Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Rich52 on March 23, 2012, 11:41:24 AM
-
With about 10,000 LWA K/Ds its in the mid average usage category of fighter. Heck the Zero has about the same, the K4 more, Spits far more, the Niki twice as much. The run-90, 51D, LA7? forgetaboutit. Isnt the KI-84 a truly elite fighter and shouldnt it be expected to be used more then it is?
-
its not sexy and will loose a cannon all the time!
-
its not sexy and will loose a cannon all the time!
A Spit16 with a Rising sun on it, at perk X 4, loaded with ammo and range, along with 2 500lb class bombs, sounds "sexy" to me.
-
Doesn't receive the attention it should, same goes for Yak9U, La-5, 190A5 and P47D11. All underestimated planes. It's one of the best, kinda like a Jap Spit16.
Well flown Ki84s make people cry.
-
A Spit16 with a Rising sun on it, at perk X 4, loaded with ammo and range, along with 2 500lb class bombs, sounds "sexy" to me.
the 3D model looks bad, the cockpit especially. and it will loose the wing tips if too much G's are pulled. But it is indeed a good plane!
-
In close combat, tight rolling scissors, the ki84 can spank everything.
When its forced to close the flaps, its an easy prede.
Has major strenghts also major weaknesses, but with an experienced pilot, it can dominate just like anything.
-
Has major strenghts also major weaknesses, but with an experienced pilot, it can dominate just like anything.
I like that sentence
-
It doesn't dive like a pony/190/LA/Spit, so it is harder to come into a fight 10k above everyone else and pick the planes below from relative safety.
I love it. If more people would fly it, we would have more low alt turny turny fights and less diving from the stratosphere pickfests.
-
Love the KI...think I have about 5000 killz in it, in a year and a half of flying it :headscratch:
it can do it all....the only thing it lacks is high speed running capabilities, maybe that's why it is not used as much, people just cant run away in it, although for me after flying the hurri2C for years it seems very fast :rofl
-
If it was modeled using US 100 octane fuel like it did in the US tests, it would be a very, very popular plane. Right up there with the P-51D but sadly, it's hampered by the Japanese fuel it used and it really did have a negative impact on the performance of the Ki-84.
These are the results of the flights from the Ki-84 tested at Wright Field.
Maximum speed:
363 mph at sea level
427 mph at 20,000 ft
360 mph at 35,000 ft
Cruise speed:
254 mph at 1,500 ft
Climb rate:
4,275 ft/min
Ceiling:
38,000 ft
Normal range (internal fuel 184 US gallons):
780 m at 254 mph
Maximum range (plus 174 US gallons additional fuel):
1,845 m at 173 mph.
ack-ack
-
If it was modeled using US 100 octane fuel like it did in the US tests, it would be a very, very popular plane. Right up there with the P-51D but sadly, it's hampered by the Japanese fuel it used and it really did have a negative impact on the performance of the Ki-84.
These are the results of the flights from the Ki-84 tested at Wright Field.
Maximum speed:
363 mph at sea level
427 mph at 20,000 ft
360 mph at 35,000 ft
Cruise speed:
254 mph at 1,500 ft
Climb rate:
4,275 ft/min
Ceiling:
38,000 ft
Normal range (internal fuel 184 US gallons):
780 m at 254 mph
Maximum range (plus 174 US gallons additional fuel):
1,845 m at 173 mph.
ack-ack
I thought they didn't model the poor fuel into it :headscratch:
-
The 109K is also modeled with the B4 fuel it mostly used in R/L rather than the C3 (150 octane equivalent) it was meant to use (for 400 more hp).
-
The 109K is also modeled with the B4 fuel it mostly used in R/L rather than the C3 (150 octane equivalent) it was meant to use (for 400 more hp).
I got reports about Italians (!) using C3 in their K4s in very early '45.
-
I thought they didn't model the poor fuel into it :headscratch:
They model it based on war-time accurate performance, not post-war super-fuel. The Japanese didn't have that kind of fuel.
-
The 109K is also modeled with the B4 fuel it mostly used in R/L rather than the C3 (150 octane equivalent) it was meant to use (for 400 more hp).
Just as the P-51D, Spitfires XIV and XVI, Tempest and Mosquito Mk VI are not modeled with 150 octane. The Axis is not singled out in not getting the best fuel.
-
They model it based on war-time accurate performance, not post-war super-fuel. The Japanese didn't have that kind of fuel.
damn learn something new everyday :aok
gotta give it up to those who put this game together :salute
-
What does 'dissed' mean please?
Remarkable is the engine's ability to produce those high power figures on that crappy fuel. The Nakajima Homare engine had a higher BMEP than the Daimler Benz 605 so it's hardly surprising what it could do on race fuel.
The American test was conducted with a later model Ki-84 by the way, we have the Ko (Ki-84-Ia) Early Production. This is the poorest performing Hayate if you discount the emergency materials models.
I've never lost a wing part in a high g turn. The structure is very strong as the wing was integral with the central fuselage section. You should be wary of exceeding 450 m.p.h. however as control surfaces can randomly shed. If you are diving at those speeds though you really are missing the point of this aircraft.
The Spitfire Mark XVI in my experience slightly out turns (except at very low speeds), out climbs, out accelerates, out dives, out runs and has better energy retention than the Hayate. This is exasperated above 7k where the supercharger loses effectiveness. However you can't do donuts on the runway in a Spitfire.
Incidentally, the flaps are wrong in Aces High, someone should fix those.
-
What does 'dissed' mean please?
dis-respected, un-loved.
A good KI-84 pilot is a worthy adversary for my Spitfire. I think most players do regard it with contempt because it has it's unique quirks that turn most away from it. The shredding of parts and compression when diving makes it hard for the average AHer to put his nose down and runaway at the first sign of trouble. The twitchy stall when yanking too hard.
You have to let people come to you and then trap them by fighting up hill and getting those beast mode flaps out whilst keeping them out with fine throttle control, then any poor un-suspecting hot shot will be wishing he hadn't just turned into you.
It's tough apart from the tail (you can say that about most planes) packs some punch with the cannon and the x2 50's are like incendiary rounds from 200 yards or less.
-
dis-respected, un-loved.
A good KI-84 pilot is a worthy adversary for my Spitfire. I think most players do regard it with contempt because it has it's unique quirks that turn most away from it. The shredding of parts and compression when diving makes it hard for the average AHer to put his nose down and runaway at the first sign of trouble. The twitchy stall when yanking too hard.
You have to let people come to you and then trap them by fighting up hill and getting those beast mode flaps out whilst keeping them out with fine throttle control, then any poor un-suspecting hot shot will be wishing he hadn't just turned into you.
It's tough apart from the tail (you can say that about most planes) packs some punch with the cannon and the x2 50's are like incendiary rounds from 200 yards or less.
it really is a tough bird, I have been straight up amazed at how much it can take and still fly away.
I also believe because of the lacking of high speed, that's why it don't get flown as much.
-
dis-respected, un-loved.
Oh thanks. I do not diss it myself.
-
Just as the P-51D, Spitfires XIV and XVI, Tempest and Mosquito Mk VI are not modeled with 150 octane. The Axis is not singled out in not getting the best fuel.
Would be nice to get 150 avgas as a perk option.
-
typical double standard when it comes to some planes - thy should model reliability too while thy are at it - it would ruin some planes.
in any case, the ki is a fantastic plane and I use it often as do a lot of pilots.
-
Would be nice to get 150 avgas as a perk option.
When I fly the Ki-84, I don't feel outclassed by any other conventional fighter. I don't mind being lower, because I'll simply fight going up. Diving isn't a problem as long as you don't over-stress the airframe. It doesn't suffer from compression per se, its elevators just stiffen up. You can overcome that by flying with manual trim, trimming the nose up a bit.
It's a damn good ride, especially after you learn to overcome its few minor weaknesses.
-
Incidentally, the flaps are wrong in Aces High, someone should fix those.
Please clarify this comment. I have looked for information about the flaps as I just can't believe the combat setting was really limited to 167mph.
-
Please clarify this comment. I have looked for information about the flaps as I just can't believe the combat setting was really limited to 167mph.
I've always wondered about this also.
-
When I fly the Ki-84, I don't feel outclassed by any other conventional fighter. I don't mind being lower, because I'll simply fight going up. Diving isn't a problem as long as you don't over-stress the airframe. It doesn't suffer from compression per se, its elevators just stiffen up. You can overcome that by flying with manual trim, trimming the nose up a bit.
It's a damn good ride, especially after you learn to overcome its few minor weaknesses.
All these things, and what Nrshida said ("I've never lost a wing part in a high g turn. The structure is very strong as the wing was integral with the central fuselage section. You should be wary of exceeding 450 m.p.h. however as control surfaces can randomly shed. If you are diving at those speeds though you really are missing the point of this aircraft"). I found that learning the Frank took some practice, but once you get the hang of it, it's absolutely AH's best dogfighter.
We had an AvA setup a few years ago pitting Spit 8s and 16s against the Frank. Halfway through the week the squad we were practicing with (BKs, IIRC) switched sides. The Frank came out on top either way.
- oldman
-
When I fly the Ki-84, I don't feel outclassed by any other conventional fighter. I don't mind being lower, because I'll simply fight going up. Diving isn't a problem as long as you don't over-stress the airframe. It doesn't suffer from compression per se, its elevators just stiffen up. You can overcome that by flying with manual trim, trimming the nose up a bit.
It's a damn good ride, especially after you learn to overcome its few minor weaknesses.
I was more thinking of making 100/150 octane avgas available to the allied rides and C3 for the DB605 powered German and Italian rides as a perk option. If we're getting perk ord/guns, why not perk fuel if it was historically available, even if in very small quantities (Japan). 150 avgas was certainly available in significant quantities, and so was C3, the 109's just weren't given priority since all the BMW 190's needed it. However I've seen photos of 109's with C3 stickers on them.
-
I flew it about 3 tours straight about a yeaar and a half ago...
Cannons don't have great range but when your going for snapshots they a great just like the K4. It is awesome plane to reverse your normal MA perch grabbers because it can zoom quite well.
I won't merge at speeds more then 360, If I'm going faster then that I'll extend up and away because the plane won't move quite the way you want it to. Under 360 my merges with it are aggresive especially in the MA. With it's vert a turn radius you can normal finish off an opponent pretty quickly.
IMO it is great in a stall, very easy to control the nose and make shots.
Only downfalls...high speed handles....AND IT NEEDS AN UPDATE HTC :D
-
Best all round plane in the game, its also the easiest to fly imo probably more so than the spitfire. Apart from its high speed handling it doesn't really have a bad point.
-
Best all round plane in the game, its also the easiest to fly imo probably more so than the spitfire. Apart from its high speed handling it doesn't really have a bad point.
I would beg to differ. The B-38 is obviously the best all around plane.
But I hate a well flown Ki-84. :furious
Seriously though, its a great plane. Love flying it when I get an itch for a Jap plane. Only one I will fly
-
I admit I do like the looks of the ki-84 - very nice lines, good performance overall, but for some reason I just can't wrap my head around it. I attribute this to the tiny instruments and the canopy framing. I also find it interesting the flaps won't deploy at such a relatively slow speed compared with its contemporaries. I haven't really flown it enough, but have done reasonably well in it. I actually think its ENY is a tad too low - ditto for the 109k, but that's just imho. (Both are just as easy-mode as a spixteen. :neener: )
-
If it was modeled using US 100 octane fuel like it did in the US tests, it would be a very, very popular plane. Right up there with the P-51D but sadly, it's hampered by the Japanese fuel it used and it really did have a negative impact on the performance of the Ki-84.
Sorry, but fuel by itself won't increase performance. However, higher octane fuel makes possible higher manifold pressure.
Ha-45 engine was designed to run on fuel Japanese had at the time. As far as I know, in US tests, even though higher octane fuel was used, max manifold pressures weren't increased above what factory throttle settings allowed.
-
Sorry, but fuel by itself won't increase performance. However, higher octane fuel makes possible higher manifold pressure.
Ha-45 engine was designed to run on fuel Japanese had at the time. As far as I know, in US tests, even though higher octane fuel was used, max manifold pressures weren't increased above what factory throttle settings allowed.
I thought they had designed it for 100 octane in the hope that the Japanese petrochemical companies would develop higher quality of fuel?
-
I thought they had designed it for 100 octane in the hope that the Japanese petrochemical companies would develop higher quality of fuel?
No. The difference between Japanese and US KI-84 tests is solely due to the fact that Japanese tests were performed on pre-production aircraft. Production KI-84 had many improvements, most notably the exhaust stacks.
-
ki84 like the 205 suffers from very dated graphics. it was the first plane done to ah2 polu count but it was still heavily angular and compared to the more recent additions its very polygonal and not much fun to look at like the new stuff.
its also slow with small ammo load and bad high speed tendancies making it ignored more than the recently redone big ammo clip n1k2.
-
ki84 like the 205 suffers from very dated graphics. it was the first plane done to ah2 polu count but it was still heavily angular and compared to the more recent additions its very polygonal and not much fun to look at like the new stuff.
its also slow with small ammo load and bad high speed tendancies making it ignored more than the recently redone big ammo clip n1k2.
Well, to be fair, the C.205 is an AH v1.00 polygon and the the Ki-84 is an AH v2.00 polygon. That said, while much of it is a significant improvement over AH1 models, its cockpit framing is actually graphically inferior to a number of AH1 models such as the Hurricanes and the pre-update A6Ms.
-
ki84 like the 205 suffers from very dated graphics. it was the first plane done to ah2 polu count but it was still heavily angular and compared to the more recent additions its very polygonal and not much fun to look at like the new stuff.
its also slow with small ammo load and bad high speed tendancies making it ignored more than the recently redone big ammo clip n1k2.
:headscratch: 300 Cannon rounds is more than enough. Those MGs alone can get you a few kills if you can sit on their butt for 2 seconds at D200.
-
I'm sorry to differ with you Bighorn, but that's not correct. The production aircraft did indeed have altered exhausts and this added some thrust. The prototypes had a grouped outlet system. However the manufacturer's figures for each model is known and the U.S. tests far exceed the best of those. The higher performance for the U.S. test was due to a combination of higher octane fuel and the engine being in tune to use that.
Regarding the flaps, I have similarly been able to find no data regarding a maximum airspeed for flaps to be deployed. I'm sure there was one in the manual or printed on a decal somewhere but I also doubt it was as low as 164 m.p.h as it is in the game. The whole wing structure is really built around this flap design which was carried over from the Ki-43 (and earlier) from the outset and is a distinctive Nakajima feature. If you inspect the deployment rails and mechanism it implies they were intended to be used for manoeuvring and not just landing flaps. The deployment mechanism is hydraulic and the flaps themselves are a considerable structure. There are four rails per flap.
I conjecture that in real life the flaps might limit your speed once deployed and not the other way around. I once had both flaps shot off when deployed and flew around until my fuel ran out experimenting. It was impossible to accelerate past a certain speed (I'm afraid I have forgotten the figure).
I thought I had a convincing case that the flaps were modelled incorrectly in Aces High but trying to substantiate it I'm now not so sure, but I'll present the info anyway for your consideration.
On the instrument panel of Aces High's Ki-84 is a flap position gauge, below and slightly to the left of the manifold pressure gauge. There is no equivalent for this on the instrument panel of the real Ko (this position is occupied by the oil temperature gauge) nor can I find such an indicator elsewhere in the cockpit.
The Aces High gauge is is labelled 0, 15 and 30 degrees respectively although I believe the pointer does go slightly off this scale at the 30 mark which would be commensurate with the specifications.
However, according to Wieliczko's book, there was a third setting for the flaps which we do not have which allowed them to be extended even further to 53 degrees:-
"The flaps were all-metal and consisted of fourteen ribs. They were placed between ribs 2 and 14 and extended asymmetrically on four guides, with hydraulic control. Their maximum extension angle for landing was 53 degrees, 35 degrees for take-off, and 15 degrees in combat maneuvers". [Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate, Leszek A. Wieliczko, Kagero].
I cannot validate this information from a second source, so I suppose we must remain sceptical. Information is so scarce I think a more convincing photograph would clinch it but I have been unable to find one. There is a picture of the flaps deployed in a position apparently exceeding 35 degrees, but perhaps you can judge for yourselves:-
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/AeroDetailKi-84FlapDeployment.jpg)
Flaps at 35 degrees from Aero Detail (in which flap deployment maximum angle is states as 35 degrees).
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/KageroKi-84FlapDeployment.jpg)
Flap deployment picture from Wieliczko.
I believe the flap positions may not have been discrete however as they were controlled by lever which actuated a hydraulic valve and might have allowed a variable angle of deployment instead of the fixed positions we have.
Regarding the dive of the aircraft: the flight testing implies that the elevators did become very stiff at high speeds which would be reflected in the game, however the shedding of control surfaces in Aces High is rather inexplicable.
During a discussion of the development of the Mansu produced Ki-116, which was a developmental version of the Ki-84 featuring a smaller, less powerful and lighter engine fitted to an otherwise identical Ko, Wieliczko mentions that this aircraft achieved 800 km/h (497 m.p.h.) in a dive. In Aces High I believe you would lose all of your surfaces in random sequence by the time you reached that speed, even if unloaded.
Finally there is some evaluation of the aircraft for which the source is not cited but which I am assuming stems from the flight testing of the captured Ko (Ki-84-Ia Late Production version (serial number 2366 assigned tail number S17)):-
"The construction of the Ki-84 was very strong and allowed both rapid maneuvers with high overloads and high speed dives".
-
Ki-84 flap deployment video - this also has an underside view of it. It definitely looks like the flap is deploying in excess of 45 degrees.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiqBOIVLRig&feature=topics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiqBOIVLRig&feature=topics)
-
However the manufacturer's figures for each model is known
I'd love to see those figures. I was searching for ages and could not find any, except the official Japanese test on pre-production aircraft, by which AH Ki-84 performance is modeled.
and the U.S. tests far exceed the best of those.
Possible, but we shouldn't speculate unless there's some hard evidence.
The higher performance for the U.S. test was due to a combination of higher octane fuel and the engine being in tune to use that.
Again, just speculation. We know the aircraft was overhauled, but I have never seen any evidence whatsoever about any performance enhancing modifications. Such modifications would also defeat the purpose of testing.
So far, everything points to Ki-84 being (when well maintained) 400+ mph aircraft.
-
:headscratch: 300 Cannon rounds is more than enough. Those MGs alone can get you a few kills if you can sit on their butt for 2 seconds at D200.
It is "small" when compared to a N1K with over 800 rounds. The rate of fire is faster on the Ho5 than the Type 99s as well so the spray and pray is not a very good option. That being said I think she's the finest dogfighter in game and damn sexy to boot. Like Hayate brother Ink mentioned, she's very tough to boot. We ever get a 4 cannon option I may never touch another plane.
-
It is "small" when compared to a N1K with over 800 rounds. The rate of fire is faster on the Ho5 than the Type 99s as well so the spray and pray is not a very good option. That being said I think she's the finest dogfighter in game and damn sexy to boot. Like Hayate brother Ink mentioned, she's very tough to boot. We ever get a 4 cannon option I may never touch another plane.
oh man I start drooling when I hear 4 cannon KI-84 :x :x :x :x :x
-
I said " to boot" twice and I'm not really sure what it means. :headscratch: :D
Give us 4 cannons HTC!!! :salute
And by us I'm mean just Ink and myself. Well Shida too, he's obviously got good taste.
-
When it was released, I couldn't believe the flap speeds, so i found the museum in Japan that had one, I wrote, and by way of reply they sent me a copy of the pilots manual, in Japanese, the extension speeds are correct.
I still have the manual.
-
Well that settles it then. FTJR, would you be willing to share a scanned copy of the manual? That would make my day.
Thank you for the contribution EagleDNY but that is a scale model and I'm afraid it looks like 35 degrees to me. Good illustration of the mechanism though.
Bighorn, here are the manufacturer's ratings for the different models of the Homare, as you requested:-
- Ha-45-11 (Ha-45 11-Gata) rated at 1342 kW for take-off (1800 hp) at 2900 rpm and 1230 kW (1650 hp) at an altitude of 2000 m.
- Ha-45-12 (Ha- 45 12-Gata) rated at 1361 kW for take-off (1825 hp) at 2900 rpm and 1245 kW (1670 hp) at an altitude of 2400 m.
- Ha-45-21 (Ha-45 21-Gata) rated at 1484 kW for take-off (1990 hp) at 3000 rpm, 1380 kW (1850 hp) at an altitude of 1750 m and 1208 kW (1620 hp) at an altitude of 6400 m.
- Ha-45-23 (Ha-45 23-Gata) rated at 1417 kW for take-off (1900 hp) at 3000 rpm and 1245 kW (1670 hp) at an altitude of 1440 m.
- Ha-45-25 (Ha-45 25-Gata) rated at 1491 kW for take-off (2000 hp) at 3000 rpm and 1268 kW (1700 hp) at an altitude of 6000 m.
I did not say the engine was modified, I said it was in tune (as opposed to some of those in the field) and I was not speculating, I would have stated that if I was. The data is known. The aircraft was apparently standard, the only difference between the fielded aircraft was the better fuel:-
The Americans captured two aircraft in the Philippines. These received black tailfin numbers S10 and S17 and American markings and were tested by the Allied Technical Air Intelligence Unit - South-West Pacific Area (ATAIU-SWPA). In 1946 two additional aircraft were found at the Utsonomiya Army Flying Training School and transported to America where they were restored to flying condition. They received the numbers FE-301 and FE-302 (later changed to T2-301 & T2-302 respectively).
One of the two aircraft captured in the Phillipines, tailmark S17 was Nakajima serial number 1446 which would make it a Ki-84-Ia Ko Late Production fitted with a Ha-45-21 Homare (which has slightly more power and slightly less weight than the AH version). This is the only remaining existant Ki-84 and is presently situated in the Tokko Heiwa Kinen-kan museum in Chiran, Japan. The aircraft is no longer airworthy and has been allowed to degrade in condition.
Here is the table from Wieliczko:-
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/WieliczkosTable.jpg)
The third column is the data from the ATAIU-SWPA tests. Please note the speeds and climb rates.
Slash and Ink, nuts to the 4 cannon Otsu, I say us three get the only Ki-84 Hei, fitted with a single Ho-155 30-mm cannon in the right wing:-
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/30_mm_ho155_browning.htm
:banana:
-
Nrshida,
Of course, now I have to find it. Yep.. its sitting on the shelf in the envelope it came in. Just give me a few days to scan it all in. p.m. me your email, and I'll send to you, and anyone else who is interested.
Regards
JR
-
Bighorn, here are the manufacturer's ratings for the different models of the Homare, as you requested:-
- Ha-45-11 (Ha-45 11-Gata) rated at 1342 kW for take-off (1800 hp) at 2900 rpm and 1230 kW (1650 hp) at an altitude of 2000 m.
- Ha-45-12 (Ha- 45 12-Gata) rated at 1361 kW for take-off (1825 hp) at 2900 rpm and 1245 kW (1670 hp) at an altitude of 2400 m.
- Ha-45-21 (Ha-45 21-Gata) rated at 1484 kW for take-off (1990 hp) at 3000 rpm, 1380 kW (1850 hp) at an altitude of 1750 m and 1208 kW (1620 hp) at an altitude of 6400 m.
- Ha-45-23 (Ha-45 23-Gata) rated at 1417 kW for take-off (1900 hp) at 3000 rpm and 1245 kW (1670 hp) at an altitude of 1440 m.
- Ha-45-25 (Ha-45 25-Gata) rated at 1491 kW for take-off (2000 hp) at 3000 rpm and 1268 kW (1700 hp) at an altitude of 6000 m.
I meant flight test performance data, nrshida, for particular airframe-engine combinations.
-
.....Slash and Ink, nuts to the 4 cannon Otsu, I say us three get the only Ki-84 Hei, fitted with a single Ho-155 30-mm cannon in the right wing:-
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/30_mm_ho155_browning.htm
:banana:
damn :O
although I still think I would do better with the 4 20's....I fly the Hurri2D and that 40 gives me all kinds of issues hitting.
-
oh man I start drooling when I hear 4 cannon KI-84 :x :x :x :x :x
There was Ki-84 prototypes with pair of 30mm/20mms even 40mms (buff hunters).
In my current game of War in the Pacific (admirals edition) I have 3 squadrons of Ki-84s all with 4x 20mms and loaded to bear with aces.
(although I don't think any were built, we play a "what if scenario" for the japanese side, I can build whatever I want - however the game always ends with me losing :P
-
There was Ki-84 prototypes with pair of 30mm/20mms even 40mms (buff hunters).
In my current game of War in the Pacific (admirals edition) I have 3 squadrons of Ki-84s all with 4x 20mms and loaded to bear with aces.
(although I don't think any were built, we play a "what if scenario" for the japanese side, I can build whatever I want - however the game always ends with me losing :P
:D
the 84 with 4 20's...would be just about the baddest bird ever....thats like having hurri2C power in the KI...would be a dream come true for me.
-
:D
the 84 with 4 20's...would be just about the baddest bird ever....thats like having hurri2C power in the KI...would be a dream come true for me.
I would certainly fly it even if it was perked, it wouldn't be higher then the F4u-4 - with 600 rounds of 20mm, I figure it would be around the C-hogs price.
I'm sorry but thats a dream bird for me added in game even if it was a prototype.
-
I would certainly fly it even if it was perked, it wouldn't be higher then the F4u-4 - with 600 rounds of 20mm, I figure it would be around the C-hogs price.
I'm sorry but thats a dream bird for me added in game even if it was a prototype.
600 rounds of 20's :O
I love the look of the F4U's just cant quite get them to dance the way I can the KI, I can fly them and fight in them, but the way I fly in the MA, F4U just don't work.
I know in the right hands they are great birds....but honestly I eat them up in the KI :t
I took a great F4U stick(one of the best) to the DA and beat him 7-0 he tried all the F4U's and couldn't touch the KI although he did get rounds in me with the U4, but just couldn't get the kill.
I know if I was in the F4U he would have beaten me every time.
-
I meant flight test performance data, nrshida, for particular airframe-engine combinations.
I know the engine / airframe combinations to a point but it's not an exact science. Some of the types were produced contiguously and some of the serial numbers incremented by an amount to make room for the parallel production. No one is sure how many Otsu were made as they were essentially filtered in on the production lines and they are almost indistinguishable externally so photographs don't help. Many records were destroyed by the Japanese. The Early / Late Production Ko business took an age to work out as Westerners use the Ia, Ib, Ic designation a lot and this contributes to the confusion.
I am very wary of information on websites, but I read a few days ago the Homare was designed around 94 octane fuel, but the fuel most squadrons got was worse than that. This situation was exasperated towards the end of the war although I know they were stocking up on fuel, aircraft and pilots for the planned mainland defence. It must have been bedlam, many of the instructors took it upon themselves to ram the U.S. bombers.
I'm sorry Bighorn, I do not have the complete ATAIU-SWPA flight test myself. If I had it I would share it with you.
FTJR, Yipee! PM sent, 1000 thanks :banana:
Butcher the twin 30-mm is erroneous, they were so short of the 30-mm which were still developmental that as few as three models flew in anger with this type (plus 2 x Ho-5 in the cowl). I know some of the books show twin 30-mm but this is believed now to be untrue. Even the developmental aircraft sometimes flew with the 30-mm removed they say.
-
600 rounds of 20's :O
I love the look of the F4U's just cant quite get them to dance the way I can the KI, I can fly them and fight in them, but the way I fly in the MA, F4U just don't work.
I know in the right hands they are great birds....but honestly I eat them up in the KI :t
I took a great F4U stick(one of the best) to the DA and beat him 7-0 he tried all the F4U's and couldn't touch the KI although he did get rounds in me with the U4, but just couldn't get the kill.
I know if I was in the F4U he would have beaten me every time.
I need to take your butt in the DA sometime with a Ki-84, only skin i fly is yours - however I haven't touched an aircraft in a tour or so, gona practice for a day or so and ill send ya a PM.
Frankly always loved the 84, just hated the guns on it for some reason, seem to spit through 300 rounds pretty quick, end up finishing off a few cons with the 12.7s, one reason I don't mind the Ki-43 is fact
I'm so used to burning through my 20's in the 84 and end up with MG's only.
-
I need to take your butt in the DA sometime with a Ki-84, only skin i fly is yours - however I haven't touched an aircraft in a tour or so, gona practice for a day or so and ill send ya a PM.
Frankly always loved the 84, just hated the guns on it for some reason, seem to spit through 300 rounds pretty quick, end up finishing off a few cons with the 12.7s, one reason I don't mind the Ki-43 is fact
I'm so used to burning through my 20's in the 84 and end up with MG's only.
ya the ROF in the KI is very quick, that's why I use them like the K4 taters, quick taps on the trigger, only fire in close...but those MG kill good, as a matter of fact last night I was in a huge red cloud killed 5 had 27 MG left and tried to make my way home....some F4U tried to follow me I reversed him and killed him with the 27 MG rounds :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
anytime you wanna get some practice in let me know, if ya see me online just say the word....I am back as JETSOM :salute
-
The four 20mm Ki-84 was not a prototype. About 350-400 were built, more than of the three cannon La-7s. The prototype Ki-84 armament was two 20mm and two 30mm cannons.
-
it is my favorite knife-fighter for sure (after the zero - but that does not count because it is just too gamey to fly it in MA all the time), but when things get speedy, I have to switch to the K4 to force the fight or flight. In a situation where the others want to play - the KI is fantastic for sure - but if the opponent wants to play it super safe and keep it high speed - it becomes a bit frustrating.
It is a bit like the 38 in how you want to manage your trim manually sometimes too. . .
-
The KI-84 is (IMO) one of the best planes I can go up against in my F4U-1A or -4. Flown well, it's a danged-difficult plane to beat.
It's easily in the "top five planes that give me trouble".
-
The KI-84 is (IMO) one of the best planes I can go up against in my F4U-1A or -4. Flown well, it's a danged-difficult plane to beat.
It's easily in the "top five planes that give me trouble".
do you remember the fight we had?
think you were in 1A me in KI
-
I fly a lot of planes in the set, just to keep things interesting.... But I always return the Ki84, it is the only planes that really feels right to me... I would love it if data concerning the flap speeds couldbe found and the case made to HTC. If the Ki84 could drop that first notch of flaps closer to 200... Wow...
-
do you remember the fight we had?
think you were in 1A me in KI
Lol, to tell you the truth you're the one and only pilot who jumps to the forefront when I think about the KI-84.
Yup, I remember it! :aok
-
Lol, to tell you the truth you're the one and only pilot who jumps to the forefront when I think about the KI-84.
Yup, I remember it! :aok
:salute
-
The Ki-84's weak point is its dive speed limit around 450mph. You can't use much Es at BnZ in it.
The n1k2 and Ki-61 can dive over 500mph...
an Army's Public Data (Japan Army Aviation Pandect) shows Ki-84's dive speed limit was 750km/h (466mph).
It's simulated correctly in AH. I've heard that pilot said Ki-84 could dive ovr 800km/h though... :rolleyes:
-
I fly a lot of planes in the set, just to keep things interesting.... But I always return the Ki84, it is the only planes that really feels right to me... I would love it if data concerning the flap speeds couldbe found and the case made to HTC. If the Ki84 could drop that first notch of flaps closer to 200... Wow...
From army's data:
The speed limit by the flap angle:
15‹F270km/h (167mph)
30‹F250km/h (155mph)
-
Would the additional cannons be locted on the cowling or the wings?
-
Would the additional cannons be locted on the cowling or the wings?
They replace the cowl-mounted 12.7s Junky.
The 30-mm was field tested in as perhaps as few as three aircraft, based on the Otsu (normally 4 x Ho-5 20-mm) but with the left wing weapon removed completely and the right one replaced with the 30-mm. Thus one 30-mm per Hayate. I know a lot of books state 2 x 30-mm but this is incorrect as later research revealed.
This was intended to become the standard anti-bomber armament but was still in development (hence one fitted per aircraft) and the end of the war came before they entered production. The ballistics almost matched the Ho-5 20-mm.
There were also other prototypes, one with a fifth oblique firing 'Jazz Music' Ho-5 installation.
From army's data:
The speed limit by the flap angle:
15‹F270km/h (167mph)
30‹F250km/h (155mph)
These figures already disagree with those used in Aces High.
-
They replace the cowl-mounted 12.7s Junky.
Those are going to be crazy deadly at close range :rock
-
The Ho-5 20-mm is still doing Mach 1.0 at 550 Metres (at sea level).
-
The Ki-84 is one of the best planes in Aces High....it turns tight and can be pushed to 453mph (fastest I've gotten it in a dive),has one of the best climb rates...better than any Me-109 or P-51, from 100 mph at sea level it only takes about 42-43 seconds to reach 300 mph, and with little more than cutting off your engine and a few quick rudder kicks, can slow down from 425mph to little over 200mph in under 3-4 seconds, allowing to to go from a flat out dive about to over shoot to 400 or less off your 6:00 and ripping you to pieces with its wing mounted 20mm auto-cannons... truly an amazing fighter when in good hands..
-
The Ki-84 is one of the best planes in Aces High....it turns tight and can be pushed to 453mph (fastest I've gotten it in a dive),has one of the best climb rates...better than any Me-109 or P-51, from 100 mph at sea level it only takes about 42-43 seconds to reach 300 mph, and with little more than cutting off your engine and a few quick rudder kicks, can slow down from 425mph to little over 200mph in under 3-4 seconds, allowing to to go from a flat out dive about to over shoot to 400 or less off your 6:00 and ripping you to pieces with its wing mounted 20mm auto-cannons... truly an amazing fighter when in good hands..
:huh
-
,has one of the best climb rates...better than any Me-109 or P-51
I don't know why you are mentiong the 109 and the 51 in the same context, as the late 109's have a stellar climb rate and the P-51 only a mediocre one.
On top of that, you may try to check again the climb rate comparison between the 109G-14 and K-4 and the Ki- 84 ;)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=1&p2=78&pw=1>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
Was the Ki-84 a 150rpg setup even with the 4x 20mms? Or did it use a reduced RPG setup?
-
The Ki-84 is one of the best planes in Aces High....it turns tight and can be pushed to 453mph (fastest I've gotten it in a dive),has one of the best climb rates...better than any Me-109 or P-51, from 100 mph at sea level it only takes about 42-43 seconds to reach 300 mph, and with little more than cutting off your engine and a few quick rudder kicks, can slow down from 425mph to little over 200mph in under 3-4 seconds, allowing to to go from a flat out dive about to over shoot to 400 or less off your 6:00 and ripping you to pieces with its wing mounted 20mm auto-cannons... truly an amazing fighter when in good hands..
Sounds great, maybe I should give it a try :old:
-
Was the Ki-84 a 150rpg setup even with the 4x 20mms? Or did it use a reduced RPG setup?
I believe so, 150rpg for all 4x 20mm cannons.
I know of one pilot who only carried 100 rounds in the wings to save weight, however I believe its 150rpg.
Much as I would love to see the Otsu- it would certainly be perked kind of like an F4u-1D vs F4u-1C, if not it would be extremely low eny (5) or even perked 5-10.
-
I believe so, 150rpg for all 4x 20mm cannons.
I know of one pilot who only carried 100 rounds in the wings to save weight, however I believe its 150rpg.
Much as I would love to see the Otsu- it would certainly be perked kind of like an F4u-1D vs F4u-1C, if not it would be extremely low eny (5) or even perked 5-10.
Nothing wrong with having a perked Japanese fighter.
-
Nothing wrong with having a perked Japanese fighter.
I have photos of it in operational status, I was kinda against it before hand due to being unable to find operational information on it - but more I checked more I see it was put in defense against B-29 raids in manchuria.
I'd vote on it for sure now, a Perked japanese plane would go along way - considering americans/germans have the only perked aircraft.
Much as I love the Ki-84, I'd never fly anything other then Otsu if it came out :D
-
considering americans/germans have the only perked aircraft.
Mosquito Mk XVI, Spitfire Mk XIV and Tempest Mk V...
-
I love the KI, and an Otsu would be a great fighter for sure.
It just can't push initiative and that sometimes gets really really annoying when if you are in a K4 or Dora or Tempest or U4 you can control a fight better. The otsu will suffer from the same drawback. . . and really. . . the 20mms on the Ib is already a saw, I never feel like I need more firepower (more bullets sometimes?)
-
I love the KI, and an Otsu would be a great fighter for sure.
It just can't push initiative and that sometimes gets really really annoying when if you are in a K4 or Dora or Tempest or U4 you can control a fight better. The otsu will suffer from the same drawback. . . and really. . . the 20mms on the Ib is already a saw, I never feel like I need more firepower (more bullets sometimes?)
I disagree....the snap shot potential would be a huge difference with the 4 20's.....a massive difference......I would fly nothing else...it would be the best gang killer...the whines would be worse then the 16-51-typh combined.
-
From army's data:
The speed limit by the flap angle:
15‹F270km/h (167mph)
30‹F250km/h (155mph)
If you're still fighting the KI84 when he is able to deploy flaps, then you have done extremely well for yourself, but sadly you are about to DIE!
Easily in the top 5 of planes in AH for the MA environment, possibly the top 3!
JUGgler
-
If you're still fighting the KI84 when he is able to deploy flaps, then you have done extremely well for yourself, but sadly you are about to DIE!
Easily in the top 5 of planes in AH for the MA environment, possibly the top 3!
JUGgler
absolutely...if we are talking about actually fighting...which I know you are.
-
after the U4 and LA7 yah. . .
-
Sounds great, maybe I should give it a try :old:
:D
-
I disagree....the snap shot potential would be a huge difference with the 4 20's.....a massive difference......I would fly nothing else...it would be the best gang killer...the whines would be worse then the 16-51-typh combined.
Ya that would be a riot to fly that aircraft into a horde. The only problem, with its parameters (not quite slow, good turning, great roll rate, amazing guns, climbs well too), it could attract the gang-sters as well.
-
I would love the Otsu for what Ink said but Debrody's probably right about what would happen in the MA, especially if they decided to perk it.
Like I've said before, it would be fairly straightforward for HTC to split the current Hayate into three models which all saw widespread service. Each would have its own unique characteristics just like the Corsairs.
I'm rather hopeful that the pilots manual when translated will reveal something interesting about the flaps. One of the bibles on the Hayate discusses a third flap setting and the speeds in Aces High don't agree with Mitsu San's data.
-
We of course have the CHog for slicing through a horde with 4 x 20mm.
Still, big fan of new planes. +1
-
I believe so, 150rpg for all 4x 20mm cannons.
I know of one pilot who only carried 100 rounds in the wings to save weight, however I believe its 150rpg.
Much as I would love to see the Otsu- it would certainly be perked kind of like an F4u-1D vs F4u-1C, if not it would be extremely low eny (5) or even perked 5-10.
We perking the N1K while we are at it?
-
We perking the N1K while we are at it?
Only thing the N1k has on a Ki-84 is turn radius with flaps down - otherwise between 10-20k the Ki-84 simply out climbs and out runs it. This is without the gun package of the Otsu which needs to be factored.
If not perked it would be 5eny? Secondly the Ki-84 comes with Ho-5's far better cannons then the N1k.
-
Otsu (4 cannon) is slightly lighter than the Ko (AH's Ki-84) Butcher :old:
-
Only thing the N1k has on a Ki-84 is turn radius with flaps down - otherwise between 10-20k the Ki-84 simply out climbs and out runs it. This is without the gun package of the Otsu which needs to be factored.
If not perked it would be 5eny? Secondly the Ki-84 comes with Ho-5's far better cannons then the N1k.
The N1K also handles better at higher speeds in the dive. And I will agree that I like the Ho-5's better than the Type 99's, but round for round the Type 99's hit a bit harder. But I'll take the Ho-5's first any day.
-
450 rounds of 20 mm is hard to top really.
-
I really don't understand the mentality of 'wow, this is one of the best planes in the game, we need to make it better!'.
The 84 is a delightful aircraft and I don't see why it should be made into a HO-machine
-
450 rounds of 20 mm is hard to top really.
I burn through the HO-5 ammo like butter, I usually run out of ammo before I run out of fuel in both Ki (61 and 84). That's with only 2 guns. I'm not a perfect shot but I'm not terrible either, so imagine what the average pilot must feel when he spends all 300 rounds for 2 or 3 planes.
With 4 guns (450 rounds) I'd bet the firing time would be even with 2 guns (300 rounds) if not less. It'd sure get you kills rather easily in snapshots, but if you're not a decent shot, you won't be getting a whole lot of kills.
-
I have photos of it in operational status, I was kinda against it before hand due to being unable to find operational information on it - but more I checked more I see it was put in defense against B-29 raids in manchuria.
Define operational status? Only photos folks have been able to dredge up for YEARS are of dubious nature and NOT proof of anything. The most common photos show them resting at an airfield where they were stored for an invasion that never happened (though it was in Manchuria, an area I don't think our B-29s were targetting).
Of the planes supposedly built in this setup, the majority were held in reserve and never sent into action. Finding actual proof would be big news, indeed.
Are you willing to share said photos?
-
Of the planes supposedly built in this setup, the majority were held in reserve and never sent into action.
[sarcasm]And naturally Krusty can substantiate this claim with credible sources. As he always can [/sarcasm]
Once again (I've lost count how many times I've tried to explain this) the Ko and the Otsu are virtually indistinguishable in external appearance.
-
Define operational status? Only photos folks have been able to dredge up for YEARS are of dubious nature and NOT proof of anything. The most common photos show them resting at an airfield where they were stored for an invasion that never happened (though it was in Manchuria, an area I don't think our B-29s were targetting).
Of the planes supposedly built in this setup, the majority were held in reserve and never sent into action. Finding actual proof would be big news, indeed.
Are you willing to share said photos?
There is no evidence that they were held back. You're making that up from whole cloth and then, when nobody can prove otherwise, declaring it the way it had to have been.
-
Define operational status? Only photos folks have been able to dredge up for YEARS are of dubious nature and NOT proof of anything. The most common photos show them resting at an airfield where they were stored for an invasion that never happened (though it was in Manchuria, an area I don't think our B-29s were targetting).
Of the planes supposedly built in this setup, the majority were held in reserve and never sent into action. Finding actual proof would be big news, indeed.
Are you willing to share said photos?
Same photos on the runway, but the combat record of the 104th Sentai show the Otsu was used in combat, loses to B-29s were accounted over Manchuria - this is the best information I can gather, unless one of our japanese friends can get us some information on the 104th.
(http://www.367thdynamitegang.com/upload/butch/otsu.jpg)
(http://www.367thdynamitegang.com/upload/butch/otsu2.jpg)
Krusty you should know by know I require sourced information and proof - a Photo of the Otsu on runways along with a kill record for that squad could mean anything - but trying to prove without a doubt is going to be impossible.
I cannot get wartime records for the 104th Sentai, or any information on this squadron period - I know they operated different types of aircrafts, for all I know the Ki-43 could of been what shot down those B-29s.
I believe we all have the same information, question is does anyone have proof it was/wasn't in combat.
-
Here's the logical flaw -- they (the unit) saw action. There is no doubt of this. WHICH PLANE they flew into combat is in doubt. Just a couple odd craft possibly attached to a unit doesn't mean they used them often if at all. On top of that, many Western authors have errors and mistakes about various marks and subvariants. Even Francillon has fabricated false variants (that never existed) on some planes before!
The evidence so far supports it was not used in combat much if at all. Many of the end-of-war "uber" planes (not that I consider this one uber, but you get my point) were stored away and stockpiled for homeland invasion plans and the final defense of Japan itself. They were not committed nor were units trained and readied on them. There are some planes where THOUSANDS were made, and yet saw no combat. They were destroyed after the surrender, never having been used.
-
here are some planes where THOUSANDS were made, and yet saw no combat. They were destroyed after the surrender, never having been used.
Which planes? I've never heard of that happening on that scale.
-
I really don't understand the mentality of 'wow, this is one of the best planes in the game, we need to make it better!'.
The 84 is a delightful aircraft and I don't see why it should be made into a HO-machine
It can ho rather well as it is, that's up to the person flying it. Two or four cannons won't change that. I don't understand the resistance to another variant.
-
of all the new planes I would like to see added, the Otsu is pretty low on that list tbh. 1) it will 99% be perked, and 2) shudder at all the current niki pilots in a KI84 x4x20mm. . . I mean, why fly anything else.
-
And it has to be perked based on?
-
And it has to be perked based on?
If the Spit 16 isn't perked, then the Otsu never will. Definitely 5 ENY though, maybe 8.
-
If the Spit 16 isn't perked, then the Otsu never will. Definitely 5 ENY though, maybe 8.
Same with the 3 cannon La-7 and N1KJ-2
-
Same with the 3 cannon La-7 and N1KJ-2
Although the Ki-84 is one of the three planes that can beat every prop plane in game if flown properly.
Ki-84, F4U-4, and Spit16 will outfly practically everything else assuming the pilot is top notch, though I've yet to see the "mythical" unbeatable pilot. (yes, I've heard about Kazaa, Grizz and others, I just haven't seen them :)).
-
Here's the logical flaw -- they (the unit) saw action. There is no doubt of this. WHICH PLANE they flew into combat is in doubt. Just a couple odd craft possibly attached to a unit doesn't mean they used them often if at all. On top of that, many Western authors have errors and mistakes about various marks and subvariants. Even Francillon has fabricated false variants (that never existed) on some planes before!
The evidence so far supports it was not used in combat much if at all. Many of the end-of-war "uber" planes (not that I consider this one uber, but you get my point) were stored away and stockpiled for homeland invasion plans and the final defense of Japan itself. They were not committed nor were units trained and readied on them. There are some planes where THOUSANDS were made, and yet saw no combat. They were destroyed after the surrender, never having been used.
Unfortunately Krusty, your woefully inadequate command of logic is demonstrated by your activity in this thread. You do not have evidence to support your claim, only a lack of evidence of the counter claim.
Completely unfounded speculation, as usual.
If and when HTC decide that the Aces High Ki-84 needs updating, it is quite likely that it will get the same treatment as the P-40 did, several new versions introduced at the same time. This is even easier to do with the Ki-84 since the physical alterations are limited to gun ports and instrument panels. The rest is different weights and power outputs.
Also remember that unlike the Niki the cowl-mounted Ho-5 20-mm would be synchronised.
-
With about 10,000 LWA K/Ds its in the mid average usage category of fighter. Heck the Zero has about the same, the K4 more, Spits far more, the Niki twice as much. The run-90, 51D, LA7? forgetaboutit. Isnt the KI-84 a truly elite fighter and shouldnt it be expected to be used more then it is?
The problem with the Ki-84 is that FW-190, P-51, LA7 etc etc outrun it. Dweebs like to run, and Aces High is a game full of so called "dweebs". So the Ki-84 is not used to the extent that a TnBer would expect.
-
If the Spit 16 isn't perked, then the Otsu never will. Definitely 5 ENY though, maybe 8.
that is your argument really? That the spit 16 is not perked? Imagine a 4 cannon spit - not a typhy or tempest as they have drawbacks - but a full blown 4 cannon spitfire that is actually better then the spit 16 (the Otsu is a tad better in performance). . .
The Dora, 51 and LA are also 'elite fighter planes', its just that fighter planes are designed to be fast, and the fastest planes (in the real world) have 'initiative'. Initiative is something you really want in controlling a fight, and the KI just does not have it. It does if the opponent makes the mistake of going co-E/low alt with you - but that is the same for a brewster or a zero. Initiative is king - that is why you climb to get it (banking E), extend to preserve it, and generally stay fast. The KI is a great plane, but sometimes you need a plane that has initiative or you will get swarmed and die - it may take 4 guys to get you, but you will die.
The sad thing is that many pilots mistake initiative for get out of jail free card. Does not matter in the end, there will always be the fastest plane. . .
-
The problem with the Ki-84 is that FW-190, P-51, LA7 etc etc outrun it. Dweebs like to run, and Aces High is a game full of so called "dweebs". So the Ki-84 is not used to the extent that a TnBer would expect.
To fly the Ki-84 you have to actually pose decent SA and ACM, when every other plane faster simply runs away without much of a fight - people realize the Ki-84 simply isn't a late war monster as the P51/Dora is in terms of speed.
Secondly they can't run from combat either, which with poor SA it won't matter how good your ACM is you will get caught and killed, its decent in the mistakes department - you can make a few and not get killed, but no where on terms of training wheels like a spitfire.
-
that is your argument really? That the spit 16 is not perked? Imagine a 4 cannon spit - not a typhy or tempest as they have drawbacks - but a full blown 4 cannon spitfire that is actually better then the spit 16 (the Otsu is a tad better in performance). . .
The Dora, 51 and LA are also 'elite fighter planes', its just that fighter planes are designed to be fast, and the fastest planes (in the real world) have 'initiative'. Initiative is something you really want in controlling a fight, and the KI just does not have it. It does if the opponent makes the mistake of going co-E/low alt with you - but that is the same for a brewster or a zero. Initiative is king - that is why you climb to get it (banking E), extend to preserve it, and generally stay fast. The KI is a great plane, but sometimes you need a plane that has initiative or you will get swarmed and die - it may take 4 guys to get you, but you will die.
The sad thing is that many pilots mistake initiative for get out of jail free card. Does not matter in the end, there will always be the fastest plane. . .
Even if it is perked, just look at the F4U-4, best prop plane hands down yet it's only 20 perks. The Otsu, if perked, will only have maybe 5 perks. Noobs already flock to the Spit 16, if the Otsu comes out, noobs will flock it too.
Not a whole lot of good pilots fly the Spit 16 because in competent hands, it dominates practically everything. It's no challenge, and it'll be the same in a Otsu after a month or two when people realize how easy it is to dominate other planes.
-
Even "when" the Ki-84 Ostu comes out and even if its not perked, I still can not see it being a plane for the masses. First its Japanese and it seems some folks just have a problem with that. Second its limited top speed, dive speed and high speed handling will keep most noobs from taking it for more than a few sorties here and there. First time they try and dive on a Pony and snap some parts off they will start swearing what a POS these Japanese planes are.
I don't however see a problem with an Eny 5 or 8 for it though. I don't see it being perked or not as being an issue....lets get the plane first and then figure out where it belongs on the MA scale. :rock
-
There is no assurance that parts would come off of it as they do on the Ko. The Mosquito Mk VI and Mosquito Mk XVI used the same wings and tail, yet in AH the Mk VI sheds parts and the Mk XVI does not.
-
Unfortunately Krusty, your woefully inadequate command of logic is demonstrated by your activity in this thread. You do not have evidence to support your claim, only a lack of evidence of the counter claim.
Completely unfounded speculation, as usual.
If and when HTC decide that the Aces High Ki-84 needs updating, it is quite likely that it will get the same treatment as the P-40 did, several new versions introduced at the same time. This is even easier to do with the Ki-84 since the physical alterations are limited to gun ports and instrument panels. The rest is different weights and power outputs.
Also remember that unlike the Niki the cowl-mounted Ho-5 20-mm would be synchronised.
+1...thanks for all the cool information.
Some people just live in a negative world.
-
There is no assurance that parts would come off of it as they do on the Ko. The Mosquito Mk VI and Mosquito Mk XVI used the same wings and tail, yet in AH the Mk VI sheds parts and the Mk XVI does not.
In my research there's no foundation for parts coming of the Ko either.
-
if they give the Ki the punching power of the Hurri2c.......the gangs will whine and cry that it needs to be perked....it already is one of the best in the hanger for actually fighting.....give it the snap shot potential of the Hurri...
I am saving all the perks....for the day it is updated.....I will fly nothing else.... :aok
-
Unfortunately Krusty, your woefully inadequate command of logic is demonstrated by your activity in this thread. You do not have evidence to support your claim, only a lack of evidence of the counter claim.
May be this book (19 mB pdf) http://content.wuala.com/contents/-aper-/AH/Nakajima_Ki-84%20Fighter.pdf?dl=1 (http://content.wuala.com/contents/-aper-/AH/Nakajima_Ki-84%20Fighter.pdf?dl=1) could be interesting regarding production numbers etc. I can not translate it myself ;)
(http://www.wuala.com/en/api/preview/-aper-/AH/ki-84_p33-34.jpg)
-
Thank you Aper, I didn't have a copy of that one :salute
-
Thank you Aper, I didn't have a copy of that one :salute
I thought I had a copy of that and another for the Ki-44, but they had both English and Japanese text. They are in storage after my last move. I'll go check, I need an excuse to get out of the house anyway. :D
-
oh this is good
something interesting about that picture there - the double rows of planes (top left pic), the right row of planes are KI84s, the left row are KI115 (tsurugi or swords) which were a simplified version of the 84 designed specifically for tokkotai (kamikaze).
The caption under that left pic talks about the power of mass-production, that 3500 KI84s were produced - the third most mass produced by Japan during the war. . .
-
There's some fantastic photographs in Aper's book that I've never seen before. Page 36 is pertinent to the Otsu discussion.
Pictures of a disassembled engine too :banana:
-
I thought I had a copy of that and another for the Ki-44, but they had both English and Japanese text. They are in storage after my last move. I'll go check, I need an excuse to get out of the house anyway. :D
I was mistaken.
-
Although the Ki-84 is one of the three planes that can beat every prop plane in game if flown properly.
Ki-84, F4U-4, and Spit16 will outfly practically everything else assuming the pilot is top notch, though I've yet to see the "mythical" unbeatable pilot. (yes, I've heard about Kazaa, Grizz and others, I just haven't seen them :)).
Aircrafts that in real-life could outfly (I assume here meaning out-turning in some form) any other are probably not the ones everyone expect, and certainly don't include real-life boom and zoom obsessed specialists like the Spitfire... (That is, if you have read any number of mid-late war Spitfire combat accounts: The Russians tried to remove the outer machine guns to help it match their usual horizontal turn tactics, to no avail, and then had to boom and zoom with them just like everybody else: Source: "Fana de l'aviation" #496, p. 40).
As for the Ki-84...:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Aeroplane" November 2005, "Ki-100 fighter Database" p. 61-77. (16 full pages on the Ki-100, with remarkable details, including on the development of the projected high-altitude turbo-charged variant)
Quote : P. 76:
"At these schools, the cream of the IJAAF's instructors, all very experienced combat pilots, would give their opinion on the new fighter (Ki-100). Almost all the Akeno instructors were graduates of the 54th Class of the Army Air Academy and also highly-qualified sentai commanders in their own right.
During March and April they would fly the Ki-100 in comparison tests against the most capable Japanese fighter then in service, the Ki-84 "Frank". After extensive testing the conclusion drawn by the Akeno pilots left little to the imagination.
In short, it stated that given equally skilled pilots, the Ki-100 would ALWAYS win a fight with the Ki-84 in any one-to-one combat. They further added that in a combat situation with up to three Ki-84s, the Ki-100 pilot could still develop the battle to his advantage.
The results of the evaluations at the Hitachi school were just as clear-cut. Captain Yasuro Mazaki and captain Toyoshia Komatso,also both graduates of the 54th class, developed the combat evaluation situations for the new fighter, and in order to give an unbiaised opinion of the aircraft, they swapped aircraft after each engagements and attempted combat from the opposite standpoint.
In the first combat the Ki-100 was flown against a single Ki-84 with the Ki-100 winning outright.
Mazaki stated: "When we entered combat with the Ki-100 taking the height advantage, the Ki-100 won every time. Even with an altitude disadvantage the Ki-100 could hold down the Ki-84 in two or three climbs during the exercise"
He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."
P. 77. "The maneuverability of the Ki-100 was the best of the Army's frontline fighters with the exception of the Ki-43... And it had a strong advantage in that even less experienced pilots could fly it easily and fight with it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So much for the predictability of real-life outcomes... :)
Gaston
-
He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."
P. 77. "The maneuverability of the Ki-100 was the best of the Army's frontline fighters with the exception of the Ki-43... And it had a strong advantage in that even less experienced pilots could fly it easily and fight with it."
Wow. Been asking for the Ki-100 for some time (and Ki-43 of course). :pray
-
This report has been discredited Gaston, much as I love the Ki-100 also.
-
I am assured fervently by DrZeus that the Ki-84 is a noob's plane. Although he claimed he never flies it, because that would be hypocritical. I suggested he tries it for a tour, that he might find it more difficult in the MA than his P-38. I did not mean more difficult to fly (although in my humble opinion that depends on how hard you push it), I meant more difficult to be 'successful' in. My point was not well received :lol
-
don't mind ole stormdoggy shida,
he grabs the P40 then flies with a gang of friends at altitude, then proceeds to pick fights with it and uses the ENY of his ride as a poor excuse to make up for the shame. That being said he always gives as good as he gets, just needs to learn that he can't control what other players do with their time much like debrody.
-
I am assured fervently by DrZeus that the Ki-84 is a noob's plane. Although he claimed he never flies it, because that would be hypocritical. I suggested he tries it for a tour, that he might find it more difficult in the MA than his P-38. I did not mean more difficult to fly (although in my humble opinion that depends on how hard you push it), I meant more difficult to be 'successful' in. My point was not well received :lol
someone don't remember who...after I smoked him in a spit 16 1vs1 in MA....told me I should stop flying the easiest plane in game..... and learn how to fight..... :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
asked him to come to DA with me.....no response to that :rofl
-
Aircrafts that in real-life could outfly (I assume here meaning out-turning in some form) any other are probably not the ones everyone expect, and certainly don't include real-life boom and zoom obsessed specialists like the Spitfire... (That is, if you have read any number of mid-late war Spitfire combat accounts: The Russians tried to remove the outer machine guns to help it match their usual horizontal turn tactics, to no avail, and then had to boom and zoom with them just like everybody else: Source: "Fana de l'aviation" #496, p. 40).
As for the Ki-84...:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Aeroplane" November 2005, "Ki-100 fighter Database" p. 61-77. (16 full pages on the Ki-100, with remarkable details, including on the development of the projected high-altitude turbo-charged variant)
Quote : P. 76:
"At these schools, the cream of the IJAAF's instructors, all very experienced combat pilots, would give their opinion on the new fighter (Ki-100). Almost all the Akeno instructors were graduates of the 54th Class of the Army Air Academy and also highly-qualified sentai commanders in their own right.
During March and April they would fly the Ki-100 in comparison tests against the most capable Japanese fighter then in service, the Ki-84 "Frank". After extensive testing the conclusion drawn by the Akeno pilots left little to the imagination.
In short, it stated that given equally skilled pilots, the Ki-100 would ALWAYS win a fight with the Ki-84 in any one-to-one combat. They further added that in a combat situation with up to three Ki-84s, the Ki-100 pilot could still develop the battle to his advantage.
The results of the evaluations at the Hitachi school were just as clear-cut. Captain Yasuro Mazaki and captain Toyoshia Komatso,also both graduates of the 54th class, developed the combat evaluation situations for the new fighter, and in order to give an unbiaised opinion of the aircraft, they swapped aircraft after each engagements and attempted combat from the opposite standpoint.
In the first combat the Ki-100 was flown against a single Ki-84 with the Ki-100 winning outright.
Mazaki stated: "When we entered combat with the Ki-100 taking the height advantage, the Ki-100 won every time. Even with an altitude disadvantage the Ki-100 could hold down the Ki-84 in two or three climbs during the exercise"
He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."
P. 77. "The maneuverability of the Ki-100 was the best of the Army's frontline fighters with the exception of the Ki-43... And it had a strong advantage in that even less experienced pilots could fly it easily and fight with it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So much for the predictability of real-life outcomes... :)
Gaston
Ahhh...Gaston the failed game maker with no concept of physics or aerodynamics that hasn't even played the game is back. Have you come back to tell us again how you think the flight model is messed up?
ack-ack
-
Unfortunately Krusty, your woefully inadequate command of logic is demonstrated by your activity in this thread. You do not have evidence to support your claim, only a lack of evidence of the counter claim.
Completely unfounded speculation, as usual.
Wrong. I've read commentary on it in a number of places and seen the post-war photos, noted the locations of the airfields, looked a few up on maps, and so on and so forth. What is pure 100% speculation is that the 4x20mm variant ever saw combat. So far there isn't 1 shred of evidence that suggests it did. There is wishing and guessing and hoping.
You want a super cannon plane, that's all. Doesn't matter to you whether it saw action or not, you just want your super cannon plane, because you're a japanophile and love japanese planes. It's understandable, but just be honest about it.
-
I believe the 183rd Shimbutai and 57th Shimbutai flew a small number of the 4x 20mm equipped Ki-84-Ib.
ack-ack
-
I believe the 183rd Shimbutai and 57th Shimbutai flew a small number of the 4x 20mm equipped Ki-84-Ib.
ack-ack
Define "operated" ?
Because a few airframes were with the unit -- does that mean they flew them in combat? Does that mean they were training pilots on them? Does that mean they were evaluating them (Japanese seem to do that -- send a small token number for field evaluations -- throughout the war)?
Fact is there's no record any of them saw combat, that anybody has been able to provide or concoct in all of 15-20 years that this debate has been raging on.
In August 1945 183rd Shimbutai was stationed in Tatebayashi smack dab in the center of the homeland. About as far away from Manchuria as you could get at the end of the war.
57th Shimbutai was even further away, all the way south on Kyushu.
-
Wrong. I've read commentary on it in a number of places and seen the post-war photos, noted the locations of the airfields, looked a few up on maps, and so on and so forth. What is pure 100% speculation is that the 4x20mm variant ever saw combat. So far there isn't 1 shred of evidence that suggests it did. There is wishing and guessing and hoping.
There is no evidence it saw combat, and no evidence that it didn't. There won't be any either, we have to make educated suppositions, like observing dirty gunports and exhaust ejecta of aircraft in squadron paint. But I don't expect to convince you, you are entitled to your opinion of course.
You want a super cannon plane, that's all. Doesn't matter to you whether it saw action or not, you just want your super cannon plane, because you're a japanophile and love japanese planes. It's understandable, but just be honest about it.
Untrue. I'm not a Japanophile and I only like 2 Japanese planes. I like the Hayate because I fly it in Aces High and the Ki-100 because I've seen & touched the last one.
Further, if you took the trouble to read this thread carefully and set aside your prejudices then you'll see I'm fairly ambivalent towards the Otsu. Truth to be told I'd much rather have the Westland Whirlwind added to Aces High.
-
Define "operated" ?
Because a few airframes were with the unit -- does that mean they flew them in combat? Does that mean they were training pilots on them? Does that mean they were evaluating them (Japanese seem to do that -- send a small token number for field evaluations -- throughout the war)?
Fact is there's no record any of them saw combat, that anybody has been able to provide or concoct in all of 15-20 years that this debate has been raging on.
In August 1945 183rd Shimbutai was stationed in Tatebayashi smack dab in the center of the homeland. About as far away from Manchuria as you could get at the end of the war.
57th Shimbutai was even further away, all the way south on Kyushu.
Both units were used primarily for the defense of the home islands and squadrons did see action defending Japan from Allied attacks. Some pilot of the 57th Shimbutai even took part in the defense of Okinawa. How many Ki-84-Ibs did they receive? Not sure, as the only reference to these two squadrons receiving them was "a small number". If they did receive them, I wouldn't be surprised it was a small number used for evaluations.
ack-ack
-
Certainly more than the p63.
-
The Ki-84 was further 'dissed' today by another P-38 pilot who explained by way of PM (that was initially addressed FU, but I assume that was a typo and he meant NR), that it was an 'dweeb plane' and that's all I could fly. I am now seeing a tenuous pattern emerging but can't quite piece it together yet. :lol
-
The Ki-84 was further 'dissed' today by another P-38 pilot who explained by way of PM (that was initially addressed FU, but I assume that was a typo and he meant NR), that it was an 'dweeb plane' and that's all I could fly. I am now seeing a tenuous pattern emerging but can't quite piece it together yet. :lol
:rofl :rofl
-
This report has been discredited Gaston, much as I love the Ki-100 also.
Discredited? Can you explain to us how and by whom?
By peope with a LOT more first-hand experience I'll bet...
Or do you mean the "Aeroplane" quote has been made up by a creative writer?
Or maybe it must simply be that the Japanese front-line pilots don't know how to best fly their own aircrafts (Just like P-47Ds out-turning at low speeds Me-109Gs 600 times out of 600 must be entirely because the US pilots are better :lol)...
Please clarify so that we can see what it takes for this report to be "discredited": I breathlessly await...
Gaston
-
Gaston, that report has been widely discredited, along with a number of other common false tales. Like the "killed 16 hellcats in its first mission!" tale that keeps going around.
-
Gaston, that report has been widely discredited, along with a number of other common false tales. Like the "killed 16 hellcats in its first mission!" tale that keeps going around.
Not to mention that every post Gaston has made on this BBS, the Ubi/IL2 forums and other various WW2 warbirds forums have been discredited.
ack-ack
-
Ki-100 Ki-44 Ki-43 Ki-45... :aok
-
I seen enough fairy tales, such as the Ki-100 shooting down 15 hellcats on its first sortie. Kind of hard to believe since the unit did not have any Aces at the time, After action reports from the Navy showed only 2 Ki-100s were shot down and 2 Hellcats.
Fairy tale reported ki-100s shot down 15 hellcats without a loss.
-
Discredited? Can you explain to us how and by whom?
By peope with a LOT more first-hand experience I'll bet...
Or do you mean the "Aeroplane" quote has been made up by a creative writer?
Or maybe it must simply be that the Japanese front-line pilots don't know how to best fly their own aircrafts (Just like P-47Ds out-turning at low speeds Me-109Gs 600 times out of 600 must be entirely because the US pilots are better :lol)...
Please clarify so that we can see what it takes for this report to be "discredited": I breathlessly await...
Gaston
Gaston, one of the drawbacks of being completely devoid of objectivity, is that you are unable to be critical and deduce the motivations and reasons for certain reports & data. The Ki-100 was a stop gap, presented subjectively as a new and devastating aircraft to give hope and morale to a poorly trained and desperate airforce.
Regarding flight performance think about it logically, how could a Ki-100 outperform a Ki-84? By the way, one Hellcat and one Ki-100 in that engagement were lost when they collided.
Would still be a nice and logical addition to the game however.
-
By the way, one Hellcat and one Ki-100 in that engagement were lost when they collided.
ZING you are correct, sorry I knew the number was low but couldn't remember just what happened.
-
By Japanese numbers the Ki-84 is both faster and better climbing than the Ki-100 was. The idea that a single Ki-100 could dictate the fight to two faster, better climbing fighters, even if they were less maneuverable, flies in the face of air combat tactics. The faster airplane can always dictate the fight if it chooses to do so.
-
Some Japanese pilots said the Ki-100 was like Ki-43-III in its performance.
It's completely slower than Ki-84, but it has good climb, acceleration, and it's easy to fly.
Also it's still faster than Ki-43-III, and it has 2 20mm cannon with 200 (or 250) rounds.
Its introduction was too late though.
It should have come out in 1943.
-
KI-84 was the FASTEST Plane in the Japanese Arsenal
-
KI-84 was the FASTEST Plane in the Japanese Arsenal
Mitsubishi J2M Raiden
Performance
Maximum speed: 612 km/h (332 kn, 382 mph)
Range: 560 km (302 nmi, 348 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,250 m (36,910 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,170 m/min (3,838 ft/min)
Wing loading: 174 kg/m² (35 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.39 kW/kg (0.24 hp/lb)
-
According to who?
History
-
Mitsubishi J2M Raiden
Performance
Maximum speed: 612 km/h (332 kn, 382 mph)
Range: 560 km (302 nmi, 348 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,250 m (36,910 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,170 m/min (3,838 ft/min)
Wing loading: 174 kg/m² (35 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.39 kW/kg (0.24 hp/lb)
That is the second fastest. The Ki-84 is faster than that.
-
Mitsubishi J2M Raiden
Performance
Maximum speed: 612 km/h (332 kn, 382 mph)
Range: 560 km (302 nmi, 348 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,250 m (36,910 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,170 m/min (3,838 ft/min)
Wing loading: 174 kg/m² (35 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.39 kW/kg (0.24 hp/lb)
I wish....too bad we won't see any more Japanese planes until the launch of Aces High 4. By then the Allies should be well represented. I know... sour grapes.
-
All one needs to do is take 5 second look at the specs of Ki-84 and Ki-100 and it's very clear why the Ki-84 is the better fighter assuming both are in good working order. What is true that the Ki-100's engine was far less tempremental though. Ki-84 wich engine is running rough and doesn't deliver the power it's supposed would make it a far worse fighter than Ki-100 and that often was the case. In a flight simulator, there's no doubt that Ki-84 is better.
-
Yeah, but it's no Brewster!
-
Yeh, it definately isn't. Ki-84 dominates Brewster at will. In a dueling setting it simply can climb on top of a Brewster and hammer it lower and lower and in the end Brewster doesn't have the E for the needed evasive and gets shot down.
-
I just wait for them to land and vulch them.
-
Gaston, one of the drawbacks of being completely devoid of objectivity, is that you are unable to be critical and deduce the motivations and reasons for certain reports & data. The Ki-100 was a stop gap, presented subjectively as a new and devastating aircraft to give hope and morale to a poorly trained and desperate airforce.
Regarding flight performance think about it logically, how could a Ki-100 outperform a Ki-84? By the way, one Hellcat and one Ki-100 in that engagement were lost when they collided.
Would still be a nice and logical addition to the game however.
I guess it is a testament to your objectivity (and of that of others here) that a reference is made to some air battle that has nothing to do with anything I said OR the Ki-84... :rolleyes:
You'll have to forgive me: I didn't realize the high level of discussion I was dealing with here...
Yes OK... Let's follow your logic further: The Japanese denigrated in that test their own Ki-84, which in service must have outnumbered the Ki-100 by about ten to one, and which was still in high priority development and high level production (being after all less than a year past its very first combat of around summer of '44, maybe even late Summer if I recall), and decided, just like that you know, to diss a major production program in the interest of a hasty lash-up that would likely never see the same numbers produced?
And they produced an entirely fake test that would raise morale by saying their most advanced and most numerous fighter was, comparatively to an improvised fighter, a piece of junk?
Did I get all the ins and outs of your pathetic argument, or did I miss anything?
By the way, concerning predicting how well these things do in turns (Gosh! How can you think the Ki-100 is a better fighter than the Ki-84? Good grief!) and my shocking theory that the P-47 out-turns the Me-109G at low speed sustained turns (as the 190A does the Spit), did you know nobody knows what the actual wingloading of these things is? I checked...
It's called a wing strain gauge: Don't worry if you have never heard of it, there's a reason for that... It measures precisely the bending of the wings by running a current on a piece of metal tape attached to the spars in an x pattern (there are probably different methods)...
It's been used since the 1930s, but there is one important problem...
I ask experts for results, and I ask and I ask, and all I get are static 1940s wing bending tests on the ground...
It seems pretty clear that until the jet age came along and swept prop fighters away, nobody tested the amount of actual wing bending a prop fighter gets while in a sustained turn in actual flight!
If in-flight WWII fighter wing strain gauge turning tests exist I would love to hear about them... Dive pull-out tests don't count...
Sorry for the disgression. Let's go back to how amazing the Ki-84 was compared to a Ki-100... 'Cause we know better than the actual pilots you know... The arguments developped here proved it... :D
Gaston
-
190 out turns the Spit at low speeds..... :rofl
Got any other gems?
Wait, you do! "did you know nobody knows what the actual wingloading of these things is? I checked." You might want to check again....
(BTW, Ki-84 was designed to higher strength factors than any other Japanese fighter. Ki-100 is just a Ki-61-II with a radial engine, same type as on the G4M as I recall, bolted on it due to the loss of the inline engine production.)
-
190A having a better sustained turn than the Spit....what universe?
-
Here we go again ... :lol
-
damn learn something new everyday :aok
gotta give it up to those who put this game together :salute
Agree wholeheartedly!!! :salute
-
this thread is doing a great nose dive. . .
-
this thread is doing a great nose dive. . .
Really? Nah I was looking forward to the education
-
This convo went from fun and light hearted to who has the biggest (censor) again... yet another thread out the window to useless bickering :rolleyes:
To add to the senselessness! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gClR4sZ-Xtw
-
Really? Nah I was looking forward to the education
You'll find nothing of any educational value in any of Gaston's posts.
ack-ack
-
...my shocking theory that the P-47 out-turns the Me-109G at low speed sustained turns (as the 190A does the Spit)...
Gaston
I agree with you: at very low speed, on the ground, while taxiing.
-
You'll find nothing of any educational value in any of Gaston's posts.
ack-ack
I know, its the replies I look forward too.
-
190 out turns the Spit at low speeds..... :rofl
Got any other gems?
Wait, you do! "did you know nobody knows what the actual wingloading of these things is? I checked." You might want to check again....
(BTW, Ki-84 was designed to higher strength factors than any other Japanese fighter. Ki-100 is just a Ki-61-II with a radial engine, same type as on the G4M as I recall, bolted on it due to the loss of the inline engine production.)
Yes, they think they do, but they never measured it while in flight for the old birds... And never since either...
If you have anything on WWII fighters wing-bending measurements while in flight, why don't you enlighten us?
What does strength factors have to do with performance in sustained turns? Hem, maybe you're not the right person to ask...
Gaston
-
Gaston,
Do you even know what wing loading is? FYI, it isn't rocket science to calculate it.
-
Karnak, I know it is way beyond your ability to imagine, but consider that just dividing the weight by the wing area may not be the only thing that nature does... As far as I know, reality still tells the math what to do, not the other way around... (Something a lot of professional engineers would do well to consider as well)
190A having a better sustained turn than the Spit....what universe?
This universe:
-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their superior turning circle. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost eight to their one that day..."
Here is a quote from RCAF Hurricane pilot John Weir (John Weir link is no longer direct):
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/s..._101/SF_101_03
"A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..."
"The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."
Note that the guy here speaks of the REAL wingloading, the one he actually observed in real combat, not the theoretical claptrap...
And this guy:
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg)
"It was just a matter of time and he would have me in his sights" Love it...
Other pointers: According to wartime RAE tests, the Spitfire Mk V turned the same as the Mk IX at all altitudes... Only on the vertical was the difference in performance hugely in favour of the Mk IX...
According to someone I know at Planes of Fame, who have had both marks in flying condition to compare, the Mk V definitely out turns the Mk IX.
If you want to explore alternate universes be my guest, but in sustained horizontal turns of more than one circle at low altitude, I've never found a single instance of the Spitfire out-turning the FW-190 in hundreds of air combat... When it does it is always after a huge dive and at high altitudes, as the Spit always boom and zooms and never tries to turn-fight, the exact opposite of the P-47D in over 600 combat reports you can read from one source (Mike William's WWII Aircraft Performance site)...
KG 200: "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G" Source: "On Special Missions: KG 200"
Russian front-line opinion of the Bf-109?:
"Horizontal maneuverability in a Me-109 is not that great."
"The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight.
"the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."
In fact, as I said, the Spit was so poor at sustained turn-fighting the Russians tried removing the outer guns... The Tsagi 17.5 seconds numbers are probably calculated or not level turns: Like a lot of WWII data, and even a lot of test data, it never even remotely ressembles the real-life performance.
Find me low-speed accounts of the Spitfire out-turning the FW-190A and I will be deliriously happy :)... You'll have to excuse me if I won't be holding my breath though :D...
Gaston
-
We have been over that article again and again and again. No matter how many times it is explained to you why your conclusions of using it as though it were a controlled flight test are flawed you never understand.
That. Encounter. Was. Not. A. Controlled. Flight. Test. In. Which. All. Factors. Are. Controlled. And. Both. Pilots. Submit. Their. Reports.
-
was that evidence? I must have missed it.
All I've read was foggy memories and excuses for loosing a deck fight against a 190 :P
BTW gaston what do you think makes a spitV turn tighter than a mark 9?
-
was that evidence? I must have missed it.
All I've read was foggy memories and excuses for loosing a deck fight against a 190 :P
BTW gaston what do you think makes a spitV turn tighter than a mark 9?
-
was that evidence? I must have missed it.
All I've read was foggy memories and excuses for loosing a deck fight against a 190 :P
BTW gaston what do you think makes a spitV turn tighter than a mark 9?
-
BTW gaston what do you think makes a spitV turn tighter than a mark 9?
One pilot took a dump, the other didn't. :lol
-
Gaston posted the same drivel a few years ago and it was systematically torn apart by those in our community and others that have a very good understanding of physics and aerodynamics, of which Gaston has no knowledge of. His arguments have not only been discredited in our community but also in IL2s community and the community over at The Great Planes and Warbirds forum and many others.
I'm waiting for his post on the "Saber and Rapier" style of aerial combat tactics.
ack-ack
-
sorry for the triple post, I can't edit them anymore
One pilot took a dump, the other didn't. :lol
:D
-
I think Gaston is fantastic & may be onto something here:-
nobody tested the amount of actual wing bending a prop fighter gets while in a sustained turn in actual flight!
They never thought of that did they? You tell em Gaston! :old:
Did I get all the ins and outs of your pathetic argument, or did I miss anything?
:)
-
do the cantilever wings on WWII birds affect the plane's trajectory in any way?
-
do the cantilever wings on WWII birds affect the plane's trajectory in any way?
The wings in general have a habit of creating lift and that lift gives enables the planes to change their trajectory...
-
The wings in general have a habit of creating lift and that lift gives enables the planes to change their trajectory...
-
I think Gaston is fantastic & may be onto something here:-
They never thought of that did they? You tell em Gaston! :old:
:)
Well if you think they did in flight on WWII fighters, why don't you provide examples the wing bending flight test data? Any WWII examples... Good luck finding it...
There never was recording devices or flight instrumentation for reading wing bending while in flight before or during WWII... All the aero engineers I spoke to agreed on this: Wing bending in those days was all done on the ground... Jets came immediatey after... There may have been camera filming of the wings, but if you just do dive pull-outs and don't do turns, it won't do much good for knowing about wing bending while turn fighting...
I defy any of you to find a single instance of a Spitfire winning mutiple consecutive level turns against a FW-190A without diving, being very fast or at high altitude... You will even have trouble finding any real turnfights, as the Spîtfire didn't do that well when speeds got low...
As far as a fight being an uncontrolled environment, if the P-47D beats, in real combat, at low speeds mutiple level turns, at low/med altitudes, the Me-109G at a rate of 600:0 (Check Mike William's site: Most of the time about 3 turns to reverse a tailing 109G), maybe uncontrolled environments are better than controlled tests that reach the opposite conclusion?
I'll tell you what the "controlled" environment needs to really measure sustained turn performance: Flying bulllets.
Flying bullets do miracles for a test pilot's evaluation objectivitity. I would say it is in fact the most important scientific control factor of all. :D :D :D :D
As far as 600+ P-47/109 turn fights not being enough to be representative: Do they take all your blood to know what's in it?
Gaston
-
Exactly what major effect do you expect wing flexing to have? The difference you are suggesting is not remotely subtle so I can only imagine you're thinking the Spitfire's wings flexed to something like a 30 degree angle from true when it was turning.
That is manifestly false.
-
Gaston's logic is far more flexible and dynamic than the formal logic I had to study in University. No wonder he is so far ahead in his field. I'll give it a try though:-
Spitfire wings do indeed bend in turn fights, bend with a reciprocating oscillatory harmonic with a delayed rearward propagation resulting in extra lift from the downward flap just like a humming bird. This was sadly unavailable to the Fw190 because the silly Germans went and made the wings too stiff.
I defy anybody to find proof which contradicts my theory and if you can't I am right :banana:
-
There are only a few planes that I feel like I am cheating when I fly: LA7, Spit16 and ... Ki-84. The Ki-84 does nearly everything right. Competes or surpasses most opponents.
All other planes I have to work at to get kills. Including including the 109K-4.
Boom and Zoomers are just that (51s, 47s...). There are some really good pilots that fly BnZs but these planes (and the way they are flown) tend to be one dimensional. Predictable.
-
There are only a few planes that I feel like I am cheating when I fly: LA7, Spit16 and ... Ki-84. The Ki-84 does nearly everything right. Competes or surpasses most opponents.
All other planes I have to work at to get kills. Including including the 109K-4.
Boom and Zoomers are just that (51s, 47s...). There are some really good pilots that fly BnZs but these planes (and the way they are flown) tend to be one dimensional. Predictable.
spot on..... :aok....excluding noob drivers, whenever I see a KI... I know the guy drivin it wants a fight :rock
one of the very few planes that are like that...and a hurri2c if he don't HO on first pass hahaha
-
and a hurri2c if he don't HO on first pass hahaha
Those exist?
-
Those exist?
haha...they did when I flew them :D
-
Guess its time to perk the Ki-84 :eek:
-
Gaston's logic is far more flexible and dynamic than the formal logic I had to study in University. No wonder he is so far ahead in his field. I'll give it a try though:-
Spitfire wings do indeed bend in turn fights, bend with a reciprocating oscillatory harmonic with a delayed rearward propagation resulting in extra lift from the downward flap just like a humming bird. This was sadly unavailable to the Fw190 because the silly Germans went and made the wings too stiff.
I defy anybody to find proof which contradicts my theory and if you can't I am right :banana:
Shida this is the single best post I have read all year.
-
Exactly what major effect do you expect wing flexing to have? The difference you are suggesting is not remotely subtle so I can only imagine you're thinking the Spitfire's wings flexed to something like a 30 degree angle from true when it was turning.
That is manifestly false.
What do you think?
The silliness of what you are saying can be summed by this: Can you see the difference in wing flexing from 3 Gs to 6 Gs? It is probably visible, but not by much...
The wings are made to take 12-14 Gs without permanent deformation: Assume I say they take 5.5 Gs worth of load in a 3 G turn, and 8.5 Gs of load in a 6 G turn, where do you come up with a 30° flex?
The real issue woud be the extra drag, but then extra drag compared to what? If it's compared to a jet, then that woud explain why a same wingload Vampire easiy out-turns a Spitfire Mk XIV (gaining about 90° per 360, which is huge) despite the fact that the Spitfire doesn't lose thrust at lower speeds, and has the superior extra power to easily out-climb it by a wide margin...
People clinging to their theories point out the Vampire has about a 4% lesser wingoad, leading naturally to a 20-25% gain in turn time I'm sure :lol
Gaston
-
Turn rate and turn radius are not the same thing. The Vampire is much faster than the Spitfire and it is entirely predictable that its turn rate is faster. Wing loading is also by no means the be all and end all of turn radius. Wing efficiency comes into play as well. 4% higher wing loading is not much of a difference in wing loading. Your Fw190A-5 that is a better turning fighter than the Spitfire Mk Vb has about 60% higher wing loading. 42.51lbs/sq.ft for a Fw190A-5 with two cannons and 75% fuel compared to 26.73lbs/sq.ft for a Spitfire Mk Vb with 75% fuel. Good luck finding wing efficiency to make up for that difference.
Assume I say they take 5.5 Gs worth of load in a 3 G turn, and 8.5 Gs of load in a 6 G turn, where do you come up with a 30° flex?
This is entirely nonsense. It defies basics physics for the wings to take a 5.5 G load in a 3 G turn Where do the extra 2.5 Gs of loading come from in a 3 G turn? By definition a 3 G turn produces 3 Gs of loading.
-
What do you think?
This -> :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
What do you think?
The silliness of what you are saying can be summed by this: Can you see the difference in wing flexing from 3 Gs to 6 Gs? It is probably visible, but not by much...
The wings are made to take 12-14 Gs without permanent deformation: Assume I say they take 5.5 Gs worth of load in a 3 G turn, and 8.5 Gs of load in a 6 G turn, where do you come up with a 30° flex?
The real issue woud be the extra drag, but then extra drag compared to what? If it's compared to a jet, then that woud explain why a same wingload Vampire easiy out-turns a Spitfire Mk XIV (gaining about 90° per 360, which is huge) despite the fact that the Spitfire doesn't lose thrust at lower speeds, and has the superior extra power to easily out-climb it by a wide margin...
People clinging to their theories point out the Vampire has about a 4% lesser wingoad, leading naturally to a 20-25% gain in turn time I'm sure :lol
Gaston
Enough silliness.
The Spitfire XIV vs Vampire tests
Turning Circles: The Vampire I is superior to the Spitfire XIV at all heights. The two aircraft were flown in line astern formation. The Spitfire was positioned on the Vampire's tail. Both aircraft tightened up to the minimum turning circle with maximum power. It became apparent that the Vampire was able to keep inside the Spitfire's turning circles. After four or five turns the Vampire was able to position itself on the Spitfire's tail so that the deflection shot was possible. The wing loading of the Vampire is 33.1lbs per sq. ft. compared with Spitfire XIV's 35.1 lbs per sq. ft.
...The Vampire will outmanoeuvre the Spitfire type of aircraft at all heights, except for initial acceleration at low speeds and in rolling.
... The Spifire XIV used in the comparison trial was a fully operational aircraft fitted with a Griffon 65, giving 2,015 h.p. at 7,500 ft. Vampire I had an operational take-off weight of 8,800 pounds, powered by a de Havilland Goblin 2 turbojet, developing 3,000 pounds static thrust."
Vampire I climbed just as well as the Spitfire XIV, if not a little better, had much more power and lower wing loading...
Gaston, you believe RAF tests when you think they support your conclusions, but ignore them when they don't. Why is that?
-
What do you think?
The silliness of what you are saying can be summed by this: Can you see the difference in wing flexing from 3 Gs to 6 Gs? It is probably visible, but not by much...
The wings are made to take 12-14 Gs without permanent deformation: Assume I say they take 5.5 Gs worth of load in a 3 G turn, and 8.5 Gs of load in a 6 G turn, where do you come up with a 30° flex?
The real issue woud be the extra drag, but then extra drag compared to what? If it's compared to a jet, then that woud explain why a same wingload Vampire easiy out-turns a Spitfire Mk XIV (gaining about 90° per 360, which is huge) despite the fact that the Spitfire doesn't lose thrust at lower speeds, and has the superior extra power to easily out-climb it by a wide margin...
People clinging to their theories point out the Vampire has about a 4% lesser wingoad, leading naturally to a 20-25% gain in turn time I'm sure :lol
Gaston
Coming from someone who doesn't play the game :lol
-
Coming from someone who doesn't play the game :lol
He doesn't play any of the games he posts in the forums for but criticizes the games by claiming the flight models are all wrong while claiming his pen and paper table top "flight sim" is highly accurate.
ack-ack
-
He doesn't play any of the games he posts in the forums for but criticizes the games by claiming the flight models are all wrong while claiming his pen and paper table top "flight sim" is highly accurate.
ack-ack
Hmm I see..
-
I feel this thread has rather been diverted from its original intention :lol
-
I feel this thread has rather been diverted from its original intention :lol
:rofl
-
Assume I say they take 5.5 Gs worth of load in a 3 G turn, and 8.5 Gs of load in a 6 G turn, where do you come up with a 30° flex?
:headscratch:
-
What do you think?
The silliness of what you are saying can be summed by this: Can you see the difference in wing flexing from 3 Gs to 6 Gs? It is probably visible, but not by much...
The wings are made to take 12-14 Gs without permanent deformation: Assume I say they take 5.5 Gs worth of load in a 3 G turn, and 8.5 Gs of load in a 6 G turn, where do you come up with a 30° flex?
The real issue woud be the extra drag, but then extra drag compared to what? If it's compared to a jet, then that woud explain why a same wingload Vampire easiy out-turns a Spitfire Mk XIV (gaining about 90° per 360, which is huge) despite the fact that the Spitfire doesn't lose thrust at lower speeds, and has the superior extra power to easily out-climb it by a wide margin...
People clinging to their theories point out the Vampire has about a 4% lesser wingoad, leading naturally to a 20-25% gain in turn time I'm sure :lol
Gaston
Anytime you want to make your own Sim........oh yeah I forgot.
-
When I fight a Ki-84 i always seem to be facing a great pilot and I always die I fly the 84 as well and it's a great aircraft mainly in turn and climb
-
Enough silliness.
The Spitfire XIV vs Vampire tests
Vampire I climbed just as well as the Spitfire XIV, if not a little better, had much more power and lower wing loading...
Gaston, you believe RAF tests when you think they support your conclusions, but ignore them when they don't. Why is that?
And where did you get that the Spitfire Mk XIV does not outclimb the Vampire?
It starts out at 5500 ft/min vs 4800 ft/min for the Vampire, and only goes below 4800 ft/min. at around 18 000 ft.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climbchart.jpg
I think it was actually stated in the comparison that the Spitfire XIV outclimbed the Vampire.
Besides, nothing in the climb rate differences or the wingload differences explains the 25% gain per 360° that the Vampire enjoys in sustained low-speed turns, with a specified smaller turn radius achieved by the Vampire (NOT higher speed on a broader radius).
Gaston
-
Gaston,
You never responded to the questions about where you think a magical extra 2.5 Gs of loading come from in a 3 G turn. You stated that you believe something that is physically impossible. I would really like to know why you think a 3 G turn could produce 5.5 Gs of loading.
-
And where did you get that the Spitfire Mk XIV does not outclimb the Vampire?
It starts out at 5500 ft/min vs 4800 ft/min for the Vampire, and only goes below 4800 ft/min. at around 18 000 ft.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climbchart.jpg
Congratulations Gaston, you've just proved your total inability to read a graph.
If you'd bothered to read it correctly, you'd see that the Mk XIV has a 4,700 ft/min rate of climb in the graph as denoted by the line with the short dash, long line combination.
In comparison, the Hornet Mk I has the 5500 ft/min rate of climb, as denoted by the solid black line.
No Vampire on that graph at all
Whoopsie daisy!
I think it was actually stated in the comparison that the Spitfire XIV outclimbed the Vampire.
Prove it.
Just for once…
Besides, nothing in the climb rate differences or the wingload differences explains the 25% gain per 360° that the Vampire enjoys in sustained low-speed turns, with a specified smaller turn radius achieved by the Vampire (NOT higher speed on a broader radius).
Gaston
Tempest V vs Meteor III trials also show that a jet can turn inside a prop and gain a firing solution in four turns.
-
Gaston! (http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/YouRock.gif)
What about my 'Humming Bird' theory of wing flexing? I thought you could work that into your anti-physics dissertation somewhere.
Besides, nothing in the climb rate differences or the wingload differences explains the 25% gain per 360° that the Vampire enjoys in sustained low-speed turns, with a specified smaller turn radius achieved by the Vampire (NOT higher speed on a broader radius).
This is an anomaly though surely, I mean how does this figure into your short nosed-prop disk theory, since the Vampire doesn't have one (a prop disk I mean, not a nose, of course it has a nose otherwise how would it smell, lolz)?
So anyway Gaston, what is your opinion on the Ki-84? Would you say it is dissed amongst the active players of Aces High?