Pyro's opinion on 3 flight modelling items?

[R4M]

So, from being a "monster" it became the kitty it is in AH?  

Yah,I believe it  

[Nifty]

 

Originally posted by -ammo-:

<cough> BS

the N1K, you ever seen one? it is DWARFED byt the P-47, and I mean it looks SMALL. It's even smaller than a zeke. Go to the Pensacola NASmuseum for a hands on look at a N1K2. There along with many naval AC such as F6F's, F4u-s, etc...

*grabs a tape measure and digital camera*  well, maybe not the tape measure.  I've never taken pictures in the museum before, but I don't see why they wouldn't let me.  

[sling322]

 

Originally posted by R4M:
So, from being a "monster" it became the kitty it is in AH?  

Yah,I believe it  

Believe what RAM?  When did we get the N1K1-Ja in Aces High?  I believe our "George" is the N1K2-J is it not?  Go back and read for comprehension this time instead of just blindly looking for things to grasp at to validate your anti-axis conspiracies.

[MrSiD]

I think what R4M is referring to is the low speed handling of the n1k 'helicopter manouver' where the torque should still be present in large numbers.

Vert. stab and rudder wont be able to stabilize the torque if airspeed is low..

However the n1k we have is rock steady at stall speeds.. And it recovers from a spin very fast without taking consideration of throttle positions..

[BBGunn]

Jigster: Howdy- some aircraft had counter spring mechanisms on the flaps to compensate for airpressure at different speeds.  They still had to be accuated by the pilot but they were automatic in that they sort of 'sensed' airpressure thus keeping flaps from being damaged and also keeping them in the most effective range of drag vs lift.  Don't know for certain if this is the case with the NIK but it sounds like it.

[This message has been edited by BBGunn (edited 05-08-2001).]

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by hazed-:
Couldnt agree more. 'luftwhiners' etc is getting so old it should be buried by now.

Along with "Chog dweeb", "hispano dweeb", "turbolaser dweeb", "HO dweeb", "niki dweeb" and maybe "dweeb" itself.

 

[sling322]

Well MrSid, I believe Jigster was stating that the N1K1-Ja had the same size rudder as the A6M which made it a "monster"....not the N1K2-J.  Jigster also states that the rudder design was changed for the N1K2-J.

Ram, however, didnt read that part.  He just conveniently latched onto Jig saying that the plane "was a monster" and decided that the statement was good enough to justify his beliefs that there is something wrong with our N1K2-J "George", when in fact Jig's statement was in reference to the N1K1-Ja.

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by sling322:
Well MrSid, I believe Jigster was stating Ram, however, didnt read that part.  He just conveniently latched onto Jig saying that the plane "was a monster" and decided that the statement was good enough to justify his beliefs that there is something wrong with our N1K2-J "George", when in fact Jig's statement was in reference to the N1K1-Ja.

LOL get a clue. I indeed read that part.And in my sarcastic answer, I said that "From being a monster (The N1K1-J) it changed to be the kitty it is in AH (the N1K2-j)"

obviously I'm not the one NOT reading the other's post here  

The low speed handling of the N1K2 feels like that of the Zero. With 2000hp and the light airframe of the N1K2, I would expect way more torque...with bigger rudder surface than the zeke or without it  

And BTW ,the N1K1-J, with its "normal-sized rudder", had an engine with 1500hp only...the N1K2 had 500hp more...
of course I can understand that if the normal N1K1 had torque problems, they had to fit a bigger rudder to compensate somehow for the 500hp addition. But that solved COMPLETELY the problem of adding 500hp to an airframe 500lbs LIGHTER than that of the N1K1-j?. Dont make me laugh, please.

It feels like it has almost no torque...maybe only because the rudder was bigger?...a plane with twice the power of the zeke gets rid of 2000hp of engine pulling a nice precession effect only because has a somewhat bigger rudder?

Yah right...I still believe it  

[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-08-2001).]

[sling322]

Really?  Hmmm...I never once saw Jigster refer to the N1K2 as a monster.  I did, however see him make that reference to the N1K1.  

So, who wasn't reading what again R4Metz?

And by the way, see Pyro's post further up where he states that he sees "no obvious errors" in the George's flight model.

[This message has been edited by sling322 (edited 05-08-2001).]

[sling322]

..

[This message has been edited by sling322 (edited 05-08-2001).]

[juzz]

FYI: The N1K1-J had the EXACT SAME engine as the N1K2-J.

And isn't it odd how the Fw 190A-5, which is about the same size and weight as the N1K2-J but with 240HP less and a smaller rudder, is just as lacking in "torque" effects...

[StSanta]

Give it the tail of a B-17, it won't matter that much when it's hanging by the prop with only the prop pushing air over the plane.

With such a light frame and such a powerful engine, shouldn't it have more torque?

------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Toad]

You know what I find odd?

After flying a big piston aircraft with a big prop and 450 HP motor for a while I never had to "think" about adding rudder.

Seemed like my foot just sorta knew what to do when my hand added throttle.

Wonder if that happens to other people? Ya think?

 

[Greg 'wmutt' Cook]

The same time that combat trim came in, we lost a LOT of engine torque (even with combat trim off).  I noticed this because It was with that release that I was able to land in a tiffie    
As to the N1k, I tries it out today in the MA over a rear-area base.  I was able to start a 0G dive from 7000 ft, pull into the vertical on the deck and zoom climb right back to 7000 ft. and still be at 200 ias.  I was also able to do loops one right after the other from 200 ias with 1 notch of flaps and pulling a sustained 3.5G.  And as a side note, I was able to do 3 outside loops (starting on the bottom, inverted), one right after the other.  I don't know if that's right, but is cool  
That brings up a point, are we going to get modeling for carberated engine during negative G maneuvers?

Muttz

[Jigster]

 

Originally posted by BBGunn:
Jigster: Howdy- some aircraft had counter spring mechanisms on the flaps to compensate for airpressure at different speeds.  They still had to be accuated by the pilot but they were automatic in that they sort of 'sensed' airpressure thus keeping flaps from being damaged and also keeping them in the most effective range of drag vs lift.  Don't know for certain if this is the case with the NIK but it sounds like it.

[This message has been edited by BBGunn (edited 05-08-2001).]

The N1K1 Float plane, N1K1-Ja, N1K2-J and later variants all had a very unique, automatic flap system. The flaps deployed as need according to the state of the plane in flight. The system is somewhat outlined in the picture I linked to earlier. The basic intent was to reduce pilot workload and increase efficency by having them work automatically, and thus the so-called unbelieveable manuverability of the N1K series is derived.