
1590 hp
4.48 lbs/hp

F6f5:
9042 lbs
2200 hp
4.11 lbs/hp

The Niki with 2.94 pounds per every horsepower. Now, could this explain why the Niki does what it does? It is basically being tossed around the sky in whatever direction the pilot wishes. I was amazed that it even has better lbs/hp than the Yak9u.  I threw in the J2m and the Ki84 just to show that we will see more from where the Niki came from.

fscott

[GRUNHERZ]

Figures without fuel and ammo load are unfurtunatly useless. Think about it how little extra weight is added to lightly armed and small fuel capacity Yak9, compared to huge fuel capacity and 800+ rds of heavy 20mm in a niki or chog. So numbers in poor comparison are not applicable to our sitiuation. We need to examine the FM of this thing in detail to find out whats wrong, too many ppl notice it. Look at e retention and vertical performance of niki.  

[Jimdandy]

fscott your headed in the right direction but GUNHERZ has a good point. If you can find the data that compare thrust to loaded weight of the AC's you will have it nailed. Try to find trust figures they are the real story. A plane like the F8F for example had a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1:1. That means that you could stand a F8F on the vertical and it would ACCELERATE STRAIGHT UP! That's wicked for a prop driven fighter.

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 02-12-2001).]

[fscott]

Three quick points:

1) I did not intend this to be a flame war.

2) People will ignore their own intelligence and argue the same old opinions, if anything less than a divine revelation is brought to their attention.

3) GRUNHERZ, lets take your example then. Add 200 pounds to the yak weight, and add 800 pounds to the niki weight. These are just guesses. Look what happens. You get 3.21 lbs/hp for the Yak and 3.31 lbs/hp for the Niki. Still, you are talking relatively close numbers even adding 800 pounds to the niki. Even with 800 more pounds added, the Niki still is less than an empty Spit9. I'm sure these added weights are too little, but the point is, even if the Niki has 4x the added weight, it still remains excellent in lbs/hp when compared to all other fighters.

Someone with EXACT added weights of ammo and fuel could help here but HORSEPOWER is the most defining factor here.

fscott

[This message has been edited by fscott (edited 02-13-2001).]

[funked]

Fscott I can't verify all of your figures right now but your argument is flawless.  The N1K2 does indeed have superlative thrust to weight ratio at low fuel loads, and thrust to weight ratio is how you make a "UFO", as the ACM-challenged like to call it.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-13-2001).]

[Sorrow[S=A]]

Fscott- the Yak-9U is a bad comparison- it's good vertical performance is design not specifically power. It's Vk-107 motor actually only makes a relative 1500 hp at SL. Thats pathetic compared to radial's.

Better to compare radial planes like an F4U, F4F and La-7 or 190A-5 (A-8 is obviously too heavy).

Strip the ammo and fuel out of these planes and, surprisingly enough, they all have incredible hp/wieght ratios.


------------------
If your in range, so is the enemy.

 

[This message has been edited by Sorrow[S=A] (edited 02-13-2001).]

[juzz]

 

A plane like the F8F for example had a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1:1.

LOL! Yeah, sure it did!  

[gatt]

Like an F-15 you mean? Hope PYRO will perk the F-15.

[RAM]

Fw190A5:
weight unloaded 2900Kg: 6380lbs
engine power:1800hp
W/P: 3.54

Fw190A8:
weight Unloaded 3450kg: 7480lbs
Wngine power:1900hp
W/P: 3.9

2.98lbs/hp------->3.54lbs/hp

Oh, good difference, but doesnt explain why one is an UFO (according to Funked I'm an ACM challenged  ) and the other not.

Ah, and BTW, where is that 2000hp engine torque?...I used to think that when one has a big prop that converts sheer power into thrust (as the n1k2 has), and a low mass like the N1K2 has, then one experiences one strong thing called "torque", that, between all the planes above put, in the N1K2 should be the biggest.

Where is it?

[Vermillion]

I agree with Fscott and Funked that for comparison purposes, its best too look at "empty" weights.

Loaded weights are not good comparison points, due to the fact that they are variable over time (in combat), and subject to change depending on how the pilot loaded the aircraft initially. And these make a huge difference in combat.

For example lets look at the N1K2, that everyone is so fond of discussing.

The N1K2 is an extremely long range fighter. I forget the exact range (working from memory), but I believe it is somewhere in the 1200 mile range, which puts it in the same class as the P51, or considerably more than twice the range of your standard Yak-9U.

In the Yak I typically take 100% fuel (I like to climb to 20k and then fly long missions), and its easily enough fuel to fly most arena missions. But I would bet that most N1K2 pilots take only 25%+DT for their missions of base defense or furballing. So when you engage most N1K2's they are relatively "fuel light" in comparison to a fully loaded takeoff weight.

So if you use loaded weights for comparisons, you will significantly undervalue the effectiveness of the N1K2, because you are fighting an aircraft that is comparitively much lighter.

This will then lead to cries of "UFO" because the actual performance disparity will be much higher than you expect.

"Empty Weights" are the way to go in discussions like this.

Edit: RAM while I won't argue the torque issue with you (I believe your correct to a certain point), I will point out that "lack of torque from a 2000hp engine" is something that effects most, if not all of the aircraft in AH at the current time

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 02-13-2001).]

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Vermillion:
Edit: RAM while I won't argue the torque issue with you (I believe your correct to a certain point), I will point out that "lack of torque from a 2000hp engine" is something that effects most, if not all of the aircraft in AH at the current time

I could not agree more with you  

[Widewing]

 

Originally posted by fscott:

Nik1-J2:
5858 lbs
1990 hp
2.95 lbs/hp

I believe that there is a real problem using 1,990 hp for this engine. No Homare (I believe that this was the engine, I'm in the office and have no references here)ever made that much power on 87 octane avgas. I would estimate that the power available never exceeded 1,400 hp.

Here's what I'll do tonight: I will calculate the available hp based upon the N1K2's drag numbers and its known maximum speed, using full combat weight as the baseline. I'd wager large that this produces power numbers in the 1,400 hp range.

I'll post my findings on the BBS. I won't get to this until this evening at the earliest, so be patient.

My regards,

Widewing

[Jimdandy]

 

Originally posted by Jimdandy:
fscott your headed in the right direction but GUNHERZ has a good point. If you can find the data that compare thrust to loaded weight of the AC's you will have it nailed. Try to find trust figures they are the real story. A plane like the F8F for example had a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1:1. That means that you could stand a F8F on the vertical and it would ACCELERATE STRAIGHT UP! That's wicked for a prop driven fighter.

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 02-12-2001).]

fscott I wasn't trying to flame you at all. As I said I think you on the right track. The only reason I suggest looking a the thrust to weight ratio is that it takes into account the ability to put the horsepower to use. You might say it accounts for the prop and the power to weight ratio. Just to give an example. If you have a 4000hp engine in a top fuel dragster and put bicycle tires on it it will never be able to put all that horsepower on the road. It will just spin the tires. You put big fat sticky drag slicks on it and it will fly down the trak. The prop on the engine is the way the horsepower is used to move the plane like the tires on a car. If you put a Piper Cub prop on a Bf 109 it will not perform like it does with the right prop. Some of the biggest advances in the performance in WWII aircraft were made by just putting on a better prop. Your on the right track just a small addition to the data will make your argument perfect. I bet the thrust to weight ratio of the N1K is excellent.

Vermillon the problem with empty weight is one many Army and Navy people found out early on when going out to buy a new aircraft. There are many cases where a great prototype made for a poor fighter because after they added the combat weapons the thrust to weight went to hell and they had a pig on their hands. A stripped down B17 will perform fantastically. Add all the 50's fuel and 6,000lbs of bombs and it's a tank. The way I have always compared aircraft was in a "clean" configuration with an agreed upon standard internal weapons load and fuel allocation. Here is an example of what can happen when the guns are changed on a plane and why you have to look at some type of weapon and fuel load or you get an unrealistic picture of what the plane will do in combat:

The Mitsubishi J2M started out as a pretty good performer then they added 4 20mm cannon. The addition of the guns restricted the performance of the plane so much that it no longer met the original demands so they added a turbocharger and it still wouldn't reach the B-29's. So they added upward firing 20mm cannon.



[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 02-13-2001).]

[Eagler]

can you post the 109's info mainly the 109f, maybe with and w/o gondolas?

thx

Eagler

[Vermillion]

Careful Widewing  

Your now delving into the same issues we have discussed repeatedly about the N1K2, the Ki84, and the Homare engine, and were the reasons I was looking for the post war US test documents for that bird.

I will certainly be interested in seeing what you come up with.

FYI Wells, Myself, and several others looked at the same issue, and came up with the opinon that the N1K2 at the stated horsepower of 1990hp, should easily be a 400mph plane.

Another bit of pertinent data I saw from a friend that lived in Japan, stated that he had documents that said that the official "top speed" that is typically published for the N1K2 (360ish? I forget exactly) was indeed taken with 87 octane fuel and in that particular set of flight tests, the engines were never set to full power. I'm paraphrasing, but the engines were run at what we would consider "Normal Cruise Power", and not at "Takeoff/Emergency Power", let alone at "WEP".  I asked him to provide a copy to me, but unfortuneatly they were in Japanese, and he never sent them too me.  Supposedly, he got the information (copies of originals from the Japanese War Ministry) from a Gentleman in his late 80's who actually flew the N1K2, but of course I couldn't confirm or deny any of it. But I will say that the person who claimed to have this, was not the type of personality that would leave me to believe that he was lying.

Just some more information for you.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure