PDA

View Full Version : Ki-100 Cruise speed at Altitude



ak-ak-
09-26-2009, 10:12 AM
I've tested the Ki-100 and Ki-84 at both 15,000 and 23,500 and found similar results. In the Ki-100 (which I prefer) at level flight 100% throttle I'm only getting about 300km/hr nowhere close to the published cruise speed of 400 or even max speed of 560. I've tried with and without CEM (prefer using all realism settings) and tried various trim settings with little improvement. Search results only yeilded trim recommendations. What am I missing? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

general_kalle
09-26-2009, 10:15 AM
rember to reduce fuel mix if its not automatic and remember to engage super charger if they have one... im not really familiar with japanese planes so i dont know if its manual or automatic.

oh and welcome to the forums.

The_Stealth_Owl
09-26-2009, 10:16 AM
Welcome!

The Ki-84 feels heviar, and has more enertia.

The Ki-100, has huge wings; producing a lot of lift and drag.

Ki-84 is a better speeder.

The Ki-100 has less horsepower the last time I checked.

The Ki-84 will take time to speed up, but it will go faster at altitude.

berg417448
09-26-2009, 10:27 AM
Are you confusing Indicated Airspeed numbers with True Airspeed numbers?

Published numbers are true airspeed but you are going to see indicated airspeed on your cockpit instruments and that is going to be lower.

TS_Sancho
09-26-2009, 12:14 PM
What Berg said above is your problem, indicated airspeed at altitude is going to be much less than your true airspeed.

Stealth Owl, if you dont have anything of substance to contribute then take a pass please.
The information you posted is only partly correct and has nothing to do with the OP's question.

ytareh
09-26-2009, 01:04 PM
I hate when people blatantly bully guys who post regularly like raaid and Stealth Owl.We could definitely do with a sticky on IAS vs TAS and if things keep going at the rate they are (much as that sort of red tape nonsense annoys me) an Anti Bullying Policy /Code of Conduct...The guy's 14 Sancho go easy...

TinyTim
09-26-2009, 01:16 PM
300kph IAS at 23,500 feet still seems slow, as it equals about 440khp TAS. (a nice TAS calculator at the bottom of this (http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html) page)

Are you sure you didn't (apart from obvious full throttle) forget to:

Shift supercharger to higher stage?
Reduce mixture?
Engage WEP?
Close cowl flaps?

TS_Sancho
09-26-2009, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by ytareh:
I hate when people blatantly bully guys who post regularly like raaid and Stealth Owl.We could definitely do with a sticky on IAS vs TAS and if things keep going at the rate they are (much as that sort of red tape nonsense annoys me) an Anti Bullying Policy /Code of Conduct...The guy's 14 Sancho go easy...

Excuse me? Would you care to read my post again and explain what part is "bullying" exactly?

Whether he's 14 or 41 doesnt matter, we are all subject to the same rules of etiquette on these boards.

If my response came across as rude I apologise as that was not my intent.

ytareh
09-26-2009, 01:36 PM
@TS Sancho

"Stealth Owl, if you dont have anything of substance to contribute then take a pass please."

Certainly a negative tone if not actually bullying in your book...And surely a 14 year old should be cut a bit more slack than a 41 year old..?I know that sometimes the likes of the guys I mentioned come across as brash sometimes but I still feel theyre as much, if not more, a part of the community as the rest of us .

Romanator21
09-26-2009, 02:13 PM
Don't forget trim. The only thing I don't like about the Ki-100 is how easily the fuselage separates, the Ki-61 is more robust.

TS_Sancho
09-26-2009, 03:43 PM
A quick test in QMB gave me these results...

Crimea map noon/ full switch settings (speedbar unchecked)

KI-100/ full fuel/throttle 100% no WEP/ prop pitch 100%/ Cowl flaps closed/ 80% mixture/ supercharger 2/ elevator trimmed for level flight

370kmh indicated/ 537kmh true @ 23000 ft ASL

400 kmh indicated/519 true @ 15000ft ASL

KI84A/ full fuel/throttle 100% no wep/ prop pitch 100%/ cowl flaps closed/ auto mixture/ supercharger 2/ elevator trimmed for level flight

430kph indicated/ 629kph true @ 23000ft ASL

460kph indicated/ 597 true @ 15000ft ASL

Try the settings above and see what you get. Keeping in mind the airspeed on the dial is not your true airspeed over the ground , the KI 100 should match the numbers your looking for easily.

ak-ak-
09-26-2009, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
A quick test in QMB gave me these results...

Crimea map noon/ full switch settings (speedbar unchecked)

KI-100/ full fuel/throttle 100% no WEP/ prop pitch 100%/ Cowl flaps closed/ 80% mixture/ supercharger 2/ elevator trimmed for level flight

370kmh indicated/ 537kmh true @ 23000 ft ASL

400 kmh indicated/519 true @ 15000ft ASL

KI84A/ full fuel/throttle 100% no wep/ prop pitch 100%/ cowl flaps closed/ auto mixture/ supercharger 2/ elevator trimmed for level flight

430kph indicated/ 629kph true @ 23000ft ASL

460kph indicated/ 597 true @ 15000ft ASL

Try the settings above and see what you get. Keeping in mind the airspeed on the dial is not your true airspeed over the ground , the KI 100 should match the numbers your looking for easily.

Will do, thank you!

FoundryWork
09-29-2009, 08:33 AM
Also, Oleg himself has stated in the past, that IL2 was optimized for low altitude to simulate the eastern front more closely where fighting was not at high alt.

So no aircraft in the sim will have accurate performance at high altitude.

M_Gunz
09-29-2009, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by FoundryWork:
Also, Oleg himself has stated in the past, that IL2 was optimized for low altitude to simulate the eastern front more closely where fighting was not at high alt.

So no aircraft in the sim will have accurate performance at high altitude.

From 10,000 meters on up the air is the same in IL2. That is the high alt.

Also speed, mach compression is not modeled except some aspect never explained but told is there. Major effect is not,
there is no difference I or others can find between IAS and CAS either.

Last of all, the FM is by shortcut just because PC hardware is not powerful enough to do in full. That alone explains
that there will be gaps between even the right chart (not a chart from some different configured plane) and the sim.

general_kalle
09-30-2009, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ytareh:
I hate when people blatantly bully guys who post regularly like raaid and Stealth Owl.We could definitely do with a sticky on IAS vs TAS and if things keep going at the rate they are (much as that sort of red tape nonsense annoys me) an Anti Bullying Policy /Code of Conduct...The guy's 14 Sancho go easy...

Excuse me? Would you care to read my post again and explain what part is "bullying" exactly?

Whether he's 14 or 41 doesnt matter, we are all subject to the same rules of etiquette on these boards.

If my response came across as rude I apologise as that was not my intent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed

Viper2005_
09-30-2009, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoundryWork:
Also, Oleg himself has stated in the past, that IL2 was optimized for low altitude to simulate the eastern front more closely where fighting was not at high alt.

So no aircraft in the sim will have accurate performance at high altitude.

From 10,000 meters on up the air is the same in IL2. That is the high alt.

Also speed, mach compression is not modeled except some aspect never explained but told is there. Major effect is not,
there is no difference I or others can find between IAS and CAS either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the atmosphere model really was isotropic above 10 km then any aeroplane capable of exceeding 10 km would be able to climb forever. This is not the case.

It may well be the case that the atmosphere is modelled as isothermal above 10 km; this wouldn't be too far from usual standard atmosphere assumptions, which take the atmosphere to be isothermal above 11 km up to altitudes beyond the scope of a WWII sim...

Transonic effects aren't directly modelled; some aircraft have a "transonic effect" hard coded, but this is generally a function of EAS rather than Mach number (eg P-38), which is worse than useless.

I hope that this will be corrected in BoB as the early war over England was for quite some time a climbing contest...

Wildnoob
09-30-2009, 11:12 AM
Japanese Ki-84s were usually fed with the standard 97 - octane fuel (altough the Japanese tried to provide 95 - octane fuel for these figthers), on which they attained a maximum speed of 580-590 km/h (<span class="ev_code_RED">as against the 624 km/h declared by the manufacter</span>). With 140 octane and a well adjusted engine, the Ki-84 easily attained a maximum speed of 687 km/h at 6100m!

Source: Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate - Kagero publications - page 68.

Well, it's OFF subject, but according to this publication seems that Oleg's Ki-84 is more faster it should be.

Erkki_M
09-30-2009, 11:32 AM
According to IL2 compare (which according to my tests to myself matches il2 at least 99%) the Ki-84 is able to achieving 685km/h at the altitude of 6000m.

M_Gunz
09-30-2009, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoundryWork:
Also, Oleg himself has stated in the past, that IL2 was optimized for low altitude to simulate the eastern front more closely where fighting was not at high alt.

So no aircraft in the sim will have accurate performance at high altitude.

From 10,000 meters on up the air is the same in IL2. That is the high alt.

Also speed, mach compression is not modeled except some aspect never explained but told is there. Major effect is not,
there is no difference I or others can find between IAS and CAS either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the atmosphere model really was isotropic above 10 km then any aeroplane capable of exceeding 10 km would be able to climb forever. This is not the case.

It may well be the case that the atmosphere is modelled as isothermal above 10 km; this wouldn't be too far from usual standard atmosphere assumptions, which take the atmosphere to be isothermal above 11 km up to altitudes beyond the scope of a WWII sim...

Transonic effects aren't directly modelled; some aircraft have a "transonic effect" hard coded, but this is generally a function of EAS rather than Mach number (eg P-38), which is worse than useless.

I hope that this will be corrected in BoB as the early war over England was for quite some time a climbing contest... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just going by Oleg Maddox's often-repeated words rather than on-forum often-repeated rumor. He didn't say what stays
the same, only that above 10 km alt it does. Have you seen some of the incredible alts reached in screenshots? And
the posters saying they only stopped because they didn't want to keep on?

IRL not so many pilots did try diving those planes to ultimate speeds but rather how fast they could manage the plane
without risking losing control, pieces, and their lives. Even Gunther Rall only took his 109 so fast when chased and
even when shot. Some did not keep to their own limits and how many of those died in the resulting crash, how many
were flying P-38's? But we want the exceptions, everyone a top flight test pilot with inside information on the plane.

For WWII combat pilots there is reasonable and limits to reasonable. Many forum threads begin one step beyond reasonable.
IL2 can't faithfully reproduce all the way to the limits let alone beyond them into test pilot territory. Our hardware
has limits as well but many players expectations and realizations have no limits at all.

On the kind of minimum hardware so far indicated I expect it still won't be perfect, just a whole lot better than now.

Wildnoob
09-30-2009, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
According to IL2 compare (which according to my tests to myself matches il2 at least 99%) the Ki-84 is able to achieving 685km/h at the altitude of 6000m.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I just check now, the view object section states the maximum speed as 687 km/h.

Hope TS_Sancho trials were correct. I also would test it myself, but my joystick is so horrible that won't allow me.

Really hope so, because if the IL2 Hayate possesses this maximum speed, unfortenetely it's not represeting the wartime models.

If in fact is, wonder what were Oleg's reasons to modelate the plane this way.

TS_Sancho
09-30-2009, 01:53 PM
Keep in mind the numbers I posted above were for 100% throttle (not 110%) and no wep.

Wildnoob
09-30-2009, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Keep in mind the numbers I posted above were for 100% throttle (not 110%) and no wep.

Hmm.

Ok, you guys gonna wish to set me on ground as a target for your Ki-84s (probably ICs) with this ridiculous question, but in trials, the maximum speed isn't recorded using the maximum power the aircraft can achive (incluiding WEP)?

JtD
09-30-2009, 02:14 PM
All planes in game are supposed to be modeled in ideal condition, not in actual front line condition. This is most noticeable with the Soviet and Japanese aircraft which in real life had real quality issues that are not present in game. For instance, examples of early LaGG-3's were tested with climb rates of just 4 m/s, where in game each and every LaGG-3 manages 14 m/s.

The same way, the Ki-84 is modeled to ideal specs. Nothing to get exited about after 8 years of il-2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Wildnoob
09-30-2009, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The same way, the Ki-84 is modeled to ideal specs. Nothing to get exited about after 8 years of il-2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sure, agree with all the rest of your post also. Most Ki-84s suffered from terrible engine unreliability, but even as this is not modelated, just the historical wartime maximum speed isn't that hard I suppose.