Author Topic: Amount of Ki84s actually made (Read 1512 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #45 on:** July 29, 2004, 05:35:58 PM »

SoftOpt,

According to Mitsu the Ki-84 prototypes used the Ha-45-23 engine (1900hp), but the production Ki-84's used the Ha-45-21 engine (1990hp). Unfortunately the only Japanese test documents that exist are of the first prototype (388mph) and second prototype (392mph). According to Japanese engineers the Ki-84-II, which was the same except had siome wooden parts, topped out at ~415mph using the Ha-45-21. Both German and Japanese engineers claimed that wooden parts reduced the speed of an aircraft by ~5mph.

Engine data:

Ha-45-23, rated at 1,900hp for take-off and 1,670hp at 4,725m.

Ha-45-21, rated at 1,990hp for take-off and 1,850hp at 5,740m.

Ha-45-21 Engine Performance from Instruction Manual
Take off Power: 2000hp/3000rpm (manifold air pressure: +500mmHg)
Normal Power: 1550hp/2780rpm/2500m (manifold air pressure: +200mmHg)
1st Military Power: 1890hp/3000rpm/1800m (manifold air pressure: +350mmHg)
2nd Military Power: 1700hp/3000rpm/6400m (manifold air pressure: +350mmHg)

Here is a very long thread on the Ki-84. It deteriorates into punts after a couple of pages, but it has good data in the first bit: Bring the Ki.84-I Hayate "Frank" to Aces High

SoftOpt · « **Reply #46 on:** July 29, 2004, 08:03:47 PM »

Thanks for that link. I heard something of that nature before myself actually concerning the correct engine, but.....

if we are talking about in game, I would prefer to see what was fielded in combat situations above what type of engine the prototype was equiped with. That is just me tho...your opinion may differ.

One interesting side note about this plane I have heard tales about in reguards to the P-51 D and the speed of the Ki-84 at altitudes less than 15K is that apparently these were a fairly dead heat in combat situations. (at higher altitudes the P-51D was a better performer) It was only after the Ki-84 was tested with a fuel load that was of a higher octane that it was discoved that the Ki-84 was indeed faster at lower altitudes.

Is this gospel? I don't know. I was told this by people who know FAR more than I.

For your listening pleasure, education, or mis-education:
Here is a link to an interview with a REAL life Ki-84 (who also flew the VERY untraditional Deamon, Ki-44 IIc) (Mr. Mistsuda, taped by an aussie friend named kiwi.)

Mr. Mitsuda Real Life Ki-84/Ki-44 pilot

Enjoy

**Some colorful language, but nothing that will scar you for life**

Karnak · « **Reply #47 on:** July 29, 2004, 08:46:31 PM »

I too would like to see the correct engine, the Ha-45-21 1990hp, but I don't know if the data to add that is there.

Thanks for the interview. It is interesting. His preffered alt seems to back up the Ha-45-21 5,700m preffered alt.

2stony · « **Reply #48 on:** July 30, 2004, 10:08:33 AM »

I've been flying Il-2 for a couple of months now and guess which plane they have? You got it, all three models of the Ki-84. It's deadly as hell too. Try it, you'll like it!

Karnak · « **Reply #49 on:** July 30, 2004, 11:02:48 AM »

Il-2 sucks.

Sorry, but there is no other way to put it.

It is very pretty, but it sucks in all other ways.

2stony · « **Reply #50 on:** July 30, 2004, 11:13:10 AM »

Well Karnak, I guess you have your opinion. It lacks in some ways, but is better in others. It's strickly a "flight" game, so bummer for no vehicles or ships. Pretty? Yes. A lot of different planes to fly and more on the way with the release of Pacific fighters coming soon. Damage models are much better than AH as are the graphics. I'll be back to fly AH2 once it's all done and then I'll give you my full opinion. Until then, I'll fly Il-2 and be happy with it.

Edbert · « **Reply #51 on:** July 30, 2004, 12:05:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Il-2 sucks.

Sorry, but there is no other way to put it.

It is very pretty, but it sucks in all other ways.

Hehehe....

2stony · « **Reply #52 on:** July 30, 2004, 12:37:39 PM »

One thing about Il-2 is there is no radar. No little warning that an enemy is near. Your field sirens go off only when an enemy is close. Although Il-2 has icons to ID planes, they have to be close before you determine what side they're on. Also, the settings can be made where you can only ID a plane by getting real close to it to see it's national markings or silouette(no icons). That is really the way it happened in real life. No icons, no colors, only you're eyesight and knowledge to help you out. And because of this "close-up" ID system, you only have a couple of seconds to plan your attack. Give it a try, you might like it(or not, because it's harder in some aspects than AH).

Spritle · « **Reply #53 on:** July 30, 2004, 01:15:52 PM »

Karnak,

Quote

Turning Performance:
Ki-84-I-Ko: About like a Spitfire Mk IX, but with a vicious unannounced stall.

I'd be very curious as to where you read/heard that the Ki had a vicious unannounced stall. I find it funny because I have about 4 books on the Ki and NONE mention a vicious unannounced stall. In fact they all agree that it had really easy handling. Plus it has multi position fowler type flaps.

Spritle