AUGUST FSO: TACLOBAN TANGO

[Stoney]

Get rid of it.

Care to flesh that argument out?  I get tired of trying to pull this stuff out--that's two completely unhelpful posts from you now.  If you guys have beef with something, make a well-reasoned argument and present it.  I don't solicit for this type of feedback--it does me no good.

[Shifty]

Nobody really likes substitutes however until some of the planesets are filled out...
I personally don't have a problem if it adds a historical situation that cannot otherwise be recreated and if the sub is a close match. There is no heavy Japanese fighter to add to this scenario. However the BF-110C is a very close match.


Specifications Ki-45
Data from Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War [2]

General characteristics

Crew: Two
Length: 11.00 m (36 ft 1 in)
Wingspan: 15.02 m (49 ft 4 in)
Height: 3.70 m (12 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 32.0 m² (344 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,000 kg (8,820 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,500 kg (12,125 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Mitsubishi Ha-102 14-cylinder radial engines, 783 kW (1,050 hp) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 540 km/h (292 kn, 336 mph)
Range: 2,000 km (1,081 nmi, 1,243 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,800 ft)
Rate of climb: 11.7 m/s (2,300 ft/min)
Wing loading: 171.9 kg/m² (35 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.26 kW/kg (0.16 hp/lb)
Armament


Ko: 1 × 20 mm, 2 × 12.7 mm (.50 in), 2 × 7.92 mm (.312 in)
Otsu: 1 × 37 mm (1.46 in), 2 × 12.7 mm (.50 in), 1 × 7.92 mm (.312 in)
Hei: 1 × 37 mm (1.46 in), 1 × 20 mm, 1 × 7.92 mm (.312 in)
Tei: 1 × 37 mm (1.46 in), 2 × 20 mm
Bo: 1 × 40 mm (1.57 in)

Comparable aircraft

Fw 187
Westland Whirlwind
Messerschmitt Bf 110



Specifications Messerschmitt Bf 110 C-4
Data from[citation needed]

General characteristics

Crew: 2 (3 for night fighter variants)
Length: 12.3 m (40 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 16.3 m (53 ft 4 in)
Height: 3.3 m (10 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 38.8 m² (414 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,500 kg (9,921 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,700 kg (14,771 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Daimler-Benz DB 601B-1 liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 809 kW (1,100 PS (1,085 hp)) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 560 km/h (348 mph)
Range: 2,410 km (1,500 mi)
Ferry range: 2,800 km (1,750 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,500 m (35,000 ft)
Wing loading: 173 kg/m² (35.7 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.3644 kW/kg (0.155 hp/lb)
Armament


Guns:

2 × 20 mm MG FF/M cannons (180 rpg - 3 drums with 60 rpg, cannon were reloaded by rear gunner or radio operator during flight)
4 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns (1,000 rpg)
1 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 15 machine guns for defense

Comparable aircraft

Bristol Beaufighter
de Havilland Mosquito
Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke
Fokker G.I
Kawasaki Ki-45
Nakajima J1N
P-38 Lightning
Petlyakov Pe-2
PZL.38 Wilk
Westland Whirlwind

[morfiend]

 Shifty,

 Those specs are remarkably close,other than the firepower!

 Do you have an ammo loadout for the Ki45,just curious,it would seem that 2x20mm would be close to the 37mm depending on ammo load.

 Also,what variants of the KI were involved.

   

[j500ss]

Care to flesh that argument out?  I get tired of trying to pull this stuff out--that's two completely unhelpful posts from you now.  If you guys have beef with something, make a well-reasoned argument and present it.  I don't solicit for this type of feedback--it does me no good.

X 2,  I'm interested in hearing why as well

[Shifty]

Shifty,

 Those specs are remarkably close,other than the firepower!

 Do you have an ammo loadout for the Ki45,just curious,it would seem that 2x20mm would be close to the 37mm depending on ammo load.

 Also,what variants of the KI were involved.

   

Morf I cannot find the exact models used in the current setup. I can suggest or guess it would have been the KAIa model with the 20mm. The up gunned versions were probably to counter B-29 attacks on the home Islands. I've been able to find two Sentais the 27th and the 45th that operated the Ki-45 in the PI.

<S>

[morfiend]

Rgr,and Thx


 seems reasonable sub. to me.

   

[Anaxogoras]

Care to flesh that argument out?  I get tired of trying to pull this stuff out--that's two completely unhelpful posts from you now.  If you guys have beef with something, make a well-reasoned argument and present it.  I don't solicit for this type of feedback--it does me no good.

I've explained my arguments against substitutions on numerous occasions to you.  You already know them.  The last time we had a similar debate was about which 190 to use in Italy to represent 190 ground attack aircraft.  You asked for feedback and then refused to discuss the issue:

The 190A5 bears a closer resemblance to the performance of the earlier G series 190's, IMO.  Outside of wing drop tanks, ordnance capacity is almost identical.  Plus, the in-game F model and its PB-1 rockets were not introduced until later--mid-to-late 1944 if I understand correctly.  So, short answer is no.  The A5 will stay versus the F8, unless someone can provide a more convincing argument.  Thanks for the question though.

So I decided to step up the plate and continue the discussion:

The F8 could be restricted to only use the 4x50kg bombs on the wings to simulate the abilities of the G.  The 190G was a long range version of the 190F; the F has better range than the A5, which has extremely short range and can't carry both ordinance and a drop tank.

Second part of the argument:  the 190A-5 will be used as an air-superiority fighter if it's available, the 190F-8 would be used for what the 190G was used for.

And then you stonewalled me:

Sorry, we're going to leave the A5s as they are.

So forgive me if I don't think there's much point in giving you reasons and arguments.  You make up your mind on your own.

[Stoney]

So forgive me if I don't think there's much point in giving you reasons and arguments.  You make up your mind on your own.

Then don't post at all.

[whiteman]

KI-45, would love to have the real nick in the game

[Bino]

Care to flesh that argument out?  I get tired of trying to pull this stuff out--that's two completely unhelpful posts from you now.  If you guys have beef with something, make a well-reasoned argument and present it.  I don't solicit for this type of feedback--it does me no good.

Aside from the fact that the Bf-110C-4/B and the Ki-45 KAIb were both two-seat twins, IMHO they seem pretty different in weight, armament, power, and wing loading.*  >shrug<

Guess I'm just wishing out loud about the IJA/IJN plane set.  Sorry if this bugs you, Stoney. 

* see "Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green and "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Rene Francillon

[Stoney]

Aside from the fact that the Bf-110C-4/B and the Ki-45 KAIb were both two-seat twins, IMHO they seem pretty different in weight, armament, power, and wing loading.*  >shrug<

Guess I'm just wishing out loud about the IJA/IJN plane set.  Sorry if this bugs you, Stoney. 

* see "Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green and "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Rene Francillon

You must be looking at different numbers than the ones that Shifty posted.  What numbers do you have?  I don't have those two references you quoted.

[Bino]

Green only gives a few figures for the specific model of the 110 Aces High has, the Bf-110C-4/B.

engines:
    Daimler DB601N (1,200 HP at take-off, 1,270 HP at WEP at 16,400 feet)
weight:
    (normal loaded) 13,779 pounds

The following details are listed for the slightly lighter Bf-110C-1 (13,289 lb.) with the 1,050 HP DB601A-1 engines.

max speed:
    295 MPH at sea level
    326 MPH at 13,120 feet
    336 MPH at 19,685 feet
initial climb rate:
    2,165 feet per minute
    climb to 19,685 feet in 10.2 minutes
wing area:
    413.3 square feet
guns:
    2 x 20mm MG FF
    4 x 7.9mm MG 17

Green does not list any wing loadings.  I get 33.33 lb/sqft from his wing area of the C-1 and weight of the C-4/B.

Francillon only provides details on the Ki-45 KAIa and KAIc night-fighters, which carried a pair of dorsal oblique-firing 12.77mm or 20mm guns.

Ki-45 KAIa
engines:
    Nakajima Ha-25 (1,050 HP at take-off, 970 HP at 11,155 feet)
weight:
    (loaded) 11,632 pounds
max speed:
    340 MPH at 22,965 feet
    climb to 16,405 feet in 6 minutes 17 seconds (~6.28)
wing area:
    344.4 square feet
guns:
    KAIa
        1 x 20mm Ho-3
        2 x 12.7mm Type 1
    KAIb
        1 x 37mm Ho-203
        1 x 20mm Ho-3

Francillon lists the wing loading of the KAIa at 33.8 lb/sqft and I get 33.77 from his figures.  I have no idea if the 37mm gun carried by the KAIb weighed as much as the dorsal guns of the night-fighters.

Guess it's pretty much a wash. >shrug< The 110 might be a touch faster in level flight, the Ki-45 might have climbed better, and the guns were somewhat similar.  No idea about roll rates, but I suppose neither would excel at rolling.  I'd bet on the Ki-45 having a better sustained turn rate, though.  (It looks like Shifty lists the numbers for the KAIc, one of the later night-fighter versions...?)

[Stoney]

Thanks Bino--a well-reasoned, informative post.  That's all I'm asking for gents.  So, it appears that, if you compare the right versions of the aircraft, you get close.  And, obviously for other versions, there are bigger discrepancies. I'm hoping one day soon we don't have to sub for the Ki-45 or any others for that matter.  Regardless, we'll keep the 110C in there for now and after frame 1, if there needs to be an adjustment, I'll make it.

Thanks again...

<S>

Stoney

[Bino]

No problem, Stoney. 

Maybe I should get to work on an IJA skin for the 110C? 

[Anaxogoras]

The problem with substitutions is the assumption that they are better than nothing, when instead the superiority of a substitution versus leaving a gap should be argued for on a case by case basis.  The result of such a discussion will largely depend on the requirements of the historical scenario, i.e. how badly would the re-enactment be hurt with the total absence of this aircraft?  A good example might be the Battle of Britain, where not subbing the Ju-87D for the Ju-87B, and the Ju-88 for the He-111 (the majority of the bomber force), would hurt the event as a whole.  Where such a damaging gap might exist in a historical event, it is an open question whether it should be run in the first place.

Now, as for the question of whether a substitution is workable, the standard should not be limited to a list of performance figures.  Part of what makes an event like FSO great is the immersion into the history of air combat.  The aircraft we fly look like the aircraft that flew in the war.  In most cases, substitutions fail this standard.  Where an event would be harmed so badly by the absence of an aircraft that a substitution is desired, and there is a potential substitute with similar performance, and the positives of running this event with an incomplete planeset outweigh the option of running a different event with a complete planeset, the substituted aircraft should resemble what it's replacing with an appropriate skin bearing the correct national insignia.  This has already been done for the Ju-88 and the C-47.

In the present case of the Bf 110C subbing for the Ki-45, I am yet to hear an argument for why running the event without any Ki-45 would harm it so badly that a substitution cannot be ignored.  Even if that standard were met, we do not have an appropriate skin for the 110C to make it look Japanese.

This is how I see the issue of substitutions and their role in FSO.