Author Topic: Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C  (Read 1805 times)

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2000, 04:20:00 PM »
Verm, I think you're missing what I am saying, or believe I am saying something that I am not.

Introduce the F4U-4. Knowing how many flies the F4U, what do you think will happen? Some people fly the plane that simply is easiest to get kills and survive in.

We'll find a steady stream of F4U-4's, and a declining number of other drivers. Even dedicated LW types will be tempted when they're shot down for the umpteenth time by a pilot they just a week earlier ate for breakfast.

Perk should not be based on when it was produced. It should not be based on numbers.

It should be based on how it influences game play. And we've both seen how popular nad effective the F4U-C is compared to its counterpart the F4U-D, or any other plane for that matter. The F4U-4 will be *significantly better*, further upsetting the balance, lessing diversity.

The Spit XIV might or might not do the same, but if the numbers I have are true, it is a very potent plane indeed.

The 190A5 upset the balance too, was fixed, and balance was restored.

The D9 will not, because it doesn't give LW that much of a different aircraft. It gives them (us) a plane that can fight at altitude, a plane that possibly can catch other B&Z'ers if they decide to run.

If it proves to upset balance, perk it immediately, and don't look back.

We could try that approach with the Spit XIV and F4U-4, but th oputcome can be extrapolated from previous experiences and comparisons between A5, F4U-C and F4U-D, and how people use them.

So, what I am saying is this: carefully think about what not perking very potent planes will do. The G10 isn't that potent in the MA in terms of raw killing power, stats show that. We can only speculate and extrapolate about the Spit XIV and F4U-4, but we can do it *well*. With regards to the D9, it doesn't add a plane that is significantly better than any other plane in the set; it gives LW some much needed capabilities, the same the US planeset already enjoy. D9 will still turn like a brick, roll a bit worse than the A8, suffer same "bar" cockpit problem, won't climb all too good and will do only one thing well; z&b.

Minotaur: F4U-D has all that, but the cannons. And that, I postulate, is 80% of the difference, and I am being very generous when I say the C has 20% performance advantage on the D.

Let me reiterate: I do *not* suggest there's something wrong with the current FM of the C or D hog. I am not whining about A5 being inferior to the C and D; it is. It was. As it should be. I ain't advocating upping A5 performance; I do quite well in it.

F4UDOA:
I admire your persistence in the F4U deal back then, you did an outstanding job, and had much of the community against you. And, quite frankly, I feel like I am in much the same position; being misinterpreted somewhat and having a legitimate point that some try to project as a whine. Therefore, i try to be concise and precise with what I say, but still, tangents arise and I try not to devote too much time on them.

This is NOT a "F4U-C is über" - thread - it ain't. This is a "let's revisit an old discussion, update it, and make some relevant observations" one. The huge difference between C and D stats cannot be attributed solely to FM; therefore I stated that much lies in the cannons. D has a negative K/D, pony with similar guns has a positive. C has an enormous positive one.

Once again, let me restate: I do not say that new FM is porked or wrong. I made a rather objective statement regarding my opinion on G10 lethality after 1.04. It's nothing more than that.

Please, I must ask you all *not* to read more into what I am saying than I say. There's no need to place words in my mouth if you will. I am one of those guys who don't gets hints, and is very frank and direct when I have something to say. It happens often that I am wrong, and I ain't afraid to admit it. So, with that said, I'll type just what I mean, and nothing more. If I wanted to say that the g10 is less effective and the new FM sucks, I would have put it in *that exact way*. I would not say "G10 is <subliminal message newfmisporked> less <hint hint hint> effective<fix fm fix fm fix fm>. Guess I am just a simple boring person in that respect, sorry about that.

Lastly, for a newbie t&b'er, the SPit, Zeke and N1K are the planes to fly. Keeping SA in t&b'ers is much more difficult than in z&b'ers, I think. For a newbie z&b'er, which requires more afterthought and patience, the F4U-C is *definitely* the plane to take. As stats seem to indicate.

------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"

Offline Minotaur

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 130
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2000, 04:36:00 PM »
Please read:

This

And This

Also This

Of Ccourse This

This

Addtitionally This

LOL    

Now I did not post this up just to be a "hissy".  You will find that the numbers and their K/D ratios have not changed a whole bunch.  Statistically I bet HTC has all the tours, and they can compare them all at on glance.   We can not do this, we must wade through each cycle of the data base.  It is a pain, but to each their own.

Good Luck!  

------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew

"Ass, ass, ass. I said it and im glad."
Easymo

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2000, 04:39:00 PM »
F4UDOA,
as MC202 said, the C.205 is an early 1943 fighter. Some 260 have been built and saw combat till the end of the war. Italy was and is a small power so plz take these numbers with a grain of salt. Do you wanna compare 200 F4U-1C with 200 C.205? Do small C.205 numbers mean dweeb plane? LOL, yes I think that the late-war-uber-fighter-syndrome is hitting badly here ... WW2OL where are you ??? LOL,      

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 09-26-2000).]
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2000, 04:40:00 PM »
You know what happens to me when I hear about C-hogs and their turbohispanos?

   


GRRRRRR

 


Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2000, 04:52:00 PM »
Zigrat,

I'm glad to hear your point of view on this subject because not only do I value your opinion but I think others do as well.
I'm also glad you like me but I am also overmodeled at this time. In 1.05 there will be a whole new me to kick around  

Anyway the F4U-1D was a ground attack bird and I can not explain the weight difference between the two A/C. I can only say that it is clearly modeled in AH and it gives the C about 10% better turning capabilty. This alone is enough to make me fly the C hog.
Unfortunately I have never been able to get specifics out of Pyro or HT on the weight difference. Keep in mind it is not a speed difference so I don't believe drag is involved here. I would really like to what modeled weights are of these birds.

Comparison
 
Quote
Speed
-----
The f4u-1c is faster than the FW-190 a5 at al altitudes
I believe it should be. The speed charts seem pretty accurate to me in the AH help files and I have no reason to belive otherwise. Do you disagree?

 
Quote
Climb Rate and acceleration
--------------------------
Above 7k feet, the f4u-1c outclimbs and out accelerates the fw-190 a5. Below 7k, the 190 a5 outclimbs and out accelerates te f4u-1c

I know the FW190A5 will outclimb the F4U at low alt in AH. In the help pages it shows the FW190 being superior. I can tell you that I can't climb a F4U above 3100FPM at any alt with out zoom climbing. Has the A5 gotten worse than that?


 
Quote
Dive
-----
The f4u-1c out dives the fw-190 a5
Ehhh, disagree. I have never even seen a 190 above 20K in AH so I can't comment on long dives but if you dive to sea level the F4U will catch up eventually because it is faster on the deck. I never follow 190 because it takes to long for the 190 to bleed off enough E to catch it.

 
Quote
Durability
----------
The f4u-1c is more durable than the fw-190 a5
Yes I believe it was. Because of shear mass it would have been. The P-47 would be the only bird tougher and that is subjective. I just read about a F4U fighting of Many NIK2 and landing with over 40 twenty mill holes in it. "Corsairs and Flattops" is the name of the book.

 
Quote
Armorment
----------
The f4u-1c has significantly more lethal cannon than the fw-190 a5, and carries significantly more payload for ground attack missions.
The F4U-1D had a max payload of 4,000lbs of bombs. This is not modeled in AH. I thought the FW190-A5 was a ground attack varient. I honestly don't know enough about it's capabilty to comment although I do have some reference material to dig up. No comment on the cannons, enough said about those.

 
Quote
Manouverability
-------------
The Fw-190 has a roll advantage below 300 knots (small but significant)

The F4u-1c significantly outturns the fw-190 a5
Again I disagree on the roll. The 190 doesn't get outrolled in AH as far as I can tell. Turning radius the F4U should have a fairly significant advantage. However I was just smoked in an extented turn to the right were I was out turned by what I assume was an A5. I'm not wining but I think I should have been able to escape using tight turns with 20degrees flap.

Visibility

The F4U had better forward visibilty than the 190. The 190 only had 6" of clearance above the dash. The rearview of the F4U is the worst in AH and I believe way to obtrusive. I have seen F4U's up close and it wasn't that bad. In fact the F4U could have switched to a full bubble canopy and did not because the rear view was really never in question and was perferred by it's pilots for protection.

I think we are pretty close on our feelings toward the birds except that we will never know what the weights used for the F4U-1D and C are to calculate the performance differance. I feel that the two are comprable A/C in many ways. I think the better question is why is the F4U-1D not on a better par with FW-190A5. It leaves a far greater performance gap than the 190 vs F4U-1C.

Later
F4UDOA

MC202, thanks for the info. I thought the C205 was close to 200 in production numbers.

 


Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2000, 05:17:00 PM »
StSanta,

I missed your last post before I replied to Zigrat. I now realize what the subject of your complaint is. That the F4U-1C upsets the balance of play in the arena. You may be right on this subject but I am surely the wrong person to reply. My K/D in the -1C is only a little better than 1 to 1. I have a hard time staying alive in an arena where peoples 12year old nephiews have 3 to 1 K/D's. I won't say that getting rid of the -1C is the answer because you can invalidate any number of A/C with different criteria. I can't say I can give you an answer for this at all. If the guns are turned down to accomadate players then it goes against the core of the game. Then we are one step closer to Fighter Ace. Fighter Ace has
P-40's and FW190D9 in the same arena. We could try a historical arena but the perceived problem wouldn't change since the cannons would prevail regardless of FM just as occurs in the MA now. So I will throw it back to you. What do you believe the solution to be?

Gatt,

I DO NOT want to say that the C205 should be banned or is uber but you must realize that the C205 is a contemporary of the F4U-1C. The F4U-1C is 1943 fighter plane. It has the same engine, Airframe etc. as the F4U-1A/D. The F4U-4 is the late war uber plane.

Later
F4UDOA

Offline wells

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 166
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2000, 05:28:00 PM »
My take on production numbers is who cares?  hehee

Do you think that Spit driver cared how many were built when there was one on his tail?  No, if you see one, you deal with it.  You'll never see 200 of one plane in the arena anyway.

I would've thought that the F4u-1C would have been much heavier than the -1D, seeing as how it had more internal fuel (almost 750 lbs more)?

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2000, 06:38:00 PM »
Well, I would just like to see Pyro's data on why the f4u-1c is lighter than the 1d. Does the 1d have more armor? More fuel? More of what?

Oh and f4udoa, i totally believe the f4u should be more durable, and be faster than the 190   But also the f4u-1d can quite handily kill 190s, and in teh new FM it too has excellent performance which i believe should be more typical of both hogs. And the 190 is out rolled by the p38 and the f4u i think above 350 kts. never did the measure but just testing, but at slow speed the 190 is definitely markedly superior.


Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2000, 07:01:00 PM »
For me, the CHOG and the N1k, being so easy to fly and have so much hitting power is the reason why we see so many "quakers" and "arcaders" playing point and spray.

The K/D difference is NOT because of the FM, its the guns.  

Zig: The P38 does roll very, very well at high speeds.. but outroll a 190? Ahhh.. no.

[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 09-26-2000).]

MC202

  • Guest
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2000, 07:12:00 PM »

F4UDOA said:
> MC202, thanks for the info. I thought the
> C205 was close to 200 in production numbers.
And
> I DO NOT want to say that the C205 should be
> banned or is uber but you must realize that
> the C205 is a contemporary of the F4U-1C.
> The F4U-1C is 1943 fighter plane. It has the
> same engine, Airframe etc. as the F4U-1A/D.
> The F4U-4 is the late war uber plane.
> Later
> F4UDOA

Glad to help. Another fun Italian aircraft is the S.I.A. 403"DARDO" (Dart), a light wooden wonder with good speed (403mph at 23,620ft) for it's 750hp, and not too bad a gun set of two 12.7mgs and two 20mm cannon. Started out life as a 200hp trainer :-)

The RE2005 had small production numbers (30 or so) and came closer to "sorta-uber" in that it had three 20mm cannon and two 12.7 mgs, and high low alt speed, 421mph at 6,578ft in the  prototype.

I would like to see early war birds, M.C200, Hawk 75, Spit I, Hurri I and II, Bf109E etc.

How do the M.C.205 and Hog do in relation (K/D) to each other?

MC202
Dino in Reno

JENG

  • Guest
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2000, 10:11:00 PM »
AHUM GENTLEMEN [bee looks around to see that everybody is hearing him... before starting his speech] LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT THE F4u-1C...MMMMMMM [bee runs away checking his stats] sigh... snif... I fly the N1K2... and have to fly the hog from Rippy... guess I'm a dweeb... snif... [bee walks away silently weeping...then turns back and looks at stsanta] AFTER ALL THOSE TIMES WINGING IN THE G10... now he calls me a dweeb  


Bee

Offline Hristo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2000, 12:59:00 AM »
F4U-4 whatever ? The one from 1945 ?

The answer is in 1 year older plane :

Me 262

Turning circle ? Who cares, as long as it is fast and has 4 30mm cannons.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2000, 02:34:00 AM »
Hi

I might be one of the newbie chog dweebs. In tour 7 I mostly flew the G10 and continued doing so thru the first week or so of 8 and version 1.05. But flying a G10 is pretty much useless to your team these days as almost all you can do in one is scare the bad guy into an endless series of tight turns or split-S as their energy state will stay up regardless of what they do, at least long enough for his buddies to show up. I also like the chog for its ability to clean up an attacking force full of buffs, they have their turbolasers and why shouldnt I fite them on even terms? Plus the damn thing seems to turn pretty good with flaps and you can almost flip its nose around at very low speeds. It also has great handling in dive at high speeds. It also kicks butt in ground attack with 2 1k bombs mounted centrally for good aiming and Ostwind strafing. It just seems to be one of the best planes overall.
I like the plane but somehow it just seems too easy some times.

thanks GRUNHERZ

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #28 on: September 27, 2000, 02:45:00 AM »
LOl dweeb

I wuv you, would never call you a dweeb  

You've been flying that N1K for a long time now, so no sudden "convert" like we saw in the A5 back in Tour 5 when it was the Dweebmobile.  

<S!>



------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #29 on: September 27, 2000, 03:16:00 AM »
F4UDOA,
sorry if my reply was sarcastic. Its not the kite (F4U-1, that is), it is her late war armament that make things funny.

<EDIT>: IMHO, you'd be VERY careful introducing such cannon monsters in the arena. In other words, even the 4x20mm (or 2x40mm) cannon Hurricane could badly modify the arena balance. In the real word 4 and 2 cannons Hurricanes were seldom used in dogfights. Here you can ...  

But it is only my opinion, of course.


[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 09-27-2000).]
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown