Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Citabria on July 22, 2001, 01:03:00 AM
-
i figure by this plane being added half of n1k2 dweebs will defect to it and use it instead thus variety in ma is increased :)
-
You can't do that. All the "true LW" would leave for sure. ;)
-
Yup. It's faster and lighter(mostly due to carrying less ammo + fuel I believe), but it has a smaller wing -> won't turn quite as good. It's HO-5 cannon are nice, but I doubt even they could challenge the mighty HS turbolasers... ;)
-
WE NEED THIS
(http://torquila.freehomepage.com/images/ki84.gif)
-
(http://www.iencentral.com/warbirds/new_images/warpaint/warpaint26.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Citabria:
i figure by this plane being added half of n1k2 dweebs will defect to it and use it instead thus variety in ma is increased :)
hehe Cit, people that hate the niki wouldnt like to see a ki84. faster then the niki below 15k, great guns, and turns better. ki84 was almost a super zeke.
i think Ki84 could run down any plane in the set right now, and out tune all xcept maybe the zeke. think it has slow accel but once it got going its a speedster.
-
Sounds like a Japanese perkplane in 7-8 point category.
-
I think the Ki84 would be more akin to the uberness of the LA7 than the a6m
-
I posted this in some other thread, but think it's more relevant here, so will post it here also.
-----------------------------------------
I seem to recall low wing-loading itself does not necessarily mean a better turn.
The values and factors which output a certain result of "turning factor" is - from what I've heard - much more complicated it seems. Having a more powerful engine would mean more weight is added to the aircraft, and to amount up enough lift force for this weight, larger wings would be needed - which in turn, adds up more to weight to the aircraft total because of the larger wings. Wasn't this the case with the Messerschmitt-109 G10 which had sufficiently larger wings than its predecessors?(I think some one can confirm this) And though a plane may be lighter, it might not be able to turn so good due to other complicated reasons as well.. So, the "turning angle", "turning speed", and actual "turning rate" seems to be all different and complicated.. one big mess of math I think
I think I've read that the Ki-84 was faster than all American planes but one exception - it was slower than the P-51s.. but had a great rate of acceleration(thrust:weight ratio of 4:1). The top speed from the data i have says here 427mph at about 20k feet. And it says it's actually lighter than N1K1 here, but I dunno how it compares with the N1K2. In overall I think it's safe to say It was a less maneuverable but lot faster version of the N1K2, but wouldn't be that much of a 'great turner' if it is to be compared with other planes in pure aspect of turning - such as A6M5, N1K2 or Spitfires - but would be fast and would turn good enough to give most American planes fits.
I think we can think of it as an LA-7 that is a lot more slower but turns a bit better
-
I will offer my reply in both threads as well then.
---------------------------------
The 427mph speed was obtained in US tests using higher octane fuel than the Japanese had access to. The N1K2 also performed better than 369 in US tests.
The 392 and 369 speeds are reflective of the poorer Japanese fuels.