Author Topic: Ki.84 AH flight performance (Read 484 times)

oboe · « **on:** April 30, 2001, 06:23:00 PM »

I KNOW we will be getting this bird someday. Japan was the only Axis power in an entire theater of WWII, and she currently has only 2 a/c, with an additional mid-war design ("Tony") due in the next release.

Anybody want to take a shot at predicting which current flight model the Ki.84's will be the most like? My guess is the La-7.
Great acceleration and rate of climb, top speed around 400 mph, fairly light airframe mated to a 1800-1900 hp monster radial.
I'm also guessing that the '84 won't lose as much as the La-7 off the top end above 20K, and that its low speed manueverability will be superior due to the "butterfly" combat flaps.

This will be one difficult aircraft to deal with, Jack!

BTW, will the Tony FM be similiar to the 109F or the 202? It's basically a 109 engine in a lighter airframe with longer wingspan. How will that affect its performance relative to the 109? Better turn radius and climb?

SpitLead · « **Reply #1 on:** April 30, 2001, 06:27:00 PM »

Oboe, I tend to agree with you. I flew the Ki84 in Warbirds and comparing that to the La7 think it will be close. I think the La7 will have a higher top speed but the Ki84 will turn better. Acceleration is great in both airplanes. Personally, I have problems with the long nose and low seat of the La7 with deflection shots so I'll probably drift over to the Ki84 when it becomes available.

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #2 on:** April 30, 2001, 06:49:00 PM »

Dweebs

oboe · « **Reply #3 on:** April 30, 2001, 06:58:00 PM »

Guilty!

I haven't spent alot of time in what are currently considered the dweeb rides, but having come from a Japanese squadron in WB, the Hayate will be one a/c I'll have trouble keeping my butt out of.

You fly a real man's a/c, don't you Frenchy?
Jug?

Kieran · « **Reply #4 on:** April 30, 2001, 07:32:00 PM »

Why anyone spends one second worrying about what anyone thinks about a particular ride is beyond me.

After all, if you weren't intended to use the planes we wouldn't have them, right?

I am the "Apple Jacks" flyer of AH: "I fly what I like!" Heck yeah, I'll be in the Ki-84 if/when we get one...

juzz · « **Reply #5 on:** May 01, 2001, 12:11:00 AM »

The Ki-84 is about 20mph faster and 800lbs lighter than the N1K2-J, with better cannon. A smaller wing means that it won't turn quite as well, and it carries alot less ammo and fuel too.

The Ki-61 is slightly worse than the MC.202 in speed and climb(same engine, about 100lbs heavier airframe), but it should turn something like the Spitfire IX and has better guns than the Fw 190D-9(with about half the ammo though). It can carry 2 bombs or drop tanks on it's wing pylons.

Vermillion · « **Reply #6 on:** May 01, 2001, 06:19:00 AM »

About the only similarity between the Ki84 and the La7 is that both should perform well in the vertical.

The La7 is a very fast plane below 15k, while the Ki84 should be on the slow end of the late war beasts. On the other hand, the Ki84 should be a fairly good turner, while the La7 is a fairly poor sustained turner (instantaneous turns aside).

Basically, what juzz said.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

oboe · « **Reply #7 on:** May 01, 2001, 07:10:00 AM »

Thanks, Vermillion and juzz - that's exactly the kind of info I was after.

It sounds like you need alot more than just basic hp/wt ratios, climb and max speed data to compare performance. What data are you looking at to determine that the La-7 will be much faster than the Ki.84 below 15k?

The Ki.61 sounds like it will be a good scenario plane; with performance as you describe I doubt it'll develop a legion of followers in the MA.

Kieran · « **Reply #8 on:** May 01, 2001, 08:22:00 AM »

The thing I think both the La7 and the Ki-84 have in common is acceleration. Both planes are big engines married to light airframes. What will make the Ki-84 scarier than the La7 is the better turn rate- not Spitfire good, but probably about the middle of the AH set.

[This message has been edited by Kieran (edited 05-01-2001).]

Ripsnort · « **Reply #9 on:** May 01, 2001, 08:24:00 AM »

Did the Ki-84 have self-sealing fuel tanks? Does the LAGG-7?

oboe · « **Reply #10 on:** May 01, 2001, 08:30:00 AM »

I'm pretty sure they both do have self-sealing tanks, Rip. By 1944 even the Japanese had made that concession to extra weight. Pretty sure the Ki.61 has decent armor and self-sealing tanks as well.