Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: oboe on April 25, 2015, 10:07:28 AM
-
When the Ki.61 model is updated, I think it would be great to add an earlier version like the Ki.61-1b. The model we have now, Ki.61-1-KAIc, began production in 1944. The Ki.61-1b was basically the same airplane (same engine) but the fuselage was slightly shorter and armament was 4x12.7mm machine guns or 2x12.7mm in the nose and 2xMG151 20mm cannon in the wings. This would be more accurate for the Hien flown by the 68th and 78th Sentai in New Guinea in 1943 against the 5th AF.
I'm also looking forward to the great new cockpit art, the Hien had a nice instrument layout and the extra glass panels on lower left and right help with visibility:
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/a5490154-219-297791-pacific-fighters-windows-screenshot-cockpit-view-kawasaki.jpg)
-
I want the later war versions of the Ki-61, as well as the Ki-100
-
When the Ki.61 model is updated, I think it would be great to add an earlier version like the Ki.61-1b. The model we have now, Ki.61-1-KAIc, began production in 1944. The Ki.61-1b was basically the same airplane (same engine) but the fuselage was slightly shorter and armament was 4x12.7mm machine guns or 2x12.7mm in the nose and 2xMG151 20mm cannon in the wings. This would be more accurate for the Hien flown by the 68th and 78th Sentai in New Guinea in 1943 against the 5th AF.
I'm also looking forward to the great new cockpit art, the Hien had a nice instrument layout and the extra glass panels on lower left and right help with visibility:
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/a5490154-219-297791-pacific-fighters-windows-screenshot-cockpit-view-kawasaki.jpg)
I'm likin that cockpit model. :aok
-
That cockpit is from Pacific Fighters, but HTC crew will do just a good a job if not better.
Ki.61-II with Ha-140 engine supposedly did 394mph, but only 99 constructed before engine factory destroyed. That engine was really unreliable I guess. The Japanese mated the remaining Ki.61-II airframes to a Mitsubishi air cooled radial engine creating the Ki.100. Pretty slow (360mph) but lighter and better climb rate than the Ki.61 though.
-
Keep the KI61 we have right now.....Oboe you think it will affect any part of modeling if they change the entire plane model? I think the ki61 should be a little faster.....
-
I think HTC would probably just add the earlier Ki-61 armament setups as hangar options, like they added the all-MG option for the C.205. These would not be likely to see much use in the MA but would be good for scenarios. I'd like to see the Ki-100 modelled as well.
-
I also would very much like to see earlier Ki-61. It would have better flight performance since it is much lighter and has the same amount of power as the variant currently in AH.
-
Add an early model and the -II.
-
Keep the KI61 we have right now.....Oboe you think it will affect any part of modeling if they change the entire plane model? I think the ki61 should be a little faster.....
Oh I definitely agree that the current model should be kept. HTC made the right choice with the -KAIc, given the MA's tilt toward later war aircraft. Those nose-mounted Ho-5 20mm cannon devastating in close. But I would like to see different armament options and how the change in weight between the different gun packages would affect handling and performance. Greebo might be right, maybe it'll be a single 3D model with all the different packages available as options. But I have learned that there was an increase in fuselage length by about 8" with the -KAIc, and its interesting because when I would adapt the IL-2 skins to AH format, I always had to add length to the fuselage. I'm not sure how much difference in center-of-gravity 8" makes in a 29' airplane, but maybe it would be significant?. I believe I can see the shorter nose evident in this first screen shot (IL-2?) compared to the second, and I think the shorter nose just looks better, more trim, somehow:
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/HomeFront44A.png)
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/Ki.61-244th-Sentai-3QtrFront.jpg)
A lot will have to change in the Ki.61 update. Currently the skin is divided between 2 256x256 bitmaps - that will probably change to a single 1024x1024 bitmap.
EDIT: The Ki.61-1b also has a retractable tail wheel (top picture). That really helps maintain a more trim, cleaner look. I don't know how much that would affect top speed, but I would think it would increase it by at least a few mph? My understanding is in real life the tail wheel retract mechanism was problematic and their solution was to install a non-retractable tail wheel.
-
Are we getting an update on the Ki-61? I didn't know. We have been getting a new landscape for years (yawn.) Instead of an up date, give us a couple in Italian planes instead of variations of planes we already have.
-
HTC usually introduce a mix of updated and new models with each major update. The only new ride that has been announced for the next version is an updated TBM. It seems likely that HTC will update all the remaining AH1-era skins before beginning on the earliest AH2 ones.
The main improvements any updated AH1 skin will have is not resolution. Skinners already use 1024 res tiles when skinning AH1-era aircraft, even though the default art was 256 res. So a Ki-61 skin now will be on two 1024 res tiles, an updated one on just one 1024 tile might even have worse texture detail.
OTOH the the latest models are much more detailed and accurate shape-wise both inside and out due to their vastly higher poly count and have far fewer issues like the mirroring, stretching and warped textures which make skinning AH1 stuff really irritating. Also any updated shape would take advantage of bump mapping and specularity mapping, the latter of which makes a big difference on BMF aircraft like the Ki-61.
-
Are we getting an update on the Ki-61? I didn't know. We have been getting a new landscape for years (yawn.) Instead of an up date, give us a couple in Italian planes instead of variations of planes we already have.
HTC has been working through all its old models, giving them make-overs. This has been going on slowly, for years. Only HTC knows when the Ki.61 will get it's turn, but I hope its coming before too long. The aren't that many planes left to update. Maybe ten or so? The Ju88, Ki.67, TBM, F4F/FM2, and Ki.61, just off the top of my head. For example, engine cowlings on radial engines are updated to be actually round rather than octagonal; cockpits get make-overs and are given real moving controls. Also, the damage model is updated, so you'll see the underlying spars and internal structures exposed when control surfaces are damaged. In the old model, if you lose an aileron, that part is simply "deleted" from your view. In the new model, the part is still there but displays the damage. Its HTCs continuous improvement, and really needs to be done to try to stay competitive graphically with other current flight sims. The current Ki.61 control panel is pretty simplistic:
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/AH-Ki.61-instrument-panel.jpg)
-
Whatever game that screen shot is from, the art guy put an IJN reticle in an IJA gunsight. Yet they did the art for the correct IJA gunsight. The Type 98 IJN reticle shown there is 145Mil diameter. The Type 100 that should be there is 100Mil diameter.
-
And for the record. Daytime ops reticle were white in both Japanese services. The prevalence of the orange reticle for IJN\IJA planes in air combat games since the 90's was someone goofing at the beginning of the PC gaming era and everyone taking that as gospel.
Japanese gunsights had a daytime white light diffuser, reddish\pink night time diffuser. Same as the german gunsights the Japanese were using, or based their models from. And a polarized slide up or flip up sun filter for the white daytime reticle. Along with a dimmer rheostat.
The IJN Type 100 depicted in the screen shot was a modified copy of an export model produced by Optische Anstalt Oigee, Berlin.
Also the segmented 80Mil ring in the Type 100 gunsight has 2x the number of partitions as the real type 98 reticle. The Type 98 reticle is overall 145Mil in diameter in part due to how slow the cannon round velocity was of the first generation of A6m fighters. The US and RAF concept of 100mph ring(100Mil) was based on faster rounds. I suspect the artist was taking license for playability rather than historic accuracy.
-
Deep knowledge there, Bustr! Its from Pacific Fighters; I;ve never played it but maybe they have a feature like AH where you can set your own gunsite?
btw I've always wanted a feature turn the gun site off/on, ever since I accidentally triggered a burst while formation flying in a scenario where friendly fire is on, I thought it would be a good idea. (I'm imagining it would be linked to a gun safety or charging system - I'm not sure how WWII guns were charged and fired, and what mechanisms prevented accidentally discharging).
-
I've asked a number of times over the years. I suspect it goes along with no minutia of engine control features to get in the way of simply playing the game. You can always turn down the alpha slider. Once you place the reticle over something it will brighten back up. Just like real life.
-
That cockpit is from Pacific Fighters, but HTC crew will do just a good a job if not better.
Ki.61-II with Ha-140 engine supposedly did 394mph, but only 99 constructed before engine factory destroyed. That engine was really unreliable I guess. The Japanese mated the remaining Ki.61-II airframes to a Mitsubishi air cooled radial engine creating the Ki.100. Pretty slow (360mph) but lighter and better climb rate than the Ki.61 though.
I often wondered if HTC would ever add the Ki.61-II, because that engine was extremely unreliable. One of the biggest problems with the Japanese was poor maintenance and a lack of spare parts. I think the 65th Sentai was one of the groups that had like 12 Ki-61's that were grounded because of engine problems. I know the 65th at Rubaul had the same problem, most of the planes were scrapped; hell I think even the pilots were used as infantry too.
Until the Tiger II was added, I figured the Ki-61-II still has a chance since the Tiger was as unreliable. Whether they add the 400mph version is a question, I thought most topped out at 360mph? Even the Ki-100 was only 360mph due to poor aviation fuel. I do know it flew over 420mph+ on American gas after the war.
-
Well my understanding is the fuselage was lengthened a second time between the Ki.61-I-KAIc and the Ki.61-II, and the Ki.100 was a mating of the Ki.61-II airframe with a Mitsubishi Ha-112 air-cooled radial engine. So if people want the Ki.100, they'll have to create the longer fuselage, so maybe we'd get a Ki.61-II in the mix.
Personally I find the Ki.100 far less visually appealing than the '61:
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/world-war-2/images/f/f7/Ki-100.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131225212353)
To me, it has a early-War look about it. Except, it doesn't look as elegant or graceful as the early-War Ki.43:
(http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/78/Nakajima_Ki-43-IIa.jpg)
But all that is just aesthetics. If the Ki.100 comes to Aces High, I'll skin it, and fly it.
-
I would personally be much more interested in the Ki-61-II than the Ki-100, though historical relevance makes it unlikely the Ki-61-II will be added. As Butcher says, the Tiger II was also extremely unreliable and it is in. That said, the Tiger II also has an awe factor about it that the Ki-61-II decidedly lacks.
Probably the only Japanese unit that has it is the Yamato. Long Lance is good too.
-
Agreed, Karnak. The Yamato is THE Japanese unit with "awe" factor. That ship would be a VERY cool addition to AH3...
I read that out of 275 Ki.61-II airframes, only 99 were completed as Ki.61-IIs, with the 1500hp Ha-140 inline engine. The rest of the airframes were used to create the Ki.100.
Ki.61-IIb numbers are pretty impressive though - 394mph at 16,405 ft and armed with 4x Ho-5 20mm cannon. Better rear visibility with cut-down rear deck. The Tony is looking even more like an Italian bird by now:
(http://rsmodels.cz/galerie/produkty/48002/l64ytbvzgw_large.jpg)
EDIT: I just did some testing offline with our Ki.61-1-KAIc, and with 50% fuel, it hit about 370mph at 16,400'. Rate of climb was interesting, too - initial rate of climb without WEP @50% fuel was about 3500fpm to 2,000'. After that it tailed off; overall it too 6 minutes to reach 16,400 ft. That's a little over 2700 fpm.
Published RoC is 2983 fpm, but I don't know how they calculate that. I took 50% fuel, did not use WEP, started from sea level, and used auto climb. Then I recorded time to reach altitude for every 1000 ft, beginning with 2,000ft and ending at 16,400ft.
-
I would personally be much more interested in the Ki-61-II than the Ki-100, though historical relevance makes it unlikely the Ki-61-II will be added. As Butcher says, the Tiger II was also extremely unreliable and it is in. That said, the Tiger II also has an awe factor about it that the Ki-61-II decidedly lacks.
Probably the only Japanese unit that has it is the Yamato. Long Lance is good too.
Japanese tanks are not something to be "Wow'ed" over either, I did a pictorial history on the Japanese Army Armour a few years back, to my surprise not one tank was capable of taking on an M4 Sherman on equal grounds.
Well except one prototype:
(http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab56/Misconduc/Type5.jpg) (http://s849.photobucket.com/user/Misconduc/media/Type5.jpg.html)
The Type 5 Japanese tank was suppose to have a 75mm main gun and 37mm aux gun, it was the "Panther" of the Japanese armour in 1945, they believed it would be superior to M4A1 Sherman. Only one prototype was completed, it was actually "taken" from the Japanese island because the 37mm was installed, if it wasn't installed it would of been left to the Japanese Defense force.
(Sorry for going off topic) - but its just an example of just how "bad" some things were for the Japanese Army, they were trying to design a Sherman killer in 1945.
Back to the Ki-61, I had fond memories of flying it in Scenarios and FSO's, even scored 9 kills in an FSO event (Rangoon of all places) - mostly because I was flying against Brewster Buffalos and P-40B's. In a typical FSO setting with F4u-1's, P-38Gs and P-47-D11s the Speed and lack of maneuverability above 16,000 ft start to show. I only got lucky once when I ran into a gaggle of F4F's and was boom and zooming them without a problem, however the first corsair I ran into; I ended up flamed.
Overall its a solid aircraft and performer, it just has mediocre maneuverability, speed and climb rate - just nothing that jumps out at you vs an Ki-84. I honestly would like to see other Japanese planes added, Ki-44 for example or Ki-45.
-
+1 on the Ki.44 and Ki.45. Actually would rather see either of those two before the Ki.100 or Ki.61-II. They were much more important to the Japanese war effort and saw combat in a number of different theaters, making them useful as scenario aircraft.
Probably not much use in the MA though - I'd rather be in a Hien than either of those two. Although a Ki.45 with 1x 37mm and 2x 20mms in the nose might be great for ground attack. I can't find much on the Tojo's armament - looks like 4x 12.7mms was the most common/effective gun package? I understand they experimented with 2x 40mm cannon under the wings but the ballistics were so bad it was basically a point-blank weapon?
-
Probably not much use in the MA though - I'd rather be in a Hien than either of those two. Although a Ki.45 with 1x 37mm and 2x 20mms in the nose might be great for ground attack. I can't find much on the Tojo's armament - looks like 4x 12.7mms was the most common/effective gun package? I understand they experimented with 2x 40mm cannon under the wings but the ballistics were so bad it was basically a point-blank weapon?
Ki-44-IIB was the first major production model, the Ki-44-IB and Ki-44-IC had a few dozen made but the IIB had I believe 1,110 made. They used the 4x 12.7mm package, with a Nakajima Ha.109 engine.
Ki-44-IIC was the next major production model, it did come with 2x 12.7mm and 2x 20mm Ho-3's in the wings (basically the same 20mm on the A6M3).
The 40mm version was a late war version that was modified in an attempt to combat the B-29 raids; the Ki-44-IIc-Kai. As you guessed, the 40mm's ballistics were extremely terrible, let alone the top speed of the B-29s which made fighters generally have one "pass" on the B-29s and that was it.
Due to the extremely poor performance of the 40mms, 37mm's were often used instead, although its ballistics were bad, it was still better.
Armament shifted to prototype models with a newer engine (Nakajima Ha.145) with one version having 4x 20mm HO-5's and 2x 12.7mm - problem was the Ha.145's engine plant was bombed, none of the Ki-44-III's went into production after May 1944.
I'm guessing if HTC is going to do the Ki-44, it would be two versions: Ki-44-IIB and Ki-44-IIc-Kai. (4x 12.7mms and second version 2x 12.7's and 2x 20mm).
-
All I'll say is that if we get the J2M, it's all I'll ever fly.
-
All I'll say is that if we get the J2M, it's all I'll ever fly.
I think I'd fly the Raiden a lot. Not exclusively, but often I think.
So many Japanese aircraft to look forward to!
-
Raiden and Ki-44, what current rides in the game have similar flight characteristic's?
-
Raiden and Ki-44, what current rides in the game have similar flight characteristic's?
Raiden is an odd ball, it can climb over 4,000 feet per minute with 4x 20mm cannons. It had a pretty good top speed, but its maneuverability was horrible (it was an interceptor). If anything I think its basically a C.205.
As for the Ki-44, closest I can think is the Fw-190A series.
-
I think the Raiden is similar to the N1K1-J. Similar max speeds, rates of climb (Raiden wins here at 4600 fpm) and 4x20mm Type 99 cannons (apparently not as good as the Hien's or Hayate's Ho-5 20mm cannon).
The Ki.44 has top speed of 376 mph and a 3900+ fpm rate of climb, but was with just undergunned at just 4x 12.7mm machine guns. It was however operational in 1942; the others were not available until 1944. Even if not a MA-type contender, it could be a great scenario aircraft. I want to say they were used in China, in Borneo to defend oil installations, and as Home Defense also.
-
If you check you will find the 12.7 mm listed as a autocannon!
The Japanese actually had and used explosive rounds in their 12.7 mm guns,it did prove troublesome as they had issues with rounds exploding in the gun and many misfire.
While nowhere near as effective as a 20mm I wouldnt call 4x12.7 under gunned!
:salute
-
They are the same 12.7mm guns as the Ki-84 carries. Four of them would be quite usable, though certainly not impressive.
-
Raiden is an odd ball, it can climb over 4,000 feet per minute with 4x 20mm cannons. It had a pretty good top speed, but its maneuverability was horrible (it was an interceptor). If anything I think its basically a C.205.
As for the Ki-44, closest I can think is the Fw-190A series.
See, I imagine it as being somewhat similar to a 109K crossed with an A8. Of course, it's wing loading isn't terribly high, so maybe even that is a bit of an overstatement.
-
I wonder if the Raiden's reputation for poor maneuvrability isn't simply down to its pilots' perspective. A lot of the more experienced pilots flying it would have spent much of their careers in A6Ms. Japanese doctrine put a lot of emphasis on nimbleness in their fighters too, some pilots preferring early A6M2s and Ki-43s to their later, heavier replacements.
-
I wonder if the Raiden's reputation for poor maneuvrability isn't simply down to its pilots' perspective. A lot of the more experienced pilots flying it would have spent much of their careers in A6Ms. Japanese doctrine put a lot of emphasis on nimbleness in their fighters too, some pilots preferring early A6M2s and Ki-43s to their later, heavier replacements.
That is the majority of it as I recall. American test pilots apparently thought the J2M had delightful handling.
~35lbs/sq.ft of wing loading puts it in the mid-late war Spitfire wing loading category, plus it has fowler flaps as on the Ki-43, Ki-84, N1Ks and P-38s.
-
Better rear visibility with cut-down rear deck. The Tony is looking even more like an Italian bird by now:
Based on what I have read, the Ki-61-II with the cut down rear fuselage ended up being a single airframe because the engine factory got bombed roughly at the same time as that variant was supoosed to go into production. Therefore rest of those airframes were used as Ki-100-Ibs.
I wonder if the Raiden's reputation for poor maneuvrability isn't simply down to its pilots' perspective. A lot of the more experienced pilots flying it would have spent much of their careers in A6Ms. Japanese doctrine put a lot of emphasis on nimbleness in their fighters too, some pilots preferring early A6M2s and Ki-43s to their later, heavier replacements.
Very much true.
I see no reason or read anything that would indicate Raiden's maneuverability as being "horrible". Like Greebo said, obviously majority of the Japanese Navy's pilots flew majority of their hours with A6Ms. Wing loading of 171kg/sqm (J2M3) is on the lighter side when talking about late war fighters in general and top of that it has effective Fowler type combat flaps.
To put things into perspective; at normal take off weight N1K2 has basically identical wing loading as the J2M3 and both have Fowler type combat flaps. I'd expect the turning radiuses of these planes to be rather close to each other.
-
I wonder if the Raiden's reputation for poor maneuvrability isn't simply down to its pilots' perspective. A lot of the more experienced pilots flying it would have spent much of their careers in A6Ms. Japanese doctrine put a lot of emphasis on nimbleness in their fighters too, some pilots preferring early A6M2s and Ki-43s to their later, heavier replacements.
I wonder if the Ki-45 would be more maneuverable then the P-38G, from a few doctrines I've seen and accounts, the Ki-45 was able to out turn P-38G's at 16,000ft. The only short coming was the 20mm Ho-3 cannon with a rate of fire of 400rpm made the cannon rather useless against single seat fighters; (hence why later upgrades had two 20mm Ho-5 cannons and a 37mm cannon).
Although the upgraded armament was mostly for bombers, and thus was a late war upgrade as well; most used varient had two 12.7mm Type 1 and a single 20mm Ho-3 which was horribly ineffective in the SWP.
-
The aircraft we have in game is not the Ki-61Kai C, it's the Ki-61 Tei or d. The Ki-61 Kai C is/was equipped with Mg151 20mm wing cannon from a supply that Germany sent. That's what makes a Kaizo (modified) C, different than the regular C...The Ki-61-Tei is a different airframe in that it's fuselage is longer than the Hei (c) and has Ho-5 cannon in the fuselage rather than the wings as depicted in the Hei.
-
I wonder if the Ki-45 would be more maneuverable then the P-38G, from a few doctrines I've seen and accounts, the Ki-45 was able to out turn P-38G's at 16,000ft. The only short coming was the 20mm Ho-3 cannon with a rate of fire of 400rpm made the cannon rather useless against single seat fighters; (hence why later upgrades had two 20mm Ho-5 cannons and a 37mm cannon).
Although the upgraded armament was mostly for bombers, and thus was a late war upgrade as well; most used varient had two 12.7mm Type 1 and a single 20mm Ho-3 which was horribly ineffective in the SWP.
If it couldn't out maneuver a P-38J, I doubt it could do the same against the P-38G. This is what McGuire had to say about the "Nick" in his Combat Tactics in the Southwest Pacific Area.
Nick - There haven't been many of these twin-engine fighters in this area and with their poor performance they are becoming scarcer as P-38 pilots and others prove that this is one Japanese fighter they can out-turn, out-run, and out-climb. The NICK is structurally strong and there will be some difficulty in diving away, but then it won't be necessary unless he gets close on your tail.
-
If it couldn't out maneuver a P-38J, I doubt it could do the same against the P-38G. This is what McGuire had to say about the "Nick" in his Combat Tactics in the Southwest Pacific Area.
I've seen you post that before. Is there anything else, something formal, that supports that claim? As we know, combat experiences are complex and don't isolate individual performance aspects well.
-
I've seen you post that before. Is there anything else, something formal, that supports that claim? As we know, combat experiences are complex and don't isolate individual performance aspects well.
Late in the war its easy to see why the P-38J would of been a better aircraft; veteran pilots - even aces like McGuire would disdain the Ki-45. However earlier in the war, not many P-40 and P-39 pilots were aces - you notice far more P-38/Corsair aces because the attrition has already set in for the Japanese War Machine. McGuire himself, thought an "Oscar" was an easy kill and eventually was killed by an instructor with over 3,000 hours (Actually holding on to his drop tanks and turning to tight causing a stall out at low altitude killed him), but he assumed the pilot was a novice - its easy for him to claim the nick was a "terrible" plane; rather the pilots were not the veterans of the early war.
Early accounts showed that the Ki-45 KAIa was a formidable fighter; that could out turn a P-38G - that is all I stated. The P-38G still out climbs and out runs a Nick, one of the benefits the Nick had however was Self sealing tanks vs every other Japanese fighter at the time. Still, the Japanese found out the long range "fighter" was a bad idea as the Germans did with the Bf-110, it simply was not capable as a single seat fighter. Plus the terrible rate of fire of the 20mm proved useless against single seat fighters.
Even if the P-38 out runs it by over 50 mph, doesn't mean the P-38 wins every time; just look at the record of the B-239 against LA-5's. McGuire I believe, probably flew against novice pilots - which makes a difference.