New planes

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:02 am

I very much enjoyed flying the P-80.....as modeled in Aces it could fly rings around the Japanese version of the Me-262 which handled like a box car.

I had trouble getting decent results with the J7W

afenelon · Post by **afenelon** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:19 am

Nikademus wrote:I very much enjoyed flying the P-80.....as modeled in Aces it could fly rings around the Japanese version of the Me-262 which handled like a box car.

I had trouble getting decent results with the J7W

-Why? It was fast, maneuverable and delivered a powerful punch with his 4 x 30mm guns. The Kikkas were good, if you avoided combat with US fighters and concentrated instead on the B-29´s (and, of course, when you have the luck of finding some Avengers.....). But the "real Kikka" was a somewhat slow bomber. It shouldn´t be used in that way.

afenelon · Post by **afenelon** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:20 am

Nikademus wrote:I wrote a story a while back where the A7M2 Reppu, piloted by the last of Japan's veteran carrier pilots faced off against a VF of F8F Bearcats. (the actual combat i modeled out using PacWar)

-Modeled using PacWar? How?????

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:28 am

Matrix's Pacwar came with a database editor using Excel. With it i was able to create the A7M2 and F8F, and place them and their carriers at a location and then game it out.

I could have saved myself the trouble and just dramatized it myself ala Tom Clancy but a feature of my stories was that actual battles were always wargamed out. Didn't want to use GNB's because it's air model is terrible and generic and it doesn't allow you to track losses by individual planes.

J7W-

Hazy memories here....but IIRC, the bird was not so manueverable and i'd get target fixation and get spanked by F8F or F7F.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:47 am

So, the Ki-84 was 20mph faster than the Hellcat, 20mph slower than F4U-1, P-38 and P-47 and 50mph slower than the P-51. It could outdive and outclimb the P-47 and the P-38. It has very good firepower (4x20mm gun). It would be able to engage all of US prop driven fighters except, maybe the P-51D, if it had better production standards.

Your numbers do not accord with general stats in re a/c. Only in Axis Fanboy Fantasy Land could the Ki-84 could outdive the F4U, F6F, or P47. It could not. (Dive rate is primarily a function of weight, drag, and thrust. All of those three allied a/c models were heavier, had more thrust, and lower drag). The Ki-84, like the A6M series before it, could out climb these late war Allied a/c.... if you're talking about time from a runway stop to 15,000 feet. Above 20K feet, these allied a/c could outclimb the Ki-84.

Ki-84
Empty Weight: 2660kg Max.Weight: 3890kg
IN US weights: 5,864 lb Loaded 8,576 lb
Speed: 624km/h (392 mph) Ceiling: 11000m (about 36K feet) Range: 2920km
Armament: 2*mg13mm 2*g20mm 2*b250kg

P51-D (Note, the P51-H was the late war variant to be used in the PTO if actin went beyond August)
Maximum speed at 25,000ft 437mph (45 mph over the Ki-84; that's greater than the sped difference between the A6M and the Brewster Buffalo ... and we KNOW how that combat turned out).
Maximum range 2,300 miles
Service ceiling 41,900ft
Weight: Empty 7,125lb, Loaded 11,600lb

P51-H variant max airspeed 487 mph @ 25,000 feet. Basically 100 mph faster than the Ki-84. Against this plane, the Ki-84 might as well have been hung from a string while US pilots make passes at it.

F4U-1
Maximum speed at 19,900ft 417mph
Maximum range 1,015 miles
Service ceiling 36,900ft
Weight: Empty 8,982 lb Loaded 14,000 lb

Variant: F4U-4, the US's late war entry to the PTO (some 2000 made) top speed was 446 mph, climb rate exceeded the Ki-84 at all altitudes, and had a much higher altitude top speed. It could out accelerate every fighter produced by Japan (2.4 mph/sec in level flight) out roll every Japanese fighter, and could out-dive every Japanese fighter. At high altitude (above 20k) it could also out turn EVERY Japanese fighter. So, like the various claims about Japanese maneuverability offered in these forums heretofore, depends on what factors you consider. At high speeds, most of these Allied a/c were more maneuverable than the Ki-84 in EVERY SINGLE MEASURABLE ASPECT. In short, the Ki-84 only looks "almost" competitive with the F4U if you compare the late 1944 Ki-84 with the 1943-1944 F4U-1, rather than with the F4U-4 that was deployed to the PTO beginning in February 1945.

P47-D (again, not the N model common in the late war PTO)
Maximum speed at 30,000ft 433mph
Maximum range 1,900 miles
Service ceiling 41,000ft
Weight: Empty 9,950lb, Loaded 17,500lb.

P47-N variant max airspeed 467 mph. (Seventy mph speed advantage).

By the way, if the game lets the players mess with armament, I'd like the F4U-4/2 variant. 4x20mm Hispano-Suiza cannons. If you think Japanese planes fall apart quickly when hit by .50cal then imagine this loadout in mass-production.

Consistently, across the board, the Ki-84 only seems competitive if you compare it to US 1943 aircraft models or the F6F (in production in 1942). That is why I refer to the Ki-84 as a "mediocre" fighter. I also refer to it as a good mid-war fighter (even though it was introduced fairly late to the IJN OOB) --- it was only competitive against Allied mid-war fighters.

When you consider that the US is not likely to encounter many of these Ki-84s until Jan-March 1945, you have to consider that the Ki-84 is running into late-war US fighters that are overwhelmingly superior to the Ki-84 in every aspect of performance and durability.

afenelon · Post by **afenelon** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 1:19 am

mdiehl wrote:Your numbers do not accord with general stats in re a/c. Only in Axis Fanboy Fantasy Land could the Ki-84 could outdive the F4U, F6F, or P47. It could not. (Dive rate is primarily a function of weight, drag, and thrust).

-My mistake, I wanted to say out turn

Ki-84
Empty Weight: 2660kg Max.Weight: 3890kg
IN US weights: 5,864 lb Loaded 8,576 lb
Speed: 624km/h (392 mph) Ceiling: 11000m (about 36K feet) Range: 2920km
Armament: 2*mg13mm 2*g20mm 2*b250kg

P51-D (Note, the P51-H was the late war variant to be used in the PTO if actin went beyond August)
Maximum speed at 25,000ft 437mph (45 mph over the Ki-84; that's greater than the sped difference between the A6M and the Brewster Buffalo ... and we KNOW how that combat turned out).
Maximum range 2,300 miles
Service ceiling 41,900ft
Weight: Empty 7,125lb, Loaded 11,600lb

-Hmmm...now the difference went from 100mph to 45 mph (just as I said)

P51-H variant max airspeed 487 mph @ 25,000 feet. Basically 100 mph faster than the Ki-84. Against this plane, the Ki-84 might as well have been hung from a string while US pilots make passes at it.

-480mph? 800km/h (sources please)

P47-D (again, not the N model common in the late war PTO)
Maximum speed at 30,000ft 433mph
Maximum range 1,900 miles
Service ceiling 41,000ft
Weight: Empty 9,950lb, Loaded 17,500lb.

P47-N variant max airspeed 467 mph. (Seventy mph speed advantage).

-From what I know this speed was only achieved in tests, so you should compare with the 687km/h for the Frank....

afenelon · Post by **afenelon** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 1:32 am

Well, got the data on P-47N, P-51H and mdhiel is right. The F4U-4 top speed was 427mph. The Frank wouldn´t probably had survived to those late USA fighters, but it was still a foe for the most common USA fighters in early 1945.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 1:51 am

Peace to you then. And thanks for double checking. Now that we've established the params I think we can agree on two things. 1. The LATE war US fighters had the Ki-84 beat to the nines. The Ki-84 was competitive with the MID war variants of the F4U, P47, and P51 (although inferior in airspeed) and somewhat superior to the F6F. In that case, for these latter comparisons, the whole "what was the better a/c" tit for tat boils down to the same sorts of discussions we've had about the relative merits of the F4F and A6M. Speed, maneuverability at different speeds, durability and armaments. IMO the Ki-84 really preserves the A6M vs F4F situation only when it fights the F6F. When it goes against these other planes the Ki-84 (1) can't outrun them, (2) can't out dive them, and (3) at high speed or altitude, can't outmaneuver them. So I'd place the strong bets on the F4U, P47 and P51 (even the mid war variants) to beat the Ki-84.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 1:58 am

So What? By 1945 any simulation should have the IJN at the bottom and the
Home Islands under attack. (or occupied)

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 2:12 am

Weighing in the optimum statistics with real life observation, it would seem that the Ki would be formidable at medium and low altitudes but probably shark bait at higher altitudes. So the plane would have not been a good answer to the high alt B-29 raids if escorted but in a tactical role it would hold it's own against any main production Allied plane assuming its in decent shape. 1945 would have required an incremental upgrade similar to those seen in the -4 and -H variants for the Corsair and Mustang. Hellcats would give way to Bearcats and the fun would really begin

The octane issue is definately a factor too.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 2:17 am

So What? By 1945 any simulation should have the IJN at the bottom and the Home Islands under attack.

So, Chiteng, the crux of the problem for the Japanese player is: How do I prevent same from happening (or rather, from happening as quickly as it historically did)?

Just as the crux of the problem for the US player is: How do I prevent the early war Japanese from gaining sufficient time to adequately prepare for the onslought that he knows will be coming his way?

The octane issue is definately a factor too.

Right, Nikademus. The Ki-84s specs are based on a US test of the a/c. Using Japanese gasoline we may be looking at a--- what--- 10% decrease in performance? Is there anyone who knows what happens to an engine that develops 2000HP sustained (non-WEP) using 100 octane fuel when you feed it 85-90 octane fuel?

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:13 am

mdiehl wrote:So, Chiteng, the crux of the problem for the Japanese player is: How do I prevent same from happening (or rather, from happening as quickly as it historically did)?

Just as the crux of the problem for the US player is: How do I prevent the early war Japanese from gaining sufficient time to adequately prepare for the onslought that he knows will be coming his way?

Right, Nikademus. The Ki-84s specs are based on a US test of the a/c. Using Japanese gasoline we may be looking at a--- what--- 10% decrease in performance? Is there anyone who knows what happens to an engine that develops 2000HP sustained (non-WEP) using 100 octane fuel when you feed it 85-90 octane fuel?

Actually the Brits have extensive performance results of the Spitfire tested
on just that issue. The trick is to find them.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 4:16 am

Even "if" the Japanese were able to produce these 3rd generation planes. Given the historical losses of their pilots, the the pounding of there industry by B-29's and carrier planes. Would they be able to field enough planes manned by good pilots to have an effect on the war? Personally I would say no. Granted I am sure that there would be a limited shock value at the point of contact. Providing of course that the planes lived up to the hopes of there designers. But long term I don't think it would have effected the eventually outcome. I look at the Me-262 as an example. I dont recall any stories of P-47/51 or Tempests (to name a few) running with the fear of God from them. I do recall reading the report of a flight leader of P-47's from the 9th AF, and his comments have stuck. As there was a streak of silver flashing by them in the sky "What was that?!?" Wingman responded with "I don't know, but lets go get it."

afenelon · Post by **afenelon** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:01 am

mdiehl wrote:Peace to you then. And thanks for double checking. Now that we've established the params I think we can agree on two things. 1. The LATE war US fighters had the Ki-84 beat to the nines. The Ki-84 was competitive with the MID war variants of the F4U, P47, and P51 (although inferior in airspeed) and somewhat superior to the F6F. In that case, for these latter comparisons, the whole "what was the better a/c" tit for tat boils down to the same sorts of discussions we've had about the relative merits of the F4F and A6M. Speed, maneuverability at different speeds, durability and armaments. IMO the Ki-84 really preserves the A6M vs F4F situation only when it fights the F6F. When it goes against these other planes the Ki-84 (1) can't outrun them, (2) can't out dive them, and (3) at high speed or altitude, can't outmaneuver them. So I'd place the strong bets on the F4U, P47 and P51 (even the mid war variants) to beat the Ki-84.

-Agreed, but look to the fact that I said that the Ki-84 was ALMOST equal not that it was superior or equal. I would say that, if the Ki-84´s had good pilots and if there wasn´t so much deterioration in quality production, it would be possible to have, maybe, 3:2 losses (favoring the allied aircraft) in late 1944 to mid 1945, at least until the P-51H and P-47N arrive to the frontlines. Also the Ki-84 would able to fight those early P-51´s and P-47´s at mid and low attitudes (in those cases the US planes would lose the speed advantage, but I don´t know how much frequent were those low attitude engagements). If I was to simulate the Ki-84 in my hypothetical scenarios, I would, maybe, decrease the Ki-84 durability to simulate attrition losses (I will check UV values for Ki-84). To deal with the Ki-94II, J7W, Ki-83 and Ki-201 would be even more difficult. The Ki-83 impressed the Americans and was quite maneuverable, but two engine fighters are usually poor matches for single engine ones. I have few data on the J7W and the Ki-94II, while the Ki-201 would be somewhat worsened Me-262. The A7M2 would be close to a Ki-84 or Hellcat. I must see if the game will have P-51H, P-47N, F4U-4 (at least graphics won´t be a trouble with those planes)...

afenelon · Post by **afenelon** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:10 am

Hornblower wrote:Even "if" the Japanese were able to produce these 3rd generation planes. Given the historical losses of their pilots, the the pounding of there industry by B-29's and carrier planes. Would they be able to field enough planes manned by good pilots to have an effect on the war? Personally I would say no. Granted I am sure that there would be a limited shock value at the point of contact. Providing of course that the planes lived up to the hopes of there designers. But long term I don't think it would have effected the eventually outcome. I look at the Me-262 as an example. I dont recall any stories of P-47/51 or Tempests (to name a few) running with the fear of God from them. I do recall reading the report of a flight leader of P-47's from the 9th AF, and his comments have stuck. As there was a streak of silver flashing by them in the sky "What was that?!?" Wingman responded with "I don't know, but lets go get it."

-No doubt you´re right. Those planes will only add some fun to hypothetical scenarios (or a standard campaign that goes poorly for the allied player), but nothing will give victory to a country that declares war to another whose industrial capacity is ten times higher. Even if the Japanese were able to keep a casualties advantage of 2:1 in every item (man, ship, tank and airplane), they would have lost the war.

afenelon · Post by **afenelon** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 7:40 am

Wow, and it seems gasoline makes really a BIG difference. Ki-83 reached 688km/h with Japanese gasoline and fantastic 760km/h with American one. It seems an Axis fanboy doesn´t need to create new planes, but....new gasoline.

http://www.big.or.jp/~chah_s/beyond1945 ... main2.html

RevRick · Post by **RevRick** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:20 pm

Remember in 1944 most of their fleet was harbored near the almost bunker grade oil production facilities because of a lack of tankers. The late model IJA and IJN aircraft were near matches for what was flying - and some of them would have been real bears in competent hands. What might need to be speculated would also be a rotation of the best fighter pilots home to train those in the system. Now that might be a problem, or it might be as simple as reducing the quality of the existing pilots in each air group by a percentage to add to those cadres forming for later in the conlict. I did this manually in the old PacWar and it added tremendously to the end conflict.

Of course, I also wound up reusing some of the icons and had F8F's coming on line in late 1945 to replace the F6F, which added new dimensions to the game as well.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 7:57 pm

A rationale Japanese pilot rotation policy, even if implemented, still needs
Avgas. The question is...did Japan have enough to train her pilots.
I dont know the answer.

Mike Scholl · Post by **Mike Scholl** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:27 pm

Chiteng wrote:A rationale Japanese pilot rotation policy, even if implemented, still needs
Avgas. The question is...did Japan have enough to train her pilots.
I dont know the answer.

Pre-War and into 1943, Japan could probably deal with a resource re-allocation
that would have made a larger aircrew training program possible. After that
depends (as it will in the game) on how successfully she can obtain and import
the raw material from the SRA. She wasn't ever going to be able to train them
on the scale of the US, but she certainly could have upgraded her programs to
a more rational level for the war she was contemplating.

New planes

"IF"

Which could have been a problem...

YES AND NO