G4M1-11 Betty !

[RTHolmes]

cherrybomb

Cherry Bomb:


MXY7 Ohka, Cherry Blossom:

[Shifty]

You miss this guy?

(Image removed from quote.)



wrongway

LOL I remember him, I believe there was an observer as well if you looked behind the pilot.

[Saxman]

I agree.  There should be no kamkaze mode by driving your fighter/bomber to the ground

BUT

This special G4M + cherrybomb is different.  The invited player is driving a standoff missile with H.E. bomb, not a fighter/bomber to a target in dignified gameplay manner.

the lankstuka and 'the first long range standoff rocket cruise missile with a bomb in the history of the world'  analogy just doesn't compare.  It's dweebier to attempt lankstuka than to what I describe above which is more dignified

No, it would be NO different, and no more dignified. Suicide dweebery is suicide dweebery, whether it's a purpose-built craft or not.

Think of how annoying it is to stop Lancstuka's, who don't care if they go home so long as they can pickle off their bombs before they bail. Now imagine trying to stop Lancstukas that are TRAVELING AS FAST AS AN ME-163 and can damage the target just by ramming it.

[Wmaker]

Looks great!  Can't wait to dogfight in it in a few months...

Heh.

The wingloading of the G4M1-11 is indeed interesting for a bomber class aircraft. It is crazily low. At 121.6kg/m2 it is lower than any fighter's wingloading in the sim. And that's with loaded weight which seems to include the normal bombload and pretty hefty load of fuel. At 25% of fuel and no bombs, the wing loading will probably approach the biplane fighters of the WWII... The roll rate will of course be bomber class and its' structural streght won't like high-G maneuvers but Im' sure that with a good gunner it's low speed handling will suprise at least few fighter pilots.

[Volron]

It's been awhile.. but I thought he looked more sinister.

That guys has a 'WTF.. you bombed a Cow?'  look on his face..

 

Holy crap, I almost passed out, I was laughing so hard...

[Reschke]

Oh man I think it looks great...only thing I can see is its about 9 years too late!

[Sunka]

    Thought i was going to look like this by the time we got something we needed for fso and scenarios. Good job

[Rich46yo]

Not my pick for sure but it had a huge footprint in the war and its pretty  that we are getting it.

A good pick.

[Babalonian]

why can't axis get a perk bomber ride
could it be allied conspiracy?

Probabley one of the oldest axis bombers in this game is a perked bomber...  you sure you play this game?   

[DrBone1]

     

[tmetal]

Whoo hoo! the Betty!...flaming lawn darts here I come!!!

[Krusty]

According to Francillon, The Betty Yamamoto was shot down in was a Model 12.

The Model 12 which was usually designated just "G4M1" and was an upgrade to the intial production model ie. the G4M1-11 HTC is implementing.

Well... 

If you're gonna nitpick.... 


This one Francillon got wrong. He's made a couple of mistakes (misidentifying a photo as the wrong squadron is another I read about today). Overall seems a good source though.

There was no "model 12"... There was no new designation on the model that had rubber panels underneath the wings (to protect the fuel from ground fire -- but not from above!), and the "larger" superchargers (I assume that means more powerful, not that they took up more mass?). These models were in the end slightly slower and had slightly less range (hardly worth mention) than the other "Model 11" versions. They had no designation except in a few technical orders for parts and maintenance. They were still simply the 11. On those rare occasions when paperwork had to differentiate them, they were "model 13" and the only time "model 12" was used was very briefly for the G4M2 prototypes, but these were very quickly renamed the "model 22" instead.

So, no Yamamoto was shot down in a Model 11, just a slightly differently configured Model 11, hehehe...

[Krusty]

You've said that before and you're still wrong.  The Ki-67 entered service with the IJA in April, 1944 and entered service with the IJN in October of 1944.  That is how I understand it.  It is as much a 1944 design as the P-51D is.

No, I think you're in error on this one Karnak...

They were "ready" with preproduction models for more than a year, and the "first flight" of a preproduction type was in April 1943, but the plane showed so much promise that the Army schemed, planned, and delayed the actual production of the model by trying to tack on so many new features that it did not get out (even for the Army) until October of 1944.

See here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=MuGsf0psjvcC&pg=PA392&lpg=PA392&dq=ki-67+combat&source=bl&ots=K4_DzbSJdD&sig=N6mPkGQRGUOamcKO6aEd43A8KzU&hl=en&ei=Gcy9TLiyOYbGlQetq8nmBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=ki-67%20combat&f=false
October 1944

See here:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/japan/aircraft/bomber/mitsubishi-ki-67-hirya-peggy.asp
first use by Army in October 1944 by "7th Sentai and 98th Sentai" (sources cited at bottom)

See here:
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Mitsubishi%20Ki%2067%20Peggy.htm

"The three prototypes were not completed until December 1942, February 1943, and March 1943, respectively" [...] "The Army, in fact, was so pleased with the new bomber, that additional equipment was being continually planned for it, and actual adoption of the Ki-67 for service was delayed because no one apparently could agree on a standardized configuration for it." [...] "The foolish delay in finalizing the design meant that the first combat use of the Peggy didn’t occur until the series of air-sea battles off the Formosan coast in October 1944."



P.S. I never said "a 1945 design" -- I said a 1945 plane (and yes I was rounding up, as mentioned previously). The design means jack, diddley, and squat, when it comes to putting planes in scenarios and setups. It's actual entry point into the war is what matters. Or would you call the Spit22 a "1939 design"?



[EDIT: typo fix]

[Wmaker]

Well...  

If you're gonna nitpick....  


This one Francillon got wrong. He's made a couple of mistakes (misidentifying a photo as the wrong squadron is another I read about today). Overall seems a good source though.

There was no "model 12"... There was no new designation on the model that had rubber panels underneath the wings (to protect the fuel from ground fire -- but not from above!), and the "larger" superchargers (I assume that means more powerful, not that they took up more mass?). These models were in the end slightly slower and had slightly less range (hardly worth mention) than the other "Model 11" versions. They had no designation except in a few technical orders for parts and maintenance. They were still simply the 11. On those rare occasions when paperwork had to differentiate them, they were "model 13" and the only time "model 12" was used was very briefly for the G4M2 prototypes, but these were very quickly renamed the "model 22" instead.

So, no Yamamoto was shot down in a Model 11, just a slightly differently configured Model 11, hehehe...

Source? I gave you one.

[truss51]

Betty Betty Betty. That's all I ever hear in this game.