Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: MutleyBR on September 23, 2009, 04:03:15 PM

Title: Flop
Post by: MutleyBR on September 23, 2009, 04:03:15 PM: I hadn't flown the Ki-84 for a looooooong time.

So, dcided to do a test ride. Took off for a sweep w/ 75% fuel + DT's.

Starting to climb I spot a low B-25 inbound. Released the tanks and dived.

At about 490 MPH, FLOP! Lost both ailerons... :eek:

(http://i533.photobucket.com/albums/ee331/BlueMerlinBr/KI-84ailerons.jpg)

Had to RTB and land using only rudder...

Am not flying that plane again, unless I have no other choice(Special Events, etc) :rolleyes:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/n5lgqwmd3dl/KI-84 ailerons.ahf (http://www.mediafire.com/file/n5lgqwmd3dl/KI-84 ailerons.ahf)

Film best seen with external view and zoom.

Mutley
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Yeager on September 23, 2009, 04:09:41 PM: slow down bro.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Spikes on September 23, 2009, 04:13:15 PM: Try a 61 :)
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: MutleyBR on September 23, 2009, 04:25:27 PM: Quote from: Yeager on September 23, 2009, 04:09:41 PM
slow down bro.

I knew it was coming...

Just don't want to fly a plane with such limitations.

I can accept planes that compress and have to come out of a dive by use of elevator trim, but losing feathers in a dive is a little too much. :D

Mutley
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Karnak on September 23, 2009, 04:33:43 PM: I still don't understand why the Ki-84 seems to suffer quality of construction issues when no other aircraft does.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: 68ZooM on September 23, 2009, 04:41:15 PM: I've been playing with the k4 lately and ugh last night i was like a lawndart by my own fault ... :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: comet61 on September 23, 2009, 04:53:36 PM: Quote from: MutleyBR
At about 490 MPH, FLOP! Lost both ailerons...

I fly the Ki-84 a lot and never lost a part (except hits). On this plane...your rudder is your friend. On steep dives I will use hard rudder and some aileron to maintain speed until I level. I try to never go beyond 400. The Ki-84 is a good "in-between" fighter that to me, needs to be flown a little different than others. It seems every plane has their quirks and perks. The rudder on the Ki-84 responds quite well for many other moves, but it does make a good "air-brake" if coordinated properly with other controls. The 2 things that the Ki-84 reponds well to is throttle and rudder. Cut throttle on dives and use rudder/aileron to control speed.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Saxman on September 23, 2009, 11:01:41 PM: Trust me on this one, Mut: the Frank is a great plane. She about the only ship in the game I'm concerned about encountering in a Hog.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: klingan on September 24, 2009, 02:36:37 AM: Quote from: Spikes on September 23, 2009, 04:13:15 PM
Try a 61 :)

+1
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Anaxogoras on September 24, 2009, 05:57:51 AM: Quote from: Saxman on September 23, 2009, 11:01:41 PM
Trust me on this one, Mut: the Frank is a great plane. She about the only ship in the game I'm concerned about encountering in a Hog.

Meh, that's only because you hog drivers love to drop flaps to out-turn aircraft you can also run down. Although it is a little slower at low altitude, the Ki-84's butterfly flaps blunt this wunder-tactic completely.

On the other hand, if you're flying the F4U as more of an energy fighter, i.e. fast, the Spit XVI is a far greater threat than the Ki-84 because it doesn't lose elevator control at 300mph+, and unless you really yank the stick, it's not going to lose parts.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Hap on September 24, 2009, 06:40:50 AM: manual trim helps
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Saxman on September 24, 2009, 07:39:31 AM: Quote from: Anaxogoras on September 24, 2009, 05:57:51 AM
Meh, that's only because you hog drivers love to drop flaps to out-turn aircraft you can also run down. Although it is a little slower at low altitude, the Ki-84's butterfly flaps blunt this wunder-tactic completely.

On the other hand, if you're flying the F4U as more of an energy fighter, i.e. fast, the Spit XVI is a far greater threat than the Ki-84 because it doesn't lose elevator control at 300mph+, and unless you really yank the stick, it's not going to lose parts.

Actually, I prefer to keep the Hog faster and only slow down when I have no other choice, so I stand by my statement. Even in a higher speed fight the only opponent that really concerns me is running into a good Ki-84 stick. Unless I'm in a -4, then I'm not bothered by anything (excluding the 262 and 163, which are unique cases in of themselves).
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Bino on September 25, 2009, 07:50:36 PM: Dang, I thought this thread was about that cool dude from the WarBirds "Swamp Foxes" squad. :frown:
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: MORAY37 on September 25, 2009, 09:06:21 PM: Quote from: Karnak on September 23, 2009, 04:33:43 PM
I still don't understand why the Ki-84 seems to suffer quality of construction issues when no other aircraft does.

And it uses nerfed gas as well. If it was modeled with the octane that the US set is modeled with (Or any other set, for that matter), the Ki84 would be faster than both the P51 and the P47, under 20K.

Post war tests put the top speed of the -84 at 427 mph@ 20K. We're not even close with ours, 50 mph slower at 388 @ 21K or so, by soda's page.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Saxman on September 25, 2009, 11:06:40 PM: Quote from: MORAY37 on September 25, 2009, 09:06:21 PM
And it uses nerfed gas as well. If it was modeled with the octane that the US set is modeled with (Or any other set, for that matter), the Ki84 would be faster than both the P51 and the P47, under 20K.

Post war tests put the top speed of the -84 at 427 mph@ 20K. We're not even close with ours, 50 mph slower at 388 @ 21K or so, by soda's page.

That's because the Japanese didn't HAVE that sort of fuel. The Frank in the game is modeled based on the gas that they Japanese actually used, which is as it SHOULD be.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: BnZs on September 25, 2009, 11:14:02 PM: It's pretty much undeniable that the SpitXVI brings a little more to the table than the Ki-84 in nearly all areas.

The explanation for your experiences is that the Ki-84 is alot more likely to have a good stick in it than the SpitXVI.

Quote from: Saxman on September 24, 2009, 07:39:31 AM
Actually, I prefer to keep the Hog faster and only slow down when I have no other choice, so I stand by my statement. Even in a higher speed fight the only opponent that really concerns me is running into a good Ki-84 stick. Unless I'm in a -4, then I'm not bothered by anything (excluding the 262 and 163, which are unique cases in of themselves).
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Karnak on September 25, 2009, 11:28:20 PM: Quote from: Saxman on September 25, 2009, 11:06:40 PM
That's because the Japanese didn't HAVE that sort of fuel. The Frank in the game is modeled based on the gas that they Japanese actually used, which is as it SHOULD be.
Correct. The N1K2 has the same issue. I do think that is how it should be too.

What I don't understand is why the Ki-84 has quality control issues in its materials when the Me262, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9, P-40E, N1K2-J and so on do not.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Sonicblu on September 26, 2009, 12:07:19 AM: Why do you need to go 490 in any of the planes :O

The Ki is a great plane. The spit 16 is only better in the right hands other wise it is too good. Good e retention means bigger circle. Some guys just can't understand how you can out turn them.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: MutleyBR on September 26, 2009, 07:52:24 AM: Quote from: Sonicblu on September 26, 2009, 12:07:19 AM
...Why do you need to go 490 in any of the planes :O ...

Hi Sonicblu and friends!

Answering your question:

- 490 is speed value as shown in AH film viewer, which is True Air Speed, higher than what we use(Indicated Air Speed);

2- To reach(or escape from) enemy; :D

3- Didn't know that plane had glass ailerons... :D

If you watch the film it was smooth dive, no compressibility vibration, no sudden change of path, just a flop and embarrassment... :rolleyes:

Now, after watching that film, I know that aileron structural integrity limit for Ki-84 is around 490 MPH TAS, so when that little red pointer, ahead of IAS pointer, reaches 475, will start reducing speed. :aok

Mutley
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: killnu on September 26, 2009, 08:02:29 AM: 75% and DT's? where were you flying to? 75% is more than enough in that bird...if fight is close to base then 50%. Anything more than 75% is to much...this is of course in regards to MA flying.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Anaxogoras on September 26, 2009, 08:37:22 AM: Quote from: BnZs on September 25, 2009, 11:14:02 PM
It's pretty much undeniable that the SpitXVI brings a little more to the table than the Ki-84 in nearly all areas.

The explanation for your experiences is that the Ki-84 is alot more likely to have a good stick in it than the SpitXVI.

QFT
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: MutleyBR on September 26, 2009, 09:08:04 AM: Quote from: killnu on September 26, 2009, 08:02:29 AM
75% and DT's? where were you flying to? 75% is more than enough in that bird...if fight is close to base then 50%. Anything more than 75% is to much...this is of course in regards to MA flying.

Sometimes one has to go along way... What happens if you take off on 50% fuel to defend field and field is taken??? (talking about normal planes, not exceptionally long range planes like P-51)

If I have 75% +DT(they cost nothing and can be dropped right on the runway) and meet enemy aircraft I just drop the tanks, and am with a reasonable weight to fight.

In other planes which have shorter ranges, I use 100% + DT's, using main tanks first, to reduce weiight in case I have to dogfight. Then, I use fuel in DT's, if enemy IB, release the tanks and am all set. ;)

In Special Events, in a fuel crictical mission, I would take off with 100% + DT's and use DT's fuel first.

Once, in Battle of Britain Event, flying Bf109's, had a nice wingman and our squad leader started to give us order to fly constantly changing headings, we never met the enemy. we were only sightseeing over England... :mad:
Made some mental calculations and found out that fuel was insufficient. Called leader and told him we were RTB on low fuel. :eek:

We flew back to base, climbing as high as practical, shutting down engine, reducing prop pitch, and gliding as far as possible. Then turning engine on and repeating procedure. Climb, shutdown, red. pitch and gliding.

We returned to base although wingman's engine quit on final due to fuel starvation. (Had told him not use WEP, unless in EMERGENCY, but he used it...) We were the only 2 remaining after the mission...

Used to fly for an airline and we had a nice phrase for that: "Women, runway(length) and fuel, one does not despise ..." :D :salute

Mutley
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Karnak on September 26, 2009, 01:54:06 PM: True, but the Ki-84 has moderate legs, not like those European fighters which seem to always have short legs. The Japanese always have good endurance on their fighters it seems.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Saxman on September 26, 2009, 03:21:35 PM: Makes sense considering the theater they operated in.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: Karnak on September 26, 2009, 03:27:23 PM: Quote from: Saxman on September 26, 2009, 03:21:35 PM
Makes sense considering the theater they operated in.
Yes, different design considerations.
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: BrownBaron on September 26, 2009, 03:39:55 PM: I just tested right now, dove from 13K with throttle at full, reached 550+ mph, started pulling up at 2.7K, then tali section popped off, andi blew up for some reaseon.....(i didnt hit the ground)

Anyways, results: surpassed your indicated speed with no aelieron trouble, but lost stabs+elevators in dive recovery....
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: comet61 on September 26, 2009, 03:54:07 PM: My fuel loadouts are as follows:

25%-For on-base defense or GV killing at near town. Usually a 5-15 minute duration

50%-for anything within 25-35 mile radius of base or base defense. Between 20-30 minute duration. Use throttle control.

50% w/ DT's- I use this for traveling to enemy base at the next sector. Usually between 25-50 miles radius of home base. Drop tanks when I go into action.

75%-I use this for destination point of 25-100 mile radius of base. Sometimes I'll use DT's if I think I have a good chance of returning.

100%-If my flight plan requires that my return trip be over 50+ miles away. Burn wing tanks first. Use the most minimum cruise setting by controlling the RPM and manifold. This scenario usually means I'm packing eggs.

Ki-84's have a very good range. The trick is to know how to load fuel correctly before leaving.

Burn wing tanks first. Use throttle control. Don't need to go balls to the wall. The Ki cruises quite well. I usually don't go over 12K and I try to keep the fight below 10K.

On diving...I use the rudder as an air-brake. I make a few hard turns or a barrel roll if needed. I have on occasion been able to get 190's to auger if they follow me down, however, I don't always succeed.

One of the few tricks I can do or at least I am trying to perfect is in turn fighting with a Spit or Zeke (Hurri's too) I cut throttle in a turn, turn off combat trim, drop flaps. The Ki can fly at 80...so I force an overshhot and I can get a decent snapshot for the kill or at least hurt them bad. The cannon is quite lethal at 300 or less...and remember, 84 does accelerate quickly and has a decent climb rate. use that to your advantage. I have never lost a part from over-speeding. I just make sure I do not go beyond its envelope...though I have augered a few times because I wasn't paying attention.

This plane can perform a great deal of tricks. Just practice alot. This is one of my favorite planes to fly. I might not be the greated Ki-84 stick in the game...but I'm working on it. :cool:
Title: Re: Flop
Post by: E25280 on September 27, 2009, 06:37:13 PM: Quote from: Karnak on September 25, 2009, 11:28:20 PM
What I don't understand is why the Ki-84 has quality control issues in its materials when the Me262, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9, P-40E, N1K2-J and so on do not.
Are you sure it is a "quality control issue", rather than an inadequate design?