a REAL japanese update

[alpini13]

yes i know how to use  the search bar,lol....but lets be honest,it seems that the japanes late war fighters are a little slow at alt.looking at specs,stories and allied tests there seems to ba a performance gap.maybe  they should be updated and of course the  J2M fighter added??  J2M5 Model 33
High altitude version powered by 1,357 kW (1,820 hp) Mitsubishi MK4U-A Kasei 26a engine with mecaically driven supercharger, giving increased speed at height at the expense of shorter range (just over half that of the J2M2 and J2M3). Two 20 mm Type 99 cannon in fuselage, two 20 mm Type 99 Model II cannon in wings.[6]
J2M5a Model 33A
Four wing-mounted 20 mm Type 99 Model II cannon. Now, all four wing cannon were harmonized in trajectory and ballistics performance like the Kawanishi N1K-J Shiden fighters, but with more ammunition than they had (200 v. 70-125 rpg). The 20x101 mm cartridge gave the 128 g HE (6-8%) projectile an effective range of 1,000 m (3,280 ft) and a muzzle velocity of 750 m/s. The rate of fire was only 500 rpm each however (down from 520 rpm for the Type 99 Model I which only had a muzzle velocity of 600 m/s and a range of 730 m/2,400 ft with its 20x72 mm cartridge................... and  a KI-84 gun update.Ki-84-Ic
Version against Bombers, with 2 × 20 mm Ho-5 cannons and 2 × 30 mm (1.18 in) Ho-155 cannons in wings.

[Imowface]

I have made many threads about the J2M and it is one of my favorite planes, but we need the J2M3, not a low production variant that would barley have enough fuel to reach bombers once you get to altitude, and the cannon in the fuselage were behind the cockpit at an oblique angle, not forward firing, I am all for the J2M, but not the J2M5

[Krusty]

it seems that the japanes late war fighters are a little slow at alt.looking at specs,stories and allied tests there seems to ba a performance gap.

There WAS a performance gap. This is historically correct. The US planes out flew the Japanese designs in every way except turn radius. That's how it was. At the very beginning it was a much closer fight, with the Japanese holding slight advantage against the F4F, but the P-40B, P-39D, and other planes all out-paced the Japanese designs, out-dove them, and sometimes out-climbed them. They had worse turning radii, however.

You'll find that holds true in this game as well.

[alpini13]

so let it be written so let it be in the game,yes lets do the j2m3 as long as we get this fighter in the game. and what i am talking about when i say a performance gap.i mean between the actual japanese fighter and the one we have in the game..not comparing it to others performance

[Krusty]

so let it be written so let it be in the game,yes lets do the j2m3 as long as we get this fighter in the game. and what i am talking about when i say a performance gap.i mean between the actual japanese fighter and the one we have in the game..not comparing it to others performance

Prove it.

Wikipedia doesn't really count.

You bring up solid evidence that the modeling is incorrect, and HTC might change it. They've done it many times in the past. It was dedicated subscribers with access to detailed reports and flight tests that helped shape how the Ki-84 flies today. Originally it had no WEP and maxed out at 200mm of boost. Now we get 3 minutes of 400mm-or-so WEP.

[Karnak]

alpini13,

The Japanese fighters, particularly the Ki-84, were, as designed, capable of out pacing some US fighters.  The problem is that the Japanese couldn't make the fuel needed for that performance.  The US tested a Ki-84 on 100 octane fuel after the war and got 424mph out of it at about 20,000ft.  The Japanese were using "87" octane fuel and had been reduced to using pine oil to try to stretch their fuel reserves.  I put the 87 in quotes as it is quite likely that the fuel they were using at the end was closer to 80 octane than 87 octane.  In AH the Japanese aircraft are modeled using Japanese data and thus, the handicaps of Japanese fuel.  As AH is supposed to simulate the units as used in WWII this is as it should be.

As a reference point, the British switched from 87 to 100 octane in 1940.

[alpini13]

lol,thats NOT true. the Luftwaffe had small colored triangles on the planes as to what octane they used...and some aircraft that had the same specs got to use higher octane fuel..these went to the HOT pilots..galland himself bears this out in HIS personal experiences in the war.....but in this game all LUFT aircraft of a type fly the same....the question is what octane did high take use for the modeling? is it all the same across the board? is it different from plane to plane....and as a game each side can fly ALL the planes.....this is not fso or axis vs allies  in the main arena. each aircraft should have optimal settings for the type of aircraft that is in use,this is a game and not modeled as to reall world war 2...if it was, we would random engine problems due to poor maintainence or poor part manufacture,problems due to mechanics that got drunk and beat up the night before,problems and shortages that would ground only certain aircraft but not all in that catagory due to delivery of spare parts,sabotage,weather and wind accidents,mud,snow,difficult cold weather starting,parachutes that dont open sometimes,etc....i can go on....point is,there seems to be an awful lot of optimal packages in the usa aircraft.notice i didnt say american as it is NOT a country.but this same type option capability is lacking for the british,italian,russian,japanese and german sides.yes we are making progress, but i think we need to update what is already in the game. thanks for letting me DRONE on

[Imowface]

the luftwaffe used different octain fuels only late in the war, where they had to use what they could, that is why not all late war LW birds had the same octain triangle. and why do you think the japanese AC should be given fuel that they never used, it would be like saying they tested a spitfire with 170 octane fuel once after the war and it performed way better. so my question to you, is because a couple of japanese A/C got tested with decent fuel, should all aircraft in AH have the best performance ever recorded?

[Krusty]

Alpini, you're new here so forgive me if this is condescending (it's not intended to be, I'm aiming for "informative")....


HTC gives you the tools that fought in WW2, but does not recreate the exact combat from WW2. The Spitfire Mk.Ia, for example, has 100 octane fuel based on fuel supplies and records from the Battle of Britain. The Bf109E uses 87 octane fuel (or, the equivelant -- the German fuel was different in many ways). For most planes you have the standard, official engine ratings with the most common fuel types. You won't find field modifications or jury-rigged stuff.

You also won't find random failures. That's not the point of the game. The point of the game was to let the pilot fly the plane. It doesn't punish players for doing everything right (or, for that matter, punish them for doing nothing at all). Engine failures and other failures will be caused by bullets, collissions (with the ground or other planes) and all-in-all based on the actions a player takes.

So, you aren't really going to see random failures, but you ARE going to get the combat-rated equivelant of any given plane, and what they had to fight with in WW2.


The up-side is that if you don't like flying the lower-rated planes you can just move to a better plane. We have so many to choose from you'll always be able to find a ride you enjoy. Can't fly fast enough in a 109F4? Fly a K4! Can't do what you want in a F4F? Fly an FM2!

There's always some way of getting what you want.

[HighTone]

Not agreeing with the posters performance gap thing.


I would just really like to see some more Japanese planes. The J2M3 and the Ki-43/44/49 and the D4Y get a big  from me.

[Karnak]

alpini13,

The German situation was not the Japanese situation.

HTC tries to model the aircraft with representative fuel/performance, but balance is taken into account.  You won't see any Spitfire XVIs, P-51s, Tempests, P-47Ms or Mosquito VIs using 150 octane fuel, which some or many did depending on the type, because the performance becomes too unbalancing.  A Spitfire XVI that climbs at 5,750fpm and does 360mph on the deck might sound fun, but it would be very bad for the game.

As I recall, from Luftwaffe fan's posts, the Fw190D-9 has neither the best nor worst fuel it used.  I do recall some claims that the good fuel was reserved for the Bf109 units at the end of the war as the Jumo and BMW engines in the Fw190s were more tolerant than the Daimler-Benz engine in the Bf109s.

[Saxman]

Ki-43, 44 and 45 are three good fighter additions. However the Ki-21 would be a better initial choice than the Ki-49. The Sally was produced in more numbers. Also add:

Ki-27
A5M
N1K1-J (earlier and I believe more numerous than the N1K2-J we have)
D4Y
B6N
A6M3 (Model 21 or 22 would work. Although its performance would be inferior, I'd suggest going with the Model 22 because it would be a notable difference between the other Zeros)
Remodel the A6M5 to include different gun packages to represent the Model 52a, b and c

I'd say there's also room to add another Ki-61 and Ki-84 variant, and the Ki-100.

[SmokinLoon]

Small steps... first, lets get the proper ordnance on the JPN aircraft.  The ordnance they currently have in AH is the same as the German aircraft.  That was not the case in WWII.  Secondly, lets get the B5N and Ki-67 a proper JPN torpedo, not a copy of the German torpedo.

THEN lets work on getting the "Oscar" and "Nick" into the game.   

[Perrine]

Japanese army planes that i can think of in my head (red ones  + pictures are the ones i think should be added)

Army fighter

Ki-43-I - early war

Ki-43-II - mid war

Ki-43-III - late war

Ki-44 - mid war

Ki-45  - early war to late war

Ki-61-Ib (Otsu) - mid war

Ki-61-Id (Tei) - late war
Ki-84 - late war
Ki-100 - late war


Army Bomber

Ki-21 - early war

Ki-49 - early to mid war

Ki-67 - late war

Army transport

Ki-57

[HighTone]

Ki-43, 44 and 45 are three good fighter additions. However the Ki-21 would be a better initial choice than the Ki-49. The Sally was produced in more numbers. Also add:

Ki-27
A5M
N1K1-J (earlier and I believe more numerous than the N1K2-J we have)
D4Y
B6N
A6M3 (Model 21 or 22 would work. Although its performance would be inferior, I'd suggest going with the Model 22 because it would be a notable difference between the other Zeros)
Remodel the A6M5 to include different gun packages to represent the Model 52a, b and c

I'd say there's also room to add another Ki-61 and Ki-84 variant, and the Ki-100.

Triple  on the list.

I really hope that the Ki-44 and J2M3 are somewhere in the production line.

Both would see MA use and still be able to help us in the special events. And man am I loving the G4M1, and I promise to wait 6 months before asking for the G4M2.