PDA

View Full Version : Ki-100



bobbybob23
05-04-2004, 09:35 AM
I hope this aircraft is in its supposed to be one of the best japanese planes of the war or so says historian Bill Gunston in this article.

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/ki-100/index.html

(go here for other jap planes) http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/index.html

ANd if you wanna see a truly amazing aircraft look at this one

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/j7w/

w00t !!!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

bobbybob23
05-04-2004, 09:35 AM
I hope this aircraft is in its supposed to be one of the best japanese planes of the war or so says historian Bill Gunston in this article.

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/ki-100/index.html

(go here for other jap planes) http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/index.html

ANd if you wanna see a truly amazing aircraft look at this one

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/j7w/

w00t !!!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Ruy Horta
05-04-2004, 03:52 PM
Actually below 6000m there is little outstanding to the Ki-100, probably a disappointing a/c wrt PF gameplay.

For those who have some trouble with this statement, I mean to say that what made the Ki-100 relatively good in RL doesn't really apply to the current engine and game play of AEP.

Ruy Horta

LEXX_Luthor
05-04-2004, 05:21 PM
No, FB Ta~152H shows Ki~100 could also have advantages at high altitude (above 6000m).

WUAF_Badsight
05-04-2004, 05:25 PM
plenty of fighting happens over 6000m in FB

& i mean a LOT

i guess if you never climb youll never know


.


BTW ....... dont get me started on the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden

Ruy Horta
05-05-2004, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
plenty of fighting happens over 6000m in FB
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL2/FB/AEP's flightmodel has been acknowledged by Oleg himself to be weak at high altitude. Now you may try and pull of a sarcastic remark, but most I've done at high altitude on servers is looking downward at the masses, but meeting few opponents - and I try to stick to the "full real" ones too. Maybe the advent of supposedly high alt. fighters has changed the balance somewhat (haven't been online much with AEP), but I somehow doubt it.

1. in general MP combat is low to mid alt. unless you have a mission orientated set up.

2. Oleg himself said the high alt. modeling of his sim is primitive due to the originally low altitude character of the product.

Now I do not expect great changes in the FM for PF. Knowing people they expect a great a/c to have ueber-performance throughout the envelope. The Ki-100 will not have great performance up to 6000m and then it won't excell for another couple thousand. This will be a recipe for more than one disappointed players.

Personally I think that the Tojo and Jack will shine since their performance will excell where it will be generally more effective - up to high-medium altitudes.

We'll see who's right wrt to general player and general gameplay.

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

Ruy Horta

LEXX_Luthor
05-05-2004, 12:59 AM
LOL rhorta we can wait a long time until you are ready to talk Ta. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rhorta:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1. in general MP combat is low to mid alt. unless you have a mission orientated set up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's your problem. Teh internet dogfighting has nothing to do with real life missions. FM isn't so bad but its the community that needs Fixing lol. Look how everybody Hated Ta~152H when it came out and all the Whining and Crying until I made about 100 posts on its high altitude performance in AEP now everybody follows little red Teletaube and says Ta Rules at high altitude. For two (2) weeks after AEP was releaced I was the only flight simmer to actually take Ta up high and test it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2. Oleg himself said the high alt. modeling of his sim is primitive due to the originally low altitude character of the product.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Above 10km he said--if I recall.

rhorta you must realize that internet dogfighters cannot dogfight above 3km because the landscape looks bad in the screenshots.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-05-2004, 01:10 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

mmm come to think, I have Extreme difficulty flying YP~80 above 7km, but many FB jets seem porked at high altitude at least to some degree. I don't know the high altitude performance of these early jets, so I dunno. hmmm.

k5054
05-05-2004, 02:04 AM
All the jets of 1944-5 didn't perform well at altitudes around 40,000 ft, 12km. The thrust of a jet goes down in proportion to the density, so does the drag, but the thrust left over after overcoming drag is tiny, hence lousy climb and turn and small speed range. Spit 14 and Ta152 could match jets at those heights. After the war no jet could get up to a Spit PR19 unitl the MiG-15 and F-86.

On the Ki-100, what makes you think that a 1500hp ordinary fighter was going to be good in 1945? The turbo version never saw action, and its performance is nowhere near the best standard of the time.

Ruy Horta
05-05-2004, 02:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

_mmm_ come to think, I have Extreme difficulty flying YP~80 above 7km, but many FB jets seem porked at high altitude at least to some degree. I don't know the high altitude performance of these early jets, so I dunno. hmmm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lexx,

I come from Warbirds where I played some 7 years online, most of the latter years "historical missions" only, where up to 100+ people would try and recreate an aerial battle.

Yes, altitude modeling played an important role.

Even with VEF we used to climb like hell (only to find Ivan at least a couple of hundred feet higher every time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif ), but although altitude was an important (dis)advantage, its modeling always felt porked when flying on the German side. People may argue with that, but Russian fighters did not seem to suffer from performance loss as much as we'd expected (neither did the Airacobra).

Now I must admit that I have played too little online with the new plane set offered by AEP to be able to comment on the effect of the new high alt. types (Ta 152H, P-51D and P-47D), but what limited experience I've had did hint at too little benefit going to the specialist types and too much performance by those types you'd expect to be (relatively) weak at alt.

Before we start a(n endless) discussion, I think that we are not too far off in opinion, perhaps only on how we perceive IL2/FB/AEP to be.

I find the series very weak at high alt. but nice non-the-less. Indeed what you say about graphics is true as well, high alt. graphics, at least when looking down sucks.

BTW, was surprised when I read that at least part of the B-29 work was done at relatively low alt (6000m).

I really believe that if the mission doesn't force one to go higher than 6000m or so, there is little incentive to do so, even if you are flying a specialist a/c.

Apart from flying against B-29s there will be little mission driven need to fly at high altitude when I think of PF.

Now I think of some guy who read about the wonders of the Ki-100, tackling a Corsair or Hellcat at 2000m and going ape**** when he gets his behind on a platter. Oleg this and Luthier that...

That's what I meant with disappointment.

I love warbirds, so the Ki 100 is eagerly awaited here, as is the Tojo, as is the Jack etc etc etc...ah, as are the US crates.

Ruy Horta

WUAF_Badsight
05-05-2004, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhorta:

2. Oleg himself said the high alt. modeling of his sim is primitive due to the originally low altitude character of the product.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

untrue

what has been stated is that the altitude moddeling stops at 10,000m

after that its the same

what makes you think its "weak"

i find high alt to be a struggle as it is up there to maintain smooth tight turning

as for there being not that many high alt DFs in FB

well its true that the majority happen up to 5K ..... but there are PLENTY of players that go over 5K b4 as they are looking for a Bandit

in FB you get a MAX of 32 players .... but you hardly ever get that even .....

comparing it to a game that can have over 100 ppl in a DF room is a comparison

KIMURA
05-05-2004, 04:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
All the jets of 1944-5 didn't perform well at altitudes around 40,000 ft, 12km. The thrust of a jet goes down in proportion to the density, so does the drag, but the thrust left over after overcoming drag is tiny, hence lousy climb and turn and small speed range. Spit 14 and Ta152 could match jets at those heights. After the war no jet could get up to a Spit PR19 unitl the MiG-15 and F-86.

On the Ki-100, what makes you think that a 1500hp ordinary fighter was going to be good in 1945? The turbo version never saw action, and its performance is nowhere near the best standard of the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Uhhm, IIRC the P-51D had only few HP more than 1500hp, with a much bader powerload of corse. Do you state the Pony was outclassed by 45?

Kimura

k5054
05-05-2004, 07:28 AM
P-51 had the best drag coeff of all prop fighters, although it got worse over time. It's an exception, and it had 1700hp by the D. The Ki-61 was ordinary, it compares exactly with the 109F and MC202, same engine. The Ki-61-II with a more powerful 1500hp engine, was a 370mph fighter. How is it going to get better with a 1500hp radial with only a reasonable alt performance? In fact most sources say it could do 360mph. Great for 1940-1. It could not do that 360 at 10km as some sources say, because the engine topped out well below that. The turbo version might have done that, but the turbo was external and added drag (its an ugly installation), so it would have been worse low down. The turbo also had no intercooler, so it couldn't boost like the P-51, 38 or 47 engines.

I don't know why the post-war a/c writers tend to exaggerate the powers of some unproven a/c, but to me unless it has a combat record I am careful with 'would-have-beens'. I'm not aware of any true combat record of Ki-100, only stories without provenance.

(I also deplore paper/prototype a/c in FB and PF before all the real ones are done, but as I'm not about to model them myself, I say good luck to anyone who can, whatever they make.)

k5054
05-05-2004, 07:35 AM
"BTW, was surprised when I read that at least part of the B-29 work was done at relatively low alt "

A very large part. In fact you can see how much at www.usaaf.net, (http://www.usaaf.net,) the statistical survey there has the exact figures in its many tables. The 30,000 ft missions found it hard to bomb accurately or maintain formation. The USSBS bombing survey for Japan is on that site too, it tells a lot about B-29 ops.