PDA

View Full Version : To Oleg, About the Ki-84



Pages : 1 [2]

PzKpfw
04-14-2004, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
To this point I have yet so see a quote from any first-hand participant in either combat with, or testing against a Ki-84 declaring its superiority. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I have yet to see a quote from any of the first-hand participant's etc, or anything from
these alleged comparitive tests, Ie, Middletown etc, that contradicts or disputes any of the quotes, we have seen here that the Ki-84 outmanouvered or outclimbed the P-47N, or P-51H, etc.

So far we have not gotten one iota of proof that the Ki-84 is overmodeled in FB/ACE, all we have is speculation etc.

If you feel te Ki-84 is overmodeled etc, it's your job to prove it, so far despite pages & pages of text, new titeled threads etc, no one has presented any hard evidence, that the Ki-84 is overmodeled, other then it, _feels_ overmodeled etc.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

lrrp22
04-14-2004, 09:04 AM
John,

What's your view regarding the contents of Pinche_Bolillo's TAIC 'general data' block?

"GENERAL DATA

Normal fighter weight, fuel capacity, dimensions area, military and take-off power are all documentary values. Drag analysis is based on areas and dimensions and the assumption that the plane will have lines similar to OSCAR. Dimensions given are similar to those of OSCAR and it is quite certain this plane is of Nakajima desing. Performanc figures should be takens as estimates but they do give an idications of the expected performance of new japanese fighters."

If accurate, I'd say that casts a very different light on those numbers.

Also, I don't think that there can be any dispute over whether or not the in-game Frank is modeled to the U.S. data contained in Butch's TAIC tables- speed and climb performance matches *exactly*.

To this point we have assumed that the 427 mph@20,000 ft and 363 mph@sea level speeds were the result of U.S tests, but Pinche's TAIC manual seems to indicate that those numbers are calculated based on some very preliminary predicitons and expectations of design and performance.

Notice that Butch's two charts are dated March 1945: do we know when the U.S. first got their hands on a Ki-84? When was the first test conducted? That would tell us alot about the accuracy of the TAIC data.

Since FB's Ki-84 is obviously modeled to the TAIC data, questions about the validity of the TAIC data invariably lead to questions about the accuracy of FB's Ki that are far from simply 'speculation'.

edit:
"And I have yet to see a quote from any of the first-hand participant's etc, or anything from
these alleged comparitive tests, Ie, Middletown etc, that contradicts or disputes any of the quotes, we have seen here that the Ki-84 outmanouvered or outclimbed the P-47N, or P-51H, etc."

It would be exceedingly difficult to find contradictary quotes if those tests were never conducted. I think that the relative perfomance numbers with regards to the Ki-84 and P-51H are far more effective at disputing the 'easily bested' or 'outclimbed' contentions than any books unqualified and unsupported statements to the contrary.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
To this point I have yet so see a quote from any first-hand participant in either combat with, or testing against a Ki-84 declaring its superiority. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I have yet to see a quote from any of the first-hand participant's etc, or anything from
these alleged comparitive tests, Ie, Middletown etc, that contradicts or disputes any of the quotes, we have seen here that the Ki-84 outmanouvered or outclimbed the P-47N, or P-51H, etc.

So far we have not gotten one iota of proof that the Ki-84 is overmodeled in FB/ACE, all we have is speculation etc.

If you feel te Ki-84 is overmodeled etc, it's your job to prove it, so far despite pages & pages of text, new titeled threads etc, no one has presented any hard evidence, that the Ki-84 is overmodeled, other then it, _feels_ overmodeled etc.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Wed April 14 2004 at 08:13 AM.]

ZG77_Nagual
04-14-2004, 09:52 AM
My understanding is that the Ki84 is modelled on Japanese data.

lrrp22
04-14-2004, 10:42 AM
Then why does it match the TAIC data *exactly*?

I'm not trying to be flip here, but I don't see how the "Japanese Data" argument is tenable in light of Butch2k's TAIC manual scans.

The March, 1945 date on Butch's pages as well as the 'general data' comments contained in Ponche's version, if verified, cast grave doubt on whether the TAIC numbers bear any relation to actual flight test results whatsoever.

It's quite possible (likely?) that what has previously been assumed to be actual flight test data from the Middletown/Wright Field tests is in fact calculated data. If so, those calculations were apparently based on preliminary predictions and assumptions of design and performance made long before any actual testing had been conducted.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
My understanding is that the Ki84 is modelled on Japanese data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PzKpfw
04-14-2004, 11:08 AM
The problem is if one wants to make a case the Ki-84 is overmodeled, then they will have to present detailed data Ie, actual Japanese test results etc, USAF/USN wartime comparive trial data etc, that support the Ki-84 model is wrong, vs ACE results @ altitude etc.

So far none has been presented here, anything that challenges the current Ki-84 FM. TAIC data whether calculated or not, is not proof either way, that Olegs data is incorrect, as for 1 we dont even know what data Oleg used to build the model on to begin with.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

HayateKid
04-14-2004, 11:27 AM
Solve this mystery for me:

Why does the March 1945 data match exactly the 1946 data?

a) 1945 was not an actual test but just an estimate that just coincidentally matched actual tests done a year later
b) TAIC lied and back-filled the 1945 report with 1946 data.
c) 1945 and 1946 were actual tests. they were done on the same plane with the same parameters so naturally they would match.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

ZG77_Nagual
04-14-2004, 12:07 PM
First off - I've yet to see a test wherein the KI84 EXACTLY matched the american test data. The aep tests I am aware of showed performance roughly halfway between that and the standard 388 figure - for example.

Second - Oleg told me he was awaiting data from Japan on the KI before aep was released. It was a factor in the release date.

the KI is pretty well universally understood to have outclimbed, accelerated and turned it's us competitors. there was, however, some references to sluggishness in rudder and elevator response, which I don't see modeled.

I think the speed performance is quite reasonable and probably spot on - since it should be a few kmh under the American test figures - which, alleged, were generated under ideal conditions.

lrrp22
04-14-2004, 12:14 PM
How do we know that the March 1945 data matches the 1946 data exactly? At this time, I don't think we've seen the *actual* 1946 data.

I believe that the March '45 TAIC data has been mistakenly ascribed to the 1946 tests.

What we *do* have is an original report dated March, 1945 that lists what are likely estimations of design features and performance numbers.

What we *don't* have is any specific documentation of performance numbers or test conditions for the 1946 Wright Field tests.

The aircraft restored at Middletown and tested at Wright Field wasn't captured until the late Summer of 1945. Bearing this in mind, a far simpler explanation is that some improper assumptions have been regarding the source of the numbers found in the TAIC manual.

Depending on when the first Ki-84 was captured and subsequently tested, it is possible that Pinche's 'general comments' section of the TAIC is wrong and that those numbers represent actual flight-test data from tests conducted prior to March, 1945.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
Solve this mystery for me:

Why does the March 1945 data match exactly the 1946 data?

a) 1945 was not an actual test but just an estimate that just coincidentally matched actual tests done a year later
b) TAIC lied and back-filled the 1945 report with 1946 data.
c) 1945 and 1946 were actual tests. they were done on the same plane with the same parameters so naturally they would match.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
04-14-2004, 12:25 PM
The Object Viewer data matches the TAIC data exactly which indicates that it is the source for the OV data, at least.

I have repeatedly tested the Ki-84 at sea level and it reaches and maintains the TAIC-listed 584 kph quite easily. Frankly though, I'm more interested in historical performance than in-game performance. In-game, I find the Ki-84 to be an enjoyable adversary both on- and off-line.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
First off - I've yet to see a test wherein the KI84 EXACTLY matched the american test data. The aep tests I am aware of showed performance roughly halfway between that and the standard 388 figure - for example.

Second - Oleg told me he was awaiting data from Japan on the KI before aep was released. It was a factor in the release date.

the KI is pretty well universally understood to have outclimbed, accelerated and turned it's us competitors. there was, however, some references to sluggishness in rudder and elevator response, which I don't see modeled.

I think the speed performance is quite reasonable and probably spot on - since it should be a few kmh under the American test figures - which, alleged, were generated under ideal conditions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HayateKid
04-14-2004, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
At this time, I don't think we've seen the *actual* 1946 data.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

actual data has not been posted here. But people here reference quotes about the 1946 test from widely available sources on the internet and in print. in particular the 427mph top speed is often quoted as coming from the 1946 test. try doing a google on "ki-84 1946 427".

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

lrrp22
04-14-2004, 01:23 PM
I think the actual references are to the Middletown Frank being 2 mph faster than the P-51D and 20 faster than the P-47D and not specifically 427 mph.

Still, to this point we have seen references to the Wright Field/Middletown tests but not the actual tests themselves.

Most of the quotes available on-line and in many books appear to be hopelessly muddling the results of multiple different flight-tests, fly-offs, and intelligence documents. Various numbers and conditions are attributed to any number of different locations as well as any number of different aircraft makes, i.e. P-51D/K/H, P-47D/N etc.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
At this time, I don't think we've seen the *actual* 1946 data.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

actual data has not been posted here. But people here reference quotes about the 1946 test from widely available sources on the internet and in print. in particular the 427mph top speed is often quoted as coming from the 1946 test. try doing a google on "ki-84 1946 427".

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire
04-14-2004, 04:25 PM
So whats the big deal about the Ki-84 again? We've seen this argument go round and round...now someone needs to come to a conclusion and if they have test data that shows that some component of it (gun, manuvering, speed, etc.) is not what it should be then submit the necessary data, the in-game comparison, and be done with it.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

crazyivan1970
04-14-2004, 04:42 PM
I think this thread should go away, what do you guys think? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Maple_Tiger
04-14-2004, 04:49 PM
I agree 100% crazyivan.



Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid111/p4a4fe01f1585e87d078204671c682c4d/f90e96f0.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

HEXxANGEL
04-14-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I think this thread should go away, what do you guys think? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I can't hear it anymore.. Maybe someone should lock it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

_____________________________
Kampf, Sieg oder Tod..

ZG77_Nagual
04-14-2004, 05:07 PM
It's kinda like flypaper thats all used up.

crazyivan1970
04-14-2004, 05:26 PM
Well, then we will put it to rest.


Guess not....

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Wed April 14 2004 at 06:17 PM.]

DJDalton
04-14-2004, 08:46 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PzKpfw:
The problem is if one wants to make a case the Ki-84 is overmodeled, then they will have to present detailed data Ie, actual Japanese test results etc, USAF/USN wartime comparive trial data etc, that support the Ki-84 model is wrong, vs ACE results @ altitude etc.

So far none has been presented here, anything that challenges the current Ki-84 FM. TAIC data whether calculated or not, is not proof either way, that Olegs data is incorrect, as for 1 we dont even know what data Oleg used to build the model on to begin with.

Regards, John Waters

QUOTE]

The Ki-84 prototype flew for the first time from Ojima Airfield in April of 1943. The second prototype flew in June. The first prototypes were assigned to the JAAF for trials at the Tachikawa Air Arsenal under the direction of combat-experienced pilots, and the modifications recommended were incorporated into the fourth prototype.

The fourth prototype had a maximum speed of 394 mph at 21,800 feet, and could achieve a speed of 496 mph in a dive.

The test program went well, and a service trials batch of 83 machines were ordered in August of 1943. These were built between August of 1943 and March of 1944. The pre-production machines differed from each other in minor details, but fuselage changes were incorporated to ease production, and the area of the fin and rudder was increased to improve control on takeoff.

A few service trials machines were handed over to the Tachikawa Army Air Arsenal. JAAF pilots commented favorably on the machine, although its maximum speed was below the requirement. The aircraft had a maximum speed was 388 mph, could climb to 16,405 feet in 6 minutes 26 seconds, and had a service ceiling of 40,680. This made the Ki-84 the best-performing Japanese fighter aircraft then available for immediate production.

Specification of Nakajima Ki-84-1a:
Performance (early production): Maximum speed 392 mph at 20,080 feet, cruising speed 277 mph. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be reached in 5 minutes 54 seconds. An altitude of 26,240 feet could be attained in 11 minutes 40 seconds. Service ceiling 34,450 feet. Normal range 1053 miles, maximum range 1347 miles.

Early production machines had the 11 and 12 models of the Ha-45 engine, with takeoff ratings of 1800 hp and 1825 hp respectively. Later models had the model 21 version of this engine, delivering 1990 hp for takeoff. These engines were rather unreliable and were subject to numerous quirks. Sudden loss of fuel pressure was a constant source of difficulty, and this was addressed by the adoption of the Army Type 4 radial Model 23 ([Ha-45]23) for even later production machines. This Model 23 engine was a modification of the Model 21 engine fitted with a low-pressure fuel injection system.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html

Sources:
The Nakajima Ki-84, Rene J. Francillon, Aircraft in Profile, 1969.
Famous Fighters of the Second World War, Second Series, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.
Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979.
War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.

I think if you read this source carefully, what it states is that the Ki-84-Ia was a 392 mph plane capable of climbing to 16,405 feet in 5 minutes 54 seconds or a grab rate of 2,781 ft a minute in the early production run with the Ha-45-11/12 engines. That the Ha-45-21 engine was installed in later production models and that its high pressure fuel injection was so substandard "Constant problems" that low pressure fuel injection was mated to the plane in the Ha-45-23 motor. A regression in design.

The climb rate of the Ki-84 vs. the P-51D is probably somewhat hard to gauge. The P-51D is a good grabber, but not outstanding. This source gives you an idea, intial grab rate of 3,475 ft per minute, Falling off thereafter, as it does for all planes. About a 3,300 ft per minute grab to 10,000 ft. The game says a P-51D could climb to 6,000 meters (20,014 ft) in 7 minutes which is 2,859 feet a minute. My suspicion is that it grabbed about equally with the Ki-84 but that it had to overcome the inertia of its weight in a dogfight grab. I don't think anyone seriously contends the P-47 could out climb a Tree Sloth...lol. None of these compare to the Bf-109 grab rates of the G2, G6 and G10, let alone the K-4. The Franks grab rate in the game is likely a new plane glitch. The climb rate isn't even stated in the game (View Aircraft) so I think we can expect some clarification upon it:

Specification of the P-51D-25-NA:

One 1695 hp Packard Merlin V-1650-7 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid-cooled engine. Maximum speed: 395 mph at 5000 feet, 416 mph at 10,000 feet, 424 mph at 20,000 feet, 437 mph at 25,000 feet. Range was 950 miles at 395 mph at 25,000 feet (clean), 2300 miles with maximum fuel (including drop tanks) of 489 US gallons under most economical cruise conditions. Initial climb rate was 3475 feet per minute. An altitude of 5000 feet could be reached in 1l7 minutes, 10,000 feet in 3.3 minutes, 20,000 feet in 7.3 minutes. Service ceiling was 41,900 feet. Weights were 7125 pounds empty, 10,100 pounds normal loaded, 12,100 pounds maximum. Wingspan was 37 feet 0 1/4 inches, length was 32 feet 3 inches, height was 8 feet 8 inches, and wing area was 233 square feet.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_10.html

Sources:

American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982.

The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday 1964.

United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.

Fighting Mustang: The Chronicle of the P-51, William N. Hess, Doubleday, 1970.

Classic Warplanes: North American P-51 Mustang, Bill Gunston, Gallery Books, 1990.

Famous Fighters of the Second World War, Volume I, William Green, 1967.

Ken Smith on US Navy trials with P-51D.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

[This message was edited by DJDalton on Wed April 14 2004 at 08:24 PM.]

PzKpfw
04-14-2004, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:

QUOTE]

The Ki-84 prototype flew for the first time from Ojima Airfield in April of 1943. The second prototype flew in June. The first prototypes were assigned to the JAAF for trials at the Tachikawa Air Arsenal under the direction of combat-experienced pilots, and the modifications recommended were incorporated into the fourth prototype. The fourth prototype had a maximum speed of 394 mph at 21,800 feet, and could achieve a speed of 496 mph in a dive.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DJ, good start, though Gunston lists 388mph (624km/h) @ 8,267lb (3750kg) with a IROC of 3600fpm (1100m/min).

The P-51D @ 10,100lbs according to USAF data useing COMBAT Power (67"HG) did about 415mph TAS @ S/L. 420mph TAS @ 5000ft - 10000ft to 435mph TAS @ 25000ft. NA data is lower @ 10,176lbs, Ie, useing COMBAT power, 370 - 375 MPH TAS @ S/L, 402mph TAS @ 5000ft etc. In comparison the P-47D-22+ @ 14,500 lbs useing COMBAT power did 345 mph TAS @ S/L.

P-51D ROC useing COMBAT power was 3200 - 3300fpm, dropping off to around 2000fpm @ 25000ft. Basicly useing COMBAT Power 3:min to 10000ft, 7: min to 20000ft, & 13:min to 30000ft.

And again all this is great, but we don't know what Oleg used to model Ki-84 performance. Ppl here have stated he used primary Japanese material etc.

Till Oleg reveals (if ever) what data he used we have no way of judgeing all these refrences material's data against what he used. Ie, if Oleg used primary Nakajima factory data etc, then secondary sources will be moot, as all planes in FB/ACE except Soviet (and arguably US AC) are modeled on pristine factory data.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

WUAF_Badsight
04-14-2004, 10:04 PM
most websites quote francillion's claims for their data

was this author ever privy to the factory data ?

we know that HISTORICAL operating troubles gave the Hayate less performance than it was capable of

the last point i made has ZERO relevance to the Hayate in FB

i dont know why its being brought up

the Hayate in FB is totally factory fresh JUST AS EVERY OTHER PLANE IN FB IS

as for the P-51D climbing with a Hayate .... err hello ?!?!?!?!

it weighed more AND had less power

WUAF_Badsight
04-14-2004, 10:11 PM
IL2 compare says that the KI can do 17.9 m/s at 260 kmh

it says the Bf109-G10 can do 19.3ish m/s at 260 kmh

anyone caught by a Hayate in a Bf109G series isnt very good at managing CEM or was caught by a zooming KI-84 Hayate

there is NO WAY the KI can outclimb a Bf109-G10 let alone a K4

it is probably a case of the KI retaining E better just as the Spitfire also does over Bf109's

there is SOOO better cases the could use scrutiny than the KI-84

nearly all planes are capable of travelling too far (except the FW190 & the Bf109's , they are overly thirsty)

a few of the VVS MG's are firing too far

some of the planes in FB seem to be unusually strong in the DM

why on earth is the KI taking so much flak ?

its not the best plane AT ANYTHING

does everyone believe the Japanese were just country hicks ?

WUAF_Badsight
04-14-2004, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:

First of all, I completely disagree that there are ANY performance stats that show it was either a superior climber or capable of the Midland Pennsylvania airspeed performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"You trying to get me in trouble? Warning -- read beyond this line only if you are open to new ideas and information!

The Japanese "official" maximum speed (624 kph) isn't really the Type 4 fighter's maximum speed comparable to max speeds published for Allied fighters. It was obtained at 2900 rpm and +150 boost. In this condition the Type 4 fighter could operate for an extended period and is more like a high speed cruise. At 3000 rpm and +200 boost the "max" speed was 650 kph or over 400 mph and this was far from the limit for the Type 4 fighter. We know this not only from captured techinical documents but from POWs. The US tests figures are quite close to the actual "real" max speed obtained by the Japanese.

The question about fuel implies that US (presumably 100 Octane) fuel would have made the Type 4 fighter faster. The Japanese got their performance (equal to that in US tests) using 92 octane fuel and methanol injection. The methanol injection plus type 92 fuel gave the desired anti-knock performance. There was no need to use 100 octane fuel.

Also hidden in the question is the myth that the Japanese did not have 100 octane fuel. They had it and used in captured aircraft that were optimized for its use and sometimes used in Japanese aircraft. The Japanese not only did octane additive research in the Homeland but captured refineries in the NEI capable of producing 1000s of tons of additives per month. In fact some type 92 fuel was produced as natural tops and some produced from lower grade fuels with additives. In addition to type 92 fuel the Japanese sometimes used type 95 fuel in the Type 4 fighter.

There is more to this story but I suspect this is "more than you really wanted to know" for many folks."

http://www.j-aircraft.org/bbs/army_config.pl?read=8899

lrrp22
04-14-2004, 10:37 PM
As you know Badsight, that is simply one poster's theory. There is absolutely NO proof that the Japanese had access to reliable supplies of usable amounts of high grade fuel. Supporting an Air Force in combat requires VAST amounts of a given type of fuel.

If you delve further into that thread you will find plenty of well-supported arguments against his theory as well as some serious questions regarding the claimed horsepower output of the Homare engine.

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

First of all, I completely disagree that there are ANY performance stats that show it was either a superior climber or capable of the Midland Pennsylvania airspeed performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"You trying to get me in trouble? Warning -- read beyond this line only if you are open to new ideas and information!

The Japanese "official" maximum speed (624 kph) isn't really the Type 4 fighter's maximum speed comparable to max speeds published for Allied fighters. It was obtained at 2900 rpm and +150 boost. In this condition the Type 4 fighter could operate for an extended period and is more like a high speed cruise. At 3000 rpm and +200 boost the "max" speed was 650 kph or over 400 mph and this was far from the limit for the Type 4 fighter. We know this not only from captured techinical documents but from POWs. The US tests figures are quite close to the actual "real" max speed obtained by the Japanese.

The question about fuel implies that US (presumably 100 Octane) fuel would have made the Type 4 fighter faster. The Japanese got their performance (equal to that in US tests) using 92 octane fuel and methanol injection. The methanol injection plus type 92 fuel gave the desired anti-knock performance. There was no need to use 100 octane fuel.

Also hidden in the question is the myth that the Japanese did not have 100 octane fuel. They had it and used in captured aircraft that were optimized for its use and sometimes used in Japanese aircraft. The Japanese not only did octane additive research in the Homeland but captured refineries in the NEI capable of producing 1000s of tons of additives per month. In fact some type 92 fuel was produced as natural tops and some produced from lower grade fuels with additives. In addition to type 92 fuel the Japanese sometimes used type 95 fuel in the Type 4 fighter.

There is more to this story but I suspect this is "more than you really wanted to know" for many folks."

http://www.j-aircraft.org/bbs/army_config.pl?read=8899<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
04-14-2004, 10:50 PM
err .... hello ?

the KI didnt run on 100 octane during WW2

& the fact that the Japanese had 100 octane fuel during the entire war is without doubt

how much they had is the only thing for spectulation

butch2k
04-14-2004, 11:52 PM
My Japanese sources are quite in accordance with the TAIC reports ince the KI-84c is given at 689km/h@6100m and 584km/h@SL. With climb to 3050 in 2'.36" and to 6100m in 5'48".
Keep in mind that the KI-84c was lightened by nearly 200kg compared to its predecessors with an engine outup increase of 250hp.

DJDalton
04-15-2004, 01:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
IL2 compare says that the KI can do 17.9 m/s at 260 kmh

it says the Bf109-G10 can do 19.3ish m/s at 260 kmh

?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have IL2 FB AEP, the climb rate for the Ki-84's is not indicated in the "View Aircraft" menu.

I checked the IL2 Website and the Ki-84 is not listed among the aircraft there.

Where do your figures come from? Can you post a link? I don't know where to find the "Compare" function.

Your stated climb rate is 3524 ft per minute for the Ki-84, which would make it very close to the "initial climb rate" of the P-51D.

and

3799 ft per minute for the Bf-109G-10. At least for the G-10, I think that is inaccurate. I think these are "initial climb rates" and it is certainly faster than that for the G-10. But methanol usage and underwing gondolas would have to be factored in that determination.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

WUAF_Badsight
04-15-2004, 02:23 AM
i dont know where to DL the IL2:Compare tool now

it gives plane performance statistics of planes in FB

those climb rates would be sustained climb figures for the speeds i quoted

ask around .... the place to get it from is still around im sure

WUAF_Badsight
04-15-2004, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
My Japanese sources are quite in accordance with the TAIC reports ince the KI-84c is given at 689km/h@6100m and 584km/h@SL. With climb to 3050 in 2'.36" and to 6100m in 5'48".
Keep in mind that the KI-84c was lightened by nearly 200kg compared to its predecessors with an engine outup increase of 250hp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW

3050 m in 2.36 minute

lighter & more powerfull

WOW

DJDalton
04-15-2004, 02:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
My Japanese sources are quite in accordance with the TAIC reports ince the KI-84c is given at 689km/h@6100m and 584km/h@SL. With climb to 3050 in 2'.36" and to 6100m in 5'48".
Keep in mind that the KI-84c was lightened by nearly 200kg compared to its predecessors with an engine outup increase of 250hp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no Frank that goes by the designation Ki-84c. There is a Ki-84-1c or Ki-84-II designation. However either plane is significantly HEAVIER than the Ki-84-1a. The Ki-84-II utilized wooden components. The game states the Ki-84-1c was 3,750 kg, while the Ki-84-1a is listed at 3,602 kg. If you are referring to a Ki-84-II, it was heavier yet weighing in at 3,857 kg. These are "Take Off" weights:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html

The quoted Climb rate to 3050 is faster than that for a Bf-109K-4 quoted in the game. I didnt even realize it until I attempted the conversion to feet...lol

The grab rate you quote for the Ki-84-1c/Ki-84-II is about 3,858 feet per minute if my math is right. For that version of the plane with its additional weight I'm dubious. Under ideal conditions it may be that a Ki-84-1a with the Ho-45-21 or Ho-45-23 or 25 may have been able to achieve that as an initial climb rate. Its important to note the high pressure fuel injection performance was not performance that could be maintained on ANY type of consistent basis.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

[This message was edited by DJDalton on Thu April 15 2004 at 02:24 AM.]

butch2k
04-15-2004, 03:02 AM
My data quote exact specifications for each version of the Ki 84, including weight dimensions, armament etc... And it comes from Japanese official specs, it's not US or whatever data, i selected the version which matched the in-game Ki 84-Ic hence my reference to it in my post above. This version performances are much better than the earlier versions, with max speed being 40km/h higher IIRC (as i'm currently at work).
Note that i'm not relying on any website, but on official data, which is exactly the same kind you get from German RLM charts.

WUAF_Badsight
04-15-2004, 03:38 AM
LMAO

if your source is true Butch2k then the Hayate in FB is actually UNDERMODDELED

thats going to Grate i can tell ya http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DJDalton
04-15-2004, 03:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
My data quote exact specifications for each version of the Ki 84, including weight dimensions, armament etc... And it comes from Japanese official specs, it's not US or whatever data, i selected the version which matched the in-game Ki 84-Ic hence my reference to it in my post above. This version performances are much better than the earlier versions, with max speed being 40km/h higher IIRC (as i'm currently at work).
Note that i'm not relying on any website, but on official data, which is exactly the same kind you get from German RLM charts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it sounds as if you cannot link us to this information.

I have to say I'm very confused by this. I know the intial grab rate for the 109K-4 is about 4,900 feet per minute. But Oleg in the game "aircraft view" info only attributes about 3,937 ft per minute to the K-4 to 3,000 meters. The grab rate you quote for the Ki-84-1c/Ki-84-II to 3050 meters is about 3,848 ft per minute. Very similar and I know that is incorrect...lol The grab rate you quote for the Ki-84-1c/Ki-84-II to 6,100 meters is an average of 3,450 feet per minute. With that figure there is little falloff in grab performance from lower elevation.

Oleg says the G-10 takes 7 minutes to reach 6,100 meters!!! (Though other sources say 6 minutes to reach 6,100 meters) a 7 minute grab is an average of about 2,859 ft per minute!!! If Oleg is modeling the G-10 with the "slow" grab rate and the Ki-84 with your figures...its no wonder I've been caught by Franks in grabs....lol

Why would the Japanese test performance to 3050 meters? why the 50 meters? 3050 meters just so happens to be 10,000 feet. I think you have an American extrapolation there. It certainly doesn't sound like original Japanese.

Anyway, its becoming easy to see why this battle is raging. Perhaps the creators need to chime in and let us know what grab rate is assigned to the Ki-84.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

dahdah
04-15-2004, 07:48 AM
Not sure if it was this Ki.84 thread or another(not going to look for the post) But the first flyable (after checking) Ki.84s came into American hands with the capture of Clark Field late Jan 1945. Would this make them tested in say late March, early April?

[This message was edited by dahdah on Thu April 15 2004 at 07:02 AM.]

HayateKid
04-15-2004, 07:51 AM
DJDalton,

you are repeating already refuted arguments. understandable because you joined this discussion late. but please stop equating the ki-841c with the ki-84-II as if there are no differences. if you actually read through the whole thread, you will find it has been pointed out already that ki-84-II are the version with some parts made of wood. the ki-84-IIs were armed according to ki-841b and ki-841c specs, that is, either with 4 20mm's or 2 20mm's plus 2 30mm's. The japanese army did not make a distinction between the ki-84-II and ki-841 (b or c), they still called it 1b or 1c depending on the armament. However, Nakajima did make this distinction. The first batches of ki-84-1b and 1cs were made of metal just like the ki-84-1a (only the armament was different). Later batches used wood because of the shortage of aluminum. These later batches were designated by nakajima as ki-84-II. Obviously because of the wood instead of aluminum, the ki-84-II were heavier than the ki-84-1b and 1c.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

dahdah
04-15-2004, 08:05 AM
Kid, it is Ki.84-I not Ki-84-1. Note the Roman number and the period.

[This message was edited by dahdah on Thu April 15 2004 at 08:05 AM.]

HayateKid
04-15-2004, 08:43 AM
thanks. and i should be a stickler for that too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

HayateKid
04-15-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
Oleg says the G-10 takes 7 minutes to reach 6,100 meters!!! (Though other sources say 6 minutes to reach 6,100 meters) a 7 minute grab is an average of about 2,859 ft per minute!!!

...

Why would the Japanese test performance to 3050 meters? why the 50 meters? 3050 meters just so happens to be 10,000 feet. I think you have an American extrapolation there. It certainly doesn't sound like original Japanese.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I noticed that 3050, while only approximately equal to 10000 ft, is exactly half of 6100 meters. 6100 meters is approx 20000 feet, so maybe there is some american extrapolation for the Bf109G10 climb rate as well. what do you think?

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

lrrp22
04-15-2004, 11:01 AM
It was me who asked, earlier in this thread.

My contention remains that, considering its publication date, it is *very* unlikely that the data in the TAIC manaul is based on anything other than predicitons. Further, the very high performance numbers that are being posted, quoted, and referenced here match the TAIC data *exactly*.

Again, if Ponche_Bolillo's version of the TAIC is correct, those numbers are based on a 2,000 HP Ki-43-sized airplane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dahdah:
Not sure if it was this Ki.84 thread or another(not going to look for the post) But the first flyable (after checking) Ki.84s came into American hands with the capture of Clark Field late Jan 1945. Would this make them tested in say late March, early April?

[This message was edited by dahdah on Thu April 15 2004 at 07:02 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HayateKid
04-15-2004, 11:54 AM
Ponche_bolillo did not post a picture of his TAIC version. Butch did.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

butch2k
04-15-2004, 11:57 AM
AFAIK Ponche_Bolillo's TAIC reports comes from the incomplete TAIC reproduction sold by Planes of Fame. Please note that this report is much earlier than the one i posted since it's dated July 44. I know the date through my ATAD T-1 manual (Rev. 9 of october 1944) which feature the exact same comments and perf data.

AFAIK the march 45 Ki 84 Frank data is based on tests conducted at Clark Field in February 45 on the Ki 84 coded S10 by the TAIU-SWPA.

lrrp22
04-15-2004, 12:03 PM
Butch,

It seems strange that your Japanese-sourced performance data for the Ki-84-Ic is *exactly* the same as your March 1945 TAIC data for the Ki-84-Ia.

Is it possible that the Japanesse data was pulled from the TAIC manual post-war? Or, could the TAIC data have been derived from some captured Japanese documentation?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
My Japanese sources are quite in accordance with the TAIC reports ince the KI-84c is given at 689km/h@6100m and 584km/h@SL. With climb to 3050 in 2'.36" and to 6100m in 5'48".
Keep in mind that the KI-84c was lightened by nearly 200kg compared to its predecessors with an engine outup increase of 250hp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
04-15-2004, 12:15 PM
Still, though, doesn't the fact that the data from the July '44 document *exactly* matches the data from the March '45 document indicate that the July data was simply repeated in the March report? Otherwise the implication is that the U.S. was able to forecast the performance of the Ki-84 *perfectly* seven months before it aquired its first example.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
AFAIK Ponche_Bolillo's TAIC reports comes from the incomplete TAIC reproduction sold by Planes of Fame. Please note that this report is much earlier than the one i posted since it's dated July 44. I know the date through my ATAD T-1 manual (Rev. 9 of october 1944) which feature the exact same comments and perf data.

AFAIK the march 45 Ki 84 Frank data is based on tests conducted at Clark Field in February 45 on the Ki 84 coded S10 by the TAIU-SWPA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

butch2k
04-15-2004, 12:31 PM
Checked the Japanese data and indeed it seems to match the US data for the Ki 84-Ic, so it's probably taken from the TAIC data.

Check the July 44 data and the March 45 carefully there quite a few differences max speed for instance is 422@21000 in the early report while it is 427@20000 in the later one.
I do not expect the performances to be revised on the up side if encounters and/or test had shown the Ki 84 to be a poorer performer than expected.
There were two Ki 84 tested at Clark field in february 45, S-10 and S-17, the first one crashed in a test and the second one took over the evaluation so the data might not be 100% consistent.

DJDalton
04-15-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
DJDalton,

you are repeating already refuted arguments. understandable because you joined this discussion late. but please stop equating the ki-841c with the ki-84-II as if there are no differences. if you actually read through the whole thread, you will find it has been pointed out already that ki-84-II are the version with some parts made of wood. the ki-84-IIs were armed according to ki-841b and ki-841c specs, that is, either with 4 20mm's or 2 20mm's plus 2 30mm's. The japanese army did not make a distinction between the ki-84-II and ki-841 (b or c), they still called it 1b or 1c depending on the armament. However, Nakajima did make this distinction. The first batches of ki-84-1b and 1cs were made of metal just like the ki-84-1a (only the armament was different). Later batches used wood because of the shortage of aluminum. These later batches were designated by nakajima as ki-84-II. Obviously because of the wood instead of aluminum, the ki-84-II were heavier than the ki-84-1b and 1c.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I've referred to the designations correctly. Lets assume a Ki-84-1 = Ki.84-I
I don't think that should trouble anyone. I said the following in another post:

"There is no Frank that goes by the designation Ki-84c. There is a Ki-84-1c or Ki-84-II designation. However either plane is significantly HEAVIER than the Ki-84-1a. The Ki-84-II utilized wooden components. The game states the Ki-84-1c was 3,750 kg, while the Ki-84-1a is listed at 3,602 kg. If you are referring to a Ki-84-II, it was heavier yet weighing in at 3,857 kg. These are "Take Off" weights:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html"

The problem is 5 different engines Ha-45-11,12,21,23 or 25 were being installed into two main variants, Ki-84-1 or Ki-84-II(irrespective of armament), the former was made of metal and the latter had wooden compenents. The engine that provided the best performance was the high pressure fuel injection Ha-45-21. The problem was the Japanese could not get that fuel injection system to perform properly and they abandoned it for low pressure injected Ha-45-23. I believe the Ha-45-25 is low pressure as well.

Its in these considerations that actual performance vs. design specs reveal what the plane could actually do. I think it was about a 392 mph aircraft, but as I said in an earlier post I don't think 408 mph as a compromise is out of line.

Its grab rate certainly appears a little hot on the basis of Butch2k's source. But alot depends upon which fuel injection system was used. I think the plane has to be modeled with the Low Pressure system, because that is what the Japanese realized they had to use.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

HayateKid
04-15-2004, 01:11 PM
Butch what do your sources say if anything about the 1946 tests being widely quoted? They also happen to match the top speed (427).

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

DJDalton
04-15-2004, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
Oleg says the G-10 takes 7 minutes to reach 6,100 meters!!! (Though other sources say 6 minutes to reach 6,100 meters) a 7 minute grab is an average of about 2,859 ft per minute!!!

...

Why would the Japanese test performance to 3050 meters? why the 50 meters? 3050 meters just so happens to be 10,000 feet. I think you have an American extrapolation there. It certainly doesn't sound like original Japanese.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I noticed that 3050, while only approximately equal to 10000 ft, is exactly half of 6100 meters. 6100 meters is approx 20000 feet, so maybe there is some american extrapolation for the Bf109G10 climb rate as well. what do you think?

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you are clearly correct. Some of confusion comes from having to convert from meters to feet and I believe simple math mistakes have resulted in some of the confusion. For the Bf-109G-10 for instance. Sources say 6 minutes to 6,100 meters. Oleg says 7 minutes. I think someone lost a minute. I'm not saying it was Oleg, but a grab rate of 2,800 ft per minute for the G-10 is very very slow.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

lrrp22
04-15-2004, 01:23 PM
Are you sure the testing was conducted in Feb. '45? Clark Field wasn't captured until 26 Jan 1945. It seems unlikely, given that date, that U.S forces would have had time to take possession of the area, prepare captured aircraft for testing, conduct the tests, and return the results in time to be included in the TAIC manual published in March.

British Admiralty report ADM 1/17474 reports the results of a fly off between the Ki-84 and a Seafire L III (and Hellcat and P-51K, apparently) at Clark Field. it reports May '45 as the test period and quotes the Ki-84's max speeds as 330 mph @ SL and 400 mph @ 20,000'.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
Checked the Japanese data and indeed it seems to match the US data for the Ki 84-Ic, so it's probably taken from the TAIC data.

Check the July 44 data and the March 45 carefully there quite a few differences max speed for instance is 422@21000 in the early report while it is 427@20000 in the later one.
I do not expect the performances to be revised on the up side if encounters and/or test had shown the Ki 84 to be a poorer performer than expected.
There were two Ki 84 tested at Clark field in february 45, S-10 and S-17, the first one crashed in a test and the second one took over the evaluation so the data might not be 100% consistent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

butch2k
04-15-2004, 01:38 PM
I know that the first tests were conducted early on with the S-10 and it was destroyed during testing and S-17 carried on.
Is there some precision on the engine used in the British evaluation ?
I know that the S-10 and S-17 were of different types but i do not know the exact details.

lrrp22
04-15-2004, 01:49 PM
Butch,

Apparently it was tested at +250mm boost and 2900 RPM. No engine sub-type is listed.

The full report is available from the PRO, I think I might have to get my hands on that one!

Skychimp posted previously that S-10 crashed during its first flight. he also noted that the Middletown example lacked pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. That would help explain the nearly 1,000 lb difference between it and a combat loaded example.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
I know that the first tests were conducted early on with the S-10 and it was destroyed during testing and S-17 carried on.
Is there some precision on the engine used in the British evaluation ?
I know that the S-10 and S-17 were of different types but i do not know the exact details.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Thu April 15 2004 at 01:01 PM.]

butch2k
04-15-2004, 02:09 PM
Ok so S-17 was equiped with an early type engine, the later ones had WEP @ 3000rpm not 2900 or they did not use MW mixture which is more probable. AFAIK S-10 did not crash on its first flight, could you point me where Skychimp mentions this detail ? (i'm a bit at a loss finding anything in this monster thread...).
The Ki 84-Ic was mostly used as an interceptor, so it's likely they lightened it to a maximum by removing what they considered not necessary.

lrrp22
04-15-2004, 02:31 PM
Her you go Butch:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=714106512&r=790100432#790100432

As far as the 250mm@2900 rpm I assume that represented the captured configuration and may reflect operational limits as much as engine type.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
Ok so S-17 was equiped with an early type engine, the later ones had WEP @ 3000rpm not 2900 or they did not use MW mixture which is more probable. AFAIK S-10 did not crash on its first flight, could you point me where Skychimp mentions this detail ? (i'm a bit at a loss finding anything in this monster thread...).
The Ki 84-Ic was mostly used as an interceptor, so it's likely they lightened it to a maximum by removing what they considered not necessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
04-15-2004, 03:21 PM
Butch,

Also, considering the Ha-45's very low rated altitude (6,000 ft or so?) I wouldn't think that increased WEP boost and water-methanol use would have any effect on speeds at 20,000'.

Wouldn't speeds at 20k ft be the same regardless of max WEP boost, i.e. 400mph?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
Ok so S-17 was equiped with an early type engine, the later ones had WEP @ 3000rpm not 2900 or they did not use MW mixture which is more probable. AFAIK S-10 did not crash on its first flight, could you point me where Skychimp mentions this detail ? (i'm a bit at a loss finding anything in this monster thread...).
The Ki 84-Ic was mostly used as an interceptor, so it's likely they lightened it to a maximum by removing what they considered not necessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

butch2k
04-15-2004, 03:39 PM
Keep in mind that were are speaking of a two speed engine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif indeed it developped 1850hp@3000rpm@49.6"@17600' which is still quite good isn't it ?

Thanks a lot for linking to Skychimp post, if he is around could he tell me where he got this information about the first flight resulting in a crash, as afaik it flew more than once.

lrrp22
04-15-2004, 05:12 PM
Two speed, but single stage. That means that the Homare was retaining power at altitude as well as the two-speed, two-stage Merlin 66/V-1650-7. Can that be right?

Still, speeds at 20,000 ft should be the same, correct?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
Keep in mind that were are speaking of a two speed engine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif indeed it developped 1850hp@3000rpm@49.6"@17600' which is still quite good isn't it ?

Thanks a lot for linking to Skychimp post, if he is around could he tell me where he got this information about the first flight resulting in a crash, as afaik it flew more than once.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
04-15-2004, 05:27 PM
hang on ..... even the british test has a higher speed than 390 mph ?

like another 10 mph ?

& isnt this about what speed the Hayate design was capable of ?

I.E. not a poor condition or poorly maintained example ?

seems to me that speeds up to 420 mph are PERFECTLY within the Hayate's design

can we all say "clutching at straws" ?

i mean even the report said it was a H Mustang & N Thunderbolt which Lrrp dont want to believe

lrrp22
04-15-2004, 05:38 PM
C'mon Badsight, whose grasping at straws here?

Nobody said that 420 mph wasn't within the Frank's design capabilities. But the British only got 400 mph@20k which is a long way from 427 mph. I can gaurantee you that the Ki-84's used for testing would have been well maintained.

Did you notice that in photos S-17, the airframe used in the British test, appears to be stripped of weaponry and was probably missing armor and self-sealing fuel tanks? Did you see Skychimp's post stating that the Middeltown example was also missing pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks? Probably explains why the Middletown example was so far below combat weight.

BTW, what was the title of that report comparing the P-51H and P-47N to the Ki-84 again?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
hang on ..... even the british test has a higher speed than 390 mph ?

like another 10 mph ?

& isnt this about what speed the Hayate design was capable of ?

I.E. not a poor condition or poorly maintained example ?

seems to me that speeds up to 420 mph are PERFECTLY within the Hayate's design

can we all say "clutching at straws" ?

i mean even the report said it was a H Mustang & N Thunderbolt which Lrrp dont want to believe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Thu April 15 2004 at 05:00 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Thu April 15 2004 at 05:01 PM.]

DJDalton
04-15-2004, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/ki84-perfdata1.jpg

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/ki84-perfdata2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally, I found some data. BUTCH, usually this performance data comes with a little bit more in regard to the equipped plane. The fact that this plane is using the Ha-45-21 engine (Which was the high pressure engine that many sources say was abandoned) I believe the fuel injection may have been modified to allow it to attain these performance figures. Can you direct us to where you acquired this information? I know theres more ...this is the raw performance data. There should a performance introduction and summary.

thx

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

WUAF_Badsight
04-15-2004, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:

Nobody said that 420 mph wasn't within the Frank's design capabilities.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


well what is your problem then ?

we dont have feild performing planes in FB

is that hard to grasp ?

they are factory data planes ........ factory fresh

no plane in FB should have restrictions placed on it according to historical operating troubles unless all should

still a total of ZERO proof the Hayate has one thing at all overmoddeled

its the TOTAL opposite

it performs exactly according to the Object Viewer

lrrp22
04-15-2004, 11:13 PM
Oh please, you and the object viewer.

The data in the object viewer almost certainly comes from the TAIC manual and not from 'factory data'. Therefore, the accuracy of the the TAIC data corresponds directly to that of the OV.

If the TAIC data was derived from actual testing it is, by its very nature, 'field performing' data. After all, last time I checked, there were no Nakajima factories on Luzon. Is that so 'hard to grasp'?

I'm sure you'll soon be campaigning for the P-51B's in-game top speed to be raised to 453 mph since there is factory fresh data that proves that...won't you?

Maybe you'll champion the cause to include a 652 kph at-sea-level Mustang III in the AEP patch? I can provide you with indisputable test data for that. The test was conducted by the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough- that's not 'field' data is it?

Seems to me that there's 'ZERO proof' that FB's Frank is modeled to 'factory' data. If anything it's modeled to the TAIC data which is either estimated performance or 'field performing' test results.

You like the way the Frank is modeled in FB and you're immune to anything that suggests otherwise.


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

Nobody said that 420 mph wasn't within the Frank's design capabilities.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


well what is your problem then ?

we dont have feild performing planes in FB

is that hard to grasp ?

they are factory data planes ........ factory fresh

no plane in FB should have restrictions placed on it according to historical operating troubles unless all should

still a total of ZERO proof the Hayate has one thing at all overmoddeled

its the TOTAL opposite

it performs exactly according to the Object Viewer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
04-16-2004, 01:14 AM
well well .......

im not the one whineing here

the American plane fans are

& they are the ones who dont seem to mind the fact of other planes overperforming ..... just the hayate should be hobbeled

so if no one is saying that 427 mph wasnt out of the hayates capabilitys

& if the Hayate isnt the stellar high alt planes that the Whiners say it is

& if its performance is degraded severly with small wing hits ....

wheres the problem ?

isnt it the fact that its Japanese ?

i mean they were all country hicks wernt they ?

not to mention the fact that america won the war in the Pacific !

puhleez Lrrp your chip is huge ........ let it drop off the shoulder

btw .... you nor i know the source of the OV data

lrrp22
04-16-2004, 07:06 AM
Typical Badsight, you have nothing to bring to the debate so you resort to accusations of racism.

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

im not the one whineing here

the American plane fans are

& they are the ones who dont seem to mind the fact of other planes overperforming ..... just the hayate should be hobbeled

so if no one is saying that 427 mph wasnt out of the hayates capabilitys

& if the Hayate isnt the stellar high alt planes that the Whiners say it is

& if its performance is degraded severly with small wing hits ....

wheres the problem ?

isnt it the fact that its Japanese ?

i mean they were all country hicks wernt they ?

not to mention the fact that america won the war in the Pacific !

puhleez Lrrp your chip is huge ........ let it drop off the shoulder

btw .... you nor i know the source of the OV data<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HayateKid
04-16-2004, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/ki84-perfdata1.jpg

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/ki84-perfdata2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally, I found some data. BUTCH, usually this performance data comes with a little bit more in regard to the equipped plane. The fact that this plane is using the Ha-45-21 engine (Which was the high pressure engine that many sources say was abandoned) I believe the fuel injection may have been modified to allow it to attain these performance figures. Can you direct us to where you acquired this information? I know theres more ...this is the raw performance data. There should a performance introduction and summary.

thx

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Where did you see the Ha-45-21 said to have been abandoned. And what does "abandon" mean? According to the quote below, they used the engine at least for some production batches. They were not the first types used, nor were they the last types used, but they were used.


"Early production machines had the 11 and 12 models of the Ha-45 engine, with takeoff ratings of 1800 hp and 1825 hp respectively. Later models had the model 21 version of this engine, delivering 1990 hp for takeoff. These engines were rather unreliable and were subject to numerous quirks. Sudden loss of fuel pressure was a constant source of difficulty, and this was addressed by the adoption of the Army Type 4 radial Model 23 ([Ha-45]23) for even later production machines. This Model 23 engine was a modification of the Model 21 engine fitted with a low-pressure fuel injection system. "


"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

DJDalton
04-16-2004, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/ki84-perfdata1.jpg

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/ki84-perfdata2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally, I found some data. BUTCH, usually this performance data comes with a little bit more in regard to the equipped plane. The fact that this plane is using the Ha-45-21 engine (Which was the high pressure engine that many sources say was abandoned) I believe the fuel injection may have been modified to allow it to attain these performance figures. Can you direct us to where you acquired this information? I know theres more ...this is the raw performance data. There should a performance introduction and summary.

thx

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Where did you see the Ha-45-21 said to have been abandoned. And what does "abandon" mean? According to the quote below, they used the engine at least for some production batches. They were not the first types used, nor were they the last types used, but they were used.


"Early production machines had the 11 and 12 models of the Ha-45 engine, with takeoff ratings of 1800 hp and 1825 hp respectively. _Later models had the model 21 version of this engine, delivering 1990 hp for takeoff._ These engines were rather unreliable and were subject to numerous quirks. Sudden loss of fuel pressure was a constant source of difficulty, and this was addressed by the adoption of the Army Type 4 radial Model 23 ([Ha-45]23) for even later production machines. This Model 23 engine was a modification of the Model 21 engine fitted with a low-pressure fuel injection system. "


"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know your source but you've answered your own question. The Ha-45-21 was the high fuel pressure version and your source states it was dropped for the low pressure Ha-45-23. The "23" is the motor we should probably be modeling. Total numbers of these various motors manufactured would help.

I can tell you years ago that I clearly read that the 1946 Midland "Pennsylvania" Test, utilized American high octane fuel and a modification to the fuel injection. If true, obviously that performance shouldn't be modeled in the game. If Oleg modeled the Ki-84 in any way upon those tests then we can work to dig them up again and point these things out. The performance Data Butch has posted is very interesting. Its almost as if it was "selectively" dug up by someone wanting to argue for the Ki-84's current modeling. There should be a great deal more in introduction and summary on this plane and I think its been omitted. I believe that those summaries will speak of the engine modification. I will say the Data indicates a March 1945 test and if the test occured then and theres no engine modification to the fuel injection system, this data looks good. The rest of the report is necessary.

You have to also remember what part of these government tests are about. Showing the plane is fast makes it easier to argue more funds should be allocated and newer and better planes purchased. Theres a big pie and cutting it up is always a factor.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

[This message was edited by DJDalton on Fri April 16 2004 at 10:28 AM.]

butch2k
04-16-2004, 11:28 AM
Looks like you don't know me much mister Dalton, if you did you would not sustpect me of "selectively" posting informations. For instance you'll notice that the document is numbered 156-1 and 156-2 and AFAIK there is no 156-0 page, but there are 156-3 and 156-4 that i did not scan because i did not think they were relevant to the discussion.
153-3 cover the armor and fuel tank placement as well as armament and the 156-4 show a three view and a couple of Ki 84 pictures nothing to comment about much...
And Frankly (hahaha) i don't give a damn whether the Ki 84 is overmodelled or not, my job is a usual to provide data and facts not to make any assumption. Did i commented in any way on the current Ki 84 FM saying it's either right or wrong ?
My job in FB and earlier in Il-2 as always been to provide data on the aircraft to Oleg not to make any assumption. And no i did not provide any data on the Ki 84 for FB so i don't know which source he used for modelling, but if i have solid proof he did not use correct ones, i'll tell him so and provide the appropriate documents like i did in the past 2.5 years.

DJDalton
04-16-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
Looks like you don't know me much mister Dalton, if you did you would not sustpect me of "selectively" posting informations. For instance you'll notice that the document is numbered 156-1 and 156-2 and AFAIK there is no 156-0 page, but there are 156-3 and 156-4 that i did not scan because i did not think they were relevant to the discussion.
153-3 cover the armor and fuel tank placement as well as armament and the 156-4 show a three view and a couple of Ki 84 pictures nothing to comment about much...
And Frankly (hahaha) i don't give a damn whether the Ki 84 is overmodelled or not, my job is a usual to provide data and facts not to make any assumption. Did i commented in any way on the current Ki 84 FM saying it's either right or wrong ?
My job in FB and earlier in Il-2 as always been to provide data on the aircraft to Oleg not to make any assumption. And no i did not provide any data on the Ki 84 for FB so i don't know which source he used for modelling, but if i have solid proof he did not use correct ones, i'll tell him so and provide the appropriate documents like i did in the past 2.5 years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I apologize Butch, I don't mean to impugn your character. I didn't know it was you that obtained the document. But this document is key to this argument because the performance in this document is outstanding. Can you tell us where it was obtained. Link us to a site? Theres more to it. There should be a report containing an introduction and a summary. For instance: "How and where the plane was acquired. Its condition at the time of capture. The atmospheric test conditions. Any work necessary upon the plane to make it safe or flyable." It sounds like you have raw data here. Where did you get it?

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

HayateKid
04-16-2004, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
The "23" is the motor we should probably be modeling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But you're correct in using "probably" in your recommendation because there is certainly no strong argument why the 21, or even the 11, or 12, cannot be modelled. Actual production planes were produced with those engines. And it basically comes down to preference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I will say the Data indicates a March 1945 test and if the test occured then and theres no engine modification to the fuel injection system. This data looks good.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's give it the benefit of the doubt then, because there's no proof of a souped up ki-84 being used for the test. The only documents we've seen indicates that the test was run with 92 octane with high-pressure fuel injection -- both historically accurate.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

Kurfurst__
04-16-2004, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
Yes, you are clearly correct. Some of confusion comes from having to convert from meters to feet and I believe simple math mistakes have resulted in some of the confusion. For the Bf-109G-10 for instance. Sources say 6 minutes to 6,100 meters. Oleg says 7 minutes. I think someone lost a minute. I'm not saying it was Oleg, but a grab rate of 2,800 ft per minute for the G-10 is very very slow.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason for this is slightly different, German chart usually give climb times for 30-min military rating, not full power. This was fairly correct until MW50 was introduced, as Militiary (Kampfleistung) and Max powers were fairly similiar, and pilots usually used Kamfpleistung for climb to save engine wear, which didnt differ much from the max power outputs. However when MW was introduced, powers become very different - ie. 1370 HP for the G-10 under the military power the 7 min climb time refers to, compared to 1800-2000 HP avaialble at maximum output. Climb rates/times of course were very different as well (ie. ~14-15m/sec -&gt; 23-25 m/sec at max.).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

lrrp22
04-16-2004, 12:37 PM
Hayate,

I think there are valid questions about whether or not the TAIC manual data is from actual test results at all.

Like I posted earlier, it seems very unlikely that there would have been time to comprehensively test a Ki-84 and publish the test results by March of 1945 since the earliest that tested Ki-84's S-10 and S-17 could have been captured was the last week of January '45.

It is extremely unlikely that testing of captured equipment would have been a priority for many weeks after the Clark Field was captured. Before any testing was even considered the captured aircraft would have been thouroughly inspected and serviced to make sure that the aircarft was servicable and not sabotaged or booby-trapped (a *very* real possibility). This process alone would probably preclude the inclusion of data in a March '45-dated field manual. The actual testing, compilation and then dissemination of the test data would stretch the process even further forward. The British give May '45 as the period in which a fly-off was conducted between Ki-84 S-17, a BPF Seafire LIII, a P-51, and an F6F-5.

The assumption that the March 1945 TAIC manual contains actual captured Ki-84 test data is a very broad one to make.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
The "23" is the motor we should probably be modeling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But you're correct in using "probably" in your recommendation because there is certainly no strong argument why the 21, or even the 11, or 12, cannot be modelled. Actual production planes were produced with those engines. And it basically comes down to preference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I will say the Data indicates a March 1945 test and if the test occured then and theres no engine modification to the fuel injection system. This data looks good.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's give it the benefit of the doubt then, because there's no proof of a souped up ki-84 being used for the test. The only documents we've seen indicates that the test was run with 92 octane with high-pressure fuel injection -- both historically accurate.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DJDalton
04-16-2004, 12:45 PM
q

DJDalton
04-16-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
Yes, you are clearly correct. Some of confusion comes from having to convert from meters to feet and I believe simple math mistakes have resulted in some of the confusion. For the Bf-109G-10 for instance. Sources say 6 minutes to 6,100 meters. Oleg says 7 minutes. I think someone lost a minute. I'm not saying it was Oleg, but a grab rate of 2,800 ft per minute for the G-10 is very very slow.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason for this is slightly different, German chart usually give climb times for 30-min military rating, not full power. This was fairly correct until MW50 was introduced, as Militiary (Kampfleistung) and Max powers were fairly similiar, and pilots usually used Kamfpleistung for climb to save engine wear, which didnt differ much from the max power outputs. However when MW was introduced, powers become very different - ie. 1370 HP for the G-10 under the military power the 7 min climb time refers to, compared to 1800-2000 HP avaialble at maximum output. Climb rates/times of course were very different as well (ie. ~14-15m/sec -&gt; 23-25 m/sec at max.).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love Patton's quote contrasted with that of the field tank commander...lol Hey, you HAVE to motivate the men! Old Blood and Guts..."his guts our blood" I think that was the quote...lol

All I know is that I forced a zooming Frank to turn a couple times and loose the energy it came up at me with then I put my G-10 in a WEP grab and that Frank came back up at me, closed like a rocketship and made me break. No way!!! Its happened twice. Even its optimistic grab rates in the report Butch posted wouldn't have allowed it to do that. So I have a major issue with the Frank and will dig into it as soon as I can get the information to start. I may have to contact AIA to get the old reports. I'd like to start by determining where the one cited comes from.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

butch2k
04-16-2004, 01:04 PM
My source for the TAIC data is the genuine TAIC manual (full one including chapters on engines, armament and radios) of which i own a copy. Unfortunately i do not own a copy of the related TAIC summary document which contains the actual test conditions and the detailled tests.
TAIC documents are always based on Intelligence documents, captured documents or equipement or estimate based on careful analysis on previously known data. An example of the later could be found in the July 44 document which is just a estimate based on known data.

I just checked the date of my Manual, and it's not dated from March 45 but from June 45 as noted on the bottom of the first page (but the Frank sheet are dated from March).
That there was no update of the Frank data of March 45 within those 3 extra month means that no further tests were done which disaproved with the previously acquired data, else there would have been an update. It was usual for the data sheets to be replaced every few months when new data was available.

HayateKid
04-16-2004, 01:07 PM
More about the Ha-45-21 versus Ha-45-23:

"Previous versions suffered from sudden fuel pressure loss, and the problem was only solved with a development of the Ha-45 21 that had low-pressure fule injection. This version, designated Ha-45 23, was never produced in the numbers of it's predecessor, because the plant where it was built had been bombed, and was replaced to an underground installation."


So it seems Ha-45-21 was actually used in more numbers than Ha-45-23.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

DJDalton
04-16-2004, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hayate,

I think there are valid questions about whether or not the TAIC manual data is from actual test results at all.

Like I posted earlier, it seems very unlikely that there would have been time to comprehensively test a Ki-84 and publish the test results by March of 1945 since the earliest that tested Ki-84's S-10 and S-17 could have been captured was the last week of January '45.

It is extremely unlikely that testing of captured equipment would have been a priority for many weeks after the Clark Field was captured. Before any testing was even considered the captured aircraft would have been thouroughly inspected and serviced to make sure that the aircarft was servicable and not sabotaged or booby-trapped (a *very* real possibility). This process alone would probably preclude the inclusion of data in a March '45-dated field manual. The actual testing, compilation and then dissemination of the test data would stretch the process even further forward. The British give May '45 as the period in which a fly-off was conducted between Ki-84 S-17, a BPF Seafire LIII, a P-51, and an F6F-5.

The assumption that the March 1945 TAIC manual contains actual captured Ki-84 test data is a very broad one to make.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
The "23" is the motor we should probably be modeling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But you're correct in using "probably" in your recommendation because there is certainly no strong argument why the 21, or even the 11, or 12, cannot be modelled. Actual production planes were produced with those engines. And it basically comes down to preference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I will say the Data indicates a March 1945 test and if the test occured then and theres no engine modification to the fuel injection system. This data looks good.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's give it the benefit of the doubt then, because there's no proof of a souped up ki-84 being used for the test. The only documents we've seen indicates that the test was run with 92 octane with high-pressure fuel injection -- both historically accurate.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure the 11,12,21,23 or 25 could be used for modeling. I think the 11 and 12 were lower performance. I think the 21 was rejected and the 23 and 25 are what was left. I think the total number manufactured would help determine which motor should be modeled.

I don't find it odd that our military would rush to determine the performance of a new plane that reports indicated was outperforming ours. I think it would be a priority. I do believe the planes probably weren't working when captured. Thats my hunch, otherwise they would have been flown off the island. So the question is...why weren't they working and what was done to get them running? It could be they were abandoned or that the pilots were all dead..or they ran out of fuel to fly them away, but I think they were probably out of commission. The report summaries are essential and I'm very eager to find out from Butch where he got this data. If its raw data from a field manual...there are reports upon which it was compiled.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

butch2k
04-16-2004, 01:28 PM
DJDalton check bottom of page 16 for my answer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HayateKid
04-16-2004, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I think the total number manufactured would help determine which motor should be modeled.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

since it appears that there were more 21 engines made than 23 (see my post above), i hope you are going to champion now that the high-pressure fuel injection motor should be the one modelled.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I do believe the planes probably weren't working when captured. Thats my hunch, otherwise they would have been flown off the island. So the question is...why weren't they working and what was done to get them running?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think somebody already posted that the planes were captured in almost perfect running condition. They lacked some superficial equipment, and were restored but not souped-up. Why would the US test a souped-up version anyway.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

DJDalton
04-16-2004, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
My source for the TAIC data is the genuine TAIC manual (full one including chapters on engines, armament and radios) of which i own a copy. Unfortunately i do not own a copy of the related TAIC summary document which contains the actual test conditions and the detailled tests.
TAIC documents are always based on Intelligence documents, captured documents or equipement or estimate based on careful analysis on previously known data. An example of the later could be found in the July 44 document which is just a estimate based on known data.

I just checked the date of my Manual, and it's not dated from March 45 but from June 45 as noted on the bottom of the first page (but the Frank sheet are dated from March).
That there was no update of the Frank data of March 45 within those 3 extra month means that no further tests were done which disaproved with the previously acquired data, else there would have been an update. It was usual for the data sheets to be replaced every few months when new data was available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll concede that until this data is shown to be less than an objective/fair test it is good data to model the Frank upon.

I find it very interesting that the top speed indicated here is 427 mph, the exact same top speed attained in the 1946 "Middletown Air Depot" trial. Either the plane/planes are very consistent, it was a huge coincidence or the same test.

The maximum grab rates in the document are as follows:

10k/3050meters - 2'36"-3,846 avg ft per minute
20k/6100meters - 5'48"-3,448 avg ft per minute
30k/9150meters - 10'0"-3,000 avg ft per minute

NOW, we can test in the game.

Thank you Butch

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

DJDalton
04-16-2004, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
[QUOTE]

I think somebody already posted that the planes were captured in almost perfect running condition. They lacked some superficial equipment, and were restored but not souped-up. Why would the US test a souped-up version anyway.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If someone has posted these Franks were captured in "almost perfect running order" please post your source for that statement. This is key to this debate. If a statement like thats exists it is part of the reports I'm searching for. The fact that the planes were abandoned is very interesting at the least.

This plane with the Ha-45-21 motor was a notorious pilot killer. They didn't just lose fuel pressure. They burst into flames upon their own accord. Obviously, our military was not gonna send our pilots up in one that wasn't safe. I've read previously somewhere we modified the fuel injection for those 1946 tests. If the TAIC data circulated here is from that test it is data that is not objective or fair.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/ki84-perfdata2.jpg

If it stands on its own, I'm willing to concede it is. Now I'm gonna test the Frank to be sure its performance is no better than this test and I'm going to try to track down the reports this TAIC is based upon. That may take some time.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

[This message was edited by DJDalton on Fri April 16 2004 at 01:37 PM.]

lrrp22
04-16-2004, 02:30 PM
Still, that March data is almost certainly not test data.

Knowing first hand the glacial pace at which the U.S. Army moves on the administrative front, I don't think it's at all unlikely that a manual published in June would contain content that was a couple of months old, especially considering the distances and circumstances involved. Simply getting the information from the Pacific to the concerned organization and then to press was likely to take weeks and even months.

Also, any test information deemed critical would have been disseminated directly to units in-theater and would not have relied on delivery of a manual. The June-dated TAIC probably didn't make its way back to the Pacific until well after the war was over.

Besides we're not talking about something like the appearance of the Me 262 in the ETO here. The Ki-84 was roughly equivelant in performance to the Spitifre Mk VIII and did little to change the tactical situation in the Pacific. I'm sure that air units in the Pacific were aware of the Frank's performance characteristics long before the Summer of 1945.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
My source for the TAIC data is the genuine TAIC manual (full one including chapters on engines, armament and radios) of which i own a copy. Unfortunately i do not own a copy of the related TAIC summary document which contains the actual test conditions and the detailled tests.
TAIC documents are always based on Intelligence documents, captured documents or equipement or estimate based on careful analysis on previously known data. An example of the later could be found in the July 44 document which is just a estimate based on known data.

I just checked the date of my Manual, and it's not dated from March 45 but from June 45 as noted on the bottom of the first page (but the Frank sheet are dated from March).
That there was no update of the Frank data of March 45 within those 3 extra month means that no further tests were done which disaproved with the previously acquired data, else there would have been an update. It was usual for the data sheets to be replaced every few months when new data was available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
04-16-2004, 02:34 PM
"I think somebody already posted that the planes were captured in almost perfect running condition. They lacked some superficial equipment, and were restored but not souped-up."

That was Skychimp, refering to the Middletown 1946 aircraft which were captured in Japan during August of '45, not the Clark Field examples.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I think the total number manufactured would help determine which motor should be modeled.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

since it appears that there were more 21 engines made than 23 (see my post above), i hope you are going to champion now that the high-pressure fuel injection motor should be the one modelled.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I do believe the planes probably weren't working when captured. Thats my hunch, otherwise they would have been flown off the island. So the question is...why weren't they working and what was done to get them running?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think somebody already posted that the planes were captured in almost perfect running condition. They lacked some superficial equipment, and were restored but not souped-up. Why would the US test a souped-up version anyway.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
04-16-2004, 02:39 PM
I don't think the U.S. military was nearly as concerned with the Frank's appearance as some here believe.

See my response to Butch- the various air units wouldn't have relied on the distribution of a field manual to disseminate relevant tactical information.


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

I think there are valid questions about whether or not the TAIC manual data is from actual test results at all.

Like I posted earlier, it seems very unlikely that there would have been time to comprehensively test a Ki-84 and publish the test results by March of 1945 since the earliest that tested Ki-84's S-10 and S-17 could have been captured was the last week of January '45.

It is extremely unlikely that testing of captured equipment would have been a priority for many weeks after the Clark Field was captured. Before any testing was even considered the captured aircraft would have been thouroughly inspected and serviced to make sure that the aircarft was servicable and not sabotaged or booby-trapped (a *very* real possibility). This process alone would probably preclude the inclusion of data in a March '45-dated field manual. The actual testing, compilation and then dissemination of the test data would stretch the process even further forward. The British give May '45 as the period in which a fly-off was conducted between Ki-84 S-17, a BPF Seafire LIII, a P-51, and an F6F-5.

The assumption that the March 1945 TAIC manual contains actual captured Ki-84 test data is a very broad one to make.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
The "23" is the motor we should probably be modeling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But you're correct in using "probably" in your recommendation because there is certainly no strong argument why the 21, or even the 11, or 12, cannot be modelled. Actual production planes were produced with those engines. And it basically comes down to preference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I will say the Data indicates a March 1945 test and if the test occured then and theres no engine modification to the fuel injection system. This data looks good.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's give it the benefit of the doubt then, because there's no proof of a souped up ki-84 being used for the test. The only documents we've seen indicates that the test was run with 92 octane with high-pressure fuel injection -- both historically accurate.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure the 11,12,21,23 or 25 could be used for modeling. I think the 11 and 12 were lower performance. I think the 21 was rejected and the 23 and 25 are what was left. I think the total number manufactured would help determine which motor should be modeled.

I don't find it odd that our military would rush to determine the performance of a new plane that reports indicated was outperforming ours. I think it would be a priority. I do believe the planes probably weren't working when captured. Thats my hunch, otherwise they would have been flown off the island. So the question is...why weren't they working and what was done to get them running? It could be they were abandoned or that the pilots were all dead..or they ran out of fuel to fly them away, but I think they were probably out of commission. The report summaries are essential and I'm very eager to find out from Butch where he got this data. If its raw data from a field manual...there are reports upon which it was compiled.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
04-16-2004, 03:03 PM
"They lacked some superficial equipment, and were restored but not souped-up."

According to Skychimp, they were missing pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Hardly superficial.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I think the total number manufactured would help determine which motor should be modeled.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

since it appears that there were more 21 engines made than 23 (see my post above), i hope you are going to champion now that the high-pressure fuel injection motor should be the one modelled.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I do believe the planes probably weren't working when captured. Thats my hunch, otherwise they would have been flown off the island. So the question is...why weren't they working and what was done to get them running?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think somebody already posted that the planes were captured in almost perfect running condition. They lacked some superficial equipment, and were restored but not souped-up. Why would the US test a souped-up version anyway.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DJDalton
04-16-2004, 03:37 PM
Ok

I've got some official U.S. goverment inquiries in regarding these reports. If Oleg had to go to the Japanese, I may be up against a brick wall. But its a start. The conditions of the U.S. testing need to be determined.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

PzKpfw
04-16-2004, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:

I love Patton's quote contrasted with that of the field tank commander...lol Hey, you HAVE to motivate the men! Old Blood and Guts..."his guts our blood" I think that was the quote...lol

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In war generaly Nations HQs do not openly or publicly admit an enemy's weapons system in a category is better etc.

Pattons quote here is an excelent example, takenout of context. Patton at the time was being pressured by the press, who are directly asking if US tanks were infrerior to German tanks, & he answered it, as any General in any country at war in WW2 would have.


The issue came to a head because of high US tank losses in Normandy & the Ardennes. It had first come up in Normandy in July Ie, from June 6 - July 6 1944 the Germans claimed destruction of 537 Allied tanks, while reporting as total write offs 349 tank/AG Ie, 25 StuG, 197 PzKpfw IV, 112 PzKpfw V, 15 PzKpfw VI. By July 27 the Germans reported another 450 tank/AG total write offs includeing, 60 StuG, 224 PzKpfw IV, 131 PzKpfw V, 23 PzKpfw VI, etc. The Germans had started Normandy with a large number of tanks Ie, as of 10.06.44 German strength returns from Normandy show 1,891 tank/AG consiting of:

PzKpfw III - 39
PzKpfw IV - 758
PzKpfw V - 655
PzKpfw VI - 102
StuG - 158
BuetePz - 179.



After the break out from Falaise the German strength returns for August 21 showed:

2nd Pz.Div - 0
21st Pz.Div - No report
116th Pz.Div - 12
1st.SS.Pz.Div - No report
2nd.SS.Pz.Div - 15
9th.SS.Pz.Div - 25
10.SS.Pz.Div - 0
12.SS.Pz.Div - 10


PAK & Panzerfaust/Schrek became the main enemy for US tanks, with a few German tanks or AGs appearing occasionly in penny packests till Lorraine. Where Hitler expended his carefuly built up Westren strategic armor reserve in a pointless costly offensive against Pattons forces, and their US tanks and TDs operateing defenseivly dominated Mantenfuels armored forces. Ie, The Grermans began operations with 616 tank/AG on Sept 8, 1944, by Oct 1 1944 only 127 tank/AG remained operational. Total write off losses were:

101 - PzKpfw IV
118 - PzKpfw V
221 - AG/TD

Another 148 were were listed as damaged and in need of various levels of repair.

US tank/TD losses in the same time period were
200:

- 49 Lt.Tanks
- 151 Sherman & TDs.


The issue came to a head again after the US stopped the Ardennes offensive and went on the offensive again. Basicly each time the US was on large scale offensives Ie, Normandy & the Ardennes counter offensive, vs large scale German armored forces, tank losses climbed due to massed German armor fighting defeneivly, with all the inherent advantages of being on the defenseive.

Once German resistance was broken, and the Allies went into the break out; explotation fase tank losses declined.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Sat April 17 2004 at 05:03 AM.]

flyingskid2
04-16-2004, 07:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
"They lacked some superficial equipment, and were restored but not souped-up."

According to Skychimp, they were missing pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Hardly superficial.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

superficial relative to the engine. you can replace them with equivalent weight of wood and it won't make a difference to engine performance.

flyingskid2
04-16-2004, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
"I think somebody already posted that the planes were captured in almost perfect running condition. They lacked some superficial equipment, and were restored but not souped-up."

That was Skychimp, refering to the Middletown 1946 aircraft which were captured in Japan during August of '45, not the Clark Field examples.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

doesn't that mean then that the 1946 test was (also) a good test, and the result acceptable as true performance of the hayate?

dahdah
04-16-2004, 08:51 PM
pg 21 of Bueschel's book on the Ki.84.

Replacement a/c received from Japan haVE consistently lower top speeds than the previous batch. Rated at over 600kph, by the end of 1944 only the rare Ki.84 could reach a speed of 600kph. Climb rates and service ceiling also suffered, with pilots drawing straws to get the "good" Hayate instead of one of the "lemoms" delivered to the combat units.

If this is true then, the Americans must have done some 'work' on the a/c to get the performance they did.

lrrp22
04-16-2004, 09:33 PM
"doesn't that mean then that the 1946 test was (also) a good test, and the result acceptable as true performance of the hayate?"

No, probably not.

The tested weight of the Middletown example was below 7500 lbs which is several hundred to a thousand pounds below loaded combat weight. Some accounts of the test also mention modifications to the fuel and ignition system also. These factors would go a long way towards expalining the difference between the U.S. test and Japanese and British test results.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingskid2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
"I think somebody already posted that the planes were captured in almost perfect running condition. They lacked some superficial equipment, and were restored but not souped-up."

That was Skychimp, refering to the Middletown 1946 aircraft which were captured in Japan during August of '45, not the Clark Field examples.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

doesn't that mean then that the 1946 test was (also) a good test, and the result acceptable as true performance of the hayate?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
04-16-2004, 10:35 PM
in the Air as on the ground .....

weight has little to do with top speed possible

Top Speed for a car .... Bike .... boat ..... or plane is a mix of Aerodynamics & Power

very heavy things can go very fast

aerodynamic drag is a bigger factor than a small percentage of lower weight at any speed over running speed

dahdah
04-17-2004, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
in the Air as on the ground .....

weight has little to do with top speed possible

Top Speed for a car .... Bike .... boat ..... or plane is a mix of Aerodynamics & Power

very heavy things can go very fast

aerodynamic drag is a bigger factor than a small percentage of lower weight at any speed over running speed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Only if you have enough distance to accelerate to top speed. The reduction of a 1000lb is a 10-12% reduction, more than a small percentage. This weight reduction would have an effect on ACMs and show in the simulated combat flights with American fighters.

HayateKid
04-17-2004, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
in the Air as on the ground .....

weight has little to do with top speed possible

Top Speed for a car .... Bike .... boat ..... or plane is a mix of Aerodynamics & Power

very heavy things can go very fast

aerodynamic drag is a bigger factor than a small percentage of lower weight at any speed over running speed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wow! Very insightful Badsight. This is not intuitive for a lot of people. I am a biker (bicyclist) and know this first hand. Air resistance and engine power are the only factors affecting horizontal speed. Weight does affect acceleration, so you would reach top speed slower and would climb slower, but you'd also dive faster. But for pure top speed weight doesn't come into the picture.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

04-18-2004, 02:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
My source for the TAIC data is the genuine TAIC manual (full one including chapters on engines, armament and radios) of which i own a copy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we see engine data page for Ha-45 then, plz?

It is kind of stange that 1850 hp at 17,900 ft will produce top speed at 20,000 ft, but 1695 hp at 20,000 ft produce top speed at 23,000 ft.
The altitude gain from ram must be the same at least, but this data suggest almost 1 kft diffirence between MIL and WEP.

DJDalton
04-18-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ubadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
My source for the TAIC data is the genuine TAIC manual (full one including chapters on engines, armament and radios) of which i own a copy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we see engine data page for Ha-45 then, plz?

It is kind of stange that 1850 hp at 17,900 ft will produce top speed at 20,000 ft, but 1695 hp at 20,000 ft produce top speed at 23,000 ft.
The altitude gain from ram must be the same at least, but this data suggest almost 1 kft diffirence between MIL and WEP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I need my stopwatch to redo the test. But I tested the Ki-84 in a grab from a standing start and it appeared to grab similar to the data Butch2k posted. I'm not done testing it yet and I do think it grabs a bit better than it should, but I'm starting to come to the conclusion that its the 109's that aren't climbing as they should.

I do have a question. In grab testing. Do you start from the landing strip or in the air at full speed? I assumed it was from the strip.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

TheStriker_p51d
04-19-2004, 07:16 PM
oleg needs to dump the stupid KI-c that will stop the complainin an shut the n00bs up

WUAF_Badsight
04-19-2004, 11:44 PM
yea ..... & the Mustang too while we are at it

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif