Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: FTJR on April 25, 2010, 04:59:24 AM
-
Could we please have it able to carry both a drop tank and a bomb, as it could in real life. I posted on this once when we got it, and the idea was shot down, but I dont see how it could be a problem.
That is my wish, oh and add the beaufighter, please.
-
Yes the Beaufighter :)
-
Yes the Beaufighter :)
nah the M-18 :aok
-
I have seen a photo of operational Ki-84s configured thus. Apparently it is a pain to hand though as the fighter becomes progressively unbalanced.
-
For AH use you will never need this setup.
It currently has a very long range already on internal fuel only. The DT is only needed to extend the range to which that single bomb can be delivered. In the real war, flying all over the Pacific Ocean, it was useful.
In AH You can pretty much fly everywhere and anywhere on the 45-minutes(?) or so of full throttle that internal fuel gives you (probably 2 hours on cruise).
Why do you want this setup? Is it to simply lug around bombs with 25% internal fuel, ditch the DT and dogfight like a zero?
Might I suggest simply flying the zero if that's the case? This bird will still outfly most of the planeset even with a little fuel onboard.
-
For AH use you will never need this setup.
It currently has a very long range already on internal fuel only. The DT is only needed to extend the range to which that single bomb can be delivered. In the real war, flying all over the Pacific Ocean, it was useful.
In AH You can pretty much fly everywhere and anywhere on the 45-minutes(?) or so of full throttle that internal fuel gives you (probably 2 hours on cruise).
Why do you want this setup? Is it to simply lug around bombs with 25% internal fuel, ditch the DT and dogfight like a zero?
Might I suggest simply flying the zero if that's the case? This bird will still outfly most of the planeset even with a little fuel onboard.
full fuel tanks and get two tanks shot out and you can still rearm and engage then rtb with even more kills :aok ...just don't light up like a match when ur tanks get shot...
-
If your strapping ugly bombs on the bottom of a BEAUTIFUL KI84......
[size=20YOUR WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!pt][/size]
-
for the 84, I would like the flaps to be modeled correctly.
-
for the 84, I would like the flaps to be modeled correctly.
Could you provide more information on that? I have looked everywhere I could for more data about it, but nowhere can I find a high limit for combat settings.
-
Could you provide more information on that? I have looked everywhere I could for more data about it, but nowhere can I find a high limit for combat settings.
well being of the fowler design I thout too that they wood extend at the same speed as does the flaps on the 51 (adding more lift than drag I mean)
they seem to be modeled only for landing :(
-
For AH use you will never need this setup.
It currently has a very long range already on internal fuel only. The DT is only needed to extend the range to which that single bomb can be delivered. In the real war, flying all over the Pacific Ocean, it was useful.
In AH You can pretty much fly everywhere and anywhere on the 45-minutes(?) or so of full throttle that internal fuel gives you (probably 2 hours on cruise).
Why do you want this setup? Is it to simply lug around bombs with 25% internal fuel, ditch the DT and dogfight like a zero?
Might I suggest simply flying the zero if that's the case? This bird will still outfly most of the planeset even with a little fuel onboard.
Krusty, whats your problem with it? it was available in real life, why do I have to explain its possible uses in the context of AH? Its a wish, not an outrageous one at that.
-
well being of the fowler design I thout too that they wood extend at the same speed as does the flaps on the 51 (adding more lift than drag I mean)
they seem to be modeled only for landing :(
And you would be incorrect on that.
ack-ack
-
And you would be incorrect on that.ack-ack
to what do you refer as incorrect?
-
well being of the fowler design I thout too that they wood extend at the same speed as does the flaps on the 51 (adding more lift than drag I mean)
they seem to be modeled only for landing :(
What Ack-Ack is referring to, at a guess, is that 1) the P-51 does not have fowler flaps and 2) the Ki-84's fowler flaps are most certainly useful in combat, if you know how to use the fighter's strengths.
It is odd that only Lockheed and Nakajima seemed to like fowler flaps when they seem to offer considerable advantages.
-
to what do you refer as incorrect?
Your claim that the flaps on the Ki-84 were only "modeled for landing".
ack-ack
-
Can't see why you can't have the bomb/droptank mix - just as long as the Hayate's dismal tendency to snap off one or both main undercarriage legs on landing due to the poor standards of production and maintenance pertaining in 1944-45 is also modelled.
:cool:
-
What Ack-Ack is referring to, at a guess, is that 1) the P-51 does not have fowler flaps and 2) the Ki-84's fowler flaps are most certainly useful in combat, if you know how to use the fighter's strengths.
well the 51 has full flaps, the spits, split flaps, the 84 fowlers, like the 29.
but the 51 can deploy 1 notch at 200ias, the 84 cant.
now the 51s flaps dont increase wing area as the fowlers do.
so is it just the design of the hydraulics (in the 84) that prevent them from being deployed at med speeds?
-
well the 51 has full flaps, the spits, split flaps, the 84 fowlers, like the 29.
but the 51 can deploy 1 notch at 200ias, the 84 cant.
now the 51s flaps dont increase wing area as the fowlers do.
so is it just the design of the hydraulics (in the 84) that prevent them from being deployed at med speeds?
they can deploy one notch at 450 TAS and a 2nd notch at 300-350 iirc
-
they can deploy one notch at 450 TAS and a 2nd notch at 300-350 iirc
your talking the Ki84..yes?
ill have to test this tonight.
thank you.
-
your talking the Ki84..yes?
ill have to test this tonight.
thank you.
No, he was not referring to the Ki-84. The limitation of what speeds the Ki-84 can deploy its flaps at is more likely due to the design of the fowler flap system it used than anything else. The Ki-84 flaps were not intended to be used solely for landing like the flaps on the Spitfire, it would have been an inefficient use of the fowler flaps had that been the intent.
ack-ack
-
The Ki-84 flaps were not intended to be used solely for landing like the flaps on the Spitfire, it would have been an inefficient use of the fowler flaps had that been the intent.
then you say THEY SHOULD be deployable as a 'manuvering flap'?
-
then you say THEY SHOULD be deployable as a 'manuvering flap'?
Yes I do because they are deployable as maneuvering flaps, albeit as a lower speed than you find in most planes. Just because you can't deploy them at 250mph IAS like you can with the P-38 (the other plane in AH with Fowler Flaps) doesn't mean they were solely used for landing. As I mentioned earlier, putting Fowler Flaps in a plane and then only intended for them to be used as landing flaps (like the flaps on the Spitfire) is a waste and extremely inefficient.
ack-ack
-
Question.
How many different versions of the KI84 are there that actually saw action in WW2?
I've heard rumors of a 4 cannon set up on one of them :noid
-
I see where your going with this Junky (its just cost me a cup of tea over me keyboard as well ya loon)
;)
Wurzel
-
Question.
How many different versions of the KI84 are there that actually saw action in WW2?
I've heard rumors of a 4 cannon set up on one of them :noid
there was the 4 20mm version the Ib model, (basically a lower performing NIK2)
there was even a bomber interceptor, the Ic, with 2 20s and 2 30s...
but ours is the most common, the Ia, with its current weapons package.
-
There were several hundred built with four Ho-5 20mm cannons, and contrary to what Kenne said, they would perform very much like the one in AH, only changing the weight of the machine guns+ammo out for the weight of the cannons+ammo.
There were low single digit Ki-84-Ic with two 20mm and two 30mm cannon, but they saw no action.
-
Can't see why you can't have the bomb/droptank mix - just as long as the Hayate's dismal tendency to snap off one or both main undercarriage legs on landing due to the poor standards of production and maintenance pertaining in 1944-45 is also modelled.
:cool:
I snap both main gear off landing 60% of the time, no problem, I dont think it needs help there :)
-
they can deploy one notch at 450 TAS and a 2nd notch at 300-350 iirc
recorrecting my last statement. 350 and 250 respectfully
-
nah the M-18 :aok
Nah :aok
-
then you say THEY SHOULD be deployable as a 'manuvering flap'?
Absolutely, that's what they were used for on the prototype. Japanese called them butterfly flaps; when deployed, they resemble wings of a butterfly.