PDA

View Full Version : The New Flyable Planes



chelweg
02-02-2006, 07:06 PM
I truely do not wish to be ungrateful for new planes and patches. However, I really do not understand why we keep getting the worst of or undermodeled aircraft for the Japanese. Most IJA are incorrectly modeled now, and with this new release, we are getting the mediocar version of the Jack (J2M) and a new AI George (N1K5). WHY WHY WHY WHY, Oleg, are we not getting the best they had to offer? At least the George. Information on it is FAR more readily available than the Jack. And some improvement of the flight model and correct gun packages for the Ki 61 and 100 would really even things up for those of us whom enjoy flying Japanese craft. Heck, the latter models of the Ki 100 should be easy enough, as well as the Ki 43 II. On behalf of the Japanese fliers of your game, please don't forget us.

Thanks as alway for a great game.

chelweg
02-02-2006, 07:06 PM
I truely do not wish to be ungrateful for new planes and patches. However, I really do not understand why we keep getting the worst of or undermodeled aircraft for the Japanese. Most IJA are incorrectly modeled now, and with this new release, we are getting the mediocar version of the Jack (J2M) and a new AI George (N1K5). WHY WHY WHY WHY, Oleg, are we not getting the best they had to offer? At least the George. Information on it is FAR more readily available than the Jack. And some improvement of the flight model and correct gun packages for the Ki 61 and 100 would really even things up for those of us whom enjoy flying Japanese craft. Heck, the latter models of the Ki 100 should be easy enough, as well as the Ki 43 II. On behalf of the Japanese fliers of your game, please don't forget us.

Thanks as alway for a great game.

chelweg
02-02-2006, 07:11 PM
Sorry, didn't mean to post twice. Had a power glitch and thought the other did not post.

Marcel_Albert
02-02-2006, 08:19 PM
I understand you because i fly a VVS planes and not many people fly this side online , or ask on this forum about these great planes .


However Oleg has made the maximum to please the community and keep making patches and implementing new planes for free so far !
keep that in mind , it's quite unique in the world of devs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I too would have liked a Russian P39 field mod. 1943 , without the armor , removed additional machin guns (so lighter ) , running at higher rpm , the plane that gave the highest scoring aces of the Allied side (Pokryshkin, Rechkalov , Fadeev etc..) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Or for example a Yak-3 VK-107A with the Klimov M-107A of 1700hp , when i see all the new boosted late war P-38, Mustang , Bf109K ...
This Yak 3 boosted fought in early 1945 , in small numbers though .

But only way is i think , to write to Oleg to beg for these planes , that would need not much work , to know if he has still the time and will to implement them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think you should simply write to Oleg or 1:C Maddox , and give serious documents to back your request about Japanese planes , cause that's not much use to post here , i wonder if he reads the posts on ORR , and if he does , i'd understand that he didn't pay attention too much , cause of all the whining of a small group of regular posters in this forum

LEBillfish
02-02-2006, 10:23 PM
What's wrong with the guns on the Ki-61 & 100?

Kocur_
02-06-2006, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:

Or for example a Yak-3 VK-107A with the Klimov M-107A of 1700hp , when i see all the new boosted late war P-38, Mustang , Bf109K ...
This Yak 3 boosted fought in early 1945 , in small numbers though .
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh did it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You mean the all metal Yak-3/VK-107A completed on 31 march 1945, in state trials between 25 may - 9 june 1945? A single prototype? Small number indeed but it never fought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
PS. Please dont bother posting links to half-a-screen web pages with info on 50 or sometimes 100 Yak-3/VK-107 used in WW2. Sorry, it didnt happen
PPS: The highest VK-107A output was 1650PS, not 1700PS.

HayateAce
02-06-2006, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Small number indeed but it never fought </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

109Z http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

For the original poseur, how about a realistic Damage Model for Ki61 too?

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

darkhorizon11
02-06-2006, 11:45 AM
Cause they were done by third party. I would love a Shinden J7 myself too but no one modeled it and Oleg has made it VERY clear that there not spending much more time FB aircraft. If you want it that bad lobby for it in BoB when we get back to the PAC again.

shinden1974
02-06-2006, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chelweg:
I truely do not wish to be ungrateful for new planes and patches. However, I really do not understand why we keep getting the worst of or undermodeled aircraft for the Japanese. Most IJA are incorrectly modeled now, and with this new release, we are getting the mediocar version of the Jack (J2M) and a new AI George (N1K5). WHY WHY WHY WHY, Oleg, are we not getting the best they had to offer? At least the George. Information on it is FAR more readily available than the Jack. And some improvement of the flight model and correct gun packages for the Ki 61 and 100 would really even things up for those of us whom enjoy flying Japanese craft. Heck, the latter models of the Ki 100 should be easy enough, as well as the Ki 43 II. On behalf of the Japanese fliers of your game, please don't forget us.

Thanks as alway for a great game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just wanted to add, from a different thread in the PF forum, one of the 3-D modellers says there is a cockpit for the J2M5, and it will probably come with the pay add-on...so thats N1K2-J, J2M5 and probably Ki-27 (2 types maybe), flyable with second commercial add-on, maybe more...I don't think we are forgotten, fortunately there are a few people involved with development that saw the pacific as worth while and that's why we are even in a position to ask questions.

If some of the fans of Il2FB had their way, they would take a whole lot of brit/ger/USAAF/VVS planes and theaters over even a zero and wildcat for kicks...so I count myself fortunate, nothing against them, we all have our preferences, and I tend to defer to the needs of the community that made this product successful, I'm just glad Oleg listens at all, and a group of modellers and programmers thought it was worth the effort.

Marcel_Albert
02-06-2006, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh did it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You mean the all metal Yak-3/VK-107A completed on 31 march 1945, in state trials between 25 may - 9 june 1945? A single prototype? Small number indeed but it never fought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
PS. Please dont bother posting links to half-a-screen web pages with info on 50 or sometimes 100 Yak-3/VK-107 used in WW2. Sorry, it didnt happen
PPS: The highest VK-107A output was 1650PS, not 1700PS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.lemaire.happyhost.org/avion/avion2/725.html

I guess that had it wrong then , they say 100 were built , i thought it was reliable ,cause Vk107A was already equipping Yak-9U in November 44 , but you are right mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But ok , here they say 1946 , i guess your book confirms it
http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm

Regards ,

ElAurens
02-06-2006, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
how about a realistic Damage Model for Ki61 too?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, the windscreen oiling is totally incorrect on this aircraft as all oil tankage was behind the windscreen.

Or are you suggesting some other area of damage modeling?

Kocur_
02-06-2006, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh did it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You mean the all metal Yak-3/VK-107A completed on 31 march 1945, in state trials between 25 may - 9 june 1945? A single prototype? Small number indeed but it never fought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
PS. Please dont bother posting links to half-a-screen web pages with info on 50 or sometimes 100 Yak-3/VK-107 used in WW2. Sorry, it didnt happen
PPS: The highest VK-107A output was 1650PS, not 1700PS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.lemaire.happyhost.org/avion/avion2/725.html

I guess that had it wrong then , they say 100 were built , i thought it was reliable ,cause Vk107A was already equipping Yak-9U in November 44 , but you are right mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But ok , here they say 1946 , i guess your book confirms it
http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm

Regards , </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were also two Yak-3s with VK-107 prototypes of mixed construction in 1944, but apart from engines unreliability, the found that light construction of Yak-3 is not strong enough to take heavier and more powerful engine. Thats why the only Yak-3 with VK-107A produced serially was an all metal plane.

SaQSoN
02-06-2006, 11:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Indeed, the windscreen oiling is totally incorrect on this aircraft as all oil tankage was behind the windscreen.

Or are you suggesting some other area of damage modeling? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

May I remind you, that there is an engine in fornt of the windscreen with high pressure lubrication system inside of it's crankcase?

LEBillfish
02-06-2006, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SaQSoN:May I remind you, that there is an engine in fornt of the windscreen with high pressure lubrication system inside of it's crankcase? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that is the logic then can I remind you that virtually EVERY radial engined plane should be worse due to the cowling venting.....All non inverted V's worse due to the high pressure area's and lines being higher.....The Ki-61's tanks behind the windscreen, all pressure lines low, underside of engine cowling vented, top cover overlapping to a degree it makes a labyrinth seal and seperated from the gun bay.

so the only way the windscreen would oil is to punch a hole through the top cover big enough that it shifts the airflow from bottom venting to top, and a line is hit that sprays in such a way it does so up toward the hole before clinging to the sheet metal.....and that without considering though doubtful there were fuses in the lines......need to translate those parts.

So if it oils.......Would least of virtually any plane here excluding the P39 and varients or 2 engine pod planes.

SaQSoN
02-07-2006, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If that is the logic then can I remind you that virtually EVERY radial engined plane should be worse due to the cowling venting..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try learning something about radial air-cooled and in-line water-cooled engines inner design to understand it.
It's not about the cowling design. And not about oil lines or tanks OUTSIDE the engine.
It is about engine's INNER lubrication system, which is more complex within the in-line engines.
Also take in account, that the crankcase oil reservoir and the сrankshaft of DB6XX family was ON TOP of the engine, unlike the one of the Merlin or HS families.
And also ALL inline engines were famous for spitting oil out of crankcase even under normal (undamaged) operations at high revs, or during high G (particulary negative G) manuevers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So if it oils.......Would least of virtually any plane here excluding the P39 and varients or 2 engine pod planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's how it is in the game. However, the probability of oil spitting on the radial engines is lower, due to the fact, that their oil system is much more compact and less complex, then the one of the in-line engine.
This is reflected in the collision model of the game by the size of the crankcase objects for the in-line and radial engines. The in-line crankcase is larger and easier to hit.
Moreover, in the real life in-line engines, the lubrication system spreads into cylinder blocks, which is not the case for the radial one. This makes the probability of oil spitting, caused by damage even higher for the in-line engines.

BSS_Vidar
02-07-2006, 12:27 AM
There is nothing wrong from what I can tell with the late-war IJN/A aircraft. I love to fly'em! The Ki-100 is awesome! The 84 is a speed demon and can really climb and roll.

The Zeke however is too fast in a dive, and should not effectily roll to the right due to its light weight construction and heavy engine torque. Zekes were so predictable by mid-war, US pilots just waited for them to break left...then hammered them because thats the only way they could go with any authority. Defensively, all a US pilot had to do was snap roll right and dive away, leaving the Zeke pilot siting there holding his joystick. The Zeke is a bit too good in-game.

LEBillfish
02-07-2006, 12:40 AM
Pardon?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/810_1110174765_oilleak1.jpg

"Also take in account, that the crankcase oil reservoir and the сrankshaft of DB6XX family was ON TOP of the engine, unlike the one of the Merlin or HS families."

The Crankcase means "nothing".....Where you will find the highest volume of oil flow will be to the numerous valves, rockers, cams, etc.. What you're suggesting is that a round penetrates the cast iron case or heavy steel top, then slams through either the bearing cap, crank journal, or crankshaft itself.....Naturally that oil if possible (as then terminal damage would have been done....the type that stops an engine cold...) then would require the oil to spray out that hole, then out the hole that would have to be in the top cover.......... Too low a hit and it washes along the sides.

In contrast a radial must pump oil to the head of each cylinder (which is about a 360 degree circle vs. down at the lowest extremes)....It must then recollect that oil somehow.......

What I posted in the "fact myth thread" following.....

24E. As stated above, critical components of the Ha-40 were in contrast to most other inline engines mounted well below the C.L. of the plane. However as also stated above, virtually ANY hit to the plane results in engine damage, with the resulting smoke and windscreen oiling happening all too often. In truth, the Ki-61 would oil its windscreen LESS than any other plane if at all.

All Radial engined planes should as the venting for cooling runs around the cowling, this would allow seeping oil to be blown back directly at the windscreen. Upright inline engines would less then radial, yet still risk it more dependant on design then inverted as the majority of the pressurized lines and journals are at the top of the engine, so windscreen fowling due to a high cowling hit would be more likely. Next would come those inverted V planes with their oil reservoirs in the engine area. Reservoir damage possible.

The Ha-40 & specifically the Ki-61 however suffers none of these weaknesses. There is NO engine cooling louvering in the nose area except under the plane. The top cover was reinforced, and depended upon snapping tight to fit it even over lapping making a labyrinth seal of sorts over quite a width. All pressurized journals and lines are low (below the wing line) on the engine, all that is above the C.L. is the crank (the heaviest piece and supporting structure of all inline engines)....Lastly, the Ki-61 had 2 oil reservoirs, 28l. main tank, 17l. Aux.. The main tank was located behind the pilot in the fuselage, the aux. between his knees behind the insturments. There is no oil reservoir ahead of the windscreen and pressurized lines are all low. Lastly, due to all louvering being under the plane this would result in oil being sucked out underneath.
Essentially.......The Ki-61 windscreen should oil up less then any plane here.
Oil system in general:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/EngineOilSystem.jpg
Component location:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/OilSys.jpg
Aux. oil tank Item 19:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/Cockpit8.jpg
Main oil tank item 6:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/Cockpit9.jpg
Engine area showing sealing even into gun compartment:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/GunsDwg2.jpg
Width of top cover sealing surface also showing resulting labarynth seal
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/ki-61-tony-five.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
02-07-2006, 12:43 AM
You go girl!

Feathered_IV
02-07-2006, 12:54 AM
Wow. Impressive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LEBillfish
02-07-2006, 01:03 AM
btw...what's inside the top half of the engine...nothing more.....

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/EngineDwg1.jpg

SaQSoN
02-07-2006, 01:05 AM
1. The cowling of the Ki-61 is NOT pressure sealed. Now go and read some Raaaid's threads, where people explain him the Bernulli law. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It doesn't matter what is the cowling design. At high speed (any that is &gt; 50km/h) the oil (or other liquid)would be sucked out of the engine comparentment, as it is shown on the P-47 pic, you posted. This doesn't only happen due to the airflaw blowing through the cowl. BTW, do you know what were and why there were white stripes on the top of the F4U forward fuselage?
2. In the game, the area, responcible for the damage of crankcase (which in turn would ALWAYS cause the oil spitting) is much larger for in-line engines, then for the radial ones, same as it was in RL.
3. For the DB6XX family, the probability of crankcase hit is even higher, since this area is situated closer to the top of the cowling, where most hits take place during head on attacks or bomber strafing.
4. Ki-61 engine is not "protected" by oil cooler from below, as in the Bf-109 family. Which also may result in higher probability of direct engine hit.
5. Regarding your remark about the Ki-61 gets "oiled" more often, then any other plane. Tell me, do you fly the Bf-109E as often, as you do it in the Ki-61? While flying the Bf-109E, do you meet the same opponents, as you do, while flying the Ki-61?
6. Regarding your remark, that even a single hit into the engine results into it's failure. That is also how it was in the RL for the in-line engines, and that is also what happens in the game to ALL in-line engines (except for some LaGG-3 variants, that have incorrect collision model, but this is another story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

PS Thank you for wasitng my bandwidth with the pics, I already saw many times.
BTW, since you already posted them, why wouldn't you look at them closer? It is obvious from the engine pictures, that about 2/3 of it's inner volume is filled with high pressure oil. One bullet hit - and you got, what you don't like so much. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PSS Oh, and one more things about the pics, you posted. The engine OIL tank is that T-shaped thing (Nr6 on the diagramm), and as it is clearly seen from those pics, it is positioned IN FRONT of the cockpit.
The drum-like tank behind the cockpit (Nr19 on the diagramm) is actually the HIDRAULICS tank.

LEBillfish
02-07-2006, 01:24 AM
Never said the compartment was pressure sealed, said it's design works like a labyrinth seal...

So what you're saying is all the venting below the engine will suddenly from say a .50" hit resulting in maybe a .75" hole will suddenly be disregarded and everything will be sucked out the hole in the top........That is if hit in the top as it does this when hit "anywhere".

A radial engine still has a crankcase....HOWEVER, it has cylinders in all directions "radially"...

A "crank case hit" means little.....It's dead air to accomodate a crank with rods and counterbalances off it in this case pointing down.......It is not a container for liquids, in fact, in a perfect world the oil can go no further then the bearings...In a practical world it would "seep" past then being slung by the crank modestly about the interior of the case where it flows down for collection. In fact, to get oil to the rod ends and the pin there requires the sealing be good enough to flow the oil down the rod to the piston.

Where you have NUMEROUS oil issues is at the heads. Valves need lubrication, rockers and their pivots and ends, camshafts...in fact a whole plethora of components.

and yes I fly the bf109E often as much as a Ki-61 in fact....coincidentally against the same folks online as we all fly in coops together.

However, that niether here nor there.........the point of the matter being the Ki-61 oil system is not the same as a 109.

p.s......From below the wings and radiator of the Ki-61 offer much protection.

LEBillfish
02-07-2006, 01:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SaQSoN:
PSS Oh, and one more things about the pics, you posted. The engine OIL tank is that T-shaped thing (Nr6 on the diagramm), and as it is clearly seen from those pics, it is positioned IN FRONT of the cockpit.
The drum-like tank behind the cockpit (Nr19 on the diagramm) is actually the HIDRAULICS tank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope...the pilots lower legs pr more so feet are on either side hence the shape......It sat right behind the radio and insturments......as to a hydraulic tank....nope....that's down low and further back in the fusalage, the Ki-61 had 2 engine oil tanks.

Philipscdrw
02-07-2006, 07:37 AM
Interesting thread. I'll be watching to see how this debate continues!

LEBillfish
02-07-2006, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">......Also take in account, that the crankcase oil reservoir and the сrankshaft of DB6XX family was ON TOP of the engine, unlike the one of the Merlin or HS families.

..............BTW, since you already posted them, why wouldn't you look at them closer? It is obvious from the engine pictures, that about 2/3 of it's inner volume is filled with high pressure oil. One bullet hit - and you got, what you don't like so much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW, (sorry was late when I made the other posts totally missed those remarks)......

First off.....We are not talking about automobile engines with "oil pans" that also work as reservoirs....So positioning of the engine has little to do with the oil system except oil return pickup.....

Secondly, the cylinder block is not some massive oil reservoir unto itself like a manual transmission case.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/Engine-end.jpg

In fact, such a condition would result in 3 things...
1. The crank would be slogging around through the oil causing a significant loss in power.
2. The cylinders of the inverted V would flood, resulting in........
3. The engine never running as it's now nothing more then a heavy oil tank.

In a perfect condition oil gets diverted via cast galleys to various moving component contact points and bearings....and if ideal goes no further the oil just enough to keep that thin lubricating barrier between the parts.

In a more realistic condition the oil seeps past those points, so is then often slung or sometimes even marginally sprayed upon other components requiring lubrication. That loose no longer under pressure oil, is then as quickly as possible directed to return galleys and pick up area's. Scavenging that oil efficiently a very important part of the system as otherwise the oil sits on hot castings and components and cooks sticking to it making sludge.

So it's a big balancing act......part of that not being "surround and drown" like fire fighters putting out a barn.

WWMaxGunz
02-07-2006, 10:34 AM
BF it's been my experience that blocks crack when struck really hard.
There are radials have been known to get home under power even missing an entire cylinder.
I don't think that there's an inline ever pulled that off.
Inline blocks you get oil and coolant, the mix should be white?

I agree the mess should go down but hey I thought those things are in the model and they
make the models to blueprints and high standards.....

Krt_Bong
02-07-2006, 11:05 AM
Oh Bull, You guys really should feel silly having a whole thread devoted to oil spray across the windsheild being over/under-modelled note the pic of the '47 covered in oil: startsts out as a relatively small space and yet fans out to cover nearly the entire upper surface of the airplane, (R/C Pilots know this all to well)the airflow over the upper surface of the wing causes this so even an exhaust diverted downward from a high wing aircraft can when oil is introduced end upon the windsheild and top of the wing, aerodynamics are the culprit more than location of the venting. If the hole is in front and oil is coming out it'll end up in your face simple. As for the original post at the top of the page isn't it enough to be happy with Any Japanese plane that is modelled with as much accuracy as they are, given the few surviving Real examples that are still flying(very few) and in museums. Lots of fine technical data though but it is still taking more time to cut away at someones hard work and Very Huge attempt at giving back to the community at large for what seems like endlessly picking it apart in the forums...

LEBillfish
02-07-2006, 03:23 PM
Asolutly MaxGuns, my only issue with that regarding the Ki-61 is some balance. Now it would be totally unreasonable to ask that every aspect of an engine be picked over and hits applied per area.....I'd assume the DM is just a big hitbox but don't know for sure. What I'd ask on that however and not in a position to judge either way, is that unless an inline engine is armored, or known to have a rediculously strong casting......That the hit box weakness be applied fairly to all inline planes.

Really in that regard I can't comment other then opinion.....Except to say the Ki-61 & 109E4 "seems" to take engine hits more frequently then say P51's........Though "I don't know".

As to KrtBong's comment it has nothing to do with lack of gratitude toward SaQSon or 1c's work......In fact, their inclusion of the Ki-61 into PF is what inspired me to start investigating it.

So "first hand" I can state without question it is one of the more difficult aircraft we have to research simply due to the loss of information after the war, and numerous incorrect books on the plane written based off of other incorrect data.

So the point is NOT to critisize, yet present information that has been discovered and proven out............As the plane in the sim was in some aspects modeled after some of the commonly accepted "incorrect" information.

Otherwise, my only responses would be...."you is wrong, be sure".

As to the oil spray.....as I asked in other threads find some documents or photographs to say otherwise.....As mechanically relating to that condition that is where the radial does fall short.

reisen52
02-07-2006, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SaQSoN:
PS Thank you for wasitng my bandwidth with the pics, I already saw many times.
BTW, since you already posted them, why wouldn't you look at them closer? It is obvious from the engine pictures, that about 2/3 of it's inner volume is filled with high pressure oil. One bullet hit - and you got, what you don't like so much. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PSS Oh, and one more things about the pics, you posted. The engine OIL tank is that T-shaped thing (Nr6 on the diagramm), and as it is clearly seen from those pics, it is positioned IN FRONT of the cockpit.
The drum-like tank behind the cockpit (Nr19 on the diagramm) is actually the HIDRAULICS tank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should look at the pictures you have seen many times a little closer yourself.

Its quite clear in the piping diagram that the "T" shaped tank & the "Drum" shaped tank are connected by the piping.

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

Interesting concept connecting the engine oil reservoir tank to the hydraulic oil reservoir tank, don't you think?
Zeke

chelweg
02-08-2006, 06:13 PM
The sad thing here was that my post was only to let Oleg know that a fan of one of his sims was interested in getting some developement attention to the Japanese aircraft. Yes damage is part of the game, but really, lets face it guys, once your hit, it is really down hill after that. NOT that it is not important, but there are much more simple improvements I was looking for. Speed performance of the Ki 61 for example. The gun packages (from the Mauser copy versions avaible in 43, not 44, to the correct place ment of the Japanese ones, in the nose not wings, as that is where the mgs went), or the Ki 100 which had 12.7mm in the wings, not 7.7mm. Also, performance was much better than modeled.
But I do not post any of this in complaint. I DO believe this team is interested in my input and want to hear what their customer is wanting. I am one of those that thought that this is what this forum was for. I am pasionate because I feel the IJA is possibly overlooked, and wish Oleg and team to know there are those out there that would like to see this. I am grateful for the sim, but I do think they are interested in my views as well.

mortoma
02-09-2006, 08:44 PM
I thought this thread was about someone wanting more and better Japanese aircraft. How did it get hijacked and become a thread about KI-61 windscreen oil???

Oleg_Maddox
02-10-2006, 04:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:

Or for example a Yak-3 VK-107A with the Klimov M-107A of 1700hp , when i see all the new boosted late war P-38, Mustang , Bf109K ...
This Yak 3 boosted fought in early 1945 , in small numbers though .
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Oh did it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You mean the all metal Yak-3/VK-107A completed on 31 march 1945, in state trials between 25 may - 9 june 1945? A single prototype? Small number indeed but it never fought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
PS. Please dont bother posting links to half-a-screen web pages with info on 50 or sometimes 100 Yak-3/VK-107 used in WW2. Sorry, it didnt happen
PPS: The highest VK-107A output was 1650PS, not 1700PS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are completely wrong.
Data for VK-107A 1650 hp means Nominal power (say combat term for the west). Not maximal rated.
In WWII iover Germany not used all metal construction Yak-3 with VK-107, but mixed construction (wood+metal) used and there are reports of it how many, how mach and how many German aircraft was down during one month troops trials...

Yak-3 VK 107 will be in one of add-ons probably together with some German new Uber planes.. wait some time...


Answer to that guys that posted about Japense planes.

1. Some of Japanese planes will wbe present in one of the paid add-ons.

2. You are wrong that there is absolutely enough ddata that to make them alive in the sim.

3. We have no time to make new planes (due to BoB). We insert these that was ready about a year ago.

4. We invested the chabges in K-61 that we found is possible to change without spending of too much time (read our main job in item 3.)

5. Please understand - all we we give for free is a present for you from third party and us.
If in the past third party would do Japanese planes, then now you maybe was able to see them.
So compline about why we so bad I think is incorrect.

nakamura_kenji
02-10-2006, 04:43 AM
thank you oleg look forward pay addon japanese planes ^_^

maybe email later people calm down about japanese mg/cannon, also possible suggestion maybe have

ps thank you espcial ki-61-I-hei fire extingusher ^_^

Feathered_IV
02-10-2006, 04:48 AM
A big thank you from me too for this great gift. I look forward to buying the next ones.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ElAurens
02-10-2006, 05:19 AM
Indeed, thank you Oleg.

All the new content is much appreciated. You did not have to do this, and I for one am thankful for it.

Looking forward to the Pay Add Ons, and to BoB.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kocur_
02-10-2006, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

You are completely wrong.
Data for VK-107A 1650 hp means Nominal power (say combat term for the west). Not maximal rated.
In WWII iover Germany not used all metal construction Yak-3 with VK-107, but mixed construction (wood+metal) used and there are reports of it how many, how mach and how many German aircraft was down during one month troops trials...

Yak-3 VK 107 will be in one of add-ons probably together with some German new Uber planes.. wait some time...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope Mr Oleg you wont by shy and will post those reports? Funny that according to Stepanets there were only TWO Yak-3s of mixed construction and VK-107A. They were tested in 1944 and idea of mix construction Yak-3/VK-107 was dropped.
While you would post those reports, could you also post some documents on MiG-3U in 1942? For any decent source, and I have some from different years, say the same: MiG-3U wasnt even planned in 1942, and OKB MiG was ordered to build such a plane in january 1943.

TheGozr
02-10-2006, 01:38 PM
very becarefull with the VK-107A yak3 had serious troubles internal engine .. too small for the 107A. need to see what airframe metal/weight etc.. used..

Will Oleg place the yak3 new engine with also as the yak9U with the defects of the first serie ?
Yak9U 105 had no trouble second serie "The Monster" Yak9U no trouble either...

As well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Spit get Boosted, germans get Boosted, US get Boosted and the Russians get the mal founctioning Aircraft of the serie..... Something is not right here.

No need for new boosted yak's just correct FM and power / ratio correction, prop pich fixes, wing loads or some other yak9's variants would do beautyfully.


We can also show some yak with jet propulsed in the tail and prop on front....hum!

i repeat what we need is not more planes but corrected FM and 3d design of cockpit yak's that would change the feeling and look of the original il2
yak's with more ordonances field mode maybe.
If we continue to have more boosted planes we will finish at reno's race ... yaks are prepared as well.

Doing so we are loosing the Simulator status and entering in the thin edge of game state.
You don't juge a plane on his climb rate or his top speed. Period but all the between..

TheGozr
02-10-2006, 02:09 PM
You can all speak about data sheets and so and so, about Graphics gleech in the wheel design of that and this aircraft or this aircraft had 2 rivets instead of 3, but i'm getting abit tired of this. What is important to me is how the aircaft feels inflight good or bad it doesn t matter it should be as close as possible to the real one.

It is very hard to compare real life and simulator because the physics and what the body feels , so many can give the sim to be tested by real pilots, yes but the real pilot need to be a good sim pilots as well to be able to anderstand the sim versus real. That it is important i havn t find yes a real pilot flying ww2 aircraft good on the sim, i know that for fact.

FM is very important period.

TheGozr
02-12-2006, 12:34 PM
..

HotelBushranger
02-13-2006, 02:25 AM
The Ki-61 is a brean new aeroplane! Thank you very much Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

chelweg
02-15-2006, 06:00 PM
Oleg,
Thanks for personaly answering my post. I will look forward to the add on. Sorry I came off as complaining, I just thought they were easy fixes, however, shows what I know about computer programing. My intention was really to give constructive feed back and let know of customer desire. Feel bad that you felt your free gift was not appreciated, was truely not my intention. So thanks again for your game and the patch, good luck with BOB.

Willey
02-16-2006, 01:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:

Or for example a Yak-3 VK-107A with the Klimov M-107A of 1700hp , when i see all the new boosted late war P-38, Mustang , Bf109K ...
This Yak 3 boosted fought in early 1945 , in small numbers though .
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh did it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You mean the all metal Yak-3/VK-107A completed on 31 march 1945, in state trials between 25 may - 9 june 1945? A single prototype? Small number indeed but it never fought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
PS. Please dont bother posting links to half-a-screen web pages with info on 50 or sometimes 100 Yak-3/VK-107 used in WW2. Sorry, it didnt happen
PPS: The highest VK-107A output was 1650PS, not 1700PS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Non-derated Yak-9Us (which also have VK-107) would be more suitable. Our 9U (and UT) have a derated engine, which can be seen in it's topspeed, which is way below 700 and hardly faster on the deck than a Yak-3.

LEBillfish
02-16-2006, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
The Ki-61 is a brean new aeroplane! Thank you very much Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

???????? I have not noticed any change http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

LEBillfish
02-18-2006, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 HotelBushranger:
The Ki-61 is a brean new aeroplane! Thank you very much Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

???????? I have not noticed any change http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So HBR, what changes did you note??????

AKA_TAGERT
02-18-2006, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Yak-3 VK 107 will be in one of add-ons probably together with some German new <span class="ev_code_red">Uber</span> planes.. wait some time... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting, many of us feel the same way! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
2. You are wrong that there is absolutely enough ddata that to make them alive in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh oh, now you done it! Beware the iron skillet! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif