PDA

View Full Version : Ki-84 vs Seafire: official report



SkyChimp
06-19-2004, 07:43 PM
Neil Stirling posted this at AAWII:

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Frank+Seafire.jpg

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

SkyChimp
06-19-2004, 07:43 PM
Neil Stirling posted this at AAWII:

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Frank+Seafire.jpg

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

RedDeth
06-19-2004, 08:53 PM
too small and blurry

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

olaleier
06-19-2004, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
too small and blurry

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Did you try clicking the little magnyfying glass thingy? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Big and clear here.

This was news to me:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Frank has been reported carrying a fixed tail gun, firing aft <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Luthier!!!11

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

Cage50
06-19-2004, 09:27 PM
Clear here as well.
Alot of nice info in there.

WUAF_Badsight
06-19-2004, 10:01 PM
"too small & Blurry"

LOOOL

classic ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Magister__Ludi
06-19-2004, 11:10 PM
Another Allied test on a defective Axis plane.
Very enlightening and entertaining. Seeing Chimp crying for pink wheels, that is.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Sun June 20 2004 at 12:43 AM.]

Ruy Horta
06-20-2004, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Neil Stirling posted this at AAWII:

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Frank+Seafire.jpg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skychimp, could you please put up a link to the original thread, would be interesting to follow up / read etc etc etc.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

arcadeace
06-20-2004, 01:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Another Allied test on a defective Axis plane.
Very enlightening and entertaining. Seeing Chimp crying for pink wheels, that is.
Is Neal your daddy Skychimp?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I think it shows how "defective" the model in FB is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1082457373_222_1082441075_airaces.jpg

Magister__Ludi
06-20-2004, 01:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:

Yeah, I think it shows how "defective" the model in FB is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If you're are referring to speed I agree, Ki-84 is waaay too fast. Also too tough.
Anything else is close (to undermodelled).

Flydutch
06-20-2004, 02:27 AM
"Frank has been reported cariyng a fixed gun firing aft"!

that would be a nice addition to the weapon load out!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Neil Stirling posted this at AAWII:

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Frank+Seafire.jpg

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RedDeth
06-20-2004, 03:42 AM
THE magnifying glass is a search icon. not a visual enhancement. i have win xp home

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

arcadeace
06-20-2004, 04:43 AM
I don't understand your difficulty RedDeth? I have WinXP Home. I just move my curser, with stock XP mouse drivers, over the image document...and click. It instantly magnifies to perfect clarity.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1082457373_222_1082441075_airaces.jpg

WOLFMondo
06-20-2004, 05:43 AM
Which seafire version was it though?!?! Theres quite a difference between them

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

WUAF_Badsight
06-20-2004, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
THE magnifying glass is a search icon. not a visual enhancement. i have win xp home
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BUWHAHAHAH

*slaps thigh while LoL*

no you tool not the fricken magnify icon

put your mouse cursor on that pic after you load it in a new internet window

leave your mouse on the picture

wait & see in the bottom right corner

THAT will blow up your picture that downloaded into your internet browser window

all ya got to do is click on it

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FI.Spitsfire
06-20-2004, 07:36 AM
or go into tools, internet options, advanced and uncheck : Enable Automatic Image Resizing
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Cheers

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_10.gif

SkyChimp
06-20-2004, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Another Allied test on a defective Axis plane.
Very enlightening and entertaining. Seeing Chimp crying for pink wheels, that is.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Sun June 20 2004 at 12:43 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, I'm just posting the report. I made no comment about it. But I agree fully with you, the Ki-84 is better than most contemporary German fighters.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
06-20-2004, 01:27 PM
S!


SkyChimp can you post the link the web site ?

I would like to read the whole report if there is one.

Thanks



_____

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.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

k5054
06-20-2004, 02:53 PM
The Seafire variant was LIII, equivalent, more or less, to a LF V, but with folding c wing and the merlin 50m or 55. Very good at low level, not so much medium-high.

RedDeth
06-20-2004, 03:37 PM
at least everyone knows im not a hacker or anything..........quack

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

Giganoni
06-20-2004, 05:18 PM
What makes the report official? I see a picture of a section of a paper. Hehe, yeah I think people would like to see the original thread.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

k5054
06-21-2004, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What makes the report official? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The report is part of an official report which you can see at the PRO, in Kew, a suburb of London. I've seen the original, and it is a real representation of a real test, flawed though it may be. If anyone can find a better document they ought to produce it, but AFAIK it's the best anyone can show of a real Frank test. Note the recorded stall speed, which will not have been affected by the CSU problem, and shows a speed higher than any of the major allied fighters, implying that there is nothing special about Frank's turning ability.
The report also states how the Seafire was sent to Clark Field to test against George and Jack as well as Frank, but some B-24 driver flattened the captured a/c line in a landing mishap.
It also has some details of inspection of the internals of various IJ a/c.

Try www.pro.gov.uk (http://www.pro.gov.uk) for a searchable catalogue of all the captured a/c documents of the UK, and everything else ever officially recorded about anytihng.. If only other coutries would go online like this.

Ruy Horta
06-21-2004, 03:42 AM
What's so difficult about posting the original URL to the board and thread where this link was posted?

Please post the link, so we can enjoy the document within the context of the original thread.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

PikeBishop
06-22-2004, 03:05 AM
Dear all,

I really find it difficult to understand the incessent bickering over performance figures. The data one can glean from weights wing area engine type and power, together with the thrust curve of the engine will give you a very close result compared to the real thing admittedly there are some things that are not easily calculated or modeled such as roll rate and resistance to damage, but almost all can be worked out on paper. Thus discrepencies from different comparative tests of different pilots on different models can be avoided. I'm certain that Oleg and his team must do this anyway to a high standard. If in doubt look up the formulae and check it. They will tell you everything you want to compare......IL-2 compare also does this for you.

regards,
SLP

Ruy Horta
06-22-2004, 04:02 AM
PikeBishop

1. (simple) models ar per default limited in scope
2. flight sims on the level of Il-2 offer a simplified flight model, since one model must fit all

A true report shows if apart from the lift of wing, the ideal power curve of the engine, the aircraft's cooling system is actually able to cope with a WEP climb from zero alt to 6000m.

On paper an aircraft may be able to powerdive at x-speed, but only the report shows that at said speed the aircraft is near to being uncontrolable.

Test reports are difference between what an aircraft was claimed to be and what it actually was...

Of course the validity of certain test reports is questionable, but so is the so called data that's needed to fill your "model".

The model will always fall short of reality (at least as long we are limited in the number of variables).

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

arcadeace
06-22-2004, 04:28 AM
Poppycock

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/222_1082457373_222_1082441075_airaces.jpg

PikeBishop
06-22-2004, 07:30 AM
OK lets go through this step by step.
Now I don't know how Oleg converts his data tables into performance in the game, but all the data can be put into tables. The lift Coeff of the wing actually has very little effect on the stall speed or climb rate of an aircraft. The stall speed is the most important factor in terms of maneouverability. Everything is calculated from this - G capability at different speeds and therefore radius of turn.
Radiators I confess to know nothing about except that I'm sure that in the development stages if the radiator is built too small.....make a bigger one.
Controllability I will agree that that has to be tested for as it is at the limits of the flight envelope, but it will only be a statement like 'don't exceed speed X in a dive'.
If you have:
Max level speed at full emergency power you have maximum drag because at that speed thrust = drag. From this you can work out the drag at any given speed in the envelope.
Static tests of the engine will give an uncomplicated graph of any supercharger effects but even that can be calculated.
So with thrust and drag at each point on the curve.....the difference being excess power which converts to climb.
So you now have the 4 points of the envelope:
ie MIN speed, MAX speed, DRAG and THRUST.
Everything else is inside that flight envelope. And when I have done these calculations it is fun to see that I am always within 5% of the actual data at worst.
I personally think that the best way to do these games is to first creat your gravity and atmosphere and put the models in the world and see how they are flight tested in comparison with each other and whatever this comes to, you then overlay the scales of speed power and drag on this.............then there would be no arguement!
regards,

SLP

k5054
06-22-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> you have:
Max level speed at full emergency power you have maximum drag because at that speed thrust = drag. From this you can work out the drag at any given speed in the envelope.
Static tests of the engine will give an uncomplicated graph of any supercharger effects but even that can be calculated.
So with thrust and drag at each point on the curve.....the difference being excess power which converts to climb.
So you now have the 4 points of the envelope:
ie MIN speed, MAX speed, DRAG and THRUST. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You started off with max level. When you have a reliable max level with the correct power settings you have something. But the max level you use has to come from a reliable flight test. You can't work it out otherwise (OK, drag experts can computer model drag from the a/c shape, but there is a margin of error, and some real life a/c have performed way short of predicted figures because of these errors. This is a complicated business, and to prepare a complete performance profile from max level speed you need to be able to check as many figures as possible. Having said that, I do exactly that with a spreadsheet, and I expect to get closer than 5%, but good input data is essential. Comparing types though, nothing comes close to a good flight test, despite the undoubted fact that they are full of questions and contradictions, bias and error.

In the case of this particular aircraft, the Ki-84, there is no decent detailed flight test info at all, unless someone turns up a copy of the Wright Field test. You can't even get a good undisputed level max for this a/c.

PikeBishop
06-23-2004, 02:40 AM
Even so, what I find is that in any given set of data, when you plot it out, if one of the parameters is very wrong then the more accurate 'consistant' reported data go out of kilter, so you can work out which one is wrong. As far as the Ki84's data is concerned I think that Oleg probably got his data from captured/surrendered Russian examples which were probably in far better nick than the U.S. examples and of course being in Russia the west never got access to the data.......I do therefore think Oleg's data is correct regarding the KI84.
regards,
SLP

lrrp22
06-24-2004, 01:20 PM
Oleg got his data from the U.S.-produced June '45 TAIC manual. FB's speeds match the TAIC speed data *exactly*.

The Ki-84 data in the manual is dated March, 1945 and is almost certainly U.S. estimates of performance, not test data.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Even so, what I find is that in any given set of data, when you plot it out, if one of the parameters is very wrong then the more accurate 'consistant' reported data go out of kilter, so you can work out which one is wrong. As far as the Ki84's data is concerned I think that Oleg probably got his data from captured/surrendered Russian examples which were probably in far better nick than the U.S. examples and of course being in Russia the west never got access to the data.......I do therefore think Oleg's data is correct regarding the KI84.
regards,
SLP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp
06-24-2004, 05:24 PM
There were apparently 4 TAIC manuals, one first edition and 3 revisions:

First Issued Dec. 1944
Rev. 1 : March 1945
Rev. 2 : May 1945
Rev. 3 : June 1945

Between revisions, I believe "update" pages were printed (the manual cautions its owner to "update your manual"). Those with manuals took those updated pages and either replaced their old pages, or simply added the new pages to the exisiting manual. After awhile, it seems, a whole new revised manual was issued.

I either own an updated December 1944 TAIC manual copy, or I own the March 1945 revision. That's great with me. Now I have the original December 1944 manual with the March 1945 pages. For instance, I have Tojo data from December 1944 and March 1945. Same with the Tony.

But updates were only added when they needed to be added. The June 1945 issue seems to still contain a lot of older data. Butch has the June 1945 revision and his Ki-84 data is dated March 1945, which is what I have. My manual section on armament, radios and engines id dated March 1945 and is identical to the armament, radios and engines section in teh June 1945 manual.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

EPP-Gibbs
06-24-2004, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Which seafire version was it though?!?! Theres quite a difference between them

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
http://www.wolfgaming.net<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Judging by the quoted boost settings, an early one, Mk III probably.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.djurovich/Sig4.jpg
"If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!"

heywooood
06-24-2004, 07:19 PM
Seafires wax Ki-84s period end of story...

I personaly like the way magnesium burns.
but even if good quality materials were used and experienced assemblers were available and reliable powerplants as well... Seafires still wax 'em. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Next.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

WUAF_Badsight
06-25-2004, 12:11 AM
so the JUNE Taic re-print has the data from the March tests

as opposed to the MARCH re-print that apparently contained estimates ?

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
06-25-2004, 12:13 AM
also ..... what is the proof that the March re-print contained "estimates" ?

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

PikeBishop
06-25-2004, 01:57 AM
Frankly I'm not suprised that the Seafire is a match for the Ki84 since the seafire is a short range interceptor and the Ki84 has a much greater range accounting for a lot of weight. The great value of the Ki84 is that opposing aircraft in the same catagory in terms of requirements e.g. the Mustang do not have the edge except in max speed and ceiling and even then there's not much in it. The Ki84 was an exceptional design as was the Spitfire for doing the job it was designed to do and bringing its pilot home.

k5054
06-25-2004, 02:25 AM
The Seafire was NN660, an LIII. The Pilot's name was Phillips. The report was prepared for the UK carrier force as it approached Japanese home waters, where it was likely to meet Franks, and the comparison was intended to help Seafire pilots. It's not an attempt to assess Frank against Seafire as an air asset, just what to do if they met one. And the result was pretty much do what you would do for any other IJ plane, no special tactics required. All this for under 10,000ft, Seafires didn't go much higher than that, there were Corsairs and Hellcats for that.

lrrp22
06-25-2004, 10:53 AM
Clark Field and the first Ki-84's weren't captured until 31 January, 1945. The field complex was a total wreck with Japanese nighttime infiltrations continuing for some time afterwords.

It is simply not reasonable to assume that under these conditions an AAF evaluation unit could have reached Clark Field, found, evaluated and restored a Ki-84 to testable conditions, conducted a flight testing regime, and then returned the results to the U.S. in time for publication as a manual revision dated March 1945.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
also ..... what is the proof that the March re-print contained "estimates" ?

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
06-25-2004, 04:36 PM
so . . . . your making it up with no proof

you have nothing to go on except "it doesnt seem reasonable to me " ?


youve been spouting that the data is just made up because "it doesnt seem reasonable to me " ?!?!?!?!

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
06-25-2004, 04:37 PM
Butch2K posted from the JUNE re-print

it would have the actual test data , no ?

the 427 mph actual test data , no ?

the un-modified Hayate test

as opposed to your claims all along of it being a Hot-Rod Hayate

hell even the RPM limited Hayate in the British test managed 400 Mph

man it REALLY seems to me that all the Hayate speed moaning was simply that

it does have a wack DM in FB tho . . . . was never said to be supremely strong



.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

k5054
06-25-2004, 04:52 PM
The June version has the same data, which is known to be a March 45 estimate.
The Ki-84 did not achieve 400mph in the British test, that's an estimate of what a Ki-84 with a working -21 engine could do.
There seems to be no record of an actual TAIC flight test. I don't say there was no test, just that no-one can find it. Ditto the 1946 Wright Field test. Real evidence is very scarce. The best Japanese figures are 388/392 mph. Except a prisoner claimed 700kph, which is higher than anybody else ever claimed.
This is being discussed now over at http://www.j-aircraft.org/bbs/army_config.pl where there are some well-informed people who don't come here.

lrrp22
06-25-2004, 05:26 PM
Yes Badsight, not reasonable.

Actually, 'not reasonable' is an understatement- 'not possible' is probably a more accurate description.

See here: http://www.j-aircraft.org/bbs/army_config.pl?read=9754 for the j-aircraft.com thread regarding TAIC data. 427 mph is a U.S. estimate, period.

"Everything depends on the "source" of the estimates. I've having been talking with the fellow that was the head of the US efforts at Clark Field (where the Frank was "tested"). Previous to that he did performance analysis for the TAIC in Washington. One stunning revelation was that the stuff in the TAIC manuals (which is oft quoted as hardcore fact) were estimates based on aircraft designs, not necessarily on flight testing. In fact the war ended before many of the performance manuals were able to be updated.

If the 388 came out of flight testing at Clark, many of the aircraft that were tested there weren't in top shape (some he said would barely fly). By the time the aircraft made it back to the states for testing many more parts and much more knowledge had been gained. So, it would be possible that a 30+ mph difference could be had.

It could also be that 388 was an estimate and 425 was an actual or visa versa.

Numbers are just that and too much creedance shouldn't be given to any particular one, but should be viewed as a body of fact. I would guess that reality would lie somewhere in between the two numbers, avgas and other factors not withstanding. "



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
so . . . . your making it up with no proof

you have nothing to go on except "it doesnt seem reasonable to me " ?


youve been spouting that the data is just made up because "it doesnt seem reasonable to me " ?!?!?!?!

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Fri June 25 2004 at 05:04 PM.]

SkyChimp
06-25-2004, 07:20 PM
Lrrp, Badsight:

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the discussion at J-aircraft. Now I didn't read every single post there, but the post to which lrrps link points is simply speculation. And frankly, I think it's wrong. (In fact, I there's enough in there to suggest he's more than wrong, he's bull****ting.)

Do any of these guys actually own a TAIC manual, or a good copy? I do. And if they did, they would not have reached some of the conclusions they did.

I own a December 1944 TAIC manual number 1 with the March 1945 update pages. So, for all practical purposes, I own the March 1945 revision.

My March 1945 performance pages on the KI-84 are exactly the same pages that are in Butch's June 1945 revision. They aren't different. They are exactly the same. So if the KI-84 perfomance numbers in Butch's manual are based on a test, then so are mine. Again, the June revision has exactly the same pages as the March revision.

The information on the KI-84 (dated March 1945) in the TAIC manual is 4 pages long. They are pages 156A-1, 156A-2, 156A-3 and 156A-4. Someone said there is no way these performance numbers could have come from testing in March 1945. Why not? Page 156A-4 (dated March 1945) has a photo of a pristine captured Ki-84, serial number 1446, the very same plane that became TAIC plane S17. So, if a photo of the very plane tested can make it into the March 1945 TAIC manual, why can't its performance numbers?

Now, the numbers in the TAIC manual for the Ki-84 (March 1945) may be derived from testing, or they may be calculations. I can't say with utmost certainty either way. But the point is, the plane was available for testing so it's entirely possible. The Introduction in the TAIC manual also states the urgency with which accurate perfomance data must be obtained. I can't imagine that TAIC would diddle around and not test a plane as soon as it could. People were fighting them, accurate information was needed without delay.

Additionally, you would be wrong to assume that performance pages date December 1944 we simply calculations. Many pages dated December 1944 contain photos of the captured plane tested. One has to remember that planes were captured in more places than just the Philippines. New Guinea was a prime spot as well. Hollandia on New Guinea turned up several Japanese planes in mid 1944 and much of the December 1944 data is based on those.

TAIC manuals may not be 100% accurate. But then nothing is. But so far, the TAIC manuals are the best sources for actual Japanese plane performance.

BTW, if people are complaining about the KI-84 now, wait 'till they try and climb with a J2M Jack. Now they were rockets.


Additionally, don't assume the information int eh June 1945 issue has "more accurate numbers" than does the March 1945 issue. Much of the information in the March and June revisions are exactly same. There were only some changes here-and-there between the two.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

lrrp22
06-25-2004, 11:13 PM
Skychimp,

I doubt that Dave Pluth is Bull S-ing. J-aircraft.com is his website and I know of no reason to doubt the fact that he is in touch with the person he claims to be. In fact, the person who initiated the post seems to be the one producing the questionable opinions and data.

As far as the TAIC data, I stand by my assertion that the time frame involved just doesn't allow for the kind of restoration and testing required to produce the results described in the March revision.

Beyond the time issue, there are just too many things that point to 427 mph being much too fast for a Japanese-flown Ki-84, not the least of which is the Japanese data that shows top speed to be in the 390 mph range. Even if those figures don't represent full combat power, that alone can't explain the 35-40 mph difference between the TAIC speed and the Japanese speeds. I find it impossible to believe that the Japanese would record as max speed (388) a figure that would be, at best, a high cruise speed, assuming a 427 mph combat power max speed.

Also, during the May '45 Clark Field SeaFire/Frank fly-off the British estimated that the Ki was capable of 400 mph max speed *with* a properly functioning engine. If I am not mistaken, the example used in that test would have been the same one involved in any U.S. Clark Field testing.

I think that over the years the TAIC numbers have permeated the discussion so thouroughly that we find ourselves with a pre-defined conclusion searching for support instead of arriving at that conclusion after compiling the evidence.

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

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the discussion at J-aircraft. Now I didn't read every single post there, but the post to which lrrps link points is simply speculation. And frankly, I think it's wrong. (In fact, I there's enough in there to suggest he's more than wrong, he's bull****ting.)

Do any of these guys actually own a TAIC manual, or a good copy? I do. And if they did, they would not have reached some of the conclusions they did.

I own a December 1944 TAIC manual number 1 with the March 1945 update pages. So, for all practical purposes, I own the March 1945 revision.

My March 1945 performance page_s_ on the KI-84 are exactly the same pages that are in Butch's June 1945 revision. They aren't different. They are exactly the same. So if the KI-84 perfomance numbers in Butch's manual are based on a test, then so are mine. Again, the June revision has exactly the same pages as the March revision.

The information on the KI-84 (dated March 1945) in the TAIC manual is 4 pages long. They are pages 156A-1, 156A-2, 156A-3 and 156A-4. Someone said there is no way these performance numbers could have come from testing in March 1945. Why not? Page 156A-4 (dated March 1945) has a photo of a pristine captured Ki-84, serial number 1446, the very same plane that became TAIC plane S17. So, if a photo of the very plane tested can make it into the March 1945 TAIC manual, why can't its performance numbers?

Now, the numbers in the TAIC manual for the Ki-84 (March 1945) may be derived from testing, or they may be calculations. I can't say with utmost certainty either way. But the point is, the plane was available for testing so it's entirely possible. The _Introduction_ in the TAIC manual also states the urgency with which accurate perfomance data must be obtained. I can't imagine that TAIC would diddle around and not test a plane as soon as it could. People were fighting them, accurate information was needed without delay.

Additionally, you would be wrong to assume that performance pages date December 1944 we simply calculations. Many pages dated December 1944 contain photos of the captured plane tested. One has to remember that planes were captured in more places than just the Philippines. New Guinea was a prime spot as well. Hollandia on New Guinea turned up several Japanese planes in mid 1944 and much of the December 1944 data is based on those.

TAIC manuals may not be 100% accurate. But then nothing is. But so far, the TAIC manuals are the best sources for actual Japanese plane performance.

BTW, if people are complaining about the KI-84 now, wait 'till they try and climb with a J2M Jack. Now they were rockets.


Additionally, don't assume the information int eh June 1945 issue has "more accurate numbers" than does the March 1945 issue. Much of the information in the March and June revisions are exactly same. There were only some changes here-and-there between the two.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp
06-26-2004, 01:34 AM
lrrp said:

As far as the TAIC data, I stand by my assertion that the time frame involved just doesn't allow for the kind of restoration and testing required to produce the results described in the March revision.

No one knows what was wrong with the Ki-84(s) captured at Clark, or what kind of repairs were done to it. Without knowing that, it's impossible to say with any certainty that it couldn't have been tested by March. And WHICH Ki-84 is that British test referring to? There were TWO Ki-84's captured at Clark Field. One became S-10, the other S-17. Both were used in tests. But S-10 crashed due to mechanical difficulties. Maybe that was S-10 in the British report.

Everyone is quick to suggest the Ki-84 was not capable of 400 mph. They poo-poo the after-war tests that prove otherwise, arguing fuel grade or whatever. But the ONLY certain thing we know is that NO ONE knows the circumstances of the testing.

So the Japanese published lower figures. What was the Japanese standard to determine top speed? Full throttle for 3 minutes? Or full throttle at 5? Makes a difference you know. (Published top speed for the F6F-5 is about 380mph. However, in tests against the Zero it did 410mph in level flight.) What were the test weights? Did the planes tested carry armor? No one knows. Yet everyone is CERTAIN that the the plane was not capable of 400mph+ flight.

Sorry, lrrp. TAIC had access to the plane. If TAIC didn't have time to test the Ki-84 before the March 1945 supplement was issued, they certainly had time before the June 1945 manual was published. Yet the data in both is identical. Wonder why they didn't change it in June if the March performance figures were wrong? I'm not saying it's data derived from flight-testing, because I don't know with certainty. But what's clear is that TAIC was as comfortable with the numbers in June was it was in March. And in 1946, testing at Wright bore them out.

And one last thing, everyone is assuming that the data sheets dated March 1945 were published in March 1945. Is that right? Could be. But I tend to believe that is not necessarily right. I think that is when the data was compiled and written. Maybe the data sheets were written up in March, and distributed in May. Maybe the May sheets were distributed in July. Maybe the June manual was distributed in August. After all, when you write a business letter, do you date it with the date it was written, or the date you expect the recipient to get it?

No one knows what went on. Yet we feel perfectly comfortable second guessing experts who had access to the planes, whose job it was to test them, and whose job it was to publish a manual for the pilots that had to face them.

That my two cents. I'll let you guys get back at it.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sat June 26 2004 at 12:48 AM.]

k5054
06-26-2004, 03:42 AM
Nobody is saying the thing wouldn't do 400+. It looks as if it would, it's clean and small and has 2000hp, it would be strange if the performance wasn't on a par with, say , FW190A. 427 is a bit of a push, but not if the 388 was with 1800hp and no exhaust thrust. Also if the 427 was using 500mm boost. The problem here is that the Homare could not have 500mm boost at 20,000, it had 350mm up there at full throttle, the 500mm would be at a lower altitude.
Anyhow, all things aside, there is(?) no surviving test report to clear things up, with test conditions stated. That's all the doubters here want to see. The 427 figure from TAIC seems to predate the capture of a flyable a/c, so it is suspect.

I think the Hayate tested by the RN was S-17. The test was, I think, in May 1945. The Ki-84 Profile has a picture of the Ki-84 in formation with the Seafire, P-51 and F6F-5.

lrrp22
06-26-2004, 09:19 AM
Don't misunderstand me Skychimp, I'm not saying that the Ki-84 wasn't capable of 400+ mph- I'm saying that I don't believe a wartime Frank was capable of 427 mph.

I have no doubt that a Ki-84 with a properly functioning Ha-45-21 (a rarity it seems) was easily capable of over 400 mph at best altitude. 427 mph, and even 2000 hp, seems like a rather large stretch though.

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

_As far as the TAIC data, I stand by my assertion that the time frame involved just doesn't allow for the kind of restoration and testing required to produce the results described in the March revision._

No one knows what was wrong with the Ki-84(s) captured at Clark, or what kind of repairs were done to it. Without knowing that, it's impossible to say with any certainty that it couldn't have been tested by March. And WHICH Ki-84 is that British test referring to? There were TWO Ki-84's captured at Clark Field. One became S-10, the other S-17. Both were used in tests. But S-10 crashed due to mechanical difficulties. Maybe that was S-10 in the British report.

Everyone is quick to suggest the Ki-84 was not capable of 400 mph. They poo-poo the after-war tests that prove otherwise, arguing fuel grade or whatever. But the ONLY certain thing we know is that NO ONE knows the circumstances of the testing.

So the Japanese published lower figures. What was the Japanese standard to determine top speed? Full throttle for 3 minutes? Or full throttle at 5? Makes a difference you know. (Published top speed for the F6F-5 is about 380mph. However, in tests against the Zero it did 410mph in level flight.) What were the test weights? Did the planes tested carry armor? No one knows. Yet everyone is CERTAIN that the the plane was not capable of 400mph+ flight.

Sorry, lrrp. TAIC had access to the plane. If TAIC didn't have time to test the Ki-84 before the March 1945 supplement was issued, they certainly had time before the June 1945 manual was published. Yet the data in both is identical. Wonder why they didn't change it in June if the March performance figures were wrong? I'm not saying it's data derived from flight-testing, because I don't know with certainty. But what's clear is that TAIC was as comfortable with the numbers in June was it was in March. And in 1946, testing at Wright bore them out.

And one last thing, everyone is assuming that the data sheets dated March 1945 were published in March 1945. Is that right? Could be. But I tend to believe that is not necessarily right. I think that is when the data was compiled and written. Maybe the data sheets were written up in March, and distributed in May. Maybe the May sheets were distributed in July. Maybe the June manual was distributed in August. After all, when you write a business letter, do you date it with the date it was written, or the date you expect the recipient to get it?

No one knows what went on. Yet we feel perfectly comfortable second guessing experts who had access to the planes, whose job it was to test them, and whose job it was to publish a manual for the pilots that had to face them.

That my two cents. I'll let you guys get back at it.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sat June 26 2004 at 12:48 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp
06-26-2004, 11:51 AM
I agree that a typical wartime production Ki-84 probably couldn't do 427. I doubt any plane could do it's top figures under wartime conditions.

BTW, we'll probably have plenty to argue about when PF comes out. Japanese planes look very good in the TAIC manual. It's gonna be hard to accept that Germany didn't have a lock on high-perfomance Axis planes.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sat June 26 2004 at 11:07 AM.]

RedDeth
06-26-2004, 02:15 PM
american planes regularly could beat their wartime projected speeds. the ground crews always tried to get maximum performance.

as we all know. jugs usually went much faster than spec speeds. stangs too. and definitely p38s

of course its the opposite with japanese planes due to poor conditions of all sorts.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
06-26-2004, 02:36 PM
RedDeth that was due to overboosting

give a Hayate or George more Hp at ALT & they too will go faster

conversly test the american planes with their standard Hp & what happens ?

amazingly enough they would probably do their ratedspeed & only their rated speed

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lrrp22
06-26-2004, 04:03 PM
Oh, I have no doubt that PF be populated by Japanese planes modeled to the most optimistic data while U.S. planes will doubtlessly and typically be modeled to far more pedestrian spec's. Although, I must admit that FB's Mustang is flying pretty sweet now...

Bring on the F4U-4's, VIIth FC 80" WEP P-51D's and the P-47N's! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I agree that a typical wartime production Ki-84 probably couldn't do 427. I doubt any plane could do it's top figures under wartime conditions.

BTW, we'll probably have plenty to argue about when PF comes out. Japanese planes look very good in the TAIC manual. It's gonna be hard to accept that Germany didn't have a lock on high-perfomance Axis planes.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sat June 26 2004 at 11:07 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PikeBishop
06-28-2004, 09:34 AM
Dear All,
I really don't know why you all keep arguing the toss about the max speed of the 84, the fact remains that what really matters is excess power not max speed except when you are running away or trying to intercept and once clouds come into the equation in PF 'ducking and diving will be the order of the day'
The 84 was technically one of the best designs of WWII and will always be regarded as such. It bested the best of the opposition and had the war conditions been more favourable for the fighter doubtless much more would have been heard about it's exploits.In my view the 84's only weakness was it's radial engine. But where it lost out at altitude performance it could take a lot more punishment than the US inlines that powered the P51. I'd rather get home than be faster by a few mph but I'd also want to outclimb my enemies which the 84 could do well.

regards,

SLP....PS I don't believe the maintainence arguments about the 84 either. ALL aircraft had teething troubles and I always feel that the critics of the 84 always try to say "Oh well it was good but did'nt work half the time so it was'nt SOOO good"!

k5054
06-28-2004, 09:51 AM
Max speed matters. It is the best measure of a fighter, providing all other aspects are adequate.
It IS excess power. Aircraft don't usually race side by side, or stay level in an escape/chase situation, but if my max speed is 420 and yours is 400, when I am doing 400 I have 15% of my power in excess, you have none. The force with the faster fighters usually wins.
That's why it makes a difference whether the Ki-84 did 388mph, which is a little slow for 1945, it's ETO 1941 speed, or 427, which at 20,000 is competitive in 1945 anywhere. Or somewhere in between. The special problem with the 84 is that we have a largely inexplicable 39mph range between figures, and no flight tests.
As an aside, the Ki-84s combat record matches 388mph better than 427, IMO, it doesn't even have the fairy stories of the Ki-100 or George to support it.

lrrp22
06-28-2004, 10:29 AM
"As an aside, the Ki-84s combat record matches 388mph better than 427, IMO, it doesn't even have the fairy stories of the Ki-100 or George to support it."

VIIth Fighter Command Mustang pilots claimed a 40 mph advantage over Home Island Defense Ki-84's. Granted, that is a generic statement but it does give an indication of what kind of airplane the USAAF was facing over Japan.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Max speed matters. It is the best measure of a fighter, providing all other aspects are adequate.
It IS excess power. Aircraft don't usually race side by side, or stay level in an escape/chase situation, but if my max speed is 420 and yours is 400, when I am doing 400 I have 15% of my power in excess, you have none. The force with the faster fighters usually wins.
That's why it makes a difference whether the Ki-84 did 388mph, which is a little slow for 1945, it's ETO 1941 speed, or 427, which at 20,000 is competitive in 1945 anywhere. Or somewhere in between. The special problem with the 84 is that we have a largely inexplicable 39mph range between figures, and no flight tests.
As an aside, the Ki-84s combat record matches 388mph better than 427, IMO, it doesn't even have the fairy stories of the Ki-100 or George to support it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PikeBishop
06-29-2004, 02:29 AM
Dear All,

Max speed is the EASIEST bit of information to get and is NOT a measure of excess power. When you are at speeds approaching maximum, as soon as any direction change occurs and the drag comes into play any speed differences are lost. What I cannot understand is that excess power translates into either climb or acceleration. It is easy to say that one aircraft is faster than another because it is only 1 parameter that you are dealing with. But with climb and acceleration it is not so easy. We read accounts that the 84 could out climb its adversaries with ease. Acceleration is not so well known about. The point is that you cannot have one without the other. The flight envelope tells all. As I said I am not really interested in what the max speed actually was but I am inclined to think that the 84's max speed was better than 400mph but by how much - who knows. Something may be wrong somewhere but if a max speed quoted by the winning side after WWII in a time whe propaganda was going strong it may over time get cast in stone right or wrong. But climb and acceleration which are more obscure than max speed but tell one much more about performance characteristics.
At the end of the day I still go along with Oleg.......the 84 was feared and this reputation was not for nothing.

regards,

SLP.

PikeBishop
06-29-2004, 06:13 AM
I just read my previous post and I think it's a little confusing.
In a nutshell, what I am saying is that either the 84 could do 427mph and so on or there is something wrong because the other parameters (climb acceleration)would not match. Max speed IS a measure of the end point of thrust v drag but it is dimensionless. It is not in itself a measure of excess power as once it is reached there is none. The more I think on this the more I think the 388 mph is wrong..........It seems to be a problem like the Siemens Halsk engine that powered the Siemens Shuckert DIII in WWI where the max speed quoted does not tie up with the excess power available for climb. This was because the engine developed it's full power at only 900 rpm as the prop rotated in the opposite direction to the engine. Not that I am suggesting the 84 had this sort of anomaly. It just has to be faster to fit everything in the envelope..........we need more data!!

regards,

SLP

lrrp22
06-29-2004, 09:21 AM
Where are these accounts of the Ki-84 out-climbing and out-accelerating its adversaries "with ease"? Do you have actual first person accounts/test data to support this or is that just further extrapolation of the TAIC numbers. Remember, the 427 mph and 4300 fpm initial climb rate both come from the same TAIC document, so the same qualifications apply to both.

Would a Ki-84 outclimb a F4U-4 with ease? How about a VIIth fighter command Mustang at their standard 80" HG WEP and 2,000 HP? A F4U-1D running on 115/145 grade fuel?

I'm sure that the Ki-84 did climb well but that doesn't neccessarily correlate to a high top speed. Look at the Spitfire LF IX, its initial climb was nearly 5,000 fpm yet its top speed was just in excess of 400 mph. For that matter, I think the Spit VIII/IX and the Ki-84 relate well with each other with regards to weight /power/performance.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
I just read my previous post and I think it's a little confusing.
In a nutshell, what I am saying is that either the 84 could do 427mph and so on or there is something wrong because the other parameters (climb acceleration)would not match. Max speed IS a measure of the end point of thrust v drag but it is dimensionless. It is not in itself a measure of excess power as once it is reached there is none. The more I think on this the more I think the 388 mph is wrong..........It seems to be a problem like the Siemens Halsk engine that powered the Siemens Shuckert DIII in WWI where the max speed quoted does not tie up with the excess power available for climb. This was because the engine developed it's full power at only 900 rpm as the prop rotated in the opposite direction to the engine. Not that I am suggesting the 84 had this sort of anomaly. It just has to be faster to fit everything in the envelope..........we need more data!!

regards,

SLP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

geetarman
06-29-2004, 12:25 PM
Honestly, I also would like to read actual accounts of Franks dogfighting the US planes. Are there any?

The only ones I have read seem to indicate they got eaten up pretty easily. One was a late war account of a group of P-38's that bounced a formation of them. A df ensued and the 38's basically handed it to them. That does not happen in FB.

I'm not being critical here. I'd really be interested in seeing some additional accounts from pilots that fought in and against these Franks.

SkyChimp
06-29-2004, 06:26 PM
I spotted another Frank and chased him, but he started a steep turn before I could get a burst. The other P-51, which was flown by Lt. Sheers, got in a burst but did not get him. I then took another pass but missed. Lt. Sheers missed his next pass, but set the Frank up for me. I came down at a 45 degree angle and about 55 degree deflection shot, and put a solid burst into his cockpit. His cockpit seemed to crumble up and he crashed into the sea. We both fought with him from 10,000 feet down to 2,000 feet. The Frank is a very manueverable ship, but we could out-run it and outdive it. No one tried to outclimb it.

Major Ed Popek (flying P-51D)
348th FG
Mustang and Thunderbolt Aces of the Pacific and CBI.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

PikeBishop
07-01-2004, 02:32 AM
The scant evidence available is the point I am concerned about.....In combat (I would assume) it is easier to see if an aircraft outclimbs out-accelerates or out-turns you across the flight envelope, where you are most of the time in combat. But in order to compare the max speeds you have to reach them first and one would not be there much of the time while turning and rolling except perhaps after a dive. Also I think a pilot is less likely to want to chase if there is not much in it and you are under orders to conserve fuel etc.
So I think the information we seek is not easy to come across.
I put most faith in the maths because of the differing accounts that we are faced with.
e.g. the account of the loss of Maguire whilst fighting 2 Oscars with 4 P38's. The Oscars did well considering they had been 'Obselete' for some time. Yet we read accounts of P38's running away from Oscars on 1 engine. Not that I disagree with these accounts...its just hard to understand what was really happening with all parameters changing, few recorded and many guessed with a little bias thrown in ("we are the greatest...they are ****"). But popping in and out of clouds seems to be a very useful tactic at least for Oscars.

regards,

SLP.