Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: funked on February 06, 2000, 11:47:00 PM
-
I have absolutely ZERO hard data to back this up.
But the N1K2 sure seems to fall apart after a small amount of hits.
I can't think of any reason this plane should not be as durable as the others. The empty weight and size are similar to the Fw 190A, La-5FN, and P-51D, and it is a heavier and larger aircraft than the Me 109 or Spitfire. It had armor and self sealing fuel tanks. I've read a couple of stories where USN pilots were amazed at how tough it was.
I've seen all the Aces High fighter planes (except the La-5FN) next to eachother in one room at the Champlin museum and the plane really has a substantial and sturdy look to it, more so than the Fw 190. The exception is the F4U which is an absolute beast!
I could be wrong but it don't seem right...
-
My experiences against the N1K have usally shown it to be a fairly sturdy airplane, especially against .50's. Flying once against Hollywood, I was pinging him in a dogfight for a solid 30 seconds. Every burst resulted in multiple hits at or closer than convergence. Both of us couldn't believe how many hits his George took.
Haven't flown in the N1k since beta, but I'll give it a go next time I'm up.
MiG
-
Hmmm I'm probably full of it then, oversensitized to the usual treatment of Japanese planes in sims. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Honestly, I keep N1K2 much more tougher to shoot down than P-51 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
P-51 wrecks apart just with a touch, while N1K2 keeps flying after several hits, definetly if its not cannon hitting it.
Anyway, I have been shooting down planes often with a pair of 7.92mm, and I can say that N1K2 takes toejamloads of those peas, more than other planes. (lol, only B-26 and B-17 takes more.. I have shot down B-17 succesfully with those peashots, takes REAL many hits :P)
-
N1K2 take a lot of ammo but dont know if japanese add "shield" on this late war plane but i have read that his durability was Good.
anyway I still dont understand why this plane speed is overmodelled.
George was not a fast fighter (top speed = 363 mph)
Note:
"The Shiden Kai were probably the most outstanding designs put into production for the JNAF during the war. Though it was fairly slow for 1944-1945 standards, it could turn inside anything the Americans had deployed as well as outclimb and outroll them at any speed. Its heavy armament seemingly made it a good choice for intercepting B-29s, but the George did not turn out to be adequate in this role as its high-altitude performance deteriorated rapidly above 20.000 feet."
Top speed = 363 mph
Range = 890 miles
Ceiling = 41.000 feet
Climb rate = 2.950 ft./min.
-
VISCONTI, how is it overmodelled?
Please, post some numbers as I am very interested in your perspective. You give a reference, but you don't post any inflight in AH numbers for the aircraft.
Go back and read the threads on the N1K2, when it first came out. Most people thought it was undermodelled, considerably. Myself included.
You do realize that this aircraft had a 2000hp engine dont' you? In other words as powerful as the F4U engine, with an aircraft that weighed about 3,000lbs less (weight number from memory, but close).
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
-
George was not a fast fighter (top speed = 363 mph)
Do you realize that there were two main George variants? Perhaps the number you quote is referring to the N1K1 and not the N1K2? Eric Brown seems to think so...quoting the N1K2 (the model we have in AH) as being able to fly at 407 mph.
Despite low quality materials being used in construction, I have read that the Japanese were using 85 grade fuel, which is significantly lower than the 100 grade that the U.S. and British forces were using and even the Germans to some extent. This would account for the engine not producing it's rating of 2000 hp. This plane is definitely capable of being faster than a Hellcat and close to an F4u-1, given 100 grade fuel, which is probably how it was flight tested in the U.S. once captured!
-
All i have found is that:
Specification of the Kawanishi N1K1-J Shiden
One Nakajima NK9H Homare 21 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1990 hp for takeoff, 1825 hp at 5740 feet, 1625 hp at 20,015 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 363 mph at 19,355 feet, 334 mph at 8040 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph at 6560 feet, service ceiling 41,000 feet cruising speed 230 mph at 6600 feet. Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 50 seconds. Normal range 890 miles at 230 mph at 13,120 feet, maximum range 1580 miles.
Weights: 6387 pounds empty, 8598 pounds loaded, 9526 pounds maximum loaded.
Dimensions: wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 29 feet 1 25/32 inches, height 13 feet 3 27/32 inches, wing area 252.95 square feet.
Armament: Two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns in the fuselage, two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon in the wings, two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon in underwing gondolas. Two 132-pound bombs or one 88 Imp gall drop tank could be carried externally.
Specification of the Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden Kai:
One Nakajima NK9H Homare 21 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1990 hp for takeoff, 1825 hp at 5740 feet, 1625 hp at 20,015 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 369 mph at 19,355 feet, 359 mph at 9840 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph at 9845 feet, service ceiling 35,300 feet cruising speed 230 mph at 6600 feet. Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 22 seconds. Normal range 1066 miles at 219 mph at 9840 feet, maximum range 1488 miles with 88 Imp. gall. drop tank.
Weights: 5858 pounds empty, 8818 pounds loaded, 10,714 pounds maximum loaded.
Dimensions: wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 30 feet 7 29/32 inches, height 12 feet 11 29/32 inches, wing area 252.95 square feet.
Armament: Four 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon in the wings. Two 551-pound bombs or one 88 Imp. gall. drop tank could be carried externally.
hope some japanese friend can give us more info.
-
Sorry!
cause i am a dweb 205 pilot i overestimated the AH N1K2.
I have done some test whit N1K2 ofline and his speed performance are good modelled.
sorry again
-
No reason to be sorry Visconti (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
At least you had the guts to come back, and admitt a misconception.
I guess now you have figured out the whole point of my asking for a comparison of published data versus inflight testing.
And I also noticed that you pulled the data from Francillons excellent book on Japanese aircraft.
The biggest reason that I think people should do some controled offline (ie noncombat) testing, is that while in combat many factors can impact you impression.
In this case with the N1K2,it has pretty good acceleration, and this can make it seem in combat like it has very good top speed. Its quite deceptive.
Good data vs Extensive testing is the only way to go.
And personally, I still think the Eric Green number (407 mph) for the N1K2 is much more likely given the aircrafts design, than the more prevalent 369 mph. Ah well, I don't think the data exists anymore to even prove it either way.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
-
And personally, I still think the Eric Green number (407 mph) for the
N1K2 is much more likely given the aircrafts design, than the more
prevalent 369 mph. Ah well, I don't think the data exists anymore to
even prove it either way.
I agree totally! I'm convinced now that the fuel is the key component to the performance of the Japanese fighters. With the low fuel grade, output of the engine was something like 1700-1800 hp at sea level (which I've seen quoted in some instances) and about 1300-1400 at 20k. It's performance then makes sense. I'm trying to get my hands on that book...it looks pretty good! Check out the latest Flight Journal magazine, there's a bit on the George in there!
-
The N1K2-J does appear to have slightly too much climb: I get 6'47" to 20,000ft, the figure quoted above is 7'22" to 19,685ft... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
It wasn't just fuel affecting performance; the Homare engine's power was inconsistant due to poor manufacturing, it was a similar story with the engines used in the Ki-61 series too.
-
oh agreed Juzz.
But that goes back to the age old question, do we use "perfect" factory fresh prototype numbers for FM's (which is where most of our data comes from), or do we use production numbers (which were almost always lower than prototype numbers from every country) and war weary aircraft numbers.
No easy answers unfortunately (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
-
Oh and Wells,
Lets not forget the Ki-84 that was tested in Pennsylvania in 1946. It topped out at 425 mph. And lets all remember that it has the same 2000hp Homare as the N1K2.
Also look at the difference between a F4U-4 on 100 octane (AHT #'s) versus the Navy data (Naval Aviation website) which was tested on 115 octane fuel. Looks like a whole different airplane. Same thing with some spitfire tests I have seen.
If all our data on Japanese aircraft comes from 85 octane fuel, we are never gonna see their true potential.
Give me a 425mph Ki-84, and I won't fly NOTHING else (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) And I will even start too drink Saki every Friday night in tribute *blahhh* (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
-
"Give me a 425mph Ki-84, and I won't fly NOTHING else."
And if one of those was around, I'd never come down under 20K (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Spinny, VF-17, The Jolly Rogers 8X
-
Wells, I was flying a FW190 full wep, met a George coming at me HO. We were both at 10K. I avoided the HO merge, pointed the nose down, got on the deck, kept running full wep, had LOTS of E. The George turned around and after a 5 min chase, caught me. Would that have happened with real WW2 planes?
Didn't seem right to me, BTW, he flat turned when I went past him, alas burning his E, but still caught me!
------------------
Brian "Ripsnort" Nelson
++JG2++ ~Richthofen~
(Formerly VF-101 Grim Reapers~Defected~)
"There is no reason anyone would
want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and
founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977
-
Man, that sounds like the uberCamel of DoA!
-
I certainly can't see how that happened. George is slower on the deck than the Fw190A-8, and doesn't seem to gain as much speed in a dive. Maybe you were flying with a little bit of sideslip, a DT still on or something...?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Didn't seem right to me, BTW, he flat turned when I went past him, alas burning his E, but still caught me!
Probably the George made the turn at its
corner speed, so, without loosing energy
(not loosing but not gainning).
Anyway, you move was wrong. If you were
plenty of E and after the first pass he
made a flat turn, your right move should
be a steppy vertical Zoom climb ended with
a hammerhead over the George. 190 is a
tricky plane, but one of the most formidable
adversaries if well flown.
-
Ripsnort:
Remember Co-alt does not equal Co-E. And its real easy to get fooled, trust me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Fuel level? If he was fuel light, and you were fuel heavy, it makes a real big difference.
External Ordinance? Ie did you perhaps have rockets, or drop tanks still attached that you had forgotten about? Or were you carrying the x2 20mm's + x3 30mm's options? Thats alot of weight.
Where you trimmed correctly for your speed and altitude?
Where you performing a zero G dive?
All this things have to be taken into account.
Realistically though, I find your scenario extremely difficult to match with my own experience in the arena. While the Niki has much better acceleration than the Fw190, I have never seen a Niki that was actually faster.
My bet is that he was significantly lighter than you were, and that he when he dived he accelerated faster than you were, and thats how he caught you.
Got film? Would love to see it.
{Addendum} Just noticed that you said at 10k and below. Remember that under 10k the N1K2 (2000hp) has significantly better engine output than the Fw190 (about 1800hp), and they are approximately the same weight. You were in his prime operating envelope. Will have to wait till I get home to check SL speeds for these planes.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 02-09-2000).]
-
Well, lotta questions, here are "some" answers..
I was low on fuel, RTB'ing with no ammo, aircraft was trimmed out, no side slip, etc.I had (4) 20mm loaded in A/C.
Initially, I was gaining distance, it wasn't until I was on the deck, after about 5 min. that the george eventually started closing the gap.
I didn't film it, should have, and I will next time I run from one.
------------------
Brian "Ripsnort" Nelson
++JG2++ ~Richthofen~
(Formerly VF-101 Grim Reapers~Defected~)
"There is no reason anyone would
want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and
founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977
-
Fw 190 can run from the N1K in AH. However at low altitudes the 190 pilot must be very smooth. Any extra maneuvering will cancel the speed advantage.
-
I've just confirmed off line that a 190 at 5K with wep at top speed of 325 IAS 350 TAS, the George was 325 IAS 350 TAS, both identical speeds.
Now during my escape, I was flying thru valleys, which is probably why I lost some airspeed (see funks post above) whereas the George not only has an identical top speed as the 190, it accelerates quicker...it most likely didn't lose as much E in the gentle turns of the valleys as the 190 did, thus the reason he caught me.
Janes shows FW190A-8 at 643 kph at 18K
Shows the George at 640 kph at 20K
Not sure was the low-alt speeds are, anyone have info on this?
------------------
Brian "Ripsnort" Nelson
++JG2++ ~Richthofen~
(Formerly VF-101 Grim Reapers~Defected~)
"There is no reason anyone would
want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and
founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 02-09-2000).]
-
Ripsnort, that's reasonable.
What dive angle did you use? If you dove really steep and used a high G level off, he coulda cut the corner a bit in his dive.
-
I was suspecting the George retains E better than the Fw190A - but if it did, it would certainly be faster.... Hmmm.... In AH, the N1K2-J seems to be about 15-20mph slower than the Fw190A-8 at all altitudes.
Btw, Vermillion: Do you have data on the N1K2-J climbrate vs alt, engine power vs alt etc?
-
I have flown the N1K2 quite bit. I never once thought the speed compared to a 190. The only way I ever caught one, if it was trying to outrun me, was from a dive. The 190 was at low altitude, with nowhere to dive away to.
I might say that players who fly 190's keep their speed high, but I am pretty sure the N1K2 just does not have the speed to catch a fleeing 190.
Mino
-
I don't have any info on the George's climbrate vs altitude, that would bear any resemblance to AH. The one I have is from that Army Intelligence document that Pyro said he doesn't believe in.
One thing to remember is that due to the N1K2's lack of a good supercharger, the engine peaks low. This means that its top speed is not much higher than its Sea Level speed. I think its something like 369 mph at altitude, and 359 at SL. Where in other planes you will see a high max speed at altitude of 410+, but their SL speeds are down in the 360-370 range.
Now its possible for it to "retain E" better than the 190 at SL, while not being faster if your careful of what you mean. Let me explain.
The N1K2 and the Fw190A8 are approximately the same weight, and lets make an assumption that their max SL speeds are the same. At SL, the N1K2 produces approximately 2,000 hp, while the 190 produces around 1,800 hp. Which means it has a superior power to weight ratio, ie power loading, which is directly proportional to acceleration and climbrate.
Now they both manuever, and lose some speed and energy. The 190 may actually retain its E better, ie less drag (which would allow them to have the same max speed, but different horsepowers).
But in this case the N1K2 is actually "making" its E faster, rather than "retaining E", due to the higher horsepower, and is out accelerating the 190 back up to max speed, which would allow it catch the 190 in an extended chase if you were on the deck and had to avoid a couple of mountains or three.
Especially if the pilot was good and was able to outguess the 190 pilot and cut an angle or two.
Just my theory. Wells? Or anyone else, does that make sense?
btw read up the thread in Visconti's post on the different horsepowers versus altitude of the Homare, and some other data.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
-
Now I'm curious... what does the Army Intel. doc. say? I want to see a climbrate chart plz... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I have a question: How does wingloading affect climbrate vs altitude? Given two aircraft with identical powerloading, drag etc, but one has x% more weight -> x% more wingloading; will the lighter plane gain a greater advantage in climbrate as altitude increases?
-
Be afraid... be very afraid (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
FYI the N1K2 in AW is modeled off the Intelligence report I have referenced, which is where I got the data. And Pyro confirmed that this intelligence report actually exists, but that he believes that it is an "estimate" that they (the Army) produced after finding a crashed George and examining it.
Here is a chart I made with that climbrate on it.
(http://web.mountain.net/~arringto/ah/climball.gif)
Here is a Speed Chart from the same data with the same planes for comparison purposes.
(http://web.mountain.net/~arringto/ah/speedall.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
-
Verm, thanks, I was pretty sure that the George was a good low level performer. With the tests I did off-line, and your data, this has re-assured me to stay away from them in a FW (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Brian "Ripsnort" Nelson
++JG2++ ~Richthofen~
(Formerly VF-101 Grim Reapers~Defected~)
"There is no reason anyone would
want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and
founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977
-
Rip,
Once you get the Nik above 20K, it loses its vitality.
-
So does the A8. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Kieren, that's an under-statement! Here's a theory of mine, fly the FW190 for , say 20 hours or so, then fly any other A/C, you'll be an ace in less than 5 minutes with the other A/C. FW190 is by far the most difficult plane to handle in AH, at any alt!
------------------
Brian "Ripsnort" Nelson
++JG2++ ~Richthofen~
(Formerly VF-101 Grim Reapers~Defected~)
"There is no reason anyone would
want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and
founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977
-
So does the La-5FN (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Now, about that chart...
Look at that poor, sad La-5FN. Can't outclimb or outspeed the N1K2-J. Even though it has 1850hp and about 1500lbs less weight... And the Bf109K-4; can't outclimb or outspeed the N1K2-J too, even the Fw190A-8 is faster than it! Hell, the Fw190A-8 is even as fast as a Mustang at high alt!
You see where this is going...? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
cc, Ripsnort.
The thing about the 190 (as it is currently modeled) is that it is demanding of attention at all times. Once you lose the advantage it is very hard to get it back. The only 2 things it has going for it are roll and guns, and if you can't point your guns at the bad guy... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Roll is only going to take you so far, and frankly, you won't outrun much in one at any alt. Hit hard and keep going is pretty much the best advice- and ignore the occasional "HO Dweeb" comment. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Kieren, Yup, you got that right! So far this tour I'm doing alittle better with it, 49 kills and 8 deaths.
(I might add that only 6 of those kills were off of vulching, the rest were "earned")
------------------
Brian "Ripsnort" Nelson
++JG2++ ~Richthofen~
(Formerly VF-101 Grim Reapers~Defected~)
"There is no reason anyone would
want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and
founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 02-10-2000).]
-
Juzz it all goes back to which data you want to use for your modeling. Now, I'm not trying to defend the AW data. The other stuff is there for comparison purposes, not definitive proof of the N1K2 data.
But you can't say because the La5 data seems wrong to you the N1K2 must be wrong too.
For instance in WB's, its a well known fact that the F4U-4 is no where close to matching the published numbers. Does this mean therefore, that EVERY plane in WB's is extremely porked and wrong, because the -4 Is? Of course not.
Anyway, it don't matter. Pyro confirmed that the data I have on that graph is comparable to actual data from an Army Technical Intelligence Unit report on the George.
Its just that he has other information that he believes if more correct, and contradicts it.
Just like information that we see for Fw190's, how many different sets of data have we seen here for it over time? And how much of it is contradictory? Much of it.
So it all comes down to which set of data do you use to model an aircraft. And only Pyro gets too do that.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"