Is there a plane from...

[Changeup]

That isn't what happened though.  The version the Finns got was the earlier, light version before a ton, literally, of weight was added to it.  Was it Boyington who got angry when it was brought up and said it was a sweet little ship that was ruined by the additional equipment that the navy put on it?

As far as lack of performance goes, the Brewster in AH has that in spades.  It can barely break 300mph in level flight.

Karnak...It doesn't have to fly much faster than that when it holds its E better than a HOG and almost as good as a K4 in WEP and can clearly gain speed faster diving than most of the late war planes.  Add all that into the fact that it turns almost as well and doubtfully a measurable difference, as the zeke.  That doesn't include its total invincibility to compression at any speed I've had it at (500+).  

I doubt Boyington was the one that said that...as it was, it was designed from the start to be the Marine Corp/Navy CV aircraft so Boyington, as a designer himself, would have absolutely known it needed all of the heavy add-ons to make it CV worthy.  Most of the designers of the day could eyeball weights and measures (READ: Kelly Johnson) and how badly power to weight ratios would be affected.

[Karnak]

Karnak...It doesn't have to fly much faster than that when it holds its E better than a HOG and almost as good as a K4 in WEP and can clearly gain speed faster diving than most of the late war planes.  Add all that into the fact that it turns almost as well and doubtfully a measurable difference, as the zeke.  That doesn't include its total invincibility to compression at any speed I've had it at (500+).  

The tests I ran of it vs the Fw190D-9 clearly said otherwise.  I am sorry, but the behavior you claim it does, it doesn't do.

I doubt Boyington was the one that said that...as it was, it was designed from the start to be the Marine Corp/Navy CV aircraft so Boyington, as a designer himself, would have absolutely known it needed all of the heavy add-ons to make it CV worthy.  Most of the designers of the day could eyeball weights and measures (READ: Kelly Johnson) and how badly power to weight ratios would be affected.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/pappy.htm

...I remember asking him about the Brewster Buffalo (Then, Now and Always, my favorite aircraft). I had no sooner finished saying the word 'Buffalo', when he slammed his beer can down on the table, and practicaly snarled, "It was a DOG!" (His emphasis). Then he slowly leaned back in his chair and after a moment quietly said, "But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other toejam, they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little diddlys could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah--sweet little ship; but some engineer went and diddlyed it up." With that he reached for his beer and was silent again. After that answer, I somehow had the feeling that I had just gotten a glimpse into Boyington's attitude towards life in general.

I can't verify the statement is real or not though, at least not with a two minute google search.

[Pkun]

Sorry Karnak, I returned from S.korea(not N.Korea )now.

pkun,

Do you know of any accounts of the Ki-84 breaking up in the air due to maneuvering?

I never read such report.
But, I know Ki84's elevator was very weak by Ki84 flight manual.
and I know, this report was sent to pyro from busa01.
I don't think Ki84 on AH is over model.

I know  break out of Ki84's elevator on AH is easy,
but I understand its reason because Ki84 on AH have Combat trim, and it's easy that we can control elevator trim easy on game.
On real Ki84 was not easy to control trim.


and,,,,
is Ki84 on AH very hard? is it over model?
I don't think so.

For example,
Colonel Neel E. Kearby reported, he shot Ki43II on P38 2 times(9 seconds) on air, but Ki43 was not fired.
(finally, this ki43 was entered to sea without fire.)
this report was written Jan 3rd 1944.
Ki43II was same protect level to Ki84.

Plz know, IJA fighters ,Ki84 and Ki43 and other, were different to IJN fighters.
IJA fighters had protection.
IJN fighters without end of war plane didn't have protection.

[Karnak]

I prefer to not use combat trim on the Ki-84.  I find that it reduces elevator authority too much at speeds over 350mph.  I prefer to have to push forward on the stick to keep the nose down in a dive and be able to pull 6 Gs when over 400mph rather than having it dive without needing forward pressure on the stick but not being able to evade or follow aircraft with better elevator authority at speed like Spitfires and P-51s.

As to the IJN protection thing, I thought the N1K2-J had self sealing tanks and pilot armor.  I know the A6M series was never very protected.  The G4M1 and G4M2 lacked any protection, but the G4M3 added it.  The H8K2 also had extensive protection.

[pervert]

and,,,,
is Ki84 on AH very hard? is it over model?
I don't think so.

Personally I think it is in some areas, in much the same way as the DR1 was in WW1, if it was as popular as say a p51 in the MA I think people would pick up on it. Its not the decent sticks who fly it that give me this suspicion, but the ones that aren't so good and wasteful of energy in a fight, much like the DR1 the 84 seems to retain more energy than it should, usually in a fighter that turns well it can get nose up quicker but falls back in distance once its nose high, in the KI-84 it gets its nose up quick and keeps going and going and going, this is much the same as the old DR1 fm in WW1 in my opinion and bear in mind I can balance a 190d9 on a pin when maxing it out so that is virtually standing still, no plane gives me as much trouble as the KI.

A poorly flown ki84 (wasteful in terms of energy) can still compete in the vert better and more consistently than a well flown F4U4 with me completely maxed out,

I would say its high speed handling is what makes it unpopular in Aces High, lets face it a lot of the fight is faster until its forced slower ie people don't like to stop and have a 'fair' fight.

[Citabria]

the brewster origionally was a hot ship and well liked for its excellent handling and maneuverability.

The Buffalo won a competition against the Grumman F4F Wildcat in 1939 to become the U.S. Navy's first monoplane fighter aircraft.

as happens in beuracratic systems like the military a chain of additions was added to the stubby plane until it became a lead sled that was easily dispatched by trained zero pilots the navy brewster faced at the start of the war. it was too sow to run and too heavy to maneuver with the japanese adversaries and it was removed from service as the f4f became available as the frontline fighter of the navy during the begining of the pacific war.

what does shock me though is when flying the i16 and then the brewster... two planes that square off in scenarios...

the brew has the range of a p51 with full gas while the i16 has with drop tanks like 15 minutes. the i16 is a dog and not a succesful fighter even in its front line time period while the drew holds its own in late war settings.

you might say i think the brewster should be gimped but I really think the i16 is overly gimped and should be un nerfed

[Karnak]

Keep in mind that the I-16 was, what, a 1931 or 1932 design?  Sure, it had been up engined, but it was way past its prime.  When it was introduced it was most likely the best fighter in the world.

[Bender]

How about Kyūshū J7W1 Shinden

[EagleDNY]

How about Kyūshū J7W1 Shinden

If they had ever gotten the advanced version with the gas turbine off the drawing board maybe.   

[EagleDNY]

Back to the original question, the only Japanese aircraft I can think of that would have a significant enough impact on the game to deserve perking would the the Ohka flying bomb.  It meets the criteria - it was deployed, it saw action in significant strength - and actually sank allied ships.

It would require a significant investment in programming time to bring the Ohka to AH - and your perk points are automatically lost on launch.   You would take up a Betty loaded with the Ohka, and then essentially hit a key to bail from the Betty (which then spirals down to crash) and fire the Ohka.   You end up in the pilot seat of a flying bomb gliding - you have 3 solid rocket motors available and each will burns at 587 lbs of thrust until expended (they can be triggered all at once or individually).  All you have to do now is hit a target, since your perk points are already spent - you have about 3 minutes to live. 



 

[Karnak]

Note: I do not advocate adding the Ohka to AH.

That said, if I were to do so I would require it to be a two person operation.  The G4M2 (we would need an additional model of the G4M) pilot would not pay any perks and is simply responsible for getting the Ohka pilot into range of the target and releasing him.  The Ohka player's perks would be refunded if the G4M2 landed with the Ohka still attached and both got a "landed successfully" message.  The moment the Ohka is released by the G4M2 pilot the Ohka pilot's perks are doomed.

[EagleDNY]

If a Betty pilot lands with a live 1200Kg bomb sticking halfway out of his bomb bay, he ought to get the Ohka pilots perks.   

[Tank-Ace]

Set the fuse so that there is no flight time required to arm it, and make it go off of someone sneezes on it. That alone would balance things out, since so few would get off the ground.