A6M Rufe

[l0newolf]

Eh,  what the heck our jap. planeset wont be complete without it!

[Wildcat1]

would this be the seaplane version of the zeke?

the only advantage i see in this is that you *might* be allowed to up it from a CV after the CV has been sunk.
but the pontoons really reduce the planes aerodynamic abilities.

so in the end, +/-1

[RedTeck]

Make one of the ships docked at the port a seaplane tender. This would give the A6M a unique role as aerial port defender. But then again, wouldn't the game have to be modified for float operations?

[Shifty]

You don't need a seaplane tender if you have a port.
 This would be a great addition if it was possible to get float planes to work in the current code.

[Ack-Ack]

would this be the seaplane version of the zeke?

the only advantage i see in this is that you *might* be allowed to up it from a CV after the CV has been sunk.
but the pontoons really reduce the planes aerodynamic abilities.

so in the end, +/-1

They weren't operated from normal CVs but operated from seaplane tenders like Kamikawa Maru or raiders like Hokoku Maru when out at sea.  Otherwise, they operated from shore bases as interceptors, scout and also used to help defend remote bases like Attu in Alaska.

You're right about the performance hit something like 20%, enough that it wasn't a match for early US and Allied fighters.

ack-ack

[lyric1]

Make one of the ships docked at the port a seaplane tender. This would give the A6M a unique role as aerial port defender. But then again, wouldn't the game have to be modified for float operations?

Don't know I guess some of the PT boat code would be similar?

[321BAR]

I would rather have the a6m3 and a6m6 before any seaplane. and even before my new A6ms id like to have well must i say it again... M-18!!!!

[Simba]

Nuts to the Rufe, gimme the Rex.

 

[AirFlyer]

I would rather have the a6m3 and a6m6 before any seaplane. and even before my new A6ms id like to have well must i say it again... M-18!!!!

I doubt will ever see the A6M6... A6M5c would be your best chance at a heavier armed Zeke I'd guess. The A6M3 on the other hand I would love to see, either the Model 32 or 22 although I think the latter would work out better.

[321BAR]

I doubt will ever see the A6M6... A6M5c would be your best chance at a heavier armed Zeke I'd guess. The A6M3 on the other hand I would love to see, either the Model 32 or 22 although I think the latter would work out better.

yeah probably true. I was thinking the same about a half hour after posting that. But like the big letters say id take an M-18 first 

[RedTeck]

My mention of the seaplane tender was because it would/could be a destroyable object. If they just added a fighter hanger to the base, the next question is why can't I have my P-51, Spit 16, LA......

[Karnak]

The N1K1 "Shiden" "Rex" would be more effective.



In IJN designation terms the first letter in an aircraft's code indicates its intended task.  For example, "A" = carrier fighter, "J" = land based interceptor and "N" = float plane fighter.  We see these designations used on the A6M (carrier fighter, 6th one in IJN service, Mitsubishi), J2M (land based interceptor, 2nd one in IJN service, Mitsubishi) and N1K (float plane fighter, 1st {purpose built} one in IJN service, Kawanishi).  On some aircraft additional roles, or changed roles happen and in that case a "-A", "-J" or "-N" is added as a suffix indicating the new role.   Examples of this are the A6M2-N, N1K1-J and N1K2-J.

Thus we can see that the N1K2-J, which is so popular in AH, started out as a float plane fighter.

[Wildcat1]

i say before any of this, the ki-43 and G4M should be added

or the J2M3 

[321BAR]

M-18 first 

[HighTone]

i say before any of this, the ki-43 and G4M should be added

or the J2M3 

 .   Same here