Matrix Games Forums

Mdiehl,

Again, everything you said was incorrect.

I agree that enegry, "Boom and Zoom" is very valuable. Until you run into someone who can stay with you in speed, climb, dive and acceleration. Then what do you do?
WW2 offers NO answers because the only way to develop real ideas, solutions etc is a relatively even situation.

Again, you are incorrect on the speed of the Ki-84-1.
Did you bother reading my post? the ARMED prototype no.1 flew 388, the proto no.4 flew 392, the pre-production with an 1800hp engine flew 401-402. The production version has no record whatsoever. However, contrary to your incredibly wrong post, the most common engine used by the Ki-84-1 was the type 21 which developed 1990hp, not 1925hp as you said. The weight of the type 21 was the same as the 12.
And yes, there are combat flight records from Japan at NARA about the Ki-84-2 which stated that the armed version flew at 415mph!
Are you suggesting that the heavier, wooden version flew faster?
I don't think so.

And as a pilot i can also say you are completely incorrect on octane. My brother owns a Cessna 172 rated for 103 octane. We tried to get it to run on 87 octane aviation fuel. Didn't work.
A friend has a Piper Cub rated for 87 octane, we filled it with 103 and it ran... sort of.... but it clogged the fuel system with unburnt fuel.

And no, the engine on the Ki-84 was not all that high of pressure. All 100 octane fuel does for you is to allow you to have higher compression rates.

The Smithsonian uses Gustin numbers which i have already stated to be not very complete.

And on the maneuverability, are you just being deliberately obtuse? The Ki-84 pilot would not try to turn at high speed!
That is what god created maneuvering flaps for; slow down, turn, then blow the plane with the larger turning radius out of the sky.

I give you a real example of speed NOT winning a dogfight and you throw me 'Zeroes are a prime example of speed winning' Duh!

Gee, the zeroes in late '42 on were only outnumbered horrendously, unarmoured and full of very incendiary fuel!
Great example!

And an F16 is slightly slower than an Panavia F2 if i remember correctly. I could be wrong on this.

The RAF Buffalo had the heaviest load of any Buffalo used in combat at 2950Kg while, for example, the Finnish Buffaloes weighed in at 2640Kg. That makes it a bad test. Lets see a slow, non maneuverable aircraft vs. a fast non maneuverable aircraft.... which will win? That is how you demonstrate what you want to see, not learn anything.

America was, and is, obsessed with speed. There is nothing wrong with that, it is probably the most important element in aircraft design in WW2 but it is not the only element.

Mike

Nikademus,

Actually the Ki-84 did have a maneuver problem above 300mph because the ailerons were not designed correctly and the cockpit was too narrow to get good leverage on the controls.

I know this was already fought out and lost, but i believe you are incorrect on the Val loadout.
Every, EVERY, Japanese source lists the standard carrier born loadout for anti-combat ship strikes as 1-250kg SAP bomb, and 2-60kg GP bombs for AA suppresion.

That will be in my scenario.

Mike

F4F-3....

While it is true that they did issue an armour kit for this plane my sources only list 41 aircraft as having received this mod.
And it would basically turn your plane into a F4F-4, so i feel no real need to include it.

I am tempted to include both a type 11/12 engine Ki-84 and a type 21/23/25 engine Ki-84. I will have to see what i can do on slots.

So, is the game out yet? [;)]

Mike

Again, everything you said was incorrect.

Again, you are incorrect. But don't take my word for it, the sources, some of which (there are many) I have cited, are available to all.

I agree that enegry, "Boom and Zoom" is very valuable. Until you run into someone who can stay with you in speed, climb, dive and acceleration. Then what do you do?

We agree that boom and zoom does not favor one plane if the planes have the same flight profiles and characteristics.

Again, you are incorrect on the speed of the Ki-84-1.

Again, you are incorrect. Again, don't take my word for it, consult any of the dozens of sources that document the history of the Ki-84. You've got ONE source, I suppose, but you have not cited it, that attributes a higher speed on the basis of a claim of better flight tests of what, one or two engineers? Absent original documents, their assertions aren't worth my time.

Are you suggesting that the heavier, wooden version flew faster?

The rest that preceeds that sentence is not credible. That sentence is clearly not what I wrote. 'nuff said.

And as a pilot i can also say you are completely incorrect on octane. My brother owns a Cessna 172 rated for 103 octane. We tried to get it to run on 87 octane aviation fuel. Didn't work.

Again, you seem not to grasp the distinction between using a lower octane fuel in an engine rated for higher octane, and using a higher octane fuel in an engine rated for lower octane. Your snowblower, lawnmower, or dirt bike will run just fine on 100 octane. although you will probably waste some fuel. Of COURSE your Cessna 172 will not run fine on 87 octane. The difference is that 100 octane will NOT cause knock in an engine rated for 87 octane. 87 octane WILL, however, cause knock in an engine rated for much higher octane fuel. Try it out fellow. I don't know what sort of vehicle you drive. If you are like most motorists your car is designed for 87 octane. Put some 100 in there and see what difference it makes. Or, for that matter, read the durned operating manual. Most of them say that "100 octane will not deteriorate the performance of your car but it is unnecessary" or words to that effect.

And no, the engine on the Ki-84 was not all that high of pressure. All 100 octane fuel does for you is to allow you to have higher compression rates.

That is a wierd comment. What do you think "compression" entails? It's all about pressure. At high compression, a low-octane fuel will have a greater chance of premature combustion than a high octane fuel. As a pilot you ought to know this. It is incredible that you seem not to know this.

And on the maneuverability, are you just being deliberately obtuse? The Ki-84 pilot would not try to turn at high speed! That is what god created maneuvering flaps for; slow down, turn, then blow the plane with the larger turning radius out of the sky.

That is a very strange comment. If you slow down you lose. If you deploy your flaps at 300 mph you are likely to rip the darned things off of your plane. Dive brakes would be better for the job. But the basic problem here is that if you are back in the original problem (presuming an Ki-84 to be approaching a P-51 from behind at high speed), if you SLOW DOWN the Ki-84 the P-51 simply walks away. The P-51 does not then slow down to match your speed. He flies away and comes at you at high speed and makes your now-slow-moving-and-largely-a-sitting-duck aircraft into a disarticulated mass of burning wreckage. The lesson was learned THOUSANDS of times that the faster plane tends to win.

I give you a real example of speed NOT winning a dogfight and you throw me 'Zeroes are a prime example of speed winning' Duh!

I think you are confused. Zeroes are a prime example of a slow, highly maneuverable plane losing. The P-40's preferred tactic against the A6M-2 was to use the P-40s superior speed and high-speed maneuverability to gain positional advantage over the A6M and destroy it. It also worked in P-40s vs the more maneuverable but slower Ki-43 and the Nate.

Gee, the zeroes in late '42 on were only outnumbered horrendously, unarmoured and full of very incendiary fuel!

Uh, actually, the Zeros in 1942 in most circumstances outnumbered their opponents. It was in large measure why they were so successful through March 1942 -- that and the tendency that has been alleged (and I believe the allegations) that the P-40 drivers in the Indonesia/New Guinea areas were willing to allow their airspeeds to drop to the point at which the Zero became a better (faster accelerating and more maneuverable) aircraft.

The RAF Buffalo had the heaviest load of any Buffalo used in combat at 2950Kg while, for example, the Finnish Buffaloes weighed in at 2640Kg. That makes it a bad test. Lets see a slow, non maneuverable aircraft vs. a fast non maneuverable aircraft.... which will win? That is how you demonstrate what you want to see, not learn anything.

First of all, the F2 was more maneuverable in general than the P-40 but not as fast. The problem with most of the Japanese vs Allied fighter comparisons is that for much of the war the Allies simply weren't willing to fight at speeds in which the Japanese a/c could be more maneuverable. Thus, while the A6M2 is the best plane to be in if you can count on the combat occurring at speeds in general less than 300 mph, it's worse when the speed is above 300 mph. You're pretty much always going to be in a situation, flying a Japanese aircraft, when ias is above 350 mph, that regardless of the Japanese fighter in question, its allied foe is going to be both capable of faster max ias and also be more maneuverable. The only notable exceptions are allied twin-engined designs (the P38, P-61) and the F6F.

America was, and is, obsessed with speed. There is nothing wrong with that, it is probably the most important element in aircraft design in WW2 but it is not the only

It is the single most important and decisive factor, other than adequate levels of training (in effect the pilot is trained to keep his airspeed high and not lose energy maneuvering) in determining the outcome of GUN combat, because the faster a/c ALWAYS has the ability to control the fight (and, therefore, gain positional advantage). In modern designs we have, now, the complicating factor that most air-to-air missiles are capable of outrunning most aircraft, so the speed advantage has been somewhat neutered by technology. Here, maneuverability is desirable because, at least for the moment, a highly maneuverable aircraft can fox a missile by turning. If, however, someone comes up with a reliable missile defense that does not require turning (high energy lasers are recently in the news), then speed will again be the dominating criterion.

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

F4F-3....

While it is true that they did issue an armour kit for this plane my sources only list 41 aircraft as having received this mod.
And it would basically turn your plane into a F4F-4, so i feel no real need to include it.

I am tempted to include both a type 11/12 engine Ki-84 and a type 21/23/25 engine Ki-84. I will have to see what i can do on slots.

So, is the game out yet? [;)]

Mike

Except that the -4 variant's greatest difference (and in the game especially) is that it is armed with 6 x 50 instead of 4 x 50.

By Coral Sea time....the F4F-3's, least those on the carriers would have had their armor plate and self sealing tanks.

So i think you'd need at least two F4F-3's for your plans.

Lemurs,

For your edification I post this link as to the relationship between Octane and knocking, and also how you get more horsepower from higher compression ratios. It's all there.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question90.htm

Please, before you start posting such manifestly incorrect claims that the late-war Japanese fighters engines' did not get their greater horsepower from higher pressures read it. The higher pressures are a characteristic of their greater compression ratio. The greater compression ratio was the way that the Japanese (and most Allied radials too, by the way) increased an engine's "horsepower for a given displacment" (as the provided link describes it). You can only increased horsepower by increasing displacement (adding more or bigger cylinder and thereby adding weight -- a suboptimal solution) or be increasing compression ratios.

Dont believe i am Mike

Its true that the VAL was 'capable' of loading a 250kg and two 60kg, the question (nay i say the whole DEBATE) centered on whether it was a "standard" loadout for naval attack and it was pretty clearly if arguably shown that it was not.

Even for land targets, more often than not the "loadout" used was 2 x 60kg, with no 250kg bomb.

WitP only allows two loadouts.....normal range....extended range. Being able to pick multiple loadouts was a "wish list" item that didn't make the game.

But the editor will allow those who disagree to change to their heart's content [;)]

But the editor will allow those who disagree to change to their heart's content

Yep, add the bombs *but* ensure you reduce the normal range by 1 hex.

You can only increased horsepower by increasing displacement

[&:]
I am really not sure if you ment to say the ONLY way?
Surely airflow if a critical part of horsepower ratings as are items like fuel injectors, etc
Maybe you where talking about the octane ? balancing fuel and oxygen is a key component in modern horsepower tweeking

I should have said "one of the two major ways, other stuff being equal." It's either more engine or more compression (or both). But, uh, yeah, it's all basically about balancing fuel, oxidizer, and timing, or adding more or bigger cylinders.

Here's a nice link for people interested in a technical analysis of the Ki-84 vs it's 2nd gen contemporaries.

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ki84 ... ceaj_1.htm

In a nutshell, at low/medium altitudes and with a competent pilot....the Frank was as potential a match for an enemy opponent as any aircraft could expect to be. (i.e. eliminating situational variables)

Production defects and such have always been, IMHO, unfair given that most of these quaint little firefights seen here blur the issue because they pass between "could the Frank make a difference" in which case quality control and fuel issues are extremely relevant (as is the issue of pilot proficiency ) and "was the Frank a good enough design" in which case talk about quality control, pilots and fuel are unfair elements in said discussion.

The US test drives proved the "design" itself was credible and confirmed the saying "Forget it, it's a Frank" when the plane was employed on recon missions.....but given Japan's situation....would have made little difference. The biggest technical handicap remains the preformance drop off at high altitude due to the inferiority of the Japanese single stage supercharger (vs the two stage ones on the US planes) High flying raids, escorted by higher flying US fighters are going to enjoy a preformance edge which would aid their aquisition of the bounce and emphasis any altitude advantages present.

That's interesting Nik and appreciated but the analysis still fails to consider that the Ki-84s best turning radius was at speeds at which most combats, by mid-late 1944, did not occur. At higher speeds it loses to the better performing Allied a.c. I also wonder about the comparisons of gun weight and why in particular the P51B (an e.1943 a/c) was used rather than the Ki-84's 1944 contemporary, the P-51D (which had the same gun armament as the F4U-1 and the F6F).

But the post helps me alot when considering what "armored" means in Ki-84. 12mm seat armor will only stop rifle caliber bullets and probably 20-30mm shell fragments.

the speed at which the turning fight would occur is entirely dependant on the tactical situation at hand for the specific battle. There is no 'generalized' speed...at least none at which would be accurate due to said generality. This did not change during the war.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


P51B (an e.1943 a/c) was used rather than the Ki-84's 1944 contemporary, the P-51D (which had the same gun armament as the F4U-1 and the F6F).

Perhaps it was because the D model Mustang was deemed needed for the European Theatre? Just a guess.[:)]

the D was a latecomer to the war.......not sure. the D varient had a slightly better engine though the main improvement was the canopy. Not sure the preformance of the two was substantially different.

My guess would be because the B was the first development of the of the plane.

I might be wrong, but I don't think so. I think the D was flying over Europe in '44.

The big improvement I think was the bubble canopy on the D.

I messed up mdielh's quote. He was saying that the Ki-84 was operational in '44 and wondered why the latest variant of the 'stang (D) wasn't employed in the Pacific. I cut the quote off midsentence. Sorry[:)]

ooops, i should clarify i think

the D was a latecomer to the "Pacific War", not WWII in general. sorry [;)]

Nikademus,

You still have not seem to have checked any sources. Go to NARA and read the translations of the Japanese carrier manuals describing loadout, aircraft operations etc.
There is actually a piece of one of the translations floating around the internet for the Shokakus.

Mdiehl,

Okay, this has just gotten stupid as you have only proved that you are incapable of reading another persons post and that you don't even pay attention to what you have posted earlier.
You did not list 'dozens' of sources; you listed 2.
The first was a fairly amateur encyclopedia and the other was the Smithsonian which in general has used Gustin's work.
The Smithsonian is not where you do your doctorate work. It is a museum for the kiddies.

Gustin got most of his data from Francillon's work. Gustin is Francillon lite.
My other "one" source that i have listed is the theater interagation documents from NARA. That is 200,000 or more pages right there. I was overwhelmed, but luckily they have a fairly good indexing system and it didn't take too long to find what i was looking for.

On Octane.... Guess what, a Cessna 172 is not a high compression engine! I realize you will gain 2-6 Mph on a fighter plane using 100 octane... at least until the intakes clog with unburned fuel and your plane starts to backfire!
You have to be about 12 and you read lots of articles on the internet so you think you know something about engineering.
Well guess what? You don't!

I have never at any point said the Japanese did not gain their horsepower from greater compression... However, the Japanese did not make their engines with a compression of a Pratt & Whitney because they did not have the fuel to burn in it and premature explosion tends to be bad for the engine.

Quit putting words in my mouth that i never said!

We agreed on the speed being the most important thing so i do not know why you felt the need to castigate me over something we agree on.

Oh, yeah, the Americans were always outnumbered! eek! there are thousands of them! yikes! Thats an old story. You may have noticed that i said 'starting in late 1942'. Oh, but you don't bother to read anyones posts.

'If you slow down you lose' No, that is your & the American airforce's assumption. That is not my assumption. I have already said that i agree that speed is the most important thing; it however is not the only thing and i have mentioned an occasion when another airforce showed that speed could be a disadvantage as the British F2's turned inside the Americans, evaded their missles and then 'shot' them down.

quote:

Mike: And no, the engine on the Ki-84 was not all that high of pressure. All 100 octane fuel does for you is to allow you to have higher compression rates.

Mdiehl: That is a wierd comment. What do you think "compression" entails? It's all about pressure. At high compression, a low-octane fuel will have a greater chance of premature combustion than a high octane fuel. As a pilot you ought to know this. It is incredible that you seem not to know this.

Mike: No, that is not a weird comment! You answered your own question if you could bother to think it through! The airforces without 100 octane fuel available limited the compression on their engines to avoid exactly what you have just said!

It is true that you will get a SLIGHT improvement in performance from 100 octane fuel in a fighter engine not meant for it but you will not gain 37mph and you will have to clean your fuel pump and injectors regularly.

And there are not "Dozens of sources" that document the Ki-84; as far as i know there are 2 or 3 actual sources. Everyone else drew on these for their info. Often making mistakes.

Bye Bye !

Mike

Just for reference about aviation gas, during WWII the US used 3 grades and they were classified as 80/87, 100/130, and 115/145. I'm also pretty sure that high performance American fighters only used the 115/145 grade. Also my 1972 Sanderson 'Private Pilot Manual' says it is ok to use a higher grade of the gasoline than your engine is rated for if your grade isn't available for a short period of time but it will not improve performance.

Svar,

You are my hero! Exactly!

And before someone jumps down my throat on the Cessna being low compression, I meant to say the Piper. My bad.

Mike