Next aircraft speculation

[Hiromachi]

A Zero makes sense. It's an iconic aircraft of WW2 that was well liked by it's pilots. Weak by the standards of the later war but if flew beautifully by the sound of it.

 

I always love reading Samurai by Saburu Sakai. Though the English version has been alleged to have fictitious stories added to it increase sales - with great variation between that book and Saburu Sakai's Japanese biographies given as proof. I can't read or speak Japanese though and have never read other biographies so can't verify any truth to the claim of fiction.

 

There wasn't as much edited as people suggest, lot of bad credit was given to M. Caidin but after some time it just turns out not to be true in everything. Samurai is not as inaccurate as some claim it to be. The best thing to get though is "Zerosen no shinjitsu" by S. Sakai. But thats if one can speak Japanese.

 

 

And in regard to weakness, as long as Japanese pilots were not outclassed in the skills and were not numerically inferior by a great margin they could put a decent fight. Prime example can be 17 January 1944 when Rabaul Zeros engaged P-38Js, F4Us and F6Fs escorting bombers and managed to bring down 8 Lightnings, 1 Corsair and Hellcat and one Avenger for no loss. In the air aircraft can still do well if pilot knows what he is doing. And judging by the amount of self claimed aces on servers like ACG I guess we would have a decent combat. But thats all still a speculation ^^

[BlackLion213]

Merged threads. :)

 

Getting our terrain division working at an appropriate capacity.

 

I think this will pay serious dividends for your hard work and investment. I see huge potential in these new DCS terrains - at least you can count on me buying them from you. :D

 

One quick thought, one thing I hear lots of people asking for is AI traffic at airports and bases, much like the pre-set AI road traffic. While creating a new AI system for that aerial traffic could be quite laborious (and is probably more of ED's thing) a work around could be very helpful.

 

Your instant action free flights have a nice variety of traffic built in. You could create a "traffic template" that ships with each map. It would be a mission template that includes scheduled flights and AI activity at each airport/base in the map. Allowing the player to create quick missions with lots of activity around them or modify the traffic as needed to accommodate specifics of the mission. It would allow players to really appreciate the work your team invested creating new AI and understand how they fit in to the map, but with more flexibility to explore or try things out than an instant action mission.

 

An example of this type of template would be the case of an Iwo Jima map - the "traffic template" would have the US fleet stationed off the island, other carriers launching a few aircraft at different times, a small bit of airborne traffic (like 4-6 aircraft), but no combat or enemy activity.

 

Anyway, just a thought, but I bet a lot players would really appreciate it and it would add to the "wow" factor for new maps.

 

-Nick

[SpeedStick]

I think this blablablablabla

-Nick

 

I liked everything you said.

[Cobra847]

I liked everything you said.

 

That's a crude way of putting it -- but I will agree.

 

We'll see if we can look into something like that. Good idea!

[BlackLion213]

I liked everything you said.

 

That's a crude way of putting it -- but I will agree.

 

We'll see if we can look into something like that. Good idea!

 

Thank you!

 

-Nick

[Hiromachi]

Well, there absolutely is a need for a traffic. There always was in the air some patrol, land bases as well as US/Japanese aircraft carriers maintained CAP for protection, there were always some aircraft assigned for a long/short range reconnaissance missions ...

 

I mean reconnaissance itself would be quite interesting, I doubt any player would like to do it (except those who truly seek immersion, and so far I saw less than few of such) yet its important to discover enemy fleet, observe enemy base and so on. Programming AI to carry the recce operations, report position of enemy fleet, state of enemy base, etc. etc.

That would bring it to the whole new level of sim experience.

[Blackarrow]

A6M Zero please!!!!!!!!

[Blackarrow]

A6M Zero please!!! Please!!! Please!!! Please!!!!

[MicroShket]

I mean reconnaissance itself would be quite interesting, I doubt any player would like to do it (except those who truly seek immersion, and so far I saw less than few of such) yet its important to discover enemy fleet, observe enemy base and so on. Programming AI to carry the recce operations, report position of enemy fleet, state of enemy base, etc. etc.

That would bring it to the whole new level of sim experience.

Yep, it would be great to see something like E15K, E16A, etc. But I think that it will be always unflyable due to very low interest in non-dogfight missions. Alas. :(

[Hiromachi]

Yep, it would be great to see something like E15K, E16A, etc. But I think that it will be always unflyable due to very low interest in non-dogfight missions. Alas. :(

 

I'm talking about more serious stuff like Ki-46 or C6N. Not to mention that all kinds of combat aircraft were used for such tasks, B5N, TBF, D4Y1 or SBD. That's in case there would be a need to keep some limits, so same aircraft can perform various tasks. D4Y1 with external fuel tanks had a great range, same for C6N.

And man oh man, recce missions could be exciting as well for a player. Spotting and navigating requires a lot of skill, than you have to maintain visual contact to keep the attack groups informed and at the end you also have to avoid CAP.

But I guess most will end up in fighters anyway ... thus AI capable of performing all the other duties might not only be desired but actually required.

[Vincent90]

I would prefer a Nakajima plane over the A6M, since I doubt a flying gas can with outdated weaponry would be fun in a dogfight

 

(would buy such an icon anyway though)

[WinterH]

While I love Zero much more than I do Corsair, I have to agree. Corsair is considerably faster, much tougher, dives better, rolls better, and have overall better firepower. Though zero also has some advantages, it would be a hard fight for Zero.

 

So as a rival Shiden or Ki-84 would probably be closer matched with Corsairs.

 

That said, I would still enjoy a Zero a lot if it gets chosen.

 

As for the Nakajima, you know Ki-43 is also a Nakajima, only with even more oudated weaponry, and at least as much as a gas can :). I'd enjoy it too though. Always loved they way it looks and flies.

[badaboom]

An Aircraft is only as good as it's Pilot,In the right hands a maneuverable light weight Zero with 20mm cannons could be Deadly.

[MicroShket]

So as a rival Shiden or Ki-84 would probably be closer matched with Corsairs.

 

That said, I would still enjoy a Zero a lot if it gets chosen.

 

As for the Nakajima, you know Ki-43 is also a Nakajima, only with even more oudated weaponry, and at least as much as a gas can :). I'd enjoy it too though. Always loved they way it looks and flies.

Ki-84 is a rival for P-51, imho, which, by the way, is already in DCS.

And what do you mean by "gas can"? Lack of protection? Ki-43-2 had it for fuel tanks. So, it is better with it. Furthermore, it's dive speed restriction is better.

 

An Aircraft is only as good as it's Pilot,In the right hands a maneuverable light weight Zero with 20mm cannons could be Deadly.

Undoubtedly, but you need at first to find someone, who will turn with Zero. :p

[Hummingbird]

Ki-84 is a rival for P-51, imho, which, by the way, is already in DCS.

 

Seems like more of a Corsair rival.

 

And what do you mean by "gas can"? Lack of protection? Ki-43-2 had it for fuel tanks. So, it is better with it. Furthermore, it's dive speed restriction is better.

 

Later A6M's had this too, incl. a higher permissable dive speed, not to mention a much superior armament.

[MicroShket]

Seems like more of a Corsair rival.

Later A6M's had this too, incl. a higher permissable dive speed, not to mention a much superior armament.

As I know it was introduced in A6M5c and Hayabusa get it earlier. This modification was heavy with worse maneuverability.

Nope, pre-U-4 Corsairs are outperformed by Hayate. Ki-84 has a greater rate of climb, maximal speed, armament and maneuverability.

Edited January 27, 2016 by MicroShket

[Hummingbird]

As I know it was introduced in A6M5c and Hayabusa get it earlier. This modification was heavy with worse maneuverability.

 

No, the dive speeds were increased already with the A6M3, and yet again with the A6M5a. In addition to this a more powerful engine as well as WEP was added.

 

Nope, pre-U-4 Corsairs are outperformed by Hayate. Ki-84 has a greater rate of climb, maximal speed, armament and maneuverability.

 

Keep in mind that the operational Ki-84's probably weren't as fast as the ones tested by the US running on higher octane fuel. So I doubt it was much faster, best estimates I've seen puts it at ~650 km/h on Japanese fuel.

[Nerd1000]

No, the dive speeds were increased already with the A6M3, and yet again with the A6M5a. In addition to this a more powerful engine as well as WEP was added.

 

 

 

Keep in mind that the operational Ki-84's probably weren't as fast as the ones tested by the US running on higher octane fuel. So I doubt it was much faster, best estimates I've seen puts it at ~650 km/h on Japanese fuel.

Did the US increase the boost pressure when they put better fuel in? Higher octane rating offers no benefit unless the boost pressure or compression ratio is increased to take advantage of the enhanced knock resistance.

 

This is why there is little reason to run your car on premium petrol unless the engine is set up to take advantage of it (depending on the composition it may have slightly better energy value per litre, but the difference is marginal at best).

Edited February 11, 2016 by Nerd1000

[Hiromachi]

No, the dive speeds were increased already with the A6M3, and yet again with the A6M5a.

 

The dive speeds in fact could be greater than standard often quoted, but greater limit was introduced after some accident (even though structure was strengthened nobody bothered to change the documents) so the limit was imposed of 340 knots Indicated, even though aircraft was successfully tested in dives up to 370 knots Indicated.

So the dive speed limit left a great safety margin here ...

 

And yes, A6M3 and A6M5 were officially cleared for 360 knots Indicated and from A6M5a a thicker aluminum skin was used, so limit was raised again up to 400 knots.

 

In addition to this a more powerful engine as well as WEP was added.

WEP was always present in Zeros, starting from the earliest models. It was "obtained" by usage of the "Emergency Boost Control" ->

The Emergency Boost Control provided a safeguard against over-boost pressure that could easily damage the engine, "blowing a jug" or cylinder being the common term. This activating lever, which was located in the vicinity of the throttle lever - often below or to the rear of it - was normally in the down or back position (This was a pull-out knob on the instrument panel of the Zero, Paul, and other examples). It functioned through a servo-motor connected to an aneroid near the carburetor. Regardless of how far the throttle was pushed forward, this aneroid would measure the over-pressure limit and prevent the carburetor throttle valve from opening beyond a rated altitude limit for respective engine. With change in altitude, this aneroid would automatically adjust the carburetor for maintaining that limit. This allowed the pilot to concentrate on air combat where maximum power was the norm, and not have to be concerned about inadvertently over-boosting the engine.

 

This is how the Emergency Boost Control lever on a Zero-sen looks like :

 

In emergency situation such as in combat, more power could make the difference between victory or defeat. By moving the Emergency Boost Control lever forward, up, or pulling a handle, the automatically controlled restriction limit was raised, and it was then up to pilot to gamble on the maximum power to apply as viewed on the manifold pressure gauge, and hope that the engine would not fail because of over-boost.

 

Keep in mind that the operational Ki-84's probably weren't as fast as the ones tested by the US running on higher octane fuel. So I doubt it was much faster, best estimates I've seen puts it at ~650 km/h on Japanese fuel.

 

Nobody knows how actually fast were the Ki-84s, I have seen huge discrepancies in numbers and the data of the Homare engine are not helping either, since for the most of the time the engine was simply not allowed to be operated at maximum revolutions due to restrictions imposed by the manufacturer, and it wasnt until late 1944 when it was cleared for higher ratings. But only available official numbers for Ki-84 come from prototype manual, so much earlier time.

 

One thing is certain, IT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN, that Ki-84 in US was tested on any other fuel than 92 Octane. No 100 Octane or 150 Octane gasoline was used in any of the tests I have seen, and pictures from Olmsted Field make it clear since on the side of the aircraft there was a big information written : "Service this airplane with Grade 92 Octane Fuel. (...) Not suitable for aromatic fuel."

 

So far its the same kind of myth as that Zero was a copy of Howard Hughes or Chance-Vought aircraft.

 

Did the US increase the boost pressure when they put better fuel in? Higher octane rating offers no benefit unless the boost pressure or compression ratio is increased to take advantage of the enhanced knock resistance.

 

Since no different fuel was used no different boost ratings could be obtained. Again, Olmsted Field documents indicate a maximum take-off/emergency of 3000 RPM / 49.6"Hg and rated power 43.7"Hg which is consistent with ratings from Japanese documents ( respectively +500 mmHg and +350 mmHg).

Edited February 11, 2016 by Hiromachi

[Drag0nWIng]

So you guys sure that LNsim will product A6m?

[Hiromachi]

If you make F4U, Iwo-Jima and in further perspective Okinawa than answer is pretty obvious. Sooner or later there will be A6M.

[Hummingbird]

Nobody knows how actually fast were the Ki-84s, I have seen huge discrepancies in numbers and the data of the Homare engine are not helping either, since for the most of the time the engine was simply not allowed to be operated at maximum revolutions due to restrictions imposed by the manufacturer, and it wasnt until late 1944 when it was cleared for higher ratings. But only available official numbers for Ki-84 come from prototype manual, so much earlier time.

 

One thing is certain, IT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN, that Ki-84 in US was tested on any other fuel than 92 Octane. No 100 Octane or 150 Octane gasoline was used in any of the tests I have seen, and pictures from Olmsted Field make it clear since on the side of the aircraft there was a big information written : "Service this airplane with Grade 92 Octane Fuel. (...) Not suitable for aromatic fuel."

 

So far its the same kind of myth as that Zero was a copy of Howard Hughes or Chance-Vought aircraft.

 

Question then is wether or not the US performance figures are derived from actual test flights?

 

If so, and if they ran on 92 octane fuel, then the figures they obtained were probably close to what the Japanese were achieving with the aircraft in the end, i.e. a 686 km/h top speed at altitude and a 4275 ft/min climb rate at SL.

 

In terms of performance this would make it better than the F4U-1, but still worse than the F4U-4.

 

In terms of maneuverability I have little doubt that the Ki-84 was superior to anything in the US inventory, that was also the clear opinion amongst the American pilots who flew the thing.

 

However considering that the Corsair was far more agile than the P-51 and boasted similar performance, I still say that the Ki-84 is more of a Corsair rival than a Mustang rival.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Hiromachi]

Question then is wether or not the US performance figures are derived from actual test flights?

 

True, this is a good question. I tried to contact Middletown Air Depot, Olmsted Field, now being Harrisburg Air National Guard Base since the actual base was deactivated in 1969, asking for any documents (they should be public, unclassified) or knowledge of them but was told they dont have anyone overlooking the archives. Someone promised me a reply if they will find anything but I never heard a word from them again.

 

Many of the documents, like war translations (PACMIRS) or evaluations got destroyed in 50s and 60s so we might never know.

 

If so, and if they ran on 92 octane fuel, then the figures they obtained were probably close to what the Japanese were achieving with the aircraft in the end, i.e. a 686 km/h top speed at altitude and a 4275 ft/min climb rate at SL.

 

Something between 650 to 680 kph sounds proper. But the only actual number for Ki-84 is the one listed for prototype aircraft, 624 kph.

 

In terms of performance this would make it better than the F4U-1, but still worse than the F4U-4.

 

No wonder, F4U-4 had much stronger engine. Japanese were behind in engine development, even though in pure horsepower output their engines were slowly catching up by the end of the war.

[Hummingbird]

What power settings was the prototype flown at though? Is that information available?

 

624 km/h sounds awfully low for a 1,990 hp engine.

 

As for engine technology, well considering the weight of the Homare 21 engine (810 kg) it was quite efficient, at least if it achieved the 1,970 hp specified in the TAIC report. In that case it would be right up there with the American P&W R-2800 engine.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Hiromachi]

Not sure, that was one of the first airframes tested in 1943, when Major Iwahashi recorded mentioned speed at 6500 meters and a climb time of 6 minutes 26 seconds to 5,000 meters. I'd suppose that was +250 mmHg / 2900 RPM which seems to be confirmed by ADVATIS 92 document.

 

Side note here, Japanese did not record the performance for emergency power so at best you will find data for rated power, thus always there is a margin left for emergency power.

 

There are also documents available for another test aircraft, when 1st Lt. Funabashi took plane number 4 (104) up to 6,120 meters, and with his boost at 350 mm of mercury, 3,000 rpm (most likely Homare 21 was for the first time used), a loaded weight of 3,794 kg, beat Iwahashi's record with a speed of 631 kph, slightly higher speed was recorded even higher, at 6650 meters a 634 kph. (This plane did not have had the jet-propulsion exhaust stacks, as the previously tested also didnt have them) Time to altitude also improved, as the aircraft reached 5000 meters in 5 minutes and 37 seconds. During diving trials, the aircraft attained a speed of 798 km/h at which point the test pilot experienced difficulty with his oxygen supply, necessitating termination of the test.

 

So multiple problems we have here :

- absence of individual exhaust stacks which provided additional thurst, they were present on all production aircraft. And judging by the FW-190 D-9 threads we had on forums, for those high speed aircraft exhaust thrust could make quite a bit of a difference.

- weight, being higher than on the mass produced aircraft.

- multiple minor differences existing between prototypes, pre-production and production aircraft ...

 

There is finally a Ki-84 evaluation carried by the British on captured aircraft, which was flown at +250 mmHg / 2900 RPM. Aircraft was compared to Seafire LF III, however the model was not in a good shape and during continuous trials the Constant Speed Unit failed and maximum performance couldn't be obtained. Document states : "It's top speed would be about 330 mph at sea level, 400 mph at 20,000 feet and 380 mph at 30,000 feet", but its nothing better than estimation :(

 

Here is a video of the aircraft captured on Luzon :

[ame]

[/ame]

 

As for engine technology, well considering the weight of the Homare 21 engine (810 kg) it was quite efficient, at least if it achieved the 1,970 hp specified in the TAIC report. In that case it would be right up there with the American P&W R-2800 engine.

It was also comparatively smaller, the diameter was 1180 mm while P&W R-2800 engine was 1342 mm and BMW 801 was 1290 mm.