PDA

View Full Version : More on the Ki-84



DJDalton
04-12-2004, 04:25 PM
I posted this topic in the "Pacific Planes" and "General" forum. I'll take the liberty of reposting here, because this is where the issue is apparently being discussed:

"Does anyone else have game modeling question regarding the Frank? I don't have an issue with it being nimble and fast. Almost all Japanese planes were nimble and this plane was the fastest Japan had. Although there are a large number of sources that indicate its true top speed was 392 mph. Theoretically, it was capable of faster with high pressure fuel injection. The problem was the Japanese could not iron out the bugs (fires) with the high pressure system and were forced to utilize the low pressure one with the reduced speed. But assuming its design speed is good modeling, what appears questionable is its climbing ability. In the game it will catch a 109G-10 that starts with greater energy in a grab. Does anyone else have an issue with that? Additionally, it can score cannon hits at .80 meters, which is 2,400 yards, if its aligned correctly. Without questioning the merits of Japanese cannon, does anyone else find that merits discussion? I'd like to ask what is the longest range anyone playing the game has scored hits with the Frank?

If the Frank is mismodeled, its within the power of those creating the rooms to limit its use. (At least I think it is) But assuming mismodeling, isn't a better solution to fix it in the next patch?

Anyone have an opinion?"

I'd like to cite a couple sources for the Frank's performance. I've read some posts regarding "cruise" vs. "maximum" performance speeds. In some cases these sources cite both. In the following source, just follow the self evident links to view the specs on the Ki-84:

http://www.kotfsc.com/

This source is very informative and it mentions the Midland Pennslyvania test where the fantastic performance was attained. It also mentions that the "low pressure" fuel injection was joined to the late model Franks. I can't locate it currently, but I'm almost certain I've read the Pennslyvania test employed both American aviation fuel and a modified American high pressure fuel injection system that was mated to the plane in question. I'll continue to search:

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

In the following source there is an indication of the climb rate. It is good, but not on a par with the late model Bf-109's:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/nakaki84.html#nakaki84verstab

The Frank was undoubtedly the best performing Japanese plane, but its truly outstanding performance was a full year after the war ended and even then it was an out of context test and there is no indication of the phenomenal climb rate that the Frank has in the game.

Then there is the cannon issue? What is the furthest anyone playing has scored hits with the Frank?

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

DJDalton
04-12-2004, 04:25 PM
I posted this topic in the "Pacific Planes" and "General" forum. I'll take the liberty of reposting here, because this is where the issue is apparently being discussed:

"Does anyone else have game modeling question regarding the Frank? I don't have an issue with it being nimble and fast. Almost all Japanese planes were nimble and this plane was the fastest Japan had. Although there are a large number of sources that indicate its true top speed was 392 mph. Theoretically, it was capable of faster with high pressure fuel injection. The problem was the Japanese could not iron out the bugs (fires) with the high pressure system and were forced to utilize the low pressure one with the reduced speed. But assuming its design speed is good modeling, what appears questionable is its climbing ability. In the game it will catch a 109G-10 that starts with greater energy in a grab. Does anyone else have an issue with that? Additionally, it can score cannon hits at .80 meters, which is 2,400 yards, if its aligned correctly. Without questioning the merits of Japanese cannon, does anyone else find that merits discussion? I'd like to ask what is the longest range anyone playing the game has scored hits with the Frank?

If the Frank is mismodeled, its within the power of those creating the rooms to limit its use. (At least I think it is) But assuming mismodeling, isn't a better solution to fix it in the next patch?

Anyone have an opinion?"

I'd like to cite a couple sources for the Frank's performance. I've read some posts regarding "cruise" vs. "maximum" performance speeds. In some cases these sources cite both. In the following source, just follow the self evident links to view the specs on the Ki-84:

http://www.kotfsc.com/

This source is very informative and it mentions the Midland Pennslyvania test where the fantastic performance was attained. It also mentions that the "low pressure" fuel injection was joined to the late model Franks. I can't locate it currently, but I'm almost certain I've read the Pennslyvania test employed both American aviation fuel and a modified American high pressure fuel injection system that was mated to the plane in question. I'll continue to search:

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

In the following source there is an indication of the climb rate. It is good, but not on a par with the late model Bf-109's:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/nakaki84.html#nakaki84verstab

The Frank was undoubtedly the best performing Japanese plane, but its truly outstanding performance was a full year after the war ended and even then it was an out of context test and there is no indication of the phenomenal climb rate that the Frank has in the game.

Then there is the cannon issue? What is the furthest anyone playing has scored hits with the Frank?

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

crazyivan1970
04-12-2004, 04:31 PM
0.8M - 800m ~ 875 yards. Still pretty far ~ 8 football fields?
But you can say the same about MG too, flying 109 i was damaged by 50 cals or UBS from 650m and futher.

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

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

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

LEXX_Luthor
04-12-2004, 04:37 PM
Excellent thread.

Another good 84 thread, here...

---> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=417105843

__________________
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

DJDalton
04-12-2004, 04:38 PM
I stand corrected...mental glitch. Still it reaches out farther than the other planes in the game and I wanted to know whats the farthest anyone has scored hits in it.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

crazyivan1970
04-12-2004, 04:39 PM
I never flew C, guess gotta try it out hehe.

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

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

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

DJDalton
04-12-2004, 05:51 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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 regarding the "engine modification"...maybe that may lead me in the right direction.

thx

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

clint-ruin
04-12-2004, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
0.8M - 800m ~ 875 yards. Still pretty far ~ 8 football fields?
But you can say the same about MG too, flying 109 i was damaged by 50 cals or UBS from 650m and futher.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comprehensive range tests are at:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/range.html

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

HayateKid
04-12-2004, 08:12 PM
What??? we have to repeat the same arguments again? Why don't we just bump over and over the other thread (the one with the 12 pages)

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

easymo
04-12-2004, 08:36 PM
We could probably nit pick the 109Z also, IF IT EVER EXISTED.

VW-IceFire
04-12-2004, 09:36 PM
I've flown the Ki-84c (although not online) and I just don't understand what the problem is. The guns spread more than MK108's in the FW190's and although fire rate is higher I don't see chances for hits to be much different...its still a short range lobber type weapon best used against bombers or an unwary fighter.

If its climb is off then its not the only fighter in the game to have a better than reported climb rate. Much of the complaints against the Ki have to do with DM...which seems overly strong at some points and realistically average (note: Frank doesn't have the same vulnerability problems that most other Japanese WWII types did so it shouldn't be paper thin) in others.

Other than that...it turns decently, its pretty fast, and have decent levels of firepower.

My real interest is to find what people were thinking when they removed the Ki-84c from most lists and not remove the 109Z which, although its really impossible to say, is very much overmodeled or at least totally superior to all opponents (not to mention that aim is not a requirement - proximity to the noise of the plane is just fine).

Its possible to kill stuff at 800 meters but I honestly do not open fire till 300 meters and generally much closer. Waste of ammo...

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

PikeBishop
04-13-2004, 01:09 AM
Dear All,

Let's get this clear.....climb rate depends on excess power - the difference between the thrust required to stay in the air and the thrust available. Any excess thrust becomes an aircraft's ability to accelerate or climb. As the Japanese were exceptionally good at saving weight and clean designs the excess power was always better than their european counterparts and also their acceleration and climb. All their designs show this characteristic. The Frank is probably the best example of this combining speed strength and climb to an unparalleled degree.

regards,

SLP

WUAF_Badsight
04-13-2004, 01:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
In the game it will catch a 109G-10 that starts with greater energy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Hayate was lighter .... with better wing loading & same power

wheres the problem ?

& i can score hits at .80 with the Mk103 .... your point is that Hayate is too good ?

why ?

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

But assuming mismodeling
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

isnt that what your doing ...... assuming ?

wouldnt it be better to correct actual bugs instead of percieved ones ?

PikeBishop
04-13-2004, 01:28 AM
One other important point in all this is that with a maximum angle of attack of the wing of 15 degrees or so, the lower the speed that this can be achieved the better.
This is directly linked to stall speed.
It follows that if the climb angle is achieved at a lower speed combined with a great deal of excess power, the faster one can climb.
regards,
SLP

Giganoni
04-13-2004, 01:40 AM
I was wondering, what type of the Ha-45 engine does the Ki-84 in the game have? According to wwiitech.net there were at least four types used in the Ki-84 I. All of them seem to have different performances. The later engines being more reliable and more HP. Also I have to agree with pike bishop, a very clean design and it was one of the best climbers for Japan. It also was stengthed for steep dives. As to the damage model, it had 13mm pilot armor and 75mm glass, isn't that pretty decent? Plus you have to factor the angle at which you attack..if your bullets are hitting a wing at no angle, your gonna do some serious damage, but if at a bad angle, not a very deep hit.

PlaneEater
04-13-2004, 03:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
i can score hits at .80 with the Mk103 .... your point is that Hayate is too good ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mk103 was a very high velocity, very long barreled weapon--and therefore very large. That long flat trajectory cost weight and size.

The problem is that the 30mms on the Ic are smaller, shorter barreled--thus less accurate, fire a lower velocity round, have much less mass to counter the recoil... but do just as well as the Mk103.

There aren't many of them left. They flew these things. They stepped off the earth, into the sky, in a pair of metal wings and a howling, living, fire-breathing beast of war, and they fought.

And they died.

And the least we can do is remember they were heroes.

SUPERAEREO
04-13-2004, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by easymo:
We could probably nit pick the 109Z also, IF IT EVER EXISTED.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It EXISTS NOW. Just get on with it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

S!



"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

VW-IceFire
04-13-2004, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by easymo:
We could probably nit pick the 109Z also, IF IT EVER EXISTED.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It EXISTS NOW. Just get on with it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

S!



"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True...but it outperforms most planes in a low altitude dogfight in level speed and acceleration if not climb speed. That and the fact that its spread of cannons will ensure death of anything that is within some distance of its nose. Essentially I feel that the Z is far too overpowering or posses not enough vices to allow for a fun time in a dogfight room. With other planes the pilot your fighting has to aim at a moving target and attempt to knock it down while manuvering with it or achieving a firing time in a high speed pass. With the Z none of that exists...it fires and you are dead and unless you violently manuver out of the way (usually with a fast turner like the Spitfire) in which case the Z will zoom away turn around and make another pass...I just don't find it fun playing against it with the current planesets in the servers. Give me a YP-80 to counteract it and I'll fly against it all day...

Sorry for going off topic but the Ki-84c and the 109Z apparrently have some role reversals in terms of planes allowed on servers.

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

DJDalton
04-13-2004, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear All,

Let's get this clear.....climb rate depends on excess power - the difference between the thrust required to stay in the air and the thrust available. Any excess thrust becomes an aircraft's ability to accelerate or climb. As the Japanese were exceptionally good at saving weight and clean designs the excess power was always better than their european counterparts and also their acceleration and climb. All their designs show this characteristic. The Frank is probably the best example of this combining speed strength and climb to an unparalleled degree.

regards,

SLP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting theory can you back it up with more than what sounds like opinion. You made some strong assertions, do they stand alone?"

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

DJDalton
04-13-2004, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DJDalton:
In the game it will catch a 109G-10 that starts with greater energy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Hayate was lighter .... with better wing loading & same power

wheres the problem ?

& i can score hits at .80 with the Mk103 .... your point is that Hayate is too good ?

why ?

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

But assuming mismodeling
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

isnt that what your doing ...... assuming ?

wouldnt it be better to correct actual bugs instead of percieved ones ?[/QUOTE

The Frank was heavier.

I'm trying to ascertain which plane you're flying to score hits at .80 with the Mk-103. Would you elaborate?

I pointed to facts in another post about climb rates. I've been careful not to make assumptions.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

DJDalton
04-13-2004, 06:20 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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



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 ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Tetrapharmakoi
04-13-2004, 07:37 PM
The lavochkin 7 was better than Bf109 in climb rate.
Secondly if there was something to modify for the patch , it is the scandalous undermodelling of the Focke Wulf in climb rate , roll rate , dive acceleration.
There is the problem of the MG 151/20 that is clearly undermodelled (very important to fix, it is a scandal) .
There is the problem of the gunsight that disapear as soon as you get hit near the cockpit (while VVS planes doesn't know the problem )
There is the problem of the FW-190 cockpit bar misplaced , narrowing the view in the cockpit of the FW-190
Also the Fw-190A8 should have additional armor and should be tougher (that was why he was slower than A5)
Not to mention that almost all the testimonies of WWII veteran and experts point the plane as having outstanding performances , this is not the case in the game .
it is very frustrating to witness this injustice made to this plane.

Bull_dog_
04-13-2004, 07:54 PM
The Fw's roll rate is undermodelled? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

When I fly Luftwaffe, I fly Fw's...they aren't perfect and I really feel for the Fw jocks and that obnoxious cockpit...but that thing is a darn good killing machine...all aircraft have gun strength problems....

As far as the Ki, my sources say the Ki had a modest rate of climb...but I am actually getting tired of talking about the Ki....

For every source a person finds, someone else finds something contradictory....the way the aircraft is modelled in this game is contrary to most of the information I have available to me...doesn't mean its "wrong"... I think it is, but hey, who knows.

I would be curious if Hyperlobby could track kill ratio's of online aircraft... I wonder which aircraft would be highest... I'll bet the Ki is up there but I'll bet there might be some suprise aircraft in there too due to tactics (like the Jug). Given the low altitude nature of on line fighting as well as the open nature of most plane lists, it would be an interesting study....

How about creating a server to track these things so you don't have I-153's trying to battle 109Z's...might find out what plane is the best low altitude killer.... I suspect it would be the Ki-84C, Fw-190A or La-7...

DJDalton
04-13-2004, 08:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tetrapharmakoi:
The lavochkin 7 was better than Bf109 in climb rate.
Secondly if there was something to modify for the patch , it is the scandalous undermodelling of the Focke Wulf in climb rate , roll rate , dive acceleration.
There is the problem of the MG 151/20 that is clearly undermodelled (very important to fix, it is a scandal) .
There is the problem of the gunsight that disapear as soon as you get hit near the cockpit (while VVS planes doesn't know the problem )
There is the problem of the FW-190 cockpit bar misplaced , narrowing the view in the cockpit of the FW-190
Also the Fw-190A8 should have additional armor and should be tougher (that was why he was slower than A5)
Not to mention that almost all the testimonies of WWII veteran and experts point the plane as having outstanding performances , this is not the case in the game .
it is very frustrating to witness this injustice made to this plane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding La-7 climb rate, I'd like to stick to one issue at a time...lol The game play anomaly that showed itself to me was the grab rate of the Ki-84, but if you have sources that show the La-7 out grabbed it's Bf-109 contemporaries post away, I'm eager to read them. I believe what you'll find when you dig into it was that although the La-7 was fast in level flight at low to mid altitudes it was not a phenomenal climbing plane. The high performance Yaks were superior to the La-7 is my recollection. When it becomes necessary I'll post sources.

The problem I've had with the FW-190 is engine overheating and despite powering it back to 90% without nitrous it continues to overheat. I feel it rolls tremendously well in the game but that the "flop onto the back" trait during stalls is too prevalent and that a glitch exists with it. The FW-190 had tremendous accelleration according to the accounts I've read and it was reasonably fast. I don't think those two qualities are demonstrated in the game.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

DJDalton
04-13-2004, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
The Fw's roll rate is undermodelled? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

As far as the Ki, my sources say the Ki had a modest rate of climb...but I am actually getting tired of talking about the Ki....

For every source a person finds, someone else finds something contradictory....the way the aircraft is modelled in this game is contrary to most of the information I have available to me...doesn't mean its "wrong"... I think it is, but hey, who knows.

...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the truth tends to reveal itself in the "battle of sources". It's certainly a better way of getting to the truth and fixing the glitches that arise than mere opinion, don't ya think?

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

GK.
04-13-2004, 08:56 PM
that range test just shows when and how far away the tracer disappears. it is no indication that you can actually hit something at the max ranges indicated or do any damage. These two assumptions are unwarranted.

clint-ruin
04-13-2004, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
that range test just shows when and how far away the tracer disappears. it is no indication that you can actually hit something at the max ranges indicated or do any damage. These two assumptions are unwarranted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, pardon?

There are a few instances [Mk108 comes to mind] where the non-tracer rounds extend a little further than the tracer.

JTDs test is simply intended to show the point at which rounds cease to exist and how fast they seem to be going when they get there.

If you are going to talk about the maximum range a gun can hit a target at in FB it is kind of relevant to have a list of how far each guns shells reach in the game.

While speed and angle of impact does influence damage in FB, it does not matter a great deal for 30mm HE shells - they are going to be damaging no matter what.

JTDs range tests can be combined with the Il-2 gunnery data files mass data to determine how much momentum any round is likely to have at 200/500/1000m too.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

GK.
04-13-2004, 11:03 PM
The test is bogus until he demonstrates that it is possible to hit a target at such ranges. For all we know the round might "exist" but not be capable of hitting a target.

clint-ruin
04-13-2004, 11:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
The test is bogus until he demonstrates that it is possible to hit a target at such ranges. For all we know the round might "exist" but not be capable of hitting a target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the round exists it is capable of hitting a target, though whether you can actually get the round there after drop/dispersion/velocity is taken into account at that range is another thing.

If the round does not exist it is not capable of hitting the target, no matter how good a shot you are.

...

What was the problem again exactly? :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

DJDalton
04-13-2004, 11:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
The test is bogus until he demonstrates that it is possible to hit a target at such ranges. For all we know the round might "exist" but not be capable of hitting a target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, seeing the tracers at certain distances is not evidence that the rounds can impact and do damage at those distances. The question was, what is the furthest players have been hit by or made hits with the Ki-84. My plane took hits at .80 which is 2,400 feet and that seemed unreasonable because I can't score hits with the German planes I've been flying at that distance. Maybe its me, maybe I don't aim well. Thats why I've asked. Once people respond with hit distances then we can consult the sources. My experience being hit at that range twice - both time Ki-84's. Its the only plane thats shot at, let alone touched me at that extreme range. By the way it was a Ki-84a I believe. Someone implied it was the C model.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

clint-ruin
04-13-2004, 11:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
Agreed, seeing the tracers at certain distances is not evidence that the rounds can impact and do damage at those distances.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JTDs tests and the Il-2 gun data file show that tracers are not seperate entities to rounds/shells.

Explosive rounds will blow up at any point up to their maximum range.

Momentum for AP rounds will be calculated at the point of impact at any point up to their maximum range.

Whether APs have enough punch to damage an object at the extreme outer limits of their range depends on the speed/mass of the round and the angle of impact and the surface of the DM it hits.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
04-14-2004, 12:45 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

DJDalton
04-14-2004, 02:51 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 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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that I've found the right forum I won't need to Triple Post. I was referred here by someone in the Pacific Planes forum.

I don't know what the game grab rate is of the Bf-109K-4. If its modeled according to the reports upon it, nothing in the game should be able to get close to it. It was the hottest rod of all hot rods. It went up like a homesick angel. I haven't flown it yet, because for me it would be no challenge. If flown properly, nothing will touch it. The only way to get a kill on a Bf-109K-4 is to catch one after its been damaged by a bomber or catch it when its flown poorly and is low and slow.

The grab rate for the 109K is stated in the game to be 3,000 meters in 2.5 minutes. Other sources say 3 minutes to attain 5,000 meters or 15,000 feet. No WWII wartime era plane compares:

http://www.bf109.com/performance.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/2337/109.htm

Note the quick climb of the Bf-109G-2 at the above site.

The questionable grab rates I've observed in my short time involve the Bf-109Z, a plane which I believe never saw service and the Ki-84.

But your post has changed tenor from insisting that the Ki-84 SHOULD out climb the Bf-109G-10 to a position that they DON'T out climb it and therefore theres no glitches to fix. I know how to dissipate a planes energy and twice I wore a Ki-84 down and then it recovered its energy in a climb and made me break. The makers of the game are in the best position to know if the grab rate of the Ki-84 is superior to Bf-109G-2,6 or 10. It should not be, but I'll look into some tests.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

WUAF_Badsight
04-14-2004, 03:30 AM
so you dont know about manuel pitch ?

WUAF_Badsight
04-14-2004, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:

No WWII wartime era plane compares:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grumman F8F Bearcat
3000m climb under 2 min 20 secs

WUAF_Co_Hero
04-14-2004, 04:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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 regarding the "engine modification"...maybe that may lead me in the right direction.

thx

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if anyone finds this odd, or if it's just me... but somehow the Hispano 20mm cannon has the highest muzzle velocity for a 20mm cannon, and at the same time... the shortest range... How is that physically possible???

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

WUAF_Co_Hero
04-14-2004, 04:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:

The only way to get a kill on a Bf-109K-4 is to catch one after its been damaged by a bomber or catch it when its flown poorly and is low and slow.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sry Dalton, but that is flat out rubbish: there are, as the saying goes: "... more than one way to skin a cat."

The K-4 suffers from sub-par high alt performance compared to latewar U.S. fighters, and is easily tackled with an initial alt advantage if high, and cautious.

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Tetrapharmakoi
04-14-2004, 06:36 AM
Here is the link for The Lavochkin -7- performances :
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html
Concerning FW-190 iknow his roll rate is one of the fastest in the game, but it should be even better (but ok let's say it is a detail) ,
but more important is the dive acceleration (For the P-47 too) that was his advantage that is not well modelled in the game ( a wooden yak dives as fast as a FW 190 in the first 1000 m of dive!!).
And the thing that is strucking me and getting me nervous is the tragical weak MG/151 20 mm and MG /FF while this armement was very powerful in reality and the FW-190 known for his devastating fire power (i know that german 20mm had less velocity and rate of fire than Shvak ok , but what we have in the game is 15 mm instaed of true Mauser MG/151 20 mm ! ... frustrating...)
What about the Revi gunsight that get damaged systematically as you are hit ,is this a joke ?
Why wooden VVS planes or GB lend lease planes that were used and sometimes old don't have the problem ?
I can live with the problem of the bar misplaced and the climb rate slightly underestimated , but concerning the question of MG/151 , dive accel., and revi gunsight it is a complete scandal .
I love IL-2 Sturmovik because it was bound to be a simulation with the most historical accuracy possible , with realistic FM and DM, but i have to admit that for the Focke Wulf there is an emergency about fire power , dive accel (main advantages of the plane) and Revi fixed with stickers (injustice).

JG26Red
04-14-2004, 07:29 AM
I did a test before, the KI was about 20-30kph to fast at all alts... it also had superb high speed handling in game, which is false as is the high speed durability, at 800kph you can jack they KI all around when in REAL world it would have a tendecy to loose parts at that speed, all this i have documented in over 4 books, esp the speed, always wondered why OLEG would model a plane with its "optimal" speeds and not others, other planes are modelled at normal and the KI is on speed.. lol, in my mind anything japanese is junk.. but thats just my opinnion...

ZG77_Nagual
04-14-2004, 08:48 AM
Wow, some outrageous and remarkable uninformed stuff in this thread - along with some good.
The 109k4, as far as I know, should outclimb pretty much everything with pistons.
The damage bug with the 190's gunsight is allready being fixed in the patch. 190s are one of my favs and I think they are great.
The Ki84 should be about the best dogfighter in the simm - and is. I can usually handle it without too much trouble in a p39.

Oleg used factory specs for pretty much everything except the vvs birds - which he toned down. I'm sure the p39 data comes from vvs source however.

A well-flown k4 is very difficult to beat in this simm if he has been able to gain an alt advantage. You end up chipping away at him from long range - hoping to degrade performance.

Everyone should remember that most books written on planes like the ki84 - (p39 too!) usually end up quoting the same source - which is usually somebody's guess. I know Oleg used Japanese data to model the ki84. It's speed is generally about half-way between the usual bs 388 or 392 and the American 427. It is a tough plane to beat and even a mediocre pilot can do well in it with unsophisticated tactics. So what? The 109Z is speculative and really doesn't belong in an fm discussion. Either ban it or don't.

DJDalton
04-14-2004, 06:11 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:

No WWII wartime era plane compares:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grumman F8F Bearcat
3000m climb under 2 min 20 secs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1st off, you've quoted a plane that never made the war. The closest they got was to be loaded on transport ships.

Secondly, I'm interested just because that is 10 seconds quicker than the K, can you post ur source?

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

DJDalton
04-14-2004, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tetrapharmakoi:
Here is the link for The Lavochkin -7- performances :
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html
Concerning FW-190 iknow his roll rate is one of the fastest in the game, but it should be even better (but ok let's say it is a detail) ,
but more important is the dive acceleration (For the P-47 too) that was his advantage that is not well modelled in the game ( a wooden yak dives as fast as a FW 190 in the first 1000 m of dive!!).
And the thing that is strucking me and getting me nervous is the tragical weak MG/151 20 mm and MG /FF while this armement was very powerful in reality and the FW-190 known for his devastating fire power (i know that german 20mm had less velocity and rate of fire than Shvak ok , but what we have in the game is 15 mm instaed of true Mauser MG/151 20 mm ! ... frustrating...)
What about the Revi gunsight that get damaged systematically as you are hit ,is this a joke ?
Why wooden VVS planes or GB lend lease planes that were used and sometimes old don't have the problem ?
I can live with the problem of the bar misplaced and the climb rate slightly underestimated , but concerning the question of MG/151 , dive accel., and revi gunsight it is a complete scandal .
I love IL-2 Sturmovik because it was bound to be a simulation with the most historical accuracy possible , with realistic FM and DM, but i have to admit that for the Focke Wulf there is an emergency about fire power , dive accel (main advantages of the plane) and Revi fixed with stickers (injustice).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, your La-7 source I'm aware of. These figures:
Minimum climb time to 5000m
Ash-82FN-----------------Ash-82FN(V)
Nom/WEP) 4.7 / - mins 4.65/ 4.3mins

If you do the math the grab rate of the Bf109-G2 will have it at 5,602 meters in 4.3 minutes. Its grab rate is 4,373 feet per minute. Convert to meters by multiplying 1.0 ft = .30 meters Though I'm aware that Bf-109 figure is initial grab rate, though your link also does not cite sources.

La-7's were very maneuverable and fast in level flight, but they did not grab with the German planes or the Yak3.

I like this game. I think the creator is striving for accuracy. I think the FW-190 should be a great accellerator...i'll fly it and try to pull some info. The P-47 should accellerate in a dive well too. It does I hurt one bad up high and it dove away and essentially left me. I dove after it and almost came unglued..lol I read that the FW-190 will outdive a P-47 for several thousand feet before the mass of the P-47 overcomes its inertia and dives faster.

I heard the issues are to be addressed in the patch that there is a damage glitch because of AEP. Im aware of the 151/20 It is a good weapon and I am finding i need two or three good passes to get a kill...lol

Good post, its always good to read sources and know the poster is using facts.

Regards

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

[This message was edited by DJDalton on Wed April 14 2004 at 08:30 PM.]

DJDalton
04-14-2004, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Co_Hero:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:

The only way to get a kill on a Bf-109K-4 is to catch one after its been damaged by a bomber or catch it when its flown poorly and is low and slow.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sry Dalton, but that is flat out rubbish: there are, as the saying goes: "... more than one way to skin a cat."

The K-4 suffers from sub-par high alt performance compared to latewar U.S. fighters, and is easily tackled with an initial alt advantage if high, and cautious.

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sound like you know some tricks. If I see you and I am flying a Bf-109K, I will hide.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

DJDalton
04-14-2004, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Wow, some outrageous and remarkable uninformed stuff in this thread - along with some good.
The 109k4, as far as I know, should outclimb pretty much everything with pistons.
The damage bug with the 190's gunsight is allready being fixed in the patch. 190s are one of my favs and I think they are great.
The Ki84 should be about the best dogfighter in the simm - and is. I can usually handle it without too much trouble in a p39.

Oleg used factory specs for pretty much everything except the vvs birds - which he toned down. I'm sure the p39 data comes from vvs source however.

A well-flown k4 is very difficult to beat in this simm if he has been able to gain an alt advantage. You end up chipping away at him from long range - hoping to degrade performance.

Everyone should remember that most books written on planes like the ki84 - (p39 too!) usually end up quoting the same source - which is usually somebody's guess. I know Oleg used Japanese data to model the ki84. It's speed is generally about half-way between the usual bs 388 or 392 and the American 427. It is a tough plane to beat and even a mediocre pilot can do well in it with unsophisticated tactics. So what? The 109Z is speculative and really doesn't belong in an fm discussion. Either ban it or don't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its hard to model planes, because so many different motors were used and the design specs may not match the performance stats. The Ki-84 had several different engines, component changes in regard to metal or wood, two different fuel injection systems (low and high pressure) and then you have the production flaw issue. The important thing from my perspective is that the Japanese couldn't get the high pressure fuel injection to work and that limited performance. I believe its wartime top speed was about 392, but I dont have a serious issue with it going 408 as a compromise. I'll have to test it. I just dont think it should sustain in a grab like a Yak3 or a Bf-109. I dont think those Ha-45(several variants) motors could put out the power to climb with an La5FN or La-7 either. The Ash-82's have testing figures showing superiority in climb rate.

I dont like the 109Z..lol I refuse to fly it. It never saw action and there was only one. Plus its ugly..theres no nice paint skin...lol no one likes it.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

WUAF_Badsight
04-14-2004, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:

The important thing from my perspective is that the Japanese couldn't get the high pressure fuel injection to work and that limited performance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


why is that important to remember ?

why is the Hayate the only plane that should have its performance limited because of history WHEN NO OTHER IN FB IS

why should the Hayate be moddeled according to feild data when the Mustang & P-47 are not ?

*sigh* . . . once again . . . .

HISTORICAL OPERATING TROUBLES ARE NOT IN FB

all planes perform factory fresh using FACTORY data

except for the VVS planes which are moddeled after russian test data

why should the Hayate be any different please ?

is it because its japanese & that the Americans won the Pacific part of WW2 over the Japanese ?

cause thats the way it seems at the UBI forums

the American plane fans all seem to share the worlds biggest chip on their shoulders about Japanese planes

DJDalton
04-15-2004, 07:09 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:

The important thing from my perspective is that the Japanese couldn't get the high pressure fuel injection to work and that limited performance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Historical Operating Troubles?

why is that important to remember ?

why is the Hayate the only plane that should have its performance limited because of history _WHEN NO OTHER IN FB IS_

why should the Hayate be moddeled according to feild data when the Mustang & P-47 are not ?

*sigh* . . . once again . . . .

HISTORICAL OPERATING TROUBLES ARE NOT IN FB

all planes perform factory fresh using _FACTORY_ data

except for the VVS planes which are moddeled after russian test data

why should the Hayate be any different please ?

is it because its japanese & that the Americans won the Pacific part of WW2 over the Japanese ?

cause thats the way it seems at the UBI forums

the American plane fans all seem to share the worlds biggest chip on their shoulders about Japanese planes<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about engine fires in the Klimov VK-107A

I'm not talking about The Double Wasps that needed more maintenance then flying time.

Or the Daimler Benz's that needed overhauled after 12 hours flyig time.

I'm talking an engine that was abandoned. Entirely different issue.

I think the large number of people that are questioning this plane shifts the burden to Oleg to publish his sources and explain why he chose what he did.

There is a problem here.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

PzKpfw
04-15-2004, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:

I think the large number of people that are questioning this plane shifts the burden to Oleg to publish his sources and explain why he chose what he did.

There is a problem here.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oleg has no responsibility whatsoever to explain to anyone, anything about the modeling of the Ki-84. Nor to present his sources just because ppl question the model, no matter how many pages the thread is.

So far no compelling evidence has been presented here, either way. All we have have so far are excerpts, from secondary sources with no primary sources even listed, and alota gut feelings etc.

The burden of proof is always on the ppl claiming the Ki-84 model, or anyother thing is wrong, and so far IMHO proof either way in this thread is lacking.Best bet for those interested, is to keep digging and locate something original & primary, ie, Japanese factory test, or Japanese Army trial data 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
04-15-2004, 09:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:

I think the large number of people that are questioning this plane shifts the burden to Oleg to publish his sources and explain why he chose what he did.

There is a problem here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think the "problem" here is that American Plane fans are crybabies

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2004, 10:06 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WUAF:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i think the "problem" here is that American Plane fans are crybabies<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am USAan, and, you are right. Most LuftWhiners are here in USA, they will have to change screen name on FP board to save face when they bash Japanese planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Luthier Jap plane made of bamboo but I can't shoot it down do something<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But it keeps the kid quiet at home, USA Moms ~love~ the FB.



__________________
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

DJDalton
04-15-2004, 10:41 PM
<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 DJDalton:

I think the large number of people that are questioning this plane shifts the burden to Oleg to publish his sources and explain why he chose what he did.

There is a problem here.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oleg has no responsibility whatsoever to explain to anyone, anything about the modeling of the Ki-84. Nor to present his sources just because ppl question the model, no matter how many pages the thread is.

So far no compelling evidence has been presented here, either way. All we have have so far are excerpts, from secondary sources with no primary sources even listed, and alota gut feelings etc.

The burden of proof is always on the ppl claiming the Ki-84 model, or anyother thing is wrong, and so far IMHO proof either way in this thread is lacking.Best bet for those interested, is to keep digging and locate something original & primary, ie, Japanese factory test, or Japanese Army trial data etc.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With at least six different sources of Ki-84 performance data. With a controversy raging. With one souce of that data believed to be a post war test of a modified plane. With that plane a relatively new addition to the game and possible glitch issues. With the view object data not even listing facts as to climb rate. With a customer base that wants these planes to fly like the real mccoy a profound question has arisen. Oleg certainly knows theres an issue to resolve and that it will behoove him to settle it factually. That will inure to his benefit, because users of the game will tell their friends..."This is serious ****." Or the George Bush, Condi Rice strategy can be implemented. Thats where a muzzle is put on Condi until the inquiring public raises their voices and demands the truth or kicks the bum out of office.

I'm sure we can expect an answer and its got nada to do with the length of posts. It has to do with what is the smart thing to do. I'm pretty sure Oleg is smarter than I am and I know he's smarter than you.

dj

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

WUAF_Co_Hero
04-16-2004, 03:05 AM
Frankly: I'm a "USA" fanboy, and I don't know what "they" have to cry about... If you fly allied planes like the Jug, and you complain about the Ki... to say the least, you are an idiot. Pardon the comment... but really people. There is a time and a place to engage / fight a Ki... and if you do it wrong, you will lose.. JUST LIKE THEY DID IN THE WAR. The Ki was a very formidable opponent, but it was very much so defeatable with the correct tactics... Find out what those are, and employ them.

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Giganoni
04-19-2004, 03:22 AM
Hahahahaha...I love Ki-84 threads.

Here's the deal...yes the Ki-84 I models used many different engines, but with the KA-45-21, some of the problems were fixed with the Ka-45-23 engine the problems were fixed,although it was low injection system, These later model engines had more HP than the early model ones. (www.wwiitech.net (http://www.wwiitech.net)) Also..maybe the Ki-84 isn't the best climber (Japan's best climber was the Ki-44 II) but, don't mistake gradual climb for vertical climb. The Ki-84 was and is a very good vertical climber. It had low power/weight ratio and the low wing loading lets it turn out of the climb rather easy. How else do you beat an La7 that can easily get on a ki-84 with tnb? You BnZ with the Ki-84..real easy to get those nasty fighters off yer back with a good vertical climb. Anyway..according to some warbirds sights I've been going to, the Ki-84 was a very good vertical climber in that sim too.