PDA

View Full Version : How is the new Ki-61s handling?



DIRTY-MAC
11-18-2004, 03:09 PM
You who has got the patch
please tell me how the Ki-61s is handling now
as for different reasons I wount be able to play PF for a week.

harryklein66
11-18-2004, 03:23 PM
trun better, roll far better!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
11-18-2004, 03:25 PM
can dive over 800km/h IAS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

brasil66
11-18-2004, 03:41 PM
I immediately noticed that the roll rate is much improved. Big difference.

Willey
11-18-2004, 03:47 PM
I just flew the Hei (which is still in the middle in the list http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif , should be the last one) and it turns like Focke now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

NegativeGee
11-18-2004, 04:11 PM
Ki-61 is a dream to fly now...... going to be a popular bird on early war servers methinks.

harryklein66
11-18-2004, 04:13 PM
it stall like a 190 if you pull to hard,but turn,far far far better ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

VW-IceFire
11-18-2004, 04:16 PM
Ki-61 Impressions

Roll Rate: Much improved roll rate, faster initial roll and generally better sustained roll rate.

Turn: The turn is much improved. You can now turn with or better than any opponents I've put it up against.

Weapons: Now seem correct instead of before where it was all messed up. Ammo counts seem fairly decent too!

Speed/Acceleration: These things also seem improved. In a QMB at low level I was able to reach 450kph IAS in a shallow dive while approaching the oncoming fighter formation. Which is better than the 390 I was doing before. Just seems a little better than before which is great.

Climb: No idea...seems roughly the same but no trouble there.

Stiglr
11-18-2004, 04:43 PM
Negative Gee wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ki-61 is a dream to fly now...... going to be a popular bird on early war servers methinks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Early war??? The Ki-61 is a early 1943 plane, decidedly mid-war.

I've heard at least one report that a few prototypes might have been at Midway, but nothing definitive. And with the teething problems of its engine, even late '42 Tonys would likely not be very representative of planes seen in action. Once again, Zeros and Oscars are your main Navy and Army fighters, respectively, until '43 (and beyond, to be honest).

NegativeGee
11-18-2004, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Negative Gee wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ki-61 is a dream to fly now...... going to be a popular bird on early war servers methinks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Early war??? The Ki-61 is a early 1943 plane, decidedly mid-war.

I've heard at least one report that a few prototypes might have been at Midway, but nothing definitive. And with the teething problems of its engine, even late '42 Tonys would likely not be very representative of planes seen in action. Once again, Zeros and Oscars are your main Navy and Army fighters, respectively, until '43 (and beyond, to be honest). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooops my bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Saburo_0
11-18-2004, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Negative Gee wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ki-61 is a dream to fly now...... going to be a popular bird on early war servers methinks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Early war??? The Ki-61 is a early 1943 plane, decidedly mid-war.

I've heard at least one report that a few prototypes might have been at Midway, but nothing definitive. And with the teething problems of its engine, even late '42 Tonys would likely not be very representative of planes seen in action. Once again, Zeros and Oscars are your main Navy and Army fighters, respectively, until '43 (and beyond, to be honest). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

uh, Midway??

VW-IceFire
11-18-2004, 10:30 PM
I think he means "around at Midway". I doubt they were actually at Midway...that'd be using some giant fuel tank http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

x__CRASH__x
11-18-2004, 10:34 PM
I was about to say! I don't remember a tailhook on it!

DIRTY-MAC
11-19-2004, 04:16 PM
OK it seems like it performes like a Bf109E4
but shouldnt it turn and climb alot better?
and how does it performes against the US fighters, is it a better turner?

georgeo76
11-19-2004, 04:50 PM
Tony is a pure BnZ demon! climb is good, dive speed is high, and handling @ speed is suburb. All you F4U fliers should get used to checking high six.

Smokin256
11-19-2004, 05:32 PM
I posted this in a similar thread over at simhq;

"I don't have PF yet but have they fixed the prop. controls in the DB60x engine family yet? (Bf-109s Bf-110s & Tony). The three main problems with the way the system is modeled (at least in AEP v2.04) are;

1, The rpm range is incorrect. 0% throttle should be 1,800-2,000rpm not 8oorpm. Up to rated rpm at 110% throttle.

2, Prop pitch should not be mappable to an axis.

3, When switching from automatic to manual prop pitch the pitch should not change. It should stay right where it is until you change it by hitting the up (finer) or down (coarser) button.

The most important by far is the rpm range. this fix would bring the performance in "automatic" mode more in line with the performance that's posible by using "manual" mode. Pretty much the only time manual mode was used in real life was if the automatic system was damaged or failed in some way or in max. endurance cruising situations for fuel economy. Would the performance of these engines be too good & require more tweaking after the fix? I have no idea.

IRL there was no Propeller pitch or govornor lever. so there should be no axis for prop pitch.

I don't know how the developers might be able to solve this but I feel that the system used for the Fw-190 or the spitfire would be a better compromise than what we have now. It would make more sense to me to model that part of the system you use 90% of the time correctly . Than trying to Model the part you use 10% of the time correctly and wind up modeling none of it correctly!"

So have they changed anything?

Cheers.......Smokin256

Stiglr
11-19-2004, 06:20 PM
Yes, I agree Midway has to be very far fetched, being way too far out there for an Army plane, and the Navy and Army were such rivals, they wouldn't even WANT it anywhere near their ships.

Still, there have been some accounts of pilots spotting planes at Midway that were NOT radial engined. Who knows, though, what they could have seen, or maybe they were simply mistaken.

p1ngu666
11-19-2004, 07:32 PM
still felt slow to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
last one in the list, i tried that breifly

JG53Frankyboy
11-19-2004, 09:19 PM
what would you expect ???????
MACH 1 ?

DIRTY-MAC
11-20-2004, 05:40 AM
Please cant anyone do some testing
has it a good zoom climb
and what plane can you compare it to in climb?

DuxCorvan
11-20-2004, 06:58 AM
Tony is now a real good BnZ fighter. Performance is similar to Fw 190, only turns better and rolls worst.

But it is really really fast in a dive. It earns energy as fast as it loses it. Tactics should be similar to Fw 190, a P-47, or a late 109.

Giganoni
11-20-2004, 07:01 AM
I'm still downloading the patch so I can't comment yet on how the new PF version of the Ki-61 handles. One climbing speed time I have available is climbing to 10,000 meters in 17 minutes, 14 seconds. I think its attributes are its dive and higher speed turning capablities. In the tests done by the Japanese it was said to be better in turning than the Bf109E. What version of E and if it out turned at most or all speeds, I don't know.

ImpStarDuece
11-20-2004, 09:01 AM
A Tony isnt the fastest bird in the world. The most generous fighures i have seen give it a max speed of 361-367 mph.

Even if that doesn't include overboost the speed isnt anything special. Only 1,100 hp in the Ha-40, meaning that the 61 will struggle in the grunt stakes. Even if we add another 110 hp (10% overboost, something which i'm not convinced on as yet myself) i doubt she would break 375-380 mph in level flight. A 10% increase in power does not mean a 10% increase in speed. It means something like a 3 or 4% increase, because the plane has to work that much harder to push itself through the air.

First squadron deliveries of the Tony began in Jan or Feb of 43 and it immediately proved to be popular with Ki-43 pilots who like to be able to dive, climb, turn and catch teir opponents.

geetarman
11-20-2004, 09:18 AM
Real world analysis - flew one last night against a good Corsair pilot. The Tony could stay with it enough to deny the Corsair a decided advantage in the vertical regime.

Best advice to fight it if you're in a Corsair or Hellcat - bounces and speedy extensions.

Very nice plane

gerhardius
11-20-2004, 02:54 PM
Re: Japanese inline engines at Midway
I recall reading a piece about the D4Y Judy that mentioned their use as recon aircraft onboard Soryu, this could be the inline engined aircraft somebody saw. Then again, there were similar reports from Coral Sea about "109s" in Japanese service so it may just be mis-identification.