The C-205...Under-rated?

[Masherbrum]

The C.205 has similar performance to the Bf.109G-6, although it doesn't turn or climb quite as well. It may be a bit closer to the Bf.109G-2 with gondolas. So, it's about on par with other aircraft from it's time period. It's a fun aircraft for sure (as is the C.202).

I, myself, prefer the armament, performance, and canopy framing of a 109, but this is not far removed from one- IMO it's an 'Italian 109', just as the Ki61 is a 'Japanese 109'. Hell I like anything with a Daimler Benz DB60x.

I can't wait for it to be updated...

The Ki-61 is based off of the Heinkel-100, NOT the Me-109.   

[Lusche]

When comparing the capabilities of two different aircraft, one has to strive for objectivity. That means, when evaluating both quantifyable as well as less quantifyable performance, you have to leave out differences in pilot skill. You basically have to assume both pilots having the same skill level (which means assuming both are decent sticks capable of reaching the respective performance limits). Determining absolute performance under controlled conditions has absolute preference to subjective/anecdotal experience in MA (which still has some worth under certain circumstances)

Now to quote again:

Any decent 205 driver will dictate the fight against a 109F.

"Dictate" is a very strong word in air combat. It means that one plane has such a huge advantage in a critical area of performance, so that the other fighter has no chance but to fight on his superior enemy's terms. Usually that's speed & acceleration, because the faster plane can choose to engage & disengage, the better turner can not, unless he has a initial positional advantage.

Now let's take a look at the 205 vs 109F





Not on these charts: Dive performance (clear advantage: C.205), Rate of roll (C.205 wins by a slight margin)

As you can see, both planes have the about the same speed and acceleration and are very close in rate of climb (C205 having a slight edge up to ~6000ft, the 109F a bigger one above that altitude. Both turn rate as well as turn radius the 109F clearly outclasses the 205 (with and without flaps).
The 205 has the better roll rate, but not to such an extend that it could use it to "dictate" the fight. It has the far better weapon package, but that ain't dictating a fight either, it's just a big bonus when someone has managed (by using his plane's performance) to get a gun solution. The 205 is also better in a dive, but when a c205 noses down to get to speed the 109 driver can decide whether to or not to follow. It actually is a big advantage when the 205 started out with a positional advantage and is able to dive on a lower 109F.


There is only one area where one of the two planes has a very big, distinctive advantage, and that's in flat turn performance. And it's not the C205...

[Motherland]

The Ki-61 is based off of the Heinkel-100, NOT the Me-109.   

Didn't mean literally, but rather the way it looks it reminds me of the 109.
The Macchi's were certainly not based on the 109 either, but they remind me of one.

[Ack-Ack]

The Ki-61 is based off of the Heinkel-100, NOT the Me-109.   

True but initial eyewitness reports from US pilots in the PTO reported the Ki-61 as a C.205 and Bf 109F. 

ack-ack

[Masherbrum]

True but initial eyewitness reports from US pilots in the PTO reported the Ki-61 as a C.205 and Bf 109F. 

ack-ack

Indeed.   

[Anaxogoras]

People are in the habit of saying the e.g. C.205/Ki-61 are better than aircraft that outperform them on paper simply because they face pathetically weak opposition 95% of the time.

[Masherbrum]

People are in the habit of saying the e.g. C.205/Ki-61 are better than aircraft that outperform them on paper simply because they face pathetically weak opposition 95% of the time.

I can say it, because I actually know what the Ki-61 is capable of in this game.      

Ask:

AKDogg
B4Buster
BaldEagl
shamus
rob53
Rain000
Scotch
Scot12b
RedTop
and many other "weak opponents" I've fought.   

[Anaxogoras]

Oh yeah, and I've killed these aircraft with the Ki-61 this tour:

Bf 109K-4       
F6F-5       
Fw 190D-9   
Ki-84-Ia    
P-51D    
Spitfire Mk IX    
Spitfire Mk V    
Spitfire Mk XVI    
Yak-9U    

Therefore the Ki-61 is superior.

[Masherbrum]

Toughest one on that list is the Yak.   But, I suck at this game.   

[Anaxogoras]

Toughest one on that list is the Yak.   But, I suck at this game.   

Now there's an underrated aircraft.

[gatt]

Lusche,

nice and complete analysis. I have to admit that reading the chart the differences are much narrower than those I expected.

I base my analysis on 7 years of AH2, flying almost only the 205, the G-10 and the K-4. And (watching many good players) I consider myself an average pilot.

Anytime I tried the F-4, the G-2 and the G-6 I felt much less horizontal speed, diving acceleration (I mean slightly nosing down to gain speed) and roll rate than with the C.205.

I never turn fighted, I almost always fighted on the vertical, taking my 205 quite fast. This is probably why I almost won 90% of the 205 vs 109 fight I had. Again, in my experience 90% of 109 drivers keep them at average speed, ready to kick WEP and climb away. A 375mph IAS horizontal C.205 can catch almost anything in our arenas. a 450mph diving 205 can usually catch a 109-K or look him lawndart.

In my experience, after the merge, a 109 nosing down was immediately classified dead meat. I chased him down with my better maneuverability at high-very high speed and even if they zoomed up I could almost always get them.
If he zoomed up after the merge and got a better position I could almost always extend, reposition better and merge again. Provided that I kept my Veltro fast.

Yes, I understand that "dictate the fight" is too much, but keep those 205 fast and much of the teory will be less important than the real (ehm, virtual) thing.

I hope HTC will redo the 205 graphics. As soon as they do it I'll be back in the mid-late arenas.

[Boozeman]

Is the performance gain significant if you swap the cannons for the MGs in the wings?

As Lusche said, it's not worth it, altough I would not call the perfomance gains minor, they are instantly noticable, the 205 gets more docile in high AoA situations. But as said, loosing the quick kill capabillities completely neuteres these gains in many situations.

However, smart 205 drivers take a different apporach. Simply reduce the amount of ammo carried in the 12,7 mm and 20 mm guns. Preferebly more of the 12,7 mm than 20 mm but you get the idea. I would recommend to completly fire off the 12,7 mm ammo and reduce the 20 mm to 250 rds. This ways you retain most of your firepower but loose just as much weith, if not even more than with the less potent gun option.

Obviously, if you care for your hit %, this aint gonna help, if not, enjoy !       

[Anaxogoras]

This sounds like the debate about the P-47 and which gun package to take.  I always prefer to reduce my aircraft's ammo weight by killing enemies.

[Boozeman]

This sounds like the debate about the P-47 and which gun package to take.  I always prefer to reduce my aircraft's ammo weight by killing enemies.

Well, if given the chance, I would prefer it that way too, having a nice 5000 ft alt advantage over all enemys.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and when you get caught while climbing out, you wanna loose those 500 lb instantly.

But seriously, such weight reduction means do not work so well on other planes like on the 205. I have not checked the P47 in that regard, but from those that I checked out the 205 worked very well that way. Same goes for the 190A5 BTW, it does not gain as much as the Macchi, but enough to really consider it. Other planes that I suspect that could benefit from it without much impact on their kill capabilities are the Tempest/Typhoon, the Niki, and maybe the Jug (not sure though).

Where its not worth the effort are definitely the Mossie, P-38, Ponys, Ta152, the A8/D9 and of course all other planes that do not carry much ammo at all, or have rather weird setups like the P-39.