HELP, Jap aircraft

[Lemurs!]

Hello,

There are so many inaccuaracies being thrown around i have to jump in.
I fixed many of these back in Pac war days, then with Jean Claude in the BTR forum and i have commented on many of these in the UV forum.

<quote> Mdiehl
The Ki-84 proving "superior to" the P51-D and P47-D (not N) in post-war tests is an oft-repeated but incorrect rumour. Using US 100 Octane fuel the Ki-84 proved capable of a maximum speed of 427 mph at 20,000 feet, using war emergency power. This speed exceeded that of the P-51D Mustand and the P-47D at that altitude by 2 mph and 22 mph respectively. The P-51D and P-47D retained the edge in roll rate, and at speeds in excess of 300 mph, the P-51 and P-47 could out-turn it. Both aircraft could outdive the Ki-84. Both aircraft had superior armor to the Ki-84 and were more generally survivable in the face of damage. The Ki-84 was a superior climber, but only up to 20,000 feet (as it should have been, it only weight 7900 pounds). In addition, the Ki-84 had several operational problems -- an unreliable engine and structurally weak landing gear. It also had poor taxi and ground handling qualities, and pressure had to be maintained on the starboard rudder pedal to counteract a tendency to swing to port caused by the high engine torque.

- This is actually incorrect. The army air force documents state 'highly refined aviation fuel' was used in the testing. This does
not mean 100 or 103 octane. The US also used 87 octane fuel for training etc. An internal combustion engine can NOT have a vastly different octane fuel put in it and expect to perform properly.
Try getting a '69 Vette with the 450hp semi racing engine(limited edition) in it and then put 86 or 87 octane fuel in it. It will barely run. The same is true the other way. A Ki-84 being fed 100 octane fuel will not run better; it will knock. And fly slower. If at all. -

In operational use by the Japanese, a Ki-84 in mint condition could obtain maximum speeds of 390 mph, making it superior overall (when operating properly) to the USN F6-F, but not to the F-4U or the P-51 or P-47.

- This is also incorrect. The prototype Ki-84 did 390 or so. The pre-production did 400, the main production version averaged 410 and on a well maintained version could do 420mph.
Or maybe 427mph! -

Note, at higher elevations the Ki-84s performance dropped off radically, giving both the P-51 and the P-47 a speed edge, even assuming an "American rebuilt Ki-84 fueld by American avgas."
<end quote>

This is true, but every plane or tank is a tradeoff among several choices.

Also, you need to remember that, while it is true that the Ki-84 lost turn rate above 300mph, your assumptions about the need fr high speed turns is incorrect. While a P51 flying above 300mph may turn just as fast as a Ki-84 flying below 300mph the radius of the P51's turn will be larger and the Ki-84's guns would be on target sooner than the P51's.

When i did some government work i watched a group of F16's with dummy missles dogfight a squad of British F2's with only guns.
The Americans did what they were taught and tried to fight at high speeds while the British fought at low speeds and low altitude. The Americans lost every plane as 'kills' while the British lost 1 aircraft.

Mike

[Lemurs!]

Hello,

The comments about armour are also incorrect.
The Americans did use more fuel tank armour than just about anyone, but aircraft 'armour' was generaly 2 things; an amoured windscreen and seat back and maybe floor plates.

Now, when virtually every Japanese fighter OTHER than the Zero and Oscar had a 70mm windscreen & 13mm steel back and floor plates which is identical to what the Americans, Germans and British used how does that make the Japanese less armoured?
The Japanese aircraft did tend to be less durable but durability is 90% a question of size, the same as a battleship.

Mike

[Lemurs!]

Hello,

I have 3 scenarios i plan to release about a day after i buy my WitP.

The first will just be the standard game with my fixes.

The second will be a projected Japanese plan that was thought about during the 30's but was not followed. And, no this is not a dream scenario, the Japs have about the same stuff just with slight, and historically plausible, changes.

The third will be modeled after the second but with a bit extra for Japan. Again, this will not be a dream scenario, I am talking a little bit extra. Hardly make a difference. but it will be fun. I hope!

Some of the fixes i will make will be the Ki-84 airspeed, the N1K1 airspeeed, the Ki-100 airspeed etc.

Also, allied fanboys start gnashing your teeth now! [:D]
The A20B/C, no armour! F4F-3, no armour!
No B17C's at game start, all B17's were 'D's'.

And many more! ooohhh!

I do not know how Gary missed some of these; Jean and I discussed
the A20 and B26 quite a bit a rerated them for BTR and Jean said that Gary was convinced by my research, but here we are in the next game and we are back to the same mistakes.

Mdiehl, I am not trying to attack you, I enjoy many things you write about and I like your Quote, but, especially regarding aviation fuel almost every source is wrong.

Mike

[Lemurs!]

Oh, and i will mod the Val to carry
1-250Kg semi armour piercing bomb
and
2-60Kg general purpose bombs.

Why? Because every Japanese source says that was standard armament for the Val flying against allied combat ships.
so there. Nyeeeaah! [:'(]

Mike

[Lemurs!]

Oh, just in case you don't believe me on Ki-84 speed.

The Japanese built the Ki-84-2 partially out of wood to save aluminum stocks. It flew with the same engine and actually a slightly heavier armament. The standard view on using wooden components over metal both in Germany and Japan was that you would lose about 5-6mph over a metal aircaft.
The Ki-84-2 production version, fully armed flew at 415mph. With that cheap, shitty , Japanese gas.
Yikes.

Mike

[Lemurs!]

Why is my signature not showing?

edit: there it is!

[Brady]

Lemurs, Can you back up your spead quotes for the Ki-84 with a referance source?

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Oh, and i will mod the Val to carry
1-250Kg semi armour piercing bomb
and
2-60Kg general purpose bombs.

Isn't that what they carry standard in WitP? That is what they carry standard in UV.

[Lemurs!]

Hello,

Part of my research is at NARA in College Park;

U.S. Far East Command. Mil Intell Sec. "Interrogations of Japanese Officials (English translations)." 2 vols. Typescripts, various dates. D811A2I3713.

_____. "Statements of Japanese Officials on World War II (English Translations)." 4 vols.
Typescripts, various dates. D811A2S7313.

Much of the rest of my research is Rene Francillon's work.
I believe that Gary uses Gustin as a source as the numbers seem to match.
Gustin actually does good research and provides much interesting info about aircraft but his summaries at the end of a section will usually just have one model listed. The problem is that he often does not list what model he is refrencing!

For example Gustin lists the Ki-84 as having a top speed of 392mph. That is it. One model.

Francillon on the other hand says the first prototype in November 1942 flew at 388mph, the fourth prototype flew at 392mph, and the pre-production arcraft added seperate exhaust stacks which gave another 9-10mph.

The problem with the speed for the actual production model is that the number did not seem to survive the war. No one has found a clear refrence.
However, I was able to put some info together. The most common engine in the Ki-84-1 was the type 21 engine. The engine chosen for the Ki-84-2 (part wooden) was also the type 21. The German & Japanese designers both stated numerous times during the war that making an aircraft part wooden would lose you 5-6mph. The Ki-84-2 flew at a speed of 415mph with a combat load. The engine on the pre-production Ki-84 developed 1800hp while the main production engine developed 1990hp on the same weight.

So, since the speed of the Ki-84-2 is a known value, and the engines were the same, i would guess the speed for the main production Ki-84-1 was about 420mph.
I would be willing to be talked down to 415mph for general lack of quality control.

However, that is a seperate issue in many ways as it ASSUMES that Japan is being bombed and that i have overdrafted my population. What idiot drafts his tool & die makers and heat treaters?
Well, Tojo. Moron. I probably will not.
I would be willing to make a change in my scenario that in return for my aircraft numbers i will slightly lower Japanese manpower.

Anyway, NARA is a great source for almost anything related to the war. especially since Clinton (who actually believed in Democracy) declassified virtually everything related to the -TINTS reports.

Mike

[Nikademus]

Hi Lemurs...

on the F4F-3. while its true it originially started with no armor, and some examples actually fought with makeshift "boiler plate" armor before Coral Sea.....it did have an "armor upgrade package" that fit in the expected device along with self sealing fuel tanks.

Since the F4F-3 slot covers all periods for the -3 varient, you might want to consider creating a 2nd "F4F-3" that has the no armor option though i cant help but think that its a bit of a waste of time given the small window that it appears.

the TBD and LB-30.....now thats different. Armor=0 [;)]

PS welcome aboard!

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn


Isn't that what they carry standard in WitP? That is what they carry standard in UV.

nope. It was not a standard pkg loadout for naval attack

[Brady]

OMG, I seam to recal some sort of Val bomload debacale in the past[:)]:

[Nikademus]

yup [:)]

I'm more interested though in the KI-84 however.....to my knowledge it did not suffer a MVR penalty at higher than 300mph. (sounds more like a Zero to me)

moot i suppose since it was more an energy fighter and a good one at that.

[mdiehl]

The same is true the other way. A Ki-84 being fed 100 octane fuel will not run better; it will knock. And fly slower. If at all. -

That's not correct. Increasing the octane reduces the volatility at lower pressure thereby preventing premature detonations (that which you call "knocking"). In a lower pressure piston you might not get the full use of the fuel because all of it may not burn, hence less power. The Ki-84, however, had a relatively high pressure engine and was better served by 100 Octane. The basic problem that the Japanese ran up against was that they could design and, to a certain degree build (highly unreliable) high pressure engines but were unable to provide fuel that was up to the task of running them. Of course, you already know this since you are very familiar with the output of the HA-25 series radials and are of course aware that the only way to make a radial engine more powerful is to add cylinders (which is suboptimal because it increases weight) or increase combustion pressure.

- This is also incorrect. The prototype Ki-84 did 390 or so. The pre-production did 400, the main production version averaged 410 and on a well maintained version could do 420mph. Or maybe 427mph! -

Your comment is disingenuous. The Ki-84-Ia (the main production version so to speak) with the Ha-45-12 (several engines were used in the Ki-84-I this is the one with 1925 Hp output.. the most in the Ki-84-1 series) had a top flight test speed of 390 mph with armament. Sources (I recommend you see the B&N Encyclopedia of World Aircraft or Aircraft of WW2, or if you like the Smithsonia A&S Musuem website, or the following: http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/ki-84/). There were no flight tests of a Ki-84-I with its guns installed where the aircraft exceeded 390 mph. 388 was more typical, but what's 2mph in a sim.

The Ki-84-II (some variants) used the slightly more powerful Ha-45-25 rated for 2000 HP. Unfortunately the Ki-84 significant quantities of wood (an effort to save strategic materials) that also increased weight. With that and the added weight from guns (4x20mm or 2x20mm and 2x30mm in lieu of 2x12.7 and 2x20mm) the Ki-84-II was actually slower than the Ki-84-I.

This is true, but every plane or tank is a tradeoff among several choices. Also, you need to remember that, while it is true that the Ki-84 lost turn rate above 300mph, your assumptions about the need fr high speed turns is incorrect. While a P51 flying above 300mph may turn just as fast as a Ki-84 flying below 300mph the radius of the P51's turn will be larger and the Ki-84's guns would be on target sooner than the P51's.

That's just irrelevant. Let's assume a Ki-84 six o clock level on a P-51 at the start of a reaction-counter-reaction sequence of events. Given the two aircraft flying at the same speed in excess of 300 mph the one with the lower time to turn will turn ahead of the opponent. The only important measurement here is arc-seconds of turn per unit of time. Unfortunately, despite the Ki-84s weight, its poor high-speed handling characteristics overcome any bonus it gets for being a lighter aircraft. The problem is compounded, severly, by the fact that the Ki-84 had a lousy roll rate. Every turn starts with a roll. So even assuming that the Ki-84 starts the engagement CLOSE to the P-51 (why it's not already shooting is a moot point since we're merely talking about maneuverability), if the P-51 reacts the Ki-84 cannot bring its guns to bear UNLESS it completes more arc-seconds of turn faster than the P-51 which, as many many sources stipulate, it cannot do.

When i did some government work i watched a group of F16's with dummy missles dogfight a squad of British F2's with only guns. The Americans did what they were taught and tried to fight at high speeds while the British fought at low speeds and low altitude. The Americans lost every plane as 'kills' while the British lost 1 aircraft.

Assuming that that is true, and that the US pilots were not green, it is still irrelevant. All your boys did was replicate the beam defense in a circumstance in which the F-16s were presumed to be handicapped by a dearth of guns. Speed generally wins. That was true in WW2, when superior turning-at-low speed a/c built in Japan such as the A6M2 suffered horrendous combat loss ratios in the face of the opposition, and it has been the driving principle in every nation's a/c design for GUN combat since WW2. An F16 will in most circumstances beat an F2 if the F-16 uses guns and "boom and zoom."

Very similar tests were, indeed conducted by the AVG vs the RAF in Burma in 1942. The F2 (Brewster Buffalo) was favored by RAF pilots because of its superior low-speed turning characteristics. Erik Shilling shot the pants off the RAF pilots in several demonstration flights using the P-40s superior speed, against which the RAF pilots (even when operating in pairs) were unable to maintain a defense (see Charles R. Bond "A Flying Tiger's Diary"). There are SO many classic encounters, tests, and simulations that demonstrate the superiority of the energy aircraft that your observation, while interesting perhaps as a lesson in how to let an F-2 beat a superior aircraft, is of no particular significance.

[mdiehl]

Unsubstantiated rumours of a "high speed" Ki-84 aren't worth very much since no actual documented flight tests indicate that the a/c topped out over 400 mph other than when flown by the US. It is noteworthy, however, that the Japanese intended to build a high-speed interceptor version with a 2500 HP radial. None were ever built. Given a 2500 HP engine it is no great challenge to see a Ki-84 attaining speeds in the low-mid 400s, making such an aircraft almost competitive with the late-war P-51H and P-47N versions.

[mdiehl]

By the way, I am looking forward to the late war USAAF a/c pools as I hope/expect that the P-51H will be included.

[Mr.Frag]

I hope/expect that the P-51H will be included.

Nothing beyond the D model ... really, do you need a sledge hammer to kill a poor little bug? [:D]

btw: It was being tailored for the mission of bomber escort and ground attack in the final push into the Japanese homeland. The advent of the atomic bombs ended the war before the P-51H could be employed in the theater and the original order for 2000 aircraft was cut to just 555 planes.

[mdiehl]

I'll want the P-51H if some consarned AF gives the Ki-84 a maximum rated airspeed in excess of 390mph. [;)]

[Mr.Frag]

I'll want the P-51H if some consarned AF gives the Ki-84 a maximum rated airspeed in excess of 390mph.

392 going to break the bank on this one? [:D]

[mdiehl]

392? Hmm. OK I guess not, but since this is 1944 I'll just have to issue the RFP and specs for the F-104. [X(]