Ki-84-1a v Spitfire Mk VIII

[nrshida]

If we are just discussing aircraft performance and its impact on the air combat, it should be completely irrelevant who the individual pilots involved are?

No I don't really agree with that premise. I don't think it's ever just the aircraft's performance. The only way that would be the dominant consideration is under the hypothesis that there is one correct method and any failures are the result of lack of knowledge or poor execution of that method in that fight. I know the Russian airforce was accused of belabouring under that doctrine for a long time but let's face it: we all have done considerably more combat flying than they have 

The EM diagrams that you present are useful but also omit a lot of useful data and I think many people misinterpret those as a sustained turning guide. Your description of the Spit8 vs Ki-84 matchup pretty well focuses on that aspect only. You do mention radius but that also seems to be when locked into the context of a two-circle fight. Best sticks in the Army of Muppets didn't fight that way. Redbul1 didn't fight that way, nor Kazaa, StepSis, Violator, Shane, etc. the list is pretty long amongst AH's best past and present.

Thoughts?

[Badboy]

No I don't really agree with that premise. I don't think it's ever just the aircraft's performance.

I agree, of course it's never just about one thing. I'm pretty sure I would never have said otherwise because the outcome of an engagement could be influenced by a number of factors.

Here is a quick list, anyone of which could be the dominant factor depending on the circumstances. 

• The relative aircraft performance
• The initial conditions, in terms of the initial orientation of the two aircraft relative to each other and their relative energy states
• The weapons in terms of how easy they are to aim and hit with and the lethality
• The fuel and ammunition status in terms of amount remaining
• The pilots, in terms of physical ability training and experience
• The location of the fight in terms of proximity to friendly aircraft and air defences

However, in the aircraft and vehicles forum I try to stay on topic and discuss the relative performance of the aircraft (as modelled in the game) as far as possible while considering some of the other factors equal. It would be almost impossible to do otherwise, it's just sensible when considering complex issues to break it down into chunks. Trying to considering every factor at the same time might be possible, but where would you draw the line, even two similarly skilled pilots will perform differently on any given day.

Of course you could argue that you can never ignore the pilots in the equation and we have all seen good pilots do amazing things in otherwise poorly performing aircraft against lesser pilots in superior aircraft. However, when that good pilot meets an equally good pilot, wouldn't each of them want to know how the other factors stack up? I think some of them do and that's why I've been addressing one of them here.

The only way that would be the dominant consideration is under the hypothesis that there is one correct method and any failures are the result of lack of knowledge or poor execution of that method in that fight. I know the Russian airforce was accused of belabouring under that doctrine for a long time but let's face it: we all have done considerably more combat flying than they have 

That reminds me of this quote from Shaw:

It has been my experience that nations, and even separate air arms within a given nation, differ in air combat tactics as widely as they do in other areas. In fact, they often disagree even on what constitutes a "tactical doctrine." For example, I have found that asking two U.S. pilots for their tactics in a given situation elicits three different answers. By contrast, it is my understanding that three Russian fighter pilots will all give the same answer. Probably neither of these extremes is optimum. Obviously, if you have only one tactic, it had better be the correct one; however, even if this is the case, there are disadvantages to inflexibility. Almost any tactic can be defeated if it is totally predictable, and dogma stifles innovation. Total flexibility is not ideal either, as it is difficult for the fighter pilot to become proficient if he is constantly changing his style and technique.

However, the simple fact is that there is a body of knowledge that is taught to fighter pilots that is considered to encompass all of their tactical options. When it comes to making decisions about what to do next at any point in an engagement, Shaw breaks aircraft into two main groups, angles fighters and energy fighters and describes the appropriate BFM in those terms. Essentially that's just fuzzy EM theory

The EM diagrams that you present are useful but also omit a lot of useful data and I think many people misinterpret those as a sustained turning guide. Your description of the Spit8 vs Ki-84 matchup pretty well focuses on that aspect only.

Enemy intelligence and relative aircraft performance is highly prized information. Normally presented to fighter pilots in the form of EM diagrams they are the gold standard, only exceeded by similar data and diagrams for weapons performance. They were originally invented and used in WWII by the RAF and again in the USA after Boyd gave them a new lease of life and they are considered invaluable, I don't think that would be the case if they omitted a lot of data. When I use them in AH I don't use them to their full extent and often just focus on enabling pilots to do the otherwise difficult task of determining when his aircraft is the angles or energy fighter and highlight regions of the envelope that favor either aircraft. However they can be used for much more than I often discuss here, but would be happy to do if requested.

For example, if you consider a fight between the Spit8 and the better turning Zeke, the A6M2 you might look at the data or EM diagram in a cursory manner and conclude that the A6M2 should win when engaged with a Spit8. After all the Zeke has a significantly better sustained and instantaneous turn rate and a tighter turn circle. But those data points don't tell the whole story. If you assume that the fight begins with both aircraft outside of guns range, as they normally do and in any orientation but with equal E states, with the only other condition being that the Zeke driver is determined to press the attack using either one or two circle fights, energy or angles tactics as they wish and with the pilots and other factors being equal, say me flying against myself. In that situation I think most people looking at a data table like the one in this thread would conclude the Zeke should win. However, if you examine an EM diagram for that engagement it reveals that the Spitfire should win, and I've applied that myself in practice many times. I used to teach it as a trainer and I've demonstrated it to others as often as they were willing to listen including several of the pilots on the list you posted. My point is that EM diagrams contain enough data to be essential reading for real fighter pilots and they contain more information than is often appreciated in our circles, not to mention that the ones I post here are not always complete, I often omit many of the Ps curves for clarity.

I admit I do focus heavily on sustained turning because it is how most fights are won, in a two circle fight mostly because of maximum sustained turn rate, but radius is still important of course and in a one circle fight mostly because of minimum turn radius, which also occurs at the best sustained turn. I'll expand on that later.

You do mention radius but that also seems to be when locked into the context of a two-circle fight.

I wouldn't say locked into, but I do think that one and two circle fights are better treated separately. I discuss two circle fights first because if you consider the duration of each phase of the fight, the rapid loss of speed ensures that against two roughly equal pilots, stall fighting has the potential to form by far the longest phase of the engagement. It's called sustained because you can stay there for as long as it takes and it can sometimes take minutes rather than seconds. One circle fights are often over relatively quickly. So it makes sense to learn to be good at the thing you are likely to spend the most time doing. Secondly it is probably the more difficult of the two to master. Thirdly because two circle fights tend to occur more frequently, possibly because most players don't like being shot in the face, so the conclusion is: I deal with two circle fights because I've found that they occur more frequently, last longer and are more difficult to master. 

Of course we all see many fights that go one circle with the potential for a quick kill, but even then success will go to the pilot who knows if his minimum turn radius is smaller than his opponents and the minimum radius for any fighter is achieved at a point where it can continuously pull the most g at the least speed and that's the best sustained turn data point I provide in the tables and on EM diagrams so it helps there also. True, in that kind of fight, it is a race to dump energy to reach that point quickly, and involves other factors favoring pilots with fast reflexes, good hand eye coordination, timing and gunnery. That contrasts with the relatively slower gains made in a two circle fight as you work to the six, pursue easier gunnery solutions and conserve energy. The fighting style is smoother, less demanding in terms of pilot reflexes but more demanding in other ways, for example it requires higher SA if you don't want to get picked.

Best sticks in the Army of Muppets didn't fight that way.

I don't want to make this about individuals but that pretty much explains why they were so spectacularly unsuccessful when they engaged pilots who knew better 

Seriously though I do understand why in the MA it isn't always correct to fly optimal BFM. Sometimes it is better do whatever has the potential to end the fight in the shortest time possible. If you are competing with countrymen or squadmates to get the kill before they do, or just want to avoid being picked, it can be better to fly in the way that is most likely to end the fight the quickest and for some pilots that's all that makes sense to them. However in fights where the priority is a higher probability of kill rather than just a quick kill, then it is important to know what optimal BFM looks like and quite frankly, the things I've seen players do in the quest for a quick kill are sometimes more comical than optimal.

I have tried over the years to help players to at least know the difference, so that they are well enough informed to make whatever tactical decisions they deem to be best at the time. I try not to deal in absolutes, or claim any method is always better than another, things are always more complicated than that and checking the list of factors at the start of post, it would be almost impossible to cover all the bases in every discussion. However, there is always more than one way, often one is better than the others in the circumstances and thus optimal and there are always many wrong ways and an abundance of blatant BFM blunders. I'm just doing my bit here to help folk to tell the difference and still learning as I go

The Bottom line is that this game is about having fun and if someone has more fun if they can get kills in the poor performance aircraft using suboptimal BFM then more power to them. I've seen enough great pilots doing just that just for the challenge of it, who am I to argue

Regards

Badboy

[mechanic]

Enjoyed the read, thanks Badboy

[nrshida]

This seemingly has the complexion of a lecture and not a discussion so I’ll confine myself to the traditional questions-based approach in this framework. If I may:-

I admit I do focus heavily on sustained turning because it is how most fights are won, in a two circle fight mostly because of maximum sustained turn rate, but radius is still important of course and in a one circle fight mostly because of minimum turn radius, which also occurs at the best sustained turn. I'll expand on that later

Does that not necessitate the fight essentially remains two-and-a-half-dimensional, the vertical component utilised largely for the exchange of potential and kinetic energy in order to pursue the one-circle fight? How do you reconcile that with the often heard: “fight in the vert” recommendation by some of our more effective sticks?

In your original sketch of the Ki-84 matchup you don’t address this but imply flat turning by both parties. In my experience the Spit8 stick has the very attractive option to slightly descend while turning, holding 3G at a speed where the Ki-84 is both unable to reach anything like 3G or flaps (indeed as indicated by the relative EM Diagrams). The Ki-84 stick has the choices of reducing throttle to access flaps and therefore reducing the relative energy states in the Spitfire’s favour, or effectively descend farther to not get out-rated putting the Spit above. Neither particularly good options. Ascending is also not favourable as the Spitfire’s appears to have superior retention (and indeed specifically more airspeed here) and may always pull nose-high for either a shot or an ascension retaining the energy for further out-rating especially if the opponent slows. The first notch of flaps being only available to the Ki-84 pilot at 164-m.p.h. (is it?) and full flaps only below 151-m.p.h. The Spit 8 can pull 3G sustained at what, something like 176-m.p.h. depending on mass and WEP?

Best sticks in the Army of Muppets didn't fight that way.

I don't want to make this about individuals but that pretty much explains why they were so spectacularly unsuccessful when they engaged pilots who knew better 

You will pardon me for pointing this out but it is a rather extraordinary claim to make without evidencing. They also duelled extensively and successfully in similar airframes outside of the MA. Building on that point can you explain why you choose to fly the MA most often as a shade callsign. Wouldn’t the most convincing argument to be to always fly as Badboy and evidence your expertise or at least the validity of what you propose?

You mention initially there are some great Ki-84 sticks in-game. Who? I should like to know who you particularly find challenging when flying the Spit8. It would not be the same as 'making it about individuals' in a critical way but surely a compliment.

[Badboy]

Does that not necessitate the fight essentially remains two-and-a-half-dimensional, the vertical component utilised largely for the exchange of potential and kinetic energy in order to pursue the one-circle fight? How do you reconcile that with the often heard: “fight in the vert” recommendation by some of our more effective sticks?

No, of course not. Air combat takes place in three dimensions, and I’ve never seen one that doesn’t make use of all three at some point. It doesn’t make sense to recommend one or the other out of context because inappropriate use of the vertical can do more harm than good.  I see players making poor use of the vertical all the time, they seem to know the maneuvers but lack any real understanding of when, why or how they should be doing it. They probably shouldn’t pay so much attention to often heard sound bites.
 
Horizontal and vertical aspects of a fight are often treated separately but they aren’t mutually exclusive and the ideas don’t need to be reconciled, they are just different parts of a larger body of knowledge that almost always overlap and combine continuously in practice. The devil is in the details.
 

In my experience the Spit8 stick has the very attractive option to slightly descend while turning, holding 3G at a speed where the Ki-84 is both unable to reach anything like 3G or flaps (indeed as indicated by the relative EM Diagrams). The Ki-84 stick has the choices of reducing throttle to access flaps and therefore reducing the relative energy states in the Spitfire’s favour, or effectively descend farther to not get out-rated putting the Spit above. Neither particularly good options. Ascending is also not favourable as the Spitfire’s appears to have superior retention (and indeed specifically more airspeed here) and may always pull nose-high for either a shot or an ascension retaining the energy for further out-rating especially if the opponent slows. The first notch of flaps being only available to the Ki-84 pilot at 164-m.p.h. (is it?) and full flaps only below 151-m.p.h. The Spit 8 can pull 3G sustained at what, something like 176-m.p.h. depending on mass and WEP?

That passage of text was difficult to read because it appears to be entirely wrong. I’ll try to explain on a point by point basis.
 
Firstly, you describe the tactic of descending while turning as a very attractive option but in fact it is a very common BFM error. It might make sense defensively as in a defensive spiral or at the beginning of a low yo-yo, but otherwise I’m always delighted to see an opponent do it because I know that it is going to cost them. I believe the main reason we see it so often is that it often works, because there aren’t many pilots who know how to respond to it correctly. It is a good example of a maneuver people know but don't fully understand and thus use it to their own detriment, it is what I call “Hope BFM”, because when pilots use it, they just hope your clue bag is as empty as theirs. I’ll save a detailed explanation of why it is a mistake and how it should be countered for another post.
 
Secondly, you support that with reference to the 3G available to the Spitfire, but just referring to the G value doesn't help your case. Just because an aircraft can pull more G doesn’t mean it will turn better. An aircraft pulling lower G can still have a better turn rate and a smaller radius. For example if one aircraft can pull 3G at 160mph its turn rate will be 22dps with a 605ft radius, Another aircraft may only be able to pull 2.5G at 120mph but its turn rate will be 24dps with a 420ft radius. It pulls less G but has a significant advantage in both rate and radius. You claim to be referencing an EM diagram, but the whole point of EM diagrams is that you can read the rate and radius directly for the entire envelope of both aircraft. I assume you are using an overlay for the Spitfire v Ki-84 that I’ve posted in the past, so I think you must know that referring to a G value by itself is meaningless.

Thirdly, you discuss the Ki-84s options to access flaps describing them in depth and dismissing each one as unfavourable. However, you should find that the speed of the Ki-84 at its best sustained turn with WEP at the edge of the stall, is very close to the flap speed and within about 2 mph of it. So if you are performing an optimal turn the flaps should be very easy to access without the efforts described.

I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make in that passage of text. It sounds as though you think flap usage isn't beneficial to the Ki-84 and that the Spitfire is vastly superior because it can pull more G. Unfortunately I can't be sure because none of the points you have made appear to be valid.   

You mention initially there are some great Ki-84 sticks in-game. Who? I should like to know who you particularly find challenging when flying the Spit8. It would not be the same as 'making it about individuals' in a critical way but surely a compliment.

I disagree, this is a discussion of the relative merits of two aircraft in the aircraft and vehicles forum. The merits of the pilots, complimentary or otherwise, have no bearing on the relative performance of the aircraft. So I won’t be able to help you with that request. I’ll restrict my comments to the aircraft and related air combat. However if you insist on knowing the names of some good Ki-84 drivers, I’m sure there are others who would be willing to help you find them.

Building on that point can you explain why you choose to fly the MA most often as a shade callsign. Wouldn’t the most convincing argument to be to always fly as Badboy and evidence your expertise or at least the validity of what you propose?

If you have any concerns regarding the validity of anything I’ve said here, it should be fairly easy for you to validate it yourself, as many others have done. If you have any difficulty understanding or applying any of it I’d be happy to help you in the TA. However if any of my advice simply doesn’t work for you, I’d be equally happy to refund you double what you paid for it. 

Regards

Badboy

[Tig]

Just popping in for a bit, I just got a simple question.

You seem to really know your stuff Badboy, do you have a background in aircraft IRL? Perhaps even some fighter jet experience?

[nrshida]

Secondly, you support that with reference to the 3G available to the Spitfire, but just referring to the G value doesn't help your case. Just because an aircraft can pull more G doesn’t mean it will turn better.

Well now I'm really confused. Because I thought I got this directly from an EM Diagram years ago regarding our Ki-84 (I think I wouldn't have got that from anywhere else). The vertical column which is d.p.s. always degrades as the G force decreases. I've never seen a kinky diagram - if you see what I mean - showing a bulge to contradict that. And yet at the same time I originally in my pre-2012 incarnation knew what you stated above, without any technical knowledge at all and only through feeling.

I can't find the original images on the forum. Looks like they were pre PhotoShack subscription day. Surely you would have never have posted an EM-diagram for the Ki-84 slick? No one would ever fight that way and that would be an omission to the point of misleading. Obviously taking into account what you mention about your fees.

[Gaston]

  A bit of reality in this slightly old thread:

Osprey "Ki-43 aces of WWII" p.50: Sgt. Toshimi Ikezawa, Ki-43 ace: "I heard Major Eto had refused delivery of the Ki-84 (640-660 km/h). They could not avoid an attack if it came from above, because of the Ki-84's poor rate of turn (17-20 s. left, 20-23 s. right). I think we owe our survival to the Ki-43 (540 km/h, 11-14 s. turn either way), as the Ki-84 would have left you in a tight spot if attacked from above by P-51s. Spitfire [Mk VIII] leaders [meaning skilled and experienced] would pull out of their dives (!!!) when they realized they could not catch us [unaware]. Wingmen [inexperienced] pilots would continue to dive straight down on us, leaving them vulnerable in a turning fight..."

  The lower value turn times are sourced in "A consideration of Ki-84 performance", a Japanese original source, but are not sustained speed, while the higher figure is an estimation closer to the more combat-relevant sustained speed at reduced power. The P-51D was roughly similar with flaps 20 degrees down.

  Ki-43 turn values are from its pilot manual.

  Another Ki-84 quote while I am at it:

     "Aeroplane" November 2005, "Ki-100 fighter Database": p. 61-77 "The conclusion drawn by the Akeno pilots left little to the imagination: In short, it stated that given equally skilled pilots, the Ki-100 (585 km/h) would always win a fight with the Ki-84 (640-660 km/h) 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] 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 this below to confirm the first quote (just in case, but I'm sure you needed no convincing, right?);

    The TAIC captured a Ki-43-II pilot manual and noted: "There is evidence to believe Japanese Army pilots have a strong preference for the Ki-43 over the higher performing Tony and Tojo."

     And if you wonder how the A6M Zero compared in all of this, ooops, there is a slight doctrinal problem...:

  https://youtu.be/ApOfbxpL4Dg?si=8unn86EM2X5BSGqy[/URL]


57:55: Useful intro to the discovery. (That the Zero did not really do sustained low speed turns, whomp-whomp.)


1:01:45 (USN pilot, late 1942) "[Japanese Zero] pilots have generally poor fighter tactics. Zeroes could not be shaken by us if they would chop their throttles and sit on our tails. [Meaning turn]"



At 59:07 "Intelligence reports assumed that these tactics indicated the Zero lacked maneuverability."



59:22 "Judging from their apparently long fuselage, these planes do not have a small turning circle, and are not very maneuverable."



59:33 "The Chinese report in question noted the reluctance of the Japanese Navy pilots to dogfight."



1:00:05 "Chinese pilots report that the Japanese will not engage in a turning duel."



1:01:32 "Accounts (from intelligence archives) of Japanese [ha-hem, NAVY] hit and run tactics against the Allies are so numerous, we'd be here for days..."

  1975 Saburo Sakai interview: "It was great in dogfights, especially in the vertical. In a vertical looping maneuver like this (looping) the Zero was absolutely wonderful! Even if they got behind you, if you enter a vertical looping contest, in about 3 or 4 loops we'd be right back on their tail. That's how good the Zero was in vertical maneuvers."  "We used a diagonal looping maneuver. No two pilots had the same Hinero Komi maneuver."


   Yeah, if the term Hinero Komi is unfamiliar, let's just say that the Zero as a whole is unfamiliar....

  For some reason I love this one:

  311th Fighter Group Unit history: "On October 21, 1943, the 530th squadron’s P-51As met numerous Mitsubishi Zeros. I came up behind Lt. Geoffrey Neal, who was chasing a Zero down to the deck! I latched on to their formation and watched as he drove the enemy fighter right into the ground. The pilot of the Zero had tried everything to get rid of Lt. Neal except to circle fight." 311th Fighter Group Unit history."

  Don't you just love what an uncannily accurate picture of history historians left us with? You just reverse things into the exact opposite of everything they said, and everything lines up perfectly.

  It even works with the P-47 (very mushy in the initial bite, but otherwise the most obsessive extreme low speed turn fighter in the West, at least to the left):

  -William M McDermott, 25 May 1944 [P-47D Razorback, needle-tip prop (superior prop for
low speed turns if using full power)]: "The enemy aircraft [Me-109G-6] and I both banked
to the left at the same time. After 3 or 4 climbing turns I managed to get into a position to
fire a deflection shot, using about two rings and observing no hits. [5000 ft.] We continued in
a climbing Lufberry using full power and indicating 140 mph. I used two and half rings and
observed a few hits on his tail surfaces. We continued circling for approximately another full
turn when he suddenly snapped and spun in."

 
  And you don't say:

Quote, "On special Missions: The Luftwaffe's Research and Experimental Squadrons 1923-1945" John Richard Smith, Eddie J. Creek, Peter Petrick Classic, 2003 - History - 128 pages: (early captured Razorback without full power available, and with needle tip prop): "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G."

  But mostly at the most extreme low speed and only in left turns, and maybe only for the needle tip prop Razorback, I would say.

  I think the apparent magic has to do with the bottom air dog-legging above the wings when power is low in a turn, as with the needle tip prop: Squeezed air accelerates in a constriction point (unlike traffic, a basic aerodynamic fact), the acceleration being here on top of the wing if the prop is not strong enough to beat down the dog leg...

  Yes, quite an accurate picture historians gave us...: Power is everything!!! 

 


 

 


 

 

   

 

[nopoop]

 

[icepac]

Awesome thread, how did I miss it?

The stories of former zero and ki43 pilots hating on KI84, KI44, J2M, is likely thier initial take on fighters that don't turn like a zero or Ki43.   

Akamatsu immediately knew he could exploit the benefits of his J2M and stay out of where it underperformed.   

The others figured it out soon after.