Next PAC setup please

[mitchk]

Same as @ top but Japs get N1K and Yanks get P-38.

[Slash27]

(hey, didn't we have the 38s in the recent Japanese Rocket Plane setup?).

Yep, I  managed to take her up for a few sorties, but I spent more time in the F6F and the Tempest. Too many good choices.






Punt yet again for these losers we call a CT staff.

So what bugs crawled up your ass....Bug?

[TheBug]

Originally posted by Slash27





Punt yet again for these losers we call a CT staff.

So what bugs crawled up your ass....Bug? [/B]

Damn and I thought I had made it so clear.

[Grits]

I think when we get the P38F or even the P38J we will see it a lot more in CT setups.

On the plane itself, I dont find it hard to fly at all, at least not any harder than anything else. Its huge rudder authority (thanks for the lesson Urchin), its great  zoom ability, and proper use of the flaps and throttle make it very deadly. Once I realized that I was using the rudders incorrectly and fixed that, it all came together and I love the 38 now.

I love blasting along at high speed about 2-3k lower than a Niki heading towards me, zooming as they dive to me, reversing at the top with rudders and flaps and coming back down for the keel. Tis sweet indeed.

[Slash27]

reversing at the top with rudders and flaps and coming back down for the keel. Tis sweet indeed.


I use the hell out of the flaps, but your gonna have to share this rudder secret with me.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
P-38 was used in the ground attack role in all areas of the Pacific as much as it was used in the same role in the European and Meditteranian area of operations.

ack-ack

Thanks Ack-Ack!

Now, what were loadouts for the most prevalent PTO types or was our model it?  Don't we need like f,g,j variants????


Sakai

[Grits]

Its not really a secret, you are probably already doing it. I was using tons of rudder, but not at the very tops of loops and verticle manuvers. Urchin looked like he was going into a flat spin almost at the top of his moves, and it was like a light when off, and I understood what I was doing wrong, or at least not doing at the right time. All he was going was using rudder to get over the top, but not just straight over, he was adding some roll with the rudder and following my angle. Like I said, you were probably already doing that.

[Reschke]

Originally posted by TheBug
Damn and I thought I had made it so clear.

I am tweaking the setup and do plan to run it AS I HAVE ALL ALONG; but not because of some comments and punts on the CT Board. Simply because I made a comment/promise to Squire/Warloc to do so and even told him that it most likely wouldn't happen until my rotation in March.

[Jester]

Originally posted by Squire
"End at Rabaul, 1944" Version 1.1

Guadalcanal Map

Planseset:

USN/USMC/USAAF/ANZAC:

CVs: F4F, TBM, SBD.
Airfields: P-40E, birdcage F4U-1, SBD, BostonIII, A-20G.

One question about the above plane set. By 1943/44 at the time of the action around Rabaul the Carriers had already switched over to useing the F6F HELLCAT and the F4F Wildcat had restricted to Escort Carriers and second line jobs.

Why was the Hellcat not included?

[Slash27]

Like I said, you were probably already doing that.


uh  yeah, I was doing that too of course.......


  now wheres my note pad?

[Squire]

Thats a good point Jester, let me explain the setup.

First off it was always considered "One" of a possible "Many" versions of Rabaul that could be done. Yes, you could have the F6F included and not have the F4F. You could also have the F6F and not have the F4U-1.

I tried to find a happy medium I thought would work, and post that as the version.

As for the F6F, it was only just coming into service in September 1943, and the F4Fs were still operating from most CVs in late 1943. So...it depends how you narrow down the timeline.

Many F6Fs that served in the Solomons were USMC and USN land based, as the USN F6Fs were being deployed on the new Essex Carriers, and were focusing on the Central Pacific. CV based F6Fs did see combat in the Solomons though, yes.

Playability and variety do play a part as well. I wont use the "B" word

[Reschke]

Originally posted by TheBug
Punt yet again for these losers we call a CT staff.  Maybe if I actually never showed up in the arena I'd have a chance at being a staffer.  Seems to be the number one qualification.

Some of us actually have families and work for a living and can't spend all our time playing fighter pilot like we really want to every day.  

[TheBug]

Thanks for the punt Reschke, at least your taking a little time to make yourself useful.