Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: CDR1 on October 19, 2010, 12:10:43 PM
-
I looked through here to see if anyone had mentioned the ki 84 Ic, it would be a nice addition to the IJA set of planes, and give the ability to hammer bombers with some authority from the Japanese side. I have no idea which planes had success shooting down b29's but the ki 84Ic would be a likely candidate.
-
There has been quite a bit of discussion on the "C" variant.
The general concensis has been that there really isn't any info suggesting that it was used in sufficient numbers to warrant inclusion in the game.
I don't know if I agree with that train of thought as info on production numbers is virtually non existent or extremely vague.
The Ki-84lb however was generally considered to have the numbers to include in the game.
Of course the "perk it" crowd will be all over it if is ever added to the game.
-
The ki84 is every bit better then a spixteen why do u want a better one?
-
-IC would be no good. Only 3 made. None saw action. The Japanese 30mm was terrible and probably wouldn't hit anything outside of 50 yards.
Numbers made for the 4x20mm -IB model range from 90 to 200, and to date I haven't seen any actual accounts that they saw any action, but you have a better shot requesting those.
Mind you, the several hundred extra pounds for the cannons and the ammunition would seriously hinder the super-manuverability of the -IA we have now.
-
Mind you, the several hundred extra pounds for the cannons and the ammunition would seriously hinder the super-manuverability of the -IA we have now.
Considering that 12.7mm Ho-103 MG weighs 50.7lbs and 20mm Ho-5 cannon weighs 81,6lbs, you aren't going to get "a several hundred extra pound" difference no matter how you count it.
Two 20mm cannons would weigh 61,8lbs more. I don't think there's a need to go into the ammo...
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm) Tables 2 & 3.)
The 30mm Ho-155-II that was meant for the -Ic had a muzzle velocity of 700m/s and rof of 500rpm. I was a very late development and remained very unreliable through the remainder of the war and saw very little use overall.
-
Considering some places list 200 rpg on those 2 extra 20mms, some list 150 rpg (I don't know what the real value was), that's 300-400 extra rounds of ammo on top of that. Not something to discount.
Did you know in AH the Fw190 carries almost 250lbs of 20mm for the inboard guns alone (500 rds)? Whereas 1000 rounds of 7mm ammo weighs less than 70lbs.
I did some checking a while back and it really stuck with me how much weight these guns and ammo are. The cannons especially. They paid for their punch with a major increase in weight.
Did you know in AH the .303 round weighs 0.065 lbs, the .50cal weighs 0.31 lbs, the MG151/20 weighs 0.485 lbs, and the hispano round weighs 0.6 lbs?
Adding 300 of them (not having tested the Ki-84's ammo I'll use MG151/20) would add at LEAST 150 lbs if not 200 for ammo alone, not counting the extra 60 lbs for the guns.
-
Did you know in AH the .303 round weighs 0.065 lbs, the .50cal weighs 0.31 lbs, the MG151/20 weighs 0.485 lbs, and the hispano round weighs 0.6 lbs?
Adding 300 of them (not having tested the Ki-84's ammo I'll use MG151/20) would add at LEAST 150 lbs if not 200 for ammo alone, not counting the extra 60 lbs for the guns.
What sort of math are you using? 300 rounds would be a bit less than 150lbs, less the 150-200lbs the 700 rounds of 12.7mm weigh. The weight difference between a Ia and Ib would be less than 100 lbs.
-
What sort of math are you using?
:x
-
What sort of math are you using? 300 rounds would be a bit less than 150lbs, less the 150-200lbs the 700 rounds of 12.7mm weigh. The weight difference between a Ia and Ib would be less than 100 lbs.
Basic arithmetic. As I said I wasn't sure how much the bullets weigh in AH or how many rounds there would be. I didn't think to subtract the 12mm round weight, I will admit.
You're forgetting that theoretically the guns alone add 60 lbs, on top of the ammo. You'd break 100 for sure, maybe break 200 if the ammo weighs as much as hispanos and/or there's 200 rpg.
I wasn't hiding the math there, you can see I wasn't just pulling numbers out of the air. You brought up a new point, so bravo there, but you don't have to take such a [seemingly] harsh or snide tone when I'm not doing anything underhanded or on the sly.
-
I didn't think to subtract the 12mm round weight, I will admit.
You're forgetting that theoretically the guns alone add 60 lbs, on top of the ammo. You'd break 100 for sure, maybe break 200 if the ammo weighs as much as hispanos and/or there's 200 rpg.
I wasn't hiding the math there, you can see I wasn't just pulling numbers out of the air. You brought up a new point, so bravo there, but you don't have to take such a [seemingly] harsh or snide tone when I'm not doing anything underhanded or on the sly.
According to M.Williams guns and ammo for the Ki-84-Ib weigh 291kg. Cannons are 35kg a piece so that makes 140kg and leaves 151kg for the ammo. Assuming the wing cannons carry the same ammo load in the Ib as they do in the Ia (300 rounds), the wing cannons ammo weighs 75kg max. According to Mike Williams the weight of the single round is between 0,213-0,250kg depending on the type of the round. So based on that the ammo of the cowl cannons also weigh roughly ~75kg and means that the cowl cannons most probably also have the ammo capacity of 300 rounds.
So the cowl cannons and their ammo weigh the same as the wing cannons and their ammo, 145kg. As already said, two Ho-103s weigh 46kg. And according to Mike Williams, 700 rounds of Ho-103 ammo weighs 57,4kg. So, 145kg minus 103,4kg is 41,6kg which in turn comes out at 91,7lbs.
So the difference in weight which comes from the armament is roughly 90lbs give or take. Quite far from several hundred pounds.
-
Yes, as I mentioned I did not subtract the 12.7mm ammo weight, hence "couple hundred pounds" -- but also as a side thought: do we even know how much ammo is in those nose guns? It's not limited by space as in the wings. A number of japanese craft have mixed loadouts (N1K2 has different rounds per gun, Ki-100 upped the ammo in the nose quite a lot over the Ki-61, etc). It's not outside the realm of possibility/probability that they have more ammo than the wings.
Are there actually any specs/reports on the 4x20mm Ki-84-Ib? Or is it all vague, as some info on Japanese variants can be?
-
I thought the Ki-61-II upped the ammo over what the Ki-61-I had, and the Ki-100 just carried over the Ki-61-II's ammo load.
-
Ooh, very good distinction. I don't recall, but essentially the same plane regardless, meaning they had lots of room for more ammo.
-
where you come up with "only 3" produced? The few references that I have seen, and some posted here, had them in double digits (not that those numbers are so much better). I just dont see the number that saw action matters...werent many 3x20mm cannon la7s flying around (more than 20 or so, certainly more than 3) but they are all over in the MA.
-
While difficult to judge 'squad strength' for the Japanese by this point in the war, it is safe to assume that if it could fly, it did. If not fly, then dropped, crashed, rammed. . .whatevered into the enemy.
But really, there is no need for the Ic, the 84 we have now in AH2 is already deadly.
-
thks for all the info, I thought it would relatively easy to adjust the weapons and weight and give the IJA set a uber buff hunter, rather than build a whole new "raiden". On use and numbers to qualify a plane in the game, I looked at me 163 and it seems they managed to shoot down 4 allied bombers and lost 19 pilots ( mostly accidents). although the coolness of having a reliable 163 in the game cannot be overestimated. Thks again.
-
I have here a very old and fragile pamphlet which is either a reprint from a section of a book by Dr. Rene J. Francillon, or a separate article he wrote on the Ki-84 dated 1966.
There is a description of the evolution of the type over the approximately 18 months of production. It states 3577 aircraft produced in total which includes the pre-production prototypes, the service trial aircraft, all of the delivered production aircraft and the aircraft retained by Nakajima for testing and development.
There are essentially seven main subtypes listed with a number of intermediate or prototype variants intersposed. These include the high-altitude interceptor etc.
The final three subtypes, the Ki-106, the Ki-113 and the Ki-116 are basically emergency production variants, employing wood and steel extensively in the structure to supply for the critical shortages of aluminium alloys. The final version was a variant fitted with a lower power Mitsubishi engine. These perhaps aren't particularly interesting as the type had passed its highest stage of evolution at this point.
The first four variants described pertain to the main production types fielded and are pertinent to this discussion.
Model 1A Early Production (Ki-84-Ia)
Model 1A Late Production (Ki-84-Ia)
Model 1B (Ki-84-Ib)
Model 1C (Ki-84-Ic)
The third and fourth models listed above were collectively described by Nakajima as the Ki-84-II Hayate-Kai (the Ib and Ic being the JAAF and the Ministry of Munitions designation). The difference between the 1B and 1C was apparently only the fitting of two wing-mounted Ho-105 (Ho-155) 30-mm cannons designed for operation against the B-29. Hence the collective designation by Nakajima. There is no data pertaining to the exact numbers for the 30-mm equipped version, the article simply states 'a few' model 1C types were built with the Ho-105 (Ho-155) cannons fitted. This would be in keeping with the popular opinion that the 30-mm equipped Hayate was indeed a rarity.
However, the description of the mass production phase of the Ki-84 explains that the Model 1A was 'followed on the assembly lines' by the Model 1B in which the two synchronised machine guns were replaced with two Ho-5 20-mm cannons. This suggests that the four cannon version, the Ki-84-II Hayate-Kai, at some point of the manufacture, became the standard production model. A few of these only being converted to carry the 30-mm cannon.
The plot however thickens yet further. The article concludes with a table of specifications of the sub types. From this data it seems clear that the version we have in Aces High is the Early Production Model 1A (Ki-84-1a).
The Late Production Model 1A (Ki-84-1a) had a different version of the Homare engine with a higher power output and this version apparently also lost some weight over its predecessor. There is also some small dimensional differences unique to the Late Production Model 1A version, this seems to be due to modified wingtips and wooden rear fuselage section. This may also account for the lower weight.
As a side note the famously postwar tested Hayate was a Late Production Model 1A version. These test were ran on a higher octane fuel than was available to the Japanese armed forces during the war, but I stress that this is a separate and unique test and the results of that test should not be confused with the power outputs of the fielded aircraft. The higher power output of the Late Production model over its predecessor was due to an improved engine and not to the higher quality U.S. fuel.
The four cannon (Ho-5) equipped Ki-84-II Hayate-Kai (the Ki-84-Ib) had a different version of the Homare engine again with an even higher power output and the dimensions revert to those of the Early Production version. More interestingly, the loaded weight is given as 81 lbs LESS than the loaded weight of the Early Production Model 1A (the Aces High version).
For these three types the wing areas are identical while the loaded weights, wing loadings, power loadings and power outputs differ. So the assumption / opinion that there were simply three differently armed variants of the same aircraft is infact far from accurate.
Regarding Aces High, as far as I can tell, the exhaust manifolds for all three engines in the aircraft described above were the same. I can also see no differences to the engine cowlings, which fully enclose the muzzles of the synchronised armament on the Ki-84. Perhaps someone with access to better photographs of the four cannon model could make a contribution on this issue?
Therefore, assuming there was the will to do so, it may be an economical way to introduce a new variant, in the same way as the P-47M was introduced, with the proviso that the breeches of the cannons which are visibly in the cockpit would then be incorrect (although the whole cockpit is a little poorly detailed compared to other AH aircraft and could do with a revamp, if we're honest (sorry HTC, I mean eventually, obviously)).
Finally, the postwar tested aircraft mentioned above, the Late Production Ki-84-Ia, was still airworthy in 1963. The aircraft carried the FAA registration N3385G. I don't know if anyone knows if this aircraft is still existant?
-
The third and fourth models listed above were collectively described by Nakajima as the Ki-84-II Hayate-Kai (the Ib and Ic being the JAAF and the Ministry of Munitions designation). The difference between the 1B and 1C was apparently only the fitting of two wing-mounted Ho-105 (Ho-155) 30-mm cannons designed for operation against the B-29. Hence the collective designation by Nakajima. There is no data pertaining to the exact numbers for the 30-mm equipped version, the article simply states 'a few' model 1C types were built with the Ho-105 (Ho-155) cannons fitted. This would be in keeping with the popular opinion that the 30-mm equipped Hayate was indeed a rarity.
Yeh, Leszek A. Wieliczko's Ki-84 book (ISBN: 83-89088-76-2) states the following about the KI-84c:
"Even more heavily armed was another version designated Yon-Shiki Sentoki Hei-Gata, i.e. Army Type 4 Fighter Model C, or Ki-84 Hei (KI-84c). This time the Ho-5 cannons were retained in the fuselage (like on the Ki-84 Otsu), whereas the wing-mounted cannons were to be replaced by new 30-mm Ho-155 II cannons (sometimes incorrectly referred to as Ho-105 or Ho-115). In fact, the Ho-155s were usually not mounted, as their development never reached a stage allowing quantity production. Reportedly, there were several cases of only one Ho-155 II mounted in the starboard wing, but there are no photographs to support this claim. (Some books contain a photograph captioned "Ki-84 Hei" but it was infact a Ki-84 Ko no. T2-302 captured and tested after the war by the Americans; the mistake results from the fact that the aircraft had long and thick fairings of the wing-mounted cannons, which implies weapons of a much greater calibre.) The Ki-84 Hei practically remained an experimental machine."
For these three types the wing areas are identical while the loaded weights, wing loadings, power loadings and power outputs differ. So the assumption / opinion that there were simply three differently armed variants of the same aircraft is infact far from accurate.
Yep this should be the case atleast in theory. Question is weather or not the -25 Homares delivered their max. output in service. Here's some discussion about this in an earlier thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262941.30.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262941.30.html)
Regarding Aces High, as far as I can tell, the exhaust manifolds for all three engines in the aircraft described above were the same. I can also see no differences to the engine cowlings, which fully enclose the muzzles of the synchronised armament on the Ki-84. Perhaps someone with access to better photographs of the four cannon model could make a contribution on this issue?
b-model can be recognized from the bigger exhaust ports in the front fuselage where the firing gases expand out of.
Finally, the postwar tested aircraft mentioned above, the Late Production Ki-84-Ia, was still airworthy in 1963. The aircraft carried the FAA registration N3385G. I don't know if anyone knows if this aircraft is still existant?
AFAIK, this is the only surviving Ki-84 and is displayed in Tokko Heiwa Kinen-kan Museum at Chiran, Japan.
(http://www.city.minamikyushu.lg.jp/contents/img/200709202008181.jpg)
-
Yep this should be the case atleast in theory. Question is weather or not the -25 Homares delivered their max. output in service. Here's some discussion about this in an earlier thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262941.30.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262941.30.html)
Assuming the data originated from Nakajima's own dynamometers, I think we should take the power outputs as read until it can be proven otherwise. The Nakajima Homare was a brilliant piece of engineering mass produced under increasingly difficult wartime circumstances. Aces High is intended to simulate the aircraft from this period. I think it's rather unfair to arbitrarily nobble power outputs for a particular country's aircraft.
b-model can be recognized from the bigger exhaust ports in the front fuselage where the firing gases expand out of.
Could you find any photographs Wmaker? I am still searching.
AFAIK, this is the only surviving Ki-84 and is displayed in Tokko Heiwa Kinen-kan Museum at Chiran, Japan.
That's what I thought too. When I read about the other aircraft (FAA registration N3385G) I wondered what had become of it. Apparently it was restored to flying condition by a company called Garret-AiResearch Aviation Service, which was based at Los Angeles International Airport. It was later entrusted to the staff of the California Air Museum in Ontario, California, but I can't even find that museum online. 1963 is also a long time ago now!
Phew, this researching is hard work, I'm off to fly around for a bit.
-
Assuming the data originated from Nakajima's own dynamometers, I think we should take the power outputs as read until it can be proven otherwise. The Nakajima Homare was a brilliant piece of engineering mass produced under increasingly difficult wartime circumstances. Aces High is intended to simulate the aircraft from this period. I think it's rather unfair to arbitrarily nobble power outputs for a particular country's aircraft.
Absolutely. I wasn't talking about any arbitrary reduction of power output at all. So far I haven't heard or seen any evidence that the Ha-45-25 had reduced output. But Busa for example found in his research that the late production a-models had the output of their Ha-45-21 reduced from the projected 1990hp to the levels of the Ha-45-12 (1825hp) which was the power plant of the earlier production model-as. While it is said that the problems with the fuel pressure were rectified with the Ha-45-23, a lot of problems still remained. So I'm just saying that I find it highly plausible that the Ha-45-25 of the b-model didn't deliver its advertised 2000hp in service. Of course if no primary source is found to verify my suspision, it should have 2000hp in the sim.
EDIT/Just wanted to add that -25 was in reality very, very rare...not all model-bs had it which were rarities themselves./EDIT
Could you find any photographs Wmaker? I am still searching.
These are from Kagero publications book on the Ki-84:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Otsu_1.jpg)
Caption: Ki-84 from 104. Sentai at Nakajima factory's airfield in Ota after VJ-Day (probabaly the end of 1945). Although 104. Sentai was stationed in Manchuria, clearly some of the unit's aircraft were for some reason transferred back to Japan.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Otsu_3.jpg)
Caption: Ki-84 Otsu from 104. Sentai at the Nakajima factory's airfield in Ota after VJ-Day (camouflaged and provided with a broad, white band around fuselage). In the foreground, a partially visible fuselage of a silver colored Ki-84 Ko. Externally, the "Otsu" sub-type varies from the "Ko" in different location of the cowl gun vents.
Couple line drawings from the same book to display the difference a bit better:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Otsu_2.jpg)
That's what I thought too. When I read about the other aircraft (FAA registration N3385G) I wondered what had become of it. Apparently it was restored to flying condition by a company called Garret-AiResearch Aviation Service, which was based at Los Angeles International Airport. It was later entrusted to the staff of the California Air Museum in Ontario, California, but I can't even find that museum online. 1963 is also a long time ago now!
They are one and the same plane. Mr. Ed Lykings bought it from Planes of Fame Air Museum (museum's name changed). Then he realized how hard it would be to maintain it in air worthy condition so he sold it to Japan.
-
nrshida, I disagree with your assessment on the designations of the different models...
From what I read, The -II denoted a model built with many wooden parts to conserve metal, had the as-mentioned engine problems, but was not the same as the model we know as the -Ib. The -Ib would be identical to the -Ia but with different guns. I think you're comparing 2 different things here.
By this I mean there was both a Ki-84-Ib and a Ki-84-II and they both could have had 4x20mm cannon, but they would not be the same craft. There were differences in the construction. Wooden parts were used in a number of places to save metal. (Also, I believe wood ADDS weight, doesn't reduce it -- you need more wood for the same strength than you would for metal of the same strength. That's why aircraft were and are made of metal. It's lighter and stronger.) As far as I know only a handful of the -II were made because the engine production was moved to underground caves and productivity was very slow (also plagued with problems, as already mentioned). You are equating them as the same plane with different names, when there were really 2 separate models.
wmaker: The distinction of the gas ports is very interesting... Now that you point it out, do you have any pictures showing if any of these -Ib's saw active service? I mean photos of them with frontline squadrons, instead of derelict on a factory parking lot well after the war is over. I would very much be interested in where and how many saw actual deployment.
-
nrshida, I disagree with your assessment on the designations of the different models...
You know I find it slightly irksome Krusty, that you seem to make a habit of casually dropping by to poo poo material posted by other forum members while not actually submitting any actual material yourself to justify your claims (or rather, your objections).
Just to clarify, you aren't disagreeing with MY assessment of the designations of the different models. You're disagreeing with Dr. Rene J. Francillon's assessment of the different models. I spent several hours of studying his material before posting and I also provided a reference.
What would be really nice Krusty, would be that if a Radioactive Forum member such as yourself would actually contribute material to displace incorrect material so that our understanding of the subject broadens and deepens.
I would be more than happy to admit I was wrong about this detail or that, especially if, in proving me so, our knowledge of the subject was enhanced.
Now I have to expend energy addressing your points, in case casual readers confuse your Radioactive status with someone that is an authority on the matter.
Firstly no, the Ki-84-II Hayate-Kai might have had a wooden tail section but that is the extend of wood employed in this version. I'm still researching this at the moment.
I think you might be confusing the Ki-84-II Hayate-Kai with the Ki-106.
Would you care to share your detailed knowledge of the 'as-mentioned' engine problems you elude to?
The -Ib would be identical to the -Ia but with different guns. I think you're comparing 2 different things here.
No they are not identical at all, there were two versions of the Ki-84-Ia, as I described in my previous post. The Ki-84-II Hayate-Kai differs again. All three of the types I just listed have different engine variants, fuel capacities, loaded weights, wing loadings, power loadings, power outputs, cruise speeds, climb rates and physical dimensions.
By this I mean there was both a Ki-84-Ib and a Ki-84-II and they both could have had 4x20mm cannon, but they would not be the same craft. There were differences in the construction. Wooden parts were used in a number of places to save metal.
Actually they are exactly the same aircraft, the difference only being the designation. The Ki-84-II Hayate-Kai was Nakajima's nomenclature, Ki-84-Ib and Ki-84-Ic was the JAAF and the Ministry of Munitions designation for exactly the same aircraft. Again I think you are getting mixed up with the Ki-106.
(Also, I believe wood ADDS weight, doesn't reduce it -- you need more wood for the same strength than you would for metal of the same strength. That's why aircraft were and are made of metal. It's lighter and stronger.)
Well probably yes, it depends on the stresses involved and the type of design techniques you use to employ wood in the manufacture. If you are replacing structural trusses and bulkheads with huge wooden pieces then I would agree with you. However if you are employing layered veneers of ply to replace alloy skinning AND much of the internal structure at the same time then wooden construction might be lighter. It is nature's composite you know. It's not really worth speculating further until we have more information. It was merely an observation on my part to try to account for the considerable weight saving in the Late Production Ki-84-Ia over the Early Production version.
As far as I know only a handful of the -II were made because the engine production was moved to underground caves and productivity was very slow (also plagued with problems, as already mentioned). You are equating them as the same plane with different names, when there were really 2 separate models.
I have no data and can find nothing to suggest Nakajima moved its engine production to underground caves at any point. I do have three production lines listed for the Ki-84 with no mention of caves. Can you please substantiate your claim? For the third time, given the period of the war you seem to be suggesting, I think you are confusing the Ki-84-II Hayate-Kai with the Ki-106.
wmaker: The distinction of the gas ports is very interesting... Now that you point it out, do you have any pictures showing if any of these -Ib's saw active service? I mean photos of them with frontline squadrons, instead of derelict on a factory parking lot well after the war is over. I would very much be interested in where and how many saw actual deployment.
Thank you for uploading those pictures Wmaker!
I think I have found a picture of a cowling from a Ki-84-II Hayate-Kai, and it does indeed seem to have quite pronounced bulges. I will try to upload it later. Unfortunately it is also of a derelict.
I don't think photographs will serve to quantify the numbers of which type saw deployment. I think it best to focus on the production numbers. I have a book which JHerne shared with me showing many Ki-84s in service, I will search through it later when I have more time.
I will also try to transcribe the specifications table I have. It's just very time consuming without a scanner.
-
As I've found lately, Francillon wasn't infallible. He made some mistakes. He created a new model of Betty that didn't exist, mis-labeled the squadron of planes in an apparently widely posted picture, etc.
I don't like relying on only one source... Especially if that source is given credibility because of a "grandfather clause" where it's been around the longest -- often some of the older stuff is the most inaccurate. Francillon may be nice, but he's not perfect. Might want to branch out.
As for your dispersions about my "radioactive status" I neither asked for nor looked for this, and only a fool sees a high post count as a sign of authority. I do take one small bit of pride in the fact I don't post in the O'club (where 90% of the other high posters pad their count).
Where? Where do I get this? Well you're relying so heavily on Francillon, I'd have expected you to at least read some of his writing on the matter!!!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4661601/Aircraft-Profile-070-Nakajima-Ki84
Hint, page 8 covers several points. It also helps differentiate the -Ib as being identical to the -Ia, and the -II as being a different model with an engine change. Now, either you can accept Francillon's word, as you wanted to in your previous post.... Or you can remain skeptical in which case neither of our posts means much (both being based on Francillon) and you need to go research some more before making blanket statements like:
"Firstly no, the Ki-84-II Hayate-Kai might have had a wooden tail section but that is the extend of wood employed in this version. I'm still researching this at the moment." Well... Do you know? Or are you still researching? Not "it appears that" or "so far" but just plain blanket-statement "no, but I don't know"??
It's nothing to be ashamed of if you get the wrong designation with the wrong craft or configuration. However it's NOT a cut-and-dried issue when talking about the Japanese nomenclature.
Example:
http://78sentai.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33&sid=2b9e80e31c8d24e6c56c3cb1cb721317
It's about Ki-61s and Ki-43s, but it illustrates the many different ways the Japanese and the Americans referred to the same aircraft.
So it's a case of "You keep using dat word... I do not think it means what you think it means" in regards to the -Ib designation. To avoid any such issues with myself I've spelled out my words clearly enough (so I would think). There WAS a model of the -Ia armed with 4x20mm. That is what I am talking about. There WAS a revised model with a different engine, wing modificatons, and a wooden tail, and NO I'm not confusing the Ki-106. This was considered to be the -II, and the 4x20mm could be considered in US designation codes to be a Ki-84-IIb, but the similarity does not mean they were the same craft with 2 names.
You're saying the 2 names applied to the same plane. I'm saying you're wrong, and that the system was so muddled that it's a mistake many have made before you. Take the Me109/Bf109 debate and multiply it by 10, and you'll have a fraction of the issues with Japanese naming conventions.
This seems to sum it up nicely, since you don't believe anything I type :)
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Nakajima%20Ki%2084%20Frank.htm
"The Ki-84-II or Hayate Kai was an attempt to conserve valuable supplies of aluminum by employing large numbers of wooden components in the manufacture of the Hayate. The rear fuselage, certain fittings, and modified wingtips were made of wood, with all the wood work being carried out at a shadow factory at Tanuma. The engine was the Nakajama [Ha-45] 21, 25 or 23 with low-pressure fuel injection. Armament consisted of four 20-mm or two 20-mm and two 30-mm cannon. The designation Ki-84-II was actually a Nakajima designation, the aircraft in JAAF service retaining the Ki-84-Ib or -Ic designation, depending on armament."
If you read my previous link (japanese nomenclature) you'll see that often the pilots didn't use any of the differentiation or model numbers, they just called it a single name regardless of the model/variant. It's because of this that you're thinking the -Ib and the -II are the same. The official designations from Nakajima, the folks that designed it, suggest otherwise. Mind you I'm not an expert but I have read quite a bit about it lately. I can definitely say I don't think you have a complete picture.
Now, let's split hairs.... The Japanese fuel was limited in quality at the end of the war and the manufacturing processes on both the Ki-84 airframe and components as well as on the later-model engines was sub-par. Regardless of the fact that the designed power was higher, most of those -II with the newer engine seemed to run at reduced rates mimicking the performance of the -I. In fact, sometimes the performance was slow enough and bad enough that a Japanese pilot couldn't tell if his plane would even be able to climb up and meet the enemy. I've read a comment that some pilots thought the Ki-100 was faster. Consider that! If the aircraft failed to perform so badly that a simpler, older, airframe performs better than it. It's not the first time I've read this about late war Japanese production values in regards to other planes. In Aces High we naturally don't have such malfulnction problems. However we do model real-war performance rather than souped up US test runs. If we got any -II in-game it probably wouldn't be any different in real performance (although possibly tail-heavy -- you don't just wrap a wooden veneer to shape a tail, as the Germans did with late Fw190s you have to build the entire internal frame, ribs, braces, structures to hold the stabilizers, etc, THEN cover in fabric or wooden veneer. Often it added considerable weight as compared toe empty shells of aluminum they replaced.)
-
I don't think photographs will serve to quantify the numbers of which type saw deployment. I think it best to focus on the production numbers.
I think it would go a solid step towards proving the 4x20mm armament ever saw combat (that's still under question). No current references have been shown to prove this. Production numbers are one thing, and would be nice to have (numerous random sources suggest 200 give or take Ki-84-Ib models were made), but whether they sat unused at an airport or factory floor, or were used in training units, or what... these things are more important to indicate its actual impact or relevance to the war effort.
I'm currently doubtful they saw combat in any serious volume.
-
The -Ib would be identical to the -Ia but with different guns. I think you're comparing 2 different things here.
The -Ib and -Ia weren't identical. The engine models changed inside the Ia production alone. Ki-84-Ia was powered with Homare's -11, -12 and -21. My source (Leszek A. Wieliczko's Ki-84 book (ISBN: 83-89088-76-2)) mentiones -25 as one of the Ib powerplants The issue is far from being as simple as you depict it.
Hint, page 8 covers several points. It also helps differentiate the -Ib as being identical to the -Ia,
The page 8 says no such thing. I suggest you read it more carefully.
wmaker: The distinction of the gas ports is very interesting... Now that you point it out, do you have any pictures showing if any of these -Ib's saw active service? I mean photos of them with frontline squadrons, instead of derelict on a factory parking lot well after the war is over. I would very much be interested in where and how many saw actual deployment.
Those are the only ones I recall seeing. It is said that all know photographs of the Ib's are 104. Sentai aircraft.
I think it would go a solid step towards proving the 4x20mm armament ever saw combat (that's still under question). No current references have been shown to prove this. Production numbers are one thing, and would be nice to have (numerous random sources suggest 200 give or take Ki-84-Ib models were made), but whether they sat unused at an airport or factory floor, or were used in training units, or what... these things are more important to indicate its actual impact or relevance to the war effort.
I'm currently doubtful they saw combat in any serious volume.
When you have aircraft photographed that can be traced to a certain unit, it is clear that the variant was delivered during the war. The planes are in warpaint of a identifiable unit. The moment the photo was taken is actually irrelevant. Ki-84 is no different than any other aircraft we talk about in these boards. You have no evidence suggesting they weren't used. They were basically one of the best aircraft Japanese had in the end of the war. 104. Sentai operated against B-29s which was the reason why Ki-84's armament was increased in the first place. Yes, I'm sure they would have been used as training aircraft. :rolleyes:
Nrshida, here's a couple profiles of those Ib's that appear in the photos:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Otsu_4.jpg)
-
Krusty, seriously, I don't mean to be rude, but I shall in future treat your 'factual' posts with the value they deserve. I would rate your previous posts as 4/10 on the Gaston scale, and that's quite a lot of Gastonation.
You suggest we discount Francillons as a credible source of information on the strength of a few mistakes? And replace it with what? Links to forums like you have posted above for instance? A discussion from a forum, and you think this is a more credible or even an equal source to a historian and an accepted authority on the subject? Which source is likely more replete with misinformation and speculation, hardly the same thing at all is it?
I would love to have more sources, that's partly why I'm posting here to share and ask for information. I would rather have other members also sharing information from their own collections rather than playing 'Whack a Rat' with your ridiculous claims.
I believe I did read the article more carefully than you did. I read page 8 several times considering several hypotheses while I did so. If you read it in conjunction with the specification table on page 12 I think it is a credible interpretation.
You have concluded this:-
'It also helps differentiate the -Ib as being identical to the -Ia, and the -II as being a different model with an engine change.'
...from the text on the page 8, as you suggest, where it states and I quote:-
'The Army Type 4 Model 1A was followed on the assembly line by the model 1B (Ki-84-Ib) in which the synchronised machine guns were replaced by two Ho-5 cannons, thus giving the aircraft a fixed armament of four 20-mm cannons.'
Also the specification table has two distinct columns for both versions of the Ia type, both listed as having two Ho-103 12.7mm. Then there is the third column Ki-84-II, with differing dimensional information, different power units listed for all three types.
...and from this you infer the Ia was identical to the Ib?
Respectfully it is you sir, that needs to do some more reading.
I wouldn't mind so much if you weren't so condescending and certain of yourself. Please in future do not talk to me as if I am intellectually inferior or need to have things explained as if I am a child. I am fully able to comprehend what you're saying, I just disagree with you and think your opinion based approach is unsound.
Wmaker thank you for uploading those images. Have a look at this picture:-
(http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9342/ki84cowlings.jpg)
Pretty rough I know, but does illustrate a different shape of the gun ports. I have some more line drawings which I can upload later. Would be nice if we could construct a table of the variants ourselves, using ALL of the nomenclature to avoid confusion.
-
Wmaker thank you for uploading those images. Have a look at this picture:-
(http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9342/ki84cowlings.jpg)
Pretty rough I know, but does illustrate a different shape of the gun ports. I have some more line drawings which I can upload later. Would be nice if we could construct a table of the variants ourselves, using ALL of the nomenclature to avoid confusion.
Thanks for the interesting pic nrshida!
...but I think the plane in the foreground is a Ki-43-III. ;)
It is true though that early/pre-production Ki-84s had somewhat similar pretty prominent gun ports.
-
Oh yeah I think you're right. Well spotted :aok I was looking at the canopy and the scoop on the top of the cowl. If only the photo was a bit more complete. Do you think the gunports were the same for the Ki-84-Ia and Ki-84-II? I can't find a single picture showing a difference then.
Shame they are often wrecked in the photos. I can't help thinking, 'potential restoration project', 'potential restoration project', 'potential restoration project', lol.
-
nrshida, I purposefully adopted the condescending attitude and kept rewording and rephrasing my sentences over and over to avoid the almost total confusion you have about anything I said.
I gave you a good example. You took it to mean I had only read that one thing. I chose the one thing that should have spoken to you, by the same author you were quoting and contradicting your point. Instead you insult me. The forum link is quoting an author (on the nomenclature issues) and historian that translates primary source documents from Japanese and has his own personal collection of Allied intel reports on Japanese craft. How foolish of you to care, though... You're quite attached to Francillon.
You're far more wrapped up in composing personal insults and devoting all your time to obsessing over my post count to bother sticking to the subject matter at hand. I'll direct my comments to wmaker from this point on. You apparently don't care what I say and have formed your own notions. Just be advised my responses' tone was based on your initial comments. Golden rule. You acted like a stubborn child so I adopted a tone as one might.
Wmaker: You know better than that. You know for sure that many of the late-war monsters that the Japanese aircraft industry developed either had too many teething problems or were held back for the eventual US invasion force (to the point of creating production lines hidden in caves not just for engines but entire aircraft). The A6M7 and A6M8, the B6N Jill, the Ohka... Numerous advanced craft were BUILT but that doesn't mean they saw any appreciable service.
Take the P1Y1 Frances for example... Over 1000 built, but honestly came too late for anything but a few desperate kamikaze attacks.
It's foolish for you to say "prove they didn't" when, much like any discussion with late war Japanese or even German aircraft, the burden of proof is to say they actually DID serve.
People have been championing and requesting the 4x20mm ammo load for almost a decade now probably. In all this time nobody, anywhere, has come forward with any proof, any documents, any resources that say "Hey, this squad had -Ibs on the roster, and stopped ordering 12.7mm ammo" or "Hey, here's a picture of a fighter sweep with -Ibs" or anything of the sort. The simple fact they were CONSTRUCTED means nothing. Ask the Germans... They were building multiple hundreds of Ta-152s, had production lines set up for Do335s pumping out airframes before war's end, had He162s by the hundreds ready for pilots. Of the Tas, 12 saw service, give or take. Of the Do335s, a single plane may have been chased briefly during a test flight. Of the He162s there is only minimal proof they ever staffed a hitler youth squadron and a handful were sent out to units that had no avgas to fly them.
Or, ask the Japanese... They were stockpiling many of their most advanced weapons for use by civilian soldiers. There were numerous plans to fight to the bitter end, sacrificing hundreds of high-performance aircraft (the aircraft being stocked, only needing conscript kamikaze pilots).
So, I would very much like to see any pictures you have of the -Ib with the 20mm vents on the nose. This would be a big step towards saying "See, they were here, at least" but by no means conclusive without a lot of help. The moment the photo was taken is very relevant. Was it during a training hop? A familiarization run? Was it being used to train new pilots (phased into the fold, as it were)? The when and where of the photo can tell you a lot -- not always, but it will never hurt the discussion.
P.S. You mention the Homare engines... Forgive me if I'm blunt on this, as there's been plenty said already, but you aren't really making too fine a point with the Ha45-23 reference. Even some -Ia models had this. The only difference between the -23 and the -21 was the pressurized fuel system to keep the gas from cutting out. The down side is that they came later, and as the quality of production and performance deteriorated, the extra 100 horsepower over the models 11 and 12 was lost. Consider the same situation of the P-40E/F/M/L models. Little to no real world performance difference. Even one P-40 pilot commented not noticing any difference between the models until the P-40N.
While there is some variation in possible engines for a Ki-84-Ia, whatever the contemporary -Ia model, the -Ib would match. Even the late-production model the US captured had a Ha45-21 in it, and was still armed with 2x 12.7mm. If there was actually any proof of production, production dates, factories, etc... If there were any evidence available it would help shed some light on which production lines had which engines, and so forth. However, for a long time now folks have been making arguments hoping the Ki-84-Ib saw service. So far nobody's really shown it even existed on paper! (I'm not suggesting it is fictional, I'm suggesting burden of proof should lie with the aircraft's advocates)
Help me out on this... What is your real position on this? Are you, like nrshida, taking the position that the Ki-84-II is another name for the Ki-84-Ib? Or do you agree with me that the -II was a totally different monster, and that the -Ib matched other potential configurations of the -Ia, but you are discussing more minor differences between these two sub-types?
-
Krusty: So you were condescending and I was insulting in response. Fair enough, we're even then.
I'm not obsessed about your post count, I rattled you over it once to find out what you truly thought of it and you answered. That was the one occasion I mentioned it.
No I did not take it that you only read one thing in fact. It's very clear you read from many sources in the area and that is great. What's not so great is if you form your own opinions in isolation, and then present those on the forum as 'this is the way it is', and be totally inflexible and stubborn in your opinions while you do that. That's what I take issue with. You said yourself that Francillon made mistakes. I'm sure we've all made mistakes or at least faulty assumptions reading and trying to understand descriptions and information from multiple sources.
You imply I hold Francillon in some idolatry status, this is untrue, I actually don't give a rats arse about any particular author, I'm only interested in the aircraft and the designs and engineering. I learned from contributors on this forum in fact that he was the accepted authority on the subject, and I want to find out about the aircraft. So when you disagreed with his descriptions of types, especially, I wanted to know why and if you could replace the information with better or more accurate information.
How about this Krusty, you be less condescending, I'll be less insulting, we both be more flexible in our opinions and agree to separate those from fact for the time being until we've all learned more about it. Can I say fairer than that?
As a gesture of good faith, I will not address the points you have directed to Wmaker. I'll just wait and read for now.
-
Wmaker: You know better than that. You know for sure that many of the late-war monsters that the Japanese aircraft industry developed either had too many teething problems or were held back for the eventual US invasion force (to the point of creating production lines hidden in caves not just for engines but entire aircraft). The A6M7 and A6M8, the B6N Jill, the Ohka... Numerous advanced craft were BUILT but that doesn't mean they saw any appreciable service.
The aircraft in those pictures are in full warpaint. They have 104. Sentai's insignia's on their tails and Chutai colour markings on their spinners and vertical stabilizers. The white band is a rather clear tactical marking. This isn't the only source which mentiones it as the Chutai commander's aircraft. When it comes to this particular case and photographic evidence, suggesting that these aircraft were trainers is absurd.
FYI, I'm not particularly advocating anything to any particular direction. I'm talkng about the real aircraft.
It's foolish for you to say "prove they didn't" when, much like any discussion with late war Japanese or even German aircraft, the burden of proof is to say they actually DID serve.
You are completely missing the point. The photos depict delivered combat unit -Ibs. I repeat, aircraft that have been delivered to a combat unit. Evidence that an aircraft was delievered to combat unit is usually good for other aircraft, why is Ki-84 any different? Just because the war ended before the picture was taken, doesn't mean they didn't serve in the said unit they were delivered to. BTW, there are publications say that those pics were taken in Manchuria during the war, but that's really beside the point.
So, I would very much like to see any pictures you have of the -Ib with the 20mm vents on the nose.
Like I said, those pictures depict -Ibs and they are the only ones I've seen.
P.S. You mention the Homare engines... Forgive me if I'm blunt on this, as there's been plenty said already, but you aren't really making too fine a point with the Ha45-23 reference.
In my last post, I didn't make a single reference to -23.
The only difference between the -23 and the -21 was the pressurized fuel system to keep the gas from cutting out. The down side is that they came later, and as the quality of production and performance deteriorated, the extra 100 horsepower over the models 11 and 12 was lost.
On paper, Ha-45-12 developed 1825hp and -21 developed 1990hp. That makes a 165hp difference, not 100hp. Like I mentioned, Busa found in his research that the -21s were derated in service to levels of -12's output (1825hp). On paper, -23 developed 1900hp. What I do not know and have been wondering, is weather or not the -23 and the -25 developed their advertised outputs in service or were they possibly derated aswell. This is what I meant when I said: "The issue is far from being as simple as you depict it."
Help me out on this... What is your real position on this? Are you, like nrshida, taking the position that the Ki-84-II is another name for the Ki-84-Ib? Or do you agree with me that the -II was a totally different monster, and that the -Ib matched other potential configurations of the -Ia, but you are discussing more minor differences between these two sub-types?
So far I've been talking the differences between Ia and Ib only, but now that you asked...
The sources I've mentioned agree that nrshida is essentially correct and that you are flatout wrong. The "IIs" were essentially -Ias and -Ibs with part of the aluminum alloy construction was replaced with wooden components. And just like nrshida already mentioned, Nakajima used the II-designation for these aircraft but Koku Hombu didn't adopt that designation but continued to use the Ia/Ib designations (the western designations for Ko and Otsu).
On the "-II":
"The partly wooden Ki-84 recieved the Nakajima factory designation of Ki-84-II (Ki-84 Model 2), or "Hayate" KAI; this designation, however, failed to be adopted by the Koku Hombu. The IJAAF continued to call the "wooden" Ki-84-IIs were practically indistinguishable from regular Ki-84s. it is not known how many Ki-84-IIs were produced, as they were conted among the overall number of manufactured Ki-84s. The Ki-84-II was powered by the standard Ha-45-21 engine or improved Ha-45-23, or the most powerful Ha-45-25 in the case of the latest aircraft."
Source: Leszek A. Wieliczko's Ki-84 book (ISBN: 83-89088-76-2)
...it actually says all this just with a different wording in that page 8 on that Francillon's profile-book you linked to.
From the page 8:
"In Nakajima's nomelecture these improved aircraft, ...,were known as Ki-84-II Hayate Kai (Gale modified) but the JAAF headquarters and the Ministry of Munitions never adopted this designation, the aircraft being also designated Ki-84-Ib and Ki-84-Ic* in service operation."
(We know now that Ic -wasn't put into production)
We are both actually using the same basic sources in the end but you manage to create a disagreement over them because you don't seem to understand what is being said in them.
-
Sorry for delay, had a busy weekend.
Okay, I'm going to do something here, I'm going to try and just pick the main points in hopes of keeping on topic here. Hope there's no insult if I don't respond to everything.
1) The photos
2) the engines
3) The designation -II
1) Photos are nice, but depending on many external factors any number of things could have happened. I never said they were specifically TRAINER planes, just that any squadron has a ramp-up time, a training period with the aircraft before they use those craft in combat. They need to be checked by the ground crew, test flown around the field, possibly rechecked to see if the engine was falling apart after a few minutes, whatever. I don't know the usual procedures, but I do know that it's not a simple matter of "If the plane's in the picture on the ground, it saw combat in the air." Considering the -Ib only started production of about 100 units in March of 1945, it really isn't much time to see combat. The war's end is approaching.
You've said you're not taking one approach or the other and that's fine. However your discussion suggests you think they saw combat. I believe that more photographic evidence must be found before you can prove that.
2) The engines... You said (in not so many words) you thought I was ignoring you or just not understanding. I do understand, as a matter of fact. I realize the differences with the engines. However I also realize and have read about the terrible QA and the far inferior performance of these engines. Even the higher number of the engine's model ("model 23") wouldn't produce more than the earlier ("model 12") because in the end they had to be severely down-rated. Further, while I've mentioned also that I know the -I models have various engines, when I'm referring to the -II I also refer to the intended boosted engine that SHOULD have been in it. This engine had many problems and you found -IIs with the same engines as -Is. That doesn't make them the same model in my book. That's just another of many stop-gap measure the Japanese undertook to keep planes rolling out regardless of quality or performance. To me that's quite a simple issue.
3) The -II vs the -I. To steal your line, "The issue is far from being as simple as you depict it." This is the area I feel you and nrshida don't comprehend the complexities of the Japanese naming conventions and the way most of the numbers you're reading were assigned after the fact. The Japanese didn't refer to something as a -I until there was a -II, and that was only after the fact. You would find a Ki-84-Ia would simply be referred to as Ki-84, and Ki-84-Ib (as we call it now) was simply Ki-84B. The point of one of my previous posts to nrshida was to help illustrate these naming problems by including links to some of the discussions around Ki-61s and Ki-43s, but here's a direct correlation to the Ki-84 AND the numbers produced:
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=4702.0
The guy responding (Jim Long) is one of my new-found heros lately on the matter. He down-plays it by saying he's no expert but he is considered so by many. He is going off primary source material in original Japanese, and reports from directly after the war. Read the whole topic in that link, he further goes on (lower on the page) to discuss naming issues.
On this last point is where I personally feel nrshida is wrong. I feel he is just getting confused by all the different names that can be applied at different phases of the war, of after the war, by western and eastern societies... I think he's drawn a simple conclusion to a complex issue, and as a result is incorrect. It's not that I'm holding a grudge, I just think he's wrong on the subject.
-
1) Photos are nice, but depending on many external factors any number of things could have happened. I never said they were specifically TRAINER planes, just that any squadron has a ramp-up time, a training period with the aircraft before they use those craft in combat. They need to be checked by the ground crew, test flown around the field, possibly rechecked to see if the engine was falling apart after a few minutes, whatever. I don't know the usual procedures, but I do know that it's not a simple matter of "If the plane's in the picture on the ground, it saw combat in the air." Considering the -Ib only started production of about 100 units in March of 1945, it really isn't much time to see combat. The war's end is approaching.
Don't talk about trainers as "could have been" if you don't mean they could have been trainers. There's 5 months of combat left. But really I don't see any point arguing about this with you. I let you make all the conclusions you want. I've made mine.
you found -IIs with the same engines as -Is. That doesn't make them the same model in my book.
Read this again with thought: "The partly wooden Ki-84 recieved the Nakajima factory designation of Ki-84-II (Ki-84 Model 2), or "Hayate" KAI; this designation, however, failed to be adopted by the Koku Hombu. The IJAAF continued to call the "wooden" Ki-84-IIs were practically indistinguishable from regular Ki-84s. it is not known how many Ki-84-IIs were produced, as they were counted among the overall number of manufactured Ki-84s. The Ki-84-II was powered by the standard Ha-45-21 engine or improved Ha-45-23, or the most powerful Ha-45-25 in the case of the latest aircraft."
Source: Leszek A. Wieliczko's Ki-84 book (ISBN: 83-89088-76-2)
Before replying, remember what you posted about this issue earlier. You posted: "Help me out on this... What is your real position on this? Are you, like nrshida, taking the position that the Ki-84-II is another name for the Ki-84-Ib? Or do you agree with me that the -II was a totally different monster, and that the -Ib matched other potential configurations of the -Ia, but you are discussing more minor differences between these two sub-types?"
3) The -II vs the -I. To steal your line, "The issue is far from being as simple as you depict it." This is the area I feel you and nrshida don't comprehend the complexities of the Japanese naming conventions and the way most of the numbers you're reading were assigned after the fact. The Japanese didn't refer to something as a -I until there was a -II, and that was only after the fact. You would find a Ki-84-Ia would simply be referred to as Ki-84, and Ki-84-Ib (as we call it now) was simply Ki-84B.
I'm well a aware about the naming conventions. I used the western literature Ia/Ib -designations for consistency and clarity because they were used since the start of this thread. Forget the naming conventions and read this once again:
"The partly wooden Ki-84 recieved the Nakajima factory designation of Ki-84-II (Ki-84 Model 2), or "Hayate" KAI; this designation, however, failed to be adopted by the Koku Hombu. The IJAAF continued to call the "wooden" Ki-84-IIs were practically indistinguishable from regular Ki-84s. it is not known how many Ki-84-IIs were produced, as they were counted among the overall number of manufactured Ki-84s. The Ki-84-II was powered by the standard Ha-45-21 engine or improved Ha-45-23, or the most powerful Ha-45-25 in the case of the latest aircraft."
Source: Leszek A. Wieliczko's Ki-84 book (ISBN: 83-89088-76-2)
The Ki-84-II production is buried inside the Ki-84a/b production. The IIs were Ki-84a/bs with various metal components replaced with wooden ones to conserve metal, not "a totally different monster" as you put it. It said the exact same thing in the Francillons profile book you linked to. You just read it wrong a drew faulty conclusions. Nrshida was correct all along, you were wrong. Nothing in that BBS link where Jim Long talks about Ki-84b production refutes the above quote from Wieliczko's book.
-
The ki84 is every bit better then a spixteen why do u want a better one?
I agree and im still learning. I have flown the Ki a lot lately and have found that it can bump heads with almost any plane in game. Cant explain it...just love that KI!
-
Oh no, actually I find the different sets of naming conventions, and converting between the different sets rather straightforward. All I did was choose primarily one set for comparison, the designations used by Nakajima, the manufacturer.
I think I did say I would be happy to acknowledge I had it wrong if a better synopsis was forthcoming. But again Krusty has not given us his overview of the different sub types.
Although new to studying Ki-84s, I'm not exactly new to academic investigation or study. I really see no scope for confusing the models unless one should choose to deliberately mix-up the issue by making comparisons from the different designation / naming sets. If one were to do that then no doubt confusion could be sustained indefinitely, should one wish to do this.
True the numbers of production of the sub types and dates introduced are rather vague and uncertain and probably always will be by now, given the time that has passed and the esoteric interest in the topic, plus the loss of documents and living witnesses etc, but it isn't really productive or very interesting to dwell on that I think.
Unless of course one were building a case to exclude further sub types from inclusion in Aces High on the grounds that there weren't sufficient numbers produced. That would be a little inconsistent though, since I did understand there were less than 250 chogs produced were there not? And how many Ta-152s? Just as a for instance you understand. I'm happy for the fans of those types that they are present. Besides, I have now concluded that the management of HTC decide for themselves which models to include, and I'm sure the energy put into campaigning by players compared to the success ratio is fairly low. I guess I'll just have to slum it with our current Early Production model Ki-84. How terrible.
Anyway, as entertaining and amusing as all this bickering is, I've concluded it isn't really very productive. I have now obtained a copy of Wieliczko's book, as Wmaker recommended, and I would further recommend reading it, in conjunction with Francillon, to anyone who is interested in actually finding out what model was what and the history of the aircraft. The information is plainly presented for anyone to see. A very good read with great photographs and diagrams. Thanks Wmaker.