PDA

View Full Version : Sneaking suspicion=Uber Japanese planes



RedDeth
06-03-2004, 12:42 PM
this is not a troll thread. i fly 7 days a week.

ive noticed tons of data being put up on these boards about various jap planes. the k100 etc etc

ive seen about five different japanese planes that if using data in these forums will be more than equal to anything we flew in the pacific.

im getting a sneaking suspicion in 45 our planes in game will end up with no advantage at all at any altitude. late year DF servers all the best planes will be japanese

i think we need to have 2 planes in game in 45 to counteract this. the P-47N and the P-51H. and the F8F as a back up just in case.

think about all those late year jap planes built to optimal speck. just like some russian and german planes.

War in the Pacific in japans favor . you heard it here first. lets get some optimal usa planes too.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

RedDeth
06-03-2004, 12:42 PM
this is not a troll thread. i fly 7 days a week.

ive noticed tons of data being put up on these boards about various jap planes. the k100 etc etc

ive seen about five different japanese planes that if using data in these forums will be more than equal to anything we flew in the pacific.

im getting a sneaking suspicion in 45 our planes in game will end up with no advantage at all at any altitude. late year DF servers all the best planes will be japanese

i think we need to have 2 planes in game in 45 to counteract this. the P-47N and the P-51H. and the F8F as a back up just in case.

think about all those late year jap planes built to optimal speck. just like some russian and german planes.

War in the Pacific in japans favor . you heard it here first. lets get some optimal usa planes too.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

MEGILE
06-03-2004, 12:56 PM
For me, If it flew in the alotted time period, then it should be added.. if it didn't then it shouldn't be in the game, regardless of "fairness".. sorry bro your just gonna have to deal with it hehe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

BlitzPig_DDT
06-03-2004, 12:59 PM
Sounds like you are hoping for what he is worrying about there Megile.

In either case, the 47N (and M), 51H, and F8F all flew "in the alotted time".

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

MEGILE
06-03-2004, 01:01 PM
If it flew in the time period and is an acceptable candidate then by all means include it. But don't try and "even" up the sides just to make it fair.
And fyi I fly Mustangs and Lightnings http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Yes KI-84s are hard enemies to down, but I wouldn't have it anyother way, I mean, what'd be the point in fighting an enemy it takes no skill to down.
Thats why I laugh when I see some Luftwhiners cry about Russian planes. Secretly they love them being "uber" because they get a hard on every time they down one.

VW-IceFire
06-03-2004, 01:19 PM
Keep in mind that although the Ki-84 and the N1K2 George were great fighters they were available in limited quantities.

P-47N's were still shooting down Oscars and other earlier types more than Ki-84's.

Dogfight servers are another matter...but it was common for the latest service models of USAAF and USN fighters to be fighting older models of Japanese fighters.

I'm not at all worried about the American planes either...I'm concerned that nobody will fly for the Japanese side. The Hellcat is a very strong contender for all around awesome fighter and the P-51 is already an excellent fighter in game that people are skilled at or becoming accustomed to.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Tater-SW-
06-03-2004, 01:33 PM
It's something we'll have to deal with in the sim community until field condiditions are modeled. Ideally, gas quality, and even individual variation of planes would be randomized and built into the FMB so we could try different scenarios for patched together forces flying day after day.

tater

faustnik
06-03-2004, 01:36 PM
I can't agree RedDeth. The late war Corsairs will probably be dominant as well as the P-47Ns and P-51s. The F4U-4 had 2,400hp at sea level!

The Ki-84s and Ki-100 are great but, won't be uber with the horsepower the Americans have in the air.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Giganoni
06-03-2004, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
It's something we'll have to deal with in the sim community until field condiditions are modeled. Ideally, gas quality, and even individual variation of planes would be randomized and built into the FMB so we could try different scenarios for patched together forces flying day after day.

tater<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, in PF when I fly a Ki-84 and start a DF with some P-38Ls or P-51Ds I won't have to worry about my engine suddenly seizing up. If we get to fly the George I won't have to worry about half my buddies having to head back to base due to mechanical problems. Maybe the campaign in the late war will show Japanese planes being outnumbered by Allied aircraft, maybe.

Just because the sim does not model these things we should dumb down the late model Japanese planes? I don't think so.

Also RedDeth with the PF campaign being easier to affect (like Japan winning Midway or Pearl Harbor being thwarted) the war in the pacific can be in Japan's favor.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

reisen52
06-03-2004, 02:54 PM
How about including the P-80 as it was in the Philippians in squadron strength in July 1945.

In the summer of 1945, approximately 30 P-80As were sent aboard an aircraft carrier to the Philippines in preparation for the final assault on Japan.

The planes were to be issued to the 414th Fighter Group, based at Florida Blanca.

Unfortunately, the planes had been sent without their tip tanks and their aircraft batteries, so they sat aboard the aircraft carrier for 30 days waiting for this equipment.

Reisen

Copperhead310th
06-03-2004, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reisen52:
How about including the P-80 as it was in the Philippians in squadron strength in July 1945.

In the summer of 1945, approximately 30 P-80As were sent aboard an aircraft carrier to the Philippines in preparation for the final assault on Japan.

The planes were to be issued to the 414th Fighter Group, based at Florida Blanca.

Unfortunately, the planes had been sent without their tip tanks and their aircraft batteries, so they sat aboard the aircraft carrier for 30 days waiting for this equipment.

Reisen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
hmmmm he's got a point there. can you provide documentaion?

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

ElAurens
06-03-2004, 10:36 PM
I've said this before. And I hope no one takes it personally, as it is not meant to be personal. I get the very palpable feeling that many of you want to fly US in PF because you think it will be a total rout for the US.

Really, this place is awash in the saliva of all of you drooling at the prospect of swating Japanese planes like so many pesky gnats.

I do worry about this, because the first time one of you gets owned by a Ki whatever, you will run screaming like little girls to Oleg about the "UBER" "overmodeled" Jap planes.

That's just the vibe I'm getting here.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

reisen52
06-03-2004, 11:39 PM
Copperhead310th,

Stan Wood flew them in the Philippians he makes a few comments here

http://home.tiscali.dk/winthrop/stanwood.html

The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

Fighters of the United States Air Force, Robert F. Dorr and David Donald, Temple Press Aerospace, 1990.

American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982.

Lockheed Aircraft since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987.

Lockheed F-80--A Star is Born, Robert F. Dorr, Air International, Volume 47 No. 2, p. 94, 1994.

Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star Variant Briefing, Robert F. Dorr, Wings of Fame, Volume 11, 1998.

ElAurens,

&gt;&gt;&gt;I get the very palpable feeling that many of you want to fly US in PF because you think it will be a total rout for the US.&lt;&lt;&lt;

On any given day......http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

One of the problems will be even the Wildcat vs Zero in one on one will be tuff on the Zero if with 20/20 hindsight the F4F is flown as it was after the earky war tactics were changed.

Only fight in a zoom & boom, don't get slow, don't engage in a turning fight. If you get a Zero on your 6 dive to gain speed then roll & change direction & get out of Dodge.

Reisen

[This message was edited by reisen52 on Thu June 03 2004 at 10:53 PM.]

Tater-SW-
06-04-2004, 12:10 AM
reisen has the right idea, I think. The US planes weren't as badly outmatched early on as histories tend to paint things. The tactics used were, but not the hardware.

Heck, read something like Doomed at the Start and the accounts from the Philipines have the P-40Es flying with guns still packed with cosmoline. From the engagements in there, it sounds like they were lucky to have 1 gun shooting (poorly cleaned out when installed, they tended to jam). On top of that, there was a feeling that the electrical chargers were not reliable, so they disconnected them and charged the guns on the ground. Any jam was stuck until they landed, no way to clear the guns in flight. Like the gas quality for the IJN/AF, we won't have to deal with this.

The early air war will be harder for the IJN/AF than it was in RL (though it was only easy for the first few months), and the late war will be harder for the Allies than it was in RL.

I made a mission with a gagle of 9 zekes 2000ft below a group of 4 P-40Es. The P-40s are all set to average, the zekes are a mixture of all the AI skill levels. They don;t get bounced, they turn into the attackers instantly. My AI wingmen are pretty clueless, lucky to damage any let alone down one, and frequently get downed themselves. I consistantly get 6-9 of the zekes as long as I exclusively BnZ. Turn with them and die, seems realistic in that regard. I changed the allied flight to F2Bs, same thing. If I make them Spit Vs, the AI wingmen actually get a couple kills. P-38s and I can kill all of them and it's starting not to seem sporting. The hardest so far was hurris with MGs---not fast enough. FWIW, this wouldn;t surprise me in a game like WB vs real people as well, I'd think nothing of diving into a swarm of zeros in a f4f as long as I had loads of smash, and a clear exit window (friendly planes or base that I know I can get to if I get in trouble).

tater

RedDeth
06-04-2004, 02:02 AM
rgr faustnik i know about the F4U4. i put that plane in the same category as the P47N . very uber and i doubt we will get it.

on an aside to someone elses post. im not worried about just bashing jap planes or worried about a fair fight. but most of those statistics on the best jap planes are Optimistic at best.

i just dont want to see japanese fighters flying up to 11,000 meters and dogfighting with american planes. they werent that capable though stats seem to imply otherwise.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

CHDT
06-04-2004, 02:41 AM
"The F4U-4 had 2,400hp at sea level!"


Like the Focke Wulf 190 A-9 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But does this mean something? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CHDT
06-04-2004, 02:44 AM
If the energy is correctly modeled, the US late planes should have no problem, as they were all faster than their Japanese counterparts and better at altitudes.

And to be historically correct, the Japanese late war airplanes FM's should also include the fact of the very poor quality of petrol in Japan at the end of the war.

LEXX_Luthor
06-04-2004, 03:35 AM
A dynamic campaign where Japanese win the WAR would require USA planes to suffer poor workmanship and bad fuel--and engage in kamikazi attack. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually, the "bad" airplane FM Mods should be selectable in FMB where mission builders can choose.

Anyway, USA can use advantages of late WAR numbers like LW used numbers to defeat Poland. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ElAurens
06-04-2004, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
Optimistic at best.

i just dont want to see japanese fighters flying up to 11,000 meters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do we have to start this again?

Above about 7500 meters the atmospheric modeling DOES NOT CHANGE with this game engine. This is always pointed out in posts about the Me. 163 Komet achieving Mach 3 in the game. But when its a Japanese plane it is somehow different?

I'l make a special effort to come up and say hello in my Ki 84 sometime...

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

LEXX_Luthor
06-04-2004, 05:35 AM
Maybe for FM, but the higher you get above 10km, the more you need to lean mixture. So something is modded way up there.

WOLFMondo
06-04-2004, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I'm not at all worried about the American planes either...I'm concerned that nobody will fly for the Japanese side. The Hellcat is a very strong contender for all around awesome fighter and the P-51 is already an excellent fighter in game that people are skilled at or becoming accustomed to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah! Im concerned about the British planes more than either the US or Japanese. Althought its nice to have a varied selection to shoot downhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If its a WW2 sim I only want WW2 planes and planes that saw combat. Not planes that appeared in September 1945 etc.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

VW-IceFire
06-04-2004, 06:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I'm not at all worried about the American planes either...I'm concerned that nobody will fly for the Japanese side. The Hellcat is a very strong contender for all around awesome fighter and the P-51 is already an excellent fighter in game that people are skilled at or becoming accustomed to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bah! Im concerned about the British planes more than either the US or Japanese. Althought its nice to have a varied selection to shoot downhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If its a WW2 sim I only want WW2 planes and planes that saw combat. Not planes that appeared in September 1945 etc.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
http://www.wolfgaming.net<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well as long as they provide us with a flyable SEAC/RAAF Spitfire Mark VIII...us commonwealth types will be right at home and with a plane that is more than capable of besting the contemporary Japanese fighters. The Seafire Mark III which I think is the one were getting won't be quite as capable but still decent. There is good reason for even having a Spitfire FR XIV which I have pictures of from Squadron Signal with SEAC markings in the PTO. Evidently that mark did fly missions and shoot down at least 10 Japanese fighters during the final weeks of the war.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Biloxi72
06-04-2004, 07:13 AM
S!
Im going to go along with Megile on this one also, as long as it is in its proper time frame im fine with it. I also just fly the p38 and as El Aurens stated the game does not model altitude above 7.5km so any advantage any plane had at height is nullified. I have taken my p38 J/L in dogfight servers against ki84s and the German models. Do i get owned if they get on my tail, yes. But that is my fault for getting caught in front of them. When i use a modified B&Z against them i shoot them down as well, especially when i carry the 50 cal gun pods hehe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif It will be a matter of tactics and using wingmen in the late war. The Japanese were capable of producing very good to equally matched plane sof the US, they just ran out of quality material and pilots to fly them.

"It was a marveleous aircraft! It was the best aircraft I flew in the war by far. I never flew the P-51, its been one of my life regrets, but I flew just about everything else there was. I liked the P-38s rate of climb, its speed, the way it handled, and its firepower directly out the nose. The P-38 would turn with almost anything, in fact it would out turn the P-47, out climb it, and out maneuver it. The P-38 was one of the great aircraft of WWII."...Charles MacDonald, P-38 Ace

MEGILE
06-04-2004, 07:26 AM
Amen brother

http://www.2and2.net/Uploads/Images/p51dark.bmp

jpatrick62
06-04-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
rgr faustnik i know about the F4U4. i put that plane in the same category as the P47N . very uber and i doubt we will get it.

_knightsmove-taylor.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think if the F4U-4 was left out then something would definetly be wrong, especially since they did see combat with Japanese planes in the last several monthe of the war. Depending on your tastes for reality, I could see including or excluding those planes which never saw actual combat such as the p51H or F8F, (though they would be nice to have in there), but planes which saw combat should be included. I guess the cutoff for any of the late model fighters will upset someone either way.

Doug_Thompson
06-04-2004, 10:10 AM
The Japanese "Frank," for instance, was a better airplane than anything the allies had -- in proving ground conditions.

The problem here is that performance was severely degraded because of poor-quality Japanese fuel, sub-par Japanese aircraft maintenance and quality control problems at bombed, over-burdened factories who lacked enough trained labor.

The Frank, for instance, had a high-pressure fuel supply system that chronically failed because of the factors listed above. Even when it worked, allied pilots had higher-octane fuel.

A Frank tested in the U.S. after the war whipped the latest version of the Mustang in every category -- but was put into prime running condition and given good gas.

BlitzPig_DDT
06-04-2004, 10:15 AM
Please provide full details of this test.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Doug_Thompson
06-04-2004, 10:18 AM
Sure, but I'm in the office now and the book that mentions the test is at home. It will be sometime this evening.

For anybody who can't wait, the test is mentioned in Francillion's "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War."

Also, although this group seems to want more solid information than what you find on web-pages, this one (http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ki84performanceaj_1.htm)looks pretty good. It says a mint-condition Ki-84 can just hold its own and needs a skillful pilot to do that.

[This message was edited by Doug_Thompson on Fri June 04 2004 at 09:34 AM.]

sugaki
06-04-2004, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I do worry about this, because the first time one of you gets owned by a Ki whatever, you will run screaming like little girls to Oleg about the "UBER" "overmodeled" Jap planes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto. People have passionately cried out against the Ki-84 because they expected their P51s and P47s to swat them out the sky.

The reality is that late-war Japanese planes fought on par with US planes. The only problem was that there weren't enough late-war planes to turn the tide--even in '44 Oscars and Zeroes were pretty common.

k5054
06-04-2004, 12:04 PM
That Ki-84 test is indeed mentioned by francillon, but the actual test report does not seem to be available, and it would include some data about how the high octane fuel could help. If you don't increase the boost the high octane does nothing. Anybody seen the report of that test, as opposed to 'quotes' from it? A bench test of the Homare engine would be good too, there are some strange things about the figures which are usually quoted.

RedDeth
06-04-2004, 01:00 PM
ElAurens FMs above 7.5k are modelled. i think your referring to the much quoted number 10k high. not 7.5k high.

and this is in fact totally false. some planes at 11000 meters fly TOTALLY different than other planes so flight models are modelled up there. also some planes such as the I185 have to decrease fuel mix at about 11000 meters and again at 12000 meters down to 20 percent at 12k. so planes are modelled with necessary adjustments built in at 12,000 meters.

and a ki84 in FB can completely outperfom a mustang at 11,000 meters. which everyone knows the ki84 lost a huge percentage of its power above 7000 meters. making it very easy pickings for p38s, jugs, stangs, hellcats, corsairs, etc etc etc. this is what im talking about. and all japanese planes performed similarly at HIGH altitudes. the late war jap planes could get up there but they couldnt perform on par with their lower level performance thus making them purely targets up high.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

Doug_Thompson
06-04-2004, 01:10 PM
Although the "purely targets" comment is probably too harsh, it is true that Franks had a one-stage supercharger and that their performance fell off dramatically at very high altitudes. That's one reason they weren't the greatest at intercepting B-29's in the daylight raids. I should have mentioned that in my earllier "every category" comment.

reisen52
06-04-2004, 01:50 PM
The F4U-4 saw combat. Kenneth Walsh who is the top Corsair ace, and Medal of Honor recipient, flew F4F-4 "white 13" during the Okinawa campaign. Walsh downed his 21st and final
Japanese aircraft, a Kamikaze, over north Okinawa on June 22, 1945.

The P-80 also flew in the war zone in July.

Reisen

lrrp22
06-04-2004, 02:02 PM
Are you referring to the Ki-84's performance in general (and as modeled in FB) or the HP output of the Homare? I would say both are highly speculative.

I think most of the accepted (high) performance figures for the Ki-84 are based more on U.S. TAIC manual predictions and estimations than on actual Japanese, or even American, test data.

This subject has been discussed at length on ORR and, from my perspective, I don't think these performance numbers were ever proven to be representative of a Japanese-flown Frank.

FB's Ki-84 performance matches exactly the numbers quoted in a U.S. TAIC manual dated March, 1945. Clark Field and the first Ki-84's weren't captured until the end of Januray 1945, making it highly unlikely that a document published in March contained actual test data. British tests comparing the Clark Field Frank to various aircraft weren't conducted until May of 1945. Those tests found that the Clark Field Frank was capable of 400 mph at 20,000 ft as oppossed to the TAIC's (and FB's) 427 mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
That Ki-84 test is indeed mentioned by francillon, but the actual test report does not seem to be available, and it would include some data about how the high octane fuel could help. If you don't increase the boost the high octane does nothing. Anybody seen the report of that test, as opposed to 'quotes' from it? A bench test of the Homare engine would be good too, there are some strange things about the figures which are usually quoted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

k5054
06-04-2004, 03:38 PM
I'm dubious about both the performance of the Hayate and the Homare. 427mph seems like 15-20mph too high, but that's a guess. I'd like to see real data, what happened to that report.
The British Clark Field report is of an aircraft with a bad CSU, and the 400mph is an estimate (I've read the original).
The homare it seems had 2000hp from an engine the same size as the DB605, using less rpm and less boost. This makes me suspect the figures.

lrrp22
06-04-2004, 04:43 PM
Interesting...

I assume the 400 mph figure estimates top speed for a Ki-84 with a properly functioning constant speed unit.

With regard to the Ha-45, it does seems counter-intuitive that Japan's powerplant industry should, in the face of ever-increasing production challenges, suddenly overcome its inability to field a high output motor and do so with lesser displacement and manifold pressure than those produced elsewhere.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
I'm dubious about both the performance of the Hayate and the Homare. 427mph seems like 15-20mph too high, but that's a guess. I'd like to see real data, what happened to that report.
The British Clark Field report is of an aircraft with a bad CSU, and the 400mph is an estimate (I've read the original).
The homare it seems had 2000hp from an engine the same size as the DB605, using less rpm and less boost. This makes me suspect the figures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gunner_361st
06-04-2004, 05:38 PM
Well, I always thought the Frank we have in FB was curious, so I checked the object viewer... 687 km/h topspeed at 6,120 meters. That translates to 425 miles per hour.

I've seen that US test of the Frank after the war posted in these forums. Ideally fixed up and with high octane fuel (over 120, if I remember correctly) it was said it managed to reach that speed of 425 miles per hour.

Well, that is that. I'm not going to complain or anything, because I really don't care if a plane's characteristics are optimistically modeled or not. It just won't be in any of the missions I make, along with the LA-7. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1087.jpg

Giganoni
06-04-2004, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
I'm dubious about both the performance of the Hayate and the Homare. 427mph seems like 15-20mph too high, but that's a guess. I'd like to see real data, what happened to that report.
The British Clark Field report is of an aircraft with a bad CSU, and the 400mph is an estimate (I've read the original).
The homare it seems had 2000hp from an engine the same size as the DB605, using less rpm and less boost. This makes me suspect the figures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, the Ha-45, 2000HP? Only the best and latestest of the Ha-45 engines, the Ha-45-25 could amass 2,000hp during takeoff. It was used with the Ki-84 II. The best the Ki-84 I had in terms of HP was the Ha-45-21 with 1990 hp at take off.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

lrrp22
06-04-2004, 06:00 PM
Actually 687 kph is 426.882008904 mph http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif which (almost) exactly matches the 427 mph indicated in the March, 1945 TAIC data. The object viewers seal level speed matches the TAIC data exactly as well.

Coincidence? I think not...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Well, I always thought the Frank we have in FB was curious, so I checked the object viewer... 687 km/h topspeed at 6,120 meters. That translates to 425 miles per hour.

I've seen that US test of the Frank after the war posted in these forums. Ideally fixed up and with high octane fuel (over 120, if I remember correctly) it was said it managed to reach that speed of 425 miles per hour.

Well, that is that. I'm not going to complain or anything, because I really don't care if a plane's characteristics are optimistically modeled or not. It just won't be in any of the missions I make, along with the LA-7. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1087.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doug_Thompson
06-04-2004, 07:37 PM
Francillon, page 236
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As demostrated by a captured aircraft restored at the Middletown Air Depot, Pennsylvania, in the spring of 1946, the Ki-84's performance was truly spectacular; at a weight of 7,490 lb, considered representative of combat operations, the aircraft reached a speed of 427 mph at 20,000 ft using War Emergency Power. This speed exceeded that of the North American P-51D-25-NA Mustang and Republic P-47D-35-RA Thunderbolt at the same altitude by 3 mph and 22 mph respectively.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, though, let me remind everbody that I'm actually on the other side of this argument. Francillon says in the same article that inferior workmanship at the factories plagued the Frank, and that the high-pressure fuel breakdowns were not fixed until a late version of the plane, where designers found an acceptable low-pressure alternative.

AdmiralWarlord
06-04-2004, 07:53 PM
Remember it is the pilot not the plane! American planes were great - their pilot training was excellent. However, contrary to what we have heard during the cold war, there were also excellent German, British, Soviet, and Japanese planes.

RedDeth
06-05-2004, 03:03 AM
rgr. but back on topic.... to the best of my knowledge japanese late war fighters could NOT get up enough power at 30,000 to 35,000 feet to fight american fighters. aka 10,000 meters.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

k5054
06-05-2004, 04:06 AM
Yes, I've got Francillon, of course, and I've read the same thing in Green and Gunston, but it is EXACTLY the same thing, and therefore comes from one source, maybe the first magazine or book to make the claim, and not from the actual report.
Has anyone seen the report itself? If it exists, I'd like to see the rest of it, I'd like to see how the Ki-84 competes with the 51H and 47N. I'm not happy with supposed quotes from it. All those AFDU reports you see around here can be seen in scans of the original.

The thing about the Homare is different. Surely the 2000/1990hp version is what we need to do 427mph? 2000hp from 35.7 litres with 50 in hg is pretty good going, the DB605 needed 60in/1.98 ata, and used a big supercharger to get it, which Ha-45 did not have, it seems. Maybe there's a reasonable explanation.

Finally, I do believe that the game should give the best performance which can be verified, as is the policy now as I understand it. I'm not sure the 427mph can be verified, but I'm open to persuasion. Either way, this is the nearest to an uberplane the IJ forces had, otherwise parity is the best they could hope for, and then not with the latest Allied types.

Doug_Thompson
06-05-2004, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes, I've got Francillon, of course, and I've read the same thing in Green and Gunston, but it is EXACTLY the same thing, and therefore comes from one source, maybe the first magazine or book to make the claim, and not from the actual report.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Accusing three leading authors in the field of plagerism AND an inaccurate one at that. Wow.

ElAurens
06-05-2004, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Accusing three leading authors in the field of plagerism AND an inaccurate one at that. Wow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact is that they all are quoting from the same report. Using the same language.

I believe that some time ago SkyChimp did some looking around on the subject of the US tests of the Ki 84, and deduced that the test report no longer exists.

I might add that the speed achieved at the depot in Pennsylvania and reported on is not inaccurate. It is the speed that that aircraft attained. What we don't know are the exact test conditions, and the extent of tuning/rebuilding/modifications done to that particular aircraft.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

k5054
06-05-2004, 01:58 PM
quote:Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Accusing three leading authors in the field of plagerism AND an inaccurate one at that. Wow.

Well, I'm accusing them of research. And it looks like they all used the same source, no harm in that. If they saw the report, that's even better, but the quotes from the report are not enough to assess the conditions which led the testers to conclude that the Hayate was as good as it is claimed.
Perhaps you are not familiar with some of the people on this board (or at least ORR) who carry on complaining about the validity of tests when they can SEE the report itself. This captured plane was tired, that one had the wrong boost limits and so on. When a report makes the kind of claims this one makes, different from the claims of even the operating service of the a/c concerned, it's reasonable to question it.
My questions would be:
Was it properly carried out by a flight test organization?
What boost was used, at what height?
Were the P-51 and P-47 present, or is it a paper comparison?

lrrp22
06-05-2004, 04:07 PM
I think the assumption that the 427 mph speed comes from the Middletown/Wright Field test, or any other, may not be a correct one.

At some point the March 1945 TAIC data (which I believe are U.S. estimates of performance) may have become improperly associated with the Clark Field trials and possibly even the 1946 Wright Field test. All the various sources which claim the 427 mph speed and 2 and 22 mph speed advantage all seem to come back to the TAIC data at some point.


Here is the TAIC performance data as posted by butch2k:

http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v11/brentce/ki84-perfdata1.jpg

http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v11/brentce/ki84-perfdata2.jpg


I think that it's reasonable to assume that these are the numbers Oleg used to model FB's Ki-84, and not the elusive Japanese data that some have claimed. The sea level and 20k ft War Emegency speeds are identical as are the engine designation and take-off HP figures.


Muddying the waters further is the fact that the same 3 and 22 mph respective speed advantages and climb superiority have also been associated with the P-51H and P-47N by Jane's in 'Jane's WWII Aircraft' (IIRC) as well as various websites.

A look at P-51H performance figures show that even at 427 mph the Frank would have been nearly 40 mph slower than the H at 20k and the 4300 fpm climb rate was far behind the P-51H's 5200+ fpm ROC.

Again, without specific reference to documents and access to the documents themselves, it is nearly impossible to determine what is primary research and what are secondary or anecdotal accounts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
quote:Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Accusing three leading authors in the field of plagerism AND an inaccurate one at that. Wow.

Well, I'm accusing them of research. And it looks like they all used the same source, no harm in that. If they saw the report, that's even better, but the quotes from the report are not enough to assess the conditions which led the testers to conclude that the Hayate was as good as it is claimed.
Perhaps you are not familiar with some of the people on this board (or at least ORR) who carry on complaining about the validity of tests when they can SEE the report itself. This captured plane was tired, that one had the wrong boost limits and so on. When a report makes the kind of claims this one makes, different from the claims of even the operating service of the a/c concerned, it's reasonable to question it.
My questions would be:
Was it properly carried out by a flight test organization?
What boost was used, at what height?
Were the P-51 and P-47 present, or is it a paper comparison?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sat June 05 2004 at 03:19 PM.]

CHDT
06-06-2004, 03:42 AM
Were these tests made with US fuel or Japanese fuel? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I believe the difference can be important for modeling realistically a Ki-84 as it was used by the Japanese airforce.

Cheers,

Ruy Horta
06-06-2004, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
At some point the March 1945 TAIC data <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp, please check your PT notifications.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

Ruy Horta
06-06-2004, 04:17 AM
From:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/faq/ki84_pt2.htm

Re: Ki-84 performance data

Posted By: richard dunn
Date: Thursday, 18 April 2002, at 2:58 p.m.

In Response To: Ki-84 performance data (Steve C)

I have a copy of a translation of a captured document (hand written notes) of unknown reliability which indicates two maximum speeds for the Ki 84-1 (Light) and Ki 84-1 (Improved). The two speeds apparently relate to the Ha 45 rating of 2000 hp at 1500 meters and 1800hp at 6000 meters.

Ki 84-1 (Light) 664 kph (=412 mph) and 693 kph (=430 mph)

Ki 84-1 (Improved) 658 kph (=409 mph) and 688 kph (=427 mph).

Fully equiped wgt of Light = 3576 kg; Improved = 3858 kg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

k5054
06-06-2004, 03:14 PM
Strange how that 427mph keeps cropping up, it's not even a round number in km, but now we see it in the TAIC data, the captured doc and the 'Wright field test'.

I have no problem with believing an aircraft looking as clean as the Ki-84 could get 427 mph at 20,000 with 1800 hp. I just wanna see a real test.
And as mentioned I have trouble with the 2000/1800hp, unless there is something unusual about the Homare that hasn't been explained yet.
Also 412 at 1500 metres implies a s/l speed of 390-400mph. Which seems a little high.

lrrp22
06-06-2004, 04:30 PM
1800 HP at 6000m seems like an awful lot for a single-stage, two-speed supercharged engine with a rated altitude, IIRC, somewhere around 2000 meters. Losing only 170 HP from sea level to nearly 20,000 ft would seem to require a two-stage, two-speed SC or large turbocharger.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Strange how that 427mph keeps cropping up, it's not even a round number in km, but now we see it in the TAIC data, the captured doc and the 'Wright field test'.

I have no problem with believing an aircraft looking as clean as the Ki-84 could get 427 mph at 20,000 with 1800 hp. I just wanna see a real test.
And as mentioned I have trouble with the 2000/1800hp, unless there is something unusual about the Homare that hasn't been explained yet.
Also 412 at 1500 metres implies a s/l speed of 390-400mph. Which seems a little high.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Giganoni
06-06-2004, 09:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
1800 HP at 6000m seems like an awful lot for a single-stage, two-speed supercharged engine with a rated altitude, IIRC, somewhere around 2000 meters. Losing only 170 HP from sea level to nearly 20,000 ft would seem to require a two-stage, two-speed SC or large turbocharger.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um...where does it say 1800 hp at 6000m? The Ha-45-11 had 1800hp during take off and at 6500 ft (thats feet) sources say it went down to 1650hp.

I really don't see the big conspriracy here.

Here is an interesting website, I do not know its credibility but, you can look at the engine specs.
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ki84performanceaj_1.htm

I would like to know what the differences between the F6F-3 and the F4U-1 engines were after looking at that website.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

k5054
06-07-2004, 01:28 AM
"
quote:Originally posted by lrrp22:
1800 HP at 6000m seems like an awful lot for a single-stage, two-speed supercharged engine with a rated altitude, IIRC, somewhere around 2000 meters. Losing only 170 HP from sea level to nearly 20,000 ft would seem to require a two-stage, two-speed SC or large turbocharger.



Um...where does it say 1800 hp at 6000m? The Ha-45-11 had 1800hp during take off and at 6500 ft (thats feet) sources say it went down to 1650hp.
"

That's the -11, the 427mph claim is usually associated with the -21 or 23, which had 2000hp at s/l and 1800hp in high gear at 20,000ft, rounded, because there are slight differences in the various sources. Now if the 388/392 at 20,000 figure is with the -11, a 10% rise in HP will give around 3% more speed, so we would expect 404mph. Exhaust ejectors weren't fitted to the 388mph prototype, so maybe there's an extra 20mph there, you can get into the 420mph ballpark, given a couple of assumptions. The doubts about the engine remain to be cleared up.

WUAF_Badsight
06-07-2004, 03:50 AM
P-51 D motor = One 1,590hp Packard V-1650-7

Ki-84 motor = one 1,900hp Nakajima Ha-45

this Mustang is not a threat to the Hayate George

far inferior turn & climb & level speed

especially turn

the Mustang was never a great turn fighter

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

PikeBishop
06-07-2004, 04:25 AM
I don't have a problem with this. I think that if the campaigns are allowed to happen free roaming and not be fixed as history, then as I said in an earlier post it could be much more interesting than history.
Once Midway is fought there is no way in the game any side could be as unlucky as the japs were in this battle. The outcome should be much more in favour of the Japanese, in which case all the less well known japanese types would emerge much more prominently and in greater numbers leading to better senario's. The war would last a lot longer with balanced sides since both sides will have adequate resources including Trained pilots, improved aircraft and Aircraft Carriers for a longer period. This will stop either side whining about the other having better aircraft.

regards,

SLP

lrrp22
06-07-2004, 10:03 AM
Badsight,

Good to see that you can still be counted on to spread misinformation.

Do you have anything to bring other than incorrect data and unsupported declarations? If past performance is any indication then I would expect not.

Actual data:

P-51D: One 1720 (minimum) to 2020 HP Packard Merlin V-1650-7.

Remember Badsight, all those VIIth Fighter Command Mustangs flying over Japan were running 80" WEP and 2,000 HP.

-superior speed in level flight, at any altitude, to any Japanese-flown Ki-84.

-better dive performance

-better high(er) speed handling

-far superior construction and reliability

-comparable or superior climb depending on circumstances (fuel load and boost levels)



Ki-84: 1800 to 2000 HP- Probably much closer to the former than the latter.

-relatively fast...for a Japanese fighter...if it had decent fuel...if it didn't catch fire...

-turns well at low, middle-speeds

-climbs well relative to Mustang, depending on weights/boost levels


You're once again confusing your beloved Forgotten Battles Ki-84 with the reality that existed in 1944/45. So please, don't quote the Object Viewer.

BTW, what is a Hayate George?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
P-51 D motor = One 1,590hp Packard V-1650-7

Ki-84 motor = one 1,900hp Nakajima Ha-45

this Mustang is not a threat to the Hayate George

far inferior turn & climb & level speed

especially turn

the Mustang was never a great turn fighter

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tater-SW-
06-07-2004, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
...
Once Midway is fought there is no way in the game any side could be as unlucky as the japs were in this battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't luck. The specifics of the damage they recieved was certainly lucky, but the fact they were in a position to be ambushed wasn't luck at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The outcome should be much more in favour of the Japanese, in which case all the less well known japanese types would emerge much more prominently and in greater numbers leading to better senario's. The war would last a lot longer with balanced sides since both sides will have adequate resources including Trained pilots, improved aircraft and Aircraft Carriers for a longer period. This will stop either side whining about the other having better aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese would have had to have started a serious pilot traing program before the war started. Their training was designed to cull out all but what they considered the best, and resulted in tiny numbers of new aircrews. As for ship construction, the USN could have lost all three CVs at Midway and the IJN none, and the US still would have been ahead in CVs and embarked aircraft by the end of 1943.

Fuel of course would always be an taxing issue since the IJN considered ASW work to be "defensive" and not the best job. As such, they almost completely neglected ASW capability, and even late in the war when they started using "convoys" they were maybe 10 ships---not real convoys. Regardless, tankers had a rough time getting home to turn their cargo into fuel for the IJN/AF aircraft.

The japanese will fare far better in any sim since a lot of the background won't ever be modeled.

tater

ElAurens
06-07-2004, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:

You're once again confusing your beloved Forgotten Battles Ki-84 with the reality that existed in 1944/45.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you are forgetting that the Ki84 in game is the one we will be flying...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Ruy Horta
06-07-2004, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
The Japanese would have had to have started a serious pilot traing program before the war started. Their training was designed to cull out all but what they considered the best, and resulted in tiny numbers of new aircrews. As for ship construction, the USN could have lost all three CVs at Midway and the IJN none, and the US still would have been ahead in CVs and embarked aircraft by the end of 1943.

Fuel of course would always be an taxing issue since the IJN considered ASW work to be "defensive" and not the best job. As such, they almost completely neglected ASW capability, and even late in the war when they started using "convoys" they were maybe 10 ships---not real convoys. Regardless, tankers had a rough time getting home to turn their cargo into fuel for the IJN/AF aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two comments that could be made regarding these statements.

We are talking 20/20 hind sight.

Since Japan is relatively small, an elite AF capable of knocking out a stronger enemy in the first round, albeit a PERCEIVED knock out, is preferable over a larger, but less specialized one, since it cannot be expected to win a battle of attrition against said stronger foe.

The name of the game is making your enemy believe that continuing the war will be too costly; if not at the level of government at least on the level of the population.

In 1941 Soviet Russia was on the brink of accepting defeat before they were actually defeated.

France accepted defeat before they were actually defeated, in order to save what could be saved.

Its not a surprise that the US could out produce Japan, and they knew it at the time.

As for ASW, its a similar story.

The Japanese were not interested in a long war, since that would mean a battle of attrition that they knew could not be won.

They wanted a decisive fleet action, like Tsu-Shima, ASAP. Getting the US to commit their carriers and battlewagons in a classic slugfest, which they could have won. Fleet subs to snipe the US fleet fleet while en route, carriers to engage at range, to cause the first attrition followed by a classic big gun encounter.

The first attempt failed, much due to Magic, the second failed terribly because the Japanese did not have the numbers nor the quality to fight this type of battle in 1944.

IMHO, and I am not alone in thinking this, the Japanese were a victim of their own Tsu-Shima myth, and up to Midway who could blame them?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

lrrp22
06-07-2004, 12:30 PM
ElAurens,

I realize that.

However, I believe that a clear distinction should be made between real-world aircraft performance circa the 1940's and the somewhat massaged virtual reality we find in FB. My interest in the subject is more driven by historical context than game play issues.

Inane statements like "this Mustang is not a threat to the Hayate George" based on no better resources than the Object Viewer do nothing but reinforce the twisted Hyperlobby dogfighting room's view of WWII aerial combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:

You're once again confusing your beloved Forgotten Battles Ki-84 with the reality that existed in 1944/45.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But _you_ are forgetting that the Ki84 in game is the one we will be flying...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

__BlitzPig_EL__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tater-SW-
06-07-2004, 01:24 PM
Ruy,

true enough, but a protracted war is exactly what was bound to happen. The short war theory they hoped for made the assumption that the US lacked the will to fight a protracted war far from home. This was wrong on its face.

It was particularly wrong after Pearl Harbor. The surprise attack made any chance for a negotiated end to hostilities unfavorable to the US virtually impossible.

Back to gaming, we won;t have to worry with that, the japanese won;t suffer any of the RL problems they had, making it much more competitive.

tater

jpatrick62
06-07-2004, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Sure, but I'm in the office now and the book that mentions the test is at home. It will be sometime this evening.

For anybody who can't wait, the test is mentioned in Francillion's "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War."

Also, although this group seems to want more solid information than what you find on web-pages, http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ki84performanceaj_1.htmlooks pretty good. It says a mint-condition Ki-84 can just hold its own and needs a skillful pilot to do that.

[This message was edited by Doug_Thompson on Fri June 04 2004 at 09:34 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doug, something is seriously wrong with these numbers, they simply don't match up to official test numbers for the F6F and F4U from Patuxent naval Air station. For instance look at the power/weight ration on the f6f and F4u and see that it is higher than the P51B but neither both ahve pathetic climb rates - almost as if they weren't on Combat or Wep.

ElAurens
06-07-2004, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
ElAurens,

I realize that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not arguing with you here. Just pointing out the obvious I guess.

the real problem with historical game play is that we all know what both side did wrong, so we won't do that. The only way to achieve any kind of historical outcomes would be to put total n00bs in the Allied planes for planesets up to say, late '42 early '43. then switch the experten to the Allied side and move the n00bs to the Japanese side for the rest of the war.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

CV8_Dudeness
06-07-2004, 10:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:

However, I believe that a clear distinction should be made between real-world aircraft performance circa the 1940's and the somewhat massaged virtual reality we find in FB. My interest in the subject is more driven by historical context than game play issues.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why do you even post here then &gt;?

this is a game forum isnt it ?

isnt there some web forum somewhere , where you can gather with other blind amerincan plane fans about how great they were not ?

RedDeth
06-08-2004, 02:40 AM
dudeness he is saying he wants the planes modelled correctly not like star wars. get off the attitude and leave that at ubi general forums. PF forums are way more cool

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

k5054
06-08-2004, 04:46 AM
A few random points.

The american planes had a good kill ratio over all the german and japanese planes, fighter to fighter. It's reasonable to say that is the result of them being better. (It may notr be right, but it's reasonable). The opposite position, my plane didn't have a chance because of radar, ultra, pilot training, fuel, yada yada, is less reasonable (it may not be wrong).

Japan never had a chance after Pearl Harbour. If everything went right for the allies they could win in 1944, say, if wrong, 1946. No scenario short of a Japanese A-bomb lets them win after they pi$$ America off. From their way different cultural background they misjudged America completely.

That guy on Hyperscale has used empty weight for all his comparisons. That makes no sense at all. It would be useless even if each country defined empty weight the same way, but they don't. (Some don't include guns or radios, some have fully equipped just no crew and empty fuel and ammo.)

Why do the IJ whiners want to allow a Frank using US-grade fuel, but not allow a P-51 to have the same advantage? Best it could be is the rule, isn't it?

WUAF_Badsight
06-08-2004, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:

A few random points.

Japan never had a chance after Pearl Harbour. If everything went right for the allies they could win in 1944, say, if wrong, 1946. No scenario short of a Japanese A-bomb lets them win after they pi$$ America off.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

random is correct

if Japan captured midway thats it ..... no more Pacific war for America ......

it was damm lucky that America won that battle or the whole Pacific would have been doomed to quite a few more years of violent war

as for the fuel remark .... you do realise that higher grade fuel does Nothing on its own

that the Hayate did that speed on that fuel is false .....

the Nakajima company tested their Hayates on 92 octane

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ruy Horta
06-08-2004, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
if Japan captured midway thats it ..... no more Pacific war for America ......

as for the fuel remark .... you do realise that higher grade fuel does Nothing on its own<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding point one.

This depended on the psychology of American government, military leadership and the Americans during this period.

The American government and military leadership certainly wasn't defeatist after Pearl, the war being on the periphery would hardly change with a defeat at Midway.

The fall of the Philippines was far worse than either Pearl Harbor and this did not chance the resolve of America to continue the war. Perhaps the fall of Australia might have made a decisive difference.

Personally I do not think that Americans were able to think of war against the Japanese in terms of defeat, hence were psychologically unable to accept any form of defeat based on military set backs on their periphery.

In 1940 there might have been a very slight chance, december 1941 the US was already starting a wartime economy (albeit in support of Britain and a rebuilding effort).

You might go as far, although I will risk the anger of some here, that the US leadership was at this stage "itching" for war.

Regarding fuel, you are right.

You cannot just use 100+ octane in an engine which has been specifically tuned to use 92. However there was a big difference in fuel purity, since the Japanese started to dilute their fuel with palm oil dirivatives...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

WOLFMondo
06-08-2004, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I'm not at all worried about the American planes either...I'm concerned that nobody will fly for the Japanese side. The Hellcat is a very strong contender for all around awesome fighter and the P-51 is already an excellent fighter in game that people are skilled at or becoming accustomed to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bah! Im concerned about the British planes more than either the US or Japanese. Althought its nice to have a varied selection to shoot downhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If its a WW2 sim I only want WW2 planes and planes that saw combat. Not planes that appeared in September 1945 etc.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
http://www.wolfgaming.net<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well as long as they provide us with a flyable SEAC/RAAF Spitfire Mark VIII...us commonwealth types will be right at home and with a plane that is more than capable of besting the contemporary Japanese fighters. The Seafire Mark III which I think is the one were getting won't be quite as capable but still decent. There is good reason for even having a Spitfire FR XIV which I have pictures of from Squadron Signal with SEAC markings in the PTO. Evidently that mark did fly missions and shoot down at least 10 Japanese fighters during the final weeks of the war.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd hope the Mk VIII is a priority. An XIV is needed as it was the last mass produced version. Once thats in theres no need for more Spitwhining http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

PikeBishop
06-08-2004, 07:39 AM
Just one point about Midway......both sides were in a position to be ambushed as you put it.
What I think is improtant here is that when the japanese carriers were attacked they were in a position with no air cover whilst at the same time loading up on the deck......those 2 things alone would be a chance in a few hundred thousand. Then if we add in the fact that of all the spotter planes that were searching for the Americans, the one that would have found them failed to launch and was 2 hours late. Then when it did find them the radio did not work. Then add in the fact that the US dive bombers that got the carriers were'nt even looking for them, but going home, that pushes the bad luck chances into that of winning the lottery.
In game it is far more likely that either the battle would have ended up stalemate or the US gets a little bit lucky and sinks 2 of the Jap carriers......At least that is what I think......

Regards,

SLP

Tater-SW-
06-08-2004, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
if Japan captured midway thats it ..... no more Pacific war for America ......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even remotely true. Winning Midway in the large scale would mean nothing, just a few months delay in the end game. The US built more merchant shipping in the first half of '43 than Japan built in total during the war and the preceeding years of increased activity in China. Worst case we might have taken a "Japan First" policy. There is no possible way politically FDR could wage war against the Germans, but not the japanese after pearl harbor. No way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>it was damm lucky that America won that battle or the whole Pacific would have been doomed to quite a few more years of violent war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe a year. It was certainly a good thing we won. Losing in Midway would not be a disaster though. Japane actually invades. They now have to hold Midway vs constant air attack from Hawaii. The planes they fly in defense have to be carried there. The gas does as well. Holding Midway would be debilitating for the IJN. The IJN was an excellent offensive navy, but they utterly failed every single test of logistics they gave themselves. Look at Guadalcanal, they used destroyers as transports... yeesh, what a waste.

Also, the entire desire for (a warped idea of) a Mahanian "desisive battle" requires that the other side then decide to sue for peace terms. Wouldn't have happened. The US was willing to invade Japan with casualty estimates in the millions. Will was not a problem.

Ruy Horta
06-08-2004, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Also, the entire desire for (a warped idea of) a Mahanian "desisive battle" requires that the other side then decide to sue for peace terms. Wouldn't have happened. The US was willing to invade Japan with casualty estimates in the millions. Will was not a problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps the US (both population and government) were willing to suffer casualties in the millions in 44/45, but would they have accepted such a cost in 41-42?

The trouble with these hypothetical debates is contamination, what is hind sight, what is not, what is typical of later psychology and what is not.

The terrible IF-word creeps along.

Interesting that Pearl Harbor is pivotal, but the Phillipines are not. Did the Japanese overextend themselves with that single action. Did it make the difference between a colonial or a total war?

IMHO the Japanese would have had a better chance of "winning" a war (or negociated peace) if they had let the US use their pacific fleet as planned, with the focus on battleships. An offensive defeat of the US Navy could have been that decisive battle IF it had been early enough in the war.

The Japanese were a victim of their early successes, they went to far, their gains had become unacceptable. A limited war would have been different, but the Japanese went double or nothing.

If...

Personally I am still convinced that the root of Japanese (Naval) thinking lies with the Russo-Japanese war.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

Ruy Horta
06-08-2004, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
In game it is far more likely that either the battle would have ended up stalemate or the US gets a little bit lucky and sinks 2 of the Jap carriers......At least that is what I think......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a paper excercise, without the benefit of luck and intelligence, the Japanese would have the odds in their favour.

The main advantage for the USN being their superior damage control and the sturdiness of their aircraft.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

WOLFMondo
06-08-2004, 10:00 AM
In reference to the Japanese taking and holding Midway, as pointed out the logistical problems of resupply and keeping troops and kit up to operational levels would have led to it being taken back.

The USN and to a lesser extent the RN would have targetted the shipping going to and from Midway from the Japanese territories. Taking Midway and holding it for the strategic value would have been outweighed by the resource drain just to hold it. Japans gaines would have stretched all the way from the edge of India to the middle of the Pacific. How could they have managed to keep all that and provide the resources to back it all up?!?!

In the end though whatever tactical advantage the Japanese had, the would have lost due to the superior allied ability to build equipment and the (harsh sounding) pool of human resources they could use. The allies simply had more people and equipment they could throw into battle. If it had gone on past 1945 due to Japanese victories that never happened just look at the numbers of ships and carriers that were commisioned and put into active service in 1945/46 or where already destined for the pacific (like half a dozen RN colossus class carriers). Not to mention the plan after the Nazi defeat to send a great deal of the US and British resources to the Pacific.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

lrrp22
06-08-2004, 10:35 AM
Why don't you go post on the Battlefield 1942 forums if all your interested in is 'gaming' the game with a-historical flight modeling for your favorite airplane?

If it is a sim you want then you should be as concerned with historical context as I am.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:

However, I believe that a clear distinction should be made between real-world aircraft performance circa the 1940's and the somewhat massaged virtual reality we find in FB. My interest in the subject is more driven by historical context than game play issues.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why do you even post here then &gt;?

this is a game forum isnt it ?

isnt there some web forum somewhere , where you can gather with other blind amerincan plane fans about how great they were not ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

k5054
06-08-2004, 10:43 AM
Every territory Japan wins is another hostage to fortune. Their holdings are like one giant flank, whereas the US needs none of the lost territory to continue the war, it can be done on its own internal resources. Japan needs to clean sweep New Guinea, the Solomons and Australia to get a real advantage. Midway makes no difference to what happens in the SWPA. The war took a year longer than it had to in order to support the two pronged Pac/SWPac strategy, partly because of Army/Navy rivalry and partly to ensure the right victory conditions (US back in the Phillipines). Of course it might have taken a year longer if Japan's Army and Navy were on the same side, which it sometimes looked like they weren't.

Tater-SW-
06-08-2004, 02:16 PM
Yes, the US had the will in 1942. We needn't consider the 22 days of war in 1941, we were still pretty POed ;-)

The japanese couldn;t supply Midway even from a fuel standpoint. Their prewar estimates of needed bunker oil, and how long it would last after war started were grossly optimistic. Truk to Rabaul was a logistical issue fuel wise. Even runs down the slot were oil-limited. The mid pacific to Midway would have been a graveyard of japanese marus (more than it was already) trying to resupply it. They would have had to simply abandon it, or be bled badly trying to hold it.

The japanese had no coice but double or nothing. Before the war, the GHQ thought they had about a 10% chance of a win (and this via a negotiated peace). The alternative to them was what they considered a 100% defeat in leaving parts of China to appease the US.

I agree that the pricipal issue was Pearl. A limited colonial war might possibly have been negotiable. Attacking us (and the failure of the pre-attack declaration) at "home" (though not yet a state) was crucial in forming public opinion against the japanese. With pearl Harbor as a given as it happened, I see the chances of long term japanese victory as zero, even if they do everything else right, and we make every possible mistake (and unlearn how to read their mail ;-)

Heck, it would be interesting to see how PH would have turned out if the (timid, IMHO) Nagumo had listened to his air crews and launched the next wave attack that really mattered---hitting the bunker oil facilities and dry docks. They "sunk" 8 BBs. 6 were refloated to fight again. At least if they got the oil they would have crippled ops in the mid and west pacific for months. As it was, they created blind rage against them, and all for bumping off 2 BBs---ships that didn't really mattter any more.

tater

Giganoni
06-08-2004, 05:42 PM
If Japan had won the battle of Midway in a crushing victory of heavily damaging or sinking all American carriers then people naturally assume they would attack Hawaii yet again, but I was reading an interesting article from this scholarly journal about how well defended in terms of radar the canal zone was instead of Hawaii. Interesting to see how irrationally the navy feared a German attack (yes, I said German) while the army (air corp) feared Japan up until Pearl. The article said the military estimated a well done attack could have closed the canal for two years. So would Japan have attacked that next?

It would have delayed any ships coming from the atlantic for sure. The Japanese could have concentrated more on anti-sub defence (since there is no other major threat) and the entire American offensive would have had to been delayed. A delayed Guadalcanal (the landing of which had carrier support) means that Japan has the airfield completed and planes on the ground, planes that could spot the fleet approaching in time to warn major forces in Rabaul. Let us not forget that Nagumo still has his carriers in the area and Japan's well trained and equipped surface fleet has little to worry about closing with enemy ships that does not have carriers.

Do not forget that Japan made one of the fastest and biggest military offensives in the first 6 months defeating armies much larger than themselves and breaking the pride of both the British and the Americans. In fact not only were people mad about Pearl Harbor being a sneak attack (although from a military stand point it seems foolish to tell the enemy your coming.) but also that it was the Japanese that did it, deemed inferior as a race by a good deal of people during that time it was doubly shocking.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Tater-SW-
06-08-2004, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
If Japan had won the battle of Midway in a crushing victory of heavily damaging or sinking all American carriers then people naturally assume they would attack Hawaii yet again, but I was reading an interesting article from this scholarly journal about how well defended in terms of radar the canal zone was instead of Hawaii. Interesting to see how irrationally the navy feared a German attack (yes, I said German) while the army (air corp) feared Japan up until Pearl. The article said the military estimated a well done attack could have closed the canal for two years. So would Japan have attacked that next?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Japan had a plan for attacking the canal with submarine-launched seaplanes. As a PF aside, will we see the IJN subs that carried seaplanes? &lt;G&gt;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It would have delayed any ships coming from the atlantic for sure. The Japanese could have concentrated more on anti-sub defence (since there is no other major threat) and the entire American offensive would have had to been delayed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They never really took to such "defensive" duty. Even after it was clearly just a matter of time before they would lose. I don;t think they would have changed their ASW policy in a vacuum any faster than they did in RL with ships being sunk constantly by subs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A delayed Guadalcanal (the landing of which had carrier support) means that Japan has the airfield completed and planes on the ground, planes that could spot the fleet approaching in time to warn major forces in Rabaul.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but 2 of the 3 CVs as air support for Guadalcanal were not even at Midway. So worst case Guadalcanal is on time with the Saratoga and Wasp alone (chances are the Ranger would have been moved from the ETO as well).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let us not forget that Nagumo still has his carriers in the area and Japan's well trained and equipped surface fleet has little to worry about closing with enemy ships that does not have carriers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, IJN surface units were a force to be reckoned with, no question. Particularly at night. OTOH, while japanese planning was extremely bold, execution was often (not always) fairly timid... Pearl harbor, bold plan, timid decision to not make a 3d wave to hit the oil and drydocks. Coral Sea---tactical victory tempered by the utter failure overall since they abandoned the ambitious amphibeous landing at Port Moresby. Midway wasn't so bold (major force attacking little island, we did that all the time later in war), but it was fragmented stupidly into 4+ forces. Guadalcanal was serially attacked by varied forces, but never just hammered on by the Combined Fleet...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do not forget that Japan made one of the fastest and biggest military offensives in the first 6 months defeating armies much larger than themselves and breaking the pride of both the British and the Americans. In fact not only were people mad about Pearl Harbor being a sneak attack (although from a military stand point it seems foolish to tell the enemy your coming.) but also that it was the Japanese that did it, deemed inferior as a race by a good deal of people during that time it was doubly shocking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All true, but like the German advances, they were fast, effective, and COSTLY. The japanese were surprised early on by their enemies surrendering when they were close to being held off, particularly in the Philipines. The japanese were in a position where they had to do everything perfectly with minimal losses to have even a hope. The US could afford huge errors due to her massive resources.

as I've said though, the japanese will have it rough early in the war in a flight sim since we all know how NOT to fight them, and the japanese will do better than RL in the endgame since their planes won't suffer from a homeland industrial base that is lucky to get 1 in 10 shipments of raw materials delivered from abroad.

tater

WUAF_Badsight
06-08-2004, 10:03 PM
Tater SW . . . . .

how could you have fought anything but a defense with zero base of op