PDA

View Full Version : Spit IX, Ki-84 and La-7



Wannabe-Pilot
09-10-2004, 06:23 AM
This particular trio raised a lot of dust. The question of whether or not some or any of these planes have been overmodelled has started more flame wars than we've seen in the entire history of mankind. Really something to be proud of guys http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Unfortunately for us objective and uninformed bystanders, in the end you know even less about the respective flying properties of these allegedly noob planes than you did before all hell broke loose.

In the interest of science, at my own peril, I shall ask once again: in which way, if at all, are the Spit IX, La-7 and Ki-84 better than they should be? Please post only if you consider yourself well informed and objective (although opinions are like a$$holes, everybody's got one, and no one ever complains that he/she is subjective and ignorant) not only in respect to FB, but also from a historical perspective as well.

A few rules to adhere to so this doesn't get out of hand:

1. I don't care about Ki-84 high alt performance (above 7500 m). In FB nobody ever goes that high. Also, we all understand that factory specs and performance of brand new planes are totally different than what front line machines are capable of. Don't start with the Ki-84 C: I know it wasn't built in large numbers (if at all), it's ingame just to make it more fun.

2. Don't start with damage modelling. From my own experience, how many hits a plane can soak up has more to do with the distance from which you score hits and individual marksmanship skills than with damage modelling. The only plane that has extraordinary durability is P-47 - just as it should. All the others are weaker to some degree.

3. Don't start with number crunching - I'd rather read a WWII fighter pilot account or opinion than all the calculations in the world. In the end, they tell you nothing.

Wannabe-Pilot
09-10-2004, 06:23 AM
This particular trio raised a lot of dust. The question of whether or not some or any of these planes have been overmodelled has started more flame wars than we've seen in the entire history of mankind. Really something to be proud of guys http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Unfortunately for us objective and uninformed bystanders, in the end you know even less about the respective flying properties of these allegedly noob planes than you did before all hell broke loose.

In the interest of science, at my own peril, I shall ask once again: in which way, if at all, are the Spit IX, La-7 and Ki-84 better than they should be? Please post only if you consider yourself well informed and objective (although opinions are like a$$holes, everybody's got one, and no one ever complains that he/she is subjective and ignorant) not only in respect to FB, but also from a historical perspective as well.

A few rules to adhere to so this doesn't get out of hand:

1. I don't care about Ki-84 high alt performance (above 7500 m). In FB nobody ever goes that high. Also, we all understand that factory specs and performance of brand new planes are totally different than what front line machines are capable of. Don't start with the Ki-84 C: I know it wasn't built in large numbers (if at all), it's ingame just to make it more fun.

2. Don't start with damage modelling. From my own experience, how many hits a plane can soak up has more to do with the distance from which you score hits and individual marksmanship skills than with damage modelling. The only plane that has extraordinary durability is P-47 - just as it should. All the others are weaker to some degree.

3. Don't start with number crunching - I'd rather read a WWII fighter pilot account or opinion than all the calculations in the world. In the end, they tell you nothing.

VW-IceFire
09-10-2004, 07:07 AM
Couple of observations:

Restrictions 1, 2, and 3 essentially limit the argument to virtually nothing at all.

The Spitfire IX's trouble is in high altitude speed over where its superchargers second stage kicks in and thats when its maximum speed goes well above what it should be. Below that, its modeling is entirely fine in my opinion based on all reports and records that I have read.

The La-7's climb rate is another example. I've heard is fairly close to reported specs at low altitude but it doesn't drop off like it should.

The Ki-84 is once again in the same boat where its maximum top speed at altitude is apparently (I haven't looked at the figures for this one) well above what it should be. The Ki-84 I also believe suffers from a problem with its ailerons...they are far to responsive through most of the speed envelope locking up only well above 700 kph. Not even the FW190 is that good...so I wonder if thats a bug or its based on some documentation (I never did see a roll chart).

That pretty much sums up the problems with those. Perhaps overall there is some energy modeling issues...although I'm fairly firmly convinced the IX hasn't got much in the way of problems there after reading numerous reports (such as Closterman diving with a FW190 and eventually shooting him down despite the dive away - Closterman was frusterated from what I can tell and said to hell with not diving and went after him).

Just what I think and based abit on reports, documents, and pilot accounts.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

MEGILE
09-10-2004, 07:08 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Not many of us are real pilots, and even less have flown actual warbirds. We know NOTHING.

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg
"Copper, you're smoking crack" - VF-11 Vadge http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cajun76
09-10-2004, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
... (above 7500 m). In FB nobody ever goes that high. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/P-47High.jpg

Just don't check your high 6, you'll be fine....... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
(56th)*Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif (http://www.airwarfare.com/)&lt;Click for Mudmovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

Wannabe-Pilot
09-10-2004, 08:01 AM
Megile,

I meant if you know of an online interview/article with actual WW2 fighter pilots reports or opinions, or, if you feel like it, you can copy one from a book you have at home. I didn't expect actual pilots from WW2 responding and droping a line now that's just silly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

IceFire

restrictions don't limit the argument to nothing at all, they just clarify the issue (what the debate actually should be about). If you, once you discount the points I mentioned in my restrictions, find that the aforementioned planes are just as they should be, then great, the debate is over. See I asked a simple question

'In what way, if at all, are these planes overmodelled'

and you gave me a simple answer. Exactly what I wanted. This is also why I don't want people posting ridicilous numbers like I saw in some posts (P-51 vs. 109 debate comes to mind when badsight and some others went on for 5 or 6 pages about relative surface of the wing in square feet, how many gallons of fuel etc. and other nonsense which meant nothing at all to me and to make matters worse they used non-metric system, gallons feet inches etc).

Also, I only discounted Ki-84 high alt performance, not the other two, cause I'm sick to death reading about it. And you're right, 680 kph for Spit seems at least 20 kph too much. Also something about overheating in Spits was also the issue, has that been resolved?

La-7 climb rate? Can you be more specific? At what alt does it become unrealistic and overmodelled? Is it a slight deviation or a gross mistake? What about Spit and 84 climb rate, is it well modelled?

I think you're wrong as far as Ki-84 top speed. All the account i've ever seen, and most of the community agree that a properly maintained Ki-84 could hit almost 690 kph just as it can in the game.

However, you might want to wait a bit, maybe somebody disagrees with you.


side note - why doesn't IL2 Compare include roll charts? Can I find some roll rate numbers online? Anybody?

Jaws2002
09-10-2004, 08:11 AM
So why not talk about damage model?
that Ki-84C is a flying tank.
Every time i set one on fire, after ten seconds the fire stops and he is shooting down two more guys before his plane blows up (five minutes later).
And then is that strange thing called Zoomclimb. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/Uber2sm.jpg

robban75
09-10-2004, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
La-7 climb rate? Can you be more specific? At what alt does it become unrealistic and overmodelled? Is it a slight deviation or a gross mistake? What about Spit and 84 climb rate, is it well modelled?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go. Some climbtimes. Compare the Spitfire IXc(not HF) climb to the high alt Ta 152H climb, also compare the low alt La-7 to the D-9.

Ta 152H

3000 - start timer
4000 - :44 - (22.7)
5000 - 1:33 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:31 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:43 - (13.9)
8000 - 5:48 - (13.3)
9000 - 6:22 - (11.9)
9800 - 8:01 - (8.1) engine toast after 5 minutes and 30 seconds from OH warning.

Spitfire MkIXc

3000 - start timer
4000 - :40 - (25)
5000 - 1:29 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:16 - (21.3)
7000 - 3:06 - (20)
8000 - 4:05 - (17)
9000 - 5:19 - (13.5)
10000 - 7:02 -(10.8)

(No overheat on the Spitfire)

La-7

3000 - start timer
4000 - :50 - (20)
5000 - 1:40 - (20)
6000 - 2:34 - (18.5)
7000 - 3:41 - (15) Overheat warning
8000 - 5:07 - (11.6)
9000 - 6:57 - (9.1) Engine Normal(?)
10000 - 9:30 - (6.5)

D-9 '45

3000 - start timer
4000 - :46 - (21.7)
5000 - 1:35 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:33 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:42 - (14.5)
8000 - 5:12 - (11.1)
9000 - 7:32 - (9.1)

Engine toast at 9050 meters, 6 minutes from OH warning

Fw 190A-6

3000 - start timer
4000 - 1:04 - (15.6)
5000 - 2:08 - (15.6) Overheat warning
6000 - 3:14 - (15.2)
7000 - 4:32 - (12.8)
8000 - 6:17 - (9.5)
8450 - 7:30 - (6.2) Engine damaged by overheating, unable to climb further.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

Daiichidoku
09-10-2004, 12:11 PM
The Ki84 1A and 1B models are just fine, I don't think anyone complains about them....it's that noob 1C model

The problem with the Ki84C is, for one, that it probably shouldn't be in FB to start with...if it was made in a very small quantity, or even at all, why should it?...far moer important types deserve to be, instead of it...

Ki84C was designed to go after B29s, and with no B29s in game, why have it? ah, to make the game more fun, you say? no fun being destroyed bu a noob in a type that probably never ever saw combat...how do we know the wings could handle the recoil of those cannon? maybe it couldnt..maybe it would have required strengthening, thus raising weight, thus affecting overall performance...

IMO, the Ki84 series DM is ok, it was known to be tuff, and seems ok...the 1.22 version was indestructible, but has since been toned down to a realistic level...they still flame fairly easily

My big beef about them is the lag effect the cannon bring to the game...often, when I see one, when it starts firing, my frame rate drops...I don't even like flying them, it gets so boring with it's one-shot kills everytime


Nobody goes over 7500m iin FB? it's the types like the Ki84C, La7, and Spit that force my Jug to do just that, very often


The La7 is kinda cheap, it would seem to be ovemodelled...is it truly unstallable?

Perhaps it is modelled accurately...but if so, then I would suspect fudged performance figures form the La bureau...would YOU want to present to Stalin a type that wouldnt best every other type, on paper?...Not unless you enjoy gulag!

The spit seems ok, except for the above-mentioned alt performance, and I don't know why, but the gunnery seems exceedingly easy on it...

Don't knock the P47s DM...if anything, it still needs to be tougher..in terms of it's control surfaces...oh, for a dime every time my poor Jug has shed a rudder, or lost ailerons response, even from 7.9mms...meanwhile, La7's with visibly shredded ailerons rudder, or even elevators do just fine....

The Jug's radial engine, while a bigger tgt than inlines in headons, seems still more liable to fail than the inlines...which is nonsense, IRL Jugs often came home missing entire cylinders! Inlines would pack up in minutes with the slightest damage..hmmmmm

Tvrdi
09-10-2004, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

The spit seems ok, except for the above-mentioned alt performance, and I don't know why, but the gunnery seems exceedingly easy on it...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

u forgot overheating issue....Spit overheats after very very long time (flying all the time with 100% throttle and boost)....I fly for the both sides equaly....it seams that Spit needs a "century" to overheat....however, before the patch Spits overheated quickly....so I wonder what those testers doin....from one extremity to another....
other planes on the list are modeled right acording to the ww2 specs....La7 was superior on the EF when introduced, Im sure...Ki84 also (it was the best japanese fighter in WW2, with better manouverability and climb rate than the redoubtable North American P-51H Mustang and the Republic P-47N Thunderbolt operating in the Pacific zone, it was encountered in all operational theaters and was effective at all altitudes. Allocated the Allied codename 'Frank" the Ki-84 would have posed considerable problems for the USAF had it appeared earlier and in larger numbers. In that event, Allied numerical superiority meant that the Japanese army overworked its Ki-84's, bringing unserviceability and maintenance problems that would not have arisen with more moderate usage...

[This message was edited by Tvrdi on Fri September 10 2004 at 12:31 PM.]

horseback
09-10-2004, 02:03 PM
The Ki-84 description here is a bit like Japanese wartime propaganda. It was a very good fighter design, but it had severe factory quality problems almost from the start. Its debut in China was enhanced by the fact that it showed up at about the same time as the razorback Mustangs P-51A & B/C were being transitioned into the CBI theater, and that from any appreciable distance, it looked a lot like its less capable predecessor, the Ki-43 Oscar.

For some reason, the Mustang groups in Asia had not gotten the information about the ammo feed fix the 8th AF had been using for almost six months at that time. Since Japanese fighters were much more likely to try to turn out of trouble than their LW counterparts, the Mustang's wing flex/ammo feed issue was much more acute in the CBI. According to Donald Lopez, a lot of the P-40 aces in his group were demanding their Warhawks back.

Delivery of the D-model cured the griping quite quickly.

In any case, the Japanese air forces were notably more optimistic throughout the war than any other air arm. Comparison of most Japanese units' claims usually exceed their opponents' losses by an average of seven to one throughout the war. At the beginning of the war, almost every fighter force tended to overclaim by a similar ratio, but eventually learned to become more accurate (like about claiming 5 for 3). Japanese units never seemed to have 'matured' in this regard, and the surviving aces were never questioned in the manner that the top scorers of other nations were. It appears to me that their claims are taken at face value by the persons chronicling their exploits.

The Frank had a terrific reputation in China in the summer of '44, but Ki-84 units in the Phillippines took a terrific beating from Navy units and then the USAAF fighters that followed that fall. Given that the better prewar trained maintenance and repair technicians had not been evacuated from places like New Guinea
and Rabaul (like every other Japanese soldier, sailor, and airman, bushido required them to stay and fight to the death, depriving their military of their valuable skills), and the quality of the aircraft delivered to the frontline units steadily deteriorated, the odd Frank that actually performed to factory specs must have come as a surprise not only to its opponent who initially ID'd it as an Oscar, but to its own pilot!

The final blow came when the factory that made the Franks' engines was firebombed in a B-29 raid in late '44/early '45. It is my understanding (I'm in my office, writing during my lunch break) that production was not resumed, and that the engine blocks that were literally recovered from the ashes were built up and installed in operational fighters.

The fact is that the Frank was not quite up to Nakajima's factory claims, and that in operational use, it was even less capable, particularly in the hands of the poorly trained average late-war Japanese fighter pilot. Certainly, if it had the performance advertised, a lot more Superfortresses would have been lost to them, but Ki-61s have the reputation as bomber killers in the IJAAF.

Undoubtedly, the few surviving aces managed to reserve the few 'hot' examples for their personal use, and tore a number of unsuspecting Yanks a new anal orifice, and their far greater speed than the bulk of Japanese fighters made them stand out. But the Frank's reputation is more of the 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' variety than any other aircraft in the FB/AEP inventory with the possible exception of the 109Z.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Tvrdi
09-10-2004, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The Ki-84 description here is a bit like Japanese wartime propaganda. It was a very good fighter design, but it had severe factory quality problems almost from the start. Its debut in China was enhanced by the fact that it showed up at about the same time as the razorback Mustangs P-51A & B/C were being transitioned into the CBI theater, and that from any appreciable distance, it looked a lot like its less capable predecessor, the Ki-43 Oscar.

For some reason, the Mustang groups in Asia had not gotten the information about the ammo feed fix the 8th AF had been using for almost six months at that time. Since Japanese fighters were much more likely to try to turn out of trouble than their LW counterparts, the Mustang's wing flex/ammo feed issue was _much_ more acute in the CBI. According to Donald Lopez, a lot of the P-40 aces in his group were demanding their Warhawks back.

Delivery of the D-model cured the griping quite quickly.

In any case, the Japanese air forces were notably more optimistic throughout the war than any other air arm. Comparison of most Japanese units' claims usually exceed their opponents' losses by an average of seven to one throughout the war. At the beginning of the war, almost every fighter force tended to overclaim by a similar ratio, but eventually learned to become more accurate (like about claiming 5 for 3). Japanese units never seemed to have 'matured' in this regard, and the surviving aces were never questioned in the manner that the top scorers of other nations were. It appears to me that their claims are taken at face value by the persons chronicling their exploits.

The Frank had a terrific reputation in China in the summer of '44, but Ki-84 units in the Phillippines took a terrific beating from Navy units and then the USAAF fighters that followed that fall. Given that the better prewar trained maintenance and repair technicians had not been evacuated from places like New Guinea
and Rabaul (like every other Japanese soldier, sailor, and airman, _bushido_ required them to stay and fight to the death, depriving their military of their valuable skills), and the quality of the aircraft delivered to the frontline units steadily deteriorated, the odd Frank that actually performed to factory specs must have come as a surprise not only to its opponent who initially ID'd it as an Oscar, but to its own pilot!

The final blow came when the factory that made the Franks' engines was firebombed in a B-29 raid in late '44/early '45. It is my understanding (I'm in my office, writing during my lunch break) that production was not resumed, and that the engine blocks that were literally recovered from the ashes were built up and installed in operational fighters.

The fact is that the Frank was not quite up to Nakajima's factory claims, and that in operational use, it was even less capable, particularly in the hands of the poorly trained average late-war Japanese fighter pilot. Certainly, if it had the performance advertised, a lot more Superfortresses would have been lost to them, but Ki-61s have the reputation as bomber killers in the IJAAF.

Undoubtedly, the few surviving aces managed to reserve the few 'hot' examples for their personal use, and tore a number of unsuspecting Yanks a new anal orifice, and their far greater speed than the bulk of Japanese fighters made them stand out. But the Frank's reputation is more of the 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' variety than any other aircraft in the FB/AEP inventory with the possible exception of the 109Z.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Allocated the Allied codename 'Frank" the Ki-84 would have posed considerable problems for the USAF had it appeared earlier and in larger numbers"
above goes for the Me262 aslo...Im sorry but thats the fact....i luv when ppl from the US defend their machinery....I was born in small country so i havent my priorities http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
09-10-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The fact is that the Frank was not quite up to Nakajima's factory claims<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

every Ki-84 hater seems to also be a Mustang fan , they love to tell you how the RL war went on & how the Ki-84s were operated in the Feild

& its all true !

bet they really dont like planes in FB being in brand new , fresh-from-the-factory condition with perfect construction

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
But the Frank's reputation is more of the 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' variety than any other aircraft in the FB/AEP inventory with the possible exception of the 109Z.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why is it more so than any other plane horseback ? (Bf109Z excepted of course)

is it because Mustangs cannot swat them out of the sky with ease ?

is it because the Mustang is not in the same class as the Hayate & it comes as a shock ? , because thats what it has sure come across ever since the Hayates debut into FB

the DM of the plane is wrong , i mean it can absorb a ton of rounds into its fusealarge but its wings dont tolerate even small MG hits

as for the C model . . . . . people dont like to fight planes that can destroy them in one pass

its not fun

we like to get a decent fight before we are beaten & the Ki-C hits like 30mm should (like the Bf109 30mm ought to hit just as hard or even better , buts it seems de-rated)

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
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

horseback
09-10-2004, 03:37 PM
Badsite-

The Frank more than any other because it's performance is based on reputation rather than reality, and the FM appears based on performance figures I've found nowhere else. The reports I've read of the C's performance indicated that the replacement of airframe parts with wooden parts show a lesser performance due the the greater weight penalty, and changes in CG. The 30mms were cranky, from most reports, and of inconsistant performance (QA problems again).

As I've pointed out, the Japanese were awfully optimistic in their combat reports and claims, and they clearly went overboard with the Ki-84. That Oleg swallowed it whole is probably due more to Japan's current reputation for engineering excellence than serious research.

While all Frank models were a great improvement in ruggedness over their Japanese brethren, they were average by Western standards, and hardly in the Hellcat/Thunderbolt class in this respect.

Complicating the issue is the historical fact that there was no great pressure for better performance from Allied fighters because of the deteriorating performance of Axis front-line types due to their inadequacies in manufacturing quality, logistics, and maintenance practices, never mind the pilot quality.

Had the new types even approached their reported factory specs, I am convinced that aircraft like the P-51H (or a Gryffon engined Mustang model), the P-47N and the Bearcat would have been rushed to the frontlines that much sooner, and established more irrefutable records.

As it was, there was no need for Allied fighters to evolve in pace with their Axis competitors, to the detrement of people wanting to fly their country's standard bearers in a WWII flight sim context. Clearly, they weren't thinking of our needs in 1944 and 1945...

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

WUAF_Badsight
09-10-2004, 04:02 PM
the Ki-II model is the hayate that had wood substituted for metal in certian parts (not sure which )

but the first model hayates that had 30mm cannon installed were lightened & the heavier guns didnt make the plane heavier

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
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

VW-IceFire
09-10-2004, 07:21 PM
I can't be more specific about the La-7 climb rate but others have been before so I'm simply remembering what I made of the results before and stating them here again.

There are no good charts from what I can tell but the La-7 apparently was a good climber but that its performance dropped above its best altitude...very rapidly. Making it a superb low altitude fighter but not capable of competing with P-51's or Bf 109's at high altitude. This is supposed to be its achilles heel...well that and poor factory construction but you can't really model that.

Spitfire overheat issue not resolved. In 2.01 it overheated very quickly and was a problem. In 2.04 it barely overheats. Some say its realistic (example of a Mark VIII in the tropics with same engine and higher boost pressure not overheating in typical operation) and some say its not. True that it is about 20kph too fast at high alt and manuvers probably too well at that alt. Still, most online dogfighters stay at sealevel and its not an issue there at all.

As for the Ki-84 top speed...it seems pretty fine. It was fast, it was dangerous to American fighters...it had the same problems as the La-7 with production quality but you can't model that...not right now anyways. The debate is to use operating specs or best performance figures...that applies to all aircraft.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

Wannabe-Pilot
09-11-2004, 03:44 AM
QUOTE

'Perhaps it is modelled accurately...but if so, then I would suspect fudged performance figures form the La bureau...would YOU want to present to Stalin a type that wouldnt best every other type, on paper?...Not unless you enjoy gulag!


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif good point never thought about it that way. One thing that puzzles me about La-7 is this. According to the game, it is a vast improvement over the La-5FN (over 40 kph faster, better forward view). However, I've
read a book called 'LaGG and La aces' by Osprey where it actually says that VVS pilots weren't so pleased with the LA-7 since it offered only a marginal improvement over the 5FN type. I mean, WTF? I'd hardly call it marginal

Wannabe-Pilot
09-11-2004, 03:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

Don't knock the P47s DM...if anything, it still needs to be tougher..in terms of it's control surfaces...oh, for a dime every time my poor Jug has shed a rudder, or lost ailerons response, even from 7.9mms...meanwhile, La7's with visibly shredded ailerons rudder, or even elevators do just fine....

The Jug's radial engine, while a bigger tgt than inlines in headons, seems still more liable to fail than the inlines...which is nonsense, IRL Jugs often came home missing entire cylinders! Inlines would pack up in minutes with the slightest damage..hmmmmm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It happens often that i fire my little heart out at the Jug and it keeps flying. I go berserk at that. Then I remember the famous instance when a Jug pilot came home with a Jug so badly shredded nobody could believe it (you know the one, when a Fw-190 pulled alongside and shook his head in disbelief) - they counted 21 20 mm cannon holes in it. So I think, yeah it's probably OK. And it's pretty tuogh, spot on IMO.

Wannabe-Pilot
09-11-2004, 04:00 AM
Horseback

as always very informative post. You're one of the nicest guys on the forum, and always very forthcoming with replies. thanx and

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Cajun76
09-11-2004, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tvrdi:

"Allocated the Allied codename 'Frank" the Ki-84 would have posed considerable problems for the USAF had it appeared earlier and in larger numbers"
above goes for the Me262 aslo...Im sorry but thats the fact....i luv when ppl from the US defend their machinery....I was born in small country so i havent my priorities http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nice what-if-this-happened 'fact' alright. I love it when people defend Axis machinery (notice I didn't say German people, or people from Axis countries) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif More capable fighters were availible to the Allies, especially the US, than were fielded. The US didn't need wonder weapons that could only be produced in limited numbers. Competitive a/c produced in quantity wins wars. The Allies were certainly capable of producing a/c that met or exceeded anything the Axis could put up, they just didn't need to. They produced competitive a/c that got the job done. Just an example:

XP-47Ms were developed in mid '43, but were not needed. Regular P-47Ds held their own quite well against their opponents. M's were ordered by the British for V-1 intercepts, but the technology had been there for at least a year. P-47M's were the fastest propeller driven fighter to see combat service in any Air Force in the ETO. Now that's a fact. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Good hunting,
(56th)*Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif (http://www.airwarfare.com/)&lt;Click for Mudmovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

horseback
09-11-2004, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Ki-II model is the hayate that had wood substituted for metal in certian parts (not sure which )

but the first model hayates that had 30mm cannon installed were lightened & the heavier guns didnt make the plane heavier.
____________________________________________
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rear fuselage & wingtips. Substituting wood for metal parts usually required using larger and heavier pieces to obtain the same structural strength. An all-wood version of the Frank, designated Ki-106, was almost 1000 lbs. heavier than the all metal original. I expect that the Ki-84-II would have been on the order of at least 300 lbs heavier than its predecessor (no figures found)-that works out to over 1.5 extra pilots' weight, since the average Japanese male in WWII was about 5'2", 125 lbs (164cm, 56.8 kg). This could not have had a positive effect on performance.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

RedDeth
09-11-2004, 11:53 AM
spitfire overheating. i wonder when people say it hardly ever overheats.

these guys have never picked up a book about spitfires ever.

spits up high had a problem with over cooling. not over heating. odd? well thats real life.

spits in tropics pretty much never overheated.


in game considering how short battles are spits should never ever overheat.

also jugs have come back from missions with up to 60 20 mil hits and landed. multiple times. and hundreds of smaller round hits. half of wings missing.... cylinders blown away on engine and still working fine etc etc etc. jugs were the safest form of air transport in ww2. bar none

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_1088291823_taylor-greycap.jpg

Wannabe-Pilot
09-11-2004, 12:12 PM
How many B model Ki-84 (with four 20 mm cannons) were built?

Was the C model supposed to have extra armour to go after the B-29s? Perhaps that's why the devs modelled it so tough?