Ki - 84

[FTJR]

Could we please have it able to carry both a drop tank and a bomb, as it could in real life. I posted on this once when we got it, and the idea was shot down, but I dont see how it could be a problem.

That is my wish, oh and add the beaufighter, please.

[ACE]

Yes the Beaufighter

[321BAR]

Yes the Beaufighter

nah the M-18

[Karnak]

I have seen a photo of operational Ki-84s configured thus.  Apparently it is a pain to hand though as the fighter becomes progressively unbalanced.

[Krusty]

For AH use you will never need this setup.

It currently has a very long range already on internal fuel only. The DT is only needed to extend the range to which that single bomb can be delivered. In the real war, flying all over the Pacific Ocean, it was useful.

In AH You can pretty much fly everywhere and anywhere on the  45-minutes(?) or so of full throttle that internal fuel gives you (probably 2 hours on cruise).

Why do you want this setup? Is it to simply lug around bombs with 25% internal fuel, ditch the DT and dogfight like a zero?

Might I suggest simply flying the zero if that's the case? This bird will still outfly most of the planeset even with a little fuel onboard.

[321BAR]

For AH use you will never need this setup.

It currently has a very long range already on internal fuel only. The DT is only needed to extend the range to which that single bomb can be delivered. In the real war, flying all over the Pacific Ocean, it was useful.

In AH You can pretty much fly everywhere and anywhere on the  45-minutes(?) or so of full throttle that internal fuel gives you (probably 2 hours on cruise).

Why do you want this setup? Is it to simply lug around bombs with 25% internal fuel, ditch the DT and dogfight like a zero?

Might I suggest simply flying the zero if that's the case? This bird will still outfly most of the planeset even with a little fuel onboard.

full fuel tanks and get two tanks shot out and you can still rearm and engage then rtb with even more kills ...just don't light up like a match when ur tanks get shot...

[JunkyII]

If your strapping ugly bombs on the bottom of a BEAUTIFUL KI84......



[size=20YOUR WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!pt][/size]

[Kenne]

for the 84, I would like the flaps to be modeled correctly.

[Karnak]

for the 84, I would like the flaps to be modeled correctly.

Could you provide more information on that?  I have looked everywhere I could for more data about it, but nowhere can I find a high limit for combat settings.

[Kenne]

Could you provide more information on that?  I have looked everywhere I could for more data about it, but nowhere can I find a high limit for combat settings.

well being of the fowler design I thout too that they wood extend at the same speed as does the flaps on the 51 (adding more lift than drag I mean)

they seem to be modeled only for landing

[FTJR]

For AH use you will never need this setup.

It currently has a very long range already on internal fuel only. The DT is only needed to extend the range to which that single bomb can be delivered. In the real war, flying all over the Pacific Ocean, it was useful.

In AH You can pretty much fly everywhere and anywhere on the  45-minutes(?) or so of full throttle that internal fuel gives you (probably 2 hours on cruise).

Why do you want this setup? Is it to simply lug around bombs with 25% internal fuel, ditch the DT and dogfight like a zero?

Might I suggest simply flying the zero if that's the case? This bird will still outfly most of the planeset even with a little fuel onboard.

Krusty, whats your problem with it? it was available in real life, why do I have to explain its possible uses in the context of AH? Its a wish, not an outrageous one at that.

[Ack-Ack]

well being of the fowler design I thout too that they wood extend at the same speed as does the flaps on the 51 (adding more lift than drag I mean)

they seem to be modeled only for landing

And you would be incorrect on that.


ack-ack

[Kenne]

And you would be incorrect on that.ack-ack

to what do you refer as incorrect?

[Karnak]

well being of the fowler design I thout too that they wood extend at the same speed as does the flaps on the 51 (adding more lift than drag I mean)

they seem to be modeled only for landing

What Ack-Ack is referring to, at a guess, is that 1) the P-51 does not have fowler flaps and 2) the Ki-84's fowler flaps are most certainly useful in combat, if you know how to use the fighter's strengths.

It is odd that only Lockheed and Nakajima seemed to like fowler flaps when they seem to offer considerable advantages.

[Ack-Ack]

to what do you refer as incorrect?

Your claim that the flaps on the Ki-84 were only "modeled for landing".


ack-ack