PDA

View Full Version : Manchuria's new Ki-43II WTF???? Is this a joke?



Feathered_IV
09-03-2006, 08:21 AM
I was just going through some of the WIP's that I've been hoarding while waiting for this release. Amongst them were some pics (link lost in last months reformat, but I think its from Sukhoi) of the new Ki-43II.

Take a look at the size of the headrest. It's HUGE! Its wider than the bottom of the seat and almost touches the canopy rails http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Is this to level its advantages over allied contemporaries? See that skinny little strut? The start of the crash pylon running up from behind the seat into the headrest? That's how wide it should actually be.

Seriously. What is the reason for this?

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/Feathered-ki43_2d.jpg

DuxCorvan
09-03-2006, 08:29 AM
Protection? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Tater-SW-
09-03-2006, 08:54 AM
http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/don_soderlund/oscarp13.jpg

http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/james_jones/Seattle_air05_063.jpg


http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/dave_pluth/ki43-4.jpg


tater

Kapt_A
09-03-2006, 08:59 AM
The pic looks like it was taken using wide view.And we all know wide view is sorta like fish eye view,real distorted.

Diablo310th
09-03-2006, 09:10 AM
all bubbletop aircraft suffer from this. Look at the Jug and Tempest. The Tempest by far being the worst.

Tater-SW-
09-03-2006, 09:11 AM
It looks pretty big in the top pic I posted, but much smaller in the other 2. Perhaps the lower images are Ki-43-Is with the telescopic sight not preserved? I'm not good enough at Oscar ID to tell ya.

Note that the top image not only has a big headrest, but it is curved like the one in the Manchuria add on, and the other 2 are squared off like the Ki-43-I.

tater

VW-IceFire
09-03-2006, 09:39 AM
You make it sound like it was done on purpose. If the size of the headrest is as it is...then its that size. Its not some mysterious equation that they use to generate how easy it is to see out the back of the plane. No doubt the headrest in the Oscar got bigger to try and protect the pilot from the rear as much as possible.

Have a look at the Tempest...because of the viewpoint and the size of the headrest in the actual plane...visibility (which should be excellent) out the back is horrendous. I never took that to be a personal slight...you shouldn't either.

F19_Olli72
09-03-2006, 10:35 AM
Well irl there seems to have been variations, the top pic left doesnt seem to have no headrest at all, while the other two it seems to be quite big.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Olli72/Oscar.jpg

alert_1
09-03-2006, 01:41 PM
Rearview from REAL Ki43II was excellent, as for Tempest, you dont need to look back too much at 700km/h, but in Ki43 it's fatal mistake...I wonder whz is Oleg degrading axis AC on PURPOSE with all taht ****? (Fw190, dirty galss on Me109G6 etc, etc). I'm tired of that be SURE!

Tater-SW-
09-03-2006, 02:13 PM
FWIW, it looks like the Ki 43 IIa-Kai and Ki 43 II-Kai had substantial headrests compared to the I series (based on pictures I have in Bueschel's book on the Hayabusa). The headrest in thise pictures is every bit as wide as a human head, if not wider (assembly line picture shows guys on the wing leaning into the cockpit, so the comparison is very clear).

So at least some models had a larger headrest. Of course the Ki 43-IIa and Ki 43-IIb were bar far the most produced versions. Unfortunately, none of the pictures have a clear view from the front or rear to establish the size of the headrest.

Poor head position in Il-2 cockpits for rear visibility is not a side-based problem, USN planes have horrible rear views, much worse than they were in RL. It is shared by all countries in game.

tater

Tater-SW-
09-03-2006, 02:18 PM
The -IIa looks like it should have a very thin, tapering triangle headrest (vied from front), not the big, rounded one shown.

tater

LEBillfish
09-03-2006, 02:26 PM
First of all....the "Roll Bar" as these things tended to tip over a lot varied in size from version to version....Rolled over enough in fact the pilot seat is designed to flip up, and you can squeeze through the fusalage and out the large side access door.

Those that have no "Armored Roll Bar"..(the headrest like one in your car, not meant to lay upon yet padding if your head snaps back)...Were removed by pilots to save on weight, as they would even do with Oxygen trying to get every bit of performance out of the moderately powered craft....

Here are drawings of various Ki-43 Rollbars...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/rollbar.jpg

So in looking at it my guess would be two things......First off it is a late model Ki-43-II or Ki-43-III rollbar, and part of it perspective.........Also note that rollbars you see in some restored planes ARE incorrect....They are often too narrow simply fabricated to replace what wasn't there.

joeap
09-03-2006, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Rearview from REAL Ki43II was excellent, as for Tempest, you dont need to look back too much at 700km/h, but in Ki43 it's fatal mistake...I wonder whz is Oleg degrading axis AC on PURPOSE with all taht ****? (Fw190, dirty galss on Me109G6 etc, etc). I'm tired of that be SURE!

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

Feathered_IV
09-03-2006, 05:22 PM
Thanks to everyone for digging out pics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I apologise for going off about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif Serves me right for getting too excited just before bedtime.

There does seem to be some definite broadening of the headrest however, even when comparing to the later wide version. The space between the base of the HR and the canopy rails appears to be less them half that of real life.

I understant the eyeball on a stick issue and the need for accuracy. But I wonder, for an air combat sim, perhaps there is more wisdom in modelling a (slightly) narrower-than-life headrest to give a more realistic view. Than sacrificing rear view for headrest width.

orkan_3d
09-03-2006, 05:27 PM
LEBillfish, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

VW-IceFire
09-03-2006, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Thanks to everyone for digging out pics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I apologise for going off about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif Serves me right for getting too excited just before bedtime.

There does seem to be some definite broadening of the headrest however, even when comparing to the later wide version. The space between the base of the HR and the canopy rails appears to be less them half that of real life.

I understant the eyeball on a stick issue and the need for accuracy. But I wonder, for an air combat sim, perhaps there is more wisdom in modelling a (slightly) narrower-than-life headrest to give a more realistic view. Than sacrificing rear view for headrest width.
The problem is how far do you take that. I agree with you...the headrest in the Tempest kills the plane. And contrary to what alert_1 says...you need to be able to see out the back no matter what plane it is or how fast it goes. The Oscar is a victim of the limitations of game design in the current generation....with Storm of War and 6DOF...just look around it.

Feathered_IV
09-03-2006, 09:17 PM
Maybe a scale 30mm off each side would do the trick for most 'pits.

SkyChimp
09-03-2006, 10:04 PM
It was like that to accomodate the large heads of Japanese pilots. Pilots were selected by the size of their heads - the larger and heavier the better.

This guy would have made a good pilot:

http://www.ssb9.net/users/39418/dsp_lot_61_a.jpg

LEBillfish
09-04-2006, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It was like that to accomodate the large heads of Japanese pilots. Pilots were selected by the size of their heads - the larger and heavier the better.

Just the response you'd expect from an undersized head primate......Don't they have a Mercury capsule to send you up in yet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jaws2002
09-04-2006, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:

Just the response you'd expect from an undersized head primate......Don't they have a Mercury capsule to send you up in yet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Chuck_Older
09-04-2006, 09:50 PM
is it possible to see around this roll-over bar effectively while strapped into the seat of the plane?

Pilots wore safety harnesses that were not like the safety belt in your car

Press your shoulders back against the chair you're sitting in right now, hard. Now turn your head and look behind you- withoutout letting your shoulders lose contact with the seatback

Photos of the roll-over structure and all that are great, but I think we all as a group often forget that just because it looks as if a thing should be right or wrong to us at first glance, that doesn't mean that it is

I beleive that no matter what my eyeballs tell me and how good my judgement of spacial relations are, I still have never strapped into a Ki-43II and tried to look behind me. I don't know what I can see and what I can't in that plane. But I know it's not a simple question of looking behind you. This holds true for every plane in the game. Whether or not the view is accurately modelled for anything is always a subject for debate

Charos
09-04-2006, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
is it possible to see around this roll-over bar effectively while strapped into the seat of the plane?


Humans can with peripheral vision see about 140Deg FOV.

If you turned your head 90 Deg left or right (No shoulder twist) you will be able to see the centre line of the chair your sitting in.

Granted the object (Book in a book case directly behind seat) in my case is not in focus but its visible.
Peripheral vision has limited depth of field.

LEBillfish
09-05-2006, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
is it possible to see around this roll-over bar effectively while strapped into the seat of the plane?

Pilots wore safety harnesses that were not like the safety belt in your car

Press your shoulders back against the chair you're sitting in right now, hard. Now turn your head and look behind you- withoutout letting your shoulders lose contact with the seatback

Photos of the roll-over structure and all that are great, but I think we all as a group often forget that just because it looks as if a thing should be right or wrong to us at first glance, that doesn't mean that it is

I beleive that no matter what my eyeballs tell me and how good my judgement of spacial relations are, I still have never strapped into a Ki-43II and tried to look behind me. I don't know what I can see and what I can't in that plane. But I know it's not a simple question of looking behind you. This holds true for every plane in the game. Whether or not the view is accurately modelled for anything is always a subject for debate


Actually, most if not all (not sure of some) Japanese planes used just a "lap belt"....Sitting on the parachute (hence the bare metal bucket like seat bottoms), a lap belt was what held you in nothing more. In this way you could twist your body from the waist up, lean forward to see clearer through the padded sight (padding to keep you from hitting it with your head), and so on. In fact, before the advent of "ejection seats", you may find many if not most planes were the same. Naturally part of the reason for this to make for an easier bail out, yet also simply due to the logic of the day.

Feathered_IV
09-05-2006, 01:07 AM
As I recall, Saburo Sakai often mentioned wriggling out of his parachute and shoulder harnesses while in combat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

R_Target
09-05-2006, 01:17 AM
I imagine most pilots adjusted the straps to suit there preference.

madsarmy
09-05-2006, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
I apologise for going off about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif Serves me right for getting too excited just before bedtime.

I think you should be apologising to the lady in your life about that one. Not us! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Feathered_IV
09-05-2006, 03:12 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
09-05-2006, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Rearview from REAL Ki43II was excellent, as for Tempest, you dont need to look back too much at 700km/h, but in Ki43 it's fatal mistake...I wonder whz is Oleg degrading axis AC on PURPOSE with all taht ****? (Fw190, dirty galss on Me109G6 etc, etc). I'm tired of that be SURE!

Got your tin foil hat?

Geez, what a load of ****. Degrading Axis aircraft, is the Tempest an Axis craft, How about the P47??

Its simply becasue we cannot move our head in the IL2 engine, and looking at those pics, the headguard looks massive.

Oleg isnt going to shrink the size of the headguard because you cant see out of the back very well when you spin you mouse, its going to be the exact view you get from twisting your head/mouse 180 degrees.

LEBillfish
09-05-2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
As I recall, Saburo Sakai often mentioned wriggling out of his parachute and shoulder harnesses while in combat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Most likely his "parachutes`" shoulder harness....However I can look into any Japanese belt designs you'd like.......Though think of any plane with a "padded" reflector sight or scope....That padding to lean toward.

Chuck_Older
09-05-2006, 07:58 AM
Billfish-

Thank you. That's the type of real-world info we don't take into account here- that the planes used a lap belt. This is the stuff we never consider

Charos-

I have fantastic peripheral vision. Not as good as superstar goalie Billy Smith who could and did read license plates out of the corner of his eye while driving himself to his hockey games to begin his warm-up, but mine's pretty good. I'm 35, I've happened to recognise the uses of peripheral vision two, maybe three times so far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . But peripheral vision is not modelled in the sim as far as I can tell. I'm also sure you know exactly what I mean in my previous example

R_target-

personally, it's hard to imagine a fighter pilot loosening his belt to suit his own preference most time. Sakai aside, these planes were built to be high gain/high response machines. if you've ever been in a powerful car, and the driver fishtails through a corner so that the steering wheel is turned opposite the turn, you're not experiencing half of what a fighter pilot experiences. I have a ridiculously huge V-8 (7.5L) in a car with a light rear end and I've done this many times- sometimes ending up on the passenger seat if I wasn't wearing my seat belt. The last time I did that, I could do two one-handed pull-ups. I still got tossed into the other seat. Physical strength just isn't enough

A couple years ago, an almost intact P-39 was recovered from a lake. The pilot was discovered inside, or rather his moldering remains. The theory and logixal explanation is that he wanted to ditch, loosened his safety harness because he knew the plane would sink fast, touched down on the water- and knocked hinmself out cold from smashing his head into the instrument panel, and drowned as the plane sank. I've been in a five point harness imilar to those used on some WWII aircraft and it was very restrictive

In general, I think maybe most of you have read what I posted and then decided that I mean to say "That view is fine, you people don't know anything". I didn't post anything of the sort. I posted that looking at an empty cockpit that looks like it's easy to just poke your head around an obstruction may not be the whole story of what's possible to do in that cockpit

Von_Rat
09-05-2006, 08:13 AM
i wonder how pilots used those gunsights that they had to lower head and lean forward and also to the right on some, if their straps were so tight so as to hold their shoulders unmovable against seat back.

if their necks alone are long and flexiable enough to use gunsight, they should be long and flexiable enough to see around the tiny tempest headrest. if straps are loose enough to allow circulation, their loose enough for a couple of inches of sideways wiggle room.

imo the only reasons the ingame rear views on some planes is bad, is because of our ingame unmovable head. that and a poor choice of POV on some planes.

JG53Frankyboy
09-05-2006, 08:18 AM
anyway, the game engine doesnt simulate the pilot view very well.
and some planes are more or less handicaped by this.

and, similar planes are even not programmed the same:
examples are the different point of views in the Ki-61/100 or the Mc200/202&205 or P-51D/P-47bubbletop (height of headarmour is very different, in game!)

LEBillfish
09-05-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i wonder how pilots used those gunsights that they had to lower head and lean forward and also to the right on some, if their straps were so tight so as to hold their shoulders unmovable against seat back.

As I said, very likely just lap belts.....What many think were 5 point harnesses were actually the parachute harness, the parachute bag sat upon.

R_Target
09-05-2006, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
R_target-

personally, it's hard to imagine a fighter pilot loosening his belt to suit his own preference most time. Sakai aside, these planes were built to be high gain/high response machines. if you've ever been in a powerful car, and the driver fishtails through a corner so that the steering wheel is turned opposite the turn, you're not experiencing half of what a fighter pilot experiences. I have a ridiculously huge V-8 (7.5L) in a car with a light rear end and I've done this many times- sometimes ending up on the passenger seat if I wasn't wearing my seat belt. The last time I did that, I could do two one-handed pull-ups. I still got tossed into the other seat. Physical strength just isn't enough

Don't get me wrong Chuck, I agree with you. I wasn't implying that the harness was adjusted constantly on the fly or anything like that, just that they were free to adjust it to what they felt they could handle. Carrier pilots who have to ditch always mention tightening the straps before splashdown, and still getting thrown forward and banging their head on the gunsight or the canopy.

Feathered_IV
09-05-2006, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i wonder how pilots used those gunsights that they had to lower head and lean forward and also to the right on some, if their straps were so tight so as to hold their shoulders unmovable against seat back.

As I said, very likely just lap belts.....What many think were 5 point harnesses were actually the parachute harness, the parachute bag sat upon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've often wondered what it was like to try to use a scope while you are pulling G's trough a turn. Not much chance of leaning forward for a squint I imagine.

stathem
09-05-2006, 08:52 AM
I was a Rally Navigator in my younger days. Obv we used to use 5-points (or 6 if you were rich, never quite trusted 5 points, blokes will understand.)

Lap straps were kept as tight as possible, but yep, shoulder straps were adjusted on the fly as the need dictated. Drivers tend to wear theirs a little looser, so they have more purchase on the wheel. I would slacken mine off when the need arose to pore over a particularly tricky section on the map. Turning round for peripheral vision was possible, but I usually saw drivers taking theirs off if they had ***ked up and needed to reverse the car. (actually one just tends to reverse until you stop and take it from there - or do doughnuts)

If you went off when they were in that condition, it hurt quite a bit, but at least you lived (well I always have anyway) and that's the main thing.

And before you go "Oh there's a world of difference" etc, there was a famous NZ or Aus Nav (Possum Bourne's I think it was) who was killed from the deceleration G's alone (ie mashed his internal organs) when they crashed into a tree once.

Btw, on another note, isn't peripheral vision better at picking up movement?

LStarosta
09-05-2006, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Rearview from REAL Ki43II was excellent, as for Tempest, you dont need to look back too much at 700km/h, but in Ki43 it's fatal mistake...I wonder whz is Oleg degrading axis AC on PURPOSE with all taht ****? (Fw190, dirty galss on Me109G6 etc, etc). I'm tired of that be SURE!

Oh, grow up already. The Mustang, Jug and Tempest have crappy rear view, and the Wildcat had cumstains on its windscreen too.

LEBillfish
09-05-2006, 11:20 AM
Hmm...yes well......

Anywho, consider the following.

Ejection:
Then, entailed undoing whatever belts held you in the seat, possibly tangling, the more stacked up on a quick release the harder to undo it and get them off (we're not talking about modern day 1 button clasps)...Then up you'd climb fighting G's & wind after ejecting the canopy IF you could, then climbing out and jumping..........That's a lot to do in short order.
Now, Pull the handles and go....It important to stay in the seat.

Sights:
Then, though you could adjust the position of the sight to match your position in the adjusted seat, any movement throws you off that required perfect line (and remember, we're talking maybe a 3" viewing window)...as the sight position was fixed......Though light it's still nothing more then a notch and tang.
Now, you have a larger viewing area and the sight tracks the target in some cases, your position is better fixed, though i'm guessing within reason would matter little.

Controls:
Then, you had controls & guages some of which were even behind you to the sides. Levers you had to reach to the floor for, valves, chargers, and knobs.....So though they tried to design planes to reach everything in a "cruise" condition, there was also the knowledge that the pilot could lean and twist so made for some poor design.
Now, I'm assuming for the most part it is all designed to be reached from a fixed position.

Clothing/Gear:
Then, varied so greatly due to climate was rediculous...However once at altitude was cold, frigid. Low it might be extremely hot, so that meant clothing you could adjust....If a lot it would aid in padding you when bounced around, if little it allowed you to move around, yet even helmets and masks were minimal affairs, so in the end you could move about.
Now, gear is designed to restrict you, G suits and the like plus you're plugged in so no dancing. Helmets and masks are much bulkier, yet if you're only turning your head slightly and leaning slightly it's not as much of an issue being a "climate controlled cockpit".

It goes on and on........

So, in relation to "headrests" which really were NOT. They served only 3 purposes. 1. keep your head from snapping back. 2. A rollbar incase of flip over on landing. 3. Armor to protect your noggin.

If you look at many designs you'll note the rear view is terrible, yet that came from a logic of armor actually being able to defeat a bullet. Once it was realized that bullets had evolved to such a powerful state all you're going to do is make more shrapnel, then better to take your chances and gain visibility (hence bubble canopies or they'd be of little value due to the head armor still being huge).

The Ki-43 had a steady evolution from pure roll bar, to a combinaion of rollbar and armor. By the time the series ended the logic had not changed.

The issue we have is the ability to twist and lean...........That ability NEVER to be seen in this series as it is my understanding that would require every cockpit to have to be remade as a 3d model (though could be wrong)....It simply cannot be implimented.

As to the Ki-43-II roll bar shown in the original pic.....I can't say for sure if it is right or wrong as the pick is of the pilot in a "leaned back" position looking down and behind, and may be a "later" version of the Ki-43-II.

Remember however, when you hit F1, that is a leaned forward view (which you did not have with the Ki-43-I as it went to the scope)....So having a reflector sight and a leaned forward view available your rearview visibility may be vastly improved as it is on all planes that have that feature as it seems to also compensate somewhat for lean.

Charos
09-05-2006, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
Btw, on another note, isn't peripheral vision better at picking up movement?

Yes your correct.

But on the other hand its worse at detecting shape and colour.

LEBillfish
09-12-2006, 09:21 AM
The next posted in another thread, simply supporting evidence of what was stated below.....In kind, also find info on the seat design for roll overs here: http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=302.0


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
"We were encountering a serious problem by this time. Recent Spitfires seem to have adopted even more powerful engines and and their climb and speed had improved considerably. Chasing and shooting down these enemy fighters with our Hayabusa MkIIs became increasingly difficult. Even if we succeeded in luring them into a close-in dogfight, the skill of the RAF pilots was not bad at all. In clear contrast to the USAAF pilots, the RAF pilots were seasoned veterans. They often seemed to intentionally try to dogfight us rather than using hit-and-run tactics.

So we made our best efforts to improve the rate of climb and maneuvrability of our mounts; stripping down our planes was the primary method. We removed our back armor, head armor (this was also to imrove rear vision), and reducedthe number of oxygen bottles."

Sgt. Masahiro Ikeda, 64th Sentai commenting on the state of battle in Burma , 1944

Saw this off a link Leitmotiv posted on other thread. Most interesting to se ethat this pilot regarded the RAF pilots as more skillful opponents. Also its oft stated that the Spitfire didnt turnfight against Ki43/Zero - hey I supose if I was in a VIII Id stay and dogfight with anything even I-16 lol

Poor bugger having to strip even more out their already lightweight mounts to try and cope with much better Allied equipment.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/quotes/ki43.html



Originally posted by LEBillfish:
First of all....the "Roll Bar" as these things tended to tip over a lot varied in size from version to version....Rolled over enough in fact the pilot seat is designed to flip up, and you can squeeze through the fusalage and out the large side access door.

Those that have no "Armored Roll Bar"..(the headrest like one in your car, not meant to lay upon yet padding if your head snaps back)...Were removed by pilots to save on weight, as they would even do with Oxygen trying to get every bit of performance out of the moderately powered craft....

Here are drawings of various Ki-43 Rollbars...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/rollbar.jpg

So in looking at it my guess would be two things......First off it is a late model Ki-43-II or Ki-43-III rollbar, and part of it perspective.........Also note that rollbars you see in some restored planes ARE incorrect....They are often too narrow simply fabricated to replace what wasn't there.