PDA

View Full Version : some ki84 info for you oleg.



LeadSpitter_
12-11-2004, 12:06 PM
Im sure you seen these before.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/482_1102719651_286_1088100520_ki84.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/482_1102719583_286_1088100577_ki84-2.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/482_1102719617_286_1088100766_ki84-perfdata3.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/482_1102719685_286_1088100833_frank+seafire.jpg

LeadSpitter_
12-11-2004, 12:06 PM
Im sure you seen these before.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/482_1102719651_286_1088100520_ki84.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/482_1102719583_286_1088100577_ki84-2.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/482_1102719617_286_1088100766_ki84-perfdata3.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/482_1102719685_286_1088100833_frank+seafire.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
12-12-2004, 09:26 AM
Impressive Plane .)

lrrp22
12-12-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Impressive Plane .) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That depends on whether you are reading from the first two links, which are U.S. best-case estimates of performance, or whether you are reading the Seafire comparison which is based on actual flight comparisons. The latter is a fair bit less impressive than the former.

ICDP
12-12-2004, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Impressive Plane .) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That depends on whether you are reading from the first two links, which are U.S. best-case estimates of performance, or whether you are reading the Seafire comparison which is based on actual flight comparisons. The latter is a fair bit less impressive than the former. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you forget to read the part where it said the Frank "was in fair condition and REPAIRED". They even go so far as to claim the aircraft was broken and that some of the tests were not completed. You can't be so biased that you will refuse to accept US "best guess" (as you call it) figures but are happy to accept those taken from a POORLY REPAIRED arcraft that is in only FAIR condition. Even with this repaired and BROKEN aircraft it was estimated the Frank would be able to reach 400mph, 330mph at SL.

Let me get this straight, I don't like flying the Ki84 but at least I accept that there is enough evidence to show it was faster than previously thought.

BlitzPig_DDT
12-12-2004, 01:34 PM
The only bias here is in outright assuming that it was "poorly repaired", as no conclusion about the state of the repair can be drawn from the report.

Furthermore, the only thing they stated they could not manage was top speed tests due to the CSU failure. Turning, climbing, and high speed handling tests were all not only possible, they were done.

I suppose we should ASSUME that because it wasn't polished to a mirror shine brand new from the factory that it was full of holes and had damaged controls?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

clint-ruin
12-12-2004, 02:28 PM
Didn't Oleg mention that the Ki84 was due for an improvement in engine performance based on new japanese data he'd obtained?

That's going to make the forums fun for a while :&gt;

lrrp22
12-12-2004, 02:29 PM
The 400 mph figure refers to any Ki-84 equipped with the Ha-45-21, not the Clark Field example specifically which, IIRC, had the -11/12 engine installed.

The first two pages are from the TAIC manual which specifically states that, unless otherwise stated, all performance numbers are estimated with the enemy aircraft receiving every benefit of the doubt with regards to performance. You can scream 'bias' all you like but that doesn't change the fact that FB's Ki-84 is modeled to early 1945 U.S. estimates of what a Frank might be capable of under the best possible circumstances and, as such, does not reflect real world Frank performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Impressive Plane .) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That depends on whether you are reading from the first two links, which are U.S. best-case estimates of performance, or whether you are reading the Seafire comparison which is based on actual flight comparisons. The latter is a fair bit less impressive than the former. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you forget to read the part where it said the Frank "was in fair condition and REPAIRED". They even go so far as to claim the aircraft was broken and that some of the tests were not completed. You can't be so biased that you will refuse to accept US "best guess" (as you call it) figures but are happy to accept those taken from a POORLY REPAIRED arcraft that is in only FAIR condition. Even with this repaired and BROKEN aircraft it was estimated the Frank would be able to reach 400mph, 330mph at SL.

Let me get this straight, I don't like flying the Ki84 but at least I accept that there is enough evidence to show it was faster than previously thought. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ICDP
12-12-2004, 03:03 PM
lrrp22,

I am aware that the TAIC figures are estimates, that is not my main point of centention. I am merely of the opinion that accepting the British figures for a repaired Ki84 is a poor call. If a test report was released for a repaired Mustang with a dodgy engine that couldn't develop full power would you deem the data as acceptable. Of course you wouldn't and neither would I, I am sure we want this sim to be modelled as close as feasibly possible. I too have my doubts about the Ki84 performance but I do accept that actual Japanese performance data is not easy to find and that Oleg might know better.

S.taibanzai
12-12-2004, 03:43 PM
The Ki-84 was the fasted plane then any alies fighter, Manouver far more bether then spit -p51-p47-p39 etc,etc

Deal with it

hell the japs had the best dogfight planes ever built,remember that and be sure try to live with that ,i now its hard to do but thats the way it was

WUAF_Badsight
12-12-2004, 03:50 PM
a captured japanese airman claimed his Hayate's top speed was 700 Kmh

thats over 630 Mph

SkyChimp
12-12-2004, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
hell the japs had the best dogfight planes ever built,remember that and be sure try to live with that ,i now its hard to do but thats the way it was <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Superior to German planes, too. Tested by the Japanese in mock combat, it easily bested the Fw-190A5 in manueverability and climb. I can live with that.

k5054
12-12-2004, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> captured japanese airman claimed his Hayate's top speed was 700 Kmh

thats over 630 Mph <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its 434 mph.

The problem with the Hayate is finding any report other than the Seafire one, from any country. The report quoted here doesn't claim to be anything its not. The aircraft was repaired and its paint removed before the flight. If it indeed had the -12 engine, this puts into doubt any claims made for it later, such as the Wright Field 1946 test, which was carried out with the same aircraft. Those who wish to believe the 427mph is the result of that test 'with US fuel' must tell us if they think this was with the 1800HP -12.
Any good test will do, if it gives a speed and boost and altitude figure. A report from a captured pilot really won't do except to corroborate doubtful data. It can't be used to establish a new boundary figure.

The Hayate was good, but I don't think it was an exceptional 1945 plane. In AEP it was overmodelled when it was bulletproof, now its just on the optimistic side of reasonable.

But if Oleg or anyone else has secret Japanese data, why don't they publish it here?

Bull_dog_
12-12-2004, 04:16 PM
I think the Ki started off on the wrong foot because of its poor speed modelling, poor damage modelling, over acheivement at high altitude and its roll rate.

There still seems to be great debate as to its speed which for some odd reason Oleg has much faster than that which acutally occurred during WWII, but it should climb really well, be very agile and be a better dogfighter than allied aircraft with the exception of maybe a Hellcat.

It should not be super tough, not be super fast (it was a sub-400mph fighter during the war) and its performance should fall off at about 22,000 ft or so....its getting closer to reality but not quite there in my opinion.

t0n.
12-12-2004, 04:25 PM
Notice how whenever we're amazed at the performance of an aircraft it's always a model for which precious little verifiable data is available? And how we're expected to accept on faith that nobody, not even the people who flew against it, trully appreciated how superior it was?

I don't think its any accident that its the Western Front, built on mountains of data, that resembles most closely the accounts of the men who fought there. Or that the Pacific just plain doesn't... at all.

I maintain that FB+AEP+PF is built more for balance than realism. And I can't argue that the game isn't better off for it. If the Japanese were truly forced to fight under real world conditions we'd have nobody prepared to fight for them.

CV8_Dudeness
12-12-2004, 04:43 PM
Hello Lerp

why you so biased ? , the hayate was a dominant fighter , surely you dont believe that every single Hayate ever made was as bad performing as the later ones were with there poor landing gear


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Just take in account that Japanese data alwasy don't show the co-called (if to translate directly from Japanese language) overboost.
It is something like WEP term.
So in other words almost all Japanese data do not show real maximal performace of maximal speed on that mode. The speed there alwasy is done for normal conditions of engine, but for other nations usually in most cases for maximal performance (read wep) (except the data in TsZAGI book for all russian planes in the same style as Japanese data - no bost and on nominal mode of engine, again except several planes that had Russian special over-boost term - forsaz)

So... Real performance of this plane really could be even better than US test... Especially becasue the engine wasn't tuned for the "high octan" fuel... However Engine of Ki-84 by Japanese docs need not less than 95 octan fuel.... (or more...)

So I'm very interested when you will see J2M and N1K flyable and tuned according these terms...
J2M for example is very close to I-185 M-82 performance... But has overboost.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BlitzPig_DDT
12-12-2004, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by t0n.:
I maintain that FB+AEP+PF is built more for balance than realism. And I can't argue that the game isn't better off for it. If the Japanese were truly forced to fight under real world conditions we'd have nobody prepared to fight for them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Might as well fly CFS with CS type planes in that case as they would not actually be Zeros Oscars, Franks, Tonys, etc.

The whole POINT of an air combat simulation is to recreate the aircraft. That can be done in several ways actually, but that's another issue entirely.

The "balance" comes from mission/server design, and player skill. Nobody flies VVS like the majority of real VVS pilots. Nobody decides to forgo voice comms because their I-16 or Zero didn't have radios. Nobody follows a tactical doctrine laid out by the real Air Forces they are "flying for" if that would put them at a disadvantage. Nobody thinks twice about pushing their machine to the razors edge, death just means refly or an early end to the COOP. Also, most people have more stick and trigger time than even Hartmann at wars end.

I would suggest that it's not built for balance in the objective sense. Simply because going all the way back to IL2, the LW planes were not suped up to balance against their VVS adversaries within the specifc limits of the physics engine. This sim was built for the IL2 Stumovik and modded for TnB fighting. E fighters have always been at a disadvantage. That is not the definition of "balance".

I think that the devs are doing what they can to achive a certain kind of accruacy within the confines of the engine, and doing a good job of it. It's just taking time.

CrazyDonut
12-12-2004, 05:59 PM
High alt is not good with the game engine....structural failures are not modeled...(in the 84 case engine) so what we have is a plane that flyes like it does mainly cause game engine limitations.....KI-84 is in the firering line now...atleast two planes will arive that will make just a fuzz...the KI-100 and the N1K1, even if the J1M3 comes around that plane will be battered to......but i doent care i fly a game i like...if i get shot down (happens alot) is because the other guy was better, not because i think that a plane is badly modeled....a plane is not better than the pilot.........

uhoh7
12-12-2004, 06:42 PM
the controversy of the ki-84 never ceases to entertain.....

ty for links and discussion

uhoh7

lrrp22
12-12-2004, 09:49 PM
That's just it, Dudeness, it *wasn't* a dominant fighter. Competitive? Yes. Dominant? Certainly not. There is simply no contemporary evidence to support the claim that it dominated, or even particularly worried, anyone during the war.

Other than the TAIC estimates, what evidence has anyone produced that indicates the real Ki-84 was anything like the one featured in-game? If you have some, I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

Around here, the 'Bias' epithet seems to be primarily applied to those who do not mindlessly agree that all U.S. aircraft were overated pigs barely able to get out of their own way.



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

why you so biased ? , the hayate was a dominant fighter , surely you dont believe that every single Hayate ever made was as bad performing as the later ones were with there poor landing gear

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
12-12-2004, 10:08 PM
ICDP,

I think there is some miscommunication here. I don't think the British test does represent a pristine Ki-84, or that its results indicate anything other than what it claims.

However, the 400 mph number mentioned by the British refers to what they believe a Ki-84 equipped with the later, more powerful (but less reliable) -21 engine would be capable of. I don't think that means "this particular airframe". From the comparisons to the Seafire, it doesn't look like that particular airframe was achieving anywhere near 400 mph, regardless of the status of its CSU.

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

I am aware that the TAIC figures are estimates, that is not my main point of centention. I am merely of the opinion that accepting the British figures for a repaired Ki84 is a poor call. If a test report was released for a repaired Mustang with a dodgy engine that couldn't develop full power would you deem the data as acceptable. Of course you wouldn't and neither would I, I am sure we want this sim to be modelled as close as feasibly possible. I too have my doubts about the Ki84 performance but I do accept that actual Japanese performance data is not easy to find and that Oleg might know better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A.K.Davis
12-12-2004, 10:11 PM
Please visit the j-aircraft.com threads for discussions about the Ki-84 that actually involve intelligence, rather than just pick-and-choose posting of "evidence" and "data."

The Ki-84 was an excellent design. Of course, the Me-262 is incredible in comparison, and from a pure performance perspective, absolutely dominant over contemporary Allied or Axis designs.

Does this have anything to do with how the war turned out? No.

chris455
12-12-2004, 10:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
The Ki-84 was the fasted plane then any alies fighter, Manouver far more bether then spit -p51-p47-p39 etc,etc

Deal with it

hell the japs had the best dogfight planes ever built,remember that and be sure try to live with that ,i now its hard to do but thats the way it was <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Taibanzai, stop sugar-coating it and tell us how you really feel about Japanese aircraft.

lrrp22
12-12-2004, 10:43 PM
Well said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by t0n.:
Notice how whenever we're amazed at the performance of an aircraft it's always a model for which precious little verifiable data is available? And how we're expected to accept on faith that nobody, not even the people who flew against it, trully appreciated how superior it was?

I don't think its any accident that its the Western Front, built on mountains of data, that resembles most closely the accounts of the men who fought there. Or that the Pacific just plain doesn't... at all.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Daiichidoku
12-13-2004, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:


But if Oleg or anyone else has secret Japanese data, why don't they publish it here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Probably the same reason they wouldnt post the data they used for...oh, the I-185, the 109Z

ICDP
12-13-2004, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by t0n.:
Notice how whenever we're amazed at the performance of an aircraft it's always a model for which precious little verifiable data is available? And how we're expected to accept on faith that nobody, not even the people who flew against it, trully appreciated how superior it was?

I don't think its any accident that its the Western Front, built on mountains of data, that resembles most closely the accounts of the men who fought there. Or that the Pacific just plain doesn't... at all.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There are plenty of pilot accounts that show how Japanese fighters were able to more than hold their own. The truth is that apart from some obvious flaws in PF (A6M high speed rollrate) the AC performance does match well with RL accounts. Try to take into account that virtual PF pilots have years of experience flying all manner of virtual aircraft. They are a farcry from the typical late war Japanese pilot of WWII who had only a few hours training, just keeping the aircraft straight and level was a chore for these pilots.

I have had situations online where obviously inexperienced A6M pilots have complained about how I should not be able to dominate in an F4F-3. When I fly against obviously experienced pilots in an A6M I have a hard time beating them even if I do have a superior aircraft (F6F). Every pilot of the era knew that it was the pilot not the machine. You are not automatically immune to Zero's because you are flying an F6F, despite the 19:1 kill ratio it achieved in WWII.

Essentially the US pilots achieved massive late war kill:loss ratios against the Japanese due to far superior pilot skill (overall) and superior tactics. The generally superior US fighters helped but were not the main deciding factor. Currently in PF the US fighters do have their historicall superiority over their Japanese counterparts but the main factor is and always will be pilot skill.

RocketDog
12-13-2004, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CrazyDonut:
...atleast two planes will arive that will make just a fuzz...the KI-100 and the N1K1, even if the J1M3 comes around that plane will be battered to...... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some performance figures for the Ki-100 are actually in the latest version of IL2 compare. If they are accurate (and I've no idea if they are) then the Ki-100 is not going to be very frightening. As we really ought to expect for what is just a radial-engined Ki-61.

Regards,

RocketDog.


Ki-84 in blue, Ki-100 in red.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/Image2.jpg

RocketDog
12-13-2004, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Essentially the US pilots achieved massive late war kill:loss ratios against the Japanese due to far superior pilot skill (overall) and superior tactics. The generally superior US fighters helped but were not the main deciding factor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said. Both of the axis nations produced really quite effective aircraft right up to the war's end. The problem was that they were flown by novices against swarms of well-trained and well-supported Allied pilots.

Regards,

RocketDog.

lrrp22
12-13-2004, 01:47 PM
I agree with your point but there is a big difference between 'effective' or 'competitive' and 'dominant', which is what many here want the Ki-84 (and Ki-100, for that matter) to be.

A well-flown Frank would be a handfull for any Allied fighter but it is highply unlikely that it performed in real life the way it does in AEP/PF. In-game it is virtually faultless with very optimistic performance numbers which don't seem to be supported by anything other than the inherently optimistic TAIC estimates.

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

Well said. Both of the axis nations produced really quite effective aircraft right up to the war's end. The problem was that they were flown by novices against swarms of well-trained and well-supported Allied pilots.

Regards,

RocketDog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

t0n.
12-13-2004, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well said. Both of the axis nations produced really quite effective aircraft right up to the war's end. The problem was that they were flown by novices against swarms of well-trained and well-supported Allied pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was true also for the Allies in the earliest phase of the war. But since we've got performance data from multiple unrelated sources we're not marveling at the flight characteristics of the aircraft they were slaughtered in.

ICDP
12-13-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I agree with your point but there is a big difference between 'effective' or 'competitive' and 'dominant', which is what many here want the Ki-84 (and Ki-100, for that matter) to be.

A well-flown Frank would be a handfull for any Allied fighter but it is highply unlikely that it performed in real life the way it does in AEP/PF. In-game it is virtually faultless with very optimistic performance numbers which don't seem to be supported by anything other than the inherently optimistic TAIC estimates.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points lrrp22, I do "marvel" at the IMHO optimisitc overall performance of the Ki84 but I wouldn't go as far as saying it was totally "faultless". It won't outrun typical late-war contempories (P51, P47) at medium-high alt but it does seem to posses gravitiy defying zoom climb ability. I would dearly love to see some official Japanese charts for the Ki84 variants so we can finally settle this matter. I also agree with your point that some people seem to want their favourite fighter to be totally dominant (see my post above). These type of people read things like the F6F had a 19:1 kill ratio and cry foul when they get shot down by an excellent virtual pilot flying an A6M5. It is easier to blame the FM/DM/lag/bias etc than accept that maybe the other guy was simply a better pilot.

Having said that I have no respect for anyone who flies the "easykill" uber fighters online, thankfully the list of uber fighters is getting smaller with each patch. By uber fighters I mean those obviously modelled beyond real performance figures. We have had many of these in the past and each time they are "fixed" we have a torrent of whines from the usual suspects exclaiming, "why did you castrate my UFO".

Regards.

lrrp22
12-13-2004, 03:22 PM
I agree 100%, ICDP. Things like 19:1 kill ratios depend on many things beyond simple better flight performance- not the least of which is the fact that that ratio is probably overstated by a factor of at least two when the propensity to overclaim is considered.

My frustration with the Ki-84 is based in the highly optimistic top speeds and dive/zoom abilities. My brief testing has convinced me that the Frank easily out-dives and out-zooms the F4U-1D in every measurable respect, from onset of buffeting to breakup speed to aileron and elevator response at high dive speeds. The P-51's *only* advantage in the dive is a higher breakup speed. The Frank has no problem out-zooming the Mustang and out rolls it and out turns it at all speeds.

When I say 'faultless' I don't mean that it surpasses all other types in all categories, but that it exceeds its real life performance in virtually all areas and sufferes none of the type's historical weaknesses.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I agree with your point but there is a big difference between 'effective' or 'competitive' and 'dominant', which is what many here want the Ki-84 (and Ki-100, for that matter) to be.

A well-flown Frank would be a handfull for any Allied fighter but it is highply unlikely that it performed in real life the way it does in AEP/PF. In-game it is virtually faultless with very optimistic performance numbers which don't seem to be supported by anything other than the inherently optimistic TAIC estimates.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points lrrp22, I do "marvel" at the IMHO optimisitc overall performance of the Ki84 but I wouldn't go as far as saying it was totally "faultless". It won't outrun typical late-war contempories (P51, P47) at medium-high alt but it does seem to posses gravitiy defying zoom climb ability. I would dearly love to see some official Japanese charts for the Ki84 variants so we can finally settle this matter. I also agree with your point that some people seem to want their favourite fighter to be totally dominant (see my post above). These type of people read things like the F6F had a 19:1 kill ratio and cry foul when they get shot down by an excellent virtual pilot flying an A6M5. It is easier to blame the FM/DM/lag/bias etc than accept that maybe the other guy was simply a better pilot.

Having said that I have no respect for anyone who flies the "easykill" uber fighters online, thankfully the list of uber fighters is getting smaller with each patch. By uber fighters I mean those obviously modelled beyond real performance figures. We have had many of these in the past and each time they are "fixed" we have a torrent of whines from the usual suspects exclaiming, "why did you castrate my UFO".

Regards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CV8_Dudeness
12-13-2004, 09:40 PM
Lerp , what part of the Mustangs flight performance was equal to the Hayate to make you think it was ever going to be a equal fight between the two ? im really interested now

1) the Hayate with the 21 type engine was more powerfull

2) the Hayate weighed less

3) the Hayate had better power loading

4) the Hayate had lower wing loading

5) the Hayate had faster turning ability

6) the Hayate had a better climbing ability

sure looks like a even match to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
When I say 'faultless' I don't mean that it surpasses all other types in all categories, but that it exceeds its real life performance in virtually all areas and sufferes none of the type's historical weaknesses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
its funny how this type of moan always pops up in Hayate threads , all of a sudden we need historical operating difficultys in FB , "sudden" because the YankWhiners want the Japanese planes nerfed is why http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

no planes in FB are made to historical operating conditions , they one & all are brand new Factory Spec , in mint working condition , bar none

why should the Hayate be hobbeled with breakable landing gear lerp ? huh ? so you have a eaiser time against it i know

all planes in FB are capable of better than RL performance in one way or another , like the way the Mustang used to turn

Diving , in FB , diving isnt much different plane to plane apart from your last 25% of max dive speed

you are soooo transparent dude

lrrp22
12-13-2004, 11:06 PM
7) In real life, the P-51 was substantially faster than the Ki-84 at all altitudes. Not in AEP/PF.

8) The Hayate had much poorer high speed handling characteristics. Not in AEP/PF.

9) The Hayate was inferior in the dive and resultant zoom climb. Not in AEP/PF.

10) The Mustang enjoyed significantly better aerodynamics. Apparently not in AEP/PF.

Horsepower and power loading comparisons depend greatly on relative fuel loads, fuel types used and boost levels allowed. They are probably more similar than you might think.

Take the object viewer numbers and AEP/PF flight model for what they are: late '44/early '45 U.S. intelligence estimates of Ki-84 performance which gave every benefit of the doubt to the enemy aircraft- that's it.

Also, as K5054 has pointed out previously: how did the Japanese manage to extract more horsepower from an engine with the same displacement as the DB605D yet with substantially lower boost and even poorer fuels? Considering that the Japanese struggled mightily with even mid-horsepower fighter engines, how do you think that they suddenly found a way to produce more with less, at a time when their supply and manufacturing capabilites were under extreme duress? 2,000 HP most likely represents a design goal or prototype number, and not actual production engine output.

Listen 'dude', if what you want is an arcade game that bears only a passing resemblance to actual wartime aerial warfare then, by all means, enjoy your Frank.

Your ubiquitous 'yankwhiner' comment says all that needs to be said regarding transparency, don't ya think? Don't you wish us **** yanks would just accept our inherent cultural, technical, and moral inferiority and shut up already?

BTW, when did I say anything about breakable landing gear?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
Lerp , what part of the Mustangs flight performance was equal to the Hayate to make you think it was ever going to be a equal fight between the two ? im really interested now

1) the Hayate with the 21 type engine was more powerfull

2) the Hayate weighed less

3) the Hayate had better power loading

4) the Hayate had lower wing loading

5) the Hayate had faster turning ability

6) the Hayate had a better climbing ability

sure looks like a even match to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
When I say 'faultless' I don't mean that it surpasses all other types in all categories, but that it exceeds its real life performance in virtually all areas and sufferes none of the type's historical weaknesses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
its funny how this type of moan always pops up in Hayate threads , all of a sudden we need historical operating difficultys in FB , "sudden" because the YankWhiners want the Japanese planes nerfed is why http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

no planes in FB are made to historical operating conditions , they one & all are brand new Factory Spec , in mint working condition , bar none

why should the Hayate be hobbeled with breakable landing gear lerp ? huh ? so you have a eaiser time against it i know

all planes in FB are capable of better than RL performance in one way or another , like the way the Mustang used to turn

Diving , in FB , diving isnt much different plane to plane apart from your last 25% of max dive speed

you are soooo transparent dude <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BlitzPig_DDT
12-14-2004, 08:11 AM
The Ki-84 is insane. Very insteresting point about the engine power vs displacement. I'd love to hear the anti-US plane crowd explain that one.

On top of that, the Hellcat is pulling a ****ed drag chute that is permanently opened. It bleeds speed at a nausiating rate that no other plane is penalized with. Not even the P-47, which is comparably sized and shaped.

The Corsair meanwhile is apparently a -4 in -1 guise. I know, participants of a certain 21 page thread in the PF forum will try to deny it. Par for the course. The thing has no weight, and flys in a vaccuum, totally free of drag. Perhaps Oleg mistyped when assigning HP and gave it 4000, rather than 2000.

ZG77_Nagual
12-14-2004, 09:09 AM
Here's a few things:

The mustang in our trusty simm is definitely overmodeled. Like so many things most of the mustangs 'popular' performance figures were experienced only in america.

The Ki 84 - as I understand it - was delayed in it's simm implementation while Oleg's team awaited documentation from Japan. Turns out the japanese tended to under estimate the performance of their planes. I have seen data to indicate the ki may be overmodeled in terms of high speed control response - but I don't have enough to argue it.

The Hellcat was designed to fight zeros - which it does very well - it is a pretty draggy, heavy design but with gobs of power and nice wings.

The P38 L is very likely undermodeled in this simm.

lrrp22
12-14-2004, 10:11 AM
How so? The Mustang's 'popular' performance was met, and exceeded, in virtually every British test done on the type. And please don't refer to the mysterious 'RAF Hendon tests'- they never happened, and that's straight from the daily operational record of RAF Hendon itself.

Tests that *did* happen, such as AVIA 18/732 and AVIA 6/10618 all confirm sterling performance from production and even squadron-service machines.

What is it with this forum and the seemingly pathological need to denigrate the Mustang's performance in relation to its contemporaries?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:

The mustang in our trusty simm is definitely overmodeled. Like so many things most of the mustangs 'popular' performance figures were experienced only in america.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
12-14-2004, 10:31 AM
Of course they did. And the U.S. overestimated theirs. So, ipso facto, all late war Japanese (and German, and Russian) planes are inherently superior to those of the U.S. Or is it just the Mustang?

Please, please drop the idea that PF's Ki-84 is modeled to secret Japanese data. It is modeled straight out of the U.S. TAIC manual's estimates from March, 1945- period.

Edit: I want to apologize if these posts are coming across as shrill, but I am thouroughly frustrated with the kind of disinformation and popular unsubstantiated 'facts' the constantly pop-up on these forums.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:

Turns out the japanese tended to under estimate the performance of their planes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BlitzPig_DDT
12-14-2004, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
What is it with this forum and the seemingly pathological need to denigrate the Mustang's performance in relation to its contemporaries? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not just the Mustang. They all seem to think that the Hellcat had it's flaps down the canopy open and the pilot standing up on the seat all the time too.

ZG77_Nagual
12-14-2004, 11:22 AM
No, it's just the mustang http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And where does the info that the ki was modeled from American 'performance estimates' come from?
That is quite contrary to what I've reason to believe.

Honestly I've never been much interested in the hellcat. In game it seems lacking only in zoom climb and acceleration - these would be areas it would be interesting to know more about. Turn is pretty radical and it may be that's why you think it spills speed - it turns extremely well so you have to back off controls if you want to keep speed. It certainly outturns the corsair and, relative to that plane - seems close to right. 109s don't begin to stay with it in a turn. But like I said - it hasn't been a big focus for me.

As for the mustang - I'm so sick of hearing about it that I probably wouldn't believe good data if I saw it.. It's a good, rangy downhill airplane - whch is how it mostly fought. It used to be a fav of mine but the irrational superiority attributed to it on this board - and it's extreme performance in the simm - has made me utterly avoid it.

The navy planes are cool - and the 190s and p38. Mustangs and ki84s are just too easy to win in.

High marks to ddt for working with the hellcat - another not-uber plane - and less-attractive than some of the others http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif When I get bored with the beaufighter maybe I'll visit it some more.

There are few things more satisfying than repeatedly splashing ki84s online in a Bristol Beaufighter.

ICDP
12-14-2004, 11:26 AM
DDT,

You keep claiming the F6F is underpowered/too draggy. I can hit the official numbers for the F6F in EVERY area documented.

SL top speed - 325mph (slightly over but very close)
High alt top speed - 380mph (perfect)
Time to 20000ft - 6min 47secs (slightly to fast but very close)

Lets see now, yep seems to be fine to me.

ZG77_Nagual
12-14-2004, 11:28 AM
I can confirm those speed numbers - exactly in my tests

BlitzPig_DDT
12-14-2004, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
DDT,

You keep claiming the F6F is underpowered/too draggy. I can hit the official numbers for the F6F in EVERY area documented.

SL top speed - 325mph (slightly over but very close)
High alt top speed - 380mph (perfect)
Time to 20000ft - 6min 47secs (slightly to fast but very close)

Lets see now, yep seems to be fine to me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CFS mods could do the same. But nobody would claim them to be accurate.

Get over yourself and drop the pretense. If you have no preference for it, say nothing. I get enough love letters from other people, I don't need any from you as well.

I was tempted to open a discussion about that with you here, but you aren't interested in discussion. You choose to instead make irrational assumptions and present it as the final word, regarless of the fact that it had nothing to do with what I was saying.

You aren't interested in discussion. You are either only interested in fighting with me for personal reasons OR are worried about a more reasonable E-bleed model on that plane.

****, good thing I'm not ragging on and on about it's armament (ordnance). You'd have either a hissy fit, or a field day, with that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
12-14-2004, 12:15 PM
Nagaul, like you with the Mustang, so am I with the Corsair.

Looking at these forums (and playing with it in game), one could walk away with the feeling that it single handedly won the war - on all fronts, even the BoB.

It was a good plane with unique looks, yes, but it's simply way too over popular, and it only had to do clean up duty IRL anyway.

The problem is, as you are suggesting with the Mustang, it's overblown popularity has lead to the rise of a myth of performance. This has been carried into the game.

It's too close to the Hellcat in terms of turn (I will say that I haven't done formal tests, but informal usage leaves me with that conclusion, based on acutal test reports of comparisons with the real things), and it doesn't bleed any E at all. You have to TRY to lose E with that thing, and it's not even easy when you do try.

THAT is the real problem. If one assumes the Corsair is right, then the Hellcat is wrong. If the Hellcat is right, then the Corsair is way off.

In fact, the Corsair makes for a better turn fighter in game.

The reason? It doesn't bleed E. You can push it further, longer, and not have anything to worry about. And if for some reason you do manage to get it slow, dip the nose 2 degrees below the horizon and watch it run back up to 350+mph with alarming speed (like, in a heartbeat or 2).

With a higher stall speed, less lift, and equal weight and power, they should be (and were) much more comparable in E bleed from pitch changes (and the resultant zoom climb as well). They should also hold speed at much closer to the same rate with the Corsair having only a slight edge. Something quite different than seen in game.

So, the problem is that, thanks to the lobbiests, the Corsair has either, way too much power, or no weight and flys in a vaccuum, while the Hellcat has been totally overlooked and only gets mentioned when someone wants to trash it (even if it's by praising it's hampered performance in various patch levels).

But it doesn't stop there, the internal model is wrong, and the loadouts are woefully incomplete. The guns are worlds apart with the Corsair being cartoonishly deadly by comparison (50 cals only, not talking about the F4U-1C) And then there is the axle grease.....

I'm not taking Oleg to task about this, the problem is this so-called "community".

(and I'm not screaming at you either Nagaul. Just got going. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

ICDP
12-14-2004, 12:27 PM
Oh I get it, you want the F6F to feel right by your standards, not by real life figures.

The F6F and F4U along with the Fw190A's and P47's are among the best modlelled aircraft in the game. It is the other aircraft that should be given more energy bleed, we shouldn't be reducing it in the ones that have it modelled any way decent.

Oh and I am currently flying the F6F (when available) almost exclusively online now. The fact is I am fighting anyone who wants to turn my favourite fighter into something it wasn't. You feel it is wrong and I feel it is perfect, lets hope Oleg doesn't listen to you for all our sakes.

BlitzPig_DDT
12-14-2004, 12:33 PM
Keep on proving me right. One of 2 agendas, getting on my ****, or fear of proper modeling.

You're transparent.

ZG77_Nagual
12-14-2004, 12:59 PM
hmmm.. While I agree the corsair is too popular - I don't on the turn issue.

The hellcat - according to the tests I've seen - should turn a little better than the corsair (remember it was heavier and less aerodynamic) - in game it certainly does this - but for the same turn it seems about the same as the corsair e wise. Just to be clear - with a tighter turn it should lose e faster - but in terms of turning with the corsair I don't see a problem. - that is matching the corsairs rate it doesn't seem to lose any more e (though maybe it should due to aerodynamics and p to w) but does when turning inside it - which it also does handily.

I will say the zoom climb in the hellcat is dissapointing. And this may also point back to e loss issues in turns that I'm not seeing. I can't comment on the accuracy of that however - though maybe a little worse e performance makes sense for the hellcats overall profile.

I admit I'm a corsair fan - but you're more likely to see me in anything else online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
12-14-2004, 04:05 PM
Ahh...just as I thought! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I've got some of that 'good' Mustang data, if you're interested.

While the Mustang does have a highly exaggerated reputation in certain circles, around here, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. The 'high altitude gas truck/helpless dogfighter' point of view is as equally errant as the 'Mustang dominated all comers' perspective.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
No, it's just the mustang http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


As for the mustang - I'm so sick of hearing about it that I probably wouldn't believe good data if I saw it.. It's a good, rangy downhill airplane - whch is how it mostly fought. It used to be a fav of mine but the irrational superiority attributed to it on this board - and it's extreme performance in the simm - has made me utterly avoid it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
12-14-2004, 04:14 PM
From pages 156A-1 and 156A-2, dated March 1945, of revision 2 of the TAIC manual. The performance numbers contained there, which are U.S. intel estimates, are *exactly* the numbers modeled in PF and quoted in the OV.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:

And where does the info that the ki was modeled from American 'performance estimates' come from?
That is quite contrary to what I've reason to believe.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SeaFireLIV
12-14-2004, 04:22 PM
Just reading this thread objectively shows that there`s a very BIASED attitude going on here. Two sides that are this polarised are emminently unqualified to have a fair opinion about the ability of aircraft in FB/PF.

k5054
12-14-2004, 04:36 PM
There are two sides? Regarding the Ki-84 at least, surely establishing the correct performance/handling is something we'd all agree on, right people? ...People????

RocketDog
12-14-2004, 04:37 PM
So how were the US estimates actually made? Or have I not been paying enough attention.

Regards,

RocketDog.

RocketDog
12-14-2004, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
So, the problem is that, thanks to the lobbiests, the Corsair has either, way too much power, or no weight and flys in a vaccuum, while the Hellcat has been totally overlooked and only gets mentioned when someone wants to trash it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see much evidence that 1C respond to lobbyists on aircraft flight modelling. If anything, they seem to take forever to respond to good, hard evidence presented in the forums. Look at the P-47 FM, particularly its roll rate, as an example. The only thing I can remember recently was when Maddox stated that he had increased the effectiveness of the 0.50 calibre machine guns in response to pressure - but even then I think he was just being snappy and had decided to do it anyway.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Daiichidoku
12-14-2004, 06:10 PM
Interesting point about the Mustang "myth" perhaps fueling its sparkling FB performance

Could this be the same reason the P 38 is saddled with compressability, where no other type in FB seems to suffer from it?...I have always suspected this, given that every reference to the P 38 mentions this...it was the first type to experience it, and seems to be tied to it...the P 38 needs a less stern compressability...that, or ALL other types that can achieve it should have it more pronounced


I read a Grumman test pilots story not long ago...Grumman was given a Corsair (sorry, cant recall the model, but an earlier one), and Chance-Vought a Hellcat

The pilot states that the differences between the two are almost negligible, excepting that the Corsair had better accel due to its ram-air intakes for the supercharger/carb, instead of the Hellcats air intake, which was fed from "still air" from a box....and the other big difference was the low-speed handling of the Hellcat, obviously far better than the Corsair....other than that, not too much to differentiate the two in terms of overall performance

Mind you, I dont really care about any of these types (in FB)...
The P 38 has been mauled and is useless in air combat
The P 51 is a nice flyer, but a deathtrap in FB, besides, the 47 and 63 do whatever it can do, and way better
The Corsair is seemingly overmodeled, and is very popular...that alone spells "noob"

I love all warbirds...really! but at least for the US types in FB, I only fly the P 47, P 63, or bombers...anything else is to extreme; porked or uber

This IS a Ki84 thread, so my 2 cents on it:
A fine ac, IMO its not too overmodeled, if at all
The problem with the Ki84, and IMO the reason so many feel its uber, is not the plane itself, but the guns in that bloody Ki84 1C model...the Ki84 1B model is quite effective, and deadly, but its the 1C model that will get the luckiest glancing hit on you and blow you up

Funny, how two of the most hated/feared/vilified types in FB are the Ki84 1C, and the F4U 1C...brought to you by the fine folks at....1C? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Saburo_0
12-15-2004, 01:10 AM
This whole thread is now pretty much just sad.

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

OldMan____
12-15-2004, 06:19 AM
Just my 2 cents on previous posts. Mustang is not overmodelled (not anymore since it lost the super turn at slow speeds).. and now must receive the correct high alt speed. It should be faster at medium and high altitude (I cannot reach the speed stated in even the most pessimist source I have). Apart from that I think is pretty OK.

PS I am a 190 flyer.. so I have no sides in this ki-84 vs USAAF war.

t0n.
12-15-2004, 12:41 PM
The perfect solution IMO is to have two seperate sets of FM. One for MP that's locked and determined by Maddox, and one for SP that's unlocked and user moddable.

Even if modding the offline FM disabled the MP option, I'd gladly trade for the opportunity to create a campaign gameworld that's a better reflection of what the pilots on both sides remember. Right now PF just aggravates me no matter what I'm flying.

...and I've always been a Pacific enthusiasthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

S.taibanzai
12-16-2004, 12:04 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:
7) In real life, the P-51 was substantially faster than the Ki-84 at all altitudes. Not in AEP/PF.

8) The Hayate had much poorer high speed handling characteristics. Not in AEP/PF.

9) The Hayate was inferior in the dive and resultant zoom climb. Not in AEP/PF.

10) The Mustang enjoyed significantly better aerodynamics. Apparently not in AEP/PF.

Horsepower and power loading comparisons depend greatly on relative fuel loads, fuel types used and boost levels allowed. They are probably more similar than you might think.

Take the object viewer numbers and AEP/PF flight model for what they are: late '44/early '45 U.S. intelligence estimates of Ki-84 performance which gave every benefit of the doubt to the enemy aircraft- that's it.

Also, as K5054 has pointed out previously: how did the Japanese manage to extract more horsepower from an engine with the same displacement as the DB605D yet with substantially lower boost and even poorer fuels? Considering that the Japanese struggled mightily with even mid-horsepower fighter engines, how do you think that they suddenly found a way to produce more with less, at a time when their supply and manufacturing capabilites were under extreme duress? 2,000 HP most likely represents a design goal or prototype number, and not actual production engine output.

Listen 'dude', if what you want is an arcade game that bears only a passing resemblance to actual wartime aerial warfare then, by all means, enjoy your Frank.

Your ubiquitous 'yankwhiner' comment says all that needs to be said regarding transparency, don't ya think? Don't you wish us **** yanks would just accept our inherent cultural, technical, and moral inferiority and shut up already?

BTW, when did I say anything about breakable landing gear?



Hehe you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif lrrp22

here some facts my friend


Forget it - it's a Frank." It is said that this comment was made frequently by USAAF personnel watching radar screens on Okinawa in the closing weeks of the Pacific War. It was customary to watch for a contact to appear and then to scramble P-51 Mustangs to intercept the enemy aircraft. But when the blip was moving so fast that it was inferred to be one of the advanced new Japanese Hayate fighters it would be assumed that the P-51s would stand no chance of catching the intruder. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Generally regarded as the best Japanese fighter of World War Two, the Hayate{'Hurricane') was nonetheless not without its problems. Much of its superlative all-round performance stemmed from its extremely advanced direct-injection engine, the Army's first version of the Navy NK9A. Yet this same engine gave constant trouble and demanded skilled maintenance.

T. Koyama designed the Ki-84 to greater strength factors than any previous Japanese warplane - yet poor heat-treatment of high-strength steel had the consequence that the landing gears often snapped. Progressive deterioration in quality control meant that pilots never knew how individual aircraft would perform, whether the brakes would work, and even whether - in attampting to intercept B-29 Superfortresses over Japan - they would be able to climb high enough.

Despite these problems the Hayate was essentially a superb fighter - a captured Ki-84-1a was to outclimb and outmanoeuvre a P-47 Thunderbolt, and a P-51.

The first batches were sent to China, where the 22nd. Sentai, when equipped with the new fighter, were able to fly rings around Chennault's 14th. Air Force.

The 22nd. Sentai was later moved to the Philippines, where problems overtook them, with many accidents and shortages and extremely poor serviceability.

Frequent bombing of the Musashi engine factory, and the desperate need to conserve raw materials (the shortages resulting primarily from the American submarine blockade) led to various projects and prototypes made of wood or steel.

Total production of the Ki-84 reached 3,514.


see it now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

k5054
12-16-2004, 01:54 AM
Way to go, coming here with that tired old quote from a book that was written 40 years ago, then stolen verbatim to put on somebody's website for you to come and cut and paste and misinterpret.

The ETO, MTO and ETO were littered with the wrecks of aircraft which could out-climb and out-maneuver the Thunderbolt.

Nobody can find the results of any actual comparison test between the P-47, P-51 and the captured Hayate. The speculation is that they were not in fact tested together.

The Ki-84 in China ran rings round what? The P-40N? Did it in fact impose serious losses on the US forces? Nope. 3000+ made, in service for over a year, and the Hayate never even had a good day when it achieved a decent result against allied forces. Forget it, it's a Frank.

WWMaxGunz
12-16-2004, 02:34 AM
Inability to intercept from a point only says the interceptors did not have enough speed
difference including during the climbout to have a good chance to catch the target. Not
exactly a rubber stamp for overall superior. Hayates did get shot down and not just by
P-51's if what I've read is right. Not many but then find data showing encounters with
them. First time over China against Chennaults bombers and escorting late model P-40's
and there wasn't much damage done to either side which is not exactly what I would expect
if the Ki-84's were super-planes with good pilots. That's right, Japan only had a few
good pilots left by then (smacks forehead) and even 262's would have been useless!

When stacking up power, weight, wingloading and all, please don't forget drag which the
lower wingloading usually raises, okay?

I have seen a lot of hype on the P-51 being so great but that doesn't place the real as
mediocre but fast. Still in turns... early and mid P-40's should do better if not also
the late models but I dunno on the M's. One measure of the real P-51 was how so many
very promising prototypes got cancelled because they did not exceed the P-51's that were
being produced in huge numbers. This was well before the end of the war.

In a straight fly up your best right here and fight, DF style contest, I cannot see the
P-51 as tops in even most ways. There was better at that I think sure and not just one
but 3 or 4 others at least. Take the same ones and ask them to do all other tasks and
they become the lesser ones I am also sure. There is as many tools in the box as jobs
to be done. P-51 was one of the best but only one and only overall, like any other.

Best speed, turn, climb, range, firepower, etc, are all somewhat exclusive to the others
and I have and will suspect any plane modelled as having best at everything. With enough
power you can stretch the range but only so far and the plane usually gets bigger. Is
the Ki-84 as given really superior everywhere?

GR142-Pipper
12-16-2004, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by t0n.:
(...snip...)I maintain that FB+AEP+PF is built more for balance than realism. ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My view as well, either by accident or design.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-16-2004, 03:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Listen 'dude', if what you want is an arcade game that bears only a passing resemblance to actual wartime aerial warfare then, by all means, enjoy your Frank.

Your ubiquitous 'yankwhiner' comment says all that needs to be said regarding transparency, don't ya think? Don't you wish us **** yanks would just accept our inherent cultural, technical, and moral inferiority and shut up already?

BTW, when did I say anything about breakable landing gear? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There's another issue that isn't being talked about either...build quality. By the time of the Hayate's introduction, the Japanese were being hardpressed to build anything well from a quality point of view due to the B-29 strikes against their production facilities. When looking at the specs this too should be held in consideration.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-16-2004, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
(...snip...)The Hellcat was designed to fight zeros - which it does very well - it is a pretty draggy, heavy design but with gobs of power and nice wings... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's been my experience that the Zeros now handle the Hellcats in this sim quite nicely. And yes, I know how to fly the Hellcat.

GR142-Pipper

Hetzer_II
12-16-2004, 03:51 AM
The P51 is not to slow on many alts alone.. take the D9 to it needs attention....

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-16-2004, 04:06 AM
jeah no one is mentioning that the 45 Dora is faster than the 44-version down low (should be verry close, maybe a verry slight advantage to the 45) and somehow the heavyer 45D9 accelerates quicker than the 44 modell, but in turn the 44-modell climbs better...it is quite a mess...

but however i think the Hayate is ok, we don't have manufactoring problems included in the game, this prevented several late-war axis planes from reaching the actual projected performance in the series Production (engine-problems, lossing parts in mid air and stuff)