Best Japanese Fighter

[Mitsu]

It is Ki-44-III. but not manufactured.
IJAAF decided to develop Ki-84 instead of Ki-44-III.

[Mitsu]

Ki-84-I-Ko (Ki-84-I-a) shouldn't be perked.
but Ki-84-I-Otsu (Ki-84-I-b) may be perked.

Because Ki-84-I-Otsu had 4 Ho-5 20mm cannons (150 rds each), less than 500 built.

[Innominate]

Originally posted by whgates3
IMHO the most important quality in modern fighters is not speed or maneuverablility, but the quality of weapons carried.  Most modern fighters dont usually carry foward firing guns, but computer/sensor guided munitions

Huh?
What modern fighter doesn't carry a gun?

[cajun]

I found a simular battle in the Combat Theater earlier,

I Was flying a HurricaneI  And the enemy in a much later version 109 (F or G I think...),
He had a big alt advantage, dived on me, so I did a manuvers I found works very well in hurriI vs  109E, while he was diving on me at high speed I turned, sounds dumb but actuelly works very well if you do it right, since he is diving on me at a steep angle, rolling my plane sidways gives him a bad shot at my plane and I am able to exit the turn in his direction easily, also I find making a BIG roll so to speak while your getting BnZ'd works very well in manuverable aircraft and usuelly puts you right behind them, not sure if I explained the manuvers well, but they work 80-90% of the time for me, anyway the fight continued for about 15 mins untill he disappeared (prolly Rtb'd for fuel).

So IMO its more how you use the strenghts & weaknesess of your plane.

[gatso]

What modern fighter doesn't carry a gun?

British Eurofigher Typhoons will be without an internal gun.  The MOD in their wisdom   decided that it was obsolete. I'm sure the fact that some accountant weenie worked out they would save something in the order of a quarter of a billion pounds over the service life of the aircraft had nothing to do with it.

Gatso

[cajun]

I tried to make some Very Rough examples of what I was talking about in MSPaint:

[cajun]

So now you all know how to kill me even easier

[GooseAW]

Originally posted by 28sweep
I also read somewhere that one of the fighters incorporated some type of mercury filled barometer that automatically deployed flaps at a certain wing load....sounds really cool.  What model had this

Yes...was the N1K2......worked well and only worked below certain speeds so I've read. FA2.5 had this feature in effect upon it's demise and at low alt was unbeatable in a turn fight

[whgates3]

i've read that the Me 109's leading edge flaps were auto deployed, but how i dont know

[Kweassa]

28sweep, for one thing, as Vermillion said, radar technology and guided A2A missiles "ruined" a lot of things for "old-fashioned" fighting tactics. I'm not a big fan of modern combat simulations, so I can't ensure anything, but one striking phrase I've heard about the difference in WWI/WWII aircraft and modern day aircraft was "In WWI/WWII, the pilots actually flew their planes. In the modern era, the electronics fly the plane, and the pilot manages the electronics."

 Assistance of modern day equipment allows the pilot to be aware of lot of things which can be only dreamed of for a WWII pilot - they know where the enemy is at all times, they can attack out from very far, they know when the enemy is 'locked on' to them and etc etc. While the general rule of alt advantage still applies today, it is a bit different.

 As for vector thrust technologies, I think it can be viewed in this sort of way. Jet engine technology today is reaching it's limit now, and the difference in speed of each aircraft is conceptually not as huge as it used to be in WWII. If a Soviet aircraft could go mach X, so would US a aircraft. If a US aircraft can reach X feet alt in X minutes, so would a Soviet aircraft.

 When the 'speed' category meets a dead end in evolution, and alternative methods of thrust technology is not yet prepared, a major break through would be increasing maneuverability. The two factors, as I said before, do not necessarily have to be mutually incompatible.

 Well, that's what I think anyway. I think people who have better understanding on modern jet aircraft and its combat tactics can explain this better.

[Squire]

Performance Counts.

Ie, Speed and climb ability. Over everything else.

There is a reason that the Sopwith Camel was not used by the RAF in WW2 (it was slow).

There is a reason the Me262 was developed by the LW (it was fast). Could the Me 262 turn with any allied fighter? nope.

"Fighting style"? please.  Well, in a 1 v 1 AH duel maybe (with duelling rules ect) , but not in real life.

Slow planes die. Period.

Btw the vast majority of the aces attacked enemy ac that never saw them coming, at high speed. Thats how it was done. Usually in a single pass. That is common for almost all the aces of ww2 regardless of the ac they flew. They didnt stay alive by prolonged dogfights vs enemy fighters that knew they were there.

Why was the Spitfire a good fighter in 1940? Speed and climb. That it was used like some super aerobatics plane is a total myth. It was not.

Why was the 109E a good fighter in 1940? Speed and climb.

The HurricaneI? well it was slower and did not climb as fast as the 109, and that is the reason it was considered less effective than either of the above. It coud out turn a 109, true, but overall, it wasnt a match because of performance lag.

Why was the Zero a good fighter in 1941-2 in the Pacific? Speed and climb mainly, and its better turning circle helped vs ac of similar performance, but it could out climb the P-40B and F4F, and thats why it did well. It was hampered by not being faster however, which is why it relied on its turning circle when it had to. Ultimately, the Zero was a failure, bacause of its poor performance vs later allied types.

The ability to climb above your opponent (bomber formations or fighters) await an opportunity, and make a fatal attack at the right moment, then use your performance to escape retaliation.

Large events in AH reflect this, ala the TODs, Snaphsots ect, thats the best place to see it work. Now, not everybody adheres to proper tactics mind you...just one more turn and I will get that con...just one more...

Regards.

[Spritle]

whgates3,

The Me109 had auto-deploying slats not flaps.  The slats were roughly the length of the ailerons and just ahead of them on the leading edge of the wing.  They were deployed by gravity.  If you see a picture of a 109 on the ground the slats will be deployed/out.  At speed the dynamic pressure of the air would hold the slats closed.  As the wing approached stall the pressure would decrease to a point where the slats would POP open.  This happened as the air went from laminar flow to turbulent.  The effect of the slats was to try and prevent the air stream over the ailerons from becoming so turbulent that they (the ailerons) had no effect on roll control.  hmm-- I hope that's clear.

Spritle

edit: The Me262 also had auto deploying leading edge slats although they extended the length of the wing.  They were broken into two parts though due to the engine being in the way.  Also later the F-86 had an auto deploying leading edge slat.  But it was later removed/replaced by the 6-3 wing which was a broader chord wing.

[28sweep]

Well said then SQUIRE but that means that the British have a very poor fighter arm in the fleet.  The Harrier is sub-sonic and would be competing against fighters w/ a double+ speed advantage from land/"full"carriers (USA,France).  So could missles compensate?  I know you talked about WWII but it must hold true today right...unless missles have changed the equation????

[Karnak]

28sweep,

WWII tactics and doctrines do not directly translate into modern air combat.  Purvasive radar and guided missles change things drastically.  In addition, the British don't have any big carriers so they are limited to short take off aircraft.

What Squire was saying, with a few slight errors, only applies to WWII and a bit to WWI air combat.

[whgates3]

thanks Spritle - I'd been meaning to read up on those for a long time