PDA

View Full Version : Ki 61 Real World Performance



ElAurens
12-11-2005, 11:05 AM
OK, as this aircraft in the game appears to not meet the various real world performance numbers published for it, I have been wondereing, Just what are the official Imperial Japanese Army Flying Corps numbers for it? And what were their test conditions?

The US Technical Air Intelligence Center manual credits the Ki61 with 302mph at sea level, and 361mph at 15,800ft. both with the military power rating. They list the military power output as 1030hp at sea level and 1085hp at 13,800ft. However they list the War Emergency Power (WEP) as 1100 at 12,600ft.

Something does not seem right here.

I'll post this in ORR as well...

VW-IceFire
12-11-2005, 11:07 AM
I think its drastically underperforming...but I don't have good sources for any of that.

ElAurens
12-11-2005, 12:54 PM
I just finished some testing on the Ki 61 Ko.

Crimea map.

100% Fuel and default ammo load.

Vmax @ Sea Level (50ft.), Military Power (100% throttle): 280mph IAS

Vmax @ Sea Level (50ft.), WEP (110% throttle): 290mph IAS

Vmax @ 15,800ft., Military Power (100% throttle): 325mph TAS.

Vmax @ 15,800ft., WEP (110% throttle): 338mph TAS.

The true air speeds for the altitude tests were done with an online TAS calculater available here. (http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html)

As we can see the Ki61 come no where close to it's real world performance numbers.

And yes I did ntraks and am sending them to TAGERT, along with climb tracks I did.

vocatx
12-11-2005, 01:01 PM
El, I've got two references with data on the Ki-61 that I can think of right now. Here are what each lists:

Jane's All the World's Aeroplanes 1945 simply states a maximum speed of 356 mph at 16,400 feet. It lists the engine horsepower as 1100 with no altitude specified.

The Great Book of Fighters lists the Ki-61-I horsepower as 1175 for takeoff. The top speed listed is for the Ki-61-I-KAI-Hei:360 mph at 16,405 feet. Unfortunately it doesn't have complete data for each variant of the plane.

LEBillfish
12-11-2005, 01:08 PM
ElAurens, here are the numbers I posted before from reference sources and my tests in 4.01 (may have even been 3.04)

Max. Speed...These are the generally accepted numbers form the Kawasaki data, JAFC data, U.S. captured example coded JAFC S/N 263 (real S/N 163, so a Ki-61-1-Ko).

Ki-61-1a
Weight Empty = 2,210kg
Weight Loaded = 2,950kg
Weight Loaded Max = 3,250kg
Max. Speed = 590 km/hr@5,000m
Cruising Speed = Unknown
Climb = Unknown

Ki-61-1b
Weight Empty = 2,210kg
Weight Loaded = 3,130kg
Weight Loaded Max = 3,616kg
Max. Speed = 592 km/hr@4,860m
Cruising Speed = 400 km/hr@4,000m
Climb = 5,000m/5min, 31seconds

Ki-61-1c
Weight Empty = unlisted
Weight Loaded = unlisted
Weight Loaded Max = unlisted
Max. Speed = Unknown
Cruising Speed = Unknown
Climb = Unknown
**Assumed the only difference between the 1b & 1c would have been weight due to added armor, Mauser cannons, fuel loadouts, fire extinguisher system....So performance should be between 1b & 1d

Ki-61-1d
Weight Empty = 2,630kg
Weight Loaded = 3,470kg
Weight Loaded Max = unlisted
Max. Speed = 580 km/hr@5,000m
Cruising Speed = unlisted
Climb = unlisted


The 580km/hr @ 5,000m number actually applies to the Ki-61-1d which we don't have and rougly weighed 420kg more then the model 1a/1b.

Test results as follows: Only max speed was tested and the conditions of the plane were...
Fully trimmed (no trim on rudder may help)
Radiator closed
Engine Overheat turned off
Altitude 4,860m
Tried various combinations of prop pitch and throttle with 100%pp/110% throttle achieving the highest speed
25-100% fuel had little effect
Ki-61-1b "Otsu" in sim Max. Speed at altiitude = 560km/hr T.A.S. or 32km/hr too slow

JtD
12-11-2005, 01:38 PM
I tested the Otsu and basically got the numbers you posted (300, 360).

Shouldn't the engine develop quite a bit more than 1030 hp? To my (little) knowledge it was an upgraded DB601A engine which was tuned for additional power at low altitudes (about 1200 hp).

LEBillfish
12-11-2005, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I tested the Otsu and basically got the numbers you posted (300, 360).

Shouldn't the engine develop quite a bit more than 1030 hp? To my (little) knowledge it was an upgraded DB601A engine which was tuned for additional power at low altitudes (about 1200 hp).

The Ha40 was rated at 1,100 h.p.............


However, I am cautious with all of this as many references are simply taken from other sources and handed down plus who's to say if the math conversion was done "right" in the original books........What I'd do for a "Real" Ki-61 manual would make Debbie Does Dallas look like a Disney film.

Grey_Mouser67
12-11-2005, 01:58 PM
The Tony wasn't a fast plane by any stretch, but it does not perform like it should...Oleg aught to beef it up in the FM and I'd add I think it is a bit tougher in game than in real life too..dm is a little optimistic based on anecdotal info I've read.

LEBillfish
12-11-2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
and I'd add I think it is a bit tougher in game than in real life too..dm is a little optimistic based on anecdotal info I've read.

There I TOTALLY disagree......

Consider these points then compare them to all other inline fighters.

The Ki-61 had varied fuel tank leak absorbing & bullet "proofing" (no doubt just to eliminate hydroshock blowouts) that varied in the production from 3mm rubber & 10mm silk felt to 9mm rubber on the top and 6mm on the sides and bottom to 12mm rubber over all surfaces.

Ki-61 had a fuel tank selector switch and had up to (excluding drop tanks) 4 tanks (1 each outer wing, 1 center wing (under pilot) and in the fusalage)

The Ki-61-1c had a fire extinguisher system

Ki-61 had varied pilot armor up to 16mm pilot head, 12mm pilot body.

Ki-61 had 8-9.5 mm radiator for oil and coolant armor.

Ki-61 had all fluid resivoirs in positions that if hit would not flood over the windscreen.

Ki-61 Ha-40 was an inverted V design......Meaning all critical components and fluids were below the planes c/l.

The real problems with the Ki-61 were (and were random)......
Fuel tank selector solenoid malfunctions (so could not switch to other tanks)
Engine siezing due to grit (poor intake filtration.......In NewGuinea they resorted to even stuffing sponges into the intakes to protect from sand/coaral grit)
Poor Maintenece Technician training
Lack of Maintenece Facilities (reworking an engine entailed shipping it to the Philippines if in New Guinea).

So on the whole an above average plane, the problems came in being able to repair them when oversea's. In kind, it never had the chance to really perform as the 5th AirForce "daily" destroyed them on the ground and Ultra Intercepts informed them where to bomb. On the average Units in New Guinea had 0-5 flyable planes at any one time out of nominal unit strengths of roughly 48.

By the time the mainland was attacked, even perhaps the philippines they were simply out classed.......Frankly, it was a vastly better plane then the E4/7......It just never had a chance to prove itself before obsolete.

nakamura_kenji
12-11-2005, 04:28 PM
get 563kph 4500m much slow

argument be slow because poor engine condition most plane bad becuase all other plane model perfect condition engine so ki-61 must also be have nice perfect shiny new engine conditon. so should have 590.

also note ki-61 would have no except for serivce if was slow be like in game as it predessor ki-60 was abandon for no meet speed requirement and poor handle.

maybe all email oleg get hint ^_^

JG53Frankyboy
12-12-2005, 01:34 AM
i emailed the maddox team some month ago about the Ki61s in-game speed.

oleg answered they would look after it - well...........

GerritJ9
12-12-2005, 07:17 AM
Had the same discussion with Oleg about the B-239/F2A-2/Buffalo Mk.1 straightline top speed, and sent various copies of published documentation. Unfortunately, the Buffs are all still too slow- in reality the F2A-2 was faster than the F4F, Ki.43-I and A6M2, in PF it's slower........ but still a great little aeroplane!!!!!!!

JtD
12-12-2005, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
The Ha40 was rated at 1,100 h.p.............


By the US TAIC? Or does this come from a distant Japanese source?

Because
a) In all those poor sources I have read they say 1175 and
b) even the original DB601A was rated 1175hp.

I wouldn't believe the Japanese improved an engine by taking away some power, while the Germans tuned the same engine to deliver more than 1400 hp far before the Ki-61 went into service.

I'd be glad to learn.

LEBillfish
12-12-2005, 11:19 AM
I'd have to poke around for exactly where that number was generated from.....As I said above, so many numbers get handed down, then generalized, rounded off it's sad....I'll do some digging but in the end will probably be able to find for you where 10 end sources drawing from the same source had 10 numbers.

ElAurens
12-12-2005, 04:30 PM
Tagert is now in possesion of ntraks I have done for climb and top speed of the Ki61. He is asking for some real world numbers to contrast the ingame performance to. All I have is the TAIC manual and no way to scan it.

Can anyone help here?

If you can send what you have to naca_testing@yahoo.com

That is Tagert's email for these things.

LEBillfish
12-12-2005, 06:04 PM
Heh, find a way to scan it and send me a copy too ;p........Gathering various sources now, will add them as I assemble them and upload pics..........On second thought I'll post the numbers to not infringe on copyrights......

However, I have some nice graphs that I'm almost assuming come from the original designers documentation as part of a Mechanism of Military Aircraft, yet all in Japanese. If Nakamura Kenji would translate what's important, I'll email them to him (Would take me forever to)

UNKNOWN official report (assume TAIU)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/O-1104455262-C90hlos.jpg

ElAurens
12-12-2005, 08:31 PM
Billfish, that is from the TAIC "Performance & Characteristics Manual for Japanese Aircraft".

I sent Tagert that page and the facing page that has the performance graphs. I photographed them with my digicam. As I recall most of the specifications in it are intelligence estimates, although the drawings of internal systems tells me that they had to have their hands on actual aircraft.

The complete reprint is available here. (http://www.eFlightManuals.com)

LEBillfish
12-12-2005, 08:48 PM
Well I'll still collect all I have, would be nice if someone could translate the Mechanism of Military Aircraft bits.....However, CPS Craven turned me onto some links of actual translated Japanese Manuals....will just take me a while to get them (all photocopies I think is only how you can get them)

ElAurens
12-12-2005, 09:50 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Wow, I'd like those myself....

JtD
12-12-2005, 10:58 PM
Thanks for that sheet of pixels. Just got to save that think like I previously did with that one:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/ki61-performance-data1.jpg

Take off power of 1160 hp looks a little better than the 1100 rated hp. Seems to be an odd altitude as to my knowledge it's the altitude where the 601 series devloped least power. Max. power was at altitudes of 7000 feet in the region of 1200 hp. Anyone know how many US hp would make one German hp? It was like a 3% difference but I don't remember in which direction.

LEBillfish
12-13-2005, 12:11 AM
Just a quick tidbit as I sort all this out.......It seems the Ha40 produces 1,175 on the ground, and 1,100@4,000m when it makes max speed......so there is the H/P/ diff.

Charos
12-13-2005, 12:54 AM
Pferdest¤rke or PS

1 PS = 75 kpm/s = 735.49875 W = 0.9863201652997627 hp (SAE)

nakamura_kenji
12-13-2005, 02:26 AM
track i make of ki-61 do sealevel speed test want?

i no much good maybe as test as no real able hold plane steady long alway move about p_q so altitude no stay constant bob bit about 10m maybe v_v

ElAurens
12-13-2005, 05:31 AM
Remember folks that the Ha40 was tuned for max performance at medium altitudes, unlike the DB601 in the 109, which was more powerful at higher altitudes.

This was a decision made by the IJA to suit their (flawed) tactical doctrine.

nakamura_kenji
12-13-2005, 05:41 AM
ha-140 better altitude more powerful version but fit ki-61-II which no have
v_v. be mechanic nightmare so often no work right

ha-140
1500bhp take off
1250bhp 18700 feet

LEBillfish
12-13-2005, 09:12 AM
nakamura_kenji:

Would you be willing to translate small bits of a Mechanism of Military Aircraft into Romanji for me?

It's very difficult for me if I have to track down each Kanji's meaning, then translate to Romanji, then to English.

p1ngu666
12-13-2005, 08:55 PM
speedloss seems similer to aircraft when u take racks, like p51.

mind, the ki61 is so slug like, maybe they put the 2cv engine in instead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

nakamura_kenji
12-14-2005, 02:40 AM
yes but spare time have be much limit as have 3d work dead line be soon that i need meet or no get pay. so no able promise it be do soon much sorry v_v

I ask be also allow use template you,jesters-ink for squadron skins. before i no know who make template i use. now do, it ok we use? can tell how contact jesters-ink so ask also. if no allow stop use, i make own template

leader skin
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/_yaya1.jpg
unrank skin
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/Unrank.jpg

KIMURA
12-14-2005, 04:48 AM
Ha-40:876kW@2'500rpm@1'065mm(41.9"Hg) Manifold
and
Ha-140:1'081kW@2'700rpm@1'040mm(40.9"Hg)

both datas found at Maru Mechanic. But I would think these performances are clean - without RAM.

ElAurens
12-14-2005, 10:46 AM
Ok folks Tagert has finished the military power ROC test I did and the results took me by suprise.

In my test I took a Ki61 Ko with 100% fuel and default ammo load, and from a standing start on the Crimea map I climbed at 100% throttle with rad closed till the first overheat message, then opened the rad fully and pulled back to 95% throttle and climbed to 33.000ft. trying very hard to maintain 250kph(150mph)IAS. Wit this proceedure the Hein almost exactly matches the TAIC data for rate and time of climb.

Here is the info:

**Note: Edited data out at request of Tagert, plese go to the link to see it.**

Data for sea level speed and my 110% (WEP) climb test is coming later.

Here is the full report. (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=834&sid=c662970df4e3d3cd708ea95586d7e27a)

p1ngu666
12-14-2005, 10:12 PM
if rate of climb is ok, maybe it is rack drag http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

*insert billfish related joke here*

*runs away* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ElAurens
12-14-2005, 10:49 PM
We need to bear in mind that the TAIC performance numbers are estimates based on what ever knowledge the TAIC had on the Ki61, or any other Japanese aircraft. These TAIC estimates are the basis of many of the performance claims for IJN/IJAFC aircraft since the end of WW2. Much of Francillon's statistics are probably based on these estimates, but he touted them as hard fact.

Which is why I asked my initial question. There simply has to be official Japanese documents relating their test proceedures and conditions and their findings on performance numbers for this and all Japanese WW2 aircraft.

LEBillfish
12-15-2005, 12:16 AM
Japanese Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I-Otsu, Type 2 1100HP Engine, Ha-40 (Ha-60-22, joint army/navy designation) Shown
(the "Otsu" or incorrectly 1b was chosen as the performance standard as it was within this designation that fuel/oil/coolant/armor/armament capacities and degree's were most balanced and to a great degree finalized. Variences from this are assumed to be due to loaded weight differences)

NOTE: In many cases scans of pages were utilized to save on errors in translation of Japanese & Polish Text. Rights of the scanned images belong solely to the sources named.

Source: J. I. Long, Airtell Publications and Research (most trusted)
His Sources: "Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft 1900-1945," Volume 4, supplemented by other secondary sources. The encyclopedia cites the Kawasaki Aircraft Company and the Imperial Japanese Army as the sources for the figures.

Weight Empty: 2,210kg
Weight Loaded: 3,130kg
Weight Maximum: 3,616
"Designated" H.P.: 1,100
Max. Speed: 592km/hr@4,860m.
Cruising Speed: 400km/hr@4,000m.
R.O.C.: -

Additional Source Airtell Letter Report, taken from Koku-Fan FAOW # 98
0.61kg/HP
32.5HP/OL?
2,400 RPM
+240mm/Hg
1,040HP
4,200m
1,100HP

2,500 RPM
+330mm/Hg
1,175HP
6.9

Source: Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien (abrv.) by R.M. Bueschel, Original source J.I. Long, Airtell Research

Weight Empty: 2,210kg
Weight Loaded: 3,130kg
Weight Maximum: 3,616
"Designated" H.P.: 1,100
Max. Speed: 592km/hr@4,860m.
Cruising Speed: 400km/hr@4,000m.
R.O.C.: 5,000m/5'31"

Source: Monografie Lotnicze 05, Ki-61 Hien, Original source undetermined.

Moc maksymalna: 1040 KM/765kW
Maks. predkosc obrotowa: 2400 obr/min
Maks. nadcisnienie w kolckt.: +240 mm Hg
Moc maksymalna: 1100 KM/809 kW
na pulapie: 4200 m
Moc startowa: 1175 KM/864 kW
Maks. predkosc obrotowa: 2500 obr/min
Maks. nadcisnienie w kolckt.: +330 mm Hg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/1.jpg

Source: Modelling Manual, Original Source unknown.

1,175HP/2,500RPM
1,100HP/2,400RPM/4,200m

Source: FAOW #17 Army type 3 fighter Hien, Original source unknown

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/3.jpg

Source: Aircraft Profile #118, R. J. Francillion, Original Source Unknown:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/4.jpg

Source: Fighters & Bombers of the Japanese Air Force Part 1, Fraus, Original source unknown:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/5.jpg

Source: Mechanism Of Military Aircraft #2:

Very detailed including many graphs.......However, too complex for me to decipher what is pertinent so not posted.

chris455
12-15-2005, 01:12 AM
Count on Francillon, be sure.

Also, I posted something on your oily windshield thread Billfish. You may want to check it out- http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

nakamura_kenji
12-15-2005, 02:27 AM
guess mad me because no able do. i much sorry kelly-san but i no time work anything p_q if had i do but no have and want keep still get pay must concentrate 3d work v_v

ElAurens
12-15-2005, 05:26 AM
chris455,

As time passes Francillon's work grows more and more suspect. Sometimes being the first is not being the most accurate.

This is the whole problem we are dealng with here, while German information was worshiped and saved for the ages, Japanese technical data was put in the dust bin.

LEBillfish
12-15-2005, 09:40 AM
First off (thanks to CPS Craven) these items some of which contain Japanese manuals with what you seek in them can be found at/ordered from the Austrailian War Memorial...

http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/a428b853097fe85ec...01f6ab1?OpenDocument (http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/a428b853097fe85eca256532001f170d/0d6fe7d173aab698ca256e36001f6ab1?OpenDocument)

http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/a428b853097fe85ec...01c546b?OpenDocument (http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/a428b853097fe85eca256532001f170d/5c0163d5d386fa7dca256e2e001c546b?OpenDocument)

http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/a428b853097fe85ec...0043291?OpenDocument (http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/a428b853097fe85eca256532001f170d/c49b147ba19734b2ca256e3600043291?OpenDocument)

http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/a428b853097fe85ec...0025f08?OpenDocument (http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/a428b853097fe85eca256532001f170d/8e30bf8acb23ba4fca256e6a00025f08?OpenDocument)

I think at this point the TAIU data needs to have its plane weights and fluid capacities compared to what is known of various Ki-61's. TAIU though initially having a Ki-61-Ko early, eventually procurred at least a 1c, if not most likely other varients. The performance of each varies primarily due to weight.

From the data below I'm going to "guess" based on the TAIU chart being used that the version would fall into the s/n series 501-513 or an early Otsu based on weight and mostly internal fuel stores. (weight figures I have however do NOT account for variences in armor/fuel/etc.)

TAIU Data:
Weight E/L/OL: 5010/6982/7682 pounds (2273/3167/3485 Kg.)
Fuel Capacity Internal: 199 U.S. Gal. (753 liters)

Ki-61 Potential Weight Differences Fuel Carried primarily highlighted. These statistics come from Airtell Research, original source decoded and translated captured Japanese document. Copyright all information J.I.Long, Airtell Publications & Research.

Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I Ko, coded s/n's 113-424
(TAIU original test plane s/n 263 HOWEVER also had in their possession later 1b & 1c versions)
Fuel Tanks: 2/190l. outer wing tanks, 1/170l. center wing tank, 1/200l. fuselage tank.
Oil capacity: 28l. main tank, 17l. Aux.
Pilot Armor: 10mm plates both head & body
Radiator Armor: None
Fuel Tank Protection: 3mm Rubber over 10mm silk felt
Fire Ext. System: None
Weapons: 2x 7.7mm type 89+500 r/g, 2x 12.7mm Ho.103+250 r/g

Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I Ko, coded s/n's 421-500
Fuel Tanks: 2/190l. outer wing tanks, 1/170l. center wing tank, 1/200l. fuselage tank.
Oil capacity: 28l. main tank, 17l. Aux.
Pilot Armor: 10mm plates both head & body
Radiator Armor: None
Fuel Tank Protection: 9mm Rubber top, 6mm sides
Fire Ext. System: None
Weapons: 2x 7.7mm type 89+500 r/g, 2x 12.7mm Ho.103+250 r/g

Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I Otsu, coded s/n's 501-1092
Fuel Tanks s/n 501-513: 2/190l. outer wing tanks, 1/170l. center wing tank, 1/200l. fuselage tank.
Fuel Tanks s/n 514-649: 2/190l. outer wing tanks, 1/170l. center wing tank.
Fuel Tanks s/n 650-1092: 2/170l. outer wing tanks, 1/160l. center wing tank.
Oil capacity: 28l. main tank, 17l. Aux.
Pilot Armor s/n 501-541: 10mm plates both head & body
Pilot Armor s/n 542-577: 10mm plate head & 12mm body
Pilot Armor s/n 578-1092: 16mm plate head & 12mm body
Radiator Armor s/n 501-513: None
Radiator Armor s/n 514-1092: 8mm plate
Fuel Tank Protection s/n 501-649: 9mm Rubber top, 6mm sides
Fuel Tank Protection s/n 650-1092: 12mm Rubber top, 12mm sides
Fire Ext. System: None
Weapons: 4x 12.7mm Ho.103+250 r/g

Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I Hei, coded s/n's 3001-3400
Fuel Tanks: 2/170l. outer wing tanks, 1/160l. center wing tank.
Oil capacity: 28l. main tank, 17l. Aux.
Pilot Armor: 16mm plate head, 12mm plate body(TAIU measured 17.5/12.7)
Radiator Armor: 8mm (TAIU measured 9.5mm)
Fuel Tank Protection: 12mm Rubber top, 12mm sides
Fire Ext. System: yes
Weapons: 2x 12.7mm Ho.103+250 r/g, 2x Mauser 151/20 120/250 r/g

Plane Weights in Kg (empty/loaded/loaded max.):
1a: 2,210/2,950/3,250
1b: 2,210/3,130/3,616
1c: unlisted (note: same as 1b +20 kg/cannon+2x ammunition weight)

Type 89 MG: 12.7Kg/gun, 7.7mm x 58 SR .024Kg/rd, .008Kg/link, 500 r/g = 16Kg
Type 1 MG Ho-103: 23Kg/gun, 12.7mm x 81SR 82g/rd, 250 r/g = 20.5Kg+link weight
Mauser 151/20 Cannon: 42Kg/gun, 20mm x 82 205g/rd, 120 r/g = 24.6Kg+link weight

92 Octane Fuel (est): 6#/gallon = .286Kg/liter
750l = 214.5Kg
550l = 157.3Kg
500l = 143.0Kg

Ki-61-1a
Weight Empty = 2,210kg
Weight Loaded = 2,950kg
Weight Loaded Max = 3,250kg
Max. Speed = 590 km/hr@5,000m
Cruising Speed = Unknown
Climb = Unknown

Ki-61-1b
Weight Empty = 2,210kg
Weight Loaded = 3,130kg
Weight Loaded Max = 3,616kg
Max. Speed = 592 km/hr@4,860m
Cruising Speed = 400 km/hr@4,000m
Climb = 5,000m/5min, 31seconds

Ki-61-1c
Weight Empty = unlisted
Weight Loaded = unlisted
Weight Loaded Max = unlisted
Max. Speed = Unknown
Cruising Speed = Unknown
Climb = Unknown
**Assumed the only difference between the 1b & 1c would have been weight due to added armor, Mauser cannons, fuel loadouts, fire extinguisher system....So performance should be between 1b & 1d

Ki-61-1d
Weight Empty = 2,630kg
Weight Loaded = 3,470kg
Weight Loaded Max = unlisted
Max. Speed = 580 km/hr@5,000m
Cruising Speed = unlisted
Climb = unlisted

Next, the documents I've listed (most especially those take from Japanese sources)
I've "tried" to compile some data...HOWEVER, do not take it as correct as much of it I'm simply trying to cross match.

Japanese Type 3 Fighter, Ki-61-I-Otsu, Type 2 1100HP Engine, Ha-40 (Ha-60-22, joint army/navy designation) Shown
(the "Otsu" or incorrectly 1b was chosen as the performance standard as it was within this designation that fuel/oil/coolant/armor/armament capacities and degree's were most balanced and to a great degree finalized. Variences from this are assumed to be due to loaded weight differences)

Weight Empty: 2,210kg
Weight Loaded: 3,130kg
Weight Maximum: 3,616
Engine Type: Inverted V12
Displacement: 33.9 liter
Engine Weight to Power Ratio: 0.61kg/HP
Engine H.P. to Displacement Ratio: 32.5H.P./liter
"Designated" H.P.: 1,100
Take Off Rating: 1,175H.P. @ 2,500 R.P.M. @ +330mm/Hg
Rated H.P.: 1,100 @ 2,400 R.P.M. @ +240mm/Hg @ 4,200m.(13,780')
Cruising H.P.: 1,040 @ 2,400 R.P.M. @ +240mm/Hg @ 4,200m.(13,780')
War Emergency Power: 1,080 @ 3,500m.(11,484')
Max. Speed: 500-592km/hr(368m/h) @ 4,860m.(15,946'), 580km/hr(360m/h) @ 8,000m(26,248')
Cruising Speed: 400km/hr(249m/h) @ 4,000m(13,124').
R.O.C.: 5'31" to 5,000m(16,405'), 10'48" to 8,000m(26,248').
Service Ceiling: 11,600m.(38,060')

If these numbers "are" correct since "Time to Climb" as well as "Max. & Cruising Speeds" seem consistant........That would mean though the TAIU vs. in game tests were consistant, they are not with stated rates. This does NOT surprise me as TAIU would NOT have a fresh and in perfect "factory new & tweaked" condition Ki-61 nor would be willing to press it to breaking limits, & 1c would use as my guess the easiest to understand+most reliable source they could find to make the FM. TAIU figures/English easier to understand and translate then Japanese.

However, the reports I listed above have the Japanese factory and combat data contained (plus HOW to fly a Ki-61, it's limits and so on). Btween the two my guess the truth.

As a side note the plane used in the TAIU tests Initially was the captured 68th Hikousentai at Cape Gloucester coded S/N 263 (uncoded 163) manufactured roughly late April 1943, making it a Ki-61-I-Ko.........Meaning, it was lighter then the Otsu in many regards (except fluid capacities) so should have performed better BUT was a plane still full of bugs. Why it was captured, it was unservicable by the Japanese (required shipping the engine to the Philippines for repair).

ElAurens
12-15-2005, 10:52 AM
So it seems that our in game Ko is indeed underperforming in every aspect.

I am not suprised.

LEBillfish
12-15-2005, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
if rate of climb is ok, maybe it is rack drag http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

As to "Rack Drag" that is possible, though in and of itself a problem in that Ki-61 were only supposed to have the racks mounted when they were needed for something......(the planes we have here meaning just drop tanks either 1 or 2, as the Ki-61-1 is hotly debated as to if it EVER carried 100 or 250kg bombs...The 1d noted for this "new ability").

So, either make the racks removable per loadout as they should be.....and or if being incorrect bump the speed with racks on PLUS give us 100kg bombs AND phosphorous anti-bomber bombs AND the option to have one drop tank on the right side (think right is correct will have to check).

chris455
12-15-2005, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
chris455,

As time passes Francillon's work grows more and more suspect. Sometimes being the first is not being the most accurate.

This is the whole problem we are dealng with here, while German information was worshiped and saved for the ages, Japanese technical data was put in the dust bin.

I must be behind the times. I always thought Francillon was "the bomb". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Why would the Japanese data have been disregarded? Certainly it is they who would have known the most about their own aircraft.

LEBillfish
12-15-2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by chris455:
Why would the Japanese data have been disregarded? Certainly it is they who would have known the most about their own aircraft.

As the bombing & fire bombing wiped out most of the factories, corporate headquarters and records......Past that as you can imagine the Japanese people as a whole would not be too keen on helping out the "invaders that stayed". Additionally, language and cultural barriers made it even all the more difficult to transfer information.

Much of what you see as "Hollandia captured documents" were actually supposed to be destroyed by burning. However those involved (would have to look up names) decided to bury the documentation in a crater on the runway instead....WHen the U.S. went to repair them, they were discovered.

Lastly, if you had a captured 109E4 that all your testing was done on, yet here it is 1945, the plane obsolete.....Would you really bother to go back and test it some more and document it?....No, you'd have more current pressing things to do, so in the end, the information gets scattered and lost......

That's what people like us and many others are trying to do, gather and catolog as much information as possible for ourselves,

and who's to say some guy in the year 2075 might not decide to make a new halodeck WWII flight sim.......Never know what worth your work might have some day, how much would we give for a complete set of Ki-61 documentation now...How bout then when it's all gone http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ICDP
12-15-2005, 02:09 PM
I have tested the Ki61 Otsu for top speed at 15,800ft. 12:00 noon, Crimea map, full fuel and ammo.

Speed 574kph (357mph). By my tests it is about 11mph too slow at this alt.

LEBillfish
12-15-2005, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
I have tested the Ki61 Otsu for top speed at 15,800ft. 12:00 noon, Crimea map, full fuel and ammo.

Speed 574kph (357mph). By my tests it is about 11mph too slow at this alt.

What was your prop pitch, & radiator set at....Please list all your changes to settings.

chris455
12-15-2005, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:
Why would the Japanese data have been disregarded? Certainly it is they who would have known the most about their own aircraft.

As the bombing & fire bombing wiped out most of the factories, corporate headquarters and records......Past that as you can imagine the Japanese people as a whole would not be too keen on helping out the "invaders that stayed". Additionally, language and cultural barriers made it even all the more difficult to transfer information.

Much of what you see as "Hollandia captured documents" were actually supposed to be destroyed by burning. However those involved (would have to look up names) decided to bury the documentation in a crater on the runway instead....WHen the U.S. went to repair them, they were discovered.

Lastly, if you had a captured 109E4 that all your testing was done on, yet here it is 1945, the plane obsolete.....Would you really bother to go back and test it some more and document it?....No, you'd have more current pressing things to do, so in the end, the information gets scattered and lost......

That's what people like us and many others are trying to do, gather and catolog as much information as possible for ourselves,

and who's to say some guy in the year 2075 might not decide to make a new halodeck WWII flight sim.......Never know what worth your work might have some day, how much would we give for a complete set of Ki-61 documentation now...How bout then when it's all gone http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I admire you guys for your efforts. Makes me realize how lucky I am that my heartthrob (P-47) is about as well documented as it gets.
Good luck on your work!

gthgrrl4game
12-15-2005, 03:48 PM
The Hien such a lovely plane, it is sad to see it so evidently under modelled.

Senaldor
12-15-2005, 04:05 PM
"However, I am cautious with all of this as many references are simply taken from other sources and handed down plus who's to say if the math conversion was done "right" in the original books........What I'd do for a "Real" Ki-61 manual would make Debbie Does Dallas look like a Disney film."

Damm I wish I had a Ki-61 manual!

ICDP
12-15-2005, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
I have tested the Ki61 Otsu for top speed at 15,800ft. 12:00 noon, Crimea map, full fuel and ammo.

Speed 574kph (357mph). By my tests it is about 11mph too slow at this alt.

What was your prop pitch, & radiator set at....Please list all your changes to settings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

I used 100% PP and closed radiator, sorry I should have stated that earlier. TAS was read from no cockpit view. I kept going after engine overheat had occured, no lasting damage was done. I started at 3,000m and climbed to the test altitude.

I hope this is helpfull.

ElAurens
12-15-2005, 05:25 PM
Tagert has told me that the no cockpit view TAS speedbar does not correlate with the devicelink data. Apparently the "wonder woman" speedbar is optimistic compared to the data that the game is generating in devicelink.


Now, how can we present this info about the Ki61 to Oleg in a manner that will:

A. Be convincing.

B. Actually achieve our goal.

Hmmm?

LEBillfish
12-15-2005, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Now, how can we present this info about the Ki61 to Oleg in a manner that will:

A. Be convincing.

B. Actually achieve our goal.

Hmmm?

Your turn, I don't even get confirmed receipt responses from 1c

LEBillfish
12-15-2005, 07:36 PM
Updated my data for variences due to weight.

JtD
12-15-2005, 11:47 PM
Take Off Rating: 1,175H.P. @ 2,500 R.P.M. @ +330mm/Hg
Cruising H.P.: 1,040 @ 2,400 R.P.M. @ +240mm/Hg @ 4,200m.(13,780')

DB 601N:
Take off /Emergency power: 1175H.P. @ 2.600rpm @ 1.35 ata
Combat/Climb Power: 1040 H.P. @ 2.400rpm @ 1.25 ata (13.780')

BUT:

Emergency power at 2100 m (6890'): 1210 hp
Emergency power at 4200 m (13.780'): 1170 hp
Emergency power at 5500 m (18.040'): 1190 hp

So why would they refuse to test the power of the Ha-40 at emergency settings at higher altitude?

LEBillfish
12-16-2005, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Take Off Rating: 1,175H.P. @ 2,500 R.P.M. @ +330mm/Hg
Cruising H.P.: 1,040 @ 2,400 R.P.M. @ +240mm/Hg @ 4,200m.(13,780')

DB 601N:
Take off /Emergency power: 1175H.P. @ 2.600rpm @ 1.35 ata
Combat/Climb Power: 1040 H.P. @ 2.400rpm @ 1.25 ata (13.780')

BUT:

Emergency power at 2100 m (6890'): 1210 hp
Emergency power at 4200 m (13.780'): 1170 hp
Emergency power at 5500 m (18.040'): 1190 hp

So why would they refuse to test the power of the Ha-40 at emergency settings at higher altitude? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not even sure what I'm guessing the cruise power is, is right....If for the DB601 it was 1,040 @2,400 rpm for "combat climb" that may very well be what it is........As to high alt testing I'd imagine all sorts of tests were done.

We just don't have the information easily available.....Germany and Japan two different worlds.........However, I have some sheets that are ".jpg's" that may have the info.....sadly all in Japanese,

care to translate?

for me it takes looking up each and every kanji out of roughly 7,000 I believe or more, then determining how it sounds associated with the other kanji near it......Then I have to convert that to romanji....Then try and translate the romanji to english and hope it comes out.

1 page maybe 5,000 characters....have 100's of pages. Soooooooooooooo?

JtD
12-16-2005, 02:37 AM
I'd have to do exactly the same but have no knowledge of Kanji to start with. Eventually, I won't be of any considerable help.

Couldn't you scan the jpg for numbers and focus on the Kanji next to them? Did they use Arab numbers back in the forties or all still classic Japanese?

p.s.: All Kanji or some Katakana/Hiragana?

LEBillfish
12-16-2005, 08:51 AM
It's Kanji new style (limited to I think 6,900 characters) old style (I have heard numbers as high as 80,000) Hiragana, Katakana, Kanji, roman and arabic numerals, romanji....some written horizontal, much vertical....

All used at the same time.

Believe me, if I translate "See D*ck run, See D*ck run to Spot"....It is an accomplishment that makes sending a man to the moon a petty chore (or so it feels to me).........IOW, it takes lots and lots of time besides simply finding the documentation in the first place.

What you could do is post your DB601/He100/Bf109E4 numbers, graphs, charts making it clear those are for a DB601 and so on and we can do a comparison.

In kind post some prints/cut away views in the Windscreen Oiling thread of the 109's oil system. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ICDP
12-16-2005, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Tagert has told me that the no cockpit view TAS speedbar does not correlate with the devicelink data. Apparently the "wonder woman" speedbar is optimistic compared to the data that the game is generating in devicelink.


Now, how can we present this info about the Ki61 to Oleg in a manner that will:


A. Be convincing.

B. Actually achieve our goal.

Hmmm?

The devicelink data is irrelevant. Oleg does not care about devicelink, he will tell you to use no cockpit view for TAS readings. If the Ki61 is too slow according to devicelink then so is almost every other AC in the game (sim). I can reach the performance of the P51B perfectly using the TAS. If I use your argument for devicelink then the P51B is also too slow.

The reality is that the Ki61 is 11mph too slow according to TAS from in game. No amount of data showing speeds from devicelink will convince Oleg to change it.

If you want TAS speeds the only VALID versions are from INSIDE the game.

ElAurens
12-16-2005, 03:33 PM
I agree that Oleg will only use the in game measurement tools. That is not my question.

How we make a good presentation is my question,
that's all.

But, just to play devil's advocate, even the in game speed measurement tools are wrong.

At sea level on the Crimea map, which has standard day conditions, the IAS and TAS do not match. They should. Only with very hot/high humidity conditions would the IAS and TAS be substantially different at sea level. I know it's off topic but so what.

ICDP
12-16-2005, 04:30 PM
I agree ElAurens. The TAS in game is off and has been since day one. My point is that using devicelink to get numbers to present to Oleg is not a good idea. What we need are proper sources for the Ki61 top speeds, which I believe you and LEBillfish have shown.

We then need to show traks of the maximum speeds we attain in game using no cockpit TAS. Once we have shown the discrepancy we can post a bug report to Oleg. At the moment I believe the Ki61 is reaching all of it performance figures apart from top speed. Climb seems to test out well.

ElAurens
12-16-2005, 07:34 PM
Glad we are on the same page ICDP!

S!


I will try to organize this info and email it to Oleg...

I may redo my speed tracks out of cockpit as well.

LEBillfish
12-16-2005, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
At the moment I believe the Ki61 is reaching all of it performance figures apart from top speed. Climb seems to test out well.

Actually it has many issues that are incorrect. All in the end inhibiting its performance. Speed is not its only problem.

The problem I believe you will find however is right or wrong, it is one of the nicer "looking" planes in the sim. With that in mind, it's difficult to justify time to it vs. others. In kind, and this is just my opinion, the original maker of it has had a recent attitude shift to the negative. So it's my guess when info is passed along for the originator to fix it "if he chooses" it simply gets refused off on other things.

In the end I simply do this for truth.....and that's all I think I can hope to get from it.

AKA_TAGERT
12-17-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Tagert has told me that the no cockpit view TAS speedbar does not correlate with the devicelink data.
True, nor does the TAS value correlate with the in-cocpit IAS display(s).


Originally posted by ElAurens:Apparently the "wonder woman" speedbar is optimistic compared to the data that the game is generating in devicelink. Well, maybe not so true. I have been *told* that Oleg has *said* that the wonder woman TAS values are the only *correct* values to use.

So, as far as Oleg is concerned, he will ignore the IAS values (cockpit guage or DeviceLink) and will go by the TAS values.

At least that is the impression I get from what I have been *told* by others way back when we were doing the Fw190 and P38 sea level tests. I personally have never seen a post by Oleg stating that, nor have I ever see Oleg post anything that explains why TAS and IAS dont match at sea level.

Up until the Ki61 sea level top speed test I was operating under the impression that the IAS values are more accurate. Based on the following

1) TAS and IAS should match at sea level, they dont. TAS is about 30mph faster than IAS at sea level. Thus there is a problem with *one* of them.
2) The IAS values for the P38 top speed are spot on at sea level (+/- 5mph)
3) The IAS display in the cockpit and DeviceLink data match.

So, based on the P38 testing, #2 and #3 are correct, thus for #1 I *assumed* that the TAS was the one that contains the error. Now with the Ki61 it was about 5mph too slow at sea level using IAS (cockpit or DeviceLink) it changes things. I dont know which one is correct. But the fact remains that one of them is still wrong, in that at sea level they should be the same. So, back to Oleg, if the same amount of error (TAS is 30mph faster than IAS at sea level) exists for the Ki61 TAS display, than that will result in the Ki61 being abuot 20mph too fast. So, do you really want to tell Oleg? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by ElAurens:
Now, how can we present this info about the Ki61 to Oleg in a manner that will:

A. Be convincing.

B. Actually achieve our goal.

Hmmm? Not sure, but if you find something that works, tell me so I can use it to inform him about the P38 which is in worse shape than the Ki61! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif What ever you do do, send Oleg the track files! He has *tool* that allow him to see everything! Not just the DeviceLink data!

PS I updated the test results for the Ki61 over at AIRWARFARE

Ki-61 analysis at AIRWARFARE (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=834)

I included the IAS speed at sea level graph and the 110% TTC & ROC graphs that show the Ki61 exceeding those values.

In summary, imho the Ki61 is modeled pretty good.. or at least much better than the P38

PS would you do me a favor? On page 2 you posted my whole report from AIRWARFARE. Could you plese remove it and just post the link? I really dont want to post any anaylises here, for good reason. Thanks!

Tachyon1000
12-17-2005, 11:02 AM
I'd be interested in applying an energy analysis to the level acceleration tests, especially if they are conducted at differing altitudes and are indeed level flight. If I could get the tracks, that would be great.

LEBillfish
12-17-2005, 12:06 PM
Tentative Armament, ammunition and fuel weights added so precise determination of the s/n can be made....will try and determine armor weight differences today, then finalize the TAIU s/n based model used.

Fred_77
12-17-2005, 12:13 PM
A quick heads-up about why TAS and IAS don't match. Oleg has said that the Crimea map has the conditions "closest" to standard as opposed to "exactly" the same as standard. The pressure matchs up, but the temp is off, the caveat being the tools we have to measure such things are accurate. You could compute the TAS manually and see how it matches up to the TAS display in no-cockpit.

S!
Fred

AKA_TAGERT
12-17-2005, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Fred_77:
A quick heads-up about why TAS and IAS don't match. Oleg has said that the Crimea map has the conditions "closest" to standard as opposed to "exactly" the same as standard. The pressure matchs up, but the temp is off, the caveat being the tools we have to measure such things are accurate. You could compute the TAS manually and see how it matches up to the TAS display in no-cockpit.

S!
Fred Do you have the full IAS -> TAS equation that includes temp? Last time I looked I seem to recall it would take more than North Pole or Desert temps to account for a 30mph delta at sea level.. But it has been awhile since I looked. Did you have to do IAS -> CAS -> TAS?

Fred_77
12-17-2005, 04:52 PM
Just ran a quick test on the KI-61 KO, Crimea map, wind off, 100% fuel and got the following results.

IAS- 463km/h on the dial, 460km/h on the speed bar.
TAS- 475km/h in no cockpit view.

S/L pressure looks to be around the standard of 29.92" Hg. It can be derived from the MP gauge of a shut off engine. S/L temperature comes in at 25C, or 10C above standard and is derived from the planes which have an OAT gauge, ie the Bf-110 or He-111.

Running a CAS of 463 km/h through an E6B, with the S/L temp of 25C gives a TAS of 480 km/h. This seems pretty close to the TAS given in the no-cockpit view.

Oleg has said that he takes CAS into account, but without the POHs we can only guess at what the CAS really is. The numbers look pretty close to what should be expected. I have no way to explain why you are getting 30 mph difference between the two.

S!
Fred.

AKA_TAGERT
12-17-2005, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Fred_77:
Just ran a quick test on the KI-61 KO, Crimea map, wind off, 100% fuel and got the following results.

IAS- 463km/h on the dial, 460km/h on the speed bar.
TAS- 475km/h in no cockpit view.

S/L pressure looks to be around the standard of 29.92" Hg. It can be derived from the MP gauge of a shut off engine. S/L temperature comes in at 25C, or 10C above standard and is derived from the planes which have an OAT gauge, ie the Bf-110 or He-111.

Running a CAS of 463 km/h through an E6B, with the S/L temp of 25C gives a TAS of 480 km/h. This seems pretty close to the TAS given in the no-cockpit view.

Oleg has said that he takes CAS into account, but without the POHs we can only guess at what the CAS really is. The numbers look pretty close to what should be expected. I have no way to explain why you are getting 30 mph difference between the two.

S!
Fred. The Bf-110 has a OAT guage too? Is it easier to read that the one in the He-111? The visual error in reading the He111 gauge can be pretty large (bad resolution).

So you say you got the S/L Pressure (Po)from the engine off MP guage? Huh, I didnt think of that! I guess that would work! Thanks for the heads up!

So, with Po and TEMP (ball park visual read) is that all we need for the conversion? Any other variables, other than IAS? What is the equation.. Is it direct, or do you have to IAS -> CAS first? I forget? I found it once during some google searches awhile back.. But didnt pay it much att because I was missing the Po and TEMP, but now that you pointed out the Po can come from the off engine guage, we can make use of that equation.. In that I think all it needed was IAS, Po, TEMP. Now, can find it again via google, or do you have it handy? Or a link?

As for the 475 vs. 480, that 5kph delta is much better than the 30mph delta we were seeing during the P38 SL tests. But I really need to see the equation to see how temp depended this conversion is.. because the error in visualy reading of those guages can introduce more error than the error itself.

LEBillfish
12-17-2005, 08:20 PM
I have no idea how you guys are getting 460Km/h flying horizonatally.....More so the IAS top is supposed to be 592Km/h at 4,860 or some odd meters.....I have never been able to get near it...always about 30+ Km/h shy.

Fred_77
12-17-2005, 08:25 PM
The usual process for getting to TAS is IAS-CAS-TAS. The problem is we can't find out CAS as it only comes from the manufacturer. Including CAS in a sim seems needlessly complex for a sim anyways. If you stick IAS into an E6B instead of CAS, it should still give close results.

TAS calculators can be found online, but some don't take Temp into consideration, so are not terribly useful.

http://www.flightplan.za.net/

Using the above converter, I got a TAS of 471 km/h from a CAS of 463 km/h. It should be a little more accurate then my cardboard E6B.(BTW I entered alt over temp in the wrong window and got 480 km/h, doing it in the right window gave a speed of 473 km/h.)

I don't know how accurate the temp readings and pressure indications are in game, but running them through a conversion tool seems to give pretty close results to the no-pit TAS gauge.

S!
Fred.

Fred_77
12-17-2005, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I have no idea how you guys are getting 460Km/h flying horizonatally.....More so the IAS top is supposed to be 592Km/h at 4,860 or some odd meters.....I have never been able to get near it...always about 30+ Km/h shy.

The IAS of 460 km/h is at sea level. At 4850m I get an indicated speed of 432 km/h and a TAS of 570 km/h, or about 20 km/h short of 592 km/h. Of course it all really depends on what report the plane is being modeled too. Remember when we first got the A6M2 and it was modeled after a captured version that could only make 2050rpm? It could only make 300 mph, but it did perform right up to spec. It was just the spec chosen was probably the worst one available. If Oleg thinks a 570 km/h Tony is representitive of the type, we might be stuck with it.

S!
Fred.

LEBillfish
12-17-2005, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Fred_77:
The IAS of 460 km/h is at sea level. .

I trim, I fly the plane well..........I have never, ever at any altitude seen 460 IAS level.

More so, if top speed is at 4,8Km....then why would sea level be higher then at that altitude?

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2005, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I have no idea how you guys are getting 460Km/h flying horizonatally.....More so the IAS top is supposed to be 592Km/h at 4,860 or some odd meters.....I have never been able to get near it...always about 30+ Km/h shy.
and


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I trim, I fly the plane well..........I have never, ever at any altitude seen 460 IAS level. Well, you will have to ask BlitsPig_El how he did it, in that he got 293.93mph IAS (473.03kph) in his top speed test at sea level.


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
More so, if top speed is at 4,8Km....then why would sea level be higher then at that altitude? That 592kph.. Dont have an ansewer for that one.. Maybe it was TAS and not IAS? Lets see..

4860 meter = 15,944.8818898 feet
592 kilometer/hour = 367.8517458 mile/hour (mph)

Starting with the rule of thumb calc conversion for IAS -> TAS and solving for IAS and pluging in TAS and Altitude we get the following..

TAS = IAS(1 + 0.02(ALT/1000))
IAS = TAS/(1 + 0.02(ALT/1000))
IAS = 367.85/(1 + 0.02(15,944.88/1000))
IAS = 367.85/(1 + 0.02(15.94488))
IAS = 367.85/(1 + 0.3188976)
IAS = 367.85/(1.3188976)
IAS = 278.90

Hmmm, looks like that value is TAS not IAS? You sure it was stated to be IAS Billfish?

note that is the rule of thumb equation that does not take temp into account and assumes a std atm.. Thus +/- 5mph or so either way.

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2005, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Fred_77:
The usual process for getting to TAS is IAS-CAS-TAS. The problem is we can't find out CAS as it only comes from the manufacturer. Including CAS in a sim seems needlessly complex for a sim anyways. If you stick IAS into an E6B instead of CAS, it should still give close results.

TAS calculators can be found online, but some don't take Temp into consideration, so are not terribly useful.

http://www.flightplan.za.net/

Using the above converter, I got a TAS of 471 km/h from a CAS of 463 km/h. It should be a little more accurate then my cardboard E6B.(BTW I entered alt over temp in the wrong window and got 480 km/h, doing it in the right window gave a speed of 473 km/h.)

I don't know how accurate the temp readings and pressure indications are in game, but running them through a conversion tool seems to give pretty close results to the no-pit TAS gauge.

S!
Fred. Very cool link! Thanks! I was actully hoping to find the actul math behind the Java script.. But this is good in that when I do find it again, I can use this sight as a check! Thanks alot!

ElAurens
12-18-2005, 08:58 AM
My top speed test at sea level was done without trimming, radiator closed, 100% prop pitch, and holding the ball centered with my (CH) rudder pedals. It was however achieved at 110% throttle, which is not the military power rating of 100% throttle that the TAIC says the aircraft can do 302mph @ sea level. Although there is honestly not much diffenece between the two in my testing.

Billfish, are you using the Crimea map for your tests?

LEBillfish
12-18-2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Billfish, are you using the Crimea map for your tests?

No was using I think Okinawa...I'll do them in Crimea and post "speed bar info"

Crimea Map, Wind & Turbulance off, trimmed for best speed, Radiator Closed. Speed Bar numbers posted at 100% then 110% respectively.

@ Sea Level (10m) - 440Km/h, 450Km/h
@ 4,860m - 400Km/h, 420Km/h
@ 8,000m - 320Km/h, 350-360Km/h

Notes:
1. Rudder trim made a dramatic shift with altitude NOT speed. At S.L. it took the most compensation, at 8Km the least however in an opposite direction to none. However, The Ki-61 does not trim out it's rudder at other times at the speeds obtained at 8Km. It normally requires exceeding the speeds achieved in the test.
(this is a sub issue I have with the sim, non-rudder trimable planes never seem to be able to achieve trim as they should using the trim tabs at some predetermined set of conditions/point. That point in the sime when the plane is not easily controlable (throttle and PP dropped so low the plane cannot hold speed) so hence never reaching a "cruise" condition).

2. Prop Pitch had no effect till you fell below 80% then speed would drop off. This is in contrast to most other planes where 75-85% will net you better speed then 100% at the same throttle. The Ki-61 see's no benefit from it in the speed tests. Any Prop pitch below 80% and speed drops off dramatically.

3. AoA may have some relation to speeds I was able to achieve, as altitude increased to keep the plane in level flight required AoA be increased. Trimming to hold Altitude reduced speed to a point that either readjusting trim or AoA was required......In any case it's a no win back and forth battle where whatever you do to keep the plane in level flight reduces its speed requiring further adjustment which hinders speed once more.

Essentially.......The plane can never "cruise".

In retrospect, the numbers I achieved in this test are essentially what I experience at all times so consistant.

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2005, 01:42 PM
Merry Xmax LEBillfish, and ElAurens!

A special XMAS Single Mission Just for you two (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3376#3376)

Dont say I never gave you nuttin! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ElAurens
12-18-2005, 01:57 PM
Thanks Santa!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ElAurens
12-18-2005, 02:20 PM
Well, the best I can get at 110% is 347mph TRUE AIR SPEED.

That is a long way from 361mph TRUE at military (100% throttle) power.

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2005, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Well, the best I can get at 110% is 347mph TRUE AIR SPEED.

That is a long way from 361mph TRUE at military (100% throttle) power. Got Track?

ElAurens
12-18-2005, 03:36 PM
Not right now. I was just playing with the mission. Soon though.

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Not right now. I was just playing with the mission. Soon though. Roger, in the mean time here is what I got

via the Wonder Woman View I got the following TAS values

4835 meter = 15,862.8608924 feet
555 kilometer/hour = 344.8610117 mile/hour (mph) @ 100% power
577 kilometer/hour = 358.5311779 mile/hour (mph) @ 110% power

So, we are talking about an error of 361.0 - 358.5 = 2.5 mph.

For more info, check the update at AIRWARFARE

ElAurens
12-18-2005, 05:28 PM
Well the problem is that the 361mph should be achieved with 100% power.

AKA_TAGERT
12-18-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Well the problem is that the 361mph should be achieved with 100% power. Where do you get that impression? Reason I ask is I tried to make the same argument based on MP ratings.. but all the nay sayers said I can not go by that and that 110% is equal to MIL power.. So, I was wondering what it was your basing that statement on.

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2005, 01:07 AM
Added the TAS graph at AIRWARFARE.. Got 359.9mph. So, imho, that is pretty good to go. Unless you guys and gals can come up with something to that shows the MP or RPM during those tests.. What does it say the MIL power MP and RPM are vs. say WEP?

ElAurens
12-19-2005, 05:04 AM
My understandig is that military power is 100% throttle and War Emergency Power is 110% throttle.

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2005, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
My understandig is that military power is 100% throttle and War Emergency Power is 110% throttle. Roger, same here, now, what part of your data leads you to belive that the top speed was at MIL and not WEP. Note, not saying you wrong, just playing devils advocate here.. In that I look at those charts you sent and I dont see anything that would indicate it was obtained at MIL. Now if you or billfish have such data.. THAT along with my trach file should be all that you need to send to Oleg as proof that the Ki61 needs it's top speed bumped up about 20mph!

PS it looks like Oleg may have fixed the TAS and IAS missmatch since version 4.0, in that it came out perfect on these tests. I need to re-run the P38 top speed test to see if it is correct now.

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Just a quick tidbit as I sort all this out.......It seems the Ha40 produces 1,175 on the ground, and 1,100@4,000m when it makes max speed......so there is the H/P/ diff. Hey El, I just saw this post by Billfish.. She seems to have step out of the conversation, so Im posting this to you. If what she is saying is true (ie Got Data Sheet) i.e.

"and 1,100@4,000m when it makes max speed"

Not 100% sure that Ha40 is this Kawasaki engine, but if so than the in-game Ki61 does NOT need to be changed at all, and once again Oleg has done a wonderful job! Because from your data sheet you sent me it states that 1,1000HP is WEP not MIL!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/TOP_SPEED/402/KI61/ME/KI61_ENGINE_DATA.JPG

And at WEP the in-game Ki61 obtained 359.9mph TAS at the 15kft marke, that is only ~1 mph off the 361mph value listed in the data sheet. So, all in all, imho, the Ki61 is one of the best simulated planes in the game I have ever tested!

So, no changes needed.. Unless the real world TTC was done at WEP and not MIL, than if Oleg changes anything, he should tone the tony down a bit.. Because it climbs TOO GOOD!

So, unless you got some hard data that counters Billfish's statement, data that clearly states the top speed test was done at MIL and not WEP, than and only than would you have a leg to stand on when going to Oleg, imho.

p1ngu666
12-19-2005, 09:56 AM
i think u guys are forgetting that u cant run at sea level, because u crash. u can run close tho, but IAS/TAS diverge instantly once your past 0 metres. the difference isnt that big, but we are dealing with large numbers, so then u get the differences. chuck in a few random errornous things and u can get a big difference.

maybe we could get ian to make a testing map, with a trench so we fly at or below sea level, standard atmosphere conditions, various markers to aid us in testing

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2005, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think u guys are forgetting that u cant run at sea level, because u crash. u can run close tho, I think u are forgetting that not all pilots are of the same skill level, i.e. maybe *you* crash, but many have done it with no problem at all.


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
but IAS/TAS diverge instantly once your past 0 metres. Yes, but at low alts the difference is very Very VERY small, smaller than the resolution of the in-game TAS and IAS guages (but not DeviceLink), smaller than the pilot induced errors, thus a non issue. That and it appears that Oleg may have fixed the missmatch in IAS and TAS at S/L


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the difference isnt that big, but we are dealing with large numbers, so then u get the differences. chuck in a few random errornous things and u can get a big difference. For some pilots, but not all, check out my test at 15kft, nobody, and I mean nobody did a more controled test than I did due to the RED BOX I used as a reference for altitude and side slip.

RED BOX Explained (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=834&start=15)


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
maybe we could get ian to make a testing map, with a trench so we fly at or below sea level, standard atmosphere conditions, various markers to aid us in testing No need really, the pilot errors at any level will still be there. So, unless they enable the auto level for fighers, the best we can do is to do what I did with the RED BOX reference.

ElAurens
12-19-2005, 10:52 AM
Tagert, on the page of graphs that I sent you it clealy states "POWERS: ALL MILITARY" on the speed vs., altitude graph.

I'd still like to see some definitive Japanese Army test data.

LEBillfish
12-19-2005, 11:20 AM
Ok, however I have as far as these speed tests go a couple issues.

First off, the TAIU tests fall short of Kawasaki/Japanese Army testing... by these amounts;

Test - Rikugun - TAIU
Take Off H.P.: 1,175/2,500RPM/S.L. - 1,160/S.L./302mph.........-15 H.P.
Cruise Condition: 1,040HP/2,400RPM/249mph/13,780' - 940HP/13,200'......-100 H.P.
Combat Condition: 1,080HP/11,484' - 1,085HP/13,800'.......+5 H.P.
Rated Condition: 1,100HP/2,400RPM/13,780' - 1,100HP/12,600'.......Same
WEP/Max. Condition: 368mph/15,946' - 361mph/15,800'.........-7 M.P.H.

However, that I really don't sweat in that simply factors of having a "Factory Fresh" plane, yet more so knowing how to fly it at it's "optimum" based on design....More so simply methods of testing. In the end however they IMLTHO seem to work out close enough to say they're the same.

W.E.P. is in my opinion as well a misleading term. Due to other planes having injection systems, extra fuel/water/alcohol/nitrous & so on I think it implies some special setting or button. On the Ki-61 from the best I can gather ATM, It would simply mean you normally run at (just tossing out numbers) 75% throttle and X% Prop Pitch yielding Y-r.p.m......Yet in combat conditions might run up to 90% throttle, and when really needed 100%......That all assumtion as I'm hoping to procure a translated document from Kawasaki & the Japanese Army that insructed pilots how to fly the plane.

The confusion comes in due to the "game".....As here to get the 100% throttle we really go to 110% on the Ki-61.

What I have issues with are what I'm able to achieve with the plane. Now in fairness the data to your graphs is somewhat scattered how I need to view things so I'd need to go through them again. Yet my tests fall very short of the rated Japanese numbers as well as TAIU.

Using your red box test, with wind-turbulance, overheat, torque effects all set to off and radiator closed, elevator trimmed for level then trimmed for speed, 110% throttle, 100% PropPitch, best I can get is 575Km/h in wonderwoman view.

Now, I don't consider my test valid in that I use a twisty stick and due to Oleg's method of trimming planes with tabs it's impossible to ever cruise and so at over cruise speeds I'm constantly fighting 3 axis on one stick.

What I'd like to see are others who have peddals results (not that Tagerts are wrong simply to get a collection of numbers to average).........More so I'd like to use the "Japanese Top End (592Km/h-368Km/h)" not in that it is higher, yet has the plane at its peak/optimum condition. I sincerely doubt battle wore, untrained personnel, less then ideal test results are used for other planes here........So hence why the Ki-61.

Once this speed stuff is resolved, then I intend to get back to my other ******s for this plane.......It's DM most notable besides serious modeling issues.

p1ngu666
12-19-2005, 12:40 PM
tagert, iirec "altitude" is done from the centre of the plane, thus to be at sea level, half the plane would be in the water, which is abit of a problem. ill go check that now ...

p1ngu666
12-19-2005, 12:49 PM
just czeched, and yes to run at 0 alt u would need tobe in the water, which is abit of a issue top speed wise, cos water has 800times the drag of air.

curiously the no cockpit view cant display - (minus) altitude, found that out when my plane sank http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2005, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Tagert, on the page of graphs that I sent you it clealy states "POWERS: ALL MILITARY" on the speed vs., altitude graph. Ah! I missed that! I was looking at JtD's charts that dont have that little note up in the top RH corner.

So, I think you have it than.. That should be all the info you need to send it off to Oleg for consideration!

Does make you wonder why they didnt have it on JtD's chart that says it superceeds the another chart.. That and where did Billfish get that quote about 1100. Something is a miss, and when faced with conflicting data Oleg seems to go with the worst case data.


Originally posted by ElAurens:
I'd still like to see some definitive Japanese Army test data. More than once source is good.. but one is beter than none! I think you got enough info to send it off.

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2005, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
tagert, iirec "altitude" is done from the centre of the plane, thus to be at sea level, half the plane would be in the water, which is abit of a problem. ill go check that now ...

just czeched, and yes to run at 0 alt u would need tobe in the water, which is abit of a issue top speed wise, cos water has 800times the drag of air.

curiously the no cockpit view cant display - (minus) altitude, found that out when my plane sank Mean Happy Please tell me this is an attempt at humor and that your not serious about not being able to do a sea level alt test because..

1) Half of the plane has to be underwater for it to be sea level
2) TAS is not equal to IAS at sea level (std atm, +/- 1mph)

If a joke, it needs work.
If your serious, you need help!

That and up till now I have been giving you way too much credit wrt you knowing what your talking about!

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2005, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Ok, however I have as far as these speed tests go a couple issues.

First off, the TAIU tests fall short of Kawasaki/Japanese Army testing... by these amounts;

Test - Rikugun - TAIU
Take Off H.P.: 1,175/2,500RPM/S.L. - 1,160/S.L./302mph.........-15 H.P.
Cruise Condition: 1,040HP/2,400RPM/249mph/13,780' - 940HP/13,200'......-100 H.P.
Combat Condition: 1,080HP/11,484' - 1,085HP/13,800'.......+5 H.P.
Rated Condition: 1,100HP/2,400RPM/13,780' - 1,100HP/12,600'.......Same
WEP/Max. Condition: 368mph/15,946' - 361mph/15,800'.........-7 M.P.H.

However, that I really don't sweat in that simply factors of having a "Factory Fresh" plane, yet more so knowing how to fly it at it's "optimum" based on design....More so simply methods of testing. In the end however they IMLTHO seem to work out close enough to say they're the same.

W.E.P. is in my opinion as well a misleading term. Due to other planes having injection systems, extra fuel/water/alcohol/nitrous & so on I think it implies some special setting or button. On the Ki-61 from the best I can gather ATM, It would simply mean you normally run at (just tossing out numbers) 75% throttle and X% Prop Pitch yielding Y-r.p.m......Yet in combat conditions might run up to 90% throttle, and when really needed 100%......That all assumtion as I'm hoping to procure a translated document from Kawasaki & the Japanese Army that insructed pilots how to fly the plane.

The confusion comes in due to the "game".....As here to get the 100% throttle we really go to 110% on the Ki-61.

What I have issues with are what I'm able to achieve with the plane. Now in fairness the data to your graphs is somewhat scattered how I need to view things so I'd need to go through them again. Yet my tests fall very short of the rated Japanese numbers as well as TAIU.

Using your red box test, with wind-turbulance, overheat, torque effects all set to off and radiator closed, elevator trimmed for level then trimmed for speed, 110% throttle, 100% PropPitch, best I can get is 575Km/h in wonderwoman view.

Now, I don't consider my test valid in that I use a twisty stick and due to Oleg's method of trimming planes with tabs it's impossible to ever cruise and so at over cruise speeds I'm constantly fighting 3 axis on one stick.

What I'd like to see are others who have peddals results (not that Tagerts are wrong simply to get a collection of numbers to average).........More so I'd like to use the "Japanese Top End (592Km/h-368Km/h)" not in that it is higher, yet has the plane at its peak/optimum condition. I sincerely doubt battle wore, untrained personnel, less then ideal test results are used for other planes here........So hence why the Ki-61.

Once this speed stuff is resolved, then I intend to get back to my other ******s for this plane.......It's DM most notable besides serious modeling issues. Anything I can do to help, let me know.

As for DMs.. Good luck! That whole thing is based on nothing but a WAG! That is to say if you think finding FM data is hard.. try and find data on how a plane came apart due to a hit in mid flight with all the in fligh forces applied (ie not a static gnd test) when another pilot shot at it from every posiable vantage point.. Let alone the write up of the pilot who was flying the plane being shot at! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So when there is no data.. and you have to WAG it.. The person doing the WAGGING has the last say.. And the person doing the WAGGIN has to contend with *thier* biases. Statistical data is not even much help here.. because for every story you hear about a guy making it back.. only god knows of how many stories there are of the guys who didnt make it back from the same experance/situation. In short, there is a very thin line between between the two.. and that line is called LUCK. Some have it, some dont, but it hardly ever has anything to do with the plane itself.

LEBillfish
12-19-2005, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
As for DMs.. Good luck! That whole thing is based on nothing but a WAG! That is to say if you think finding FM data is hard.. try and find data on how a plane came apart due to a hit in mid flight with all the in fligh forces applied (ie not a static gnd test) when another pilot shot at it from every posiable vantage point.. Let alone the write up of the pilot who was flying the plane being shot at! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So when there is no data.. and you have to WAG it.. The person doing the WAGGING has the last say.. And the person doing the WAGGIN has to contend with *thier* biases. Statistical data is not even much help here.. because for every story you hear about a guy making it back.. only god knows of how many stories there are of the guys who didnt make it back from the same experance/situation. In short, there is a very thin line between between the two.. and that line is called LUCK. Some have it, some dont, but it hardly ever has anything to do with the plane itself.

Well, that is true to a point.......However, some things can be easily sorted out with a bit of engineering and some common sense.....Also, if you have ever seen my book/reference lists noting many other planes the reason is exactly the above. If X happens to Y plane when Z occurs....and X1 happens to Y1 plane when Z occurs.......Then X2 happens to Y2 plane when Z occurs.

Fuel running dry after one tank is hit, engine hits and their results, gear not falling due to hydraulics on and on simply wrong with the Ki-61 as well as a host of other issues. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a BF109E....Yet seems to have been "short cutted to that".

Besides the modelling issues like that stupid venturi on the side http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif...that really grinds me though petty and rear gear, droptank fuel rails etc..

However, persoanlly though FM may be addressed though I've presented data...real data from manuals and reports let alone photographs, I don't expect them to be fixed.

It's a plane people of the era remember oddly often more so then those that had much greater productions of.....The "Tony"......Pity it's an amalgamation of all versions, the least of each....and the worst bits of a 109 thrown in to boot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-19-2005, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Well, that is true to a point....... As with all things, there are no absolutes.


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
However, some things can be easily sorted out with a bit of engineering and some common sense..... Easily? I beg to differ.. As for my statements.. They are based on my engineering and common since.. The more you know, the more you realize how much more there is to know.


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Also, if you have ever seen my book/reference lists noting many other planes the reason is exactly the above. Nope, never seen your book, what is the ISBN #?


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
If X happens to Y plane when Z occurs....and X1 happens to Y1 plane when Z occurs.......Then X2 happens to Y2 plane when Z occurs. That is how they do it now.. put X into the black box and out pops Y.. That is a no brainer.. it is what is in the black box that is a WAG.


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Fuel running dry after one tank is hit, engine hits and their results, gear not falling due to hydraulics on and on simply wrong with the Ki-61 as well as a host of other issues. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a BF109E....Yet seems to have been "short cutted to that". When it comes to the DM, who is to say what is the exception to the rule and what is the rule? No data exists to say with any certainty either way.. Yet the decision has to be made, and the WAG maker makes that call. Thus the WAG tells us more about the WAG makers preception of the item being WAGGED, which could be far from the actual merits of the item. Because the WAG makers preception is based on his/her WAG of the information he/she is privy to at the time/moment the decision is made. Hopefully the WAG maker is reasonable (open mind) so that when new information is provided he/she will expand the knolage base and allow them to adj the WAG. Problem is that just leads to yet another WAG, and there it shall reamin.. until the next WAG. As for where the WAGGING ends.. All we can hope for is it ends some place that makes you happy. Becaue there is no ryme or reason to it. Kind of like spin the bottle, you hope the game ends before you have to kiss the dog, but not before you kiss the babe.


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Besides the modelling issues like that stupid venturi on the side http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif...that really grinds me though petty and rear gear, droptank fuel rails etc.. Or the tail warning radar on the P38 that is in-op, all planes have some of this to some degree.


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
However, persoanlly though FM may be addressed though I've presented data... real data from manuals and reports let alone photographs, I don't expect them to be fixed. Data, like the constitution it is still subject to interpretation, but, it is better than having no data at all and having to rely on yet another WAG. At least with data you can measure how far you are from it.. As for a WAG.. no way to measure that.. You would need a crystal ball to get into Olegs head to do that.


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
It's a plane people of the era remember oddly often more so then those that had much greater productions of.....The "Tony"......Pity it's an amalgamation of all versions, the least of each....and the worst bits of a 109 thrown in to boot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Agreed. As with so many things in this game.. But, look at the bright side.. At leat the Ki61 can obtain it's rated speed value at 110% (+/-5mph) and it meet/beets it's ROC values and TTC values at 100% for 0ft to 30kft. That is more than I can say for the P38! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-20-2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Just a quick tidbit as I sort all this out.......It seems the Ha40 produces 1,175 on the ground, and 1,100@4,000m when it makes max speed......so there is the H/P/ diff. By the way Billfish.. Where did that 1100HP @4000m statement come from, in that it conflits with the TAIU charts.

You seem to be operating under the impresion that the TAIU got alot wrong.. maybe they got that chart wrong too.. in that it appears in some charts and not others.. even though it is the same chart. So, maybe Oleg thinks it is wrong too and he used the source that you quoted, instead of the TAIU for the same reasons you stated about the TAIU data.

Just a thought, playing devils advocite here getting you guys ready for what Oleg may toss back at you.. if anything at all. Be ready for those questions and if you can address them in your inital email to him, do so! ie corner him as much as you can as to limit his wiggle room.

p1ngu666
12-20-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
tagert, iirec "altitude" is done from the centre of the plane, thus to be at sea level, half the plane would be in the water, which is abit of a problem. ill go check that now ...

just czeched, and yes to run at 0 alt u would need tobe in the water, which is abit of a issue top speed wise, cos water has 800times the drag of air.

curiously the no cockpit view cant display - (minus) altitude, found that out when my plane sank Mean Happy Please tell me this is an attempt at humor and that your not serious about not being able to do a sea level alt test because..

1) Half of the plane has to be underwater for it to be sea level
2) TAS is not equal to IAS at sea level (std atm, +/- 1mph)

If a joke, it needs work.
If your serious, you need help!

That and up till now I have been giving you way too much credit wrt you knowing what your talking about! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

u can fly a few metres above sea level fine, but to actully BE at sea level, then your in the water, i think the tas/ias from ingame no cockpit view do meet at 0 metres, but ofcourse ull only get that for a split second at decent speeds because uve crashed.

so we haveto fly above the waves by a little bit, but i guess real pilots would haveto do the same, unless they was in holland http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gthgrrl4game
12-20-2005, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
so we haveto fly above the waves by a little bit, but i guess real pilots would haveto do the same, unless they was in holland http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Or flying over the Dead Sea or in Death Valley http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LEBillfish
12-20-2005, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Just a quick tidbit as I sort all this out.......It seems the Ha40 produces 1,175 on the ground, and 1,100@4,000m when it makes max speed......so there is the H/P/ diff. By the way Billfish.. Where did that 1100HP @4000m statement come from, in that it conflits with the TAIU charts.

You seem to be operating under the impresion that the TAIU got alot wrong.. maybe they got that chart wrong too.. in that it appears in some charts and not others.. even though it is the same chart. So, maybe Oleg thinks it is wrong too and he used the source that you quoted, instead of the TAIU for the same reasons you stated about the TAIU data.

Just a thought, playing devils advocite here getting you guys ready for what Oleg may toss back at you.. if anything at all. Be ready for those questions and if you can address them in your inital email to him, do so! ie corner him as much as you can as to limit his wiggle room. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, you're starting to confuse numerous posts that were responses to questions earlier in the thread with final data posts I made and edit as we sort things out.......

The statement above coming from a dispute as to the engines "Designated H.P.". IOW, What H.P. would the Japanese of stated the Ha-40 being. The question posed of "it has a 1,175 H.P. rating, why was I saying it is rated at 1,100?" My statement explaining to the original petitioner where that number came from.

As to the TAIU getting a lot wrong......In every post I have made regarding their data I have added a comment similar to "Though their numbers do not match Kawasaki/Nippon Rikugun testing, they are close enough to show a match in the planes performance.......It simply a matter of a wore plane, different testing methods and an unwillingness to risk fatal damage to the plane."

Meaning, they did not know the Japanese specs for testing the plane, hence taking readings at varied altitudes and power (throttle etc. conditions) then the Japanese did.......Yet all in all it is close enough to confirm testing of the same plane.

So why ask that Japanese numbers be used vs TAIU?.....In this case 368 m.p.h. vs. 361 m.p.h. as a top end?.....In that a set number needs to be selected not a range. The Japanese numbers of a fresh "perfectly as the plane requires" flown plane without fear of damage to it.......In contrast the TAIU numbers are of a wore plane refit, flown as best as the TAIU could "guess" it would have been, and not pressed to its absolute limits for fear of losing their test-bed.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts Soviet numbers are used for Soviet planes, German for German, U.S. for U.S., British for British......So why use U.S. for Japanese when determining performance numbers within the sim?

Not that they're wrong, just not apples to apples with how other planes FM's here were determined, nor are they or could they have been spot on for the reasons stated above.

p1ngu666
12-20-2005, 10:42 AM
indeed. the only plane thats flyable and japanease that i think isnt lacking is the ki84

gthgrrl4game
12-20-2005, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
indeed. the only plane thats flyable and japanease that i think isnt lacking is the ki84

The Ki-43 seems to very well modelled IMHO.

LEBillfish
12-20-2005, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by gthgrrl4game:
The Ki-43 seems to very well modelled IMHO.

Though I've never tested its performance vs. real world conditions I'd EXPECT the Ki-43 just like the Zero to be the most spot on Japanese planes in the sim....

The reason simple....They were by far, without exception the absolute workhorses of the Army and Navy respectively.....They as a series had the longest production lives, oooodles of data and information that due to being in every theatre was copied and scattered all over their sphere of activity......and detailed "published" restorations have taken place.

In fact.......From the Austrailian war museum you can supposedly get an entire set of blue prints of the plane...........Not some cheesy cutaway meant to look like a blueprint....But the thousands of drawings it would take to build one (hand built don't know if jigs/fixtures/machinery/etc. is included in the series and would doubt it).

So a well enough distributed and documented plane that "documents" survived the war. The Ki-61's records supposedly destroyed in the bombings of the home islands....The balance we have from the few base captures where they were not destroyed and so on.

gthgrrl4game
12-20-2005, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Though I've never tested its performance vs. real world conditions I'd EXPECT the Ki-43 just like the Zero to be the most spot on Japanese planes in the sim....

Agreed. I happen to like both the Zero and the Hayabusa a lot so I got lucky in this regard.

AKA_TAGERT
12-21-2005, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
u can fly a few metres above sea level fine, but to actully BE at sea level, then your in the water, OMG! You were serious!


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think the tas/ias from ingame no cockpit view do meet at 0 metres, but ofcourse ull only get that for a split second at decent speeds because uve crashed. No need to fly at 0ft, the error at less than 1000ft is smaller than pilot error, thus it is in the noise, thus not an issue.


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
so we have to fly above the waves by a little bit, but i guess real pilots would have to do the same, Bingo!


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
unless they was in holland http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think I see where you are confused, and it is with the math. Thus I can help! Your problem is clear from one of your previous posts, i.e.


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think u guys are forgetting that u cant run at sea level, because u crash. u can run close tho, but IAS/TAS diverge instantly once your past 0 metres. the difference isnt that big, but we are dealing with large numbers, so then u get the differences. chuck in a few random errornous things and u can get a big difference.

It was so silly that I thought you were joking, thus I didn€t pay it much attention, but now that it is clear that you were serious, I can address your statement at face value and actually be able to help you understand where you are wrong. Here is where math is your friend. Starting with the rule of thumb equation for conversion between IAS to TAS, i.e.

TAS = IASӔ(1 + 0.02Ӕ[ALT/1000])

I think I can show you how wrong your are in just a few steps. But first, let€s prove the one thing you did get right, that at 0ft IAS does equal TAS. Plugging in 0ft for ALT in the equation we get

TAS = IASӔ(1 + 0.02Ӕ[0.0/1000])
TAS = IASӔ(1 + 0.02Ӕ[0.0])
TAS = IASӔ(1 + 0.0)
TAS = IASӔ(1)
TAS = IAS

So as you can see you were right about that, as we all were in that everyone knew that. Where you are wrong is thinking *large* numbers (IAS) make a *big* difference. But before we can do that we have to be smart enough to realize that they did NOT fly with half of he plane under water and half of it above water, which in turn means we have to be smart enough that when they said *sea level* they were talking something less that 1000ft, give or take a few 100ft. So for so good? If I am going to fast just say so and Ill slow down, now.. where was I? Oh, right, smart enough to realize the half of the plane is not underwater. Ok, so to prove that *large* IAS numbers don€t mater lets pick an altitude of 1000ft. That is a pretty safe altitude that I think any test pilot would have no problem maintaining +/- 150ft or so, or at least high enough that he would not go fishing. Now lets pick an IAS speed of 500mph. Still good? Ok, lets plug those numbers into the equation

TAS = 500Ӕ(1 + 0.02Ӕ[1000/1000])
TAS = 500Ӕ(1 + 0.02Ӕ[1])
TAS = 500Ӕ(1 + 0.02)
TAS = 500Ӕ(1.02)
TAS = 500Ӕ(1.02)
TAS = 510

So, as you can see at a speed of 500.00mph IAS at an altitude of 1000ft it only effected the top speed by 10.00mph. Does that give you a good feel for what is going on here? No? Than try this, 510mph is 98% correct i.e.

500.00/510.00 = 0.98039215686274509803921568627451

Now, lets try a *larger* number, just to prove to you that *larger* numbers do NOT matter. Lets pick 888mph at 1000ft

TAS = 888Ӕ(1 + 0.02Ӕ[1000/1000])
TAS = 888Ӕ(1 + 0.02Ӕ[1])
TAS = 888Ӕ(1 + 0.02)
TAS = 888Ӕ(1.02)
TAS = 888Ӕ(1.02)
TAS = 905.76

So, as you can see at a speed of 888.00mph IAS at an altitude of 1000ft it only effected the top speed by 17.76mph. Does that give you a good feel for what is going on here? No? Than try this, 905.76mph is 98% correct i.e.

888.00/905.76 = 0.98039215686274509803921568627451

Note the *large* number did not mater! The ratio is the same! 98%! That is to say the effect is the same no mater how *large* the IAS values is.

SAVVY?

Now that I have proved that you were wrong about that the *large* number affecting things, lets take another look at that altitude thing.. shall we?

This time lets pick 300ft, this is the length of a foot ball field above the water. Lets do the math and get a *feel* for how much difference there is between TAS and IAS at that altitude. And, lets use 500mph again so we can get a feel for how much altitude plays into this. Just to make a point, even though many have been able to perform a sea level top speed test at much lower altitudes.

TAS = 500Ӕ(1 + 0.02Ӕ[300/1000])
TAS = 500Ӕ(1 + 0.02Ӕ[0.3])
TAS = 500Ӕ(1 + 0.006)
TAS = 500Ӕ(1.006)
TAS = 503

So, as you can see at a speed of 500.00mph IAS at an altitude of 300ft it only effected the top speed by 3.00mph. Does that give you a good feel for what is going on here? No? Than try this, 503mph is 99.4% correct i.e.

500.00/503.00 = 0.99403578528827037773359840954274

And in the math world 99% ~ 100%. So, now maybe, JUST MAYBE you understand that there is no need to fly with half of the plane under water, and that when someone says sea level speed test they are talking about TAS ~ IAS (+/-5mph) @ Sea Level (~200ft). Hopefully with this new found knowledge/information you will apply it to your current set of knowledge/information and adjust yourself so you don€t make the same €œflying with half the plane under water€ mistake in the future.

PS you€re welcome in advance.

AKA_TAGERT
12-21-2005, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Well, you're starting to confuse numerous posts that were responses to questions earlier in the thread with final data posts I made and edit as we sort things out....... I would agree 100% had I taken you statement and started using it as fact in my replies to others, but that is not the case. What I did do is ask for clarification, two very different things where the first might be construed as confusion, but not the later.

As for the rest of your post, I agree whole hardly, the factory fresh JAP numbers should be used!

Problem with that is now you will have to contend with the nay-sayers mind set that I ran into during my P38 testing. They will try and tell you that factory numbers are not correct, and that they are estimated or extrapolated, or that the employees were motivated to puff them up a bit. Why the employees would do such things, the nay-sayers are not very clear. They try to say there was pressure on the employees to not only meet the number but to beat them. Something about the governments not looking too fondly on a employ that did not deliver. Now, I can kind of understand that line of reasoning in a country like the USSR, Germany, or Japan during the war where they just might march a guy out to a firing squad for not delivering, but in the USA about the only thing that would happen is you didn€t get that raise you were planning on, or worse case fired. Yet the nay-sayers will ignore that fact and say the USA is the only place where these things happened. Oleg himself has played this game where USSR data is accepted as if written in stone by god, and every other countries data is suspect.

So, good luck! You will need it! My only advice is keep it short, come right to the point and provide enough info to corner him so he can not wiggle around the question. Also, don€t ask too many questions in one email! Keep it to one per email, otherwise you will find that he may answer the easy parts and ignore the hard questions.

p1ngu666
12-21-2005, 08:10 PM
tagert, i was just pointing out that *ingame* that ias/tas meet up at 0, and ull meet up with your maker there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

plus we often argue over a few % http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-22-2005, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
tagert, i was just pointing out that *ingame* that ias/tas meet up at 0, and ull meet up with your maker there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Roger, and I was just pointing out that we already knew that. Than I went on to correct your mistake in thinking that large values of IAS will have more error than smaller values, they don€t, the % error is the same for a given alt.

Long story short, I explained to you what the phrase "about equal" means when talking about IAS ~ TAS at sea level. In that in previous version of the game the P38's TAS value was about 30mph higher than the IAS value at around 200ft, and as you NOW KNOW you would only expect about 3mph difference, not 30mph, that is a ten fold error. I have not check the P38 sea level values yet to see if it has been fixed, but at least the Ki61 IAS to TAS conversions are working perfectly at sea level and 15kft.


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
plus we often argue over a few % http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif We? You got a French mouse in your pocket? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-22-2005, 09:54 AM
In SUMMARY, The Ki61 climb rates are perfect imho, wrt the TAIU values at MIL, if the MIL note is in error and the ROC test was actually done at WEP, than the Ki61 climb rates are too good, in that when using WEP you shave off a whole minute to alt.

As for the top/max speed at 15kft *problem* we know the TAIU chart says MIL power, but, *typically* max speeds are done at max (WEP) power.. Otherwise you really can not call it the max speed.. It is just the speed at MIL, the max speed would be the speed obtained at WEP.

That simple line of reasoning is probably what Oleg used when he modeled the Ki61, and the in-game Ki61 hits 360mph at ~ 15kft, which is only 1mph shy of it, listed max speed. Therefore, if Oleg used that simple line of reasoning, Than Oleg did a very good job of modeling the Ki61 max speed.

Ill bet that when faced with the fact that some of the TAUI charts had MIL listed and some didn€t that he made a judgment call and applied that simple line of reasoning. That or Oleg has some data that we have not seen yet. As to why he didn€t use the factory fresh JAP numbers.. Oleg's track record is to ignore factory fresh (BEST CASE) values and use military tested (AVERAGE) values.. Unless the plane has a P a 3 and an 8 in it's title, than he will even ignore those military tests and go with something even less than that. But I digress!

The one thing we should all walk away with here is what we learned about ourselves. Our experiences and therefore perceptions of the game are not necessary the only ones let alone the right ones. Go back to page one and note how many different people were saying the Ki61 climb rate was too slow and that the top speed was 30mph too slow. When independently examined, it turned out that was not the case at all.