Author Topic: N1K2J - The miracle chopper (Read 1967 times)

Samm · « **Reply #75 on:** March 21, 2002, 11:50:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Samm, the problem is not being able to go to 0 mph and still nose up, but the time you are able to keep in this attitude once you are below 100mph in the vertical. That is what I saw from the tower and that is what Tac is describing, exactly the same thing. Repeat your tests with your P51 and count the seconds from 100mph to control loose, if you are able to get to 9 seconds while firing and without cutting the throttle then your P51 handles like a n1k2.

The p51 has a much poorer thrust/weight than n1k2, why wouldn't I expect it to begin falling sooner ?

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #76 on:** March 21, 2002, 12:00:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Samm
The p51 has a much poorer thrust/weight than n1k2, why wouldn't I expect it to begin falling sooner ?

Because the P51 has much less drag than N1K2, and this is also an inportant factor in the deceleration.

Samm · « **Reply #77 on:** March 21, 2002, 12:11:51 PM »

Damnit Mandoble you do this every week !

You see what you've done again ? You've made a claim that the n1k2 has powers way off the charts "miracle helicopter" . Based on your suspect anecdotal IN THE TOWER witness of a plane ONLINE doing something supposedly impossible under nebulous circumstances . Now we are down to timing tail stands, splitting hairs, with stop watches, considering gun recoil (lol) . And you still are no closer to conceding any bit . Yet nobody is able to produce any evidence that the n1k2 is doing anything wrong, let alone come anywhere close to your first argument of it's helicopter flight ability .

At first when I saw some of the responses to you in your other threads I thought "hey that was kind of mean, give the guy a chance" . But after reading through your obssesive weekly, sometimes daily complaints .

Friggin: "weapon bank selection circuitry of 190s"

"190d9 lacks elevator authority, becuase that's how it FEELS to me" "

"Pyro look at this pic of a 190 cockpit, the airspeed indicator goes to 900kmh"

Now I can totally relate to these guys. You're like that guy who kept sending junk that he had dug out of his back yard to the Smithsonian institute . This is why nobody takes you seriously anymore .

Dude I hate to sound harsh, or like I'm putting people down, but you know what ? I hope you don't stop making these absurd threads becuase I find them quite entertaining .

Samm · « **Reply #78 on:** March 21, 2002, 12:16:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE

Because the P51 has much less drag than N1K2, and this is also an inportant factor in the deceleration.

Really it does ? What is the drag coefficient of the n1k2 ? Or are you just talking out your anus again?

Not that drag has any substantial affect on how an airplane falls out of a tail stand . Besides we're talking about increasing the time to distance ratio here so increased air resistance would be a good thing .

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #79 on:** March 21, 2002, 01:11:47 PM »

Ok, Samm, the P51 has worse drag factor than N1K2. Happy now?

And no one except you has been talking about tail slides.

LOL, and no, no one except you (again) is talking about increasing the time to distance ratio. Distance is irrelevant. Time with good control nose up at speeds below 100mph, no matter if you travel 100 km or 10 meters.

Sikboy · « **Reply #80 on:** March 21, 2002, 01:28:57 PM »

musta been a long time ago that you saw that niki from the tower though. This has been bugging you for a while now

it's like Deja Vu all over again!

-Sikboy

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #81 on:** March 21, 2002, 01:31:59 PM »

LOL Sikboy, I saw that a lot of times while flying, but the other day from the tower it was impressively clear.

Tac · « **Reply #82 on:** March 21, 2002, 02:43:21 PM »

fatty id love to see your 109 hanging for entire seconds below 50mph FIRING and wiggling tail to aim. With WEP on.

I never been able to keep it below 60mph, the thing is just too hard to keep from rolling downwards & spining if you dont nose down.

Fatty · « **Reply #83 on:** March 22, 2002, 12:15:19 AM »

109e and 109f with gondolas from standstill on runway. The e I noticed afterwards was not truly vertical, I was using the sun at noon as an aiming point. But that's too bad, this is as much effort as I'm going to put into this silliness.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #84 on:** March 22, 2002, 02:54:13 AM »

Thanks for the film, Fatty. As in the case of the 190D9 video, you were able to keep nose up for 2-4 secs once below 100mph.
Again, this has little in common with the 9 secs of the n1k2.

Sikboy, your film is still empty.

Sikboy · « **Reply #85 on:** March 22, 2002, 05:47:02 AM »

Yeah, I can't get it to upload. And it's no longer on my priority list, after watching this thread unfold, I'll just leave it up to the court of public opinion.

-Sikboy

-ammo- · « **Reply #86 on:** March 22, 2002, 06:32:09 AM »

G10, 11 seconds

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #87 on:** March 22, 2002, 07:02:12 AM »

ammo, do you call that a steady vertical climb? Again not more than 5-6 secs more or less vertical and with control below 100 mph, at about 50 mph your plane started to roll over its axis. If you look at the N1K2 film (last climb shows it very clearly) you will notice no roll at all until the top.

Ah, and that G10 doesnt seem to be firing the guns. Thanks for the film. IMO, the only one that, probably, may keep near N1K2 results is the P38 and, surprisingly, the Typh.

Sikboy · « **Reply #88 on:** March 22, 2002, 07:27:38 AM »

OK, file uploaded (had to take it to work). But before you watch it, keep in mind that I don't expect this to change your mind. Changing your mind is like changing underwear without taking your pants off. It's not going to happen, and it's just going to make you look like a maniac. But hrere's the film. Get you stopwatch out, to ensure timing. Notice that I don't fire the guns in the first attempt, but do in the second. Also notice that I use less rudder in these than you do in the N1K2. This is full fuel (don't know if I used WEP, but I should have, would probably have given me an extra second or two in the verticle). Anyhow, I offer the film so that anyone who has read this thread, but hadn't already made up their mind can look and judge for themselves if the difference between the N1K2/Dora/A8/G10 in a verticle climb is sufficient to warrent all the attention we've given it.

Once again, let me state: This film does not show that the A8 is as good as the N1K2 in the specified test. I believe however, that is shows similar enough performance to dismiss the contention that the N1K2 is somehow porked. If there is a porking (and I'm not saying that there is) it would be with the flight model in general, and not any aircraft specifically.

-Sikboy
film posted here

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #89 on:** March 22, 2002, 07:46:20 AM »

Thanks for the film, once again I can count only 4 secs below 100mph and before lossing the control and the vertical. These more or less 4 secs seem to be common for any version of 109s and 190s. All of them are far from the 9 secs of the n1k2.

The point is, do u notice a very clear difference between the tested planes and the N1K2 in the vertical where almost no altitude is gained (less than 100mph). Do you notice the fine control and stability of N1K2 compared with the other planes?

Is that correct? perhaps, but by direct comparison the difference
is really a lot (the double in time).