PDA

View Full Version : Hien bombload



Waldo.Pepper
09-17-2004, 04:55 PM
I love the dev update. And I love the Ki-61 Hien. (I think it will be suicide to try and fly it in the game- but still). And if the Ki-100 comes from it (like in reality) that will be great.

I have lots of pictures of the plane fitted with droptanks on the shackles. Not even something as obscure as AJ Press - Monografie Lotnicze nâ?05 - Ki 61 has a pictures with bombs fitted.

So does anyone have a picture of the thing fitted with those bombs?

Waldo.Pepper
09-17-2004, 04:55 PM
I love the dev update. And I love the Ki-61 Hien. (I think it will be suicide to try and fly it in the game- but still). And if the Ki-100 comes from it (like in reality) that will be great.

I have lots of pictures of the plane fitted with droptanks on the shackles. Not even something as obscure as AJ Press - Monografie Lotnicze nâ?05 - Ki 61 has a pictures with bombs fitted.

So does anyone have a picture of the thing fitted with those bombs?

adadaead
09-17-2004, 11:27 PM
Why will it be a suicide to fly it.

Ot vinta http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Only in the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be."

Die, but do not retreat.
Joseph Stalin

RAC_Pips
09-17-2004, 11:46 PM
From the Ki-61-1c model onwards provision for 2 x 250kg bombs could be fitted.

Waldo.Pepper
09-18-2004, 02:13 AM
To RAC_Pips

I know it CAN have bombs on the shackles. (Sorry I tried to be really clear in the original posting). What I am looking for is a PICTURE (NOT DRAWING) that it actually did. I cannot even find a combat account of the JAAF using the plane as a fighter-bomber, or an account of an allied plane intercepting/downing one with bombs on it. Itâ's nice to have it in the game, and maybe even I would howl had they been omitted. But I can't find any record of them having used it as a fighter-bomber. (I'm sure they did. But the evidence is about as rare rocket tubes on a P-40 (I have a picture of that one though!)

Next -

Why suicide to fly one.

Oh my! I'm really hesitant to post this.

Opinions are dangerous, especially on these boards. Anyway here goes.

I think of the Hien as a transitional fighter. A transition from the early war experience of the Japanese where maneuverability was everything. The Ki-61 Hien is fast but not fast enough to get away. Maneuverable - but not maneuverable enough (like the earlier Japanese planes (Zero/Oscar again) to evade. It is a jack-of-all-trades master of none kind of plane. A flying compromise that neither inspires or succeeds. I think it also has poor visibility (when compared to other Japanese planes e.g. Zero/Oscar.)


(OK here's where I really get in trouble.)

In the game I expect the Hien to share the worst faults of the BF series, specifically its inline engine. (i.e. its glass jaw.) It would not surprise me too much (and I don't think any of us would hold it against them) if the developers took a little shortcut here, and recycled some code. Thinking, same engine (same enough anyway) same performance same damage model. So I expect it to have the same windscreen oiling etc etc.

As it flies over the Pacific the length of missions over the sea will be lengthy. I think the inline engine (and its greater delicacy) will combine with the other factors I mentioned to make it a very hard plane to survive in.

Not complaining, even if my gloom and doom is the case.

I like the Ki-61 Hien VERY much. Even if it is a stinking Army plane. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif IJN all the way!


IL2/FB/AEP/PF is still the best game there is. And the only game for me. Itâ's all I play now.

Daiichidoku
09-18-2004, 03:11 AM
I love all the Japanese types....heck, I even found a Ki61 Hien mousepad...but I don't expect to be flying that deathtrap very often, if at all...the only thing good about it in FB should be that its not RL...no sweating the totally unreliable engine...

Also lucky for any late war IJA/IJN type, no reliablility/workamnship problems

This means the Ki100 will be a far better performer than it really was in the field...wonder if PF will model it as the overweight wood and steel desperationship the majority of the Ki100s were.....bet it wont be

even later build Ki84As had some wood components in it, making it heavier and degrading performance....and of course, that is NOT modelled into the B and C models in FB already, where they would have been IRL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://groups.msn.com/TaoofDaiichidoku/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=1

tigertalon
09-18-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:

I think of the Hien as a transitional fighter. A transition from the early war experience of the Japanese where maneuverability was everything. The Ki-61 Hien is fast but not fast enough to get away. Maneuverable - but not maneuverable enough (like the earlier Japanese planes (Zero/Oscar again) to evade. It is a jack-of-all-trades master of none kind of plane. A flying compromise that neither inspires or succeeds. I think it also has poor visibility (when compared to other Japanese planes e.g. Zero/Oscar.)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jane's Fighters of world war II:

When Ki61 first entered combat over New Guinea in April 43 it proved itself to be superior to P38s (early versions of course), P39 and P40.

The Ki61-II-KAI (which I don't think we will see in game) was one of the best propeller driven fighters of the war.

regards, tt

ElAurens
09-18-2004, 05:01 PM
When the Ki61 was first introduced into the theatre it was almost singlehandedly responsible for the accelerated introduction of the P38.

And as to the Ki100 being a "desperationship", I have to ask what you are smoking. The Ki100 was considered the the best aircraft in the Japanese inventory. It contained the reliability of the radial engine and the refinements of a modern airframe design. It's only real failing was that it was too little too late...

If properly modelled, they should both be formidable opponents and a joy to fly.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2004, 09:09 PM
Don't worry about the Tony bombload. You're not really going to be able to do much with it. Tony is a pure fighter, not a fighter-bomber. It was Japan's best diver, but with 500 extra pounds strapped to it, you can bet performance suffers quite a bit. It's not going to make you forget about heavy P-38s, F4Us, and the like.

Waldo.Pepper
09-19-2004, 03:26 AM
More on Hiens performance.

I am hessitant to post more on the Hien. I am not really interested in getting into a battle of mere opinions supported by specious combat reposts.

From Francillon p 115.

The Hien in April 1943 deployed to the North Coast of New Guinea;

"immediately proved that the Ki-61 were better suited to combat the US and Australian aircraft than the Ki-43's which they supplanted in this theatre,"

No kidding better than the Oscar. Quite an endorsement.

also page 116

"Over Japan Hiens were engaged against the B-29's, US Navy carrier aircraft and later, against Iwo Jima based P-51 Mustangs. Against the B-29 the Ki-61-I lacked the necessary altitude performance, but the type was not really outclassed until the arrival of the suberb Mustang."

Not outclassed but not better than either. (Parity) Not great, not bad, middle of the road. Kind of like what I said earlier (Jack of all trades master of none.) Holds its own with everything until the Mustang, then it implied that everything after the Mustang beats it.

and from page 118

"the mid-war years it was the only Japanese aircraft which could successfully engage the fast Allied fighters by combining some of the Nipponese machines traditional maneouverability with a strong and well protected structure."

Successfully engage, is very vauge and hardly a ringing endorsement. A Pete can 'successfully engage' a Hellcat, just not very often.


From; http://www.vectorsite.net/avhien.html

"Even before the Hien saw combat, the Army had been pressing Kawasaki for an improved version of the same aircraft."

"The Hien proved initially successful in combat against American fighters. As the war in the Pacific ground on, however, the Ki-61 found itself increasingly outclassed, but it soldiered on until the end of hostilities."

I think this initial success can be attributed solely to the Allied pilots unfamialiarity with this new type. See the following.

"The new Japanese fighter caused some pain and consternation among Allied pilots, particularly when they found out the hard way that they could no longer go into a dive and escape as they had from lighter Japanese fighters."

Surprise at something new. Solution;

"5th Air Force Commander General George Kenney found his P-40 Warhawks completely outclassed, and begged for more P-38 Lightnings to counter the threat of the new enemy fighter."

Send me better fighters. P-38's (which was mentioned in an earlier post). Not because the Hien is better than P-38's (it was not) but because it is better than Oscar's, as is finally making a dent in the P-40's.

All this is interesting, but flawed when applied to PF, because PF does not model poor quality, and the real world does, but it not mentioned per se in these quotes and reports.

Also If I ever do find a picture or even a combat report of the Hien carrying bombs, I shall let you know. It must be out there.

LEXX_Luthor
09-20-2004, 12:24 AM
A Dynamic Campaign with Midway going the other way for example could leave the Japanese quality better off than it really was. They would have to program several "quality" FMs for how the campaign goes.

Also quality varied widely with each aircraft. The Whinig this would create.

Not even sure how much was bad quality or hastily trained pilots flying the machines. Best they stay away from this idea.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Waldo.Pepper
09-20-2004, 01:33 AM
I would prefer quality were left out of the game also. But to my mind it is already creeping in.

For example:

Engines on Me-262.

Those are quality characteristics not designed features. Surely no one things that the engines on the Me-262 were designed to self destruct? They catch fire in the game because they caught fire in real life, due to poor quality.

The same could be done for all planes, and to have it for some and not others is discriminatory.

Either put it in or take it out. Please, no half measures.

PlaneEater
09-20-2004, 05:08 AM
There's a difference between accurate depiction of what were exceptionally unreliable engines and trying to depict the random flaws in imperfect mass production. I'd like both, but the second would be hard to do while not pissing everybody off in one way or another. Personally, I'd like *infrequent* random engine failures implemented on all planes, since that was a major concern for every pilot (engine failure on takeoff is the next thing on the checklist after takeoff. :P).

About the Me-262 engine, though...

The Jumo 004B's combustibility wasn't so much due to quality control as it was to the materials technology (metallurgy and some other factors) not being caught up to the design itself. Compressor blades in the early designs frequently took more stress and rapid wear than any alloy anybody had could withstand.

There were also some design problems inherent in the Jump 004B that led to it flaming up frequently. The reason slamming the throttle open almost always gave you a burning engine was that it flooded the chambers and caused fuel to leak out a number of let-off vents and run back into the exhaust, thus combusting in an uncontrolled environment.

Take notice that the Jumo 004B was a specifically bad case, though. The Go-229 and He-162 don't burst into flames if you swing the throttle back and forth quick--which is historically accurate.

GerritJ9
09-20-2004, 01:49 PM
A major problem for the German jet engine designers was the shortage of nickel, which was required for the turbine blading. They had to use inferior materials which were not as heat-resistant as alloys containing sufficient quantities of nickel. They did a lot of research into alternatives, even going into ceramics. Ceramic technology was in its infancy then, though, and nothing came of it.