wierd plane substitutions

[Hooligan]

Last month in the Pac setup, the FM-2 was not available as a sub for the F4F-3.  These aircraft have very similar performance, the primary differences being that the FM-2 was more durable due to better armor, and the -3 had just a bit better performance due to a better HP/weight ratio.  Please add this sub next time the early pac rolls around.

This month in the Finn setup, the FM-2 is substituted for the Brewster Buffalo.  In addition to being much more durable than the Buffalo, the FM-2 has significantly better performance.  On the deck the FM-2 is 20mph faster and can climb 600+ ft/min better than the buffalo.  This is a really terrible substitution and it should be taken out.

Hooligan

[Batz]

Let me take a guess (btw I have no opinion of fm2 for f4f-3) but if you look at the speed comparisons between the f4f Fm2 and a6m2 below 7k or so the Fm2 would have a 20 to 30 mph speed (depending on alt) advantage over the a6m2. The f4f / a6m2 are relativley close.

Put the fm2 in and you will see the fights go higher. The a6m2 would have no chance catching an Fm2 below 7k and the a6m2 would be forced to come in high or spend their time chasing around a faster plane. That type of game play sucks especially if you just want an hour or so of good fights. The closer 2 planes are in performance (I mean speed here) the better the fights tend to be.

The f4f fm2 was debated as to whtch would be the sub for the brewster. I believe the arguement was that comparing the fm2 and f4f to the la5fn, yak9t yak9u and la7 (finrus has 3 seasonal maps) that it would be better for gameplay to sub with the fm2. I think all agreed that the fm2 was better performing then the brewster.

I dont think the fm2 is to unbalancing but maybe I am wrong.

I only fly the g2 though so I cant talk from experience in either flying or fighting one.

[Xjazz]

FM-2 present B-239 Brewster modified by Finnish Air Force.



Check this

I would happily fly slower FAF Brewster than FM2

BTW In FinRus map
LA5FN present basic model LA5.
Hurri IIc present Hurri IIb

[Furball]

shush, this planeset is brilliant, don't spoil it!

[Hooligan]

Except for the heavy armament the F4F-4 is much closer in performance to the buffalo than the FM-2.  To me the FM-2 just really doesn't seem an appropriate substitution for a buffalo, anymore than it would be to substitute the FM-2 for an I-16 or a Spit V for a Spit I.

Concerning the pac arena.  My original point is that the F4F-3/a6m2 pair is a historical matchup.  Since we have a very close match to the F4F-3, I would like to see it used.  Secondly, while at low altitude the FM-2 climbs better and is faster than an A6M2, the A6M2 is more maneuverable.  i.e. both planes have easily useable advantages vs. the other.  By contrast an A6M2 holds all the cards in terms of speed (if you include acceleration in the equation), climb and maneuverability vs. an F4F-4.  Adding the FM-2 should increase balance between axis and allied fighters.

FWIW an A6M5 is pretty close to the A6M3 in performance (much closer than FM-2/Buffalo), perhaps this sub should be added to the pac also.

Hooligan

[Batz]

The fm2 accellerates better then a6m2 otd. At 18k the a6m2 is better. Fork did accelleration tests for alll ah planes . Search for his post.

Heres quotes from them

Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results
Test Environment
Altitude: 150 ft
Winds: 0
Fuel Burn Rate: 0.01
Fuel: 25%
Vo: 150Mph
Vf: 250Mph
WEP: On

Description
All aircraft were loaded with 25% fuel and with minimal MG loads if available. Aircraft were auto-levelled at 150 feet and speed reduced to 125mph, except the Me 262* and Me 163*. 100% throttle was applied and WEP engaged (if available). At 150mph the timer was engaged to 250Mph. This was repeated five times for every aircraft. The average time was recorded to accelerate through 100 mph.

* Vo was 200 and Vf was 300 due to stall conditions.

Forumla
Acceleration
a = (Vf - Vo) / t m/s^2
where
Vf - final velocity
Vo - initial velocity
t - time in seconds

Vf = 250mph = 111.8 m/s
Vo= 150mph = 67.1 m/s

a = (111.8m/s - 67.1m/s) / t
a = 44.7m/s / time

% accuracy: +/- .2 s

Results (in order of acceration)
Aircraft | Seconds | Acceleration
Me 163 | 7.7 | 5.8
Tempest V | 16.7 | 2.7
La-7 | 16.9 | 2.6
Spit XIV | 16.9 | 2.6
Bf 109G-10 | 17.1 | 2.6
La-5FN | 17.6 | 2.5
Me 262 | 19.5 | 2.3
Fw 190D-9 | 20.2 | 2.2
Bf 109G-2 | 20.5 | 2.2
F4U-4 | 20.8 | 2.1
Typhoon | 21.5 | 2.1
Bf 109G-6 | 21.8 | 2.1
P-38L | 22.0 | 2.0
Bf 109F-4 | 22.1 | 2.0
C205 | 22.2 | 2.0
Fw 190A-8 | 22.8 | 2.0
Fw 190A-5 | 23.0 | 1.9
P-51D | 23.3 | 1.9
NIK2-J | 23.4 | 1.9
Spit IX | 23.6 | 1.9
F4U-1D | 23.8 | 1.9
F4U-1C | 24.0 | 1.9
Ta-152H | 24.0 | 1.9
Yak-9U | 24.0 | 1.9
P-47D-30 | 24.5 | 1.8
F6F-5 | 24.6 | 1.8
Bf 110G-2 | 24.9 | 1.8
C202 | 24.9 | 1.8
Fw 190F-8 | 25.1 | 1.8
Spit V | 26.0 | 1.7
Mosq VI | 26.1 | 1.7
Yak-9T | 26.2 | 1.7
F4U-1 | 26.5 | 1.7
P-47D-11 | 26.9 | 1.7
Seafire IIC | 27.0 | 1.7
P-47D-25 | 27.1 | 1.6
A6M5b | 27.9 | 1.6
P-51B | 28.0 | 1.6
Hurr IIC | 29.1 | 1.5
FM2 | 29.9 | 1.5
Bf 110C-4b | 30.0 | 1.5
Ki-61-I-KAIc | 30.4 | 1.5
Bf 109E-4 | 33.2 | 1.3
Spit IA | 33.5 | 1.3
Hurr IID | 34.9 | 1.3
P-40E | 36.0 | 1.2
Hurr Mk 1 | 37.0 | 1.2
A6M2 | 40.3 | 1.1
F4F-4 | 40.9 | 1.1
P-40B | 101.8 | 0.4

Results are available in an Excel spreadsheet. If you like, email me at mr.fork@shaw.ca and I'll send you the results.

18k

Fighter Acceleration Results: 18'000 ft
Aircraft | Sec | Accl



Me 163 | 6.0 | 7.5

Bf 109G-10 | 24.8 | 1.8

Spit XIV | 25.1 | 1.8

Bf 109F-4 | 25.7 | 1.7

Bf 109G-2 | 26.7 | 1.7

P-38L | 26.8 | 1.7

F4U-4 | 27.0 | 1.7

Bf 109G-6 | 27.5 | 1.6

Spit IX | 27.7 | 1.6

Fw 190D-9 | 27.8 | 1.6

C205 | 28.5 | 1.6

P-47D-30 | 28.9 | 1.5

La-7 | 29.0 | 1.5

Fw 190A-5 | 29.5 | 1.5

P-51D | 29.9 | 1.5

Tempest V | 30.2 | 1.5

P-51B | 30.4 | 1.5

C202 | 30.6 | 1.5

Spit V | 30.6 | 1.5

Yak-9U | 30.7 | 1.5

Ta-152H | 30.9 | 1.4

La-5FN | 31.5 | 1.4

P-47D-25 | 31.5 | 1.4

F4F-4 | 31.9 | 1.4

P-47D-11 | 33.7 | 1.3

Seafire IIC | 34.2 | 1.3

Fw 190A-8 | 34.6 | 1.3

NIK2-J | 35.7 | 1.3

F4U-1D | 35.8 | 1.2

A6M5b | 36.9 | 1.2

F6F-5 | 37.1 | 1.2

Fw 190F-8 | 37.2 | 1.2

F4U-1C | 37.3 | 1.2

F4U-1 | 39.0 | 1.1

Me 262 | 39.3 | 1.1

Typhoon | 39.7 | 1.1

Bf 109E-4 | 41.2 | 1.1

Bf 110G-2 | 41.9 | 1.1

Mosq VI | 42.1 | 1.1

Hurr IIC | 42.9 | 1.0

Bf 110C-4b | 43.3 | 1.0

Ki-61-I-KAIc | 44.8 | 1.0

Yak-9T | 45.0 | 1.0

A6M2 | 45.2 | 1.0

Spit IA | 47.1 | 0.9

Hurr Mk 1 | 57.5 | 0.8

FM2 | 57.8 | 0.8

Hurr IID | 59.6 | 0.8

P-40E | 71.6 | 0.6

P-40B | 73.9 | 0.6

At the altitudes where the fights are the f4f-3 and f4f-4 arent that different. They are closer to the f4f-4 speeds then the fm2s.

Specification of the Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat:

Engine: Pratt & Whitney R-1830-76 Twin Wasp, 14-cylinder, two-row radial engine, with a two-speed, two-stage mechanical supercharger. Three-bladed Curtiss Electric C5315(S) propeller with a diameter of 9ft 9in. Power of 1200hp at 2700rpm for take-off. Military power 1100hp at 2550rpm, sea level; 1000hp at 19000ft. 147 US gallons in internal fuel tanks, provision for one 58 US gallon external tank under each wing.

Performance: 278mph at sea level, 330mph at 22000ft. Max range cruise 185mph. Initial climb rate 2050ft/min. Service ceiling 31000ft, absolute ceiling 32600ft. Max endurance 9.4 hrs. Take-off distance 228ft into a 25kn wind.

Weights: 5293lb empty, 7467lb normal, 3978kg max take-off.

Dimensions: Wing span 38ft, length 28ft 9 3/8in, height 8ft, wing area 260ft2. Wing root chord 8ft 7in, wing tip chord 5ft 1 5/8in.

Armament: Four Colt-Browning 0.50 guns. Two 100lb bombs.

Specification of the Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat:
Engine: Pratt & Whitney R-1830-86 Twin Wasp, 14-cylinder, two-row engine, with a two-speed, two-stage mechanical supercharger. Three-bladed Curtiss Electric propeller with a diameter of 2.97m. Power 1200hp at 2900rpm for take-off. Military power 1200hp at 2700rpm from sea level to 550m, and 1135hp at 1035m. Normal power 1100hp at 2550rpm at sea level, 1090hp at 3445m. 545 in internal fuel tanks, provision for one 220l external tank under each wing.

Performance: 441km/h (274 mph) at sea level, 515km/h (320) at 5735m. Max range cruise 259km/h at 1525m. Initial climb rate 9.9m/sec. Climb to 3050m 5.6min, to 6100m 12.4min. Service ceiling 10370m. Max range on internal fuel 1335km, 2051km with two drop tanks. Take-off distance 195m, 125m into a 28km/h (15kn) wind.

Weights: 2676kg empty, 3621kg normal, 3978kg max take-off.

Dimensions: Wing span 11.59m, length 8.85m, height 3.44, wing area 24.15m. Width with folded wing 4.35m.

Armament: Six Colt-Browning 0.50 guns, 240 rounds each.

Specification of the General Motors (Eastern Aircraft) FM-2 Wildcat:

Engine: Wright R-1820-56W Cyclone, 9-cylinder, single-row engine, with a two-speed, single-stage mechanical supercharger. Three-bladed Curtiss Electric CS propeller with a diameter of 10ft. 1350hp for take-off, 1200hp at 5000ft, 900hp at 18500ft.

Performance: 289mph at sea level, 319mph at 19600ft. Max climb rate at sea level 2890ft/min. Best climb 3650ft/min. Service ceiling 35600ft. Max range on internal fuel 780 miles, 1350 miles with two drop tanks. Take-off distance 195m, 125m into a 28km/h (15kn) wind.

Weights: 5542lb empty, 7431lb gross.

Armament: Four Colt-Browning 0.50 guns, 1720 rounds total. Racks for six 5in rockets under the wings.

From this site

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4f.html

Seems to me under 5k theres not much difference in the f4f-3 and f4f-4. They seem closer then the FM2.

As for the FM2 as a brewster, a Fin (Kanttori) made the map and wanted something to fill in as a brewster. The debate was that even though the FM2 performed better then the brewster it matched up better with the limited VVS planeset. Theres no i16s or i153, la5s etc......

I dont see where the fm2 impacts the setup any more then an la5fn or hurri 2c etc....

[Hooligan]

The fm2 accellerates better then a6m2 otd.

I never said that it didn't.  In fact I stated that the FM-2 climbed better than the A6M2, which would indicate that it accelerates better also.

At the altitudes where the fights are the f4f-3 and f4f-4 arent that different.

The F4F-4 has significantly worse performance than the F4F-3.  It's the same airframe and engine with a lot of weight added.  You can see the differences on the chart on page 473 of "America's Hundred Thousand."

Here are some quotes from the same reference:

The fastest and lightest Wildcat was the early F4F-3 which touched 335 mph at 22000 feet.  In addition the climb rate of the early F4F-3 was over 3300 feet per minute at sea level, very sprightly performance for the time.  The heavier F4F-4, in contrast, could make less than 2500 feet per minute at sea level and, as the curve shows, this performance decreased rapidly at the higher altitudes to little over 1500 feet per minute at 15000 feet in spite of using the two stage supercharged engine.  The FM-2, at a lighter weight than the F4F-4, managed to recover a lot of the early F4F-3 climbing ability, particularly at sea level.   With its two speed single stage supercharger, the FM-2 climb rate drop off with altitude was faster than that of the twin-wasp powered airplanes, however.  Curves of climb time are also shown in Graph 60.  They illustrate agai the great reduction in climb performance from F4F-3 to F4F-4.  Time to 20000 feet was almost 5 minutes more for the latter.

Even though the FM-2 performance is inferior to the F4F-3, it is much closer to the F4F-3 in performance than the F4F-4 is.

I agree that the FM-2 causes no play imbalance in the Finnish setup.  I do find it both laughable and highly Ironic that the FM-2 is substituted for the buffalo, which it is far superior to in performance in one setup, and that it is not substituted for the F4F-3 which it is very close to in performance in the other setup.

Hooligan

[Batz]

a6m2 deck speed is 265

the f4f a6m2 accelerate about the same otd

A6M2 | 40.3 | 1.1
F4F-4 | 40.9 | 1.1

Thats well with in Forks +/- 2 sec. The f4f has a 10-12 mph speed advantage at the alt where fights take place.

The f4f has 50 cal, the a6m2 has type 99 mk 1 thast lose 40% of their lethality at 180 yrds. (see the post where brady reports his talk with pyro; its being looked into). The F4f-4 is a very tough plane for an a6m2 to bring down.

The only thing a zeke has is a turn.

The Fm2 has a best climb of 3560fpm the a6m2 is under 3k fpm. It climbs better then the f4f-3 and is faster at the alts that count in the ct.

Imo I just dont see the need to sub the fm2 for a f4f-3.

I would be like subbing the a6m5 for the a6m3.

[Hooligan]

a6m2 deck speed is 265

HTC's performance chart shows about 270...

The only thing a zeke has is a turn.

and climb and acceleration (I refer you to HTC's charts).

The Fm2 has a best climb of 3560fpm the a6m2 is under 3k fpm.

Look at HTC's climb chart for the FM-2.  It shows a initial climb of about 3200 fpm military power and 3400 fpm combat power (a bit worse than the F4F-3 with 3300 fpm military power).

The FM-2 is slightly faster than the F4F-3 up to about 10K where it get progressively slower than the -3 with altitude.  Up to about 10K, the FM-2 has very similar performance to the F4F-3 in speed (slightly better), climb & accel (slightly worse), and turning.  Above that altitude the F4F-3 would be better in all aspects of maneuverability.

Hooligan

[GRUNHERZ]

Hooligan the RELATIVE impact on performance difference for sub of FM2 vs F4F4 is much much smaller in the FinRus Map full of 400mph 4k fpm climbers than it is in the Pacific vs 320mph sub 3k climbers.

The relative impact is what makes the FM2 appropriate in the Finrus and inappropriate in the early Pac.


As it is the F4F4 is faster than zero under 4k, dives much better, is much tougher, has about 3-4 times the effective firepower, turns nearly as well  except at absolutely stall speed and surely well enough to survive with its strength/toughness till a buddy comes to help and blasts a zero.

[Xjazz]

Originally posted by Hooligan
Except for the heavy armament the F4F-4 is much closer in performance to the buffalo than the FM-2.

Hooligan

Can I get performance figures of this buffalo?

[brady]

Aside from What Batz has been saying ,GRUNHERZ pretymuch sumed it up.

[Wmaker]

I'll quote myself from a thread in this forum the last time this issue came up...

Originally posted by Wmaker
We could take away the FM-2 but then 109s would practically be the only fighters allied side would see in the air (along few 190s from the german fields here and there). FM-2 adds a bit of variety to the planes allied side gets to fight.

FM-2 is well countered by the 1944 model La-5FN and the Yak-9T sporting a 37mm cannon. In the summer of 1944 there were some FNs on the Karelian front (159 IAP) but regular La-5 and La-5Fs were much more common. And AFAIK those FNs in the finnish front were early prodution aircraft. There were around 25 Yak-9Ts.

So if we would follow the history as accurately as possible with the AH planeset we'd have heavely perked La-5FN and Yak-9T and no FM-2. I don't think that would be much fun for the allies...

Hooligan, I take it you're not at all concerned about the out of place Soviet planes in the setup?

[Batz]

Heres the level speed tests whels did for sea level. Seems ht chart maybe off in regards to the a6m2 if we take whels numbers as true.

MIL:
TEMPEST 372
LA-7 358
F4U-4 358
TYPHOON 355
YAK9-U 355
P-51D 354
F4U-1 350
P-51B 347
190D-9 346
F4U-1D 343
F4U-1C 342
109G-10 337
LA-5 336
P-38L 333
P-47D-11 333
SPIT-14 332
TA-152 332
P-47D-25 329
P-47D-30 329
190A-8 327
YAK9-T 327
190F-8 326
190A-5 326
MOSQ 325
C205 321
109G-2 320
F6F-5 320
109G-6 317
N1K2 313
109F-4 310
SPIT IX 310
C202 307
KI-61 305
110-G2 305
SEAFIRE 293
SPIT V 293
110-4b 290
FM2 290
A6M5 288
F4F 278
P40B 275
A6M2 275
P40E 276
HURR IIC 262
HURR IID 253
HURR I 253

WEP:
TEMPEST 386
LA-7 380
F4U-4 378
190D-9 375
TYPHOON 370
P-51D 367
109G-10 366
TA-152 361
SPIT-14 358
F4U-1 358
P-51B 358
F4U-1D 357
F4U-1C 356
LA-5 356
YAK9-U 355
190A-8 349
190F-8 349
P-38L 344
P-47D-11 344
P-47D-25 340
P-47D-30 340
109G-2 340
190A-5 339
MOSQ 338
YAK9-T 336
109G-6 336
109F-4 332
C205 331
F6F-5 330
N1K2 324
SPIT IX 319
110-G2 316
C202 315
KI-61 313
SEAFIRE 302
SPIT V 302
110-4B 300
FM2 297
P40E 297
109E-4 292
SPIT I 291
A6M5 288
F4F 275 no wep
A6M2 275 NO WEP
P40B 275
HURR IIC 273
HURR IID 265
HURR I 261

The numbers I have for the f4f-3 @SL is  278mph

Again heres the results of forks accelleration tests

A6M2 | 40.3 | 1.1
F4F-4 | 40.9 | 1.1
FM2 | 29.9 | 1.5

Forks estimates an error of +/- .2

The f4f is no slouch in a turn either. I may need to test sl speed for the a6m2 because I think whels numbers are kinda high. But either way they 2 planes (f4f-4 and a6m2) match up well especially at the alts at which most of the fights are at.

Why is it we would need an F4f-3 or Fm2 for that matter?

If you mess with the current parity the a6m2 guys will just come in higher and make the fights less fun. Even now when the a6m2 guys get handled in a low df they tend to come back high. I just dont see the necessity of making any changes to what for the most part has been good fun.

[mora]

Does anyone know the initial climbrate of B-239? Estimating from the 7min to 5000m time, it might be 3000+ fpm?

So the FM-2 would faster, but B-239 would climb just as well and would be much more agile.