All-Aircraft-Simulations
Which is better, P-51D-20NA, Fw-190A-8, or Ki-84Ia ? - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: IL2 MODS Download & Discussion (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=267)
+--- Forum: IL-2 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=348)
+---- Forum: IL2 MODS Discussion Section 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=292)
+---- Thread: Which is better, P-51D-20NA, Fw-190A-8, or Ki-84Ia ? (/showthread.php?tid=68216)

Pages: 1 2 3

- {HVY-E}Jinxx - 04.02.2010

Well, I guess I'll throw my .02 in.

Everyone here knows my preference of plane.... DUH!
The P51 was MUCH better then the Jug down below 12000ft. Once you get above that, the P51 falls off dramatically in power due to it's gearing of the supercharger and lack of a turbo.
It was quite common for the P51's and P47's to fly next to each other and then at about 15000ft, the P51's would look over at the Jug drivers only to see them looking at them and pointing up. The P47's would then push the throttles up to Ludicrous Speed and out climb them all the rest of the way up. Since the P51 doesn't kick in the 3rd stage of it's supercharger until 19000ft or so, the P47's would be long gone and already at 30000+ ft. I have quite a few stories from pilots on both sides about this feet.

As far as the P51B goes, well, from everything I've read about it and from talking to WWII Pilots from the 332nd when they came to Ft. Bragg, it was a bit under powered. The P51C (Mustang III) was the fastest P51 at alt. Capable of keeping up with a P47 until about 25000ft, and the guns commonly jammed on all versions of the P51 due to the off canted mounted they needed. This was due to the Laminar flow wing. It was improved with the D model, but still jammed with excessive G loads.

Now, as far as best fighter at the end of the war...
There are quite a few reports of US pilots, P51 drivers, flying around in Ki-84's stating that it was the by far the best fighter out there. It just came a day late and a dollar short. Just like the German's ill fated ME-262. Many US test pilots stated that had the Japanese had seasoned pilots in those birds at the end of the war, many B29's would not have even made it to their targets.

Keep in mind, I'm a die hard P47 fan, but I have to give props to the Japanese for making a beautiful plane. It was faster and more maneuverable than the P51 at most altitudes and could almost keep up with the P47 until 22-25000ft. Then the P47 would take off again.

- BBury - 04.02.2010

The Ki-84 was a remarkable "fighter" and very good looking when it worked.

One might ask oneself, with it's fantastic performance, why didn't we see more of them instead of A6M's, Ki-61's, Ki-44's a few N1K's and even Ki-43's? Especially at the end of the war?

Fighter and Combat plane are not the same thing. Which plane gives you more bang for the buck and yet has good performance? Did the Ki-84 have good armor and pilot protection? Could it carry 4,000lb's of bombs? Could it operate off a carrier? When defining "best", you have to ask best at what?

I know the poll was for the P51D-20, 190A8 and Ki-84 but if we're talking about the ultimate W.W.II airplanes excluding jets, what about the F4U-4, P-51H, P47N, F7F? Although the F8F was a screamer down low, it's performance fell off to average for the period above 10,000ft and was more of a point defense fighter with light armament. With the DH103 (Hornet) and TempestII/SeaFury coming online these were at the peak of piston airplane performance as well.

For all around performance of piston fighters I'd go with the Hornet (range,speed,climb,guns). For all around best combat plane I'd go with the F4U-4 (good range, speed, climb, armor, guns, best single engine ordnance load).

BB

- Murph - 04.02.2010

I think that you almost need to differentiate between real life and the game Il2 when asking this kind of question. The circumstances and goals of air combat during WWII were so different than those in the game.
For example, in Il2 we like to compare planes meeting each other on a one-to-one basis- in real life no fighter pilot in his right mind would willingly get into a "fair fight". He would'nt engage unless he thought he had an advantage, provided the situation was'nt desperate. There was no replay in real life, so there were chances that even the most aggressive pilot would'nt take, but that you often see in Il2.
In Il2 we almost always have enough planes, enough fuel and enough ammo. We are not cold, stressed, exhausted and terrified.
Historically, the various nations involved in the war were'nt there to test who had the best planes, the goal was to win. The best plane is not much use to a pilot who only has a few hours of training and is outnumbered twenty to one. It's also not much good without fuel or replacement parts. For example; The 109 was intended to have it's engine removed and sent back to the factory by rail for servicing, and replaced with a fresh engine. The engine was mounted with just four big bolts to facilitate this. It worked well until the rail system got bombed into non-existence. Then ground crews had to try and figure out how to keep an engine running that was'nt designed to be serviced in the field.
I think the person putting the original question should clarify whether they mean real life or Il2. These are parallel universes.

- Plumps - 04.02.2010

Uhg these comparison threads.....the best plane in the world can be beaten by a crap plane if you have a loose nut sitting in the cockpit.
Thats like giving a noob the best gun in the world and a fantastic marksman a 22, I have my doubts the noob will win. :roll:

- {HVY-E}Jinxx - 04.02.2010

Murph Wrote:I think that you almost need to differentiate between real life and the game Il2 when asking this kind of question. The circumstances and goals of air combat during WWII were so different than those in the game.
For example, in Il2 we like to compare planes meeting each other on a one-to-one basis- in real life no fighter pilot in his right mind would willingly get into a "fair fight". He would'nt engage unless he thought he had an advantage, provided the situation was'nt desperate. There was no replay in real life, so there were chances that even the most aggressive pilot would'nt take, but that you often see in Il2.
In Il2 we almost always have enough planes, enough fuel and enough ammo. We are not cold, stressed, exhausted and terrified.
Historically, the various nations involved in the war were'nt there to test who had the best planes, the goal was to win. The best plane is not much use to a pilot who only has a few hours of training and is outnumbered twenty to one. It's also not much good without fuel or replacement parts. For example; The 109 was intended to have it's engine removed and sent back to the factory by rail for servicing, and replaced with a fresh engine. The engine was mounted with just four big bolts to facilitate this. It worked well until the rail system got bombed into non-existence. Then ground crews had to try and figure out how to keep an engine running that was'nt designed to be serviced in the field.
I think the person putting the original question should clarify whether they mean real life or Il2. These are parallel universes.

Well put Murph.

This is what separates the Arm Chair Aces for the 'REAL' Heroes.

S! To all my fellow Vets.

- BBury - 04.02.2010

Shoot, if we're talking about the game then the Ki-84 wins hands down.

- Alex T. - 04.02.2010

Monguse Wrote:Deac and Hughes or Jeckel and Hyde

You normally write emails and notes to yourself right along answering them?

LOL he also used the same kind of sig: picture of the same size and motto under.. are some people really so sad?? :wink: