HELP, Jap aircraft

[mdiehl]

edit

[Lemurs!]

Mdiehl,

Everything is all or nothing with you isn't it?
30mm cannons on F16's? You want me to take you seriously but you spout nonsense.

The reason i brought a Cessna into this is that i was not sure of my conclusions back in the days of BTR. So, I went to Oakland-Pontiac airfield and chatted with some of my pilot friends, mechanics etc.
We decided that no, higher octane fuel would not help, and would eventually hurt a plane not meant for it. Then we tested our theory. We were correct. 103 octane in a Piper led to similar performance and left unburnt fuel in the intake. Which, as your mechanic might tell you will lead to various future problems, one of the most basic being clogged intakes.

I am sorry if we were all totally wrong. Please forgive me.

On sources.... I am not allowed to have an opinion on a book or author unless i am an author as well? That is a new rule, never heard that one. I won't go into what i have published.
If you don't know what NARA is just ask, its not a problem. The Far East Theater Interrogations after the war also included translation of everything the translators could get their hands on.
Virtually every post war work is based at least partially on the -THINTS.

That was rather non-sequitur. Again, you're the one who brought the Cessna into this, and you're the one who says it runs poorly on 87 octane. A claim I won't dispute. What you have not demonstrated is any real knowledge of how octane affects engine performance. The reason why high octane does not (much) impair the efficiency of an engine designed for low octane is that the primary cause of reduced efficiency in that particular circumstance is trace quantities of uncombusted fuel. That does not produce knock, it just produces and inefficent use of fuel. If you put 87 octane, however, in an engined designed for higher octane, you get knock because of premature combustion. Getting back to your orginal assertion, it does not follow that putting 100 octane (or even 103) in an engine designed for, say, 93 octane, is necessarily going to reduce performance by much. I heard it said that if you put 100 Octane in an automobile (Sunoco used to sell 100 Octane, which I used to put in my Saab many years ago because it was designed for leaded gas), you can lose fuel economy by up to 3%. I am not sure how that translates into lost RPMs, but assuming a 1:1 correlation, and a/c capable of, say, 420 mph designed for, say, 87 octane (no such aircraft engine was ever made) might in theory be capable of 3% greater speed... say 432.6 mph. But I don't know, maybe someone with a little more information and a little less bluster than yourself can speak to the issue.

So now you are admitting a US test of the Ki-84 post war with 100 octane fuel would get worse performance? But where did the 37mph come from then?

The test i attended, including F2's & F16's, i was told was planned by an American Air Force officer to show the limitations of the high altitude, high speed, all missles, ignore your guns attitude was limiting the AirForce. So it was deliberate that the F16's only used missles.

Um, HOW, exactly, do you imagine that the Ha-21-25 series developed 1900 HP without using higher compression? IIRC, the Japanese effective late war octane for SOME fuels produced via hydrogenation was something like 93-97 octane, but there were problems with quantitityand purity. Are you claiming that the Ha-21 was operating at the same compression ratios as, say, the engine in the A6M2?

This is what gets me, you seem to be fairly intelligent and then you make a comment like this. Of course the Ha-21 had a higher compression than the Sakae(?) in the early Zero. That does not mean the Ha-21 was up to the compression standards of the American engines. There is not just 2 compression choices, low & high.

Absolutely all of this is besides the point though.
We started on speed of the Ki-84. You have now admitted that 100 octane fuel would not give 37mph.

What i wanted was an intelligent discussion about my logic chain.
Known quantity: 1st proto 388mph armed.
Known quantity: 4th proto 392mph armed.
Known quantity: residual thrust augmentation added, pre production aircraft gain 9-10mph over prototypes. No actual speed given. My educated assumption is 401-402
Known quantity: engine on the prot developed 1770hp
Known quantity: engine on pre production developed 1800hp
Known quantity: engine on the MOST built Ki-84 developed 1990hp
Unknown quantity: actual air speed loaded of the production
Ki-84.

What we do know is i read in one paragraph at NARA that the Ki-84-2 flew at 20K feet 415mph. And the Japanese designers felt the plane would lose 5mph for the added weight of a wooden tail.

Francillon, Gustin, Donaldson, et al list one speed; 392mph.
That seems to be a prototype speed.
Before you all call me a liar again, many Japanese documents were destroyed in the '44 earthquake and in the fire bombing.
There are many things we just don't have documentary evidence for anylonger.

Known quantity: An American after the war flew a Ki-84 at 427mph
Altitude, unknown, armament unknown.

My feeling is that the production Ki-84-1b with the type 21 flew loaded at 20k feel at about 415mph. Maybe a bit less, maybe a hair more.

I am done with octane and fighting with you.

Mike

[Lemurs!]

Nik,

I have the same amount of proof you have on the 60kg bombs.

Yours is that they were not reported by the allies in 3 carrier battles. Mine is that in the Japanese carrier operations manual they are listed as standard.
We are not going to convince each other so quit posting.

You are a very unpleasant person, i do not know what your problem is with my posts.

About you calling me a liar, i did post the quote a couple of posts back but you, as usual, failed to read my post.

Go away. You and Frag seem to like being unpleasant to people that don't worship you so go play with him.

Mike

[Arnir]

I have to second the earlier poster who said that there was a lot of good info in this thread but it is being lost in the noise.

What happened to simple civility?

[Zeta16]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Nik,

I have the same amount of proof you have on the 60kg bombs.

Yours is that they were not reported by the allies in 3 carrier battles. Mine is that in the Japanese carrier operations manual they are listed as standard.
We are not going to convince each other so quit posting.

You are a very unpleasant person, i do not know what your problem is with my posts.

About you calling me a liar, i did post the quote a couple of posts back but you, as usual, failed to read my post.

Go away. You and Frag seem to like being unpleasant to people that don't worship you so go play with him.

Mike

I think you are the one causing problems, really what is your point. The Val bomb load has been talked about months ago on this site, and you come in a few days before it goes gold and start calling people names. In reading this everyday, Frag and Nik do not put people down, but you are just causing trouble.

[Mr.Frag]

Mike, not sure what got you so uppity but you have managed to get mdiehl, nik and me all in the dumps. You have to wonder when three people who never agree with each other on anything all seem to have the very same problem with you. Perhaps it is not us. There is nothing wrong with debating stuff, but your method seems to bring out the fangs in people. As long as you persist in directing personal animosity at people, you will get it back.

As far as your "go away" comment, grow up. This is a public forum run by Matrix with many users who rarely agree on things but generally keep things civil in their disagreement and we generally stick the odd bit of humor or sarcasm into posts.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Nik,

I have the same amount of proof you have on the 60kg bombs.

No, i dont think so. You say you have a "manual", thats fine. You also can 'google' search which shows what everyone already knew....that the plane could carry 60kg's.

What I "have" is multiple sources that analysis Japanese carrier development and doctrine, and cover the operational history of the KB and it's Aichi's, and a culmination of data on bomb hits on warships by type and their effect. I feel it's pretty compelling evidence but you dont have to take my word for it. You can read them yourselves. I was not meerly interested however is beating my drum.....i am genuinely interested in this issue, thats why I asked you if you could offer what has not been able to be provided before this point......positive proof that the 3 bomb load was used all the time as a standard loadout for naval attack. Your responses and evasions are there for all to see. Your "manual" is not sufficient proof any more than the listed loadout of the plane is. Noone ever disputed that the plane couldn't load 3 bombs. I can even accept that perhaps it was once intended before the war to use this loadout and there is sufficient evidence that 60's were used for land based targets. However the question remains....was it done for naval attack during the war? Given the lack of evidence of usage and the eyewitness evidence of it's absence during the major battles, i'd say it wasn't. You can disagree if you like.

Yours is that they were not reported by the allies in 3 carrier battles. Mine is that in the Japanese carrier operations manual they are listed as standard.
We are not going to convince each other so quit posting.

When you become the owner of this board, you can certainly tell me when and where i can post and where and when i cannot. Until that time however... And i'm not restricting myself to 3 carrier battles. I'm saying ALL major naval battles including the big four carrier battles and Pearl Harbor.

You are a very unpleasant person, i do not know what your problem is with my posts.

I'm sorry you feel that way. The only problems i have with your posts is when you answer my querries with a querry of your own instead or go completely evasive. I wont even mention your comments about my state of existance or ability to read.

About you calling me a liar, i did post the quote a couple of posts back but you, as usual, failed to read my post.

I read it. I checked my posts, I dont see where i called you a liar. Thats why i asked for clarification.

Go away. You and Frag seem to like being unpleasant to people that don't worship you so go play with him.

Again with the commands....was your name "TristianJohn" prior to your recent registration? You are starting to sound very familiar. I've been trying to play Frag but he avoids me....he knows that he will DIE HORRIBLY once he deems to take me on in WitP
]

[Mr.Frag]

I've been trying to play Frag but he avoids me....he knows that he will DIE HORRIBLY once he deems to take me on in WitP

Yep, Go Away so I don't have to loose [:'(]

[Nikademus]

Terrible pain awaits you.....and all you'll have for comfort is bad yucky Canadian beer.

[mdiehl]

30mm cannons on F16's? You want me to take you seriously but you spout nonsense.

Pardon my typo. 20mm.

I am sorry if we were all totally wrong. Please forgive me.

Not "we," Ace, just you.

On sources.... I am not allowed to have an opinion on a book or author unless i am an author as well? That is a new rule, never heard that one. I won't go into what i have published.

It's called credibility. When you diss a peer-reviewed source you either have the adacemic cache (generally established by your own publication record on the subject) or you don't. But if you don't, the egg winds up on your face not on the target of your scorn. I'm curious, however, what HAVE you published? Again, since you use an internet alias, there's no way for me to know. If you are the magnificent expert that you claim to be, that I ought to believe YOU and not a guy who's published a number of books, then toot yer horn bubba. Let's have it. Why should I believe you over Donald? Why is your dismissal of a book he edited as "amateur" anything other than a smear?

If you don't know what NARA is just ask, its not a problem. The Far East Theater Interrogations after the war also included translation of everything the translators could get their hands on.

And, to reiterate, an interrogation transcript in which a Japanese engineer says orally or on paper that "once we had a Ki-84 go 430 mph" [or whatever] has almost no utility for me as an empirical fact. There's data and hearsay, and the two aren't the same quality of information.

So now you are admitting a US test of the Ki-84 post war with 100 octane fuel would get worse performance? But where did the 37mph come from then?

No, I'm saying that if the Ki-84 was designed for 87 octane and you fed it 100-103 octane you *might* get reduced efficiency on the order of 3%. As to where I got the number, I took 420 mph (which is more or less the post-war US maximum sustained speed of a Ki-84 flown by a US pilot), and multiplied it by 1.03 (to cover the fact that the 420 might not be the best speed of the a/c if the fuel mixture adversely affected performance). I do not, however, accept at face value any implication that the US fuel used in the post-war flight tests resulted in reduced efficiency, since just about every source on this matter attributes the post-war test speeds of the Ki-84 vis a vis the operational speeds of the Ki-84 to "better" US fuel.

The test i attended, including F2's & F16's, i was told was planned by an American Air Force officer to show the limitations of the high altitude, high speed, all missles, ignore your guns attitude was limiting the AirForce. So it was deliberate that the F16's only used missles.

Whose air force? The USAF flies with a mixed package armament that includes guns and missiles. This was the lesson learned in the early days of Viet Nam in which, IIRR, some US fighters were missile-only equipped. More to the point, since as you say the test was specifically a demonstration of how the LACK OF GUNS hurts a modern jet fighter in combat, there is darned near NOTHING about the test that serves as an analog for WW2 combat, because WW2 air to air combat was GUNS ONLY. In a gun-only circumstance, the aircraft that can go faster will control the fight in most circumstances and it will win in most circumstances.

This is what gets me, you seem to be fairly intelligent and then you make a comment like this. Of course the Ha-21 had a higher compression than the Sakae(?) in the early Zero. That does not mean the Ha-21 was up to the compression standards of the American engines. There is not just 2 compression choices, low & high.

Well, the HA-21 hasn't got appreciably more pistons than comparable US engines and it's a lighter engine. So, absent greater displacement (more pistons or bigger pistons), the only way the HA-21 is going to develop power output to rival US radial engines is by using comparable compression ratios. But, as I said, if you can establish that the Ha-21 did not use comparably high compression but, instead, used Miracle Max's Marvelous Oil or whatever to get higher output, I'm listening.

You have now admitted that 100 octane fuel would not give 37mph.

It might. It depends on the compression ratios used by the Ha-21. If the Ha-21 was designed for better fuel (for whatever reason) than the Japanese could produce in 1944-1945 then it might indeed develop an extra 37 mph just by using US fuel.

Known quantity: residual thrust augmentation added, pre production aircraft gain 9-10mph over prototypes.

You mean the individual exaust stack configuration, to put it into plain language.

My educated assumption is 401-402 ... Unknown quantity: actual air speed loaded of the production Ki-84.

NOT unknown. You just don't believe the 388-392 range that just about everybody uses as the actual operational max w.e.p. speed of a prodcution Ki-84 in combat.

What we do know is i read in one paragraph at NARA that the Ki-84-2 flew at 20K feet 415mph. And the Japanese designers felt the plane would lose 5mph for the added weight of a wooden tail.

AND, to be clear, I do NOT believe what you read. It's hearsay, even if it is in NARA. I'll take the 388-392 mph figure that about everybody uses, and I'll accept at face value the claim that the US post-war tests of the Ki-84 resulted in greater speeds because US fuel was better.

Francillon, Gustin, Donaldson, et al list one speed; 392mph. That seems to be a prototype speed.

Why assume this is a "prototype speed" given that ....

Before you all call me a liar again, many Japanese documents were destroyed in the '44 earthquake and in the fire bombing.

... as you have noted, there is no credible data from the Japanese sources other than a "one-off" anecdote in NARA? One quip is not a substantive basis for rewriting the history of the aircraft, much less for positing a whole fleet of "production" a.c. that peformed better than most people claim?

There are many things we just don't have documentary evidence for anylonger.

I agree. Maybe it helps you to understand my take on this: if you have a set of data that says "the value of felgercarb is X" and one hint, elsewhere, that says "the value of felgercarb is X+40," it does not follow that "X+40 is the correct value because we have no other data, other than the data that we have, that allow us to determine that felgercarb is NOT X+40." The bulk of the empirical evidence available indicates that the Ki-84 topped out at 388-392 mph as deployed by the Japanese. That works for me.

Known quantity: An American after the war flew a Ki-84 at 427mph. Altitude, unknown, armament unknown.

I can fill in some of that for you. Altitude 20,000 feet.

My feeling is that the production Ki-84-1b with the type 21 flew loaded at 20k feel at about 415mph. Maybe a bit less, maybe a hair more.

It is a "feeling." You're entitled to it. I see no emprical reason to believe it. At least not on the basis of anything that you have said here or that I have read elsewhere.

[Mr.Frag]

So which side to you want to play you wuss?

[Lemurs!]

Okay, Mr Frag, Nik & Zeta,

I am also down in the dumps because Frag & Nik jumped into a conversation and started insulting me.

Nik, When you said " All you've stated, is that you have read an alleged Japanese "manual" which allegedly states that the Val always attacks naval targets with the 3 bomb loadout. We have only your "word" for this. This is not "factual" evidence "

I took that as a personal attack; I couldn't figure out why as you and i had seemed to be having a good discussion. It sounded like you were calling me a liar.

I still feel that you have not proved there were not 60kg bombs on Vals. But, i can not prove they were there either. Why you are in such a dither because i will not bow before your will is beyond me. You are the one who continues this pointless debate ad nauseum and accuses me of lying.
But it just doesn't matter!

Zeta16,
Where do you get off? All i did is make a joking reference to the earlier fight over the 60kg bombs. I said i was going to put them in my scenario. That was the end of my discussion on it until Nikodemus called me a liar!
I made it very clear i was not trying to change anything in the released game.
So why are you now putting words into my mouth? So Zeta, why are you here causing trouble with your post?

Is that any more insulting than what you said to me?

Nik,
The go away was not a command, it was a request because you keep beating the same dog and insult me and call me a liar. Why would i not want to talk with you?
I have not in any way shape or form been evasive! I have my opinion backed by a couple of things, you have yours...fine.
Where was i evasive?

No, i dont think so. You say you have a "manual", thats fine. You also can 'google' search which shows what everyone already knew....that the plane could carry 60kg's.

There, you just called me a liar again! You like insinuating because then you cannot get in trouble for insulting people.
Grow up child.

Mr Frag,
did you notice that on another topic the poster felt you were insulting? Do you think that should be telling you something?
Do you think you could apologize for being rude?
Or does this board not welcome new people or people with different ideas than the gospel according to Frag & Nik?

Mike

[mdiehl]

Hey Frag, Let's Hijack This Thread.

I say the B-17E and mighty mouse COULD take a Betty and UltraMan! What say you?

Suddenly I feel all this kinship with you and Nik.

You guys ever play ASL? I've been kicking ass in CCPh with some Japanese 4-4-8s in dense jungle, but every time I dice an MMG shot I break the d@mned MGs. It's those B11 breakdown numbers and my talentless dice rolling. AArgh!

Not that I can complain much. I dice up a Tank Hunter Hero during a US MPh, survived first and final fire next to a stack of US 1942 Phillippine 1st line squads (3 squads and a 9-1 leader no less), and then killed a 75mm armed US halftrack in the CCPh THH resolution (and this lacking an ATMM).

[Zeta16]

You just don't get it. These boards are very civil and people respect each other even if they disagree. You come in here and start causing trouble, they people that you told to go away never cause trouble. Every several months there is a poster like this and they last several weeks and wear out their welcome, it's happened before and will happen again. But in the end the same civil people are always here.

[Lemurs!]

quote:

Known quantity: residual thrust augmentation added, pre production aircraft gain 9-10mph over prototypes.

You mean the individual exaust stack configuration, to put it into plain language.

quote:

My educated assumption is 401-402 ... Unknown quantity: actual air speed loaded of the production Ki-84.

NOT unknown. You just don't believe the 388-392 range that just about everybody uses as the actual operational max w.e.p. speed of a prodcution Ki-84 in combat.

quote:

What we do know is i read in one paragraph at NARA that the Ki-84-2 flew at 20K feet 415mph. And the Japanese designers felt the plane would lose 5mph for the added weight of a wooden tail.

AND, to be clear, I do NOT believe what you read. It's hearsay, even if it is in NARA. I'll take the 388-392 mph figure that about everybody uses, and I'll accept at face value the claim that the US post-war tests of the Ki-84 resulted in greater speeds because US fuel was better.

What makes this so fun is that you talk about 'all of the myriad sources that say the Ki-84 went 392'.
The problem is they did not develop that number out of thin air; most of the post war technical writing came from the -THINTS & translation work.
Yes, every writer says 392 because that is the only figure that survived the war. And it is listed at NARA that 392 was the speed developed by the fourth prototype.

If every writer started telling you over and over that the sun was going to come up in the West tomorrow you would believe them wouldn't you? Use your brain for something!
I gave you all of my ideas and data so we could have a rational discussion. I made it very clear that i do not have a number sety in stone. But all you can do is belittle me, insult me and not even once mention any of the data i listed.

So how do you account for the missing 9-10mph from thrust augmentation? I am NOT being snide! If someone has a theory or some knowledge throw it in. I think that would bring the pre production aircraft up to 401mph or so... but it is not set in stone! I was hoping for ideas but it seems all that you are interestedin is personal attacks.

Mike

[Mr.Frag]

It's those B11 breakdown numbers and my talentless dice rolling.

I know that feeling ... my one attempt at getting my wife into war games was Axis and Allies. I threw so many snake eyes in a row i lost the game by turn 2. I will never play anything that has dice again as long as I live!

[Lemurs!]

Zeta,

What trouble did i cause? I didn't agree with Nik? Is that an obscure board rule?
I am putting this in my edited scenario for gods sake!

I get insulted and attacked for that and you come in here and accuse me of causing trouble about an old topic just before the game goes gold!

I think your causing trouble by your comments. So hopefully you will wear out your welcome and leave.

Mike

[mdiehl]

So how do you account for the missing 9-10mph from thrust augmentation?

"The 388-392 mph max speed is what it is, augmentation included." That's how I account for it.

[Zeta16]

Did I tell you to go away? I am just pointing out people around here disagree about things, but there is no reason to tell people to go away or any of that stuff. This is a war game, not a life or death issue. If I want to see people use attacks on each other I will just go to AOW boards.

[mdiehl]

I know that feeling ... my one attempt at getting my wife into war games was Axis and Allies. I threw so many snake eyes in a row i lost the game by turn 2. I will never play anything that has dice again as long as I live!

Now you KNOW the dice giveth and they taketh away. One horrid experience just means you need to play more.

As for your wife, it's cool that she was willing to give the game a try. "Robo Rally" is also a good family fun game (and, by the way, "Monsters Ravage America"... one of AH's last titles.)