PDA

View Full Version : Which plane for a Ki-44 "tojo" hack?



tigertalon
05-22-2007, 05:46 PM
I got inspired by a thread in skinning room where a I-185 is used for that purpose. Its performance is somewhat comparable with 190A4, with better maneouverability. I-185 or Fw190A4 seem a good choices for late Ki-44-IIc model with Ha-109 (1520hp) and 4 20mm cannons. Any other suggestions here?

What about earlier, lighter armed and weaker powered (Ha-41, 1200hp) versions? IAR maybe?

I'm looking for a plane that would present the best compromise between performance, armament, DM, looks,...

BillyTheKid_22
05-22-2007, 06:19 PM
http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/Tojo/KY-fr052_shoki_tojo.jpg



http://avia.russian.ee/pictures/japan/nakajima_shoki-s.gif



Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki/TOJO!!

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

Jaws2002
05-22-2007, 06:28 PM
Anything but I-185. That plane doesn't resemble anything built with the materials and technology available during WW2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif With that DM you could use The I-185 as a Japanese tank "hack", but not Japanese aircraft "hack". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

BillyTheKid_22
05-22-2007, 07:02 PM
http://mkmagazin.almanacwhf.ru/art/art_avia/i_185.jpg



Polikarpov I-185

Blutarski2004
05-22-2007, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
I got inspired by a thread in skinning room where a I-185 is used for that purpose. Its performance is somewhat comparable with 190A4, with better maneouverability. I-185 or Fw190A4 seem a good choices for late Ki-44-IIc model with Ha-109 (1520hp) and 4 20mm cannons. Any other suggestions here?

What about earlier, lighter armed and weaker powered (Ha-41, 1200hp) versions? IAR maybe?

I'm looking for a plane that would present the best compromise between performance, armament, DM, looks,...


..... Consider the F6F Hellcat.

ojcar1971
05-22-2007, 07:19 PM
I don't thimk the I-185 is as sturdy. I have shot down various I-185 flying spitfires and Hellcats with no problem. It's tougher than Ki-43, but anything is.
Performance-wise, it's the closer we have

VW-IceFire
05-22-2007, 08:13 PM
The closest hack by looks is a Ki-84-Ia unfortunately...which takes you to the next level of performance.

LStarosta
05-22-2007, 08:15 PM
Ki-43

LEXX_Luthor
05-23-2007, 02:09 AM
tigertalon::
What about earlier, lighter armed and weaker powered (Ha-41, 1200hp) versions? IAR maybe?
Earlier -- lighter armed -- weaker powered

Believe it or not...

MiG-3

MiG-3 doesn't *look* like a Ki-44. In fact, it looks exactly the opposite -- pointy nose with water engine, and no bubble canopy.

But they shared the exact same design goal -- high speed and high altitude strategic interceptor, which nobody else bothered to try except the original P-38 concept, and both the MiG and -44 surprised their respective enemies at high altitudes. If I recall, Ki-44 was the only Japanese aircraft that could reasonably intercept the early B-29 raaiids in 1944. MiG-3 was the only Russian aircraft that could reasonably intercept German recon planes in 1941.

Damage modelling is "moderate" to some say "flamable" for the MiG, so maybe it could work although Ki-44 was not as "flammable" as Zero I should think.

In 1941, Soviet pilots, except the very best who knew how to use speed in combat (speed is king), hated the high wing loading, poor turning ability, and fast landing speed of the MiG-3. Japanese pilots, except the very best Army pilots who knew how to use speed in combat (speed is king) hated the high wing loading, poor turning ability, and fast landing speed of the Ki-44...until the B-29s came.

For hardcore screenshot simulation, it won't work. For hardcore air war simulation, MiG-3 may be the closest thing. So think about it. It was the MiG-3 that I was planning to use for Ki-44 in a Pacific campaign I was sorta planning before I got kidnapped into another sim.

tigertalon
05-23-2007, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
MiG-3


Excellent choice, the best suggestion so far IMO. It's lagging behind a bit only in the 'looks' category.

leitmotiv
05-23-2007, 02:44 AM
Hey, the MiG-3 is your best bet. Good thinking. Both fast climbers, both not great maneuverers. Not too heavily armed or armored. Perfect. Only major compromises inline instead of radial and wood instead of metal. Nice call!

LEXX_Luthor
05-23-2007, 02:47 AM
looks ... pffft

Compare performance at various altitudes, landing speeds, weights, power, weapons, climb (I think Ki-44 is the faster climber, but overall slower), and of course, pilot opinions especially on tactics and vulnerability to damage. It may be the best FM/DM/WM matchup possible. The reason for this is simple -- there were only three (3) dedicated high speed high altitude interceptors designed at the start of the war, the third being early P-38, as far as I know.

One other posibiilty might be Bf-109E-7/Z with the high altitude GM-1 nitrous oxide boost. Its in the game, and it works well at high altitudes. But it too looks the exact opposite of the blunt nosed bubble canopied Ki-44. Perhaps, one of the -109F variants may work as well, although is it too manueverable?

alert_1
05-23-2007, 03:52 AM
J2M3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Col._King
05-23-2007, 07:15 AM
~S~
I think the IAR can give out a very convincing Japanese Army fighter. We need someone willing to make some few good skins for it. It looks very "Nakajimik" isn't it?

Daiichidoku
05-23-2007, 07:19 AM
how about if yo uwant to "hack" the 40mm equipped versions?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-23-2007, 07:28 AM
there is nothing in game that comes close to a Ki-44 in performance, look and DM .


MiG, well, the look http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
IAR, well its performance and DM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

stay with the Ki-43-II and Ki-61 as fighters..............

ojcar1971
05-23-2007, 08:14 AM
I-185M82 is very close. Just look at the numbers:
Wing span: Ki-44II= 9.45, I185M82= 9.8
Wing area: Ki-44II= 15, I185M82= 15.5
Lenght: Ki-44II= 8.75, I185M82= 8.05
Power: Ki-44II= 1620, I185M82= 1676 (with boost)
Speed: Ki-44II= 605, I185M82= 619
Climb to 5000m: Ki-44II= 4.3, I185M82= 5.5 (to 5400m)
Ceiling: Ki-44II= 11200, I185M82= 10000
This plane is close in looks also. Is more rugged, but it can be shot down, jus like any other plane. I have shot down it driving Spitfires, Hellcats, Corsairs....
There is people that thinks all japanese planes must be shot down in flames if we spit on them

Jaws2002
05-23-2007, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by ojcar1971:
I-185M82 is very close. Just look at the numbers:
Wing span: Ki-44II= 9.45, I185M82= 9.8
Wing area: Ki-44II= 15, I185M82= 15.5
Lenght: Ki-44II= 8.75, I185M82= 8.05
Power: Ki-44II= 1620, I185M82= 1676 (with boost)
Speed: Ki-44II= 605, I185M82= 619
Climb to 5000m: Ki-44II= 4.3, I185M82= 5.5 (to 5400m)
Ceiling: Ki-44II= 11200, I185M82= 10000
This plane is close in looks also. Is more rugged, but it can be shot down, jus like any other plane. I have shot down it driving Spitfires, Hellcats, Corsairs....
There is people that thinks all japanese planes must be shot down in flames if we spit on them

Did you ever fly the I-185?

If not i sugest you to try it. In performance, in the game that thing is in a class with Tempest, mustang Mk3, Dora and La7.

Is better then Ki-84, Raiden, antons, BF109's, spits, navy planes and about all other planes in the game.

Col._King
05-23-2007, 08:54 AM
Me still bets my two bucks in the IAR80/81...

ojcar1971
05-23-2007, 09:07 AM
Hello Jaws! The numbers for I-185M82 that I have posted came from Hardball's Aircraft viewer. They are numbers FROM THE GAME, not real life. So, the performance is not than impressive as the planes you have posted. And I have fly the M82. Is the M71 the bird that flies as a rocket.
The performance of M82 is outstanding for 1942, not for 1944-45. I flied it. The J2M3 is way better

Daiichidoku
05-23-2007, 09:19 AM
I-185 are ladyplanes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ojcar1971
05-23-2007, 09:35 AM
Yes, real man flies biplanes!!!

weaselwagon1
05-23-2007, 09:51 AM
Too bad we have to hack anything,especially something as important as the Shoki.
But at least we have the Lerche,TB 3,and The Flying Boat.
If you designed a sim based on late 60'S muscle cars,would you leave out a 68 R/T Charger but include a 74 Gran Torino station wagon with fake wood paneling,roof racks and whitewall tires?How about a Model T Ford?

Col._King
05-23-2007, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
I-185 are ladyplanes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

True! The best I-185 virtual pilot is a Lady!
Anyone remembers Sarah?

Daiichidoku
05-23-2007, 10:11 AM
you believe that sarah zoom, who never once got on comms, is a girl? LMAO

Col._King
05-23-2007, 10:14 AM
She is a girl.
I had her on comms once. Definitely a girl.

BTW, it is a loong time I have not seen her online... She is from Hawaii.

tigertalon
05-23-2007, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ojcar1971:
I-185M82 is very close. Just look at the numbers:
Wing span: Ki-44II= 9.45, I185M82= 9.8
Wing area: Ki-44II= 15, I185M82= 15.5
Lenght: Ki-44II= 8.75, I185M82= 8.05
Power: Ki-44II= 1620, I185M82= 1676 (with boost)
Speed: Ki-44II= 605, I185M82= 619
Climb to 5000m: Ki-44II= 4.3, I185M82= 5.5 (to 5400m)
Ceiling: Ki-44II= 11200, I185M82= 10000
This plane is close in looks also. Is more rugged, but it can be shot down, jus like any other plane. I have shot down it driving Spitfires, Hellcats, Corsairs....
There is people that thinks all japanese planes must be shot down in flames if we spit on them

Did you ever fly the I-185?

If not i sugest you to try it. In performance, in the game that thing is in a class with Tempest, mustang Mk3, Dora and La7.

Is better then Ki-84, Raiden, antons, BF109's, spits, navy planes and about all other planes in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a big difference between M71 and M82 powered versions. Like I stated in initial post in this thread, M82 is comparable to Fw190A4 or A5 in terms of pure performance - being good down low (better than A4) it's performance drops off sharply and it lags behind A4 at higher altitudes (and the A4 itself was not a high alt monster). However, it is still more maneouverable and climbs faster. Check IL2Compare.

M71 is a completely different bird tho.

DKoor
05-23-2007, 12:32 PM
LoL this is true.....

They're kinda night & day regarding performance;

http://i11.tinypic.com/4u160ky.jpg

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

anarchy52
05-23-2007, 12:42 PM
I-185 performance is something that is achievable today with carbon composites, kevlar, advanced alloys, computer controlled engine and fly-by-wire.

Alas, it's throttle lever, was so uncomfortable that VVS couldn't accept it into service fearing a whine fest from pilots of LaGGs, MiGs and early Yaks which, although inferior to german planes and being slaughtered on the battlefield, had way more comfortable throttle levers. Any fighter pilot will tell you that the single most important feature of a fighter is a comfortable throttle lever.

And so, VVS lost the chance of having a fighter in year 1942 which would dominate the skies up to 1970.

ojcar1971
05-23-2007, 12:48 PM
Posted in Mission4today: modded files to add I-185M82 as Ki-44 hack in Burma, Okinawa and Japan (AI only)
Files modded by me from Enjoyr 2.1. Skins included

DKoor
05-23-2007, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
I-185 performance is something that is achievable today with carbon composites, kevlar, advanced alloys, computer controlled engine and fly-by-wire. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LStarosta
05-23-2007, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Col._King:
She is a girl.
I had her on comms once. Definitely a girl.

BTW, it is a loong time I have not seen her online... She is from Hawaii.

Or maybe just a prepubescent little boy? Which would explain why you haven't heard from him in a few years. Puberty...

Gitano1979
05-23-2007, 04:37 PM
Why not early La-5 as an early Ki-44 hack? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-23-2007, 05:40 PM
Why not early La-5 as an early Ki-44 hack?
Because the hack needs high altitude performance. Its kinda fun looking around for something to match, as very few early-mid war aircraft had this.

nTurner
05-23-2007, 05:46 PM
Why didnt they include the KI44 anyway?
I thought it would be considered as a major participant compared to some of the others we have-The JAAF's only viable anti-B29 interceptor
pending arrival of the KI84 should have been here too.

Col._King
05-23-2007, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Col._King:
She is a girl.
I had her on comms once. Definitely a girl.

BTW, it is a loong time I have not seen her online... She is from Hawaii.

Or maybe just a prepubescent little boy? Which would explain why you haven't heard from him in a few years. Puberty... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! No way, Luke...
Believe me, I know what I'm talking. And please dont think we'w talked only about planes... And not only I have talked with her for more than two hours, but my wife Lara talked with her, too.
BTW, Lara and Sarah are both members of the Hell's Devils, the group I have the honor to lead.

Cheers