Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 28sweep on July 15, 2002, 11:04:17 AM
-
I have a couple sources on this subject. Some say it was clearly the Ki-84 and others say it was the Ki-100 (didn't know there was a Ki-100). Any experts out there got an opinion....I should say that I'm only talking about the ones that saw combat. Oh ya, one more thing, the P-51H see combat in WWII????????
-
you opened up a hornet's nest here.
tough call - certainly you cant fairly compare an early war zero to some of the late war uber planes. I believe you could justifiably argue for many different models:
the Ki-43 Oscar could out turn any monoplane fighter of WWII. it could probably corner better than the ford sedan i drive.
the Zeke was the mainstay of the IJN for most of the war, could turn probably better than anything except an Oscar and had real armament (the Ki-43 carried only 2 x 0.50 cal)
the Tony was a great plane and had some of the saftey features needed in WWII fighters (seal sealing fuel tanks, pilot armour), which earlier japanese planes did not
my personal favorite is the Ki-44-IIIb Tojo armed w/ 2 x 20mm & 2 x 37mm
BTW-the Ki-100 was a radial engine version of the Ki-61 produced after US bombers knocked out the factory that was making the inline engines for the Ki-61
http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/japan-fighter.htm
has a good summary of Japanese WWII fighters
-
I also read somewhere that one of the fighters incorporated some type of mercury filled barometer that automatically deployed flaps at a certain wing load....sounds really cool. What model had this and was it something of value. I don't recall any US fighters having this feature after the war?
-
tough call, it depends on your fighting style...the zeze was the plane that made every US a/c company design a fighter to defeat, so the zekes impact gives it my nod above the others.
The Ki-84 was a nasty plane - fast, good turner, cannon equipped, but its fuel economy was terrible, and it's combination of heavy, but short lived armament, poor E retention and poor accelleration made it a sitting duck when slow, especially when it needed an emergency dive-out.
Punt... hehe
BTW, No the H pony never saw action till Korea, and while there, was not armored well enough to take the jabo role away from other prop planes..
Gainsie
-
I'm not an expert or anything, and don't know about the BEST IJN plane (Thats all a matter of opinion, and what job needs to be done) but I think the Ki43 would be the most fun to fly, alittle faster than the val, OK armament, but very manuverable.
-
Originally posted by 28sweep
I also read somewhere that one of the fighters incorporated some type of mercury filled barometer that automatically deployed flaps at a certain wing load....sounds really cool. What model had this and was it something of value. I don't recall any US fighters having this feature after the war?
It was the n1k2-j that we have in AH
-
The N1K1-J and N1K2-J had the mecury system. The Japanese considered it top secret and the pilots were under orders to prevent it from falling into enemy hands.
It was very effective and was probably the main reason that US pilots reported the N1Kx-J as doing "impossible" manuvers.
-
The best overall Japanese plane had to be the Ki-84-Ib.
Its only weakness was altitude performance. I think I would disagree with RedTail that it had poor acceleratin performance and bad guns. In fact, the HO-5 cannon are second only to the hispanos used by the Americans and British. Far superior to the Type 99's used by the Japanese Navy, the Soviet Shvak/B20's, or the German 20's. And with 100 octane fuel (very rare to nonexistent for the Japanese late in the war) in post war testing in the US, a Ki84 outperformed a P-51 and a P-47 in head to head testing.
Probably the second best was the N1K2-J that we already have.
The Ki-43 and all the A6M series were both just way too slow, lacked sufficent armament, and had little to no pilot/critical system protection such as self sealing tanks.
The Ki-61 was a decent plane, but overall was only moderately effective against its contemporaries. The Ki-44 would fall into the same category.
The Ki-100 was definitely not as effective as the myth that has grown up around in online sims, as the greatest Japanese fighter. The Ki-100, was a Ki-61-II airframe that used a radial engine, due to the allies bombing the plant that manufactured the engine used in the Ki-61-II. It was actually inferior in performance to the Ki-61-II. Its one saving grace was that the radial engine was simple to maintain and reliable in a time when spare parts, quality maintenance crews, and good quality fuel was a rarity in the Japanese forces. While it was a good turning aircraft, it was quite slow.
-
Ki-44 is the best intercepter in the IJAAF. ;)
I think that it is also the best fighter in mid war. :)
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
The best overall Japanese plane had to be the I would disagree with RedTail that it had poor acceleratin performance and bad guns.
Verm...
You misunderstood me, or maybe I didnt make my point clearly.
I mentioned that the Ki-84 series had a heavy armament package, but its duration was poor. I do believe that its acceleration is poor, however, and it did tend to hang on its props in AW FR. On that note, experienced Ki pilots knew how to fly it, and it is an effective stall fighter, much moreso than the F6...at least when I was in the Ki.
With that being said, I would prefer seeing the raiden in here before all others. Not a fighter, but a one-punch KO artist if you made a mistake! :)
-
Had to be Ki84. It has something that N1K doesn't - speed.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The N1K1-J and N1K2-J had the mecury system. The Japanese considered it top secret and the pilots were under orders to prevent it from falling into enemy hands.
It was very effective and was probably the main reason that US pilots reported the N1Kx-J as doing "impossible" manuvers.
I've heard AH pilots report the same thing
-
on quality of the zeke that hasn't yet been mentioned is it's range - it was the P-51 of it's time, and a carrier plane as well making it a great strike/escort plane
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
, but its fuel economy was terrible, and it's combination of heavy, but short lived armament, poor E retention and poor accelleration made it a sitting duck when slow, especially when it needed an emergency dive-out.
Gainsie
Ki-84 had Excellent fuel economy and range. It was also a very clean airframe with a very good horsepower-weight ratio. Sitting duck? Hardly.
-
well if it was trying to dive away from a Jug, Hawg or a Lightning it may have been a sitting duck, but those planes - which the Frank came up against frequently - were exceptional divers. as for short lived ammo supply, my book shows 250 rpg for the 12.7mm, 150rpg for the 20mm - thats about average i think
-
Best Japanese fighter, ki83 . Do american planes that are fielded by japan count ?
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Had to be Ki84. It has something that N1K doesn't - speed.
Something else it had, problems that kept it grounded quite often.
-
Originally posted by -=Silo=-
Ki-84 had Excellent fuel economy and range. It was also a very clean airframe with a very good horsepower-weight ratio. Sitting duck? Hardly.
Sitting duck, indeed. Once the Ki loses its E and needed to dive out, it was very much a sitting duck. At least it was for me, both when I flew it and against it. I did not say it was a bad plane, in fact, I like it, but its horsepower doesn't allow it to spiral climb with the US planes. If you do, you will hang on your prop, nose over, and hover.
Please find the sourcee citing the Ki-84 fuel economy, the books I read report something vastly different. Thanks!
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
... but its horsepower doesn't allow it to spiral climb with the US planes. If you do, you will hang on your prop, nose over, and hover...
This sounds more like an FM problem than a deficiency of the real life aircraft?
Seems to me, comparing available specs, the Ki.84 should have no problem spiral climbing against US aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Sitting duck, indeed. Once the Ki loses its E and needed to dive out, it was very much a sitting duck. At least it was for me, both when I flew it and against it. I did not say it was a bad plane, in fact, I like it, but its horsepower doesn't allow it to spiral climb with the US planes. If you do, you will hang on your prop, nose over, and hover.
Please find the sourcee citing the Ki-84 fuel economy, the books I read report something vastly different. Thanks!
Ki-84-Ib had a standard operational range of 1, 053 miles.
A6M2: 1,160 miles.
N1K2-J: 1,066 miles.
----
P-38L: 1,100 miles.
P-47D: 1,030 miles.
P-51D: 1,300 miles.
----
The ranges on the japanese planes comes from Rene Francillion's "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War"
The American planes I threw in for comparison. That info I grabbed off the web, but they seem good enough to illustrate the point.
The Ki-84 has a powerloading of 4 lbs/hp and I suspect has a cleaner airframe than the N1K2-J (which uses the same engine). The N1K2-J has a powerloading of 4.4 lbs/hp.
-----
Which sim have you flown the Ki-84 in before? Maybe they modelled the 1800hp engine and not the 2000hp :)
-
Originally posted by -=Silo=-
Which sim have you flown the Ki-84 in before? Maybe they modelled the 1800hp engine and not the 2000hp :)
Very possible they modeled the 1800hp...AW did not specify which engine was modeled, if they did, I missed it.
I flew in FR Air Warrior, and I also read, (in "Black Sheep", I think, or maybe it was Barret Tillman, "Corsair...")
"Given equal e states, the only way a corsair can outrun trailing ki-84's with a slight climb and wep, if the corsair is at max level speed at the time." I am at work right now, and the books I read are, "on loan," but I also have the Aiwarrior 2 plane manual, which should be consistent with original design specs...
I'll check up on it
Gainsie
-
Finding reliable specs on Japanese planes can be difficult as there is a lot of conflicting info out there, at least in my experience. Check three different sources and you're likely to find three completely different sets of numbers.
One of the most thorough and well documented sources I've found online is the series of articles written by Joe Baugher. From his article on the Ki-84:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specification of Nakajima Ki-84-1a:
Engine: One Army Type 4 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Nakajima Ha-45). The following engine models were used:
[Ha-45]11 rated at 1800 hp for takeoff and 1650 hp at 6560 feet.
[Ha-45]12 rated at 1825 hp for takeoff and 1670 hp at 7875 feet.
[Ha-45]21 rated at 1990 hp for takeoff and 1850 hp at 5740 feet.
[Ha-45]23 rated at 1900 hp for takeoff and 1670 hp at 4725 feet.
Performance (early production):
Maximum speed 392 mph at 20,080 feet, cruising speed 277 mph.
An altitude of 16,405 feet could be reached in 5 minutes 54 seconds.
An altitude of 26,240 feet could be attained in 11 minutes 40 seconds.
Service ceiling 34,450 feet.
Normal range 1053 miles, maximum range 1347 miles.
Weights: 5864 pounds empty, 7955 pounds loaded, 8576 pounds maximum.
Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 10 7/16 inches, length 32 feet 6 9/16 inches, height 11 feet 1 1/4 inches, wing area 226.04 square feet.
Armament: Two fuselage mounted 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns and two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon (Ki-84-Ia).
Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon (Ki-84-Ib).
Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 30-mm Ho-105 cannon (Ki-84-Ic).
External stores included two 551-pound bombs or two 44-Imp gallon (200 litre) drop tanks.
Sources:
The Nakajima Ki-84, Rene J. Francillon, Aircraft in Profile, 1969.
Famous Fighters of the Second World War, Second Series, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.
Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979.
War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judging the performance of a plane by its flight model in AW(or any other sim) isn't the best way to get a picture of its real life capabilities. While it's possible that a given FM may be very close to a planes actual performance, it's just as possible that there could be large errors or intentional "game play" tweaks built in to the FM. It just depends on who is doing the modelling and how good their information is.
That being said, we could draw some conclusions on how the Ki-84 might perform in AH by looking at the N1K2-J. From Baughers article on the N1K:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specification of the Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden Kai:
One Nakajima NK9H Homare 21 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 1990 hp for takeoff, 1825 hp at 5740 feet, 1625 hp at 20,015 feet.
Performance: Maximum speed 369 mph at 19,355 feet, 359 mph at 9840 feet.
Cruising speed 230 mph at 9845 feet, service ceiling 35,300 feet cruising speed 230 mph at 6600 feet.
Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 22 seconds.
Normal range 1066 miles at 219 mph at 9840 feet, maximum range 1488 miles with 88 Imp. gall. drop tank.
Weights: 5858 pounds empty, 8818 pounds loaded, 10,714 pounds maximum loaded.
Dimensions: wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 30 feet 7 29/32 inches, height 12 feet 11 29/32 inches, wing area 252.95 square feet.
Armament: Four 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon in the wings. Two 551-pound bombs or one 88 Imp. gall. drop tank could be carried externally.
Sources:
Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.
Warplanes of the Second World War, Volume III, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979.
Japanese Fighter by George! Robert Mikesh, Wings, April 1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we compare the N1K2-J to the Ha-45 model 21 powered Ki-84, (unless I'm mistaken the Ha-45/21 is basically the army version of the same NK9H Homare 21 in the N1K2, please correct me if I'm wrong. In any case, rated power is nearly identical.) we get these numbers:
Power loading(normal loaded weight at SL):
N1K2: 4.43 lb/hp
Ki-84: 3.98 lb/hp
Wing loading:
N1K2: 34.86 lb/sq.ft
Ki-84: 35.19 lb/sq.ft
This suggests that the Ki-84 would climb and accelerate a little better than the N1K (which is no slouch in those categories) while the N1K would have a slight edge in sustained turning ability.
There have been charts posted here recently that showed a SL speed of about 350mph for the Ki-84. If those are accurate, then it is approximately 20mph faster than the N1K2 on the deck, as well as at 20k. I would guess it holds a similar advantage at most altitudes.
So...a cannon armed plane that is 20mph faster than an N1K, climbs and accels better, and turns nearly as well. Sounds yummy!! unless it's on yer 6 :D
-
Originally posted by DblTrubl
it's just as possible that there could be large errors or intentional "game play" tweaks built in to the FM. It just depends on who is doing the modelling...
Good point. The AW FM deliberately undermodeled the PJ in the arenas. Since I am too young to have flown in the war, sims are my only "real life" point of reference. As for me, my experience has been the Ki was not a threat in the vertical, but running was not an option, and neither was a TnB affair.
When I saw one, the fight was on! :)
I wouldn't mind seeing the Ki in here anyway, we need more IJAAF representation, anyway.
Gainsie
-
Originally posted by -=Silo=-
Ki-84-Ib had a standard operational range of 1, 053 miles.
A6M2: 1,160 miles.
N1K2-J: 1,066 miles.
----
P-38L: 1,100 miles.
P-47D: 1,030 miles.
P-51D: 1,300 miles.
----
The ranges on the japanese planes comes from Rene Francillion's "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War"
The American planes I threw in for comparison. That info I grabbed off the web, but they seem good enough to illustrate the point.
The Ki-84 has a powerloading of 4 lbs/hp and I suspect has a cleaner airframe than the N1K2-J (which uses the same engine). The N1K2-J has a powerloading of 4.4 lbs/hp.
-----
Which sim have you flown the Ki-84 in before? Maybe they modelled the 1800hp engine and not the 2000hp :)
only one of those planes could land on a carrier
-
I hear alot about manuverability, The fact is after the f4f4 America realised that the dominant virtue in combat is SPEED, followd closely by alt , dive speed, etc., as soon as the Hellcat was introduced the Japanese navy was all tied up, To think of it now it was actualy rather stupid for the Japanese to continue fielding an older more manuverable (yet slower) aircraft. The tactics bare whitness to the facts. I suppose that if US pilots hadnt boom and zoomed then we'ed be speaking esperonto or somthing by now.Anyway best Jap fighter? probably Ki-84, and I always wonderd why the Japs didnt slap some better landing gear and a tail hook on a couple and use em on carrier's., not trying to tick anybody off but if you wonna test it get online in a Zeke and try fighting, then get in a nik,,, big diffrence if you know how to retain energy. weel mommy's calling gotta go cya.
-
Originally posted by poppysead
I hear alot about manuverability, The fact is after the f4f4 America realised that the dominant virtue in combat is SPEED, followd closely by alt , dive speed, etc., as soon as the Hellcat was introduced the Japanese navy was all tied up, To think of it now it was actualy rather stupid for the Japanese to continue fielding an older more manuverable (yet slower) aircraft. The tactics bare whitness to the facts. I suppose that if US pilots hadnt boom and zoomed then we'ed be speaking esperonto or somthing by now.Anyway best Jap fighter? probably Ki-84, and I always wonderd why the Japs didnt slap some better landing gear and a tail hook on a couple and use em on carrier's., not trying to tick anybody off but if you wonna test it get online in a Zeke and try fighting, then get in a nik,,, big diffrence if you know how to retain energy. weel mommy's calling gotta go cya.
Politics is a funny thing isn't it?
The designer of the Zero wanted to [a] Upgrade the engine to get speed = to the Hellcat and also more armor and such, but his request was denied! Push the A7M into service well before the end of the war. Again, he was denied. Beaurocracy at its finest!!
The Japanese Army Air Force did a good job in keeping up with the times. The Ki-43 was developed concurrently with the Ki-44. A turner and a super E fighter. They also developed the Ki-61. While not as good a performer as the Ki-44, it did have range (which is important for PAC fighting). Then the next big thing was the Ki-84 which was a superb design that combined speed w/ turning ability.
The Army did well pushing new designs. The Navy always seemed a step behind. Though the J2M was a really nice design IMO.
-
I've read my Ki-84 books again...
About Ki-84's impression, Japanese test pilot said "The feeling of this plane is like a Ki-43, which increased engine power".
Also US tested Ki-84 and rated it "Maneuverablity is better than Spitfire".
Attribute some factors of these good ratings to the design of main wings, flaps, and tail.
The Swept-forward wing effected good stall capability.
The "Butterfly" Type Combat Fowler Flaps boosted up Ki-84's maneuverability.
The forwarded horizontal stabilizers generated excellent yaw moment.
I think that these excellent designs are crown of Nakajima's technology which learned from Ki-43 and Ki-44. :)
I don't know when HTC releases Ki-84, but it will be "Terrible Frank". :)
sorry for my poor english...
-
Mitsu your english is excellent as opposed to excerrent which is something few native Japanese speakers seem to catch in English. :)
-
Originally posted by poppysead
I hear alot about manuverability, The fact is after the f4f4 America realised that the dominant virtue in combat is SPEED, followd closely by alt , dive speed, etc...
From middle war to late war, air to air combat tactics goes to
BnZ, but maneuverability is still important in the furball.
-
a lot of F4Fs (& P40s, Hurricanes & British Brewsters) were sent to the bottom of the Pacific before B`n Z & Thatch weave tactics were deveolped. Zeke was the best plane in it's day(unfortunately for the IJN that day ended mid '42)
-
I may be hijacking my own thread but I got a question that is related and I cannot answer. Ok, If B&Z is truly better way to fight and if speed is the dominate feature and let's say that Japanese were wrong for "holding on" to this failed stategy then the Brit's were/are also wrong right? Spits, Hurricanes are not B&Z or E-fighters. Also, the Brits love their Harriers even today and they spanked the Mirage fighters in the Faulkins right. The Mirage fighters are E or B&Z and the Harriers are the ultimate turn & burn fighters...how did they manage it then? Also, the Brits seem to think that vectored thrust tech. is very important and have been investing a lot in the JSF. Just a question?
-
Ok compairing the zeke to the spit is a pretty good point but emagine that the germans had an aircraft along the likes of the p38, p47, p51. simply put it's hard buisness to boom and zoom in a 109, especialy when at hi speeds the 109 starts losing things like roll ability, tails, wings, etc. The enemy has to be taken into account when tactics comes to mind, perhaps you mistakenly believe I meant that BandZ is the BEST tactic, this truly isnt the case in every situation.
And your coment on the faulklins, well simply put, im not a jet jockey I wasnt even speaking in terms of modern warfare. Missiles and pilot training had alot more to do with the mirrage getting blasted out of the sky than speed. Lets think, today yah turning ability is important, on the same line it helps that the harrier can spin those engine exhausts down and tighten up there turns. but im not refering to modern warfare again were talking ww2,,, right? ummm guys? Is this the f15/ Av-8 forum guys......?
-
I think the difference, 28sweep is the pilot. Not that Allied pilots are inherently better because of the side they're on, but maybe they're better trained.
A case in point...
I can't remember the reference, but I remember reading something about the differences in training and fighting style between IJN and Allied pilots that helped turned the tide as well. Apparently many Zeke pilots had the radios taken out of their planes to save even more weight (a high power long range transmitter was no small thing in the '40's). Now, you'd think a radio was kind of important for communication between pilots, especially wingies in BnZ or other cooperative tactics. But IJN training focused on the individual pilot fighting one enemy at a time, sort of the epitome of the individualistic Samurai philosophy, which minimized the need for comms, where Allied pilots were trained to fight cooperatively.
Now, in a small furball the IJN might have an advantage, but as the number of planes engaged increases the chances for poor SA increase also, as do the opportunities for cooperative BnZ tactics. Hence the Allies have the advantage.
As the war wore on the loss of experienced IJN pilots incrementally decreased the experience of their fighter wings, where the Allied pilots were better suited to learn from the experiences of the veterans and keep more pilots alive, rather than have each pilot have to learn from his mistakes, which were often fatal.
I think the basic point of pilot quality could also hold true for your question about the Harriers and Mirage's in the Falklands.
-
I think you just can't write off the Argintine pilots. I've heard that they weren't all that bad and in fact some of them where darn good. We're not talking Iraq here....much much better than that. The USAF-PoppySead-agrees w/u even up until this moment and believes that speed rules. The Brits. still learn towards manuvering and low/wing loading or vectored thrust and have been VERY successful. This tradition goes back to WWII and maybe before. Look at the USAF fighters: P-47, P-51, F-105, F-4, F-15, F-18 etc (F-16 may be the only execption). My point is-is that the USAF putts "all it's eggs in the Speed basket" while other AirForces-like the Brits. lean the other way and at least strike a better balance. Who's right??????
-
28sweep, the US employs aircraft across the range of capabilities and has plenty of dogfighters in its stable. The UK can't afford that kind of capability - the Harrier was conceived as a close support aircraft, the Sea Harrier for use off pocket carriers. The only 'proper' A2A role aircraft in UK service is the Tornado ADV, which has speed and nothing else. Our current forces are basically obsolescent.
JSF will hopefully provide the RN a modern multirole capability, while the Typhoon should be a very handy toy for the RAF. Not before time.
-
Originally posted by Upchuck
.
the loss of experienced IJN pilots incrementally decreased the experience of their fighter wings
I didn't know about the radio, but yes, IJN lost many many experienced pilots, mostly at Midway, on deck, for the most part, and I do remember hearing that they had but did not to wear parachutes, as the cockpits were so small (in the zeke)according to Saburo Sakai. A must read, IMO :) Anyone else hear this?
The zeke gets my SA up to the "perked ride" Level, b/c everyone wants a piece of it, and you gotta keep your head on a swivel. I wish I could be this attentive in regular rides!
BTW Mitsu, your English is better than a lot of Americans. Don't sweat it! .
Ki or Zeke? Tough call for me...but I'm STILL anticipating the Raiden, which I have always wanted to fly, so I guess I need to withold my decision till we can get all of them in AH!
Great Thread, everyone :)
Gainsie
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=43129&highlight=Japanese+fighter+poll
-
Originally posted by Mitsu
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=43129&highlight=Japanese+fighter+poll
Well apparently, HTC either didnt pay attention to the post, or never read it IMO. Every other plane, save one, was voted higher than the early war zeke...:mad: :confused:
Dare I ask the obvious question?
Gainsie
-
IMHO the most important quality in modern fighters is not speed or maneuverablility, but the quality of weapons carried. Most modern fighters dont usually carry foward firing guns, but computer/sensor guided munitions
-
Ok, If B&Z is truly better way to fight and if speed is the dominate feature and let's say that Japanese were wrong for "holding on" to this failed stategy then the Brit's were/are also wrong right? Spits, Hurricanes are not B&Z or E-fighters.
Excellent question, 28sweep. One answer to that question is that the Spitfire was a very very capable plane in almost all aspects, not just in the horizontal plane, but also in the vertical. Compared with it's main rival - the Bf109 series - which is simular in many ways as to the fact that it was a plane designed in the 1930s and kept its 'originality' throughout the war by wide variety of evolution and adaptation, the Spit series were in fact not that inferior in BnZ performance.
The image of the Spitfire being a "TnB" plane is a popular misconception, because people compare the Spit5 or the Spit9 with late war monsters like the La-7, Bf109G-10, Yak-9U or the P-51D. When you compare it according to its adversaries of the same era - the SpitMkI to 109E-4, SpitMkV to 109F-4, and the SpitMkIX to the 190A-5 and the Bf109G-6 - you may well very notice that it is a close call. "BnZ" is a tactic that was to be carried out 'before' the battle began, not a tactic that could be applied after that. (The occasions we see in AH, ie. a Bf109G-10 comfortably gaining a huge altitude advantage even after it was bounced by a SpitMkIX, is only possible in AH conditions where a 1944 plane meets a 1942 plane) This is a bit different when we look at the Pacific theater. While the 109s and Spitfires were almost always closely matched in performance, the A6M5b which began service in 1943 was still doing only about 350~360mph, when USN Corsairs were breaking the 400mph.
Another reason is the two important attributes - speed and maneuverability - were not always mutually incompatible. While it is true in most cases that speed is more important than maneuverability, and strengthening the speed often came from the sacrifice of maneuverability, there were rare cases where speed and maneuverabilty didn't necessarily cancel each other out. The Spitfires were one of those rare cases where a plane could become faster and still retain much of its maneuverability. Therefore, the Spitfire cannot be called a 'mistake', rather, it was undoubtably an excellent choice. (If the RAF held on to the Hurricane as the main fighter for A2A purposes, THAT would have been a mistake)
Third reason is that the so called "BnZ" tactics were effective only in firmly disciplined situations. There would be many types of situations concerning air combat, and "BnZ" tactics can be utilized only when one side enters the combat area with a decisive alt advantage. In co-alt situations, the better maneuvering plane has the first immediate advantage. Since Spitfires of the ETO were not vastly inferior in speed or climb rates to their German adversaries of the same era, the maneuverabilty in this case became a huge advantage. Zekes, on the other hand, were vastly inferior in the speed category. The advantage in maneuverability was not enough to overcome the disadvantage in speed.
The reason "BnZ" is the wiser tactic, is because altitude advantage can put even the most inferior pilot in to an offensive. The most important factor is no doubt pilot skills, but this is something which is innate and cannot be objectively measured. (Besides, the super-aces, or elite squads are always a handful. 90% of pilots in all countries are in the same 'average' category) Therefore, deploying a tactic which predetermines the outcome before the battle even begins, is ofcourse, the best one there is.
Remember the old motto: "Provided two opponents are in simular skill level, the one with alt advantage may not be able to win, but at least he will never lose" .. and what can be more imortant than that in a war? ;)
-
Thanks Kweassa that makes a lot of sense. So it's a fact then that B&Z or energy fighting is a superior way to fight...right? So can you say that "on average"...if pilot skill is equal-that the B&Z pilot should win more often. I would like somebody to comment on contemporary fighter design though. I know for a fact that:
1) The "Aggressor" squadron in "Top Gun" flie(s) the A-4 skyhawk and they most often fight the F-18, or F-14. Both the F-18 and F-14 have a "double" speed advantage yet the "Aggressor" pilots routinely win. How is that possible? Can pilot skill alone negate a double speed advantage?
2) The whole world is embracing vectored thrust technology. In fact, the USAF could not develop the technology on it's own fast enough so they simply bought it from the Russian's. It will appear on the JSF and F-22 of course. I know that when used-a HUGE Energy penalty is incurred. So you can't simply say that vectored thrust gives a B&Z plane a turning capability right...without a downside anyway? Why bother then if speed is truly "king?" Why spend all of this money and rush in a new technology rather than simply try and develop faster aircraft?
-
Also, the Brits love their Harriers even today and they spanked the Mirage fighters in the Faulkins right. The Mirage fighters are E or B&Z and the Harriers are the ultimate turn & burn fighters...how did they manage it then?
Well... its a very complex situation involving many factors.
For one, your not talking a guns only environment without radar, where blind siding an enemy with hit and run tactics reign supreme.
The Argentines made many mistakes.
The first being that they never expected for the British to contest the invasion of the island and they were not prepared. Their airfields were far from the combat and they did not have sufficent (ie almost none) air to air refueling capabilities to support offensive operations. Most Argentinian pilots were more worried about having enough fuel to get home, let alone to be agressive in their tactics and push the fight to the British.
Secondly, their tactics were abysmal. They sent their units into combat in small dribs and drabs, never concentrating their superior numbers, and allowing them to shatter the British defensive capabilities.
Technology. One very important issue was that the British harriers were equipped with modern all aspect heat seekers, while the Argentines were limited to 1960's era 30 degree rear aspect missles, both radar and IR.
Ground Support (or in this case sea support). The British fought their battles within the radar and SAM envelopes of their task forces. In fact, in the early combats the Argentine Mirages came to the fight at high altitudes where they held the performance advantages. The British harriers very intelligently stayed at middle to lower altitudes, where they were supported by the surface ships, knowing the Mirages didn't have the fuel to stay up there all day.
The Exocet missle. The Argentines, had only received something like 4-6 missles total from the French before the conflict began, and they were cut off further shipments. Plus, their pilots were insufficently trained in their use as it was a new weapon to them. Even so, these missles almost turned the tide of the fight, seriously punishing the British Task Forces. Once these were exhausted, the Argentines without the use of modern sea skimming missles were reduced to low level bombing attacks on the British sea forces with A4 SkyHawks using unguided bombs, where they took heavy losses. They also had a technical problem with their fuses, such that many of the ships they did hit, took only minor damage because the bombs never exploded.
So the whole Argentine Mirages vs British Harriers is not a good example in this case, there were many factors involved. :)
-
As for the best Japanese fighter, it depends on who you ask, to a certain extent I think the Ki-44 Shoki (Tojo) was their best fighter of the war and it could have had a huge impact on the outcome, but the Japanese leaders, with regard to aircraft types, felt that turning ability was the most important aspect for a fighter to have. Therefore, they didn't build the Ki-44 in as large of quntities as the Zeke or Oscar. According to my sources, they did not trust the Ki-44's high wing loading, relatively speaking to most other Japanese fighters of the time, with regard to fighter vs. fighter combat. They built it as an interceptor, but the pilots who knew how to fly it well could give western fighters, including P-51s a run for their money. In fact, I am pretty sure that Ki-44s scored the last kill of the war when they downed a B-32 after the surrender, but I will have to check.
Another excellent interceptor was the J2M3 and J2M5 Raiden (Jack). Overall, the Ki-84 was far and away their best, performance wise, overall fighter produced during the war. Everything I have read about these aircraft being test flown by the U.S. indicates they were great planes to fly, but that being somewhat subjective, I wish they would have provided the data that resulted from these test flights to explain why they 'felt' that way.
As for the A7M, my understanding of that program was that it originally had the more powerful engine, then they switched to the smaller engine which had a ton of problems, and they then decided to return to the larger engine, but it was too late for that aircraft when they finally decided to go back to the larger engine.
I would still like to see the Ki-44 in AH though, as it was used much earlier in the war than the J2M3 and Ki-84 (obviously) and had comparable performance to western aircraft and saw action throughout the Asian mainland, which would be really helpful for scenario's, ToD's, etc. Then, the Ki-84 would make a good Japanese perk plane.
You can find alot of good info here: Japanese Aviation (http://www.marksindex.com/japaneseaviation/) and also here J-Aircaft (http://www.j-aircraft.com/).
-
Sundog,
Why would the Ki-84 be perked?
I'd like to know why people think that it is perk worthy.
- It can't be numbers, 3,500 were built.
- It can't be speed as it could only do about 400mph.
- It can't be climb rate as its initial climb is only about 3,500ft per minute.
- It can't be service entry as the test squads had it in late 1943 and it was in main line use by early 1944.
- It can't be armament as it has a nearly identical armament to the Ki-61-I-KAIc that we have in AH right now.
I just don't see where the "Ki-84 is a good Japanese perk plane" comes from.
-
bet a Ki-44 w/ the 2 x 20mm + 2 x 37mm weapons took out a B-17 plenty quick
-
It is Ki-44-III. but not manufactured.
IJAAF decided to develop Ki-84 instead of Ki-44-III.
-
Ki-84-I-Ko (Ki-84-I-a) shouldn't be perked.
but Ki-84-I-Otsu (Ki-84-I-b) may be perked.
Because Ki-84-I-Otsu had 4 Ho-5 20mm cannons (150 rds each), less than 500 built.
-
Originally posted by whgates3
IMHO the most important quality in modern fighters is not speed or maneuverablility, but the quality of weapons carried. Most modern fighters dont usually carry foward firing guns, but computer/sensor guided munitions
Huh?
What modern fighter doesn't carry a gun?
-
I found a simular battle in the Combat Theater earlier,
I Was flying a HurricaneI And the enemy in a much later version 109 (F or G I think...),
He had a big alt advantage, dived on me, so I did a manuvers I found works very well in hurriI vs 109E, while he was diving on me at high speed I turned, sounds dumb but actuelly works very well if you do it right, since he is diving on me at a steep angle, rolling my plane sidways gives him a bad shot at my plane and I am able to exit the turn in his direction easily, also I find making a BIG roll so to speak while your getting BnZ'd works very well in manuverable aircraft and usuelly puts you right behind them, not sure if I explained the manuvers well, but they work 80-90% of the time for me, anyway the fight continued for about 15 mins untill he disappeared (prolly Rtb'd for fuel).
So IMO its more how you use the strenghts & weaknesess of your plane.
-
What modern fighter doesn't carry a gun?
British Eurofigher Typhoons will be without an internal gun. The MOD in their wisdom :rolleyes: decided that it was obsolete. I'm sure the fact that some accountant weenie worked out they would save something in the order of a quarter of a billion pounds over the service life of the aircraft had nothing to do with it.
Gatso
-
I tried to make some Very Rough examples of what I was talking about in MSPaint:
-
So now you all know how to kill me even easier ;):D
-
Originally posted by 28sweep
I also read somewhere that one of the fighters incorporated some type of mercury filled barometer that automatically deployed flaps at a certain wing load....sounds really cool. What model had this
Yes...was the N1K2......worked well and only worked below certain speeds so I've read. FA2.5 had this feature in effect upon it's demise and at low alt was unbeatable in a turn fight
-
i've read that the Me 109's leading edge flaps were auto deployed, but how i dont know
-
28sweep, for one thing, as Vermillion said, radar technology and guided A2A missiles "ruined" a lot of things for "old-fashioned" fighting tactics. I'm not a big fan of modern combat simulations, so I can't ensure anything, but one striking phrase I've heard about the difference in WWI/WWII aircraft and modern day aircraft was "In WWI/WWII, the pilots actually flew their planes. In the modern era, the electronics fly the plane, and the pilot manages the electronics."
Assistance of modern day equipment allows the pilot to be aware of lot of things which can be only dreamed of for a WWII pilot - they know where the enemy is at all times, they can attack out from very far, they know when the enemy is 'locked on' to them and etc etc. While the general rule of alt advantage still applies today, it is a bit different.
As for vector thrust technologies, I think it can be viewed in this sort of way. Jet engine technology today is reaching it's limit now, and the difference in speed of each aircraft is conceptually not as huge as it used to be in WWII. If a Soviet aircraft could go mach X, so would US a aircraft. If a US aircraft can reach X feet alt in X minutes, so would a Soviet aircraft.
When the 'speed' category meets a dead end in evolution, and alternative methods of thrust technology is not yet prepared, a major break through would be increasing maneuverability. The two factors, as I said before, do not necessarily have to be mutually incompatible.
Well, that's what I think anyway. I think people who have better understanding on modern jet aircraft and its combat tactics can explain this better.
-
Performance Counts.
Ie, Speed and climb ability. Over everything else.
There is a reason that the Sopwith Camel was not used by the RAF in WW2 (it was slow).
There is a reason the Me262 was developed by the LW (it was fast). Could the Me 262 turn with any allied fighter? nope.
"Fighting style"? please. Well, in a 1 v 1 AH duel maybe (with duelling rules ect) , but not in real life.
Slow planes die. Period.
Btw the vast majority of the aces attacked enemy ac that never saw them coming, at high speed. Thats how it was done. Usually in a single pass. That is common for almost all the aces of ww2 regardless of the ac they flew. They didnt stay alive by prolonged dogfights vs enemy fighters that knew they were there.
Why was the Spitfire a good fighter in 1940? Speed and climb. That it was used like some super aerobatics plane is a total myth. It was not.
Why was the 109E a good fighter in 1940? Speed and climb.
The HurricaneI? well it was slower and did not climb as fast as the 109, and that is the reason it was considered less effective than either of the above. It coud out turn a 109, true, but overall, it wasnt a match because of performance lag.
Why was the Zero a good fighter in 1941-2 in the Pacific? Speed and climb mainly, and its better turning circle helped vs ac of similar performance, but it could out climb the P-40B and F4F, and thats why it did well. It was hampered by not being faster however, which is why it relied on its turning circle when it had to. Ultimately, the Zero was a failure, bacause of its poor performance vs later allied types.
The ability to climb above your opponent (bomber formations or fighters) await an opportunity, and make a fatal attack at the right moment, then use your performance to escape retaliation.
Large events in AH reflect this, ala the TODs, Snaphsots ect, thats the best place to see it work. Now, not everybody adheres to proper tactics mind you...just one more turn and I will get that con...just one more...:)
Regards.
-
whgates3,
The Me109 had auto-deploying slats not flaps. The slats were roughly the length of the ailerons and just ahead of them on the leading edge of the wing. They were deployed by gravity. If you see a picture of a 109 on the ground the slats will be deployed/out. At speed the dynamic pressure of the air would hold the slats closed. As the wing approached stall the pressure would decrease to a point where the slats would POP open. This happened as the air went from laminar flow to turbulent. The effect of the slats was to try and prevent the air stream over the ailerons from becoming so turbulent that they (the ailerons) had no effect on roll control. hmm-- I hope that's clear.
Spritle
edit: The Me262 also had auto deploying leading edge slats although they extended the length of the wing. They were broken into two parts though due to the engine being in the way. Also later the F-86 had an auto deploying leading edge slat. But it was later removed/replaced by the 6-3 wing which was a broader chord wing.
-
Well said then SQUIRE but that means that the British have a very poor fighter arm in the fleet. The Harrier is sub-sonic and would be competing against fighters w/ a double+ speed advantage from land/"full"carriers (USA,France). So could missles compensate? I know you talked about WWII but it must hold true today right...unless missles have changed the equation????
-
28sweep,
WWII tactics and doctrines do not directly translate into modern air combat. Purvasive radar and guided missles change things drastically. In addition, the British don't have any big carriers so they are limited to short take off aircraft.
What Squire was saying, with a few slight errors, only applies to WWII and a bit to WWI air combat.
-
thanks Spritle - I'd been meaning to read up on those for a long time
-
28sweep this might help ww2 aircraft (http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/main.htm)
-
Originally posted by whgates3
... http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/japan-fighter.htm
has a good summary of Japanese WWII fighters
I see you found my link that I posted in the Italian plane thread?