PDA

View Full Version : The N1K and its devilish auto-flaps



Ba5tard5word
06-16-2011, 11:36 AM
Whenever I've tried this plane in Il-2 I've generally liked its handling and armament but its auto-flaps make it hard to use because any time you pull back on the stick, like to make adjustments when aiming at an enemy, the flaps deploy which make the nose pull up a lot. This makes dogfighting hard.

Is this how the N1K was supposed to be? Its wikipedia article states "A unique feature was the aircraft's automatic combat flaps that adjusted automatically based on acceleration, freeing up the pilot from having to do this and reducing the chance of stalling in combat." Does that mean they didn't deploy if you are going over a certain speed? Does that happen in Il-2, like if you're fast enough they don't deploy? I haven't flown it much because the flaps put me off so much but I didn't notice the flaps not deploying over a certain speed.

binky9
06-16-2011, 12:20 PM
I don't think the speed you are going is important. It's the change in speed. If you suddenly bank the plane, or pull back on the stick, the plane is no longer going the same speed forward. The activation of the flaps probably has something to do with accelerating or decelerating G-forces.

Just my 2 cents.

binky9

AndyJWest
06-16-2011, 12:27 PM
According to the notes for the 4.10 patch, the N1K combat flaps were modified: http://www.mission4today.com/i...file=details&id=3993 (http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=3993)

I think this was done to solve the problem, though I've not tried it myself.

Luno13
06-16-2011, 12:41 PM
The flaps were modified in 4.10, not to solve a "problem", but to reflect how they actually worked! They don't come down suddenly to "combat" setting (I hate the terminology the games uses) and sharply increase the aircraft's pitch, but gradually lower based on speed to give a little extra edge in turns. You also have the option of having them raised constantly so you can focus on conserving speed and energy instead (I've had success both ways).

This is the only fighter with which I deploy any amount of flaps in a combat setting. It bugs me to see Bf-109s or Spits with full flaps down trying to force me to overshoot - just not possible in reality.

Sillius_Sodus
06-16-2011, 04:03 PM
When flaps are 'up', auto-flaps will not deploy. Select combat flaps and you will see the word 'auto' in the lower right corner of the hud. Now you have auto-flaps.

The N1K2 is much more pleasant to fight in now.

ElAurens
06-16-2011, 04:14 PM
In the real aircraft, G-loads were sensed by a simple mercury switch that closed the circuit and deployed the flaps.

Several years ago I toured the National Museum of the USAF's restoration shop while their "George" was undergoing rebuild. They had the box that holds the switch and it's circuitry on the bench.

This is one of the very earliest implementations of "fly by wire" control systems.

Ba5tard5word
06-16-2011, 05:32 PM
Hmm cool good to hear. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I just couldn't imagine pilots flying the plane being able to get a good bead on an enemy fighter or bomber if their nose kept flying up whenever they'd make a tiny tug on the stick to move their reticle.

JtD
06-16-2011, 10:26 PM
They actually lower depending on AoA, since both speed and g-load were used as input for the flap setting. No matter if you fly 100 or 250, you pull the same AoA, the flaps will come down the same way.

Ba5tard5word
06-17-2011, 11:21 AM
Happy days, without those auto-flaps the N1K really is pretty fun to fly. Though it does feel a bit underpowered compared to the Ki-84 or the J2M (which admittedly is a bit of a clownwagon) but it's a pretty good match for a Hellcat.

Gaston444
06-19-2011, 10:15 PM
A little dose of reality on this mostly boom and zoomer type:

"Flight journal "Pacific fighters" collector edition 2010, p.74,:

"On the N1K1 (1001 of near 1500 "George" built); It was probably faster than the Hellcat (It was vs F6F-3s: N1K1: 650 km/h), but the turning performance and maneuverability were not very good. If you were rough with the stick, you could go into what the pilots called "autorotation". During this movement the aircraft would go out of control, or sometimes, it went into a spin. It turned in a way the pilot could not predict. For example, during an aerial melee over Manila with US fighters, a squadron mate of mine went into autorotation when our unit engaged them. His aircraft then went into a spin and crashed into the ground. In autorotation, you do not know what will happen, whether you will go into a spin, or flip over. It is totally unpredictable.

On the flaps: "They worked very well, however, in spite of them, handling the plane was still a problem. The combat flaps worked well in tight turns, and they would work smoothly. But, there were still handling problems with the aircraft. Ryoichi Yamada"


Gaston

Gaston444
06-19-2011, 10:23 PM
More unexpected stuff on Japanese fighters (illustrating well how inept current maths are at predicting comparative outcomes):

"Aeroplane" November 2005, "Ki-100 fighter Database" p. 61-77. (16 full pages on nothing but the Ki-100, with remarkable details, including on the development of the projected high-altitude turbo-charged variant)

quote : P. 76:

"At these schools, the cream of the IJAAF's instructors, all very experienced combat pilots, would give their opinion on the new fighter (Ki-100). Almost all the Akeno instructors were graduates of the 54th Class of the Army Air Academy and also highly-qualified sentai commanders in their own right.

During March and April they would fly the Ki-100 in comparison tests against the most capable Japanese fighter then in service, the Ki-84 "Frank". After extensive testing the conclusion drawn by the Akeno pilots left little to the imagination.

In short, it stated that given equally skilled pilots, the Ki-100 would ALWAYS win a fight with the Ki-84 in any one-to-one combat. They further added that in a combat situation with up to three Ki-84s, the Ki-100 pilot could still develop the battle to his advantage.

The results of the evaluations at the Hitachi school were just as clear-cut. Captain Yasuro Mazaki and captain Toyoshia Komatso,also both graduates of the 54th class, developed the combat evaluation situations for the new fighter, and in order to give an unbiaised opinion of the aircraft, they swapped aircraft after each engagements and attempted combat from the opposite standpoint.

In the first combat the Ki-100 was flown against a single Ki-84 with the Ki-100 winning outright.

Mazaki stated: "When we entered combat with the Ki-100 taking the height advantage, the Ki-100 won every time. Even with an altitude disadvantage the Ki-100 could hold down the Ki-84 in two or three climbs during the exercise"

He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."

Gaston

JtD
06-20-2011, 01:27 AM
Unbelievable. If only the Duracell-rabbit kept going for so long.

AndyJWest
06-20-2011, 07:39 AM
Is it cherry-picking season again already? Doesn't time fly... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Luno13
06-20-2011, 05:49 PM
If you were rough with the stick, you could go into what the pilots called "autorotation". During this movement the aircraft would go out of control, or sometimes, it went into a spin.

Pulling too hard in the N1K1, and indeed any plane, does result in a spin in Il-2. Is this supposed to be a surprise?


Mazaki stated: "When we entered combat with the Ki-100 taking the height advantage, the Ki-100 won every time. Even with an altitude disadvantage the Ki-100 could hold down the Ki-84 in two or three climbs during the exercise"

He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."


It just so happens that at some speeds the Ki-100 is indeed better at turning and climbing than the Ki-84 in the game. I've killed Mustangs in the thing because my opponent got overconfident in his better plane. Set-up dogfights don't prove anything.

So in short, what are you hoping to "revise" here?

BTW how's that B-29 coming along?

horseback
06-21-2011, 11:47 AM
I’m just going to point this out in order to put the Japanese testing in context: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Japanese prejudice in favor of the close-in dogfight blinded them to any other tactic or capability in a fighter plane. </span>They could not accept the advantages the Mustang or Corsair’s greater speed and heavier construction provided if they did not also come with greater maneuverability in the classic sense.

The ability to ‘zoom and boom ‘was irrelevant to them, because it was cowardly in their eyes; a fighter pilot was supposed to close with his enemy and fight to the death, mano a mano. The ability to engage or disengage at will, or to hit and run and come back after you’ve had a chance to evaluate the effects of your first pass rather than to turn around immediately and keep the enemy in your sights was just not cricket, and probably proof that you were really a ground pounder instead of a fighter pilot. This meant that the Japanese judged their aircraft superior as long as they were better in a relatively low speed turning/looping contest, with a weight/power ratio that allowed them to accelerate or climb quickly at those lower speeds.

Hence, the slower but more maneuverable Ki-100 was ‘better’ than the Ki-84, and the stock Ki-84 was better than a Mustang or late model Corsair (I say ‘stock’ because the apocryphal post-war tests by the USAAF probably involved some parts replacement or upgrades with standard American components and the use of at least cleaner if not higher octane fuels and lubricants much better than those available to the Japanese during the last two years of the war; apparently it was the only way to get them into the air safely for the tests).

In the hands of a skilled veteran, these aircraft could have been quite deadly against the well trained but less experienced American pilots who formed the majority of their opposition at the time the Ki-100 or Ki-84 rolled out of the factories. Of course, this assumes that the skilled veteran was flying an aircraft in decent condition when he took to the air, at best a fifty-fifty proposition by the spring of 1945 in Japan.

However, in the hands of the average IJAAF fighter pilot of 1945, these fighters may have given them a marginal improvement over the Oscar, but not nearly enough to make up for their lack of training and skills under the best of conditions. I would think that the same would be true for the less numerous real-life George and Jack IJN fighters.

cheers

horseback

Wildnoob
06-21-2011, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Gaston444:
He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."

Probably a reality for late war Japan. All aircraft, but the Ki-84 especially, was suffering terribly due to the lack of quality control for it's already problematic components, especially the engine. Coupled wih deficient maintence (especially oversas), oil and fuel quality, and you have some machines not even managing to achive 400 km/h according to my Kagero monograph about the aircraft.


Originally posted by horseback:I’m just going to point this out in order to put the Japanese testing in context: Japanese prejudice in favor of the close-in dogfight blinded them to any other tactic or capability in a fighter plane. They could not accept the advantages the Mustang or Corsair’s greater speed and heavier construction provided if they did not also come with greater maneuverability in the classic sense.

In theory this fetish with agility ended up after the bad experiences with energy tactics used by the Soviets in the Nomonhan Incident. The problem was that the whole constructional and tactical philosophys had to be changed, and this took time. The specifications for what would become the Ki-84 were send to Nakajima in late December 1941, with the IJAAF well aware that soon new Allied fighters would appear at front, and the Ki-43, with it's guidelines still set in the old philosphy, would not be able to compete.

Now a doubt has came in my mind: in fact the Zero was superior to the Ki-43 in the general balance, at start at least. But could have been by the Army's somewhat more traumatic and first large scale experiences with energy tactics that they get first, and have more modern fighters than the Navy? In fact both Air Forces really did not like to share nothing...

And about the agility, I don't see nothing wrong, if you have plenty of power. Less wing loading means less weight, and less weight means less induced drag, which means necessary less power, and less necessary power means more avaliable power, which means a better rate of climb. As well as agility. I guess everyone here respect planes like the La-7. A fully working Ki-84 had a similar speed, but a much higher initial rate of climb and better agility than the wartime US fighters. It's much more a pilot's airplane. And the Americans were also aware of this, as their next generation of the F8F and the P-51H demonstrated. Another great problem was high altitude performance, and versions to correct this were already being worked out by the war's end. The new Ki-87 and Ki-94 fighters were being devolped for the Army Air Force as well. New piston fighters for the Navy by the war's end I only know the already familiar project of the A7M.

Luno13
06-21-2011, 06:48 PM
In offline missions/campaigns, I like to try to not to exceed 80% power in the K-84, but flying with AI wingmen becomes problematic...

It indeed would be treat to have historic engine and airframe performance loss and failure rates depending on the map and/or time frame of the mission. This would also be interesting in Eastern front scenarios.

Gaston444
06-25-2011, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Luno13:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you were rough with the stick, you could go into what the pilots called "autorotation". During this movement the aircraft would go out of control, or sometimes, it went into a spin.

Pulling too hard in the N1K1, and indeed any plane, does result in a spin in Il-2. Is this supposed to be a surprise?


Mazaki stated: "When we entered combat with the Ki-100 taking the height advantage, the Ki-100 won every time. Even with an altitude disadvantage the Ki-100 could hold down the Ki-84 in two or three climbs during the exercise"

He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."


It just so happens that at some speeds the Ki-100 is indeed better at turning and climbing than the Ki-84 in the game. I've killed Mustangs in the thing because my opponent got overconfident in his better plane. Set-up dogfights don't prove anything.

So in short, what are you hoping to "revise" here?

BTW how's that B-29 coming along? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The B-29?, Not well, symmetry-wise the Monogram kit is an unholy mess from nose to tail...

You may have noticed they say a Ki-100 could often beat THREE Ki-84s despite starting co-altitude...

Good luck finding this game allows you to duplicate that in way related to the performance of each type...

As for the N1K1, I guess you missed the part where the pilot says the N1K1's handling in turns was "a problem" against Hellcats... They in fact used it in boom and zoom tactics... Pretty significant I would say...

Gaston

AndyJWest
06-25-2011, 09:48 PM
Pretty significant I would say...
Nothing you say is significant...

Gaston444
06-25-2011, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."

Probably a reality for late war Japan. All aircraft, but the Ki-84 especially, was suffering terribly due to the lack of quality control for it's already problematic components, especially the engine. Coupled wih deficient maintence (especially oversas), oil and fuel quality, and you have some machines not even managing to achive 400 km/h according to my Kagero monograph about the aircraft.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

70% of late war Japanese fighters were unfit for combat service on delivery, as you describe, but that does not mean they were sent into combat in that condition... Just that more of them spent massive amounts of time on the ground being prepared for actual combat missions... Where they were usually bombed or strafed to bits...

You can bet the 3-to-1 superiority of the Ki-100, over the Ki-84, reflected fully functional combat machines, especially given the location of the test withing the Japanese mainland(!)... Otherwise the test would be completely meaningless...

The only acceptable conclusion one can take from this extensive evaluation, made by switching pilot around numerous times, is that the Ki-84, in PRISTINE form, is NO MATCH AT ALL against the Ki-100 in co-altitude combat... Not maybe, somewhat, depending on pilot or circumstances: NO MATCH AT ALL. (Boom and zoom is another matter of course)

If in the game they are a very rough match fighting from co-alt, which I'll bet from all the silly math used in this game is what they are, then the game is not even in the same galaxy with reality, it's that simple...

And please note WHO is saying it, and compare your practical knowledge to theirs...

Gaston

Luno13
06-26-2011, 02:38 AM
The B-29?, Not well, symmetry-wise the Monogram kit is an unholy mess from nose to tail...

Aw, man. Was hoping to see that one finished with the proper nose shape. It really irks me to see models with accuracy issues as staggering as those on that kit. I mean, what were they thinking when they forgot to include the jowls?

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

Anyway, your work is an inspiration to us all. I hope to use all of your research when I rebuild my Superfort.

horseback
06-26-2011, 11:54 AM
What they were thinking was:

"Hey, it's 1972 and we're the only ones in the world who have even bothered to try to model this beast in this scale, and the Airfix ones in 1/72nd are abominably crude."

It was literally the dawn of the accurate 1/48th scale modelling era, and Monogram were the first in the field to even try to get it right. Getting subtle shapes 'just so' may have been out of their technological (or budgetary--remember, they made these things so as to make a profit) means.

cheers

horseback

Frequent_Flyer
07-02-2011, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
I’m just going to point this out in order to put the Japanese testing in context: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Japanese prejudice in favor of the close-in dogfight blinded them to any other tactic or capability in a fighter plane. </span>They could not accept the advantages the Mustang or Corsair’s greater speed and heavier construction provided if they did not also come with greater maneuverability in the classic sense.

horseback

It would appear Oleg attended the same engineering lectures at the Japanese fantasy camp.With regard to modleing the performance of the US fightershttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

LEBillfish
07-02-2011, 10:36 AM
I don't know where you all are getting your speculations as to the N1K, Ki-84 & Ki-100, yet virtually everything I have read here "you need to close that book forever and never open it again...be sure".

The Ki-100 was a bandaid fix...Not a bandaid fix that by pure luck became a miracle machine, yet a bandaid fix PERIOD. The Ki-84 if you had to give it a nickname would of been "Super Hayabusa". Nakajima had wrung out the Ki-43 as far as it could go. Continuous improvement the norm during its life and they only stopped to get the Ki-84 up and going utilizing the tested experience from the Ki-43.

The N1K series is noted as being an exceptional design once reaching the N1K2. So much so they were considered par and in some aspects more advanced then allied counterparts and those later versions in the works would of been shattering.

If you want to beat up sub-par Japanese fighters go after the J2M or Ki-100.

K2

VW-IceFire
07-06-2011, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I don't know where you all are getting your speculations as to the N1K, Ki-84 & Ki-100, yet virtually everything I have read here "you need to close that book forever and never open it again...be sure".

The Ki-100 was a bandaid fix...Not a bandaid fix that by pure luck became a miracle machine, yet a bandaid fix PERIOD. The Ki-84 if you had to give it a nickname would of been "Super Hayabusa". Nakajima had wrung out the Ki-43 as far as it could go. Continuous improvement the norm during its life and they only stopped to get the Ki-84 up and going utilizing the tested experience from the Ki-43.

The N1K series is noted as being an exceptional design once reaching the N1K2. So much so they were considered par and in some aspects more advanced then allied counterparts and those later versions in the works would of been shattering.

If you want to beat up sub-par Japanese fighters go after the J2M or Ki-100.

K2
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but the development of the Ki-84 was the result of lessons learned during the development of both the Ki-43 and the Ki-44. Superficially at least the Ki-84 bears more resemblance to the Ki-44 than Ki-43.

Also my understanding is that the Ki-100's best attribute was not it's performance but the fact that it was available with a reasonably reliable engine. By the numbers it is a relatively unremarkable fighter in the summer 1945 time period.

Kettenhunde
07-08-2011, 07:27 AM
They could not accept the advantages the Mustang or Corsair’s greater speed and heavier construction provided if they did not also come with greater maneuverability in the classic sense.


Horseback,

If it is any comfort, engineers understand the relationship of aircraft speed to maneuverability.

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

I have no idea what you mean by "maneuverability in the classic sense" but I can guess you are referring to the misconception that low speed maneuverability was a major design goal in a fighter airplane design from the 1930's/1940's. If I wrong in that guess please let me know.

You don't need to put that "classical sense" quantifier because it is a fact that the faster airplane's sustainable performance can outmaneuver its slower opponent's sustainable performance.

Many people seem to have a misunderstanding about low speed maneuverability vs maximum level speed. Aerodynamically, an aircraft at the edge of the sustainable performance envelope cannot change its conditions.

That means at top level speed, the airplane can only sustain wings level flight. Any attempt to maneuver must exchange speed or altitude in order to reach sustainable performance.

The same is true for any maximum performance sustainable condition of flight. For example, a maximum performance low speed turn means the aircraft must exchange altitude, airspeed, or angle of bank to change conditions. If the plane needs to increase speed, it must either lose altitude or reduce the load factor of the turn.

Engineer's understand this....

With speed comes maneuverability simply because the slower aircraft has no options to sustain maneuvering in the vicinity of Vmax and small changes in speed represent large changes in potential to maneuver.

LEBillfish
07-08-2011, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but the development of the Ki-84 was the result of lessons learned during the development of both the Ki-43 and the Ki-44. Superficially at least the Ki-84 bears more resemblance to the Ki-44 than Ki-43.

Also my understanding is that the Ki-100's best attribute was not it's performance but the fact that it was available with a reasonably reliable engine. By the numbers it is a relatively unremarkable fighter in the summer 1945 time period.

Well like any company, lessons learned from all projects are applied to those future. However if you look over the Ki-84 you'll note that it was not designed to be some straight line interceptor yet a GP fighter that just happened to be light yet had a powerful engine. Though I'd have to check off the top of my head I read one of the experts at J-Aircraft mention how most don't realize the Ki-43 was something like 660 (lbs/kg can't recall) lighter then an A6M. Either way that is a massive difference under what was considered one of the lightest aircraft in combat.

Manueverability was not sacrificed for speed, and in the end if you note the progression of the Ki-43 driven by true continuous improvement then compare the designs it's rather obvious that the Ki-84 was simply the next evolution the Ki-43 constrained by its initial design.

As to the Ki-100 just because you take a solid airframe and put in a solid engine (not designed for it) does not make it a solid aircraft....I can take a corvette and put in a cummins turbo-diesel yet that doesn't make it a reliable race car, or a tractor truck....YET....It will drive, and that was the point as it got aircraft in the air.

K2

P.S....As to Manueverability we too often get bogged down with numbers from successful slashing attacks vs. turn fights and top speeds and so on. It all counts. So much so you'll note that the latest and greatest fighters of today all make special note of their turning ability, and they don't keep guns on them for slashing runs (in that the enemy knows you are there).

ElAurens
07-08-2011, 10:47 AM
Kettenhunde, it seems to be a dictum among flight simmers that an aircraft that is highly maneuverable, especially in the turn, is somehow prohibited from having a high top speed, and vice versa.

Of course this argument falls to the ground when they champion the Bf 109 or Spitfire, as those aircraft were indeed both fast and maneuverable, even in the turn. And there are many more examples of aircraft that were similar.

But simmers never let the real world stand in the way of numbers on a chart somewhere.

JtD
07-08-2011, 12:03 PM
ElAurens, you may be right, but there is a compromise between a low speed turn capability and top speed. Simply speaking, you need a bigger wing for the low speed turn, which in the high speed region will simply create some extra drag and thus knock off a couple of km/h.

However, I guess the impression you're quoting stems more from the fact that early war planes usually featured a better low speed turn than later designs, while also having a less powerful engines and less refined aerodynamics, making them slower. Thus the impression that a low speed turn capacity makes planes slow.

Edit: Silly typo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kettenhunde
07-08-2011, 02:55 PM
So much so you'll note that the latest and greatest fighters of today all make special note of their turning ability,

Right and for good reason.

All aspect over the horizon Missiles are a game changer and have brought turn ability to the forefront for fighter designers. High turn rate is a major factor in defense from such an attack.

In fact, engineers are now working with post stall flight behavior to increase maneuverability.

Designers in the 1940's were not dealing with such a development in air to air weaponry. As such, speed was the design goal and without such innovations as thrust vectoring, maneuverability went with it.

It just was not the ability to turn small circles at low velocity many gamers think of as maneuverability. It was the ability to sustain maneuver at the highest possible speed.


Kettenhunde, it seems to be a dictum among flight simmers that an aircraft that is highly maneuverable, especially in the turn, is somehow prohibited from having a high top speed, and vice versa.

They need to understand maneuverability is also a function of high speed.

Bremspropeller
07-08-2011, 03:09 PM
As far as I remember, the only thing deemed "wrong" with the Ki-61 was it's troublesome and rather complicated engine. The airframe itself was well-recieved by the pilots, being among the first designs providing a good compromise between range, speed and maneuverability (even at high speeds and in dives!).

Thus, the Ki-100 was not a step-back, rather than the right modification at the right time - IF there was a right time at all.

The Ki-84 was a different thing: I'm not sure if the Japanese ever gave the concept of the Fw 190 (and it's American sisters) a second thought, but both the Ki-84 and the N1K2 are a huge step in that direction after the rather dull J2M (haha, not so that you'd notice in-game...) and the somewhat under-armed Ki-44.

IIRC, the Zero's "low speed maneuverability" was caused by the design-goal of a very long endurance, which led to a very light airframe and a pretty large wing. It wasn't so much designed for a specific fighting-style.

ElAurens
07-08-2011, 03:44 PM
The Japanese had an FW 190 A (forget which subtype) that was looked at intensively when Kawasaki was working on mating the largish radial engine to the rather narrow airframe of the Ki-61.

Wildnoob
07-08-2011, 03:52 PM
A good book of basic theory of flight such as the ones used in PP courses and a look at the aircraft charts (we have IL2 compare!) can let the things much more simple and make your fun be really great in a flight sim.

Ah, and know something about basic aircraft mechanics like know how the supercharger and boost works is also interesting.

Bremspropeller
07-08-2011, 03:53 PM
It was an A-5:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aircraft-markings-camouflage/50033d1299775525t-foreign-aircraft-japanese-markings-fw-190-jap2.jpg

Wildnoob
07-08-2011, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Also my understanding is that the Ki-100's best attribute was not it's performance but the fact that it was available with a reasonably reliable engine. By the numbers it is a relatively unremarkable fighter in the summer 1945 time period.

I was looking the Ki-100 in IL2 compare and put my tonge out of my mouth when see how slow it was. Much more slower than the Hellcat which I was expecting a similar performance.

Sillius_Sodus
07-08-2011, 05:25 PM
I was looking at the KI-100 in Hardball's viewer and saw that nose gun ammo is increased from 250 rpg to 500 rpg when bombs are carried.

Was this for w/b purposes?

Ba5tard5word
07-08-2011, 05:56 PM
It's annoying that the nature of Il-2 makes pretty much all the major Japanese planes (Ki-43, Zero and Ki-61) really toothless against their contemporary opponents--they're fun and light to fly but so damn slow that AI or human opponents in anything faster than a Wildcat will zip away at 110% throttle before you can jump on them. Plus their MG's are all crappy.

Wildnoob
07-08-2011, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Also my understanding is that the Ki-100's best attribute was not it's performance but the fact that it was available with a reasonably reliable engine. By the numbers it is a relatively unremarkable fighter in the summer 1945 time period.

I was looking the Ki-100 in IL2 compare and put my tonge out of my mouth when saw how slow it was. Much more slower than the Hellcat which I was expecting a similar performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JtD
07-09-2011, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
I was looking at the KI-100 in Hardball's viewer and saw that nose gun ammo is increased from 250 rpg to 500 rpg when bombs are carried.

Was this for w/b purposes?

This is for Hardball's viewer is wrong purposes. It carries 250.

horseback
07-09-2011, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
As far as I remember, the only thing deemed "wrong" with the Ki-61 was it's troublesome and rather complicated engine. The airframe itself was well-recieved by the pilots, being among the first designs providing a good compromise between range, speed and maneuverability (even at high speeds and in dives!).

Thus, the Ki-100 was not a step-back, rather than the right modification at the right time - IF there was a right time at all.

The Ki-84 was a different thing: I'm not sure if the Japanese ever gave the concept of the Fw 190 (and it's American sisters) a second thought, but both the Ki-84 and the N1K2 are a huge step in that direction after the rather dull J2M (haha, not so that you'd notice in-game...) and the somewhat under-armed Ki-44.

IIRC, the Zero's "low speed maneuverability" was caused by the design-goal of a very long endurance, which led to a very light airframe and a pretty large wing. It wasn't so much designed for a specific fighting-style. Actually Brems, the IJN's fighter hierarchy were very specific about the Zero needing to have a minimum top speed of at least 300 mph and for it to be 'as maneuverable' as the A5M; the range requested was actually exceeded by a fair margin, especially by using special techniques developed after its introduction to stretch the range even farther, if Saburo Sakai's memoirs are to be believed.

The Powers That Be in both the IJN and IJA air forces to the end were very dubious of the modern trend of higher speed and higher wing loading, and the pilots in the field had to be persuaded through direct experience (and by that, I mean that they almost had to be forced into the cockpits kicking and screaming) that those qualities were useful, much less desirable. A lightly loaded wing and a better power to weight ratio was far more appealing to them because it gave them advantages in the turn plus better acceleration and climb, giving the superior pilot a theoretical advantage over ANY (but especially the faster and heavier) opponent who closed with him.

As a community, they seem to have ignored the possibility that an equally skilled pilot in a heavier and faster mount might reason that it would be better not to close with them on their terms and instead, choose a strategy that allowed him to maintain his own energy advantages.

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
07-09-2011, 03:47 PM
plus better acceleration and climb

Depends on where on the power curve, horseback.

With speed also comes acceleration and climb performance.

When I run the math for the P51D-5NT vs A6M5a, the Zeke is pretty much helpless in a dogfight against the Mustang.

All the Zeke can do is make defensive break turns unless the P51 pilot is stupid enough to try and match speeds.

Wildnoob
07-09-2011, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">plus better acceleration and climb

Depends on where on the power curve, horseback.

With speed also comes acceleration and climb performance.

When I run the math for the P51D-5NT vs A6M5a, the Zeke is pretty much helpless in a dogfight against the Mustang.

All the Zeke can do is make defensive break turns unless the P51 pilot is stupid enough to try and match speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm reading Hans Lerch's Luftwaffe Test Pilot book about captured Allied aircraft and just read a positive comment about the P-51 agility. When checked the performance of the Mustang against most Allied types I found more power in most altitudes, especially high up were most of the combats took place. I don't know if IL2 is correct exactly, but at least in essence Mr Lerch's and opinions from other Axis pilotos like Gunther Rall and the own Americans seems correct. The physics are, better saying. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bremspropeller
07-10-2011, 04:32 AM
HB, you're talking about range, I'm talking about endurance - they're two entirely different things.


Actually Brems, the IJN's fighter hierarchy were very specific about the Zero needing to have a minimum top speed of at least 300 mph and for it to be 'as maneuverable' as the A5M; the range requested was actually exceeded by a fair margin, especially by using special techniques developed after its introduction to stretch the range even farther, if Saburo Sakai's memoirs are to be believed.

That doesn't conflict with what I said:
fighters are usually designed to achieve higher speeds at the same maneuverability (ability to change position in space) than the planes they're designed to replace.


A lightly loaded wing and a better power to weight ratio was far more appealing to them because it gave them advantages in the turn plus better acceleration and climb, giving the superior pilot a theoretical advantage over ANY (but especially the faster and heavier) opponent who closed with him.

It also gives far more loiter-time at low speeds than a higher-loaded, range-optimized wing.

ElAurens
07-10-2011, 08:10 AM
Another interesting thing about the lightly wing loaded Japanese aircraft is that in the fighting in New Guinea, the IJAFC suffered fewer non combat losses than the Allies did. The theory being that they were easier to operate from the typical poor airfields encountered in that wretched theatre.

Bremspropeller
07-10-2011, 09:33 AM
Lower wingloading almost directly translates into lower landing-speeds, allowing larger margins on small fields, providing less wear on the tyres/ landing-gear, make the whole process more starightforward (same amount of workload yet in a larger timeframe).

horseback
07-10-2011, 02:05 PM
All of those things like long range/endurance are desirable, especially for a carrier based fighter, and the ideal carrier fighter will have very benign landing characteristics.

By the way, both the Wildcat and the P-40 were notorious for being treacherous to land and take off under the best of conditions, both of them at least as bad as I have ever accused the Bf-109 of being.

I have found the IJN's original 1937 specifications for what became the Zero in Robert Mikesh's Zero Fighter(actual achieved specs in yellow):

Mission: A fighter capable of intercepting and destroying enemy attack bombers and of serving as an escort fighter with combat performance greater than that of enemy interceptors.

Dimensions: Wing span less than 12 metres (39 ft, 4 in)

Speed: Maximum speed exceeding 500 km/h (270 kt, 310.5 mph) at 4000m (13, 123 ft) in level flight.<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">(315.5 mph)</span>

Climb: Climb to 3000m (9,843 ft) within 3 min. 30 sec.<span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> (3 min 54 sec from takeoff start)</span>

Endurance: Normal flight duration of 1.2 to 1.5 hours with normal rated power (maximum continuous) at 3000m fully loaded with auxiliary fuel tank; 1.5 to 2 hours at 3000m using normal rated power, or 6 to 8 hours at maximum range cruising speed. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">10 hours, 115 kt at 12,000ft, 1,700 to 1850 rpm)</span>

Takeoff: Less than 70m (229.7 ft) with head wind of 12 m/sec (43.2 kmh or 30 mph--about what you'd get from a carrier at full speed into the wind). Approximately 175m (574 ft) in a calm wind.

Landing speed: less than 107 km/h (58 kt, 66.7 mph) <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">(55 mph)</span>

Gliding Descent/min: 210m (690 ft) to 240m (787 ft)

Maneuverability: Equal or better than Type 96 Fighter A5M

Power loading: Not to exceed 5.5 lb/hp

Horikoshi and his design team came very close to meeting or exceeding those parameters when the aircraft took flight in April 1939; I will leave it to the engineering heads to interpret the IJN's intended capabilities and use in combat for this fighter.

cheers

horseback

ElAurens
07-10-2011, 09:13 PM
Indeed the Mitsubishi design team did a brilliant job of giving the IJN pretty much exactly what they asked for.

VW-IceFire
07-11-2011, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Also my understanding is that the Ki-100's best attribute was not it's performance but the fact that it was available with a reasonably reliable engine. By the numbers it is a relatively unremarkable fighter in the summer 1945 time period.

I was looking the Ki-100 in IL2 compare and put my tonge out of my mouth when see how slow it was. Much more slower than the Hellcat which I was expecting a similar performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh yes it is much slower. Really aside from the better handling it's like flying a Bf109E. The handling and dive abilities are what make it competitive at all. In some situations I can fly it against late war fighters but never in a straight line battle as it's just too slow... but in a swirling fight with a bit of altitude advantage I can usually keep up long enough to fight back against Hellcats, Corsairs and Mustangs. Almost impossible if you don't surprise your opponent or use teamwork.

I assume that in real life the tactics were much the same.

danjama
07-11-2011, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Luno13:
It bugs me to see Bf-109s or Spits with full flaps down trying to force me to overshoot - just not possible in reality. [/rant]

I can't be bothered to go hunting, but i've read several accounts of this being used to great effect in reality during WW2.

horseback
07-13-2011, 12:52 PM
At what speeds?

Cracking in a 'bit' of flap to improve your turn rate was possible up to certain speeds in some aircraft (but NOT the Spitfire or Hurricane: it was an all or nothing deal flapswise with those a/c), but the AI in the game routinely extend them at speeds where the player's flaps will jam on him every time.

Full flaps down in a 109 took some time & muscle cranking at that wheel against the force of airflow over the wings, but the AI will flip them in and out like a frog's tongue stabbing at a fly.

I believe that this is where most complaints about unrealistic AI flap use originate.

cheers

horseback

JtD
07-13-2011, 10:54 PM
Hurricane flaps could be brought down to any angle wanted by the pilot.

Kettenhunde
07-14-2011, 05:49 AM
120 mph IAS is the flap deployment speed of the Hurricane series.

The safety feature of the Hurricane flap system is the lever is left in the down position and the flaps will automatically retract as speed increases preventing damage to the aircraft.