The Kh-38MT may not actually exist

[An_Pigeon]

@PercussionCap

Well, the Kikka only flew once and although it was going to enter service eventually, the war obviously ended and put a stop to it. We don’t know how well it would have worked as an interceptor (we don’t even have much data on how well it flew, only the test pilot’s subjective remarks) but putting two cannons on a plane isn’t particularly difficult - I am waiting on a book from japan that looks promising in terms of information on the Kikka’s armament; there were ~25 aircraft in various stages of completion so it’s not impossible that guns were fitted to one.

However unlike the Kh-38MT, there is no doubt the Kikka existed and flew, and the guns were readily available and were at least intended to be mounted on an interceptor variant.

we have no idea how it flew, other than as you said one mans subjective remarks on the plane.
and while the armerment may have worked on slower propeller planes, it oculd have caused issues within the kikka, we just do not know and that is the issue.
Hell they couldn’t even fold the landing gear up mate, as it states in the first picture.

@PercussionCap

However unlike the Kh-38MT, there is no doubt the Kikka existed and flew, and the guns were readily available and were at least intended to be mounted on an interceptor variant.

the issue is, the Kh38 does exist, we have laser guided variations of it.
we also know IR seekers exist and are used by the russians, evidence in the KH29T.

So whats to say its not plausible that they’ve done it?
we knew the kikka flew, but weve no idea how well, it had no armerment fitted and was for all intents and purposes not functional as it is implemented at all.

@PercussionCap

This is completely different, that’s a game mechanics issue.

An Pigeon:

A game mechanics issue? in what regard? the Tiger 1’s 88 performs exactly as it should.
its been proven in numerous reports even with the half of the formula they use to calculate the penetration that the actual shell velocity is off on the guns.

yet its been accepted for years and left.

@PercussionCap

I agree, however this is a game and creative liberty is taken. That’s just how it is.

Alright then, Kh38MT is creative liberty then, nout wrong with it being in the game xD

[ron_23]

@An_Pigeon

we have no idea how it flew, other than as you said one mans subjective remarks on the plane.

it is still possible to get an idea of how it would fly because of how similar the airframe is to the Me-262

@An_Pigeon

we also know IR seekers exist and are used by the russians, evidence in the KH29T

KH-29T is TV guided and not IR
the LMUR is a russian AGM with IR guidance

[An_Pigeon]

@ron_2303

it is still possible to get an idea of how it would fly because of how similar the airframe is to the Me-262

An Pigeon:

No that is garbage, an idea of how it would fly? if we have no physical data on how it flew then why is it even in the game, like going, ah right we kinda know how the T95E1 gun was positioned but well base it off the patton.

Not how it works, its a seperate entity entirely man.

@ron_2303

KH-29T is TV guided and not IR
the LMUR is a russian AGM with IR guidance

@ron_2303

KH-29T is TV guided and not IR
the LMUR is a russian AGM with IR guidance

Aye I mean TV guided MB mate. gets muddled up every now n then

BTW i am for the KH38MT to be removed, as long as we all acknowledge the plethora of other crap that needs to go with it?

[ron_23]

@An_Pigeon

No that is garbage, an idea of how it would fly?

Yes because of aerodynamics, if you build the same aircraft twice but change out the engines and armament would the flight performance drastically change?

[MotorolaCRO]

@SwingfireOP

You’re asking to remove quite a few vehicles which requires tree reworks, as well as multiple ammunition changes which require BR recalculation.

Yeah, no.
We’ve had massive, massive holes and still have them in certain trees but I didn’t see the game burn down because of that, so hiding half a dozen vehicles across multiple nations and BR won’t have an effect you’re thinking it would.

When it comes to ammo/weapon removals, it’s pretty easy to ballpark vehicle’s new BR based on other parameters and new ammo/weapons they’re getting. This whole process is literally done whenever an unique vehicle gets added to the game.

@SwingfireOP

I imagine gaijin know what the winter release will look like in a broad sense already, with the autumn one features pretty much nailed down already. At least, I’d hope so.

I bet they also knew they wouldn’t remove fiction added in 2017 by the time 2026 hits.

[An_Pigeon]

@ron_2303

Yes because of aerodynamics, if you build the same aircraft twice but change out the engines and armament would the flight performance drastically change?

It’s not the same though, as is proven even with teh model in WT, they made changes to it.

Hell kikka was shorter, smaller wing span, worse engines, and apparently heavier too.

[ron_23]

@An_Pigeon

they made changes to it.

not really they basically have the same flight model, the difference is the engine performance, which causes the Kikka to have worse STR and ITR

you can see that all the lines are parallel to each other

[An_Pigeon]

@ron_2303

not really they basically have the same flight model, the difference is the engine performance, which causes the Kikka to have worse STR and ITR

In game, im talking in real life.

Also even the devs on the russian side said that stat shark is absolutely useless for the stats of things, hell believe that was mentioned in here.

Im talking about in real life we have no idea how the KIKKA actually flew

[PercussionCap]

@An_Pigeon

we have no idea how it flew, other than as you said one mans subjective remarks on the plane.

That’s simply the reality of dealing with prototype aircraft, and it’s far from the only one. Even well-known, production aircraft see plenty of disagreements on their performance, even between real pilots that flew them at the same time.

For example, you can find two german pilots, who fought in the battle of britain, one claiming they could outturn spitfires in their 109s and the saying they could not. Both pilots have several air victories to their name.

Who do you believe?

@An_Pigeon

and while the armerment may have worked on slower propeller planes, it oculd have caused issues within the kikka, we just do not know and that is the issue.

The Type 5 cannons had already been fitted to aircraft capable of reaching the Kikka’s typical speeds (in a dive) and worked fine. I doubt they’d face insurmountable problems with them.

@An_Pigeon

Hell they couldn’t even fold the landing gear up mate, as it states in the first picture.

It’s not that they “couldn’t”, they never intended to retract the gear in the very first flight at all. If you read the whole sentence it claims exactly this.

“…the landing gear was not to be retracted for the initial flights”

This is VERY common when testing new aircraft.

@An_Pigeon

we knew the kikka flew

And we don’t know if the 38MT was even built at all, much less to a state where it could be launched from an aircraft.

Huge difference.

@An_Pigeon

its been proven in numerous reports even with the half of the formula they use to calculate the penetration that the actual shell velocity is off on the guns.

Again, completely different topic since we know the US 90mm guns actually existed.

@An_Pigeon

Kh38MT is creative liberty then

This would only be comparable to the Kikka if there was evidence the 38MT was launched from an aircraft and guided itself at a target, and we simply didn’t know what its performance was.

@ron_2303

it is still possible to get an idea of how it would fly because of how similar the airframe is to the Me-262

They aren’t similar at all. For one, the 262 is much heavier and has swept wings; Kikka has straight wings and is almost half the weight empty.

@An_Pigeon

if we have no physical data on how it flew then why is it even in the game

You’d be surprised at how little data we have for most production aircraft in the game.

@An_Pigeon

ah right we kinda know how the T95E1 gun was positioned but well base it off the patton

Unlike the 38MT, the T95E1 actually existed too.

@An_Pigeon

as long as we all acknowledge the plethora of other crap that needs to go with it?

Which is none because the 38MT is the fakest of them all.

[ron_23]

@An_Pigeon

Im talking about in real life we have no idea how the KIKKA actually flew

with its wings and jet engines

DUH
/s

on a serious note:
it cannot be that much different from the me-262 because of areodynamics

the shorter wings result in a higher roll but less overall lift, which reduces STR

this difference can be calculated becuse we have the exact wing dimentions

@An_Pigeon

Also even the devs on the russian side said that stat shark is absolutely useless for the stats of things, hell believe that was mentioned in here.

because they dont like it being used for bug reports, same for WTRTI

and iam not saying it is a 1:1 representaiton of how those things fly ingame, iam using it to get a rough idea

[ron_23]

@PercussionCap

They aren’t similar at all. For one, the 262 is much heavier and has swept wings; Kikka has straight wings and is almost half the weight empty.

kikka also has a swept leading edge

[PercussionCap]

@ron_2303

kikka also has a swept leading edge

That’s not a swept wing. That’s trapezoidal.

[H_ngma]

Why are there Japanese planes in my Russian bias hatethread

[PercussionCap]

Because apparently, a plane that existed and flew is just the same as an AGM that was never built.

[ron_23]

i said leading edge not wing

[PercussionCap]

Those are very, VERY different things and are not comparable at all in terms of flight behavior.

[ron_23]

yeah and they also have completly different lift coefficents ingame
i dont dissagree with you, iam just saying that it is close enough to get a baseline

[PercussionCap]

@ron_2303

iam just saying that it is close enough to get a baseline

I am disagreeing and saying it’s not close enough for a baseline. In terms of basic features it’s much closer to a Su-9 or He-280.

[An_Pigeon]

@PercussionCap

That’s simply the reality of dealing with prototype aircraft, and it’s far from the only one. Even well-known, production aircraft see plenty of disagreements on their performance, even between real pilots that flew them at the same time.

For example, you can find two german pilots, who fought in the battle of britain, one claiming they could outturn spitfires in their 109s and the saying they could not. Both pilots have several air victories to their name.

Who do you believe?

Neither. You go and test it for yourself with correct test and controls as is good practice.

@PercussionCap

The Type 5 cannons had already been fitted to aircraft capable of reaching the Kikka’s typical speeds (in a dive) and worked fine. I doubt they’d face insurmountable problems with them.

You dont get what I mean, the kikka wasn’t flown with the weight of the cannons mounted, we have no idea how it could affect the infrastructure of the plane.

@PercussionCap

And we don’t know if the 38MT was even built at all, much less to a state where it could be launched from an aircraft.

Huge difference.

considering the TV guided heads exist, and hte missiles, why couldn’t it have.
Creative liberties mind you mate.

@PercussionCap

Again, completely different topic since we know the US 90mm guns actually existed.

An Pigeon:

Again but, another creative liberty from gaijin in wence they change something to suit them.

@PercussionCap

This would only be comparable to the Kikka if there was evidence the 38MT was launched from an aircraft and guided itself at a target, and we simply didn’t know what its performance was.

No, it would be comparable to the kikka if we could prove it was actually created. the kikka never mounted guns, nor even dropped a bomb for testing.
we do not have clue what its actual performance was.

As was stated.

@PercussionCap

Unlike the 38MT, the T95E1 actually existed too.

The comparisson was to be as silly as saying the ME262 and Kikka were the same flight performance wise ,just nonsense.

@PercussionCap

Which is none because the 38MT is the fakest of them all.

How? how is it xD ostwind II for a start.

KIKKA.
we lost the R2Y’s
F16AJ
Ho ri’s
chinese model T34 as we hav eno idea or record of them using one with a 76mm gun
and thats just some off me head.

@ron_2303

on a serious note:
it cannot be that much different from the me-262 because of areodynamics

the shorter wings result in a higher roll but less overall lift, which reduces STR

this difference can be calculated becuse we have the exact wing dimentions

Then calculate it, use the weight as if it has cannons with ammo mounted, and fuel for an extended flight too. to work into its entire flight charactaristics.

@ron_2303

because they dont like it being used for bug reports, same for WTRTI

and iam not saying it is a 1:1 representaiton of how those things fly ingame, iam using it to get a rough idea

Again i was refering to real life. so the in game flight charactaristics aren’t my concern, but fair enough

[BeautifulTai_wan]

@MrBombastic8

m247 fully exist, its just garbage and it didnt work properly

No, it actually worked fairly well. The problem was the media didn’t realize that, so they took the M247 locking on to the outhouse fan (because the radar return will look broadly similar to the radar return of a helicopter’s blades) as evidence the tank was a failure. The only failure of the M247 was the fact that it’s too slow to keep up with the M1 Abrams and M2/M3 Bradley.

Reporters went and then took all the “failures” to press to generate outrage and fuel further controversies as those make lots of money for the media.

The M247 was actually very good at its job. It was just put in front of people who didn’t understand that. (Also didn’t help that the radar was so sensitive a small hand fan would set the automatic tracking off)