-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
AW Ki-84 Ver 2 is now finished
- Thread starter AcWai
- Start date
sixstrings5859
Charter Member
Like the alternate cfg and air files. She flies great. A terrific job. Love the pit. Thanks for the update......Always something new here on the CFS2 side. There is still some great work being done on the CFS3 side,it's just at a slower pace. Regards,Scott
miamieagle
Charter Member
Thank you!
bearcat241
SOH-CM-2023
Hmmm.... Seems to me that someone here is trying to rewrite history regarding the Bearcat.
The Bearcat did not pass all of its acceptance testing until May 1945 even though production had started a bit earlier.
A perfectly working Ki 84 apparently was a rarity, but even if it having its best day, it would have had quite a challenge with the F4U-4 which actually DID see combat unlike the F8F-1 which never quite made it. The F8F-1 would not have had that much of an advantage in speed over a perfectly functioning Hayate except at Sea Level. It would have had a serious advantage in climb rate, but also had some G limitations due to structural issues that never really were solved.
- Ivan.
The Bearcat did not pass all of its acceptance testing until May 1945 even though production had started a bit earlier.
A perfectly working Ki 84 apparently was a rarity, but even if it having its best day, it would have had quite a challenge with the F4U-4 which actually DID see combat unlike the F8F-1 which never quite made it. The F8F-1 would not have had that much of an advantage in speed over a perfectly functioning Hayate except at Sea Level. It would have had a serious advantage in climb rate, but also had some G limitations due to structural issues that never really were solved.
- Ivan.
bearcat241
SOH-CM-2023
Hmmm...seems that someone here is trying to be an -+-+-+- regarding my "what-if" post...showing off your big knowledge base perhaps?
I've got a pretty good handle on the the History of the Bearcat, the Ki-84 and the Corsair, but thanks for the pretended "assistance". There was actually a squadron of Bearcat's embarked and headed to Japan at the time of their surrender.
Here's one for YOU:
F8F Bearcat: An Engine With a Saddle | HistoryNet
By Stephan Wilkinson
1/29/2018 • Aviation History Magazine
What the bantamweight Bearcat lacked in finesse it made up for with brute strength.
The Grumman F8F Bearcat is the Dodge Viper of airplanes. Both are outrageous, lightweight, in-your-face- American, monster-motor artifacts of fast-disappearing eras, designed on the cheap and produced quickly. The car/airplane comparison even extends to the fact that both have what might be considered truck engines: the Viper a V-10 originally intended for big Dodge pickups, the Bearcat an 18-cylinder, 2,250-hp radial (in the F8F-2) that some fighter purists would consider a “bomber engine.”
Like a Viper, the Bearcat was about as utilitarian as a funny car. It couldn’t carry much, couldn’t go far, was uncomfortable, super light, loud as hell and had just one mission in life: to be fast and agile. “No missiles, no radar, just a nasty, mean little street fighter with an attitude,” as Commemorative Air Force Bearcat demo pilot John Deakin puts it.
But even before the big Dodge sports car existed, there were automotive comparisons to the Bearcat. Said one 1950s Navy pilot, “The Hellcat was a Buick, the Corsair a Cadillac, but the Bearcat was a Maserati.” Another likened it to a Harley-Davidson, a classic celebration of Yankee excess. And to revert to an even earlier transportation era, a third tailhooker called the Bearcat “an engine with a saddle.” He wasn’t kidding. The Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine weighed about 3,000 pounds, and the airframe behind it totaled 4,000 empty. To say a Bearcat was half engine isn’t much of an exaggeration. “Pretty hard to strap a bigger engine on a smaller airframe,” Deakin points out.
The F8F was designed as a special-purpose airplane, to simply launch, climb like a rocket and intercept incoming Japanese aircraft. Into a typical over-the-deck headwind, a Bearcat had a 200-foot takeoff roll, less than two-thirds of an F6F Hellcat’s, and even on a landlubber’s runway it was difficult to get the throttle two-blocked before liftoff. The Bearcat carried little fuel but didn’t need much for this mission, and it had a rate of climb unequaled until the jet age; it could do nearly 6,400 feet per minute to 10,000 feet.
Touch that ROC with your Ki-84...
bearcat241
SOH-CM-2023
BTW
FYI...the F8F Bearcat equipped squadron VF-19 (Satans Kittens) was onboard the carrier USS Langley, headed for the Pacific theater when Japan surrendered on August 16, 1945
FYI...the F8F Bearcat equipped squadron VF-19 (Satans Kittens) was onboard the carrier USS Langley, headed for the Pacific theater when Japan surrendered on August 16, 1945
An instructor in my high school flew F8Fs in the late 40s before transitioning over to F9Fs. Along the way he went through the standard training mill but once getting his wings had a chance to try his hand on the F6F, F4U, and even the TBM (which he called "one handful of airplane"). He did manage to take a barrier wire and flip his Bearcat over on its back one day - even had the photos to prove it. Went from getting ready to burn up to nearly drowning in about a second, he said.
I thought the reason for having the F8F was to engage incoming kamikazes that had somehow leaked through the BARCAPs on the outer edge of the carrier formation. That R-3360 Corsair was, from what I've seen, another attempt to do that but with a substantially larger air frame.
Or at least that's what I've seen in print elsewhere.
Or at least that's what I've seen in print elsewhere.
Hi-
The literature I have echoes what Maskrider read... my literature refers to a TAIC evaluation of one of two airworthy Hayates captured at Clark Field. Over the summer of 1945 it was "flown against the best U.S. and Allied fighters" where it outclimbed "all aircraft including the P-51D... more maneuverable in turns and even outperformed the Spitfire (didn't mention which mark)". The Ki-84 did so well they shipped it stateside and tested it against a P-51H and a P-47N, where it outclimbed and out-turned both, though both were faster... Did they ever test it against a Corsair? who knows... I would guess a Corsair pilot could successfully boom-and-zoom against one...
So, like Ivan said, most likely, the deadliest adversary of the Ki-84 was its quality of manufacture...
Against the F8F, probably no fun for the Hayate pilot, but not necessarily easy meat for the Bearcat...
Salutes to all,
-Mike Z.
The literature I have echoes what Maskrider read... my literature refers to a TAIC evaluation of one of two airworthy Hayates captured at Clark Field. Over the summer of 1945 it was "flown against the best U.S. and Allied fighters" where it outclimbed "all aircraft including the P-51D... more maneuverable in turns and even outperformed the Spitfire (didn't mention which mark)". The Ki-84 did so well they shipped it stateside and tested it against a P-51H and a P-47N, where it outclimbed and out-turned both, though both were faster... Did they ever test it against a Corsair? who knows... I would guess a Corsair pilot could successfully boom-and-zoom against one...
So, like Ivan said, most likely, the deadliest adversary of the Ki-84 was its quality of manufacture...
Against the F8F, probably no fun for the Hayate pilot, but not necessarily easy meat for the Bearcat...
Salutes to all,
-Mike Z.
bearcat241
SOH-CM-2023
Mike, do i detect a little bias for the Corsair with the B-n-Z remark, which could have easily been said about all the other Allied "testers"? I get it...the heart wants what the heart wants. About the knife-fighting, check out the max G limit of the Bearcat vs that of the Hayate ;-)...
Too bad about the QoM thing...its kinda like the early war Zero mystique all over again.
Roxanne, you definitely sound like a what-if expert...well done
Too bad about the QoM thing...its kinda like the early war Zero mystique all over again.
Roxanne, you definitely sound like a what-if expert...well done
Hello Bearcat241,
I hadn't noticed the name associated with the post before I responded. ;-)
Yes, I knew about VF-19 aboard USS Langley. Production examples of F8F-1 actually started coming out I believe in Feb 1945 even though it had not finished testing until May 1945.
First of all, this was not intended to be a comparison of size of knowledge base or anything else.
The article you quoted is interesting in the sheer number of irrelevant comments about automobiles and even motorcycles.
I don't think Harley Davidson ever built one serious racing motorcycle and in Japan, an associate of mine who had a Harley had a really run time with it because it had just a huge motor for such little power output that the Japanese taxing formulas had problems wit it.
The actual power output of the C series R-2800 engine in the F8F-1 was closer to 2400 HP if I recall correctly.
This is NOT a "Bomber Engine" unless you consider a P-47M/N and F4U-4 to be bombers. The F8F-2 does not use quite the same engine or propeller as the F8F-1 and didn't come out until 1947.
Regarding fuel loads, the F8F-1 carried 185 gallons which is actually quite a lot. It is about what the P-51 started life with.
By coincidence, it is within 1/2 gallon of the fuel load of the Ki 84 as well (702 Liters).
If you are looking for light airframes with a big engine, then you might want to look at a Griffon Spitfire. At least they didn't end up with the crazy structural problems the Bearcats did. I had a discussion with my Son a while back about how some really smart guys could make a poor decision, have that decision blessed because everyone knew they were "smart guys" and then end up with a bunch of dead pilots all in the name of saving 250 pounds.
FWIW, I don't dislike any of these aircraft. It isn't MY Ki 84 any more than it would be my Bearcat. One of the reasons I was collecting information on the F8F is because I intend to build one so maybe eventually it will be my Bearcat.
- Ivan.
I hadn't noticed the name associated with the post before I responded. ;-)
Yes, I knew about VF-19 aboard USS Langley. Production examples of F8F-1 actually started coming out I believe in Feb 1945 even though it had not finished testing until May 1945.
First of all, this was not intended to be a comparison of size of knowledge base or anything else.
The article you quoted is interesting in the sheer number of irrelevant comments about automobiles and even motorcycles.
I don't think Harley Davidson ever built one serious racing motorcycle and in Japan, an associate of mine who had a Harley had a really run time with it because it had just a huge motor for such little power output that the Japanese taxing formulas had problems wit it.
The actual power output of the C series R-2800 engine in the F8F-1 was closer to 2400 HP if I recall correctly.
This is NOT a "Bomber Engine" unless you consider a P-47M/N and F4U-4 to be bombers. The F8F-2 does not use quite the same engine or propeller as the F8F-1 and didn't come out until 1947.
Regarding fuel loads, the F8F-1 carried 185 gallons which is actually quite a lot. It is about what the P-51 started life with.
By coincidence, it is within 1/2 gallon of the fuel load of the Ki 84 as well (702 Liters).
If you are looking for light airframes with a big engine, then you might want to look at a Griffon Spitfire. At least they didn't end up with the crazy structural problems the Bearcats did. I had a discussion with my Son a while back about how some really smart guys could make a poor decision, have that decision blessed because everyone knew they were "smart guys" and then end up with a bunch of dead pilots all in the name of saving 250 pounds.
FWIW, I don't dislike any of these aircraft. It isn't MY Ki 84 any more than it would be my Bearcat. One of the reasons I was collecting information on the F8F is because I intend to build one so maybe eventually it will be my Bearcat.
- Ivan.
bearcat241
SOH-CM-2023
Hello again...
We can get back to Andrew's credits whenever you like. Meanwhile...
We can get back to Andrew's credits whenever you like. Meanwhile...
Hello MikeZola, Roxane-21,
You may find this post kind of funny considering what I have already posted, but in a one on one fight, I would pick the Bearcat because it has just about all the advantages except perhaps firepower.
The Ki 84 isn't a particularly light aircraft at about 8300 pounds loaded 226 square foot wing.
The F8F-1 is relatively light for American fighters at about 9350 pounds with 244 square foot wing.
I believe MikeZola summed it up pretty well that this wouldn't be an easy fight.
This is also on the assumption that the Bearcat pilot doesn't over-G his aeroplane and lose a wingtip or that the structure hasn't weakened in service as they tended to do and on the assumption that nothing got goofed up during the production of the Ki 84.
The problem with the F4U-1WM and the F2G was that although they were very fast down low, they lost that performance pretty quickly with altitude to the point that they slower than the R-2800 Corsairs. The F4U-4 was also pretty comparable for speed down low when it became available.
- Ivan.
You may find this post kind of funny considering what I have already posted, but in a one on one fight, I would pick the Bearcat because it has just about all the advantages except perhaps firepower.
The Ki 84 isn't a particularly light aircraft at about 8300 pounds loaded 226 square foot wing.
The F8F-1 is relatively light for American fighters at about 9350 pounds with 244 square foot wing.
I believe MikeZola summed it up pretty well that this wouldn't be an easy fight.
This is also on the assumption that the Bearcat pilot doesn't over-G his aeroplane and lose a wingtip or that the structure hasn't weakened in service as they tended to do and on the assumption that nothing got goofed up during the production of the Ki 84.
The problem with the F4U-1WM and the F2G was that although they were very fast down low, they lost that performance pretty quickly with altitude to the point that they slower than the R-2800 Corsairs. The F4U-4 was also pretty comparable for speed down low when it became available.
- Ivan.
Yes, Ivan-
If all things were equal, I agree- the edge would have to go to the F8F. Much, though, would depend on, for lack of a better description, the "On Any Given Day" syndrome... My B-n-Z comment about the F4U is just a assumption of mine, that Corsair pilots were probably advised not to try to turn fight the Hayate, but rather let the speed advantage allow the F4U pilot to decide whether to fight or run...
I suppose it's indicative of how well received Andrew's work is, to have sparked such a discussion!
Cheers, Mike Z.
If all things were equal, I agree- the edge would have to go to the F8F. Much, though, would depend on, for lack of a better description, the "On Any Given Day" syndrome... My B-n-Z comment about the F4U is just a assumption of mine, that Corsair pilots were probably advised not to try to turn fight the Hayate, but rather let the speed advantage allow the F4U pilot to decide whether to fight or run...
I suppose it's indicative of how well received Andrew's work is, to have sparked such a discussion!
Cheers, Mike Z.
Roxane-21
SOH-CM-2023
This is what words like "would", "could", "should", "may" or "might" are made for.Roxanne, you definitely sound like a what-if expert...well done
Andrew's work is always much appreciated, and we are all eagerly waiting for his updated P-51D.
sixstrings5859
Charter Member
Really enjoying the Ki-84. Great work updating a fine aircraft. Like the new revised air files. Pretty deadly in combat as far as CFS2 goes. Thanks to all involved for all the time and work on this project. Looking forward to the P-51D updated version. I'm sure it will be great also. Regards,Scott
It's interesting comparing the performance specifications of these aircraft, but the one thing mostly missing from this conversation is fighting tactics and pilot skill in employing them. All fighter pilots worth their salt learned to exploit the best performance features of their aircraft and avoid getting into situations where an enemy aircraft had better performance.
For example, Allied pilots learned early not to get into a turning fight with any Japanese fighter as almost all of them could out turn the Allied fighters. Among many other things, the speed maintained during a fight (energy) also plays a factor in any fight, as it effects the overall capability of any aircraft - such as the performance of the control surfaces, turning radius, structural strength or weaknesses, roll rate, stall, climb and dive, etc.
Clearly the Zero was a superior fighter compared to the F4F and P-40 based on specification to specification, yet the combat record shows those two were able to hold their own once their pilots learned the best tactics to use and which to avoid given their own aircraft capabilities. The same would be true regarding the Ki.84. One of the USAAF's best aces Thomas McGuire died because he let himself get sucked into a low, slow turning fight with one, stalled out and crashed. The Ki.84 won without firing a shot. Had he used the p-38 strengths instead, it may have had a totally different outcome.
Having said that, we are talking about aircraft in roughly the same performance class. A ki.84 would stand little chance against an F-16
For example, Allied pilots learned early not to get into a turning fight with any Japanese fighter as almost all of them could out turn the Allied fighters. Among many other things, the speed maintained during a fight (energy) also plays a factor in any fight, as it effects the overall capability of any aircraft - such as the performance of the control surfaces, turning radius, structural strength or weaknesses, roll rate, stall, climb and dive, etc.
Clearly the Zero was a superior fighter compared to the F4F and P-40 based on specification to specification, yet the combat record shows those two were able to hold their own once their pilots learned the best tactics to use and which to avoid given their own aircraft capabilities. The same would be true regarding the Ki.84. One of the USAAF's best aces Thomas McGuire died because he let himself get sucked into a low, slow turning fight with one, stalled out and crashed. The Ki.84 won without firing a shot. Had he used the p-38 strengths instead, it may have had a totally different outcome.
Having said that, we are talking about aircraft in roughly the same performance class. A ki.84 would stand little chance against an F-16