PDA

View Full Version : Ki-84: it´s real...and it´s good



JorBR
11-23-2004, 12:16 PM
Started my first campaign, now flying Ki-84a. It´s good, very good, now I know why all that whining http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html#RTFToC1

"The Ki-84 proved faster than the P-51D Mustang and the P-47D Thunderbolt at all but the highest altitudes. At medium altitudes, the FRANK was so fast that it was essentially immune from interception. The climb rate was exceptionally good, 16,400 feet being attained in 5 minutes 54 seconds, which was superior to that of any opposing Allied fighters."

But

"However, most of the defects with the Ki-84 can be laid to poor quality control during manufacture, especially during the last few months of the Pacific war."
(...)
"As the quality of the workmanship steadily deteriorated, the performance of the Hayate steadily declined as production progressed, with later machines having successively poor and poorer performance and mechanical reliability."

Sorry whiners, but this plane really was that good. Low production standards is another thing entirely as far as PF goes.

JorBR
11-23-2004, 12:16 PM
Started my first campaign, now flying Ki-84a. It´s good, very good, now I know why all that whining http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html#RTFToC1

"The Ki-84 proved faster than the P-51D Mustang and the P-47D Thunderbolt at all but the highest altitudes. At medium altitudes, the FRANK was so fast that it was essentially immune from interception. The climb rate was exceptionally good, 16,400 feet being attained in 5 minutes 54 seconds, which was superior to that of any opposing Allied fighters."

But

"However, most of the defects with the Ki-84 can be laid to poor quality control during manufacture, especially during the last few months of the Pacific war."
(...)
"As the quality of the workmanship steadily deteriorated, the performance of the Hayate steadily declined as production progressed, with later machines having successively poor and poorer performance and mechanical reliability."

Sorry whiners, but this plane really was that good. Low production standards is another thing entirely as far as PF goes.

_Gadzilla_
11-23-2004, 12:27 PM
Good article, thanks

NorrisMcWhirter
11-23-2004, 12:29 PM
Hi,

This is a common complaint levelled at the Soviet fighters; AFAIK Oleg apparently used performance figures that didn't pertain to "in the field" aircraft. So, it would only be consistent to apply the same figures to the Ki84 or late war LW aircraft.

Cheers,
Norris

geetarman
11-23-2004, 12:35 PM
Maybe it's just me, but, with the introduction of the Corsair and Hellcat, the Frank can be handled on practically an even footing.

Many posters still seem to think the plane is a bit (or more than a bit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) overdone, but the matter appears to be unsettled.

Nonetheless, a decent Allied pilot can now feel somewhat confident about going up against it, even at low altitude. Speed is not the be all and end all in a dogfight. I'd rather have a quick plane than a fast plane during a furball.

The Frank, Corsair and Hellcat each possess fine handling characteristics that enable some very good battles!

NegativeGee
11-23-2004, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

This is a common complaint levelled at the Soviet fighters; AFAIK Oleg apparently used performance figures that didn't pertain to "in the field" aircraft. So, it would only be consistent to apply the same figures to the Ki84 or late war LW aircraft.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats it in a nutshell. In service reliability (and lack thereoff) = the great unmodelable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
11-23-2004, 12:52 PM
JorBR you forgot one thing.....50-100 total time IJA pilots were killing themselve in them. Many if not most did not have the know how to fly it well enough for it to be a threat...however it was one of thier best fighters superior to allied fighters.

Believe it or not we had guys with 400 to 500 hours killing them selves AFTER combat due to them "relaxing" while goofing around or landing.



My six year old daughter can shoot guys down, in the Ki-84. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TacticalYak3
11-23-2004, 12:59 PM
This discussion gets us back to the post regarding the Uber Plane Myth.

What is missing from the equation isn't that a certain plane is indeed superior with regards to specific characteristics, but that the teamwork employed by pilots of the less superior aircraft, or the altitude of engagement, etc needs to be understood as to why certain countries succeeded in history.

I personally find it interesting that history doesn't necessarily repeat itself in the game because we don't always (seldom?) fly in a historical fashion.

Also, there are many outside factors to also consider, such as inferior manufacturing, or simply the lack of resources which are outside of the game - well for the moment anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I think this is what makes the Battle of Britain so compelling; clearly outnumbered it was their radar/response ability, squad tactics, and perhaps plane characteristics (among other things) that won the day for them. I wonder if the IL-2 community will be able to duplicate this experience when BOB is released? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
11-23-2004, 01:06 PM
Every time you think an IJAAF plane is ubber, read this: http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijnaf.htm

Also note that most of their faster fighters were used to Intercept bombers and suicide against ships, not fight fighters. NOT because the planes were not capable aginst fighters.....contrary, they were superior to our fighters except maybe in speed. It was that their pilots seriously lacked the skills to fly them as fighters.

horseback
11-23-2004, 01:12 PM
The Frank's debut in China coincided with the debut of the P-51B/C Mustangs with the 14th AF. As has been noted ad nauseum, the ammo feeds in the early Mustangs tended to jam after hard maneuvering at high speeds, and the 'fix' arrived at early in the ETO operation of the type several months earlier had not found its way to the backwaters of the CBI until much later.

Initial Mustang operations were less than successful; in spite of its greater speed and range than the P-40Ns the 14th AF had been flying, the ammo feed problems and reduced turning capability (against an opponent who always turned tightly in response to an attack)led to fewer than expected successes, especially in view of its reputation in the ETO. Don Lopez' 'Into the Teeth Of the Tiger' contains a pretty good description of the situation at the time.

Couple that with the usual unrealistic Japanese optimism about all their aircraft, and the record is going to be somewhat tainted.

The Frank made its reputation in the CBI, and failed to live up to that reputation in the Phillipines aganst the Hellcats, Lightnings and Mustangs it faced there. Like the early Soviet modern fighters, particularly the LaGG, the production models performed nothing like the practically handbuilt initial examples that accompanied the groups that initially flew it.

The Frank had significant faults which could be exploited by Allied opponents, particularly above 20,000 ft, where its performance fell off more rapidly than the FW-190's. The heavier elevator forces at all speeds, and the mushiness of the ailerons above 300mph all worked against it in a high speed confrontation (and US doctrine was always to stay fast) at any altitude.

Some of its lack of success can be attributed to poor pilot training, lousy maintnance in the field or bad quality control at the factory, but in some respects, the Frank's performance fell short of its reputation (much less the performance of late model Allied fighters). I suspect that the 'surprise factor' due to misidentification had a lot more to do with its few successes than its greater performance than its Japanese stablemates.

Granted that it had better armor and performance than other Japanese fighters, but the armor/protection was still less good than Allied fighters, and the engine was never reliable, and became progressively less reliable as the war went on.

If the Mustang's wings are going to be modeled to pop off on odd occasions, I think the Frank's engine ought to quit without warning every so often too.

cheers

horseback

JorBR
11-23-2004, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
JorBR you forgot one thing.....50-100 total time IJA pilots were killing themselve in them. Many if not most did not have the know how to fly it well enough for it to be a threat...however it was one of thier best fighters superior to allied fighters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I haven´t http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, my point is that the plane was good, of course it didn´t mean it was capable of transforming a barely trained newbie in an ace. At that time, had allies and japaneses changed planes the outcome would be the same.

VBF-83_Hawk
11-23-2004, 01:23 PM
Actually the Ki-84 wasnt as good as the later model aircraft I was really refering to. The Ki-84, with the right pilot andan engine that decided to actually run, could certainly hold it's own against the Hellcat.


"But in the United States there were still some flyable Japanese warplanes for a couple of years after the Japanese surrender. In the Spring of 1946, a Ki. 84 "Frank" was restored, flown and clocked at a very respectable 427 mph at 20,000 feet. This work was performed by the Middletown Air Depot in Pennsylvania and I would like to know more about it."

NorrisMcWhirter
11-23-2004, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think this is what makes the Battle of Britain so compelling; clearly outnumbered it was their radar/response ability, squad tactics, and perhaps plane characteristics (among other things) that won the day for them. I wonder if the IL-2 community will be able to duplicate this experience when BOB is released? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We all know; there will be cries of 'the 109E is uber' and there will be moves to have it porked because no one will bother to employ, as you say, the necessary tactics to deal with large numbers of enemy fighters.

As far as I understood it, IJN planes were superior to their allied counterparts but better training and tactics swung it for them; compare this to PF.

Ultimately we won't see the large numbers of axis fighters so as to be representative of BoB formations; instead everyone will be flying the Spit Mk1 because the 109E will be banned so you'll have to fly a Stuka or 110 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

TacticalYak3
11-23-2004, 02:24 PM
Interesting thought mate. Online the norm is to even both sides. However, in history certain conflicts, like BOB (and the Pacific at certain points in time), the Axis held the upperhand with regards to number of planes.

I am seeing more AI Axis planes coming at my little squad of Seafires in my campaign; however, online teams are asked to be balanced (actually more Allied pilots in most cases). However, depending on pilot skills a 2:1 ratio might be more historical and a fairer fight. Maybe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

A.K.Davis
11-23-2004, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TacticalYak3:
Interesting thought mate. Online the norm is to even both sides. However, in history certain conflicts, like BOB (and the Pacific at certain points in time), the Axis held the upperhand with regards to number of planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another interesting myth that we can see in perpetuation in this very thread. The myth of "the few."

Snootles
11-23-2004, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Pacific at certain points in time), the Axis held the upperhand with regards to number of planes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The IJN had a greater carrier force at the outset of the war, and maybe more planes too, but once the American industries geared up, the Japanese could not hope to outdo them.

hawkmeister
11-23-2004, 02:49 PM
Something else that is rarely mentioned but needs to be considered is that it wasn't only axis or Soviet aircraft whose in-field performance was considerably less than the pristine test models. Aircraft of all nationalities suffered severe performance degradation in the field. P-51 Mustangs were notorious because their finely finished laminar flow wings (essential for maintaining the low drag properties of this airfoil) got all dinged-up and the surface finish degraded which caused massive increases in drag. So, even though planes like the Ki-84 benefit from perfect case performance modeling in PF/AEP, so do all the others.

Of course, the degree of in-field performance degradation was not equal for both sides. It might be nice if there was a way of adjusting serviceability for each side in a historical scenario, but I certainly would not want to see these kinds of fudge factors applied to specific airplanes under all conditions.

lrrp22
11-23-2004, 03:19 PM
Hawkmeister,

Do you have any evidence to support that claim? There is no record of Mustangs suffering "severe" drag increases due to laminar flow degradations. Operational Mustangs never achieved laminar flow to begin with so scratching and chipping of the wings wouldn't affect the Mustang any more than other aircraft of the time.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> P-51 Mustangs were notorious because their finely finished laminar flow wings (essential for maintaining the low drag properties of this airfoil) got all dinged-up and the surface finish degraded which caused massive increases in drag. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

clint-ruin
11-23-2004, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snootles:
The IJN had a greater carrier force at the outset of the war, and maybe more planes too, but once the American industries geared up, the Japanese could not hope to outdo them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to try and derail the thread, but Germany and Japan ended up in a much much longer war than they ever anticipated. Japan expected the US to pack up and leave after their bloody nose at Pearl, Germany never expected Poland to bring the entire Commonwealth into the war with them, and certainly wasn't expecting the SSSR to recover from Barbarossa. Development of new plane types or ones that would not be completed in the space of a short time were cancelled after things seemed to be going so well in the first years of the war. The leadership became giddy with success, way way too dizzy to be running an empire, any of them.

Politically and strategically speaking, they [the axis] had a completely different concept of what the allies would consider a rational action. The Japanese presented the US with the option of saving face after Pearl, and quite fully expected to be able to negotiate with the British and Americans and what was left of the French and Dutch after taking over their regional asian colonies and holdings. The British especially were seen as far too overstretched and underpowered in the region to be of any threat whatsoever. On paper, quite strong; but in terms of being able to project that power usefully into Japans new aquisitions, completely useless. Stalin too found out the limits of the kind of military assistance the French and British could bring to bear out of their own backyard when his constant calls for a second front directly on Germany were fobbed off.

Though this is a fairly gross oversimplification - the empires of the time just weren't ready to give up what they'd spent the last few centuries building up. Especially in the case of Japan, the old fears of the natives rising up [which they did, picking up a bunch of anti-colonial forces with them] in the colonies was pretty extreme. In terms of the allies own perceptions there could be no other response except, well, basically total war. No way were a bunch of jumped up upstarts going to take that stuff away.

Interestingly enough the war directly lead to many of those colonies having to be given up, anyway, on and on their own local populations terms - sooner or later.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-23-2004, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TacticalYak3:
Interesting thought mate. Online the norm is to even both sides. However, in history certain conflicts, like BOB (and the Pacific at certain points in time), the Axis held the upperhand with regards to number of planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another interesting myth that we can see in perpetuation in this very thread. The myth of "the few." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree; Germany had a woeful (comparatively and considering that they were embarking on a conquest of Europe) aircraft production rate compared to Britain both during and for a good time after the BoB.

That said, it's not a myth that RAF pilots were sent to engage large formations (fighters and bombers) - I think this is what Yak was referring to when he meant 'the upper hand' in terms of aircraft.

Cheers,
Norris

Stiglr
11-23-2004, 04:13 PM
Well, a couple of things are at work here.

1) It is true that we tend to not use aircraft "historically" a lot... but, knowing that a FW190 is a LOT nastier in groups that are drag-n-bagging and setting up crippling snapshots for each other... still might not change the fact that the individual plane may or may not itself be modelled correctly. These are separate issues.

2) Planes like Frank are a real problem because, with most planes, it is safe to model them based on operational/manufacturing stability and quality control. That's how most of the test data were gotten, and usually, that's how they fought in the field. However, with Franks, Tonys and (yes) LaGG-3s, poor quality control was a BIG issue in how they actually peformed in combat... which is what we're simulating here.

It's a hard decision to make: do you downgrade the plane some to factor in its notable problems? Or do you allow it to also fly "optimized" with the other planes? And if you choose the former, what do you detune? Engine power? Susceptibility to wing failures? Do you open the pandoras box of random failure for several components (gun jams, stress failures, etc.)?

clint-ruin
11-23-2004, 06:00 PM
If you can add one variant, you can add more variants. There's not a lot of difference between having a "LaGG-3 S4 - S66" and having "LaGG-3 Leningrad Factory 1941 - LaGG-3 snow-filled freezing barn in the Urals". Just a different type of variant. Or having "109G10 Hungarian / G10 Ersatz German". Every plane made has a range of tests made with different airframes, some come out better than others. The hideously poor LaGG-3 tests people like to post are apparently based on an examination of one factories aircraft that resulted in the execution of the plant manager, for instance. But there's nothing stopping that ones performance being added in as a variant.

The only thing is that I think people expect rather too much range in performance between these tests .. and the expectation that -any- aircrafts best results are representative of the bulk of those made, or flown in combat for months. Adding in variants also does nothing for the sillier server admins who might have a fairly narrow view of which were the most common [or which they just feel like giving you to stuff you up :&gt;]. I'd like to be able to play around with them myself though.

Voidable
11-23-2004, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JorBR:
Started my first campaign, now flying Ki-84a. It´s good, very good, now I know why all that whining http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-84.html#RTFToC1

"The Ki-84 proved faster than the P-51D Mustang and the P-47D Thunderbolt at all but the highest altitudes. At medium altitudes, the FRANK was so fast that it was essentially immune from interception. The climb rate was exceptionally good, 16,400 feet being attained in 5 minutes 54 seconds, which was superior to that of any opposing Allied fighters."

But

"However, most of the defects with the Ki-84 can be laid to poor quality control during manufacture, especially during the last few months of the Pacific war."
(...)
"As the quality of the workmanship steadily deteriorated, the performance of the Hayate steadily declined as production progressed, with later machines having successively poor and poorer performance and mechanical reliability."

Sorry whiners, but this plane really was that good. Low production standards is another thing entirely as far as PF goes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ki-84: it´s real...and it´s good

lol its real good and needs porked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Hendley
11-23-2004, 06:52 PM
Just another word on the numbers issue, Axis vs Allies: in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the US deployed more DESTROYERS (162) than the Japanese had PLANES (116).

The US had almost 1,600 planes, 46 carriers (vs 4 for the IJN) and 151 small support ships (destroyer escorts, frigates, minelayers etc, vs 0 for the Japanese).

A slightly off-topic factoid, but I just find those numbers amazing.

(Thanks BTW to the orignal poster; some very interesting reading.)

A.K.Davis
11-23-2004, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
Just another word on the numbers issue, Axis vs Allies: in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the US deployed more DESTROYERS (162) than the Japanese had PLANES (116).

The US had almost 1,600 planes, 46 carriers (vs 4 for the IJN) and 151 small support ships (destroyer escorts, frigates, minelayers etc, vs 0 for the Japanese).

A slightly off-topic factoid, but I just find those numbers amazing.

(Thanks BTW to the orignal poster; some very interesting reading.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm...were those total Japanese air forces, or IJN? The IJN carriers were used for bait at Leyte. Sacrificial lambs to draw off the U.S. carriers and let the surface ships get in among the transports.

TacticalYak3
11-23-2004, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TacticalYak3:
Interesting thought mate. Online the norm is to even both sides. However, in history certain conflicts, like BOB (and the Pacific at certain points in time), the Axis held the upperhand with regards to number of planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another interesting myth that we can see in perpetuation in this very thread. The myth of "the few." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree; Germany had a woeful (comparatively and considering that they were embarking on a conquest of Europe) aircraft production rate compared to Britain both during and for a good time after the BoB.

That said, it's not a myth that RAF pilots were sent to engage large formations (fighters and bombers) - I think this is what Yak was referring to when he meant 'the upper hand' in terms of aircraft.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Norris. And to add that the real problem for Britain as time went on wasn't necessarily plane production but available pilots. That's where the RAF training facilities in Canada and their Canadian pilots (plus other Commonwealth countries too of course) were very important to the RAF. Can you tell I'm from Canada. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

By the way this must be the most intelligent/polite thread about the KI plane I have ever read. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Hendley
11-23-2004, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:

Hmm...were those total Japanese air forces, or IJN? The IJN carriers were used for bait at Leyte. Sacrificial lambs to draw off the U.S. carriers and let the surface ships get in among the transports. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep you're right, those are for the IJN only. My source is The Second World War in the Far East, by HP Willmot, and the chart in question shows the numbers for "IJN" and "US Navy + Allies" only. With the IJA forces included it wouldn't appear quite so lopsided, I imagine. Hmm, anyone have those figures?

sapre
11-23-2004, 10:23 PM
Current Ki-84 is moddeld with US test result, 689kmh, which used high octane fuel, well maintainanced engine etc with minimul fuel and weapon load and running at its Methanol overboost and full throttle, Which shows faster result than "in the field".
IJAAF recorded Ki-84 without methanol overboost and full throttle, showing 624kmh.
So first production's of Ki-84's performance "in field" should be somewhere between 630-610kmh.

Blackdog5555
11-24-2004, 12:48 AM
Your web site only shows that the "Frank" is overmodeled in this game. The game model can achieve a full 360 roll at 320mph in less than 2.0 sec. .....that is complete fiction. Look at what your article said about the "Frank":
"In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral."

and about being faster than the Mustang. American test showed it to be a whole 2mph faster at altitude. 2 as in two MPH faster. IRL ther was only a handful of the c models in service at any one time. You would think that the Empire made 20,000 0f the model by their prevelance in the game.
Personally, I dont really care.. its only a game. But, I generally dont go in rooms with 84c's. it is just too arcadish.

WUAF_Badsight
11-24-2004, 02:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I generally dont go in rooms with 84c's. it is just too arcadish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
how many F4U-1C's were made again ?

DarthBane_
11-24-2004, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Your web site only shows that the "Frank" is overmodeled in this game. The game model can achieve a full 360 roll at 320mph in less than 2.0 sec. .....that is complete fiction. Look at what your article said about the "Frank":
"In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral."

and about being faster than the Mustang. American test showed it to be a whole 2mph faster at altitude. 2 as in two MPH faster. IRL ther was only a handful of the c models in service at any one time. You would think that the Empire made 20,000 0f the model by their prevelance in the game.
Personally, I dont really care.. its only a game. But, I generally dont go in rooms with 84c's. it is just too arcadish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He, he, it is obvious that you got your allied a$$ handed over many times. The ki100 is comming, i sugest you to avoid rooms with it too, to avoid frustration that is so noticable in your post.

JorBR
11-24-2004, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Your web site only shows that the "Frank" is overmodeled in this game. The game model can achieve a full 360 roll at 320mph in less than 2.0 sec. .....that is complete fiction. Look at what your article said about the "Frank":
"In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral."

and about being faster than the Mustang. American test showed it to be a whole 2mph faster at altitude. 2 as in two MPH faster. IRL ther was only a handful of the c models in service at any one time. You would think that the Empire made 20,000 0f the model by their prevelance in the game.
Personally, I dont really care.. its only a game. But, I generally dont go in rooms with 84c's. it is just too arcadish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"1. Poor sportsmanship: The pilots online are really good. But most of them are not as good as they think they are. These competitive types get their butts handed to them; shocked and in disbelief, they figure there must be something wrong w/ the game."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Thank you Georgeo76, thank you...

ElAurens
11-24-2004, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
"In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That comment would apply to about every other aircraft (save biplanes) that flew in WW2. Hell, the Zero feels sluggish compared to a Ki43. And what about the Ki27? IJAAF pilots felt the Hayabusa was sluggish in comparison.

The fact remains that the Ki84 was indeed a very good aircraft. If you are getting owned online by it then it is your fault for applying the incorrect tactics agianst it.

Pretty simple huh?

NorrisMcWhirter
11-24-2004, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
The fact remains that the Ki84 _was indeed_ a very good aircraft. If you are getting owned online by it then it is _your_ fault for applying the incorrect tactics agianst it.

Pretty simple huh? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correctamundo.

Cheers,
Norris

Blackdog5555
11-25-2004, 03:57 AM
Its abvious some are frustrated about being shot down by allied planes in this game. Im laughing. IRL the Hellcats and Corsairs had a "reported" kill ratio of 11.5-12 to 1. Lucky u only have to fly for the Axis only in make believe. And, this isnt a thread about the F4U-1C, but to answer your question; 200 of those were built. About the same number as the Frank C. But the F4U-1C actually saw heavy action on Okinawa and mainland Japan. They were actually a factor in the war. And for those bone-heads who quoted me quoting the original poster's web site, IT WAS A QUOTE FROM THE WEB ARTICLE. Read it. My point was, IN THIS GAME THE FRANK CAN DO A 360 degree ROLL @ 300 MPH IN LESS THAN 2 SEC. No plane can do that in WWII. not even the the 109 at 250mph. Its numbers dont make sense. ITS CONTROL ARE NEVER SLUGGISH BUT UNBELIEVABLY RESONSIVE. It also climbs faster than its RL numbers. It was an excellant plane. Just not the arcade model in the game. Its still fun to fly, but not online. The match i like isthe P-40 v. the KI-43. and i dont care which side i fly on. they are both very well modeled in this game.

Blackdog5555
11-25-2004, 04:03 AM
And BTW, I have no problem killing the "Frank" with a Hellcant or Corsair (any version) using the correct tactics. But again. u idiots missed the point of my post.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-25-2004, 06:17 AM
Hi

^ So, if the Ki84 is completely overmodelled and you have shooting them down left, right and centre, that suggests that your rides are, similarily, overmodelled.

Besides, 11.5-12 to 1 is not an indication of the ability of a particular *aircraft*; take the 109 for example...Hartmann's could be said to have a 352:1 kill ratio - is that representative of the aircraft? There are other factors such as numerical superiority, maintenance, pilot training and ability, tactics...etc

Cheers,
Norris

JorBR
11-25-2004, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
And BTW, I have no problem killing the "Frank" with a Hellcant or Corsair (any version) using the correct tactics. But again. u idiots missed the point of my post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So much for politeness http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif . In case you haven´t noticed the thread was going fine untill you´ve shown up, now it´s dead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .

You think the Ki-84 is overmodelled. Ok, fine.
Just be sure no one will ever listen to you while you behave in this way.

Snootles
11-25-2004, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And what about the Ki27? IJAAF pilots felt the Hayabusa was sluggish in comparison. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I heard a Ki-27 was in the works for a later patch. I can't wait to try it out! Veteran Ki-27 pilots receiving their new Ki-43's said the new planes were not maneuverable enough. Imagine that!

Aero_Shodanjo
11-25-2004, 09:39 PM
Sigh... All this debate about a particular plane's performance....

Well, I'm sure that everyone has their own references and opinions to explain how a plane should performs on combat or testing condition with different fuels, maintenance, production quality etc etc...

Now to make things more complicated, I'd like to add one factor that no one ever mentioned: Pilot's weight.

Taking myself as a hint, Im weighted around 60kg (120lbs). I doubt that many Japanese aviators during WWII were weighted far more than that. I have no idea what was the average weight for allied pilots in that era but I think I can safely guess that it was around 160 - 180 lbs.

Why weight? I believe I read somewhere in this forum that even a small change of weight in an aircraft can affect its performance although not always drastically. Not to mention its pilot's height can affect his ability to withstand sustained G pressure on combat - again - although not always drastically.

Could it be that a plane (with less engine hp, less octane in its fuel, less than ideal maintenance condition etc, etc...) with a lighter and shorter pilot could perform on par with another plane (with more hp, more octane, better maintenance etc etc) with heavier and taller pilot, given that both pilots skill are/were equal? I dont know an exact answer but it's possible IMO.

Now i dont know how each WWII plane supposed to fly except from what I read. I believe most of us are just like that too. However, in this sim, if Oleg decided to make any plane performs like they're fresh out from the factory with the highest quality materials and quality control, with ideal maintenance and fuel and so on, that's ok with me.

Heck, if each and every factors that affect how a plane performed on the frontline must be included in this sim, then maybe we should also consider average weight and height of the pilots, their health and maybe even their daily wartime food menu too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

clint-ruin
11-25-2004, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aero_Shodanjo:
Heck, if each and every factors that affect how a plane performed on the frontline must be included in this sim, then maybe we should also consider average weight and height of the pilots, their health and maybe even their daily wartime food menu too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we consider the pilots diet we could also get brown aerial grenades added for every side. Just think of the possibilites.

VW-IceFire
11-25-2004, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Your web site only shows that the "Frank" is overmodeled in this game. The game model can achieve a full 360 roll at 320mph in less than 2.0 sec. .....that is complete fiction. Look at what your article said about the "Frank":
"In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, and the elevators tended to be heavy at all speeds. The ailerons were excellent up to about 300 mph, after which they became rather heavy. The rudder was mushy at low speeds for angles near neutral."

and about being faster than the Mustang. American test showed it to be a whole 2mph faster at altitude. 2 as in two MPH faster. IRL ther was only a handful of the c models in service at any one time. You would think that the Empire made 20,000 0f the model by their prevelance in the game.
Personally, I dont really care.. its only a game. But, I generally dont go in rooms with 84c's. it is just too arcadish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Flown the 84 recently? PF introduced heavy ailerons to the Ki-84. At 400-450 kph and above the ailerons are very stiff and the roll rate is mediocre.

The elevator has always been a tad of a problem. Too much deflection and it stalls out. So there's some of that modeled in. The "improved" roll rate makes the plane more interesting to fly now.

CV8_Dudeness
11-25-2004, 11:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Couple that with the usual unrealistic Japanese optimism about all their aircraft, and the record is going to be somewhat tainted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
on the whole , Japanese factorys under-stated the performance of their fighters

CV8_Dudeness
11-26-2004, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
, IN THIS GAME THE FRANK CAN DO A 360 degree ROLL @ 300 MPH IN LESS THAN 2 SEC. No plane can do that in WWII. not even the the 109 at 250mph. Its numbers dont make sense. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
your OK with excess use of the F4U-1C ?

your OK with Allied planes climbing too fast ? (just not the frank)

your OK with Allied planes Rolling too fast ? (just not the Frank)

FYI , the frank has consistently been neutered since its introduction to suit you

CV8_Dudeness
11-26-2004, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
"In flight, the controls were sluggish in comparison with those of the Hayabusa, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
hay guess what ! , that applies to every single WW2 monoplane outside a Ki-27

the Hayabusa was insane for manouverability

Henry_Shrapnel
11-26-2004, 12:57 AM
What you KI84 advocates fail to admit is that the KI84 was not available untill the last few monts of the war so therfore the aircraft does not belong in most of missions that they are being used in. The overuse of the KI84 is spoiling this game for players who want to keep the game in a non fantasy format when it comes to the plane set used. The KI84 aircraft entered service too late to change the outcome of the war and was not that important overall.

CV8_Dudeness
11-26-2004, 02:18 AM
production started in APRIL 44

Pearl Harbor was attacked december 41

war ended August 45

PTO war didnt quite last 4 years , hayate served for over 1 of thos years , HARDLY a few months , not that was the point , but of course you have to bring up anything that could be used to rubbish it didnt you ?

we all know the outcome of the war , & of the revisionist efforts to make Japanese planes seem to be the creation of backwards hicks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif , prehaps you could try & stay on topic & follow the points being made huh ?

Blackdog5555
11-26-2004, 02:58 AM
Yes, ICE-FIRE, you are correct. i have flown it lately and the "new" Frank has been somewhat corrected. Thank you Oleg. So, now,up to 300mph it can do the amazing 2.0 sec. 360 roll and at 320mph it does get sluggish. You can actually feel the new algorithm/ program kick in as you excellerate past 300mph. Though i was able to climb to 16,300 ft @ 130mph w/ war power in 4.5 minutes. 200-300 ft a minute more than its tested numbers but who cares. I dont think anyone is saying the plane wasn't a great warbird. And im not saying other planes are not over built. My point was simple. The original poster stated the "Frank is that good". My argument is that he is wrong. The real plane (KI84 Frank) couldnt do a 360 roll@300 mph in 2.0 sec or climb to 16,000 in 4.5 minutes. Im right. The poor SOBs who cant deal with the truth make me laugh. Get counseling. And BTW, when im right, i dont care what people think. I post for comedic relief.

Blackdog5555
11-26-2004, 03:22 AM
And Dudeness, I dont have a clue what your point is. Is this a Special Education thread? The OSCAR could turn at low speeds but it's roll rate is very sluggish, that means "bad". Elevator control is average. The poor thing, like the Zero can't roll right at any speed. To be sluggish compared to the Oscar is a "bad" thing, not a "good" thing. i want to keep my words simple here. And when have you ever flown a Ki27? you are confused. Go away!

NegativeGee
11-26-2004, 03:23 AM
Yes, it was all going very well up to a point http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TacticalYak3:
By the way this must be the most intelligent/polite thread about the KI plane I have ever read. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aero_Shodanjo
11-26-2004, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Yes, ICE-FIRE, you are correct. i have flown it lately and the "new" Frank has been somewhat corrected. Thank you Oleg. So, now,up to 300mph it can do the amazing 2.0 sec. 360 roll and at 320mph it does get sluggish. You can actually feel the new algorithm/ program kick in as you excellerate past 300mph. Though i was able to climb to 16,300 ft @ 130mph w/ war power in 4.5 minutes. 200-300 ft a minute more than its tested numbers but who cares. I dont think anyone is saying the plane wasn't a great warbird. And im not saying other planes are not over built. My point was simple. The original poster stated the "Frank is that good". My argument is that he is wrong. The real plane (KI84 Frank) couldnt do a 360 roll@300 mph in 2.0 sec or climb to 16,000 in 4.5 minutes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In that case, why dont you return it to Oleg himself? If the aileron was corrected while the rest remained the same, do you really think that he and his team didnt notice? Or if you really that smart, bring some data about IRL performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The poor SOBs who cant deal with the truth make me laugh. Get counseling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The one who needs counseling is you. That's for cursing so easily while everyone else still discussing things properly and politely.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And BTW, when im right, i dont care what people think. I post for comedic relief. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

JorBR
11-26-2004, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
And Dudeness, I dont have a clue what your point is. Is this a Special Education thread? The OSCAR could turn at low speeds but it's roll rate is very sluggish, that means "bad". Elevator control is average. The poor thing, like the Zero can't roll right at any speed. To be sluggish compared to the Oscar is a "bad" thing, not a "good" thing. i want to keep my words simple here. And when have you ever flown a Ki27? you are confused. Go away! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I say, don´t feed the Trolls.

CV8_Dudeness
11-26-2004, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CV8_Dudeness:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
, IN THIS GAME THE FRANK CAN DO A 360 degree ROLL @ 300 MPH IN LESS THAN 2 SEC. No plane can do that in WWII. not even the the 109 at 250mph. Its numbers dont make sense. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
your OK with excess use of the F4U-1C ?

your OK with Allied planes climbing too fast ? (just not the frank)

your OK with Allied planes Rolling too fast ? (just not the Frank)

FYI , the frank has consistently been neutered since its introduction to suit you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i take it you are OK if a Allied plane is better than RL & jump in any Japanese plane (or AXIS) thread to bla bla bla ?

well am i right ?

(BTW , the Frank dont roll that fast , mebe at 300 Kmh it might but not at 300 Mph , & it would be great if its roll was slowed a tad more , more stable then)

KGr.HH-Sunburst
11-26-2004, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henry_Shrapnel:
What you KI84 advocates fail to admit is that the KI84 was not available untill the last few monts of the war so therfore the aircraft does not belong in most of missions that they are being used in. The overuse of the KI84 is spoiling this game for players who want to keep the game in a non fantasy format when it comes to the plane set used. The KI84 aircraft entered service too late to change the outcome of the war and was not that important overall. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well boo hoo ,why dont you model some of the lacking japanese fighters we DONT have in the game.

im sick and tired about this Ki-84 BS ,the japanese DONT got anything else late war wich can compete with the Mighty US
so we are all supposed to fly Ki-61 and Zero vs F4U-1C P51Ds and F6Fs P38s P47s........oh wait that list to long lol

the allieds have so many planes and they still
want more and more ...but wait dont give the Axis something where they can compete with NOOO we yankwhiners dont like a challenge.

give the axis some more late war planes and we can talk again ...as for now STFU

i get the feeling this forum is all about allied planes and how superior they were

just remember the plane list in PF is about 70% allied and 30% japanese
(this post is directed to the yankwhiners out there ,about 90% of this forum)

NorrisMcWhirter
11-26-2004, 06:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i get the feeling this forum is all about allied planes and how superior they were
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You noticed that, too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think I did some time ago just around the time that the P-51 was included.

Cheers,
Norris

AFJ_Locust
11-26-2004, 09:43 AM
All I know is now after patch 3.1m anytime a ki84 shoots my p38 im instantaly Pilotkilled

EVERY FREEKIN TIME !!!!

AFJ_Locust
11-26-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KGr.HH-Sunburst:
this post is directed to the yankwhiners out there ,about 90% of this forum <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should listen to your own post before you start accusing others of whineing Sunburst http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif