PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2

Fehler
03-31-2004, 02:18 AM
I understand that this plane's performance is modeled after US tests with high grade fuel, and there is a big difference between the US tests and typical Japanese numbers.

It is possible to tune these planes down a little? Historically, they just werent as fast as they are represented in FB.

We are already limited in performance on several aircraft because of fuel, and factory/field boosting like the P-47, later war 109 boosts, and the 190 A-4. Thus I ask if the Ki-84 is possibly represented a bit too far towards the "Optimistic" side of the spectrum?

The plane was a good one, no doubt, but some of the speeds we see in the game were not experienced by real Japanese pilots, and thus are a bit unrealistic.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Fehler
03-31-2004, 02:18 AM
I understand that this plane's performance is modeled after US tests with high grade fuel, and there is a big difference between the US tests and typical Japanese numbers.

It is possible to tune these planes down a little? Historically, they just werent as fast as they are represented in FB.

We are already limited in performance on several aircraft because of fuel, and factory/field boosting like the P-47, later war 109 boosts, and the 190 A-4. Thus I ask if the Ki-84 is possibly represented a bit too far towards the "Optimistic" side of the spectrum?

The plane was a good one, no doubt, but some of the speeds we see in the game were not experienced by real Japanese pilots, and thus are a bit unrealistic.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

PikeBishop
03-31-2004, 03:56 AM
I'm still right behind you Fehler!....finger poised on the gun button!
In the old days (BEFORE COMPUTERS) I used to ajudicate aerial wargames on a table tennis table and spent hours pouring over data from every book imaginable. But nomatter what I did there was always a complaint from somewhere so I ended up with a 'best data for all aircraft' policy, believe me, its the only way!!
As I have said in several posts on this....in reality the maximum speed of an aircraft is of very little consequence whilst in combat.
The only time it comes into play is when you are running or chasing - the same with diving for short periods until trying to regain lost precious height.
Usually you are in the mid speed range of your flight envelope when skilful manoeuvering and climbing power is what matters.
So, again, it is best to use the best possible figures quoted for all aircraft....that way there is NO arguement over 'what if'......or...'Fred said'. Let the maths prevail........(somehow I get the feeling that Neal will be here in a minute......I'd better get back to base and land pronto)!!

Regards,

SLP

LEXX_Luthor
03-31-2004, 06:54 AM
I have a feeling Ki~84 was Superior at lower levels where the internet dogfighters live.

To find the historically correct results fight with historically correct tactics at high altitude. Also, ask the server admin to set all Ki~84 dogfighter simmers to Rookie like historically correct Japanese pilots in 1945. Then we can get historically correct results.



Oleg, Ki~84 FM is right on target! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


DM I don't know about. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-31-2004, 07:04 AM
Also, ask server admin to set up only 4 Flyable Ki~84 and 24 Flyable P~51D for the sea level P~51 dogfighters, then we have historically correct numbers and that will help us get historically correct results.

Also ask server admin to use big Gulf of Finland map for dogfighting so Ki~84 dogfighters all run out of fuel and crash and P~51 dogfighters win, unless they started their P~51 with the usual 25% fuel--then its a fair fight and they crash too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Wed March 31 2004 at 06:12 AM.]

PikeBishop
03-31-2004, 07:39 AM
With regard to numbers.....you know and I know that fighter pilots will not engage from a bad position or if they are greatly outnumbered - they would avoid combat. Unless it was fight or die as with e.g. Wake island. If you were caught by suprise - run into the clouds and disappear if you had the edge on performance.
I think that numbers like 4 to 1 would not really apply locally, globally yes but think of the Red baron's flying circus only engaging with local superiority.
I don't really know much about this but from the few encounters I have read about......HEARSAY EVIDENCE AGAIN...the combats were fairly even in a lot of cases.
As regards the pilots....because the KI84 was amongst the best aircraft only the better pilots would fly them. Although designed as an offensive fighter moving deep into enemy territory it was used more and more as a defensive fighter fighting over home territory where the pilots were not captured when shot down but had a nice cup of tea and biscuits. (I'm sure the U.S. pilots would not stoop so low as to try to kill them on their parachutes)........mind you, there was the battle of the Bismark Sea!?
Oh! one more thing...how often in combat do you find everyone getting in each others way when all attacking one target if you can get one on its own.

regards,

SLP

LEXX_Luthor
03-31-2004, 07:51 AM
Excellent points...

Ki~84 used as short range defense...like Fb109 which had similar short range dogfighter superiorty over the USA planes.

Ki~84 was given to better pilots.

Engagements that actually happened were more evenly balance numberwise than 4 to 1.

But the key importance of air warfare when one is struggling is putting planes out there with no opposition if possible, hence the reason why the strategic numbers of P~51 (and others) gave it superiority over Ki~84 even if Ki~84 was superior dogfighter and Ki~84 were "saved" for use when they could be numerically equal in certain fights. When one is obviously winning, then the goal is to go out and find the enemy and finish them off, but by then the outcome of dogfights have already been decided.

Also, there was not that many better Ki~84 pilots left by 1944.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

HayateKid
03-31-2004, 10:54 AM
The Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate (Gale) was numerically the most important fighter serving with the Japanese Army Air Force (JAAF) during the last year of the Pacific War, and was probably the best Japanese fighter aircraft to see large-scale operation during this period of the war. The Hayate was fully the equal of even the most advanced Allied fighters which opposed it, and was often their superior in many important respects. It was well armed and armored, was fast, and was very maneuverable. Although it was generally outnumbered by Allied fighters which opposed it, it nevertheless gave a good account of itself in battles over the Philippines, over Okinawa, and over the Japanese home islands. So desperate was the need for Ki-84s in the last months of the war, Japan was building underground factories with a planned rate of 200 aircraft per month.

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

mike_espo
03-31-2004, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
The Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate (Gale) was numerically the most important fighter serving with the Japanese Army Air Force (JAAF) during the last year of the Pacific War, and was probably the best Japanese fighter aircraft to see large-scale operation during this period of the war. The Hayate was fully the equal of even the most advanced Allied fighters which opposed it, and was often their superior in many important respects. It was well armed and armored, was fast, and was very maneuverable. Although it was generally outnumbered by Allied fighters which opposed it, it nevertheless gave a good account of itself in battles over the Philippines, over Okinawa, and over the Japanese home islands. So desperate was the need for Ki-84s in the last months of the war, Japan was building underground factories with a planned rate of 200 aircraft per month.

Read more here
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with some of your post. However, I think the ki-43 was still the main fighter of the JAAF. Such was the damage from allied bombings that the quality of all japanese aircraft had become questionable at best. Production of planes from fall of 1944 to the end of the war was curtailed significantly even though the Japanese industry tried to de centralize. Also, most of this production of planes was being conserved for kamikaze attacks during the expected invasion of the Japanese home islands.

As for the FB ki-84, none of the quality issues are modelled in our sim, so we are getting the best possible product. Most sources state aircraft performance was significantly lower due to lack of quality.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

HayateKid
03-31-2004, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mike_espo:

I agree with some of your post. However, I think the ki-43 was still the main fighter of the JAAF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ki-43 may be the "main" fighter, but the Ki-84 is the "most important" fighter during the last year of the Pacific War.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As for the FB ki-84, none of the quality issues are modelled in our sim, so we are getting the best possible product. Most sources state aircraft performance was significantly lower due to lack of quality.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think the quote about the ki-84 being the equal or superior to allied planes is in spite of quality of production.

El Turo
03-31-2004, 12:34 PM
edited.

mike_espo
03-31-2004, 12:54 PM
OK Hayate, Ill give you that. I just hope we'll get a chance to fly the ki-27 and the ki-43s in the new sim. More maneuverable than the zero!!! Can't wait!

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

Snoop_Baron
03-31-2004, 01:02 PM
Wasn't there a guy on this forum from Japan who posted some details about the differences between Japan max speed and US tests max speed for the Ki84?

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
03-31-2004, 01:31 PM
Japanese max speed was more like max cruise - a much lower figure than actual max speed. Also the Ki84 had very good range. Also, pristine Ki84s did see combat - that is ones that were free of manufacturing defects.

The only thing I suspect may be off is the DM.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-31-2004, 02:32 PM
Salute

I agree with Fehler.

I have searched and searched, through multiple books on this subject, and none of them have performance figures for the Ki-84 comparable to that shown in AEP.

Top speed for all sources I have seen vary between 388mph and 394mph. And those are NOT cruise speed figures.

Also those sources mention the fact that this aircraft lost a lot of its maneuverability at high speeds, something which is not modelled. Neither is the very significant drop off in performance over 20,000 ft modelled in AEP.

The only source I have seen which shows a 427mph top speed is the test done in the United States after the war, when the aircraft was speed prepped with polished exterior, sealed gunports, and running on 150 octane fuel, which obviously was not available in Japan, where they had to make do with gasoline rated at 87 octane.

Yes, the Ki-84 was a good aircraft, but below 20,000 ft, and it did not have a speed advantage shown now.

For those who don't have access to books on the aircraft, here is a reasonably good site on the Ki-84:

http://users.belgacom.net/aircraftweapon/avion/firmes/1903.html#61707

I would like to see the basic model of the Ki-84 modelled, with the lower horsepower engine.

lrrp22
03-31-2004, 02:38 PM
"Japanese max speed was more like max cruise - a much lower figure than actual max speed."

That's pure speculation, Nagual. It is the theory of an individual poster on the j-aircraft discussion board, nothing more.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Japanese max speed was more like max cruise - a much lower figure than actual max speed. Also the Ki84 had very good range. Also, pristine Ki84s did see combat - that is ones that were free of manufacturing defects.

The only thing I suspect may be off is the DM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WhiskeyRiver
03-31-2004, 04:35 PM
KI-84 FM is BS pure and simple. It's doesn't lose control authority one bit at high speeds. It's armored like a tank and it's too fast. The one in the Middletown Air Depot test was "modified" and not an example of a production Ki-84. The description of the test say that the engine was modified to take advantage of higher octane gasoline. To me that means more boost from the supercharger.

If the japanese aircraft get hotrodded engines why can;t we get P-47's with the hotrodded motors. It's was common practice late in the war to turn up the boost via wastegate linkage adjustment on P-47 engines when high octane gas was available. This was described in Robert Johnson's and Gabby Gabreski's books'.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

ZG77_Nagual
03-31-2004, 04:50 PM
Oleg did not base the ki solely on the american test - he also got data directly from japan and, probably, other sources. (in fact, if I'm not mistaken - awaiting the KI data from Japan was a factor in the release date.A bit more than the theory of one poster I'm afraid http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'd venture to say the oft-quoted 388mph figure is 'pure spectulation. I submit that like many many aircraft references the speed figures in most books all originate with the same source. Witness the P39 - how much has it taken to even begin to convince people that the party line about this plane is untrue (nearly all US sources on this bird say the vvs used it for ground attack! Until recently anyway)? A combination of time, place and circumstance formed the US opinion of the p39 (superior enemy pilots, defects in a new plane hastily assembled, enemy with tactical advantage and dogfighting doctrine that favored the enemy) - yet vvs aces, who flew it in combat more than anyone - thought it an excellent plane.
Worst case scenarios your sources are no better than Oleg's, and I'd lay odds they are much less reliable.
I don't know if Oleg's got this one right, but I'd certainly choose his sources over the Joe Baugher's and other popular sources.

PzKpfw
03-31-2004, 04:59 PM
I doubt Oleg relied on the US test etc, as he is never one to even trust US data to begin with. Good point on the P-39, even the latest works still insist the Soviets used the P-39 in the CAS role, Ie, Deans AHT etc.

If its wrong or it isn't. I'm sure Oleg will drop in some time and explain it etc, when he gets time.

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
03-31-2004, 05:12 PM
So your contention is that the Japanese were able to generate the same performance numbers for operational wartime machines as Middletown air depot was for a specially prepared, stripped down and hot-rodded example circa 1946?

If Oleg's data is so accurate, why is the Ki's high speed handling so far off? I think 'Speculation' is an excellent way to describe the Frank's FM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Oleg did not base the ki solely on the american test - he also got data directly from japan and, probably, other sources. (in fact, if I'm not mistaken - awaiting the KI data from Japan was a factor in the release date.A bit more than the theory of one poster I'm afraid http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'd venture to say the oft-quoted 388mph figure is 'pure spectulation. I submit that like many many aircraft references the speed figures in most books all originate with the same source. Witness the P39 - how much has it taken to even begin to convince people that the party line about this plane is untrue (nearly all US sources on this bird say the vvs used it for ground attack! Until recently anyway)? A combination of time, place and circumstance formed the US opinion of the p39 (superior enemy pilots, defects in a new plane hastily assembled, enemy with tactical advantage and dogfighting doctrine that favored the enemy) - yet vvs aces, who flew it in combat more than anyone - thought it an excellent plane.
Worst case scenarios your sources are no better than Oleg's, and I'd lay odds they are much less reliable.
I don't know if Oleg's got this one right, but I'd certainly choose his sources over the Joe Baugher's and other popular sources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fehler
03-31-2004, 05:37 PM
Well, the whole reason I started this thread was in hopes that Oleg will come and explain the Frank. It really flys faster than everything I have ever read. That's not such a big problem though, as I have discovered that a few of my books misquote information. If, however, and I do say "IF" the Franks speeds were taken from suped up test aircraft, is there a way to dumb it down to more relative war specs, IF those specs do show that the Japanese tested it at slower max speeds?

We have de-rated aircraft in the game. We have others that are not benefiting from normal field boosts, etc. My only concern is that the Ki-84 is getting the benefit of all the best possible worlds.

If Oleg says that this is the way he wants it, OK, I can live with it, no biggie. But I would love to know which of the sources I have read are actually correct!

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

ZG77_Nagual
03-31-2004, 05:47 PM
first - what's the basis for the assertion the ki84's high speed handling is 'way off'? I agree it is comparable to the 190 and p51 at high speeds - with blackouts being the limiting factor on maneuvers - but I've seen nothing to contradict it - certainly open to it if you have it.
Second - I've never contended that the Japanese matched the American tests. My impression is the japanese tested for realistic, functional performance. does the current KI match the American test data when tested in the game? Also, I had not heard the gunports were faired over, skin polished etc. in the american tests - however I'm pretty sure the Japanese tests are Oleg's gold standard anyway. I'm not saying there may not be some problems with the modeling. But I don't think it's based on the US tests and I do think it's based on the best available data. Whether it's properly rendered in the game I don't know.

03-31-2004, 06:06 PM
The Ki-84 for 2.0 AEP I've tested does 408mph(674km/h) at alt and 355mph(586km/h) at deck.

The low-alt speed is as expected, high-alt speed a little off by 18km/h. 18km/h faster than conventional Japanese data, but 19km/h slower than US test data.

People should get used to the process of observation-&gt;analysis-&gt;conclusion, instead of conclusion-&gt;analysis-&gt;observation.

clint-ruin
03-31-2004, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
The Ki-84 for 2.0 AEP I've tested does 408mph(674km/h) at alt and 355mph(586km/h) at deck.

The low-alt speed is as expected, high-alt speed a little off by 18km/h. 18km/h faster than conventional Japanese data, but 19km/h slower than US test data.

People should get used to the process of observation-&gt;analysis-&gt;conclusion, instead of conclusion-&gt;analysis-&gt;observation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the performance details in AEP.

Lexx Luthor has been on about downgraded Ki84 performance in AEP for some time now too.

Could we get a re-test of what exactly is supposed to be wrong, similar to Kurfursts K4 thread, from some of the participants here?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-31-2004, 06:15 PM
Salute Kweassa

It is not only that it is too fast at its best altitude for speed, which was approx. 20,000 ft, it is that it continues to perform superbly right up to 30,000 ft, whereas the actual aircraft's performance fell off rapidly. And 20mph faster is not a small difference. Especially considering it reaches that speed very quickly, as opposed to many other aircraft which take forever to reach maximum speed.

The acceleration of the aircraft was not that good, as seen by the climbrate.

El Turo
03-31-2004, 06:34 PM
I'd settle for something resembling a realistic damage model.

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
Amidst morning clouds
Fork-tailed devil hunts its prey
Lightning strikes, s√ľsse tr√¬§ume.

ZG77_Nagual
03-31-2004, 06:36 PM
Thanks Kweassa1 - Obviously I don't care enough to test it myself - just going after a few wrong assertions I saw here. I am not sure where I saw the info that the Japanese tests were for sustained maximum - which would make them lower - but it was several sources - and seemed well documented. That aside - does anyone really think all Ki84s should go 388mph? Really you pretty much have to derive from multiple sources if you can. Personally I don't generally fly the Ki - it's too good to be interesting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif except as an opponent. I expect Oleg is looking at the ki - I and I'm sure others have emailed him to raise a few points.

03-31-2004, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The acceleration of the aircraft was not that good, as seen by the climbrate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a very strong assumption coming from a very weak basis - since on the other hand, it is also very favorable plane when it comes to weight-power ratios.

LEXX_Luthor
03-31-2004, 08:42 PM
Pink Elephant for the Board... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ki~84 speed falls off far more rapidly with altitude then P~51D--much more rapidly. Here are some speed numbers I found at sea level, 4km, and 8km, Crimea map full "blast" everything, no overheat, IAS speedbar not true airspeed...

speeds at 0km, 4km, 8km

________Ki84b 560 / 500 / 400
___P~51D(NT) 540 / 520 / 430
_MiG~3~AM38 540 / 460 / 330 ...disgusting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

P~51 drops 110 km/hr, Ki~84 drops 160 km/hr. IAS speedbar only.

Perhaps we are saying Ki~84 speed should fall off far more rapidly, like MiG~3~AM38, that thing is a Disgrace up high, but it was designed like that for a reason.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WUAF_Badsight
03-31-2004, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
So your contention is that the Japanese were able to generate the same performance numbers for operational wartime machines as Middletown air depot was for a specially prepared, stripped down and hot-rodded example circa 1946?

If Oleg's data is so accurate, why is the Ki's high speed handling so far off? I think 'Speculation' is an excellent way to describe the Frank's FM.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


how come you think your right Irrp ?

most web sites are all using the same source for their data

do you know for sure that the Frank couldnt go 427 ?

no

do you know for sure the Frank was moddeled after the USA test data ?

no

are you biased that the Frank should be crap ?

yes

have you bothered to test the Hayate lately ?

doesnt look like it

we know the Hayate in the USA was stripped & rebuilt in excellent faster condition than it was recieved in

thats common knowledge

do you think that Oleg would then go & use such test data for the KI in FB ?

that would be totally unfair

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

That's pure speculation, Nagual. It is the theory of an individual poster <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

who obviously knows more about them than you do

if you could put the Jap Bias aside for 10 seconds & try the plane out you would see that :

its best at nothing

but oh no .... thats not enough for you is it .... it has to be a sitting duck for Mustangs till your happy

Bearcat99
03-31-2004, 10:21 PM
This is interesting.... I found it in the PF forum....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SgtWalt65:
Some say the Ki84 series ( in particular the Ki84-Ic version ) are over modeled or just to dang good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. But first let me tell you what John Loisel of the 475th FG ( aka Possum, Clover and Hades...aka also as The Butchers of Rabaul ) had to say about the Frank compaired to his P-38. BnZ it he said, never ever try to dog fight it otherwise. You will lose nearly every time. He said he lost of few friends to those. The Ic model came with two 20MM Ho-5 Cannons and two 30MM Ho-105 Cannons. This was the heavest armoment ever put on any Japanese fighter and was intended to take out B-29's on the first pass. YOu move a fighter in front of his guns and see what happenes. Also these H05's were the fastest firing heavy cannons of the war.
Either way they were ( Ic ) never intended as a dog fighter like people use them in iL2:FB AEP.
Info:
http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/Hayate.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate
Ki-84-I
The Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate (Gale) was numerically the most important fighter serving with the Japanese Army Air Force (JAAF) during the last year of the Pacific War, and was probably the best Japanese fighter aircraft to see large-scale operation during this period of the war. The Hayate was fully the equal of even the most advanced Allied fighters which opposed it, and was often their superior in many important respects. It was well armed and armored, was fast, and was very maneuverable. Although it was generally outnumbered by Allied fighters which opposed it, it nevertheless gave a good account of itself in battles over the Philippines, over Okinawa, and over the Japanese home islands. So desperate was the need for Ki-84s in the last months of the war, Japan was building underground factories with a planned rate of 200 aircraft per month.
The history of the Ki-84 can be traced back to just after the beginning of the Pacific War between Japan and the United States. Just three weeks after Pearl Harbor, the Koku Hombu instructed the Nakajima Hikoki K.K. (Nakajima Aeroplane Co Ltd) to begin the design of a replacement for the Ki-43 Hayabusa, which itself had just entered service with the JAAF. The JAAF wanted a general-purpose long-range fighter that would be superior to those that were then under development in the USA and Britain. The specification called for an aircraft with the maneuverability of the Ki-43 Hayabusa coupled with the speed and climb of the Ki-44 Shoki. In addition, the aircraft was to be provided with armor protection for the pilot and was to be fitted with self-sealing fuel tanks. The aircraft was to have a maximum speed of 398-423 mph, and was to be capable of operating at combat rating for 1.5 hours at distances as far as 250 miles from its base. The wing loading was not to exceed 35 pounds per square foot. The maneuverability requirements were relaxed somewhat as compared to those of the Ki-43, but were to exceed those of the Ki-44 which had been designed strictly as a bomber destroyer. The engine was to be the Nakajima Ha-45 eighteen-cylinder double-row air-cooled radial. The armament was to be two 12.7 mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns and two 20-mm Ho-5 cannon.

T. Koyama was named as the project engineer, and work on the Ki-84 began in early 1942 at Nakajima's Ota plant in Gumma Prefecture. The first prototype was ready in March of 1943. The aircraft was a fairly conventional low-wing monoplane that bore an obvious family resemblance to the Ki-43 and Ki-44 fighters that preceded it. The 1800-hp Nakajima Ha-45 engine that powered the Ki-84 was a JAAF version of the Navy's NK9A Homare. Experimental models of the Homare engine had been test run as early as May of 1942, but the development of the Homare was long and difficult, and few Homares were available until August of 1943, and experimental production did not begin until late 1943 at Najajima's Musashi engine factory. A big exhaust collector pipe was mounted on each side of the engine behind the cowling gills. The all-metal airframe followed the common Japanese practice of building the wing integral with the central fuselage in order to save the weight of heavy attachment points. The fuselage was of oval section, with flush-riveted stressed skin. The two-spar wing carried metal-framed, fabric-covered ailerons and was provided with hydraulically-operated Fowler flaps. A total of 220 US gallons of fuel was carried in tanks aft of the cockpit and in the wings. The engine mounting and cowling incorporated the oil cooler and intakes for the carburetor and supercharger. The three-part canopy had an aft-sliding central section. All three undercarriage members were hydraulically retractable. The main gear retracted inward and horizontally into the wings and was fully covered with flush-fitting doors. The non-steerable tailwheel retracted into the fuselage and was covered by a flush-fitting door. The rudder was of metal construction but was covered with fabric. The tailplane was set well ahead of the vertical surfaces. Two 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns with 250 rpg were mounted in the upper cowling, and a 20-mm Ho-5 cannon with 150 rounds was mounted in each wing outboard of the main undercarriage leg. The pilot was protected by a 70-mm armored windshield and by 13-mm armor plate in the rear and floor of the cockpit. Provision was made under the fuselage centerline for a single drop tank.

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.

A few service-test Ki-84s were fitted experimentally with a ski undercarriage. The legs retracted into the normal wheel wells, with the skis lying flat underneath the wing roots. These aircraft were tested in Hokkaido during the winter of 1943-44. The ski installation increased the maximum weight, and thus had an adverse effect on maneuverability and reduced the maximum speed by 8 mph. Consequently, skis were not incorporated on production machines.

The Ha-45 engine entered full-scale production in April of 1944 as the Type 4. Production of the Type 4 engine was hampered by many setbacks, most of which were due to inadequate preparation, with shortages of jigs, tools, and skilled personnel being significant problems.

Service tests of the Ki-84 began in Japan under operational conditions in October 1943. The type was accepted for production as the Army Type 4 Fighter Model 1A Hayate (Gale) or Ki-84-Ia.

A second pre-production batch of 42 Ki-84s was started in April of 1944. These were built between March and June of 1944. These were built in parallel with the first production aircraft, which began to roll off the production lines in April of 1944. Both types were fitted with individual exhaust stacks, which provided some thrust augmentation, and could increase the maximum speed by some 9-10 mph.

Each of the two wing racks could carry a 44 Imp gall drop tank or a 551-pound bomb. Some of the aircraft of the second service test batch were tested with wings of increased span and area to serve as development aircraft for the projected Ki-84N and Ki-84P projects.

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.

The Ki-84-Ia was followed on the production line by the Ki-84-Ib Army Type 4 Fighter Model Ib. In the Ki-84-Ib, the fuselage-mounted machine guns were replaced by a pair of 20-mm Ho-5 cannon, giving the aircraft a total armament of four 20-mm cannon.

The Ki-84-Ic was a specialized bomber destroyer variant armed with two 20-mm Ho-5 cannon in the fuselage and two wing-mounted 30-mm Ho-105 cannon. Only a small number of this version were built.

In March of 1944, the experimental squadron that was conducting the service test trials of the Ki-84 was disbanded, and its personnel transferred to the 22nd Sentai. This unit was re-equipped with production Hayates and transferred to China where it entered combat against the USAAF's Fourteenth Air Force in August of 1944. The Ki-84-Ia quickly established itself as a formidable foe that compared favorably with the best Allied fighters then available. The Hayate had an excellent performance and climb rate, and had none of the shortcomings of the earlier generation of Japanese fighters, being well armed and possessing adequate armor protection for the pilot. In addition to the penetration and interception roles, the aircraft was used as a fighter-bomber and dive bomber. The 22nd Sentai was later moved to the Philippines, where it was joined by the 1st, 11th, 21st, 51st, 52nd, 55th, 200th, and 246th Sentais.

Following encounters with the Ki-84-Ia, the Allied Technical Air Intelligence Unit (ATAIU), commanded by Colonel Frank McCoy, assigned the code name FRANK to this fighter. This code name had previously been assigned to a fictitious aircraft known as the "Mitsubishi T.K.4", which was erroneously believed to be under development in Japan. When the T.K.4 failed to materialize, Colonel McCoy decided to name the new Ki-84-Ia after himself.

The FRANK later appeared in the battle for Okinawa, serving with the 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Hiko Sentais. Two new Sentais, the 111th and the 200th were activated with Hayates. The Hayates were used for long-range penetration missions, fighter sweeps, strafing, interception and dive-bombing missions with considerable success. The Ki-84 proved faster than the P-51D Mustang and the P-47D Thunderbolt at all but the highest altitudes. At medium altitudes, the FRANK was so fast that it was essentially immune from interception. The climb rate was exceptionally good, 16,400 feet being attained in 5 minutes 54 seconds, which was superior to that of any opposing Allied fighters. The Ki-84 had a close resemblance to the Ki-43 Hayabusa, which caused many Allied fighter pilots to confuse it with the earlier Nakajima fighter during the stress of combat. Many an American pilot, having sighted a Japanese fighter he believed to be a Ki-43 and salivating at the prospect of a quick and easy kill, suddenly found he had latched onto a different bird entirely. The Ki-84 even did well at the fighter-bomber role. On April 15, 1945, a flight of eleven Hayates from the 100th Sentai made a surprise air attack on American airfields on Okinawa, damaging or destroying a substantial number of aircraft on the ground. However, eight of the Hayates were destroyed in the attack, and one made a forced landing on a small islet near Kyushu.

Although the Ki-84 was intended for the offensive, penetration role, Hayates were assigned to the defensive role over the Japanese home islands during the last few weeks of the war, operating with the 10th Division responsible for the defense of Tokyo. The units assigned to home defense included the 47th, the 73rd, the 111th, and the 112th and the 246th Sentais. Since the Hayate was regarded as being essential for the interception role, relatively few were expended in Kamikaze attacks.

The Hayate was simple to fly, and pilots with only minimal training could fly the type with relatively little difficulty. However, the aircraft did have have certain poor control characteristics to which a veteran pilot could easily become become accustomed but which could be deadly in the hands of an inexperienced pilot. Taxiing and ground handling were generally rather poor. On takeoff, once the tail came up, continual pressure had to be maintained on the starboard rudder pedal to counteract a tendency to swing to port caused by the high engine torque. In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral.

However, most of the defects with the Ki-84 can be laid to poor quality control during manufacture, especially during the last few months of the Pacific war. When the Ki-84 was being designed, emphasis had been placed on ease of production, and the manufacture of the Ki-84 required less than half the tooling needed by the Ki-43 and Ki-44 which preceded it. However, many experienced workers had been drafted into the military, and this loss, acting in concert with the accelerated rates of production ordered by the Japanese Ministry of Munitions, resulted in a steady drop in quality standards of both the engine and the airframe of the Hayate as the war progressed. The performance and reliability of production Hayates was seldom as good as that of the service test machines. As the quality of the workmanship steadily deteriorated, the performance of the Hayate steadily declined as production progressed, with later machines having successively poor and poorer performance and mechanical reliability. The hydraulic and fuel pressure systems were both poorly designed and were subject to frequent failures. The wheel brakes were notoriously unreliable, and the metal of the landing gear struts was often inadequately hardened during manufacture, which made them likely to snap at any time. This caused many Hayates to be written off in landing accidents, without ever having been damaged in combat.

Engine shortages and delays were a constant problem for the Hayate. Although the Ha-45 engine had been plagued with production difficulties all throughout its life, most of the delays in deliveries were caused by frequent visits of 20th Air Force B-29s to the Musashi engine plant during the last year of the war. This plant was hit by B-29 raids on no less than twelve occasions between November 24, 1944 and August 8, 1945. Production was able to continue at the Musashi plant until April 20, 1945, when it was finally put out of business for good and all production came to a standstill. Operations were transferred to an underground plant at Asakawa. and to a new plant at Hamamatsu, and a trickle of engines still continued to flow, but the supply of engines never reached the previous peak. Because of the production delays and components shortages, the quality of the Ha-45 engines delivered steadily deteriorated as the months passed, and later engines were considerably less powerful and less reliable than those initially delivered. By June of 1945, the lowering of manufacturing standards had cut the climb rate of the fighter so severely that the aircraft was virtually useless at altitudes over 30,000 feet.

A total of 1670 Hayates were built during 1944, making the aircraft numerically the most important Japanese fighter in production at that time. However, this was still far below JAAF requirements. Orders for 1944 alone totaled 2525 machines, almost a thousand more than were actually delivered. This shortfall was partly a result of the failure of subcontractors to deliver components on schedule, but became increasingly caused by Allied air attacks on Japanese industry as 1944 neared its end. On February 19. 1945, Nakajima's Ota plant was attacked by 84 B-29s, which seriously damaged the plant and destroyed some 74 Hayates on the assembly line. Further attacks on the plant by US carrier-based aircraft further damaged the plant to such an extent that an extensive dispersal program had to be carried out, with an accompanied sharp drop in production.

In May of 1944, Nakajima opened up a second Hayate manufacturing line at its Utsonomiya plant. This facility had built 727 fighters by July of 1945, less than half the number scheduled during this period. Construction of the Hayate was also assigned to the Mansyu Hikoki Seizo K.K. (Manchurian Aircraft Manufacturing Company), which started production in the spring of 1945 at its Harbin plant in Manchuria. However, only a hundred or so Hayates were built at Harbin before the end of the war brought production to an abrupt end. Total production of the Hayate by all factories was 3514, including prototypes and service trials aircraft.

In 1946, a captured late-production Hayate was restored and tested at the Middletown Air Depot in Pennsylvania. At a weight of 7490 pounds, the aircraft achieved a maximum speed of 427 mph at 20,000 feet, using war emergency power. This speed exceeded that of the P-51D Mustand and the P-47D at that altitude by 2 mph and 22 mph respectively. These figures were achieved with a superbly maintained and restored aircraft and with highly-refined aviation gasoline, and were not typical of Japanese-operated aircraft during the later stages of the war.

Specification of Nakajima Ki-84-1a:

Engine: One Army Type 4 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Nakajima Ha-45). The following engine models were used: [Ha-45]11 rated at 1800 hp for takeoff and 1650 hp at 6560 feet. [Ha-45]12 rated at 1825 hp for takeoff and 1670 hp at 7875 feet. [Ha-45]21 rated at 1990 hp for takeoff and 1850 hp at 5740 feet. [Ha-45]23 rated at 1900 hp for takeoff and 1670 hp at 4725 feet.

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.

Weights: 5864 pounds empty, 7955 pounds loaded, 8576 pounds maximum. Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 10 7/16 inches, length 32 feet 6 9/16 inches, height 11 feet 1 1/4 inches, wing area 226.04 square feet. Armament: Two fuselage mounted 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns and two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon (Ki-84-Ia). Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon (Ki-84-Ib). Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 30-mm Ho-105 cannon (Ki-84-Ic). External stores included two 551-pound bombs or two 44-Imp gall drop tanks.

Ki-84-II Hayate Kai
The Ki-84-II or Hayate Kai was an attempt to conserve valuable supplies of aluminum by employing large numbers of wooden components in the manufacture of the Hayate. The rear fuselage, certain fittings, and modified wingtips were made of wood, with all the wood work being carried out at a shadow factory at Tanuma. The engine was the Nakajama [Ha-45] 21, 25 or 23 with low-pressure fuel injection. Armament consisted of four 20-mm or two 20-mm and two 30-mm cannon. The designation Ki-84-II was actually a Nakajima designation, the aircraft in JAAF service retaining the Ki-84-Ib or -Ic designation, depending on armament.
Specification of Ki-84-II:

Engine: One Army Type 4 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial (Nakajima Ha-45). The following engine models were used: [Ha-45]21 rated at 1990 hp for takeoff and 1850 hp at 5740 feet. [Ha-45]23 rated at 1900 hp for takeoff and 1670 hp at 4725 feet. [Ha-45]25 rated at 2000 hp for takeoff and 1700 hp at 19,685 feet.

Performance: Maximum speed 416 mph

Weights: 8495 pounds loaded.

Dimensions: Wingspan 36 feet 10 7/16 inches, length 32 feet 6 9/16 inches, height 11 feet 1 1/4 inches, wing area 226.04 square feet. Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon. Alternatively, the two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon could be replaced by two 30-mm Ho-105 cannon. External stores included two 551-pound bombs or two 44-Imp gall drop tanks.

Ki-84-III
The Ki-84-III was a high-altitude version of the Hayate powered by a Ha-45 Ru engine with a turbosupercharger in the fuselage belly. This version was still on the drawing board when the war ended.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

PzKpfw
03-31-2004, 10:34 PM
The Ki-84 service life suffered problems with landing gear, (snap off on landing) brakes (never sure they would work) & a high maintance engine (required daily skilled maint) which limited servicebility, in the Philipines especialy.

The Ki-84 also suffered problems trying to climb to the initial high B-29 bombing altitudes, (again acredited to poor maint skill) before Lemay lowered the altitude.

The 22nd Sentai Ki-84s in China, "flew rings" around Chennault's 14th AF. The Ki-84 in combat, handily outclimbed & outmanouvered both the P-47N & P-51H. In the hands of a skilled pilot it was deadly. Many consider the Ki-84 Japans best WW2 fighter.


One can only wonder what would have happened if the Japanese had produced the series II Ki-84 (Ki-106, Ki-113, Ki-116) with the Ha-45ru 2000hp turbo, Ha-45/44 or the 2500hp Ha-44/13 etc, and had the resources & maintence capabilities to do so.


I guess were lucky Oleg didn't model the A7M2 Reppu, I could imagine the posts here after flying against that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.


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 Wed March 31 2004 at 09:43 PM.]

lrrp22
03-31-2004, 10:45 PM
"do you know for sure that the Frank couldnt go 427 ?"

I know that *one* Frank went 427 mph- the one souped-up and flown at Middletown Air Depot, Pennsylvania in the Spring of 1946.



<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:
So your contention is that the Japanese were able to generate the same performance numbers for operational wartime machines as Middletown air depot was for a specially prepared, stripped down and hot-rodded example circa 1946?

If Oleg's data is so accurate, why is the Ki's high speed handling so far off? I think 'Speculation' is an excellent way to describe the Frank's FM.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


how come you think your right Irrp ?

most web sites are all using the same source for their data

do you know for sure that the Frank couldnt go 427 ?

no

do you know for sure the Frank was moddeled after the USA test data ?

no

are you biased that the Frank should be crap ?

yes

have you bothered to test the Hayate lately ?

doesnt look like it

we know the Hayate in the USA was stripped & rebuilt in excellent faster condition than it was recieved in

thats common knowledge

do you think that Oleg would then go & use such test data for the KI in FB ?

that would be totally unfair

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

That's pure speculation, Nagual. It is the theory of an individual poster <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

who obviously knows more about them than you do

if you could put the Jap Bias aside for 10 seconds & try the plane out you would see that :

its best at nothing

but oh no .... thats not enough for you is it .... it has to be a sitting duck for Mustangs till your happy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LEXX_Luthor
03-31-2004, 10:52 PM
Yough thanks Bear

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Ki-84 proved faster than the P-51D Mustang and the P-47D Thunderbolt at all but the highest altitudes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Confirmed by tests in Crimea map. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And this is the "regular" Ki~84 in Japanese service. The article says the hot rodded Ki tested 1946 had even better performance.


IAS speedbar (km/hr) at 0km, 4km, 8km altitude...

________Ki84b 560 / 500 / 400
___P~51D(NT) 540 / 520 / 430
_MiG~3~AM38 540 / 460 / 330 ...disgusting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


Contribute to the Ki~84 Defense Fund



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

lrrp22
04-01-2004, 12:03 AM
The "hot-rodded" Middletown Ki-84 was only *2 mph* faster than the Mustang at 20,000 ft.

7th Fighter Command Mustang pilots claimed a 40 mph speed advantage over the Ki-84.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Yough thanks Bear

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Ki-84 proved faster than the P-51D Mustang and the P-47D Thunderbolt at all but the highest altitudes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Confirmed by tests in Crimea map. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And this is the "regular" Ki~84 in Japanese service. The article says the hot rodded Ki tested 1946 had even better performance.


IAS speedbar (km/hr) at 0km, 4km, 8km altitude...

________Ki84b 560 / 500 / 400
___P~51D(NT) 540 / 520 / 430
_MiG~3~AM38 540 / 460 / 330 _...disgusting_ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


_Contribute to the Ki~84 Defense Fund_



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish _"Gladiator"_ listed as _J8A_ _...in Aces Expansion Pack_

_"You will still have FB , you will lose _nothing"__ ~WUAF_Badsight
_"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..."_ ~Bearcat99
_"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age"_ ~ElAurens
:
_"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore_!_"_ ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>7th Fighter Command Mustang pilots claimed a 40 mph speed advantage over the Ki-84.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But the Mustang pilots Forgot to claim at what altitude. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Me~163 Takeoff Bug will be Patched "soon"....use airstart for now.


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-01-2004, 02:13 AM
Salute

Let's just repeat some of the more congent aspects of Baugher's commentary:

"Taxiing and ground handling were generally rather poor. On takeoff, once the tail came up, continual pressure had to be maintained on the starboard rudder pedal to counteract a tendency to swing to port caused by the high engine torque. "

"In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral."

"The performance and reliability of production Hayates was seldom as good as that of the service test machines. As the quality of the workmanship steadily deteriorated, the performance of the Hayate steadily declined as production progressed, with later machines having successively poor and poorer performance and mechanical reliability."

"...the quality of the Ha-45 engines delivered steadily deteriorated as the months passed, and later engines were considerably less powerful and less reliable than those initially delivered. By June of 1945, the lowering of manufacturing standards had cut the climb rate of the fighter so severely that the aircraft was virtually useless at altitudes over 30,000 feet."

In regards to the 1946 USAAF test results:

"These figures were achieved with a superbly maintained and restored aircraft and with highly-refined aviation gasoline, and were not typical of Japanese-operated aircraft during the later stages of the war."

PikeBishop
04-01-2004, 02:22 AM
Dear All,

Listen....you lot are driving me mad!!
Why do you all have a fixation on the real maximum speed of the KI84???
In the text books the comparative data for aircraft is always the same....maximum speed and maximum climb (and weights). Now why is this? Firstly because its easy and secondly the military will look at maximum speed and climb in one way only.....can this fighter intercept current bombers fast enough to reach them before they reach their target? Not is it faster or slower than a P51!
In the COMBAT situation maximum speed is largely irrelevent...you never reach it, you are too busy twisting and turning looking, climbing for position. I will grant you there might be situations where you are running or diving away and need every ounce of speed but I would think that nipping into cloud was just as effective........then diving away when the coast was clear. But that renders your aircraft ineffective anyway.
What matters is climb and acceleration (excess power). That is what REALLY matters.
It is no use trying to model anything other than the maximum performance figures for a particular aircraft because then there can be no complaints........except that you lot have found a way to argue inversly....not that your favourite aircraft has been under-represented but that the other chaps has been over-represented. All Oleg can do is say 'right you all have the best quoted figures for your respective aircraft and that is that......A quote from "LIfe of Brian".....'there's no pleasing some people' (not even Jesus could do that!)
Whereever Oleg got his data from I am prepared to accept it....I'm not certain about the Damage model but even I think it is too extreme for the A6M2 (you can spit at it and it falls apart) but I'll live with it.
Oleg is creating a world where quotes like 'forget it it's a Frank', 'The only evasive action you can take in a Thunderbolt is running around the inside of the cockpit' and 'One burst bombers' are deemed to be true.

regards,

SLP

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 04:10 AM
S!

The Ki84 was an excellent aircraft below 20,000ft and I like the challenge of dogfighting it with a Mustang at higher alts. Remember that it only had a single stage supercharger as compared to the two-stage superchargers and turbo-superchargers that US Planes were powered with.

So you would reason that the Ki84's high altitude performance should drop off accordingly as altitudes above 20,000ft increase--in FB/AEP the Ki84 has strong high altitude performance almost matching US aircraft.

That is problem #1---- over-modeled high alt performance.



The Damage Modeling is very tough on par with the 190. As far as protection goes, the Ki-84 had seat back and head armour of 12 mm steel, and self-sealing fuel tanks.

*The self-sealing tanks were not considered as efficient as those fitted to American aircraft at the time.

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ki84performanceaj_2.htm


In many books "Aces of the Pacific", "Corsair" Naval Institue Press, etc-- allied pilots described the Ki84 as only being marginally harder to bring down than the Zero which had no armor or self-sealing fuel tanks.

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

Ki-84-II Hayate Kai
The Ki-84-II or Hayate Kai was an attempt to conserve valuable supplies of aluminum by employing large numbers of wooden components in the manufacture of the Hayate. The rear fuselage, certain fittings, and modified wingtips were made of wood, with all the wood work being carried out at a shadow factory at Tanuma.

Ki84 b & c models had many components made of wood.

That is problem #2---over-modeled D/M


Also from Hiyatekid link----

However, the aircraft did have have certain poor control characteristics to which a veteran pilot could easily become become accustomed but which could be deadly in the hands of an inexperienced pilot.

In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the "elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds". The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral.

In FB/AEP the Ki84 elevator response and roll rate are very fast at all speeds. The elevator response at high speed is very good.

The Ki84 had a small tail--so did it have "heavy" elevators and a mushy rudder as in Hayatekid's link?


Problem #3---Ki84 control responses?



I dont know about this flying circles around US fighters because many US pilots considered it an even fight while flying a P47 at 20,000ft vs the Ki84.

Dan: "About the Japanese Tony's. The only time I saw one was when he was strafing me in January 1944. I was on the first mission after we had received our new P-47s and had just slung my parachute onto the wing when two of them slipped into Nadzab and sprayed the area. The Tony would have overwhelmed our P-39s, but it was no match for the P-47. ***Later on when we were up against the Japanese Frank and Georges, which had radial engines, it was an even fight.***

The Ki-84 was not clearly superior to any of the Allied fighter aircraft opposing it. In perfect running order it was perhaps the equal of any allied fighter at 20,000 feet or below. A good pilot would be able to take advantage of its excellent turning, climbing and acceleration characteristics to at least give an allied opponent a hard fight.

However, good pilots and Ki-84 in excellent running order where in short supply for Japan between 1944 and 1945


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/9601/5thafdan.html

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ki84performanceaj_2.htm



Just my thoughts.



___________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

Maple_Tiger
04-01-2004, 04:30 AM
<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:
So your contention is that the Japanese were able to generate the same performance numbers for operational wartime machines as Middletown air depot was for a specially prepared, stripped down and hot-rodded example circa 1946?

If Oleg's data is so accurate, why is the Ki's high speed handling so far off? I think 'Speculation' is an excellent way to describe the Frank's FM.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


how come you think your right Irrp ?

most web sites are all using the same source for their data

do you know for sure that the Frank couldnt go 427 ?

no

do you know for sure the Frank was moddeled after the USA test data ?

no

are you biased that the Frank should be crap ?

yes

have you bothered to test the Hayate lately ?

doesnt look like it

we know the Hayate in the USA was stripped & rebuilt in excellent faster condition than it was recieved in

thats common knowledge

do you think that Oleg would then go & use such test data for the KI in FB ?

that would be totally unfair

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

That's pure speculation, Nagual. It is the theory of an individual poster <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

who obviously knows more about them than you do

if you could put the Jap Bias aside for 10 seconds & try the plane out you would see that :

its best at nothing

but oh no .... thats not enough for you is it .... it has to be a sitting duck for Mustangs till your happy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Anyone who disagrees with you is biased against Japs?


Well i agree with the rest of the guys that the KI-84 is over modeled.


One: Takes too much damage.

Two: It's high speed manuverablity is over modeled.

Three: It's way too fast. Every sight i have visited says the max speed was 388mph. Most sights say it's peformance dropped off at 20,000ft.

Four: It fly's at high altitude like it has a two stage supercharger lol.

I guess im biased against Japs... right Badsight?

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid79/p9158822c9eda67f1dd0b724a5f846229/fb18d0ec.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

PikeBishop
04-01-2004, 05:48 AM
Hi again,

I think that any anecdotal evidence is a problem. We must stick to available HARD data which Oleg must have to put it into the game. As far as altitude performance data goes I find conflicting data but that always seems to go hand in hand with data only from the loosing side which to me is a SERIOUS problem. I believe that I read that Oleg had some communication with the Japanese manufacturers for data, but don't quote me on that. Not sure about the supercharger point but they were ALL turbosuperchargers.
Just one point I would like to clarify and that is I thought the bombing of Japan was usually from medium altitudes and not high......could anyone expand on this because if that were so most combat would be 20,000 down??? Do many of you players play high altitude senario's.........I have only tried B17 bashing over Germany. Any other games have been medium or low down.
I do hope we don't get all this Jap bashing when other spiffing new jap types start running rings around us again and people start pawing through data books going 'no! no! it's too good again!
One thing I do know is when I used to fiddle with programs concerned with power curves and maximum and minimum speeds and climb quoted from books....they hardly ever matched up! The relative differences were often the same or close but the absolutes never were....that is why I put little relevence on quoted maximum speeds.

Regards,

SLP

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 08:37 AM
BigKahuna_GS:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>in FB/AEP the Ki84 has strong high altitude performance almost matching US aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In FB/AEP the US aircraft have strong low altitude performance almost matching Ki84.


IAS speedbar (km/hr) at 0km, 4km, 8km altitude...

________Ki84b 560 / 500 / 400
___P~51D(NT) 540 / 520 / 430
_MiG~3~AM38 540 / 460 / 330 ...disgusting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


Anybody notice that the Board cannot talk about this major Pink Elephant...?

Between sea level and 8km, P~51 loses 110km/hr IAS, Ki~84 loses 160km/hr IAS, and the difference in speed loss would be even greater if true airspeed was used.

This may be our desired one~stage Ki~84 supercharger in action. But, they still don't want to talk about this.

______
Donate to the Ki~84 Defense Fund

HayateKid
04-01-2004, 09:21 AM
Before you whine about the Ki-84, reflect on these quotes:

"Forget it - it's a Frank."

"The Hayate was fully the equal of even the most advanced Allied fighters which opposed it, and was often their superior in many important respects. It was well armed and armored, was fast, and was very maneuverable."

You may have your own conception of how the production quality problems of the Hayate should affect its performance. Just remember that praise for the Hayate was based on actual encounters of them.

"Despite these problems the Hayate was essentially a superb fighter..."

If you get frustrated fighting a Ki-84 in FB/AEP that you are compelled to avoid it and say "forget it -- it's a Frank", then Oleg has done a good job modelling it.

ZG77_Nagual
04-01-2004, 09:25 AM
Forget it, it's a frank comes from intercepting - keep that in mind - it meant the Franks had such high cruise they'd be impossible to take off and catch - not that they were necessarily that much faster than the mustangs. Also - way back on a tested frank being 2mph slower than the mustang at alt - nowhere did I see a reference to that tested frank being the famous '46 plane.

there are three issues I'm mildly questioning - high speed roll and elevator and durability.

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 09:35 AM
S!

In Americas Hundred Thousand it actually shows the Mustang doing about 375mph on the deck-Sea Level. Oleg does not agree with this figure and he has the book and page number I sent him on it.

I disagree, as you can see what the Brits did with only minor tweaking to the boost.

The Brits increased the boost a little and were hitting over 400mph on the deck so they could chase V1 Buzz bombs with the Mustang. At 5,000ft they were hitting around 420mph with a more modified Mustang and higher octane fuel. This increase in boost also enhanced medium to high altitude performance.

The P47M with a slight increase in boost was hitting 500mph in level flight at 35,000ft.

So if you are getting the better flying Ki84-- with higher octane fuel and faster performance without "heavy elevators" or a mushy rudder and ailerons that did not slow in response over 300mph why not give standard performance field mods by allied or german ground crews to their aircraft?

I think having the field mod/best case scenario Ki84 based on higher performance, speed and high octane fuel, without any of its control issues opens a can worms for all other field modded aircraft---see above.

It would have been better to have the most often quoted speed for the Ki84 with its controls issue limitations and light armor :

"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 388mph, 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.

However, the aircraft did have certain poor control characteristics to which a veteran pilot could easily become become accustomed but which could be deadly in the hands of an inexperienced pilot.

In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral. "

Most often quoted speeds for the Ki84 were below 400mph.

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

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ki84performanceaj_2.htm



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

lrrp22
04-01-2004, 09:45 AM
"The Brits increased the boost a little and were hitting over 400mph on the deck so they could chase V1 Buzz bombs with the Mustang.

Kahuna,

I have a complete copy of that British RAE low altitude speed test- I would love to to get a copy of it into Oleg's hands. Hopefully he would be receptive.

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

In Americas Hundred Thousand it actually shows the Mustang doing about 375mph on the deck-Sea Level. Oleg does not agree with this figure and he has the book and page number I sent him on it.

I disagree, as you can see what the Brits did with only minor tweaking to the boost.

The Brits increased the boost a little and were hitting over 400mph on the deck so they could chase V1 Buzz bombs with the Mustang. At 5,000ft they were hitting around 420mph with a more modified Mustang and higher octane fuel. This increase in boost also enhanced medium to high altitude performance.

The P47M with a slight increase in boost was hitting 500mph in level flight at 35,000ft.

So if you are getting the better flying Ki84-- with higher octane fuel and faster performance without "heavy elevators" or a mushy rudder and ailerons that did not slow in response over 300mph why not give standard performance field mods by allied or german ground crews to their aircraft?

I think having the field mod/best case scenario Ki84 based on higher performance, speed and high octane fuel, without any of its control issues opens a can worms for all other field modded aircraft---see above.

It would have been better to have the most often quoted speed for the Ki84 with its controls issue limitations and light armor :

"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 388mph, 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.

However, the aircraft did have certain poor control characteristics to which a veteran pilot could easily become become accustomed but which could be deadly in the hands of an inexperienced pilot.

In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral. "

Most often quoted speeds for the Ki84 were below 400mph.

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

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ki84performanceaj_2.htm



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.






<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PzKpfw
04-01-2004, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:

I dont know about this flying circles around US fighters because many US pilots considered it an even fight while flying a P47 at 20,000ft vs the Ki84.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An captured la "outmanouvered & outclimed both the P-47N, & P-51H*. The flying rings around remark comes from reports from the 14th AF under Chennault*, apperently the Ki-84 with the 22nd Sentai, made quite an impression on the 14th AF personell that met it in combat.

As to an "even" fight @ 20,000ft with an P-47 I'd bet it was, considering problems with the Ki-84's engine at altitude.

*See: Gunston Bill. Combat Aircraft of World War II p.168


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.

PzKpfw
04-01-2004, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
S!

In Americas Hundred Thousand it actually shows the Mustang doing about 375mph on the deck-Sea Level. Oleg does not agree with this figure and he has the book and page number I sent him on it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kahuna, you can send Oleg data out of AHT all day long; he appears to have a rather low opinion of Deans work Ie,:

3. Forget it. We have it BETTER than in so-loved and really _buggy_ book American Hundred Thousand.


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 Thu April 01 2004 at 09:08 AM.]

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 10:06 AM
S!



"Forget it - it's a Frank."

This could be said of any late war fast flying fighter that would be difficult to intercept.



"The Hayate was fully the equal of even the most advanced Allied fighters which opposed it, and was often their superior in many important respects. It was well armed and armored, was fast, and was very maneuverable."

No one is doubting that Ki84 was a fine aircraft design but, do you think that the Ki84 is equal to allied aircraft in FB/AEP?

The Ki84 is superior in so many ways to ALL aircraft in FB/AEP and does not exhibit any of its control limtations at all. Altitude has no effect on engine performance, high speed has no effect elevators or aileron roll.

Damage modeling is way to generous. The self-sealing fuel tanks were of a very poor design and allied pilots said it was just a little more difficult to shoot down than the Zero with no armor or self sealing fuel tanks.

Also the Ki84 b & C models had many componets made of wood.


HayateKid link:

However, the aircraft did have have certain poor control characteristics to which a veteran pilot could easily become become accustomed but which could be deadly in the hands of an inexperienced pilot.

In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral.



To give you something to compare--P47 pilots said it was an "even" fight between them and Franks/Georges---try that in FB/AEP.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/9601/5thafdan.html



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

PikeBishop
04-01-2004, 10:07 AM
We are still with anecdotal evidence......what does 'tended to be heavy' 'rather heavy' or 'mushy' mean does it mean as heavy or mushy as the P51's P47,s P38's or F4u's controls or what or it was better that their controls.
This tells you nothing about the ACTUAL COMPARATIVE BEHAVIOUR of the aircraft controls. All it says is that something was compared with something else in someones mind but what he was comparing it with.......better or worse....no-one actually knows. But of course he or they could have been comparing it with the Ki43 or Macchi MC202's control forces in which case it must have been great against the US aircraft!

HARD DATA is what is required not waffle that could be interpreted to mean anything one wanted it to mean depending on how it was phrased.!!

regards,

SLP

Skalgrim
04-01-2004, 10:11 AM
it the same with k4,

was too test from russia, capture k√¬∂nigsberg

they have reach 610km/h sealevel and 720km/h topspeed

why fly k4 with 2000ps, aerodynamic improvement with retractable back wheel

with same speed sealevel like g6/as with 1800ps that has none retractable back wheel

probable balance

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu April 01 2004 at 09:33 AM.]

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 10:23 AM
PikeBishop:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We are still with anecdotal evidence...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because they don't want to talk about the FB test numbers so they fill the thread with fluff. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Too lazy to do my own climb tests, I checked IL~2 Compare program, and confirms my Crimea map speed tests well showing P~51 Superiority at high altitudes.

For climb, IL~2 Compare shows early P~51s have higher climbrate at high altitude, later P~51s have about the same as Ki~84a. But P~51 was never known for climb anyway, so there may be another Pink Elephant that they don't want to post about, assuming IL~2 Compare gives valid numbers here.



________
Donate to the Ki~84 Defense Fund

Gunner_361st
04-01-2004, 10:31 AM
Anyone here manage to light a fuel tank of the KI-84 on fire yet?

I have managed to light the engine on fire, make fuel leaks, shoot off control surfaces, and makes holes in the wings, but I haven't seen a fuel tank fire yet.

Was wondering if it that is modeled into that plane, anyone seen this?

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 10:41 AM
S!


From :

lrrp22

posted 01-04-04 08:45 Thu April 01 2004 08:45 AM
"The Brits increased the boost a little and were hitting over 400mph on the deck so they could chase V1 Buzz bombs with the Mustang.

Kahuna,

I have a complete copy of that British RAE low altitude speed test- I would love to to get a copy of it into Oleg's hands. Hopefully he would be receptive.


**lrrp22-- you should email a copy of it to Oleg. Hopefully he will be more receptive to British field mods and speed tests than he has been to any US field mods or tests.

You should also post the artical for all to read--I would like to see it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe there will be a P51--Brit field-mod like the P40 Russian field-mod.

________________________


An captured la "outmanouvered & outclimed both the P-47N, & P-51H*. The flying rings around remark comes from reports from the 14th AF under Chennault*, apperently the Ki-84 with the 22nd Sentai, made quite an impression on the 14th AF personell that met it in combat.

**Whenever a story like this is passed on, I wish they would list: speeds, altitudes and conditons for a better understanding. Outclimbing US aircraft was a known and not really that much of a factor as US a/c arrived on station at high altitude as a SOP. I think the shock would have been the speed. Most Japanese a/c had not been that fast or had that kind of horsepower up to that point.

Whenever a new a/c shows up in the aerial combat arena it sends shock waves of how to deal with it. Case in point, the early 190 series shocked the Brits. The Corsair which had about an 80+mph speed advantage and twice the horsepower over the Zero-freaked the Japanese out when it appeared.


As to an "even" fight @ 20,000ft with an P-47 I'd bet it was, considering problems with the Ki-84's engine at altitude.

**Not modeled in FB



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 11:11 AM
S!



PikeBishop

posted 01-04-04 09:07 Thu April 01 2004 09:07 AM
We are still with anecdotal evidence......what does 'tended to be heavy' 'rather heavy' or 'mushy' mean does it mean as heavy or mushy as the P51's P47,s P38's or F4u's controls or what or it was better that their controls.
This tells you nothing about the ACTUAL COMPARATIVE BEHAVIOUR of the aircraft controls. All it says is that something was compared with something else in someones mind but what he was comparing it with.......better or worse....no-one actually knows. But of course he or they could have been comparing it with the Ki43 or Macchi MC202's control forces in which case it must have been great against the US aircraft!

HARD DATA is what is required not waffle that could be interpreted to mean anything one wanted it to mean depending on how it was phrased.!!

_________________________________



Did you bother to read ?

Like the Zeros roll rate at speeds above 200mph, the Ki84 roll rate above 300mph became sluggish/unresponsive.

"The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral."

"elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. "

I too wish the writer had elaborated more in detail about mushy elevator response vs different a/c. But as compared to FB/AEP, high speed has no effect on roll rate or elevator response.


I did not write this--it was from HayateKids link who is an obvious Ki84 fan.

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


"However, the aircraft did have certain poor control characteristics to which a veteran pilot could easily become become accustomed but which could be deadly in the hands of an inexperienced pilot.

In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral. "



___________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

sugaki
04-01-2004, 11:32 AM
I find these Ki-84 threads absurd.

Granted, there are aspects of the Ki-84 that are a bit overmodelled, but let's face it, most people are bitter because their US planes aren't the King of the Hill in online squirmishes. It jars egos that US planes aren't the best and ultimate planes ever built.

The reason why I say this is because there are some inaccurate aspects of the P51, but nobody complains to tone the P51 down, including it's climbrate and low altittude performance. People are content to see aspects of US planes overmodelled, but then rant and scream when other countries' planes are overmodelled.

IL2 models pretty decently, yeah there are some things that are going to be off, but let's face it, 99% of Ki-84 haters are fanboys of some different plane/country.

PikeBishop
04-01-2004, 11:42 AM
sorry I did miss a bit but how heavy is heavy how sluggish is sluggish.....when compared with their antagonists, not their allies...but it still tells you nothing. Its all opinion and not helpful for how much more or how much less...its an invisible scale.

regards,

SLP

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 11:43 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif We shall look again at the Article quote posted above, but with the entire paragraph included this time... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Hayate was simple to fly, and pilots with only minimal training could fly the type with relatively little difficulty. However, the aircraft did have have certain poor control characteristics to which a veteran pilot could easily become become accustomed but which could be deadly in the hands of an inexperienced pilot. Taxiing and ground handling were generally rather poor. On takeoff, once the tail came up, continual pressure had to be maintained on the starboard rudder pedal to counteract a tendency to swing to port caused by the high engine torque. In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral.

~ http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Every WW2 fighter had sluggish controls compared to Hayabusa. Also, the description sounds like some writings on Fb109.

Better, much of the description sounds like many WW2 fighters.

HayateKid
04-01-2004, 11:52 AM
Take the whole article I quoted not just snippets of the problems of the aircraft. Clearly if the Ki-84 was "fully the equal" if not "superior" to the Allied fighters in the same article that it lists its problems, the assessment must still be true DESPITE the problems.

In another book (not a japanese book), the Ki-84 is mentioned as superior to the P-51H and P-47N. It did say that production problems prevented it from having greater impact in the war. This should be read to mean that if JAAF produced as many Ki-84s as they wanted or better yet to match the Allied production, it would have had more impact.

PikeBishop
04-01-2004, 11:52 AM
Ha Ha Ha! I had to laugh at that one all sluggish compared with the Oscar......thats a piece of anecdotal evidence I am prepared to accept and that because I know Oscar was as light as a feather and therefore responsive.
Well done LEXX

SLP

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Anyone here manage to light a fuel tank of the KI-84 on fire yet?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/11.zip

Unfortunately I don't have comparison data on rifle cal vs structure, but for some reason, the rifle cal guns in AEP appear to produce fires very easily. More than I remember them doing so in 1.21, but all I took on that was data vs pilot armor and engines.

I don't get what the "problem" is with the Ki-84 DM .. even the 60RPG spitfire can take down 10 of them on one ammo load, and that's with a ****** using a gamepad doing the aiming! :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 11:55 AM
Yeah, it gets better... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Article:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>However, most of the defects with the Ki-84 can be laid to poor quality control during manufacture, especially during the last few months of the Pacific war

~ http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Last few months? Like 1945 and not 1944?

Looks like Oleg got the Ki~84 pretty much right on.

Well said sugaki. Although, I could accept trimming some speed of Ki~84 at very high altitudes, but that is persnal "feeling" only. I could Accept it, but would not go out of my way to Request it. Right now FB Ki~84 has lower overall performance at high altitude then P~51.

Well done Oleg.

DM is another thread. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WhiskeyRiver
04-01-2004, 11:56 AM
<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 BigKahuna_GS:
S!

In Americas Hundred Thousand it actually shows the Mustang doing about 375mph on the deck-Sea Level. Oleg does not agree with this figure and he has the book and page number I sent him on it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kahuna, you can send Oleg data out of AHT all day long; he appears to have a rather low opinion of Deans work Ie,:

_ 3. Forget it. We have it BETTER than in so-loved and really _buggy_ book American Hundred Thousand._


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 Thu April 01 2004 at 09:08 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you mean all those "secret" sources that were used to model the VVS aircraft?

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

WhiskeyRiver
04-01-2004, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
We are still with anecdotal evidence......what does 'tended to be heavy' 'rather heavy' or 'mushy' mean does it mean as heavy or mushy as the P51's P47,s P38's or F4u's controls or what or it was better that their controls.
This tells you nothing about the ACTUAL COMPARATIVE BEHAVIOUR of the aircraft controls. All it says is that something was compared with something else in someones mind but what he was comparing it with.......better or worse....no-one actually knows. But of course he or they could have been comparing it with the Ki43 or Macchi MC202's control forces in which case it must have been great against the US aircraft!

HARD DATA is what is required not waffle that could be interpreted to mean anything one wanted it to mean depending on how it was phrased.!!

regards,

SLP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never seen an elevator or rudder effectiveness chart. Have you seen one?

I've seen roll charts for Allied and German aircraft. I've never seen one for any of the Japanese aircraft except the Zero.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

HayateKid
04-01-2004, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Anyone here manage to light a fuel tank of the KI-84 on fire yet?

I have managed to light the engine on fire, make fuel leaks, shoot off control surfaces, and makes holes in the wings, but I haven't seen a fuel tank fire yet.

Was wondering if it that is modeled into that plane, anyone seen this?

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh please! don't start making insinuations of conspiracy or duplicity by Oleg, however oblique. Of course the ki-84 fuel tank is capable of catching fire. I can attest to this as it has happened to me.

PzKpfw
04-01-2004, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
An captured la "outmanouvered & outclimed both the P-47N, & P-51H*. The flying rings around remark comes from reports from the 14th AF under Chennault*, apperently the Ki-84 with the 22nd Sentai, made quite an impression on the 14th AF personell that met it in combat.

**Whenever a story like this is passed on, I wish they would list: speeds, altitudes and conditons for a better understanding. Outclimbing US aircraft was a known and not really that much of a factor as US a/c arrived on station at high altitude as a SOP. I think the shock would have been the speed. Most Japanese a/c had not been that fast or had that kind of horsepower up to that point.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I imagine the comparite wartime trial test results for the P-47N & P-51H vs the Ki-84 are available somewhere Kahuna, not like Bill Gunston to pull things out of his hat. In the PTO the US did not always operate @ HA either much of the combat over the islands was below 10,000ft. Japanese fighters were made for lower level combat, just as Soviet fighters were.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Whenever a new a/c shows up in the aerial combat arena it sends shock waves of how to deal with it. Case in point, the early 190 series shocked the Brits. The Corsair which had about an 80+mph speed advantage and twice the horsepower over the Zero-freaked the Japanese out when it appeared.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure it does, point is 14th AF fighters reportedly had real problems with the Ki-84, unlike other Japanese fighters. It wasn't just the case of a new fighter apperaring on the scene.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
. **Not modeled in FB
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course not, if they modeled engine problems etc, over half the AC in FB/ACE would be affected in one way or the otther. No one would even by the sim , thats why WW2 wargames etc, never model the engine breakdowns, final drive failures etc, problems related to German tanks despite the plethora of evidence from daily returns 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.

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 12:29 PM
S!

"The reason why I say this is because there are some inaccurate aspects of the P51, but nobody complains to tone the P51 down, including it's climbrate and low altittude performance. People are content to see aspects of US planes overmodelled, but then rant and scream when other countries' planes are overmodelled."

***Actually if you had read the prevoius posts you would see that Oleg did not give the listed speed of 375mph on the deck for the P51 in Amercias Hundred Thousand.

Also the Brits got 400mph on the deck for their Mustangs with a slight boost increase. This is how the Brits operated their P51's for the duration of the war.

Its good that you can actually admit that Ki84 is overmodeled in some areas. Thank you.

Whenever you think someone is whinning about their aircarft--try flying a FB P47-D27.


___________________________



In another book (not a japanese book), the Ki-84 is mentioned as superior to the P-51H and P-47N. It did say that production problems prevented it from having greater impact in the war. This should be read to mean that if JAAF produced as many Ki-84s as they wanted or better yet to match the Allied production, it would have had more impact.


****I listed complete paragraphs from your link and the link itself.

No one is saying that the Ki84 wasnt a very good fighter. It was a very good fighter. It was not only production problems but design problems that haunted the plane. Hydraulic and fuel injection failures were common. But most of all, it was not the uber plane it is in FB/AEP.

At what altitude was the Ki84 superior to the P51H-top speed 589mph and the P47N top speed 460mph at 30,000ft ?

Surely not above 20,000ft, as the Ki84 only had only a single stage supercharger. I would think that below 20,000ft the Ki84 would have the better manueverability.

I like the challenge of dogfighting the Ki84 now in FB with a Mustang at higher alts.
I just dont like seeeing it absorbing a 3/4 load of .50cals without catching fire, being able to manuever and roll at high speed without any limitations and no effect of high altitude on the engine.



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

dahdah
04-01-2004, 12:32 PM
LOL, I can just imagine all the crying if the Sabres and Merlins were modelled with their real life failures or even the GE turbos on American a/c. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Of course not, if they modeled engine problems etc, over half the AC in FB/ACE would be affected in one way or the other. No one would even buy the sim , thats why WW2 wargames etc, never model the engine breakdowns, final drive failures etc, problems related to German tanks despite the plethora of evidence from daily returns etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 12:34 PM
S!

I did not mean prodution problems with the engine-or a/c for that matter. That is not modeled in any FB a/c.

I simply meant the single stage supercharger and high altitude affecting engine performance--thats all.

___________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 12:41 PM
BigKahuna_GS:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I simply meant the single stage supercharger and high altitude affecting engine performance--thats all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh that is what you mean. Okay... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Crimea map, full "blast," IAS speedbar (km/hr) at 0km / 4km / 8km altitude...

________Ki84b 560 / 500 / 400
___P~51D(NT) 540 / 520 / 430
_MiG~3~AM38 540 / 460 / 330 ...disgusting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


Between sea level and 8km, P~51 loses 110km/hr IAS, Ki~84 loses 160km/hr IAS, and the difference in speed loss would be even greater if true airspeed was used.

If I had tested Ki~84 without "boost" like Oleg told us to, the Ki~84 performance may be even worse.

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 12:53 PM
S!

posted 01-04-04 11:24
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
An captured la "outmanouvered & outclimed both the P-47N, & P-51H*. The flying rings around remark comes from reports from the 14th AF under Chennault*, apperently the Ki-84 with the 22nd Sentai, made quite an impression on the 14th AF personell that met it in combat.

**Whenever a story like this is passed on, I wish they would list: speeds, altitudes and conditons for a better understanding. Outclimbing US aircraft was a known and not really that much of a factor as US a/c arrived on station at high altitude as a SOP. I think the shock would have been the speed. Most Japanese a/c had not been that fast or had that kind of horsepower up to that point.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I imagine the comparite wartime trial test results for the P-47N & P-51H vs the Ki-84 are available somewhere Kahuna, not like Bill Gunston to pull things out of his hat. In the PTO the US did not always operate @ HA either much of the combat over the islands was below 10,000ft. Japanese fighters were made for lower level combat, just as Soviet fighters were.


*** Rgr that. I am not questioning Gunston. Only that common sense says that both the P51H @ 589mph and the P47N @ 460mph should be superior to the Ki84 at 20,000ft and above.

The primary purpose of the P51 was to escort the B29 to Japan at high altitudes. The Japanese for their part had a real problem with high altitude performing a/c. Look at the Japanese a/c on the drawing board at the close of the war--many designs to deal with high alt intercepts.

I realize that dogfights can occur at any altitude and did. Below 20,000ft I would think the P47 and P51 could find themselves is some real trouble depending on the situation.

Heck the F6F Hellcat and the F4U Corsair out performed and out turned the 51/47 below 20,000ft.



______________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 12:58 PM
S!


Ooops, I meant 489mph for the P51H. Sorry.



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

HayateKid
04-01-2004, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
...
Its good that you can actually admit that Ki84 is overmodeled in some areas. Thank you.
...
No one is saying that the Ki84 wasnt a very good fighter. It was a very good fighter.
...
But most of all, it was not the uber plane it is in FB/AEP.
...
I would think that below 20,000ft the Ki84 would have the better manueverability.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BigKahuna, you can't be more self-contradictory if you tried.

You say the Ki-84 is uber, then in the next breath you say it was a very good fighter, then you say its overmodelled, and then say you expect it to best the p51 in maneuverability. I get the impression you're not sure what you're whining about. Can you be more specific?

btw, look at Lex's test figures (and IL2 Compare), the P51 is already faster than ki-84 at higher altitudes. What more do you want, that the ki-84 will just spontaneously explode above 4k?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I just dont like seeeing it absorbing a 3/4 load of .50cals without catching fire, being able to manuever and roll at high speed without any limitations and no effect of high altitude on the engine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

please show a track of this happening. maybe you just overestimated your hit rate.

sugaki
04-01-2004, 01:26 PM
BigKahuna:

"In Americas Hundred Thousand it actually shows the Mustang doing about 375mph on the deck-Sea Level. Oleg does not agree with this figure and he has the book and page number I sent him on it.

I disagree, as you can see what the Brits did with only minor tweaking to the boost."

We're not talking about field-mods and the overall potential of the aircraft with tweaking. The Ki-84 wasn't tweaked to perfection after the war, the just gave it good fuel and picked a plane that would fly with reasonable reliability. It's not as though they modded it and tuned it to purr like a tiger.

The post-war tests weren't done on super Ki-84's, which is what it sounds like you're saying.

Historically Ki-84's not too great of a high-altitude fighter, and P51's should be able to take it on. This is true, and I don't mind them tuning that down. But from what your saying, it seems like you're demanding a total rehaul of the plane to turn it into a Brewster Buffalo. Mid-low level performance should be kept the same.

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 01:31 PM
S!


BigKahuna, you can't be more self-contradictory if you tried.

***Hayate, I have specifically listed what I thought was wrong several times now try to keep up and completely read the posts.

1#High alt performance-acceleration and speed do not diminish as higher altitudes are acheived. With a single stage supercharger the higher you go the worse the engine performance-the Ki84 runs strong and maintains its speed on up to 10,000m.

2# Roll rate--like the Zero above 200mph, the Ki84 roll rate effectiveness above 300mph should be less responsive---this was in your own link--did you read it?

3# Damage modeling-The self-sealing fuel tanks were of an inferior design and did not work well, hence the propensity to catch fire.

Allied pilots in several books describe the Ki84 as not being much more difficult than a Zero to bring down.

The Ki84 b & c models had many componets made of wood but absorb hits like metal in FB. Is the Ki84 in FB just a little harder to bring down like a Zero? No it takes hits sometimes better than a 190.


____________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 01:31 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>
I just dont like seeeing it absorbing a 3/4 load of .50cals without catching fire, being able to manuever and roll at high speed without any limitations and no effect of high altitude on the engine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

please show a track of this happening. maybe you just overestimated your hit rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While we're at it could we please request that this track be made offline, which seems not to suffer the same kinds of weird results people are coming up with from online games.

If people fire 3/4 of an ammo load and 7/8ths of that is not actually making contact then yes, I could see where they're coming from on that one. Lag, prediction, anticheat, network protection, and even the lack of an AEP dedicated server all make it less likely that the damage you see on your client is the same damage the target is seeing on theirs.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
3# Damage modeling-The self-sealing fuel tanks were of an inferior design and did not work well, hence the propensity to catch fire.

Allied pilots in several books describe the Ki84 as not being much more difficult than a Zero to bring down.

The Ki84 b & c models had many componets made of wood but absorb hits like metal in FB. Is the Ki84 in FB just a little harder to bring down like a Zero? No it takes hits sometimes better than a 190.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you please take a look at:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/11.zip

And tell me what you think is wrong with the Ki-84s damage model?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 01:43 PM
S!


I would hate to see a re-haul of the Ki84. Just a few minor tweaks to make it historically accurate.

Nobody wants castrataed a/c of any type in FB--at least I dont.

____________


"In Americas Hundred Thousand it actually shows the Mustang doing about 375mph on the deck-Sea Level. Oleg does not agree with this figure and he has the book and page number I sent him on it.

I disagree, as you can see what the Brits did with only minor tweaking to the boost."

We're not talking about field-mods and the overall potential of the aircraft with tweaking. The Ki-84 wasn't tweaked to perfection after the war, the just gave it good fuel and picked a plane that would fly with reasonable reliability. It's not as though they modded it and tuned it to purr like a tiger.


**** The Mustang going 375mph on the deck was NOT a field mod. That was the listed speed in AHT that Oleg choose to ignore.

And giving "good" fuel that was never available to the Japanese during WW2 for a speed test after the war is a "Tweak" or field mod.

I hope you see this point because it was giving something to the Ki84 performance that was never available to the Japanese in WW2.

Hence if it was not available during the war it should not be factored into the flight model.


__________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

HayateKid
04-01-2004, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
1#High alt performance
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

already refuted. please read Lexx's post again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
2# Roll rate
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

already refuted. "heavy above 300mph" is subjective and was in comparison to Ki-43.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
3# Damage modeling
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

please show a track.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Allied pilots in several books describe the Ki84 as not being much more difficult than a Zero to bring down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i assume *you* find the ki-84 difficult to bring down. other people don't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Ki84 b & c models had many componets made of wood
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not the early production models. only the late production ones. and in any case, you are wrong, because they were then called Ki84 II.

Gunner_361st
04-01-2004, 02:22 PM
"oh please! don't start making insinuations of conspiracy or duplicity by Oleg, however oblique. Of course the ki-84 fuel tank is capable of catching fire. I can attest to this as it has happened to me." - HayateKid

Woah, settle down there partner. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I was simply asking if fuel tank fires were modeled in for the KI-84. According to you and others apparently they are, which is great. I love more detail for all planes.

I don't love people labeling me a conspirator for asking a question. I think that was pretty rude, to be honest. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 02:38 PM
S!


Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
1#High alt performance

already refuted. please read Lexx's post again.


*** wrong Lex did a speed run.
I am talking about high altitude peformance diminishing as altitude increases. The Ki84 high alt peformance does not diminsh as it goes above 20,000ft and on up.


____________



2# Roll rate
already refuted. "heavy above 300mph" is subjective and was in comparison to Ki-43.



***Wrong again this has not been refuted. And if you read the artical it was not in comparison to the Ki43. The elevator response was in comparison to the Ki43.

The artical specifically said the Ki84 roll rate changes above 300mph--read it again. There is no comparison, just a stated fact.


Saburo Sakai- On the Zero's maneuverability
Oh yes, the Zero was incredibly maneuverable, but not over about 250 mph. Above that speed, the stick just gets too heavy because the plane's control surfaces are so huge. You've seen those films of kamikaze plunging straight down into the water far from any U.S. ships, right? The kids in those planes probably put their planes into a dive way too early, and before they realized their mistake, they had too much speed built up to pull out of their dive. They probably died pulling desperately on the stick with all their strength. When I coached those kids [kamikaze pilots], I'd tell them, "If you've gotta die, you at least want to hit your target, right? If so, then go in low, skimming the water. Don't dive on your target. You lose control in a dive. You risk getting picked off by a fighter, but you've got better chance of hitting your target."

Just as the Zeros roll rate fell off at speed over 200mph, the Ki84s roll rate fell off at speeds over 300mph.


_______________________


3# Damage modeling

quote:

Allied pilots in several books describe the Ki84 as not being much more difficult than a Zero to bring down.

i assume *you* find the ki-84 difficult to bring down. other people don't.


***There has been complete threads about DM of the Ki84- Many more people than me have expressed this opinon about the damage modeling being to good. I am a decent shot, I am not trying to overstate my case here.


__________________________

The Ki84 b & c models had many componets made of wood

----------------------------------------------------------------------------hayatekid----not the early production models. only the late production ones. and in any case, you are wrong, because they were then called Ki84 II.



***Once again if you will only read you own link you will find that the Ki84 II is the same as the Ki84 b & c models.

"Ki-84-II Hayate Kai
The Ki-84-II or Hayate Kai was an attempt to conserve valuable supplies of aluminum by employing large numbers of wooden components in the manufacture of the Hayate. The rear fuselage, certain fittings, and modified wingtips were made of wood, with all the wood work being carried out at a shadow factory at Tanuma. The engine was the Nakajama [Ha-45] 21, 25 or 23 with low-pressure fuel injection. Armament consisted of four 20-mm or two 20-mm and two 30-mm cannon. **The designation Ki-84-II was actually a Nakajima designation, the aircraft in JAAF service retaining the Ki-84-Ib or -Ic designation,** depending on armament."


_______________________



__________________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

HayateKid
04-01-2004, 02:43 PM
again: the wood components were only used on the late production b and c. early production were metal. that's why nakajima had a different designation for them.

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

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 02:44 PM
Excellent point here...

BigKahuna_GS:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>*** wrong Lex did a speed run. I am talking about high altitude peformance diminishing as altitude increases. The Ki84 high alt peformance does not diminsh as it goes above 20,000ft and on up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My 8km is only 26,000 feet. We must check this out indeed. And P~51 too.

chris455
04-01-2004, 02:45 PM
To Big Kahuna, Gunner 361st, et al:

Reflect on this "newsflash" if you will: Some people who defend the Ki-84 will routinely dismiss as "anecdotal" anything that smacks of evidence that the Ki-84 in FB is overmodelled because they don't want it changed.
Make sense?

Save yourself the grief and wait for the patch. If (as I strongly suspect) the Ki gets dumbed-down bigtime, no problem. If it doesn't get changed, we're living with it, and we'll just have to cope. It's not invincible, beleive me.

(BTW, I see fueltank fires all the time on Ki-84s. I start'em. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif 8 .50s will do that)

You'll never convince these true believers that the fantasy plane they love so much never existed. Let them enjoy it while it lasts. There have been other uberplanes whose modelling got a healthy dose of reality after being in the public arena for awhile, the Hurricane comes to mind.

Lexx makes many good points. Of the entire "Save the Ki-84" movement, his arguments are the only ones that reflect rational, non-emotional reasoning on the issue. I wish more ki-84 advocates were like him. But I still think the DM and the FM above 7k are overdone.

PS- Sugaki: if being proud of my country (the USA) and loving the P-47 makes me a "Fan" boy, you can set my speed to "high". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Thu April 01 2004 at 01:55 PM.]

[This message was edited by chris455 on Thu April 01 2004 at 01:56 PM.]

WhiskeyRiver
04-01-2004, 02:48 PM
does anyone know of or has seen a roll rate chart for the Ki-84? In fact, I haven't seen charts of any japanese aircraft except the Zero.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

HayateKid
04-01-2004, 03:00 PM
Gunner 361st,

You asked:
"Was wondering if it that is modeled into that plane, anyone seen this?"

Why would you even ask that? As if you doubt that Oleg did not model the engine catching on fire on the Ki-84. That would be incompetence or worse if intentional.


Chris455,

thanks for your support by saying you start fueltank fires on ki-84s all the time.

btw, good luck with fighting ki-84s above 7k. that is indeed a big problem. but you won't see me up there. btw, just curious, are there a lot of ki-84s up there?

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

BigKahuna_GS
04-01-2004, 03:05 PM
S!

Rgr that Chriss--good point!

I also want these people to know that I DO NOT WANT to see any plane in FB castrated including the Ki84, only minor changes that are historically accurate.

I like a good fight !


________________________



"To Big Kahuna, Gunner 361st, et al:

Reflect on this "newsflash" if you will: Some people who defend the Ki-84 will routinely dismisse as "anecdotal" anything that smacks of evidence that the Ki-84 in FB is overmodelled because they don't want it changed.
Make sense?

Save yourself the grief and wait for the patch. If (as I strongly suspect) the Ki gets dumbed-down bigtime, no problem. If it doesn't get changed, we're living with it, and we'll just have to cope. It's not invincible, beleive me."

___________________

It's not invincible, beleive me."


***I totally agree and I have taken much satifaction out of beating those who fly the magic ride online with a P40 on the deck or a P51 at high altitude.

I have also set many a wing on fire only to watch as the fire goes out and the Ki84 keeps flying like nothing happened. It is a rareity to shoot a wing off.


_______________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

chris455
04-01-2004, 03:20 PM
Well, I'm afraid you caught me there Kahuna!

I've actually set one on fire TWICE and watched it blow out both times- but that's purely anecdotal. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

You bring up a good point though: I have NEVER advocated "castrating" the Ki-84, or any other FB aircraft.
It was a Bad-a$$ plane and nothing to be taken lightly. Only pilot quality and manufacturing defects saved many Americans from being shot down by this superb warbird.
SO....................
Model it AS IT REALLY WAS. That ought to be good enough, no?
And if it's not to be-
I'll toast 'em anyway! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

SgtWalt65
04-01-2004, 06:26 PM
One very critical issue some people are overlooking or have failed to mention about the KI-84 Series interceptor is this. Wing Spar failures at relatively low G manuvers as compaired to other fighters of it caliber on all sides of the war. Example: Mustang could take ( not sure about the pilot though...lol ) 7 to 9 G turns and be relatively sure to come out of the turn in 1 piece. The KI-84 Series was lucky to be able to pull 5 Gs in any flight envelope and not lose one or both wings. All related to the same issue as the landing gear snapping. Poor heat treatment or improper heat treatment due to the losses of skilled laborers from the war.

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 08:28 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Some new numbers, rather fascinating...

Crimea map, full "blast," IAS speedbar (km/hr) at 8km / 9km / 10km altitude...50% fuel, open rad (as before but not reported here)

________Ki84b 430 / 400 / 360
___P~51D(NT) 420 / 370 / 350
_MiG~3~AM38 330 / 300 / 270 ...disgraceful

Same 8km result for AM38, nothing new here. My results for Ki~84b are very different from before, and it is recommended that others try this experiment for some very obvious reasons. Don't forget fuel mixture.


_______
Vote to Impeach the Ki~84 for High Altitude Crimes and Mis-Speedmanners

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 08:45 PM
No, I used AUTO rad for P~51D, which Oleg said was CLOSED rad, and I used CLOSED rad for Ki~84b. Sorry.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If I did this right this time, and if I was (choke) wrong before, Oleg may need to seriously castrate Ki~84 speed at high altitude. I am too lazy now to do climb tests. Anybody?


_______
Vote to Impeach the Ki~84 for High Altitude Crimes and Mis-Speedmanners

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Some new numbers, rather fascinating...

Crimea map, full "blast," IAS speedbar (km/hr) at 8km / 9km / 10km altitude...50% fuel, open rad (as before but not reported here)

________Ki84b 430 / 400 / 360
___P~51D(NT) 420 / 370 / 350
_MiG~3~AM38 330 / 300 / 270 _...disgraceful_

Same 8km result for AM38, nothing new here. My results for Ki~84b are very different from before, and it is recommended that others try this experiment for some very obvious reasons. Don't forget fuel mixture.


_______
_Vote to Impeach the Ki~84 for High Altitude Crimes and Mis-Speedmanners_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aahh .. you were testing with the auto-mix on the P-51 and not the Ki? Or what? Naughty!

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
04-01-2004, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:

Whenever you think someone is whinning about their aircarft--try flying a FB P47-D27.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


you mean the strongest fighter in the whole game that can out-dive anything & out speed & climb any other fighter at 8K ?

WUAF_Badsight
04-01-2004, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:


I just dont like seeeing it absorbing a 3/4 load of .50cals without catching fire, being able to manuever and roll at high speed without any limitations and no effect of high altitude on the engine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well firstly learn to shoot

hitting highly maneurverable A/C & hurting them isnt supposed to be easy

secondly learn to test

the Hayate is FAR FROM WITHOUT limitations at high alt

that was just an ignorance posting from you BigKahuna

04-01-2004, 09:11 PM
The reason anecdotes are almost immediate dismissed as a worthy consideration - despite how logical it may sound - is pretty obvious:

1) the pilot's perception of the event does not necessarily match the actual event.

2) in case of the pilot being skeptical of the aftermath of the certain event, the pilot tends to be incredibly biased against any suggestions on reality which may point the finger to the pilot's personal mistake.

3) talking good smack is easier than providing actual info

and etc etc etc..


I'd hardly "defend" a plane I dislike flying. It's more of a technical balance when it comes to claiming objections against a certain plane: if you want to prove something wrong, then start proving your point in an objective manner. "anecdotes" don't fall under any "objective" category.

Some features people have more or less proven their point - ie) if the high alt speed is too fast, it should be slowered.

Aside from that point, what other things(which also happens to be some major allegations performance-wise) have the accusation proved? Anything?

WUAF_Badsight
04-01-2004, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:

***There has been complete threads about DM of the Ki84- Many more people than me have expressed this opinon about the damage modeling being to good. I am a decent shot, I am not trying to overstate my case here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the hell you are

you obviously have not flowen it even once

the Hayate cannot afford to recieve hits

in loosing flight performance afteer being hit ... IT IS EVEN WORSE THAN THE Fock Wulf-190

WUAF_Badsight
04-01-2004, 09:27 PM
nt

chris455
04-01-2004, 11:23 PM
Some "objective" statements from defenders of the Ki-84:

"that was just an ignorance posting from you BigKahuna" -WUAF_Badsight

"no hes just a ******" -WUAF_BAdsight
(referring to yet another community member, different thread)

"the hell you are
you obviously have not flowen it even once" -WUAF_Badsight
(addressing Kahuna again on the Ki-84)

"Some features people have more or less proven their point - ie) if the high alt speed is too fast, it should be slowered". -Kweassa1

(I had some trouble translating this. But I did
look up "slowered" in the Websters Collegiate Dictionary. You guessed it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif)

"well firstly learn to shoot" -WUAF_Badsight
(Does this guy EVER say anything that isn't ad hominem?)

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Can you at least behave in ORR if nowhere else?

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Thu April 01 2004 at 10:31 PM.]

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 11:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>slowered<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Yes, if others can confirm my new numbers above 8km, Oleg may have to slower the Ki~84 at high altitude.

BigKahuna_GS was (choke) right all along.

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
Some "objective" statements from defenders of the Ki-84:
"Some features people have more or less proven their point - ie) if the high alt speed is too fast, it should be slowered". -Kweassa1

(I had some trouble translating this. But I did
look up "slowered" in the Websters Collegiate Dictionary. You guessed it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif)

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi there,

What Kweassa is referring to is that people believed there was a problem, it was tested for, and results posted. That's good work.

The rest amounts to so much screaming and crying.

While you're in the dictionary, two words to look up -

subjective.

objective.

Be sure to let us know what you find.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

chris455
04-01-2004, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>slowered<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Yes, if others can confirm my new numbers above 8km, Oleg may have to slower the Ki~84 at high altitude.

BigKahuna_GS was (choke) right all along.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-what we've been saying all along. Care to take a look at the damage model now, Lexx? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
S!

PS @ Clint-Ruin:
Clint, it gets increasingly difficult to read through legions of postsfrom certain people who dismiss everthing that doesn't fit their views of their pet AC as "anecdotal" or "subjective" and then have to listen to these same people stoop to name calling and personal insults as if that proves their point. Nothing personal at you-
Chris


http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Thu April 01 2004 at 10:44 PM.]

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 11:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
-what we've been saying all along. Care to take a look at the damage model now, Lexx? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
S!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Chris,

I've posted this track to the thread before now but noone seems to want to comment on it.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/11.zip

I'd be overjoyed if you could share your opinion on it.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
04-01-2004, 11:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Can you at least behave in ORR if nowhere else?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea if the American Fanboys can stop with the BS

if they bothered to actually use the plane they would see its FAR from the best at anything

it beats the pants off the Mustang tho & im convinced thats the source of all their crying

say it aint so

say that the mustang with its worse power loading & wing loading should actually be the better fighter & ill try to keep a stright face

i promise

fact is all the KI whining , if it wasnt so funny , is pathetic

its nowhere near as good as some here are trying to say with cries of unbelieveable DM & all

either there really bad at playing FB or they are lying through their teeth

guess they are never going to be happy unless anything Japanese is moddeled into cannon fodder ....

(sorry ....... , .50 Cal fodder)

prehaps instead they should be jumping on the "plz can my Mustang retain E like a LA-7" bandwagon

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2004, 11:47 PM
Oh I agree WUAF, the Whiners, *bleh* But numbers are more important. I am on the side of the Numbers. And, I don't trust my testing anymore. Numbers don't lie, I do.

robban75 needs to resolve this issue.

WUAF_Badsight
04-01-2004, 11:58 PM
i dont know if the DM for the KI-C model is correct or not

but when you add heavy hitting cannon to a good handeling plane you going to have a deadly fighter

just for DF its over the top

Server hosts can soooo sstop hosting with the KI-C

the KI-B is MORE than enough for KI fans

besides in getting tierd of getting whined at by KI pilots when they get out-turned by me when they fly the C

chris455
04-02-2004, 12:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
-what we've been saying all along. Care to take a look at the damage model now, Lexx? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
S!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Chris,

I've posted this track to the thread before now but noone seems to want to comment on it.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/11.zip

I'd be overjoyed if you could share your opinion on it.

CLINT:
I watched it, with mixed feelings.
It shows that the Ki reacts beleivably to punishment from 20 mm Hispano cannon.
I admit I was surprised that you acheived any results with the .303s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif
An interesting and informative test.
Chris

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
04-02-2004, 10:24 AM
Well, I have flown the KI - it IS the best dogfighter in the simm. I prefer the 190, or p39 or p38 because I like the challenge of more difficult planes - which the KI is not. It can be a bit twitchy but that's a function of light controls - I'd say it is the least challenging plane to fly in the simm - which I think is why many who like it are on about how tricky and difficult it is (not that good pilots don't fly it - it's a great plane - fly what you want). It has the best dogfighting performance of any plane in the simm hands- down across the board. Personally I think this is right - it should be the best - with possible competition with the la7 (which it currently outperforms in almost every realm) or the P63 (which it also outperforms across the board) It's not a case of it having a few advantages balanced by disadvantages - it has almost no disadvantages. Online damage is better than offline - ai damage - in that it does get twitchy with wing hits (like the 190s sort of). But it is just silly to try and make it sound like less than what it is - THE BEST dogfighter in the simm.

HayateKid
04-02-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Posted by Lexx:
Yes, if others can confirm my new numbers above 8km, Oleg may have to slower the Ki~84 at high altitude.

BigKahuna_GS was (choke) right all along.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry Lexx, Kahuna wasn't complaining about speed of Ki-84. Remember he dismissed your original results as just "doing a speed run". Apparently he's complaining about "performance" other than speed. Of course now that you have different numbers, maybe he'll change his whining again, and complain about speed.

I think we have pretty much established:

- everybody agrees nothing is wrong with ki-84 performance under 20,000 feet

- some whine about difficulty bringing down Ki-84 (3/4 load of .50 cal, engine fire not modeled, etc...) while others brag about how easy they do it. draw your own conclusions. hint: pilot skill.

So what does that leave us: high altitude performance whining.

So I challenge the whiners:
Show an online track of you fighting a ki-84 opponent above 20,000 ft (honesty policy: don't get your friend to fly the kill). I just want to establish that you are not complaining about a theoretical situation. I myself don't fly (any plane) that high so i really don't care about that aspect so much.

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

HayateKid
04-02-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Well, I have flown the KI - it IS the best dogfighter in the simm. I prefer the 190, or p39 or p38 because I like the challenge of more difficult planes - which the KI is not. It can be a bit twitchy but that's a function of light controls - I'd say it is the least challenging plane to fly in the simm - which I think is why many who like it are on about how tricky and difficult it is (not that good pilots don't fly it - it's a great plane - fly what you want). It has the best dogfighting performance of any plane in the simm hands- down across the board. Personally I think this is right - it should be the best - with possible competition with the la7 (which it currently outperforms in almost every realm) or the P63 (which it also outperforms across the board) It's not a case of it having a few advantages balanced by disadvantages - it has almost no disadvantages. Online damage is better than offline - ai damage - in that it does get twitchy with wing hits (like the 190s sort of). But it is just silly to try and make it sound like less than what it is - THE BEST dogfighter in the simm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like the challenge of more skilled opponents. I like to fly the best equipment I can get my hands on. While I do like the Hayate, there are other planes that are also good. Which plane is the best is debatable. On the allied side, i like the P-63c. It has better firepower than ki-84Ia or ki-84Ib, which is all the server hosts will let you fly these days.

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

lrrp22
04-02-2004, 01:08 PM
"- everybody agrees nothing is wrong with ki-84 performance under 20,000 feet"

I think there is plenty wrong with the FM below 20k. It is too fast and too manuevarable at high speeds.

I find it laughable that FrankFans insist that the Middletown data is representative of wartime performance while at the same time insisting that the Mustang be neutered by adhering to factory spec's.

Mustangs in squadron service were faster at low altitudes, (frequently *much* faster) than the Mustangs modeled in FB. Period, end of sentence.

Oh, BTW, The P-51H would have smoked the Frank, anywhere, anytime. That's a fact.


<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> Posted by Lexx:
Yes, if others can confirm my new numbers above 8km, Oleg may have to slower the Ki~84 at high altitude.

BigKahuna_GS was (choke) right all along.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry Lexx, Kahuna wasn't complaining about speed of Ki-84. Remember he dismissed your original results as just "doing a speed run". Apparently he's complaining about "performance" other than speed. Of course now that you have different numbers, maybe he'll change his whining again, and complain about speed.

I think we have pretty much established:

- everybody agrees nothing is wrong with ki-84 performance under 20,000 feet

- some whine about difficulty bringing down Ki-84 (3/4 load of .50 cal, engine fire not modeled, etc...) while others brag about how easy they do it. draw your own conclusions. hint: pilot skill.

So what does that leave us: high altitude performance whining.

So I challenge the whiners:
Show an online track of you fighting a ki-84 opponent above 20,000 ft (honesty policy: don't get your friend to fly the kill). I just want to establish that you are not complaining about a theoretical situation. I myself don't fly (any plane) that high so i really don't care about that aspect so much.

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

BigKahuna_GS
04-02-2004, 01:54 PM
S!

Can we please stop the emotional dribble and discuss issues like mature adults here. If we were all standing in a room together would this discussion unfold like this ?

Badsight--your lack of vocabulary skills demonstrates your mental prowess to be lacking.

Hayate--I'll try again, please try to pay attention and put your hormones back in place. As the Ki84 increases in altitude above 20,000ft it should lose engine power and speed as altitude increases --it only has a single stage supercharger.

That does not happen--the Ki84 (all models)is overmodeled above 20,000ft

This is very simple.

_______________________

From Lexx:

If I did this right this time, and if I was (choke) wrong before, Oleg may need to seriously castrate Ki~84 speed at high altitude. I am too lazy now to do climb tests. Anybody?

Yes, if others can confirm my new numbers above 8km, Oleg may have to slower the Ki~84 at high altitude.

BigKahuna_GS was (choke) right all along.

_________________________

Thanks Lexx for being civil and testing it out. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now please look at the Ki84 roll rate above 300mph. The roll rate should slow as speed increases above 300mph.


Chriss--what we've been saying all along. Care to take a look at the damage model now, Lexx?
S!


Consider this--I have been flying sims for years and I am veteran pilot. I regularly shoot down Ki84s with P40s and P51s. I have had Ki84 pilots in total digust wondering how a lowly P40 shot down their "magic bird".

What I dont like seeing is a Ki84 keeping up with me at high alt or setting it's wing on fire and watching the flames go out.


________________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

BigKahuna_GS
04-02-2004, 02:08 PM
S!


IRP22---"I find it laughable that Frank Fans insist that the Middletown data is representative of wartime performance while at the same time insisting that the Mustang be neutered by adhering to factory spec's. "


1# Anything added to the Frank after the war shound NOT be in the F/M because it was NOT available to the Japanese during WW2.

2# Previous post again---Americas Hundred Thousand shows the Mustang doing 375mph on the deck--Oleg does not accept this number hence we have a slower 51 on the deck than it really was.

The Brits easily got 400mph on the deck with a small increase in boost and operated that way for the duration of the war.

So some of you Ki84 boys want your cake and eat it too. You want the faster 1946 post WW2 Frank on hot Av gas and you still want the Mustang cut ?

Hell, we cant even get Oleg to use the WW2 factory specs--case in point the P51 on the deck speed is lower than it really was.


_______________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

HayateKid
04-02-2004, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
Can we please stop the emotional dribble and discuss issues like mature adults here. If we were all standing in a room together would this discussion unfold like this ?

Badsight--your lack of vocabulary skills demonstrates your mental prowess to be lacking.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BigKahuna, yes, i can see that you are mature enough to be capable of directly insulting Badsight. And maybe you can say it to his face too if we were all standing in a room together.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As the Ki84 increases in altitude above 20,000ft it should lose engine power and speed as altitude increases...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks for confirming my suspicion that you would complain about speed again

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That does not happen--the Ki84 (all models)is overmodeled above 20,000ft
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, take this up with lrrp22. he thinks the hayate is overmodelled below 20,000 ft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The roll rate should slow as speed increases above 300mph.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

by how much? says who? where's the data? if you send your data to Oleg he will listen, i'm sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I regularly shoot down Ki84s with P40s and P51s.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if i can get 1 dollar for every self-contradiction you make....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I have had Ki84 pilots in total digust wondering how a lowly P40 shot down their "magic bird".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you know, i could be wrong, but from the whining, it really seems to me, the ki-84 haters are actually the people who think the hayate is a "magic bird"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What I dont like seeing is a Ki84 keeping up with me at high alt
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

how high? care to show some tracks?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
or setting it's wing on fire and watching the flames go out.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm, i can't say for sure that i've seen a wing catch on fire. engines i've seen, but wings on fire?? i don't recall seeing them. a track would surely convince me.

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

BigKahuna_GS
04-02-2004, 02:22 PM
S!

Hayate, I can see that your too emotional about this subject to see clearly.


At least listen to Lexx then :

----------------------

If I did this right this time, and if I was (choke) wrong before, Oleg may need to seriously castrate Ki~84 speed at high altitude. I am too lazy now to do climb tests. Anybody?

Yes, if others can confirm my new numbers above 8km, Oleg may have to slower the Ki~84 at high altitude.

BigKahuna_GS was (choke) right all along.

__________________


If someone has a disagreement about the F/M of a plane does not mean they hate the plane--GET IT !

Personaly I think the more planes the better in AEP and I look forward to the Pacific Sim with Carriers.



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

04-02-2004, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think there is plenty wrong with the FM below 20k. It is too fast and too manuevarable at high speeds.

I find it laughable that FrankFans insist that the Middletown data is representative of wartime performance while at the same time insisting that the Mustang be neutered by adhering to factory spec's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it's a simple issue, ain't it?

1) Bring up specific sources
2) Test the FB/AEP representation of the plane
3) Record, and point out the controversial disparity between suggested performance and AEP performance

So tell me then why I don't see anything resembling 1), 2), or even 3).

Don't you find it fascinating that the actual confirmation of high-alt speed issue, which is probably the only thing people objectively agree on which is actually wrong in the game, was in fact provided by the people who were "defending" the Ki-84 in the first place?

I myself contributed with my own testings, too.(though I don't have a posting space, I can provide the track via email if somebody requests it. Funny thing is, in the other discussions regarding MG151/20, I said the same thing and nobody wanted to see that proof I've made, and nicely compiled into a ZIP file!)


So far, what objective piece of ground breaking enlightment have we received from chris, you, or a lot of other people?

Nothing.

Lot of smack talking and idle claims, but throughout this 6 page thread not a single instance of a track, picture, no testing suggestions, no definition of test conditions so we may try it ourselves. Nothing, zip, nada.

chris455
04-02-2004, 02:43 PM
Here's a challenge for you, Kweassa:

Post a verifiable data source indicating that any Ki-84 in JAPANESE SERVICE (i.e., pre-1946) ever exibited a tested speed of 427mph, AT ANY ALTITUDE.

PLEASE STOP asking us to DISPROVE that UFO's exist. We'll ASSUME they don't, until you PROVE otherwise.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
04-02-2004, 02:50 PM
S!


I had already done my own tests Kweesa, but I didnt wish to be flammed over them. So I am glad that Lexx did his. As far as smack talking goes-- 99.999% has come from the Ki84 fan boy side being upset with any disagreements about the AEP Ki84 F/M.

So if you disagree about anything concerning the Ki84 you automatically get verbally assualted--so much for mature dialog.

______________


Roll rates--I have yet to see a roll rate chart for the Zero. But according to Zero & Allied pilots the aerlirons stiffened over 225mph and continued to stiffen as speeds increased.

The same holds true for the Ki84 at speeds over 300mph--aerlirons stiffened
I hope a roll rate chart can be produced to make all here happy.

Oleg says he has the info--maybe it can be posted to satisfy everyone then.


From Lexx:

If I did this right this time, and if I was (choke) wrong before, Oleg may need to seriously castrate Ki~84 speed at high altitude. I am too lazy now to do climb tests. Anybody?

Yes, if others can confirm my new numbers above 8km, Oleg may have to slower the Ki~84 at high altitude.

BigKahuna_GS was (choke) right all along.


_______________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

lrrp22
04-02-2004, 02:50 PM
It's simple- The Ki84 modeled in FB is modeled to speed specifications that were achieved at Middletown Air Depot in 1946.

If you truly believe that wartime Japanese ki-84 Franks were capable of the same kind of performance as a stripped-down, reconditioned and overboosted post-war example, so be it.

If you choose to completely dismiss all evidence to the contrary by lableing it 'Japan Bashing', so be it.

If you continue to insist that the P-51 should be limited to the lowest performance figures available and to non-representative combat power boost levels then, again, so be it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think there is plenty wrong with the FM below 20k. It is too fast and too manuevarable at high speeds.

I find it laughable that FrankFans insist that the Middletown data is representative of wartime performance while at the same time insisting that the Mustang be neutered by adhering to factory spec's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it's a simple issue, ain't it?

1) Bring up specific sources
2) Test the FB/AEP representation of the plane
3) Record, and point out the controversial disparity between suggested performance and AEP performance

So tell me then why I don't see anything resembling 1), 2), or even 3).

Don't you find it fascinating that the actual confirmation of high-alt speed issue, which is probably the only thing people objectively agree on which is actually wrong in the game, was in fact provided by the people who were "defending" the Ki-84 in the first place?

I myself contributed with my own testings, too.(though I don't have a posting space, I can provide the track via email if somebody requests it. Funny thing is, in the other discussions regarding MG151/20, I said the same thing and nobody wanted to see that proof I've made, and nicely compiled into a ZIP file!)


So far, what objective piece of ground breaking enlightment have we received from chris, you, or a lot of other people?

Nothing.

Lot of smack talking and idle claims, but throughout this 6 page thread not a single instance of a track, picture, no testing suggestions, no definition of test conditions so we may try it ourselves. Nothing, zip, nada.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maple_Tiger
04-02-2004, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Some new numbers, rather fascinating...

Crimea map, full "blast," IAS speedbar (km/hr) at 8km / 9km / 10km altitude...50% fuel, open rad (as before but not reported here)

________Ki84b 430 / 400 / 360
___P~51D(NT) 420 / 370 / 350
_MiG~3~AM38 330 / 300 / 270 _...disgraceful_

Same 8km result for AM38, nothing new here. My results for Ki~84b are very different from before, and it is recommended that others try this experiment for some very obvious reasons. Don't forget fuel mixture.


_______
_Vote to Impeach the Ki~84 for High Altitude Crimes and Mis-Speedmanners_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Auto rad only measn closed when flying the FW190. Auto rad on the P-51's do work. You'l gain more speed if you don't use auto rad.

The P-51 is a little faster then the Ki-84 at 7624km. P-51's top speed was 703kmh TAS, i can just reach 700kmh TAs but it takes a while and you have to over heat the engine for about 5 min lol.

Remember the KI-84's top speed was at 6000m, 689kmh TAS. At 7600m you should have trouble reaching 680kmh TAS.


One thing for shure is that it takes the P-51 alot longer to reach a max speed then the KI-84 in FB.

Any way you should actualy find that the P-51 is faster then the KI-84 above 7000m. Just takes forever to get there.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid79/p9158822c9eda67f1dd0b724a5f846229/fb18d0ec.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

HayateKid
04-02-2004, 02:55 PM
BigKahuna, I read Lexx's post. This is what I saw:

3 "If"s
2 "may"s

if Lexx's tentative post is proof of anything, it is that Ki-84 haters will use tentative, subjective, even false sources, but never come up with their own tests/data/numbers.

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

04-02-2004, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's simple- The Ki84 modeled in FB is modeled to speed specifications that were achieved at Middletown Air Depot in 1946. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. Where's the proof?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you truly believe that wartime Japanese ki-84 Franks were capable of the same kind of performance as a stripped-down, reconditioned and overboosted post-war example, so be it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, your basing this whole thing on your assumption. Where's the proof?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you choose to completely dismiss all evidence to the contrary by lableing it 'Japan Bashing', so be it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're dismissing evidence that's irrelevant.. which, come to think of it, you guys haven't provided any. Where is this evidence anyway? We can't dismiss it unless we see some trace of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you continue to insist that the P-51 should be limited to the lowest performance figures available and to non-representative combat power boost levels then, again, so be it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That relates to this Ki-84 discussion in what ways? Start your own P-51 thread, dude.

...

So basically, where's your evidence that our FB/AEP Ki-84 is based in the Middletown tests?

Did Oleg admit to that? Have you provided any copy of the Middletown test we can see and compare with the real thing?

Any testings you did? Any testings other guys did?

Where's this evidence?

PzKpfw
04-02-2004, 03:11 PM
As to the Frank it should do, what it actualy did, period. If its wrong prove it, thru tests document them with tracks etc. Submit the results to Oleg.

as I posted earlier with refrence citation, the Ki-84 "outmanouvered & outclimbed" the P-47N & P-51H in comparitive trials.

As to claims the Frank is modeled on the Middletown testshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. Oleg wont even accept US data on roll rates, or speeds, of US planes from AHT, but suddenly; he will blindly model the Ki-84 based soley on the middletown 1946 test data, err ya ok, erm r i g h t http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

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 Fri April 02 2004 at 03:08 PM.]

chris455
04-02-2004, 03:21 PM
Kweassa, check the OBJECT VIEWER under "Ki-84".
You there yet? Good. Now, look under top speed @ 6,1km.

Does it say something like 687 kph?

Good. Now we're getting somehwere. Now, go to

http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/speed

and type in 687 kph. Here, I'll save you the trouble- it's 426.9 mph.

I don't know what "dinky methods" these guys use for determining speed conversions, but I'll bet they're spot on.

It's the Middletown data that's being stated in the object viewer- isn't it?

And it hasn't a thing to do with the Ki-84's performance in Japanese service, does it?

Again, please stop asking us to disprove performance figures that both sides accept as being irrelevant to wartime realities.

YOU prove their relevance.

PS- As PzKpfw points out above (in an outstandingly astute observation, I might add)
where else in all of Il2 or Fb does Oleg use US test data?

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
04-02-2004, 03:35 PM
S!

From Lexx:

Crimea map, full "blast," IAS speedbar (km/hr) at 8km / 9km / 10km altitude...50% fuel, open rad (as before but not reported here)

________Ki84b 430 / 400 / 360
___P~51D(NT) 420 / 370 / 350
_MiG~3~AM38 330 / 300 / 270 _...disgraceful_

Same 8km result for AM38, nothing new here. My results for Ki~84b are very different from before, and it is recommended that others try this experiment for some very obvious reasons. Don't forget fuel mixture.
_______________

Maple Tiger--Remember the KI-84's top speed was at 6000m, 689kmh TAS. At 7600m you should have trouble reaching 680kmh TAS.

689kmh Kilometers per hour equals 428.125 Miles (statute) per hour.

___________

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;MT--At 7600m you should have trouble reaching 680kmh TAS. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;


**Thats my point you dont have trouble reaching the same max speeds as altitude increases.
The Ki84 does not lose power as altitude increases.

______________

Kweesa:
Read some posts dude. The BF/AEP Ki-84 does not do 427mph. I don't know what kind of dinky methods you guys use to proof-test your planes, but my test results differ.


Ok who is right here?

We have several people saying the Ki84 does 689kph.

Maple Tiger--Remember the KI-84's top speed was at 6000m, 689kmh TAS.

Lexx--Crimea map, full "blast," IAS speedbar (km/hr) at 8km / 9km / 10km altitude...50% fuel, open rad (as before but not reported here)

________Ki84b 430 / 400 / 360


The wartime version of the Ki84 never flew that fast (427mph)



________

Hiyate--Im am giving up on trying to reason with you. You are using the Clinton --Definetion of "IS" defense. Simply absurd.


_______________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

BigKahuna_GS
04-02-2004, 03:56 PM
S!

PZK--as I posted earlier with refrence citation, the Ki-84 "outmanouvered & outclimbed" the P-47N & P-51H in comparitive trials.


**I agree with this statement below 20,000ft.

The Hellcat & Corsair outmanueverd the P51 & P47 below 20,000ft. So should the Ki84.


Above 20,000ft, I think the P51H @ 489mph and the P47N @ 460mph both planes having two-stage superchargers would have the advantage at high altitude.


________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

PzKpfw
04-02-2004, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
S!

PZK--as I posted earlier with refrence citation, the Ki-84 "outmanouvered & outclimbed" the P-47N & P-51H in comparitive trials.


**I agree with this statement below 20,000ft.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kahuna, I totaly agree the Franks performance fell off above 12,000 - 15,000ft, as evidenced by Japanese reports concerning attempted B-29 interceptions.

I'm replying to the assertion that a P-51H etc was superior, in all things to the Frank, or any other fighter for that matter. The P-51 was a great fighter, but it did not outperform its rivals in all areas, it had its strengths & weaknesses, as did all other fighters. Ppl need to accept the fact, the Japanese could make fighters comparible & superior in some aspects to the P-51, Ie, climbrate & turn radius.

Ie, the fastest climbing US fighters were*:

1.P-63A
2.F4U-4
3.P-38J/L

The fastest climbing US fighter in actual service was the P-38, the P-63 only served with the VVS, & the F4U-4 only arrived in the PTO just before the war ended.

Ie, the best turning US fighters in order of turnrate were*:

1. FM2
2. P-63A
3. P-61
4. F6F
5. P-51D
6. P-38L
7. P-47D30
8. F4U-1

These results represent clean configureation with flaps retracted, no external stores etc.

*See: Dean Francie H. America's Hundred-Thousand pp. 598, 603.


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 Fri April 02 2004 at 05:04 PM.]

Maple_Tiger
04-02-2004, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
S!

From Lexx:

Crimea map, full "blast," IAS speedbar (km/hr) at 8km / 9km / 10km altitude...50% fuel, open rad (as before but not reported here)

________Ki84b 430 / 400 / 360
___P~51D(NT) 420 / 370 / 350
_MiG~3~AM38 330 / 300 / 270 _...disgraceful_

Same 8km result for AM38, nothing new here. My results for Ki~84b are very different from before, and it is recommended that others try this experiment for some very obvious reasons. Don't forget fuel mixture.
_______________

Maple Tiger--Remember the KI-84's top speed was at 6000m, 689kmh TAS. At 7600m you should have trouble reaching 680kmh TAS.

689kmh Kilometers per hour equals 428.125 Miles (statute) per hour.

___________

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;MT--At 7600m you should have trouble reaching 680kmh TAS. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;


**Thats my point you dont have trouble reaching the same max speeds as altitude increases.
The Ki84 does not lose power as altitude increases.

______________

Kweesa:
Read some posts dude. The BF/AEP Ki-84 does not do 427mph. I don't know what kind of dinky methods you guys use to proof-test your planes, but my test results differ.


Ok who is right here?

We have several people saying the Ki84 does 689kph.

Maple Tiger--Remember the KI-84's top speed was at 6000m, 689kmh TAS.

Lexx--Crimea map, full "blast," IAS speedbar (km/hr) at 8km / 9km / 10km altitude...50% fuel, open rad (as before but not reported here)

________Ki84b 430 / 400 / 360


The wartime version of the Ki84 never flew that fast (427mph)



________

Hiyate--Im am giving up on trying to reason with you. You are using the Clinton --Definetion of "IS" defense. Simply absurd.


_______________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.






<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;MT--At 7600m you should have trouble reaching 680kmh TAS. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;


Actually the max speed was 703kmh TAS at 7624m for the P-51D.

KI-84's max speed in the object viewer is 687kmh TAS at 6100m.


"Maple Tiger--Remember the KI-84's top speed was at 6000m, 689kmh TAS. At 7600m you should have trouble reaching 680kmh TAS."

So i was 2kmh TAS off and 100m off the altitude.

"**Thats my point you dont have trouble reaching the same max speeds as altitude increases.
The Ki84 does not lose power as altitude increases."**


Actually it does lose power as altitude increases. Considering the KI-84 only has a 1 stage supercharger it should lose more power as altitude increases then it currently does in FB.

You cant tell me the KI-84 doesn't lose power as altitude increases once it passes it's peak altitude. If that where case then there would be a Bug lol.

All im saying is that it doesn't lose enough power as altitude increase's.

Run a speed test at 9,000m and at 10,000m. You should find that the P-51 is faster then the Ki-84. It's not alot faster at 10km. I would say the P-51D is about 40 to 50 kmh TAS faster at 10km.

You guys can't just run a couple of speed test's and post your results. You need to run alot more then that.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid79/p9158822c9eda67f1dd0b724a5f846229/fb18d0ec.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

WUAF_Badsight
04-02-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
S!

PZK--as I posted earlier with refrence citation, the Ki-84 "outmanouvered & outclimbed" the P-47N & P-51H in comparitive trials.


**I agree with this statement below 20,000ft.

The Hellcat & Corsair outmanueverd the P51 & P47 below 20,000ft. So should the Ki84.


Above 20,000ft, I think the P51H @ 489mph and the P47N @ 460mph both planes having two-stage superchargers would have the advantage at high altitude.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

really .... why ?

just cause you have a bit more speed doesnt mean the plane can DF any better than at lower alt

extending is where you want more speed

YOU GUYS ARE CONVIENTLY FORGETTING TO POST ABOUT HOW LONG TOPSPEED TAKES TO REACH

or how much overheating it takes

or how poorly the KI-84 handels over 7K

biased crap

WUAF_Badsight
04-02-2004, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:

It's the Middletown data that's being stated in the object viewer- isn't it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nobody at this board has heard a word about what data Maddox Games has used

what we do know is that the Middletown test was of a lighter Hayate

why would Maddox games use such data when its clearly out

the fact that Hayates couldnt go 427 under Japanese operating conditions has yet to be proved

the BF109s & FW190s have been moddeled to best factory data

why should the Hayate be restricted under feild performance

ironically the Mustang doesnt have the Pacific field operating performance but factory specs & the KI Whiners want the reverse for the Hayate

biased crap

WUAF_Badsight
04-02-2004, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:
You want the faster 1946 post WW2 Frank on hot Av gas and you still want the Mustang cut ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

its a MYTH that the japanese didnt have or used 100 octane fuel during WW2

if the Mustang is too slow (which it aint) then whine about it elsewhere

chris455
04-02-2004, 05:11 PM
[QUOTE] WUAF_Badsight:
"what we do know is that the Middletown test was of a lighter Hayate"

Probably, which leaves unanswered the question as to why that data was used to model the Ki-84 in FB.

[QUOTE] WUAF_Badsight:
"the fact that Hayates couldnt go 427 under Japanese operating conditions has yet to be proved"

Proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Middletown plane was tested under conditions that couldn't be replicated by the Japanese during the war, and no one here has provided any Japanese wartime test data showing a speed of 427 mph.

[QUOTE] WUAF_Badsight:
"why should the Hayate be restricted under feild performance?"

For the sake of realism maybe? Would you prefer we use data from the Reno Air Races for the P-51 then? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
04-02-2004, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigKahuna_GS:

So if you disagree about anything concerning the Ki84 you automatically get verbally assualted--so much for mature dialog.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

its interesting that the ones complaining abut the Hayate are AMERICAN PLANE flyers

doesnt that seem funny

if having its performance degraded severly after recieveing hit they also want it to be even more of a pushover

i dont like fast rolling planes . . . . the reason im defending the Hayate is because you American Fanboys have chips on your shoulders about the fact that the japanese have good performing planes

thats not right according to your mentality

we have Irrp think that his Mustang should have been a better DFer .... why &gt;?

it had far inferior power loading & wing loading

we have utter rubbish being typed about the DM for the Hayate being awesome when if they actually flew the thing in combat they would see the DFing ability shrink considerably after taking hits
&
**NEWSFLASH** . . . . . hurting highly manuerverable planes was NEVER meant to be easy

they dont know what data Oleg used

& they are ignoring the amazing E retainer . . . the LA-7 . . . because it flies on the allieds side prehaps ?

no no , the only plane they have problems with are Japanese ones

show me where there isnt any bias amongst you

WUAF_Badsight
04-02-2004, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:

Probably, which leaves unanswered the question as to why that data was used to model the Ki-84 in FB.

Proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Middletown plane was tested under conditions that couldn't be replicated by the Japanese during the war, and no one here has provided any Japanese wartime test data showing a speed of 427 mph.

For the sake of realism maybe? Would you prefer we use data from the Reno Air Races for the P-51 then? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) no-one knows what factory data maddox games has

2) its been proven all of ZERO times that the KI in FB is the Middletown plane

3) why should the KI FM be the same as the feild condition when no other plane in FB is like that

it should be like that if your one-eyed & full of bias

LEXX_Luthor
04-02-2004, 06:01 PM
Well said WUAF. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 3) why should the KI FM be the same as the field condition when no other plane in FB is like that<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Indeed, in a (rare) well constructed dynamic campaign which has the possibility of Japan and Germany winning the WAR then we need P~51 and Spitfire run on bad gasoline and choking and sputtering.

Teh flight simmers would Not be Happy.

Just stick to high altitude performance loss, and there we may all find agreement. I am Happy AM38 falls to disfiguring 330km/hr IAS at 8km altitude but forcibly Rapes the German fighters at sea level. Perhaps Ki~84's weak spot is poor high altitude performance, and if so, we should easily see this in the game. I hinted at this much earlier, even with my old numbers, where could accept some trimming of Ki~84 high level speeds. Of course, if Ki~84 Rapes the P~51 at sea level, then I can be Happy with that if P~51 can return the favour at high level.

robban75 must do some tests for us. Anybody wanna Trust me again hehe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

Bull_dog_
04-02-2004, 06:22 PM
Ohhh the denial http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Suppose that the books I read are right...the P-51D Mustang has a top speed of 437mph and the Ki-84 has a top speed of 388...ok I have a book somewhere that says 394 or something like that... I do the math and that works out to 43mph difference...

What is 43MPH? well imagine if if the Mustang could fly say ... 480mph! Now the altitudes that each aircraft reach their peak performance is different, but 43 mph is alot of difference! Kinda like a Hellcat trying to chase down a Dora.

I believe that the Ki was a nimble aircraft that took many airmen by suprise cause it was faster than most Japanese aircraft. It was not a master of high altitude. It was a light plane with low wing loading so it could turn, but not sustain damage like a Fw or a Jug. I don't know about its roll rate...seems as fast as a Fw and everything I have read has the Fw as the fastest rolling aircraft of the war.

It was Japan's best plane...so what does that mean? Japan was flying Ki-43's in 1945 still. They never produced a single engined fighter in any number that could fly 400 mph! Germans, US and Britian had them in 1942. Japan's fighter doctrine and tactics were at fault for the most part... the Ki was a competitive, manueverable plane... it was not fast up high and with its weight, it couldn't dive. It could climb! It could turn!

It is easy to see who the Ki fans are and I certainly would be sticking up for my favorite plane too...but the ki is not one. Off line, I don't care much how it is modelled... it is online that it peeves me...it can be killed, but I for one don't think it is an accurate representation, plain and simple.

Someone will refute this, someone will conjure up some rationalization, and someone always asks to "prove"it, which of course can't be done because we don't have any Ki's around and there is plenty of contradictory information around. I see people scream foul when anecdotal info is put up and yet I see some of the same people quoting it when it suits them...

I have no idea where Oleg got his flight data from, but I sure wish he would tell us cause its not the same stuff I have.

PzKpfw
04-02-2004, 06:30 PM
Sigh, well we can let this degenerate into the usual (Insert Nationality here) Fanboy fiasco, or we can discuss this rationaly.

The issues with the Ki-84 as I understand them, (I know someone will correct me if'm i'm wrong) are:

1). Ki-84 performance above 15,000ft, Ie, it reportedly reaches about 427mph. Which allegedly matches the 1946 US Middletown test results useing, 115/145 fuel.

2). DM Ie, reports of Ki-84s takeing whole .50, MG 151 loads etc, to bring down.

3). Ki-84 performance reportedly unnafected by altitude changes.

4). Where did the data for the Ki-84 come from & how was performance compiled.


On 1, all I can add is my refrences state the Ki-84 was capable of a max speed of 388mph (624km/h).

On 2, all I can add in my 1st flight with it, I was shot up bt an La-7 (wings) and lost alota manoverability etc.

On 3, According to my refrences the Ki-84 due to a high maintance requirements, by skilled techs, suffered in the field, due to poor maintance quality of undertrained mechanichs. & that in attempts to intercept B-29 raids, Ki-84s rarely made stated ROC rates, or rated altitudes & were unable to reach B-29 altitude, before the B-29s left the area.


on 3, Obviously Oleg is not going to model 3's remarks as if he did he would have to do it for every plane in IL-2.

On 4, Only Oleg knows, & if he deems to share the data with us he will. Meanwhile ppl who want to disputte the Ki-84s FM need to produce documents supporting their position etc, as well as in game tests Ie, as Lex etc have done.

Telling Oleg anything, _just because you say it is_, is a waste of time, wheras factual arguments with supporting data will be recieved much better. Remember you are challengeing Olegs representation of the Ki-84 FM, not the other way around, the burden of proof is with anyone challengeing the FM.

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.

LEXX_Luthor
04-02-2004, 06:39 PM
PzKpfw:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3). Ki-84 performance reportedly unnafected by altitude changes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That has never been reported.

Ki~84 and P~51 being equally affected with altitude changes have been reported--my "new" speed numbers for example. This equal effect from altitude changes may be very wrong.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif We must post carefully, or we all hope Oleg goes to another webboard for Inspiration. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

PzKpfw
04-02-2004, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
That has never been reported.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok Lex, but I am confused by the below:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"**Thats my point you dont have trouble reaching the same max speeds as altitude increases. The Ki84 does not lose power as altitude increases."** <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This clearly represents an report, that implies the Ki-84 is unaffected by Altitude change, does it not?.


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 Fri April 02 2004 at 05:57 PM.]

LEXX_Luthor
04-02-2004, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"**Thats my point you dont have trouble reaching the same max speeds as altitude increases. The Ki84 does not lose power as altitude increases."** <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is not a report it is internet claim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But then, my very limited tests here were contained in rather cryptic sniplets as far as written procedure was concerned and my data was presented in a short hand manner. So I have been sloppy here too.

PzKpfw
04-02-2004, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luther That is not a report it is internet claim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL ok Lex, its an internet claim. But it's still an reported internet claim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif......

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.

LEXX_Luthor
04-02-2004, 07:20 PM
okay, you got me

WhiskeyRiver
04-03-2004, 12:26 AM
<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 BigKahuna_GS:

So if you disagree about anything concerning the Ki84 you automatically get verbally assualted--so much for mature dialog.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

its interesting that the ones complaining abut the Hayate are _AMERICAN PLANE_ flyers

doesnt that seem funny

if having its performance degraded severly after recieveing hit they also want it to be even more of a pushover

i dont like fast rolling planes . . . . the reason im defending the Hayate is because you American Fanboys have chips on your shoulders about the fact that the japanese have good performing planes

thats not right according to your mentality

we have Irrp think that his Mustang should have been a better DFer .... why &gt;?

it had far inferior power loading & wing loading

we have utter rubbish being typed about the DM for the Hayate being awesome when if they actually flew the thing in combat they would see the DFing ability shrink considerably after taking hits
&
**NEWSFLASH** . . . . . hurting highly manuerverable planes was _NEVER_ meant to be easy

they dont know what data Oleg used

& they are ignoring the amazing E retainer . . . the LA-7 . . . because it flies on the allieds side prehaps ?

no no , the only plane they have problems with are _Japanese_ ones

show me where there isnt any bias amongst you<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you about the LA-7's E retention. It's total BS. Oleg won't change because of certain color star on the side. I challenge anyone to show me a VVS fighter that is significantly undermodelled. Even the LaGG and Mig are good fighters. Meanwhile the aircraft from the 2 historical enemies of Russia (Germany and USA) are handicapped in one way or another. A few examples:

USA-
.50 cals are horrible(compared to other 12.7mm)
P-38 has torque effects and snap stalls
P-38L rolls slower than the J
Mustang engine stops when u sneeze
P-47 roll rate is wrong
Mustang cannot reach top speed without overheating
P-51 explodes when pulling out of dives

Germany-
Muzzle flashes
Fw-190 cockpit view
109 engine stops with 1 bullet
Mk-108 and Mg151/20 too weak
Dirty cockpit glass on 109
262 too slow at altitude

Also, aircraft weight does not affect dive and zoom ability enough. This affects the German and US aircraft much more than it affects VVS and Japanese aircraft. Superior diving ability and zoom climbs of heavier aircraft is something that isn't shown in a chart. It's still a major factor in air combat.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

HayateKid
04-03-2004, 04:45 AM
The P-51 top speed at sea level was only 220mph.

PzKpfw, please feel free to quote me everywhere about my "report" above.

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

HayateKid
04-03-2004, 05:03 AM
Hey, Ki-84 fans/non-fans here are some posts to chew on.


-=-=-=-=-=-
Ki-84 performance data

Posted By: Steve C &lt;contella@wt.net&gt;
Date: Thursday, 18 April 2002, at 12:38 p.m.

In Rene Francillon's book "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" he says that during the service trials the Ki-84 attained a top speed of 388 mph. I take this to mean that the prototype reached this speed. Also the prototype aircraft used 1,800 hp engines where as the production aircraft used 1,900 hp engines Homare [Ha-45] 11, and 12. It would seem logical that the higher horsepower engined aircraft were faster.

Does anyone have any other performance data for the Hayate? Specifically tests performed in Japan during the war. I know that the Clark Field aircraft was tested in 1946 and attained a higher speed (427 mph) using higher octane fuel and a higher blower (supercharger) setting.

Also I have the Meru Mechanic book on the Ki-84 mostly as a pictorial reference however is it mentioned that the Ki-84 used water injection? None of my other references mention water injection.

Re: Ki-84 performance data *PIC*

Posted By: Deniz Karacay &lt;denizkaracay@yahoo.com&gt;
Date: Tuesday, 23 April 2002, at 6:44 a.m.

In Response To: Ki-84 performance data (Steve C)

From FAOW No 20 Ki84 1971.

Certainly a match to Allied a/c under 20 000 ft. Unfortunately for Japanese, it was too little too late.

Editors note: Picture no longer available.

Re: Ki-84 performance data

Posted By: richard dunn &lt;rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu&gt;
Date: Thursday, 18 April 2002, at 2:58 p.m.

In Response To: Ki-84 performance data (Steve C)

I have a copy of a translation of a captured document (hand written notes) of unknown reliability which indicates two maximum speeds for the Ki 84-1 (Light) and Ki 84-1 (Improved). The two speeds apparently relate to the Ha 45 rating of 2000 hp at 1500 meters and 1800hp at 6000 meters.

Ki 84-1 (Light) 664 kph (=412 mph) and 693 kph (=430 mph)

Ki 84-1 (Improved) 658 kph (=409 mph) and 688 kph (=427 mph).

Fully equiped wgt of Light = 3576 kg; Improved = 3858 kg

Re: Ki-84 performance data

Posted By: JC Butte &lt;fluiddude@aol.com&gt;
Date: Friday, 19 April 2002, at 2:39 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki-84 performance data (richard dunn)

The US conducted post war flight testing of a KI 84 and achieved a top speed of 427 mph at 22,000' (posting from memory). This was in a superbly restored and maintained aircraft using top grade fuel. I doubt the Japanese were able to secure such performance under late war conditions. I have seen different figures for top speed at 20,000' (398 and 408 mph respectively, possibly reflecting the different engines used in this craft.

Re: Ki-84 performance data

Posted By: richard dunn &lt;rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu&gt;
Date: Friday, 19 April 2002, at 3:04 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki-84 performance data (JC Butte)

I only report what the document says.

During the war TAIC rated Ki 84's max speed at 422 mph.

There are many instances when Japanese "official" figures are less than US tests and observed combat performance.

One pilot's notes on the Ki 84 recommended always flying at overboost during combat. You wouldn't do that with an Allied fighter. What does that imply.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything other than this is an area worthy of inquiry and "received" history or the know "truth" on such matters may be something less than history or truth.

Re: Ki-84 performance data

Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Thursday, 18 April 2002, at 1:02 p.m.

In Response To: Ki-84 performance data (Steve C)

In August 1943 the second pre-production example was reported to have achieved 394 mph (643 kph) level speed at 21,800 ft (6,645 m) piloted by Tachikawa test pilot Funabishi. In diving trials the same aircraft achieved 496 mph (798 kph).

I guess this was in "clean" configuration.

In operations the type suffered from unreliability.

Re: Ki-84 performance data

Posted By: Steve C &lt;contella@wt.net&gt;
Date: Thursday, 18 April 2002, at 1:36 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki-84 performance data (Nick Millman)

Is there a source for that report? Any additional info would be of great help.

Re: Ki-84 performance data

Posted By: Nick Millman
Date: Thursday, 18 April 2002, at 3:20 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Ki-84 performance data (Steve C)

No, it comes from the development history of the type in Green & Swanborough, 1977, but unfortunately the original source is not cited.

It may be of interest to you that the SEAC Weekly Intelligence Summary 39 of 13th August 1944 first mentions the Ki-84, Summary 41 of 27th August 1944 gives tentative performance figures (TIR 338, Page 3) and Summary 49 of 22nd October 1944 reports, in TIR 390:

"sightings and combat photographs show that a new type of Jap (sic) fighter reported as having a 'tremendous speed' is in action in China".

A 7-point description is given, suggesting it is "Frank" but there is also speculation about Shiden and different points are noted. The report also mentions a crashed unidentified fighter in China with 2x20mm and 2x12.7mm armament.
-=-=-=-
from: http://www.j-aircraft.com/faq/ki84_pt2.htm#Ki-84%20performance%20data

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

HayateKid
04-03-2004, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BigKahuna:
Hiyate--Im am giving up on trying to reason with you. You are using the Clinton --Definetion of "IS" defense. Simply absurd.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a cop out. But sure whatever. I'm just pointing out you dont have much evidence to back up tour reasoning. Anyway I consider it enough consolation that you've stopped claiming the ki-894Ib and Ic were made of wood.

Btw please feel free to quote me on this: IF I'm right the P-51H MAY have a top speed of only 380mph.

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

aGunfighter
04-03-2004, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
<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 BigKahuna_GS:

So if you disagree about anything concerning the Ki84 you automatically get verbally assualted--so much for mature dialog.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

its interesting that the ones complaining abut the Hayate are _AMERICAN PLANE_ flyers

doesnt that seem funny

if having its performance degraded severly after recieveing hit they also want it to be even more of a pushover

i dont like fast rolling planes . . . . the reason im defending the Hayate is because you American Fanboys have chips on your shoulders about the fact that the japanese have good performing planes

thats not right according to your mentality

we have Irrp think that his Mustang should have been a better DFer .... why &gt;?

it had far inferior power loading & wing loading

we have utter rubbish being typed about the DM for the Hayate being awesome when if they actually flew the thing in combat they would see the DFing ability shrink considerably after taking hits
&
**NEWSFLASH** . . . . . hurting highly manuerverable planes was _NEVER_ meant to be easy

they dont know what data Oleg used

& they are ignoring the amazing E retainer . . . the LA-7 . . . because it flies on the allieds side prehaps ?

no no , the only plane they have problems with are _Japanese_ ones

show me where there isnt any bias amongst you<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you about the LA-7's E retention. It's total BS. Oleg won't change because of certain color star on the side. I challenge anyone to show me a VVS fighter that is significantly undermodelled. Even the LaGG and Mig are good fighters. Meanwhile the aircraft from the 2 historical enemies of Russia (Germany and USA) are handicapped in one way or another. A few examples:

USA-
.50 cals are horrible(compared to other 12.7mm)
P-38 has torque effects and snap stalls
P-38L rolls slower than the J
Mustang engine stops when u sneeze
P-47 roll rate is wrong
Mustang cannot reach top speed without overheating
P-51 explodes when pulling out of dives

Germany-
Muzzle flashes
Fw-190 cockpit view
109 engine stops with 1 bullet
Mk-108 and Mg151/20 too weak
Dirty cockpit glass on 109
262 too slow at altitude

Also, aircraft weight does not affect dive and zoom ability enough. This affects the German and US aircraft much more than it affects VVS and Japanese aircraft. Superior diving ability and zoom climbs of heavier aircraft is something that isn't shown in a chart. It's still a major factor in air combat.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------------

Japan is also a historic enemy of Russia/USSR.
Though I do expect the Ki's fm is a bit over-optimistic, probably done to get Japanese buyers of the sim.

HayateKid
04-03-2004, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aGunfighter:
Japan is also a historic enemy of Russia/USSR.
Though I do expect the Ki's fm is a bit over-optimistic, probably done to get Japanese buyers of the sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh great, another speculation. Sheesh.

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

PzKpfw
04-03-2004, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
The P-51 top speed at sea level was only 220mph.

yagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51 top speed @ SL 220?. According to the charts in AHT, the P-51A did 320 - 335mph @ SL, the P-51B/C did 350 - 370mph.

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.

chris455
04-03-2004, 09:07 AM
In all fairness, the Ki-84 does lose speed at higher altitudes.

I know this because @ SL up to circa 7,000m, I cannot outrun the Ki-84 in my P-47 (and I should NOT be able to)

Above 7,5 km I can easily extend away horizontally.

So, in this aspect the Ki-84 seems to be modelled correctly.

IMO it is in the area of maneuverability that the Ki-84 incurs no penalty at higher altitudes,
but this is mainly an AI thing, due to simplified flight model.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

Maple_Tiger
04-03-2004, 09:36 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>BigKahuna:
Hiyate--Im am giving up on trying to reason with you. You are using the Clinton --Definetion of "IS" defense. Simply absurd.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a cop out. But sure whatever. I'm just pointing out you dont have much evidence to back up tour reasoning. Anyway I consider it enough consolation that you've stopped claiming the ki-894Ib and Ic were made of wood.

Btw please feel free to quote me on this: IF I'm right the P-51H MAY have a top speed of only 380mph.

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

Here is one link on the P-51H
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_13.html

Here is another link. This has the Max speeds for the P-51H, P-51D/K, and P-51B\C.
http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51specs.shtml

This was one of the fasts planes in WW2 and the fasts P-51.

It could go 444mph at 5000ft, 463mph at 15000ft and a wopping 487mph(784kmhTAS) at 25000ft.

Even the P-51B\C and D\K had a higher max speed then the KI-84 lol.

Max speed for the P-51D was 437mph(703kmhTAS) at 25000ft.

Im sorry lol but the P-51H was alot faster then the KI-84 lol.... Lmao.

380mph was it's Cruise Speed... not it's Max speed lol.

Oh well, beleave what you will http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid79/p9158822c9eda67f1dd0b724a5f846229/fb18d0ec.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Sat April 03 2004 at 08:50 AM.]

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Sat April 03 2004 at 08:52 AM.]

lrrp22
04-03-2004, 10:11 AM
Yet FB's Frank has *exactly* the same top speed as the Middletown example. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also, TheP-51H climbed in the area of 5,000 ft per minute and was 40-50 mph faster at all altitudes than the Frank's most optimistic numbers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
As to the Frank it should do, what it actualy did, period. If its wrong prove it, thru tests document them with tracks etc. Submit the results to Oleg.

as I posted earlier with refrence citation, the Ki-84 "outmanouvered & outclimbed" the P-47N & P-51H in comparitive trials.

As to claims the Frank is modeled on the Middletown testshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. Oleg wont even accept US data on roll rates, or speeds, of US planes from AHT, but suddenly; he will blindly model the Ki-84 based soley on the middletown 1946 test data, err ya ok, erm r i g h t http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

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 Fri April 02 2004 at 03:08 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HayateKid
04-03-2004, 11:34 AM
<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 HayateKid:
The P-51 top speed at sea level was only 220mph.

yagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51 top speed @ SL 220?. According to the charts in AHT, the P-51A did 320 - 335mph @ SL, the P-51B/C did 350 - 370mph.

Regards, John Waters
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so you do know how not to take "reported internet claims" seriously.

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

HayateKid
04-03-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Yet FB's Frank has *exactly* the same top speed as the Middletown example. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What aircraft did they test at middletown? It was a Frank wasn't it? So where's the surprise?

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

chris455
04-03-2004, 12:30 PM
The Middletown Frank is problematic in that we have data for it's performance , but little hard info on what was done to the aircraft to extract that performance.

Alternate accounts ranging from new sparkplugs and high-test avaiation ethyl to a complete engine rebuild.

We don't really know the extent, perhaps someone with the Francillon work could share if any info is in there.

What is clear is that there is a significant discrepancy (388mph vs 427 mph) in top speed between the Middletown example and Japanese test records.

Some of us feel that the Middletown data wasn't the best data to model the FB Hayate with, since it probably wasn't attained by wartime models.

S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Sat April 03 2004 at 11:49 AM.]

WUAF_Badsight
04-03-2004, 01:17 PM
yea & no-one knows wether that test data was used or factory data

most web-site quoting Hayate top speeds are all using the same source

Francillion

id rather go with factory data for ANY plane in FB

& Irrp ..... the H model Mustang isnt in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

PzKpfw
04-03-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:

so you do know how not to take "reported internet claims" seriously.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me? first off, it does not mattter if it was posted in jest etc, all that does is reflect poorly on the poster. Second regardless it was adressed.

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
04-03-2004, 01:43 PM
"& Irrp ..... the H model Mustang isnt in FB"

I realize that Badsight, but I keep seeing the claim that the Frank was found to outclimb the P-51H. The H would easily out-climb even the Middletown Frank.

BTW, it's LRRP- not IRRP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
yea & no-one knows wether that test data was used or factory data

most web-site quoting Hayate top speeds are all using the same source

Francillion

id rather go with _factory_ data for _ANY_ plane in FB

& Irrp ..... the H model Mustang isnt in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PzKpfw
04-03-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Yet FB's Frank has *exactly* the same top speed as the Middletown example. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes lrrp I am suprised, it's *obvious* You still dont get it. You actualy believe, Oleg would use US test data for the Frank.

Because the max speed matches, yet he scoffs @ NACA data, and alluded the Mustang did not have a laminar wing, yet concerning the Ki-84 he (once again for those that missed it) just blindlyaccepts some postwar US test data of the Frank as gospel. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What I would like to see, is someone post the contents of this Middletown test here, so we all can see & discuss them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, TheP-51H climbed in the area of 5,000 ft per minute and was 40-50 mph faster at all altitudes than the Frank's most optimistic numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


As for P-51H top speeds climb etc, I'm well aware of what the H could, & unlike some other s could not do. Nor does it change anything concerning the Frank's reportedly outmanouvereing & outclimbing both the P-47N & P-51H in wartime comparative trials.

An HP advantage does not translate into better climb rate or manouverability. Ie, up to 14,000ft the P-63A was superior to the P-51D/K in rate of climb, manouverability & speed; despite haveing less HP, Ie, 1325 vs 1490 @ SL, 1280 vs 1500 @ 10,000ft 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.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Sat April 03 2004 at 02:44 PM.]

HayateKid
04-03-2004, 02:50 PM
In a certain book about the air war in the pacific (i forgot the title i just perused it in the store) it was mentioned (i'll paraphrse as best i can remember):

The ki-84 was a superb fighter and ouperformed even the p-51H and p-47N, though production problems limited its impact in the war.

something like that. no specifics about speed or what the performance criteria was. this is not my claim, i'm just repeating what i read in that book.

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

HayateKid
04-03-2004, 03:11 PM
Guys,

Why don't we give the ki-84 (Oleg's modelling of it) the benefit of the doubt. I'm posting again the relevant quotes from my post above that suggest there could be a more accurate source of ki-84 performance. In any case I would certainly trust Oleg's research.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In Rene Francillon's book "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" he says that during the service trials the Ki-84 attained a top speed of 388 mph. I take this to mean that the prototype reached this speed. Also the prototype aircraft used 1,800 hp engines where as the production aircraft used 1,900 hp engines Homare [Ha-45] 11, and 12. It would seem logical that the higher horsepower engined aircraft were faster.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I have a copy of a translation of a captured document (hand written notes) of unknown reliability which indicates two maximum speeds for the Ki 84-1 (Light) and Ki 84-1 (Improved). The two speeds apparently relate to the Ha 45 rating of 2000 hp at 1500 meters and 1800hp at 6000 meters.

Ki 84-1 (Light) 664 kph (=412 mph) and 693 kph (=430 mph)

Ki 84-1 (Improved) 658 kph (=409 mph) and 688 kph (=427 mph).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
During the war TAIC rated Ki 84's max speed at 422 mph.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There are many instances when Japanese "official" figures are less than US tests and observed combat performance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

lrrp22
04-03-2004, 04:31 PM
John,

I don't think anybody can say what data Oleg used to model the Frank but the fact is that his speed data matches the speed curve from the Middletown test *exactly*- 584 kph at SL and 687 at 20,000 ft. Assuming that Oleg did use Japanese data, I find it extremely hard to believe that a stripped, underweight, and overboosted U.S.-flown Frank would test identically with a wartime combat-loaded Japanese Ki-84.

Frankly (pardon the pun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif), I think Oleg has a hard time accepting data the portrays U.S aircraft favorably. This is a fact I have come to accept. In Oleg's view, U.S. aircraft (P-39 excepted) performed well only at high altitude and he is apparently not receptive to data that proves otherwise.

I'm not going to argue over the P-51H vs. Ki-84 climb rates. Unless the Frank could climb at 5,000 fpm or more it just isn't worth discussing. Apparently it climbed at about 4200 fpm in the Middletown test, very similar to what could be expected from an underweight P-51D boosted to 80" HG WEP. BTW, 7th Fighter Command P-51D's flying from Iwo Jima (and probably Okinawa as well) ran at 80" WEP... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif That would give the Iwo Mustangs a top sea level speed of around 390 mph/627 kph. Maybe Oleg will give us one of these Mustangs in the Pacific expansion? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif


<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:
Yet FB's Frank has *exactly* the same top speed as the Middletown example. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes lrrp I am suprised, it's *obvious* You still dont get it. You actualy believe, Oleg would use US test data for the Frank.

Because the max speed matches, yet he scoffs @ NACA data, and alluded the Mustang did not have a laminar wing, yet concerning the Ki-84 he (once again for those that missed it) just _blindly_accepts some postwar US test data of the Frank as gospel. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What I would like to see, is someone post the contents of this Middletown test here, so we all can see & discuss them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, TheP-51H climbed in the area of 5,000 ft per minute and was 40-50 mph faster at all altitudes than the Frank's most optimistic numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


As for P-51H top speeds climb etc, I'm well aware of what the H could, & unlike some other s could not do. Nor does it change anything concerning the Frank's reportedly _outmanouvereing & outclimbing _ both the P-47N & P-51H in wartime comparative trials.

An HP advantage does not translate into better climb rate or manouverability. Ie, up to 14,000ft the P-63A was superior to the P-51D/K in rate of climb, manouverability & speed; despite haveing less HP, Ie, 1325 vs 1490 @ SL, 1280 vs 1500 @ 10,000ft 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.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Sat April 03 2004 at 02:44 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sat April 03 2004 at 03:41 PM.]

WUAF_Badsight
04-03-2004, 05:17 PM
mebe the middletown test was properganda http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

SkyChimp
04-03-2004, 05:36 PM
The Ki-84 test that everyone is referring to was not conducted at Middletown. That's where it was restored. It was tested at Wright Field.

And I'm not sure why people think the plane was hot-rodded. I've never seen any evidence of that.

The specimen tested was captured in almost perfect condition. It lacked armor and self sealing tanks. It was "restored" but not modified, AFAIK. And it may have used higher-grade fuel, but that is not necessarily going to increase power or speed.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

chris455
04-03-2004, 06:29 PM
You missed the war, Skychimp. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Nice to see you anyway.

Nice signature. I don't suppose you're looking forward to that Pacific Fighters thing, is you?
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

PS [QUOTE] "It lacked armor and self sealing tanks".

Hmmmmmmmmmm.That doesn't seem to be a problem with the FB Ki-84 at all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Sat April 03 2004 at 06:13 PM.]

VW-IceFire
04-03-2004, 10:06 PM
You know I don't get it...I flew the Ki-84 on a dogfight server recently and I found it to be an average jack of all trades kind of fighter with no real special abilities.

The DM model is overdone right now (so are most of the DM's anyways) but its a fairly average fighter in the company of the P-51D-20 the La-7 or the Yak-9U and presumably the Tempest V and the Spitfire XIV.

Its a tad bit faster than it should be at maximum altitude apparently but since most fights are in the 6000 meters and below (the average dogfight arena for ETO pilots anyways) it seems to matter little.

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

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-04-2004, 12:37 AM
Salute

I'm sorry, but when I hear comments that the higher octane fuel doesn't make any difference...

The evolution of the Merlin engine was almost entirely predicated on the availability of higher octane fuel. The Spitfire went from 1030hp to nearly 2000, at the same time as fuel octane ratings went from 87 octane to 150.

High Octane fuel allows an aircraft to run higher boost without detonation and the overheating and loss of power which results when using high boost with low octane fuels.

Since we know that overheating was problem which the Ki-84 commonly suffered from, it is clear that providing the aircraft with a fuel which does not suffer detonation at higher boost would allow the engine to run at normal temperature for longer periods and at higher boost.

We also know the aircraft was cleaned up, with paint removed to reduce drag, (unlike combat examples) leading edges carefully filled, and surfaces polished and sanded.

In regards to comments which suggest that the Ki-84 performance at high altitude is no big deal....

Sorry, but not all of us fly on lowest common denominator dogfight servers where the IQ matches the altitude where everyone fights.

Some of us like the idea of flying historically accurate servers and actually make a point of climbing to best performance altitude before engaging. And when we see the Ki84 happily outperforming Mustangs and Thunderbolts at 30,000 ft, we start to wonder.

WUAF_Badsight
04-04-2004, 02:35 AM
just filling up on higher octance makes no difference unless the motors state of tune allows for the benefits to be realised

the fact that the Hayate's higher alt performance suffered had a lot to do with historical operating difficultys

which you dont see in FB

so you wont see the Hayate suffer at high alt as much as it did in real life

same goes for all planes

PikeBishop
04-04-2004, 02:57 AM
Dear all,

Just wanted to say to whoever itwas that mentioned about KI84's being as easy to shoot down as a Zero that, that is typical anecdotal opinion that cannot be used as hard data. The mere weight of the fighter tells one that the structural strength must be geater than the zero's. And with a design that late in the war as with other Jap types some of that weight would have gone towards protection (or was it just rocks??)

Regards

SLP

PikeBishop
04-04-2004, 09:00 AM
Also.......
By the end of this I think I'll have enough information about this aircraft to get a PhD out of it!!!....Keep going boy's more info's coming in all the time. I'll say one thing though I can always pick up who is from the USA.....maneuverability is spelt manoeuverability you naughty boy's.

Regards,

SLP

SkyChimp
04-04-2004, 09:09 AM
You miss the point, Buzzsaw.

Simply dumping higher octane fuel into an engine is not going to increase power. It may allow for longer operating periods at high manifold pressure before detontation begins, but it will not necessarily allow for more horsepower.

In order to get more horsepower, the engine has to be retuned to take advantage of the greater capabilities of the fuel. The engine and throttle settings have to be mechanically modified to generate a higher manifold pressure (power).

Pouring higher grade fuel into an engine tuned to operate on a lower grade fuel may allow it to operate longer without detontation - not more power. But once the engine is modified to run at a higher manifold pressure on that higher grade fuel, the length of time it could operate without detonation is back down to where it was before on lower grade fuel.

For instance, the USAAF's P-51D operated on both 130 and 150 grade fuel. If tuned to operate on 130, Combat Power manifold pressure rating was 67"hg. If tuned to run on 150 grade, it was (IIRC)72"hg. But both had a 5 minute time limitation for the use of combat power. Dumping 150 grade into an engine tuned to 130 grade may have allowed for a greater than 5 minute time limitation. Dumping 130 into an plane tuned to run on 150 may have significantly reduced it.

Higher grade fuel will allow for longer times before detonation, or more power if the engine if retuned. But not both at the same time.

That brings me back to the Ki-84 tested at Wright. The plane was "restored," not modified. What would have been the purpose of testing a plane in a configfuration that didn't exist. The use of higher octane fule was probably incidental in that test, as I'm sure 87 octane simply was not available.

And I'm not sure about the "paint being removed, sanded, and filled." The plane was a very good example when captured. Here is a picture of the very plane that was tested AFTER it was restored. It looks painted to me. Not only that, it has bomb racks:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/302_1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/302_2.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/302_3.jpg

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

VW-IceFire
04-04-2004, 09:09 AM
Ooops...double post wackyness.

[This message was edited by VW-IceFire on Sun April 04 2004 at 08:18 AM.]

VW-IceFire
04-04-2004, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear all,

Just wanted to say to whoever itwas that mentioned about KI84's being as easy to shoot down as a Zero that, that is typical anecdotal opinion that cannot be used as hard data. The mere weight of the fighter tells one that the structural strength must be geater than the zero's. And with a design that late in the war as with other Jap types some of that weight would have gone towards protection (or was it just rocks??)

Regards

SLP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is true...although I've only read anecdotal evidence with regards to the Ki-84's durability I have seen it mentioned everywhere that the Ki-84 did not suffer as most other Japanese designs from having poor protection and that it was capable of withstanding hits that would have doomed other Japanese fighters.

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

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-04-2004, 02:15 PM
Salute Chimp

Have a look at this page and you will see clearly that it was stripped:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/captured/capturedfrom/TAIC/TAICS17/taicswpa_s17.htm

Second, my readings on this subject said the aircraft was 'tuned' for maximum performance with high octane fuel. Which obviously meant that it had its boost modified. Which would give it higher than normal performance.

It weighed less than the standard Ki-84 as well, at 7490 lbs.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Sun April 04 2004 at 01:26 PM.]

chris455
04-04-2004, 02:43 PM
Buzzsaw
I'm sure Skychimp will want to answer this, but in the meantime, I believe IIRC, there were four (4) Ki84's tested.
The "Middletown Frank" (actually flown at Wright field) was only one of them, and I believe that was number 302.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

SkyChimp
04-04-2004, 02:48 PM
Buzzsaw, that's a different plane. That is not the plane restored at Middleton and tested at Wright. I posted something on this the last time you posted a picture of S17.

The US captured many Ki-84s. Only 4 were used for testing.

There were two captured at Clark Field, Philippines. The first was given the TAIU number S10. That plane crashed following its first test flight.

The second was also captured at Clark Field, Philippines. It was given the TAIU number S17. It was tested IN the Philippines against the P-51D, F6F-5 Hellcat and a Seafire. The plane in the picture you posted IS this plane. This plane still exists, and is now in the Kyoto-Arashiyama Museum in Japan.

The other two Ki-84s were captured at Utsunomiya South Military Airfield in Japan. They were serial numbered 2366 and 3060 and were shipped to the United States on board the USS Barnes in November 1945. One of the planes was given evaluation number FE-301/T2-301, and the other was given the number FE-302/T2-302. Both were restored at Middleton, but T2-302 was the plane tested at Wright. T2-302 is the plane in the picture I posted.

Here is a picture of 301:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/ki84.jpg

My sources, that detail the history of these 4 planes, don't say 302 was modified, only restored.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-04-2004, 03:14 PM
Salute Chimp

Thanks for the information. Until I find otherwise, I will accept it.

However, the facts remain that the aircraft was described as being 'tuned'. And specific mention was made that it used high octane fuel. Finally, the report clearly qualifies the results with the note that performance attained during the tests was NOT indicative of Japanese flown Franks.

All of this makes clear that the performance results of the Wright field tests cannot be accepted as a reliable guide to how the actual plane performed while in combat service.

I would be very interested to see the Phillipines test results. There is no question that those were recorded and filed somewhere in the USAAF records.

The issues remain:

1) Overall speed of the aircraft

2) High altitude performance

3) High speed maneuverability

4) Durability

SkyChimp
04-04-2004, 06:20 PM
Here is S10

http://www.pluth.net/captured/capturedfrom/TAIC/TAICS10/ap-taic10-1.jpg

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Korolov
04-04-2004, 06:57 PM
I think that the Ki-84-Ia model is probably modeled the most correctly. However, the Ic seems to have some issues with it's DM - it appears as though the Ic is tougher than the Ia. Might just be me, however.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
04-04-2004, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:

The issues remain:

1) Overall speed of the aircraft

2) High altitude performance

3) High speed maneuverability

4) Durability
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok to No1 : its speed is bang on perfect with the quoted object viewer speed

to No2 : high Alt performance was toned down since v1.22
what more do you want ?

to No3 : wheres the proof that it was a dog at high speed like some on the board want it to be ?

to No4 : fly the thing in combat & then come back here and still try & say its too tuff

planes (as in all of them) seem to be a little harder to take down

the Hayate on the other hand is too weak

its wings seem to be paper

as soon as they recieve hits your top speed drops dramatically & the turning ability also gets stuffed

what more do you want ?

WUAF_Badsight
04-04-2004, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

My sources, that detail the history of these 4 planes, don't say 302 was modified, only restored.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but people in this thread & in other KI-84 threads have all jumped on the "american tests were Hot-Rodded" bandwagon

they have one & all (the detractors) jumped up & down about the Hayate never being able to do 427 Mph @ 6100m

BECAUSE they all said the american test was of a HOT-RODDED Hayate

were they all wrong

were they just lying

was the 427 Mph speed done by a standard Hayate with american gas

VERY INTERESTING IF IT WAS WOULDNT YOU SAY Lrrp

we have heard Kimura state that Oleg maddox had some Japanese data for the Hayate

we know the japanese had 100 octane fuel during WW2

we know that some of the trouble that Hayates had at high Alt was due to the condition they were maintained in

so the question about the speed should be :

"what could a brand new Hayate do at 6000m in the spec it was ment to be in from the factory"

de-tuneing them to suit lower octane fuel was a necessary step due to fuel shortage

i.e. NOT ITS INTENDED STATE OF OPERATION

the best factory data was used for the Bf109's & the FW-190's

the american planes are moddeled to factory data

WHY SHOULD IT BE ANY DIFFERENT FOR THE KI-84 ????

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-04-2004, 11:01 PM
Salute

American planes are not modelled to factory data. Look at the speeds of the P-47D22 and D27 at sea level.

In regards to fuel, the availability of 100 octane fuel in the IJAAF was essentially nil. They used 87 octane.

WUAF_Badsight
04-05-2004, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:

In regards to fuel, the availability of 100 octane fuel in the IJAAF was essentially nil. They used 87 octane.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

its a common myth that they didnt have any

the point being wether the Hayate was meant to be run on 100 Octane & had its performance evaluated in testing by the Nakajima factory under this fuel

saying that it was only ever tuned for 87 octane is like saying the p-47 was never over-boosted in the feild

& yes the Mustang & P-47 might not go as fast a s feild mustangs or P-47s but its true to factory specs

HayateKid
04-05-2004, 09:30 AM
Thank you, thank you Badsight! So have we all come to a happy agreement now?

Can we lift the ban on ki-84Ic on dogfight servers now?

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

Stalker58
04-05-2004, 10:39 AM
Maybe the Ki 84 is bit overmodelled, but what is La7 then?

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

butch2k
04-05-2004, 12:01 PM
AFAIK there were 3 grades of fuel in use within the Japanese AF : 87, 91 and 100 octane. The later was very scarce and only a few engine required it for running. Note that the Hayate engine was designed for running on 92 octane fuel not 100 octane.
If i check the ATAD manual (dated July 44) i get 422mph@21000 ft and if if check the TAIC manual (dated March 45) i get 427@20000 ft.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-05-2004, 02:51 PM
Salute Butch

Excellent. Perhaps you could post those pages? Although of course, the figures in the manuals were taken from test aircraft at the factory, running on 92 octane fuel, and thus not representative of those in the field.

This would be because, after the Phillipines were retaken by the U.S., the high quality oil supply from Balikpapan and Indonesia was essentially cut off. The interdiction by U.S. submarines and aircraft was such that it was rare for a tanker to get through. To quote the official U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey taken after the war:

"Oil imports from the south began declining in August 1943, and had been eliminated by April 1945. Crude oil stocks were virtually exhausted; refinery operations had to be curtailed; and stocks of aviation gasoline fell to less than 1,500,000 barrels, a point so low as to require a drastic cut in the pilot-training program and even in combat air missions"

After September 1943, the ratio of petroleum successfully shipped from the southern regions that reached Japan never exceeded 28%, and during the last 15 months of the war the ratio only averaged 9%.

The Japanese then had to rely on poor quality fuel imported from Manchuria and China, much of it refined from coal stocks. This fuel was low octane. My understanding was that very little of it was 92 octane, if any.

If the Hayate was intended to run on 92 octane fuel, and had to make do with 87 octane, that would explain the clear performance difference between the aircraft tested by the factory, and those used in the field. Obviously, the aircraft would not be able to run at the boost designed for 92 octane when using 87 octane, without risking damage or serious overheating.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Mon April 05 2004 at 02:14 PM.]

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Mon April 05 2004 at 02:38 PM.]

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-05-2004, 03:35 PM
Salute

More notes on manufacturing standards reductions due to lack of fuel:

The Japanese significantly reduced aircraft engine testing due to lack of aviation gas: from about 8 hours and 5 flights for each engine in 1941 to 2 hours of testing on the engines built at war's end.

This was another reason why defects were so often seen in service aircraft. The lack of testing meant that engines with flaws routinely were sent to combat units.

dahdah
04-05-2004, 03:46 PM
When do we get the skew gear failures of the Merlins modelled? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif This problem was never received a definate "bulletproof" fix.

PzKpfw
04-05-2004, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute Butch

Excellent. Perhaps you could post those pages? Although of course, the figures in the manuals were taken from test aircraft at the factory, running on 92 octane fuel, and thus not representative of those in the field.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thats one thing many ppl forget discussing planes top speeds as all planes top speeds are set by the initial test AC's performance, production AC may never reach the test ACs speed, or even operational AC due to wear. As Dean put it:

One has to be very specific talking about maximum speed, being careful to define configuration,specific variant, altitude, weight condition, and engine power setting as well as condition of both airplane and engine.

either way it wouldn't make a difrence In Il-2 as the models are all factory spec'd except for Soviet AC.

Anyway if IL-2 modeled fuel specifics, it would have to, do it with Soviet, & German planes as well as they both suffered from poor quality fuels 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.

WUAF_Badsight
04-05-2004, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
Thank you, thank you Badsight! So have we all come to a happy agreement now?

Can we lift the ban on ki-84Ic on dogfight servers now?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the C is overdone for DF servers dude

the B ki-84 is more than enough for any KI fan

SkyChimp
04-05-2004, 07:23 PM
Wait a minute now, why are you so sure the figures Butch gave are for planes tested at the factory?

TAIC was the Technical Air Intelligence Center at NAS Anacostia. One of the primary functions of TAIC was to determine enemy airplane and engine performance data. That's achieved through testing.

The figures in the TAIC manual are not figures for test aircraft at the factory, they are figures obtained by TAIC through the testing and evaluation of capture aircraft.

If the TAIC manual says the the Ki-84 flew 427 mph, then that's how fast the plane tested by TAIC flew. And that would be a captured service example, not a factory fresh plane.

As Butch stated, TAIC stated in it's manual dated March 1945 that the Ki-84 did 427 mph. In 1946 in a seperate test at Wright, another Ki-84 did 427 mph as well.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

SkyChimp
04-05-2004, 07:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:

Thats one thing many ppl forget discussing planes top speeds as all planes top speeds are set by the initial test AC's performance, production AC may never reach the test ACs speed, or even operational AC due to wear. As Dean put it:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would TAIC or ATAD have gotten Nakajima test data in July 1944 or March 1945?

They didn't.

I know the figures in the TAIC manual are from testing captured aircraft. Presumably the figures in the ATAD manual are as well.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

PzKpfw
04-05-2004, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:



How would TAIC or ATAD have gotten Nakajima test data in July 1944 or March 1945?

They didn't.

I know the figures in the TAIC manual are from testing captured aircraft. Presumably the figures in the ATAD manual are as well.

_Regards,_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chimp I never stated TAIC or ATAD used Nakajima test data etc. I'm not even discussing TAIC or ATAD data.

All the sources I have on the Ki-84 state a max speed of 388mph; presumably from primary Japanese data useing 92 octane.

If it did 427mph then thats what it should do, it would not be the first time numerous Aviation authors made mistakes in performance data.

Also I think the fuel used is a valid question
although not relevant to ACE modeling. The Brits used their AV fuel to test the Fw 190, the Soviets used their AV fuel to test German AC, and I have no doubt the US used their fuel.

British & US AV fuel was of a higher quality then Soviet, German or Japanese AV fuel on this their is no question. The question remains what effect did US/UK fuel have on performance if any?.

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.

SkyChimp
04-05-2004, 08:29 PM
Ever notice the Americans were the ones that got speeds in the 420 mph range? The Japanese themselves claimed lower speeds. I think the Americans were testing these planes at combat power, while Japanese figures represent military power.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-05-2004, 09:33 PM
Thanks Chimp for bringing much needed numbers to this thread.

-----

Non~technical -- about the "fuel" thing...

RAF74BuzzsawXO:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This would be because, after the Phillipines were retaken by the U.S., the high quality oil supply from Balikpapan and Indonesia was essentially cut off. The interdiction by U.S. submarines and aircraft was such that it was rare for a tanker to get through.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So, Japanese did have high quality oil (if not fuel). A dynamic campaign that has a different WAR result may not have this same history, and may allow 100 fuel for Japanese and may restrict Brits to run Spitfire on 87 fuel.

teh Spitfire simmers will NOT be Happy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

HellToupee
04-05-2004, 10:23 PM
we can still defeat them with our good looks.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

PzKpfw
04-05-2004, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Ever notice the Americans were the ones that got speeds in the 420 mph range? The Japanese themselves claimed lower speeds. I think the Americans were testing these planes at combat power, while Japanese figures represent military power.

_Regards,_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Chimp I think you could say a few ppl noticed the US results http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

So the Japanese never tested the Ki-84 except for MP?. Why would they not want to document the plane to it's full potential?.


After all a Japanese propeller service fighter that could attain 400mph+ would have been a milestone, at least when looking at Japanese SE prop fighters performance in my material, they all seem to be in the 360 - 380+ mph range, Ie,:

A6M8c - 360mph
J2M(5) - 382mph
Ki-44(IIc) - 376mph
Ki-61(II) - 379mph
Ki-84(Ia) - 388mph
Ki-100 - 367mph

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
04-06-2004, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the C is overdone for DF servers dude

the B ki-84 is more than enough for any KI fan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Total gun calibers of some aircraft

ki-84b - 66mm
Ki-84Ic - 100mm
P-47 - 101.6mm
FW190A8 - 106mm
Fw190A4 - 98mm
BF109Z - 120mm

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

lrrp22
04-06-2004, 12:52 PM
Pzkpfw and Chimp,

If 427 mph is the proper combat power speed and 388 is a military power speed, doesn't 35-40 mph seem like an awfully large increase above military power speed? Especially considering that the Homare was a single-stage supercharged engine that was probably thousands of feet above its rated altitude at 20,000 ft?

<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 SkyChimp:
Ever notice the Americans were the ones that got speeds in the 420 mph range? The Japanese themselves claimed lower speeds. I think the Americans were testing these planes at combat power, while Japanese figures represent military power.

_Regards,_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Chimp I think you could say a few ppl noticed the US results http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

So the Japanese never tested the Ki-84 except for MP?. Why would they not want to document the plane to it's full potential?.


After all a Japanese propeller service fighter that could attain 400mph+ would have been a milestone, at least when looking at Japanese SE prop fighters performance in my material, they all seem to be in the 360 - 380+ mph range, Ie,:

A6M8c - 360mph
J2M(5) - 382mph
Ki-44(IIc) - 376mph
Ki-61(II) - 379mph
Ki-84(Ia) - 388mph
Ki-100 - 367mph

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>

Korolov
04-06-2004, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
Total gun calibers of some aircraft

ki-84b - 66mm
Ki-84Ic - 100mm
P-47 - 101.6mm
FW190A8 - 106mm
Fw190A4 - 98mm
BF109Z - 120mm

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

Ki-84-1a - 65.4mm
Ki-84-1b - 80mm (that's FOUR 20mm cannon, you got your calculation wrong for the 1b)
P-38J - 70.8mm
P-51B - 50.8mm
P-51D - 76.2mm
P-63C - 62.4mm
P-39Q-1 - 87.8mm

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

butch2k
04-06-2004, 03:33 PM
According to the data just under my nose, 388mph is for military power, fighter being in overloaded condition (at 9124lb with two drop tanks), while 427mph is for fighter in normal load at WEP, max speed at military being 426mph at a slightly higher alt of 23000ft.
RoC is gicen as 4275ft/min @ Sl @WEP and 3790 military.
Max speed @ SL being 363mph with WEP and 350 on military.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-06-2004, 09:46 PM
Salute

Great stuff Butch.

How about you post the originals?

Then we can see what the boost used was, the fuel used, load, etc.

Clear up the issue. No reason to keep them a secret, right?

WhiskeyRiver
04-07-2004, 03:51 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 WUAF_Badsight:
the C is overdone for DF servers dude

the B ki-84 is more than enough for any KI fan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Total gun calibers of some aircraft

ki-84b - 66mm
Ki-84Ic - 100mm
P-47 - 101.6mm
FW190A8 - 106mm
Fw190A4 - 98mm
BF109Z - 120mm

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

And that means....nothing. Total gun caliber means nothing. Ammo loadouts, ammo effectiveness, gun accuracy, gun configuration, and incorrect damage model all factor into the equation.

The Golden Rule also applies.

"He who hosts the server can do anything they damn well please"

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

HayateKid
04-07-2004, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
Total gun calibers of some aircraft

ki-84b - 66mm
Ki-84Ic - 100mm
P-47 - 101.6mm
FW190A8 - 106mm
Fw190A4 - 98mm
BF109Z - 120mm

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

Ki-84-1a - 65.4mm
Ki-84-1b - 80mm (that's FOUR 20mm cannon, you got your calculation wrong for the 1b)
P-38J - 70.8mm
P-51B - 50.8mm
P-51D - 76.2mm
P-63C - 62.4mm
P-39Q-1 - 87.8mm

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, so the A and B are in the mid-range class, and C is in the heavy firepower class.

the point is, the C was a real airplane. there was such a thing. there was also such a thing as a fw190A8. unless, we are calling for handicapping in dogfights, it's not the Hayate's fault or the FW's fault that there was no P-51 with 8 cannons.

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

chris455
04-07-2004, 03:38 PM
HayateKid, please.

If you're going to begin classifying WWII aircraft according to a table you made up, don't you think you should first establish the validity of your table (good luck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)
before referring to it to "prove" your point?

Statements like "it's not the Hayate's fault or the FW's fault that there was no P-51 with 8 cannons" show how wonky your argument has become.

There actually are people posting here that have data http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=data
(Skychimp, Butch2K, et al).

Listen to what they are saying. It may help you learn the standards that apply for making a rational argument in the community that has any chance of being generally accepted.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

dahdah
04-07-2004, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice table, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif now what is the weight of fire (that is the weight of the projectiles) say for a 3 second burst.

WUAF_Badsight
04-07-2004, 05:19 PM
its easy to see his point

the Hayate doesnt have the biggest armament in caliber size

no special decoding required

its just that the Ki-C is cheesy to use



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
HayateKid, please.

If you're going to begin classifying WWII aircraft according to a table you__ made up__, don't you think you should first establish the validity of your table (good luck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)
before referring to it to "prove" your point?

Statements like "it's not the Hayate's fault or the FW's fault that there was no P-51 with 8 cannons" show how wonky your argument has become.

There actually are people posting here that have data http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=data
(Skychimp, Butch2K, et al).

Listen to what they are saying. It may help you learn the standards that apply for making a rational argument in the community that has any chance of being generally accepted.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
04-08-2004, 07:22 AM
/

HayateKid
04-08-2004, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
HayateKid, please.

If you're going to begin classifying WWII aircraft according to a table you__ made up__, don't you think you should first establish the validity of your table (good luck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)
before referring to it to "prove" your point?

Statements like "it's not the Hayate's fault or the FW's fault that there was no P-51 with 8 cannons" show how wonky your argument has become.

There actually are people posting here that have data http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=data
(Skychimp, Butch2K, et al).

Listen to what they are saying. It may help you learn the standards that apply for making a rational argument in the community that has any chance of being generally accepted.
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you're putting more weight to the table than even I intended.

if you want to question the significance of the data, you should do so, rather than question the accuracy. it is not a *made-up* table. you can do it yourself. just add the caliber sizes of the guns. there's your data.

to be honest, i haven't seen verification of skychimp and butch2k's claims yet. i'm not complaining because they agree with Oleg, and I trust Oleg.

Badsight and Korolov, got my point. Just based on total caliber size, the Hayate is not exceptional.

Firepower of course is more than just caliber size. Dadah is right. And WhiskeyRiver, except when he said caliber size means "nothing". It means something. You can get some rough estimation of power. But it's not everything.

Can I make the argument that the Hayate is not exceptional, basing only on caliber size? Sure I can. The original contention (by Badsight) is that the C is "more than enough". And that the B is enough. What is the standard for "enough". Since the difference between the B and C is just armament and "enough" was not used in precise measurable terms, then I can talk about armament roughly as well.

I chose to point out caliber size as an obvious and easy data point to compare. I will accept Dadah's challenge that the weight of fire is more important. Dahdah, please compile this data if you want.

My guess is that with *rough* approximation total caliber size follows the curve of weight of fire. In other words, I can use the simpler measurement and the argument is still valid: the Hayate does not have exceptional firepower.

If you want to prove me wrong, prove me wrong with data.

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

PzKpfw
04-08-2004, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
According to the data just under my nose, 388mph is for military power, fighter being in overloaded condition (at 9124lb with two drop tanks), while 427mph is for fighter in normal load at WEP, max speed at military being 426mph at a slightly higher alt of 23000ft.
RoC is gicen as 4275ft/min @ Sl @WEP and 3790 military.
Max speed @ SL being 363mph with WEP and 350 on military.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting Butch, Gunston shows a weight of 8276lbs @ 388mph, & 9150lbs for overload. Can
you get a scan for us, of your data & post it?.

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.

chris455
04-08-2004, 02:49 PM
HayateKid,
using the same shoot-from-the-hip approach as you did for determing relative firepower, I developed a table of my own. Except that, instead of concentratign on total bore size (as you did) I decided to use an equally arcane criterion, cartridge case length:

Ki-84C.................114mm

P-51D..................99mm

A6M5...................101mm

Me109K4................90mm

Or, maybe weight of shot:

Ki-84C.................253gms

P-51D..................43.3gms

A6M5...................128gms

La7....................52gms

Are things becoming clearer now? In each case I am able to show the Ki-84 "excels" by using only the data that suits my already arrived at conclusion. This is exactly what I beleive you did in your table. Then you tell us "You are placing far too much importance on my comparison" (then why did you post it?) and "If I'm wrong, prove me wrong with data" (exactly what I challenged you to use instead of resorting to your previously posted voodoo).

Firpower cannot be assessed by simply examining one or two criteria and then saying this or that aircraft belongs to an overall category of A,B,or C. It's more complicated than that. A great reference to judge relative gun strengths of WWII fighters can be found here:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

You asked for data, there is exactly a boatload of it in there. Use it. But above all, note how the author examines several criteria before ariving at any conclusions.

Mark Twain said "There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics".

Hayate, statistics such as you posted aren't the same as data. Data is much less interpretational. Stick with accepted forms of data.

If your "tables" represent a valid approach to examining relative firepower, then we must assume that a Revolutionary War soldier with his .69 caliber Charleville musket outguns 3 modern soldiers with their .223 caliber M-16s!
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Thu April 08 2004 at 02:00 PM.]

WUAF_Badsight
04-08-2004, 03:17 PM
not to mention that swooping down at people whilst flying the KI-C is C H E E S Y http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HayateKid
04-08-2004, 03:30 PM
Chris455
Now you're just being ridiculous. Did you really have an expectation that cartridge length would follow the curve of firepower effectiveness.

Btw, what the heck are comparing the Hayate C to P-51, Zero, La7, and K4. I already know the C had heavier firepower than those. Talk about irrelevant statistics. Check my table again, which planes I compared the C against.


And your example of the revolutionary soldier's musket vs modern M-16 is just taking my argument out of context. I did not compare guns 200 years apart. You did.

I already said that I expect caliber size to follow roughly the curve of weight of fire.

Show me that my expectation is not accurate. Please do the honor of calculating the weight of fire for the Hayate C, the Fw190A8, Fw190A4, and Bf109Z (you can even include the P-47 although it did not have cannons). I'd love to see if the the Hayate C truly excels over these other planes.

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

HayateKid
04-08-2004, 03:31 PM
Badsight, i heard you the first time. Cheesy. I got it. You're starting to convince me.

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

chris455
04-08-2004, 03:42 PM
"First learn logic, then learn argue. Nature rule, Hayate-san, not mine" - Chris455 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

HayateKid
04-09-2004, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
"First learn logic, then learn argue. Nature rule, Hayate-san, not mine" - Chris455 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"If all else fails, resort to personal attacks." - Anonymous

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

dahdah
04-09-2004, 10:11 AM
weight of fire for some WW2 a/c.(3 sec. burst)

P-51/F6F - 16lb(6 .50")
Yak 3 - 20lb(1 20mm, 2 12.7mm)
Fw190D - 26lb(2 20mm, 2 13mm)
J2M3 - 31lb(4 20mm)
Tempest - 40lb(4 20mm)
Me262 - 96lb(4 30mm)
Me109E - 13lb(2 20mm, 2 7.9mm))
Spitfire I - 10lb(8 .303")
Me110C - 16lb(2 20mm, 4 7.9mm)
P-47 - 21lb(8 .50")
M406 - 12lb(1 20mm, 2 7.5mm)
I-16 - 28lb(2 20mm, 2 7.6mm)

butch2k
04-10-2004, 04:01 AM
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/ki84-perfdata1.jpg

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

dahdah
04-10-2004, 05:11 AM
Thanks Butchhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV
04-10-2004, 05:24 AM
Well, I haven`t gone through this entire thread, but just read on some info in my Jane`s WWII fighters book:

Qoute:
`When the ki-84 entered combat over China in the summer of 1944 Allied fighter pilots immediately recognised the new enemy as an equal if flown by a MODERATELY trained pilot. It was regarded as the finest of all Japanese fighters, able to handle any Allied fighter or intercept the high flying B-29.

In spite of a troublesome engine and gear prone to buckle, the KI-84 was loved by its pilots whether as a fighter or fighter bomber. When Allied pilots had a chance to test one they found out why: it EASILY bested the P-51H and the P-47N!

In spite of all the problems, most due to poor manufacturing, when Hayate units moved to the Philippines they gave American Navy and Army pilots the most serious opposition of the Campaign.

It retained sterling manoeuvrability whilst gaining the performance needed to meet the Allies on an equal basis. From the beginning, armament was what it should have been for a modern fighter: four 12.7 mm mgs or two 12.7 mm guns plus two 20mm cannon and two 30mm cannon.
By any standards such a potent variety of weapons made this aircraft LETHAL in even brief encounters.`

End quote.

It seems to me that the KI-84 is pretty much accurate.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

PzKpfw
04-10-2004, 01:42 PM
Thanks Butch..

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.

Giganoni
04-10-2004, 05:25 PM
Hehe, just my two cents. There has been some talk of the Ki-84 I b and c having wood components. No, only started with the Ki-84 IIs.

Also..as to the dm being to great well, 13mm armor and 75mm glass. Facing against .50 cal mgs? Well, I don't think it would do too bad.

Also on this thread there is a desire by some people, I believe to champion American planes over all others. Also, I believe there are some that really want to disprove this myth. So some people have this bias. One must realize that sources where you get your data could have a bias. Japanese data (such as kill data for the Toryu for example) could be biased in favor of the Ki-84, or Allied data could be biased against the Ki-84.

As for me, I personally believe that when working, the Ki-84 was the better aircraft in a LOW alt dogfight. Better than the three Ps, P-38, P-47, and P-51. In the end none of us here flew a Ki-84 during the war so we really don't know. We can use pilot accounts, but pilots too don't always have to tell the truth do they?

ZG77_Nagual
04-10-2004, 05:41 PM
I agree - the F8f bearcat was the counterpart for the Ki.

pinche_bolillo
04-10-2004, 08:11 PM
here is my problem with the data provided. I have a book with the title TAIC manual also. My book was written by Edward T. Maloney isbn # 0915464032 and, on page 133-134 the frank can be found. My book has the exact same performance figures as those posted by somebody before, but here is the difference. In my book under "GENERAL DATA" mine is not blank like that which is posted earlier. here is what my book states

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.

so it is obvious that this data is pure speculation by the taic and that they lacked sufficiant data about the Ki-84 before they filed the report. they even used values for the OSCAR to calculate performance. most likely because they OSCAR is a known more familiar a/c.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/230_1081512293_bolillo_loco.jpg

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-10-2004, 11:03 PM
Salute

Excellent material Butch. Thankyou.

What I immediately notice is that the fuel that is used is 92 octane. So the issue of whether or not the aircraft could perform up to the test standards with the fuel the Japanese were receiveing at their depots is a definite question.

Methanol/Water mixture is also required.

The other issue is how long WEP and Military power can be used for. It's unclear to me whether or not the 1 listed under Min. in the "Climb-Ceiling" chart is indicative of how long WEP can be used for. Probably not, but if Butch has any information on this it would be helpful.

I would also be interested in the comments made by the test pilots in regards to the aircraft's handling.

It is also clear from the climb and speed charts that this aircraft's performance went south FAST after the 20,000 ft peak.

The existing FORGOTTEN BATTLES Frank could use some tuning to align it more correctly with these results.

lrrp22
04-10-2004, 11:09 PM
"Also on this thread there is a desire by some people, I believe to champion American planes over all others."

Quite the opposite in fact. The intent of many here is to portray the Ki-84 as some kind of wonder weapon, totally dominant over U.S. aircraft. If you can get beyond the unsupported and unacredited 'Easily bested a P-51H' quotes (patently ridiculous, BTW) you would find that USN and USAAF pilots respected it but treated it little different than other Japanese fighters: don't turn with it and keep your speed up.

Competitive? Yes. Dominant? Certainly not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
Hehe, just my two cents. There has been some talk of the Ki-84 I b and c having wood components. No, only started with the Ki-84 IIs.

Also..as to the dm being to great well, 13mm armor and 75mm glass. Facing against .50 cal mgs? Well, I don't think it would do too bad.

Also on this thread there is a desire by some people, I believe to champion American planes over all others. Also, I believe there are some that really want to disprove this myth. So some people have this bias. One must realize that sources where you get your data could have a bias. Japanese data (such as kill data for the Toryu for example) could be biased in favor of the Ki-84, or Allied data could be biased against the Ki-84.

As for me, I personally believe that when working, the Ki-84 was the better aircraft in a LOW alt dogfight. Better than the three Ps, P-38, P-47, and P-51. In the end none of us here flew a Ki-84 during the war so we really don't know. We can use pilot accounts, but pilots too don't always have to tell the truth do they?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SeaFireLIV
04-12-2004, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:

`If you can get beyond the unsupported and unacredited 'Easily bested a P-51H' quotes (patently ridiculous, BTW)`


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QUOTE]

I `m just quoting what I read in Janes book of WWII fighters. I have no favourtism either way to Japanese aircraft (prefering the Western/Eastern Front myself). I would rather believe a credited historical book than some guy on the forum

Sorry, if the book goes against your personal point of view.

Storm_Bird
04-12-2004, 08:10 AM
Japanese fighter in second world war is very easy to shot down. It's armor is too weak anyway. 7.62MG is enough to ko it.

http://http://www.52dby.com/non-cgi/usr/16/16_931_1.jpg

lrrp22
04-12-2004, 08:58 AM
SeaFire,

My post wasn't directed at you personally but at the quote.

I have the same book and have also read the quote and I can see no justification for that conclusion within the Jane's work or anywhere else. The relative performance numbers seem to point sharply to the opposite being true.





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

`If you can get beyond the unsupported and unacredited 'Easily bested a P-51H' quotes (patently ridiculous, BTW)`


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I `m just quoting what I read in Janes book of WWII fighters. I have no favourtism either way to Japanese aircraft (prefering the Western/Eastern Front myself). I would rather believe a credited historical book than some guy on the forum

Sorry, if the book goes against your personal point of view.[/QUOTE]

HayateKid
04-12-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
Also, I believe there are some that really want to disprove this myth. So some people have this bias. One must realize that sources where you get your data could have a bias. Japanese data (such as kill data for the Toryu for example) could be biased in favor of the Ki-84, or Allied data could be biased against the Ki-84.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

except that popular japanese sources actually understate the performance of the hayate. if the allied source says the hayate is crap, then you'd have reason to suspect bias, but the allied sources actually say it is a superb fighter.

about the ki-84 outclimbing and outmaneuvering the p-51h and p-47n: i think there's no doubt about the "outmaneuvering" part. what people are challenging is the "outclimbing" part. i've heard only american sources on the p-51H, so it is still possible the bias is there. the published p-51h performance could simply be hyped up.

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

DJDalton
04-12-2004, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
KI-84 FM is BS pure and simple. It's doesn't lose control authority one bit at high speeds. It's armored like a tank and it's too fast. The one in the Middletown Air Depot test was "modified" and not an example of a production Ki-84. The description of the test say that the engine was modified to take advantage of higher octane gasoline. To me that means more boost from the supercharger.

If the japanese aircraft get hotrodded engines why can;t we get P-47's with the hotrodded motors. It's was common practice late in the war to turn up the boost via wastegate linkage adjustment on P-47 engines when high octane gas was available. This was described in Robert Johnson's and Gabby Gabreski's books'.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whiskey, I think the modification was reliable high pressure fuel injection. I'm having trouble relocating what I'd found previously upon it. Can you quote your source...maybe that will lead me in the right direction.

thx

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

DJDalton
04-12-2004, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute Kweassa

It is not only that it is too fast at its best altitude for speed, which was approx. 20,000 ft, it is that it continues to perform superbly right up to 30,000 ft, whereas the actual aircraft's performance fell off rapidly. And 20mph faster is not a small difference. Especially considering it reaches that speed very quickly, as opposed to many other aircraft which take forever to reach maximum speed.

The acceleration of the aircraft was not that good, as seen by the climbrate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My questions involve the climb rate. The plane was obviously an aerodynamic design, but I've never read it could climb like it does in the game. With a hot enough engine, any plane will climb, but something seems amiss with the Frank in online game play as compared to other late war hot rods. It wasn't that dominant.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

DJDalton
04-12-2004, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
Before you whine about the Ki-84, reflect on these quotes:

"Forget it - it's a Frank."

"The Hayate was fully the equal of even the most advanced Allied fighters which opposed it, and was often their superior in many important respects. It was well armed and armored, was fast, and was very maneuverable."

You may have your own conception of how the production quality problems of the Hayate should affect its performance. Just remember that praise for the Hayate was based on actual encounters of them.

"Despite these problems the Hayate was essentially a superb fighter..."

If you get frustrated fighting a Ki-84 in FB/AEP that you are compelled to avoid it and say "forget it -- it's a Frank", then Oleg has done a good job modelling it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theres a vast difference between scrambling parked P-51's to catch an intruder that shows up on radar and running down that intruder while in the air under full power. Most Japanese planes had comparably slow cruise speeds. It might be a mistake to equate a radar operator commenting upon blip movement with a conclusion that the Franks which saw service were too fast for Mustangs to catch. I don't think thats remotely true. The comments from Mustang flyers engaged in battle with them are far more credible

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

VW-IceFire
04-12-2004, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Storm_Bird:
Japanese fighter in second world war is very easy to shot down. It's armor is too weak anyway. 7.62MG is enough to ko it.

http://http://www.52dby.com/non-cgi/usr/16/16_931_1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not entirely correct. The Tony and the Frank are considered exceptions to the otherwise lightly armored brethren that they opperated alongside.

Franks sported armor in key areas....it wasn't a tough fighter by any stretch of the imagination but it wasn't the barely protected Zero or Oscar.

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

WUAF_Badsight
04-13-2004, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
SeaFire,

The relative performance numbers seem to point sharply to the opposite being true.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

err no they dont

the Hayate had better accell & climb & turn

so what if your faster

all of the above negates your speed in attack

the comment about "forget it , its a Frank" seems to be about forget attacking it

why ?

wouldnt it be because it was dangerous

your holding onto the the P-51H speed & saying that made it superior is laughable

speed alone means nothing when your bandit can do everything else better

WUAF_Badsight
04-13-2004, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:

any plane will climb, but something seems amiss with the Frank in online game play as compared to other late war hot rods. It wasn't that dominant.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


first of all you dont know how much more dominant over the Bf109 range it was

except for ; ......

it had a lower weight

it had better power loading

it had better wing loading

it had similer power

what makes you think it was a worse climber when all its performance stats that matter show it being better ?

dahdah
04-13-2004, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:



the comment about "forget it , its a Frank" seems to be about forget attacking it

why ?

wouldnt it be because it was dangerous

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no, no. That statatement was made by pilots on the ground, on Okinawa, watching a radar CRT during the final weeks of the war. This was a most 'popular pastime' waiting for a likely target to appear and then scrambling to intercept the intruder. The speed at which the 'blip' moved across the screen said it was a Frank and that there would be no hope of catching it.

If the Frank was doing 300mph(482kph) it would be covering 5mi(8km) every minute. You do the math to see how long it would take the P-51s to catch it from a standing start. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

HayateKid
04-13-2004, 08:30 AM
yes, "forget it it's a frank", was in reference to interception.

but the second quote i mentioned was:


"The Hayate was fully the equal of even the most advanced Allied fighters which opposed it, and was often their superior in many important respects. It was well armed and armored, was fast, and was very maneuverable."

i believe with the above paragraph in consideration, "forget it it's a frank" is also appropriate for already in the air encounters, wouldn't you agree?

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

[This message was edited by HayateKid on Tue April 13 2004 at 09:30 AM.]

lrrp22
04-13-2004, 09:59 AM
Err, yes they do. Have you even bothered to compare them? The H was 50-60 mph faster at all altitudes than even the most optimistic Frank numbers, it climbed much better at well over 5,000 ft/min in combat power, and it handled better at all but low speed. The P-51H's powerloading was as good or better and it was much cleaner aerodynamically. The Frank's only advantage was low speed turning.

Badsight, for once, please support your statements with some kind of supported facts.

BTW, better climb and low speed turn do not necessarily negate a speed advantage. P-51D pilots knew that the way to defeat the Frank (and most other Japanese fighters) was to keep their speed up and use their superior dive, zoom and high speed handling.

<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:
SeaFire,

The relative performance numbers seem to point sharply to the opposite being true.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

err no they dont

the Hayate had better accell & climb & turn

so what if your faster

all of the above negates your speed in attack

the comment about "forget it , its a Frank" seems to be about forget attacking it

why ?

wouldnt it be because it was dangerous

your holding onto the the P-51H speed & saying that made it superior is laughable

speed alone means nothing when your bandit can do everything else better<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

geetarman
04-13-2004, 10:08 AM
Badsight - numerous accounts are written of US pilots lining up and attacking Franks. Nobody, as far as the material I've read, ever thought about not attacking a Frank because it was dangerous in and of itself. Poor positioning, lack of altitude, etc., of course that's a reason to not fight. But to believe the pilots feared the plane itself seems to be a gross overstatement.

Me, I don't like flying against it at low altitudes, because it is so good. That said,
I would support modifications to the plane, so long as a firm basis in fact is established.

lrrp22
04-13-2004, 10:34 AM
Getterman,

The Frankophiles aren't interested in any statement from Allied pilots other than 'I was overcome with dread once I realized I was facing a Ki-84' or some such nonsense.

Actual quotes from combat pilots were more along the lines of '40 mph speed advantage over the Frank' (7th Fighter Command) and 'only slightly harder to set alight than a Zero' (paraphrasing Roger Hedrick, CO of VF-84 and former XO of VF-17 "Jolly Rogers").

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
Badsight - numerous accounts are written of US pilots lining up and attacking Franks. Nobody, as far as the material I've read, ever thought about not attacking a Frank because it was dangerous in and of itself. Poor positioning, lack of altitude, etc., of course that's a reason to not fight. But to believe the pilots feared the plane itself seems to be a gross overstatement.

Me, I don't like flying against it at low altitudes, because it is so good. That said,
I would support modifications to the plane, so long as a firm basis in fact is established.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HayateKid
04-13-2004, 10:43 AM
Just remember that praise coming from the enemy is more credible than jeers.

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

ZG77_Nagual
04-13-2004, 11:02 AM
Well, I have been hit 1km out in a climb by the 30mm on a frank - and more than once. Which does seem a bit of a stretch. Otherwise I think it's pretty well modeled. I've only flown it online once - against a ki pilot I was having trouble beating in 190s.
If I'm not mistaken the last air-to air engagement of the war in the pac was p38s vs ki84s - and resulted in the downing of a ki.

PzKpfw
04-13-2004, 11:34 AM
Personaly I have wondered why they even tested the Ki-84 vs the P-51H, as it barely qualifies as a WW2 fighter as the P-51H, like the F4U-4 saw very little service in WW2, as both arrived a short time before the war ended.

I would have thought trials would be of more use vs the more common P-51D/K. Anyone know if any were carried out vs P-51D/K?. Why has no one posted the results of the Middletown trials yet? all we ever hear about was the speed of the Ki-84.

One can dismiss quotes from noted Avi authors like Gunston etc, but to date know one has shown any data from the actual Ki-84 comparison tests vs the P-47N & P-51H that disproves any of these quotes that the Ki outmanouvered or outclimbed the P-47N & P-51H.

As for pilot quotes please, if you have been on this board any length of time you already know anecdotal evidence is about moot, unless its German http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif......



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 Tue April 13 2004 at 11:03 AM.]

lrrp22
04-13-2004, 12:06 PM
My suspicion is that the Ki-84 never was tested against the P-51H and probably not the P-47N either. I think that the 'outclimbed and outmanuevered' quotes actually refer to testing against the P-51K and P-47D (Phillipines test?).

"Outmanuevered" can mean alot of things and no doubt that the Ki-84 would probably get the better of any Mustang, and definitely any Thunderbolt in an all-out turning fight, but I don't think the same can be said once the fight gets above 300 mph or so.

Climb on the other hand seems to favor the P-51H quite significantly under all circumstances. I would suspect that under similar fuel loads, even a 7th Fighter Command P-51D running at their standard 80" Hg combat power and 2000 HP would be able to climb nearly as well as and maybe slightly better than a Home Island defense Ki-84. Realistically though, 7th FC Mustangs typically entered the fight with full wing tanks and 40 gallons still remaining in the fuselage tank.

Again, I'm not trying to denigrate the Ki's abilities- if it could drag said Mustang into its kind of fight, the Mustang would be in serious trouble indeed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Personaly I have wondered why they even tested the Ki-84 vs the P-51H, as it barely qualifies as a WW2 fighter as the P-51H, like the F4U-4 saw very little service in WW2, as both arrived a short time before the war ended.

I would have thought trials would be of more use vs the more common P-51D/K. Anyone know if any were carried out vs P-51D/K?. Why has no one posted the results of the Middletown trials yet? all we ever hear about was the speed of the Ki-84.

One can dismiss quotes from noted Avi authors like Gunston etc, but to date know one has shown any data from the actual Ki-84 comparison tests vs the P-47N & P-51H that disproves any of these quotes that the Ki outmanouvered or outclimbed the P-47N & P-51H. The hp advantage is moot as I showed awhile back Ie, the P-63A outclimbed the P-51D handily upto 14,000ft, the P-51B/C/D/K Merlins were never known for ROC, or turn radius anyway their advantage was speed & dive.

As for pilot quotes please, if you have been on this board any length of time you already know anecdotal evidence is about moot, unless its German http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif......



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 Tue April 13 2004 at 10:43 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DJDalton
04-13-2004, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:

the comment about "forget it , its a Frank" seems to be about forget attacking it

why ?

wouldnt it be because it was dangerous

your holding onto the the P-51H speed & saying that made it superior is laughable

speed alone means nothing when your bandit can do everything else better<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please keep in mind the "Forget about it, its a Frank" comment came from radar operators. You're taking it out of context. It meant "Forget about scrambling to intercept it"

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

PzKpfw
04-13-2004, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
My suspicion is that the Ki-84 never was tested against the P-51H and probably not the P-47N either. I think that the 'outclimbed and outmanuevered' quotes actually refer to testing against the P-51K and P-47D (Phillipines test?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I have no clue, all quotes refer to the "P-51H". But I can see the P-47N as quite feasible if any tests were conducted in April 45 as Ie, the 318th, 413th, 414th, & 507th FGs were all operateing P-47Ns.

Either way. the Ki-84 would have very little trouble outclimbing the P-47N as its climb rate was worse then the early pre paddle prop WI P-47's, until after 25000ft, nor was its turn rate etc, anything to right home about either.

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.

DJDalton
04-13-2004, 05:49 PM
<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:

any plane will climb, but something seems amiss with the Frank in online game play as compared to other late war hot rods. It wasn't that dominant.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


first of all you dont know how much more dominant over the Bf109 range it was

except for ; ......

it had a lower weight

it had better power loading

it had better wing loading

it had similer power

what makes you think it was a worse climber when all its performance stats that matter show it being better ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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. If you think it should climb better than a Bf-109 under power with Methanol, please post your sources and I sincerely wish you the best with your research.

We know from P-47 Pilots like Don Perdomo(Please excuse misspelling), who though a non-scorer before that day, became, as confirmed by his gun camera footage, an "Ace in a Day". Until that day he'd had problems finding Ki-84's to shot at but all of five of his kills were confirmed by his gun camera footage to be Ki-84's. Additionally, the film reveals they came unglued on single passes. I don't have a particular issue with the Ki-84 damage modeling, though it is tough bird compared to Perdomo's experience with it.

There is a belief that the Ki-84 went to the better pilots, so Perdomo's experience with it may indicate more accurately the actual abilities of the plane. If we still are having this debate after the patch, I'll re-pull these sources and post them here. I just don't have time right now and from what I've read I suspect they are addressing the Ki-84 in the patch.

I'd just like to have a careful discussion on this topic. I mean we are all WWII plane enthusiasts or we wouldn't be here. I think the desire is to have planes that fly and fight as the men flew and fought them. The Ki-84 was not a lighter or smaller plane than the Bf-109, its that kind of misrepresentation that serves no purpose and it's why care needs to be taken in what is said. We shouldn't be arguing for a planeset that gives us an advantage at the expense of a computer glitch in modeling.

From the games own description the Ki-84a (the lighter of the variants was 3,602 Kg takeoff. The Bf-109G-10 and Bf-109K-4 respectively 3,300 and 3,362

The "Baugher" source makes the Frank somewhat heavier and the Ki-84-II heavier yet (More wood was used):

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

I will grant you that the Ki-84's had lower wing loading. That is a factor that generally results in better turning ability, but less maximum speed potential. Even there the reports are replete with the sluggish nature of the Ki-84's controls. Though I'm willing to concede manueverability. My primary issue is the climbing performance I find very questionable. I'm not saying a Frank couldn't outgrab a P-51 or P-47. Its design requirements might have said it could, but its actual ability to do so may have been an entirely different matter, but thats not even the issue. Can it outclimb a Bf-109?

Regarding similar power, if you mean "rated horsepower" the answer to that is perhaps "yes it was similarly "rated". The issue is the available power in action. The 1946 Midland Test is not the performance evidence to base that upon. Even if it was, theres no finding there that the plane could grab like it does in the game. You can't project what the grab rate was. Let's find the actual grab rate and work to have it modeled accurately. In that regard, Baugher says the following:

"16,405 feet could be reached in 5 minutes 54 seconds"

This figure is corroborated in this source:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/nakaki84.html#nakaki84verstab

The following source, indicates that in roughly the same amount of time (6 minutes) the Bf-109G-10 could climb to 6,100 meters, which is 20,014 feet:

http://www.kotfsc.com/

During WWII, if you wanted to go UP and go UP fast the only plane that could stay with a Bf-109 was the Yak3 with its highest performance motor and even then it could rarely handle the extended pressure.

But like I said, if you have a source please cite it.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

lrrp22
04-13-2004, 05:57 PM
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. All the 'easily bested' and 'outperformed' quotes seem to come from third party authors or websites. Pilot quotes don't seem to indicate all that much concern for the Frank.

It's possible that Ki-84's mystique has grown out of proportion to its performance due to factors such as the TAIC report posted by Butch2k, the Wright Field (and/or Phillipines?) tests quoting a 2 mph advantage over the Mustang at 20k, and the fact that the Frank made its combat debut against 14th AAF P-40N's and not Mustangs or Corsairs.

If Pinche-bolillo's version of the TAIC's 'general data' block is correct, then the Ki-84 that we have modeled in FB is modeled not to U.S. test results but to predictions and expectations of performance compiled before the U.S. even had their hands on a Ki-84. That would go a long way towards explaining the gap between published Japanese data and the presumably American data.

<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:
My suspicion is that the Ki-84 never was tested against the P-51H and probably not the P-47N either. I think that the 'outclimbed and outmanuevered' quotes actually refer to testing against the P-51K and P-47D (Phillipines test?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I have no clue, all quotes refer to the "P-51H". But I can see the P-47N as quite feasible if any tests were conducted in April 45 as Ie, the 318th, 413th, 414th, & 507th FGs were all operateing P-47Ns.

Either way. the Ki-84 would have very little trouble outclimbing the P-47N as its climb rate was worse then the early pre paddle prop WI P-47's, until after 25000ft, nor was its turn rate etc, anything to right home about either.

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>

WUAF_Badsight
04-14-2004, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
stuff about the KI-84 being overmoddeled
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the most overmoddeled climb in FB is the Bf109-K4

where is your triple posting complaining that it should be corrected ?

i find it funny that people jump up & down about the japanese A/C but seem willing to ignore the true UFO's in FB

the LA-7 & VVS guns

no G10 can be out-climbed by any KI-84

meet me online & ill show you

as for the KI-A model guns ........ they are nothing compared to the Spitfire or the LA series 20mm or the Yak-3 combo of MG & Cannon

its just more japanese bashing