Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Anaxogoras on February 09, 2009, 01:45:08 AM
-
This plane is one of the worst I've ever flown for pilot wounds. It's usually the first or second kind of damage you take. From what I understand the Ki-84 provided far more pilot protection than its predecessor Japanese fighters, but in the game it is worse. For that matter, the Ki-61 and N1K are both more rugged.
-
From what I understand the Ki-84 provided far more pilot protection than its predecessor Japanese fighters
I believe it was upgraded from none to little :)
-
This plane is one of the worst I've ever flown for pilot wounds. It's usually the first or second kind of damage you take. From what I understand the Ki-84 provided far more pilot protection than its predecessor Japanese fighters, but in the game it is worse. For that matter, the Ki-61 and N1K are both more rugged.
I mostly fly the 84 and, yep, it's really prone to PW. I don't know if the other japanese fighters are more rugged, but it's surely annoying, one of the 2 things I hate most of this otherwise wonderful plane. I always thought it's about the big "windowed" area of the cockpit, as opposed to other planes (in the 61 there is a lot of metal from behind; the Niki should be as prone to PW as the 84, though...).
OT: FRANK! You're still here! :O Where the hell have you been, you cheese eater? How are you doing? =)
-
This plane is one of the worst I've ever flown for pilot wounds. It's usually the first or second kind of damage you take. From what I understand the Ki-84 provided far more pilot protection than its predecessor Japanese fighters, but in the game it is worse. For that matter, the Ki-61 and N1K are both more rugged.
Yeah, the Ki-84 and P-38 are really Pilot wound prone, get used to it :cry
-
I believe it was upgraded from none to little
13mm head/back armour, 65mm armoured glass canopy, and a self-sealing fuel tank. It was as well protected as any common fighter aircraft of the era.
...
From an empirical point of view, the pilot wound in the Ki-84 is indeed far more frequent than any other plane I've flown - frequent enough to warrant a complaint.
However, there could be fairly simple explanations as to what is causing such frequent PWs. One such explanation being;
...at least in my case, about 99% of the PWs I've experienced while flying the Ki-84, was during a sharp breaking turn to evade enemy fire. Since such a turn typically exposes the top portion of the cockpit which is unprotected by metal armour plates, the frequency of PWs under such conditions are entirely understandable.
Especially, since many pilots take note of the superior low-speed turning characteristics of the Ki-84, there is a high existing tendency of pilots who know how to fly the Ki-84 well enough, to use aggressive turn-and-bait tactics to lure the attacker behind him into a stall fight - and quite often, these pilots will attempt to draw in the enemy until dangerously close distances. If the tactic fails, and if somehow the enemy behind (at least momentarily) gains an angle sharp enough to make out a firing solution despite the superior turn of the Ki-84, then the Ki-84 exposes the top of the canopy at a very slow speed - which makes it a sitting duck.
Consider this:
If it was any other plane - perhaps a Zero, or a Hurricane, or even a Spitfire, you'd just be dead, and that would be the end of it. However, because the Ki-84 is a well protected plane, one might survive such an attack and take notice of the occuring pilot wound - and might think that PW occurs to often in the Ki-84, despite the fact that in any other plane, one might simply be pilot-dead, and instantly return to the tower.
If it was any other plane that didn't turn so well as a Ki-84, one would also simply be dead, since the enemy plane behind you would gain enough time for a steadier gun solution that would rip the plane to shreds. However, because it was a Ki-84, the enemy had only a brief moment to try to land a shot on you - and since the Ki-84 did turn well enough to evade most shots and get hit by only a few (albeit critical) shots near the canopy, you might survive it, and then notice a PW... and naturally be misled to think that the Ki-84 shows more PW than other planes.
...
Therefore, unless there is a definite, controlled test done concerning how often the Ki-84 falls to PW under which circumstances, I cannot really say there is a PW problem with the Ki-84. It might be nothing but a simple distortion of perception as to what happens with the Ki-84s.
-
I understand and agree with your analysis kweassa: there is no hard evidence that something is wrong. However, the kind of tactics you describe that might lead to more pilot wounds are put into use by many other aircraft, like the N1K (tough as nails), another radial-engined Japanese fighter with a bubble canopy.
I'd be happy if HTC looked at it and I'd accept their findings.
-
If you take hits,you are doing something wrong. :t
-
...However, the kind of tactics you describe that might lead to more pilot wounds are put into use by many other aircraft, like the N1K (tough as nails), another radial-engined Japanese fighter with a bubble canopy...
A very far-fetched, purely wild guess, but...
(http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/n1k2-j.gif)
(http://airwar.hihome.com/gwp/ki-84/ki-84-3d.jpg)
Despite the similar feel of the overall schematics, the cockpit of the N1K2-J is entirely located at the frontal half of the fuselage, whilst the cockpit of the Ki-84-1a is oriented at the direct center of the plane. The turning capabilities of both planes are roughly comparable and well matched.
Therefore, from the point of view of the attacking plane behind it, on average I'd say it'd be far more likely for an N1K2-J suffering hits (most probably somewhere between the center of the plane and the tail section (since on average lead-angle shots against tightly turning planes usually land in those places)) would lose either the entire rear fuselage or the tail section... whereas the Ki-84-1a, with its cockpit closer to the center of the plane, would have a higher chance of at least some hits landing on the top-rear part of cockpit, where the pilot is located. Come to think of it (at least to me) the usual image of the N1K2-J being shot down is indeed the rear half or tail section being ripped apart, and suddenly the whole plane flopping to face skywards - during an attempted evasive turn.
Ofcourse, such difference is minute.. but maybe under such circmustances, such small differences might manifest itself in detail.
On a side note, one could also notice the heavier framing of the N1K2-J, although I'm not really sure just what kind of difference it would exhibit being under fire - like I said, it's a wild guess.
ps)
Another interesting case might be the P-38, which is also claimed to suffer higher PW rates than other planes. P-38 pilots are known to take exceptional pride in their preference to combat lighter, nimbler planes in aggressive stall fights. While it has unique characteristics which aid in maneuvering, in terms of pure performance (as in radius) the P-38 is actually a very poor turner, exhibiting the largest turn radius among all US planes in the game. (It's true!)
One may be able to assume that if a lighter, nimbler plane does get the upperhand against a P-38 trying a tight turn, it may find it a lot easier to gain a leading shot against it, than perhaps the N1K2 or the Ki-84.
...and since from that angle the rear half of the P-38 is practically empty, naturally, any shots against the P-38 would be probably be directed against the frontal half of the fuselage - at which, ofcourse, the cockpit rests.
Maybe this is one of the 'secrets' as to why the P-38 also suffers a lot of PWs... (..other than the fact that there isn't a "rear fuselage" blocking the immediate backside of the pilot's position as in other planes, ofcourse...)
-
This plane is one of the worst I've ever flown for pilot wounds. It's usually the first or second kind of damage you take. From what I understand the Ki-84 provided far more pilot protection than its predecessor Japanese fighters, but in the game it is worse. For that matter, the Ki-61 and N1K are both more rugged.
omfg yea, this is a 20 eny plane not a 15 for this very reason.
Just as a p51 is not an 8 with the planes in game today...the only reason it would drop to an 8 would be for the range and that's not applicable in this game.
Ask Delta - there is something wrong with the p51 50cals (or with the p40) either way they are NOT the same 50cal and yet the p40 50's are far more effective!!!)
But, i doubt hitech REALLY audits their settings and goes back over things, maybe I'm wrong though :)
-
Fly the mossie for awhile then tell me the 84 gets alot of PW's.
It seems to me that the 38 and mossie both get more than their fair share of pilot wounds.
I'm not complaining though,just making an observation.
-
Funny thing is....I rarely ever get PWs in either the 38 OR Mossie
-
Yeah, the Ki-84 and P-38 are really Pilot wound prone, get used to it :cry
you forgot the f4u1a also gets it quite a bit
-
Easy solution....
Don't let the other guy shoot you :aok
-
Did the KI-84 really shed parts like it does in this game?
I don't think I've been in any other plane in the game that is sooo prone to stuff ripping off at high speed.
-
Did the KI-84 really shed parts like it does in this game?
I don't think I've been in any other plane in the game that is sooo prone to stuff ripping off at high speed.
Never had that problem did auger a few times before I learned to manage my speed better, pilot wounds are another matter, hardly a night goes by without one
-
omfg yea, this is a 20 eny plane not a 15 for this very reason.
Just as a p51 is not an 8 with the planes in game today...the only reason it would drop to an 8 would be for the range and that's not applicable in this game.
Ask Delta - there is something wrong with the p51 50cals (or with the p40) either way they are NOT the same 50cal and yet the p40 50's are far more effective!!!)
But, i doubt hitech REALLY audits their settings and goes back over things, maybe I'm wrong though :)
Uh oh.. now ya did it. You questioned them. Thing is, they... ah Hell, I'm not even going to waste my time.
But yeah, it seems as if you've might on to something. ;)
-
Meh, I just think it's blind luck and the situations you put yourself in in that particular aircraft. I get PW's first shot from puffy ack and field ack all the time in my Pony B, but I don't think that has to do with modeling. If a person shoots your pilot, he shot your pilot. Not much you can do, really.
-
Did the KI-84 really shed parts like it does in this game?
I don't think I've been in any other plane in the game that is sooo prone to stuff ripping off at high speed.
Spixtweenies will rip their wings off if they are going to fast and attempt to pull too many g's. Had one dive in front of me and give me a proxy the other night as he shed his wings and augered in. I was laughing pretty hard.
Here's the thing with the Ki-84: Just listen to the frame. You can dive for a bit with things but the 84 is not built for the high speeds that p-51's and p-47's can easily obtain by dipping their noses down. The Ki-84 does have a nice top speed in level flight that you can surprise some faster birds with as long as they've run out of altitude and any excess E they were carrying.
I ripped some parts off when I first started flying it but quickly learned to listen for the creaking noises that indicate your doing something wrong. Just throttle back a tad and bring the nose up. You can pursue people running by just maintaining your alt and following them. If they come back up in a zoom you can more than likely punish them.
-
This plane is one of the worst I've ever flown for pilot wounds. It's usually the first or second kind of damage you take. From what I understand the Ki-84 provided far more pilot protection than its predecessor Japanese fighters, but in the game it is worse. For that matter, the Ki-61 and N1K are both more rugged.
tht'd make a fun matchup with a p38. both would get a PW on the first pass....then it's the battle of the blackouts. :rofl
-
Shux, today I cut the throttle and dove from 11k ft to bomb a VH in the Ki-84, and by the time I was at 6k both my elevators and my rudder had ripped off! :cry
-
When you dive with an 84, keep an eye on the ASI and never exceed 450 mph of indicated airspeed. Faster than that, you'll surely loose parts; till that point, you'll be able to pull out of the dive (pulling gently on the stick!): just keep in mind that this is an empirical observation, so it can be a tad more or tad less of 450 mph. Be careful.
Dive bombing is something I definitely advice not to do with a Frank, unless you are really fast at finding your target, aiming and dropping!
-
Shux, today I cut the throttle and dove from 11k ft to bomb a VH in the Ki-84, and by the time I was at 6k both my elevators and my rudder had ripped off! :cry
Don't dive 5 thousand feet and maybe you'll get to keep some parts :D
Were you almost verticle dropping down? Even chopped throttle you can pick up dangerous amounts of speed quickly that way.
-
Shux, today I cut the throttle and dove from 11k ft to bomb a VH in the Ki-84, and by the time I was at 6k both my elevators and my rudder had ripped off! :cry
the rudder is your friend.
-
Yeah, it's my fault, but I'd like to know why the 84 is so modeled to be so fragile.
-
Yeah, it's my fault, but I'd like to know why the 84 is so modeled to be so fragile.
The design itself was fairly robust.
My guess is HTC was putting some quality issues in there to try to simulate the very poor quality control the Japanese had by the time the Ki-84 was in mass production.
-
Yes, but the N1K does not have the same problem.
-
Yes, but the N1K does not have the same problem.
Nope. But I still think that is why the Ki-84 sheds parts.
-
A ki84 that didn't shed parts at top speeds would be uber. :devil
-
It's an interesting explanation, karnak, because to my knowledge it would be the only aircraft that has quality control issues included in its flight model. For instance, all of the late-war German aircraft are free of quality control issues which we know were rampant at the time.
-
It's an interesting explanation, karnak, because to my knowledge it would be the only aircraft that has quality control issues included in its flight model. For instance, all of the late-war German aircraft are free of quality control issues which we know were rampant at the time.
I agree that it would make it the only aircraft so affected.
I have never read or seen anything that indicates the Ki-84 had any inherent weakness that would cause it to shed control surfaces at speeds significantly below other WWII aircraft.
-
I have never read or seen anything that indicates the Ki-84 had any inherent weakness that would cause it to shed control surfaces at speeds significantly below other WWII aircraft.
I've always thought it was simply a matter of maximum design speed... every plane has one and the fact that the ASI in the 84 don't reach the 500 mph it's a pretty strong suggestion that maybe the plane wasn't meant to reach those speeds. Any idea of what is the Vne of Ki-84?
-
I've always thought it was simply a matter of maximum design speed... every plane has one and the fact that the ASI in the 84 don't reach the 500 mph it's a pretty strong suggestion that maybe the plane wasn't meant to reach those speeds. Any idea of what is the Vne of Ki-84?
The A6M2, and to a lesser degree A6M5b, exceeds its maximum dive speed by a ridiculous margin. The A6M2 should lose its wing skin somewhere between 400 and 450mph.
-
The A6M2, and to a lesser degree A6M5b, exceeds its maximum dive speed by a ridiculous margin. The A6M2 should lose its wing skin somewhere between 400 and 450mph.
HeeHee, a A6M2 ripped its wing off after diving at my p38 last night in MW and gave me a good chuckle.
-
The A6M2, and to a lesser degree A6M5b, exceeds its maximum dive speed by a ridiculous margin. The A6M2 should lose its wing skin somewhere between 400 and 450mph.
Right-O. Everything seems to tolerate speed too well, but it is really apparent with the Zekes.
-
Shh, don't let the secret out. ;) Last time I tried it with my A6M5b I hit somewhere in the 600mph area(or was it 570... anyways!) before shedding parts(according to film). Not sure if this has changed since they fixed the bugs in the CT for the A6M. That and I haven't had the initiative to climb close to 30,000ft again. Also note even though I wasn't shedding parts till extremely high speeds I was far in the red as far as compressing goes.