PDA

View Full Version : Why are we NOT the Consummate Experts on.................?



LEBillfish
12-09-2005, 01:17 AM
Hi All;

Ever wonder about this plane or that unit? X Battle or Y Pilot?

If you've ever tried to look something up on the web, books even for that matter you quickly discover the vast amounts of "mis-information" out there. Worse still, the most simple of questions seem to never have answers yet some detailed end all answer to something unrelated to your quest seems often to be all you can find.

Some time ago a friend asked me to join his reforming squadron here. Having agreed, and wanting a skin to match the paint schemes actually used by this unit I quickly discovered there was little to no information on them readily available, and the best photographs I could find of their planes were 1x2" blurry smudges...........So my quest began.

SLowly gaining some answers as to "maybe" paint schemes they used, I stupidly decided to "weather" the skin, yet could not find a single answer to my then secondary question of "Where's the da*n gas cap so I can show some fuel spills?!".......So quickly from a simple skin wanting to do it right, I now found myself searching for a vast array of related answers...

78th Hikousentai paint schemes, evolved to having to try and learn of the 78th just to find a picture...which evolved to having to learn of the Ki-61 to understand where it might leak or have spills.....to still not having enough answers to answer the first so now on to trying to learn how to read Kanji, Hirangana, and Katakana so I could sound out the words to hopefully use a romanji site to translate the text......Which lead me on to learning of the Japanese Army Flying Corps as a whole, the 4th Kokugun...on and on, round and round, even having to look up 5th Airforce info to try and find a lousey photo...........and here I am today still searching BUT!!!....I probably have learned more about the Ki-61, JAFC, Japanese New Guinea actions, and so on then most will ever.


Point being....(had to get to it sometime http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)......Each of us to some degree has an interest in WWII aviation. At the very least most of us have at least one question. So considering the above and how we learn things (and all the little associated fluff we never intended to)......Why are more threads not posted here with the sole intent of hammering on a subject till the truth rings out of it.

Frankly, many here have done vast amounts of research. Yet it's when we all hammer away at a particular topic little tidbits passed by come out, and soon the truth, the facts, the real history begins to show.

I've started 2 threads I keep trying to generate interest in.....The "Ki-61 Fact & Myth, and 4th Kokugun vs. the 5th Airforce". My intention with those not to teach......yet to learn with extensive discussion.

SOOooooooooooo....(real point coming)......I think it would be great if more here would hammer away at such topics, yet keep them current. More so, compile the information...Add to it, subtract and change when a "fact" comes to light.

It stuns me that there is not a thread for every plane ever made, every battle, every unit and so on. As it seems to me that if this is done and the info collected and saved by the one with the most interest......cleaned up and bumped or reposted......Soon we'd have one of the finer collections of WWII aviation information available......

Books get set aside, one person gathering information and not sharing it serves no one...Living active and attended to threads might grant us all the ability to "go to the forum, as the answer is in the stickied thread there in the lead post.......Which started as a question, yet was added to, becoming an encyclopedia of information on that one topic.


So what thread are you perpetuating other then "when's the next patch?"

LEBillfish
12-09-2005, 01:17 AM
Hi All;

Ever wonder about this plane or that unit? X Battle or Y Pilot?

If you've ever tried to look something up on the web, books even for that matter you quickly discover the vast amounts of "mis-information" out there. Worse still, the most simple of questions seem to never have answers yet some detailed end all answer to something unrelated to your quest seems often to be all you can find.

Some time ago a friend asked me to join his reforming squadron here. Having agreed, and wanting a skin to match the paint schemes actually used by this unit I quickly discovered there was little to no information on them readily available, and the best photographs I could find of their planes were 1x2" blurry smudges...........So my quest began.

SLowly gaining some answers as to "maybe" paint schemes they used, I stupidly decided to "weather" the skin, yet could not find a single answer to my then secondary question of "Where's the da*n gas cap so I can show some fuel spills?!".......So quickly from a simple skin wanting to do it right, I now found myself searching for a vast array of related answers...

78th Hikousentai paint schemes, evolved to having to try and learn of the 78th just to find a picture...which evolved to having to learn of the Ki-61 to understand where it might leak or have spills.....to still not having enough answers to answer the first so now on to trying to learn how to read Kanji, Hirangana, and Katakana so I could sound out the words to hopefully use a romanji site to translate the text......Which lead me on to learning of the Japanese Army Flying Corps as a whole, the 4th Kokugun...on and on, round and round, even having to look up 5th Airforce info to try and find a lousey photo...........and here I am today still searching BUT!!!....I probably have learned more about the Ki-61, JAFC, Japanese New Guinea actions, and so on then most will ever.


Point being....(had to get to it sometime http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)......Each of us to some degree has an interest in WWII aviation. At the very least most of us have at least one question. So considering the above and how we learn things (and all the little associated fluff we never intended to)......Why are more threads not posted here with the sole intent of hammering on a subject till the truth rings out of it.

Frankly, many here have done vast amounts of research. Yet it's when we all hammer away at a particular topic little tidbits passed by come out, and soon the truth, the facts, the real history begins to show.

I've started 2 threads I keep trying to generate interest in.....The "Ki-61 Fact & Myth, and 4th Kokugun vs. the 5th Airforce". My intention with those not to teach......yet to learn with extensive discussion.

SOOooooooooooo....(real point coming)......I think it would be great if more here would hammer away at such topics, yet keep them current. More so, compile the information...Add to it, subtract and change when a "fact" comes to light.

It stuns me that there is not a thread for every plane ever made, every battle, every unit and so on. As it seems to me that if this is done and the info collected and saved by the one with the most interest......cleaned up and bumped or reposted......Soon we'd have one of the finer collections of WWII aviation information available......

Books get set aside, one person gathering information and not sharing it serves no one...Living active and attended to threads might grant us all the ability to "go to the forum, as the answer is in the stickied thread there in the lead post.......Which started as a question, yet was added to, becoming an encyclopedia of information on that one topic.


So what thread are you perpetuating other then "when's the next patch?"

Jetbuff
12-09-2005, 01:37 AM
Actually, I'm more interested in the overriding issue here, this age of misinformation. Finding the proverbial needle in a haystack has never been more apt a description of our efforts to locate information online. There's tonnes and tonnes of it online, but it's either difficult to find, not exactly what we are looking for, or dubious when found. My current thesis is on the topic of how to make it easier to find the information we want.

Pirschjaeger
12-09-2005, 01:51 AM
I know what you are talking about LeBillfish. I have, on more than one occassion, asked for details of the F series 109s. Didn't have much luck.

This is the problem, we all like to split hairs, but we don't seem to like splitting the identical hairs. For one, I have never considered fuel stains below a gas cap on any plane, but I don't skin either. Have you ever considered the detail construction of a 109 firewall? See, different hairs to split.

It would be nice to have some sort of IL-2 Wikipedia though. Eventually it would be a great asset to the community.

My suggestion would be to, if you haven't already, to post your request in the skinner's forum. They're all into that sort of detail. My problem is no one skins firewalls. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Friendly_flyer
12-09-2005, 03:01 AM
Another problem is the wastnes of the subject. I can with a bit of pride say I have some knowledge of the two Norwegian Spitfire squadrons flying with the RAF during the war, but I know next to nothing about Japanese planes or air-force (except that the Ki 61 is a bloody good looking plane). I can't really ad anything to LEBillfish's knowledge, but i do know where to put fuel stains on a Spitfire!

nakamura_kenji
12-09-2005, 03:05 AM
I feel bad about as kelly-san know much more ki-61 than i even though be my country that build fly it p_q. just wish oleg listen to fix ki-61/100 v_v


though do more about russian coldwar/modern tank than most ^_^

Badsight.
12-09-2005, 03:22 AM
daammmm Fritz . . .

ts freaking ME out now , how disturbing does it have to get till your happy with it!

ploughman
12-09-2005, 03:24 AM
I did figure these forums could be one of the best on-line resource centres for World War Two aviation related information. Someone else said 'who'd decide what info was right or wrong,' who'd be the referee? Which I guess is the difficult bit. You've only got to look at Kurfurst and the 109 v Spitfire threads to see how murky some of these arguements on what/when/where/how can get.

It's not insurmountable, some sort of organised thread debate with a panel to make a decision on contentious issues perhaps.

But you're right, there are alot of people here who know alot of stuff.

WTE_Ibis
12-09-2005, 03:26 AM
LEBillfish, that's a very good idea and the experten here should take notice and do as you suggest.
We in this small group probably know more facts on various WW2 aircraft than can be found elseware and this should be catalogued for posterity before it is lost.
C'mon you experten, you know who you are, give of your wisdom.

arcadeace
12-09-2005, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
I did figure these forums could be one of the best on-line resource centres for World War Two aviation related information. Someone else said 'who'd decide what info was right or wrong,' who'd be the referee? Which I guess is the difficult bit. You've only got to look at Kurfurst and the 109 v Spitfire threads to see how murky some of these arguements on what/when/where/how can get.

It's not insurmountable, some sort of organised thread debate with a panel to make a decision on contentious issues perhaps.

But you're right, there are alot of people here who know alot of stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wish I had your confidence, I think it is insurmountable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Cutting to the heart of a lot of these discussions: who would referee, determining the right from wrong?

When the specifics are desired for the Mustang, 109, Spit... whatever... what happens all too often? Its favoritism, nationalism, or just plain know-it-all egos mucking things up. You would think it would be an easy task to arrive at pure facts at least for WWII machines, never mind historical events, but no way. What we experience here is not much different than a dynamic democracy, even down to mundane particulars. And even if there was an honest consensus to get to the bottom of it, the same kind of shortcomings are inherent in a lot of info given from different sources over the net.

LEBill I understand your frustration, whatever the subject matter its not difficult to encounter such problems to one degree or another in quest for the truth. I admire your determination too. But I think the 'answers' will always sit in each one of us, personally, when we have confidence in our own humility and honesty we've done enough to know. Even if that means not knowing much.

LEBillfish
12-09-2005, 08:12 AM
Well to those stating "who is the information keeper to avoid bias, or incorrect information"...All of us..."THAT" is the point.

ex. I make a post on Ki-61 radiator armor, and EVERYONE, tells me I'm full of BS.....But I hold to my line. At that point, most would state "she's wrong obviously as the vote is 37,528 to 1"........However, at that point I can do one of 2 things, either yield "OR" prove it.......So I post my information and sources and at that point if proving out the vote should swing.....HOWEVER not always due to a few things.....

I have often been challenged on points by numerous folks who "all" got their info from the same source. Some even backing it up with another......Yet it's through the debate where in websites especially and actually quite often books can be proved out wrong........As you'd be stunned by the number of books on the same subject that "quote" the wrong information of some long ago published one.....

So it goes round and round. Yet the list of sources grow, and so does the information to be presented and challenged. As subsequent challenges arrive they can either be refuted due to previously "now documented" reasons why they're incorrect......or considered.

It's the debate that works down to the truth, and in that debate comes even more sources to consider and facts. In the end, only a fool will refuse to agree with such glaring truth. So the corrupt orginizer of the information will also be revealed.

Yet only through discussion.


An EXCELLENT example of this IMLTHO is my Ki-61 windscreen oiling thread.....I post, get shot down, over and over....I give in, yet then reconsider and press it further....The last post in that thread (which I need to bump) the poster made the following statement which made a huge point, one I didn't know yet IMO makes a huge swing my way.......That being the BF109's oil resivoir was in front of the engine....(the Ki-61's behind the insturments and in the rear fusalage).

So it was through the debate that a fact that I would have never touched on came to light. That fact killing the thread as suddenly (maybe coincidence) those battling me went silent.

To finalize it, the thread needs to be restarted NOW stating the facts we have. At which point a more factual "guess" can be made.

MEGILE
12-09-2005, 09:56 AM
You'd be surprised just how much people will argue over factual data.... just check out Oleg's ready room.

I could post a level speed chart for a BF-109K4 and I'd have 20 replies each containing a different chart from 20 other tests, and reasons why their factual data is more representative than mine.
Heck even the same data is often interpreted differently.

The 109 is just an example though, it could truly apply to any/most planes.

Best place to do it would be away from UBI, and at private websites and forums where data can be collected and grouped without interference.

Chuck_Older
12-09-2005, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
You'd be surprised just how much people will argue over factual data.... just check out Oleg's ready room.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...or ask two real life doctors on how to diagnose an identical illness http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

This phenomenon is not restricted to this sim. Look at a reference book's bibliography for example...now check another reference book and check that one's bibliography. Plenty of factual data. Then one book says that the P-47M can do 470 mph at 27,000 feet as it's max speed, and the other cites 474 mph at 31,000 feet as it's max speed

Was one author lying? Stupid? Biased? Or was it just a case of having the best info available at the time- but one book was written after better data was found? Or that the later book uses incorrect data that the first book got right, but can not now be verified?


Personally I think it's just as likely that any one person could be an expert on any subject as not. Every group of people has individuals who know something about something

*****************************************

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So what thread are you perpetuating other then "when's the next patch?"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never have perpetuated that one. It's an update this time anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I've been exploring how to make awards for the sim (my new award kick so much *ss that if they had feet, they'd be smelly), brushing up on new tweaks and techniques for mission building (read: stealing techniques from somebody), discussing drop tanks, keeping the torch lit for correct P-51 ETO markings, and p*ssing people off.

Business as usual http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JSG72
12-09-2005, 02:20 PM
"LElbillfish"
As I can now assume you to be an"Expert" on the KI-61.
Something that has puzzled me for over 30 years now.
Is that in any passing referance to the "Tony" in any of the publications I have read. (BTW The Pacific Theatre is not a favourite of mine) They would usually state that the allies thought of this aircraft as the Japanese "109".
However as I am sure we are all aware that apart from the inline engine.
This plane bears no semblance of 109 in her.
But I do see a lot of resemlance to the Heinkel HE-100. A plane I am sure Japan was given an example of.
Point is Have you found any referance to this. Or am I off by a long shot?

arcadeace
12-09-2005, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well to those stating "who is the information keeper to avoid bias, or incorrect information"...All of us..."THAT" is the point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wasn't your point to me. Maybe inferred but definitely not stated.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's the debate that works down to the truth, and in that debate comes even more sources to consider and facts. In the end, only a fool will refuse to agree with such glaring truth. So the corrupt orginizer of the information will also be revealed.

Yet only through discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Assuming such discussion will have enough mutual respect... maybe some cycling process can take place. That's a pretty big assumption tho from experience here, as that does mean mutual. It looks to me you've taken my response, respectful as it was yet not convinced and in agreement, too personal. As if I should have known your exact point?

I'm even more pessimistic then when this thread first started. Good luck.

-HH- Beebop
12-09-2005, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
...So what thread are you perpetuating other then "when's the next patch?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1771097952

Started as a calendar without pictures.

LEBillfish
12-09-2005, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Something that has puzzled me for over 30 years now.
Is that in any passing referance to the "Tony" in any of the publications I have read. (BTW The Pacific Theatre is not a favourite of mine) They would usually state that the allies thought of this aircraft as the Japanese "109".
However as I am sure we are all aware that apart from the inline engine.
This plane bears no semblance of 109 in her.
But I do see a lot of resemlance to the Heinkel HE-100. A plane I am sure Japan was given an example of.
Point is Have you found any referance to this. Or am I off by a long shot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From a post I made on another forum........


http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/he100-2.jpg

Actually, one could easily say that....Look in the pic above, nose "shape" is so Ki-61 it is not even funny. Exhaust, cover just over it, wing roots, and even fuselage back to the tail mounting point (tail very LW)...More on the He-100 here....

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he100.html

Nice resource here..very nice...

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he100.html

Balance here I am not absolutely sure of simply going from book and web resources then speculation.

However, the Japanese, Kawasaki specifically purchased rights to manufacture the DB.601A before any He-100 ever arrived, even plans for by far. More so, those that were bought went to the "Navy"...and that is a VERY important point.

The Navy and the Army in Japan were very separated. In fact, even getting them to coordinate activities was very difficult. It was in fact so separated, the Navy had ground based planes, tanks, troops, etc... & the Army had its own ships and sea duty personnel and equipment.

More so, the Japanese had also purchased a number of BF-109E Series planes for use in tests and other development... http://www.j-aircraft.com/captured/testedby/me109/me109.htm . Supposedly as well Takeo Doi & Shin Owada (the designers of the Ki-60/61) were intending to "out design" the "BF-109". In kind the information required to build the He-100 never showed (to the Navy) to be built by "Hitachi"...and just as in the U.S. Hitachi is not Kawasaki like Chrysler is not GM.

However.........Though the body is really quite different from the He-100 & BF-109, shockingly so at the engine mount (the Ki-61 was a uni-body "sort of" design that utilized the sheet metal for support vs. a frame bolted on...much more advanced)....The "shape" is very clearly similar if not almost exactly like that of the He-100. Much of it is, even the covers. Wing roots, canopy area, and fuselage very similar....Oddly as well, Kawasaki also tried developing an "Evaporative Cooling System" just like the He-100.

Now, consider most of us here would read "Western Literature". The Allies at first believing there were many He-100 never the less at first nick named the Ki-61 "Mike" for Messerschmitt BF-109. Today information on the Ki-61 is still just trickling out, language barriers huge to name one reason. So it is "possible" not assured, that Kawasaki did indeed acquire the He-100's when the Navy did not pursue building their He-100 version and utilized it to help in their design. However, considering U.S./British wartime records at first referred to it as a 109, it is very possible that it is assumed the 109 influenced it instead of the He-100.

Yet none of that is clear or positive. We know the Japanese had both types of planes. We know Kawasaki had procured a license to build DB.601A engines yet modified the design to the Ha-40 (they are not the same nor the Navy AE1A/P to either)...and we know the Ki-61 though looking similar was by far not the same plane as either.

So hard to say what exactly happened.....As to the radiator, that is simply common and left wing tank access clear "vs. 109" yet is much larger on the Ki-61. Landing gear though pivoting further out also very different, and common to most if not all Japanese planes so not a proving fact either.

Kelly

Pirschjaeger
12-09-2005, 11:34 PM
Have you seen the 109x LeBillfish? That looks even more like a Japanese plane.

Fritz

JSG72
12-10-2005, 09:19 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Thanks for that, LEBillfish
Happy Hunting!

LEBillfish
12-10-2005, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Have you seen the 109x LeBillfish? That looks even more like a Japanese plane.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I havn't have a pic?......btw, I think Ploughman has caught one of your cousins.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

armi2
12-10-2005, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
However.........Though the body is really quite different from the He-100 & BF-109, shockingly so at the engine mount (the Ki-61 was a uni-body "sort of" design that utilized the sheet metal for support vs. a frame bolted on...much more advanced </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at the drawing you posted in your windscreen oiling thread and the blueprints available here [url]http://www.aviationshoppe.com/catalog/kawasaki-ki61-hien-tony-p-85.html[\url] I believe you will see that the Ki-61 uses a very conventional engine mount bolted to the firewall much like any other inline engined plane. It may have been boxed in by the surrounding bodywork, but it was not of uni-body construction.

LEBillfish
12-10-2005, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by armi2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
However.........Though the body is really quite different from the He-100 & BF-109, shockingly so at the engine mount (the Ki-61 was a uni-body "sort of" design that utilized the sheet metal for support vs. a frame bolted on...much more advanced </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at the drawing you posted in your windscreen oiling thread and the blueprints available here [url]http://www.aviationshoppe.com/catalog/kawasaki-ki61-hien-tony-p-85.html[\url] I believe you will see that the Ki-61 uses a very conventional engine mount bolted to the firewall much like any other inline engined plane. It may have been boxed in by the surrounding bodywork, but it was not of uni-body construction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noooooooooo, you're looking at a photo for the experimental Ki-60 mount that actually may even be a test stand....Look at my pictures closer. There was no tubular frame mounting to a firewall.

AND "uni-body" construction is a bad term on my part. That meaning a spporting "frame" extending out from the body in one piece. Someone else used the term "Monocoque" construction where in the "body" or skin of the fusalage due to it's design bears the load.....That a MUCH better and correct term for it.

The engine does not use a supporting frame or rods.

SeaFireLIV
12-10-2005, 11:08 AM
When I originally came to this site I believed everything that was said here about aircraft. I was quite new to forums and it seemed quite natuural that noone would dare post if they didn`t actually really KNOW what they were talking about.

Many posters speak with authority too, yet, completely wrong or totally biased. It never occurred until later that these people could be anyone, from anywhere.. what were their credentials? Their motives? Their knowledge base?


After this I learned to take everything here with a pinch of salt and, if I were really curious, to challenge the poster of the topic.

armi2
12-10-2005, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:

Noooooooooo, you're looking at a photo for the experimental Ki-60 mount that actually may even be a test stand....Look at my pictures closer. There was no tubular frame mounting to a firewall.

AND "uni-body" construction is a bad term on my part. That meaning a spporting "frame" extending out from the body in one piece. Someone else used the term "Monocoque" construction where in the "body" or skin of the fusalage due to it's design bears the load.....That a MUCH better and correct term for it.

The engine does not use a supporting frame or rods. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did a little more poking around and you're right, the Ki-61 does not use a conventional separate mount frame. The mounts are instead incorporated into the built-up structure of the airframe. Monocoque is a better term for it. I yield to the iron skillet!